The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-08-24y ' Prepared 8/18/10 flue * Revised TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© 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, August 24, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 23, 2010 and August 10, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works, August 12,2010: 1. Public Safety: a. Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2. Utilities: a. Cost of Services Analysis for L&P, HDR Engineering - $24,715, Budgeted. b. Cost of Services Analysis and Tap Fee Study for Water, HDR Engineering - $19,390, Budgeted. 3. Public Works: a. Street Sweeper Replacement, MacDonald Equipment - $149,012 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes July 21, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 2. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 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 wishes to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the 'Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Amended Plat, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; Vincent and Karen Gerber, John and Margaret Kacergis, Applicants. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. A. ORDINANCE #19-10, A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #20-10 - EXTENSION OF WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM. Attorney White. 2. RESOLUTION #09-10 - APPROPRIATION OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION HUB GRANT. Dir. Zurn. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:51 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3161 ST. TIME 08/18 14:37 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 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 10, 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 1 Oth day of August, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney /** 4 Jacquie Halburnt, Town Admini,trator,\4 Lowell Richardson, Deputy/Fo*n Administrator Jackie Williamson, Townâ‚¬letk 1 1 Absent: None /) ~~ Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT <2*EzzliÂ·~. ~~~ -6-02 - Charlie Dickey/Town citizen commenteakon the needÂ»to have public comment for liquor licensing issues. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS j ~ Trustee BlackhOrstistated th'e j Estes Paht Housing Authority would meet on Wednesday, Auguht Jl.,1201.0/913:30.Â»a.~m. il, Boom 130. He reminded the public the combined eublic Safety, Utilities and<Public'Works Committee meeting would be held on ThursÂ¢I~y, Au*st~12, 2010~at 8:00 a.ni>itlthe Board Room. ..7 4 % 1. 40*ISENT AGENDA: 1,\\ 1. \Town Board Mint,tes dated July 27, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Mihut~s dated JuQ 27,2010. 1 1. 7 0 2. Bills. '\ 1:v~ / 3. Committe@Minutes: A. Community DevelopmenUCommunity Services, July 22, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2010. (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY OF ESTES PARK, INC. dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHARMACY ESTES PARK, 453 E. WONDERVIEW AVENUE #1. 1 r' 1 Board of Trustees - August 10, 2010 - Page 2 Town Clerk Williamson stated liquor license renewals are handled administratively through the Clerk's Office; howdver, the Board requested the licensee come to the Town Board to discuss the recent liquor violation that occurred during the November 14, 2009 alcohol sales compliance check conducted by the State Liquor Enforcement Division. Greg Barton/Owner and John WesVLiquor Manager apologized for the violation and stated the store clerk has been trained and completed T.I.P.S. training. All front counter clerks will be T.I.P.S. certified in the future. The Board impressed upon the owner the seriousness of the violation and emphasized the need to provided T. I.P.S. training to all employees. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Ericson) to approve the renewal of the Liquor License Drugstore license for Rocky Mountain Pharmacy of Estes Park, Inc. dba Rocky Mountain Pharmacy Estes Park, and it passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. A1 Trustee Miller stated the Historic Preservatiom Ordinance Committee had their first organizational meeting; members include%hn BEfod~k, Ron Norris, David Tanton, Bill Van Horn, Paula Steige andthSrry White. the'Committee would draft a voluntary participatory ordinan&,4 the end of the'yeAQor the Town Board's review. 9 X 1 // Mayor Pro Tem Levine stated the Tree Boardinedt and discussed ideas for the 2011 Tree Symposium, including scalinÂ¢tile *ent back to a half day focused on beetle issues. The Tre; 88*d has a vacancy. Trustee Elrod informed the Board the.EVPC would meet next week to discuss small wind tur~ne/~~~tions?l\~/,0~~0/*.<~>9Â»+ 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Remindedthe Board aritititizens Of two new events at the fairgrounds this year and encdurs?ged all toattdnd the Se'ni& Pro Rodeo on August 20-21 and Estes 352zt'or*@hojv on AOBMâ‚¬Â» 4. ACTION'ITEMS: =\~1 '# 1 ~.<HABITAT FEE WAIVE**r BUILDING PERMIT AND TAP FEES. \$Iown Administtator HalbOrnt stated Habitat for Humanity has requested fee whivers for a Norhe to be constructed on Lot 2, Kundtz Subdivision in the aihobr# of $2,100 in building permit fees and $11,203 for a water tap. The Towh.Boardippfoved a policy in 2008 to approve waivers of up to $3,000 in plannirighAd:,building permit fees for nonprofit organizations. Waivers of utility feekin'the past have been paid by the General Fund. Ed Mularz/Past President applauded the Town for the support given in the past to benefit twelve families in Estes Park. He stated the costs of building a home in Estes Park have increased dramatically and all real costs of building the home have to be rolled into the mortgage. The requested fee waiver would decrease the mortgage for a family by approximately $40 a month. Trustee comments were heard: questioned if Habitat has informed the public of the increased costs; has Habitat conducted fundraising to offset the increases in fees; Habitat should look into Rural Development loans that are available as a part of the economic stimulus package; EPHA received waivers for the affordable housing development at Vista Ridge; waiving utility fees would impact user fees; and the Town has a history of waiving fees in the past for affordable workforce housing in the valley. 1, Board of Trustees - August 10, 2010 - Page 3 Paul Brown/Town citizen and Habitat Board member suggested the Town consider developing a separate water tap fee structure for affordable housing units. Ron Norris/Town citizen would support the funding of the water tap fee from the Community Reinvestment Fund. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve a one-time non-precedent payment of the water tap fee from the Community Reinvestment Fund to the Water Fund of $11,302 for the Habitat for Humanity house to be built on Lot 2, Kundtz Subdivision, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting 7:45 p.m. William C. PinRham \ \ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk \ 6/ 3 1. 1 th r 8% .7 2 ./ I 1 \\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 23, 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 Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of July, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Goehring, Joseph, Kilsdonk, Kufeld, McFarland and Zurn, PIO Rusch, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None + / f Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8.05 a.m./ /T i FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Finance Officer McFarland provided an overviewof the current econohlicclimate. After the market crash of 2008/2009, people ard Uying down#debt, borrowing'?down 6.4%, consumer spending continues to be down artdJh~,00bdss rate is not4ebounding quickly. Estes Park continues to fare better tRan)no*tnountain towns; however, the town is down 12% from 2007. Thelocal real estate market may have reached bottom and real estate continues to hold its value.<The consttuttion segment remains down. 2010 YEAR TO DATE REVIEW/FORECAST/REDUCTIONS 2 Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the year-to-date,sare~tk< report that demonstrated each month except Jahuaghakbeen dowit in'2010, Jith the year 5.5% behind 2009. Last year's numbers'Wre behihÂ©.5% in MAy and ended 4.6% down for the year. He stated the decrease has flatteAed out; hdwdver, he does not anticipate a complete turnaround in 2010"~i -~--~~~~--~~~p 2011 BUDGET GUIDANCE 3 h.,/. Proidet Prioritization Exercise \ \ Administriltor Halbumtrreview@d.the results of the project ranking for 2011. The transp@rtation hub, fairgrodnd parking lot lighting and landscaping and the Bond Park Master Platt"were the toi; three projects followed closely by the Multi Purpose Event Center (MPEC)~ Discussion on the ranking followed: Trustees Blackhurst and Miller stated they ranked items higher that hadirant funding such as the transportation hub and Moraine Avenue streetscape; ranking certain items such as the MPEC without the pro forma was difficult; and Trustee Elrod stated the Board has a responsibility to maintain Town owned property such as the barns and museum storage facility, and therefore, these items should be ranked higher. The Board discussed the need to replace the current barns; the potential uses and grant fund options for the MPEC if the transportation hub was built around the facility; the town needs a sales tax generator in the community such as the Conference Center even if it is a lost leader run by the Town; the Board should consider a professional pro forma/market study for the MPEC during the upcoming budget process; and the Town needs to provide quality stalls in conjunction with the new grandstand to bring shows to town. The Board consensus was to move forward with a professional pro forma/market study for the MPEC to be completed by October 2010. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 23, 2010 - Page 2 Budget Format Finance Officer McFarland stated the budget format would be similar to last year with a couple of modifications. The Museum and Senior Center funds would merge with the CVB fund and change the name to Community Services Fund. The Advertising and Visitors Guide departments were discontinued and replaced by the LMD for payroll. The Fire Services Fund was eliminated and replaced by a transfer to the new Fire District. The Fire Pension Fund assets were transferred to the new Fire District. New GASB 54 rules have created new fund and fund balance definitions requiring the Town to report funds differently in the future. Special Revenue Funds such as the Community Reinvestment Fund will be merged with the General Fund; however, it would appear as a separate fund balance. Internal Service Funds such as the Catastrophic Loss and Medical Funds would be merged with the General Fund. These line items would be annotated to identify the funds as restricted funds. Trustee comments included the addition of the previous year's budget numbers for line items and the addition of pagination for the 2011 process. /4 Available Revenue/Financing Options 1 1. Finance Officer McFarland stated Jim Manire/Financial Advisor recommended staff meet with Rick Buddin/Bond Attorney to discuss financing *tibns. The Town may not have enough time to consider non-voter approved finahcing optiolksuch as Certificates of Participation (COPS). The current COPS rate i4 4.5% for 10 ye*ark~<The Town would have an available fund balance of approximately,$1.6 million at tlikend of 2010 plus $434,000 in funds held for SOPA. Town Owned Parcels Review /14/ Administrator Halburnt presented the Board withb.liatof Town owned parcels. Trustee Elrod stated there may be opportuAitilbs to. developbr:*sell property the Town owns that may have a better or higher use\~\ He stated it 09001~be beneficial to know the development potential of the properties*anJWh#ther-,pr Abt any property has restrictions related to its use. /21 1: 4 , .... --&Â£4Â·~ ~SAP" , Community Reinvestment Fund Transfer '\ L Finance Officer McFarland review~d the transfers to the Community Reinvestment Fund for the past fek*ars, 2008 A $650,000\2009 - $500,000, 2010 - $800,000, demonstrating there'ha*not.1Â§,en aritconsistericy. The amount transferred appears to be depegdenton whether'or*not there*art#rojects to be completed. Administrator Halburnt stated-thah.Board committed to transferring the realized saving from the forrqati~n'of the Lobal MarkbtiRg.District (LMD) in 2010; however, it would be difficult to continue.t~ transfer Mthout affecting fund balance in the future. 11 v The Board discussed the,iSsue and comments are summarized: the Board needs to determine lhÂ¢results of,thd November election before making a decision; the public was assured the#fundsisaVed by the formation of the LMD would be used on tourist related infrastrubt'#84ndlhe $800,000 should be transferred to CRF; and the Town continues to spend'mol~e on operations and less on capital. The draft budget should be completed with the assumption of transferring $800,000 in 2011. Target Fund Balances Fund balances are discussed each year during the budget process. The current fund balance for the General Fund continues to be 30%, Special Revenue Fund maintain a balance of 1 % or less and Internal Service Fund balances are designed to replace fixed asset needs. Trustee Ericson stated a number of communities are increasing fund balances given the current economy. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town has $3 million in reserves to be used during an economic downturn to balance the budget and maintain the level of services. Trustee Elrod commented on the need for staff to review how additional funds can be cut from the budget including items like coffee, water, meals before Town Board meeting, etc. The Board discussed meals and beverages before meetings and concluded meals prior to meetings were appropriate. Trustee 1 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 23, 2010 - Page 3 Elrod also questioned whether or not a party was the appropriate way to thank employees for their efforts. Employee Compensation and Benefits Administrator Halbumt stated the preliminary number for health insurance is a 38% increase because the Town has reached 105% of claims for this year as of June. The Town would look at different insurance models; however, this may be the year to look at self insurance and utilize the Catastrophic Loss Fund as a gap stop. The Board discussed potential raises for employees in 2011. Comments are summarized: employees have full employment including benefits and without improvements in the economy the Town would be criticized for any increase; what is the cost of living in Estes Park; how would an incremental raise equate to the purchase of a bag of groceries; the Board stated during the 2010 budget process that employee salaries would be reevaluated this fall if revenues turned around; a 1% one-time bonus pool may be appropriate for 2011; and employee salaries4hould be compared to private sector salaries as well as governmental entities. ,0/ / / 6>1 Administrator Halburnt stated a1% raise or merit pool#,Quld acquaint to $100,000. The Town currently uses 6 target cities (3 mountain resort,ind 3 Eegional) when reviewing salaries. : # POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF 101/60/61 Finance Officer McFarland stated the potentih~impact#t~the General Flind in 2010 could be $400,000 and the impact by 2014 600!db6$400,000. The affects to the utilities is unknown but would mos~likely increa* dtilitÂ¢ rates significantly. Staff would create an addendum to the budgettd'address buddet'impacts if the issues are passed by the voters in November. The utiI{tieâ‚¬s haJeZHDR dov~ping a cost analysis for both electric and water if the issues pass. 4. i: ,-: i POTENTIAL REVENUE46O*CES Administrator Halburnt,#reviewect potential <revenue sources including a temporary increase or a permatient saleÂ¢ tax incr@ase to complete projects or pay for future I NA infrastructure. Fihance OfficepMEFarland stated the state and county have eliminated the vendor discountrfOF collecting~ales..tal2,And recommended the Town consider eliminatingÂ·it as well. This'wduld be asaving to the Town of approximately $230,000. The Board agreed ktaff should investigate rescinding the rebate. I ' 2 2 \\ 10\ Director Zurn provided.Background on the current status of the drainage master plan which identified close to $6imillioA,irt improvements needed to address concerns related to federaljegulations. ~IA addition, the Town has been diverting funds for the maintenance of,Joadways for the past 13 years and roadways throughout town are failing. Recohstruction.ofÂ®adways is significantly more expensive than maintenance. Staff has discussed'atot@ntial Stormwater and Streets Utility with the Board in the past to generate revendato'address these concerns. Board discussion was heard and summarized: would be in favor if a mechanism existed to rebate the fee to low income households; the issue is a valley wide concern and should be paid by all households; can the fee be assessed to households in the county; need to educate the citizens as to why the additional fee and what it would be used for and what would happen to the current infrastructure without the new revenue source; and a presentation by Director Zurn at an upcoming Town Board meeting with public comment on the issue. Staff would produce a schedule on how to move forwarded with a potential new utility and fee structure. ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session -July 23, 2010 - Page 4 MISCELLANEOUS. Trustee Elrod would encourage each department to look for opportunities to cut training costs by sending staff to webinars and to send only one person to training. Director Zurn stated the beetle issue would continue to grow in 2011, and therefore, additional funds would need to be budgeted if the Town continues to enforce the beetle ordinance. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 42Â»4 4Â«94 1 4 V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 10, 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 Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 1Oth day of August, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Director Kilsdonk, Town Clerk Williamson, LMD Board Blackman, Webermeier, Blanchard, Larson, and Lassen, and LMD Director Campbell Absent Trustee Blackhurst //. Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 D.m. Tfustee Blackhurst recused himself from discuss due to a perceived conflict otiffterest. C../. 4/ \1 11 'L:% h LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT & OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the current tntergoveinmental Agreement (IGA) with the Local Marketing District (LMD) states the termkwoGId be reviewed in August prior to the submittal of the following year's Operating Plan. '\~ I .%04 LMD Director Campbell reviewea the key*accorqplishrRents in 2010, including partnerships with Guest,Rbsearch Int for year robnd Visit~ survey and analysis, Hill 64% : Aevium for marketingâ€¢fevidw'arid media allocation planning, Gretchen Walker/Hannah Marketing for grouâ‚¬s@es consdlting, Turr&r PR for public relations, James Frank Photography for Â¢71.photography/ Nick M611,6, Productions for TV ads, videos, RMNP 'Rivers' production anoÂ·ReachLodal-for. internet marketing pay-per-click. The LMD staff would be focusj~g on fOtur6 goals-such as;2011 planning, 2010 summer conversion study, driâ‚¬meetings ah44 cÂ®ventions ~oup business, enhance email marketing and begir].destination*brahding initiative. \\ LM[YCIiair Larson stated there were two topics the LMD would like to discuss with the Town BbArd regarding lessons learned and transparency. LMD Board Member WebermeleAtated the st@6rvision of employees, the number of employees and the funding of the~'employj#W by the Town should be reviewed. The LMD would recommend rehloVal,of specific names, titles, etc. from the agreement, and requested the Town considâ‚¬providing a specific dollar amount with an annual increase for staffing. The LMD Board could then allocate funds as needed for staffing. The LMD Board has realized they were understaffed in 2010 and would need to add staff 2011. The LMD would like to grow the group marketing aspect and special events with the backing and aid of the Town. They requested the help of the Special Events Department to run the events. The main effort would be to grow off season events. This would require an increase to the Town's budget; however, it would be offset by additional sales tax revenue. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the Town does not have the staff for new events and looks for turn key events to bring to town. Discussion continued on the need for more events such as Winterfest, the economic feasibility and viability of more events, the large number of volunteer hours provided to put on the larger events in town such as the Rodeo and the Christmas Parade, and the LMD should provide a proforma for new events. LMD Chair Larson stated the LMD Board would like to address transparency as it relates to stakeholder fees and real costs associated with producing the payroll for LMD RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 10, 2010 - Page 2 staff. LMD Board Member Webermeier stated the stakeholder fees currently go to the Town, and therefore, there is no incentive for the LMD to grow this product by increasing fees and/or selling additional products. The LMD would request the stakeholder fees be retained by the LMD and pay rent to the Town for space at the Visitor Center and appropriate IT costs. Discussion continued on the need for staff to address the details such as rent, more detailed LMD budget or a biannual report, and the need for a simplified payment process for salaries and rental of office space. The Boards suggested Town Administrator Halburnt and LMD Director Campbell meet to discuss potential changes to the IGA. The draft IGA would be reviewed by two members of each Board before consideration by each Board. The Town Board thanked the LMD for their efforts during the past year. LMD Chair Larson thanked the Town for forming the district. FUTURE STUDY SESSION ITEMS. The Board considered whether or not to begin the public heanng process for medical marijuana. The consensus was to wait because the Board:ektelided the moratorium for an entire year. The next study session would be a/bredentation on medical self insurance and open discussion. Â«X6 There being no further business, Mayor Pinkhaff~ ad~oumed the meeting'at 6:48 p.m. 41Â» U 14% \ JacRie,Williamson, Town Clerk 0 14 X / \\. 1/ \V./ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 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 12th day of August, 2010. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Attending: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Dir. Goehring, Dir. Zurn, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Town Administrator Halburnt / / 1 1 / 4. 4/NX Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00.a.mi -!4 i PUBLIC COMMENT. V PUBLIC SAFETY. NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. In December 2009, Erik Nilsson, Ilarimer~~county Emerbency Manager, attended the Public Safety Committee meeting Mpresebrand explain the Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation.~an. In Jaguary 20'10,1?Mb.Town,Board passed a resolution to allow Larimer County#intlade Estes Park in the#la!*In addition to Larimer County and Estes Park, th~dAehpÂ®icipatkg- jurisdictions are Fort Collins, Loveland, Wellington, and E~erttioud. ThrÂ®Â® a collabdrative effort, a regional approach to hazard mitigation was dev*ped to address hazards br disasters that could potentially occur in Larimer County. ThbAan is4*fiÂ®d'as-a 61~eral statement of the hazards residents in the cgunty-may fke>'pie PldftÂ»*provides historical information related to past hazardout>situatiâ‚¬s, ho*41ik,y were handldd at the time and, in general terms, outlines strategies about how tbwlitit}4#hhazards in the future. The Plan has been approved by thetederal Emerger~y Mfnagekent Association (FEMA) and adoption of the Plan will makell:*participating jbrisdictiolls>bligible for FEMA funding assistance in the event of a disasteÂ©Chairman Blhckhurst commented that hazard mitigation involves all Town departments dnd asked tlie hepartment heads if they had any concerns about the Plan. Dir. Goehring, Chief KufSId' and Chief Dorman all stated they supported the Plan and were familiar with.the.Mfoftnation it contained. The Committee recommends approval of the Northern Colpfado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan as a consent item at the August 24, 2010, Town Board meeting. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Estes Valley Victim Advocates Six-Month Update - Mary Mesropian presented a summary of the activities of the Estes Valley Victim Advocates (EWA) over the past six months which included the receipt of grants for upgrades to My Sister's Place and the hiring of personnel. She outlined the types of services provided by EWA and reported that 265 contacts were made January through June 2010. 2. Second Quarter Statistics - Call totals have decreased when compared to 2009 totals, which may be due to the transfer of code enforcement duties from the Police Department to the Community Development Department. 3. Estes Valley Fire Protection District 2nd Quarter/YTD Incident Report - Chief Dorman reported on the total number, type, and location of calls responded to by the fire department during the second quarter of 2010. He said work continues on the fire code, and the training and recruitment of volunteer firefighters. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - August 12, 2010 - Page 2 UTILITIES. COST OF SERVICES ANALYSES FOR LIGHT & POWER AND WATER. Dir. Goehring requested approval for HDR Engineering to provide a Cost of Services Analysis for both the Light & Power and Water utilities to ensure customers pay a fair rate for the services being provided to them. A Cost of Services Analysis is performed every five to ten years by dividing costs between each customer class and aligning them to the rates customers pay for the types of services they receive. Staff recommends contracting with HDR Engineering for this study in order to provide consistency in reporting methods throughout the financial planning process for the utilities. The water study will also include a Tap Fee Report, which was last updated in 2007. If approved, the findings of the Cost of Services Analyses would be available in late November, subsequent to the outcome of the November election. The November ballot contains proposed legislation that, if passed, may impact utility rates. The Committee recommends approval of a contract with HDR Engineering for a Cost of Services Analysis for Light & Power at a cost of $24A# from account #502- 6501-560-22-01, budgeted; and a Cost of Services Anal#isÂ«and Tap Fee Study for Water at a cost of $19,390 from account #503-6500-566-22%89, budgeted. REPORTS. Â»Â« 1 Reports provided for informational purposes and,mgde a part of th@*bceedings. 1. Distribution System Upgrades - Prospect'~venue and Peak View~upgrades are complete and came in at 80% and 95% dfexpected constructions coit2'respectively. Beaver Point circuit upgrades should belÂ¢n~leted.ili the next few WheRs, and the Fish Creek upgrades are underway and expected,to'be'completed in October. 2. Helicopter Pole Set - A helicopter.was utilized'to set poles in rugged terrain located within the Beaver Point distribbtior'Parea and Dih~oehring bresented a video that was taken during the pole-setting operatibi<[he Con#nittee suggested the video be aired on the Town government TV channel. \~ / i.* %# PUBLIC WORKS. Â»Â»11 ic APPROPRIATION OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION HUB GRANT. The Town was aWarded $956,000.infederaftfdhds through the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOTD 20 put towards thecoRstluction of a transportation hub to help in reducing,pollotion.in the~upper Front Range./ Acceptance of the grant from the Upper Front Rhngâ‚¬ton*stion~ Mitigation Air Quality Fund (CMAQ) requires the Town of Estedhafk to comnlit ihatchingYunds to the project in the amount of 25%, or $250,000, bringin~0the project toth[ to $1:206 million. Staff is requesting approval of the reallocati6rvf $250,006*frbm the'Community Reinvestment Fund to the CDOT CMAQ grant. Tfie,reallocation will 6e made in the 2010 budget with the entire projected cost of constructiok.tÂ¢*be accourheA for in the 2011 budget. Dir. Zurn stated that the design of the transportatiokhub i~90% complete. The Committee requested the appropriation of matching funds Toptne transportation hub move forward as an action item to the August 24, 2010, Town Board meeting, and asked Dir. Zurn to prepare information for a presentation to the Board at that time. STREET SWEEPER REPLACEMENT. The Vehicle Replacement Fund includes $185,000 to replace the 1996 3-wheel Pelican Street Sweeper. The average operating costs for the sweeper over the past four years has been almost $40/hour, which is well above the normal expected operating costs of $18 - $21 per hour. The following two quotes were received: MacDonald Equipment Company, Commerce City, CO 2010 Allianz 3000-MX $149,012 Faris Machinery, Commerce City, CO 2010 Elgin Pelican NP* $152,560 " Does not meetall bid specifications including engine size, stainless steel hopper, hopper disable function, and lighting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety/Utilities/Public Works Committee - August 12, 2010 - Page 3 Staff recommends purchasing the Allianz street sweeper from MacDonald Equipment Company. This type of equipment benefits the Town by reducing air and water pollution from sand and gravel and by keeping the streets and downtown area looking good. The Committee recommends purchasing a 2010 Allianz 3000-MX Street Sweeper from MacDonald Equipment Company at a cost of $149,012, from account #635-7000- 4365-3442, budgeted. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. West Elkhorn Pedestrian Crosswalk (Water Wheel) - At the July 8, 2010 Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works (PUP) Committee meeting, Town resident Charley Dickey presented a proposal to relocate the crosswalk on West Elkhorn Avenue approximately 65 feet west of its current location. After researching the crosswalk staff found the current location to be a safe crossing with no accident history within the last five years; and found that relocating the crosswalk,would result in reduced visibility of pedestrians and a reduction in the stopping siOhth:listance for both east and west-bound traffic. Therefore, staff determined the'*dposed relocation would reduce pedestrian and vehicle safety. CDOT'sAt@ficiengineering department concurred with these findings. 2. Prospect Avenue Update - Although weather,Ssubgrade soil Stabilization, and the replacement of a gas main caused project delayt constructioibi295% complete on the 2600 ft. of concrete roadway. Due,416nacceptable surdcAideability, the contractor, LaFarge, will be grinding the''surface of thedoadway on#Agust 16 and 17. Public Works staff will re-evaluate the>ork atpAtitme including th@ rideability of the surface and the integrity of the conc*tetbv,Upen completion of the project a ribbon-cutting ceremony will be planned. Sta#~commended the residents in the area for their cooperation and patierice:ddring the recohsfruction. There being no further business, Chaif~~p<hurst#~umed the meeting at 10:08 a.m. Of)\14 --4-KJY##'Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 20, 2010, 1:30 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, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. There were 13 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Mares/Town resident thanked the Planning Commissioners for attending last week's Town Board meeting and clearing up communications on the wind turbine subject. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the June 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Fraundorf) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS There were no staff-level reviews nor pre-application meetings since the last meeting. Planner Shirk reported the McCreery-Thompson Amended Plat and the Greeley- Boulder Colony Subdivision Lot Consolidation were approved by the County Commissioners on June 21,2010. The Little Valley Lot Consolidation was approved by the County Commissioners on July 19, 2010. This was not presented to the Planning Commission because it was a lot consolidation. Director Joseph reported a development plan was approved at staff-level in July, 2009 for a fueling facility owned by Safeway to be located at the intersection of Steamer Drive and Highway 34, former site of Silver Lane Stables. The building permit is nearing completion and should be issued in the near future. Safeway is poised to begin construction as soon as the permit is received. The Town Board remanded Wind Turbine code amendments to the Planning Commission at the July 13, 2010 meeting. Code amendments will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2010, with the intent of review by Town Board in September. Chair Norris stated the Town Board voted to reconsider regulations for small wind turbines that include a public review process and reduced setbacks to allow more properties the right to have a wind turbine. The Commission discussed a Conditional Use Permit and Special Review processes, debated the merits of both, and received clarification from Town Attorney White on the differences between the two processes. The presumption with the Special Review process is there is no use- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 20, 2010 by-right. Special Review applications are heard by the Planning Commission, which recommends approval or disapproval to the Town Board or the Board-of County Commissioners, depending on location. Any appeals go throu#h the District Court. With the Conditional Use Permit, there is a presumption of use-by- right if certain requirements are met. Appeals would first go to the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Commissioner Fraundorf would support the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, but would not support a small setback. Commissioner Lane would be supportive of a CUP with an adjoining component that would waive the public review brocess if more restrictive requirements were met. Commissioner Hull agreed with Commissioner Fraundorf. Commissioner Tucker was fundamentally against both the Special Review process and the CUP, stating that it should be possible to write code language that satisfies the majority of the community. He was open to further conversations about setbacks, and would support larger turbines being allowed on larger lots and the micro-turbines being allowed on smaller lots. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that Special Review processes and Conditional Use Permits are to be avoided unless you are dealing with something other than objective criteria or standards. He thought objective standards could be written for wind turbines. Chair Norris directed staff to revisit the number of lots that would meet the requirement for setbacks of three times the height, two and one-half times the height, and two times the height for the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bill Darden/Town Resident questioned the appeals process for a Special Review for properties in the County. He suggested offering the Town Board a variety of setback possibilities, or having ongoing conversation with the Town Board prior to making a recommendation Bob Clements/Town Resident questioned the use of a CUP in other areas of the EVDC besides wind turbines. He suggested using a structure setback instead of a lot-line setback. This would be more considerate of neighboring structures. 1 4 Johanna Darden/Town Resident strongly opposed wind turbines. She asked the Planning Commission to consider a restriction on small wind turbines so that neither visible movement nor flicker could be seen from them. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Town Attorney White stated Special Reviews are for uses of property, not the locations of structures, which would be the difference'between a Special Review and the CUP as currently drafted and discussed. Town Attorney White gave the example of commercial recreation uses in the CO-Outlying Commercial being subject to special review because it has been determined that such uses may have certain adverse impacts on the land. Wind turbines would be an accessory use to the principal use of residential property, and an accessory structure on that property. Chair Norris stated there was no objection from the Town Board on the draft, except for the absence of a public review process. Staff was directed to insert the CUP language back into the draft code amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 20, 2010 4. GATE HOUSE REZONING REQUEST AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, Metes and Bounds parcels located at 2220 Windcliff Drive Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this request is to adjust the configuration of three existing lots and rezone from RE-Rural Estate zone district, where the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres, to the E-1-Estate zone district, where the minimum lot size is one acre. The property is located near the end of Spur 66. If approved, all Windcliff accessory structures would be on one lot owned by the Windcliff Property Owners Association. Planner Shirk stated the purpose of the boundary line adjustment is to reconfigure the internal lot line between the "road" parcel and the "Gate House" parcel. The third, easternmost lot is included,to change the legal description from a long metes-and- bounds description to "Parcel 1 of the Gate House Boundary Line Adjustment." The configuration of this lot would not change, but the zoning would change from RE- Rura/ Estate to E-1-Estate. The current lot configuration is such that the trash compactor is on the Gate House lot, and the entry sign, mailboxes, newspaper boxes, and drainage facility are on the "road" parcel. It is proposed to create one "Outlot A" to contain all of these accessory uses. Planner Shirk stated the proposed "Parcel 1 " is undeveloped, and was determined to be a legal lot through a separate lot determination process in June, 2009. The proposed "Parcel 2" is the Gate-House property, where the Windcliff office is located. There was some discussion at the pre- application stage to rezone this lot to 0-Of#ce, but it was decided that because the lifespan of the office may be endingi in several years it would be best to keep the current zoning as R-Residential. Because this lot is non-conforming, it has been requested to put a note on the plat stating the adjustment of these lot lines will not affect the current non-conforming uses. A plat note explaining that Outlot A is exclusively for accessory uses has also been requested. Planner Shirk stated the application also contains a request for Planning Commission approval for a minor modification to the minimum lot size requirement. Two of the lots are just less than one acre; one is .98 acres and the other is .82 acres. Planner Shirk stated this request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the.provisions of public services. Staff supports recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed Gatehouse Boundary Line Adjustment Plat and rezoning. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Tucker stated this proposal would make the property lines cleaner and more functional. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Hull) to recommend approval of the Gatehouse Rezoning Request and Boundary Line Adjustment to the Board of County Commissioners, and to approve the request for a minor modification to the minimum lot size, with the findings recommended by Staff, and the motion passed unanimously, with one absent. 5. EAGLE'S CREST RESORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010-02, Lot 12A, Greeley- Boulder Colony Subdivision, 2123 Moraine Avenue (Highway 66) Commissioner Lane recused himself from this review, as his architectural firm has participated in this project, and left the dais. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 4 July 20, 2010 *'i ' Planner Shirk reviewdd the staff roport' This is a. re'quest. to redev'elop an accommodations-zoned proper& from three existing dabins to a tesort d&velopment with eleven accommodation units and a private recreation facility, located at 2123 Moraine Avenue. The applicalit also applied for 8- lot consolidation' blat, which was apptoved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 21; 2010. The #urpose of the lot consolidation was to combine several existing parcels into orie lot of record, to dedicate right-of-Way and utility easements, and to identify existing access easements. , ~ is , The property currently contains three cabins. The applicant proposes to retain two of the existing structures; one would serve as a private recreational facility and another would be used for accommodations. The'thiid would be removed.' Two quadplex units and one duplex would be constructed. The pioposal incllides atotal of eleven units utilizing the existing drives as much as possible. All new coribtruction would occur on the uphill side 6f the 8riVeway 1 . , r / Planner Shirl< stated'the property was zoned A-1 Accommodationsi which provides for low-intensity accommodations and very limited accessory uses. The proposed private fecreational facility would be only for residents, employeei or guests. The proposal includes a provision for 5-foot-Wide sidewalks, which would be distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of pavers.Â· Thdre was enough land area available to comply with the proposed density calculations of 2.8 urlits per acre. Planner Shirk explained how the derisity was calculated, accounting:for the steep slope, dedicated right-of-way, and existing driveWay. The proposed impervious coverage amounts and 'setback distances were in compliance with thi code requirements. The Applicantset tight limits of disturbance. Road disturbance would be minimal, except to flatten out an area at the entrance for safety reasons. The limits of disturbance comply With the provisions and standards of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Geo-hazard provisions did not come into play in this area of the development. Although there was a steep slope, there was no danger of Â· rock fall. The trees near the construction sites would be fenced for protection during construction. The prop6sed exterior lighting wduld minimize the lighting impact. There were no plans for lighting in the barking areas, *minimal lighting on the buildings, and low-level lighting on the walkways. The property owner requbsted some minor modifications to the site, most of them tied to the interior drivd. All of these minor modifications fall within the parameters for Planning Commission aOthbrization. The applicant requested minor modifications to the number of parking spaces, driveway width, and driveway slope. The applicant complied with the slope standards at the bottom of the driveway entering Moraine Avenue. Planner Shirk noted'that Spur 66 is no longer a state highway, so there are no state highway requirements. The driveway entrance meets the EVDC standards. Commissioner Poggenpohl had questions about additional parking, and also inquired about the proximity of thid development to the long-range plan of creating an additional entrance to Rodky Mountain National Park. Director Joseph stated that location was not near this proposed development. Director Joseph stated the existing driveway will be aligned appropriately with Moraine Avenue. Planner Shirk stated another minor modification request was to reddce parking from Â·2 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per uhit.-Staff supported this modification primarily to reduce the site disturbance. The final minor modification reg'arded driveway width; where. theÂ· applicant requested' 22 feet of paved width instead of the standard 24 feet. On the upper portion of Eagle's Crest' Lane, the applicant requested a 20-foot width in lieu of the standard 24-foot width for a very short stretch of the drive. The upper portion would be a one-way loop. There was one small area at the topbf the upper loop, where the applicant preferred to'add gravel shoulders alongside a, narrow settion of pavement. Â·Staff rebommended against gravel shoulders. The fire department did not express any concerns about the driveway widths. t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 20, 2010 Planner Shirk reviewed the adequate public facilities, and stated the water main would need to be extended from a nearby development, including a road crossing. He complimented the engineer on the completeness and thoughtfulness of the stormwater management plan. Rather than building one large detention pond at the bottom of the development, several detention basins have been designed throughout the development, with the intention that the stormwater will be dispersed over a larger area and infiltrate into the ground. Planner Shirk stated some of the power would be placed underground, but the existing main line would remain above ground. Planner Shirk stated there would be two new hydrants installed, and the two quadplexes would be sprinkled. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicated no off-site improvements would be necessary. Two neighboring property owners submitted comments. One was concerned about exterior lighting and the potential for trespassing via guest foot traffic. The other was a neighbor in the process of building a single-family dwelling, who requested additional landscaping close to the adjoining property line. Planner Shirk stated that assuming the applicant complies with the staff recommendations, the landscaping was adequate. The applicant had no issues with any new landscaping. Commissioner Tucker questioned the availability of ADA compliant units and parking. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC does not require a certain number of accessible units, and referred those questions to the applicant. Director Joseph clarified that some of these issues would be addressed in the building code stage. There may be discussion about the route from the handicapped unit to the recreation building. It was stated that driving is an acceptable method of a route. Chair Norris was appreciative of the complete application and reports. Public Comment: Matthew Heiser/Basis Architecture represented the applicant. He stated the architecture firm was given very specific directions to redevelop the existing the cabin resort property. The owner wanted to maintain the cabin feel, and the main goal was to minimize development impact both visually and characteristically. It was critical to use the existing driveway. Concerning the lower driveway width, the desire was to minimize the cut of the land. Natural fill materials would be used, with minimal amounts of concrete. There would be no curb and gutter, and stone pavers would be used for sidewalks. While the EVDC required a five-foot sidewalk width, independent of the size of the building, they requested a four-foot sidewalk width due to the low number of guests utilizing the sidewalks. Mr. Heiser stated the reason for the request for gravel in lieu of paving at the top of the upper loop was so a large tree could remain in place. One of the public comments supported this specific request. Mr. Heiser stated the project would keep a significant portion of the infrastructure intact to minimize impact on the rest of the property. Outbuildings would remain intact to help maintain the historic character, and utilized for maintenance supplies. The exterior design would include the use of lap siding, logs, timbers, and stone. The quadplex on the uphill side would be one level, and within the thirty-foot height limit on the downhill side. Exterior lighting on the porches would be located under the eaves, and sidewalk lighting would be low to the ground. Mr. Heiser stated there was some concern from neighbors about headlight shine. He explained there was approximately thirty vertical feet between this property and the neighbor's, and did not anticipate any problems with headlight shine on the neighbor. He clarified that the recreational facility was existing; therefore, no additional accessibility requirements would be necessary. The required ADA guidelines would be met, although not all would pertain to this development. Mr. Heiser explained the use of the buildings, nightly rentals versus longer-term rentals, changed the requirements by the ADA. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 20, 2010 Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering stated the project was designed to reduce the site disturbance by reducing the parking. The resort planned to market to families travelling in one car. Mr. Reetz was not concerned about the limited parking spaces, and stated if additional parking was needed, the area at the bottom of the loop could possibly hold two more spaces. The other parking areas could also be extended, but would possibly involve removing some of the rock outcroppings. Mr. Reetz stated the entrance was designed per Larimer County road standards. All proposed electric lines would be underground, including the service line to Glacier Lodge. A dedicated easement would be created for the utilities. When asked by Commissioner Hull about the neighbor concerns, Mr. Reetz replied the developers have tried unsuccessfully to contact one neighbor, but have been in contact with the other neighbor to work through any concerns. Mr. Heiser reiterated that the recreation center would be available only to gOests staying on the property. The resort would include 22 parking spaces for 11 units, being only four spaces short of the code requirement. There were also plans to construct a bear-proof trash enclosure. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. STAFF AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Tucker thought the Estes Valley would be seeing more of this type of redevelopment in the future. He complimented the developer on this project, stating that it retained the Estes Park image to the property. He was pleased they were willing to work with the neighbors. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to approve Development Plan 2010-02, Eagle's Crest Resort, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Klink was absent and Commissioner Lane had recused himself prior to discussion. Mr. Heiser asked the Planning Commission to consider a vote to address two issues: the construction of four-foot-wide sidewalks in lieu of the five-foot-wide sidewalks recommended by staff, and the placing of a gravel berm on the driveway at the top of the upper loop in lieu of a wider paved driveway area. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC requires a five-foot sidewalk, independent of -the size of the building. Planner Shirk supported the paving of the entire upper loop section of the driveway. It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Poggenpohl) to allow four-foot-wide sidewalks in lieu of the standard five-foot width, and to allow gravel berms where appropriate in order to avoid tree removal due to paving in Development Plan 2010-02, Eagle's Crest Resort, and the motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Klink was absent and Commissioner Lane had recused himself prior to discussion. Commissioner Lane rejoined the group. 6. REPORTS Director Joseph reviewed a memo on the ongoing discussion of how the PUD provisions in the EVDC could be examined. This memo is aimed at two approaches that could be taken to the PUD regulations. One approach is to address the PUDs from a regulatory standpoint, e.g. address the development standards such as bulk, density, parking, sustainability, and architectural design standards. These are all common features that are found in many PUD regulations, but are arguably missing from our PUD regulations. Another approach is to look at the desired outcomes and then adjust the regulatory structure to produce or allow the desired outcome. Staff provided some excerpts from a three-year-old blight study performed by EPURA to use this as a guide to some neighborhoods that are ready for redevelopment. We RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 July 20, 2010 could start a process of visioning what a built environment might look like, what the mix of uses might be, and how that would fit into the existing fabric of the neighborhoods. In the Planning Commission study session, Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the visioning approach. There was a discussion about possibly focusing on the downtown. Next month, staff will provide some additional graphics to feed the thought process of the Planning Commissioners and engage the public. Graphics are a better communication tool to engage the public than technical language. PUBLIC COMMENT: Fred Mares/Town resident liked what he heard about the approach to PUDs. He stated the case studies are very valuable, and would encourage the Commission and staff to view these potential PUDs as building blocks for the future of the entire Estes Valley. He commented that the bigger plan has been missing for some time. There could be certain developments may or may not fit with what the rest of the valley looks like. He hoped that as new development and redevelopment occurred, there would be an opportunity for the entire valley to be able to plug in these uses to reach a cohesive picture. Chair Norris stated it would be interesting to see if the PUD code could tie in with the Comprehensive Plan and an open space plan. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 3:10 P.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 21,2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 21 St day of July, 2010. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, Little, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halbumt, Little, White and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPURA Executive Director Richardson and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS. None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. Commissioner Wilcocks said it has been an honor to serve as an EPURA commissioner and that EPURA has left a positive impact on the Town of Estes Park. Commissioner White said she was grateful for the opportunity to serve as a commissioner and that EPURA has made a remarkable difference in Estes Park. Commissioner Little said she has enjoyed working with the EPURA commissioners and Town staff over the years and that EPURA had served as a good vehicle for improvements. Commissioner Blume expressed thanks for his appointment as an EPURA commissioner and said he hopes EPURA will be reborn in the future. Commissioner Halbumt stated that Estes Park benefited from EPURA and that she is convinced the Town will again have an urban renewal authority sometime in the future. She thanked Executive Dir. Richardson and Dir. Zurn for their work on the grandstand project, and read an "Ocie to EPURA" written by former Executive Dir. Wil Smith. Chairman Newsom said it has been a pleasure to be associated with EPURA and commented it had been an economic boon to the Town, and expressed regret at EPURA's abolishment. MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held June 16, 2010, were approved. RESOLUTION #396 - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. Ordinance #4-10 which was adopted by the Town Board on January 26, 2010, abolishing EPURA, requires that all financial responsibilities and obligations be transferred to the Town of Estes Park. The adoption of Resolution #396 accomplishes this requirement. In addition, Finance Officer McFarland has contacted the Larimer County Treasurer's Office in regard to stopping the collection of tax increment financing (TIF). Resolution #396 was read into the record. It was noted that the resolution document included in the meeting packet material referenced the "Board of Trustees of EPURA". This will be changed to read the "Commissioners of EPURA". It was moved RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - July 21, 2010 - Page 2 and seconded (Blume/Wilcocks) to approve Resolution #396 with the correction as noted, and it passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND REPORTS. 1. Grandstands Proiect - Substantial completion of the grandstand was achieved on June 11, 2010, and a grand opening was held on June 30, 2010. The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) has been issued and work is continuing towards the Certificate of Occupancy (CO), with the contractor working on completing punch list items. Staff has determined that approximately $40,000 will complete concrete work, landscaping, and replace chain link fencing along Manford Avenue. The Ad Hoc Committee concurred with proceeding with these landscaping projects. The project involved approximately 150 change orders at cost of $165,396, and architecVdesign changes totaling $121,479, for a total of $286,875 in project overruns; finishing slightly over 10% of budget. Approximately $218,000 of the almost $350,000 approved for miscellaneous fees for the project has been expended to date, with the concession stand upgrades coming in $17,000 under budget. 2. Facade Improvement Program - July 1, 2010, was the deadline for reimbursement requests for improvements approved through the Fagade Improvement Program. Approximately $59,000,2/3 of the $90,000 committed to the program, was utilized by property owners within the EPURA boundaries. 3. Financial Update - All EPURA business operations and transactions will cease on July 26, 2010. Finance Officer McFarland worked with the auditors and legal staff on a process to close out the EPURA financials by accounting for all transactions and transferring all EPURA liabilities and assets to the Town of Estes Park. From July 26, 2010, forward, the Town of Estes Park will assume all present and future responsibilities and obligations of EPURA. 4. Executive Director Report - Executive Dir. Richardson noted that EPURA brought about positive change in Estes Park and thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to be involved with EPURA. He read into the record a document naming and thanking all the past and current commissioners and chairpersons f6r their service to the community. MISCELLANEOUS. Manager Winslow thanked the Commissioners for building the grandstands as their final large EPURA project and commented on the benefits of the new facility. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting 8:34 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk *Editor's Note: July 21, 2010, was the date of the final Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority meeting per Ordinance #4-10 passed by the Town Board of Trustees on January 26, 2010. These minutes accurately represent the content of the meeting. Lowell Richardson, Executive Director TOWN 01- ESTES PARI<~_ Memo Community Development TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: August 18, 2010 RE: AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT Amended Plat, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; Vincent and Karen Gerber, John and Margaret Kacergis/Applicants. Background: The owners of Lots 1 through 3 Big Horn at Spruce subdivision have submitted an amended plat application. The subdivision is located at the corner of Big Horn Drive and Spruce Drive, just north of downtown. All three lots are zoned R-Residential. The plat adjusts property lines between the three lots to more closely align with the existing paved driveway. The plat also vacates a small (34-square-foot) portion of a utility easement on proposed Lot l A. This eliminates a deck encroachment into the easement. The application packet and staff report to the Estes Valley Planning Commission are posted on the Town website at www.estes.ora/comdev/CurrentRequests.aspx. Budget: N/A ./. 7.2 jÂ¢. A Planning Commission Recommendation: I ~0|F~'2|T i'*pir. 1/&1. 21 4 446& On August 17, 2010, the Planning Commission #"Ami alk *Mut i .15,~% ~ 1, unanimously voted torecommend approval of the Sl' 3 al ,1.RA/ -ll,5E,~ ' 1 amended plat application to the Town Board. (819 44&~ 1- Â¥1--9 [3 - This included approval of a minor modification to ,-r ... Ir, ~- ..ST< ' imf ii' lli l IJ ' ll V -- minimum lot size for proposed Lot 3A. There are <1 44 -,t , t,11~/ 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~4 no recommended conditions of approval. - 6*y' 1w,.'â€¢T â€¢ 1/4-1/k. Sample Motion: 94 Approval I move to approve the amended plat application with the findings recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Denial I move to deny the amended plat map application. Page 1 29 TOWN oF ESTES PARKL Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: August 18,2010 RE: ORDINANCE #19-10, A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing Background: This is a proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to clarify how density is calculated in the A-1 zoning district. This amendment: 1. Clarifies the difference between a bed and breakfast, a resort/lodge cabin (cabin style operation), and a small hotel; and 2. Removes a reference to EVDC Section 5.1.P for low-intensity resort lodges/cabins in the "A-1" zoning district. The Town Board prioritized this as a housekeeping item in the fall of 2009. Ordinance #19-10 is attached, which includes the proposed code amendments. This is the second reading by Town Board. The first reading occurred on July 27,2010. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: On June 15, 2010, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously, with one absent, to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Ordinance 19-10. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 19-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.1.P AND TABLE 4-5 RELATED TO A-1 ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.1.P and Table 4-5; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.1.P regarding Resort Lodge/Cabins set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of _ , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ORDINANCE 19-10 Exhibit A A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in 6/ke#:weugh-te*t. Â§ 4.4 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "-" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Otherwise Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES Â§5.1.B. In CD, such use shall Bed and _ _ _ _ not be located on the ground breakfast inns floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of Hotel, Small - P P - - - - a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue Low-Intensity Accommodations Â§5.1.B Vacation _ p p _ _ _ _ In CD, such use shall not be Homes located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. Resort lodge/cabins, -P----- 66+12 low-intensity July 27, 2010 1 C. Density and Dimensional Standards. 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Minimum Building/ Area per Minimum Lot Size [7] Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Accommodation Max. Lot or Cover- Bldg Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side Rear Height Max. age District (sq. ft. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) [9] FAR (%) Arterial = 25 [5]; A-1 10,890 [101 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets = 15 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1 01 Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be calculated as one residential dwellina unit for density purposes provided the lot does not contain detached units. In all other cases, each individual quest room in a B&B shall be calculated as on@ Quest room/unit. Â§ 5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS P. Resort Lodge/Cabins. A guest room or Unit contained in a resort lodge/cabin accommodations use may contain full kitchen facilities instead of the otherwise required "limited kitchen facilities" (see definition of "guest room" in Â§13.3), provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The guest room/unit is contained in a freestanding, detached "cabin" structure, and such structure contains no more than four (4) such guest rooms/units. 2. For purposes of permitted density/intensity calculations, all guest rooms/units with full kitchen facilities shall comply with a minimum five-thousand-four- hundred-square-foot land area per unit requirement, in lieu of the one- thousand-eight-hundred-square-foot requirement for accommodations units set forth in Table 4-5 of this Code. July 27, 2010 2 .. Â§ 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples 2. Accommodations, Low-Intensity. b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses: (4) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single ownership and management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained in a main "lodge" building and/or contained in detached, freestanding "cabin" structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four (4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of "limited kitchen facilities," but only if such guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in Â§5.1.P of this Code. Â§ 13.3 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, TERMS AND PHRASES 118. Guest Unit or Guest Room shall mean: a. A room or suite of rooms in an accommodations use that contains sleeping and sanitary facilities and that may include limited kitchen facilities. b. For purposes of this definition, "limited kitchen facilities" shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliances: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and one-half (31/2) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. July 27, 2010 3 r mmi TOWN of ESTES PARIÂ© -fn?*?y*.Â· . .pVÂ·-Â¢621<J.y *.Â·.Dg ,~4Â» 1, Memo ~4 t. 1~ 11{1:~.2...: 11% 2..~1 ~ j .4% If h - , I . e TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: August 19,2010 RE: Ordinance No. 20-10 Extension of the Wind Turbine Moratorium Background: On December 8,2009, the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 11-09 which extended the moratorium on the issuance of building permits or review of applications for building permits for wind turbines within the Town for a period of ninety (90) days. On March 9, 2010, the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 9-10 which renewed the temporary moratorium for one hundred seventy-five (175) days. On March 30, 2010 the Town Board adopted Ordinance No. 11-10 amending the Estes Valley Development Code to include regulations governing the installation, operation and location of micro wind energy conversion systems. On April 19, 2010, the Larimer County Commissioners adopted the same amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code governing micro wind energy conversion systems. On June 22, 2010, the Town Board reviewed but did not adopt amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission which would have regulated the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems. On July 13, 2010, the Town Board reconsidered its decision and remanded the regulations for small wind energy conversion systems back to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. On August 17, 2010, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regulating the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems. These amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code will be before the Town Board on September 14, 2010. Ordinance No. 20-10 extends the temporary moratorium on small wind energy conversion systems for ninety (90) days to allow sufficient time for review of the recommended changes to the Estes Valley Development Code by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. The moratorium only relates to small wind energy conversion systems and not micro wind energy conversion systems. Page 1 ... Budget: There are no budgetary implications. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 20-10 to extemd the temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits for small wind energy conversion systems within the Town of Estes Park. Sample Motion: I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 20-10. ORDINANCE NO. 20-10 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Board of Trustees adopted Resolution No. 15-09 imposing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit by the Community Development Department for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, On December 8,2009, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance No. 11-09 extending the temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town for an additional ninety (90) days; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2010, the Board of Trustees renewed the temporary moratorium through August 31, 2010 by adoption of Ordinance No. 09-10; and WHEREAS, on March 30,2010, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance No. 11-10 amending the Estes Valley Development Code to include regulations governing installation, operation, and location of micro-wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2010, the Larimer County Commissioners adopted the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regulating micro-wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2010, the Board of Trustees reviewed but did not adopt amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code which would have regulated the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2010, the Board of Trustees reconsidered its decision not to adopt amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code for the regulation, operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems and remanded the regulations for small wind energy conversion systems back to the Estes Valley Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2010, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended new amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code for regulating the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will hold a public hearing on September 14, 2010, for the purpose of determining whether to adopt, adopt with amendments, or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code for the regulation, operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, it is possible that more than one meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will be necessary for the Board of Trustees to determine whether or not to adopt amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code for the regulation of the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to extend the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for small wind energy conversion systems within the Town until such time as the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners have an opportunity to review the adoption of amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code for regulating the construction, location and operation of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 29-20-101 et. seq. C.R.S. known as the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has the power to extend the temporary moratorium NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: 1. The Board of Trustees hereby extends the temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit by the Community Development Department for the installation of any small wind energy conversion system within the Town of Estes Park including, but not limited to, the processing of any application for building permits filed with the Community Development Department for a period of ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Ordinance. 2. This renewal of the temporary moratorium shall take effect immediately upon the adoption of this Ordinance and continue for a period of ninety (90) days unless amended and/or terminated by further action of the Board of Trustees. ..4 WHEREAS, the immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town, and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of the Mayor or the Mayor ProTem. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1, hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2010, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 2010. Town Clerk A ./- TOWN oF ESTES PARIQ ENGINEERING Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, Public Works Director Date: August 24, 2010 RE: Resolution #09-10 - Appropriation of Matching Funds for Transportation Hub Grant Background: In 2010, the Town of Estes Park was awarded $956,000 by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAO) Fund This funding was received to construct a transit hub at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. To receive this grant, the Town is required to issue a resolution committing a match to these funds of $250,000 for a project total of $1.206 million. CDOT's fiscal year runs from July-June, so in order to receive these funds, it is necessary for the matching funds to be allocated from the 2010 budget and the resolution to be completed as soon as possible thereafter. In addition, it will be necessary to budget the entire projected cost of the project - $1.206 million - for 2011, as the grant will be issued as reimbursement of costs incurred. Budget 204-5400-544.35-52 Community Reinvestment $250,000 Fund balance after allocation: $1.366 M Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends allocating $250,000 from the 2010 Community Reinvestment Fund to meet CDOT CMAQ matching grant requirements. 21!TTA Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the allocation of $250,000 from the 2010 Community + . t......, ./* qi ... . . Reinvestment Fund to meet CDOT CMAQ matching grant requirements. 1,)1 t .Â· r. I RESOLUTION # 09-10 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park and the State of Colorado through the Colorado Department of Transportation negotiated an Estes Park Transportation Hub: US 36 (Transit Hub) Project for the purpose of providing funds from the State, which along with Town funds, will be used for the design and construction of a transportation hub at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds, off US 36 in Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Project require the Town authorize the expenditure of the Town's matching share of the cost of the Project by Resolution; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated by the Town in the 2010 Town Budget for the Town's matching share of the cost of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town of Estes Park hereby allocates $250,000 from the Community Reinvestment Fund for the Colorado Transportation (CDOT) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding of a transportation hub on US Highway 36 at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park. Dated this ,2010 Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk