The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980 Resolution No. 004' ••• • ,. • •• . . . ,., Rl-:SOLU1' ION NO. 4 !.i l ~IUl ~!:i UI·' l~UU A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF K.P.L., INC. FOR A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE LICENSE WITHIN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, K.P.L., INC., a Colorado corporation, has heretofore made application pursuant to the provisions of Article 47, Title 12, C.R.S. '73, as amended, for a Retail Liquor Store License to be located at Space KS-2815, Cinderella City Shopping Center, 701 w. Hampden Avenue, Englewood, Colorado; and WHEREAS, notice of said application and notice of public hearing thereon having been given, and the hearing having been conducted on the 14th day of January, 1980 before the City Council as the local licensening authority; and WHEREAS, all procedural requirements of the statute having been complied with: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: That based upon the application of K.P.L., INC. and the statements, testimony and exhibits received at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Englewood, as the local licensing authority, does hereby make and adopt the following findings and conclusions: 1. That the applicant, K.P.L., INC., is a tenant of Capital Alliance Corporation, as landlord, for store unit numbers KS-2815 and KS-2822, said lease having been entered into on or about October 1, 1979 for a term of ten years (see Exhibit A and Exhibit D, Standard Lease Agreement). 2. That the sole stockholder of K.P.L., INC., Mr. Arnold Kimmell, and all officers and directors of the corporation are of good character and reputation, none having been convicted of a felony or a crime within any court of the United States or within any court of record within any state or territory of the United States. 3. That all legal notices, publications and postings with reference to public hearing were proper and consistent with require- ments of Article 47, Title 12, C.R.S.'73, as amended. 4. That the City Council designated an area of two miles in radius as the "neighborhood" to be considered in either granting or denying the applicant's .request for the said Retail Liquor Store License • • • • • 5. Mr. Max Scott, President of Oedipus, Inc., 1200 Pearl ... Lrcct , nould c t:, Co l or:1d o , t e stified that h e was employed by the Ci t y to conduct a survey to determine the needs and desires of the r e side nts of the neighborhood. He submitted his report containing the method of petitioning and the statistical results of the survey City's Exhibit"B") and submitted five (5) petitions marked City's Ex hibits "C-1" through "C-5". The results of the Oedipus survey .r e vealed that 1,074 total contacts were attempted · and of that figure, 597 were not at home, but that 477 actual contacts were made within the defined neighborhood. Of the 477 actually contacted, 161, or 55 .71~, signed the petition stating that the needs and desires of the neighborhood were not met; 128, or 44.29 !~, signed in opposition sta ting that the needs and desir es of the neighborhood were met and s igned the petition against the is suance of the license. Of the 188 rema i ning contacts , 25 would not sig n any petition, 60 preferred Lo rem.:iin neutral, 39 indicaLe d they may have previously signed the petition, although Mr. Scott indicated this was unlikely, 29 were not qualified to sign the petition, 5 did not use alcohol, ~nd 22 gave misc e llaneous reasons for net sig ning either for or against (page 3 Ci ty's Exhibit "B''). Mr. Scott stated that the degree of acceptance for the appli cant appeared to diminish in those ar ea s closest to the location. 6. The applicant, K.P.L., INC., submitted numerous exhibits <l ncl peti tio n s . 'l'hc p c tj ti.on c n:> were generally divided into three uro u p s, one , the petition of residents of the designated neighborhood, Ile pet ition of business owners and managers within the neighborhood, and p atrons of C inderella City Sho pping Center. The following is the t~bu lation of pe tition s submitted by the applicant: APPLICAN'r Residents Business Owners, Managers Patrons Signatures 1,094 130 2,10 8 Valid. Signatures 963 130 2,108 Mr. Bill Alpert of New York City appeared before Council and tesified that he was an attorney practicing law in New York City and one of the owners of Cinderella City. He further testified that he felt there was a definite need at the Center in providing services for s h opping for food as well as liquor. The applicant further presented les tirnony from Mr. James Manager of the Cinderella City Complex , who testified as to the area, market area, gen~ral character- istics of the Center, its activity, and a description of the neighbor- hood location. The applicant called additional witnesses, including -2- • .. •• • . • • • '!' the Manager of the Joslins store at Cinderella City, who was also President of the Merchants Association, who indicated he favored the issuance of the license to the applicant. Mr. Lee Morrison, of Denver, appeared before Council and testified that he was the Market Analysis Respresentative for King Soopers, that King Soopers (the tenant immediately adjoining the applicant's premises on the east) had taken a neutral position in the matter of whether the license should or should not issue. ~ 7. Those appearing in opposition, through their attorney, Mr. Alan Dill, submitted opponents' exhibit, being marked Protestants' Exhibit "A" containing 3,188 signatures, of which 3,072 were valid signatures, in opposition to the issuance of the license and stating that the existing Retail Liquor Store outlets in the area, which consisted of fourteen (14) such package stores and one (1) Liquor License drug store, were sufficient and that the needs of the neigh- borhood were in fact being met by said existing liquor outlets. The opponents submitted the testimony of approximately thirty (30) individuals, who were either owners or residents of the neighbor- hood . as well as those who owned or operated competitive liquor stores, testified generally that the area was adequately served with existing package store licenses and that none, in addition, was needed. All testified that they had no difficulty in purchasing package liquor of their choice in the neighborhood as defined by Council • The City Council therefore finds and concludes from the state-· ments of witnesses and the exhibits and petitions presented at the hearing that the neighborhood, as defined by the City Council, con- tains fourteen (14) retail liquor store outlets within the City of Englewood and also a liquor license drugstore, (See City's exhibit and map defining neighborhood and location of existing outlets)1 that a majority of the residents within the neighborhood and the business owners and managers, approximately 3,072, opposed the issu- ance of the license on the basis that the neighborhood is adequately served by the existing outlets. The applicant presented 3,200 valid signatures supporting the issuance of the license, that two-thirds, or 2,108 of those signatures were those of patrons of Cinderella City Shopping Center, and City Council finds and concludes that it is bound by the statement of the Supreme Court in Canjar v. Huerta, 193 Colo. 388, 566 P.2d 1071(1977)tn which case the Supreme Court stated as follows: "In making a licensing decision, the relevant consideration is neither the needs of the applicant, nor even the desires of the patrons." Also citing Board of County Commissioners ~· Bova, 153 Colo. 230, 385 P.2d 590 (1963) • -3- • .. ~ • • • Consequently, the desires of the 2,108 patrons of Cinderella City may not be considered, so City Council concludes, under these circumstances, the vast majority of the residents of the neighbor- hood are opposed and do not desire the issuance of the license and that the existing similar licenses are adequate to serve the reason- able needs of the neighborhood. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 4th day of February, 1980. ~~/(,~ Eugene V. Otis, Mayor Attest: ~ Z." ~ { ,;,..-, ~ .. ,,,e, ex ~Io cUy~le -'frfu\ii'ir I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and fore- going is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No. 4 , Series of 1980, passed by City Council on the 4th day of February. 1980. ~e~;;tJ!ed~ ary&~lgee 7 -4-