Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPECIAL REVIEW 375 Moraine Avenue Fun City Slide Addition 1987APPLI��,PION FOR SPECIAL REVIEW /%1 the NAME Lynn W. Kinnie MAILING ADDRESS P.O.Box 483, Estes Park To the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, planning Commission for the Town of Estes Park, Colorado: The undersigned, or the duly authorized representative the reoi being the owner (s) and lien holder(s) of the following described rE property, to -wit: Lot 2 Lee and Alps Addition to the Town of Estes Park do hereby request that the above describe3 property be used commercial amusements _.. ursuant to the provision oning district and Cha t, of the C"0 Code of Estes ParkI;Colorado. p 17.56 of the Municipal original There is attached ofhereto conceptmade planl�t hereof, and twenty- oneRctfully submitted, STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) for n W. Kinni , being d and say (s) : That he is *are) the owner — property; that he above described real pro P Application and know(s) the contents there stated therein are true. Subscribed and sworn to 19 6_3_, by L nn W. Kinnie My commission expires 1 the rn upon oath, deposE ) of the read the above that the matters before me this APPLICATION FOR: ❑ Development Plan ® Special Review ❑ Planned Unit Development TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application No.: SI. 814 9 Subdivision ❑ Preliminary Plat [] Fina1 Plat ❑ Annexation Plat Date: Project Name: Flln City Slide Modification General Location: 375 Morraine Avenue Legal Description: Lot 2 of Lee & Alps Addition to the Town of Estes Park. Colorado Applicant: Lvnn W. Kinnie Address: Post Office Box 483 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Property Owner: Appli Address: Same 45 boy Telephone: Telephone: 586-3173 Engineer: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Telephone: 585-93ua Architect: Thorp Associates Inc. Telephone: 586-3528 SITE DATA Size of Site: 1.33 Acres Smallest Lot: Not applicable Largest Lot: N.A. Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Average Slope: 3% Area of Site - 30% slope or greater _a_ Area Open Space: Common: N,A. N.A. Private: N.A. DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Use: Proposed Use: Commercial Amusement Commercial Amusement Total Floor Area: N.A. Existing (Used): N.A. New (Developed): N.A. Floor Area Ratio (Bulk): N.A, Impervious Surface Coverage: N.A. Building Coverage: Other Paved Areas: New Streets: Public: None Lineal Feet: Lineal Feet: Private: Right -of -Way: Right -of -Way: LAND SURVEYS ~� SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING _ \ ue` fir . 1;,.x,.,. r �1/9 f rt;'') ' c y{--. i f w' (: i. _ 1� V N HORN E1 GIN ERI1O AND SuRV EYINc \William G. VanHorn, PE & LS 9485 • Paul H. VanHorn, PE & LS 532 STATEMENT OF INTENT Lynn W. Kinnie Fun City Slide Modification 1) Ownership: Lynn W. Kinnie 2) Proposed use: Supplemental to existing slide to allow use during rainy weather. 3) Architectural features: Proposed modification adds one spiral slide lane to be entered from a deck connected to and at the same elevation as the existing slide. The new deck will be provided with railings and a rain cover. The new slide lane will be manufactured by the same company as the existing slide and will have a compatible appearance with the existing slide. 4) Special Elements: See #6 below. 5) Development timing: To be completed for 1987 summer season. 6) General Statement of interaction and relationships: The proposed modification interacts and relates to the existing Fun City complex. The current owner -manager built the complex and has operated it since the beginning. One of the observed problems has been that when the current slide is wetted by even a very small amount of rain, it cannot be used until it dries off. The spiral slide will be less susceptible to wetting and will allow for greater facility utilization during and after our frequent summer showers. Existing parking that serves existing facilities does not change and is not shown. Five new parking spaces to provide for additional people drawn to the site by the slide modification (if in fact the modification will draw additional people) will be provided on Lot 1, Lee and Alps Addition. A setback variance from the Big Thompson River to allow the slide to be within the 30 foot river setback is being applied 1043 Fish Creek Road • P.O. Box 456 • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 0 303-586-9388 for. It is important to recognize that this is not a building and is of a more temporary nature than a building. Existing buildings and structures with Fun City preclude using the North side of the Big Thompson River for walkway purposes. The North side of the river to the west of Fun City becomes a cliff, also precluding a walkway. During the platting of Prospect Village Subdivision, Mr. Kinnie provided an easement for pedestrian access and beautification which mitigates the need on the north side. /,,,1 ES ks Department Stephen L. Stamey Manner Estes Park, Colorado 80517 TITLE: Special Review 87-4, Fun City Slide Addition LOCATION: Fun City, 375 Moraine Avenue APPLICANT: Lynn Kinnie I. SITE DATA Engineer/Surveyor: Architect: Size of Site: Number of Lots: Existing Land Use: Lot Lot Existing Zoning: Water Service: Sewer Service: II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Van Horn Engineering Thorp & Associates 1.33 Acres 2 1 - Single Family Residence 2 - Commercial Amusement C-O Outlying Commercial Town of Estes Park EPSD Applicant is proposing to add a spiral slide onto the south side of the existing slide. The new slide would be approx- imately 48'8"above grade. The existing slide has a height of 40'8" (height information provided by applicant's architect). Commercial amusements and structures greater than 30' in height may be approved by the Planning Commission and Town Board upon Special Review. P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (30.3) 586 51 2' . A variance application has also been submitted requesting a setback variance from the Big Thompson River for the slide structure. III. PROJECT REVIEW There are two basic considerations: o Height - Heights greater than 30' may be authorized condidering whether and by how much the proposal would extend above nearby buildings, trees, or land masses; the degree to which it would block or intrude into views from other premises and ways, reduce privacy, interfere with solar energy, or result in visual dominance of man-made over natural elements. With respect to height, the proposal does not impact on privacy or solar energy utilization. o The project has been examined with respect to special review criteria 17.36.030 a. through f. as follows: 1. Roads, water, sewerage, and drainage facilities serving the location are adequate. 2. The proposal would increase social, economic or com- munity needs being served. 3. There are no historic resources within the immediate area. With respect to this proposal and relative to the other special review criteria, apparent public and community concerns could be anticipated to center on potential visual impacts of the slide addition. Comments are focused on that issue. 1. Nearby land uses and whether they would be supported or damaged by having the proposed use nearby. 2. Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas and consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment. 3. The building and site design and how well they avoid visual, noise or other intrusions into adjacent premises or departure from the established vicinity. Visual impacts are difficult to quantify. Although there is already an existing, multi -colored slide, addition of the spiral slide could be viewed as a cumulative, incremental impact. Applicant's architect has stated that the proposed slide would be a white structure with a blue spiral tube. Common visual concerns and considerations include factors such as: o The development might displace natural features, damage views, or harm a community's overall image or attrac- tiveness. o Developments which are visually prominent or very different from nearby areas, may greatly affect the perception of the community by residents and visitors, and may affect the type and quality of future nearby development, e.g., there is a largely undeveloped commercial subdivision just south of the site. o Is the site visually prominent, seen by many people or from many directions? e.g., In the summer of 1985 the Average Daily Traffic on Highway 36, just west of the site, was 11,787; and on Crags Bridge was 3,772. o Is the location significant? e.g., way. o Will view opportunities and quality o Will the development pre-empt or features? e.g., Compete in height nearby bluffs, the front range? At the town's gate - change? overshadow natural and attraction with o Will the development change the overall image of the town? Will it be special, distinctive, pleasantly memorable? These impacts can be positive, as well as negative. The special review process is a public process. Comments from the public should be important considerations in weighing these concerns. IV. COMMENTS OF REFERRAL AGENCIES See attached correspondence. 3. epurPROGRESS TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Joseph) DATE: March 17, 1987 RE: Addendum to March 9, 1987 EPURA Staff Report - Fun City Slide Modification Special Review Request #87-4 The following is in response to an inquiry by Chairman Al Sager, regarding economic considerations not addressed in the March 9th EPURA Staff report. We recognize that there are economic considerations which enter into this review. It would appear that visual impact and economic considerations are interrelated in this case. Estes Park is a family -oriented tourist destination, and it is clear that Fun City fills an important economic role by providing family entertainment and recreation. It is the natural, visual character of the landscape setting which directly sustains the economic viability of outdoor recreation in Estes Park. The potential visual impact of this addition to Fun City should be carefully evaluated as an important aspect of its potential economic impact. cc: Art Anderson V. RODNEY HALLBERO WALTER R. BROWN ANN T. SCHNELZER April 14, 1987 HALLBERG & BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 201. FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING P.O. BOX 3018 ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517 (ow) 586-4474 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Board Member: FORT COLLINS. COLORADO OFFICE IN ASSOCIATION WITH HARDIN. SCHMIDT. HASS & ZIER. P.C. FIRST TOWER BLDO.. 215 WEST OAK FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80&22 43O01482-7777 Re: Lot 2, Lee and Alps Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado Pursuant to the Estes Park Municipal Code, I have examined the above plat and title to the premises described thereon. I hereby certify that the plat is signed by Lynn Kinnie, as an individual and as President of Slides, Inc., the owner of record of said premises, and Dorothy M. Kinnie, as a lienholder. I further certify that there are no other lienholders of record or any other person who has a record interest in the premises shown on the plat, except for owners of utility easements. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado. Very truly yours, HALLBERG & BROWN VRH:jt cc: Lynn Kinnie April 7, 1987 Mayor Dannels & Trustees Re: Sepcial Review 87-4 Fun City Slide Addition Dear Sirs: RECEIVED APR 7 1987 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR The Special Review criteria was identified in detail by our planner, Steve Stamey in his report to the Planning Commission, March 17th. His report was made available to all members of the P. C., Friday March 13th. This report is available to you and any interested citizens. The common visual concerns and considerations were enumerated and those impacts could well be determined to be positive as well as negative. His recommendation was objective and was available for all our con- sideration. EPURA staff also advised the P. C. of the Urban Design Guideline #10 and suggested the proposed addition would be a violation of said guide- line. In a following addendum the staff report (EPURA) recognized there are economic considerations that would interrelate with that visual impact and that "Fun City fills an important economic role by providing family entertainment and recreation". I stated in the Board of Adjustment meeting March 12th that Fun City was one of the very few places that provides an opportunity for young people to be entertained. Recognizing we have Arcades, a swimming pool, bowling alleys, softball fields, soccer, tennis courts, go cart tracks, fishing lakes & streams, and other activities available in our valley, but Fun City is within easy walking distance of the CBD, and not many other activities are. Our view corridors are precious, but is the intrusion of Fun City so over whelming, from all over town, and in all directions, really that objectionable? I'm proud of Steve Komito and others who have expressed so well their opinions, but remember we all have a right to our opinion and shouldn't necessarily be criticized for having our own viewpoints, even if they differ. A pristine, uncluttered environment throughout the area, catering only to sight seers, hikers, backpackers isn't practical. It seems to me just as reasonable to allow a property owner the opportunity to provide an activity for people of all ages to participate in an enjoyable ex- perience. The bumper cars, the miniature golf, and yes, the slide in spite of its intrusion into our line of sight from some points, does provide that opportunity to many families. I'm still in favor of allowing the spiral slide structure to be built as proposed. Yours truly, GEC Al Sager Chairman, Planning Commission A cane B. dozneil P. D. lox 463 - <INind_1i f f Coates Patti, £olozado 80517 *Act ; Jete_}Jk, 6)1.41.„��. r..d \'gnS/? ti - rr RECEIVED APR 3 1987 TOWN AD; 1N STRATOR - ecie6,4_,, 674,4 7// L[ c4rz—c_„, 277 21 jeif ,-1:6;,/ 4/(2774 iid 7/-171" --a.-71---"--,:%__), ;, ad J PAge net Id-- d )27/z 7,1 "e4/t/le,")_/ April 6. 1987 Estes Park Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Members of the Board: RECEIVED APR R 1987 TOVVPJ ADMINISTRATOR I wish to go on record in opposition of a "spiral slide addition" to Fun City. Perhaps the old one will wear out and go away a few years sooner if it's not "improved." Yours truly, Clarke Becker P.9. Box 3258 Lstes Park, Colorado 586 4569 Estes Park Board of Trustees re: Special Review #87-4 151 Courtney Lane RE-7-... Eft Estes Park, CO L0517 APR 8 1987 8 April 1987 TOWS! An%••1/4IPc;TRATnR I am writing in opposition to the proposed addition to the Fun City slide. I do this because I believe the existing slide is an adolescent blemish on the maturing complexion of our community, and I want to help prevent the spread of this embarrassing condition. It has frequently been argued that our town must provide more recreation activities or amusements to appeal to a wider range of visitor interests and to prolong the average stay of our visitors. If I were to grant for the sake of discussion that this argument is valid, then I would submit that our community's interests are better served by recreation facilities that can be used for more than just the four warm weather months of each year. This is obviously the concept behind the proposed Stanley Park Arena - to provide a location for events during seasons when the weather in Estes Park is not conducive to most outdoor activities. Consider then how much greater benefit would be derived from enclosed recreation facilities which can provide use not only in summer but also during the eight months of each year when the only sound coming from Fun City is the wind blowing past the slide. Examples of year around facilities which are not presently available in Estes Park might include enclosed tennis courts, an enclosed ice skating rink, and a multiple use recreation center. There are many types of commercial amusements that might be offered in our town, and all of these could be justified by their expected economic benefits. But I believe it is critical to also consider the cost to our overall welfare incurred by the approval of unwise amusements. would responsible residents endorse such proven money earners as casino gambling or parimutuel race betting? I think not. •••/... Estes Park Board of Trustees continued. Our municipal leaders have the power to encourage facilities which benefit our community by offering quality recreation to help attract visitors on a year around basis. Our leaders also bear the responsibility to prevent the proliferation of enterprises which degrade our dignity and the quality of our image as a destination resort. T hope that your thoughtful consideration of the proposed slide project will result, in its rejection. Steve Komito \U • fa CsJ c C ♦ C• r. 'f, c. L'• I h a t~ . r r. L y. L c\c, to ), S ry .1. , py- C' cii 4. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION An approval of the slide modification should be based on: o Exact height of slide addition. SLS:cj o Examination of actual color of slide materials and color pattern. o A determination that the proposal's benefits out- weigh any potential adverse impacts. o A determination that a height greater than 30' is justified under the height criteria. .4-''tc1 etAG to dz '' Q et.e cow 4 LYNN A. HAMMOND ROGER E. CLARK GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 41B 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 303-667-1 D23 March 7, 1987 Mr. Stephen L. Stamey Town Planner Town of Estes Park P. 0. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: SPECIAL REVIEW #87-4 ADDITION TO AMUSEMENT SLIDE Dear Steve: ALFRED P. DAVIS CIF COUNSEL Pursuant to your Memorandum of February 25, 1987 I have reviewed the Special Review #87-4 Addition to Amusement Slide Plat. I have no comments. GAW:cas Very 0i my yours, Gregory A. White TO: epuraoGREss Planning Commission FROM: Art Anderson.,, Bob Joseph DATE: March 9, 1987 RE: Fun City Slide Modification Special Review Request #87-4 The Urban Renewal Authority submits the following background information from the Downtown Redevelopment Program to aid you in your deliberations concerning the Fun City Slide Modification. Urban Design Guidelines (pq. 103 of the URA Plan) o Guideline #10 - Building Heights and Locations. Keep buildings in scale with the natural river valley and existing development. Keep view corridors to the mountain peaks, rivers, and the confluence area open. Keep visual continuity of the hillside buffer uninterrupted. Staff Comments The proposed addition to the "Big Slide" amusement will be a violation of Urban Design Guideline #10. The view from the South entry (especially the Picadilly Square area) is a panoramic view of Long's Peak and the Continental Divide. To add a physical intrusion in the form of another slide, taller than the existing slide, does not keep view corridors open. The slide tower is out of scale with the river valley surroundings. This feature may be eye-catching; however, it does not add to the quality of the visitor's visual experience. Developers of the Plan indicated that the Town entrys were not well-defined and had intrusions into the surrounding open space. This tower will continue a visual intrusion which now exists and extend it higher into the visitor's view frame. L'ught and Power Department March 2, 1987 Mr. Stephen L. Stamey Town Planner TOWN OF ESTES PARK Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 87-Z S�ec.4( Dear Steve: Robert L. Dekker Director Estes Park, Collorado 80.51'7 The request under this special review, if approved, will have no impact on the Town's electric power system. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Light and Power Department Robert L. Dekker Director RLD:lm P. 0 Box 1200 TeIleph:: re (103) 586 5:3:n If L 4TES PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT (Volunteer) P.O. Box 1200 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 March 9, 1987 TO: Estes Park Planning Commission FROM: Jack Rumiley, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Development Plan #87-3 Rains Estes Park Ford No carntent, if hazardous materials (i.e. used oil etc.) are properly stored and handled. SUBJECT: Hartland Resubdivision Lee Hartland - Miles Cottages No comment. SUBJECT: Amended Plat, Lots 5 & 6,rDVYille Subdivision Jim Wehr No comment. SUBJECT: Serenity Knoll Subdivision Richard L. Kelly No comment. SUBJECT: Amendment of Development Plan #86-4 Golden Eagle Resort No comment. SUBJEC.T:. Special Review #87-4 Addition to Amusement Slide No comment. SUBJECT: Special Review #87-3 Bed and Breakfast No comment. DIAL 911 FOR EMERGENCY ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517 OFFICE: 586-2866 P.O. BOX 722 PLANT: 586-3516 ROOM 208, MUNICIPAL BUILDING March 6, 1987 TO: Stephen L. Stamey, Town Planner FROM: Ron Osborn, Office Manager SUBJECT: Special Review #87-4 Addition to Amusement Slide Reference is made to your request dated February 25, 1987, regarding the above Special Review. As of this date, we have no comments. STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. Box 850 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303) 353-1232 March 3, 1987 Mr. Stephen L. Stamey Town Planner Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Stamey: i71 H, Larimer Co., S.H. 36 Kinnie Special Review 375 Morraine Ave. (Estes Park) DOH File 45100 We have reviewed the Lynn Kinnie Special Review application, and we have the following comments: 1. This property is adjacent to State Highway 36 (Morraine Ave.), which is designated as a Major Collector in the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. This roadway class calls for a minimum 80-foot right of way. We would recommend a 100-foot right of way, 50 feet each side of the highway centerline at this location. Additional width to meet this need should be protected by reservation or, preferably, dedication, as permitted by local regulations. 2. The proposed modification to the existing water slide should have no significant affect on traffic at this facility. However, we note on the Concept Site Plan that a new parking area is shown immediately south of the access to S.H. 36. The proximity of this area to the access could cause safety problems. Therefore, we recommend that it be relocated away from the access to the western portion of Lot 1, if possible. At a minimum, the northernmost one or two parking spaces should be eliminated to facilitate the free flow of traffic into and out of this access. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please contact Wally Jacobson if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ALBERT CHOTVACS DISTRICT ENGINEER John K. Crier District Planning/Environmental Manager JKC:mbc(WJ) cc: D. Yost Area Foreman File: Crier -Jacobson via Chotvacs Estes Park, Colorado 80517 March 9, 1987 Mr. Stephen L. Stamey Town Planner TOWN OF ESTES PARK Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Special Review #87-4; Addition to Amusement Slide Dear Steve: The zoning setback from the Big Thompson River is required to be 30 feet per Section 17.20.040. The slide tower will be approximately 19 feet higher than that allowed for buildings (30') in Estes Park. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department John R. Allman Building Inspector JRA:Im P. (3 Box 11200 telephone (303) 586-53;3'I LAND SURVEYS • SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING William G. VanHorn, PE & LS 9485 • PauH. VanHorn, PE & LS 532 STATEMENT OF INTENT Lynn W. Kinnie Fun City Slide Modification 1) Ownership: Lynn W. Kinnie 2) Proposed use: Supplemental to existing slide to allow use during rainy weather. 3) Architectural features: Proposed modification adds one spiral slide lane to be entered from a deck connected to and at the same elevation as the existing slide. The new deck will be provided with railings and a rain cover. The new slide lane will be manufactured by the same company as the existing slide and will have a compatible appearance with the existing slide. 4) Special Elements: See #6 below. 5) Development timing: To be completed for 1987 summer season. 6) General Statement of interaction and relationships: The proposed modification interacts and relates to the existing Fun City complex. The current owner -manager built the complex and has operated it since the beginning. One of the observed problems has been that when the current slide is wetted by even a very small amount of rain, it cannot be used until it dries off. The spiral slide will be less susceptible to wetting and will allow for greater facility utilization during and after our frequent summer showers. Existing parking that serves existing facilities does not change and is not shown. Five new parking spaces to provide for additional people drawn to the site by the slide modification (if in fact the modification will draw additional people) will be provided on Lot 1, Lee and Alps Addition. A setback variance from the Big Thompson River to allow the slide to be within the 30 foot river setback is being applied 1043 Fish Creek Road • P.O. Box 456 • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 • 303-586-9388 for. It is important to recognize that this is not a building and is of a more temporary nature than a building. Existing buildings and structures with Fun City preclude using the North side of the Big Thompson River for walkway purposes. The North side of the river to the west of Fun City becomes a cliff, also precluding a walkway. During the platting of Prospect Village Subdivision, Mr. Kinnie provided an easement for pedestrian access and beautification which mitigates the need on the north side. TOWN OF ESTES PAU Estes Park, Colorado 80517 March 5, I certify that the property described as Lot 2, Lee & Alps Addition, 375 Moraine Avenue, FUN CITY, Estes Park, CO, was posted on March 5, 1987, with a sign advertising the filing of Application for Special Review, #87-4, and the date of the hearing before the Estes Park Planning Commission (March 17, 1987) and before the Board of Trustees on March 24, 1987. 'ife"4"Wg,a"Vo Mike Mangelsen .111 P. a. Box 1200 T&ephone (.303) 586-5331 :1'Cialtioucette/ treAFdwi sPEAL R:REVIEWRE F66* V, NOTICE OF °I1F-8T 467.4 Notice le hereby nk, shiaosnabeentdeti by Lynsn-Korlinnthatio en Eimscalkin T airnia 170411* hi vi*e'th9PK'v 014-°-'''inhc'az°1atE105a164t0 aacaPnruatijrlicIP22...b‘C'Dd6rWILIgSid Inh: Pursuant wmi of " 1E17sies343P°Issikh9C0471 luentrade448i '''.. !leenn.of the TCoirm118P18otr Elobats“tos.esid_ _aPPI1Ganionekleillg' n°11conlissWiaeieefuls l'airebYlon Oben Pant pla„ irlerediy, the r 7 'PI luesday, ma,d, 17 al 123 Puptla 'leafing in • /967. aria that ABhoarelood er asdappiaY' McariwOhmary24. beteg', . ora$818.700n33 Broultelog 17 18°Qtognudni 101°3n may)c°1 the' . in the rillAd°1°61d.itudiortl6', . —.1ch IIM98PPearand Pkapsand bl: 40.1rd — 1;0116 ..... any .1' RI Slave st be obtained . Fla 202. Planner. 1 arrleY. Town Moraine Avenue tat 446 al Fun CkY 375 !ale] :11n addiSon to the AddIIon. 1 2. Lae & A ?An be bald relati°r/ 10 8ald ePPerad a en bY 1119 B°ate Of Trustees 6n PM. Room lotado 02 wh venue, Estes Park, ° M6cetegor A Munic"