My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 08 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 08 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:36 PM
Creation date
8/19/2004 12:52:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
8/3/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 08 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE - TRACK INN <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, asked if the applicant had any <br />comments with respect to the renewal application of the liquor <br />license. <br /> <br />Clay Patzer, 3484 E. 97th Place, Thornton, Colorado, was there to <br />answer any questions. <br /> <br />Sisk stated he had asked to have this pulled, because included in <br />his renewal application were three 8 1/2 x 11 pages of <br />"occurrences" at his establishment during the last nine months that <br /> Sisk felt a hearing should be held, <br /> <br />he had operated the Track Inn. <br />before approval. <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />The current license of the Track Inn <br />expires on November 13, 1993. There <br />is a requirement for notice prior to <br />a hearing on a renewal application. <br />There is at least 10 days notice of <br />posting and there has to be at least <br />10 days notice to the licensee, <br />along with the potential grounds for <br />non-renewal. Under those <br />circumstances, I think the earliest <br />that a hearing could be scheduled is <br />August 17, 1993, before the City <br />Council. The ordinance that's being <br />considered on the second reading, if <br />it's passed, would create a new <br />local licensing authority, which <br />would act on license matters, rather <br />than the City Council. As currently <br />written, that ordinance, if it's <br />passed on 2nd reading tonight and <br />it's published tomorrow, would take <br />effect in early September. If you <br />think it's appropriate to put this <br />past August 17, then you need to <br />decide whether the Council should <br />consider this hearing and this <br />renewal application. If so, we <br />could amend the ordinance to exclude <br />any pending matters from the preview <br />of the local licensing authority and <br />have the Council conclude those, or <br />we could refer it to the local <br />licensing authority after they're <br />formed. My only concern with that <br />is that you would have several new <br />members of the local licensing <br />authority, who would have no <br />experience in the matters. I would <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.