Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2010-07-27f I l,rE Prepared 7/19/10 * Revised iMII * TOWN oF ESTES PARI© 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, July 27, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATION & CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION. Recognition of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 13, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 9, 2010 and July13, 2010. 2. Bills 3. Committee Minutes - None. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes June 16, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 2. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 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. CONSENTITEMS: A. 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. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: • Mayor - Open Public Hearing • Staff Report • Public Testimony • Mayor - Close Public Hearing • Motion to Approve/Deny. A. ORDINANCE #16-10, Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes - Public Hearing. B. ORDINANCE #17-10, Development Plan Expiration Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. C. A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/Public Hearing. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE 18-10 PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ORGANIC CONTRACT & POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT. Director Goehring. 2. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:41 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3052 ST. TIME 07/21 14:32 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 Board. 7-27-10 Good evening, On occasion, the thought may have crossed your mind as to what's in the water that I've been drinking. Apparently the answer would be tap water from the Finger Lakes area of New York State where I was born and raised and where you would find the newly instituted Freethought Trail; which "is a collection of locations in West-Central New York important to the history of freethought." This is from their website: In the 19~h century, West-Central New York was a hotbed of social, political, and religious innovation. Fayetteville suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage called religion the enemy of women. Writing from Elmira, Mark Twain raised irreverence to an American Art form. At Ithaca, Andrew Dickson White co-founded Cornell University, the nation's first secular institution of higher learning. In 1848 reformers and freethinkers of every strip thronged Seneca Falls to demand new roles for women. Corning native Margaret Sanger led the 20th century birth control movement. The birthplace museum of the famous orator, political speechmaker, and outspoken agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll is an anchor of West-Central New York's "Freethought Trail". Exploring the world around you and discovering its secrets, taking social morality to a higher *anci all-inclusive level, fighting off the dogma and ignorance of organized religion, and in general advancing humanity through logic, science, and the free expression of new ideas has long been a staple of life where I came from. From Thomas Paine to Susan B. Anthony to Carl Sagan, our heroes were those who opened our eyes to the bright light of truth and fought against those who would keep us on our knees. This brings me to the case of Alayna Wyland, a 7 month old girl with a mass of blood vessels growing on her forehead and slowly pushing her eye out of its socket. It's a nasty thing that would have been easily treated if her parents had taken her to a physician, but they didn't because their religion says the only accepted form of healing comes though prayer and anointing with oil. The State of Oregon has finally stepped in and removed the child from her parents but in their investigation they have found that the child mortality rate amongst this religious sect was 26 times normal. Young women and children are the casualties of this male dominated group of fools, and the United States congress and this board are complicit. Giving any kind of credibility to a magic man in the sky who has never alleviated one smidgen of human suffering only plays into the hands of the organized religions of this world who feed on it. It's no surprise that it was the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Church who pushed to have our Pledge desecrated. I f what I have to say makes anyone in this room angry; good ! Now channel that anger where it belongs; to the ignorance that suffers a 7 month old child. Sincerely, David Habecker A j I A i \/\ 11\ AA./ dE*-01Ak - 0 1-- U lj ,- ~918 Pdf, Estes Valley Partners for Commerce The Estes Valley Partners for Commerce is a local business organization that provides business to business resources, support, tools and networking opportunities to create a stronger business foundation for our Estes community. As Partners we want to assist local businesses to become stronger and more successful. A year in Review and look at the Year ahead; First let me say thank you for all those who have supported the Estes Valley Partners Commerce and our mission to work towards a business community working together to promote long term economic stability. Our Mission Statement: To provide resources and educational opportunities to support existing and future business in the Estes Valley. As we look back over the past year The Partners for Commerce made strides to create an organization that can assist with business community needs. Some highlights from the past year: Estes Valley Partners for Commerce 2009-2010 Accomplishments Organization: A great deal of effort was spent in the early months forming the structure of this non- profit organization. Met with all existing groups to facilitate open communication (CVB, LMD, EALA, Downtown Merchants, B&B) and to get feedback on the Partners role in the community. Member Education: There were several dynamic events held. Ron Rex a successful business owner, coach and Motivational Speaker seminar was held in May 2009. That was followed up by Social Media Networking Course held in June 2009. The year was started with a Business Planning Workshop Part I Part II Part III to get business started offto successful year. Business owners and manager were able to interact and get hands on instruction for developing a business plan, creating effective marketing, branding your business and tips to operate a financially sound business. Community Involvement: We spent much of our time assisting business in need from the downtown fire. We provided fire victims assistance; established a fund for victims and first responders; participated in Bucket Brigade effort; held three forums for fire victims; set up blog site for offers related to fire victims; worked with SBDC to facilitate assistance for fire victims. The Partners also had an integral involvement in Winter Festival planning team and worked the Winter Festival. Some additional items we brought to businesses was a town signage forum held in February and just recently held the first of many business luncheons the first one was Get to Know Your Town Trustees. To provide some additional business awareness a 'Buy Local' campaign was started with assistance of EP News. Member Communication & Networking: It all started with the organized member kickoffparty. Then Snowy Peaks Winery graciously hosted a wonderful after hours networking event. A new website initiated, member businesses listed on website with links and an all member survey was utilized to get valuable insight on what businesses are looking for. A Look Forward: The Partners for Commerce are looking forward to building on our first year. From survey results we received we are working on events and resources you have asked for. Some items to include: Business to Business luncheon series "Get to know your business neighbor while getting insightful information to propel your business". This will be a once a month event with topics and speakers that you can find useful for your business today. We have also started several committees to better serve our Mission. We are looking for people who want to participate and to assist in building a strong organization to support our local businesses. Committees are: Downtown Merchants, Membership, Special Events, Communications, Web Site enhancement Grant funding and Operations, We are also looking for member volunteers to assist with our business Welcome Wagon / ambassador program to assist new member businesses get a strong start with their business. A full schedule of classes and workshops to build your business is being prepared to start for the fall. Also in the fall there will be gala networking event that will be fun for all as the busy summer season winds down. We will be working closely with the Small Business Development Center to get hands on assistance for businesses looking for resources to improve their businesses. Let's all Partner together to build a strong organization for our Estes Valley business community Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 13, 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 13th day of July, 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 Xf> Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator< i~ Lowell Richardson, DeputyiroOVA Admini*trator Jackie Williamson, Town,Clefk 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. < \, \b>41% Distinguished Life-Saving Award - N,Chief-Kofeld presented Sergeant Pass with an official Distinguished Life-Saving Medal, and bar lb-be *ofh on his uniform, framed Certificate of Accommodation.and a plaqu~Wy,rfdogdition of his quick response and performance of CPR- on a-noh-respoRsive,visitor. -The Mayor and the Board of Trustees thanked S;rgdant PaA ¥ his service to the community. 11 PUBLIC COMMEN~R \. / ---3 1%~3, Bill Dardi~ylbwr~,Sitiz@njudstioh@El why ihe-ordinance considered by the Town Board at their last meet* cegardinb small wind turbines did not require a second reading. ///1 4%4 \ k \ Bill Van Horn/MacGr®or Ranch Board member stated the ranch received an emergehcy grant through.the Sthte*of Colorado to remove approximately 300 trees and over a 100*loads were d&®ered to the Town's disposal site. He thanked the Town for the service.proyided. Th@ ranch has received aid from NRCS to replace fencing with wildlife friendly fencing aRd have moved the fence back from the road right-of-way to provide room in thkfuture for a potential trail or sidewalk in the area. Mr. Van Horn also commended the Town and the Rodeo Committee for what he found to be the best rodeo he has attendkl. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. Trustee Koenig commented on the wonderful effort of the Rooftop Rodeo Committee this year. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 22, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 22, 2010. 2. Bills. Board of Trustees - July 13, 2010 - Page 2 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community DevelopmenUCommunity Services, June 24, 2010. B. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works, July 8, 2010. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. RMNP UPDATE ON COW CREEK FIRE. Public Information Officer Kyle Patterson updated the Board on the current conditions of the cow creek fire west of Glen Haven near Mount Dickinson. Smoke was first seen on June 24, 2010 in an areapht had not burned for 100s of years, and therefore, heavy fuel 109d€,existed. The fire was suppressed and contained on the eastern border and was left to burn toward the west because fire is a natural part of the,&04;st;m As of late last week the infrared flight showed no heat from the fih'due tolhh•cooler temperatures and rain condition; however, there coupititfbe hotspotskin*the area that may flare up in the future as weather conditions change. $2.3 million dollars have been expended on the fire to date. €The'park thanked town staff, EM D staff and staff at the school for their assistandeduring the *knt. \,> 2. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. €*«///f Trustee Miller stated the LMD~would be~th<hg a branding process to aid in developing a better marketil*plan>\ Trustee Ericson£stated the Stipporte®ot thed?erforming Arts (SOPA) are moving forward with.fheir prog~hs'for'the Reason to help raise funds for the theater. The0 gr6up has*also signed''a contract with a fundraising company to help with~¢e~art.~ ~ \\ Trustee Elrod stqted the-Planning.Contmission would like to look at additional methods-to imprbve0 communication between the Town Board and the lkommissid~t \\ . 4.<TOWN ADMINISTRATOR>REPORT. \May sales tax coll*tion Wah 2.49% worse than last year; however, the Town has*gained som@ground from last month with the year-to-date now 5% behind budget,versus 6.7%<reported after last month. 4. SIGN CODE. / Administrator'Halbumt stated the Town has been reviewing the sign code for approximately a year. A subcommittee consisting of a member of the Town Board, business owners and community members was formed to discuss the potential changes to the code. A local business owner and member of the task force requested the Town Board consider adopting the proposed changes to the banner portion of the sign code last December in an effort to provide opportunities for local businesses during the off season. Only the banner portion of the sign code has been enforced since February 2010 at the request of the Community Development Committee. Trustee Koenig commented on the unusual approach to only enforcing a portion of the sign code and not the entire code as it currently stands. The selective enforcement of the code has led to confusion in the business community. Board of Trustees - July 13, 2010 - Page 3 Trustee Miller stated the Committee recommended the balance of the current sign code not be enforced because a large portion of the code would most likely change, and therefore, business owners may incur unnecessary expense to come into compliance with an out of date code. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PROSPECT AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION. Director Zurn reviewed the project which consists of 2300 feet of roadway to be completely replaced, upgrades to water and electric in the area, and upgrades to the sanitation facilities. Project delays have occurred due to weather, sub-grade issues, sewer lines, gas line relocation, and MRI trailer arriving each Thursday and leaving on Fridays. The original funds budgeted for the project included $812,000 from STIP and $6&,000 from the hospital. The Board approved $704,031.77 including a 10%> contingency for the project, which was less than the engineers estimafe./Staff requests $40,000 to mitigate the poor sub-grade on the lower halfdf th!3 roadway. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (BIAckildrath<oenig) to approve an additional $40,000 for the project for a total projectbost of $744,031.71, and it passed unanimously. \\ 2. RECONSIDERATION OF SMALLWIND TURBINE REGULATIONS. Ron Norris/Chair Estes Valley Planhing Cgnimission requested'the Town Board reconsider regulations for snihu hind turbines because public opinion I has been strongly in fapx of regulations that go beyond standard setbacks and height limits, and the TBwn#Board an#d fhe County Commissioners have already enacted regulations; for, micro-wind turbines. Comments were also heard from Commissioner Hull, Tuckdkand PoO*npohl requesting the Board reconsider regulations; extend the/mordibriwE' and work with EVPC to develop code languA'gg that w®ldbAefitlhe.entire valley; a special review process was not included bechuse of the potential lack of consistency; the variance pr6cess could be usecbfdr installations that do not comply with the code; a'nd the Estes#alfey needs lo~have regulations that address the unique issues such:ks.viev¢ comdo- V W-4., h* F. ... -I./ ,/ yhdsespeakingwin favor of the Board reconsidering regulations, included Phil / / EdwardslPrdsident- bfohe Northend HOA, Bob Rising/President of the \¢ 1 Carriage Hills HOA>Joanna Darden/Town citizen, Corey LaBianca/Town F. citizen, Sand€11(nquist/Town citizen, Jay Heineman/County resident, and *Linda McCreery/County resident. Comments included the need for regplations to,brdserve the visual integrity of the northend; the Planning Conimission:s re6ommended regulations were reasonable and should be reconsiddrd©tfe moratorium should not be lifted until regulations are in place for*small turbines; and consideration should be given to all property owners including those adjacent to a property with a turbine. Bob Clements/County resident requested the Planning Commission review the setback regulations if the issue is to be reconsidered. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town Board remanded the regulations for small wind turbines to the Planning Commission to develop an appropriate review process. The recommended regulations did not include a review process. He also stated the Town Board adopted a policy recently outlining the individual Board members would support the vote of the Board. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to reconsider regulations for small wind turbine that include a public review process and reduced setbacks to allow more properties the right to have a wind turbine, and it passed with Trustee Blackhurst voting "No" Board of Trustees - July 13, 2010 - Page 4 3. ORDINANCE #15-10 LIFTING WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM. No action was taken by the Board because the Board agreed to reconsider regulations for small wind turbines. 4. RESOLUTION #08-10 OPPOSING PROPOSITION 101 AND AMENDMENTS 60 & 61. Administrator Halburnt stated the local special districts'meet after work hours to discuss the potential impacts on each entity and the community as a whole if the three issues are passed this November. A smaller subgroup met to discuss the process of informing the community of the impacts. Each entity has also discussed bringing forward a Resolution to their Board opposing the Proposition and Amendments to the Colorado Constitution. Finance Officer McFarland presented an overview of the effects of the issues as it relates to the Town. After further discussion, it was,Abved and seconded (BlackhursVEIrod) to approve Resolutio~/k)8710, and it 'passed unanimously. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSIOIt th It was moved and seconded (Ericsdn/Koenig) the To€n;Board go into Executive Session- For the plifpd;e of discussing. the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or<*ale of real, personal, or o~her property interest under C.R.S. Section 01414p2(4)(a) a;hd for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpos@'of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding Kind Coffee' under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(b), and it passed'unanirr,ously. N¢~ 9946 Mayor Pinkham called a·+5-minute brealuat 9:10*.m. pdor to entering into Executive Session. Xe»/ //nt \34 Mayor Pinkham freconvened the meeting at 10:34 p.m. from Executive Session whereupon he adjourhed the m%eting.at 10:34 b.m. -------2%/ / 8- £12.3 1 f William C. Pinkham » 4 \ 47 1 1 / 3 4\ N 11 1\ Jackie Willidmton, Town.Cldrk 13,3/ // RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 9, 2010 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the Estes Park Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the gth day of July, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Goehring, Utilities Engineer Bergsten, Superintendent Boles, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 9:00 a,th./ N ~ . th 44 I GLACIER CREEK WATER FACILITY UPGRADE./ b \ \ Sarah Clark/HDR reviewed the findings of.the 'phase 2 study that defined steps for permitting, design, construction of new Glacidg)reek wdter treatment »pl,Ant; develop schedule for Glacier Creek, evaluate distriBution sysfem, and provide budget cost estimates for all work, including planning, rate htutl¢ and budgeting over the next few years. Key findings of the study indidded the exteRsiv@<ork to be completed to rebuild Glacier Creek, the cost to rebuild>s@p*ecessary loicomplete rebuild by 2015, cost saving potential to reducing the waste#water. discharge feesiat both plants with a third stage treatment, and integrate distribdtidn impr&veAWnts intoan ongoing CP plan. /0 \V/\07 Test levels at the Glager Creek~ plant for cryptosporidium and giarda did not reach federal levels that**odld requife the To*h to upgrade its facilities in 2013; however, additional sampliAg#iheuld be r*(16ired in the4ear future that could trigger necessary upgrades to the systenlk / U..\ 0 1 The studyfound the distribution system would require improvements because the overall«system is lo¢on storkg,; especially low for fire flow delivery. There are also some b6ttlenecks in th¢syste?n to.be fixed and fire hydrants with small pipes that need to be ubgraded. HDR,Would recbmmend four additional tanks with an increase in storage o~ 1.48 million galtons at an estimated cost of $5.9 million, not including the purchase of land. Directbr~Goehring stated the storage recommended is an industry standard; hofveber, sto14]e of excess water that cannot be turned over often enough + 4*'m 9 would have to be.replated with fresh water, in essence wasting water. This issue is not of great concern to.staff. The bottlenecks in the system are of greater concern. Ms. Clark stated the colt to alleviate the bottlenecks would require new piping at an estimated cost of $520,000 and new valves at a cost of $350,000. This would allow water to be moved around the system more efficiently. Preliminary steps should be addressed for the replacement of the Glacier Creek treatment plant, including the evaluation and pilot 3rd stage treatment process at the Marys Lake plant, delineate flood plain, purchase necessary property, rezone property, and develop and implement a wildfire protection plan, wildlife protection plan, and drainage plan. HDR would make inquiries to determine if there are companies interested in providing a demo 3rd stage product at Marys Lake to determine its effectiveness at lowering discharge levels. Current FEMA maps do not delineate the area because a study has not been completed in the area. If the site is not usable due to the flood plain concerns, a new site would have to be established and property would need to be purchased. If the property can be used than there is some surveying that needs to be completed to identify exactly what property the town owns and what property would need to be purchased to connect all the properties as required by law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 9, 2010 - Page 2 Additional improvements to the site would include redevelopment of the headwall and pool to increase the size of the intake; however, the area should not be over improved in order to minimize the need for permitting and environmental irhpacts. A pipeline could be built from the East Portal to the Glacier plant if the Town determines additional water rights were needed at an estimated cost of $2.6 million. There could be the potential of cost sharing with the YMCA for this project. HDR would recommend the new plant consist of a 2-stage microfiltration membrane system to address the moderate risk for biological pathogens in the raw water source, minimize waste water and maximize water rights. The plant would need to produce 2.5 MGD by 2020 with expansion to 3.9 MGD by 2025. Ms. Clark reviewed the potential layout of a pretreatment building, membrane building, chemical storage building and clearwell. The new plant would require the purchase of a new membrane system, a new sewer line with a lift station, additional site work to accommodate chemical delivery trucks and fire trucks, improve road access, potential newjtf@lsformer, extension of Town LAN to site, and heat and backup power source.j,DiBdussion followed on the potential of locating a septic or a vault on the property in an effort to decrease discharge fees and eliminate the need to build an expensive sewer line\Ms. Clark stated a septic system would not be a viable option due to code.cortstrainls#ahd limited land area. Waste water discharge fees could be substantiall/debreased witfrabF? stage treatment from an estimated $1.3 million tap fee and $72%00 annual discharde.fees to $130,000 tap fee and $1,855 annual discharge fees. < / \\ \,> Director Goehring stated the cost of building 3.a'new*elequires the proposed site to be at the same elevation as the existing site and trM initallation of new piping, thereby increasing the overall cost. Staff tevikwed the potenti@.of pumping water to the Marys Lake facility and determined the pu}npihg.fRes would Be too expensive and there would be a loss of redundancy 3:system.~~i~~~~~:~\3 HDR reviewed the optioh of using natural gas tomeat the plant and as a back-up energy supply. The curren¢line in the'arha woul& re®ire an upgrade and coordination with the YMCA at a cost gf'$365,000 for hdat only &bith,a diesel back-up generator and $500,000 for heat and a stAndby generat8ri Cost shhring could be an option with the YMCA for the upgrade. Trust@ekliller,suggeited'altern**es such as solar panels, heat pump or propane generators shbuid'be considered..g> The,eftimated cost-0/bonsfruction of a new facility in 2014 is $22.5 million. The costs are dri;en by the nar?oWbodd~*shitped lot, major site renovations, sewer and gas lines, temporary treatment and;AV~ote~site. Director Goehring stated staff chose 2015 as a target date because the current filters in the building would need to be replaced that year at a castbf $500.000'. j 1 7/ The Board stated:discussions should begin with the YMCA to determine their needs for water, sewer, natli?a!,das and if they would be willing to sell land to the Town for the new facility. An estimated cost should be obtained for the delineation of the flood plain. Director Goehring stated the financial plan would review the cost and potential rate increases necessary to pay for each portion of the improvements to the water system. The distribution system should be addressed first in order to obtain full potential of the Marys Lake plant. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 13, 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 13~h day of July, 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 and Joseph, Mgr. Fortini, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5.05 p.rn., 1~\~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION. Dan Corson/Office of Archaeology and Historic.Preservation Colorado Historical Society (CHS) reviewed historic preservation in Colorad6. He stated there'are currently 113 governmental entities in Colorado with HistirictPreservation Ordinances (HPO), all are different to address specific local issuest hnd they ,&re either Ce'rtified Local Governments (44 of 113) or non-certified. He stated 4there are grant funds available through the Colorado Historical S¢iety)o facilitaiewth* writing of a HPO. All but one Historic Preservation Commission is gtaffed.by at least ohe employee of the entity. The Commissions range in size from »2'9, Board members. The most restrictive communities are those with the highe'st land values»He revibwed several provisions of a potential ordinance and stated sevetal kexaMpl@&"arkavailable on the CHS website. Property owners in a,liistoric•p?eservatibrtlreh are required to go through the design review but are not,rdquited to phrticipate. Property values for those included in a district general increase'because they,Ard protect@di'however, property can only be developed for their intended Os@4and not the speculativkuse, thereby limiting future use of the proper'N -~~+- *-·>·,' ~'~ -'~"U/2~f Mr. Codson revibwed,a preJotation on Certified Local Governments (CLGs). They work in.rpartnership Wh#the'CFIS and the National Park Service and are evaluated everyif@ur years. A CLG*must'm*Intain a qualified ordinance that outlines the criteria for designation and desibnjrevieviform a Historic Preservation Commission, enforce the ordinance,-jmaintain ii system for surveying and inventory of historic properties within your jurisdiction, r&®ired to comment on national register nominations, design standards and dedisionbrtust be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of histor€properties, submit minutes to CHS at the same time they are distributed to commi§sion members, final annual report for the state fiscal year by August of each year, provide public access to minutes, one commission member must attend an educational session or workshop each year and Commission must meet 4 times per year. The benefits of forming a CLG include the entities eligibility for matching grants, 10% of CHS's annual federal allocation must be passed through to CLG through subgrants which are augmented with State Historic Fund grants, and local designations are eligible for tax credits. Board questions included the following: could an individual apply for a tax credit without an HPO or the establishment of a CLG; how much time do staff members spend implementing the program; and would the Commissioners have to be town residents. Mr. Cordson stated a property could apply for a tax credit if it is on the national registry. Most communities do not have a full time employee implementing the HPO. They utilize a staff member from the planning department that spends only a portion of their work RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - July 13, 2010 - Page 2 load on historic preservation. The make-up of a commission is dependent on the language in the ordinance. A discussion followed amongst the Board on how to move forward with the issue. Trustee Miller suggested drafting an ordinance for the community to review. Trustee Blackhurst questioned whether or not there is a community need and further discussion should occur prior to drafting an ordinance. Trustee Levine stated there should be community interest before moving forward with an ordinance. Trustee Koenig voiced concern that a HPO may utilize too much staff time, the need to get public input and a concern with the ordinance moving from voluntary to mandatory in the future. Trustee Ericson stated the Board should move forward with an ordinance, and should have a community core of volunteers take on the issue in order to minimize staff time. Trustee Elrod stated the issue in not need based but opportunity based, little to no staff time would be involved and the Town should move forward. Mayor Pinkham stated drafting an ordinance would be a worthwhile effort. Administrator HalburrIt recommended the Board consider a subgroup of volunteers to develop a draft**lance that could be presented to the Board and the public for review and commek/After further discussion, the Board reached consensus to have a volunte*r group develop a draft ordinance for the Town Board's review prior t€movinD\forward with public hearings. SIGN CODE. 424/ \~ This item would be discussed during the fown Board meeting as a report item and /h . 2 Board discussion. ., 7/ There being no further business, Mayoffinkham adjou?ned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. r \\.J\~ /jackieWilliamson, Town Clerk / // h) li E # \ \ . 2 \ 1% V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 15, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Vice-Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners John Tucker; Alan Fraundorf, Doug Klink, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Vice-Chair Hull; Commissioners Tucker; Fraundorf, Lane, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, 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. The meeting of the Planning Commission on June 15, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. was continued to 6:00 p.m. on the same date. Chair Norris reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. There were 16 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT a. Fred Mares/Town Resident read a statement from the Association for Responsible Development (ARD) about the need for a land use plan. He thanked the Commission for taking a leadership role in reviewing the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and offered ARD's assistance if requested. Mr. Mares also expressed appreciation for the amount of discussion that occurs at study sessions and meetings. b. Johanna Darden/Town Resident shared a concern about the speed of traffic on MacGregor Avenue north of Highway 34. Director Joseph directed her to the Public Safety Committee and/or the Town Board to express her concerns. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes from May 18, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Poggenpohl) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. REPORTS a. Staff-Level Reviews 1. None b. Pre-application Meetings 1. Director Joseph reported that Eagle's Crest Resort on Highway 66 is still progressing. 2. Director Joseph reported the Building Division received a permit application from Safeway for their fueling facility. c. Town Board and County Commission decisions on applications reviewed by Planning Commission 1. Hall Condominiums Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps were approved by Town Board. d. Other Reports 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Director Joseph reported that PUDs bring flexibility, detail, and creativity where existing regulations may be a barrier to new development. After several discussions on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 June 15, 2010 PUDs during study sessions, Director Joseph thought the Commission was at a point to begin focusing on iterns that would provide some definition of the physical result that a PUD process could yield. He stated any PUD code amendments shouldbe tailored to address local needs. One of those needs is in the Commercial Downtown (CD) and Commercial Outlying (CO) zoning districts. The CD district currently has a 200% floor area ratio and no,parking requirements, while the CO district has a 25% floor area ratio and a parking requirement intended to serve customers that are completely detached from any pedestrian circulation. Currently, on the fringes of the CD zoning district, there are some areas that are prime redevelopment areas, and also various types of commercial parcels that have the potential to feed off the downtown area. The current zoning code does not recognize that potential. The PUD process could be a way to address broperties on those zone-district borders that could eventually plu~ into the pedestrian traffic and parking opportunities. The central notion in the Comprehensive Plan is that high density and highly active commercial activity areas should be located in the core of the valley. Director Joseph stated the Town is on the verge of seeing new and substantial infrastructure geared toward public transit, along with extehsive improvement in pedestrian connections along the rivers. These changes in the physical environment present opportunities for redevelopment. Commissioners Poggenpohl and Tucker agreed with Director Joseph on the potential for PUDs. Commissioner Tucker cautioned the Town against asking for components that may be too expensive for the developer to proceed with the project. Commissioner Lane stated in some cases, what the Town government wants and what the community wants are in opposition to each other. It would be important to Commissioner Lane for any project to be supported by the Town government and the community. Commissioner Tucker stated his desire to explore the possibilities of what could be done with Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Chair Norris stated code language from several other communities is available for public review in the Community' Development Department. He asked the' Planning Commission to contemplate what positive results they would like to achieve through a PUD code amendment as well as items they would like to avoid. Chair Norris requested comments from the Commission and the public be heard at the next meeting. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00-07D - Marys Lake Lodge Amended Development Plan, Lot 3, Marys Lake Replat Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a proposed amendment to an approved development plan. The proposed project is located in the Marys Lake Lodge area. The existing plan calls for a three-unit structure to be built north of the lodge. The proposed plan would allow a twelve-unit accommodations structure, with a parking garage and banquet hall in this same location. The applicant desires to amend the existing plan from three accommodation units to a "Reunion Hall" with twelve accommodation units and a meeting facility. The specific changes include a different fo6tprint and pafking layout. There are currently 12 approved parking spaces in this area. Changes include a larger footprint and reducing the 12 parking spaces to eight, but augmenting parking by adding 17 spaces in a proposed lower-level parking garage. The finished floor elevation for the proposed plan would be higher than the current approved plan. The property is zoned A-Accommodations, and the proposed use is allowed in this district. This being the last segment of this development, staff has reviewed the entire site for compliance. One of the issues discovered during this review wAs the location of the loading and service docks. The revised plan shows the loading dock being moved to the other side of the building from its current location; howeve'r, a variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment would be necessary to construct the loading dock so close to the property line. A portion of the unused public utility easement would also need to be vacated. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 June 15, 2010 Planner Shirk stated the EVDC requires sidewalks to be at least five-feet wide along the full length of a building fagade that features a customer entrance. The proposed parking spaces do not allow for the required sidewalk. The applicant proposed to change the surface of the parking area to differentiate from vehicle areas. It would be visually separated, and act as a shared parking/sidewalk space as an attempt to have pedestrian access. Director Joseph believed this was a valid concept. Staff suggested the building either be redesigned to meet this code requirement, or the drive aisle along the western fagade be designed to be visually attractive and distinguishable from other driving surfaces. Planner Shirk stated the density calculations provided by the engineer were accurate and indicated enough land area was available for this amended development plan to be in compliance with the EVDC. Planner Shirk stated zone district 'A" has allows maximum lot coverage of 50%. The applicant requested to discount the "green roof' area from the lot coverage calculations. Based on the definition of lot coverage in the EVDC, Town Attorney White commented this waiver would not be allowed. Therefore, the site would need to be redesigned to reduce the amount of lot coverage. Permeable pavers would be allowed under the code, and staff suggested the site be redesigned to use this type of lot coverage. Director Joseph stated previous projects have been approved as green space using this type of permeable paver. Community Development staff would review the entire Marys. Lake Lodge landscaping plan. Planner Shirk stated a letter of credit would be required to ensure completion of all landscaping, and reviewed what a letter of credit entails. The letter of credit must be in place prior to the issuance of any building permits. The proposed landscaping plan would need to be revised to accurately depict the parking layout, remove landscaping from in front of the compact parking spaces, account for access to the laundry room, and provide for site-triangle issues with the parking garage. Staff recommended the existing willow grove be augmented with additional plantings. Planner Shirk stated a cost estimate review for the entire Marys Lake Lodge development and the proposed landscaping would be required by staff prior to approval of the development agreement. Planner Shirk stated the approved Development Plan for Marys Lake Lodge requires a total of 218 parking spaces distributed throughout the site. The applicant indicated there would be 191 spaces on the site. The EVDC allows for intermingling with parking spaces for accessory uses. To account for the shortage of spaces, the applicant submitted two off-site parking agreements covering a ten-year period. Because the off-site locations are more than 300 feet from the site, a shuttle service would be required. The EVDC does not account for parking spaces for compact vehicles, and the applicant has requested a minor modification to allow these spaces. Planner Shirk stated the initial development plan had an approved stormwater plan for the entire subdivision, with the entire site draining into the existing detention ponds. Planner Shirk stated the applicant had submitted an addendum to the original stormwater plan, which indicated the additional stormwater flow from the increase in impervious coverage would be negligible; thus, the existing stormwater detention facility would suffice. The addendum did not specify how the stormwater would reach the detention ponds. An existing sewer line would need to be re-routed and tied into a proposed eight-inch main. The new building would require a new eight-inch main to connect to the existing main in the Promontory Drive right-of-way. Planner Shirk stated an existing water service line and four-inch main would need to be re-routed to the laundry room. Staff suggested the applicant include stormwater and underground utility details on the construction plans prior to submitting the application for building permits. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 June 15, 2010 The submitted ISO calculations indicated adequate fire flow was available. No additional fire hydrants would be required, and there would be adequate access for the fire department apparatus on the east and west sides of the building. Planner Shirk stated that due to the hei#ht of the structure, the applicant would be required to sprinkle the building. Planner Shirk stated the original Marys Lake Lodge development plan included a comprehensive traffic impact analysis. The most recent traffic analysis was completed in 2009. The proposed application would add 325 vehicle trips to the 2009 analysis, and staff determined the existing traffic improvements would suffice for this amendment to the plan. Planner Shirk stated the applicant currently has several building permits in various §tages of completion. Staff recommended no new building permits be issued until all issues with the outstanding permits have been resolved. Planning Commission could determine whether or ndt these unresolved permits should be (A) finalized; (B) addressed through an action plan; or (C) addressed by voting for a continuance of the current propogal. Scott Zdm, Director of Public Works stated he would like to receive additional information from the- applicant concerning the drainage-plan for the area. He stated there appeared to be a fair amount of water coming into this site, both fronf surface drainage and possibly some ground water. Plahner Shirk explained that the Planning Commission was the decision-making body for this development plan amendment. 1 Public Comment: 1. Frank Theis, owner of CMS Planning and Development, spoke as the representative for the applicant. He stated drainage plans were created for the original development plan that included the entire mountainside and were updated at every step of developm-ent. The proposed amendment is the final segment of the development. He assured tfie Planning Commission that all loose ends would be resolved. Mr. Theis explained there -are several different types of issues to address in resolving the outstanding building permits, but none are structural, or life-safety issues. Mahy have to do with completing the landscaping. An entire inventory of the site will be taken and completed. Mr. Theis stated he would address all drainage issues with the building plans. Concerning off-site parking, he stated Marys Lake Lodge has acquired an extended and covered six-person golf cart to shuttle guests. The off-site parking would be primarily for employees and special events, rand guests would be directed to park in that area. He stated there was more than adequate parking available for smaller events, with 50 spaces available for accessory uses. Buses bringing in large groups would be directed to the off-site parking locations. Mr. Theis stated the parking garage would function properly. He asked Chair Norris for the right to address any public concerns from the opponents at the end of the public comment session. 2. Don Debey/Applicant stated the approximate occupancy of the ballroom was 200-225 people, but he does not expect more than about 125 people per event. His priority in parking is providing space for the rental units and condominium owners. The employees would use approximately half of the off-site parking spaces. He stressed -the-importhnce of having guests for the events park in designated areas so as not to create prdblems for renters and owners. He explained that the road below the Peaks building becomes a one-way access behind the building to help with fire access, and he was considering fnaking it a formal fire lane with no stopping or standing allowed. He suggested installing signage during the high season to designate the road beginning at Unit 19 A-B be reserved for Peaks, North Wing, and hotel room guests only, as well as deliveries and passenger drop-off and pick-up. He stated the wedding coordinator would instruct guests where-they would be allowed to park. Any shuttle buses would be directed to unload at the garage level and guests would be asked to use the elevator to the ballroom. What appears to be the main entrance is really a small lobby for the guest suites. Ideally, the people using the ballroom would also be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 June 15, 2010 staying in the rental units. Mr. Debey stated destination wedding locations tend to bring in fewer vehicles than the typical wedding, and did not consider parking a big issue. 3. Lauren Scott/Marys Lake Lodge condominium owner was not opposed to the proposal as long as it was properly managed. She stated the current parking situation in the upper area is intolerable, especially during busy weekends. She was concerned that guests would use the lobby area intended for the guest suites as the main entrance, rather than entering through the garage. She was concerned about the size of the building in the proposed location and incomplete or damaged landscaping. Ms. Scott expressed concern about repair requests not being addressed and other unfinished construction on the property. 4. Johanna Darden/Town Resident raised concerns about the required variance and the easement vacation. Planner Shirl< explained the reasoning behind those requirements that were previously discussed. She thought this area was being overdeveloped and that parking would be a continual problem. 5. Janet Lineger/Lodgehouse owner was opposed to the front entrance to the ballroom, stating the roadway in front of the entrance was very narrow and inadequate. She added there was a problem with the current parking situation. 6. Frank Theis/CMS Planning and Development stated the elevation of the west side of the building is higher than the currently approved building height. The proposed ridgeline of the new building is less than a full floor above the existing garage. Public comment closed. Commission and Staff Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf was concerned about the potential for congestion and the practicality of the issue of the entrance adjacent to the narrow roadway. Commissioner Lane agreed with Commissioner Fraundorf. He thought the traffic issue could improve if the building design was reworked. Frank Theis clarified that the Lodgehouse was required to have two spaces, the Peaks 11 spaces, and the rear parking of the north wing units seven spaces, for a total of 20 parking spaces. There are currently 30 spaces provided. Don Debey stated the reason for the entrance on the west side was to accommodate those guests using the outdoor wedding site to the south of the building. The area between the outdoor wedding site and the building needs to be pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Lane expressed frustration with the incomplete review materials and last-minute revisions that hindered his review. Commissioner Hull did not support this amendment to the development plan. Although the parking situation was code compliant, she thought the parking situation would continue to be an issue. Commissioner Tucker stated people bought units in that development with the original plan in mind, not the proposed development with a larger footprint and a different use. In the past, the Planning Commission has been very protective of property owner's rights, and he was concerned that the amendment was changing the property from the original plan in regards to density. Commissioner Poggenpohl was frustrated about the incomplete packet. He suggested continuing the proposal to allow the applicant time to submit a complete and accurate plan. Chair Norris stated this amendment was a permitted use on the site. He expressed concerned about the old permits that have not been finalized. He would like clarification on how the shuttle plan would work, and also accurate drainage and stormwater plans. He supported a continuance of the project RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 June 15, 2010 It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Tucker) to continue Development Plan 00- 07D, Marys Lake Lodge Amended Development Plan, to the August 17, 2010 meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - A-1 DENSITY CLARIFICATION Director Joseph stated this proposed amendment is to remove an unnecessary reference to Section 5.1.P of the Estes Valley Development Code for low-intensity resort lodges/cabins in the - "A-1" zone district, and to provide clarification to the density calculation in the "A-1" zone district. Specifically, it addressed the difference between a bed and breakfast and a cabin-style operation or a small hotel. In an effort to simplify the language, the proposed amendment states "Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be calculated as one residential dwelling unit for density purposes provided the lot does not contain detached units. In all other cases, each individual guest room in a B&B shall be calculated as one guest room." Director Joseph stated the Commission agreed on the intent of the amendment at the previous Planning Commission meeting, only continuing the item so this new definition could be written. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed amendment to Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in Exhibit "A", and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 16, 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 16th day of June, 2010. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, Little, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPURA Executive Director Richardson and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Commissioners Little and White Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. Commissioner Wilcocks noted that the grandstands at the fairgrounds are coming along well and that he is looking forward to the ribbon cutting/grand opening on June 30th. MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held May 19, 2010, were approved. RESOLUTION #395 - AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF EPURA ASSETS, RIGHTS, AND LIABILITIES TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. In preparation for the abolishment of EPURA on July 26, 2010, and on advice from Attorneys Benedetti and White, staff researched property easements that were held in EPURA's name. Four easements were located that remain to be transferred to the Town of Estes Park. A Special Warranty Deed was prepared, replacing the Quit Claim Deeds included in the original meeting packet, to transfer these easements. Resolution #395 authorizes the transfer of all EPURA assets, rights, and liabilities to the Town of Estes Park, including property of any kind, and contracts. Executive Director Richardson stated that the attorneys had made minor revisions to the resolution that was included in the original packet, and read the changes into the record. If the resolution is approved by EPURA, no additional action is required on the part of the Town Board to formalize the acceptance. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blume/Wilcocks) to approve Resolution #395 as amended transferring EPURA assets, rights, and liabilities to the Town of Estes Park, and it passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND REPORTS. 1. Financial Update - Finance Officer McFarland reviewed EPURA's financial activity stating that the property tax increment received as of May 31, 2010, totals $89,569, exceeding the original 2010 budgeted amount of $20,400. In addition, EPURA has spent $1.24 million on capital projects as of May 31 st, $386,000 of which are Town funds which were allocated to the Grandstands Project. Upon the abolishment of EPURA, any cash balance and existing bills will be transferred to the Town. Finance Officer McFarland will take care of details related to closing out EPURA accounts and depositing property tax increment monies received in the future. 2. Grandstands Proiect Update - The project is currently 93% expended and in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - June 16, 2010 - Page 2 week 34 of a 34 week project schedule. The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on June 11 in time for the Wool Market. The contractor was given an additional eight days to complete the project and to address items included on a punch list compiled by Public Works Director Zurn. Due to scheduling difficulties with the metal siding, the fagade material was changed from metal to wood siding, with input from the ad hoc committee, and is currently being installed. The contractor will be concentrating on punch list items and items of concern such as water leakage in the bleacher area. When cleaning the bleachers, a large percentage of water leaks through the seating area. The manufacturer is working with the contractor and staff to resolve this matter. Approximately $89,000 of the construction contract will be retained until completion of the punch list is accomplished. Mgr. Winslow reported that the arena has been restored and is in good condition for the season. 3. Facade Improvement Program Update - Letters were sent to property owners with approved fagade improvement program applications reminding them of the July 1St deadline for reimbursement requests. As of this date, reimbursements in the amount of approximately $30,000 remain outstanding. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting 8:25 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk TOWN of ESTES IARI€_ 99M~Mistration clifl Memo :, -.>ha TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: July 21, 2010 RE: Grandstand Project Update Background: Summarv Substantial completion of the grandstand project was achieved June 11, 2010. Since that date the public grand opening and dedication was carried out on June 30, 2010. The building department issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or (T.C.O.) June 11, 2010 and the facility has operated under that status to date. It is anticipated the Certificate of Occupancy or (C.O.) will be issued within the next two weeks dependent on the final walk through and approval. A punch list of items requiring work was produced by the project team one month ago. As of today the vomitoriums require completion. After the Rooftop Rodeo staff met to address items and issues discovered during this heavy use of the new facility. A list of items (see attached list) requiring attention by the contractor was developed and sent to Taylor-Kohrs. Staff has not scheduled a final walk through until Taylor-Kohrs can respond to the list. Budget: There are four main components to the project budget: 1) General Contractor 2) Architect Project Manager 3) Concessions 4) Miscellaneous Costs The general contractor and the architect exceeded approved budgeted amounts for this project while the concessions contractor and the Town staff remained under the approved budgeted amounts for their portion of the overall project. Much of these overruns are contributable to design changes and dealing with unknown issues at the Fairground site. These unknown changes had direct impact on other components of the project increasing overall project costs. Pay application #9 was processed last week the amount due was $98,445.51 this leaves a retainage amount of $35,991.75 to be paid once all staff items and issues are addressed by the contractor. Project Totals to date: EPURA Contribution $1,218,425 Town of Estes Park $1,200,000 Total Approved Budget $2,418,425 Taylor-Kohrs $1,800,408.75 Thorn & Associates $196,279 Demolition $71,835 Westover Construction $33,326 Misc. Expenses $217,164 To date total $2,319,012.75 Balance $99,412.30 Other work -$50,000 Estimated Balance $49,421 The balances reflected include outstanding amounts owed to the general contractor all other vendors owed have been paid. Change Orders Total submitted change orders submitted by Taylor-Kohrs is: $165,396 Total changes by Architect: $121,479 Total project change orders: $286,875 Concession Stands Completed costs of the concessions stand was $33,326 the original bid was $33,000 which was $17,000 less than the approved budget. Other Work to be Completed 1. Landscaping along Manford Ave. 2. Install concrete finish to vendor area 3. Drainage for bleacher wash downs (required by state) Estimated cost $50,000 Staff Recommendation: NA Sample Motion: N/A Attachment Staffs Punch List for contractor and Architect 1. Water leaks in office space 2. Family restrooms door locks not working 3. Trim boards receiving heavy water during bleacher wash downs must correct. 4. Paint on railings bi VIP seating is coming off. 5. Lights in entry way for both men's and women's bathroom not working correctly. 6. Lighting issues for arena. Lights are creating a shadow line which is a design issue. 7. Exhaust fans for bathrooms do not shut off. 8. Paint handicap signage 9. Hole in gutter at south eats location of roof. 10. Need to caulk around concession vent in bleacher area. 11. Drainage issue when bleacher wash down occurs at S.E. location of building. 12. Need to provide drainage covering underneath the bleachers. 13. Downspout connection to floor drain on both east and west end of facility is poor quality. The downspouts leak on people sitting in the VIP chairs. 14. Downspouts throughout the building leak. 15.Vomitorium leakage. 16. Stress cracks on concrete between lines F&G between bleachers and VIP area extending out from adjoining column. Staff's Punch for Items not in Original Contract 1. Keys for ticket sale booth. 2. Trash cans for all offices in building 3. Probably need a security window for ticket booth. 4. Blinds for office windows. 5. Family restrooms need FRP throughout exposed drywall receiving water damage from basic use. 6. Air conditioner not adequately cooling concession area may need to add one more vent or add another cooling unit. 7. Need a separate outlet for concession microwave when it shares with the other appliances it pops the breaker. 8. Frame out small storage pads underneath bleachers. 9. Bleachers don't clean correctly due to type of grooved floor design. 10. Box seating numbering system needs improvement. 11. Sound system requires additional work with outside vendors, i.e. Rodeo announcer. 12. Storage closet for staff does not work it is not big enough for mop and bucket to fit in utility/mechanical room. 13. Need to add siding to the entry ways for each of the bathrooms. They are opened and exposed to the westerly winds which will pile up with snow during winter months. 14.A sand epoxy for entry way of both bathrooms is recommended less likely for people to slip. 15. Need to add a smooth FRP to bathroom wall under hand dryer current surface retains dirt and staff cannot get all dirt off the textured FRP. 7/22/2010 Final Report 0 GRANDSTAND PROJECT Why New Grandstand 0 • Fifty year old facility • Public Safety Hazard • Benefits to improve current building not financially prudent • Retain current users and attract new users • Part of Master Plan for Stanley Fairground Improvements 1 7/22/2010 F + I ; ™ 43- 1-* Grandstand Facility *4 Construction Project at uint project het" een EPI TILA Stanley Fairgrounds an d Torilk 0128 tes , Parl- 126 1 4 , 2 Project Arelitteet . - ., 9%=-2 - i - 1.- Thorraud AE·Sof'btl-!i- 83454 * 'Trf·¥1»11 4 . · - -1 - Stl'..1-4..... 1 - --3 -1-.->10,0 F*' 4- 1 Ountractor-Tailor- i 6. L .' 11-2'3;'T' *. ' /01112,4 . 44,43*WAO ~ 4 Prl,Ject 19,9.9 Manige-ment 1 liorp, and 4# AspocinteE, Town T ~' ~ Engineer, Fairgi i :un IIL €15 inaliager and $2,418,4-25 , EPUPA 5lliff- 1 . Project Contributions 0 • EPURA $1,218,425 • Town of Estes Park $1,200,000 2 e.i 7/22/2010 Project Components 0 3% 8% 696-11916 r. r..€.r 13%1 g.\\Itt>/ . • Design m Construction ...1 m Micellaneous 2 1.- • Change Orders 4- I • Demolition • Concessions .. 69% Budget vs. Actuals 0 Budget - Actual Variances Grandstand Construction $1,635,012 ($1,635,012) -0- Changes Orders $73,000 $165,532 ($92,532) Sub-Totals $1,708,012 51,800,544 ($92,532)* Demolition $35,500 $71,835 ($36,335) Supplemental Items $350,113 $217,164 $132,949 Concessions $50,000 $33,326 $16,674 Architecture Fees $74,800 $196,279 ($121,479)* Sub-Totals $510,413 $518,604 ($100,723) Adjusted Totals $2,218,425 $2,319,148 ($100,723) *Supplemental Appropriated Funds: $200,000 $100,723* $99,277 Adjusted Project Costs: $2,418,425 $2,319,148 $99,277 3 7/22/2010 Project Overruns 0 • Construction ($92,532) • Demolition ($36,335) • Architect ($121,479) • Total Overruns ($250,346) Construction Components 0 2000000 1500000 i000000 -Budge -Actual 4 500000 -Variance 0 *.- I e . 00 2 r . 2 ·460 <001 0 03 23> 2 2 2 c,49* d' -5OOOOQ:>- d#>- <091 180, 4?f' 4¢?>1 4 is Title 7/22/2010 What's Left 0 • Punch List Items • Staffs Punch List • Final Walk Through with Contractor and Architect QUESTIONS 0 5 TOWN or ESTES PARI<L 0 Memo Community Development TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: July 21, 2010 RE: AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 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. Background: 167 East Elkhorn, LLC has submitted an amended plat application to clean up property records for a property located downtown at the corner of East Elkhorn Avenue and Park Lane, adjacent to the Virginia Drive parking lot. Deeds currently describe this property using three separate metes-and-bounds descriptions. This plat will create one legal description for the entire property. *ii£'ill'# 1 ir - 1 -f --.-- . Budget: -64 ~t2~140'2~Ip 6 i Vili' + I. N/A .d.7/2., IR.Re/Mil '' .RUL 130/941'Of ..9 4- r=k,4.b Planning Commission Recommendation: ---- On May 18, 2010, the Planning .e.-8 :M- I 1~57 z c 20mrnelld applfkhhe Yntnded ·'r T,3'U~ P \ ~0**p#* h'' 0 plat application to the Town Board. f firrif, 6 '.16,1 -t=,1.e, , 4.h f lili.4 The applicant has made minor !1_,ef/--* revisions to the plat to satisfy all the i ' '- ' . ' . £t ./ conditions recommended by planning * .,h, i ~ 1 Commission. t.16 4 A . A .. Sample Motion: Approval I move to approve the amended plat application with the findings and conditions recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Denial I move to deny the amended plat map application. Page 1 TOWN oF ESTES PARI© Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director J Date: July 27, 2010 -3 RE: Ordinance #16-10 - Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow townhomes - Public Hearing. Background: This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would allow townhome subdivisions in the A and A-1 Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhome subdivisions are allowed only in the RM Multi-Family Residential district. Townhome subdivisions allow construction of townhome units in rows of at least three and no more than eight units. Each unit is located on its own platted lot of at least 2,000 square feet in size. The owner of a townhome unit also owns the lot on which the townhome is situated. Currently, the townhome style of development, i.e. rows of three or more units, is permitted in the A and A-1 districts in a condominium ownership form. In condominiums, the land under each unit is owned in common with all unit owners. This proposed code amendment was initiated in response to a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible. The draft code amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled April 20, 2010 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, one absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to Sections 4.3 and 4.4, as delineated in "Exhibit A: Townhomes." Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed amendment to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in Exhibit "A: Townhomes." ORDINANCE NO. 16-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND SECTION 4.4 NONRESIDNETIAL ZONING DISTRICTS REGARDING TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.3 and Section 4.4; 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, Sections 4.3. and 4.4 regarding townhomes 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 Exhibit A: Townhomes FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in G¢Fike#wew+-te*t. § 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 4. Homeowner Association Required. A\\ Rew townhome developments containing five (5) or more dwolling units shall be required to establish a mandatory Homeowner Association for the maintenance of common property (including private open areas) within the development. § 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 Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO ~ O CH 1-1 Unless Otherwise Stated) RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Townhome Household Living dwellinq ; 44.3.[)4 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 BuiINing/ Area per Minimum Lot Size [7] Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Accommodation Max. Lot or Bldg Cover- Zoning Residential Unit Area Width Front Side . Rear Height Max. age District · (sci. ft. per unit) (dq ft) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.)- (ft.) (ft.) [9] FAR (°/0) Accommodation Arterial Unit =1,800 [1]; A Residential Units: 40,000 [2] = 25 15]; 15 [6] 100 [3] All other 10 [6] 30 N/A 50 SF = 9,000; 1111 streets = L121 2-Family = 6,750; 15 MF = 5,400 Arterial .20 15,000 [2] = 25 [5]; 15 A-1 10,890 50 [3] All other 10 30 £121 30 011 streets = £121 15 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [111 Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet: however, each individual townhome unit mav be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum densitv of 8 dwellina units per acre of net land area in the "A" district or 4 dwellina units per acre of net land area in the "Ad" district. [1 21 Zero side vard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome developments. [131 Townhome developments in the "Ad" district shall be limited to a cumulative FAR of .20 per subdivision. TOWN OF ESTES PARK_ Memo LIFT;Trmrrill~"Trm r;131*HY,liTI - TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director 4025 Date: July 27, 2010 RE: Ordinance #17-10 - Development Plan Expiration Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. Background: This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would expire development plan approvals three years from the date of plan approval, if no construction activity has occurred. If construction occurs, the life of the development plan would be extended. If a development plan expires, any future development of the property would be subject to the then applicable codes. The Town Board prioritized this housekeeping item in the fall of 2009. The draft code amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled April 20, 2010 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, one absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed changes to Section 3.8 Expiration of Development Plans, as delineated in "Exhibit A: Expiration of Development Plans." Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.8 Expiration of Development Plans, as delineated in "Exhibit A: Expiration of Development Plans." ORDINANCE NO. 17-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.8 REGARDING EXPIRATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 3.8 "Development Plans"; 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, Sections 3.8 "Development Plans" 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 Exhibit A: Expiration of Development Plans FORMAT: Proposed text § 3.8 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW E. Effect of Approval and Lapse. 1 If an Applicant fails to applv for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to a development plan approval within three (3) vears from the date of such approval, unless a development plan has been approved with a vested rights period areater than three vears. the development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void at the end of the applicable vestina period. 2: An approved building permit and commencement of construction or operation for anv development plan shall extend the approval of the development plan for a period of eighteen months from the date of the issuance of a building permit. 1 Prior to expiration of a development plan, the property owner mav file for a one vear extension. Such extension mav be aranted bv the Communitv Development Director upon determination that there have been no chanaes to the Estes Vallev Development Code that would affect the approved development or conditions of approval. 4. These provisions shall applv to all development plans approved subsequent to effective date of this Code. TOWN oF ESTES PARK~ Obal:-5 *-4.--Y*-234,*4"=- Ell~-:27 Memo (Nmm1117,71 i'71, HT? FERTmT[ 13%- TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Chilcott Date: July 20, 2010 RE: A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code - First Reading/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 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. The draft code amendment is attached as Exhibit A. This is the first reading by Town Board. A second reading is scheduled for August 24, 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 continue the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to the August 24, 2010 Town Board meeting. Page 1 Exhibit A A-1 District Standards FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in StFikethFellgh-zte*t. § 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 Additional Regulations "-" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts Unless Use Classification Specific use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Otherwise Stated) ACCOMMODATION USES §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 §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----- 9-44 low-intensity A-1 Density Calculation - Town Board Review - 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 ptl [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 (56) Arterial = 25 [5]; A-1 10,890 £121 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets = 15 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [101 Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be calculated as one residential dwellinq 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 one quest room/unit. § 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 §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. A-1 Density Calculation - Town Board Review - July 27, 2010 2 . § 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 §5.1.P of this Code. § 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 (314) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. A-1 Density Calculation - Town Board Review - July 27, 2010 3 TOWN[ oF ESTES PAR}Q Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Goehring, Utilities Director Date: July 27, 2010 RE: Ordinance 18-10: Platte River Power Authority Organic Contract & Power Supply Contract Background: In the mid 1960s, limits on future availability of federal hydropower compelled the municipalities of Estes Park, Loveland, Longmont, and Fort Collins (Member Municipalities) to create a non- profit corporation that would purchase energy from the Bureau of Reclamation in a block for resale to the individual Member Municipalities. However, this corporation faced limitations because it was unable to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance capital projects. At the time, legislation did not allow for the Member Municipalities to act jointly, so the matter was taken to the Colorado government. A subsequent amendment to the Colorado Constitution, ratified in1974, allowed for the establishment of a power authority, a "separate governmental entity," with the power to own energy generation and transmission facilities with investor-owned and cooperative utilities. The Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was established on June 16, 1975, by the Member Municipalities through an Organic Contract which allowed PRPA to take the place of the previous non-profit corporation. One of the stipulations of the Organic Contract is the establishment of the "Power Supply Contracf' between PRPA and each Member Municipality guaranteeing all power required by the Member Municipality is purchased from PRPA. Because many of the actions taken by the PRPA are long-term in nature, there has been a practice of re-extending the Organic Contract every 10 years so its term never falls below 30 years. The Organic Contract was extend in 1980 to December 31, 2020, and again in 1998 through 2040. Budget: NA Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends extending the PRPA Organic Contract and the Power Supply Contract through 2050. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny extending the PRPA Organic Contract and the Power Supply Contract through 2050. Cfikl'TIESDEPARTMEN~ ORDINANCE NO. 18-10 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY AND THE TOWN'S ELECTRIC FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED ORGANIC CONTRACT ESTABLISHING PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY AS A SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND AN AMENDED CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRIC POWER AND ENERGY. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has received, and there are now on file in the office of the Town Clerk, an Amended and Restated Organic Contract Establishing Platte River Power Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity and an Amended Contract for the Supply of Electric Power and Energy; and WHEREAS, the Amended and Restated Organic Contract Establishing Platte River Power Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity is an agreement among the Town of Estes Park and the Cities of Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland, all in the State of Colorado ("Municipalities"); and WHEREAS, the Amended Contract for the Supply of Electric Power and Energy is an agreement between the Town and the Platte River Power Authority ("Authority"); and WHEREAS, the Amended Contracts are for the proper, efficient, and continuing conduct of the Authority to perform its duties; and WHEREAS, the Town, through its Light and Power Enterprise, owns, operates and maintains electric light and power works and distribution systems to provide electric service to its service area; and WHEREAS, the Amended Contracts will allow the Town to continue to operate its Light and Power Enterprise. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: That the Town contract with the other Municipalities as set forth in the Amended and Restated Organic Contract Establishing Platte River Power Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity in substantially the form as on file with the Town Clerk. Section 2: That the Town contract with the Authority as set forth in the Amended Contract for the Supply of Electric Power and Energy. 1 Section 3: That the officers of the Town as designated in each such Amended Contract be directed to execute and deliver each Amended Contract. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 a~81,0 I. --I . ~,/. 64 V \62 v Estes Valley Partners for Commerce The Estes Valley Partners for Commerce is a local business organization that provides business to business resources, support, tools and networking opportunities to create a stronger business foundation for our Estes community. As Partners we want to assist local businesses to become stronger and more successful. A year in Review and look at the Year ahead; First let me say thank you for all those who have supported the Estes Valley Partners Commerce and our mission to work towards a business community working together to promote long term economic stability. Our Mission Statement: To provide resources and educational opportunities to support existing and future business in the Estes Valley. As we look back over the past year The Partners for Commerce made strides to create an organization that can assist with business community needs. Some highlights from the past year: Estes Valley Partners for Commerce 2009-2010 Accomplishments Organization: A great deal of effort was spent in the early months forming the structure ofthis non- profit organization. Met with all existing groups to facilitate open communication (CVB, LMD, EALA, Downtown Merchants, B&B) and to get feedback on the Partners role in the community. Member Education: There were several dynamic events held. Ron Rex a successful business owner, coach and Motivational Speaker seminar was held in May 2009. That was followed up by Social Media Networking Course held in June 2009. The year was started with a Business Planning Workshop Part I Part II Part III to get business started off to successful year. Business owners and manager were able to interact and get hands on instruction for developing a business plan, creating effective marketing, branding your business and tips to operate a financially sound business. Community Involvement: We spent much of our time assisting business in need from the downtown fire. We provided fire victims assistance; established a fund for victims and first responders; participated in Bucket Brigade effort; held three forums for fire victims; set up blog site for offers related to fire victims; worked with SBDC to facilitate assistance for fire victims. The Partners also had an integral involvement in Winter Festival planning team and worked the Winter Festival. Some additional items we brought to businesses was a town signage forum held in February and just recently held the first of many business luncheons the first one was Get to Know Your Town Trustees. To provide some additional business awareness a 'Buy Local' campaign was started with assistance of EP News. . Member Communication & Networking: It all started with the organized member kickoff party. Then Snowy Peaks Winery graciously hosted a wonderful after hours networking event. A new website initiated, member businesses listed on website with links and an all member survey was utilized to get valuable insight on what businesses are looking for. A Look Forward: The Partners for Commerce are looking forward to building on our first year. From survey results we received we are working on events and resources you have asked for. Some items to include: Business to Business luncheon series "Get to know your business neighbor while getting insightful information to propel your business". This will be a once a month event with topics and speakers that you can find useful for your business today. We have also started several committees to better serve our Mission. We are looking for people who want to participate and to assist in building a strong organization to support our local businesses. Committees are: Downtown Merchants, Membership, Special Events, Communications, Web Site enhancement Grant funding and Operations. We are also looking for member volunteers to assist with our business Welcome Wagon / ambassador program to assist new member businesses get a strong start with their business. A full schedule of classes and workshops to build your business is being prepared to start for the fall. Also in the fall there will be gala networking event that will be fun for all as the busy summer season winds down. We will be working closely with the Small Business Development Center to get hands on assistance for businesses looking for resources to improve their businesses. Lefs all Partner together to build a strong organization for our Estes Valley business community