HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 1999-09-14: 7 / Prepared 9/9/99 The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high- value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 1999 and August 31, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, September 2, 1999. 4. Board of Adjustment, August 10, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Planning Commission, August 17, 1999 (acknowledgement only). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution #24-99 - Authorizing Sidewalk Sale October 9 and 10, 1999. 2. Liquor Licensing: A. Public Hearing: Transfer of Ownership from Black Canyon Restaurants, Inc., to Twin Owls Steakhouse, Inc., Hotel & Restaurant License, 800 MacGregor Avenue. B. Transfer of Ownership from David & Yolanda Oehlman, to Oehlman Enterprises, Inc. dba River Rock Grilling Company, Beer and Wine License, 509 Big Thompson Avenue. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: 1.
• 7 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24,1999 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of August, 1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Stephen W. Gillette Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. to consider the Liquor Show Cause Hearings for The Wheel, Nicky's, and The Stanley Hotel. Trustee Hix declared a "conflict of interest", stated he would not participate in discussion nor vote, and vacated the council chamber. Mayor Dekker reviewed the "Procedure for Show Cause Hearings" that would be followed. Editofs note: the meeting was officially recorded by Blando Reporting Service, and those offering testimony were sworn-in by the reporter. Park Wheel Co., dba THE WHEEL. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing for Police Field Incident Report #99-675 alleging that The Wheel sold alcoholic beverage to an underage person. Those persons involved in presenting the case: Jerome Roselle, Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept., and Pat Murphy, Defendant's Attorney. Those witnesses offering testimony included: Sgt. Gary J. Fox, Marlin Flowers, Bartender/The Wheel, Steve Nagl, Owner/The Wheel. Public testimony was heard from Rhonda Hickon, Bartender/The Wheel, and Town Attorney White commented that correspondence received from Mr. and Mrs. Jay Grooters would be held should the case proceed toward litigation. There being no further testimony, Mayor Dekker closed public hearing. Town Attorney White advised that two additional hearings must yet be heard, the meeting is already behind schedule, and that prior to making a decision, the Town Board would return at 7:00 to consider the standard Agenda. New Stanley Associates LP and GHV-Colo., Inc., dba THE STANLEY HOTEL. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing for Police Field Incident Report #99-680 alleging that The Stanley Hotel sold alcoholic beverage to an underage person. Those persons involved in presenting the case: Jerome Roselle, Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept., and H. Alan Dill, Defendant's Attorney. Mr. Dill confirmed that The Stanley has admitted the violation took place and they are seeking consideration for the suspension period, suggesting a fine in lieu of suspension, to lessen the impact to their significant number of guests. Attorney Roselle pointed out that the bartender Jason Curtis was genuinely sorry for the violation and he clearly did not try to deflect responsibility.
k Board of Trustees - August 24,1999 - Page 2 As there was no public comment, Mayor Dekker closed the hearing. Safewav Stores 46, Inc., dba SAFEWAY. Attorney Dill confirmed that Staff had negotiated a Stipulation Agreement, thus under the terms, the suspension period for a second violation is 30 days. Actual suspension is 10 days, from August 25 through September 3, with the remaining 21 days held in abeyance for one year. All employees are to attend TIPS training. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Jeffrey) the Stipulation Agreement be approved, authorizing the Mayor to execute a Findings and Order of Suspension for the suspension as listed above, and it passed unanimously. Pursuant to a question concerning precedent, Town Attorney White confirmed that each liquor violation must be judged on their own merits-a precedence is inappropriate in judging alleged liquor violations. Nicky's Restaurant and Lounge, Ltd., dba NICKY'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE. Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing for Police Field Incident Report #99-681 alleging that Nicky's Restaurant & Lounge sold alcoholic beverage to an underage person. Those persons involved in presenting the case: Jerome Roselle, Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept., and Zach Wilson: Defendant's Attorney. Those witnesses offering testimony included: Officer Ryan Alberts, Sgt. Gary J. Fox, Tory Nelson, Bartender/Nicky's, and Nick Kane, Owner/Nicky's. Mayor Dekker announced a recess at 6:38 p.m., advising the meeting would continue at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 7.00 p.m. The meeting will continue with the standard agenda as printed, with the Nicky's case to follow. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, August 19, 1999: 1. Lake Estes/Mall Road Trail Design Scope of Services - Approval of budget expenditure. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution #21-99 - Instituting procedure to address a Protest of an Initiated Ordinance Ballot Title. Town Attorney White advised that, pursuant to Section 31-11-111(4) C.R.S., the Town must have an ordinance or resolution that establishes procedure for protest of any ballot
Board of Trustees - August 24,1999 - Page 3 title for an initiated ordinance or referendum. Attorney White read the Resolution, and it was moved and seconded (HiWDoylen) Resolution #21-99 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. 2. Initiated Ordinance Petition - Prohibiting the Exhibition of Animals. In a memorandum dated August 18, 1999, Town Clerk O'Connor advised that she received eight Petitions on August 4th. The Petitions contained 274 signatures; 47 were disqualified; and 227 signatures were verified. The required 5% of the registered electors, 223, were obtained, and th Statement of Sufficiency was issued August 9 . The Board of Trustees must either: (1) adopt, without alteration, the Initiated Ordinance as proposed, or (2) refer the Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the municipalities. Staff suggested that if option 2 is selected, the Ordinance could be placed on the Larimer County Ballot scheduled November 2, 1999. Clerk O'Connor read the following correspondence: letter dated August 23, 1999 from Cindy Schonholz, Animal Welfare Coordinator/Professional Rodeo Cowboys Assn. (the Assn. believes the ordinance is vaguely written; the 'exceptions" portion does not give clear exemptions of activities, but creates 'specific defense" to charges-does this mean that a person can be charged with a crime and then use these defenses; definition and interpretation questions; and the negative impact on Estes Park's economy). Letter dated August 24, 1999 from Kathie Troudt Riley, Colorado Director/Friends of Rodeo (expressed concern relative to banning aquariums in offices, therapeutic animals, etc.; the ordinance contains no exemptions, exceptions or defenses; Estes Park economy; and risk to rodeo related animal events. Letter dated August 17, 1999 from Zoe Rappoport, Cruelty Caseworker/People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.) (expressed opposition to the 'plexi-glass animal exhibit" proposed for Estes Park, and stated they receive complaints of dispirited animals at roadside zoos). Trustee Baudek requested clarification that the Initiated Ordinance addresses "animals", not "wildlife", and that the four items contained in the Ordinance are specific defenses, anyone exhibiting could be charged and then have to defend themselves. Attorney White responded that yes, "animals", not "wildlife" is contained in the Ordinance. Regarding the four specific defenses, the Ordinance does not contain a definition of "exhibit", it is uncertain/unclear what, if any, violations could occur. In addition, White confirmed that although the Park School Dist. and RMNP could have temporary exhibits, the Town could not. Trustee Baudek commented that in his opinion, the proponents have little concern with animals and are targeting a specific development. He does respect true concern for the animals; outside interests leave Estes Park without living with the consequences of their actions, and he urged voters to consider what person, activity, etc. might be the next target, "be careful, it could be you." Initiated Ordinance Proponent, Ricki Ingersoll, stated the ordinance is a "general ordinance", three attorneys have reviewed same, Item 1.(b) 'it is a specific defense..." means no charges will be brought against these exceptions - domestic animals are accepted, rodeos accepted, and DOW definitions and language were used as well as the USDA definition of exhibition. Ms. Ingersoll's intent is that Rocky Mountain wildlife not be caged, and it has been proved time and again that animals in roadside zoos learn degradation. The ordinance has nothing to do with property
Board of Trustees - August 24, 1999 - Page 4 rights and zoning. Ms. Ingersoll asked the Board to demonstrate bravery and courage, and to think of this issue with their heart. Michelle Rokke/Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (RMAD), speaking to clear up misconceptions: RMAD got involved because residents asked them to. RMAD is not trying to evoke change in Estes Park, they are trying to maintain status quo. The Initiated Ordinance will not affect rodeo, etc., the issue deals strictly with caged animals for commerce-keep Rocky Mountain wildlife out of cages. Estes Park is being given an opportunity to do the right thing, an opportunity to represent the citizens. This issue is receiving strong response across the country, receiving national media attention, and donations come from national and local persons-RMAD has the funds to generate a full-blown campaign. Animals feel loneliness, pain, sense of loss, etc., and the DOW will not allow captive animals here. Zoo babies get sold - just because they are born in captivity doesn't change their feelings. ICM is an outside company trying to evoke change and disrupt the community. Trustee Barker questioned whether the Ordinance was directly targeted at the ICM project, and whether RMAD would have come to Estes Park if ICM had not put forth their project. Ms. Rokke responded that RMAD was asked to come to Estes Park and get involved specifically on this ICM project. Trustee Doylen clarified that ICM, not Estes Park, is planning the wildlife center; Estes Park is teeming with wildlife and not everyone has access to wildlife areas due to safety, handicapped accessibility, and the like. There is a segment of the population that without such a wildlife center, would never have the ability to observe wildlife. Ms. Rokke responded there is a surplus of videos from reputable zoos that provide videos. Trustee Baudek commented that the addition of ':wild" would have been helpful in the Initiated Ordinance. Trustee Jeffrey stated she respects the passion of all concerned, however, as previously stated, the Ordinance is flawed, and the citizens should be allowed to make the choice. Mayor Dekker agreed with comments made by the Trustees, adding that it is offensive to have people outside of Town trying to make changes and leaving without having to live with the consequences. Mayor Dekker expressed his faith in the citizens, urging them to look at all aspects of the Initiated Ordinance and make the right decision. Comments in support of the Initiated Ordinance were heard from Estes Park petition circulators Alan Aulabaugh and Karen Steadman. Comments of concern and/or opposition were heard from Elowise Yoder, Boulder. Town Attorney White read Resolution #22-99 and the ballot title. Trustee Hix commented that the "ordinance is flawed", and it was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) the Board select Option 2, and that Resolution #22-99 be adopted, referring the Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the Town of Estes Park for the November 2, 1999 Coordinated Election with Larimer County, and it passed unanimously. Following is the ballot title: INITIATIVE Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the animal to an object? Yes NO It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen) the Town Clerk be authorized to execute the Election Agreement with Larimer County
, Board of Trustees - August 24,1999 - Page 5 for the Coordinated Election November 2, 1999, and it passed unanimously. 3. EPURA Resolution #275 - Requesting the Town Place the Mountain Discovery Concept on the Ballot for the November 2, 1999 Coordinated Election. EPURA Chairman Putney reiterated EPURA's Goals that were reported to the Town Board in February, and EPURA Resolution #275 was read. Mountain Discovery of Estes Park is a proposed mixed-use development that will offer interpretive exhibits that explore the natural, scientific and cultural history of RMNP and Estes Park. It will include: • New Visitor Information Center that replaces the existing Information Center. • National Park information desk staffed by NPS personnel. • Restaurant o Retail Shop • Education Displays • 300-seat large-screen theater featuring an original film about RMNP. • 380 Public parking spaces. • Access to Estes Park's hiking and biking trail system. The building is expected to be approximately 27,000 sq. ft. situated on a 10-acre site. Mountain Discovery of Estes Park is expected to break ground in April, 2000 and open in Summer, 2001. Project costs are estimated at $11 Million, funded through a public/private partnership between EPURA and Amfac Parks & Resorts, a Denver-based management company with will operate the facility. There are no new taxes associated with this project. The facility will blend architecturally with Estes Park as it will reflect what today's architects call "parkitecture", a term that suggests use of native materials, rustic features and environmentally friendly facilities. Chairman Putney further outlined community benefits and referred to EPURA Resolution 275 requesting the Town Board place consideration/desirability of Mountain Discovery of Estes Park on the November 2, 1999 Ballot. Mayor Dekker urged citizens to vote in the upcoming election, and announced open houses that begin Wednesday, 8/25 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 203. Trustee Barker noted that preliminary work is done, it is now time for the people of Estes Park to find out what this project is about, and he encouraged citizens to attend the open houses and share information. Trustee Hix stated that submitting this development proposal to the citizens is very important-the voters need to express their opinion to the Town Board. He appreciated EPUFU\ dovetailing other current improvements into this project. Trustee Baudek thanked EPURA for all their hard work and recommendation to the Town Board and supported the proposal being offered to the voters. Attorney White read the following ballot question, and it was moved and seconded (HiWDoylen) the Board of Trustees refer consideration/desirability of Mountain Discovery of Estes Park to the registered electors of Estes Park, placing the question on the November 2, 1999 Coordinated Election, and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees - August 24, 1999 - Page 6 REFERENDUM Shall the Town of Estes Park, through the Estes Park Renewal Authority, enter into a public/private partnership with Amfac Parks and Resorts to construct Mountain Discovery? Yes No 4. Appointment to Stanley Hall Advisory Board - Acknowledge Resignation of Greiq Steiner and Appointment of Jon Svpher. Mayor Dekker announced Greig Steiner's resignation, noting Mr. Steiner's diligence and commitment to Stanley Hall, and the appointment of Jon Sypher. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey) Mr. Steiner's resignation be accepted with regret, appreciating his time and effort on this project, filling the vacancy with Jon Sypher, and it passed unanimously. 5. Resolution #23-99 - Intent to Annex Kiowa Ridge Addition, refer to Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) Resolution #23-99 be adopted, and it passed unanimously. The 111.09 acre site is owned by William Van Horn, Robert Koehler, and Mr. and Mrs. William Pike. The Resolution refers the proposed annexation to the Planning Commission for their meeting September 21,1999. 6. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. OurFest Report. Approximately 130 people attended the First th Annual OurFest August 17 . There was inclement weather just prior to the event; however, following music provided by the Elktones, the movie, ANTZ was presented. The Stanley Park Baseball Field was a very favorable location to host this event and it was well organized. Town Administrator Widmer complimented Linda Hinze for a job well done. Mayor Dekker announced a recess at 8:08 p.m. stating the Board of Trustees would continue their consideration of the Show Cause Hearing for Nicky's Restaurant & Lounge Ltd. Trustee Hix was excused and he vacated the room. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Nicky's Restaurant and Lounge, Ltd., dba NICKY'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE. Attorney Wilson presented his case, and those witnesses offering new and/or additional testimony were: Tory Nelson, Bartender/Nicky's, Nick Kane, Owner/Nicky's Restaurant & Lounge, Officer Alberts, and Sgt. Fox. Prosecuting Attorney Roselle presented his case. As there were no public comments, Mayor Dekker closed the hearing, and requested the Town Board enter Executive Session to deliberate as an administrative body and receive legal advice. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) the request be approved, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p. m. Park Wheel Co., dba THE WHEEL. Trustee Doylen stated that yes, mistakes were made in this particular case: however, the mistake was redressed by the person involved. Whereas too much of the evidence is in dispute to find with certainty that the transaction took place, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) the Town Board find that the evidence is inadequate in this
. 7 Board of Trustees - August 24, 1999 - Page 7 case to find a violation of State Statute 12-47-901. This is no way a finding of fault with Police Officers nor is it putting them on trial. Likewise, it does not forgive the actions of the bartender involved. As to the gravity of the situation fortunately in this particularly case, all were lucky alcohol was not consumed by an underage person and an accident did not occur. The motion passed unanimously. Nicky's Restaurant and Lounge, Ltd., dba NICKY'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE. Trustee Doylen stated that yes, mistakes were made in this particular case; however, the mistake was redressed by the person involved. Whereas too much of the evidence is in dispute to find with certainty that the transaction took place, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek) the Town Board finds that there is too much evidence to dispute that the alleged transaction took place to find a violation of State Statute 12-47-901. This is no way a finding of fault with Police Officers nor is it putting them on trial. Likewise, it does not forgive the actions of the bartender involved. As to the gravity of the situation fortunately in this particularly case, all were lucky alcohol was not consumed by an underage person and an accident did not occur. The motion passed unanimously. New Stanley Associates LP and GHV-Colo., Inc., dba THE STANLEY HOTEL. It was moved and seconded (BaudeWDoylen) The Stanley Hotel be found in violation of State Statute 12-47-901 and serve 21 day suspension as follows: 5 consecutive days from August 25th through September 2, 1999, accepting a fine in lieu of suspension for an additional 5 days equal to 20% of the gross liquor revenues for that period. The 11 days held in abeyance are suspended on the condition that no further violations occur through August 29,2000. The motion passed unanimously. Trustee Baudek reiterated, there is a choice after the first 5 consecutive days: serve the 5 additional days or pay a fine. Trustee Barker suggested that if The Stanley elects to pay the fine, the monies be allocated toward alcohol education, such as MADD, DARE, etc. Stanley representative John Korpi questioned and Mayor Dekker clarified, the motion. There being no further business, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 31,1999 Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 31St day of August, 1999, Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: John Baudek Mayor Dekker called the special meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. None. ACTION ITEMS. 1. Protest concerning Ballot Title - Proponents of Initiated Ordinance Petition Prohibiting the Exhibition of Animals. Mayor Dekker stated that on August 24th, the Board of Trustees passed Resolution 21-99 concerning protest procedures for a ballot title for initiated ordinance or referendum. In a letter dated August 26, 1999, Proponents Ricki Ingersoll and Terry Parenti protested the following ballot title: "Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the animal to an object?" The proponents suggest the following language: "Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the animal to an object. The provisions of the ordinance do not apply to the listed exceptions in the ordinance dealing with educational exhibition, exhibition of domestic animals, exhibition for purposes of adoption by a humane society or exhibition of animals during periods of rehabilitation or medical treatment by a veterinarian." Blair Trautwein, Attorney representing the proponents stated it is important to list the exceptions for true intent of the Ordinance. Trustee Hix questioned the difference between exception and defense. Mr. Trautwein stated that, in this particular case, there is no difference. Trustee Doylen commented that the Ordinance states 'it is a specific defense to a charge": an exception occurs prior to being charged. Mr. Trautwein urged the Board to exercise discretion. Trustee Doylen noted her concern with 'defense to a charge" - in this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Trautwein stated there is always a
Board of Trustees (Special Meeting) - August 31, 1999 - Page 2 presumption of innocence. Mayor Dekker stated the primary obstacle appears to be the definition of defense and exception. Mr. Trautwein suggested the Proponents' ballot title be amended to t..not apply to the listed defenses" rather than exceptions as listed in the protest letter. The Mayor stated the four specific defenses to a charge are not exceptions, how could same be defined and made clear to the citizens. Trustee Doylen stated the proposed ballot title includes "...treatment by a veterinarian." The word veterinarian was not used in the Initiated Ordinance, is it an appropriate injection to the ballot title at this time? Town Attorney White confirmed the Town is prohibited from injecting any opinion, interpretation, etc. on the Initiated Ordinance. Trustee Gillette requested clarification on the purpose of the ballot title, and Attorney White responded that the purpose is to give the voter an opportunity to vote yes or no in a fair manner; there are no restrictions to the length of the ballot question. Responding to Trustee Gillette, Attorney White confirmed that the ballot title as written and approved by the Town Board August 24th fairly represents the Initiated Ordinance. However, Items 1 -4 could be added as a defense, not an exception. The Ordinance contains defenses, not exceptions, and if an animal is caged or tethered, the owner could be cited into Municipal Court. Trustee Gillette moved the ballot title remain as approved August 24, 1999. Trustee Barker stated the ballot title accurately reflects the Initiated Ordinance and seconded the motion. Ricki Ingersoll stated that, in her opinion, the Town Board is making a judgement on the Initiative and language contained therein on what it is presumed to be. It is illegal to kill an elk inside Town limits and slaughter it for meat, but if there is "road kill", the meat can be used to feed the poor. The Town Board cannot make a legal opinion on this Ordinance, and parties who are initiating the Ordinance must also think the ballot title is fair - compromise or go to court. Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code is already more blatant than this Ordinance, cattle and horses are more restricted. Nowhere in the Municipal Code does it state rodeos are allowed. Rodeos are illegal and an injunction could be filed to stop this activity. The Town Board is not a legal entity or court system. There are ordinances in the Municipal Code that are violated every day and people are not arrested. It is her contention that the 4 items listed in the Initiated Ordinance are exceptions and she could give a definition to make them exceptions if passed. The Town Board is not being fair, she will not stand for this action, and she will move forward. Mr. Trautwein expressed his opposition to Attorney White's statement that the Town Board cannot add language or an interpretation to the Ordinance. If the Town Board's intent is to be fair, the four items must be included. There are rodeos held in Estes Park with horses from all over the country, all horses are supposed to be charged $25. Such a fee is not charged as it is not the intent of the ordinance. Alan Aulabaugh commented on horses and cattle relative to the Municipal Code and Ms. Ingersoll's comments, adding that if a person uses De-con to kill mice, that person could be charged now, unless they are a fumigation business. The Code is not written in stone, and everyone knows what the intent of this particular Ordinance means. The proponents want the exhibition of animals stopped for amusement or entertainment purposes. Mr. Aulabaugh urged the Board to compromise.
Board of Trustees (Special Meeting) - August 31, 1999 - Page 3 Trustee Jeffrey questioned whether the ballot title would include the entire Ordinance language. Attorney White responded that yes the entire Initiated Ordinance could be printed, and Trustee Barker confirmed that a copy of the Initiated Ordinance is available to all. Mr. Trautwein commented that the Town writes many ordinances, and in many instances, the Mayor doesn't send the Police Dept. to enforce the law. However, if there is a charge, the Town is obligated to follow through in Municipal Court. As requested, Mayor Dekker read the approved ballot title. In Mr. Aulabaugh's opinion, the ballot title as approved is grossly short of what the Initiated Ordinance covers. Terry Parenti, co-sponsor of the initiative, pled with the Town Board to observe common sense, the Board knows what the intent is-to prohibit the caging and exhibition of wild animals. It has nothing to do with the development of property. The specific intent of the developer here is to cage wild animals for exhibition and profit; the proponents object to that simple act. Whether the development is profitable and a proper use of the site is up to them. In the interest of getting people to know what they are voting on, you have to keep the issue in focus. It will be a disservice to the voting constituents of Estes Park if they do not know what the Proponents consider to be exceptions, part of initiative. People seldom read details, it is unfair to expect they will understand this abbreviated title. Mr. Parenti urged the Board of Trustees to include the explanations so the average citizen can honestly say whether they are for it or against it. Trustee Barker questioned why the Proponents didn't use the language "exception" in lieu of defense; Mr. Parenti responded that they could have, it was their intent. Kathy Riley/Friends of Rodeo, commented that she believes the Proponents are attempting to re-write their Ordinance. As written, the Initiated Ordinance clearly states the exhibition of animals-the ballot title is exactly as proposed in the Ordinance. Trustee Doylen reiterated that the Ordinance does not state wild animals, had it been definitive in the introductory statement, the intent would be clarified. Trustee Hix concurred with Trustee Doylen, stated the Ordinance is still flawed, and wild should have been specified. Trustee Jeffrey questioned how the definition of defense vs. exception was considered in legal terms? Mr. Trautwein referred to the Statute for the true intent and meaning of a measure. Without the defenses: the ballot title clearly doesn't meet the intent of the Ordinance. Trustee Hix called for the question. The vote was unanimous to retain the ballot title as previously approved. Mr. Aulabaugh referred to Item #4 in the Initiated Ordinance, and added that approval of the Ordinance would make rodeos legal in this Town and that they are currently illegal. Attorney White added that tethering a dog in a driveway would be in violation of the Initiated Ordinance as written, and that exhibiting is not defined. Ms. Ingersoll disagreed with Attorney White, and added that at the next Town Board meeting, she was planning to add definitions to Ch. 7 (Animal section) that would clearly define their Ordinance. In an effort to "get all avenues covered" the Ordinance language was broadly written. The Town Board has made it unfair for the voting public to understand what this Ordinance is. Mayor Dekker commented that it is the intent and definitions of the Initiated Ordinance that are elusive, and disagreed with the statement that the Town Board does not want to protect animals. 2. Lake Estes Trail Relocation/Estes Substation. Light & Power Director Matzke stated that PRPA's contractor for the substation project plans to mobilize the week of September 711'. As has been previously'discussed, the bike path east of the Estes Power Plant Switchyard must be relocated. One condition of the BOR
Board of Trustees (Special Meeting) - August 31,1999 - Page 4 Special Use Permit is that the bike path be replaced prior to removing the portion that conflicts with the substation Project. Approximately 440' of bike path must be relocated, and Rocky Mountain Consultants (RMC) has negotiated a bid with High Peak Concrete for construction of the new path, partial demolition of the existing path, relocation of the irrigation system, and placement of sleeves under the new path for future irrigation expansion. RMC confirmed that High Peak Concrete is the only contractor that is able to meet the time constraints of this project, and their bid price is reasonable. Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to High Peak Concrete for an estimated cost of $21,978. This expense will be refunded to the Town from the bond sale. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Gillette) the Board award the bid in the amount of $21,978 to High Peak Concrete, and it passed unanimously. Following conclusion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker adjourned the special meeting at 8:55 a.m. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk
BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee September 2, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Baudek and Gillette Attending: All Absent: None Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Lt. van Deutekom, Fire Chief Dorman, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Hix called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT Clancy Parking Report: Lt. van Deutekom presented ticket statistics by violation between May 20, 1999 and August 28,1999. The number of warnings appeared to be higher than the actual tickets issued, however, Assistant Town Administrator Repola noted that the report may be an inaccurate representation of warning violations issued. The initial program set-up to track this information did not include a code for warning violations in certain categories. The report will be reviewed to ensure that the statistics are accurate. A follow-up report will be presented at the October meeting. Take the Pledge Day: Lt. van Deutekom reported that on August 31, 1999 students at the high school were greeted by the Police Department, Sheriffs Department, State Patrol, and two radio stations for "Take the Pledge Day." Students were asked to take a pledge against violence and were presented with a laminated pledge card. This event was used as an opportunity to remind students that everyone should be respectful of one another. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that the Department is encouraged to spend as much time as they can on school campuses and will continue to assist the schools whenever possible. FIRE DEPARTMENT Review of Fish Creek Incident: Chief Dorman presented a summation of a recent fire near Fish Creek. The Fire Department immediately set containment devices to control oil escaping into Fish Creek and Lake Estes. Both the Platte River Power Authority Fire Department and Bureau of Reclamation assisted local firefighters by supplying equipment and supplies. Chief Dorman reported that the cost of the spill could have quadrupled had local firefighters not immediately controlled the hazardous waste. Larimer County will invoice the landowner's insurance company for all costs associated with the fire and hazardous waste clean-up. Training Maze: Chief Dorman reported that on August 28th the Aurora Fire Department donated their time and provided a confined space training maze to local firefighters. Chief Dorman explained that the training exercise allowed firefighters to use the entire contents of their air packs, navigate in confined spaces, and maneuver through obstacles. The Committee expressed its gratitude to the Aurora Fire Department for the use of this training maze. Labor Day Crafts Fair: Chief Dorman reported that the Labor Day Crafts Fair will be held this weekend. This event will include handmade items from 100 vendors and will be held in conjunction with the National Muscular Dystrophy Fund Drive.
BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - September 2, 1999 - Page 2 REPORTS Correspondence Summary: The Committee reviewed correspondence received in August 1999 praising the efforts of the Police Department. Letters of Commendation were issued to Deputy Tim Sullivan - LCSD, Officer Roth - EPPD, and Telecommunicator Donna Hubach for their lifesaving action taken during a call. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that one complaint was being investigated. Changes to the report will be made in the future to achieve a balance of both letters of praise and complaint. NIBRS Group A 2nd Quarter 1999 Report: Lt. van Deutekom presented the revised 2nd quarter report. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that the clearance rates in some areas remain quite high and other areas show lower percentages, but remain above the national average. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 8:20 a.m. 91-4-al_j Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk
BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment August 10, 1999 Board: Chair John Baudek, Members Jeff Barker, Lori Jeffrey, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Attending: Chair Baudek, Members Jeffrey, Newsom and Sager Also Attending: Senior Planner Joseph and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: Member Barker Chair Baudek called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES The minutes of the July 13, 1999 meeting were accepted as presented. LOT 44, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES, FALL RIVER ESTATES, INC., APPLICANT - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.20.040 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 25 ft. setback down to a minimum setback of 15 feet. This variance request is part of an effort to re- configure an existing CO lot and an existing outlot. The existing CO lot is entirely covered with wetlands. The site plan submitted with this request shows the proposed re-configuration that would allow development to be located outside the wetlands. To complete this request the Planning Commission and town would need to approve an Amended Plat, and a Development Plan, as illustrated with this submittal. In general staff supports this approach to protecting the existing wetlands. A variance as requested is justified to avoid unnecessary disturbance to wetlands and move the development footprint away from the river and the flood plain. The proposed building footprint is a good fit on this site given the terrain and existing trees. Condition 3 requesting an accurate survey with the location of all trees with a 12" diameter or greater be provided has been fulfilled. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant and answering questions from the Commissioners. The square footage of the existing outlot and of the proposed reconfigured outlot is almost equal. Current Town zoning has no restrictions per se for wetlands. A separate permit with regulations would be required from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps would require a one-to-one replacement of wetlands in this case. Ken Czarnowski, adjacent property owner, expressed his concern that there was an earlier exchange of an outlot, and now the setbacks were being reduced. Visual impairment to the area will be significant. He feels this is not a hardship case and there is no justification to allow a variance. He would prefer they work with the Corps of Engineers and maintain the existing outlot. Commissioner Sager requested some reference points on the plat in order to locate the building site. Paul Kochevar advised that it would be possible to meet the 25 foot setback, but it would not be as good a plan. If a permit is required
BRADFORD PUSLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment August 10, 1999 Page 2 through the Corps, the price jumps dramatically. Commissioner Sager asked if it was possible to cantilever the deck over the wetlands without having to go to the Corps. Mr. Kochevar advised it was possible but still at a higher expense. This building is less than half of what could be built on this lot. The subdivision was developed when the wetlands area was not regulated. Current owners have owned it for over 28 years. Commissioner Sager read from the Board of Adjustment Powers & Duties: "The fact that the variance, if granted, will allow him to make more money or make a properly more valuable, is not sufficient in and of itself to sustain the variance, where he can make a lawful use of the property, in compliance with the Code provision of the same character as other lawful uses within his zoning district." Mr. Kochevar stated this is a hardship since the change and requirements came into effect after the applicant had owned the property. If the Board approves this request, it would go to Planning Commission for review and approval of an amended plat and a development plan. Senior Planner Joseph explained the reasoning why the BOA reviews the variance before the development plardamended plat goes to Planning Commission. Based on the statement from the Powers & Duties and the fact that the building can be built without extraordinary expense and still be within setbacks, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to deny the variance request for Lot 44, Block 1, Fall River Estates and it passed unanimously. REPORTS - None. There being no further business, Chair Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:33 a.m. Discussion by the Commissioners regarding the quality of plats and appropriate markings on the site to indicate location of the building followed the meeting. They requested that staff look into the possibility of requiring more detail and report back at the next meeting. UN,0 Al betG l Al, B+ b J- Meribeth Wheatley, Recordiri~ Secretary S
BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission August 17,1999 Commission: Chair Al Sager, Commissioners Harriet Burgess, Margaret Clark, Alma Hix, Edward Pohl and David Thomas Attending: Chair Sager, Commissioners Burgess, Clark, Pohl and Thomas Absent: Commissioner A. Hix Also Attending: Town Liaison G. Hix, Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Senior Planner Joseph, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: None Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES of the July 20,1999 were approved as presented. 2. SPECIAL REVIEW Special Review 99-01, Development Plan, Rocky Mountain J Interpretive Wildlife Center, International Concept Management (ICM)/Applicant. Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors was present representing the applicant. He advised that the complete set of drawings for the Wildlife Center is now available. He reviewed some of the drawings which included the cross sections demonstrating that headlight glare would not affect the properties to the east. Applicant has no problem with the proposed conditions of the staff. Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the staff report. This is the Development Plan proposal for a commercial indoor wildlife exhibit and interpretive center. The proposed use would be fully enclosed in a 35,000 square foot building including a restaurant and gift shop. (The size of the building has not changed, 30,000 s.f. footprint - the additional 5,000 is in a second floor.) The applicants have indicated that the restaurant will probably only serve those people that have purchased admission to the wildlife center. A total of 252 parking spaces are proposed including space for bus parking. The site is located on the south side of Highway 36 and it has approximately 800 linear feet of Big Thompson River frontage along its south line. This use is classified as commercial amusement, and as such is only allowed by special review. Also, the size of the proposed is allowed only by special review (greater than 16,000 s.f.). The Town Board has approved this use and building size at this location through approval of the Concept Plan; therefore, the scope of the Development Review is restricted to technical compliance with the applicable site design standards in the Municipal Code. The site plan that was originally submitted to Planning Commission for Concept Plan review has been revised. The highway access has been moved to the west, and the parking layout has been adjusted. The site plan that was submitted and routed for this Development Plan review has also been revised in response to preliminary staff review and comments.
BRA'FORD.U.LISHING.0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17, 1999 Page 2 Additional information concerning grading and drainage details has been provided this week. Requirements of handicapped parking were reviewed. Mr. Kochevar advised that the number of spaces complies with the Town requirement which is more than that required by ADA. It is their intention that the trash enclosure area will be secure against all animals. The applicant would like to propose not using a full-time lighting system. Certain lights will be shut off in the evening. The service area drive which currently has a gate across could also be used for fire department access to rear of building. Public Comments: Blair Trautwein, attorney for the Ingersolls and Pinnacle Homes, stated that some comments made beforehand have been taken into account in the revised plan. There is a section of the employee area which indicates the asphalt surface is higher than the berm that is supposed to protect the adjacent property from headlight glare. Suggests either extending the berm, or using the opaque fencing as proposed by Mr. Kochevar. Second concern is that animals should not be stored outside causing odor in the area. Third concern is regarding the lighting. Perhaps lighting in the service area could be lowered. The fact that a riverwalk was not addressed was their fourth concern. They would like to see that easement granted by the applicant. Fifth comment was their desire to restrict truck traffic at night and early in the morning. They noted that the Town code requires mitigation with adjacent use, not zoning. Mr. Kochevar responded that headlight glare could be handled by making the fence opaque. The developers could also increase berm height and add plant material. The southeast area is the only location where animals will be delivered to the building, but not stored outside. He felt it was a good idea to lower the lights in the employee area as long as there is the security of the fence. They could reduce delivery times to daylight hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Security to the backside of the property is of concern with the riverwalk. They have no other intention of use in that area, but would prefer the walk be along the river and not close to the building. They would prefer not to disturb the willows in the southwest corner of the property. Michelle Rokke, Rocky Mountain Animal Defense, was concerned about delivery times limited to daylight hours. USDA has requirements regarding animals in transit. They want to make sure that they are not housed in trucks outside of town waiting for opening hours. Marie Cenac, DVM, advised at her prior work location, 90% of the animal deliveries were between 8 and 6. Commissioner Pohl asked for clarification whether the delivery times of the animals could be included in the review process. This issue is dealing with offsite disturbance rather than operational activities.
BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17, 1999 Page 3 It was moved and seconded (Thomas/Pohl) the Special Review 99-01, Development Plan, Rocky Mountain Interpretive Wildlife Center, be approved with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. 1. The CDOT access permit and highway right of way dedication shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The note concerning future development shall be revised to read "reserved for future development subject to Special Review approval by the Town of Estes Park." 3. All wetlands are to remain undisturbed. 4. Complete water main construction plans approved and accepted by the Town Public Works Director shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Any future expansion of buildings or use on the site shall only be approved by the Town Board through special review, and a traffic study shall be updated and the CDOT access permit shall be reviewed prior to approval of any future expansion, regardless of the projected percentage increase in traffic volume. CDOT review of the access permit could result in a need for future access improvements. These shall be required if needed, regardless of the percentage increase in projected traffic volume. 6. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be fulfilled as outlined in the Public Works Director's memo dated Aug. 1101 7. An extension of electrical service shall be underground and placed within a recorded easement if crossing private property. 8. Applicant shall set aside a pedestrian access easement along the river for a footpath connecting to adjacent properties. 9. Opaque fencing shall be used along the front of the employee parking stalls to block headlight glare. 10. Level of outdoor lighting will be reduced at night (after-hours) in the visitor parking lot. 11. All deliveries will be between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. unless the welfare of animals in transit requires after-hours delivery. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Amended Development Plan, Lot 1, Block B, Arapaho Meadows Phase 1, Herbert & Diane Hawkins/Applicants. Senior Planner presented the request. When Arapaho Meadows Subdivision was approved, the PUD Development Plan delineated a fifty-foot building setback along the meadow on Lots 1 through 5, in Block B. The purpose was to provide a setback from adjacent meadow and wetlands and create a greater expanse of open space. The site plan that was submitted for construction of the now existing residence on Lot 1 neglected to show the required fifty-foot setback and a building permit was issued in error that resulted in an encroachment. The purpose of this Development Plan
BRADFORDPUBLISH1NGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Planning Commission - August 17,1999 Page 4 amendment is to revise the setback around the existing residence on Lot 1 to eliminate the encroachment so that the property title is cleared. This action does not alter the setback requirement on any other lot within the subdivision. The Homeowners' Association Board of Directors supports this amendment. Staff recommends approval of this Development Plan Amendment. It was moved and seconded (Burgess/Thomas) the Amended Development Plan, Lot 1, Block B, Arapaho Meadows Phase I be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Mrs. Walsh's Xeriscape Garden, 400 Block, West Elkhorn Judy Lamy presented the plan for a Xeriscape Garden. Mrs. Walsh's Garden (her grandparents' "garden" was next door) will be a memorial garden to beautify Estes Park, and to educate tourists, new residents, and permanent, as well as summer, residents to native plant life viable at this altitude. The landscape plan has been developed by a graduate student from CSU. This property will be deeded to the Estes Valley Land Trust in 1999. There is a Community Foundation recently organized that will help fund and maintain the garden. Donations to this project will be tax deductible. Senior Planner Joseph commended the project planners on the high quality of the design. Public comments: Gerald Mayo, adjoining neighbor, approves this venture. Formal action is not required, but Commissioners expressed their support and appreciation. George Hix is a Community Foundation Board Member, and advised that this is one of the first visible projects for the foundation. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. uy¥\1hil,itl. |11-k# al #151 Meribeth Wheatley, Recording .,dcretary W
. RESOLUTION 24-99 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991 the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to :'containment" within the C-D District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sale Days" being sponsored by the Special Events Department that is scheduled October 9 and 10, 1999: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of 4' for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Linda Hinze at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of ,1999. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
Memo TO: Town Board Meeting From: Ricki Ingersoll CC: [Click here and type name] Date: 09/14/99 Re: Ordinance #2299 -Shall the Town ofEstes Park Prohibit the exhibition of animals Today I submitted a lawsuit against Mayor Dekker, Steve Gillette, Lori Jeffrey, Jeff Barker, Sue Doylen, John Baudek, George Hix, and Larimer County. 1. I submitted this lawsuit because of the unfair Ballot Title that the Board of Trustees wrote and accepted on August 24~h and again adopted on August 31St even after a protest was filed by myself and Terry Parenti proponents ofthe Ordinance #2299. 2. I personally filed the lawsuit to expedite the process in hopes that I will save the Town of Estes Park a second separate election. The speed of the response of course is up to the Trustees. The Ballot title as adopted by the Trustees will be either Judged fair or unfair by an independent Colorado judge appointed by the court. 3. The complete ordinance #2299 will not be printed from a public source anywhere except on the Ballot. Jeff Barker was mistaken in the August 31, 1999 Trustee meeting when he stated that the full text of the Ordinance #2299 would be available to the voting public. The voters will not have any voter information mailed to them from Larimer County or the Town of Estes Park about Ordinance #2299. Access to the complete Ordinance #2299 will only be available from private sources. The Ballot title is the only Government sponsored text of the Ordinance #2299. Therefore how will people know what they are voting for? 4, I can not trust that the Trail Gazette will print the complete text of ordinance #2299 in the paper as drafted or that The Committee for a Cage Free Estes Park will get to express their opinions about the intent and effect of the ordinance #2299. The Town ofEstes Park will not send out the full text of Ordinance #2299 to the voters ofEstes Park. No public debate or fair expression of ideas has been encouraged by our one newspaper or Town Government. No concern for the free speech of all ideas and opinions has been encouraged by the Trustees or the Trail Gazette. In fact our committee has been told on several occasions as we try and set up public speaking engagements and fund raisers that 1 - 1
September 14, 1999 Mayor Dekker, Sue Doylen, and George Hix have discouraged the introduction of our opinions into the public forum through the influence and power of their positions as Government servants. They seem to have decided that ordinance #2299 is flawed and does not need further discussion or comment. I would like to know ifthese accusations by others are true. 5. The voting public deserves to know what they are voting for or against. The Trustees have created a Ballot Title that leaves 2/3 of the ordinance not stated and is unfairly biased towards misinterpretation and creates confusion. 6. Every newspaper opinion that has been printed so far, has statements that have never been said by me or The Committee for a Cage Free Estes Park and they are blatantly untrue. . I question the validity ofthe methods and intent ofthe publisher of The Trail Gazette, Jim Cleary. I have asked for corrections from the paper, but have been ignored 7. Opinions by the Trustees have been presented to the voters as legal opinions and have been presented to the public without regard to the truth. 8. I question the methods and intent ofthe Town Government. I have requested a meeting with the Town Trustees through Vicki O'Connor to talk about the Trustees expressing a statement that would tell the individuals who are using the mutilation of animals to stop our personal involvement in the campaign for the Ordinance #2299. Other individuals have experience the horror of animal mutilation for there opinions. I am not the only individual who has experienced this type ofviolence in this community. I have yet to have a meeting. I believe that it is the place of our Government to express opposition to this type of violence. I believe it is the place ofthe local newspaper to at least report these incidents and call for citizen outrage to violence. Do we want someone injured before we will act? Will we only protect the people we agree with? 9. In light ofthe above unfair practices from our Town Government I have filed a law suit. 10. I can only hope that the voting public will call 970-577-3529 to have Ordinance #2299 information packages mailed to them individually. We request that every person learn about ordinance #2299 and vote with their heart. Information will be located at the library information desk starting tomorrow. Please, do not believe The Big Lies. 11. Our campaign funds have been spent so far on legal costs trying to get the ordinance #2299 on the November Ballot and fairly represented on the Ballot. We believe this has been the intent of your Town Government. Just ask yourself what is wrong with having the complete ordinance on the Ballot as written? What is the problem with allowing a vote on the actual language of ordinance #2299? Why did the Town Trustees initiate and make last minute changes to the Ballot Title? 12. My questions to the people ofEstes Park are. Do you want a fair and open forum for discussion and debate about Ordinance #2299? Yes I do too. Do you want to decide 2
September 14, 1999 your Towns fate and the fate ofthe animals instead ofthe market place or big development? YES, I do too. Please let your Town Government know your feelings. State Law protects our right to speak at every Trustee meeting at 7PM. We will be speaking at every meeting until the election. We will be glad to answer your questions. Please submit your questions to 577-3529. Tell your neighbors and friends. Thank you, people of Estes Park, for listening. Our Campaign slogan is: VOTE YES FOR ORDINANCE #2299 TO KEEP ESTES PARK CAGE FREE. HELP US TO ENJOY A CAGE FREE, CRUELTY FREE ESTES PARK FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. Ricki Ingersoll The Committee for a Cage Free Estes Park Treasurer 3
. 4 Town Clerk's Office Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Dekker Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer Town Attorney White From: Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Date: September 10,1999 Re: Transfer of Liquor License - Black Canyon Restaurant 1. The liquor licensee for this premise is Black Canyon Restaurants, Inc. (Jim Sloan, Mehzad and Elissa Haghighi). 2. Jim Sloan/Black Canyon Inn, Inc. evicted Mr. and Mrs. Haghighi. 3. On or about May 13 or 14, Mr. Sloan presented a copy of his "Writ of Restitution." I verified that the Court Judge did indeed restore the property to Inn, Inc. 4. I then instructed Inn, Inc. to file a Transfer of Ownership application, and I issued a Temporary Permit May 21St. 5. On June 2nd, Mr. and Mrs. Haghighi met with me, and, in their opinion, the lease is valid until 12/31/00, therefore their liquor license remains in effect. 6. I contacted Matt CooldLiquor Division. Matt confirmed the key to the liquor license is who has possession of the premises and how. Therefore, issuance of the Temporary Permit was correct and it is valid. The transfer of ownership by "operation • Page 1
2 4 t . of law" (12-47-303 (5), Pg. 28) gives statutory provisions. Matt suggested we conduct a public hearing on the transfer to provide adequate public notice to all parties involved. 7. On June 7~h, I visited w/Ed Grueff regarding the possibility of transferring the liquor license directly to his corporation. 8. Discussed the above w/Matt Cook of the Liquor Division. Matt advised: 1) the Inn, Inc. should withdraw his transfer of ownership application (1 requested a letter that would include his desire to transfer the license to Ed's Corporation), therefore, the Temporary Permit is invalid; 2) issue a Temporary Permit to Ed's Corporation-must have the lease as evidence of possession of the premises prior to issuing the Permit. Ed's Corporation to file transfer of ownership documentation. Also, Matt confirmed Ed can hold Brew Pub and Hotel & Restaurant Liquor Licenses. 9. Due to the litigation involved on this license, a public hearing for the transfer of ownership was scheduled for July 13, 1999. 10. Grueff requested, and the Town Board approved, the public hearing be continued to September 14,1999. 11. To date, I have not received any correspondence, nor have I heard from the Haghighi's. 12. The Application is in order, and I would recommend approval of the Transfer of Ownership to Twin Owls Steakhouse, Inc. • Page 2