Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/06/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - RegularZ. Call to Order Rol1 Ca11 r�ItvuT�s SPEC IAL C ITY COUNC IL ��IEET ING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA � June 15, 1981 A special meeting of the City Council was cal 1 ed �o order by �tayor Phyl 1 i s �1cQuaid at 6:30 p.m. The following Councilmen were present at roll call: Ronald Backes ��artha El stror� Lyle Hanks . Jerrold Martin John Ralles Phyllis McQuaid Also present were the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Chief of Police. 3. Hearin re ardinq li uor The Mayor asked the City Attorney to recite violat�on at t e eaning Post the facts surrounding the liquor violation which had occurred at the�Leaning Post. The City Attorney stated that the incident was a violation of Code Se5420n 13-327 which had occurred on September 13, 1980 at the Leaning Post, Excelsior Bouleva rd, involving the sale of intoxicating liquor after legal 1981 a guilty plea was entered by Mr. hoi�rs of operation. On April 23, � P1oroni in the Hennepin County Municipal Courtfinedh$300ar�a200fstayednfor • 1 h The defendant was liquor af ter lega ours. one year. In addition to City Attorney partment, the chronology of Department and respect to the • M' i al Court the the records of the Hennepin County �Louis Park Police De- indicated that the reports of the St. the notice of hearing and a subpoena served on Mr. P�loroni, other recent liquor license violations Profathe becord withce dated June 15 1981 would become a part liquor�violation at the Leaninq Post. The C�ty Attorney stated that these proceedings were not kedliluor bicenses. they concerned� the City's power to grant, dubeeconfinedvto theQSeptember 13, He also stated that these proceee7neXplained that the licensee should in- 1980 violation. The City Attorn y d. facts in th7 s matter. He requested that the ( ayor dicate any conteste mitigating circum- ask the licensee to make a statement regarding any stances involved in this matter. P�ayor ��cQuaid asked the 1 icensee to address the Council. Counci�. He ' er of the Leaning Post addressed the ��iquor on the P1r, Phil Eder, own Uestion regarding explained that there had never been a�to r1r. Eder, he had instituted a premises after legal hours. Accordia9n a� the 1iquor establiS�oe�ffectil policy of requiring emp�alleofttheemoney. This policy went in the manaqer had counted -175- City Council meetin� minutes June 15, 1981 , followin� a shooting at the King's Inn. les asked if there were any people on the premises who Counci 1 man Ral post, �1r. Eder repl i ed tha.� besi des were no� employees of the Leaning s two men were on the premises when the viola tion occured employee � e resent in order to escort two�of t he waitresses and that they wer p to their homes. Mr. Fder said that waitresses employed at the Leaning Post had experienced prablerns in walkinc� to their cars after closing. In response to Counci lnian Ra11 es' c�uestion, Chief Setter stated that the pol i ce found two non�-emp� oyees on the premi ses. thatl thesactual at al cohol was on d i s�l ay. Chi ef Set�er furtherusont�he remi ses ( two violation was for unauthorjzed persnnhadenot been witnessed by the escorts) and that actual consumptio police officers. ' Councilman Backes asked sale of liquor. if the violation involved the consumption or the The City Attorney saicl that the ordinance prohibited the servin.q or dis- playing of intoxicating liquor after lec�al hours of operation except that liquor could be accessible to the licensee and the licensee's em- ployees. He explained that this langua ge permitted employees to put the li�uor away after the close of operation. Ne said that this section did not mean that liquor could be consumed by employees after legal hours of operation. P1ayor McQuaid asked Chief Setter when drinking should be completed. Chief Setter said that the law specifically prohibits the consumption of liquor' after 1 a.m. , Councilman Martin suggested that this was a"gray" area and that perhaps tlie City Council should not be concerned with this particular instance. Counci�lman Ralles requested an explanation of the April 1979 warning letter. P�1r. Eder expl ained that the Apri 1 i nci dent i nvol ved members of a band who left the premises on a Sunday evening at 12:4 0 a.m, followin�g the dis- assembly of their equipment. Councilman Post since there ha�1 Hanks asked if there had been any violations at the the Septer�ber 13, 1980 vi ol a ti on . The Pol i ce Chi ef not been any further violations since that time. ' Councilman Hanks stated that his concerns involved � hour and the presence of individuals who were not , ises after the 1 a.m, closing time, Playor P1cQua i d � respect to his - _ - - -- ----�_ � . � Leani ng said that the lateness of the empl oyees on the prem- asked h1r. Eder if he had consul ted the Pol ice� Chi ef with policy o�' retaining employees and allowing other persons on -176- �,__.,.�.-- �- - �- - �--- _ - �� ty COlIr1C 1 1 ���e 15, 19g1 me�ting r�ir�utes : the premis�s past 1:30 a.r�. Mr. Eder said he had not Chief and that the policy was established to protect lowing the King's Inn shootinq and the waitresses who probl er�s in wal king to the parkinq lot. contacted the Police the employees fol- had experienced Mayor 'tc(�ua i �i asked Chi ef Setter i f he had ever advi sed Mr. Eder that i t was perr�issable to have non-employees on the premises at 1:30 a.r�, The Chief replied that in responding to a hypothetical question previously asked by Nr. Eder involving an intoxicated patron he had said that it was reasonable to keep an intoxicated customer on the premises until such time as arranger�ents could be r�acie to provide transportation. He empha- sized that his statement in no way sancti.oned such practices as routine �olicy as they were a violation of City ordinances, Counci 1 r�an er�pl oyees Backes said after hours. that the problem was the presence of two non- tir. Eder asked when �eople should be off the premises. He said that confusion results because the City ordinance prohibits consumption after 1 a.m, whereas State law prohibits the sale of liquor after 1 a.m. �layor McQuaid s.aid that there appeared, to be two ite�s of concerrt to the Council. The first.pertained to the violation, and the second pertained to ►rhether the City's ordinance sMould be re-evaluated. � It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded the Leaning Post�not be qiven a penalty as 1980 violation. The motion passed 6-0. 4. Ad journr�ent Attest �naron G. Recordinc� K � umpp Secretary ,� by Counci 1 r�an a res.ul t of the The special City adjourned at 7:25 ayor �-177- Han ks, that September 13, Council meeting was p.m.