Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-05-12 Town Council MinutesD9I T COPY MOVE' MINUTES OF THE MEETING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL 0 MAY 12, 1969 The Meeting was called to Order by the Mayor, John Dobson, at 8.30 P. JVL, Monday, May 12, 1969, in the Manor Vail Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Roll Call found the following Members present: Mayor John Dobson Trustee Joseph Langmaid Trustee C. E. Kindel Trustee John Donovan Trustee Richard Bailey Trustee T. I. Steinberg Absent: Trustee John Kaemmer . 1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS After reviewing the Minutes of the previous meetings, 'Trustee Kindel made a Motion to approve them as read. The Motion was seconded by Trustee Donovan and unanimously passed. The Minutes included: March 31, 1969 April 14, 1969 April 17, 1969 2. FINANCIAL REPORTS After a brief review o' the Financial Reports by F. Blake Lynch, the Board unanimously approved them as read: Treasurer's Report - Payroll Account - April 30, 1969 Treasurer's Report - General Fund - April 30, 1969 Treasurer's Report - Working Capital Fund - April 30, 1969 • 3. DISCUSSION OF BURNING CONTROLS Blake Lynch reviewed a memo concerning this subject sent to the Board May 11, 1969. He explained that the proposed ordinance prohibiting burning could be revised in a number of ways. Trustee Donovan pointed out that Leo Duran who currently picked up rubbish for the Town of Vail, would not haul large items, such as timbers, trees, left -over construction material or large quantities of leaves, and there was no way to destroy these items except by burning. It was noted articles as described above could be hauled to the dump in trucks. Trustee Kindel stated he felt incinerators are offensive and rubbish could be hauled away. Peter Seibert pointed out the Covenants state there will be no open burning; the intent was that there would be no leftover trash or debris in Town. He felt this trash should be hauled away. F. Blake Lynch polled the Board as to their having read and understood the Ordinance as follows: Trustee Bailey - yes Trustee Donovan - yes Trustee Kindel - yes Trustee Langmaid - yes Trustee Steinberg - yes I PAGE TWO He then polled the Board as to their approval: Trustee Bailey - yes Trustee Donovan - yes Trustee Kindel - yes Trustee Langmaid - yes Trustee Steinberg - yes Ordinance No. 5, Series 1969, "An ordinance prohibiting open burning under certain circumstances: Repealing any inconsistent provisions of the ordinances of the Town: setting forth details in relation thereto: and, declaring an emergency therefor", was unanimously passed by the Board. 4. DISCUSSION OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL This concerned vacating part of Hanson ranch Road and a portion •of Gore Creek Drive (in front of the Grey and Whites and Red and Whites). Blake Lynch explained that Albert G. White had discussed the question of whether or not the Planning Board would approve the proposed street vacation, Mr. Lynch stated it was not the intent to have the Trustees approve or disapprove a vacation ordinance right away, but to present the idea for consideration. Blake Lynch reviewed a letter he had written George Beardsley on the subject. He stated Mr. Beardsley had proposed to divide the area and improve it with landscaping in the vicinity of the Rams Horn, All Seasons, Valhalla, Tivoli, and Row Houses. It was felt vacation of the area should be done after the asphalting is done, Blake Lynch stated an agreement and proposed ordinance would be presented at the next meeting. 5. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 1967 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. Blake Lynch introduced Mr. Bynum, the new Building Inspector for the Town of Vail. Mr. Bynum reviewed the main differences between the 1964 and 1969 codes. Mr. Bynum recommended the Trustees adopt the 1967 Uniform Building Code by reference. Blake Lynch then polled •the Board as to their having read and understood the ordinance in the following order: Trustee Bailey - yes Trustee Donovan - yes Trustee Kindel - yes Trustee Langmaid - yes Trustee Steinberg - yes He polled the Board as to their approval in the order following: Trustee Bailey - yes Trustee Donovan - yes Trustee Kindel - yes Trustee Langmaid - yes Trustee Steinberg - yes Ordinance No. 6, "An ordinance for the adoption by reference of the "Uniform Building Code, " 1967 Edition, Volume I, and Uniform Mechanical Code, 1967 Edition (Designated Uniform Building Code, Volume II), regulating the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, equipment, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of buildings or other structures heretofore or hereafter erected in the Town of Vail: providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof: and providing penalties for the violation thereof", was unanimously passed by the Board. PAGE THREE • 6. DISCUSSION OF LAND DEDICATION PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Terry Minger, Assistant Town Manager, reviewed a memo concerning park land and public open space acquisition for the Town of Vail. The Board thanked Mr. Minger for his presentation and work on the subdivision regulations, Blake Lynch explained that the primary purpose of this presentation was to obtain Board reaction to this major policy consideration as a part of the subdivision regulations. (a) Blake Lynch announced the State had granted the Lancelot Liquor License. (b) The Board reviewed the Voucher list for April, 1960. A question was raised as to the monthly rental rate on the radar unit. Trustee Donovan made a Motion to approve the Voucher as submitted. The Motion was seconded by Trustee Steinberg and unanimously passed by the Board. • (c) Blake Lynch reported on the landscaping progress for the park by the Vorlaufer. He said the job had been well done by Ernst Larese and seeding was all that remained to be done for the area. He told of plans for the north side of Lot P2 to be landscaped. (the lot north of the Christiania). Culvert entrances will be repaired and landscaped. There are plans to landscape the entrance near the Covered Bridge also. Many different ideas have been proposed for this area. Vail Associates plans to dedicate this piece of land to the Town, and the question of parking in this area should be discussed. Complete landscaping cannot be carried out until the end of the fall when the parking question has been answered. It was noted there had been several offers for financial help in landscaping this area; however, it was finally decided • it would be better for the Town to do the project independently and free of obligations. Mayor Dobson suggested having a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees in order to review the plans for the area. Trustee Kindel suggested a landscaping priority list be prepared. Pete Seibert stated he felt landscaping improvements should remain on the natural side and any hint of urbanization should be avoided. It was agreed the Planning Commission would set up a suggested priority list on landscapi ng, (d) Bake Lynch reported,,.street;.bumps;are going in:and,.would b _ co�rip etea within the next two weeks. ?'rustee Langtnaid stated it would be desirable to have the holes in the road filled in at the same time 8, MAYOR AND TRUSTEES ,.. The Board peviewed a, memo written by Chief Holmes @��kinc that they appoint a substitute judge for the Ua, un�c�pa1 Court Juclge Gerrard has agreed to take, ;this posj#91?,,.. , It. was noted the, County -Court i,zi Minturn would be moved tQ,the Vail Cqurt �gcation T'puptee gnovait made 2,.Motion to appoint Judge Gerrard.as a judge for the Val). Municipal Court, wlic%wac seconded by Trustee Kindel,i aid approved by the , pard , PAGE FOUR • Terry Minger, Assistant Town Manager, reported on the street sweeper stating it was not financially feasible at this time to buy it. Trustee Kindel suggested the Fire Department hose down the streets again this year as was done in the past to clear the streets. Trustee Kindel noted there was a considerable amount of litter around the Park's residence. Mayor Dobson asked Blake Lynch to follow up on this. Peter Seibert stated the litter referred to was actually on Recreation District property and not on Park's property. Mayor Dobson again asked that Blake Lynch and Larry Robinson look into this. 10.CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE (ZONING) The Board considered minor changes in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mosley, Attorney for Vail Associates, was present and submitted a letter from a Mr. Neal Thrasher, Attorney for the City and County of Denver. Mr. Thrasher is a zoning expert for Denver and his comments and suggestions were reviewed item by item. Mr. Stewart Brown, Zoning isAttorney for the Town, then suggested that if there was no immediate emergency, he would like to incorporate some minor wording changes as suggested by Mr. Thrasher. After a lengthy discussion which ended at 12:30 P. M. , the Board agreed and decided to continue the meeting to Thursday, May 15, 1969. It would be held at 7:30 P. M. at Manor Vail. • • • i VAILIPOAPID R1'Ci77•Al.'T0' -!Iq")o.,tod th-)t thr� Town ought to adopt elo ar i.erli :lation i cho b,trning of rofu.:e in TM. Protr'c'tivo Covf'want`�, O"'V:t"il. Z il,l?ge -pe(tIfy foll{7wn.: bu:c'aliu, of 1'efu^e out o0,00rs, sh.-ill not "b .pl>rraittod, I hi vail Vill;;;.gn, L,'ir_t "11--n(j• No lnclner�,Ltpr.or. othrz• cl;:r,ice .for the burning of reTu:!,", incloor•:s ,h:).l.1"'bc con;=txu,tr>d in :-Alecl or us-d by any p.;rson ext',ept ws il)progyred by the r_"c. ulaiittee. „ ;'Ullowinj options, or colribin:',"Ci Ins tll+':i'o-)?.:.6o :3.i/c1i1 :.1''l'" t'} theii•. nl;-IM"'my of t'11' -.:O.3F II':!i? A, 3:,.-r3W'1.4.1.;.ana an l.. Complete ban on burning.' r. l:arftil•a,te hour. . P3(.)g Hate l'Jy r; irr, Zo= oo'. 1�egitl-.atr?'ay t'IP^ c� i� , —1 .l hitrned. `i. Mr,,: o wording fl.exi.ble so that officer gr'riting permit c:a,n titre his "discretion. r , r?ernula — according to the tripe: of incbrv,,ration cdnvl.cs? llo,..viiig 'are 51'ell a,ccFepterl dei'initions we sbot"uld is ;F in ciis^,i<;sing ;x!h,-: wr r"ctn3bu,'tible or"nort-.o}' l'a.i :tLLiLr" inc:l3ar?ing rubbbi. . • • • Y^ rrhV1< E^ Includes all putrc:; clble ax�il�al or �.rec� i4.1?i,�:; wa; .tes rcwltinaj from the prccparation, cooking and coridn l of fccri, or th.s ::tvxlagn ^nd ;;:cics of, produ.ri^, i�.:,�k?��•.kz: Iii�lude�� :l.11 nori-•putt^�,ciblt� solid ,.•�.ta:t;� • .?on: is=.tiriq of bothroinb Ibl ;.ntl nan-,,^.orr..ii3ur-;t:iYakn' including, but not. limited to li::.txer,-vihes; cardboard, Uri can-,-,' Yard .cl.irix?lncr •, r 'c;ad' iJlas, di: carded c;lLtiac� or.; -e:�ri icy ar pa:r:al of any mind, or any other di.::ca.rd<';:? cjbjr;­_t or thing, riot oxcecdbig tli.ree feet in Length. T'r. IlaA-t- include,, la,rgii, bru sil Trood, large. cardboard boxes;, or part., th_reo,f, ylyd tI'ilrrrriingf "pd#s;card^di Teri e,po;"tS9 C, rote, —.,' 'Ilotor.' y bi.cle tiv''," junk rnbtor vehicle bodios or part:; t.hereof, .;cr;.p net:al, diie,c r:,rilc�ci }°4:_xnit�a:c � . and .all otl.tn.r. k�cur=hold �joodr; a s.t: � , old bimbhr and ;:any otb r dri.;sc'ardc J objc,Ct.. which carireat c onv•c.-Aeni7.,y be (.'1?t i.rlt.o than three x'eet in lc:,ncrth. iu ,iticl tk;;z,t it may be the deei.rc� oC tklP F a xr�1 kc:, adopt 1eUls-lotion ., tkOi , matters imi.1%yr to the prov!FAom�; c antained In they C ower rv:Lllt:;,. Vto v? I ?a ,O;i (,mt ari (ar divario.e whici'i can b iy chuntrod or an-jende.d -..md the .ot`; r option: ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1969 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OPEN BURNING UNDER CERTAIN q.� CIRCUMSTANCES: REPEALING ANY INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN: SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO: AND, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY THEREFOR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees for the Town of Vail, believes that the burning of paper, trash, refuse and other combustible and flammable material within the Town of Vail should be regulated for the health and safety of the community, and to preserve a wholesome and healty environment for the Town; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is of the opinion that the Fire Prevention Code adopted by the Town in 1.969, should be supplemented by regulations relating to open burning and incinerator burning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Section 1. No person shall burn nor permit to be burned any trash, paper, rubbish, waste paper, wood, weeds, brush, plants or other flammable or cumbustible material, nor kindle or maintain any bonfire on any open premises owned or controlled by him, or in any public street, alley, park property or other land adjacent to such premises except under the following conditions: (1) The burning is for the non-commercial cooking of food for human beings or for recreational purposes; (2) When the burning is a smokeless flare or a safety flare used to indicate some danger to the public. Section 2. Open burning within the Town of Vail shall be prohibited at all times, except by special permit which may be granted by the Mayor, upon written application of any person, providing such burning may be done without hazard to the community. - • Section 3. That if any part of parts hereof is for any reason held to be invalid, such shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. That all sections, or parts of sections of any ordinances of the Town of Vail, in conflict or inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed, provided however, that the repeal of any part of the ordinances of the Town of Vail shall not revive any other ordinance heretofore repealed or superseded. Section 5. That the within provisions are designedto further restrict and control burning within the Town of Vail, so as to reduce fire hazards and prevent fires, and the same are deemed 'immediately necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; therefore the Board of Trustees is of the opinion that an emergency exists and that the within provisions shall be adopted as an emergency ordinance and shall be published in accordance with appropriate laws of the State of Colorado and the ordinances of the Town of Vail. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS 12th DAY of MAY, 1969. Mayor ATTEST T i -un r71 Prk ORDINANCE NO, Series of 1969 AN. ORDINANCE FOR THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, " 1967 EDITION, VOLUME I, AND UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1967 EDITION (DESIGNATED UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, VOLUME II), REGULATING THE CONSUTRCTION, ALTERATION, REPAIR, REMOVAL, DEMOLITION, EQUIPMENT, USE AND OCCUPANCY, LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ERECTED IN THE TOWN OF VAIL: PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREOF: AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF: SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, Pursuant to Chapter 139, Article 34, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, there is hereby adopted as the Building Code of the Town of Vail for regulating the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, equipment, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of buildings or other structures heretofore or hereafter erected in . the Town of Vail, that certain document, three (3) certified copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Recorder, Town of Vail, Colorado, being titled, marked and designated as the "Uniform Building Code," 1967 Edition, Volume I, and 'Uniform Mechanical Code, " 1967 edition, (Designated "Uniform Building Code, Volume II), published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and hereinafter referred to as the Building Code. SECTION 2. DELETIONS_AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES The adoption of the "Building Code" is subject to the following deletions, substitutions, amendments and changes: AMENDMENTS TO THE 1967 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE VOLUME I Section 408 _ Grade Delete and Substitute, "The average of the finished ground level at the centers of all of the walls of a building. " Section 2305(c) - Snow Loads Delete and Substitute, "The basic design snow load shall be fifty pounds per square foot on the horizontal projection of the roof. " Section 2314(a) Amend by adding the words, "for seismic zone 1", at the end of the first sentence. Section 2806(a) - General Amend by adding exceptions as follows: Exceptions: . L In lieu of extending footings below the frost line, one of the following may be used but in no case shall the footings extend less than three feet six inches (3'-611) below finish grade. • (a) Place footings on natural sand or gravel compacted to a minimum of 95W) and to a minimum depth equal to the least lateral dimension of the footing, (b) Place footings on a minimum of foes feet (41) of 95'Io compacted sand or gravel backfill, the minimum width of the backfill to be depth plus the width of the footings, except where the water table Is within the depth of frost penetration, in which case the footings shall extend below the frost line. (c) Place the footings at a depth and in such soil wherein allowable soil bearing pressures may be calculated as prescribed elsewhere in this code. • AMENDMENTS TO THE 1967 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE VOLUME II Chapter 3 - Permits and Inspections Delete Chapter 3 and Substitute, "Permit fees shall be covered by the building permits as required in Volume I. Inspections will be required to insure the safeguarding of life, health, property and. public welfare as covered. in Section 102 of this code. " SECTION 3. AMENDMENT, OFFICE OF BUILDING OFFICIAL Section 201 of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "The Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail hereby creates the office and position of Building Official. The Building Official shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail, but in no event shall his appointment continue beyond one week after the qualification of the members of the Board of Trustees for office following their election as prescribed by law. At such time the Building Official may be reappointed. The functions, responsibilities and duties of the Building Official shall be the same as those set forth in the Building Code. " SECTION 4. DECLARATION OF VIOLATION It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to construct, alter, repair, remove, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the Town of Vail, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of the Building Code. SECTION 5. PENALTIES Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of the Building Code or of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which -2- . any violation of any of the provisions of the Building Code, or of this ordinance, is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $300, or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days. SECTION 6, FILING COPIES After the effective date of the adoption of the Building Code, three Copies certified to be true copies by the Mayor and the Town Recorder shall be filed in the office of the Town Recorder where they shall be kept for public inspection duri ng the regular office hours while this ordinance is in force. SECTION 8. EPPECTIVE .DATE This ordinance shall be in full force and effect within thirty days after its approval by the Board of Trustees and final publication as prescribed by law. . SECTION 8. SAFETY CLAUSE "The Board of Trustees hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, order, comfort and the convenience of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. " SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY "It is the intention of the Board of Trustees that this ordinance or any part or provision thereof, shall be considered severable and, if any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be serverable. " Introduced, read and ordered published as provided by law by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail on this { 2-tL day of Wl" 1,969, Town Clerk W 3_ Mayor V-0, I P TTANSO N P AN -1 P (' A 1.) F3771, FT VAC ATTO--M th,-tthe of ot--.-orrvorsnV.,ml 01) thAs-matter 5ollolvs- I IJ 'To,lrn vvill vacato Ff-n-m P-mch P •final,r Th!, pr,)T)r,:rtv Owner-, in On .Ixe,t pj�ovlde,:?n dr!n-riptlorl of that portloin QCoro 1)(1, of. tim lark; to Go! C, nel< D-rlv"l [r) b.1 to !wiot oml 'a tbirl"', I "),v.; orl v c. h, lany irjrtl'..W a not t Albo- ")"PICr RQ t 1 JC The 'K'6Earn °:®f VAIL, Colorado, 3 Box 631'. Vail, Giloeado • 81b57 I4 ,Y r a y,, �o Telephone 303 476 - 5613 , it�' a April 8, .1969; TO: THE VAS PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERRY rGER. RE: PARK LAND AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION F©R THE TOWI]N'°OF VAIL. As the Town of Vail contine's to grow at its phenomenal rate; .many potential park, plgygrQ,und.,, la;M recreational sites are being lost to the .' public. Such areas° Grip'critical even for a "resort" oriented community surrounded by thoussrhasof acres of forest land. Growth is inevitable - for Vail and. such growth, and population will create a demand for , playfields, tennis courts, ball parks and other public open spaces.' ., The underlying phil;bsophy;6hind any exactment for park, playground, and. recreational sites; is that in a rapidly growing area such as Vail, the great influx of riev,. development makes the local municipality hard pressed to meet burgeoning park and recreational needs. Not only will this growth bring a Increased. demand for new and expensive facilities but in many cases ;it'will• ngt'be possible for the local jurisdiction tq acquire adequate s'A68'-suitable in terms of size and location; -ahead 3. of the immediate needs., ; This results in ineffective Manning and inefficient use of co imun ty resources. By requiring. developers to dedicate some land for school,, and/or park and r&� cation sites at the time the residential development is taking place or,.to=pay a°fee in lieu of this dedication, so that,ap advanced site ac qulilsftion fund can be set up, perhaps these needs could be met before the demand, for sites exceeds the supply, or open land is exhausted or prohibitive -in. cost to the Town, j} While it is acknowledged tY*t the proposed land obligation will in reality be passed on by their developer to the eventual residential buyer or.'renter;; it is felt that the additional need for such sites is directly attributable to the new develops iont and consequently it is reasonable that it should assume at least sotAe !Qf tie.burden for providing these facilities`. ,' �• is t. i , '' JP !p .n f Throughout the Uht,tgd'State�,"there has existed in recent years a wide variety of approaches ;brovzding for mandatory dedication of,eert�I land for public paxll_.s,'`recrba:tion areas, and open spaces. 'Therq are • " also a significant a �Z iber of localities which allow an equivalent fee ,in . lieu of such dedication: Information regarding a number of .the;'sb a regulations was cdihpiled- and a brief summary of the approaches used by communities requiting fin equivalent fee is given in Table L ; Of" t particular interest are, the approaches being used in Scarsdale, New , York; Mequon and Zbmoriee Falls, Wisconsin; and Los Angeles County, I r• California. The P a ning;Commission of Scarsdale, New York; for example, requires',a a„condition of the subdivision plat that the applicant pay to the village "�R ainoun.t substantially equivalent to 10,per cent. of .the value before subdiui, ;ion, br .any equivalent combination of land or money. " l Mequon and Menoa 6Ao e:Fal'ls, Wisconsin; suburbs of Milwaukee, use essentially the sazxe;techriique. Land or a fee in the value of $200.00, j per subdivided lot 18.ias8essed, and is allocated 60 per cent for: schdol site acquisition and, Q0 per cent for park sites. ^' In addition these 'arclianc , ps provide a means for reservatiorl,.(,i°: e: it t acquiring a public opotential public sites for a period not to exceed three year4s� ` I f I It is obvious that rip :only are an ever increasing number of communities using some form of. 'the :rriandatory or equivalent fee technique, 'but that in the states where;; 'Y ere. a,,s: adequate statutory authority, the'cogrts f have upheld such ordinances "The following summary was made by the Joint Committee oz ontinUng Legal Education of the virginia State, Bar As in:,a;;r'ecerii study of zoning and land use planning:,. J; It would appear cl e� r that: the objectives of these required dedications,. t , are permissi'blb. andor the police power of the cities as, € activities clea'rly.in?o'rtant to the general welfare of the.. community. ,incb there is significant value left to the subdivider a= a isi6qe, the regulations are required to obtain the objectivey tiigh required dedication of parks, schools, and pl.aygro4�ds; would appear to avoid the barriers of 1 a+ confiscation.' In the s me view as do the requirements for streets, util`U6e ; and drainage easements. It would appear that y additional population resulting from annexation and subdivision pla'c`ds;.a :substantial burden upon the park and recreational �•,. facilities of the coxn�munity�; a means for providing such lands.,must be" found. a !` I. i.:b '�rj�': i4' `� �. •, is .' _ 2 A i =- _ _-y4 EXAMPLES OF FEES IN LIEU OF MANDATORY DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC USE ADOPTED BY VARIOUS CITIES Site Acquisition Unit on Which Dollar Value for Assessment is Based of Assessment Claremont, California Parks Lot 35.00 Colorado Springs, Colorado Parks Land value oI net area - 5% r TVrre Californiaaxs-Afire r, x 'x - Menomonee Fills, liscansin. -_ .. .. ..;-.. chpol ,&,Parks Residential : Lat ` ..:::ram - _ 20b, , Mequon, Wisconsin Schools & Parks residential Lot:--,- 200.00 ' ' Merced, California Parks Acre (gross) 100.00 Modesto, California Parks Acre (net) 100.00 " Monterey Park, California Parks Lot 25.00 Santa Clara, California Parks Residential Unit 20.00 Scarsdale, New York Parks Land value of gross area before 10% subdivision i� f' tr f ,4 it ,f'J,j Although it is not (i^'e�l stie tt try to measure accurately the actu ,r needs for park, r j�,re�ti6a:and open space facilities, as sofn� p sons. 9 probably never useiptibli�' park or recreational facilities, wEile .other' make extensive uSo d. ' p . Certain desirable standards Have been :* established, howeVbif,r by such agencies as the National Recreation Association. Thi$ g2bvp,recp7 emends the following standards fps par s and recreation needs TABLE 11AP ,.I Acres Per Tyne of Area Population Minimum;.ize of she Playgrounds ; F ' ` ' M 1. 5 2 acres-., ' F ,,..', ;';, ', �?�'�• Neighborhood Parrs ,. 2.0 5=acres ` Playfields �- " 1.5 10 acres } Community Parisi ('' 3.5 40 acres F. It would therefore, ei 11 re asonable that a provision of 5 acres of land" per 1, 000 popul.atign could ae considered a reasonable objective , .This; p i would fulfill the de i alale criteria for neighborhood park facilities; and r ;, provide for a party l achieVemgnt of the need for playground; ,pl yfiel s�; T:q. ,rt and community pack i48ili4bs N r .°q Possible Alternatx a + x There appear to bo"' S ast`four workable alternatives for'obta�,n1ng • P:�f:.r park and recreationands ipAVail. § 4 �1f Y ISIit idI'j, r 1, A flaV43 04r'ceqt.land dedication requirement; K '? afi.r •' S' 4 b ]i 2. Estabhbrit 6f a land dedication requirement on a:slidiAg f scale i��'.bc r-c.entages based on dwelling unit densities;, f AF 3. A flat Ondard of 5 acres per 1, 000 persons, or 4. A per-O lin,g unit fee, based upon the desirable,•' standafa} 5 acres per 1, 000 persons; the number' " .. of per!gons :to be 'accommodated; and a reasonable s raw land mice` ' An analysis of these fa .it.. Y ppro2aches suggests the following problems:'' .. _ +l r 1. The 5K�eron1 �deedication policy proves to be inequit�ble i wherel' 'ris t e,; are greater than 2. 5 units per acre,;. and • . lit r ` it will F�ot Aver[ provide one-half this amount of lid s u in are s' fuNO �deAsities are over 4. 5 units per'acre. i° d `Thus'e ,5, percept dedication requirement when. I.,a +� "' consic} r a. d th.'e,basis of, "created need" illustrates n that tY�, to st d nSity developments will provide" Mo M. than thp�irt;easonable share of park and recreatiop-lanc, ?"'t ` while lie;,M4h,4 densities will not come close to f. if ° the dee standard. f „ x ' t I i. 3 t I h r•' � � 2. The sl;dzncle technique would operate in a" mariner p_ it simil�J'''; : b,"tIw�6 percent requirement except thAtYae propotio of land required would increase as dwelling' '> unit A,;a. xn re ses. In evaluating this approac , an, to attem,pi Ikas.made, tp come as close as possible to ;,the achiev "erit, of b, L; res per thousand. However t is �€4 p s apparent frf3i -4ie figures shown in TABLE III that same cut-off,pd` t would have to be designated in ord.ef•.to void penalizqng<d.veopdrs of multiple units. ' ,0­ 1 R Two examples of.L�� sxof percentages are as follows: > . k TABLE N I .w Proposal A , y ��s For Developm�i with Densities:qvband Dedicatiorx:Reauired'." w ;! S. 5 units/acre or essd, ':;;`: '+ ., 4%of gross residen�;a.l..i nd' g a `{ r+ 3.6 to 11. 9 units/dbel ' f 6% if If t :. 12.0 units/acre AmaT ,�, 8% n „ n3 0 ,r' " �� Pfbposal B 1. Alt it 1 ` a t yl ar' ,., 3. 5 units/acre or, p88 ' _ 476 of gross residential, khd area :.. ,4, 3. 6 to �. 0 units/a' . £ ;; 6�'0 „ „ „" . q; 4s�':. ra;� 7. 1 to 11.9 units,i, s r t. a�•° 12. 0 units/acre, ov",mox(� Ii, a �H'f' Table III on the prgc' bdi`>g ge illustrates the comparison betawean lh4 slidin scale re u r en ` g q ' he is*, the 5 percent requirement, and the{ five acres per thous -_rpgpreznen4.1 t. ,' �: ,r:,; I'k� The sliding scale f&Miqui� st11�1 does not provide five acres of l tl per. thousand persons Q `t ensities' over 12 units per acre. Its maihl;draw: fiba if. r F is the per -unit co i f his requirement to the developer. For examp'e';`3 a developer of of 33 units per acre could be, ftgWred. to - absorb a per unitagd i�hA7c would be two to three times the peg° unat cost incurrrd. by ty!*�� Fleye16P& of land at 2. 5 to 3 units per acret',; • :F d ! a `I: i ` I Rr I � $'•.' F,dr lb,', .;F1 a :;t , t - ;iec T -t, S araP "4} 3, The r ufre-l:lent:of land dedication of five acres per `i• Lit a fairly high de d k . L:ai :�•,q`�'y!" N thousaid pegs s!'represerits gree egiy I', M from t °p ITI OWn's standpoint. It's chief advantage y - tthat it is a al c tYe ©.,a;ll types of residential developmi ; in that, thd mo�u4�t"nf land dedication is based ex'lcat7yr ! " k on the:dgilna�d %hi can be expected from each new dwe -Iinc f unit wldkl add to the Town total. ' In practice, this p 4�6-81 dye not be as feasible as it appear; ir�ee lit`E r, results in an unre06T.Able do4iscation of land from the high density;' A Alf. developer. As an iq$aji bl , :.thy developer of 3 units per acre ro �;.. � *� j required to dela ; p ;cent of his land for park purpose�a t hil tie, isL 1 M. rtrE+I? developer at 22 urn f u aexe ;would require 21. 4 percent dedicatiyn.A and - the developer of 50s pax acre 38. 5 percent of his land uc xe um T`{ ? i " are not reasonably,' ��S<��ch,an approach could foreseeably E`er ul� in � � !" per -unit cost to tlirht;deiit developer as much as six to eigli�t;t�xniw .aj the per -unit cost o s n )e r;1 w density units. = i � L:F+ p M�; ' - �` , 4. Perhaps E ne cad thei,simplest approaches, based u� bb iand;� costs,�j f� Jzl4lt1 standards, and population delis t est �s qw+► , ` s the us f r, rpeeific fee per dwelling unit. This 'peach, P' is pre �c.i cil•er, he following points: i "> " (a) ReS��de`ntl�l�4nd:values in Vail have been avera $15, 000 per acre. A partlo_lay unigtfWg4 1 may at times be more costly, b4-t,aA' a gfie °l ;rul the $10, 000 - $15, 000 should�p'�la # a r () If laid � .f a b9 ekiquired i n the determined amUm of 5 ad*'e pet (hnusand people, at least $50,000 q at be - ,a , coll±oc��kkdr every additional 1, 000 persons 1it�, pop af�ptl d i' ity based on 2. 5 people per m)Zlt iple u3 t ande, � t�a13 o erper single-family unit (avera4e d.l'd fro Wav c ns•us figures), it would be necesSan takf e d obt a` ee+ f $424. 00 from each multiple unitjp'h ;APID,r each single- family unit. An ave. age #, �fl" �. figii7e p $lt. OQ could easily be applied to eaciu't:. bui��grdless of the type, in order to mag the'"ggE`= {1 5ry 1' " cor��n(but�orE'egCzAtable. The Town could them t' 0tYzet; � fun. k M&.P1X chase available land in the area o deA dIp4ieitt Poijher from the developer or oth i , k. X ' or. ��$tJ¢ ,ct option on land which might hav�xben rest Ekll'L a 4&arlier date for park and recr . y < + k pur N ,1 �f sue' S r , }} a L P 'aid a y 1' w au ! sI rtEYfjf .Y'S E ; i 4 �!' I ��t - 1• I Ek P{ 7 k i u - 6 - �( rY' 1'I • • IL � y �f 5� f y :: } ,, a 3 { A 4 d I g I: 6 1 N F: This method seer of mandatory ded site planning can position to reser, then obtain it at t developer on noti before he begins recognizes create of the ultimate dv of such a fee and The procedure ws the flexibility to : cost per unit wou These dedication of Trustees, unde 1. When have 2. A ded 0 #iber of advantages over oth Reriod first place, better park aieto the factthat the Town of time at a particular. ruent begins. Secondly, it -I at will be required of him.s Finallythe flat fee per , p uni ;plies equally to all units, .r#t it'ity involved. Tn addition, ;it ,;Joccounting would be relativ annual review of prevailing., percent of the total unit e t,,!Nereof, could be waived b�Rlj circumstances:' , A recreational and park ar( y the developer or subdiv" f viously been made. & M • May 12, 1969 TO: THE VAIL BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: CHIEF HOLMES RE: MUNICIPAL JUDGE -'or a period of four or five weeks during May and June of, this year, our Municipal Judge will be away on Vacation. It is requested that the Town appoint Judge Gerrard of the. Eagle County Court as an alternate judge for the Town to take care of Ordinance Violations during Judge Brofos' absence, Judge Gerrard had agreed to fill this position. It is further recommended that Judge Gerrard be paid $25. 00 for each session he holds of the Vail Municipal Court, t� P n5 TO: THE VAIL PLANNING CONMISSION, TOWN OF VAIL r FROM: THE VAIL BOARD OIL . TRUSTEES , SUBJECT: PROPOSED-VAIL ZONING ORDINANCE :DATE: May 15, 1969 Gentlemen: kw On March 181 1969,•the Vail Plainning Commission 'submitted �,'`to the Vail Board of Trustees its report in regard to the proposed Vail Zoning Ordinance. Since the Commission submitted its report the Board of Tr4stees has; :given the proposed ordinance. additional study, and, during.t4e;course of several meetings open to the pub- lic, has racoived 'public reaction in r::spect thereto. As a result of its study, apd\of many valuable suggestions received from the public, the Board of'Trustees has adopted the following changes, deletions and add );ions from and in respect to the draft ordinance ' `~submitted by the Planning Commission on March 18th: Pry ARTICLE I { r' SECTION 5. Definitions " Accommodation ,t hit - changed ' Alteration-:cchanged Apartment - added Arena - added - Business Offilce added Convention Facility - added Condominium -deleted Condominium, Full- Service - deleted Dwelling - added Dwelling, Multi -Family - changed Floor Area - 'changed,' Floor Area Ra-t4o - changed Motel - changed- Open'Space - deleted.. Park - added " Playground - added Professional QI.fice changed W; Public Transportation Terminal - added Recreation Center,'ddded *•j Service Court -:deleted Structure - added - " Studio - added, Use, Conditional_ =.hanged ,.� Yard, - changed:" I ARTICLE II. ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 1. Residential {a} Ussa Permitted Conditional uses Public and Private recreational 'facilities - deleted r ", Recreation Centers - added • (b) Regulationa (1) Minimum lot area reduced from 12,000 square feet to 101000 square feet. Side and rear setback require- j ment eliminated where side and/or rear of lot abuts on Forest Service land. Section 2. Multi Familv (a) Uses Permitted (3) Conditional Uses: Added: Hospitals, Recteation Centers, Playgrounds and Business Offices. i Deleted:Public and Private Recreation Facilities, rublic Transportation Facilities. • ( b ) Rr,gulations. (1) Sid e and rear setback requirement eliminated where side and/or rear of lot abuts on Forest Service land (2) floor area ratio changed from 0.50:1 to 0.75:1. Section 3. High Density Multi-Familv District (a) Uses Permitted (1) Uses by Right added: Professional , service and business offices and studios, Recreation Centers, Libraries, Art Galleries and museums, Private Clubs, Parks and Playgrounds. (3) Conditional Uses added: hospitals, conventions.:, faeilites, commercial parking facilities, including structures and ldz, arenas, bowling alleys; i deleted: assembly halls, service and business offices, public and private recreational facilities, i private clubs, parks. (b) Regulations (1) side and rear setback requirement deleted (2) floor area ratio changed from 1:00:1 to 1.50:1. Credit added for arcades and malls. (ly) off-street loading requirement added Section 4 rublic :Accommodations District (a) Uses Permitted (1).Upes by Right added: single-family and two-family dwelling structw es; P�O'fes.sional, service and business offices r, t� -2- ,I. 41, C i ' and studios, recreations aters, libraries, art galleries acid museums, private c1-ubs;`beparks and playgrounds. t T. r (t) conditional Uses i. added: conventional facilities, com- ., mercial parking fadi-iities., ::bowling alleys and arenas ` deleted: civic office buildings,` private clubs, professional offices, public and private recreational fac3.1 ta;d's .parks (b) Rer'ulatioz s '(1) side and rear setback requirement deleted } {) credit added for arcades and malls 4 Y' t' Section 5. Co4merc'ial Core District (a)Uses Permitted f (1) Uses by Right n - < HfiE'' A.d.ded: multi -family dwelling; strtt.ct+tres, a motels, recreation,centers'.libraries, art galleries and museums;., private clubs arks i and .playgrounds. P , p Conditional uses _'1;• it (' 4 x. `•gklm b,.,�...� '''•'p.•...'' 'added: convention facilities arenas,-� banks, post offices r' :deleted: public and private phiian- ;: k ;_,,thropic institutionsy;pri?vate clubs, parks, public and private �. art galleries, museums. ! (b) Regulations I added. credit for malls and arcades {1})-off-street loading requirement deleted Section bo Commercial Service Center (a) Us'esPermitted Us'e's by Right + !� ; , L ''added. commercial storage facilties, ti `theaters and convention -'facilities, profession, service and =i'" •' I • .�.,sbusiness offices, 'studios, multi -family dwelling structures, ; recreation centers,` aibraries, art galleries and museums, 1 private clubs, parks ,and. playgrounds, bowling alleys. .:, -3 - i • (9) Conditonal Uses. added: commercial parking facilities, commercial laundries • deleted: public and private recreational facilities, private clubs, parks (b) Regulations (1) rear, and side yard setback requirement deleted (2) floor area ratio changed from 1:00:1 to 1:50:1. Credit added for arcades and malls. Section 7. Heavy Service District (a) Uses Permitted (1) Use by Right added: multi -family dwelling structures, bowling alleys, bakeries, restaurants, professional, service and business offices and studios, greenhouses, public utility and public service structures and installations, public transporta- tion terminals. (2) accessory uses deleted: apartments appurtenant to the principle use, incidental and accessory thereto, and necessary fort he operation thereof. (3) Conditional Uses added none deleted: public utility, public service structures and installations, public transportation facilities. (b) Regulations (2) floor area ratio changed ffom 0.50:1 to 1450: 1 . Credit added for malls and arcades. Section 8. Agricultural (b) Regulations (1) minimum lot size changed from 20,000 square feet to 2 acres. - 4 - ARTICLE III. SUPPLf,MENTARX REGULATIONS Section 1. Accessory Uses (a) provision added exempting fences, hedges and walls and unenclosed parking from setback requirements Section 2. Off Street Parking and Loading (d) provision added authorizing off -site parking lots; provision added requiring parking lot aisles; provision prohibit- ing parking areas within required yards deleted Section .3. Schedule of Off Street Parking and LoadinF_ Require- ments (a) Minimum space requirements: space reequirements reduced for public accomodations, hotels, motels and lodges; medical and dental clinics; retail shops; public, commercial and professional officv,s and banks; space requirement added for restaurants and bars; method of calculating space requirements for churches, theaters etc. changed. ARTICLE IV. ,EXCEPTIONS Section 2. Conditional Use Permits (f) deleted: requirement that conditonal use con- form to setback, building size, lot size and FAR regulations prescribed by ordinance for district in which Vr is located. Section 4. Planned Unit Development (a) added: FAR credit for malls and arcades. ARTICLE VI. NON-GO14FOMSING USES AND STRUCTURES Suction 5. Change of Use, added. Provision exempting from prohibition on change of use the relocation on the same lot of a parking space or the enlargement of a parking space. In a meeting of the Board of Trustees to be held at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, May 15th, at Manor Vail, the Board will. again consider adoption of the ordinance in the form submitted by the Planning Commission as amended above. It would be of value to the Board to receive commentn of the Planning Commission in re- spect to the amendments aforementioned and it would be appreciated if members of the Planning Commission would plan to attend the meeting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF VAIL - 5 - El MINUTES OF THE MEETING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL MEETING AS THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY 12, 1969 Mayor Dobson called the Meeting of the Board of Trustees acting in the capacity of the Local Liquor Licensing Authority to Order at 8:10 P. M. , Monday, May 12, 1969, in the Jim Bridger Room at Manor Vail. ROLL CALL: Roll Call found the following Members present: John Dobson Joseph Langmaid C. E. Kindel John Donovan Richard Bailey T. I. Steinberg Absent: John Kaemmer Attorney for the Town, Larry Robinson, reviewed the liquor license application for the Gallery which was before the Board for transfer to new owners. Mr. �. Robinson recommended transfer of the license be approved and introduced Mr. Richard Easeman, Attorney for the new owners of the Gallery. Mr. Easeman asked the Board to transfer the license to the purchasers of the Gallery who were presently in Seattle. He stated they owned restaurants in Sun Valley and would operate essentially a steak house in Vail. John Dupres, one of the new owners, was present. He stated a lease had been negotiated with the Gallery but had not yet been signed; however, an agreement had been reached on the details of the transfer. Mr. Dupres indicated his plans for the restaurant. He stated. it would be very much like the Cork 'N Cleaver in Denver and would be run somewhat like the restaurant he now owned in Seattle. He presented. a Seattle magazine to the Board showing his broiler and broiler chef at work in his Seattle operation. He also presented the menu used at his Sun Valley restaurant. Trustee Kindel asked if Mr. Dupres was familiar with the Colorado liquor laws and asked how they significantly differ from those under which he was now operating. Mr. Dupres stated he felt the Colorado liquor laws to be much more liberal; i. e. , in Washington, ladies cannot sit at the bar; persons must not see the bar from the restaurant, etc. Trustee Kindel asked if Mr. Dupres had had. any problem with proof of age and i. d. 's. Mr. Dupres stated he required three pieces of identification and had never been given warnings of any sort. They are especially careful at vacation times. A question was raised as to how many directors were to be listed in the Colorado Corporation. There were to be three. Trustee Donovan asked how the specific floor plan complied with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dupres reviewed it again and said he would not need as many feet as were allowed. He stated he hoped to open the Gallery this summer, in about 45 days. Larry Robinson stated Mr. Dupres had had his fingerprints taken that day by the Vail Police Department, but that the other owners still had this to do. Should the Board approve the transfer, it should be done with the stipulation that this be done. Mr. Langmaid made a Motion that a transfer of the Gallery license be given the new owners with the understanding that all members be fingerprinted in compliance with the State Liquor provision. It was seconded by Mr. Donovan. The Board adjourned as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority at 8:30 P. M. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A ) BEER, WINE, AND SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR LICENSE ) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S FINAL DETERMINATION By: LANCELOT INC., ) (DD No. L-5) Applicant. ) Hearing was held before John H. Heckers, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, and the State Licensing Authority of the Liquor Enforcement Division for the State of Colorado, in the 0 State Capitol Annex Building, Denver, Colorado, at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 1969. The applicant appeared by its attorney, STEWART H. BROWN, Esq.; opponents appeared by their attorney WILLIAM C. JENSEN, Esq.; and the Department of Revenue by CHRIS J. FLIOPULOS, Esq,, Legal Staff Counsel. FINDINGS OF.FACT 1. Applicant is a corporation, incorporated under the laws 1 of the State of Colorado, and is and has been doing business as a restaurant in Vail, Colorado. 2. Upon application, hearing was held before the Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail on the 25th day of November, 1968, and said application for a hotel, restaurant and liquor license was approved subject -to the approval or disapproval of the State Licensing Authority. 3. Persons signing petitions and letters received by the State Licensing Authority favoring the granting of the license number 203. Persons signing letters and petitions opposing the granting of the license are 8 in number. 4. Premises for which application was made is numbered as Tract A, Blk. 5B, lst filing, located on Gore Creek Drive just west of Bridge Street, Aspen, Colorado. 5. Proper application was made by the applicants and all other procedural prerequisites to bringing this matter to hearing were properly satisfied, including adequate, timely, and sufficient notice of the hearing. 6. Prior to hearing, applicants made formal requests for subpoenas to issue requiring certain Vail businesses to appear at the hearing, and further asking for each to bring extensive business financial records and documents. Subpoenas were issued and motion made to Quash Subpoenas was filed. 7. Applicants moved that the hearing be dismissed upon several grounds, including that the State Licensing Authority did not have the authority to hold a hearing; that said hearing was a • review of the action of the Local Licensing Authority and such review was a prerogative of the courts and not of an administrative agency; that the state has been granted legislative or investigatory powers only and not adjudicatory power; and that the State Licensing Author- ity was void of any power whatsoever to deny a license when the local authority has acted upon such application. ISSUES 1. Does the Executive Director have the authority to issue subpoenas. 2. Does the State Licensing Authority have the power and authority to hold a hearing and grant or deny a state liquor license. 3. What are the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants as shown by the evidence. DETERMINATION DOES THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS Provisions in the Colorado Liquor Code in regard to subpoenas state as follows: CRS 163, 75-2-6. Duties of licensing authority. - "(4) To hear and determine at public hearing, all.. -2- complaints against any licensee and to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and production of papers, books and records necessary to the determination of any hear- ing so held." CRS 163, 75-2-11. Suspension and revocation. - "(1) *** Any licensing authority shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and the production of papers, books, and records necessary to the deter- mination of any hearing which the licensing authority is authorized to conduct." Although these provisions of the statute do not directly con- cern themselves with hearings on application for a license, it would necessarily follow that if such power to issue subpoenas exists upon hearing of complaints, suspensions, and revocations, the same power would exist in the case of the issuance or nonissuance of a license • upon an original application. Additional evidence for this authority to issue subpoenas appears in the Administrative Code of Colorado at CRS '63, 3-16-4(4) wherein it is stated: "Any presiding officer shall have authority to: *** sign and issue subpoenas ***" Accordingly, it is ruled that the Executive Director of the I Department of Revenue as the State Licensing Authority does have the power to issue subpoenas. However, the Motion to Quash Subpoenas was granted in the • instant case upon the following grounds: (1) The production of books and records in Denver of an operating business in 'Vail, Colorado, during a peak seasonal time was an undue burden, and (2) The evidence to be obtained from the books and records was not material to the determination to be made. „That the question of the economic success or failure of an existing business, and the effect which an additional license might have upon similar existing . outlets is not a basic element needed to make a determination of needs of the neighborhood and desires of the inhabitants. • -3- Accordingly, it was ruled that the subpoenas be quashed and that no evidence concerning the issue of economic success or failure be offered during the hearing. DOES THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY HAVE THE POWER, AND AUTHORITY TO HOLD A HEARING AND GRANT OR DENY A STATE LIQUOR LICENSE Argument was made by the applicant that when an application for a liquor license is made at the local level and such application is approved, the State Licensing Authority has no authority to grant or deny a license, nor in fact does it have any authority to act on the application. This basic philosophic premise has been presented before to the State Licensing Authority. With such a premise the • State Licensing Authority must disagree. In an effort to clearly sum up the State's position, a com- plete review of the historic and statutory background and sequence of events is warranted. Chapter 75, Article 2 of the Colorado statutes was passed into I law in the year 1935. At that time the law contained about 36 sections and was entitled "The Liquor Code of 1935." (See CRS 163, 75-2-36) In examining the first 36 sections of the Liquor Code, we find.the following sections that are an existing part of the law today; 0 '0 75-2-1. Exercise of police powers. - "This article shall be deemed an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the economic and social welfare, the health and peace and morals of the people of this state ***." (emphasis supplied) CRS 163, 75-2-3. Unlawful Acts, states as follows: "(S)(a) *** but it shall be unlawful to sell any malt, vinous or spirituous liquor at any place until permission so to do shall be granted by all the licensing authorities herein provided fora (emphasis supplied) 11(8)(b) in permitting such change of location such licensing authorities shall consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood *** CRS 163, 75-2-4. Definitions, states as follows: 11(13) Liquor licensed drug store means any drug store *** which has been granted a license by the state licensing authority to sell malt, vinous and spirituous liquors *** (emphasis supplied) -4- 7 CRS '63, 75-2-5. Regulation and control of licensing, states: "For the purpose of regulation and controlling the licensing of the manufacture and sale of malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors, thereis hereby created the state licensing authority. (emphasis supplied) CRS 163, 75-2-6. Duties of licensing authority, states as follows: "(1) The Executive Director of the Depart- ment of Revenue shall be the executive in charge of the enforcement of the terms and provisions of this article, and as the state licensing authority, his duties shall be as follows: 11(2) To grant or refuse licenses for the manufacture and sale of malt, vinous and spirituous liquors, as pro- vided fox by law, and to suspend or revoke such licenses upon a violation of any law or any rule or regulation adopted by him in compliance with this article (emphasis supplied) 11(3)(a) To make such general rules and regulations and such special rulings and findings as he may deem neces- sary for the proper regulations and control of the manufacture, sale and distribution of malt, vinous or spirituous liquors and the enforcement of this article, in addition thereto, and not inconsistent therewith, and may alter, amend, repeal and publish the same from time to time. (emphasis supplied) "(b) And not by way of limitation such rules and regula- tions may cover the following subjects: Compliance with, enforcement or violation of any law, rule or regulation; specifications of duties of officers and employees under him; instructions for other licensing authorities and law enforcing officers; all forms necessary or convenient in the administration of this article; inspections, in- vestigations, searches, seizures and such activities as may become necessary from time to time; sales on credit; limitation of number of licensees as to any area or vicinity; misrepresentation; unfair practices; unfair competition; control of signs and other displays on licensed premises; use of screens; identification of licensees and their employees; storage; warehouses; trans- portation; health and sanitary requirements; standards of cleanliness; orderliness and decency; sampling and anal- ysis of products; standards of purity and labeling; records to be kept by licensees and availability thereof; practices unduly designed to increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages; and such other matters whatsoever as he may deem necessary for the fair, impartial, stringent and compre- hensive administration of this article, but nothing herein shall be construed as delegating unto the licensing author- ity the power to fix prices. The licensing authority shall make no rule which would abridge the right of any licensee to fairly, honestly and lawfully advertise the place of business of or the commodities sold by such licensee. All such rules shall be reasonable and just." (emphasis supplied) It is to be noted that nowhere in 75-2-6 is any limitation placed upon the power of the State Licensing Authority except in the area of fixing prices and the fair, honest and lawful advertising - 5- of a place of business or the commodities sold by such licensee. The broadest possible powers are placed in the Executive Director as the State Licensing Authority by the legislature. CRS '63, 75-2-7. Application for license, holds as follows: 11(1) Applications for licenses under the provisions of this article shall be made to the state licensing authority on forms prepared and furnished by the state licensing authority and shall set forth such information as the state licensing authority may require to enable the authority to determine whether a license should be granted. Such information shall include the name and address of the applicant, and if a partnership, also the names and addresses of all the partners, and if a corporation, association or other organization, also the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and managing officer or officers together with all other informa- tion deemed necessary by the licensing authority. Each application shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of such person or persons as the state • licensing authority may prescribe. (emphasis supplied) "(2) Before granting any license for which applica- tion has been made, the state licensing authority or one or more of its inspectors shall visit and inspect the plant or property in which the applicant proposes to conduct his business, and investigate the fitness to conduct such business of any person or the officers and directors of any corporation applying for a license. In granting licenses the state licensing authority shall consider the reasonable requirements of the -neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants as evidenced by petitions, remonsirances..or otherwise. (emphasis supplied) CRS' 63, 75-2-8. Refusal of license, states: "(1) The state licensing authority shall refuse a state license if the premises on which the applicant proposes to conduct its business do not meet the requirements of this article, or if the character of the applicant or its officers or directors is such that violations of this • article would be likely to result if a license were granted, or if in its opinion licenses already granted for the particular locality are adequate for the reason- able needs of the community. (emphasis supplied) "(2) Upon written demand by an applicant who has been refused a state license said licensing authority shall state in writing its reason for such refusal. The refusal of said licensing authority to grant a state license according to this article may be reviewed upon application for writ of certiorari or otherwise, by any court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction of the place for which the application for license was made, and if such court shall determine that such action was capricious or arbitrary it shall order said state licen- sing authority to issue such license. (emphasis supplied) "(3) Each licensee shall keep a complete set of books of account, invoices, copies of orders, shipping instruc- tions, bills of lading, weigh bills, correspondence and all other records necessary to show fully the business • transactions of such licensee, all of which shall be open -6- 771 at all times during business hours for the inspection and examination of said state licensing authority or its duly authorized representatives, the state licen- sing authority may require any licensee to furnish such information as it may consider necessary for the proper administration of this article ***.�f (emphasis supplied) Section 8 can hardly be construed to be ambiguous or in any way intended to detract from the State Licensing Authority's power to refuse a license. More clear and unambiguous language cannot be found. CRS 163, 75-2--9. License issued, states in part: 11(3) *** Credit shall be given for the unexpired portion of any existing state license." Section 9, although depended upon by applicant, contains a very clear and succinct reference to state licenses as quoted above. This again clearly shows the legislative intent that there shall be two licenses, local and state, with full authority in the state to grant or deny a state license. CRS 163, 75-2-16. Classes of licenses, states as follows: "(1) For the purpose of regulating the manufacture and sale of malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, the state licensing authority in its discretion, upon application in the prescribed form made to it, may issue and grant to the applicant a license to manufacture, rectify or sell malt, vinous and spirituous liquors of the fol- lowing classes, subject to the provisions and restric- tions of manufacture and sale as to manner, place and license fee and as otherwise provided by this article: (emphasis supplied) "(2) Manufacturer's liquor license; (3) Wholesaler's liquor license; (4) Wholesaler's beer license; (5) Retail liquor store license; (6) Liquor licensed drug store; (7) Beer and Wine license; (8) Hotel and restaurant license; (9) Club license." Applicant, in his argument, contends that the state has power to grant Cw refuse a manufacturer's license and a wholesaler's license but no other. This argument would again attribute to the legislature a capricious act contrary to all legislative interpretation and would. hold that by the enactment of Sections 38 through 43, the legislature did, without amendment or modification of Section 16 (supra), repeal the State's right to issue or deny all liquor licenses. Such repeal must be specific; it cannot be inferred. -7- The statute as set forth by the legislature in Section 16 is in effect as it always has been • and the State's authority, in its discretion to issue and grant licenses, must of necessity apply as the legislature intended, to all categories listed in Section 16. If any question exists as to the requirement for a state license and the authority to issue the same by the state, it is noted that a payment is required to be paid to the state for a state license. These requirements for fees for each separate type of license are set forth in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. As remote as it may appear to applicant, it is abundantly clear to the State Licensing Authority that the legislature would not require a state •license fee if there was no authority in the state to issue such a f: license. CRS '63, 75-2-24. Contents - display - renewal, states in part: "*** Neither the county authorities of any county, nor the officers of any municipality shall issue, transfer location or renew any license to sell any malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, until the person applying therefor shall produce a license issued and granted by the state licensing authority covering the whole period for which a license or renewal thereof is asked." (emphasis supplied) If any confusion or ambiguity in the language and intent of the legislature exists in any part of the Liquor Code, such confusion and ambiguity should be clearly erased when reading the above -cited section. The language used by the legislature again supports the contention that it is the State Licensing Authority's power, under the police power granted to the state, to issue a license. An applicant has no standing to be granted a license as,a matter of right, and the issuance of such a license is a privilege granted by the state. Schwartz v. People, 46 Colo. 239, 164 P. 92; Pinzino v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 334 S.W. 2d 20. . In July, 1963, the legislature passed Sections 38 through 44 of the Liquor Code. It is to be noted that at this time the legislature did not amend, revise or repeal any of the existing sections excep- ting 75-2-10. Historically, prior to 1963, the State Licensing Authority •in some instances issued a state license upon application by an individual which individual was subsequently refused a_license by the local licensing authority. This action resulted in a multiplic- ity of actions, the cancelling out of the issuance of a state license, the refunding of fees, and clarifying of state funds. In an effort to provide an orderly process and permit the local authorities to first approve or disapprove an application for a license, the State Licensing Authority enacted Regulation 16(A) which reads as follows: "Subject: Instructions and recommendations to local licensing authorities. A. Licensing authorities of cities, towns, . counties, and cities and counties are requested to cooperate with the State Licensing Authority in the administration and enforcement of laws and regulations governing the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors. To this end, they are required to furnish the Executive Director, Department of Revenue their opinion concerning the desires of the inhabitants and the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood in which a licen- see or applicant proposes to conduct his business, the character and reputation of the licensee or applicant, and other pertinent matters, and to indicate their approval -or disapproval of the issuance of a license or permit to change location upon each application." The Regulation worked effectively and upon implementation the .local authorities for many years acted upon state liquor license applications, which forms were supplied by the state. The local authority would then note its approval or disapproval of a license on this form and submit it to the State Licensing Authority. Regulation 16(A), prior to 1963, was never intended to nor did it replace or depreciate the authority of the state to grant or deny a liquor license as provided by statute. The regulation was an effort by the State Licensing Authority to implement a cooperative methodology between state and local officials for control of liquor licenses. But many applicants, when refused approval by the local authority, challenged such action in the courts upon the basis that there was no statutory authority for the local authorities to deny upon applications made to the State Licensing Authority on state forms. -g- As a result of this situation, the legislature in 1963 enacted what is now contained in Sections 38 to 43. A careful reading of these sections of the statute will clearly indicate that the legislature in this enactment did not intend, any more than did the State Licensing Authority by Regulation 16(A), to substitute authorities or depreciate in any way the State Licensing Authority's power for the issuance of state liquor licenses, but merely imple- mented by statute the authority for prior consideration by the local officials on the application for a state license. Counsel's contention is that after the 1963 enactment the State Licensing Authority merely became a rubber stamp on applica- tions prepared by it for the issuance of its license after the local . authority had taken action in connection therewith. An examination of Sections 38 to 43 is now important. CRS 163, 75-2-38(1), states as follows: "After the effective date of this section, any provisions of this article to the contrary not- withstanding, the state licensing authority shall not grant or issue any 'new licenses', as defined in subsection k2).of this section, for the classes of licenses as specified in said subsection until the local licensing authority has approved tiTe "~' application as provided in Sections 15-2-38 to 75-2-43." (emphasis supplied) This provision clearly provides that when the local author- ity refuses to approve an application for a state license that the State Licensing Authority shall not override such refusal and grant • a state license to that applicant at that location. This section implements by statutory enactment the provisions of Regulation 16(A). There is no specific language in Section 38, nor in the fol- lowing sections that void the State Licensing Authority's power to grant or deny a license. CRS 163, 75-2-40(1), reads as follows: "An application for any new license specified in section 75-2-38(2)(d) shall be filed with the appropriate local licensing authority on forms provided by the state licensing authority and con- taining such information as the state licensing authority may require. Each application shall be verified by oath or affirmation of such person or persons as prescribed by the state licensing authority." MOM M This section requires all applications for liquor licenses to be made on state forms drafted by the State Licensing Authority. CRS 163, 75-2-42, reads in part as follows: 11(3) Any decision of a local licensing author- ity approving or denying an application shall be in writing stating the reasons therefor within thirty days after the date of the public hearing, and a copy of such decision shall be sent by cer- tified mail to the applicant at the address as shown in the application. (emphasis supplied) "(5) After approval of any application, the local licensing authority shall notify the state licensing authority of such approval, who shall investigate and either approve or disapprove such application." (emphasis supplied) Section 42 contains specific language granting the State Licensing Authority the power to approve or disapprove a license after the local authority has approved an application. This section continually refers to approval of an application; it does not state that after approval the local authority shall grant a license. How a capricious act can be attributed to the legislature by applicant in stating that the language of Section 42 did not in- tend to retain at the state level the authority to approve or dis- approve an application for liquor licenses in the State of Colorado. is beyond the concept of this hearing officer. It is a well founded rule of law that in interpreting legis- lative action and enactments the entire context of the subject must -. be read with a reasonable and plausible relationship between each of the sections contained in the over-all Act. It is also well founded that where existing law is amended or modified by the addition of new sections, the presumption exists that the legislators in enact-. ing such amendment or modification reviewed the entire article or chapter of'existing law to which such amendments have been made. The argument of counsel challenging the power of the State Licensing Authority to issue or reject licenses and to hold hearings in con- nection therewith cannot be logically supported when both rules of law are applied and the statute analyzed in its entirety. Reading all of the statutory provisions and analyzing the historic background of regulations and statutory enactments, the hearing officer is compelled to the conclusion that the argument .of counsel, challenging the authority and power of the State Licensing Authority, is a spurious one with no basis in fact, in the statutes, or the case law cited in connection therewith and must be denied. The statutes clearly confer upon the State Licensing Authority full, broad, and complete powers and authority for the enforcement and administration of the entire article, including the issuance, reissuance, granting, denying, suspension, revocation, and summary suspension of licenses and all other matters in connec- tion with all liquor licenses in the State of Colorado; notwithstan- 0 ding the provisions of the 163 Act and the arguments presented by applicant in connection therewith, and the cases cited in support of its contention. Accordingly, all motions for dismissal of the hear- ing and other motions based upon the State's authority to hold a hear- ing presented by applicant throughout the hearing were are are hereby denied. Additional comment is not re uired' th t' d 11 q on a ques zon raise y counsel of whether such hearing was legislative, investigatory, or judicatory. Ample comment and statutory references are set forth above to indicate that the hearing was not a review of a local licensing authority's action although, by statute, the local record I may be considered as part of the evidence by the State Licensing Authority. Such hearing was under the proper authority of the Liquor Code and is a combination of legislative and investigatory powers and is not to be considered as a judicial function, usurping the power of the judicial branch of government nor in any ccntext a judicial. review of a local authority's actions. WHAT ARE THE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DESIRES OF THE INHABITANTS AS SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE Upon consideration, study, and examination of the transcript • of the hearing before the State Licensing Authority; the transcript -12- . � I of the hearing before the Town Board of Trustees of•the Town of Vail; the reports of the State Liquor Inspectors; a visit and inspection in the Town of Vail by the State Licensing Authority; the petitions and letters of the inhabitants; and having fully considered the record and being advised in the premises, the State Licensing Authority makes the following findings and conclusions; That the desires of the inhabitants as evidenced by petitions, remonstrances, and otherwise are weighed heavily in favor of the granting of a license. This desire is evidenced by the receipt of numerous petitions and letters favoring the issuance of a license to the applicant. It is noted that persons opposing the granting of a license were less than ten in number and the majority of whom are licensees of existing outlets. Further that the reasonable requirements of the neighbor- hood show a need for this license. The existence of the desire by a sizable group of residents in the neighborhood for the license in the instant application is some evidence that the reasonable require- ments are not being met. See Anderson v. Spencer, 162 Colo. 328, 426 P.2d 970. i Although other determinations of other applications in. the same neighborhood are not controlling, nor should they be considered, some comment on another application is warranted. This hearing officer has taken administrative notice of editorials in a Vail newspaper, letters, and other utterances by residents and officials in the Town of Vail which make direct reference to the instant application and the application of Avanti Corporation for a liquor license in Vail. Upon this basis only a comment is now made to distinguish the determination made in the Avanti application. Circumstances existing at the time of the Avanti application differed materially from those existing at the time of the present application. The facilities proposed for licensing Avanti differed both as to -13- physical structure and type of operation. The evidence submitted • by Avanti showed a location in a residential area or proximity to a residential area, whereas the present applicant is located in the general business or commercial area of Vail. Avanti was substan- tially opposed by a number of resident property owners while in the instant application there was no such opposition. The capacity of the existing liquor outlets of a similar type have also changed at the time of the present application with the closing of the major part of the building of an existing outlet which was one of the larger establishments in Vail. Based upon the foregoing, it is determined that upon approval of the premises by the State Licensing Authority, or its . agents, a license for the sale of beer, wine and spirituous liquors shall be granted the applicant. Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of May, 1969. John If. `Heckers Executive Director Department of Revenue • -14-