Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLiquor Licensing Authority - Minutes - 02/01/1984LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY Regular Meeting - February 1, 1984 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Liquor Licensing Authority was held on Wednesday, February 1, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Building. Roll call was answered by the following members: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Authority members Absent: Bujack and Long. Staff Members Present: Debbie Caster, City Clerk's Office Ken Frazier, City Attorney's Office Frank Russell, Police Department Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 1984, Approved as Published Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 1984. The Chairperson put the motion with the following votes: Yeas: Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Abstain: Acott. Show/Cause Hearing Friends Saloon, 142 Linden Street Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the licensee is willing to stipulate to the violation which occurred on December 18, 1983, at Friends Saloon. Specifically, Ken stated an employee of the licensed establishment sold an alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated person. Mr. Robert Lamana, owner, stated he is willing to stipulate to the viola- tion. Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Mon- aghan, to determine that a violation did occur at Friends Saloon, 142 Linden. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the Police Department is recom- mending a one -day suspension of the license. Mr. Lamana stated he has taken some action to help prevent another viola- tion. He explained that he has talked with each bartender individually with regard to the laws on selling to an intoxicated person. Secondly, Mr. Lamana stated he has started closing at an earlier hour since a lot of patrons of the establishment after 1 a.m. are borderline intoxicated. -2- February 1, 1984 Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to levy a one -day suspension of the license within the next 30 business days at the convenience of the owner and that the premises be posted. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Show/Cause Hearing Moot House Restaurant, 2626 South College Avenue Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier called Officer Swihart to the stand. Officer Michael Swihart was sworn and stated he is a police officer for the City of Fort Collins. He explained that his duties include patrolling streets and enforcing the municipal and state laws of Colorado. Officer Swihart went on to say that while patrolling his area for burglaries on the 8th of December, 1983, at approximately 4:00 a.m., he observed several vehicles at and around the Moot House. Upon investigating the establish- ment for break ins, he stated he heard voices inside the restaurant. At this time, he explained that he called for backup units. He stated two other officers responded. After knocking on the doors, Officer Swihart stated they were allowed to enter through the east door. Once the offi- cers were inside, Officer Swihart stated they found one male employee (the same employee who opened the door) and one female employee who appeared to be hiding in the ladies restroom. Officer Swihart stated he observed two mugs at the bar area. He stated the mugs had clear liquid and ice in them. Officer Swihart testified that the male employee reached over to knock the two mugs over into the sink. Officer Swihart noted that the analysis of the contents of the mugs have not yet been determined. How- ever, he testified that he detected a light odor of alcohol from the drinks. He added that each drink contained a small straw, which is nor- mally provided with bar service. Officer Swihart stated that the male employee's attitude was defensive. He added that the employee denied he had been drinking. He stated the female employee appeared visibly intoxicated. In fact, he told the Authority that another officer advised her not to drive home. In response to a question by the Attorney, Officer Swihart stated he determined her to be intoxicated on the basis that her speech was slurred. Officer Swihart stated that the general manager, Jim Garber, was called to the establishment. Upon his arrival, he verified that the two individuals were employees of the Moot House. He added that Mr. Garber also stated it is not the restaurant's policy to allow after-hours drinking. Mr. Garber, general manager, cross-examined Officer Swihart. In response to questions by Mr. Garber, Officer Swihart explained that the officers -3- February 1, 1984 first attempted to enter through the north door where there is a doorbell. He stated there was no answer at that door. He then explained that they were refused entrance at the south door (main entrance) by the male em- ployee. After some discussion, it was agreed upon to let the officers enter through the east door. Officer Swihart explained that he determined that the employees were drinking due to the large amount of ice still in the mugs. It was noted that no breath analyses were given to determine intoxication since the case did not involve a DUI. In response to a question by the Authority, Officer Russell explained that the mugs will be forwarded to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations and that the turn around time for analysis could be 8-10 weeks. Officer Swihart stated he is experienced and trained in detecting DUI's. He spoke of the training classes he has attended. He added that he has served as the DUI officer for approximately 2 months. Mr. Jim Garber, general manager, was sworn and explained that he was called to the Moot House at approximately 4:30 a.m. on December 8, 1983. Mr. Garber stated he feels the officer was legitimately doing his job in investigating burglaries. He went on to say that he observed the two employees being belligerent to the officer. Mr. Garber also stated that the two employees told him that they were not drinking. It was noted that Mr. Garber has fired both employees. Mr. Garber stated, however, that he feels the employee was correct in not opening the original door because there are no windows to see through. Mr. Garber went on to say that the employees stated they were watching MTV. Mr. Garber stated the female employee had books on a round table away from the bar and he stated he assumed they were sitting there rather than at the bar. Mr. Garber added that the female employee did not appear visibly intoxicated. He pointed out that she has a heavy New York accent and normally slurs her speech. In closing, Mr. Garber stressed the fact that no one actually saw the employees drinking. He stated on that basis he feels the case should be dismissed. He pointed out to the Authority that it is not the practice of the restaurant to allow after-hours drinking. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier made his closing remarks. After a brief review of the facts, Ken pointed out that the issue involves cir- cumstantial evidence which clearly shows that a violation occurred. He reminded the Authority that testimony has been given that there was a visibly intoxicated employee found in the establishment 2 hours after closing. He stated the issue is not whether anyone was in fact intoxicated but whether any alcoholic beverages were consumed past the hour of 2 a.m. -4- February 1, 1984 Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, that the Authority defer their determination whether a violation occurred until the analysis is received back from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations. Authority member Acott stated she feels it would not be necessary to wait for the results from the CBI. She stated she feels it can be assumed that the glasses contained liquor. Authority member Wilson noted that there are no eye witnesses to say whether the two employees were drinking or that the glasses were left over from a previous patron. She then added that she feels the results from the CBI would have no bearing. The motion was put to vote as follows Acott, Sheahan and Wilson. The motion failed. Yeas: Monaghan and Veazie. Nays: Authority member Acott made a motion, seconded by Authority member Sheahan, to determine that a violation did occur at the Moot House. Yeas: Acott, Sheahan and Wilson. Nays: Monaghan and Veazie. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the Police Department is recom- mending a one -day suspension. Authority member Acott made a motion license within the next 30 business and that the premises be posted. to levy a one -day suspension of the days at the convenience of the owner Mr. Garber requested to speak in mitigation. He once again stated it is not the policy of the Moot House to allow after-hours drinking. He stated he feels it is a case involving two irresponsible people. Mr. Garber stated he does not feel the restaurant was irresponsible. He stated he feels the restaurant has already been punished because it was a victim of the two employees actions. Authority member Monaghan stated the statutes state that the license holder is held responsible for any violation at all times. Mr. Garber argued that the statute also states that the licensee "shall not permit" any violations to occur. He stated he did not permit the violation to happen. He noted that the employees were properly trained employees but that does not ensure that they will act responsibly. In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Garber stated he has reviewed all liquor laws with his employees since the violation. He added that he does not feel he was negligent or irresponsible. -5- February 1, 1984 Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the issue at hand is the law which states it is unlawful to consume during hours that the sale of liquor is prohibited. He stated it is not a question of negligence, but strictly liability. He reminded the Authority that they need to address the viola- tion that they have determined to have occurred. Authority member Sheahan seconded Authority member Acott's motion pre- viously made. Authority member Sheahan requested that the newspaper print an article pertaining to the violation. The motion was put to vote as follows: Yeas: Acott and Sheahan. Nays: Monaghan, Veazie and Wilson. The motion failed. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to direct the City Attorney's Office to issue a letter of reprimand to the Moot House. Authority member Wilson stated she feels a letter of reprimand is in order due to the establishment's history of very few violations. The motion was put to vote as follows: Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Extended Hours Gene's Tavern, 200 Walnut Mr. Gene Kapperman, owner, stated he is requesting extended hours on Sundays due to customer's requests. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the extended hours for Gene's Tavern, 200 Walnut. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Change of Corporate Structure for Wine Cellar, 3400 South College Avenue Ms. Mary Pier was sworn and stated she is the new director as well as general manager for the Wine Cellar. Officer Russell stated the fingerprints have been cleared through the Colorado Bureau of Investigations. -6- February 1, 1984 It was noted that Ms. Pier will hold no stock in the corporation. Also, since Ms. Pier will be a director, she is not required to register as the manager. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to approve the change of corporate structure for the Wine Cellar, 3400 South College Avenue. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Registration of Manager Rooster Cogburn's, 117 Linden Street Mr. Henry Lee Edmiston was sworn and stated he is registering as the general manager. Mr. Edmiston spoke briefly of his background. Officer Russell noted that the fingerprints have cleared through the CBI. Mr. Edmiston told the Authority that he is familiar with the Colorado Liquor Code. Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Shea- han, to approve the registration of manager for Henry Lee Edmiston at Rooster Cogburn's, 117 Linden Street. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Expansion of Premises for Spring Creek Runoff, 1006 Spring Creek Lane #7 Mr. Otis Beach, attorney representing Spring Creek Runoff, explained that the licensee is applying for an expansion of premises of the existing Tavern establishment. Mr. Beach stated the Spring Creek Runoff presently has approximately 2,000 square feet. He explained that the area they wish to add is an existing restaurant in the same complex called Carl's Cavern. This area is approximately 600 square feet. Mr. Beach went on to explain that, if approved, the two units will be connected by means of a hallway. He noted that this will be new construction. It was pointed out that 8 feet will be added behind the existing bar to make room for a cooler and freezer. Mr. Beach listed several reasons why the owners desire to make the expan- sion. He noted the expansion will allow them to provide full -service meals with cocktails. In addition, he stated the neighborhood is rapidly growing and the change will better meet the neighborhood's needs. In response to a question by the Authority, Mr. Beach stated there will be two separate entrances to the establishment. -7- February 1, 1984 Mr. Bob Benzel, part owner, explained that they intend to keep the same employees. In this way, the waitresses are already trained and experienced in checking for ID's. Mr. Benzel also stated that the cash register is located near the door and the employee stationed at the register will have full view of the entire establishment, ensuring that no one leaves the establishment with a drink. In closing, Mr. Beach stated that the expansion will include an addition of 600 square feet. He stated this is an approximate 28% increase. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to determine that the expansion is not substantial. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. New Application for a 3.2% Fermented Malt Beverage License, Class B, for Mini Mart, 1801 North College Avenue The boundaries as proposed by the Administration were as follows: North from the subject premises to City limits. West from the subject premises to City limits. South from the subject premises to East Vine Drive. East from the subject premises to Lemay Avenue and City limits. Mr. Dave Williams, attorney representing the applicant, stated the boun- daries are acceptable. Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott,. to accept the new application, to accept the boundaries as proposed and set the final hearing for February 29, 1984. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. New Application for a Hotel -Restaurant License for Cables End, 165 East Boardwalk Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to accept the new application and set the preliminary hearing for February 29, 1984, and the final hearing for March 28, 1984. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. -8- February 1, 1984 Special Events License - Liquor Larimer County Republican Party, March 3, 1984 Mr. Don Johnson, representative from the Larimer County Republican Com- mittee, was present and explained that the event is the annual Lincoln Day Dinner. The event is held annually to allow members who have contributed to the party to get together socially and meet their elected officials. It was noted that this is the first year the Committee has applied for a special events permit. He stated the event is scheduled for March 3, 1984, and will be held at the ballroom of the CSU Student Lory Center. Mr. Johnson went on to say that two bars will be on the premises. He noted that arrangements have been made through the Larimer County Sheriff's Office for the training of bartenders. In addition, Mr. Johnson stated the CSU police have been made aware of the event. Mr. Johnson stated the entrance will be secured and manned and noted that a ticket is required in order to enter. Authority member Acott made a motion, seconded by Authority member Mon- aghan, to approve the special events permit for the Larimer County Repub- lican Party on March 3, 1984, from 5:30 p.m. to midnight. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Special Events License - 3.2% Ingersol Hall (CSU), February 24 and 25, 1984 Mr. Keith Babcock, Hall Director of Ingersol Hall, distributed material outlining the event to be held February 24 and 25, 1984. Mr. Babcock stated the same event was held last year and reported that there were no problems. It was noted that the event is a fund raising event for the Hall. He explained that staff will be trained as to how to check for ID's. He added that CSU Police will be stationed on the premises at all times. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the special events for Ingersol Hall on February 24 and 25, 1984, from 8 p.m. to midnight each day. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Shea- han, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Special Events License - 3.2% CSU Productions/State Board of Agriculture, April 27, 1984 Mr. Bud Prentice, events manager for College Days, submitted material outlining the College Days event scheduled for April 27, 1984. -9- February 1, 1984 In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Dave Watkins, head of security for the event, stated 225 kegs were consumed in 1983. It was noted that beer sales will be between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. In an attempt to de-emphasize alcohol, Mr. Prentice stated the beer con- tainers will be smaller this year. In addition, he stated only one con- tainer may be purchased at a time. He went on to say that staff will be required to go through a training session. The training will include identifying an intoxicated person and checking for ID's. In response to a question by Authority member Veazie, Officer Frank Russell noted that there have been no problems in recent years and that the faculty is very supportive of the event. Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Mon- aghan, to approve the special events permit for CSU Productions on April 27, 1984, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Change of Location Ace Liquors, 238 East Mountain Avenue Mr. Steve Francis, attorney representing the applicant, called Mr. Max Scott to the stand. Mr. Max Scott, owner of Oedipus, Inc., 2902 5th Street, Boulder, Colorado, was sworn and explained the type of service his firm provides. Mr. Scott explained the survey and its results. Applicant's Exhibit 1 was submitted and identified as the survey results. Applicant's Exhibit 2 was submitted and identified as a packet of 4 petitions. Based on the needs and desires, the survey indicates that 94% of the neighborhood is in favor of the license. Mr. Scott stated the survey results are extremely high for a retail liquor store. In summary, Mr. Scott stated he feels the neighbor- - hood strongly favors the change of location. Mr. Gene Mitchell was sworn and stated he was the former landlord for Ace Liquors. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that the building at 200 East Mountain is now demolished. Mr. Mitchell stated his interest in the area is that he is a general partner of the Old Town project. Mr. Mitchell stated there is a need in the Old Town area for a liquor store. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the exhibits are admissible. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the change of location for Ace Liquors from 200 East Mountain Avenue to 238 East Mountain Avenue. Yeas; Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. -10- February 1, 1984 Final Resolution on a Retail Liquor Store for Ace Liquors, 238 East Mountain Avenue The Resolution was read by title only. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to adopt the Resolution as presented. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Final Hearing for a 3.2% Fermented Malt Beverage License, Class B, for Jack-n-Deb's Little Mart, 800 North College Avenue Mr. & Mrs. Carroll (Jack) Cromer were sworn. Mr. Cromer stated they purchased The Pantry which previously held a 3.2% beer license. He ex- plained that they will operate a convenience store, as well as gas pumps. Ms. Debbie Cromer submitted petitions which were circulated on behalf of the application. Overall, she stated the response was favorable. It was noted that signatures were obtained from residents and businesses of the defined neighborhood, as well as from customers in the store. Ms. Cromer stated a total of 536 signatures were received. Mr. and Mrs. Cromer spoke of their backgrounds. Ms. Cromer stated she has had previous experience with beer and liquor licenses. Therefore, she stated she is familiar with how to check for ID's. She added that she will train their two employees on how to check for ID's. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the petitions are admissible. Officer Russell stated that the fingerprints have cleared through the CBI. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to approve the 3.2% Fermented Malt Beverage license, Class B, for Jack-n-Deb's Little Mart, 800 North College Avenue. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Transfer of Ownership for Spudworks, 626 South College Avenue Mr. Ron Daggett, owner, was sworn and explained he has purchased the business from the Smith family. Mr. Daggett spoke briefly of his back- E • -11- February 1, 1984 ground. He noted he has had experience working with liquor licenses. Mr. Daggett stated he is responsible for training his employees on the liquor laws. Officer Frank Russell stated the fingerprints have cleared through the CBI. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the transfer of ownership from Laco Enterprises, Inc. to Ron and Janet Daggett, dba Spudworks, 626 South College Avenue. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie aid Wilson. Nays: None. Transfer of Ownership for Ace Liquors, 200 East Mountain Avenue Mr. Steve Francis, attorney representing the applicant, stated the owners are present if the Authority wishes to speak with them. Authority member Monaghan stated he feels that the conversations which took place at the January 4, 1984, meeting in addition to the police report provided by Officer Frank Russell are sufficient to make a decision. Authority member Wilson concurred. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to approve the transfer of ownership from Bryan Young Lee to Sung Im and Soo Chang Jang, dba Ace Liquors, 238 East Mountain Avenue. Yeas: Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Abstain: Acott. Transfer of Ownership for Fort Ram, 450 North Linden Mr. Richard Gast, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant is requesting a transfer of ownership due to a business reorganization. He noted that the operation, management and personnel will remain the same. Mr. Gast explained that the reorganization happened when another corporate entity purchased all oftheoriginal licensee's stock. Subsequently, the corporate entity formed a joint venture, who now owns and operates the Fort Ram. Authority member Veazie made a motion, seconded by Authority member Mon- aghan, to approve the transfer of ownership from Graduate Restaurants, Inc. to Fort Ram Venture, dba Fort Ram, 450 North Linden. Yeas: Acott, Mon- aghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. -12- February 1, 1984 Preliminary Hearing for a Hotel -Restaurant License for University Plaza Catering Co., Inc., dba University Plaza Holiday Inn, 1600 Center Avenue The boundaries as proposed by the Administration were as follows: North from the subject premises to Mulberry Street West from the subject premises to Shields Street South from the subject premises to Swallow Road East from the subject premises to Lemay Avenue Mr. Dave Wood, attorney representing the applicant, stated the boundaries are acceptable. Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Veazie, to accept the boundaries as proposed for University Plaza Holiday Inn, 1600 Center Avenue. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. The Resolution outlining the results of the preliminary hearing was read by title only. Authority member Veazie made a motion, secnded by Authority member Mona- ghan, to adopt the preliminary resolution as presented. Mr. Art March, attorney representing opponent Mr. Ray Dixon, resident of the City of Fort Collins, approached the Authority prior to calling the vote on the preliminary resolution. Mr. March stated he would like to introduce evidence and arguments against the adoption of the preliminary resolution. He stated he objects to the preliminary resolution on the basis that it determines that the proposed establishment will not be located within 500 feet of the Colorado State University. Mr. March submitted opponent's Exhibit A which was identified as the updated Master Plan of the Colorado State University and a certificate from Robert H. Burnham, Director of Facilities Planning, which states the updated Master Plan is a true and correct copy. Opponent's Exhibit B was submitted and identified as a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Colorado Commission of Higher Education which approved the updated Master Plan. Mr. March also submitted Opponent's Exhibit C which was identified as a true and correct copy of a letter to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education regarding approval of the Colorado State University Master Plan. -13- February 1, 1984 Mr. Dave Wood, attorney for the applicant, asked whether or not Mr. Dixon resides within the defined neighborhood area. Mr. March stated that Mr. Dixon does not reside within the defined neighborhood area. Mr. March went on to say that the issue at hand is whether the application for a hotel - restaurant license should be considered on the basis of the 500 foot limit criteria. He added that no boundaries are applicable until it is deter- mined that the establishment will not be located within 500 feet of the University. Mr. Dave Wood stated he does not object to Mr. March's standing. He requested that the hearing proceed to determine the question of the 500 foot limit. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated the Authority can overlook the definition of interested party on the basis that Mr. Wood has stated he desires to proceed on the merit of the issue. Mr. Dave Wood stated he would have no objection to Opponent's Exhibit A with two conditions. He stated he feels most of the information contained in the Master Plan is irrelevant to the issue before the Authority since it addresses various campuses of CSU which have no bearing on the liquor license application, i.e. Pingree Park, Foothills Campus, etc. Secondly, Mr. Wood stated he does not feel the prospective plans for future develop- ment is relevant to the Authority's deliberations. Mr. Wood stressed the point that the Authority should consider the facts as they are today. Mr. March agreed to Mr. Wood's first condition, that being much of the material contained in the Master Plan is irrelevant. He went on to say however, that he feels it is necessary for the Authority to determine whether or not future development plans should be considered. He added that future buildings are certainly relevant. Mr. March stated that he feels that the law pertains to the distance from the campus, not the academic campus. He stated the Master Plan defines the main campus of CSU, which is located within 500 feet of the proposed hotel. Authority member Monaghan concluded that Mr. March's position is that CSU is within 500 feet of the proposed licensed establishment. Noting that the south boundary of CSU land is Prospect Street, Mr. Monaghan asked what CSU building is the nearest building measured to and what is that building's primary use. Attorney Dave Wood suggested making his presentation first, followed by Mr. March's presentation. Mr. Wood submitted Applicant's Exhibit 1, which was identified as the Master Plan for the CSU campus. Mr. Wood admitted that there is nothing to use as a guide in determining what is the principal campus of Colorado State University. However, he stated the State Board of Agriculture does give some guidance as to determining the principal campus. Mr. Wood referenced a California case -14- February 1, 1984 law, Vandi vs. Munro, which was a case arising on the Stanford Campus. In this case, the California Supreme Court said that it was up to the liquor licensing authority to receive evidence and then to make their own deter- mination as to what constituted the principal campus of the University. The governing board of that institution made a determination that the licensing authority should give great weight to the determination of that governing agency. Be that as a guide, Mr. Wood stated the Authority is not bound by the State Board of Agriculture's ruling but that great weight should be given to their decision in determining the principal campus of CSU. Applicant's Exhibit A, B, C-1, C-2, and C-3 were submitted and iden- tified as the brief submitted by Mr. Wood. Contained in the brief is a narrative which accompanies a colored map identified as the Master Plan - Main Campus, marked Exhibit A. Mr. Wood stated the map shows that most of the academic buildings of the University are located within the academic core shown on the map. Mr. Wood also noted that the map shows the southern most boundary as Lake Street. Once again Mr. Wood referenced the Vanoli vs. Monro case. In that case, the California Supreme Court reasoned t at ogica property lines need to be established, rather than basing any decisions on a radius, as shown on the map. Mr. Wood stated that the boundaries of the principal campus of CSU need to be expanded beyond the circumference of the circle in order to have normal, natural boundaries. By that definition and as shown on the map, Mr. Wood stated the natural boundaries of the academic core are Shields Street on the West; Laurel Street on the North; College Avenue on the East, and Lake Street on the South. He went on to say that the State Board of Agriculture gives guidance by determining the main campus - central area. He explained that the central area contains two buildings between Lake and Prospect Street. One building is an office building with a parking lot abutting Prospect; the other building is married student housing. Mr. Wood submitted Applicant's Exhibit B which was identified as a letter from Dr. Robert Phemister, Interim President of CSU, which confirms that there are no instructional facilities or buildings used for school purposes in the area south of Lake Street. Likewise, in the area south of Prospect Street, Mr. Wood stated that there are no instructional facilities within 500 feet of the proposed licensed premises. Mr. Wood identified two build- ings on the map that are further south of Aggie Village and considered academic buildings. He went on to explain that the two buildings are used for extension and research. Mr. Wood specifically noted that the buildings are not used as instructional facilities. By the broadest definition as provided by the State Board of Agriculture, Mr. Wood stated the principal campus of CSU is the main campus - central area. Mr. Wood then addressed property south of Prospect Street. The Master Plan defines this area as main campus - south area. Mr. Wood informed the Authority that the majority of the property south of Prospect does not belong to the State Board of Agriculture. He stated it belongs to the • a -15- February 1, 1984 Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF). Mr. Wood submitted Applicant's Exhibit 2 which was identified as a map provided by Mr. Robert Burnham, Director of Facilities Planning at CSU, which shows property belonging to the State Board of Agriculture and which property belongs to the Research Foundation and is leased from CSURF by the State Board of Agriculture. Mr. Wood stated the 500 foot limitation does not apply to any property south of Prospect Road since that is not part of the principal campus. Mr. Wood stated under applicable Colorado law it would not matter if classrooms buildings constructed now, or in the future, were located within 500 feet. Mr. Wood cited another case, Launder vs. Friednash, whereby an applicant applied for a license directly across the street rom the Colorado School of Medicine. He explained that the argument was made that this was located within 500 feet of a school building of a University. The Colorado Appel- late Court said that the 500 foot limitation applies only in the case of principal campus and that among more remote campuses, the 500 foot limita- tion does not apply. Therefore, Mr. Wood concluded that the 500 foot limitation does not apply to the Foothills campus of CSU or the southern part of the main campus. Mr. Wood stated to the Authority that it is their job to decide what the principal campus is for Colorado State University. He stated if the Authority determines the southern boundary to be Lake Street, the proposed hotel is obviously not within 500 feet of the campus. In the case that the Authority decides the southern boundary is Prospect Street, Mr. Wood stated the Authority would need to consider Applicant's Exhibits C-1, C-2, and C-3. Each exhibit was identified as maps of the property in question prepared by the Architect for the applicant. Each map provides a drawing of what the measurement of direct pedestrian access might be. Mr. Wood. suggested that the maps indicate that the nearest portion of the proposed hotel building is more than 500 feet from the property line of the State Board of Agriculture on the north side of Prospect Street. Mr. Wood pointed out that the best evidence for the Authority to go by is the letter submitted by Dr. Phemister which defines the boundaries for the principal campus of CSU. In reference to future developments on CSU property, Mr. Wood reminded the Authority that the statute reads that the licensed premises shall not be within 500 feet of "land used for school purposes". He stated it does not state land "to be" used for school purposes. He added that any property developed hereafter is simply grandfathered in under Colorado law. Mr. Wood submitted to the Authority that all property located south of Prospect Street is remote from the principal campus of CSU. -16- February 1, 1964 In reference to Applicant's Exhibit 2 (map showing property owned by the State Board of Agriculture and property leased from CSURF), Mr. Wood stated the statutes do not address whether principal campus has to be owned or leased. He suggested that it does not matter and that the Authority will have to consider the geography as it's been developed in determining what constitutes the primary campus of the University. Mr. Wood addressed Aggie Village, married student housing, located west of the proposed hotel. He stated this is the one building that is owned by the State Board of Agriculture and is located within 500 feet of the hotel. Mr. Wood stated the Authority needs to decide whether married student housing is land used for school purposes. He stated that it is his position that any property located south of Prospect Street is not part of the principal campus regardless of its purpose. Mr. Wood addressed the California Walsh case which involved parcels of land used as dormatories for the Berkley campus. A liquor license applicant applied for a license within 500 feet of this property. Mr. Wood concluded that the California Supreme Court said that the dorm use was not deemed as a use for school purposes under the provisions of the liquor licensing laws. The case went on to say that it would be the same with married student housing. In summary, Mr. Wood stated that by any reasonable definition, the prin- cipal campus of Colorado State University stops no further south of Pros- pect Road. In addition, he concluded that no property between Lake Street and Prospect Road is used for school purposes. Mr. Wood stated even using Prospect Road as the boundary, the proposed hotel is more than 500 feet by the most direct means of pedestrian access. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated that Applicant's Exhibits 1, 2, A, B. C-1, C-2, and C-3 are admissible. Mr. Art March proceeded with his presentation. Mr. March stated the prin- cipal campus is not defined as the academic campus, as suggested by Mr. Wood. He also stated that school purposes are not strictly academic purposes, also suggested by Mr. Wood. Mr. March addressed his comments to future developments as outlined in the Master Plan, marked as opponent's Exhibit A. He stated he feels school purposes includes planning purposes and that its part of the main campus as defined by the Master Plan. Assistant City Attorney Ken Frazier stated Opponent's Exhibit A is admis- sible and the Authority should give it whatever weight they feel is appro- priate. Mr. Wood objected on the basis that much of the material contained in the plan is irrelevant to the hearing. He stated, however, that he has no -17- February 1, 1984 problem with the Authority receiving the Master Plan and ignoring all of the data pertaining to Pingree Park. Mr. Wood stated he feels that a plan for future development is not relevant to the liquor license application. He asked the Authority to make their decision based on the campus as it exists today. Mr. March stated the Master Plan contains several campuses: the main campus, the agricultural south campus, the Pingree Park Campus, etc. Mr. March stated the maps contained in the Master Plan show the entire area as the main campus. However, he stated the main campus is divided into 3 areas: 1) the central main campus, 2) the south main campus and 3),the west main campus. Mr. March stated he also feels the best authority to follow in trying to determine principal campus is the State Board of Agriculture. He pointed out, however, that the State Board does not say the academic campus is the main campus. In addition, Mr. March stated he does not feel Dr. Phemister can rule on what is the main campus. Mr. March stated the State Board in adopting the Master Plan, recognized the fact that there are academic, recreational, athletic and housing areas within the main campus. It was noted that CSU was founded as an agricul- tural college. Mr. March pointed out that this college is still a very important part of CSU. He also pointed out that the Master Plan shows most of the agricultural school functions of the University are located on the south -main campus. He stated this is a school purpose, just as a classroom is a school purpose. Therefore, he stated the main campus of CSU includes the south -main campus. He went on to say that housing facilities are also located on the south -main campus. Mr. March referenced a Colorado case, Lewis vs. State Board of Agriculture. This case addressed whether or not the construction of dormitorTe—sand housing facilities constitute a legitimate school purpose. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that housing facilities is a proper function of the Colorado State University. Mr. March stated the Court also said that there is a connection with all of the buildings at the Colorado State University. The case also said the buildings are all devoted to a single object or purpose; namely the education and development of students. He went on to say that the case stated that the State Board of Agriculture has the power to do everything necessary or appropriate for the education of the students at the University and that education includes the mental, physical and social development of the students. Again, Mr. March stressed the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court has expressly recognized that student housing is a school purpose at CSU. Mr. March referenced the case, LaLoma, Inc. vs. City of Denver, whereby a liquor license was granted within 500 eet of an ath etic field of a public -18- February 1, 1984 high school. He noted that the athletic field was not connected with the high school itself but located some blocks away. When the Court received this case, it determined that the license should not have been granted because the detached athletic field was land used for school purposes. Mr. March noted that the land used does not have to be used for academic purposes. In reference to Mr. Wood's comments regarding the Laudner vs. Friednash case (Medical School in Denver), Mr. March stated that the Courts have determined in several cases that remote campuses are still part of the main campus. Mr. March went on to explain that he has been involved with the proposed hotel since its inception. He stated at the Planning and Zoning hearings the Board heard continual argument in favor of the granting of the PUD based on the fact that this facility would abutt the main campus of CSU. This argument was made with regard to the height of the proposed hotel. Mr. March suggested that the Board listen to the tapes of the Planning and Zoning hearings. In summary, Mr. March stated Colorado case law should be given consider- ation over California case law. He stated that the Colorado statutes say the distance is measured from the principal campus, not academic campus. He went on to say that the State Board of Agriculture has defined the main campus as being immediately abutting this proposed hotel. He added that the Colorado legislation and courts have stated that a campus is more than a set of academic buildings. Mr. March stated the legislature recognizes that the campus includes student housing facilities, recreational facili- ties, parking facilities, athletic facilities, etc. Mr. March stressed,to the Authority that the statutes do not address "academic purposes" and asked them to look at the wording that is used, "school purposes" and "principal campus." Mr. Dave Wood remarked that the Planning criteria for building height does not refer to facilites which abut an activity center. He stated the language used was not abut but adjacent, which means nearby. In reference to the Colorado case where the Supreme Court determined that the State Board of Agriculture had authority to build dormitories. He stated it is not legitimate legal precedent for the Authority to consider in a liquor licensing context. Mr. Wood stated the only case with refer- ence to dormitories and is relevant to the liquor licensing concept is the California case he cited earlier. Specifically, the Court ruled that dormitories are secondary purposes to the University. In closing, Mr. Wood stated the final determination of what constitutes the principal campus of CSU for the purpose of the liquor license is the Authority's decision. -19- February 1, 1984 In response to a question by Authority member Wilson, each attorney gave their personal opinion as to the intent of the legislation with respect to the 500 foot limit. Authority member Monaghan stated he interprets the state statute to mean that a school is a place of instruction. Upon examining the map provided from the Master Plan, member Monaghan stated he feels there is no place of instruction located within 500 feet of the proposed licensed establishment. Mr. Monaghan went on to say that he feels the main campus is bounded by College and Lake Street. In addition, he stated he does not deem student housing as a primary campus function. Authority member Sheahan asked whether there is a distinction between the words "principal campus" and "main campus". Attorneys Dave Wood, Art March and Ken Frazier each addressed the question. Authority member Monaghan stated again that he feels land used for school purposes would be instructional in nature. Authority member Veazie stated he feels the reason for going to college is for educational purposes, not social. Mr. Veazie also stated he feels the principal campus of CSU is bounded by Lake Street. Authority member Acott asked whether or not CSU has stated that Aggie Village is used for school purposes. Authority member Monaghan stated that the school probably uses the Aggie Village land and it has a function to the school. He stated that he is defining school with a more narrow definition in that school means in- structional for the purpose of this hearing. Authority member Veazie stated he feels that student housing is not considered as land used for school purposes. In addition, he stated he feels that the intent of the law is not intended to control the social activities outside the classroom. Authority member Monaghan stated he feels the primary campus is the area as defined by Dr. Phemister. Again, he stated he feels land used for school purposes means instructional in nature. In conclusion, Mr. Monaghan stated he feels the license in question is not located within 500 feet of any land or building used for school purposes. Authority member Wilson stated it is her feeling that the agricultural land located on CSU property is land used for school purposes. Authority member Sheahan concurred. -20- February 1, 1984 Authority member Monaghan remarked that the agricultural land or buildings are not located within 500 feet of the proposed licensed establishment. After some consideration, Authority member Sheahan agreed that the agricul- tural land is not located within 500 feet. Authority member Veazie con- curred. Authority member Acott stated she feels that the Lewis case addresses the issue and that the agricultural land is used for instructional purposes. Member Acott asked if Aggie Village is used for school purposes. Mr. Dave Wood replied that no classes are conducted at Aggie Village. Referring to Dr. Phemister's letter, Mr. Wood stated that no instructional activities occur within 500 feet of the University. Mr. Art March once again referred to the Lewis case. He stated that the case justifies the building of dormitories by giving the power of the State Board of Agriculture to do everything necessary for the education of students of the University and that education includes the mental, physical and social development of the students. He stated he feels the case shows that student housing is a school purpose. Mr. March addressed another case which referred to how the 500 foot distance is measured. Authority member Wilson stated she feels that Aggie Village would be considered part of the principal campus. In addition, she stated she feels that the high-rise dormitories located on Laurel Street are part of campus, as well as the athletic fields. Authority member Acott concurred. Authority member Veazie stated he feels the intent of the law would define the principal campus as the academic campus. Authority member Sheahan stated it is his feeling that the proposed li- censed establishment is not within 500 feet of the principal campus. The motion adopting the Preliminary Resolution was restated by the Secre- tary. The motion was put to vote as follows: Monaghan, Sheahan and Veazie. Nays: Acott and Wilson. The Preliminary Resolution was adopted 3-2. Police Report Officer Frank Russell requested a show/cause hearing for a violation occurring on January 27, 1984, at Gene's Tavern, 200 Walunt. • -21- February 1, 1984 Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to determine that there is probable cause and scheduled a show/cause hearing for February 29, 1984. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Officer Russell stated the City was informed in September, 1983 that Melissa Corr, owner of Sports Page, was selling the establishment. He noted that several attempts have been made by City staff to contact the purchasers to complete the filing of paperwork. Officer Russell stated the intent of his memo is to inform the Authority of the situation. Secondly, he stated he would like the Authority to request that the people appear before them so that the Authority can tell them to file their complete paperwork. Since this has dragged on since September of 1983, Officer Russell stated he would be in favor of the Authority suspending the license if the paperwork is still not filed. Authority member Wilson made a motion, seconded by Authority member Mon- aghan, to direct City staff to request the parties involved to appear before the Authority on February 29, 1984, and that if all paperwork is not submitted to the City Clerk's by February 15, 1984, Officer Russell is directed to temporarily suspend the license until all of such paperwork is completely filed. Yeas: Acott, Monaghan, Sheahan, Veazie and Wilson. Nays: None. Adjournment Authority member Monaghan made a motion, seconded by Authority member Acott, to adjourn. The Chairperson put the motion which was unanimously adopted. The meeting was adjourned at approxi ately 12.50 a.m. Chairperson/ a2 Secretary