The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-05-251 t Prepared 5/16/10 fILE Revised 5/20/10 TOWN oF ESTES PARIL 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 natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 6:30 p.m. - Pre Meeting PRESENTATION: Venture Crew 10 Scouting Trip to Costa Rica. 7:00 p.m. - Regular Meeting PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 11, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, May 13, 2010: 1. Utilities: a. L&P and Water Financial Plans, HDR - $21,005, Budgeted. b. Renew IGA for IT, GIS Services and Engineering with City of Loveland. 2. Public Works: a. Permanent Underground Utility Easements - Prospect Avenue Project: 1. A portion of Lot 19, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 631 Prospect Avenue - Daniel R. Deblasio and Kathleen M. Kase. 2. A portion of Lot 19, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 167 Stanley Circle Drive - George T. Edwards and Vivian L. Edwards. 3. A portion of Lot 19, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 167A Stanley Circle Drive - Steve S. Miller and Ann M. Miller. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2010 (acknowledgement only). NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 1, 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 2. SALES TAX & FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. * 3. ESTES VALLEY FOREST ISSUES FORUM. Dick Edwards/USFS. 4. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Hall Condominiums, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, 160 W. Elkhorn and 154 Wiest Drive, Charles B. and Christine Hall, Applicants. B. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Amended Plat, Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, 167 E. Elkhorn Avenue; 167 East Elkhorn, LLC/Applicant. Applicant requests continuance to June 22, 2010. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. BOND PARK MASTER PLAN DESIGN ENGINEERING PHASES I & Ill. Director Zurn. 2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT. Mayor Pinkham. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS. Director Joseph. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the AnpnrIA wAq nrenArpr| Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:59 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2772 ST. TIME 05/19 15:45 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 % I Town Board Meeting, May 25, 2010 Good evening, Our new board members may be aware that I have come forward a few times to protest the recitation of the Pledge at the beginning of our meetings. There are several reasons why I make this protest but for the new members let's review the basics. As an example we can use Michael Newdow's latest loss in his attempt to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. In their ruling, a US District Court agreed with the government's absurd argument that the words 'under God' have no religious meaning and are in the Pledge merely as an historical reference to the beliefs of our founding fathers. This, of course, flies in the face of what was actually said by the religious supporters ofthe 'under God' Bill and also by President Eisenhower when he signed the bill. We should also assume there is no law against federal judges being hypocrites or re- writing history to accommodate popular opinion. Our founding fathers were mostly deists who had the good sense to leave any mention of god out of our Constitution, - which specifically says that there can be no religious test for public office and that the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. So here are the issues: 1. A basic understanding ofthe English language says that anyone reading the 'official' Pledge:is acknowledging that we are a nation under God. That's what the words say. 2. No one can explain when or how the "merely an historical reference" argument wiped out historic reality and a basic understanding of the English language. 3. The insertion of the words 'under God' was done to imprint the desires of the majority religion on all United States citizens, which is blatantly unconstitutional. 4. When we pledge allegiance to our flag we pledge allegiance to our country and more specifically our Constitution. When we include a religious reference, and when our courts approve the violation, we have broken the mutual trust that is supposed to bind us together. The Pledge was originally written near the end of our Civil War reconstruction period and the words "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," held a special meaning that helped bring the nation back together. The insertion of two words in 1953 has taken us in the opposite direction. I've heard many people say that they don't agree with those two words but stand and recite the Pledge out ofrespect for the ilag. I say this; anyone standing and pledging allegiance to our flag while at the same time violating our Constitution and what our founding fathers actually stood for, is merely reciting meaningless words to a colorful piece of cloth. There is only one person in this room who has paid proper respect to our flag and our constitution. Sincerely, .~ 9 /LA- David Habecker Â» 00/1-6, --- 2010 , Brpoke Musick District Executive i~ 100 YEARS OF SCOUTING v** reU>artng MÂ£.6*6Â£,awÂ·e.*642)114119 t4.*u,nat Longs Peak Council Rocky Mountain District BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA Office: 970-584-2206 2215 23rd Ave ~ www.longspeakbsa.org Greeley, CO 80634 j brooke.musick@scouting.org , Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 11, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of May, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney A Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator* Lowell Richardson, Deputy TovkAdministrator Jackie Williamson, Town ClerkÂ» rj th Absent: Chuck Levine, Mayor 1401-em \% 3 i 7/3 .2 Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at,7:00 pfm. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. C #4 PUBLIC COMMENT 1,3 ~\<0\ 9\ None. A ~Â« 5%/ t' TOWN BOARD COMMENTSÂ« 1 \ Trustee Blackhurst stated the Estes Park ftousing Authority meeting to be held on Wednesday, MaÂ¢12(2010 has.been reschedbled for Wednesday, May19, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203 d46*to theturtent weath@r bonditions. He reminded the public that 4 . the combinedâ„¢Pelic Sa~eti Utilities and Public Works Committee meeting would be held op-Rursday, May 13,2010 at 8:00 abfin the Board Room. / / 04\6 4 Trusteel'Miller reported~the LM[thired Turner PR to provide a presentation. He stated the pre~sentation identifidd areas in which the Town and the LMD could share information.x 1. CONSENTAGENDA (Approval of): Â¢.11:Rh \4 4* 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 27, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes - None. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. RMNP UPDATE. Superintendent Vaughn Baker stated Trip Advisor has named the park as the #2 adventure destination in the World. The park has begun planning for the ... Board of Trustees - May 11, 2010 - Page 2 centennial event to take place in 5 years. Trail Ridge road would not open prior to the official opening on May 28, 2010. The park received.a grant for $17 million to resurface the entire length of Trail Ridge; therefore, travelers would experience delays during the summer. The park continues to address forest health/beetle mitigation through spraying high value trees, removal of hazardous trees, pile burning, prescribed burning and the development of a new Fire Management Plan. The Glacier Basin and Timber Creek campgrounds have essentially been clear-cut and replanting has taken place to help the areas recover. Culling continued this year with 50 animals taken in accordance with the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan. Additional fencing has also been constructed to help protect the vegetation from the elk. The live test for Chronic Wasting Disease has proven effective in elk and will be a useful tool in the future. The park has begun the planning process for the restoration of the Grand Ditch. Campground roads would be repaved with $2.5 million in stimulus money received by the park. Feet* 2010 would remain the same as 2009. The park continues to work oda,feasibility study for bike paths, planning for improvements along the HighWay':7 corridor with the Forest Service and numerous other trail projects. C /i 2. ESTES VALLEY FOREST ISSUES FORUM. Jim Austin/Forum member requested.the presentation be rescheduled for May 25, 2010 due to the weather conditions. He congratulated thh<I?own and staff for a well organized tree sympohium held *,t' the Holiday ihn> He also commended PIO Rusch on the rec*rharticiesln the paper regarding the mountain pine beetle. r# 3. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. i<*, Trustee Ericson stated he nteÂ¢,t with~the Chair and4the Executive Director for SOPA and will attend his first indeting.ds.liaiRon.thkf@lowing week. \Â» 1 \0 4. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. / Administritor Halbumt)sthted thd,Committee was formed by the Mayor to address traniportation*isÂ®â‚¬4 Staffirdquested direction on what issues should be address@dOBoard commedts-arâ‚¬sdmmarized: the scope of the Conimittee shooltrbe narrovb because of'ongoifig studies; studies have been completed ,/from-anveAbineering viewpoint, therefore, this would be an opportunity to think / dieatively and'in mor@'depth; the new parking facility at the fairgrounds should 1,<be integrated Qwithin an/future plans; and the group needs to understand the \&rrent problentthe impact on the business community of proposed changes An;Finvolve the c6Mmunity. 5. TOWNADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Staff has'bedn contacted by the City of Evans for details on how the Fire District'wai developed and the funding mechanism behind it. She stated the Board should be proud of their innovation. â€¢ The grandstand contractor Taylor Kohrs would provide funding for the grand opening event for the grandstands on June 30, 2010, including food from the Lions Club and entertainment by Brad Fitch. â€¢ Deputy Administrator Richardson stated a refund check has been sent to the contractor Â· for the 10% retainer initially held by EPURA. The final payment would be made after staff confirms the punch list has been completed. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEE JOB DESCRIPTIONS. Attorney White stated the document was prepared by Mayor Pro Tem Levine and Trustee Blackhurst to formally outline how the Board operates and the roles of the Board as outlined in the Mate statutes. After further discussion, '. Board of Trustees - May 11, 2010 - Page 3 it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve the job descriptions for the Mayor and Trustees, and it passed unanimously. 2. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Koenig) the Town Board go into Executive Session - For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements under C.R.S. Section 24-6-4-2(4)(d), and it passed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting to enter into Executive Session at 8:03 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. from Executive Session whereupon he adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. 11 Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.An, 4 7 William C.'Pinkham, Mayor \ \ I \ 4 Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk - \\90..\ 14 %14 1 9 /1 '40242 3 4 1 2 ~\ \ \\ P ..A > /// . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 11, 2010 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11 th day of May, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Director Kilsdonk, Manager Fortini, Town Clerk Williamson, Absent None h f f Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m./ Â»,~\ PUBLIC INFORMATION. Public Information Officer (PIO) Rusch reviewâ‚¬0 role in developing and coordinating 0 1 efficient and effective public relations, publid information, media arid bommunication programs, both internally and externally fo41& Town. 71% position rebo{is, directly to the Town Administrator to assist the Town Board iry#laying messages t6 the public through news releases, local and regional medi&Kfbwr0*bsite, formal public meetings, informal public meetings, direct 0114utility bill 1ngsages and Town Bugle), email, publications, presentations, outreadh-*og~Ts, cnahnel 12, signage, advertising, surveys, interagency partnerships, 46Â©i@*ents,~yeekly*brnployee advisories, regular employee meetings, and casual interktibn withlhe public.\> PIO Rusch reviewedhorfihlelidationsiprmedia and 1public contact. Public inquires should be forwar*~Ahe Plo And the T#vn Administrator in an effort to make staff fully aware of pulilic(*ncems alld provide f~llow up on requests promptly. The Mayor is the spokespers&~Tor the 16*Board. She stated reactive communications may adversely affeqt the Town: howe9@r,se4*~*itakes would be addressed. /5-h \ C Discussion was neapamongswhe Board on how to respond to comment made in the media 07 commentÂ©d#ected*Git,the Board. Administrator Halburnt stated proactive commu<on would l'e~;~pic at)lie next study session when appropriate. HISTORIC'~PRESERVATION. Jim PickerinO/HistpMan Ldurbate provided a brief statement on historic preservation and the importanchepreign/ing history and heritage. He stated Estes Park needs a renewed sense ohcivic- ownership in the post EPURA era. A historic preservation ordinance is a logical and necessary extension of the Town Board mission and vision statements and goals. Mr. Pickering reviewed the Q&A document prepared for the meeting answer questions regarding cost, affect on property taxes, etc. He stated a historic preservation ordinance would be entirely consensual and would not impinge on the rights of private property owners. The ordinance would allow property owners to apply for funding to improve the property and create a new level of awareness. Museum Manager Fortini presented a presentation; reviewed definitions of Local Preservation Ordinance (LPO), Certified Local Government (CLG), Historic Preservation District, National Register of Historic Places; State Register of Historic Properties; Larimer County does not have a local preservation ordinance and is not a CLG; minimum requirements for LPO; requirement of a CLG Preservation Commission, responsibilities of a Historic Preservation Commission; benefits of LPO; reviewed the cautions of adopting a LPO; and reviewed the achievements of the Town to preserve history and heritage without becoming a CLG. Mgr. Fortini reviewed the tax credits available to property owners that range from 30 - 50% depending on whether or not the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - May 11, 2010 - Page 2 property is listed on the National Register. Federal tax credits apply only to income- producing properties, whereas State tax credits include residential properties. Staff would recommend the following steps if the Bbard consensus is to move forward: a downtown historical/architectural survey, a downtown business owner survey, and/or presentation by staff from the State and other communities. The downtown property survey would identify what resources exist, why they are important and what treatments are recommended. The survey would cost approximately $37,500; however, the survey is not required. Board comments are summarized: Trustee Koenig voiced concern the commission could identify a property as historic, thereby limiting the property owner's rights and the cost related to future remodels of historic properties. Trustee Blackhurst questioned if the community was interested in a LPO because he does not see an overwhelming demand. Trustee Miller stated the ordinance would proviÂ® property owners the opportunity to improve their properties. Trustee Koenig staliy a survey should be conduct to see if the public would support an LPO. Trustee'Elrod questioned the value of a survey without the public clearly understanding thelssOe. The Board agreed to bring the issue back for further discussion. so~reR~relntatwes Zn'Zlt' Gaill*h f;fi~~~~~~~Ibbcl were present to provide the Board a status of the curr<nt.fundraisina for the th@atÂ¢% Mr. Gunn provided a financial update stating they have.504 donogsihd have $2.2 mimbn in cash, pledges, FOSH funds and Town commitment for-infraitructure improvements. He also pointed out arts and culture tourists.tend to sperid#ord'by extending their stays. This reinforces the fact that the perfor<18*art.theater wouidte an economic engine for the community. A point was made tha*ost- 11rge tourisranmunities in Colorado have a theater. The CAP grant expired; h@vevelhthhy#still Mav~an interest in supporting SOPA in the future onc*fundraising hds reaGAed~~5Lphnore. SOPA has planned many fundraising events,thiPSwmmerjal.Pâ‚¬fdbnancey?ark and will also conduct a survey during the evefitsto d@te*ine the'fo munity's interest. Board comments1ard>summarized: sugges the survey be expanded to include other guests and citizer>tltht mdiÂ·nEir~ttend th# performances, i.e. Survey Monkey; questionectÂ·how-the fabili{08,ould benhfit-thdlocal groups; discussed concerns on how long i~Â¢641(1'take)0~edch tile necessary funding; inquired as to whether or not the SOEA Board has consideredhitieg a professional fundraising firm; and questioned if the pot6r~61 outside user@hh e bken'contacted to provide funding. A V Mr. Gu nin~tated the pe~orhla for the theater concentrates on the larger out of town performersbecause they,66 charge more for tickets to help offset the operating cost of the theater. Thbdocal,Â¢p{~ps would still have use of the theater. SOPA has been focusing on brinbing-high quality entertainment to the Town. He also stated the group has tried to hire~aMprofessional fundraising firm; Â·however, the costs have been prohibitive and the firms would not actually raise the funds. Trustee Koenig suggested SOPA contact the hospital Board to discuss their recent fundraising campaign. The two Boards agreed to meet again after the summer in September or October to discuss progress. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk mil , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 13, 2010 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY/UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of May, 2010. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Chief Dorman, Dir. Goehring, Dir. Zurn, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Town Administrator Halburnt/ < Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8.00hn. f 1 .0 PUBLIC COMMENT. None 1/> PUBLIC SAFETY. \ L REPORTS. * 04\ Reports provided for informational ~~8 made a*#t:gf the proceedings. . 1 st Quarter Statistics Police Ddp~rtmentlf#Bt. Kenhey reported that during 1St quarter 2010, dispatchateceived &~6talt,pr13,579 telephone calls, with computer- aided dispatch'incident calls for the Police Department totaling 2,438. He noted the lower tot*for 2010 is~]result offe\Mer code enforcement calls which are now being haridled through tile Com?hdnity Development Department. The Investigations Unit reportedl clearaQce tate of 59%, which is above the national clearance-average of between 30%- 4046. . 1,st QuartenStatistics Fire District - Chief Dorman reported on total calls received <by'ihe fire dhpartment, dalls by type, calls inside and outside of town limits, and ~trÂ¢ning hours logged *thuary through March 2010. He summarized the accomplishments and activities of the new Fire District Board which include: folio*ing the financial plan, establishing the Fire Pension Board, strategic plarihinb, fire code adoption review, and reviewing incentives to recruit and retain volunkersk / i \1/ / MISCELLANEOUSÂ«* Safety Fair - The Estes Park Police Department's Public Safety Fair is scheduled for Saturday, May 22, 2010, from 10:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. Agencies from the Estes Valley, Fort Collins, and Colorado State University will be on hand to provide information related to emergency services. UTILITIES. LIGHT & POWER AND WATER FINANCIAL PLANS. Financial plans for both Water and Light & Power evaluating existing debt expenses, five-year capital improvement plans, and proposed rate increases necessary for both utilities to sustain capital improvement programs, were completed by HDR Engineering, Inc., in March 2007. With the conclusion of the work on the substation for Light & Power, and the near completion of distribution line improvements, and the Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant, staff is requesting approval for HDR Engineering, Inc., to update the financial plans which will facilitate moving forward with additional capital projects and explain how to finance these projects. HDR has submitted a proposal to revise the ,, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - May 13, 2010 - Page 2 Water Plan at a cost of $9,445 and the Light & Power Plan at a cost of $11,560, for a total of $21,005. The plans will include recommendations for future rate increases. Both the Water and Light & Power budgets contain funds for the financial plan revisions in addition to monies for a Cost of Service Analysis which will be scheduled this fall. The Committee recommends approval of a contract with HDR Engineering, Inc., at a total cost of $21,005; $9,445 from account #503-6500-560-22-89 and $$11,560 from account #502-6501-560-22-02, budgeted. CITY OF LOVELAND IGA RENEWAL FOR ENGINEERING, IT, AND GIS SERVICES. In 2006, the Town of Estes Park entered into an agreement with the City of Loveland for engineering services. Services outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) include performing electrical distribution design and modeling, field engineering for staking and layout, and mapping provided by a GIS specialist. Engineering work on the distribution system improvements are being performed under the current IGA. The proposed IGA contains rates for time and materials for 2010, and allows for yearly updates to these rates. The engineering services are availa6}#to the Town of Estes Park on an as needed basis and dependent upon the CithdÂ¥ !-oveland's workload. The Committee recommends approval to renew the IGA.With the City of Loveland for Engineering, IT, and GIS services, as outlinedi~q 31 REPORTS. * Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the ~roceedings. â€¢ Light & Power Financials - Finance<Officer McFarland stated that*year to date expenses are at 23% and revenues are*at 29%Â¥4~he end of 1st qu*arter 2010. Light & Power revenues are currently 4Â°kove&67dget but will likely level-off over the warmer summer monthsÂ».~ â€¢ Water Financials - Water Mvenuesjre a~8~>,trailing budget by 7% but are expected to increase with wahnerweather and 6~mer watering. Expenses are also trailing budget at 23%. I~ \ i~ \~ â€¢ Enemy ConsultantÂ«Â·Mike Rubal& of plaffe/RivePPowor Authority (PRPA) - Mr. Rubala is an Energy"Ser*ices Specialist with PRPAand will be providing energy consultation,servfces to lo&al customers through the Light & Power Department offices in Town Hall. He.will be serVing in customer relation capacities involving energy efficiency, energyluse,- newÂ£*nstruction, and rebate programs for commercial adbounts'in Estes Park:Â·providing an additional opportunity for PRPA to,a*sistwithlhe Town's custome?'bas@. â€¢ Aaris Lak~ Water TrAtment Plant Update - Upgrades to the Marys Lake Water â‚¬ Tfeatment Plant are he#rly complete. HDR Engineering is in the process of \determining if thEacceptance test is complete in accordance with design ip@bifications, or *ether kdditional testing must be performed. Per contract, technibal support forlthe operation of the plant will be provided through March 2011.*A system.htaintenance support agreement will be evaluated during the budgetiAg Pro~eâ‚¬for 2011, â€¢ DistributiorNSystem Upgrades - Three projects are currently in unde,way Prospect Avehtte upgrades, and Beaver Point and Peakview Circuit upgrades. All projects are proceeding on time and on budget. PUBLIC WORKS. ELECTRIC EASEMENTS - PROSPECT AVENUE PROJECT. Three additional electric easements were necessary to complete the construction phase of the underground conduit installation. They are as follows: 1. Easement for underground utility construction and maintenance - dedicated to the Town of Estes Park by Daniel Deblasio and Kathleen M. Kase for location 631 Prospect Avenue. 2. Easement for underground utility construction and maintenance - dedicated to the Town of Estes Park by George T. Edwards and Vivian L. Edwards for location 167 Stanley Circle Drive. 3. Easement for underground utility construction and maintenance - dedicated to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - May 13, 2010 - Page 3 the Town of Estes Park by Steven S. Miller and Ann M. Miller for location 167A Stanley Circle Drive. The Committee recommends approval of the easements as presented. Project Mgr. Sievers said residents in the area of the project will receive written communication and acknowledgement from the Mayor to thank them for their cooperation during the project. He also reported that the paving was formally rejected as the surface of the roadway did not meet specifications. BOND PARK MASTER PLAN - PHASE ONE FUNDING. Phase One construction under the adopted Bond Park Master Plan will reconfigure MacGregor Avenue to accommodate one-way northbound vehicle traffic only, create festival exhibit space, and incorporate bollards which will supply electricity to vendor tents during festivals. The venue has been designed to accommodate up to 150 vendor tents during events. The estimated cost to complete Phase One is estimated at $391,672. The Larimer County Open Space Fund currently contains $475,000; $240,000 of which has been allocated to begin Phase *dnet Staff recommends increasing the allocation from the Open Space Fund to $391,672 in order to complete Phase One construction. Staff also requests that the,Comh,ittee consider upgrading from tinted, scored concrete to pavers throughout the.proj&ct'to*rovide the flexibility to be more decorative and eliminate multiple surfaces.within the pA>Discussion followed and is summarized: what additional cost will bejAcutred in future~hhses by upgrading to pavers; repair and replacement of pavery&,easier than repair Ad>replacement of concrete; Phase One and Two engineeringv significant jrkpontrolling bnokg drainage; and consider moving ahead with an RFP foriehglneering of Phases One and Two and construction of Phase One in the fall. After discussion,:the Committee recommends Bond Park Phase One Fundingeincluding e'stimated costs for engineering of Phase One and Two* be brought fo79,aq, as an adtiqn item at the May 25, 2010, Town Board meeting. \ I \4 PIll 2/44\ V There being no further156siness>*Chair Bl tkrt rst ad~oumed the meeting at 9:55 a.m. 4 )44 i X, 4 h /~\ 14 <*09 -**-5 Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk xÂ« Â»Â« * Editor's Note: Phase Two was mislabeled on the map included in the Committee Meeting patk4~ Improyedents along Park Lane should have been labeled "Phase Three" as per thetind.Park Master Plan. 1.11. I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission April 20, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink, Planner Chilcott The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 11 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from March 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. AMENDED PLAT, Lot 27, Prospect Mountain Subdivision, a PUD, 5~11 filing, Robert K & Theresa' C Bowman/Applicants - Request to expand the platted building envelope to encompass the entire dwelling and deck as constructed in the mid-1980s. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS A. Staff-level reviews None B. Pre-application meetings Planner Shirk stated that Staff is expecting a submittal next month for a redevelopment project on Highway 66. Director Joseph stated there has been conversation with the owner of Mary's Lake Lodge about a revision to a previously approved development plan. This proposed revision should be on the Planning Commission's agenda in the near future. C. Town Board/County Commission Planner Shirk reported the code amendments pertaining to Short-term Rentals, Vacation Homes/B&Bs and Accessory Kitchens were approved by the Town Board on January 26, 2010 and by the County Commissioners on March 29, 2010. The code amendment for Micro-wind Energy Systems was approved by Town Board on March 30, 2010, and by the County Commissioners on April 19, 2010. D. PUD Problem Statement Status Director Joseph reported the problem statement has been accepted by the Town Board and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Director Joseph stated in most communities, including Estes Park, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a provision for flexibility in the application of dimensional standards (setbacks, minimum lot size, etc.) and standards for the separation of uses. The problem statement directs the Planning Commission to review the current code, which is narrowly crafted, to provide for mixed-use PUDs in the Commercial Outlying zone district with a minimum lot size of three acres. The code does not provide for any ,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 April 20, 2010 density bonuses. Also included in the scope is to research other towns' PUD ordinances to help guide any possible revisions to the current code. Director Joseph stated that PUD& are commonly used in larger communities across the country to negotiate a win-win situation where the community gets some type of desired benefit in return for added flexibility:in the development standards. Planning Commission has been directed to consider the benefits and potential unintended consequences when drafting any PUD code revisions. Director Joseph explained the benefits would include a more creative use of the land and the allowance of mixed-uses within zone districts. The PUD process is a discretionary process the developer can choose to take under the expectation they are producing a higher quality development that deserves the flexibility that a PUD can provide. There is a trade-off between the development flexibility and the predictability of zoning standards. Some of the possible incentives for developers could include the following: solar design, creative architectural design through use of high quality materials with high levels of craftsmanship, streetscape amenities, parking amenities, features to create safe neighborhoods and pedestrian- friendly neighborhoods; planned open space, etc. PUDs could also include a mix of residential housing types benefitting all income levels. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that educating the public would be a large part of the PUD process. Commissioner Tucker would be interested in learning how PUDs could be advantageous in the Accommodations zoning districts. After discussion, Chair Norris directed Staff to provide a map showing the number of lots that could comply with the current PUD standards (CO-Commercial Outlying and minimum three- acre lot size) compared to the number of lots that could comply if the PUD standards included the A-Accommodations zone district, removing all public land from the results. Director Joseph thought allowing PUDs into the Accommodations zone districts would greatly increase the allowable lots while still complying with the minimum three-acre lot size. While the land base for .PUDs currently seems fairly limited, developers could always apply for rezoning and then proceed with the PUD process. Commissioner Lane stated decisions would need to be made to determine what incentives our community could offer to developers. Director Joseph explained that density is typically the main incentive, with some communities offering various and weighted density bonuses depending on the quantity and quality of the developer's proposals. Chair Norris directed Staff to provide some tangible examples of PUD ordinances from other communities, and any other incentives that the Platining Commission may want to consider. E. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Chair Norris stated the final, committee meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2010. Results of the committee will be given to the Town Board for review. 4. REVIEW OF CURRENT TOWNHOME PROVISIONS IN THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) Director Joseph explained the current townhome provisions define a townhome as at least three units with a common wall, designed vertically rather than stacked, each with a front and rear entrance. Each townhome owner also owns the land underneath the unit, which has zero lot lines. It was noted that the townhome provisions in the EVDC have not been used since 2000. The current regulation states you have to have three units to qualify. Director Joseph explained that a free-standing, zero lot line, detached single unit is not a townhome by definition and he thought it could be better addressed in the PUD discussion. Currently, townhomes are permitted only in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zoning district. There are similar Projects that are frequently built in the A- Accommodations zoning district, and it could be possible to reconfigure some of these as townhomes; outwardly, one would not be able to tell the difference between single ownership and common ownership of the land. Director Joseph thought the Planning Commission could address the need by expanding the townhome option in to the A- Accommodations zoning district. Commissioners Lane, Poggenpohl, and Hull were in favor of also including the A-1 - Accommodations zoning district. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 April 20, 2010 Public Comment: Frank Theis/County Resident spoke in favor of the townhome code revisions. He said the difficult terrain of the area sometimes makes it hard to design townhomes with a common wall. In some cases, it would be much easier to design a free-standing townhome with a zero lot line. This would allow more design flexibility. Mr. Theis indicated townhomes are also easier to finance than condominiums. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated he is in favor of expanding the townhome provisions to include other zone districts; however, he would not want to see them as broad as the condominium provisions. Public comment closed. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) to amend the appropriate tables in the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes in the RM, A, and A-1 zoning districts, while using the existing density standards. Commissioner Tucker supported expanding townhomes into R-2-Two-Family zoning districts in addition to RM-Multi-Family, A-Accommodations, and A-1-Accommodations. Director Joseph explained the existing townhome regulations as they relate to minimum lot size, and stated those standards could easily fit into the standards for RM-Multi-Family zoning districts. If moved to include A-Accommodations, the same standards could still be used, but other standards for that zoning district, such as transient rentals, etc. would need to be removed. If free-standing units were to be allowed, a new set of standards would need to be written to determine how townhomes should be configured. Director Joseph stated that density requirements would need to be addressed if moving townhomes into the Accommodations zoning districts. If the Planning Commission wanted to allow townhomes into the A-1 zoning district without increasing the density limits that already exist in that district, Director Joseph would prefer the motion be continued so Staff could draft the appropriate code language and present it to the Commission at the next regular meeting. There was general consensus among the Commission to proceed in that manner. Commissioner Lane would also like to see how single-family and duplex development would fit in the A-Accommodations zoning district so the Commission could be better educated about whether or not this should be part of a PUD process. Director Joseph clarified that the existing PUD process, without the element of commercial use, allows a zero lot line free-standing residence or duplex. Commissioner Hull withdrew the previously stated motion. It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue discussion on townhome provisions to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EVDC A. Small Wind Turbines Chair Norris stated that Town Board remanded wind turbine regulations to address three specific areas: setback, size, and the addition of a public review process. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Staff proposed a new section to the EVDC that establishes a Conditional Use Permit. This process would be very similar to the current Special Review process, with the only differences being the name and the decision- making body. The Planning Commission would be the decision-making body for a Conditional Use Permit. He emphasized the standards of review, which state in part "The application for the proposed Conditional Use Permits mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment." This statement is very broad and would allow a thorough review. Planner Shirk stated the proposal would include a one-year time limit from the approval date in order to pull the permit. Staff suggested adding the allowance of an extended time period at the time of review if requested by the applicant. Additional time could also be extended at staff level after the initial approval, granted there were no code revisions. Small wind turbines would be allowed in all residential and commercial zone districts with the proposed Conditional Use Permit RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 April 20, 2010 (CUP). A CUP would be required for all small wind systems. A purÂ®se statement for the permit would allow the Commission to require thdt the setback be incteased or the location changed to lessen th'e adverse impacts on nearby land uses and 0roberties. Staff proposed the ability to waive the requirement of the CUP if the application shows any of the following exist: a) Systems are not Visible from properties within 500-feet of the property boundaries of the lot containing the turbine. The waiver shall require submittal of a visual analysis that demonstrates this visibility, or; b) Systems with a swept area not exceeding 80 square feet, or; c) Systems setback from property lines or easements at least three times the tower height; or d) Properties within mapped ridgeline protection areas shall not be eligible for this waiver. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed requirements. He explaihed a two-tiered approach was achieved in the code language by using the waiver process versus those wind turbine applications requiring a public hearing. Commissioner Poggenpohl did not support the proposed setback distance of two times the tower height. He also suggested removing, Section 5.2.B.2.h.(10), Safety Standards, stating it was not appropriate in the land use code and the regulation of such should lie within the building code. Commissioner Lane suggested removing the langudige in Â·Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a. concerning visual impact, and changing Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)c. to five times the tower height.' Planner Shirk clarified that a setback of three times the tower height would allow turbines on approximately 20% of lots in the' Estes Valley, while four times the height would pro*ide an allowance of approximately 15% of the lots, and five times would allow approximately 10% of the lots in the Estes valley to install a dmall wind turbine. I Town Attorney White requested to eliminate Hwy 7, 34, 36 from Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a., Â·stating an unintended consequence with the waiver process could occur by listing specific roadways in the code. Public comment: Chair Norris indicated discOssion would be on size of the turbines, setbacks, and the public review process. Dave Rusk/County Resident stated the existing restrictions are suitable, and thought that two times the height of the tower was an appropriate setback amount. He stated that "impact" was not well-defined. He thought the public review process would be a way to regulate the visual impact, and was opposed to that process. Mr. Rusk stated that property owners who have installed renewable energy sources havewseen an increase in their property value, and thought the proposed restrictions could lower property values for those that would not qualify for a wind turbine on their property. Mr. Rusk stated it was very important that this community understood its role as stewards of Rocky Mountain National Park and the negative percepti6n that heavily-restricted wind turbines could have dn the community. , Paul Brown/Town Resident was opposed to the conditional use permit. He does not agree with the proposed setback. He suggested the proposed ground -clearance for small turbines be similar to the ragulation for tilicro-Wind systems, in that the turbine could be built lower to the ground if surrounded by some type of guard. He had bersonal experience With micro-wind systems that performed the same whether they ' were four feet or 30 feet off the ground. , r Bob Clements/Town Resident spoke against the conditional use permit. He opposed the proposal that implied all wind turbines would be considered to have the same amount of visual impact. Mr. Clements mentioned that 95% of th& renewable energy survey responderits did not support a major setback. He suggested the Planning Commission adopt a setback of one or two times the height of the tower. , 1 RECORDOF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 April 20, 2010 Director Joseph clarified that the survey figures were a subset of the total survey, and believed the figures used by Mr. Clements did not include those respondents that were in favor of a total ban on wind turbines. Closed public comment. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Lane stated the public review process was initiated as a directive from the Town Board. He supported the waiver in order to avoid the public review process. He would consider slightly relaxing the setback restrictions of the waiver to allow wind turbines on more lots. Commissioner Hull would support a setback of three times the height of the tower in the proposed code language for the Conditional Use Permit. There was general consensus among the Commission to allow the same ground clearance allowance for small turbines as is stated in the code for micro-wind systems. After lengthy discussion, there was general consensus to increase the size to 125 square feet in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(3), and also change the definition in Section 13.3 to also read 125 square feet. It was agreed to eliminate Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)a. and Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)b. There was consensus to relax the waiver restrictions to allow turbines that are four times the height of the tower. Section 5.2.B.2.h.(2)d would remain the same. It was agreed to add the words "at least" to Section 5.2.B.2.h(5)a, which would read "Setbacks from property lines shall be at least twice the structure height." Planner Shirk stated one of the conditions of the conditional use permit is to decrease the impact on adjoining properties. In some situations, there could be times where a smaller s6tback would be desired to get the structure out of the view corridor. He thought the Commission may want to reconsider the addition of "at least" to the setback distance. It was moved (Hull/Poggenpohl) to continue the Small Wind Turbine proposed code amendments to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. B. Clarification of the provisions for expiration of Development Plans Town Attorney White stated there is a Colorado state statute dealing with vested rights. The statute reads any development plan approval has the right to be vested for a period of three years or greater, if so desired by the developer. Once vested, if the governing body deprives the applicant of the ability to complete the development, as approved, the developer or owner of the property has the right to recover damages for that action. Those damages are the hard costs incurred by the developer or owner in the preparation of the development plan or in conformance with the development plan. It does not include an appreciation or loss potential in the value of the property. Upon the approval of the development plan, there is a three-year time limit unless an extension is granted by the Town Board or County Commissioners. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) does not state how to handle approved development plans with expired vesting rights. Legally, building permits could still be pulled several years later, as long as the developer was in compliance with any new code changes. The purpose of this proposed code change is to expire the development plan at the same time the vesting period expires, if there have been no building permits pulled towards development. The developer would be able to apply for an extension to the development plan approval and subsequent vesting rights. Director Joseph stated when a project is started and delayed, the Community Development Department tries to actively engage the developer for completion time-lines. He further stated that building permits are valid for a period of 18 months. Planner Shirk clarified the extension period would be granted at Staff level based on a request by the developer. After discussion, it was clear that the developer could come back multiple times for extensions; however, if the code had changed, Staff would have the ability to deny an extension. '. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 April 20, 2010 It was moved (Lane/Hull) to approve as proposed the amendments to the EVDC concerning the Expiration of Development Plans, changing item (2) from a period of 12 months to 18 months, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. C. Clarification of, and revisions to, the A-1 Accommodations zoning district density and dimensional standards. Planner Shirk stated the purpose of this code amendment was to provide'clarification of the density calculation in the A-1 zone district. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Fraundort) to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meetin'g at 8:12 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary , Estes Park Town Board of Trustees Report To: Mayor William Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: 5/21/2010 Re: Grandstand Project Update Background The project budget is 87% expended through May 21*. The project itself is into week 32 of a 36 week project or 88% through the schedule of the project. We still anticipate a completion and delivery date of June 14m, 2010. As of the date of this memo we have not received the latest CPM or schedule. Current issues with project completion involve water drainage of the bleacher system specifically over the storage areas. Concession Stands Work (tenant finish) will begin on the concession stands starting May 25th. Miscellaneous Items At the last board meeting Trustee Miller asked for the miscellaneous tab (located within the attached excel file) for an update of expenditures relevant to the amount budgeted. Those updates are provided for review. It is important to note any correlating expenditures shown within the miscellaneous tab were not adjusted within excel report. This tab (miscellaneous) merely represents those expenses against what was approved by the Town Board. Budget/Costs N/A Recommendation N/A Requested Motion N/A 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 4/15/2010 BY TYPE Budget Actual Balance Grandstand 1,635,012 1,423,385 211,627 Contingencies/Change orders 127,737 101,497 26,240 Total Grandstands: 1,762,749 1,524,882 237,867 Demolition $35,500 $71,835 ($36,335) Supplemental Items 400,113 240,381 159,732 Concessions* 50,000 0 #REF! Architecture Fees 74,800 179,479 (104,679) Project Total: $2,323,162 $2,016,577 #REF! *no detail DEMOLITION 4/15/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Demo Old Grandstands $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $0.00 Environmental Testing 0.00 2,290.00 (2,290.00) Demo ads 0.00 366.00 (366.00) Ads 0.00 29.00 (29.00) Thorpe 0.00 24,401.00 (24,401.00) Asbestos 0.00 3,050.00 (3,050.00) Asbestos Clearance 0.00 434.00 (434.00) Lead Clearance Report 0.00 1,555.00 (1,555.00) Lead Remediation 0.00 4,210.00 (4,210.00) Totals $35,500.00 $71,835.00 ($36,335.00) STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND 04/15/10 A B C D|E FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Amount Previous Period Materials &Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G / C) C-G 1 Insurance $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $0.00 $27.500.00 100% $0.00 $2,750.00 2 Overhead 45,000.00 42,500.01 2,499.99 45,000.00 100% 0.00 4,500.00 3 Project Management 96,250.00 85,250.00 11,000.00 96,250.00 100% 0.00 9,625.00 4 Mobilization & Temp Facilities 55,000.00 52,500.00 2,500.00 55,000.00 100% 0.00 5,500.00 5 TK Equipment & Vehicles 15,000.00 13,000.00 2,000.00 15,000.00 100% 0.00 1,500.00 6 Safety 1,550.00 1,300.00 250.00 1,550.00 100% 0.00 155.00 7 Photographs 550.00 500.00 50.00 550.00 100'% 0.00 55.00 8 Temporag Protection 7,500.00 6,500.00 1,000.00 7,500.00 100% 0.00 750.00 9 As-Builts 387.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 65% 137.00 25.00 10 Cleanup 4,500.00 3,500.00 500.00 4,000.00 89% 500.00 400.00 11 Surveying 7,500.00 7,250.00 250.00 7,500.00 100% 0.00 750.00 12 Demo/Earthwork/Utilities 145,000.00 140,000.00 5,000.00 145,000.00 100% 0.00 14,500.00 13 Bldg Foundation Concrete 105,000.00 105,000.00 0.00 105,000.00 100% 0.00 10,500.00 14 Bldg Interior Flat Concrete/Trench Drain 50,000.00 35,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00 100% 0.00 5,000.00 15 Trench Drain 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 100% 0.00 1,000.00 16 Stonework 42,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 42,750.00 0.00 17 Structural Steel/Misc Metal 55,675.00 39,730.00 15,945.00 55,675.00 100% 0.00 5,567.50 18 Wood, Lumber/Plywood 60,500.00 0.00 54,450.00 54,450.00 90% 6,050.00 5,445.00 19 Pre-engineered Metal Bldg 365,000.00 300,000.00 50,000.00 350,000.00 96% 15,000.00 35,000.00 20 Site Concrete 55,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 27% 40,000.00 1,SOO.00 21 Plumbing 75,000.00 50,000.00 7,500.00 57,500.00 77% 17,500.00 5,750.00 22 HVAC & Mechanical 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 63% 15,000.00 2,500.00 23 Walk-In Cooler/Freezer 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 10,000.00 0.00 24 Electrical 140,000.00 112,500.00 10,000.00 122,500.00 88% 17,500.00 12,250.00 25 Bleachers 135,000.00 0.00 131,625.00 131,625.00 98% 3,375.00 13,162.50 26 Framing & Drywall 15,350.00 0.00 2,500.00 10,000.00 12,500.00 81% 2,850.00 1,250.00 27 Doors/Hrdware/Hollow Metal 12,250.00 0.00 0.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 61% 4,750.00 750.00 28 Insulation 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 29 Aluminum Windows & Glazing 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 30 EPDM Roofing 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 31 Plam 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 32 Toilet Partitions & Accessories 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 8,500.00 0.00 33 Tile 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,000.00 0.00 34 Flooring 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 35 FRP 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 36 Painting/Staining & Coatings 15,000.00 0.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 6,500.00 43% 8,500.00 650.00 37 Signage 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,000.00 0.00 38 Fence & Gates 3,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,750.00 0.00 39 Landscaping 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 40 Bike Racks 500.00 325.00 0.00 325.00 65% 175.00 32.50 41 C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 1,735.00 100% 0.00 173.50 42 00 #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 5,619.10 0.00 5,619.10 100% 0.00 561.91 43 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 48% 1,656.80 150.00 44 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74.49 0.00 74.49 100% 0.00 7.45 45 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641.41 320.71 0.00 320.71 50% 320.70 32.07 46 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 3,995.15 100% 0.00 399.52 47 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 1,885.20 0.00 1,885.20 100% 0.00 188.52 48 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 6,842.50 0.00 6,842.50 100% 0.00 684.25 49 C/O #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gen 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.00 1,365.00 100% 0.00 136.50 50 C/0#2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for MN 2,295.68 2,295.68 0.00 2,295.68 100% 0.00 229.57 51 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existi 1,367.41 1,367.41 0.00 1,367.41 100% 0.00 136.74 52 C/O #3 PCO #46 Larger Pier Footings 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 100% 0.00 3,000.00 53 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Unde 5,659.39 5,659.39 0.00 5,659.39 100% 0.00 565.94 54 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance 4,695.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 4,695.89 0.00 55 C/O #4 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power a 12,430.06 12,430.06 0.00 12,430.06 100% 0.00 1,243.01 56 C/O #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger 1,465.90 100.00 1,365.90 1,465.90 100% 0.00 146.59 57 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 (2,307.60) (2,307.60) 0.00 (2,307.60) 100% 0.00 (230.76) 58 00#4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues 734.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 734.24 0.00 59 00 #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRF 573.16 573.16 0.00 573.16 100% 0.00 57.32 60 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer 3,176.84 3,176.84 0.00 3,176.84 100% 0.00 317.68 61 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert 640.78 640.78 0.00 640.78 100% 0.00 64.08 62 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Lii 6,390.52 6,390.52 0.00 6,390.52 100% 0.00 639.05 63 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm LiI 2,697.05 2,697.05 0.00 2,697.05 100% 0.00 269.71 64 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C In 3,755.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,755.59 0.00 65 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fil 964.56 964.56 0.00 964.56 100% 0.00 96.46 66 C/O #4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DtV/0! 0.00 0.00 67 C/O #5 PCO #33 Elec Heater Yr Round Mei 7,286.99 0.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 89% 786.99 650.00 68 C/O #4 PCO #34 Weatherstrip topside of c 2,698.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,698.69 0.00 69 C/O #5 PCO #36 Freezer warranty 1,506.38 1,506.38 0.00 1,506.38 100% 0.00 150.64 70 C/O #5 PCO #37 SE Retaining Wall change: 450.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 450.01 0.00 71 C/O 15 PCO #41 Ramp Changes 775.01 0.00 775.01 775.01 100% 0.00 77.50 72 00#5 PCO #42 Ceiling insulation R25 to 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/01 0.00 0.00 73 C/O #5 PCO #43 NW Exterior Stair Changâ‚¬ 975.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 975.00 0.00 74 C/O #5 PCO ##44 Steps & Walls Line A6-A7 1,475.00 0.00 1,475.00 1,475.00 100% 0.00 147.50 STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND 04/15/10 A B C DIE FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Arnount Previous Period Materials &Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G / C) C-G 75 C/0#5 PCO #51 Addtl Deeper Bldg Found. 1,550.00 1,550.00 0.00 1,550.00 100% 0.00 155.00 76 C/O #5 PCO #54 Add Couplings for H20 lir 275.00 275.00 0.00 275.00 10056 0.00 27.50 77 C/O #5 PCO #57 Unknown Buried Foundal 1,050.01 1,050.01 0.00 1,050.01 100% 0.00 105.00 78 C/O #5 PCO #58 Remark B-Line & Mark C-1 485.00 485.00 0.00 485.00 100% 0.00 48.50 79 C/O #5 PCO #59 Added Rock Exc San italy ' 1,910.77 1,910.77 0.00 1,910.77 100% 0.00 191.08 80 C/O #5 PCO #64 Backflow Preventer 2,343.27 2,343.27 0.00 2,343.27 100% 0.00 234.33 81 C/O #5 PCO #65 Credit for Dirt (300.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% (300.00) 0.00 82 UO #5 PCO #66 Added 2nd Framing Wall 485.00 0.00 485.00 485.00 100% 0.00 48.50 83 C/O #5 PCO #67 Change Bid Usted Mtl Bid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/01 0.00 0.00 84 C/O #5 PCO #68 Help Redesign Storm Sew 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/01 0.00 0.00 85 C/O #5 PCO #70 Ext relocated Storm Sewe 1,777.00 1,777.00 0.00 1,777.00 100% 0.00 177.70 86 C/O #5 PCO #73 Change Slab on Grade Rel 3,275.00 3,275.00 0.00 3,275.00 100% 0.00 327.50 87 C/O #6 PCO #72 Plug & Cap West H20 linf 717.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 717.99 0.00 88 0/0 #6 PCO #78 Added Door Hardware 382.37 0.00 382.37 382.37 100% 0.00 38.24 89 C/O #6 PCO #79 Finish Pain Change Red In 2,187.78 0.00 2,187.78 2,187.78 100% 0.00 218.78 90 C/O #6 PCO #50 S Concrete Paving to Aspl (4,961.80) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% (4,961.80) 0.00 93 C/0 #6 PCO #71 Added Schedule Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/01 0.00 0.00 95 C/O #6 PCO #80 Electrical Ughting Change 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/O! 0.00 0.00 96 0/0 #6 PCO #81 Added Gate Valves at Tov 1,538.75 0.00 1,538.75 1,538.75 100% 0.00 153.88 ~Totals | $1,762,749.34| $1,134,102.44 | $345,279.801 $45,500.00 | $1,524,882.24 | 87% | $237,867.10 | $152,488.22 | CURRENTAPPLICAnON FOR PAYMENT 1 ORIGI NAL CONTRACT SUM $1,635,012.00 2 Net Change by Change Orders 127,737.34 3 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (1+/-2) 1,762,749.34 4 TOT COMPUSTORED TO DATE 1,524,882.24 5 RETAINAGE (10% OF 4) 152,488.22 6 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAIN (4-5) 1,372,394.02 7 LESS PREVIOUS PMNTS 1,020,692.19 8 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 351,701.83 9 CURRENTSALESTAXDUE 0.00 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE | 351,701.83 | 11 BAL TO FINISH (3-6) $ 390,355.32 '. CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 4/15/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk $1,735.00 $1,735.00 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 5,619.10 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 1,500.00 1,656.80 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74.49 0.00 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641.41 320.71 320.70 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 1,885.20 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 6,842.50 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerrard 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Major Util 2,295.68 2,295.68 0.00 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existing Sani 1,367.41 1,367.41 0.00 C/O #3 PCO #46 Larger Pier Footings 30,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Underground 5,659.39 5,659.39 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance 4,695.89 0.00 4,695.89 C/O #4 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power Changes 12,430.06 12,430.06 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger 1,465.90 100.00 1,365.90 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 (2,307.60) (2,307.60) 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues 734.24 0.00 734.24 C/O #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRPA Rebate 573.16 573.16 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer 3,176.84 3,176.84 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert 640.78 640.78 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Line 6,390.52 6,390.52 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm Line 2,697.05 2,697.05 0.00 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C Inlet 3,755.59 0.00 3,755.59 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fill 964.56 964.56 0.00 0/0 #4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #33 Elec Heater Yr Round Mech Chan 7,286.99 0.00 7,286.99 C/O #4 PCO #34 Weatherstrip topside of deck 2,698.69 0.00 2,698.69 C/O #5 PCO #36 Freezer warranty 1,506.38 1,506.38 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #37 SE Retaining Wall changes 450.01 0.00 450.01 C/O #5 PCO #41 Ramp Changes 775.01 0.00 775.01 C/O #5 PCO #42 Ceiling insulation R25 to R30 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #43 NW Exterior Stair Changes 975.00 0.00 975.00 C/O #5 PCO #44 Steps & Walls Line A6-A7 1,475.00 0.00 1,475.00 C/O #5 PCO #51 Addtl Deeper Bldg Foundations 1,550.00 1,550.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #54 Add Couplings for H2O line 275.00 275.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #57 Unknown Buried Foundation 1,050.01 1,050.01 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #58 Remark B-Line & Mark C-Line 485.00 485.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #59 Added Rock Exc Sanitary Sewer 1,910.77 1,910.77 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #64 Backflow Preventer 2,343.27 2,343.27 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #65 Credit for Dirt (300.00) 0.00 (300.00) C/O #5 PCO #66 Added 2nd Framing Wall 485.00 0.00 485.00 CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 4/15/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #5 PCO #67 Change Bid Listed Mtl Bldg 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #68 Help Redesign Storm Sewer 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #70 Ext relocated Storm Sewer 1,777.00 1,777.00 0.00 C/O #5 PCO #73 Change Slab on Grade Rebar 3,275.00 3,275.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #72 Plug & Cap West H2O line 717.99 0.00 717.99 C/O #6 PCO #78 Added Door Hardware 382.37 0.00 382.37 C/O #6 PCO #79 Finish Pain Change Red Iron 2,187.78 0.00 2,187.78 C/O #6 PCO #50 S Concrete Paving to Asphalt (4,961.80) 0.00 (4,961.80) C/O #6 PCO #71 Added Schedule Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #80 Electrical Lighting Changes 0.00 0.00 0.00 C/O #6 PCO #81 Added Gate Valves at Town Water Line 1,538.75 0.00 1,538.75 Totals $127,737.34 $101,497.43 $26,239.91 SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS 4/15/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Legal Fees $0 $4,080 $4,080 Drainage Study/Improvements/Water Design $25,000.00 $10,374.00 $14,626.00 Materials Testing/Inspections 10,000.00 30,366.00 (20,366.00) Design Fees 15,000.00 11,220.00 3,780.00 Construction Management 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Water Tap Fees 109,000.00 115,425.00 (6,425.00) Foundation 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 VIP Chairs 30,000.00 13,258.23 16,741.77 Sound System 60,000.00 11,175.00 48,825.00 Use of Existing Facilities 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Builders Risk Insurance 1,700.00 1,700.00 0.00 Landscaping 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Community Development 14,413.00 14,413.00 0.00 Concessions 50,000.00 32,450.00 17,550.00 Totals $400,113.00 $240,381.23 $159,731.77 ARCHITECTURE FEES 4/15/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Project Programming $5,984.00 $5,984.00 $0.00 Schematic Design 3,740.00 3,740.00 0.00 Design Development 7,480.00 7,480.00 0.00 Construction Documents 41,140.00 41,140.00 0.00 Bidding or Negotiation 2,244.00 2,244.00 0.00 Construction 14,212.00 2,132.00 12,080.00 Additional Recoverables Original Contract 0.00 7,771.00 (7,771.00) Ad Hoc Committee 0.00 17,844.00 (17,844.00) Height variance 0.00 26,872.00 (26,872.00) Parking lot design 0.00 2,000.00 (2,000.00) Water detention pond 0.00 5,533.00 (5,533.00) Smoke detection sign 0.00 5,469.00 (5,469.00) Water system redesign 0.00 4,841.00 (4,841.00) Year round use 0.00 3,450.00 (3,450.00) Standpipe design 0.00 3,582.00 (3,582.00) Additional structural designs 0.00 11,024.00 (11,024.00) Other recoverables 0.00 2,067.00 (2,067.00) Professional services 0.00 22,334.00 (22,334.00) Extra bid analysis 0.00 2,507.00 (2,507.00) Alt Value engineering 0.00 1,465.00 (1,465.00) Totals $74,800.00 $179,479.00 ($104,679.00) TOWN OF ESTES PARIQ Memo 1. .4.., TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland - Finance Officer Date: May 25, 2010 RE: Sales tax and 1St Quarter Financial Report Background: The expenditure categories used in the General Fund box are not identical to the way items are reported in the budget. The categories in this report are in line with GFOA recommendations, but it is useful to understand how the General Fund departments correspond to the attached report: General Government: Legislative (1100), Judicial (1200), Executive (1300), Elections (1400), Finance/Admin (1500), Community Development (1600), Buildings (1700), Employee Benefits (1800), Subsidies/Grants (1900), Transportation (5600). Public Safety: Police (2100, 2155, 2175), Protective Inspections (2300). Engineering/Public Works: Engineering (2400), Streets (3100). Culture/Recreation: Parks (5200). Other revenues include all of non-sales tax revenues in the General Fund, the largest of which include property tax, use tax, franchise fees, interest, PILOTs, and business and liquor licenses. COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS/ATTACHED SLIDES The General Fund box reports all revenues at 16.9% of budget. First quarter sales tax for the past three years has averaged 12.6% of the eventual revenue total. Sales tax levels are currently at 12.0% of budget ($6.90m), which would yield about $6.56m. "Other" revenues are lagging somewhat, due to several grants and franchise fees not yet having been received (timing issues), as well as from the flagging economy (community development). Page 1 FINANC E1. TOWN oF ESTES PARKL Memo As the first four months of the calendar year is complete, the reference point for expenses is the 33% level. "General government" expenditures are at 35% because the subsidies (1900 account) are fulfilled in the first quarter. The "engineering" and "culture/recreation" categories are ahead of budget because of seasonality and due to most capital projects having not yet begun. Transfers are somewhat better than budget due to utility sales exceeding forecasts. Sales Tax for the 1St quarter of 2010 trails budget and 2009 by 8.0%. As sales tax is down double digits in Ski Country, we might cbnsider ourselves fortunate to be in the position in which we find ourselves. As previously stated, first quarter sales tax is usually only about 12-13% of the annual totals. First quarter is always the smallest revenue quart6r, and since it's the first quarter, there is maximum time to respond accordingly to a potential drop in forecasted revenues. The Entemrise Funds box reports utility revenues at 43% of budget. Other revenue sources are lagging due to seasonality and perhaps economic conditions. Expenditures, with the exception of source of supply (an extra invoice was booked) and transfers (due to revenues exceeding budget), are well below the 33% level. Utility revenues, expenditures, and capital activities are monitored in detail in the Public Works/Utility Committee meetings, held the 2nd Thursday of each month. The remaining $1.7m in the bond holding account (see investments) will be applied to the Distribution System Improvements project, underway this year. The Investments box shows investments by type of fund. The fire pension fund has been transferred to the Estes Valley Fire District and is no longer managed by the Town. EPURA investments have also been exhausted and the EPURA ColoTrust account was closed in April. The bond issuance is listed separately due to its size. Benchmark indicators as well as the prevailing money market fund rate have been added for reference. We continue to manage our reserves in the following priority order: safety - liquidity - yield. SALES TAX DETAILS Several slides are attached to provide details on sales tax progress. Staff employs several - different formulae/predictive tools for forecasting sales tax. The formulae that 'utilize 1 St quarter sales tax have a large margin for error because 1 St quarter sales tax is only 12- 13.2% of the fiscal year. While that seems like a tight band, it yields a predicted range of $6.3m-6.9m in sales tax (see "1St Q sales tax vs Annual totals" slide). Because of this disparity, staff also employs several predictors that incorporate a longer horizon of historic Page 2 - TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ« Memo data. The most accurate of these indicators predict 2010 sales tax levels between $6.56- 6.78m. This would result in an annualized sales tax shortfall of $120-340,000 (approximately 2-5%). The "sales tax rates of change" slide relays two important points. One, the blue line is the 12-month moving average (MA) of sales tax revenues by month. The number has been basically flat for about a year and has now broken the trend line to the downside. The maroon line reports the rate of change on a 12-month MA rate. Currently the rate is -5.37%, which is not good (we want the rate to always be positive). Hopefully we are at a trough, and the rate will resume its positive trend soon. Budget N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A Page 3 . 1, 5/5/2010 C j ESTES VALLEY FOREST ISSUES FORUM (/,7 Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Mission c] Provide a communication link between land management agencies and Estes Valley residents for exchange of information and ideas in managing forest resources Ch 1 5/5/2010 ' C. I) Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Members o Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests o Colorado State Forest Service o Rocky Mountain National Park - - o Larimer County o Estes Park Fire Department o Town of Estes Park o HOA Representatives n Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum History o June 2007 - CSU awarded contract to study how communities interact with US Forest Service o Estes Park was approached by CSU as a study community o Participants in study met four times to identify issues and develop solutions 2 A . 5/5/2010 C j Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Issues from Community Study o Specific Issues Identified: o Forest health and fire mitigation o Lack of communication and coordination between community and US Forest Service o Limited US Forest Service presence available for citizens and visitors Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Purpose of Forum o Become a publicly known venue for cominunication between community and land management agencies o Identify and resolve issues o Share information //,â„¢h 3 5/5/2010 C. 3 Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Accomplishments to date o Developed working group membership and structure o Distrilbuted Pt-newsletter addressing key issues of mountain pine beetle, wildfire and hazardous fuels treatment o Set up public communication email at forest. issues.forum@live. com 0 Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum Town Board Involvement o Annual updates from US Forest Service to Town Board o Participation in EVFIF by Town Board or other Estes Park officials o What does Town Board want to see from EVFIF? 0-3 4 (92* Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum 8 Canyon Lakes Ranger District Newsletter November 2009 Estes Valley Residents...You recently expressed interest in receiving information about National For- est management in the Estes Valley area as part of the Estes Valley Forest Issues Forum. The Can- yon Lakes Ranger District (part of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests), which encom- passes areas surrounding Estes Park, is pleased to be a part of this collaborative effort to provide and receive information about national forest issues. The purpose of this first letter is to let you know about some of the on-going efforts within the Can- yon Lakes District. The letter is divided into two subject areas - Forest Health and Fire / Hazardous Fuels. As a community leader, we ask that you pass this letter on to members of your community or subdivision. Thank you for your interest - Kevin Atchley, Canyon Lakes District Ranger Forest Health First, the bad news...A major epidemic of moun- the tops of the trees) is elevated. Once the nee- tain pine beetle (MPB) has been in effect on the dies have fallen from the tree, the risk of crown western slope of Colorado since the early 2000s. fire subsides and another hazard becomes more Vast areas of lodgepole pine trees have been in- prevalent. As the tree and its roots begin to de- fested and killed and beetles have now moved to cay, the tree falls or is blown over by wind. This the eastern slope. About 150,000 acres on the can be a real threat to roads, trails, powerlines, Canyon Lakes District have been infested with homes and forest visitors. The Canyon Lakes MPB and it is expected to eventually kill most of Ranger District's strategy is to manage the haz- the mature lodgepole pine on those acres, as ards, particularly where threats to the public are well as the remaining 200,000 acres of lodgepole present, such as campgrounds, roads, powerli- pine forest. The epidemic may also continue into nes and near homes. In 2009, the district sprayed ponderosa pine forests, although it is uncertain 15,000 trees in campgrounds and removed ap- that the mortality of trees will be as widespread proximately 5,500 hazard trees from recreation as in the densely forested lodgepole pine areas. sites, along roads and adjacent to private land. The Forest Service will continue to focus on thin- There is no level of management in lodgepole ning ponderosa pine forests, both to improve for- pine that will stop this epidemic, and it is likely to est health and reduce hazardous fuels. continue until the food source (live trees) runs out. There is some hope in ponderosa pine that As a homeowner, you can play a very important thinning may provide some defense against a role in preventing damage to your home and MPB attack by increasing the available water and property from the dead and dying trees. The fol- nutrients in a tree to be able to repel the beetle. lowing link (Adobe Acrobat pdf file) provides in- As we look to the future, the good news is that depth information about the beetle and what you lodgepole readily reseeds itself once the sur- can do: Landowner Guide to Living with Bark rounding forest dies and a new forest will eventu- Beetles. This article was developed by the North- ally fill the landscape. ern Front Range Mountain Pine Beetle Working Group, of which the Canyon Lakes District is a The result of millions of trees dying over the next member. The following website provides informa- 5-10 years is a hazard. While the dead needles tion about management efforts related to MPB: remain on the trees for the first few years after Northern Front Ranqe Mountain Pine Beetle death, the risk of crown fire (fire that runs through Working Group .. Fire/Hazardous Fuels Reducing the threat of wildfires remains a very high priority on the ~~ Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests (ARNF). One of the ap- ..3.W. *."/.Ip--........ --/lud2iliall,/9/Mis//1 ral fuels buildup on National Forest Systems lands, especially ~/l/Z#~~~~.~~~&5~~~/ near communities such as Estes Park, Glen Haven, Pinewood Springs, and several other communities and subdivisions in the -I-'ll/,9.~ER,",8,9.:7r&.-.A a .b.,(14,/326<5&.afe.62 Estes Valley area. Treatments include thinning trees and piling :I'lliall//1/lill'la./ 3/&.Il"Â£66/kii-- -2/ife: slash (tree tops and limbs), burning slash piles, chipping of thinned trees, and broadcast burning (a controlled burn, where ;~ the fire is intentionally ignited and burns in a well-defined bound- ary). In 2009, the U.S. Forest Service thinned and piled slash on 1,035 acres and burned piles from previous years' thinning on 83 acres. Since 2005, we have thinned over 3,500 acres and burned piles on almost 500 acres. The ARNF and the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, along with the Colorado State Forest Ser- vice, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Rocky Mountain Research Station, are part of the Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership. Through federal funding, the partnership has made it possible for many of the treatments being accomplished on federal, county, state and private lands. The fol- lowing is an excellent source of information about fuels treatments and other related activities along the Colorado Front Range: Front Ranqe Fuels Treatment Partnership (FRFTP) , The U.S. Forest Service has decided to treat 12,000 l acres within the Estes Valley and Thompson River rha , - Fuels Reduction planning areas. These two areas 0-'~ have undergone intensive analysis and public in- 4 ~f volvement under the requirements of the National En- t '1 .,f . -, vironmental Policy Act (NEPA). Two other planning - C i efforts are currently underway - Glen Haven and Ce- dar Park Fuels Reduction Projects. A decision to im- lit . plement treatments in the Glen Haven Fuels Reduc- . tion project should be announced in the next few -- months, while planning within the Cedar Park area has just begun. For more information about these 74446231'/01 > t'~r> u - . projects, the following website is available: Proiects 1 4:.9 -/ and NEPA - Canvon Lakes Ranger District Wildfire and Prescribed Fire Information Additional Information Information for all wildfires and prescribed fires on the Canyon Lakes This will be the first of many Ranger District is provided on our recorded incident information line updates in the years ahead. at 970-498-1030. If you have comments, questions, or suggestions The district also maintains an email list of smoke sensitive individuals for future topics, please con- in the immediate area of prescribed fires to keep them informed. If tact Richard Edwards at you have smoke allergies and would like to be included on this list, 970-295-6760 or email him please send an email to Reghan Cloudman at rcloudman@fs.fed.us. at rsedwards@fs.fed.us. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland www.fs.fed.us/arnf g TOWN 01 8-TES PARKL Memo Community Development TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: May 19, 2010 RE: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP Hall Condominiums, Lots 39 & 40, Hupp Addition, and Resubdivision of Block 6, Town of Estes Park, and a portion of a Metes and Bounds parcel, 160 W. Elkhorn Avenue and 154 Wiest Drive, Charles B. and Christine M. Hall/ Applicants Background: Charles B. and Christine M. Hall have submitted preliminary and final condominium map applications to convert an existing downtown commercial property to condominium ownership. The property is located at the southeast corner of West Elkhorn Avenue and Wiest Drive. Five condominium units will be created. No additional development or change of use is planned at this time. The preliminary condominium map . Â£ 12 ...ET,FAWA\M application has been reviewed by ,, , - -. the Estes Valley Planning 44 Commission for compliance with , . 43Â¥*! IC " 1~.* 1 M 1-*~*t-~ the subdivision standards in the t. ..t Estes Valley Development Code 64'. W and found to be compliant subject 9,Â· !.1-TEL- 1 84 ~01 41 1~ to the recommended conditions of 1 *' S 2 Ll,= 44.-" approval. The final map application '. 4.. ,, ~ t.,f.ii,7.- 1= \ ./lip*/ 4. 6-..--1. is not subject to Planning Â·1 ' Commission review. . 4 f:. i . 5. Budget: N/A r .4,1 l. - --/? Planning Commission Recommendation: On May 18, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Hall preliminary condominium map. The applicant has made minor revisions to the maps to satisfy a number of the Planning Commission conditions. The remaining conditions are listed below and can be satisfied prior to condominium map recordation. Page 1 ,. 1. A water fixture/dwelling unit count shall be scheduled with a representative of the Water Department to ensure that the existing one-inch service line is sufficient for adequate service and to document existing fixture value units (FVU's) for credit toward future modifications within the units. 2. The following shall be provided to the Estes Park Sanitation District: a. A plumbing fixture count of the building in its current status. b. The number of residential apartments currently present and a plumbing fixture breakdown of those units. 3. The condominium declarations shall discuss the shared nature of the two sewer services that provide wastewater collection and maintenance requirements. 4. The existing roof drainage from the public right-of-way on the west side of the building shall be redirected into the existing French drain on the private property as proposed by the applicant, and ongoing maintenance shall be provided to prevent icing. 5. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated on the north side of the building (facing Elkhorn Avenue) measuring 4.7 feet by 49.87 feet, spanning the full width of the property, and shall address maintenance of any existing or future awnings, benches, etc. Sample Motion: Approval I move to approve the Hall preliminary condominium map application with the findings and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission; and I move to approve the Hall final condominium map application subject to the preliminary condominium map findings and conditions. Denial I move to deny the Hall preliminary and final condominium map applications. Page 2 ''. . TOWN OF ESTES PARIQ_ Memo PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, P.E, Public Works Director Date: May 27, 2010 RE: Bond Park Master Plan Design Engineering, Phases I & 111 Background: The final version of the Bond Park Master Plan was accepted by Town Board in February, 2010. The plan was developed over seven months by Winston Associates through extensive community outreach and several stakeholder committees. The final master plan incorporates components from the top three designs and includes estimated costs for implementation. Winston Associates prepared estimated costs to complete the Bond Park revitalization in one phase, or in six phases. Bond Park Master Plan, if completed as one project is estimated at $1,839,018. Bond Park Master Plan, multiple phases is estimated at: PHASE SUMMARY - OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Bond Park Master Plan Cost Estimate Town of Estes Park, Colorado 30-Dec-09 Winston Associates, Inc. / Van Hom Engineering / Architectural Engineerirg Design Group / Avocet Irrigation Design PHASEI $391,672 PHASEII $326,211 PHASE HI $259,760 PHASE IV $405,784 PHASE V $353,341 PHASE VI $348,560 Phase Construction Total $2,085,327 . While there would be considerable savings to complete the Bond Park Master Plan as one project, funding sources have not been identified to achieve this. To date, staff has recommended using Larimer County Open Space funding, in the amount of approximately $250,000 per year, to complete the plan in phases. In 2010, Larimer County Open Space Fund balance is projected to be $475,000; of this, $240,000 is currently allocated to fund construction of Phase 1 (MacGregor Avenue reconstruction). On May 13, staff recommended to the Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works (PUP) Committee to allocate $391,672 from Larimer County Open Space Funds to complete all of Phase 1 in the fall of 2010. In PUP Committee, it was recommended the design should be completed for the MacGregor Avenue and Park Lane improvements - which comprise most of the concrete and paving work - prior to beginning construction to achieve a consistent design. Staff was instructed to present a budget for the design engineering of MacGregor Avenue (Phase I) and Park Lane (Phase 111). The phasing diagram is attached, along with a description of all six phases. The Master Plan document provides design recommendations to be determined before implementation of the phases (see attached). Budget: 220-4600-462.35-60 Larimer County Open Space $475,000 (fund balance) Bond Park Master Plan Phase I $240,000 (allocated) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends performing design engineering for Phases I and 111 of the Bond Park Master Plan for an approximate cost of $70,000, allocated from Larimer County Open Space Funds. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny an allocation of $70,000 from the Larimer County Open Space Funds to perform design engineering on Bond Park Master Plan Phases I and 111. BOND PARK MASTER PLAN - PHASE DESCRIPTIONS PHASE ONE - The MacGregor Avenue Renovation. This includes the demolition of the existing MacGregor Avenue, curb and gutter, the splitter island and turn lane south of the island, as well as the construction of the MacGregor Avenue events plaza. This phase also includes the concrete bollards needed to define the parking areas along with the associated electrical system upgrades. PHASE TWO - Northeast Plaza. The removal of existing trees, landscaping, turf in the plaza area; removal of concrete sidewalk and a small area of temporary paving from Phase I and relocation of the Enos Mills statue to its new location in Bond Park. This phase also includes concrete unit paving and the sandstone margins for the northeast plaza, associated site lighting/electrical system upgrades, portable planters and site furnishings, and landscape restoration of areas disturbed by construction. PHASE THREE - Park Lane Festival Promenade. This includes the demolition of the asphalt parking spaces on the south side of Park Lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalks to be removed. New improvements include the uniUconcrete paving, street trees, and tree grates for the Festival Promenade; the concrete drain pan and decorative paving for the south parking bay of Park Lane. Also included are the bollards needed to define Park Lane parking spaces and associated site lighting/electrical system upgrades. PHASE FOUR - Main Park Area and Elkhorn Avenue Improvements. This is the largest and most expensive phase as it includes the central green, and the Elkhorn Avenue seatwall and associated landscaping. Demolition work primarily includes all of the existing landscape and irrigation systems not addressed in an earlier phase including the existing fire pit, abandoned boulder fountain, and the buried foundations. New improvements include grading to improve drainage, the new turf system and irrigation, the remainder of the landscaping (shrub beds and trees), the diagonal walkway through the lawn area, and the Elkhorn Avenue Seatwall. This phase also includes a new drinking fountain and additional lighting. PHASE FIVE - Fire pit, Stage, Children's Climbing Sculpture, and Entry Plazas on Elkhorn Avenue. Limited demolition and grading; fire pit area and associated shelter; southwest and southeast entry plazas and the seating plaza on Elkhorn Avenue adjacent to the seatwall; the stage; children's climbing structures, additional planters, site furnishing and a monument sign for the park. PHASE SIX - Remaining Structures and Water Feature. The final phase of construction includes the remaining structures (the Timber Gateway Shelter, the fabric stage cover, and the mechanical/concessions/skate rental building for the ice rink.) The water feature that flanks the stage is also included in this final phase of construction. 1 \ F /3 '111~ Relocated 4 Bollard Monument : 1,4 (Typ) Tree Grate or Raised rking 4* Planter (Typ) (Except during spe ' events) ~ Fire Pit in Tiered ~~ Shelter x -noted/-7 Seating Afea Under ' Scored P * â€ž Concrete 11 40 /50 / kcent Paving # - liti 1.1 \ / 4. % Â£--Planters/~1 1 VA 6' Sidewalk / (Summer) / 40 Adjoining mm Promenade le ~ own Hall ; 1- 4 / 53 $ r- Ice Rink Parking ./. 2 < (Winter) ' -, ke Chiller/, 'r / - - . Mechanical and , (Except during H special events) Â· 6 - .1 Skate Rental/ .' Refreshment C / Building Â· 1 Shrubt 43*t H Â· iL-Y Perennial Bed i F ~ typical , 90 / T 1 4 m I One I . *lay f< 1 g I ' LTent Areal -7 lid Special Event 1 Area f W 5 F-re o Â» 5, WN" - sDepoW ~ Vendor Shuttle 8' 514-lk 3 r , 0,09011 /51 Festival ~ fi Promenade k ') With Accent ~ %Paving //:r -1- .. 1% 1. .....1 r Existing Cottonwoods 1. 0 1 ~ Art Opportunity Accent- \ $ f' & -I Paying " '*N .~~ All,4 604Â¥Aof*,4Â£"08 4411 ./0/'VI 1 iy Entry Shelter 1 withieating PHASING DIAGRAM ... DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PHASED CONSTRUCTION BOND PARK MASTER PLAN Town of Estes Park January 2010 Because the renovation of Bond Park will require phased construction, it is essential each new phase of construction be consistent with previous phases. The following design guidelines are intended to provide guidance for detailed design and a framework forthe park's critical elements as they develop over time. It should be noted that master plan level design is, by necessity, general in nature and should not be looked at as the final design solutions for critical site elements. The design treatments shown in the approved Master Plan are not intended to replace those which will evolve out of the more rigorous design process inherent with detailed construction documents. Therefore, the following guidelines should be viewed as a framework for more detailed design studies and not a mandate. All future detailed design work for Bond Park should comply with the applicable codes and design standards as well as the Estes Valley Development Code. The Design Features of the Approved Master Plan: .â€¢ , â€¢ Festival Promenade: Enhanced concrete paving for the south Park Lane parking spaces, modular unit paving for the event tent locations. No curb and gutter on pedestrian side and bollards to define parking. â€¢ MacGregor Avenue. Enhanced concrete paving with no curb and gutter and bollards to define parking. =+ I~ â€¢ The Northeast Plaza: A main field of modular pavers y - surrounded by an accent band of natural sandstone. The Elkhorn Avenue Frontage: A curving natural stone 75- 4 7: seatwall, shrub/perennial beds, and natural stone seating 1 7, ... 2 P -# Plaza. 6. Southwest and Southeast Entry Plazas: Modular unit paving with natural stone margins and accent areas Northwest Stage: Raised concrete stage faced with natural stone boulders and covered with removable fabric stage cover. â€¢ Northwest Water Feature: Natural stone re-circulating . water feature with a 3' to 4' waterfall and small ponds. - I. /. h --'illi ' l.: â€ž'\ Water to be treated to allow human contact. \~ â€¢ Fire Pit Area. Commercial-grade gas fire pit surrounded by a natural stone seat wall surrounded by a two-tiered natural D .7 I - stone seating ring. ~ â€¢ Children's Play Sculpture. Low custom play sculpture within h an area of resilient surfacing. All elements to meet current Â¥, play equipment safety guidelines. Bond Park Master Plan 1 Design Guidelines 1. , PARK STRUCTURES. The structures for the Bond Park should be compatible with Town Hall and the architectural themes found in Downtown Estes Park and nearby Rocky Mountain National Park. All of the structures in Bond Park should utilize the same materials, colors and, architectural details where possible. The Approved Master Plan shows three structures within the park: â€¢ Southwest Plaza Gateway ~irt -. 1 ,, structures are envisioned as . - I e... 1111111 a log shelters reminiscent of ..a.ry'.ry'.er *3.1 71 . 1... 2 classic National Park Service v A H 9.Ap'h /,Aitf# /1/ ' 4 2 ' mi *i .#M i:]~ A)*4111% *4&:951 2.1 1 or Civilian Conservation - - /' 4~A'Illl'I#,~~:< j~ : 3- Core shelters. They should ITIiL make use of natural ~~1 "~m~Â«k ~ materials such as peeled log ~ - 1...-7 and stone with gently pitched roofs. (+/- 4/12) o The Gateway Shelter should be designed 4// to not to block views to Longs Peak. Left: o The Fire Pit Shelter concept calls for low I'llili~~Hill. Suggested eves on the west side to facilitate form for screening from the west winds with Fire Pit --~ # Shelter higher eves on the east side to provide IN-Ii,~ii,=------- views to the Northwest Plaza. Please note that the shelter image shown to the ~ right is intended to illustrate the potential ~ form for the Fire Pit Shelter and not ~ materials. â€¢ The Ice Rink Mechanical Structure: This structure is envisioned as a *22,1*.1,1.-' **~lilill small building that will be constructed if the ice rink becomes a ~cm..26%41:9; 49/ permanent fixture in the park. The building should make use of - natural materials such as stone, wood, and peeled logs, similarto the --1-M structure shown in the historic photo from Rocky Mountain National r.6..A*"Ch/./+1-te///ililibil/: Park (right). LANDSCAPING. The landscape for Bond Park should make use of native or adapted low-water-use plant material. Plants should be selected from the Town's Preferred Planting List or other varieties approved by Town Staff. Deer-resistant varieties should be utilized where possible. â€¢ Beds along Elkhorn Avenue should emphasize colorful, flowering perennials and shrubs similar to the bed south of the bus drop off on the south side of Town Hall (above right) Bond Park Master Plan 2 Design Guidelines PAVING. Plazas and walkways in and -- around the park will be one of the most visible elements -- and as such, -i- '.... 1 il. i. should be carefullydesigned. Paving systems should be compatible with the designated use, durable, and IlÂ» .*. _1"2"llillilill//1/:Il/" Ili ./ilio;/2.iÂ·-L.,Ii"limil' . / attractive. Detailed design studies .r 1 - looking at several paving designs and systems will be needed for each paved ~ I'llig'll"le/:Fivil"/lib/lilimi area of the parkto identify the appropriate design solution. â€¢ Natural sandstone paving should be used for plazas, accent areas, or accent bands where budget - - ~ 9- allows. There are a number of examples of well designed sandstone pavement systems in i'*14 44../.1//Bv ilillill'ill'llililillilitililig8.ill the downtown that can be used as a model (upper left). â€¢ Modular paving systems (clay or ~ .~-lia concrete units) are encouraged _ _Y 4 for plazas or accent paving where ~ ~ sandstone is too costly or 0 VIB.A. 1 impractical. Blends consisting of ~ #,3-Z~ ti- 3,fr-- 7-62- -, at least three colors are strongly -1~~,~4,Â£~~w.,*-~~~ rety mr 2 / >-4 encouraged. The paving patterns :F/*i:'"":'.*..-//"/:/il'.._. t~a' /,////.- A should be designed to not only be attractive but to designate uses areas such as pedestrian routes, parking areas, and event tent locations. Adequate contrast should be provided between colors to define uses or create patterns (middle photos and lower left.) One motif that is frequently found in Town Hall and the downtown is an elongated octagon with brick or concrete unit pavers (upper right). Because of Bond Park's proximity to Town Hall, this pattern has been shown in the entry plazas on the Master Plan. However other design solutions should be examined before a final decision is made. â€¢ Where budget does not allow natural stone or unit pavers, concrete that is integrally colored and stamped is appropriate (lower right). Patterns and contrasting colors should be used to define uses (e.g. striping for parking spaces on MacGregor and Park Lane). â€¢ Pavement systems within parking and roadways need to be engineered to withstand heavy vehicles such as a fire truck while plazas and pedestrian areas should be designed for medium-duty vehicles. Paving can be set on concrete, on an aggregate subbase, or a combination of the two with proper engineering. Porous paving systems (middle left) may also be appropriate for some areas of Bond Park and should be considered. â€¢ Additional detailed study is needed to determine the practicality and installation details forthe permanent, in-ground event tent tie downs including how the tie downs would be incorporated into each pavement system. â€¢ Sidewalks at the edges of the park can be standard concrete with a section deep enough to withstand a medium-duty vehicle (+/- 6" thick). Bond Park Master Plan 3 Design Guidelines LIGHTING. The primary path light for Bond Park should be the same pedestrian- scale Victorian light fixtures currently used in the park and the downtown. â€¢ Lighting should be designed to provide the minimum levels of safe 3 illumination for park users, while being unobtrusive and consistent with the 4 current lighting levels in Downtown Estes Park. Recommended levels shall be as set forth in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook- Ninth Edition. â€¢ Overall park lighting plan shall comply with any local lighting ordinances for LN lamp type, mounting, shielding, and lighting trespass requirements. ., â€¢ Except for path lighting, free-standing light fixtures should be avoided. Light - =.11:'k*&4*5'/ fixtures should be integrated into structures or walls where possible. â€¢ The lamps of each light fixture should be shielded to avoid visibility from normal viewing angles. â€¢ All new light fixtures should utilize energy-efficient lamp sources. â€¢ All light sources should be shielded to minimize illuminating the night sky (per the recommendations of the International Dark-Sky Association) â€¢ Any new lighting for elements such as the water feature, the ice rink, or art/statues, should be vandal resistant and carefully shielded to limit light trespass. Materials and finishes should be consistent the path lighting. â€¢ Because of cost, durability concerns, and the potential for vandalism, the Approved Master Plan does not call forthe Festival Promenade bollards to include lights. If it is determined that these bollards should include light fixtures, a very durable/vandal-resistant fixture should be selected. SITE FURNISHINGS. A full range of site furnishings will be required for Bond Park. This includes benches, trash receptacles, bollards, picnic tables, and bike racks. Ideally, these should be specified as a family of elements with common materials, colors, and design motifs. However, the decision to select a distinctive group of site furnishing must be made with the input of Town's staff. It may be more cost effective and result in lower long-term maintenance costs if the Town's standard site furnishings for parks are used. If this proves to be the case, Bond Park's site furnishings should at least be the same /---- -g.~~0~~~ color. . r ..4 â€¢ Bollards are called for to define the edges of the parking areas along ..1 le'r..'. MacGregor and Park Lane. Town staff has already stated that these should be ~1 M~~ -4/ concrete bollards because of the need for durability and to reduce long-term i./ ..~ maintenance costs. Concrete bollards have another advantage as it should be 00%1.-I v .-1- s ._1 Â¢7~.4 - :- ..J i m ..i --m - easier to incorporate electrical receptacles and electrical conduit into the mold prior to casting the bollard. Electrical receptacles will be needed to provide power to the event tents. Bond Park Master Plan 4 Design Guidelines n ~4u4~**~â€ž&*- TOWN or ESTES PARIL 4.. - 1 Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: May 21, 2010 RE: Board of Adjustment Appointments Background: A selection committee comprised of Mayor Pinkham, Trustee Levine, Administrator Halburnt, BOA member McCreery and Director Joseph has interviewed the two applicants for the town vacancy to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustments. Mr. Pete Smith was selected to fill the position held by Al Sager who is stepping down. Mr. Smith is retired from a career in real-estate financing and is currently serving as the commander of the Police ~ Auxiliary. Also, Mr. Jeff Moreau was selected to fill a position as an alternate member now being vacated by Bruce Grant. Mr. Moreau is president of Dallman Construction with 20 years of experience in the construction field. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: I move to approve / disapprove the appointment of Mr. Pete Smith to serve as a Town member on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for a term of three years beginning June 1,2010. I move to approve / disapprove the appointment of Mr. Jeff Moreau to serve as an alternate member to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for a term of three years beginning June 1, 2010. Page 1 . Cc: Estes Valley Planning Commissioners To: Estes Park Board of Trustees May 17,2010 Larimer County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Review Committee Recommendations Dear Trustees and Commissioners: Our Committee has completed its review of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and reached the following conclusions: â€¢ The original Plan, adopted in 1996, is still valid: a major overhaul is not needed. Many o f the Action Items proposed in the original Plan have been completed or are in progress. (See Attachments 1). Note: Attachment 1 will be Bob 's list of completed items, in progress items, and items no longer relevant, such as the limits to growth recommendation. â€¢ The updated IGA between the Town and Larimer County, and joint meetings of the Town Board, County Commissioners, and Planning Commission provide a good structural and procedural basis for reviewing and updating the Plan. . Some information in the plan (i.e., data, maps) is out of date and needs updating. These maps include: Existing Land Use, Existing Zoning, Wildlife Habitat â€¢ Several specific areas may need attention, either because they have not been fully addressed, or were not included in the 1996 Plan. These are: 1. Continue to promote community diversity- including retention of younger families and a stable work force. 2. Provide improved guidelines for infill development and provision of open space, both in the downtown area and beyond. 3. Provide guidelines that will promote sustainability of our community in anticipation of higher energy costs, reduced travel, etc. 4. Continue work to implement a viable long-term transportation plan for the Valley, especially in light of Item 3. above. 5. Provide guidelines for historic preservation in the Valley. ., We believe that proactively addressing these areas is important to the Valley' s future growth and prosperity, and that the current working relationships among the three boards will enable us to make significant progress in these areas. We would appreciate your feedback on the above items, and look forward to hearing your thoughts on policy implications, priorities, and any other guidance you can offer. Comprehensive Plan Review Committee: Tom Donnelly, John Ericson, Jacquie Halbumt, Richard Homeier, Bob Joseph, Steve Lane, Russ Legg, Ron Norris, Karen Thompson, Jackie Williamson . Other Comments - Comp. Plan Review Committee: 1. Dislike the word "diversity" because of it current popular political implications as standard use 2. Page one, point #4 would be just as well without the words "in anticipation of higher energy costs, reduced travel, etc. 3. This is the report of a committee that has accomplished its task and will no longer be in existence, therefore it seems in appropriate to solicit "feedback, .... and ..... your thoughts on policy implications, priorities, and any other guidance you can offer.' This kind of information will be transmitted by the Trustees & Commissioners to the EV Planning commission & Staff, not back to the committee. 4. Are we going to communicate to the Boards that expanded explanations are available fore the "bullet point" items? . I Status: Completed and ongoing Create a combined Planning Commission. Jointly adopt uniform (City/County) land use classifications. Develop and adopt a unified development code. Prepare a growth rate history Prepare Town of Estes Park/Larimer County Master Agreement (IGA). Complete Riverwalk (west). Prepare the Knoll Master Plan. Implement the Knoll Master Plan. Create the link from East Elkhorn to the Lake Path. Completing existing Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) project A.3 Mobility and Circulation Intersection improvements at Fish Creek Road and at US 36 Intersection improvements at West Elkhorn and at US 34, The Moraine Avenue/Crags Drive intersection improvements A bike loop around the Lake Estes Area The Moccasin Drive connection with Highway 7 Build the interceptor parking lot at US 34/36. Status: partkdly complete and underway A new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance which identifies in more detail the various configurations of land uses desired as well as incentives to promote cluster development. Update utility master plans A substantial upgrade to Fish Creek Road Develop downtown circulation/parking plan Design and implement transit system improvements. Establish a Town/RMNP transportation funding program Create outlying parking with a transit center Develop a Valley-wide trail system. Vacate MacGregor Avenue and expand Bond Park 4, 4 Prepare second floor housing strategy. Develop downtown circulation/parking plan Evaluate accessory structure options Status: partial progress or no progress Sensitive lands overlays and environmentally based performance standards for development within the Valley Highway corridor standards which define the orientation and configuration of development adjacent to highway corridors Establish an open space and preservation funding and management program Prepare community gateway plans. Prepare service capacity and cost analysis. Develop a Rocky Mountain National Park signage/information system Implement a traveler information system Create the Beaver Point/US 34 connection (western bypass) Fund downtown parking and traffic improvements Prepare specific redevelopment plans for areas of high priority Evaluate commercial residential linkages and incentives Access control along US 36 and Moraine Avenue Acquire land for Big Thompson open space Status: decision not to proceed or otherwise no longer relevant Defining acceptable growth rates/formula Prepare growth management ordinance Jointly adopt growth management system