Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 24, 2000 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not <br />already on the agenda. <br /> <br />There were no public comments. <br /> <br />UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Ordinance #318, Amending Charitable Gambling Clause, Sec. 4-43, Trade Area <br />Restriction <br /> <br />Mr. Post explained that the ordinance amendment under consideration stemmed from the <br />premises permit application from St. Katherine Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the Council's <br />April 10 regular meeting. He added the Council had tabled the premises permit resolution at the <br />meeting. He noted the matter was discussed at the subsequent Council Worksession, and the <br />Council had requested that City staff draft an amendment to Section 4-43 of the City ordinance <br />pertaining to trade area-spending requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Post recommended that the Council consider the addition of a specific definition of lawful <br />purpose use. He added the language used in the proposed amendment reflects what was <br />discussed by the Council at their worksession. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski expressed concern that the proposed amendment might negatively <br />impact St. Katherine's. She asked what the timing of this amendment would mean. Mr. Post <br />stated the amendment would be effective the day after publication. He added that S1. Katherine's <br />application would be addressed at tonight's meeting, and would not be further delayed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked whether the applicant must adhere to the amended ordinance. <br />Mr. Filla recommended that the Council coordinate the effective date ofthe ordinance <br />amendment with the effective date of the premises permit. He noted this would only be the case <br />if it was the Council's intent that the ordinance amendment should apply to the premises permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the Council should add a statement to Resolution #00-17 clarifying that it would <br />be effective following the publication ofthe ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked whether the premises permit applicant was made aware that <br />this would be occur. Mr. Post confirmed they were aware ofthe amendment. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted that the proposed amendment is already incorporated into state law. Mr. <br />Filla confirmed this, adding that state law identifies specific reasons for revoking or suspending <br />licenses. He noted the regulations could only be enforced by issuance of a citation, which allows <br />the Gambling Control Board to make specific findings, which authorize the use of proceeds. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council member Rem asked whether the operation of a church would be considered a lawful <br />purpose. Mr. Filla explained that the State defines a lawful purpose by a number of examples. <br />