Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case ./7'.I: Consider Introducing Nudity Ordinance: <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich proceeded to review two proposed nudity ordinances; one establishing <br />regulations in on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and one establishing regulations in <br />on-sale non-intoxicating liquor establishments. /',,Ir. Goodrich stated that because the Git>, <br />regulates the sale of liquor through licensing, it has the legal authority to regulate activities <br />on those premises. Mr. Goodrich noted that Councilmembcr Cich's concern to prohibit <br />use of minors in sexual performances is addressed by referencing State Statute. /','ir. <br />Goodrich stated that he was concerned that referencing State Statute with regards to <br />employing minors for sexual performances would be affecting ,'t felony prosecution <br />because the City only has the authority to prosecute misdemeanors and gross <br />misdemeanors. Consequently, if an establishment violates this provision, the City will <br />consider revocation of liquor license and let the County prosecute tile fetonv. <br /> <br />The City Council directed City Attorney Goodrich to also draft an ordinance regulating <br />nudity in non-licensed establishments and an ordinance regulating obscenity and <br />pornography. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to inn'oduce <br />Ordinance #89-X which is an ordinance regulating nudity in City licensed on-sale <br />intoxicating liquor establishments. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mavor Reimann, Councilmembers Peterson and Pearson. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmembers Cich and DeLuca. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Pearson and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to introduce <br />Ordinance #89-12-X which is an ordinance re~lating nudity in City licensed on-sale non- <br />intoxicating liquor establishments. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Peterson and Pearson. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmembers Cich and DeLuca. <br /> <br />Case #2: Mississippi Trail Corridor Update & Re,~'iew Of Alternative <br /> Alignments: <br /> <br />Mr. Otto stated that per Council's direction of November 14, the proposed Mississippi <br />Trail Corridor map was revised to show a northern limit for alten~ative alignments through <br />the area west of Alpaca Estates that would be closer to the Critical River area and further <br />away from Hwy. #10; that revision was submitted to Anoka County and Metro Council for <br />comments. The County found that revision acceptable. Metro Council still raised <br />objections and stated again their preference that the corridor west of Alpaca Estates be <br />aligned even further to the south and that the alignment west of the wayside be aligned <br />closer to the river versus in the road right-of-way. Metro Council indicated that a <br />compromise would be for Ramsey to provide an alternate southern alignment west of the <br />wayside rest in exchange for Metro Council's acceptance of Ramsey's proposed alignment <br />west of Alpaca Estates. Nh'. Otto noted that a trail corridor has to be agreed upon by all <br />agencies as a condition of the remaining 200 acres being approved for the MUSA. <br /> <br />City Council/December 12, 1989 <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />