Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2001-04-10Prepared 4/04/01 » Revised 4/5/01 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, April 10, 2001 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 27, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. None. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, February 14, 2001 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 20, 2001 (acknowledgement only). 6. Lake Estes, Second Addition Annexation - Withdraw Annexation proceedings, including Public Hearing scheduled April 24, 2001, pending re- filing. 7. Change Order Request for Fire Hydrant Installation Program (Far View Dr.AN. Elkhorn Ave.) - Consideration directly to Town Board pursuant to cancellation of Public Safety Comm. 4/5/01. »8. Intent to Annex Resolution #16-01 for Dry Gulch Addition #1 (Sombrero Ranches and KOA Campground); public hearing scheduled May 22, 2001. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek open the Public Hearing(s). If the Town Board, Applicant(s), Staff or the Public wish to speak on a particular item, a formal Public Hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Public Testimony D. Mayor - Close Public Hearing E. Motion to Approve/Deny 1. FINAL PLAT. Bristlecone Subdivision of Tract 3, Arapaho Meadows, Pawnee Meadow LLC/Applicant, continued from March 27, 2001. 2. SUBDIVISION & STREET R.O.W. VACATION ORDINANCE #4-01. Amended Plat of Lots 11 and 12, White Meadow View Place Addition, David Hazard, Richard Hodges & Tom Peter/Applicants. Boundary line adjustment to accommodate an existing garage. 1 Continued on reverse side 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. INTERNET ACCESS TASK FORCE (IATF) - PRESENTATION OF SURVEY RESULTS - Al Wasson, etal. 2. STANLEY AVE./HIGHWAY 7 INTERSECTION RE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - AWARD BID. Construction/Facilities Manager Sievers. 3. McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION ANNEXATION (formerly known as the Pratt Addition) - CONTINUED FROM MARCH 27, 2001: A. Mayor - Continued Public Hearing from March 27th to obtain legal opinion on the prescriptive rights v. easements issue and power line maintenance concerns. B. Staff Report: reconfirm A-1 Accommodations Zoning. C. Public Testimony D. Town Attorney White read Resolution #15-01 and Ordinance #3-01 E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. 4. STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT - BACKGROUND/RATIONALE. Town Attorney White and Acting Community Development Director Joseph. 5. CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION TELEPHONE ANSWERING AGREEMENT. Trustee Barker and Town Attorney White. 6. LIQUOR LICENSING: A. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP from Dennis Roberts to Kathleen A. Duemig Enterprises, Inc., dba WAPITI BAR & GRILL, 247 W. Elkhorn Ave., Tavern Liquor License, Kathleen Duemig Owner/Manager. B. CHANGE OF CLASS from a Beer & Wine License to Hotel & Restaurant License, Local's Grill, Inc., dba LOCAL'S BAR & GRILL, 153 E. Elkhorn Ave., Susie Johns, Manager: 1. Mayor - Open Public Hearing 2. Applicant - Present their case 3. Opposition/Rebuttal (If any) 4. Town Clerk - Present Application 5. Mayor - Questions/Close Public Hearing 6. Finding & Motion to Approve/Deny. C. NEW Hotel & Restaurant License Application filed by Longs Peak Grilling Co., Inc., dba LONGS PEAK GRILLING COMPANY, 430 Prospect Village Dr., Ed Grueff, Manager: 1. Mayor - Open Public Hearing 2. Applicant - Present their case 3. Opposition/Rebuttal (If any) 4. Town Clerk - Present Application 5. Mayor - Questions/Close Public Hearing 6. Finding & Motion to Approve/Deny. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 8. ADJOURN. 2 thence N 1°45' E a distance of 1,314 feet to the NE corner of the SE 1/1 of the SW % of said Section 15, thence S 89°34' W along the N line of the S % of the SW % of said Section a distance of 1,771 feet to the E right-of-way line of State Highway No. 34, thence along said right-of-way line S 53°49' E a distance of 902.4 feet, thence S 18°30' E a distance of 579.1 feet, thence S 34°23' E a distance of 265.1 feet to the S line of said Section, thence N 89°32' E a distance of 668 feet to the Point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. CONTAINING 32.753 acres. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. The McGregor Mountain Addition, formerly known as the Pratt Addition is zoned A-1 Accommodations. Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF 2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2001 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2001, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 3-01 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNE)~TION OF-CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PRATT ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 2gth day of January, 2001 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 13th day of February, 2001, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annexation plat on March 27, 2001, and such was continued to April 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 27~h day of March, 2001, and continued to the 10th day of April, 2001. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PRATT ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: Beginning at the S % corner of S-edtioh-15, T5Ii R73W of the 6th P.M., AL '09 RESOLUTION NO. 15-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as :'McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION, formerly known as the PRATT ADDITION " to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: Beginning at the S 4 corner of Section 15, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., thence N 1°45' E a distance of 1,314 feet to the NE corner of the SE y of the SW % of said Section 15, thence S 89°34' W along the N line of the S 1/6 of the SW 1/1 of said Section a distance of 1,771 feet to the E right-of-way line of State Highway No. 34, thence along said right-of-way line S 53°49' E a distance of 902.4 feet, thence S 18°30' E a distance of 579.1 feet, thence S 34°23' E a distance of 265.1 feet to the S line of said Section, thence N 89°32' E a distance of 668 feet to the Point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. CONTAINING 32.753 acres. DATED this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: Robert Joseph From: Richard E. Matzke -72-7.f» I)ate: April 4, 2001 Re: MacGregor Mountain Annexation Electric Easement Request The Light and Power Department is willing to withdraw the request for a dedicated utility easement for this particular annexation due to the timing ofthe request and based on the fact that the owner has no immediate plans to develop the property. The Light and Power Department does request that the approximate location ofthe line be indicated on the plat map and that the right of the Light and Power Department to access, maintain, and improve the line be preserved. The Light and Power Department does not agree with the suggestion that a prescriptive easement might be preferable to a dedicated utility easement. The Light and Power Department is taking the position that all utilities should be located in appropriate easements or rights-ofway. When changes are made to a property, such as annexation or subdivision, these easements should be included in the process to protect the interests of all parties. The Light and Power Department requests that the Town consider amending the Estes Valley Development code to require that annexation plats show existing easements and utility lines. REM Board of Trustees - March 27, 2001 - Page 4 3. McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION ANNEXATION. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Acting Community Development Dir. Joseph presented the staff report and Annexation Impact Report. The annexation consists of 32.75 acres and the land currently contains two residences, and is otherwise undeveloped. At this time, there are no plans for further development of this property. Acting Dir. Joseph requested a condition be included the existing overhead power lines be indicated on the annexation plat and that utility easements be provided for said lines. The Applicant would be given 30 days in which to comply to this recommendation. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn, reported that the power line traverses the property from west to east; if required and due to the expense, it would perhaps be more appropriate to survey the line at the time of subdivision or development plan submittal; the act of annexing does not alter existing prescriptive rights; should the property be developed, it is likely the line would be relocated to accommodate development; ending with a request annexation be allowed without being required to survey the power line. Acting Dir. Joseph responded that, from a Planning Commission standpoint, not specifically Light & Power, it is routine to require said surveying at this stage as it ensures there is a public record. Additional discussion followed on prescriptive rights v. easements, consistent application of standards, and power line maintenance concerns. As legal expertise on the rights issue and concerns with power line maintenance must be obtained, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Jeffrey) the McGregor Mountain Addition Annexation be continued to April 10, 2001, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Barker added that if a department adds a condition of approval, they attend the Town Board meeting. i Ill '11 1, \W 1 1 i % g O 0 LL \,\% m O6 \ \ m / 1 . j t. i \) /4 , i r \ / ; 41 // 90. 4 1\ 1 \ 44 // / i;/ 1 11 1 .RP / C e /2 / 1 1 fl f:15 Mi / / // \A \\ E il & i 37 e .L f . # 11 2 \\6.11 1%.1 -1 /f E /#3.1(l . 7, · p. I.-JI - - 4,1 <(>60 I fic i \8.1 1 '33 m / RS.4 -50 4217/ 71 - 00 L_J i ~ 0) . ..t . ./ A \ \IN~ \1 .( - a -zin . .. LJ / g \D./ - / .. . ¢--/··1~···· ··········............ , 13 t - 4 4 \\'*.41 - t.: I ,"f \00\ ..a 1 3.- I ., h./fi -2 ..1. 1 1 \\ .. , -21 Z \4\0\ \ 9 41 .¢1 3 \\ , k. 0 I ·. {¥i . W <\\\ 1 r /\\, ..04<:. . &.r?. i: 13.-- f . .se i / 1.: i . \\\ \ . i- I . I. a ». - D ; 1410 f. / 1.- te 12 - ...:/1 :12·L-- I RE 1 Ath,0 f./ /// 1 1 2 144; 9, 4. - . fe 4 /4 ./ · 0 J 3 . : C .913 ... C d) / 20 0. 1.. 0 8-10 1- L U 4 <r-........ ~ / j I b ..:'. e -i r- h·:i, , *~20 Jeqlun-1 IN3~3Nll¥ 9 9NIN3 /0'%42¥ 14,&47 ~ jz: ·>igh 7-439¢.5< 4„,,U·>2 .fbt/·'23·-"=--9-.9,7~thi LAND SURVEYS- -- SUBDIVISIONS - -- '. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARY ENGINEERING ~ ~ WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING 1.1 t , April 5, 2001 Mr. Greg Severs Public Works Town of Estes Park RE: Construction Bid Results Highway 7/Stanley Avenue/Woodstock Drive Intersection Dear Greg, Requests for bids were requested from Cornell Resources, LaFarge, Coulson Excavators and Kitchen and Company. The Advertisement for Bids was also published in the "Trail Gazette". Bids were opened on Monday April 2,2001. Kitchen and Company was the only bidder with Coulson and Mountain Concrete of Estes Park as subcontractors for the asphalt and concrete work respectively. The bid schedule is attached. The cost is higher than the Engineers estimate I prepared, however most of the difference is in the cost for the asphalt, which has sky rocketed this year. In addition, we have proposed to install new lot services (water and sewer) to the south lot, the costs for which can be recovered in the future. I have placed a 15 percent contingency on this bid because of the unknowns which may arise with the u-·brground utilities. I recommend acceptance of the bid from Kitchen and Company. A word of caution. We have not heard back from the telephone company or CDot. They may have requirements for the project which have not been considered and would add to the cost. If I can answer questions, please call. Sincerely, VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. /2-D A 1 -, c__---Tl~lA_ ~ c ~ 17--9-0 4- - /j *fohn A. Spooner, P.E. Project Manager I*josure 1043 Fish Creek Road · RO. Box 456 • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 · 970-586-9388 · Fax 970-586-8101 BRADFORD PUOLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 15, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of March, 2001. Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: Chairman Barker and Trustee Doylen Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Absent: Trustee Gillette Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. STANLEY AVENUE/HIGHWAY 7 INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL TO BID AND TENTATIVELY AWARD BID AT 4/10/01 TOWN BOARD MEETING. This budgeted project ($125,000) established a Memorial Day construction completion deadline and to accomplish this, bids must be received by the first week of April and construction should begin by April 1501. If staff is allowed to present the low bid for approval directly to the April 10th Town Board (bypassing the April 1gth Committee meeting), a construction commencement date of April 15th can be met, and this project should be completed by Memorial Day. The Committee recommends approval to bid the project and award the low bid at the April 10th Town Board meeting. Public Works Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bill Linnane~pblic Works Director by Construction/Facilities Mgr. Sievers Orr Date: April 5, 2001 Subject: Stanley Avenue/Highway 7 Intersection Project Bids Background. Reconstruction of the intersection has been budgeted for this year. Staff has established a schedule to have the project substantially complete by Memorial Day, as the attached March 15, 2001 Public Works Committee minutes reflect. The Committee recommended submitting the bids direct~ to the April 10th Town Board meeting. The 45-clay project is scheduled to begin April 15 . As reflected in the Van Horn Engineering letter (attached) bid packages were sent to four local construction companies. Kitchen & Company was the only one returned for the April 2nd bid opening. Budget Cost $ 53,752 Budget $125,000 Action. Staff has reviewed the unit prices with the contractor and engineer and found them to be within an acceptable cost range. We have a long, positive relationship working with Ed Kitchen and believe his work is above average as has been reflected in many Town projects. Staff recommends approval of Kitchen Company's bid of $46,741 plus the 15% contingency of $7,011 for a total of $53,752. In addition, we request to not limit the work to these values in the event that CDOT or the utility companies respond with unforeseen additions. However, final cost will remain within the established budget. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Internet Access Task Force For %24% The Estes Valley Members Lee lasson Richard Matzke Mike Molloy At Wasson, Chair Don Widrig Steering Committee Eric Blackhurst Realtor Piesident Forward Estes Park Foundation Cory Blackman An Internet Survey of the Estes Valley General Manager, Travelodge of Estes Park Citizens and Businesses Dale Hatcher, Owner, The Dunraven Inn Dunraven Downtown Estes Park A Report to the Estes Park Town Board Ken Hobert Owner, Hobert Office Services Estes Park Tim Hull April 10, 2001 Senior VP & Cashier, First National Bank of Estes Park A. Durand Jones Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park David Thomas Executive Director, Estes Park Chamber Resort Association Ed Vok Director, Estes Park Public Library RichWidmer Town Administrator, Estes Park k I * 26 Estes Valley Internet Access Task Force Report Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Overview Activities . Survey Resliltq 8 Home Computer Usage ....9 Users Per Home Computer ..... ..10 Usefulness of Home Computer ..11 Home Connection TypeR 12 Home Connection Speed ..13 Satisfaction with Home Speed ..14 Home Computer Users Satisfaction With Computers Versus Speed ..15 Home Use Summary ..17 Business Computer Usage 18 Users ofBusiness Computers.. 19 Usefulness of Business Computers .. ..20 Criticality of Business Computers 7 1 Business Connection Type ..22 Satisfaction with Business Specrl ..23 Business Upgrade Plang ..24 Business Use Summary . Observations 25 26 Recommendations ..26 Appendix A: Internet Access Survey Form List of Figures Figure 1, Overall Computer Usage Survey Results 8 Figure 2, Major Use ofHome Computers 9 Figure 3, Number of Users Per Home Computer 10 Figure 4, Home User Ratings of Computer Usefulness 11 Figure 5, Distribution ofHome Computer Connection Types 12 Figure 6, Distribution of Home Connection Speeds 13 Figure 7, Home User Satisfaction With Connection Speeds 14 Figure 8, Low Usefulness versus Speed Satisfaction 15 Figure 9, High Usefulness versus Speed Satisfaction 16 Figure 10, Business Computer Usage 18 Figure 11, Users Per Business Computer 19 Figure 12, Business Users Ranking of Computer Usefulness 20 Figure 13, Business Users Ranking of Computer Importance to Their Business 21 Figure 14, Business Connection Types 22 Figure 15, Business Users Satisfaction With Connection Speeds 23 Figure 16, Business Users Upgrade Plans 24 ADril 10. 2001 Page 3 of 29 Estes Valley Internet Access Task Force Report Executive Summary • Mayor John Baudek and the Estes Park Board of Trustees chartered the Internet Access Task Force (IATF) on August 22,2000. • The IATF was chartered to identify and attract new market entrants who would provide high-speed broadband Internet access to the community by utilizing various technologies. • The IATF consisted of volunteers from the community, supported by a Steering Committee and additional volunteer participants. • Tasks accomplished by the IATF included identifying and contacting potential vendors, and the preparation and execution of a community-wide survey to determine market potential. • IATF team members identified and met with eight Internet-related vendors. • 8,705 surveys were distributed to the residents and businesses ofthe Estes Valley, and 1,833 were returned, for a return rate of 21%. • 75% ofthe responding population had one or more computers at their home or business. • Home computer usage involves email, word processing, research, and on-line activities such as shopping and banking, by predominantly two users. • Home computer owners rate their computers as highly useful, but are not happy with their connection speed, which is typically 28.8K or less, using modems and phone lines. • Business computer usage, in addition to traditional business functions, includes email, research, marketing, web development, e-commerce, and on-line banking, by primarily one to four users. • Many business owners are satisfied with the usefulness oftheir computers, and consider them essential tools, but are not happy with the speed of their Internet connections. • The majority of business respondents anticipate needing to upgrade their systems, including their connection speed. • The IATF team observes: 4 The Estes Valley represents a strong market for high-speed broadband Internet access in both homes and businesses. 4 It may be difficult to attract national providers who tend to concentrate on large urban markets. 4 New entrants are interested, but current financial conditions are inhibiting expansion plans. 4 Existing grant programs may encourage public/private partnerships. 4 The Estes Valley's communications infrastructure may not be well positioned for the future. • The IATF offers the following recommendations: 4 The IATF should disband as planned and let others continue with the project. 4 The IATF should maintain contact with vendors until that function is transferred elsewhere. 4 The IATF should make the survey database and/or this report available to potential vendors as promised. 4 The Town should initiate activity to take advantage ofgrant opportunities, such as the State's Beanpole project. 4 The Town should consider communications infrastructure weaknesses to be serious policy concerns, and focus resources on finding solutions. - End of Summary - April 10.2001 Page 5 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Overview The Internet Access Task Force (IATF) is a volunteer group of individuals, each with extensive technical experience, interested in improving the speed and quality of Internet access for the Estes Park area. Following a presentation to the Town Board, the IATF was given formal status to represent the Town by Mayor John Baudek and the Town Board on August 22,2000. The IATF mission has been two-fold; first, to contact potential vendors of high-speed broadband Internet access to discuss their possible entry into this market, and second, to conduct a data-gathering survey of the community to substantiate the attractiveness ofthis market to those vendors. A competitive broadband market with multiple vendors representing multiple technologies has been the desired outcome. A Steering Committee made up of community members from business, government, public service, and the National Park was formed to convey to vendors the widespread interest within this market. The members of the Steering Committee are listed on the IATF letterhead stationery, a copy of which begins this report. The willingness of those individuals to lend their names to this effort is appreciated. The completion ofthis project was materially aided by support from additional personnel. Barbara Widrig, Helen Matzke, and Gary Dempsey provided significant assistance with the input of the survey data. Special thanks go to the Estes Park Public Library Director, Ed Volz, who served on both the Steering Committee and as a valued member of the IATF team, as well as providing essential assistance with the survey processing. Dennis Minard provided the initial construction ofthe computer database that was used to collect and process the survey responses. Activities The IATF contacted, or was contacted by, eight Internet-related vendors, from national firms to small regional companies. The firms that participated in the team's activities were: 1. Aculink (RF wireless Internet) 2. Code:NET (RF wireless Internet) 3. Front Range Internet, Inc (Internet Service Provider) 4. Hughes Network Systems/DirecPC (Satellite Internet) 5. Netbeam (RF wireless Internet) 6. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) (Fiber optic telecommunications) 7. Qwest (Telephone connections/DSL) 8. Yipes (High-speed Internet backbone provider) In every case, those vendors were informed ofthe nature ofthe Estes Park market, the interest in their business offering, and a promise to share the forthcoming survey results. The team sought to obtain as wide a spectrum of potential vendors as possible and was quite successful in achieving this goal. Among the connectivity alternatives represented were digital subscriber line (DSL) interfaces, terrestrial wireless, regular telephone connections, and satellite-based services. Along with these, the present broadband service offering of Charter Communications, which uses cable modems over the existing Estes Park cable TV system, is acknowledged as a welcome entrant into the Estes Park market and has attracted a number of customers within their service area. In addition, the IATF team designed, distributed, recorded, and analyzed a population-based survey pertaining to the technology environment in the Estes Park area. The survey included both home and business-based computer users. A copy ofthe survey questions may be found in Appendix A of this report. The team discusses the survey results in the following pages. ADril 10.2001 Page 7 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Survey Results With the helpful assistance ofthe Town's Light and Power Department, 8,705 surveys were included in a regular mailing of Estes Park utility bills. The survey forms were included with only a minuscule additional cost to the Town. Since nearly every residence in the Valley uses electricity at some time during the year, the team believed that mailing out the survey forms in the utility bills had a good chance of economically reaching nearly every residence and business in the Valley. Debbie Parrack's team at the Municipal Building rendered heroic services in helping us to distribute and receive the surveys. In addition, Ed Volz's team at the Library served as another group that received the survey responses. A total of 1,833 survey forms were returned, or 21% ofthe number distributed. This is an astounding response level for a mail-out survey of any type. We were extraordinarily pleased that many ofthe citizens returned their forms under situations that required them to make a special effort to do so. For example, many people already have pre-established banking arrangements for automatic payment of the light and power bills to the Town and yet these citizens took the time to mail in their responses even though they didn't necessarily have the need to do so. Ofthe survey forms returned, 75% were from homes or businesses that had one or more computers. A handy overview ofthe responses is shown in the following chart. *8,705 Surveys mailed Computer Usage out with EP Utility bills * 1,833 Surveys retu rned =2 X (21%) 1 E No 933*4*x computer * Of the Survey forms 144*14 7 -4.4,/Pal-/'.11.1 retu rned: 1-20.7.~~ILkfi. E] Business - 25% had no computer - 18% for Business usage ~ itti;·, O Home - 57% for Home usage * 75% of the returns had one or more computers Figure 1, Overall Computer Usage Survey Results C ADril 10.2001 Page 8 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Home Computer Usage The largest single use reported by owners of computers at home was email, closely followed by word processing. The information-intensive nature ofthe Internet is demonstrated by a high percentage of home users who turn to it for research. We found this result surprising. It seems that a significant percentage of our home users devote considerable time to using the Internet as a research tool in an effort to broaden their horizons. We suspect (but cannot prove) that this result suggests a high degree of education in our resident's backgrounds and a continuing curiosity about the world outside the Estes Valley. Implications for local businesses may be seen in the reported percentages of home use for both on-line shopping and banking. We predict that this usage will grow as more users of the Internet become familiar with the various forms of electronic commerce available now and in the future. Finally, in a finding that may defy some expectations, the use of home computers for games and entertainment is relatively slight. The major uses of home computers are summarized in the chart below. Home Computer Uses 5% 11% 5% O Games 13% ~ ~ C] Word processing 4400'11 \ \ / 1 . 23*,71=11 1 t.:*242+A9147·.0 . . 1 ·40~43* \ 21% D E-mail \1 / .9...413480. 35(%NE,#A,--0 -11 0 Research I Entertainment m Shopping On-line / Il On-line banking, etc m Other 22% Figure 2, Major Use of Home Computers ADril 10.2001 Page 9 of 29 Ei* Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Users Per Home Computer More than half ofthose reporting home computer usage indicate that two people utilize their computer(s). The next-largest category, a single user, probably is a product ofthe demographic characteristics of our community. 2533 - .462 • /*b- 00 ml 02 i·=·f?,k.' ':.*,5.*~.......:.. ~ f H .1 03 . 4 05 ¤6 m More Than Six 1 Not Given Figure 3, Number of Users Per Home Computer April 10.2001 Page 10 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Usefulness of Home Computer Survey respondents were asked to indicate their perception of how useful their home computer was to them. It is evident from the profile ofthe responses (chart below) that a large segment ofthe respondent population feels that the usefulness oftheir computer at home is quite high. 350 290 300 260 -5,„. 250 1*9 200 24:,10· 3~·2*Nt t-A Mi 150 124 ~ ~ ..9 tgulk 84% 100 3%44 ** .97*9 #91 40 . a. 47 40 20 irk *•121 *pg de 50 26 24 =m *t 0 10*= -' Itt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not Useful ·• • Very Useful Figure 4, Home User Ratings of Computer Usefulness ADril 10. 2001 Page 11 of 29 Responses Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Home Connection Types The majority of home computer owners reported that their computer is connected to the Internet by a 56K modem. This is not surprising, given that this was the most common equipment included in new computers over the last few years. We expect this result to shift in the coming years as more advanced high-speed connections become available. It's important to realize that the connection Opes represented in the chart below are not necessarily used to their fullest capabilities, That is, we also need to examine the actual connection speeds realized by the users. That issue is covered in the next topic. 9% - 4% 26% C :-vt: **i2\ ··'·,I=· m: - -: i ' .....:I. t®¥N: 014.4K modem 0&*E#at-:: 49 / r.?·-Uj;KA..#342:25%42 . ·;/ / ¤ 28.8K modem / ·lig;giix**„~. 1/ // 5- I. 0 33.6K modem 0 56K modem 2%-L,«2/ 3% -/t i Cable modem 0 Do not know 0 Not given 1 Figure 5, Distribution of Home Computer Connection Types April 10.2001 PaEe 12 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Home Connection Speed The wide variety of responses to this question, as seen by the graphic below, are indicative of some confusion on the part of home computer owners with respect to the connection speed they actually receive. However, a large majority reported access speeds of 28.8K, 26K, or 24K, which are the most likely outcomes for a modem-based connection. Some home users, not sure of their actual connections speed, simply reported it as "slow." Note that about 2/3 ofthe respondents indicated a connect speed of 28.8K or less. Home users who have cable modems or ISDN service reported higher connection speeds, as expected. 1 0 14.4 019.2 0 21 024 /26 028.8 1 2 21 029 N :>- ...9 - 5, r £ -2.2.h~-RARL'r.A =: t 1 t - ./,#' f -17 -4• 0 33.6 --:~ 4-a -'. ,,i,L, 7-' ~22- ..01.--. . -:3 ~40 1 . - -,- 1 4.e<»-11. 044 %~AN : 048 050 El 53 m 56 0 64 1 28K ' El 128 m 256 I modem ¤ 384 0 512 Figure 6, Distribution of Home Connection Speeds ADril 10.2001 Page 13 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Satisfaction with Home Speed The connection speeds may also be contrasted with the satisfaction profile in terms of speed. In this case, the predominant results indicate a relatively low level of satisfaction with connection speeds at home. 300 283 250 200 auff,a; 147 * 150 123 127 / 112 / 100 *~ 7....V 00 ka/*,D 0 90 89 E 02 .. 48 44 50 4 3%-» .A:•aikk 976'41 9ak. 0 14 ~ 40 1.2 1== *14~1 45*04 4 14 * Dist 1.1*21.1. 0%%*i * ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unhappy 4 •· Happy Figure 7, Home User Satisfaction With Connection Speeds We suspected it would be interesting to correlate the satisfaction levels with the user's perception oftheir computer's usefulness. In other words, do low speeds also imply lower satisfaction with their computer's usefulness and vice versa? We will explore that issue in the next section. Aoril 10. 2001 Page 14 of 29 Responses 1 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley 1 1 Home Computer Users Satisfaction With Computers Versus Speed The following two charts examine the home user satisfaction with their computer as compared to the connection speed. We first examined the connection speed satisfaction for users who reported low usefulness of their 1 computers. 1 Users Rating Low Usefulness vs Speed Satisfaction 25 1 20 15 10 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Very Unhappy) Speed Satisfaction (Very Happy) 1 Figure 8, Low Usefulness versus Speed Satisfaction 1 The IATF was struck by the very low satisfaction associated with connection speeds for those users who were generally unhappy with their computer's usefulness. Perhaps, we reasoned, we'd best investigate the users who rated their computers as very useful and see what kind of connection speed satisfaction was associated with those 1 computers. 1 1 1 Aoril 10. 2001 Page 15 of 29 Responses 1 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley 1 We then looked at the opposite case, those users who ranked their computers as very useful. The chart of the 1 perceived connection speeds is very interesting in that case. Users Rating High Usefulness vs Speed Satisfaction 40 I 35 1 30 - - *25 ~ 20 IE 15 1 10 1 5 0 (Very Unhappy) Speed Satisfaction (Very Happy) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 9, High Usefulness versus Speed Satisfaction 1 It became apparent that there is a strong correlation between user's happiness with their computers and the connection speed. In a nutshell, users with faster connection speeds were happier with their computers and users with lower connection speeds were generally unhappy with their computers. 1 1 1 1 Aoril 10. 2001 Paee 16 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Home Use Summary The data from the home computer users indicate a strong market opportunity particularly for the ability to offer higher connection speeds. Home users recognize the usefulness oftheir computers for a wide variety of applications requiring Internet access, and are generally not very happy with the speed of their connections. • Home computers are generally used by two or more people. • Most Internet connections are via 56K modems. • Actual connection speeds are 28.8K or less. • Users are satisfied with computers but unhappy with connection speeds I 1 ADril 10.20()1 Page 17 of 29 1 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley 1 Business Computer Usage Three hundred and twenty-six businesses with computers responded to the survey. In addition to doing business work, (in hindsight, not a particularly well-thought-out category on our part) businesses use their computers for email, research, marketing, and web site development. As with the home users, a fair number of business users are engaged in e-commerce and on-line banking. 1 1 1% 10% 4% -27% O Business work El Web development 80/Of ~~ O E-mail £ Research • Entertainment · r -·.":ttt*~7 0 E-commerce p. L.NIT, 996 1 0 Online banking, etc 17% ~ / El Marketing 1 \1--/// • Other - Describe: 22% 1 Figure 10, Business Computer Usage 1 1 1 1 1 April 10. 2001 1 Page 18 of 29 1 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley 1 Users of Business Computers Reflecting the predominance of small businesses in the Estes Park area, the category of one to four users of computers in a business reflects the majority situation. However, several businesses reported five to ten 1 employees using the computer facilities in their business. It is noteworthy that the survey received responses from a limited group of businesses that reported more than 100 1 users of computers in their business. 1 Users / 2 flt.'70.4 -,4.,(22.:.:(-·~\ ..1, 1, :A/,72& , 1 0111-20 4~5**~;4.1 4, -* ...£.i«44:ty:i'·-·- ' ~<'-.E #~Ir.' i·f- - 4 ,& ·Id//JES 021-100 .C -f 1 .4//29#f e:yit%*44* v k ~ ·:·,~.· #,6t 05-10 1 m More than 100 m Not Given te 341 : ·F'·'4-:.:.41,2..·t{Ggrl, NUE.2 I.110*n,~ " & - 1 Figure 11, Users Per Business Computer 1 1 1 Anril 10.2001 Page 19 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Usefulness of Business Computers As might be expected, business respondents with computers tend to rank them as highly useful, more so than home users. The respondents who scored the usefulness oftheir computers as less than neutral - a ranking of four or less on the one-to-ten scale, comprise only twelve percent ofthe responding population. 70 65 1 - 61 60 #* 44*0 0%* 9/* I - 50 -» 43 44 1 2 . 29 . 0 30 3* ..~ 27 ~ Sm@E kg„ a4 -0 li 20 0 20 vrme. 2~¢09(2• 12 12 :img -9, a 2>£.- *« 3 . te bl 0%/4 1 0 M-7 1 1 1 1 *lek* .1 1 -M:-9.6 1.,2„ 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not Useful ·4 •· Very Useful Figure 12, Business Users Ranking of Computer Usefulness ADril 10. 2001 Page 20 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Criticality of Business Computers A ranking of ten on this scale - absolutely critical - indicates that the responding business could not operate without their computer capability. About one-third ofthe responding businesses chose that response, with nearly another third choosing a ranking of neutral or above. This strong dependence is indicative ofthe increasingly important role that computer technology plays in a wide range of business applications. 120 104 100 -=r 94*¥ej- 80 W ·Al'.5 MA*i 60 *Eftn 40 44 28 28 31 911* 21 =' 21 30 16 91 20 »190 FE 10 94 12 44 - 9-A.' 2493 92 5« 47£¥4 6 - w:w 100% 2*04 29 4320 8499 1€09. I =41 22*4 %* 1* . «ae *99 424# 01* .Dkit2 1II1I111I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unimportant ·• •· Vital Figure 13, Business Users Ranking of Computer Importance to Their Business April 10.2001 Page 21 of 29 Responses Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Business Connection Type Again, reflecting the predominant standard off-the-shelf configuration of recent years, the prevailing connection type for businesses is the 56K modem, which uses an ordinary telephone line. Other, higher-speed forms of connection remain rare, despite the high degree to which many businesses depend on their computers. This finding indicates that there are market needs present in area businesses that are not being met. 0°/A°/O1 % 014.4K modem .44 /)- 26% <'- 4/ \ 4,1 / [328.8K modem 033.6K modem O 56K modem t*· m Cable modem ¤ Do not know 910--1 te- -:47 El Full Tl - 1.54 MB Il ISDN 18- 64K 2% / I ISDN 28 - 128K / 58% 40/0-1 \ .- O not given 3% J Figure 14, Business Connection Types April 10. 2001 Page 22 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley 1 Satisfaction with Business Speed The data in the chart below supports the previous points, that business respondents clearly tend to be unhappy with the speed of their Internet connections. Again, this is a clear indication of market opportunity. 80 71 1 70 60- ~ 50 0 32* 38 ¢ 40 pg 32 33 20 u -0- 16 Cd 20 *5 <7/ -11:M.- . 14.20@ - 11 12 I *mil *4% -4 IN@ i, U./ i. i e W 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unhappy • • Happy Figure 15, Business Users Satisfaction With Connection Speeds April 10.2001 Page 23 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Business Upgrade Plans Businesses that we surveyed were asked if they perceived a future need to upgrade their computer systems and connectivity. Half ofthe respondents indicated a definite plan to do so, with another twenty-two percent expecting that such an upgrading will probably be needed. This is a remarkable statement of dissatisfaction with their current systems and represents a significant market opportunity. 1% 10% 1 t. I- 5% 1 ·~ .~,p·>~0.i,/·.~::·A 1 ~9267 \ 1 :ty ..1 O Don't Know El No ¤ Not Given 50% < ~22% O Probably 190 '90 0 Probably not O Yes -% &0,4. 12% Figure 16, Business Users Upgrade Plans Amil 10.2001 Page 24 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Business Use Summary For businesses in the Estes Park area, computer technology and, in particular, Internet accesses have become essential components of a successful operation. To be limited in connection speed is to be placed in a situation where it will become difficult to compete. Business respondents enjoy the benefits their current technology offers, but not their connection speed, and they are ready to upgrade. In summary, we found the business community is typically represented as follows: • Business computers are generally used by 1 -4 people. • Most Internet connections are via 56K modems. • Actual connection speeds are 28.8K or less. • Users are satisfied with computers but want to upgrade their connections. 4 April 10.2001 Page 25 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Observations The survey data supports the original propositions ofthe IATF, namely that the Estes Park area population, both residence and business, has experienced above-average penetration of information technology, and that computer users in both categories utilize the Internet extensively. Funher, both home and business computer owners are unhappy with the slow connection speeds they currently experience, and if given the opportunity, would upgrade to a higher speed. In our contacts with industry participants, the IATF team verified a widely reported fact that nationwide providers of broadband services are concentrating their investments in large urban areas. This is true for our Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC), Qwest. The result is the potential for rural areas and small towns to become connectivity "Have-nots." We did receive positive indications of interest in providing high-speed broadband access to the area from vendors other than those who have already entered the market. However, the dependence of these smaller market entrants on venture capital has led to the retrenchment of most of them, including a number of Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEO who we had hoped might bring Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service to the area. Because of this, the IATF team believes that it may be beneficial for Estes Park to participate in a program where grant money is available to support a public/private partnership that will encourage market entry. Finally, in looking at our current situation in the Estes Valley, the IATF team has observed some infrastructure weaknesses that are of concern. In the same way that inadequate roadways impact traditional economies, inadequate "information highways" will have the same impact on the economy and quality of life today. Lack of bandwidth, limited options for businesses where connectivity is critical, inadequate route redundancy to the world, and no real competitor to an indifferent ILEC are, in the opinion of the IATF team, serious policy-level issues that should be followed up by the Town. Recommendations Having completed the tasks for which we were chartered, the IATF team proposes to disband, so that the ongoing challenges and opportunities in the connectivity area can be assumed by personnel permanently in place to deal with such matters. There are, however, some activities that IATF members will continue to perform. • Because we have initiated contact with a number of potential vendors, rather than abandon those relationships, the IATF will maintain contact with those vendors until replaced by others. In addition, the IATF will make the survey database available to potential vendors as agreed to in our contacts with them. • Based on our observation that it may be desirable to obtain grant funds with which to support the entry of new providers, the IATF recommends that the Town of Estes Park strongly consider participation in the State's Beanpole project, or a similar initiative. Finally, the IATF recommends that the Town consider our current situation with regard to connectivity and the likely negative impact on both the local economy and the quality of life of our residents to be a matter of serious policy concern. We recommend further discussions with Qwest, with the Platte River Power Authority, and a focused dedication of personnel resources on this important area ofour community's future. It was initially expected that the Internet would make geography irrelevant and that no matter where people lived, the benefits ofthe information age would be available to them. That may have been true when everyone was ' connected at roughly equal speed, but it is definitely no longer the case. If we do not find ways to achieve high- speed broadband access, we risk the ability of our businesses to compete, the achievement of a high quality of life for our residents, and the sustainability of our community. - End of Report - ADril 10.2001 Page 26 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Appendix A: Internet Access Survey Form Aoril 10. 2001 Page 27 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Estes Park Internet Survey Dear Fellow Citizens of the Estes Valley, As you may know, the Estes Park Town Board has chartered a special task force to address the important issue of the Estes Valley's position in the new age ofthe Internet. The task force, known as the Internet Access Task Force for the Estes Valley, is looking into how we may ensure that our beautiful valley will be up to date with the rapidly evolving technologies of the Internet. Please take a moment to answer this short questionnaire because it will help the task force attract the best access technologies for our Internet future. Please note that the questionnaire is in two parts. The first part deals with your possible computer usage at your home or residence. We'd like you to answer as many of these questions as you can, even ifyou don't use a computer at home. The questions are not complicated or technical so feel free to dive right in! The second part is for the business people who use computers as part oftheir business. If you use computers in your business, please take the time to answer just a few more questions on the other side ofthis form. Ifyou'd prefer to take this Survey on-line, we encourage you to visit us at http://www.estesnet.com/Survey/. Either way, paper or on-line, your answers are vital to our valley's future. We appreciate your help. Al Wasson, Chairman Internet Access Task Force Part 1 - Home 1. How many of each ofthe following electronic devices do you have/use in your home? Telephone lines Cell phones Pagers Computers Fax machines Cable TV Satellite TV Other 2. If you have computers in your home, what use do you make of them? (Check all that apply) Games Word processing IE-mail Research Entertainment Shopping On-line On-line banking, etc Other 3. How many people in your household use the computer(s)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 More than 6 (please circle an answer) 4. If you know, please identify the type of Internet connection you have and its speed. Circle one (28.8K modem, 33.6K modem, 56K modem, Cable modem, Other ) What connection speed do you usually get? 5. If higher speed Internet access (say, 5-20 times faster than you have now) were available, how much would you be willing to pay monthly to subscribe to the service? Up to $25 $26 - $50 $51 - $100 Not interested 6. What is your current level of satisfaction with your existing Internet service? Usefulness? (1 = hate it, 10 = love it) 0 - 10) Speed? (1 = hate it, 10 = love it) 0 - 10) 7. What is your Zip Code? Which Estes area/subdivision do you reside in? If you use computers in your business, please take a moment to answer a few more questions on the other side of this form. April 10.2001 Page 28 of 29 Internet Survey of the Estes Valley Part 2 - Business Please take a moment to answer these questions if you use computers in your business. In order to avoid confusion, we request that only one ofthese forms be filled out for each business. That way, we won't be multiple counting the responses for each employee in your business. 1. How many of each ofthe following electronic devices do you have/use in your business? Telephone lines Cell phones Pagers Computers Servers LAN Fax machines Cable TV Satellite TV Other 2. If you have computers in your business, what use do you make of them? (Check all that apply) Buslness work Web development E-mail Research Entertainment E-commerce Online banking, etc Marketing Other 3. How many people in your business use the computer(s)? 1-4 5-10 11-20 21-100 More than 100 (please circle an answer) 4. If you know, please identify and describe the type of Internet connection(s) you have and their speed (e.g., 56K modem, Cable modem, ISDN, Tl) 5. Do you think you will need to upgrade your Internet connection to a faster connection in the next 3 years? Yes - Probably Probably not No 6. If higher speed Internet access (say, 5-20 times faster than you have now) were available, how much would you be willing to pay monthly to subscribe to the service? Up to $50 $51 - $100 $101 - $200 More than $200 Not interested 7. If higher speed Internet access were available but it required that you make a one-time capital investment for special equipment, how much would you be willing to invest in that capital equipment? Up to $250 $251 - $500 $501 - $1,000 More than $1,000 Not interested 8. What is your current assessment of your existing Internet service? Usefulness? (1 - hate it, 10 = love it) 0 - 10) Speed? (1 = hate it, 10 = love it) 0 - 10) Critical to business? (1 = not critical, 10 = vital) (1 - 10) 9. What is the Zip Code of your business? In which Estes area/subdivision is your business located? Anril 10.2001 Page 29 of 29 Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner ·~z:e-j Date: April 4, 2001 Subject: Vacation of a Portion of Ponderosa Drive located on Lot 12A White Meadow View Place Amended Background That portion of the Ponderosa Drive ROW situated on Lot 12A White Meadow View Place Amended has never been occupied with either roads or utilities. The street itself is located on the lot adjacent to the west. This segment of ROW as originally dedicated on the old plat serves no public purpose. ff*V~ -.00. 7, 9*HY4\ £- U./ A 4 Y X M Fy- ---~11 3%• ITHO,A../SUM! \I \_>/,-\,/ Nt MANFORD CE:Ik 14\- 4 2 \3 , .. rq»2~=i- -1 4/24 SUB. 97- 476-2 4-11- h~ 32 1 33 A/7 4 34 0 /3 1 MANF 1 , El» -11• AD 2 E~ --1~--~I ISA WHITE •0•oow ,0,01 r* ,2~i'·-N \ , - /0 „ -12 - - 25 1 13 lot O ~ ~' -T-1 2 \0/ r 10 'RAYES AVE. p~kg'XECI--3 | 37 \1-\ .AA#,O,10 : 100 6 \0\ MEDENT 33 32 ~- * M 3 0 2. 41,·Itull<luvi t EROSA-AVE.7. U \1\*0.134 7. 1 1 1 [13_1 r ti ' lf ,| 2~3 14 31 4 |71 "1~] 27 [Ze_ 32 02.-LRI- -\\,0er'.0...,co,0.y '00. 1. ~ ~™-~ BONNIE ~ 4 \2•/ 33 32 -17-M „ * s Z ,/AP-74119%4*0,1 1 t, 1-1; 1 -_"-3 A / BPAE 3 Action The Planning Commission has recommended approval of an Amended Plat that vacates this portion of Ponderosa Drive. Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Ft-j Date: April 4,2001 Subject: White Meadow View Place Amended Plat This is an application for an amended plat to adjust an internal lot line between two lots. No new building sites are being created. LOCATION: The site is located at 560 and 570 Ponderosa Drive APPLICANT: David Hazard, Richard Hodges, Tom Peter Background This is a request to amend Lots 11 and 12, White Meadow View Place. Specifically, the purpose is to officially recognize an illegal boundary line adjustment. The adjustment was done in 1973, immediately following the adoption of the state subdivision requirements. The lots were originally platted in the late 1930's, and are therefore both legal lots. The lot line adjustment, however, did not go through a formal subdivision process that had been imposed just a few months prior. A structure had been built across the original lot line, therefore the boundary line adjustment was, and is, a measure to correct a non- conforming structure. .C> 1 /7 4 4~ 5 i *IM. 2 , 19\ 10 .. 12 6 1-11 lit Vi. 3 0 64 15 D vILLE 14 7/ 32.33 34 · 3UB. MANF -1' ~ 20.20 ,4 -0,St .13 1 AD ZI~ ziEZE ts. WHITE .Eloow 25 € /3 #01 0 /8 ,)777 2 \0 34 Itiz~ 2 IA' , 28*,r-L-2---1. 1 . 70 GRAVES AVE. 'fii 3hr i z· 2, 2, 31* Ym. \r\ ...,oho 600 L-J 0 101.EGENT 33 32 ~ 4.11$: EROSA--4 /E.9- , 1 Ll_11·LL rA ' 1 1 7L - Al'|'ll).; 041j,·1 a I d 2,1 z, 4%4 3,2 Pl" im~'_Bi~FicANTIMORGAN/COLO~'~ ~DO. L-.-------\. \ -BOVNCE~ »-G-7-36 . 1 -lin.-1. 136/M I 1.-- 33 32 - Action PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed White Meadow View Place Amended Plat. The conditions of approval have been satisfied. MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: 4-5-01 Subject: Final Plat Bristlecone Subdivision LOCATION: 2039 S. St. Vrain Ave. (south of Pawnee Meadow, east of Arapaho Estates) Background: This final plat proposes to divide a 4.8 acre tract into four single family residential lots, and one Out Lot. The property is zoned El, Estate and presently supports one residence to be retained. A cul de sac will be extended from Cherokee Drive for vehicular access. This public street access requires participation of the neighboring Haines property to complete the Right of Way dedication for the cul de sac to be known as Bristle Cone Court. The relevant cul de sac limitations will be complied with upon dedication of a continuous Public Right of Way from Cherokee Drive to the turn around at the end of the cul de sac. All utilities will be provided as required. The minimum lot area requirements are being met with this proposal. This subject 4.8 acre tract to be subdivided has an easement for access across the Sloan property adjacent to the east. This right of access is proposed to be conveyed with Lot 4, for the exclusive use of the owners of Lot 4. The neighboring Haines propety also has a right of access across Lot 4 to the old road that connects east to Hwy 7. These two rights of access are proposed to be retained. It will be necessary to control this access with a gate so that the general public does not use it. Exception Requested: Section 10.5, A.7 requires that all rights-of -way be platted to the property line. The north line of the cul-de-sac ROW is set back five feet off the property line. The applicant is requesting an exception to this standard in order to protect the cul-de-sac from being converted into a through street at some time in the future. Staff and Planning Commission support granting an exception to this standard in this case because a need for a through street connection is not anticipated at this time, (dedication of a through street R.O.W. was accomplished with the First Filing of Pawnee Meadows Subdivision). Recommendation: Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. The entire length of the cul de sac shall be dedicated as a public right of way. 2. A shared private drive easement / maintenance agreement shall be provided for the shared private drive extended beyond the cul de sac, and the private drive shall be constructed and paved by the developer. The agreement shall clearly state which lots are to be served and participate in the maintenance. 3. The portion of the Haines property to be dedicated as Public Right of Way shall be dedicated concurrent with Final Plat approval by a separate document, prior to recording the plat. RESOLUTION NO. 16-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "DRY GULCH ADDITION #1" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, MONUMENTED BY A 3 1/4" BRASS CAP LS # 6499; THENCE S19°33'41"E 2.53' TO THE CALCULATED HISTORIC NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N88°23'00"W 131.06' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N88°23'00"W 559.74' TO A U.S.B.L.M. BRASS CAP STAMPED AP1; THENCE N01°37'00"E 362.10'; THENCE N85°34'00"W 584.00'; THENCE S02°34'00"E 4.34'; THENCE S13°23'03"W 20.30'; THENCE S12°22'57"E 32.72'; THENCE S02°34'00"E 53.49'; THENCE S10°32'00"E 215.68' TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S STATE HIGHWAY #34; THENCE THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID HIGHWAY; S59°53'52"E 553.97'; THENCE S30°06'08"W 20.00'; THENCE S59°53'52"E 100.00'; THENCE N30°06'08"E 20.00'; THENCE S59°53'52"E 605.19'; THENCE LEAVING SAID HIGHWAY N00°13'42"W 530.17' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAINING 10.58 ACRES. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held May 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C. R.S. DATED this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board Of Trustees From: Fire Chief Scott Dorman I)ate: April 3, 2001 Subject: Change Order Background: The Fire Department has $20,000 budgeted each year for the installation of additional fire hydrants. In the year 2000, six (6) sites were looked at as potential sites for fire hydrants. Ofthese six only three locations proved to be viable sites. The cost estimated for these sites is as follows: Riverside Dr. $6,000.00 Elkhorn Ave/ Far View Dr. $4,070.00 Lakefront St./ Hwy 34 $25,400-29,500 The total cost for these three hydrant installations is between $35,470 and $39,570. Approval was made by the Public Safety Committee to spend $10,070 from the year 2000 budget towards the Riverside Dr. and the Elkhorn/ Far View Dr. fire hydrants, and use the remaining 2000 budgeted amount ($9,930) in conjunction with the year 2001 budget of $20,000 for the installation of the Lake Front St/ Highway 34 fire hydrant. During the installation of the fire hydrant on Far View Dr. and Elkhorn Ave., it was discovered that the fiber optic cable was encased in concrete & lying on top ofthe water main. This resulted in the move of the fire hydrant to a point further east. I gave approval for the new fire hydrant location in order to keep the project moving and stay within the intent of the goal to provide better fire protection for the community, Trustee Gillette gave preliminary approval for the change order on March 23, 2001, in lieu ofthe cancelled Public Safety Committee Meetings in March and April. Budget: Moving the location ofthe fire hydrant and the associated work, created a change order in the amount of $3,202. The installation cost for the fire hydrant on Riverside Dr. came in at $991.28 under the budgeted amount. This resulted in a change order for the total of the two projects to be $2,210.72. Funding for this change order will come from the Water Departments Budget as approved by Bill Linnane, Public Works Director. Recommendation: Staffrecommendation is for approval ofKitchen and Company change order # 001 in the amount of $2,210.72. Thus, leaving the budgeted amount of $29,930 for the fire hydrant installation at Lake Front St./ Highway 34 for the year 2001. BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2001, 1:30 p.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Joyce Kitchen, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Ed McKinney, Cherie Pettyjohn, Edward Pohl, and Dominick Taddonio Attending: Chair Kitchen, Commissioners Amos, Hampton, McKinney, Pohl, and Taddonio Also Attending: Town Liaison Habecker, Acting Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent: Commissioner Pettyjohn Chair Kitchen called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated February 20, 2001. b. Preliminary Plat, Horse Creek Ranch continued to the April 17, 2001, meeting at the request of the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Taddonio) that the Consent Agenda be accepted as presented. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. SUBDIVISIONS Amended Plat, Lots 11 and 12, White Meadow View Place, 560 and 570 Ponderosa Drive, Applicants: David Hazard, Richard Hodges, and Tom Peter. Paul Kochevar, the applicant's representative, was not able to attend this meeting, however, requested that the proposal be reviewed and acted upon in his absence. Planner Shirk gave the staff report. This is a request to amend Lots 11 and 12, White Meadow View Place. Specifically, the purpose is to officially recognize an illegal boundary line adjustment. The adjustment was done in 1973, immediately following the adoption of the state subdivision requirements. The lots were originally platted in the late 1930's. The lot line adjustment, however, did not go through a Town subdivision approval process. A structure had been built across the original lot line; therefore, the boundary line adjustment was, and is, a measure to correct a non- conforming structure. Approval of the proposal would create a conforming building setback for Lot 12A. Lot 11Awill continue to have a non-conforming accessory structure. This plat will formally dedicate a private access and general utility easement across Lot 12A to 1 1A, and vacate an unoccupied portion of right-of-way for Ponderosa Drive. This proposal meets the subdivision design standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. The property is located within identified elk and deer habitat areas as identified on the Wildlife Habitat Map, as set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Based on the relatively minor nature of this request, Staff has waived the requirements of Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. A common drive for both lots is located in the northern portion of the subdivision. Staff recommends a shared maintenance agreement. Public Comment: Al Sager, representing Willa Jean Graves, an adjoining property owner, advised the final plat submission was acceptable. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - March 20, 2001 Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Amos/McKinney) to recommend apprbval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Amended Plat of Lots 11 and 12, White Meadow View Place, with the following conditions and it passed unanimously with one absent. 1. Addition of the following note: "The area represented on this plat is within an identified wildlife habitat area. Development is subject to applicable regulations." 2. Addition of the following note: "Approval of this amended plat does not affect the non-conformity of the accessory building located on Lot 1 1A." 3. Recording of a shared maintenance agreement between Lot 11A and Lot 12A regarding the shared northern driveway. This agreement shall be submitted with the attorney's certificate. 5. REPORTS The Town and the County will each pay the fees for one Commissioner to attend the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute's 1 Oth Annual Land Use Conference. Those interested in attending were Dominick Taddonio, Joyce Kitchen and possibly Cherie Pettyjohn. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Joyce Kitchen, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary Jean Michaelson has been successful in obtaining $475,000 in mortgage assistance grant money from USDA Rural Housing Development. This loan will be used in combination with traditional mortgages to blend them together to bring down financing costs. The Housing Authority in Loveland also offers the Larimer Home Ownership Program (LHOP). This is an income qualified down payment assistance program where as down payment assistance loans are offered as low as 3%. ADJOURN Sue Doylen entertained the motion to adjourn the Board meeting at 9: 12 a.m. to go into Executive Session. Louise Olson motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Eric Blackhurst seconded. Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn J. Coffelt Assistant to the HACOL Director EPHA February Board Minutes - Page 3 of 3 Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting I)ate: February 14, 2001 Members Present: Eric Blackhurst, Sue Doylen, Lee Kundtz, & Louise Olson Members Absent: Karla Porter Staff Present: Sam Betters, & Carolyn Coffelt Others Present: Guests: Mary Bauer, Norm Carver, Jay Gentile, Alma Hix, Rita Kurelja, Andrew Purdes, Dave Shirk, & Joe Wise The February 14th meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Sue Doylen, Chairperson, at 8:33 a.m. in the Board Room of the Municipal Building of the Town of Estes Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sue Doylen asked if anyone had any changes to the January 10, 2001 minutes. Eric Blackhurst moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Louise Olson seconded. Minutes approved. SECTION 8 Ten people are under lease, nine others have the voucher in their hand, and three are waiting for income verifications. A total of 22 Section 8 vouchers will be used in Estes Park rather than the original 20. Estes Park was the beneficiary of a few more once the elderly and disabled preference was implemented. CLEAVE STREET Closing is scheduled for today. We are still waiting for the settlement sheet from the title company and the warranty deed. Three property management companies were evaluated, and we have decided to go with Ponderosa Realty and Management, Inc. as the property manager for Cleave Street. Due to Ponderosa's services and current abilities, they were selected. We have also put in a legal notice in the newspaper for an invitation for bids on renovation and general maintenance, boiler and water service renovation, and electrical renovation. Bids can be picked up at the Town Municifal Building in Room 210. Sealed bids are accepted up until 4 p.m. on Monday, February 26t . There will also be a walk through for prospective bidders on Friday, February 16 at 9:30 a.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS REGULATORY No report. LAND Discussion held for Executive Session. PROGRAM & No report. EPHA February Board Minutes - Page 1 of 1 FINANCIAL EDUCATION & SUPPORT A letter was written to national, state, and county elected officials asking them to support affordable housing. The letter will be signed by all Board members today and mailed out. See below. DEVELOPMENT & Discussion held for Executive Session. RETENTION Education & Support Unitarian Quacker Church requested a presentation. Sue Doylen will do it. Sherpherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church requested a presentation in March which Louise Olson and Lee Kundtz will do. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Building Code Issues Sue Doylen was called by a concerned citizen in reference to a property that someone was living in which was substandard. Discussion ensued whether the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) should pursue a minimum standard code for rental properties, or just encourage landlords to upgrade their properties. Currently there are no codes or regulations that address these issues. As the EPHA rehabs, builds, and offers things like section 8 vouchers which have to pass property quality standards, these places will become more desirable. Private sector upgrades will have to meet the demands of the market, but as long as the market is tight, you won't see landlords making improvements unless it is economically feasible for them to do so. The Housing Authority can also provide low interest rehab loans through the I.anmer Home Improvement Program (LHIP). After some discussion, it was decided that no action would be taken at this time. Term Expiration Eric Blackhurst's 1 year Board membership term expires in April of this year. The Town Board last night voted to reappoint him for a 5-year term. Expiration will be 2006. Estes Valley Development Corporation (EVDC) Sue Doylen, Jean Michaelson, and Sam Betters met with this group. Discussions focused on what roles each group plays and how we can work together to meet housing goals in the community. EPHA will write a letter indicating that our goals are consistent with theirs, but not in conflict so they can access some grant monies. They meet every second Tuesday of the month at 5:30 p.m. at Prudential. Eric Blackhurst will serve as the liaison between the two boards, attend the meetings, as well as be a conduit of information. Sam Betters assisted in providing EVDC with sources on information and volunteered to help them in any way. Both organizations have the same goal which is housing. Rural Development Grant EPHA February Board Minutes - Page 2 of 2 Board of Trustees - March 27, 2001 - Page 3 the project, the Town budgeted $30,000, and the EVRPD $20,000. Based on review criterion, the Selection Committee unanimously selected the Thorp/Heath Design/Build Team for a pre-election fee of $47,500 plus various percentages considered under post election.» B. IGA for the Design Phase between the EVRPD and the Town. At their recent board meeting, the EVRPD unanimously endorsed the project, and approved the IGA. EVRPD Vice President Shippy added that a recent EVRPD survey conducted in 1998 through 1999, 1,100 residents and visitors were surveyed to assess District programs and facilities. Analysis indicated that ice skating is the most popular event, year round, and the District should consider enhancing their program. Due to problems inherent with an outdoor pond (Trout Haven Pond program), the District decided to look into a combination ice skating facility. By joining the Town project, one facility could be constructed, thus the EVRPD unanimously supported the IGA. Audience comments were heard from Suzanne Luepke, who urged consideration be given to indoor tennis courts. Trustee Habecker confirmed that during the design phase, various types of sports facilities/events will be considered. Roger Thorp noted that the Design/Building Team will maintain an open- minded approach; they will evaluate potential locations and determine how best the building should serve the community; shortly, the process of programming the building will begin; and there will be 1 to 2 public meetings to gain input on the use of the building. Town Administrator Widmer added that the project will be a jointly owned, operated, and designed facility. The EVRPD will coordinate recreation, and the Town will coordinate special events. Special events are not limited to horse shows and the like-the project is envisioned as a broad use facility. By August, the design and cost will be available; then an IGA between the Town and EVRPD will be negotiated to determine the Town's cost and how the project will be financed. Audience comments were heard from George Hockman who questioned how the Team is able to reach "a guaranteed maximum price." Mr.Thorp explained the design/build process. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Habecker/Newsom) A. the Design/Building Contract be awarded to Thorp/Heath, and B. the IGA between the EVRPD and the Town be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. McGREGOR MOUNTAIN ADDITION ANNEXATION. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing, and Acting Community Development Dir. Joseph presented the staff report and Annexation Impact Report. The annexation consists of 32.75 acres and the land currently contains two residences, and is otherwise undeveloped. At this time, there are no plans for further development of this property. Acting Dir. Joseph requested a condition be included the existing overhead power lines be indicated on the annexation plat and that utility easements be provided for said lines. The Applicant would be given 30 days in which to comply to this recommendation. Applicant's representative Bill Van Horn, reported that the power line traverses the property from west to east; if required and due to the expense, it would perhaps be more appropriate to survey the line at the time of subdivision or development plan submittal; the act of annexing does not alter existing prescriptive rights; should the property be developed, it is likely the Board of Trustees - March 27, 2001 - Page 4 line would be relocated to accommodate development; ending with a request annexation be allowed without being required to survey the power line. Acting Dir. Joseph responded that, from a Planning Commission standpoint, not specifically Light & Power, it is routine to require said surveying at this stage as it ensures there is a public record. Additional discussion followed on prescriptive rights v. easements, consistent application of standards, and power line maintenance concerns. As legal expertise on the rights issue and concerns with power line maintenance must be obtained, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Jeffrey) the McGregor Mountain Addition Annexation be continued to April 10, 2001, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Barker added that if a department adds a condition of approval, they attend the Town Board meeting. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Administrator Widmer read a letter from the National Arbor Day Foundation, announcing Estes Park's Tree City USA national recognition. B. Administrator Widmer requested a response on the previously presented proposal to relocate the post office to Town-owned Tract 4 in the Historic District. As previously stated, the Town could hire Szymanski/Ray to investigate the site and determine whether it is financially feasible for the Town. Said investigate could include whether the post office would preclude anything else on the site, whether relocation would prove a economically beneficial, etc. Consensus was reached to hire Szymanski/Ray. Trustee Barker urged extreme caution be observed on Fall River Road near Sunnyside Knoll due to Big Horn Sheep on the roadway. Following completion of all agenda items, it was moved and seconded (Barker/Habecker) the Board adjourned to Executive Session, and it pass unanimously. Thus, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. to Executive Session. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 27,2001 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 27th day of March, 2001. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker, David Habecker Lori Jeffrey G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Absent: Stephen W. Gillette, Trustee and Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted that April is Volunteer Month. In celebration of this tribute, the Town is again issuing a Proclamation, and hosting a Volunteer Recognition Event on April 234. This event was traditionally held in December and it has now been permanently moved to April. PUBLIC COMMENT Barbara Williams, tennis player, urged the Town/EVRPD to include an option for indoor tennis in the proposed Events Center. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Jeffrey briefed the Board on the NLC Small Cities Conference which she attended in Washington, DC. The theme was "Investing in our Communities." Trustee Jeffrey is appointed to the Small Cities Council and State Small Cities Committee. Key issues were cooperation and partnerships. Trustee Barker, who also attended, noted how the NLC membership is a major force and it is very important that Estes Park be included in the decision-making process. Trustee Barker commented on the recent Community Meeting, where his previous comments made during Government Class were perhaps taken out of context. Trustee Barker clarified that during the Class, students questioned why they were "being chased out of specific business parking lots? Following research, Trustee Barker had responded that problems arose with customers being intimidated, which will not be tolerated, and concern with loitering and trash. However, the Business Community does care deeply about the youth. Mayor Baudek commented on the recent Community Meeting sponsored by PaCK, and held at the Conference Center. The meeting was titled "Facing Reality", and Mayor Baudek outlined his observations, adding that 'You can be assured however, that the Town staff and elected officials will continue to build upon the positives and strive to make Estes Park the community that we all can be proud of." 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 13, 2001. 1 Board of Trustees - March 27, 2001 - Page 2 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, March 15, 2001: 1. Water Dept. Year 2000 Loop Project - Change Order. 2. Water Dept. Year 2001 Loop Project - Bid Award. 3. 2001 Street Improvement Program - Bid Award. B. Community Development, March 22, 2001: 1. Rocky Mtn. Team Penning Contract. 2. Rooftop Rodeo 75~h Anniversary Events: Fireworks and Special Action Show. 4. Resolution #14-01 - Intent to Annex "Fish Hatchery Road Addition" (#1 through 7); public hearing scheduled May 8, 2001. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) the consent agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) the Final Plat of Bristlecone Subdivision, Tract 3, Arapaho Meadows, Pawnee Meadow LLC/Applicant be continued to April 10,2001, and it passed unanimously: 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CO-HOUSING PRESENTATION BY JIM TAWNEY. Mr. Tawney appeared to promote public awareness on co-housing, a rapidly growing model for the 1 establishment of small developments. Co-housing is a relatively new concept in the United States, there are about 50 completed projects, approximately 30 in development, and approximately 150 groups that have formed to create a co-housing community. Mr. Tawney owns three parcels in the Mary's Lake Annexation, and this project lends itself to Lot 2. Mr. Tawney commented on those residents needing housing but believe they are priced out of the market; co-housing is not a solely retirement community; and the project will not be advertised outside Estes Park. Infrastructure for Lot 2 will be in place by the end of summer, 2001. Commonly asked questions were clarified, with Mr. Tawney advising he is publicizing this project to determine interest. If there is no interest in such a project, owners will transition development into a condominium project. Trustee Jeffrey questioned how long this concept has been going on? Response was, in concept, 10 years. Trustee Habecker questioned what is needed from the Town Board? Mr. Tawney reiterated he is attempting to publicize the project and determine interest; owners can proceed with this project without requesting variances. The Board expressed their appreciation to Mr. Tawney for his presentation and if anyone desires additional information, questions should be referred to Mr. Tawney. 2. STANLEY PARK MULTI-USE EVENTS CENTER - APPROVAL. A. Design/Build Contract. Town Administrator Widmer briefed the Board on this project that includes the construction of a recreation and events center at Stanley Park. Components include indoor ice-skating and the building could be used during non-winter months for special events, shows, meetings and other large functions. As this project is a common goal of the Town Board and EVRPD, a goal team (Barker, Widmer, Dorman, Matzke, Hinze, Linnane, Shippy and Gengler) was established in July, 2000 to select a firm to design and build the events center. An RFP was written and a list of milestones was noted. Three design/build teams responded. For the design/build portion of Memo Date: April 5, 2001 TO: Town Board From: Gregory A. White RE: THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Recently, the Town Board has authorized the staff to review the possibility of development of Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District which is being purchased by the Town pursuant to a Lease Purchase Agreement Also, the Town's staff has been made aware of a development proposal forthcoming on .Lot 2 of the Stanley Historic Distfict. In light of these recent developments, the Town's staff will review the Stanley Historic District at the Town Board meeting on April 10th including a historical perspective on the negotiation and approval of the three Development Agreements for the Stanley Historic District properties. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: In 1991 a Citizen Initiated Ordinance was recommended to the Town Board which, if approved, would have placed certain restrictions upon the Stanley Hotel and surrounding properties. In response to that Citizen Initiated Ordinance, the Town Board agreed to adopt its own Stanley Historic District ordinance, if the Citizen Initiated Ordinance failed. The Citizens Initiated Ordinance did fail and the Town did pass its own Ordinance. The Stanley Historic District Ordinance was codified as Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. That Ordinance did institute certain development standards on the Stanley Hotel and surrounding properties (the Stanley Historic District), but did not restrict development of the properties with regard to density and types of development. The property was zoned commercial at the time which allowed for development on the property that was perceived by the Town and the citizens to be substantially greater than appropriate for the property. If that type of development did occur, it was the opinion of the citizenry and the Town Board that development would have a negative impact on the future viability of the Stanley Hotel and the surrounding properties. In 1992 the Town entered into negotiations with the owners of the Stanley Hotel (Lot 1, Stanley Historic District), the Overlook Partnership (Lot 2 Stanley Historic District), and FHK Company (Lots 3-9, Stanley Historic District). Those negotiations led to the drafting and execution of the three Development Agreements between the property owners and the Town. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: Pursuant to those Development Agreements, the Town purchased Lots 5,6 and 8 of the Stanley Historic District as open space and reserved a portion of Lot 4 as open space. The density and types of development on Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District were rest:cicted pursuant to the terms of the Agreements. For example, prior to the Development Agreement Lot 3 had a £ight to develop up to 120 dwelling units. Development was restricted in the Development Agreement to a maximum of 50 dwelling units. In fact, Lot 3 has been developed as a single-family residential property with a total of 20 lots. In return for the property owners giving up certain development rights and opportunities and agreeing to design constraints, the Town agreed that so long as future development was in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreements, specifically the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, that development had a vested right to occur subject only to technical review pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan documents. SUMMARY: It is my and the staffs opinion that the Stanley Historic District Development .Agreements have directly led to the restoration of the Stanley Hotel Complex including its substantial increase in sales tax revenues to the Town; development of Lots 3,7, and 9 of the Stanley Historic District which are aesthetically pleasing and at a scale that does not detract from the Stanley Hotel Complex nor the surrounding neighborhoods; and the preservation of open space on Lots 5,6, and 8 of the Stanley Historic District. Community Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Senior Planner Date: April 5, 2001 Subject: Stanley Historic District Technical Review Technical Review Process The Stanley Historic District (SHD) Master Plan and Development Agreement supercedes the usual planning review process. Also, the design guidelines, prescribed uses, and densities set forth in the Master Plan supercede the applicable zoning regulations of the underlying zoning district. The Planning Commission does not review development proposals within the SHD. Instead, a Technical Review Committee (TRC) composed primarily of Town Staff (and third party professional engineers and architects as required) is assembled to carefully review the proposals for technical compliance with the applicable Master Plan provisions. The materials formally submitted for review are part of the public record, as are the findings of the TRC. The Master Plan provisions address development in a parcel specific manner. These provisions carefully consider both the historic integrity of the Stanley Hotel and the character of the surrounding development. They provide for a predictable, orderly development within the SHD consistent with the Development Agreement. AGREEMENT This Agreement, effective the 1 St day of March, 2001, by and between THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ("the Town") a Municipal Corporation and THE ESTES PARK CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION, ("The Chambef'). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The Town, pursuant to statutory authority, conducts an advertising program for the purpose of advertising the business, social, and educational advantages, the natural resources, and the scenic attractions of the Estes Valley; and WHEREAS, as part of that advertising program, there is a necessity to maintain an adequate staff and program to answer inquiries prompted by the Town's advertising program; and WHEREAS, the Chamber is an appropriate party to provide the staff and services necessary to provide answering services for the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town imposes and collects, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town, a business license fee which is used to fund the Town's advertising program; and WHEREAS, the Town's advertising program benefits businesses in the Estes Valley whether or not they are located within or outside the Town's boundary; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their agreement concerning these above matters. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Chamber will provide and train adequate staff to answer incoming 800 calls generated by the Town's advertising program within the standards and guidelines established by the Town's advertising manager and the Chamber. The Town shall pay the Chamber at the rate of $1.00 per call as reported by the monthly AT&T master line billing or other billing service. 2. The Chamber will provide all personnel, equipment, and software necessary to accomplish the duties set forth in paragraph 1 above. 3. Those businesses located outside the Town boundary who wish to receive referrals from the Chamber pursuant to this Agreement shall pay annually to the Town a sum equal to the business license fee of the Town that would be imposed upon the business if the business was located within the boundaries of the Town. This paragraph shall also apply to those businesses located outside the Town boundary who wish to be included on the website advertised in the Town's advertising program. The payment by an individual business shall entitle the business to receive telephone referrals and be on the website. These revenues shall be used solely by the Town for its advertising program. 4. The Chamber shall forward to the Town on a monthly basis a complete list of all businesses requesting referrals. The Town shall notify the Chamber in writing of any business who has not paid the Town the fee for inclusion in the referral list and/or the website as more fully set forth in paragraph 3 above. Upon receipt of written notice from the Town, the Chamber shall immediately remove said business from its referral list and/or the website. A business may be reinstated on the referral list and/or website upon written notice from the Town to the Chamber that the business is eligible for reinstatement. 5. The parties understand and agree that leads (names, e-mail addresses, and 2 phone numbers, generated by telephone inquiries and website hits) are the property of the Town. The Chamber may distribute these leads to its members but shall not sell or transfer these leads to any third party. 6. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for the period of March 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. This Agreement shall continue for additional one year periods from September 30th of each year through September 30th of the subsequent year unless either party terminates this Agreement by written notice to the other party on or before September 1 of the appropriate year. 7. The Town shall indemnify and hold harmless the Chamber from any and all claims, demands, or lawsuits for any claim arising out of the Town's collection of the fee set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement and the Chamber's compliance with the requirements of paragraph 4 of this Agreement. This indemnification shall include and not be limited to all reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the Chamber with regard to any claim involving paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement. The Chamber shall give the Town notice in writing of any claim subject to the terms and conditions of this paragraph and the Town, in its sole discretion, upon receipt of notice of any claim, may provide defense of the Chamber for said claim. In the event the Town does not elect to provide such a defense it shall reimburse the Chamber for all costs incurred by the Chamber, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which the Chamber incurs as a result of such claim. 8. The Chamber agrees that it is an independent contractor under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. As such, the Chamber is not entitled to employment or insurance benefits through the Town. Also, the Chamber understands and agrees that it is solely responsible for all Federal and State income tax, FICA taxes, unemployment and insurance taxes. The Chamber also understands and agrees that it is responsible for workers compensation 3 coverage and taxes for itself and any employee. 9. In the event of any default by either party in the terms and conditions hereof, the non-defaulting party shall give the defaulting party ten (10) days' notice in writing of said default. If said default is not cured within said 10-day period, the non- defaulting party shall be entitled to begin legal proceedings, including an action for specific performance and/or damages. Damages shall include all reasonable attorneys fees and court costs incurred by the non-defaulting party. 10.All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to either party, under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid as follows: Town of Estes Park Estes Park Chamber Resort Association Attn: Town Administrator Attn: Executive Director P.O. Box 1200 500 Big Thompson Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 11. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties. Any amendment or modification hereto shall be in writing and executed by both parties. 12.This Agreement may not be assigned by the Chamber. 13. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto including their successors. 14. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any litigation regarding this Agreement shall be in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Agreement. THE ESTES PARK CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION By: TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: ATTEST Town Clerk 5 Police Department TOWN OF ESTES PARK - f 22..1 «14*»w«4«4~ y» r ..P'' // 340 April 2, 2001 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE Wapiti Bar and Grill Tavern Duemig, Kathleen A. DOB/092757 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon the name(s) and date(s) of birth of the above-named individual(s) has been made. There are no local records on the above-mentioned individual(s). Therefore, based on the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for Wapiti Bar and Grill Sincerely, V , , 1,0 tregg <. Filsinger Deputy Chief of Poli~/Estes Park Police ftb (970) 586-4465 • RO. BOX 1287 • ESTES PARK, CO 80517 · FAX (970) 586-4496 DR 8404 (05/98) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION COLORADO LIQUOR 1375 SHERMAN STREET OR 3.2% FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE DENVER CO 80261 RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION ¤ NEW LICENSE E TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP m LICENSE RENEWAL • ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN • APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) • LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ • APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO LIQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-3214164) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a El Individual ® Corporation U Limited Liability Company O Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number 4<kTHL€84 A.DuemiG E,JTFKP¢ ises , I-At 74-1%747oc 2a. Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone WAPiT-1 -BAR 4 GAil-L 40645939 970-536-€05© 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 24 7 4. BLE \AD AR Acl€ aty - 56 5 (7 County State ZIP Co® /SEES QAFF- LAUAAER CO. 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code 9 6 · & X ,-253- ES rES P A A-w 60. 105,7 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date WAPirl 13Af- 1 621(L, INC 6-1- 23195-000 -\1\4824/ 14#ec AB 1 6,4 °0 A .~ ~ u 'SECTION A , ' „ APPLICATION FEES b | LIAB » ' SECTION D..7 2 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES 1 10 0 Late Renewal Application Fee...........................,...$500.00 )940 0 Retail Liquor Store License (city) ..,..,,.,,,.,,..,,,.,..,$202.50 -300 U Application Fee for New License .............................. 650·00 1940 0 Retail Liquor Store License (county) ..................... 287.50 2300 0 Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 1950 El Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 ?310 E Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 1950 Il Liquor Licensed Drugstore (county) .....................287.50 SECTION B 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES 1960- O Beer & Wine License (city)...................................326.25 2121 El Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises- (city) ......................$71.25 1960 C] Beer & Wine License (county).............................. 411.25 2121 El Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1970>t OH&R License O city []county ......................... 475.00 2122 El Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises-(city) ........................71.25 198*' OH&RLicensew/optPrem Ocity C]county......475.00 2122 D Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1990~ 03:lub License m city m county ........................... 283.75 2123 D Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (city) .................. 71.25 2010 0Tavern License [0Eity l county........................ 475.00 2123 U Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............. 92.50 20201 m Arts License m city C]county.............................283.75 2030' 0 Racetrack License O city Ocounty ....................475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040 C] Optional Premises License m city m county...... 475.00 2210-100 (999) EJ Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ......................$75.00 1905 D Retail Gaming Tavern Lic Ocity C]county........ 475.00 1980-100 (999) E] Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant ?1975 ~· El Brew-Pub License 725.00 $75.00 x Total Fee '9/& D Other 1970-750 (999) ~ Manager's Registration (Hotel & Restaurant) ........ $75.00 No Fee m 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit 2010-750 (999) [3 Manager's Registration (Tavern) ............ $75.00 : <A i · No Fee El Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION ~ ~ License Issued Through County ' City Industry Type License Accouht'Number Liability Date * I ./ el (Expiration Date) FROM , t. ~ TO State City. ./ County Managers Reg V -750 (999) . 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) I :I r - -3#i; ijiiigniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifI~. '111 1 Cash Fund New license Cash Fund Transfer Lic,nw TOTAL' ' »C„ h 2300-100 2310-1001 (999) t (999) 4 , DR 8404 (05/98) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No ~ holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 0 0 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? 00 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? El LF (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 2 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If 'yes," explain in detail. U Fl 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If »yes," explain in detail. U 0 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of El 621 Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any 02 current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 00 U Ownership ® Lease @ Other (Explain in Dptpil) ~CAR-LEAST a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tenant Expires D¢ . 31 m DAQ.kiooD \A/Af,TI 13Ae UALL, INC (DWAE {10 Bays *:i~8 627,Jol,8 Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST DENNIS 20&02-rs - LENDEW vJAPITI 1*£¢ G f-(CC , 1 AJA , Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. Cl 0 Number of separate Optional Premises areas rpqi,Asted 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. m [2 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 0 0 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is U 0 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? m FA (Copy of notice or application must be attached) Date of Birth 17a. Name of Manager (If this is an application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. Il C 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? 00 If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8404 (05/98) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE POSITION % OWNED DATE OF BIRTH 'RES, , SEC, 41·nu-00 A.buEA'\16 \336 92.16 Ade. EsTes ?ARK Co 9-27-57 72/36 log % Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity El CORPORATION El Cert. of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CJ Articles of Organization U Cert of Authority (if foreign company) El Operating Agrmt. U ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service "· '.' ·~ i ' ~ OATH OF APPLICANT + 2 11 cleclare unde[-penalty.ofperjury ih the<second degred thatthis~applicatioo and all attachments are true, @decptind complete to the best bf my kfiR*ledge.-1 alsdatknowle<dgdthat itls my responsibility and thb responsibility of my agents ind employbes fo comply.with the provisi#nspf the Colorado Liqubf ortjeer Cod@which Affect Milicense. ' 31% E ·e '1>· % 1 /. F Authori,ed Signature Title Date , 4€01* 4 L)4 4- Jut 0 6NAJ O fIAZI.E 1*Uk 30,0-00 1 REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less <-1/Juuj *,At-01 than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. Each person required to file DR 8404-I: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted El 0 b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 00 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. 0 0 If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, businessto be conducted, and characterof the applicantare satisfactory, Wedoreportthat such license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of theneighborhoodandthedesiresof the adult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number ~ TOWN, CITY U 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 clerk, 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. March 2001 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION CHANGE OF CLASS LIQUOR LICENSE MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Local's Grill, Inc., dba LOCAL'S GRILL, for a Change of Class Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License located at 153 E. Elkhorn Ave. 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. This public hearing will be conducted in the following manner: 0 The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. Il The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. Il The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. o The opponents will be allowed a rebuttal which may only rebut the evidence of the applicants. No new evidence may be offered. Il The Board of Trustees may ask any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: Il The application was filed March 5, 2001. o At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 13,2001, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. o The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.13 miles. O The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. O The applicant is filing as a Corporation. O The property is zoned C-D, Commercial Downtown which allows this type of business as a permitted use. 0 The notice of hearing was published on March 30, 2001 0 The premises was posted on March 30, 2001 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. Il Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled Completed (Date: ) NOTE: T.I.P.S. Training was completed 4/9/00 w/New Beer & Wine License Applicaton. O There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. MAYOR. Il Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. o Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. O Ask the Board if they have any further comments or questions. O Declare the public hearing closed. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable 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.t 9 £94% TOWN OF ESTES PARK Police Department --:3**44ry *.8.6/07» I ly, 1.425-.80 CUFF I - 1 f 7 f + / 13 February 2001 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Local's Grill, Inc. Hotel/Restaurant BARDAS, Claudio F DOB: 9/18/46 PAGLIA, Anthony W DOB: 6/23/57 JOHNS, Susan A DOB: 11/8/56 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon names and dates of birth of the above-named individuals has been made. No alcohol violations or other records found. Therefore, based upon the information received, I would recommend approval for Local's Grill, Inc. Sincerely, 441.- Gregg Filsing*r Deputy Chief"of Police (970) 586-4465 • RO. BOX 1287 • ESTES PARK, CO 80517 • FAX (970) 586-4496 "dE 21 DR 8404 (05/98) Page 1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION LIQUOR 1375 SHERMAN STREET OR 3 VIALT BEVERAGE NVER CO 80261 RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION [~NEW LICENSEE O TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP U LICENSE RENEWAL • ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN • APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) • LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ • APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OFTHE COLORADO LIQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-321-4164) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a U Individual [24:orporation El Limited Liability Company U Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number LOCJ+66 6-2-l £ 6-, IA-) 6, 74-!5534\9 2a.Trade N,me of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone LOCA-CS (62-1 L L 40 -3009£-000-0 970- 5%6-6900 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 153 6 E LK Mot- AJ Aug · City County State ZIP Code ESTES PAR-IL LAR-IMEL 63 206[ 1 4 Mailing &15!ress (Number and Street) City or Town A State ZIP Code P.0 - 450 + N.201 876% Ml-2-IC_ Co Fog 7 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: pr9sent Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date 602-ACS Bri 6.6,-21*jt- . 40 - 306 gq - 0060 Beee 4 031 up 31&310\ SECTION A' 4.<ry "·*·2 .r<APPLICATION FEES < | LIAB©94 411**.ISECTION D 73 % ¥341 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES 60 D Late Renewal Application Fee................................$500.00 >'*:'CNE 1940 f U Retail Liquor Store License (city) ....................... $202.56 2300 0 Application Fee for New License.............................. 650.00 1940 D Retail Liquor Store License (county) .....................287.50 2300 D Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 1950 ~ Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) ..........................202.50 2310 2 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 1950 D Liquor Licensed Drugstore (county) .....................287.50 SECTION B 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES 1960 0 Beer & Wine License (city)...................................326.25 2121 2 Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...................... $71.25 1960 0 Beer & Wine License (county)..............................411.25 2121 D Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1970 [R'H & R License [26ity Ocounty .........................475.00 2122 El Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (city)........................71.25 1980 OH&RLicensew/optPrem El city Ocounty......475.00 2122 /1 Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) ................... 92.50 1990 O Club License U city m county .......................... 283.75 2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises- (city) ..................71.25 2010 0 Tavern License O city O county ........................ 475.00 2123 0 Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) ............. 92.50 2020 0 Arts License m city Ocounty.............................283.75 2030 [3 Racetrack License m city O county ....................475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040 El Optional Premises License m city m county...... 475.00 2210-100 (999)0 Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ............. ... $75.00 1905 ~ Retail Gaming Tavern Lic Clcity Ocounty........475.00 1980-100 (999) O Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant 1 975 ~ Brew-Pub License 725.00 S75.00 x Total Fee 3 Other 1970-750 (999) 0 Manager's Registration (Hotel & Restaurant) ........ $75.00 No Fee O 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit 2010-750 (999) C] Manager's Registration (Tavern) .......................... $75.00 No Fee Il Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County Managers Reg -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) NE~@"m~@~~~ Cash Fund New License Cash Fund Transler Lic*ns@ 2300-100 2310-100 TOTAL 4 + (999) (999) DR 8404 (05/98) Page 3 1 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? C] GY 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? 0 0 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? . 0 52' (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 1 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes,* explain in detail. r·74 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If »yes,0 explain in detail. 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of 0 9 Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any 00 current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that g'El this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? U Ownership [2"Lease U Other (Explain in Detail) a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landlord Tqnant Expires / fitek ~ ·SPE.2-L t-tnosee LoCALS QUL, 7130,8 3 1 10 1 0 Attach a diagram and outline the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. 0 0 Number of separate Optional Premises areas reqi ip.gte.rl 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 00 (Copy of notice or application must be attached) Date of Birth 17a. Name of Manager 5U5 1 E ,-/O/105 (If this is an application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). (l- 0%-5(p 7b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. O 12- 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest 00 in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8404 (05/98) Page 4 ~ 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. DATE OF NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE POSITION % OWNED BIRTH 0-utikin AA#bAS 201/ Fbstt CE-(955< RD. ESTES fhil K.,Colo 9 11€ )46 FREs. 5/90 -ED}OY PA 6 LI A /42-1 5. ST. 6'2-A/kj 85-les AW-¢-; COLD. 4123~,57 V- PEES · 4990 Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. [2-bert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partn?rship (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization C] Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) El Operating Agrmt. ~ ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service ~ * OATH OF APPLICANT ~ ~ I declare utider penaltihif 04rjuryin the sdc¢nd degree that this application and hllattachmefitsware true, correct,,and complete to the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that it is myresponsibility and the responsibility of my agents and employees to comp~with the provisi®, of the Colorado Liquor 52~er, Code which affect mi, license. // Auth*€#gnaturf Y L Title ~ Date I hub # c-Djh / Risio GN r 3,5-01 REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 394'ays from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. 1VUAdj.5,- a00 i -L /0, 0001 Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted El m b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted 0 0 c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. El 0 If "no", the building will be completed and ready for inspection by (date) The foregoing application has been examined; andthe premises, business to be conducted, and characterof the applicant are satisfactory. We do reportthatsuch license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of theneighborhoodandthe desiresof the adultinhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number m TOWN, CITY O 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 clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissionersandtheclerktotheboard. If, byordinanceorotherwise, the local licensing authorityis some otherofficial, then such approval should be given by such official. March 2001 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of Longs Peak Grilling Company, Inc., dba LONGS PEAK GRILLING COMPANY, for a New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License located at 430 Prospect Village Dr. 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. This public hearing will be conducted in the following manner: O The applicant will be allowed to state his case and present any evidence he wishes to support his application. O The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. O The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. O The opponents will be allowed a rebuttal which may only rebut the evidence of the applicants. No new evidence may be offered. O The Board of Trustees may ask any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: 0 The application was filed March 7,2001. o At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on March 13, 2001, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. o The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.01 miles. O The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. O The applicant is filing as a Corporation. o The property is zoned CO - Commercial Outlyina which allows this type of business as a permitted use. o The notice of hearing was published on March 30, 2001 o The premises was posted on March 30, 2001 O There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. o Status of T.I.P.S. Training: 4 Unscheduled Scheduled Completed (Date: ) O There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. MAYOR. o Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. o Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. O Ask the Board if they have any further comments or questions. o Declare the public hearing closed. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable 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. ~4-4-7 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1.(48}27 Police Department 01#A t. 222- ~~/·'+9 42-0- 1 «~[WARV/<3.~·:-·~~ T... , /4/1(1 1,-t?%»:fir 6 3 42& titi)»4:4111}:42:,2: . 3/ %*. -.*g u,<~W-~t*459/p- »44 A-- 17 C" March 21, 2001 Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Longs Peak Grilling Co. Hotel and Restaurant - New Grueff, Edward J. DOB/110750 Edwards, James H. DOB/110771 Grueff, Edward W. DOB/022173 Grueff, Gisela DOB/020650 Ms. O'Connor: An Estes Park local record check based upon the names and dates of birth of the above-named individual(s) has been made. There are no local records on the above-mentioned individual(s). Therefore, based on the information received, I would recommend approval of the license for the Longs Peak Grilling Co. Sincerely, P'*t- Gregg V. Filsinger W Deputy Chief of polidd (970) 586-4465 • RO. BOX 1287 • ESTES PARK, CO 80517 • FAX (970) 586-4496 DR 8404 (05/98) Page 1 21 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION COLORADO LIQUOR 1375 SHERMAN STREET OR 3.2% FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE DENVER CO 80261 RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION [~NEW LICENSE m TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP m LICENSE RENEWAL • ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN • APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) • LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ • APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO LIQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-321-4164) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 1. Applicant is applying as a ~ Individual Elorporation D Limited Liability Company El Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) El Association or Other 2. Name of Applicant(s) If partnership, list partners' names (at least two); if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number LOOGS PEAK dRILLING doMPANy : Ull t. 84-1584 las 2a.Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone Lo AMS Pk A K G 2.1 LLIOQ do A4 PA N 4 40-637/3 970 - 5-71 - 1 0€4-~ 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 4ao P~S PEEr Vi u-,AGE -012 }VE City do g o S 17 County State ZIP Code ES-rES PAIEK_ L ARJ PlaR- 4. Mailiog Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code 9.0 · 26* 2.161 2-TES PA 2-IL 60 g o S )-7 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State License No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date 4· SECTION A APPLICATION FEES . 1 LIAB' 'ige' «2>».SECTION DL r . L TLIQUOR LICENSE FEES ~ O [J Late Renewal Application Fee................................$500.00 1940 U Retail Liquor Store License (city) ................... $202.50 0 20 Application Fee for New License.............................. 650.00 1940 C] Retail Liquor Store License (county) .....................287.50 2300 E Application Fee-New License Concurrent Review.... 750.00 1950 U Liquor Licensed Drugstore (city) .......................... 202.50 2310 2 Application Fee for Transfer of Ownership ............... 650.00 1950> O Liquor Licensed Drugstore (county) .....................287.50 SECTION B 3.2% BEER LICENSE FEES 9 960 0 Beer & Wine License (city) ................................... 326.25 2121 U Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (city) ...................... $71.25 1960 0 Beer & Wine License (county).............................. 411.25 2121 U Retail 3.2% Beer On Premises - (county) .,.........,,...... 92,50 1970 @H&R License @city C]county ......,.........,.,.,....475.00 2122 U Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises- (city)..............,.......,.71.25 1980' Il H&R Licensew/opt Prem Ocity Ocounly......475.00 2122 E Retail 3.2% Beer Off Premises - (county) .................. 92.50 1990 · ¤ Club License m city O county ........................... 283.75 2123 El Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises-(city) ..........,...,...71.25 2010 D Tavern License 1 city m county........................ 475.00 2123 U Retail 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises - (county) .,........... 92.50 2020 El Arts License O city m county............................. 283.75 2030 5 Racetrack License El city O county ....................475.00 SECTION C RELATED FEES AND PERMITS 2040 D Optional Premises License £ city m county...... 475.00 2210-100 (999) O Retail Warehouse Storage Permit ................. . $75.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern Lic O city 0 county........ 475.00 1980-100 (999) ~ Addition of Optional Premises to existing hotel/restaurant 1 975- O Brew-Pub License 725.00 $75.00 x Total Fee D Other 1970-750 (999) m Manager's Registration (Hotel & Restaurant) ...... $75.00 No Fee C] 3.2% Beer On/Off Premises Only Delivery Permit 2010-750 (999) o Manager's Registration (Tavern) .......,,.....,........... $75.00 No Fee U Retail Liquor Store Delivery Permit DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY . ~ LIABILITY INFORMATION O License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date . (Expiration Date) . FROM TO State City County Managers Reg -750 (999) 2180-100 (999) .2190-100 (999) -750 (999) Cash Fund New License Cash Fund Transfer License TOTALeu » 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) DR 8404 (05/98) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? m I21 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcoholic beverage license? Cl 2 (b) had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? 0 9 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked? m DY If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet. 8a. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. , m·[20 8b. Has a 3.2 beer license for the premises to be licensed been denied within the preceding one year? If "yes," explain in detail. 0 9 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of El [gr-- Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any m V current financial interest in said business including any loans to or from a licensee. 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issped by virtue of ownership, lease or ON arrangement? . B'El C Ownership [0 Lease El Other (Explain in Detail) 41441.- /,44,<*...4,£„J- a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as thd~ appear on the lease: Landlord~ha./ 1. Oh>.11,0 l T.enant Exgiles , 2-4£- ated,f K#x•W AUS 'UU &., Ati 4/30/03 Attach a diagram and outline #Marea to be licensed (including (tnensions) which shows t'l~ars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11".(Doesn't have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST N/A Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13. Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No A local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises has been adopted. EM Number of separate Optional Premises areas reqi lAsted 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Licensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor License applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and El El not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is m El operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society, but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Brewers Notice? 00 (Copy of notice or application must be attached) 173. Name of Manager .~ O ARGEFF (If this is an application for a Hotel, Date of Birth Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). ll-7-50 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes +10 licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. [Er El 18. Tax Distraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No , directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest O 0 in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. F,3 DR 8404 (05/98) Page 4 | 19. If applicant is a corporat,on, partnership, association or a limited liability company, it is required to list by position all officers and directors, general partners, managing members, all stockholders, partners (including limited partners) and members who have a 10% or greater financial interest in the applicant. All persons listed here or by attachment must submit and attach a DR 8404-I (Individual History Record) and provide fingerprint cards to their local licensing authority. DATE OF POSITION % OWNED NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE BIRTH ED QRDEFF 3225 DEV/25 GulcH, ESTE& PARK,Co. 1 \-7-50 PRESIDEAT- 025 VicE 3*MS MDWARDS 32-25 IDEVILs Cuicu, ESTES ¥*RK, Co 11-7-71 PREs j DEMT- 25 ~IseLA QROEFF 3225 DEVAS GULCK, gs-res PARK, Co 2-4-50 SECREIARF £25 EDWARD W · GROEFF 5AME 2-2.1-73-1-2EASORWL £2.5 Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity El'CoRPORATION Ghert. of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (if a foreign corp.) ~ PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) ~ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ~ Articles of Organization D Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) ~ Operating Agrmt. U ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service .h va OATH OF APPUCANT declare under pknaltk Ofperjury in the seconj degrelthat this application and allattachments are true, correct,tand complete ,to the best of my knowledge. I Also acknowledge that it is my responsibility,and the responsibility of my agents and *mployees to comply with the provisions of the Colorado Li4uor or Beer Codd which affect my license. Authoril€*Signature ,0,$:pr Title - Date 1-UAU- .5-8-000) REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITY/COUNTY) Date application filed with local authority Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. »-Uaj 1 : U-01 Each person required to file DR 8404-1: Yes No a. Has been fingerprinted 00 b. Background investigation and NCIC and CCIC check for outstanding warrants conducted mm c. The liquor licensed premises is ready for occupancy and has been inspected by the Local Licensing Authority. m Il It "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 characterof the applicant are satisfactory. Wedoreportthatsuchlicense, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of theneighborhood andthedesiresof the adult inhabitants, and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R,S. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number U TOWN, CITY U *COUNTY ignature 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 clerk, if in a county, then by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerkto the board. I f, by ordinance orotherwise, the local licensing authority is some other official, then such approval should be given by such official. American FactFinder Page 1 of 1 Basic Facts • Quick Tables QT-PL. Race, Hispanic or Latino, and Age: 2000 Geographic Area: Estes Park town, Colorado NOTE: Data not adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions see http:Ufactfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expplu.html. All ages 18 years and over Subject Number Percent Number Percent RACE Total population 5,413 100.0 4,462 100.0 One race 5,350 98.8 4,424 99.1 White 5,150 95.1 4,287 96.1 Black or African American 17 0.3 11 0.2 American Indian and Alaska Native 26 0.5 16 0.4 Asian 42 0.8 28 0.6 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3 0.1 2 0.0 Some other race 112 2.1 80 1.8 Two or more races 63 1.2 38 0.9 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 5,413 100.0 4,462 100.0 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 301 5.6 205 4.6 Not Hispanic or Latino 5,112 94.4 4,257 95.4 One race 5,064 93.6 4,225 94.7 White 4,979 92.0 4,171 93.5 Black or African American 17 0.3 11 0.2 American Indian and Alaska Native 19 0.4 13 0.3 Asian 41 0.8 27 0.6 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3 0.1 2 0.0 Some other race 5 0.1 1 0.0 Two or more races 48 0.9 32 0.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Matrices PL1, PI-2, PL3, and PL4. http:Ufactfinder.../_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000-PL_U-QTPL_geo_id=16000US0825115.htm 4/6/01