Laserfiche WebLink
MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL May 26, 1981 <br />Regular Meeting Page Five, <br />COUNCIL RE- CONVENED: 8:40 P.M. <br />REGULAR MEETING CLOSED: 8:40 P.M. <br />PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 8:40 P.M. <br />Those in attendance were: Mr. Albert Hartinger, 9. Public Hearing - Launching <br />owner; and his attorney, Sherman Bergstein. Mr. Pad Intoxicating Liquor <br />Bergstein stated that they had not been advised and Restaurant Licenses <br />of the public hearing until May 13, 1981. He Renewal. <br />talked about the letter that they had received. <br />Deadline for the renewal of the license was discussed. <br />Attorney Meyers talked about the Minnesota State <br />Statutes and of the Council's investigation. He <br />stated that staff was timely in their notification <br />to the applicant. <br />Summary of Discussion by Mr. Bergstein on Staff Memo <br />dated May 19, 1981: <br />Regarding point #1 - The building is on three parcels, <br />two are owned by Mr. Waste. He stated that the delin- <br />quent taxes would be taken care of. Further that Mr. <br />Hartinger has a contract for deed and was not aware <br />of the delinquency. <br />Regarding point #2 - He stated that the Launching <br />Pad is not a club and that yes there are pool tables <br />located there. Further that if the pool tables are <br />banned, they will be taken out. <br />Regarding point #2, b) - He stated that he was only <br />aware of one charge regarding the selling of liquor <br />to a minor, and that Mr. Hartinger had been acquitted <br />on this matter. Further that there is a sign about <br />no minors being allowed. <br />Regarding point #2, c) - That the tampering or dil- <br />uting of liquor had been years back, and that they <br />had accepted a five (5) day suspension. <br />Regarding point #2, d), i - They had pleaded guilty <br />to this violation in 1974, and that there had been <br />no repetition since that time. <br />Regarding point #2, d) ii - no charge was made on <br />Wet T -Shirt Contests, and that after the complaint, <br />they had discontinued the contests. <br />Regarding point #2, d) iii - They did have male <br />strippers, that they attracted a crowd and did <br />make them money, but that it was discontinued <br />immediately after complaint, but that they <br />would like to have them back. <br />