HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 1994-05-24BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 24, 1994 7:30 P.M. AGENDA PUBLIC INPUT. To conduct an orderly, efficient meeting, individuals will be given a maximum of up to three (3) minutes to speak on topics which are pertinent to Town affairs. Any exceptions will be given at the discretion of the Mayor. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated May 10, 1994. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: . A. Light & Power, May 12, 1994. B. Planning Commission, May 17, 1994 (acknowledgement only) . 4. Resolution - Setting public hearing date of June 14, 1994 to consider New Beer and Wine Liquor License Application filed by the Crown and Thistle, Inc., dba Matinee Cafe, Ltd., 206 E. Elkhorn Ave. 5. Public Hearing - Amended Plat of Lots 8 and 9, Arapaho Meadows, Mary Ann Kundtz Trust/Applicant - Continue to June 14, 1994. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission, May 17, 1994: A. Public Hearing - Final Plat of Tract 15, Fall River Addition, Edwards Investment Co./Applicant (continued from May 10, 1994). B. Public Hearing - Amended Plat of Lot 41, Fall River Addition, Frank & Alma Hix/Applicant (continued from May 10, 1994). C. Public Hearing - Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Stanley Village Subdivision, stanley Commercial Development/Applicant (continued from May 10, 1994). D. Public Hearing - Final Plat of Lot 3, Stanley Historic District, FHK Co. Partnership/Applicant. 2. Resolution - Lake Estes Hike/Bike Trail Enhancement Project Funding. 3. Liquor License: Public Hearing - New Beer and Wine Liquor License Application filed by LaVonna Sue Kenney, dba LA TI DA, 810 Moraine Ave. 4. Park Entrance Estates - Approval of Memorandum of Understanding. 5. Town Administrator's Report - Projects. NOTE: The Board of Trustees meeting scheduled Tuesday, June 28, 1994 has been canceled. 1
Town of Estes Park, Larimer county, Colorado, . t~ay ~lp o . *~ 19.94 Minutes of a . Begql,r. . . meeting of the Board of Truetees of the Town of ' Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the . :l~h . day of ... .MN: ...., A.D., 19.94 . at regular meeting hour. H. Bernerd Dannels Meeting called to order by Mayor ......................... Pregent: Mayor H. B. Dannels Trustees tobert L. Dekker, Mayor ProTem Susan L. Doylen, Stephen W. Gillette, William J. Marshall, Also Present: Michael E. Miller, Gary F. Klaphake, J. Donald Pauley Town Administrator Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Vickie O'Connor, Akeentx Town Clerk Absent: None i Mayor Dannels called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC INPUT. Lou Canaiy requested and received the opportunity to address any items contained in the Town Administrator's Report. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board minutes dated April 26, 1994. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Special Events, April 28, 1994. B. Public Works, April 28, 1994. C. Community Development, May 5, 1994. C. Board of Adjustment, May 2, 1994 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Special Events Committee, April 28, 1994: A. Concert Concepts Agreement. Special Events Director Scott reported that the Agreement, as amended, had been reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. Director Scott noted that as a cost-savings measure, staff will attempt to construct a stage in lieu of renting same. Trustee Doylen noted that the Town realizes a significant savings due to the addition of volunteer labor for the rodeo events. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the Concert Concepts Agreement in the amount of $3,200 to provide sound and lighting for the Rodeo Concert July 9 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. Public Works Committee, April 28, 1994: A. Approval of Budaeted Expenditures: 1./2. Public Works Director Linnane reported that
Board of Trustees - May 10, 1994 - Page 2 $19,500 was budgeted for the purchase of a 3/4-Ton 4WD Pickup Truck for the Street Dept. The lowest of three bids was submitted by Burt Chevrolet, $18,747.49. In addition, $25,270 was budgeted for a 3/4-Ton 4WD Truck for the Water Dept. The lowest bid was submitted by Rains Motor Co., $19,597. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Marshall) both bids be accepted as identified above, and it passed unanimously. 3. 1994 Street Overlay Project. Staff reviewed this three-part budgeted project which includes: (1) 1.2 miles of 1-1/2" overlay; (2) 1.2 miles of Type II slurry seal; and (3) authorization for staff to expend the maximum budgeted amount of$100,000 between both contractors. (1) Western Mobile was the lowest bidder and the total contract amount is $104,840 which includes $39,550 for other local governmental agencies (Town portion = $65,290). (2) The Vance Brothers Contract for $25,285 is for the Type II Slurry Seal. Director Linnane confirmed that staff performs yearly visual inspections on all streets and that for the past three years, the Department has been able to preserve street integrity with funding provided in the yearly budget. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the 1994 Street Overlay Project, including all three components be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. Estes Park Trolley Corp. Park and Ride Contract. Administrator Klaphake reviewed the 1994 Program which is dependent upon merchant participation. This year's Contract amount is $12,500 and it will include the return of a dedicated trolley at regular pickup/delivery intervals. In summary, Trustee Miller commented that, in his opinion, this item should be funded by the private sector; in the future, perhaps the Town Board should consider eliminating the program from the budget. Administrator Klaphake noted that sales to date have not been significant. Trustee Doylen commented that,the Town continually receives demands to alleviate congestion within the core area, this program is most cost-e f fective and should be continued. Mayor ProTem Dekker concurred with Trustee Miller, adding that perhaps the improved route will generate higher use. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) the Estes Park Trolley Corp. Contract in the amount of $12,500.00 be approved and it passed with Trustee Miller voting "No." 5. Miscellaneous Shop Equipment and Supplies/Hazardous Containment Safety Supplies. Director Linnane stated that $15,050 was budgeted to purchase miscellaneous shop equipment/supplies, and he requested authorization to expend $6,152.10 at this time. In addition, $17,300 was budgeted to purchase hazardous containment safety supplies, and staff requested authorization to expend $7,396.47 at this time. Items for both expenditures were detailed by staff. It was moved and seconded (Gillette/Doylen) both expenditures, as noted above, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. Community Development Committee, May 5, 1994: A. Watchable Wildlife Program/Elk Center - Approval of Proposal Concerning Use of a Portion of Stanley Park. Administrator Klaphake briefed the Trustees on this proposal which was considered during meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, RMNP, Forest Service, Accommodations Association, and Terry Licence where strategic planning issues were discussed. In these discussions, it was
Board of Trustees - May 10, 1994 - Page 3 believed that a "Watchable Wildlife Program" which includes construction of a National Elk Interpretive Center was in character with Estes Park. The Community Development Committee recommended approval of staff's request that approximately 10 acres located at the northeast corner of Stanley Park be authorized as a contribution toward this effort. The Strategic Planning Committee may, during their deliberations, determine that the entire 10-acre site would not be required, or that an alternate site is preferable. The Community Development Committee also recommended that the Stanley Park site be available for two years. A Watchable Wildlife Brochure is being prepared and it will be distributed in the near future. The National Elk Center would be similarly operated as the National Big Horn Interpretative Center in DuBois, Wy. At this time, the Estes Park proposal is merely a concept. Administrator Klaphake reviewed the 1984 Stanley Park Master Plan prepared by BRW and the 1992 Plan revised by Thorp Associates, noting the "movement or shifting".of the barns, landscaping, RV spaces, and auxiliary use of the parking area. Locating the Elk Center on the preferred northeast corner may require adjustment to the recreation vehicle hook-up area. Trustee comments (in summary) were: awareness of the volunteers' concern of usurping a portion of the fairgrounds now used for grazing stock, the proposal and fairgrounds operation could enhance each other, there is a possibility the private sector may come forward with funding, the proposed 10-acre site is a gateway which could help make the proposal viable, status of the former swimming pool site, support may be given if the Trustees have final project approval, concern with declining open space, preservation of the "old-time heritage", the Rooftop Rodeo Committee should be involved with the decision, and reaction based upon pure emotion rather than the facts. Rooftop Rodeo President Van Horn stated that although she does not oppose the proposal, she is concerned that small bits of the fairgrounds site are continually being seized for other purposes; this area is an asset, and where will large events be held when this site is no longer available. Concerning funding, Administrator Klaphake stated that private funding and grant applications have not been researched as the group desires an organized approach with a site-specific proposal. Following additional discussion, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Pauley) the Town Board approve making the 10-acre site available for study of this proposal, and it passed with Trustee Gillette voting "No". Administrator Klaphake noted the Trustees sensitivity to the amount of land used and that the proposal will be approached in that manner, and that Rodeo Committee Members will be included in the process. 4. Planning Commission Items - Continued from April 26, 1994 Town Board Agenda: A. Final Plat of Tract 15. Fall River Addition. Edwards Investment Co./Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Dekker) this plat be continued to May 24, 1994, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees - May 10, 1994 - Page 4 B. Amended Plat of Lot 41. Fall River Addition. Frank & Alma Hix/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Dekker) this plat be continued to May 24, 1994, and it passed unanimously. C. Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2. Stanley Village Subdivision. Stanley Commercial Development/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Dekker) this plat be continued to May 24, 1994, and it passed unanimously. D. Amended Plat of Lots 8-12. Lone Pine Acres Addition. Steve Murphree/Applicant. Senior Planner Joseph advised ~ that the Applicant is proposing to replat five existing C-0 commercial lots to six single-family lots. Adjacent ~ lots on the south and west are zoned C-0, and there are R-S and R-M lots across Raven Ave. Section 17.20.020 allows a minimum lot area of 18,000 sq. ft. for a single- family lot in the C-0 District, and the proposed lots exceed this minimum. All Planning Commission conditions i have been met, the pins have been set, and the Attorney's Certificate received. Staff confirmed that the ~ neighborhood and Homeowners Association are in agreement i with the proposal. As there were no persons speaking in ~ favor of or in opposition to the proposal, it was moved and seconded (Dekker/Pauley) the Amended Plat of Lots 8- 12, Lone Pine Acres Addition be approved, and it passed i unanimously. 5. Strategic Planning Meeting Report/Park School District R-3 - Postponed from April 26. 1994. Administrator Klaphake reported that the District would not make a formal presentation, and distribution of Material concludes this i Agenda Item at this time. Future meetings with the Town Board ~ and School District will be held to discuss assistance in common areas. 6. Town Administrator's Report - Projects. Sales Tax Statistics for the First Quarter indicated year-to-date increase of 15.20%. Pursuant to TABOR, if the upward trend continues, the Town may be placed in a "refund mode." The Town does have the option of refunding excess funds or submitting the appropriation of funds question to the electorate in November. Staff has been aware of the effervescence of salt from the I mortar used for the end caps at the Conference Center. Due to warranty concerns, the Town opted to pressure spray the area with water. The situation has now been resolved and the area will be spotlessly cleaned and sealed when optimum weather (dry) has arrived. Public Works Director Linnane briefed the Trustees on the recent completion of the Honda School water line, where the Town expended $85,000 to oversize an 8" line to a 12" line; Honda installation costs were $600,000. Approximately two miles of 12" line and fire hydrants were obtained, and staff anticipates a water loop with Devil's Gulch if needed for future growth. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dannels noted that the Town Board meeting scheduled June 28, 1994 has been canceled, , and adjourned the meeting at 8:37 P.M. Mayor Town Clerk
BRADFORDPUBLISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee May 12, 1994 Committee: Chairman Dekker, Trustees Miller and Pauley Attending: Chairman Dekker, Trustees Miller and Pauley Also Attending: Light and Power Director Matzke, Assistant Town Administrator Widmer, and Deputy Clerk Kuehl Absent: None Chairman Dekker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. RESOURCE INTEGRATION STUDY Jay Hopper, Platte River Power Authority, presented slides reviewing the information offered at the public workshop held April 22 in Estes Park as part of the Resource Integration Study. Workshops are being held in all four Platte River member cities. A list of questions (and answers) -generated from the workshops was distributed. A customer survey will be conducted in June to solicit input from 100 customers in each of the four member cities. A public hearing concerning the Integrated Resource Plan will be conducted at the August meeting of the Platte River Board of Directors followed by a final presentation of the plan at the October Platte River Board meeting. Discussion was held regarding the various types of power resources, the benefits of each, the ability to store power, and environmental influences. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER -- DEFINITION In January 1994, the Town Board approved a water rate ordinance including precise definitions for residential and commercial customer classes. A residential water customer is defined as a customer whose water use is for primary living quarters and the majority of the water consumption is for personal, not commercial use. A commercial water customer is categorized by Town staff into one or more of these groups: accommodations, shops, bed and breakfast, eateries, camp-grounds, schools, churches, governmental and utility agencies, dwelling unit rented for a billing period of less than 30 days, and customers other than residential. The Committee recommended the definitions for residential and commercial customer classes approved in the water rate ordinance also be used in categorizing electric customers and these definitions be included in the next revision of the Town's electric ordinance, thus providing consistent application of residential and commercial rates to water and electric customers of the Town. REPORTS Director Matzke presented various graphs and Financial Reports for April, which included a new graph showing actual sales versus budget by month. Project Updates: The last transformer will be upgraded this week in conjunction with the Platte River substation project. Five employees are attending hot line school in Grand Junction three of which are helping teach. A 3-phase transformer was installed at Comfort Inn. R.M.E.L. Spring Conference Evaluation: Evaluation ratings were distributed. Director Matzke commended Tom Pickering and Bill Thomas for their coordination and efforts before and during the
BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee, May 12, 1994 - Page 2 conference. Registration totaled 212. Town staff will submit a proposal to host the 1996 Fall conference in Estes Park. Platte River Power Authority: The scheduled Rawhide Plant shutdown in March permitted maintenance and repair at a cost of 1.5 million dollars. The Moffat County/Craig Station fiscal study regarding impact fees is continuing. Newly-elected officers remain the same: Jeff Gould, Chairman; Rich Widmer, Vice Chairman; Bernie Dannels, Secretary; and Ann Azari, Treasurer. There being no further business, Chairman Dekker adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m. -7-0- IGU Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk
BRADFOROPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission May 17, 1994 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Gary Cooper, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Cooper, A. Hix, Pohl and Thomas Also Attending: Trustee/Liaison Dekker, Community Development Director Stamey, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Commissioner Brown Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. 1. MINUTES. Minutes were approved as submitted. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 2.A. Development Plan #94-5. Lot 1. Lone Pine Acres Addition. Steve & Susan Swickard/Applicant. Applicant's representative Paul Kochevar reported that the proposal is for a 5,683 sq. ft. retail sales building with associated parking. The building will have 1,600 sq. ft. of basement storage, 4,200 sq. ft. of retail on three levels, 533 sq. ft. of garage, and 950 sq. ft. of enclosed parking. Twenty-four paved parking spaces are being provided, and a portion of the parking is located on an adjoining lot, with parking and access easement. A copy of the easement executed by Steve and Shirley Swickard (owners of the adjacent lot to the north) was provided to Director Stamey; staff confirmed that the easement must be submitted to the Town Attorney for his review and comment. Routing for handicapped accessibility is along the south side of the building. Concerning the detention pond, a note has been added to the plat stating that maintenance or repair must be completed as soon as possible and no later than 30 days notification of the Town. The lot area for Lot 1 complies with the Code, and Mr. Kochevar was unable to confirm what might occur (or be developed) on Lot 2. Director Stamey reviewed the staff report which addressed parking, potential future development on Lot 2 must "stand on its own", drainage, landscaping, the proposed handicapped ramp requires a setback variance which must be granted by the Board of Adjustment, and determination of the size of the proposed water service line to be made prior to issuance of a building permit. Comments from the audience were heard from Ron Harvey who requested and received a clarification on the parking easement relative to square footage calculation requirements. Chairman Sager noted the Code requirement that handicapped parking be located as close as possible to a building; and staff confirmed that the Code does not require use of adjacent property to be under one ownership.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 2 Stating that there are a number of items missing in the proposal, and that the easement is critical for further consideration, it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Pohl) Development Plan #94-5 be continued to June 21, 1994, and it passed unanimously. Staff was directed to submit the easement to Town Attorney White for his review and comment prior to the June 21st meeting. 3. SUBDIVISIONS. 3.A. Amended Plat. Lots 8 and 9. Block A. Arapaho Meadows Subdivision. Marv Ann Kundtz Trust/Applicant. Bill Van Horn, Applicant's representative, stated that the Applicant is proposing to adjust the internal lot line between two existing lots. No additional building sites are being created, and this adjustment provides for improved building sites of slightly less than 1 acre/each. Community Development Director Stamey reviewed the staff report noting that Arapaho Meadows was originally approved as a P.U.D., with a 30 ft. setback from the west lot line, 25 ft. setback from the street property line, and 10 ft. setback from the side lot line. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that these setbacks will be shown on the plat. Mr. Van Horn stated that the owners will be building on Lot 9 and selling Lot 8. The Applicant is aware of the setbacks as noted. As there were no comments from the audience, it was moved and seconded (Thomas/Burgess) the Amended Plat of Lots 8 and 9, Arapaho Meadows Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, noting the above-mentioned confirmation from Mr. Van Horn concerning setback delineation on the plat, and it passed unanimously. 3.B. Final Plat. Lot 3. Stanlev Historic District - Stanlev Views Subdivision. FHK Company Partnership/Applicant. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn stated that development of this site is subject to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Development Agreement. The proposal has evolved from multi-family with an allowable 50 multi- family units to a single-family development with 20 single- family lots; the owners have agreed to a significantly less dense development than allowed by the Development Agreement. .Although the Applicant will attempt to minimize the impact, an equestrian trail easement has been provided for the historical trail rides through the area. The sites have been arranged so as to require minimum earth movement. Administrator Klaphake reported on a meeting with the Stanley Hills Homeowners Association who reside to the east and north of this proposal. The following issues were discussed: (1) zoning impact with the site currently zoned RM - staff is recommending a note be added to the plat limiting each lot to a single-family residence; (2) open space - the Applicant has agreed to set pins to delineate the setback/open space areas; (3) existing access to Stanley Hills - the Town has agreed to provide a physical barrier on this access; (4) the previously graded scarred area overlapping into Stanley Hills - the Applicant has agreed to furnish top soil to reclaim this site; and (5) access for fire safety - due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac serving the development, the roadway meets with the approval of the Fire Chief. Other than one objection, the Homeowners Association will support the proposal.
aRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 3 Administrator Klaphake added that in order to expedite this proposal, a compromise was reached by both the Owner and the Town in two areas: Open space - the Master Plan states that 30% open space is ·required, exclusive of lotted area. Through negotiations, an alternative has been proposed which allows for the open space to be included within the lots; however, it must be protected by an open space easement which prohibits disturbance, buildings, fences, patios, etc. This reserved area is 30.1% of the site. The open space is primarily on the perimeter of the subdivision. A 40 ft. wide strip of open space abuts the Stanley Hills open space. Cul-de-sac - the Code provides that no more than 12 residences may be served by a cul-de-sac. Due to configuration and negotiation, it is reasonable to allow the cul-de-sac to serve 20 residences. The Technical Review Committee Will Still review all development and there will be no overlot grading, fencing (except for patio areas), and a maximum of 2-car garages (attached). The landscape plan must also be approved. The proposal includes a gated access on the private cul-de-sac (street), and it will be built to Town standards. The Planning Commission's role in this proposal, pursuant to the Development Agreement, is to consider platting or replatting of the parcels, such as this proposal. Administrator Klaphake restated conditions to be considered for approval: (1) Fire Chief approval of the access , (2) setting of the property pins delineating the setback and open space areas, (3) approval is not a precedent-setting in terms of the Master Plan and modifications thereof. Commissioner comments/questions included: Gated access. Staff confirmed that the cul-de-sac is a private street that must be constructed to Town standards - the Fire Chief will need to approve the design of the gated access. Rationale for the gated access was provided by Mr. Van Horn who stated that this type of security is common place throughout urban areas and it should serve as a desirable marketing tool. The gate will feature a "call button" for use by the residents for their guests; however, the access does not include a gate house and guards. Pedestrian/Horse Trail. As it was determined that the cul-de-sac did not require a pedestrian system, the Town did not require such. The Technical Review Committee will consult with both the Applicant and Stable Owners and the relocation of the trail will be mutually acceptable. The trail will exist whether or not the stable continues to operate. Mr. Van Horn explained that the Applicant does not desire to limit the trail to horses, that the area will be of sufficient size to accommodate both pedestrians and horses, and that the Applicant has recognized the possibility of conflicts with the gated entry and horses. The Applicant is- hopeful that in the foreseeable future, the trail will emerge into strictly pedestrian use by the residents. Comments from the audience were heard from Karen Zipser, President/Stanley Hills Association. Ms. Zipser stated that she represented most, but not all, of the residents bordering Parcel 3. Residents are relieved that only 20 single-family homes are being proposed; she was aware of the compromise
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 4 issues, however, this plan is much better; and she expressed her appreciation to staff for making this proposal possible for them. Stating that the plat, as presented today, exceeds the spirit of the letter of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, and that she is satisfied with the requirements of the Master Plan will control the construction of the dwellings and future development, it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) the Final Plat of Stanley Views Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, contingent upon the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The Fire Chief provide acceptance of the private access, stating such is adequate for fire protection. 2. Property pins be set by the Applicant for the open space perimeter. 3. Approval of this proposal is non-precedent setting, only applies to this site. 4.A. Controlled access points are not compatible with public streets. Findley Court should be designated as a private street, and if, in fact, Findley Court is to be a private street, the following dedication statement should be used: "Do hereby subdivide the same into lots and blocks, open space easement areas, right of way, private streets, utility and other easements as shown on this plat, and do hereby designate and dedicate all such utility easements to and for the public use for the installation and maintenance of utility, irrigation and drainage facilities." B. Prior to acceptance of the final plat, a private homeowners association must be in place to maintain the open space easements. C. A note be added to the plat indicating the legal status of the horse trail. 5. The compromises, a identified above, are a reasonable modification of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 6. A note be added to the plat limiting each lot to a single-family residence. Community Development Director Stamey requested the Commission remain after the meeting to discuss the summer meeting schedule. There being no further business, Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting at 2:29 P.M. } f.. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk NOTE: The Planning Commission meeting schedule for June, July, August and September, will be as follows: Study Session: 8:00 A.M., Room 203 Meeting: 9:30 A.M., Board Room (Room 103).
RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the filing date of the application for a New Beer and Wine Liquor License, filed by The Crown and Thistle, Inc. , dba MATINEE CAFE, LTD., 206 East Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, is May 11, 1994. It is hereby ordered that a public hearing on said application shall be held in the Board Room of the Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, on Tuesday, June 14, 1994 at 7:30 P.M., and that the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of said application and hearing shall be the area included within a radius of 2.9 miles, as measured from the center of the applicant's property. ADOPTED:
Planning Commission April 19, 1994 Commission: Chairman Al Sager, commissioners Mark Brown, Harriet Burgess, Gary Cooper, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chairman Sager, Commissioners Brown, Burgess, Cooper, Pohl and Thomas Also Attending: Trustee/Liaison Dekker, Senior Planner Joseph, Town Attorney White, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Commissioner A. Hix Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. and welcomed newly-appointed Commissioners cooper and Thomas and Trustee/Liaison Dekker, and acknowledged the reappointment of Commissioners Brown and A. Hix. ~ 9-Zinal21,1.-_Tract--1Sfall_River7ddition. Edwards ' Investment Co. /Applicant. This application was also continued - from March 15th directing the Applicant to provide a lot area analysis, consider the feasibility of realigning the driveway along Valley Rd., with staff notifying adjacent property owners. Applicant's Representative Bill Van Horn, stated that aL,P a list of adjacent property owners had been provided, in a letter dated March 16, 1994, CDOT advised that the "existing condition includes a gate and asphalt pavement to the right- of-way and appears to be adequate with no improvements required" (based upon an on-site inspection), and a lot analysis. The adjoining 29 tracts of the neighborhood were examined. The tract size ranges from as small as 15,750 sq. ft. up to 208,906 sq. ft. Sixteen tracts are larger, and 13 tracts are smaller than the proposed 41,000 sq. ft. for the resultant tracts of Tract 15. Therefore, by separating Tract 15, the new tract size will not be out of the ordinary. With regard to the Commission's request that the feasibility of realigning the driveway be reviewed, no further action by the Applicant is required as CDOT did not request relocation of the existing access. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report, and there were no comments from the audience. Finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; that the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enj oyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; that the granting of the exception Will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property of the petitioner is situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the title, it was moved and seconded (Burgess/Brown) the Final Plat of Tract 15, Fall River Addition be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously: 1. That the newly created Lot 158 share access via the existing driveway and that there shall be no other access created to Lot 15B, either from Valley Road or Highway 34. 2. Add the following to the Plat: a. A maintenance agreement note for the common access. b. Water main and service line. 3. Provide private sewer service line to Tract 15B. 4. Secure approval from utility companies regarding encroachment into and vacancies of the portion of the utility easement along the west boundary of Tract 15A. 5. As requested by CDOT, Applicant to provide a letter to CDOT documenting the addition of a single-family dwelling to the access for Tracts 15A and 158.
. I ...rolopul'.1 S HING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - April 19, 1994 - Page 4 L 6, 1.a-AmenARA Plak,_&2131.-1811-RiverAddition_Frank & Alma Hix/Applicant. Bill Van Horn stated that the Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot zoned E-Estate into two E-Estate lots, each 41,809 square feet in size. Applicant is ~,549 requesting an exception to the minimum lot size under Section 16.24.010. The lots will be accessed from a private drive, a portion of which is existing. As proposed, the private drive will provide access to five lots with a grade of 10% - 15% approaching the site. These lots are somewhat secluded and are removed from the views from nearby homes. Potential building envelopes are separated by an existing water line easement which runs through a natural draw. Average slopes are 23%. The proposed building type is well suited to a sloping site, and the proposed lots will be somewhat smaller than several adjacent lots. Considering the average slope, the minimum lot area requirement is approximately 71,000 square feet. Staff had expressed concern that the proposed lot boundaries should be revised to be directly adjacent to the access easement. Verification of the availability of access across the existing private drive must be made, and a road maintenance agreement prepared for review. Concern was also voiced with the water line easement. Mr. Van Horn stated that if the water line is inadequate, it could be enlarged. There is a blanket easement across Lot 39 for sewer and water service to the existing mains. Lot 46 is owned by a Trust, therefore, an easement cannot be included on said lot. The Applicant, Frank Hix, commented that an existing 2" water line is located in the easement and said line is adequate for the two new lots. Town Attorney White advised that the existing 2" water line is in actuality a service line, and that pursuant to an existing ordinance prohibiting the extension of service lines, a new water line must be extended. Public Works Director Linnane noted that each lot must have its own private service line from the existing main along Highway 34 Bypass, or, if the Applicant desires to extend a new 6" water main with three separate service lines, installation must meet Town standards and obtain approval by the Water Dept. All existing and future water lines must remain within the existing easement shown on the plat. With the statement included in the Lot Size Analysis - "The tract to the north is large and will most likely never be developed...", a question was raised as to why the Applicant did not take all of Lot 46 to meet the minimum lot size requirement. Mr. Van Horn stated that is it more logical to have the road as the boundary without having a portion across the access easement due to the uniqueness of the site and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hix commented that it is in the best interest of the Trust to stay within the boundary, that he (the Applicant) desires to remain within the confines of the lot, and that building sites are limited to the terrain. In addition, if a single-family dwelling is placed on one side of the site, he would not be able to utilize the remaining piece of property. public Works Director Linnane expressed concern that on the aerial photograph, the easement on the plat did not conform to the existing roadway. Mr. Van Horn agreed that this issue must be reconciled. Senior Planner Joseph confirmed that the staff report had been reviewed. There were no comments from the audience. Finding
BRADFOROPUBLISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - April 19, 1994 - Page 5 that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; that the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; that the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property of the petitioner is situated, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this title, it was moved and seconded (Cooper/Pohl) the Amended Plat of Lot 41, Fall River Addition be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees with the following conditions, and it passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Commissioners Burgess, Cooper, Pohl, Sager and Thomas. Those voting "No" Commissioner Brown. 1. If two water service lines are installed that they remain within the present easement, or if the water line is enlarged to 6", it be installed pursuant to Town standards and obtain Water Department approval. and also be located within the present easement. 2. Confirm that the access easement conforms to where the actual physical road lies within the access easement, and explore the possibility of increasing the easement to a uniform 30' width throughout its length. 3. Locate new sewer easements to serve the proposed lots for the Estes Park Sanitation District. These should be shown on the Final Plat. 4. A shared access maintenance agreement shall be prepared and provided for staff review. Commissioner Brown stated that his negative vote was based upon the fact that the surrounding neighborhood was still in large-lot form, conforming to the E-Estate zoning. Chairman Sager declared a recess at 3:15 P.M. Chairman Sager reconvened the meeting at 3:24 P.M. 3.D. Amended Plat. Lots 8-12. Lone Pine Acres Addition. Steve Murphree/Applicant. Applicant's Representative Kerry Prochaska, stated that this proposal is to replat five existing C-0 commercial lots to six proposed single-family lots. Adjacent lots on the south and west are zoned C-0 Commercial. There are R-S and R-M sites across Raven Ave. The proposed lots will be somewhat smaller and more narrow than nearby single family, but otherwise similar in character. The terrain is suitable for single-family development. Section 17.20.020 allows a minimum lot area of 18,000 sq. ft. for a single-family lot in the C-0 District. The proposed lots exceed this minimum. Mr. Prochaska stated that the existing 20' private drive is still owned by the original » developer and this portion has been deeded to the owner of Lots 8-12; a note has been added to the plat to this effect. Following review, Town Attorney White approved the language contained in the note. Mr. Prochaska noted that discussion relative to the drainage on the south has not been finalized with the Public Works Director. Configuration of Lots 8A and 9A has been changed to meet the 125' corner lot subdivision requirement. The 20' access easement along Lot 9A to access Lot 8A verifies all access will be off Raven Ave. Intended for information purposes only, staff advised that the Inn of Estes recently abandoned a large leach field running along the west line of Lot 13A. Director Linnane noted that the curbing
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - April 19, 1994 - Page 6 alon Raven Ave. is in need of repair and that the Applicant is re onsible for such repair. Planner eph confirmed that all access will be off Rave Ave. and t an access easement to Lot SA and associ d maintenance a eement for said easement be made a condit Of approval. A lots confirm to the minimum 1 size requirement. Co nts were heard from Ron Harvey, w advised that the majority the Homeowner's Association contacted were in agreement w the proposal, particul y with the note being placed on plat stipulating tha 11 lots would be for single-family dev opment. It was moved and seconded (B ess/Bro the Amended Plat of Lots 8-12, Long Pine Acres Ad ion favorably recommended to the Town Board with the follow onditions, and it passed unanimously: 1. A note be placed the pla estricting access of all lots to R n Ave., pr are and provide a maintenance a eement for acc s to Lot 8A for staff review 2. Improve e drainage along the south ide of Raven Ave. 3. Th earing basis be added to the plat. 4. e bearing direction along the south side o Raven Ave. be labeled. CO ssioner Burgess noted her pleasure with the change n d elopment from commercial to residential. #.Zinal-Plat_LotslanLL-glan.lenXillage_21*division. lie Stanley Commercial Development/Applicant. Representative Van Horn stated that the previous Stanley Village Subdivision created two lots, one each owned by the Park National Bank, and Stanley Village Development. The proposed subdivision enlarges existing Lot 1 (Park National Bank), by including a vacant area to the west of the bank. The bank will have ownership and will construct the next building on Lot 1. Mr. Van Horn confirmed that the total combined floor area of Lots 1 and 2 is not being increased; the 160,000 sq. ft. limitation will not be exceeded. Attorney White and Mr. Van Horn responded to a question raised on the prohibition of additional freestanding signs on Lot 1. Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report and clarified gross floor area calculations to ensure the 160,000 sq. ft. is not exceeded, and that floor area below grade is included in the 160,000 sq. ft. limit. Mr. Van Horn agreed and advised that if in the future Stanley Village Development desires to increase the combined area it was understood that approval must be obtained from EPURA and the planning Commission. There were no comments from the audience. As all nine staff recommendations had been met, it was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Stanley Village Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, and it passed unanimously. 4. 12~MENT PLANS. 4. A. De,~3ByillO*,4118--1£94-45_-101_.-11--al'Ib -0..... Subdivision. Park N-atian~~he Applicant is Pisz~ina,.ha-eff,EF~EE an additional 12~6~6-Ze.~
8./.FOROP'JILISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 2 S ing that there are a number of items missing in the pro al, and that the easement is critical for further consi ration, it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Pohl) Develop nt Plan #94-5 be continued to June 21, 1994, and passed un imously. Staff was directed to submit the ease t to Town Att ney White for his review and comment prior the June 21st me ng. 3. SUBDIVISIONS. 3.A. Amended Plat. L s 8 and 9. Block A. apaho Meadows Subdivision. Marv Ann K tz Trust/ADplica . Bill Van Horn, Applicant's representati stated tha the Applicant is proposing to adjust the inte al lot li etween two existing lots. No additional buildin sites re being created, and this adjustment provides for m ved building sites of slightly less than 1 acre/each. Community Development Direc r Sta reviewed the staff report noting that Arapaho adows was iginally approved as a P.U.D., with a 30 ft. s ack from the t lot line, 25 ft. setback from the street operty line, and ft. setback from the side lot line. Mr Van Horn confirmed th these setbacks will be shown on th plat. Mr. Van Horn st d that the owners will be build g on Lot 9 and selling Lo 8. The Applicant is aware of the s backs as noted. As there re no comments from the audience, it was mov and seconde (Thomas/Burgess) the Amended plat of Lots 8 a 9, Arapa Meadows Subdivision be favorably recommended to e Boa of Trustees, noting the above-mentioned confirmati fr Mr. Van Horn concerning setback delineation on the plat, d it passed unanimously. 1.-b. a-0. Final Plat. Lot 3. Stanley Historic District - Stanley Views Subdivision. FHK Company Partnership/Applicant. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn stated that development of this site is subject to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan and Development Agreement. The proposal has evolved from multi-family with an allowable 50 multi- family units to a single-family development with 20 single- family lots; the owners have agreed to a significantly less dense development than allowed by the Development Agreement. Although the Applicant will attempt to minimize the impact, an equestrian trail easement has been provided for the historical trail rides through the area. The sites have been arranged so as to require minimum earth movement. Administrator Klaphake reported on a meeting with the Stanley Hills Homeowners Association who reside to the east and north of this proposal. The following issues were discussed: (1) zoning impact with the site currently zoned RM - staff is recommending a note be added to the plat limiting each lot to a single-family residence; (2) open space - the Applicant has agreed to set pins to delineate the setback/open space areas; (3) existing access to Stanley Hills - the Town has agreed to provide a physical barrier on this access; (4) the previously graded scarred area overlapping into Stanley Hills - the Applicant has agreed to furnish top soil to reclaim this site; and (5) access for fire safety - due to the configuration of the cul-de-sac serving the development, the roadway meets With the approval of the Fire Chief. Other than one objection, the Homeowners Association will support the proposal.
31?AOFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 3 Administrator Klaphake added that in order to expedite this proposal, a compromise was reached by both the Owner and the Town in two areas: Open space - the Master Plan states that 30% open space is required, exclusive of lotted area. Through negotiations, an alternative has been proposed which allows for the open space to be included within the lots; however, it must be protected by an·open space easement which prohibits disturbance, buildings, fences, patios, etc. This reserved area is 30.1% of the site. The open space is primarily on the perimeter of the subdivision. A 40 ft. wide strip of open space abuts the Stanley Hills open space. Cul-de-sac - the Code provides that no more than 12 residences may be served by a cul-de-sac. Due to configuration and negotiation, it is reasonable to allow the cul-de-sac to serve 20 residences. The Technical Review Committee Will Still review all development and there will be no overlot grading, fencing (except for patio areas), and a maximum of 2-car garages (attached). The landscape plan must also be approved. The proposal includes a gated access on the private cul-de-sac (street), and it will be built to Town standards. The Planning Commission's role in this proposal, pursuant to the Development Agreement, is to consider platting or replatting Of the parcels, such as this proposal. Administrator Klaphake restated conditions to be considered for approval: (1) Fire Chief approval of the access , (2) setting of the property pins delineating the setback and open space areas, (3) approval is not a precedent-setting in terms of the Master Plan and modifications thereof. Commissioner comments/questions included: Gated access. Staff confirmed that the cul-de-sac is a private street that must be constructed to Town standards - the Fire Chief will need to approve the design of the gated access. Rationale for the gated access was provided by Mr. Van Horn who stated that this type of security is common place throughout urban areas and it should serve as a desirable marketing tool. The gate will feature a "call button" for use by the residents for their guests; however, the access does not include a gate house and guards. Pedestrian/Horse Trail. As it was determined that the cul-de-sac did not require a pedestrian system, the Town did not require such. The Technical Review Committee will consult with both the Applicant and Stable Owners and the relocation of the trail will be mutually acceptable. The trail will exist whether or not the stable continues to operate. Mr. Van Horn explained that the Applicant does not desire to limit the trail to horses, that the area will be of sufficient size to accommodate both pedestrians and horses, and that the Applicant has recognized the possibility of conflicts with the gated entry and horses. The Applicant is hopeful that in the foreseeable future, the trail will emerge into strictly pedestrian use by the residents. Comments from the audience were heard from Karen Zipser, President/Stanley Hills Association. Ms. Zipser stated that she represented most, but not all, of the residents bordering Parcel 3. Residents are relieved that only 20 single-family homes are being proposed; she was aware of the compromise
SAADFOHOPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - May 17, 1994 - Page 4 issues, however, this plan is much better; and she expressed her appreciation to staff for making this proposal possible for them. Stating that the plat, as presented today, exceeds the spirit of the letter of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, and that she is satisfied with the requirements of the Master Plan will control the construction of the dwellings and future development, it was moved and seconded (A. Hix/Burgess) the Final Plat Of Stanley Views Subdivision be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees, contingent upon the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The Fire Chief provide acceptance of the private access, stating such is adequate for fire protection. 2. Property pins be set by the Applicant for the open space perimeter. 3. Approval of this proposal is non-precedent setting, only applies to this site. 4.A. Controlled access points are not compatible with public streets. Findley Court should be designated as a private street, and if, in fact, Findley Court is to be a private street, the following dedication statement should be used: "Do hereby subdivide the same into lots and blocks, open space easement areas, right of way, private streets, utility and other easements as shown on this plat, and do hereby designate and dedicate all such utility easements to and for the public use for the installation and maintenance of utility, irrigation and drainage facilities." B. Prior to acceptance of the final plat, a private homeowners association must be in place to maintain the open space easements. C. A note be added to the plat indicating the legal status of the horse trail. 5. The compromises, a identified above, are a reasonable modification of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. 6. A note be added to the plat limiting each lot to a single-family residence. b~unity Development Director Stamey requested the Commi••ton remlV<after the meeting to discuss the summer meeti~3•0~Imaule. There beTM,~po further business, Chairmanradjourned the meeting at 2:39*JLM. 1 · '. AU ~- -p,0V~kie O' Connor, CMC, Town Clerk NOTE: The Pletnpffig Commission meeting -b<hedule for June, July, August andj,~ember, will be as follows: -00,~ sl~6¥ Session: 8:00 A.M., Room 203 eeting: 9:30 A.M., Board Room (Room 103).
SENT BY:HAMMOND CLARK WHIT ; 5-18-94 5:12PM ; 66993801 3035866909;# 2 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park along with Larimer County, Colorado and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District have pursued the acquisition, construction and eventual maintenance of a Hike-Bike Trail starting near the Chamber of Commerce office, then paralleling the Executive Golf Course to Lake Front Street, and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation is the administrative agency responsible for administering federal funds pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned Hike-Bike Trail is eligible to receive Federal aid funds, pursuant to initial design data provided by the Town for the project, and WHEREAS, the matching ratio for this Federal Aid project is 80% Federal aid funds to 20% Town funds for such costs as are eligible for Federal participation; and WHEREAS, the Town has received a proposed contract between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Department of Transportation and the Town of Estes Park, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, which states the terms, conditions, and responsibilities of each party with regard to the project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to enter into the aforementioned contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. The contract between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Department of Transportation and the Town of Estes Park as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. 2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute said contract. Adopted this day of - , 1994. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
June, 1993 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW LIQUOR LICENSE MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of LaVonna Sue Kenney/d.b.a. LA.TI.DA. for a New Hotel & Restaurant Tavern X Beer & Wine 3.2% Retail Beer Liquor-Licensed Drug Store Club license located at 810 Moraine Avenue TOWN ATTORNEY. The application 'was filed April 19, 1994 and, at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 10, 1994 the public hearing thereon was set at 7:30 P.M. on May 24 , 1994 , and the neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.01 miles. This public hearing will be conducted in the following manner: The applicant will be allowed to state his case.and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. The opponents will then be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. The opponents will be allowed a rebuttal which may only rebut 1 .
the evidence of the applicants. No new evidence may be offered. The Board of Trustees may ask any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. TOWN ATTORNEY will present the application and confirm receipt of the following: X Receipt of all necessary fees and hearing costs. The applicant is filing as an: X An individual. A Partnership. A Corporation. X The property is zoned C-D Commercial Downtown or X C-0 Commercial Outlying, which allows this type of business as a permitted use. X The notice of hearing was published on May 13 1994 X The premises was posted on May 13, 1994 . 2
x There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. (There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request.) The Town Attorney asks whether any of the Trustees have any questions regarding the application. Mayor Applicant please present your evidence. Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application. The Town Clerk reads all communication. Ask the Board if there are any further questions. Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. Ask the Board if they have any further comments. MAYOR. Declare the public hearing closed. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable 3
requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. 4
DR 8404 (02/91) , COLORAODO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Wl st~m~7.nt Division u;~ ~ 99:2,4+1: : <*~0 *441~··f "m ,.Ii:k".,41 ...%,1.rl"Mt ..,bt ;f .. T ,7 L $ Denver CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR:tiffj i,1*1%*fita -F* ..',1%1,98.,#~'.i, :Upld· r, r . 1 ar LICENSE APPLICATION /fy IMPORTANT: For those retail licenses described in Column A below, this application and all License Issued Through Use License Account No. supporting documents must FIRST BE FILED IN DUPUCATE WITH, AND APPROVED BY, THE (Expiration Date) for all reference LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY, TOWN, COUNTY). Applications will not be accepted unlessall applicablequestionsarefully answered, all supportingdocuments correspondexactly with the name of the applicant(s), and proper fees are attached. You rnay attach separate sheets or adcitional documents if necessary to fully complete this **~* application. All documents must be typewritten or legibly printed in black ink ~ 2.4 Form DR 8404-1, "Incividual History Record" must be completed and filed in duplicate by he following: 1 . FEE PAID · Each applicant • Over 5% limited partners 12 L p I- c:19 · All officers/directors of a corporation • Managers 9,1, 11. ~ 9/Staw Coun¥ • All stockholders of a corporation not subject • Each person required tome form · ~., s~-4 to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 DR 8404 -1 must submit fingerprints · Over 5% stockholders of a corporation subject to the Local Licensing Authority. I-. I. 6'·PR> to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1984 ; Please note: Fingerprints submitted will · All Umited Uability Company members and managers be used to check criminal history ]~~Reg Ext;** 61 Hrs · All general partners records with the FBI and CBI 1#44 274-2- *Utr NOTE: Ucense status will not be given over the telephone. Ucense will be mailed bythe Liquor ~ ~* Enforcement Division to #Ie Local Licensing Authority upon issuance. J - .24...:d .t. ,~ ..lk ~ ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACIi'NK *gR TYPEWRITTEN . 1 APPLICANTS FORBRAND NEW UCENSES. OR FAN#1~#F O~*SHIP ' / 74* . MUST CHECK THE N'PROPRIAYE BONES BEL«W,RI[THERm:UMN 4-® WLUMN B - 1. 1 -,434/€·h " tr .....4 + Allill /4,#irri'L"Il <"/Im":i/ Ilililimi&dililill,l"""I"lilimil""ill#;f,2:;. 7./4/;rq:. C...~ 41 - 9 (3) COLUMN A STATE FEES 41 - 9 (3) COLUMN B STATE FEES 18 g Application Fee for New Ucense $450.00 18 0 Application Fee for New License $450.00 19 0 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership 450.00 19 0 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership » 450.00 20 0 Retail Liquor Store License - City 202.50 26 m Public Transportation Ucense each $50.00 20 0 Retail Liquor Store License - County 287.50 27 0 Manufacturer's License-Brewery 275.00 21 0 Uquor Licensed Drugstore - City 202.50 28 0 Manufacturer's License-Winery 275.00 21 0 Uquor Ucensed Drugstore - County 287.50 29 [3 Manufacturers Ucense-Distillery or Rectifier 1025.00 22 ~ Beer & Wine License - City 177.50 31 0 Wholesale Uquor License (Vinous & Spirituous) 1025.00 22 U Beer & Wine License - County 262.50 32 0 Wholesale Beer License (Malt Uquor) 525.00 23 0 Hotel & Restaurant Uc. O City O County 326.25 37 O Importers Ucense (Malt Uquor) 275.00 24 0 Hotel & Restaurant Uc. 38 U Imponers Ucense (Vinous & Spirituous Liquor) 275.00 w/Optional Premises £ City C] County 326.25 43 0 Limited Winery Ucense 45.00 25 0 Club Ucense O City m County 135.00 44 0 Nonresident Manufacturer»s License (Malt Liquor) 275.00 40 U Tavem License O City 0 County 326.25 ... ~t 41 C Arts License O City 0 County 135.00 42 0 Racetrack License m City O County 326.25 ...2 1/ .. 1 1. 4 11 'i 45 0 Optional Premises Lic. m City m County 326.25 54. 6-4.-r C] Extended Hours - Special License 170.00 1. Ylame of Applicant(s): If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation: i Date filed with Local Authority: LAVD')1|4 Nug Kic-YV Wit/~ . 4-8 -9 4 la Applicant is a: El Corporation ~ Individuai m Partnership E Umited Uability 1 F.El.N.: 2. ~rade Name of Establishment: (DBA) 31*07 Social Securitv No 9 *47394*4 A,M.11. 43vg. 3. Address of Pre,nises:(Specify exact location of premises. Diagram of premises must accompany this application.) Business Telephone: 916 ~Onak,te, Ave- P.8.20* /629 Aslea AhAK- )00 Ags Poutk A-41?imp,L (Lo n -rat~ ~ug I 1 Coynty: , StateA 80- 5%6- dia 5 41~73794 (N~r and Street) j Cit¥.or Town: S,r: Zip Code: ,;bmt)SOW f) <41<e_ Le 7 63 14 5. if tAis is a tran#i6 of ownerdMip or renewal application, you MUST answer the following questions about this business: Present State License No.: Present Type of Ucense: Present Expiration Date: -t»Af,fmers---pr,rr-r-
· I · .AM.f/"./"I.'. .....I- -•Al/pi3/..**/EWj/*I'll/***# .. . w. 4> 6...'..14,@-{ 0.' '-4 . ...62-· tivt-·7.j,1 Y .i':,Tr# 1.'..:*;lit! ~$: g.41.0 . , YES NO 6. Is the applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, stockholders or cirectors of said applicant (if a corporation),or manager, 0 S under the age of twenty-one years? ,·'A·.· P'.1.4'·~ ..'·:.;1,,·..'<· · .-4-- - ·1 . . 7 1 * fil 7. (a) Has the applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, sbckholders or directors of said applicant Of a corporation) ever been convicted of a crime? If answer is Yes,0 explain in detail. Exclude minor traffic violations. .*41,+,., , 3:,·K. 5*.t :-si ·, 14£~10· 0 . .7//f. 1 :. i 'ret ..4112 93 ' 4 : z b,' ' V, ¥-' (b) Have persons lending assistance or financial support to the applicant orthe manager, or employees, ever been m E convicted of a crime? If answer is -yes,- explain in detail. Exclude minor traffic violations. ,1 : u N /1 U i.:9..$, K 8. Has be applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, directors or stockholders of said applicant (if a corporation), or manager, ever: (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? i '4. , 1,14. u ·Vt.. , i·):4 Le-'/ . I: . '/ -/U 9*' . (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? h 'i - · ~· , '' 4 - ? (c) had interest in an entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? If "yes," explain in detail on separate sheet. --X 9. Has a liquor license for the premises to be licensed been refused within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. F--1 1-KI Y,f..·t 10. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or parochial school, or the principal campus of any college, m 04 university or seminary? 11. Does or cid the applicant, or any of the partners, or officers, directors or stockholders of said applicant (if a corporation) have a direct or incirect interest in any other Colorado Uquor License (indude loans to or from any licensee, or interest in a m Kl loan to any licensee)? If 'yes," explain in detail. 12. State whether the applicant has legal possession of the premises by virtue of ownership or undera lease. Attach a copy of 571 ~ deed or lease. If leased, list name and address of landord and term of lease. Attach a copy of diagram of premises. lease, 6,// Anel yft#,4n trle 6,904 218 #)mAaiN-j plut ° &44 111 k (1365 I 6 leased *+; j j /4/all94 13. Idenbfy the persons, firms, or corporatidris who now, or will, have a financial interest, evidenced either by loans or equity ownership in the business for which this license is requested. State the names and addresses of any such persons, and the amount and source of such financial interest expressed in dollars orother items of value, such as inventory, furniture or equipment (i. e., bank, relatives, friends, previous owners, etc.). Use separate sheet if necessary. ,i ' r NAME ADDRESS INTEREST 14. Ust the names and addresses of all liquor businesses in which any of the persons in the previous question are materially interested. Use separate sheet if necessary. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (inducing a corporation) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or concitional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. Page 2 of 4
~ 11#72·*Mlimor"¥. ~a..e,i.....,F'W..U~W.-t ·11·· · 21. If the applicant is a corporation, answer the following: (a) Corporation is organized under the laws of the State of: .*3 : ·· · Dave of Incorporation: ' I (Attach Certificate of Authority (b) Out-of-state corporations, give date authorized to do business in Colorado: A.''fi from Colo. Secretary of State) (c) Date of filing last annual corporate reion to the Secretary of State: - (d) Name of each officer listed below: Home Address, City and State: Social Security # Date of Birth: President: Vice-Preeldert: Treasurer: Secretary: (e) Name all 5% or greater stockholders; Home Address, City and State % of stock Date of Birth: include actual owner or pledaee R (f) Name of all Directors or Trustees of Home Address, City and State Corporation: 22. Manager: 1 .1 I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complpte to the best of my knowledge. -M.. 40~4 Signauv€ /-~ , Date: / rp)9«/5*la.« (211-A- 9-,4,94 I. I . . 4 + 1 &4€1 f * 47 .poRT ANDAPPR6vgb#Lod@IB~~~~." t.inufactu,4, noweildentmanut~ctulers, -6~-~6hole#1~04~0ml¢*&~0%19,99*j)10EtsM•-10• Hcon••- · ti~t. :, Is this application for a: ~ New License ~Transfer of Ownership ~ Other (specify): YES NO Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Has been fingerprinted Background NCIC and CCIC checked , El El The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. E El If 'no,- the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do report that such license, if granted, will meet the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants, and will complywiththe provision of Title 12, Article 47, C. R.S. ™EREFORE, THIS APPLI CATION ISAPPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for: D TOWN, CITY El COUNTY Signature: Title: . Date: Signature (attest): Title: Date: If premises are located within a town or city, the above approval should be signed by the mayor and derk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk to the board. If, by ordinance or otherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. Page 4 of 4
DR,8404-1 (07/92) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1375 SHERMAN STREET DENVER CO 80261 INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORD To be completed by each individual applicant, each general and over 5% limited partner of a partnership, each officer, director, and over 5% stockholder of public corporation, over 5% limited liability company members/persons and managers. NOTICE: This individual History Record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authorities investigation. ALL questions must be answered in their entirety. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character and reputation of the applicant. 1. Name of Business Date Sodal Security Number Lk.90>.DA. 4-/50 * 429-73--94 34 2. Yow Full Name (last, first, middl ) / 3. Also Known As (maiden name/nickname, etc.) gli )0 112-Li ~AVb/DWA but- Gus; 0 4.101ailing Address (~ifferent from residence) Home Telephone 146 ) 84 ~11 An f)92 303 - 6*-6* 7 4 5. Residence Addrels (street and numl#, city, state, zip) ~.441 '620 ~Tbanp}30 DRa Rp I tt> Ci} At 1 h It rented, from whom? Is your residence >wned U rented 7. Date of Birth 8. U.S. Citizen? . mER/:93 ./0 0- 3%-41 %2'Yes [3 No 11 Naturalized, state where When Name of U.S. Distridkourt Naturalization Certificate Number Date of Certificate 0 an Allon,Glve Allon:,Registration Card ilumbor Pormanort Ruidince Card Number 9. Holaht // Weight Hair Color Eye Color S.x Rico 4 10. Do You Have a Colorado Driver's Ucer-7 If yes, glve n b €4/f \1& Auitih) 8*1810 F \£) FSNes UND R34 9/9 1- 11. What is your relationship to the applicant? (sole owner, partner, corporate officer, director, stockholder, member or manager) Sole, Ou}neje- 12. If stockholder, number of shares owned beneficlally or of record Percent of outstanding stock owned 13. Percent of Partnership Owned 11 Limited LIability Company, pircent owned If partner, state whether U General U Limited 14. Name of Present Employer + 15. Typoof Business or Employment 16. Address of Business Where Employod (strost number, city, state, zip) Business Telephone 17. Present Position 18. Marital Status 19. Nam, of Spouse (Include maiden name It applicable 20. Spouse'I Date of Birth Spouu's Place of Birth 21. Spouse'* residence address, If different than yours (street and number, city, state, zip) 22. Spouse'* Present Employer Occupation 23. Address of Spouse's Present Employer 24. List the name(s) of all relatives working in the liquor industry. Name of Relative Relationship to You Position Held Name of Employer Location of Employer CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE
25. Do you now, or have you ever held a direct or indirect interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License? If yes, answer in detail E Yes [X No 26. Do you now, or have you ever had a direct or indirect interest in a liquor or beer license, or been employed in a liquor or beer related business outside the State of Colorado? If yes, describe in detail. 0 Yes DNO 27. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, fined, imprisoned, placed on probation, received asuspended sentence or forfeited bail for any offense in criminal or military court? (Do not indude traffic violations, unless they resulted in suspension or revocation of your driver's license, or you were convicted of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages.) If yes, explain in detail. E Yes ~ No 28. Have you ever received a violation notice, suspension or revocation for a liquor law violation, or beer, denied a liquor or beer license any where in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. E Yes [~10 29. Have you ever held a gambling or gaming license or owned a Federal Gambling Stamp? If yes, explain in detail below. El Yes U No State/Federal Year City State State/Federal Year City State 30 Military Service (branch) From To Serial Number Type of Discharge ' 31. List all addresses where you have lived for the past five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary) Street and Number City, State, Zip From To lt®'1 -12,£ ,61) Do'4 Pieo.je.- 1.ouist); 1 /p , 1/ quo :10, 53 44 I . 32. List all former employers or business engaged in within the last five years. (Attach separate sheet if necessary.) Name of Employer Address (street, number, city, state, zip) Position Held From To dUM brn NAIL 4 1 // / 11201@ EvaLL,0 60+0~ -10.. yattlise 11(, )1~ foRe lidop JL -Re)114;e.140 cr/VI /93 1 6096¢ 33. List the names of persons who can vouch for your good character and fitness in connection with this application. Name of Reference Address (street, number, city, state, zip) Number of Years Known trbe *C }1), )):ams 10 Age 4}w, Qee ¢19 It,~ 8012 5 '-fax PaRKA« -311 4uf,~ ka . Mit- Spatnis,A£'1)413 30 3%60 4 btA e *141 4 -li#pson 020 k %6 Kbil s 4 - OATH 0, Appucurn. I declare under penalty of perjury in the Ucond d®ree thdt I have read tie foregoing application and all attach- ments tbereto, and that all information therein is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. ~3Et>~-,,~=ptil~.~0£~-00··- 2*96.60 4 /, tf A 4 Title Date / - 1, . 1
T'-Y - / - - 4 ' S+A i 29 ' ./ 6+0 12· AGE 1 Ul . 4 + J 28 2 Wo E d C i - 2 Ill . '8 2 2 2 - 21\ \ 0 9- 94\ \ 4 7 -4.1 \ 2 0 2\ 2 - 41 >c d JO 0 .- - 44.\ 3 U B 00 «S 6 - 0 2 0 \l CIO™; N 6 A R. EA . ---- 4 2-7.==4 - 7 19 CO 43- 5 f -2 * EO 9- . -. , l o /9 - 1 3 d I 0 1 4 + d 2 2 - lt=6 O 2 z 2 V3 ·. Ul 4 -1 0 4 01 0 ds 0 e A 11\*I 1 C < 0 6 2 4 44 ul W Ci Nul P 2 2 4 0 k @ a w »7\> - ID u, k 2 ·- - d d ul u 2 - 6 *1 91) 2J H j U .- = 0 0 -2 - 6 9 g V. -- 4- ilne,- ul ' 3'ar 3 00 0 40 /1 - 8 1 - 0 0 0. 00 41 1 r- .~,, ·czt ,i -37 N vue 31 D.3' X 23' rp°d 711 2.P A il s . v# 7'0'll. T HADEUS CAFE . r,d e. BVH yo*, X 101'.6"
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING dated this day of May, 1994, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, hereinafter referred to as the ("Town") and the Park Entrance Estates Property Owners Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("Association"), the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company, a Colorado corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("Mutual Water Company"), and the Park Entrance WAter Company, a Colorado Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Water Company". WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has had certain discussions with the residents of Park Entrance Estates Subdivision, hereinafter referred to as the ("Property") with regard to the annexation of the Property to the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Association is a legal entity which represents certain interests of the residents of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Mutual Water Company and Water Company are legal entities which also represent certain interests of the residents of the property; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the understandings of the parties with regard to the annexation of the Property to the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RECITALS STATED ABOVE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town intends to consider the annexation of the Property + in accordance with the terms and conditions of the "Municipal Annexation Act of 1965". The annexation of the Property shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions, including all requirements for petitions, notice and hearing as set forth in the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965. In the event that the Town does receive a petition which conforms with the provisions of said Act and the Town does annex the Property, the parties agree that the following is an understanding of the parties of various items of concern between the parties. A. ZONING: It is anticipated that the Property will be zoned E-Estate, according to the terms and conditions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. The parties understand and agree that the Town does not obligate itself in any manner to approve E-Estate Zoning for the Property. B. STREETS: The streets will be dedicated to the Town pursuant to the annexation process. Since the streets are not presently constructed to Town standards, maintenance of the existing streets will continue to be performed by the property owners. After completion of the street paving described below, the Town will assume responsibility for the maintenance of all public streets, including snow removal, asphalt patching, and overlay, and will perform such maintenance in accordance with the regular street maintenance programs of the Town.
Subject to the formation of a Special Improvement District (SID) by the property owners, the Town will agree to manage the construction and paving of the gravel streets within the annexed area. The Town will also agree to pay one- half of the asphalt portion of the paving costs, subject to the availability of funds for this purpose within the Town'.s normal budget process. The property owners are responsible for the remaining costs, as determined during the formation of the SID. Formation of the SID is specified by state law, and includes public notice, public hearing provisions, and a vote of the electors of the Town of Estes Park. C. WATER RATES: Upon annexation, the water rate will change from a rural rate to an urban rate, pursuant to the ' Municipal Code. D. WATER LINES: Maintenance of the existing water system within the annexed area will continue to be performed by the property owners. A new system meeting Town standards shall be constructed by the property owners before the Town would accept ownership and maintenance responsibilities. This construction could be done via SID at the same time the streets are paved, or at a later date. E. SALES AND USE TAXES: Upon annexation, the Property will be subject to the Town's sales and use taxes. F. POLICE PROTECTION: Upon annexation, the Town will provide police and fire protection as it provides to all other areas within the Town's boundaries. Both parties specifically agree as follows: 2. BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. Any building permit inspection within the Property shall be performed by the Town. The Town agrees to notify the Association, through its designated representative, of any building permit applications. This agreement by the Town is merely for notification of the Association of all building permits. The Town shall not be required to administer, interpret or in any way become involved in any dispute between any building permit applicant and the Association or any residents of the Property with regard to whether or not the structure for which the building permit is applied for is in compliance with any covenants or restrictions which govern the property. Also, the parties agree that the Town shall not be liable to the Association or any other owner or resident located within the Property for failure to notify the Association of any application for a building permit. 3. STREET LIGHTS. Upon annexation, the Town agrees to install one street light at the intersection of Heinz Parkway and High Drive.
THIS AGREEMENT contains the entire understanding of the parties with regard to certain items involving the annexation of the Property to the Town of Estes Park. In the event that the Property is not annexed to the Town of Estes Park on or before June 1, 1995, this Memorandum shall become null and void and of no further effect. Dated this of May 1994. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: 1 Town Clerk PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION '-2- -1. I --2 fol el.41-2& President C-/ ATTEST: b-,1 E A W, ln~n,riue D Secretary PARK ENTRANCE MUTUAL PIPELINE AND WATER COMPANY C.4--fl_ ATTEST: /1 6 / ~ plfU'iJ~ Sebretary PARK ENTRANCE WATER COMPANY 4 1 A/& Af-@ Ce«/ ATTEST: U .. . 1 40 dE f»., 1 0..u·L.L ./ 0