Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-07-10The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 10, 2018 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. 2018 BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT. Update to the Board on the progress status of the objectives in the Board's 2018 Strategic Plan CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated June 26, 2018 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 26, 2018. 3. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated May 3, 2018 and May 24, 2018 (acknowledgement only). 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 5, 2018 (acknowledgement only). ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #14-18 TO SUPPORT ACCELERATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT. Director Muhonen. Board requested at June 12, 2018 Study Session to petition Central Federal Lands to fund project prior to 2021. 2. RESOLUTION #15-18 SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEW ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Director Hunt. Outline procedure & schedule for Comprehensive Plan update. 3. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORMATION & APPOINTMENT. Director Hunt. Five-member Advisory Committee to oversee "pre-planning" tasks for remainder of 2018, including preparation of full RFP/RFQ for 2019 commencement. Prepared 06/29/2018 *Revised 1 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 4. RESOLUTION #16-18 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. Director Hudson. Mid-year budget amendments to address multiple department funding needs. 5. HISTORICAL SIGN APPROVAL, BIRD & JIM, 915 MORAINE AVENUE, STRONG & CO, LLC/OWNER. Code Compliance Officer Hardin. ADJOURN. 2 2018 Strategic Plan Progress Report 7/10/2018 Responsible On Behind Hold/ Done % KEY OUTCOME AREAS Depts. Track Schedule tabled Complete Comments I.ROBUST ECONOMY - Diverse, healthy year-round economy A Accelerate code updates and improvements Community Development 25%EVDC amendment to increase public-notification methods adopted in May. Future amendments underway include changing net density to gross density (late summer/early fall) and increasing building height in DC district (fall). B Decide on a course of action and delivery model for broadband in the Estes Valley Admin/Utilities/Finance 50%On track. Financial Advisor Services are being sought to identify funding solutions. C Where appropriate, the Town will play a supportive role with specific local and/or regional economic development projects, including but not limited to those outlined in the EDC Economic Strategy Plan. Administration ongoing D Complete Downtown Neighborhood Plan and develop implementation options in partnership with the downtown residents and businesses. Community Development 15%Downtown Plan adopted Jan. 23, 2018. Building height-increase amendment forthcoming in Fall. E Continue to participate in local, regional and state economic development Administration ongoing II.INFRASTRUCTURE - Reliable, efficient, up-to-date A Engage the Community in discussions of the role of renewable energy in Estes Park Administration/Utilities ongoing PRPA is taking the lead on public outreach. With our resource mix at 47% we are exceeding expectations. We will continue to monitor customer needs and demands. B Develop an overall parking strategy plan with input from residents, businesses and guests Public Works 100%Downtown Parking Management Plan adopted by Town Board January 23, 2018. C Implementation of Parking Plan recommendations, including funding options Public Works 15%PW directed to inplement Phase 1 recommendations in 2018. Budget amendment approved by Trustees May 22. Preparing job description for new Parking & Transit Manager. D Pursue funding for flood mitigation projects Public Works 60% Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study complete. Primary funding proposed via new stormwater utility user fees plus 1A sales tax (beginning in 2024) plus future grants. Public outreach on user fees launched June 7-10; effort ongoing. Draft revised floodplain maps have been received. Public presentation by the Colorado Water Conservation Board staff was held May 30. Follow up to citizen inquiries is ongoing. FEMA review of draft maps later this year. E Implement recommendations of stormwater master plan (tentative, based on future board discussions)Public Works 5%SMP complete. Will return to Town Board for implementation direction after completing and reporting on public outreach and input. F Explore options for incentives for developers to include renewable energy infrastructure in workforce and attainable housing Community Development/Utilities 0%Dropped per direction of the Board on 6/8/18 G Develop a facilities needs assessment in 2019 Public Works 10%Draft PW needs assessment completed in 2016. A consultant is needed to complete this for full organization. This will be discussed further during the 2019 budget process. III.EXCEPTIONAL GUEST SERVICES - preferred CO mtn destination, exceptional guest service A Partner with other entities to conduct a Visitor Needs Survey Administration 5%We are partnering with VEP on a visitor survey. Town staff participated in survey design and vendor selection. The survey began in June and responses will be gathered through spring of 2019. IV.PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT - safe place to live, work, and visit A Participate as partner in the County's regional wasteshed planning Administration 80%Project is moving along well. County presented at the study session on Feb 13th. Public session is planned by the group for May 16th in Estes Park. 3 B Prioritize and pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valley Public Works 55% Stormwater Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study complete. Primary funding proposed via new stormwater utility user fees plus 1A sales tax (beginning in 2024) plus future grants. Public outreach on user fees launched June 7-10; effort ongoing. Draft revised floodplain maps have been received. Public presentation by the Colorado Water Conservation Board staff was held May 30. Follow up to citizen inquiries is ongoing. FEMA review of draft maps later this year. V.OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICES - safe place to live, work, and visit, with housing available for all A Define housing needs and identify potential plans for action. Develop a strategy for addressing workforce housing demands, reflecting the housing needs assessment implementation strategies Administration 5%Strategy development team is assembled and has met for the first time. B Develop and adopt appropriate code changes to encourage housing development Community Development 15%Shift from net to gross density EVDC amendment in preparation; target is approx. Sept. for first hearing. C Begin implementation of the Downtown Plan Community Development 15%See Goal I.D. D Explore code changes that could encourage childcare services Community Development 50%FAB is working on a recommendation to the Town Board. VI.GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND INTERNAL SUPPORT - high-quality, reliable, basic muni services for citizens, guest and employees, which being good stewards of public resources A Complete Biennial Survey in 2018 Administration/ Public Info 25%Scientific survey mailings begin in late June. A voluntary, open online survey will be promoted in August. Results will be available in October. TRANSPORTATION - safe, efficient, well-maintained multi-modal systems for peds, vehicles and transit A Installation of left turn lane on U.S. 36 at Community Drive Public Works 30%30% complete design drawings presented at public open house May 9th. Roundabout option under evaluation. B Explore potential for Safe Routes to School funding Public Works 100%PW awarded $350,000 SRTS grant for Brodie trail extension from Fish Creek Road to Community Drive. Intend to submit another application late 2018 for 2019 construction. C Continue preventative maintenance activities on Town roads, as adequate funds become available Public Works 60%Seal coat and overlay construction contracts approved May 8th. Work to commence in July. F Develop a wayfinding signage plan for the downtown neighborhood, coordinated with the Downtown Plan Com Dev/ Public Works 0%Begin coordination tasks with PW and Museum when Planner II position filled; aimed to begin in June. G Further investigate the formation of a Rural Transit Authority Administration Dropped by the Town Board 6/8/18 H Pursue funding opportunities for construction of the Fall River Trail Public Works 80% Phase 3: PW awarded $400,000 Land Water Conservation Trust fund grant. EVRPD has committed $200k local match. Requested EVRPD to consider increasing their match to $400k. Town to budget $634k local match prior to moving forward (or $434k if EVRPD adds to their match). Phases 1 & 2: Will apply for LWCF & CPW again in late 2018. Will request EVPRD to budget match contribution for 2019. Next GOCO grant call expected spring 2019. Exploring other grant funding opportunities. TOWN FINANCIAL HEALTH - maintain a strong and sustainable financial condition A Develop and adopt a comprehensive debt/capital financing policy Administration/Finance 0%Scheduled to start in June after the audit is complete B Explore areas for enhancing Town revenue Administration/Adminis trative Services/Attorney 10% Waiting on feedback from Department of Revenue and pending discussion of business licenses at study session in June prior to recommending any ordinance changes to the board We have tightened up on our business license holders and Com Services is requiring sales tax info for every vendor. At strategic session on 6/8, some trustees have expressed interest in revisiting the policy on prohibiting MJ dispensaries 4 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 26, 2018 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 26th day June, 2018. Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Patrick Martchink Ron Norris Cody Rex Walker Ken Zornes Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Jirsa called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Cenac)to approve the Agenda,and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Morgan and Ashley Mulch/Mary’s Lake Lodge owners thanked the emergency response teams, including the Fire District and the Town for their support and quick action during the recent fire at the lodge. They stated the hotel wing of the lodge was lost; however, the restaurant and banquet room were untouched. The lodge continues to operate the condominium portion of the facility and the staff remains employed. They intend to rebuild and should have a better idea of the timeline in the next week. Jon Nicholas/Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has developed a page on the EDC website to provide updates on the lodge. The EDC would also provide aid in establishing state and local agency assistance. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Cenac stated the Rooftop Rodeo parade would be held on July 6, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. downtown. The rodeo would be held July 5 – 10, 2018. Trustee Bangs commented the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held their regular meeting and reviewed the 70% design for the Downtown Estes Loop project and discussed the e-bike ordinance. Trustees Bang and Martchink walked downtown and spoke with local businesses and citizens to hear their thoughts on the downtown. Mayor Pro Tem Walker attended the EDC meeting and stated the Town holds two seats on the Board. He also stated the entity provides the Town with a good return on investment through actions such as supporting businesses during an emergency. Trustee Norris stated the Family Advisory Board (FAB) would hold its next meeting on July 5, 2018. The Town Board, County Commissioners and Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) held a joint meeting to discuss the development of a new Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley. He provided a review of the actions taken by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) at their June 19, 2018 meeting. DR A F T ministratorministr order at at 7:007:0 p.m. p.m.and all desiri Walker/Cenacer/Cenac))to to approve approve the Athe ulch/Mary’s Lake Lodge owners tulch/Mary’s Lake Lodge o e Fire District and the Town for the Fire District and the Town f the lodge. They stated the hotehe lodge. They stated the hot and banquet room were untouchbanquet room were untouch m portion of the facility and the staof the facility and the sta d have a better idea of the timelid have a better idea Nicholas/Economic DevelopmenNicholas/Economic Developme CC website to provide updateswebsite to provide updates blishing state and local ageblishing state and loca OARD COMMENOARD COMMENDacacstated thstated th . The. The 5 Board of Trustees – June 26, 2018 – Page 2 Trustee Zornes commented the auditors for Visit Estes Park (Local Marketing District) would completed the audit in the next couple of weeks. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. No items were reported. 1.CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated June 12, 2018, Study Session Minutes dated June 12, 2018 and Joint Study Session Minutes dated June 14, 2018. 3. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated May 15, 2018 (acknowledgement only). 4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated May 16, 2018 (acknowledgement only). 5. Revised Policy 107 - Public Posting of Town Board E-mail. 6. Second Extension of Agreement to Operate Water System with Prospect Mountain Water Company, Inc. It was moved and seconded (Zornes/Norris) to approve the Consent Agenda,and it passed unanimously. 2.REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:(Outside Entities). 1.ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK FALL RIVER ENTRANCE REPORT. Superintendent Sidle & PAO Patterson reviewed a proposal to updated the Fall River Entrance completed in the 1960s. The Park has developed four alternatives, including no action, retain entrance with rehab of buildings, retain entrance and remove building, and move entrance to the west, and construct new buildings and four entrance lanes, including one automated fast pass lane. The new buildings would be safer for the staff as it relates to items such as exhaust and all buildings would be accessible for the staff. Next steps in the EA process would be to hold a public meeting and collect comments and answer questions. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. FINAL PLAT RECORDATION DEADLINE EXTENSION TO AUGUST 25, 2018,Grand Estates Apartments Minor Subdivision, Lot 35, Grand Estates Subdivision, Fred Kropp, FNP Kropp Real Estate Investments, LLC. B. AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP,The Promotory at Kiowa Ridge Condomimium, Lot 6 of Mary’s Lake Replat, 534 Promontory Drive, Unit 13 (Promontory at Kiowa Ridge), Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to approve the Planning Commission Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE #11-18,Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 - Two-Family Residential to RM - Multi-Family Residential, Prospect of Estes LLC/Applicant. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Woeber reviewed the rezoning application for the properties which current have split zoning not consistent with the lot lines. The property DR A F T MM , 2018 (acknowle, 2018 ard Eard E-mail. e Water System with Prospect Moe Water System with Prospect M Norris) to approve the Consento approve ON ITEMS:TEMS:(Outside Entities).(Outside Entities).A NATIONAL PARK FALL RIVEAL PARK FALL RIV RA dle & PAO Patterson reviewed adle & PAO Patterson reviewed a e completed in the 1960s. Te completed in the 1 including no action, retain including no action, retain entra and remove building, and and remove build mmoveo ldingsings and faour entrance lanes, ur entrance lanes, new buildings would be safer fouildings would be safer fo haust and all buildings wouldhaust and all buildi be process process would would be to hold a pube to ho questions.que PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISDCONSENT ITEMS:CONSENT ITEMSDNAL PLNAL PLD88GG 6 Board of Trustees – June 26, 2018 – Page 3 has a motel with A – Accommodation zoning on one lot that would be reconfigured to decrease the lot from approximately 4.6 acres to just over 2.16 acres. The additional acreage from the motel lot and the lot zoned R-2 would be rezoned to RM – Residential Multi-Family to develop a workforce housing development. The rezoning would allow the development of additional housing as outlined in the Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. Staff found the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current R-2 and A zoning would allow the development of 28 units on the property. If rezoned to RM zoning, the property has the potential with double density for the development of 74 units. The EVPC recommended denial of the rezoning application at their May 15, 2018 meeting stating concerns with spot zoning, the need to maintain a buffer between the subject site and adjacent residential areas, inconsistency with ComprehensivePlan recommendations, and the current R-2 zoning continues to be a better fit for the site than the proposed RM. Staff stated reservations regarding the proposed RM-zoned site, where safe and adequate access to a multi-family development would require careful planning; however, staff recommended the rezoning to significantly improve infrastructure in the vicinity, particularly street and intersection geometry and capacity and provided needed housing. Director Hunt stated rezoning requests are a legislative process and the Board must use their best judgement and other documents such as the Comprehensive Plan to determine if rezoning a property would be in the best interest of the community. The illustrations provided by the applicant are to provide the Board with a proposal and are not binding. He stated spot zoning should be cautioned; however, the R-2 zoning on a portion of the property would be considered spot zoning currently. Dan Chung and Sabina Raver/Applicant’s representatives provided a history of the applicant’s ownership of the property since 1992; difficulty in hiring and finding housing for employees; the project would provide needed workforce housing as identified in the 2016 Housing Needs Assessment; provides housing close to downtown and reduces traffic congestion; and the need for additional housing due to recently opened businesses which require employee housing. Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated the rezoning and boundary line adjustment would address the common lot line currently running through the hotel and realign the lot line 25 feet behind the hotel to provide property setbacks. Conditions of approval would include a 30-foot right-of-way and public improvements to the drainage in the area. If approved the applicant would bring forward a development plan for consideration and a traffic study would be completed which may be a limiting factor on the number of units that could be developed. Other improvements would require an upgrade to the sanitation lines and the water lines. The original subdivision plat contained 24 lots and has since been subdivided into 105 lots, thereby increasing the density over the years. Rezoning to RM has occurred in the neighborhood which already contains spot zoning. Paul Brown/Concept Design Build provided an overview of the proposed development which would contain up to 74 workforce units, a rental office, laundry facilities, etc. A second concept drawing was reviewed and contained 32 single story units. The lot contains natural visual buffers from the current hotel and from the proposed development. The neighborhood would benefit from the public improvements and the local businesses would have additional housing for their employees. Those speaking in opposition to the requested zoning change included Debbie West/Town citizen, Diane Ernst/Town citizen, Kreg Leymaster/Town citizen, Don Silar/Town citizen, Liz Spalding/Town citizen, Dick Mulhern/Town citizen and Wendye Skyes/Town citizen. Comments included the need to maintain the R-2 zoning which creates a buffer between the E-Estate zoning T to b T rvation T acce Towever, staTurein the vicin FT ty and provided need sts are a legislative process ansts are a legislative process a ment and other documents suchment and other documents such e if rezoning a property would bef rezoning a prop e illustrations provided by the apations provi posal and are not binding. He ste not b wever, the Rwever, t -2 zoning on a portning o pot zoning currently. zoning curren Sabina Raver/Appliver/Applicantcant’’s represes repres t’ss ownership of the property sincownership of the property sinc ing for employees; the project wing for employees; the as identified in the 2016 Housas identified in the 2016 g close to downtown and reduceg close to downtown and redu tional housing due to recentlonal housing due to recentl mployee housing.e housing. LonnieLonnie Sheldon/Van Horn EnSheldon/Van adjustmentment would addresswould addr hotel and realign the lod realign the lo setbacks. ConditionCon public improvemenpublic improve would bring forwwould bring for would be comwould be com at could at could sansan 7 Board of Trustees – June 26, 2018 – Page 4 and the A-Accommodations zoning. The valley contains limited R-2 zoning which provides essential workforce housing opportunities. Spot zoning to RM - Multi Family zoning would be inconsistent and not compatible with the neighborhood. The amendment to the density bonus for RM zoned properties was for existing properties and was not intended for rezoning of property. The proposed development would not provide working families with adequate/preferred housing. The neighborhood expressed concern with the additional traffic a 74 unit development would create and the safe mobility for those living in the area. The rezoning would allow five times the current density, and as a development plan was waived by staff the impact of the possible development cannot be established. Board comments were heard and summarized: concerned the Board does not have enough information to make a decision without a development plan; a rezoning to RM zoning provides the developer with a large scope of opportunity; the location to downtown makes the development of workforce housing ideal for the property; reiterated comment by staff that the rezoning would not be a use by right; spot zoning raises significant concerns for the rezoning request; and R-2 zoning should remain and would be the appropriate buffer zoning for the adjacent A zoning. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to deny Ordinance #11-18 to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 700 N. St. Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge) from A - Accommodations and R-2 – Two-Family Residential to RM – Multi-Family Residential and Retaining a Portion of A – Accommodations and the Zoning Map Amendment application, and the motion passed with Mayor Pro Tem Walker and Trustee Bangs voting “No”. B. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT,700 N Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge), Prospect of Estes, LLC, Vincent Chung. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Walker) to table the Boundary Line Adjustment,700 N Saint Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls Motor Lodge), and the motion passed unanimously. C. MINOR SUBDIVISION & FINAL PLAT,D. West Minor Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat, Portion of Lot 5, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, TBD Stanley Circle Drive, Danny A. West/Applicant. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Becker stated the proposal would create two legal lots of approximatley .68 acres each with a zoning of E-Estate. Both lots would be accessed from Stanley Circle. The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Danny West Minor Subdivision and Preliminary Plat. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Martchink) to approve the D. West Minor Subdivision and Final Plat, Portion of Lot 5, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, TBD Stanley Circle Drive,and the motion passed unanimously. D. RESOLUTION #13-18 & ORDINANCE #12-18, Eshelman Addition, Annexing Lot 2 Eshelman Minor Subdivision, 1901 Fish Creek Road, Chris & Marlys Eshelman/Applicants. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Becker stated the 2.52-acre property zoned I-1 Restricted Industrial received approval for a Minor Subdivision and Final Plat by the Board of County Commissioners on March 19, 2018. The property borders Town boundaries on the north, west, and south. The approved Final Plat consists of a storage facility located off Fish Creek Road. There are no public improvements associated with this subdivision and no annexation agreement accompanies the annexation. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Walker/Bangs)to approve Resolution #13-18 and Ordinance #12-18 DR A F T a deva de with a larwith a evelopment of evelop nt by staff that the rnt by staff es significant concerns foes significant co uld remain and would be tuld remain and wo AA zoning.zo g. Attorney White read the Ording. Attorney White read the Ordin is/Martchink) Martchink) to to deny Ordinancede ospect Mountain Addition, 700Mountain A Lodge) from A m A - - Accommoda to RM to RM – Multi-Family Residenamily R commodations and the Zoninmmodations and the Zo e motion passed with Mayor Pro Tn passed with Mayor Pro T . Y LINE ADJUSTMENTY LINE ADJUSTMENT,700 N S RA dge), Prospect of Estesdge), Prospect of Estes, LLC, V, L dedded (Norris/Walker) (Norris/Walke to table theble t t Vrain Avenue (Twin Owls MVrain Avenue (Twin Owls M nanimously.usly. C.C.MINOR SUBDIVISION & MINOR SUBDIVIS Preliminary and Final Plat,inary and Final P TBD Stanley Circle Drivnley Circle Driv public hearing. Planing. lots of approximatoxim would be accewould be acc Commission Commission ubdivisionubdivision momo 8 Board of Trustees – June 26, 2018 – Page 5 annexing Eshelman Addition, Lot 2, Eshelman Minor Subdivision, 1901 Fish Creek Road, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Todd Jirsa, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DR A F T 9 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 26, 2018 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 the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 26 th day of June, 2018. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes Attending:All Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson and Recording Secretary Beers Absent:None Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. At the April 10, 2018 regular meeting Attorney White brought forward an ordinance to address concerns with different business license types as well as restricting the fee for Bed and Breakfast to be in line with vacation homes. During Board discussion it was determined a study session should be conducted to review the business license fee structure. The Town Clerk’s office collected data on business licensing fees utilizing the annual compensation study comparison communities. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the history of fees, an accommodations scenario and six business license fee scenarios which included reducing the fee over time. She stated the advantage to scenario one and two would be revenue decreasing overtime rather than a significant decrease to the budget after approved. Williamson encouraged a higher late fee be applied to businesses who do not renew by the deadline of March 31. A benefit of registering businesses is staff’s ability to provide the list of licensed businesses to the public upon request and the collection of sales tax license numbers enabling the Finance Director the ability to confirm businesses are paying sales tax. Board discussion followed and has been summarized: whether the Town has implemented late fees in the past; the potential of a tiered late fee occurring January 31 and March 31; type of complaints received regarding fees; lowering the fee to promote business; dropping the fee to a standard amount across all types with the exception of vacation homes and bed and breakfasts; simplifying the process for the public and staff; the business license fee protects local businesses from individuals who come to Estes Park for a one-day event; requiring businesses to register deters fraudulent businesses from operating; fees in place are comparable with other similar municipalities; and the impact to the budget if the fee is lowered. The Board directed staff to further research the revenue impact of lowering the business license fee to $50 and present a service proposal for the 2019 budget. REVIEW OF POLICY 103 – TOWN BOARD CODE OF CONDUCT AND OPERATION PRINCIPLES. Town Administrator Lancaster presented Policy 103 which is reviewed bi- annually following the appointment of new Board members. No changes were recommended. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. None. DR A F T ClerCler .. Attorney White brought forwardhite bro ness license types as well as ness license types as w th vacation homes.vacation ho During BDuring ould be conducted to review e conducted to review ffice collectedcted data on businesta on busines y comparison communities. y comparison commun To ccommodations scenario and sccommodations scena ng the fee over timeng the fee ove .She staSh evenue decreasevenue decreasinging overtime raovertime pprovedved..Williamson encouraWilliamson encoura ho do not renew by the deadot renew by the dead is staff’s abilityis staff’s ability to provide theto p and the collection ofand the collection of sales taxsale ility to confirm businesses are ility to confirm businesses are discussion followed adiscussion followed ed late fees in the ed late fees in the 1; type of com1; type of com ping the ping the ndnd 10 Town Board Study Session – June 26, 2016 – Page 2 FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Administrator Lancaster requested the Board consider discussing the Housing Authority Project on Highway 7 at the July 10, 2018 Study Session. Unscheduled Study Session agenda items included the discussion of modification of flood plain ordinance to utilize best available flood zone date, removing the 500 ft limit for liquor licensing, and the benefits of roundabouts. Mayor Jirsa requested the Board consider participating in SDIC training in conjunction with the review of the Comprehensive Plan and mentioned allowing other local entities the opportunity to attend. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. Bunny Victoria Beers, Recording Secretary DR A F T ting at ting a 6: Tria Beersria Be ,Recording Secretaording 11       12 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 3, 2018 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 203 of the Estes Park Town Hall on the 3rd day of May, 2018. Present: Laurie Dale Marshall Jodi Roman Susan Strom Rachel Balduzzi Karen Randinitis Also Ron Norris, Town Board Liaison Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Suzanna Simpson, Administration Executive Assistant Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Marie Cenac, Town Board Trustee Absent: John Bryant Courtney Hill Nancy Almond The board agreed to open meeting at 3:34 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None Election of Chair and Vice Chair It was moved and seconded (Balduzzi, Storm), to nominate members Randinitis and Dale Marshall as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively, and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (other business) It was moved and seconded (Strom/Dale Marshall) to approve the April 5, 2018 meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously. TRUSTEE LIAISON REPORT Trustee Norris announced that there were open positions remaining for the Family Advisory Board. There is one additional application pending. He provided an update on 13 Family Advisory Board – May 3, 2018 – Page 2 board committee assignments and stated that the new board was getting up to speed on the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW OF DOODLE POLL RESULTS FOR MEETING TIME The current meeting day and time are what works best for the board. There will be no change at this time. CODE RESEARCH WORK GROUP Members Balduzzi and Roman reviewed the current special review process and put together a document to break down each step of the process. The board discussed the differences between the S1 and S2 special review process and the potential to simplify the special review for day care centers and large family home day cares by changing the special review standard from S2 to S1 (which would eliminate the step of the project going through the Planning Commission). Per her conversation with Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Member Roman relayed that it takes more time and money (approximately $10,000) to move through the S2 Special Review Process than it does for the S1 process. Member Roman feels that this could be a deterrent for day care centers and large family home day cares in zones where those uses are not a use-by-right. By designating those facilities as eligible for the S1 process, they could see decreased fees, decreased time to process the application, and a way to make things more affordable for anyone desiring to start a daycare facility at that scale. Chair Randinitis asked if large vacation homes have to go through the same process. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek responded that the large vacation homes (any rental accommodating over eight people) have had to go through a special review process. He also mentioned that the cap for 8 and below vacation rentals in residential zones has been reached, so any new applications are on a waiting list. Members Balduzzi and Roman are interested in recommending that the Town Board direct staff to look into changing the applicable special review for day care centers and large family home day cares from S2 to S1 to help remove potential barriers to childcare in the Estes Valley. Member Strom brought up the previous discussion around this subject and that some board members with knowledge of the industry did not feel it was really a barrier. Chair Randinitis asked how much staff time would be involved in exploring a potential code change. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek estimated about 10 hours or less. The document would need to be sent to Executive Assistant Simpson by May 30 to include in the June meeting packet. 14 Family Advisory Board – May 3, 2018 – Page 3 UPDATE FROM CENTER PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUP Member Dale Marshall brought information from the Estes Park EDC’s Childcare Services Committee (CSC) to share with the board. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek remarked that the CSC is in the process of revising its approach due to some significant changes in assumptions. Member Balduzzi will attend the CSC meeting on Monday, May 7th. WORKFORCE HOUSING UPDATE Assistant Town Administrator Machalek previously added this item to the agenda per the request of former Chair Greer. He asked if the current board wants to continue this as a regular update or just provide updates as things come up. The board agreed to just receive updates as they occur. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Randinitis announced that she has some funding available through her work for the county and would like to provide funding for an open house that would allow people to meet the Family Advisory Board. This was prompted by discussions with Vice-Chair Dale Marshall who expressed a desire to be out in the community more promoting the board as the liaison between families and the Town Board. Trustee Bangs suggested that EVICS can help promote the event and the board as a whole through their newsletters. Discussion also continued around getting involved with local events for outreach. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek reached out to Jennifer McAtamney in Breckenridge to come to Estes Park and she is available June 15 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek will schedule one broad presentation and asked the Family Advisory Board to let him know if there is interest in small group presentations. He will handle setting up the agenda and will send it to Town Administrator Lancaster to send to the Town Board in his weekly update Vice-Chair Dale Marshall asked that Executive Assistant Simpson add the Estes Valley Library’s information to the Community Resource Guide. Once it is updated, Executive Assistant Simpson will send out a reminder about the document to the public. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, June 7, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 203 at Town Hall. 15 Family Advisory Board – May 3, 2018 – Page 4 With no other business to discuss, Chair Randinitis adjourned the meeting at 4:43 p.m. 16 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 24, 2018 Minutes of a special meeting of the Family Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Room 203 of the Estes Park Town Hall on the 24th day of May, 2018. Present: Laurie Dale Marshall Rachel Balduzzi Karen Randinitis Courtney Hill Nancy Almond Tyler Schmitt Jodi Roman Also Ron Norris, Town Board Liaison Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Suzanna Simpson, Administration Executive Assistant Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Charley Dickey, Estes Park EDC Childcare Services Committee Absent: John Bryant Sue Strom Chair Randinitis called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Charley Dickey gave a presentation on the objective of the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation’s Childcare Services Committee (CSC). The presentation covered the goals of the committee, actions taken to date, and challenges faced. A proposition for a 501(c)(3) – Estes Valley Early Childhood Education, Inc., as well as the creation of a 501(c)(6) for the CSC were presented. The call to action from the CSC is for the Family Advisory Board to recommend that the Town Board do the following: • Advocate for the passage of legislation enabling the creation of a special district for childcare; • Contribute to a childcare “Enterprise Fund”; • Advocate that other employers contribute to the “Enterprise Fund”; • Ensure that four acres are set aside for a childcare facility during the Stanley Park Master Plan process; and • Explore options for guest-based funding for childcare versus property tax. 17 Family Advisory Board – May 3, 2018 – Page 2 Dickey encouraged the group to make sure childcare is in the forefront of the Town Board’s strategic planning process. The retreat is scheduled for June 8. Trustee Norris encouraged advocacy of all groups at the state level during the later part of the year in advance of the next legislative session. Member Balduzzi inquired as to the direction of a memo recommending that staff and the Town Board consider code changes regarding the Special Reviews set forth for childcare facilities. The board agreed to review this memo at a future board meeting. Chair Randinitis asked if another group should be formed to work on a recommendation letter to the Town Board based on the CSC’s call to action. Vice Chair Marshall, and member Hill agreed to work on that with help from Dickey. It was moved and seconded (Hill/Balduzzi) to prepare a memo to the Town Board advising them that recommendations will be forthcoming for childcare in the 2019 strategic plan, based on Dickey’s presentation and the vote passed unanimously. Executive Assistant Simpson will do a poll to see what works for the board in scheduling a June meeting, both the regular meeting a potential special meeting if needed. Introduction of new member Tyler Schmitt. Seeing no further business, Chair Randinitis adjourned the meeting at 5:14 p.m. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Family Advisory Board will take place Thursday, June 7, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 203 at Town Hall. 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 5, 2018 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Rex Poggenpohl, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, John Lynch Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Robin Becker, Planner II Brittany Hathaway, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Rex Poggenpohl Acting Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were four people in attendance. He introduced the Board Members and staff. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approved the agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated April 3, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the minutes for April 3, 2018 as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 4. 1909 Silversage Court-Owner: Gerald Lohse/Virginia Ferrer Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. There were two variance requests. The first was to permit a one-foot setback from the west property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District for construction of an accessory structure. The second was to permit a zero foot side setback from the south property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum to create an attached sunroom. Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received. Staff recommended approval of the variance requests with no conditions. Staff and Board Member Discussion: A revised survey from Van Horn was received to correct the building being over a common area, making it 0.1 on private property. Joe Miranda, 3175 Eiger Trail, Wind Cliff Architectural Control Committee, questioned the difference between accessory structures and extension of existing structures. Director 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 April 3, 2018 Hunt answered that it is an accessory structure for zoning purposes however the County Building Division can weigh in on building code aspects. There is no precise definition in the Development Code that clearly defines between the two. Newsom clarified with the applicant that the addition is just a “Big Room”, no kitchen, no bathroom. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the requested variance allowing a setback of no less than one foot, along the west side of the property with findings and conclusions from staff. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 840 Ramshorn Drive-Owner: Kay Evans Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request was to allow a 5-foot setback on the east side of the property. The E-1 district requires 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires to build a front entry deck to replace existing structure. Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There was no public comment received. Staff recommended approval of the variance requests with no conditions. Board/Staff/Applicant Discussion: Home was compliant when built. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to approve the requested variance with findings recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. 6. REPORTS-Director Hunt A) Comprehensive Plan rewrite effort with joint 3-way study session of the Planning Commission, Town Board and County Commissioners will be held June 14, 2018, with the goal of making some ground rules. This will come with a probable six-figure cost estimate. B) Windcliff in talks to revert to PUD in hopes of reducing number of variances needed. C) If an Appeal makes its way to the Board of Adjustment, one of the stipulations that would come into effect would be ex parte communication. D) Introduction of new staff member Brittany Hathaway, Planner II. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. ___________________________________ Jeff Moreau, Vice Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 20 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: July 10, 2018 RE: Resolution #14-18 Accelerating Implementation of the Downtown Estes Loop Project PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works Staff proposes the Town affirm its support of the Downtown Estes Loop Project (DEL) and ask our Federal and State partners to accelerate completion of the DEL. Present Situation: • The Town Board voted on March 26, 2013 to submit an application for a Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant in the amount of $13M specifically for the one-way loop. • The Mayor signed the Project Agreement with Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) on February 28, 2014. A copy is attached. • On April 15, 2015 the Town Board reaffirmed its support of the project when it voted to continue forward with the CFLHD initiated NEPA process for the one- way couplet (Proposed Action) and No Action alternatives. • On November 29, 2016 the Town Board voted to complete Phase 1 of the DEL and authorized the Mayor to sign the concurrence letter needed for the FONSI. • In May 2018 CDOT suspended work on the right of way acquisition in response to Trustees inquiries about the consequences of the Town withdrawing from the project. See Administrator Lancaster’s memo dated May 11, 2018. • On June 12, 2018 the Town Board voted to appropriate $3,920,202 for the DEL in the 2018 budget. 21 Proposal: At the Study Session on June 12, 2018, the Town Board asked staff to bring back a resolution requesting our project partners accelerate completion of the DEL. Advantages: • Resumption of the right of way acquisition process will provide closure and allow the impacted property owners to move forward with their personal decision- making. • Completion of the right-of-way acquisitions and moving the project construction grant funding forward from 2021/2022 to 2019/2020 reduces the risk of higher project construction costs due to inflation, more quickly implements DEL solutions to the Town’s downtown traffic congestion problems, and reduces downtown flood risk from the Big Thompson River. Disadvantages: • Resistance can be anticipated from some community members who do not support the DEL. Action Recommended: Public Works staff recommends approval of Resolution #14-18 to accelerate completion of the DEL. Finance/Resource Impact: This resolution creates no new financial impact to the Town, as the expenditures for the DEL are already included in the 2018 budget. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this item is high. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #14-18. Attachments: Resolution #14-18 Memo from Town Administrator Lancaster 22 RESOLUTION FOR ACCELERATING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT NO. 14-18 WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) owns and maintains US Highway 36 through the Town known as Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Town is the recipient of a grant from the Federal Lands Access Program (the “FLAP Grant”) for the purpose for designing and constructing road improvements to facilitate traffic flow through Estes Park to and from Rocky Mountain National Park (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted Resolution 35-14 and approved the Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT which provided funding in the amount of four million, two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000) to assist the Town with the design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Town Board authorized the execution by the Town of the Federal Lands Access Program Project Memorandum of Agreement (the “Agreement”) among the Town of Estes Park, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the National Park Service and Central Federal Lands Highway Division; and WHEREAS, the Agreement required that each party take action to further the development and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement the following actions in furtherance of the Project have taken place: compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act regulations including publication of an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact, commencement of property acquisitions including offers to purchase specific land parcels, advancement of the final design drawings to 70% completion, and coordination for relocation of buried utility systems; and WHEREAS, on six separate occasions (March 26, 2013; February 28, 2014; December 9, 2014; April 15, 2015; November 29, 2016; and March 13, 2018) the Town Board voted in favor of moving forward with specific phases of the Project; and WHEREAS, recent questions from Trustees regarding the consequences of the Town withdrawing its support from the Project have caused CDOT to suspend work on the right of way acquisition for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Town of Estes Park affirms the community support of the Project, requests the Colorado Department of Transportation accelerate acquisition of the rights of way needed to accomplish the project, and requests the Programing Decision Committee of 23 the Central Federal Lands Highway Division move forward the FLAP grant funding from 2021/2022 to 2019/2020 to accelerate completion of the project. ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 2018. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________ Town Clerk 24 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Lancaster Date: May 11th, 2018 RE: Issues associated with withdrawal from the Downtown Estes Loop project I have received questions from trustees regarding what the consequences of the Town pulling out of the Downtown Estes Loop project, either as result of Town Board action or should the Board decide to refer the matter to the electorate in a special election. The June 12th study session will include an update on the project. The project team can cover this material at that time, as well. In the meantime, as requested, this memo provides a briefing on the ramifications of withdrawing from the project. • Financial o Under the agreement for the Federal Lands Access Program funding, (FLAP) if we terminate the agreement, we are responsibly for repayment of 100% of actual costs of items/services/obligations incurred prior to termination per section XI of our agreement. At this point in time that cost is around $2 million. o Loss of eligibility for future FLAP funding (Moraine Avenue widening, Mary’s Lake Road intersection upgrades, etc.) We applied for more FLAP funding to add an additional lane, sidewalks and bike lanes on Moraine from Crags up to Mary’s Lake Road, near the park entrance. The application was ranked very high, but not funded due to ongoing controversy over the Loop. The committee would reconsider funding after successful implementation of the first FLAP grant. The allocation committee would not allocate funds amidst doubts of the community’s commitment to bring a project to successful completion. o We may be obligated to consummate the purchase of the properties that have received official offers on their properties prior to the withdrawal of the Town from the project. At this point, this would cost around $500,000. • Loss of funding for flood mitigation associated with the Loop o Loss of flood mitigation benefit on Big Thompson River provided by channel widening. This work will eventually need to be completed if we are to address flood mitigation in the downtown and reduce the impact of the new floodplain maps and costs to property owners. We would have to find other funding (and sources of local match funds) for these flood mitigation projects. o Loss of funding for the replacement of the Ivy Bridge, one of several bridge replacements needed to mitigate future flood damage to downtown. • Impact to property owners along the route 25 o Right of way acquisition: CDOT would halt this effort immediately. Property owners in the active acquisition process would be put in limbo with possible additional hardships. Some offers are out to owners right now. o Several of these properties would likely have further hardships once FEMA adopts the new flood insurance risk maps with the loss of market value to their properties. Future purchase offers, whether in private transactions or as part of some future flood mitigation effort, will likely be at the future market value and less than current offers. o Several property owners are currently anxious to sell their properties. These are difficult properties to market and will be more difficult with the new floodplain maps. Delays or cancellation of the project will create a substantial financial hardship for these property owners • Documented NEPA Decision: Walking away from an Environmental Assessment with a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) that included an extensive alternative analysis process could stunt any other related roadway transportation projects in the downtown area for the foreseeable future. The Loop is a documented and approved project that identified a preferred build alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. It may be difficult to receive approval of a different road project with greater environmental impacts, particularly on 4(f) resources (parks and historic resources). This concern would only pertain to federal funding associated with future transportation projects. • Continuation of unsafe traffic operations and loss of project improvements to the unsafe intersection of Crags Drive/Moraine Avenue/Riverside Avenue at the Donut Haus. • Loss of trail and waterfront accessibility improvements to Big Thompson River along Riverside Park. • Loss of sidewalk and bicycle linkages between downtown and the Piccadilly Square area. • Continuation of poor pavement condition on Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue due to scarcity of CDOT funding for repairs. The Town declining available and allocated federal dollars for the improvements, including repaving of Moraine and Elkhorn, will adversely impact the likelihood of CDOT allocating other regional transportation dollars to improvements on these roads. • Continuation of poor traffic signal performance at both the Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive intersections due to outdated and unreliable traffic signal hardware. • Loss of new traffic signal control to reduce pedestrian/auto conflicts at the Riverwalk crossings of Moraine and Riverside Avenues. There are some less tangible implications, as well. This has been a difficult and complex project that required the Town to work closely with CDOT and Central Federal Lands. Not only have these agencies committed substantial funds to this project, which we will have to reimburse them for, they have committed considerable staff time and effort working in a good faith partnership with the Town toward a successful project. Backing out after nearly 5 years of work on the project would cause substantial damage to our credibility with our partners and 26 become a major consideration when the Town attempts to apply for funding for any future transportation projects. Lastly, if we decide it is in the best interest of the Town not to proceed with the Loop, we will continue to face the original issues of noise, air pollution, and decreased free shuttle reliability and emergency response time downtown due to growing traffic congestion from increased population in the north Front Range of Colorado. Please let me know if you have any questions. 27 SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Town of Estes Park Town Board Meeting July 10,2018 ACTION ITEM #1 -RESOLUTION #1418 TO SUPPORT ACCELERATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT. The Town of Estes Park Council encourages residents of the community to attend Town Board meetings.Individuals wishing to be heard during Public Comment proceedings are encouraged to be prepared and will generally be limited to three (3)minutes in order to allow everyone the opportunity to be heard.Public Comments are expected to be constructive. Written comments are welcome and should be given to the Town Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. F-FOR NAME (PLEASE PRINT)STREET ADDRESS A -AGAINSTt-__________ ,—== 2 ‘Iciin F 6 pcrZ,c3DUj \J vi 4o -P4c1E CA. 8 Icr Coi ui F /%/.4,“Z 6Vszg y /VSJ11)M/M1c 7)/e)%yft7 A 12 fl—’ iW/e—f14trr,&p13/fU-i/raei 1 14 Ecc(.r H F-FOR NAME (PLEASE PRINT)STREET ADDRESS A -AGAINST 15 rJ A Eb 7 /qc LaioC A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Please move forward with the Loop 1 message Chuck Scott <cotr510@gmail.com> Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:28 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Town Trustees: As a business owner on Moraine Avenue I would like to discourage your bringing the loop back to question. During the majority of summer afternoons traffic is congested, and often at a complete standstill. I’ve attached a video sample of this weekend’s traffic outside our shop. The loop will positively impact this issue. No-Action does not fix the problem, and by all accounts will make it worse. If you choose to reverse your decision to move forward with the loop, I would like to know what your plans are to alleviate the community’s worsening traffic problem. My second concern is where is the Town going to come up with $2 million to pay back the Federal government for the money they’ve already spent on this project? Without the assistance of Federal funds, where will the funding come from to fix the traffic problem? I do not feel you are being quality financial stewards to the Town by having to come up with this money. Again, as a business owner, I’m very interested in participating in the second phase of the project of widening Moraine and possibly having a bike/walkway. This would enhance business and quality of life for citizens of Estes Park, as well as the tourists who frequent our stores. People are so frustrated in traffic that they won’t pull in and shop. If you’re fighting traffic, you’re not shopping. Finally, imagine how this might impact us in the future. For instance, without federal assistance money, how do we deal with the next natural disaster? How will further delaying or even rejecting the loop project, adversely affect our ability to be a viable partner with the State or Federal government? Please consider accelerating the project, rather than delaying any further. I feel the Town Trustees have made a decision to move forward on this project and need to honor that decision. Thank you for your consideration and the difficult work you do as trustees. Loop reversal 2 messages Earthwood HQ <rwilc@beyondbb.com> Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:32 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees, I believe reversing the Loop would be highly irresponsible after reading Frank Lancaster’s memo outlining the consequences of this action. Flood mitigation and road repairs are huge issues for our town that are addressed by the Loop project. The negative consequences outlined in memo will be costly and make it much less likely for the town to receive government funds in the future. If you are a board member who wants to reverse the decision made by two previous boards in support of the Loop, can you let me know why you oppose it now? Elections are costly and having to pay back the 2 million plus is not a fiscally conservative decision. 28 I own two buildings and two retail businesses downtown on Elkhorn, one of them on the one-way portion of the road, and I am not the least bit worried about a reduction in afternoon traffic on Elkhorn. The vast majority of visitors will come downtown to eat, shop, and stroll and they will continue to do so regardless of the Loop project. Sincerely, Ann Wilcocks Earthwood Collections Earthwood Artisans Estes Park, CO www.earthwoodgalleries.com 970-577-8100 Cell 970-215-8031 Loop Reversal 2 messages Lawrence Sage <sagentaylor4858@yahoo.com> Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 1:53 PM To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees, I believe reversing the Loop would be highly irresponsible after reading Frank Lancaster’s memo outlining the consequences of this action. Flood mitigation and road repairs are huge issues for our town that are addressed by the Loop project. The negative consequences outlined in memo will be costly and make it much less likely for the town to receive government funds in the future. If you are a board member who wants to reverse the decision made by two previous boards in support of the Loop, can you let me know why you oppose it now? Elections are costly and having to pay back the 2 million plus is not a fiscally conservative decision. Ultimately, it would seem that the vast majority of visitors will still come downtown to eat, shop and stroll and will continue to do so regardless of the Loop Project. The benefits seems to outweigh the negatives overall for our town. Sincerely, Lawrence Sage sagentaylor4858@yahoo.com 252-497-0589 RE: Loop 1 message Earthwood HQ <rwilc@beyondbb.com> Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:48 AM To: Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, townclerk@estes.org Todd, Thanks so much for your quick response. When there were quite a few public comment meetings in the past giving people opportunities to speak out against the Loop, there wasn't much opposition. Actually I don't know why you oppose the Loop. We need flood mitigation and the Loop does address this and quite a few other needed improvements. If you are concerned about wasting money what about the 2 million plus the town of Estes Park would be responsible for paying back? There is also cost to have an election. Is that a good use of funds? One of my biggest concerns it that government 29 grants will be difficult to obtain if we turn back at this point. Two BOT voted to approve the Loop. The current board seems to have the votes to proceed with the Loop. We have representative government, so we don't need to have elections for transportation projects and many other things. Respectfully, Ann Wilcocks Earthwood Collections Earthwood Artisans Estes Park, CO www.earthwoodgalleries.com 970-577-8100 Cell 970-215-8031 30 Dear Trustees- July 1, 2018 I initially began to write about the pros and cons of the Loop project, it’s history and the sort of “how we got here” story, but I quickly realized that isn’t something you need to be reminded of. Instead, I share with you my personal experience that I am regularly disappointed when I talk to my friends today, many whom have lived in Estes for 20+ years, own businesses, and/or have raised their families here. The most common, consistent comment I get comes with a wave of their hand saying, “I don’t even understand what the Loop is…” That is one of the problems I see with taking this project to a public vote. As our elected Trustees, you spend countless hours studying, listening, asking questions, and learning to then make INFORMED decisions based on your knowledge. As a town resident and business owner in downtown, I choose to be informed and involved so that I, too, may be exposed to information about projects and plans that will impact me and my community. I attended the original Town Board Meeting when the 4 project ideas were brought before the Trustees for application to the FLAP Grant. I have been a member of the TAB (Transportation Advisory Board) for more than 4 years, and have attended numerous meetings on the Loop project. Even with my level of engagement, I don’t think that I should be able to vote on the project. A public vote would likely be one of misinformation, disengagement, and puts an unrealistic burden on your constituents to be as knowledgeable and well versed on the project to cast an informed ballot. I realize you all don’t agree on the Loop, but what sort of precedent would you be setting if every time the Trustees weren’t “all in” you simply say, “we should let the voters decide so it won’t be controversial?” I see it as your responsibility to make these decisions on our behalf. The Board has decided to support and continue this project throughout its history, and I ask that you not only continue to move forward with the Loop, but also follow Trustee Martchink’s lead in requesting an acceleration of the funding. It’s my understanding that the reason we are behind schedule, so to speak, is because the Board of Trustees already took the time to hold additional public information and comment sessions, which again resulted in approval of the Loop. The sooner this project gets underway, the sooner our partners in the project will see us as a good partner again, and the sooner we will be able to move on to the next pieces of the puzzle of improving our roads and infrastructure and doing necessary flood mitigation work. Delaying the Loop project another day puts all of those things at risk. I greatly appreciate the work that you all do as our Trustees, and ask that you continue to do your job, and make the hard decisions we elected you to make. Sincerely, Amy Hamrick 31 AIN’T IT OVER WHEN IT’S OVER? “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Yogi Bera Here is a brief timeline of the major events of the Loop Project as reported in our local press: March 2013 The Town Board votes to submit an application to the Federal Lands Access Program [FLAP] for funding the Loop Project. February 2014 The application is approved, and the mayor signs an agreement with FLAP. April 2015 The Town Board reaffirms its support of the Loop Project and votes to move forward with the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] process. August 2016 The Town Board is advised that its application for a $10 million grant for additional improvements to Moraine Ave west of the Loop Project is denied “…given the public opposition and lack of support for the current FLAP (Loop) Project.” October 2016 The Town Board is advised that the FLAP (Loop) funding was being delayed from 2018 to 2021 “… so currently available funds could be directed to other projects with a higher likelihood of successful completion.” November 2016 After numerous public hearings the Town Board votes to move forward with the first phase of the Loop Project. May 2017 The Federal Project Manager for the Loop Project reports that the project team is preparing draft right-of-way plans and related documents. March 2018 The Town Board “… allocated $3.5 million to accelerate the property acquisitions that are required for the (Loop) project. June 2018 Two Town Board members “…supported the idea of bringing the continuation of the downtown Estes Loop project to a public vote.” Are these public servants missing an important point? The Loop Project is already in process! Work by the town’s staff during the past 5 years has been expended, and town funds have been allocated. Putting this critical project on hold pending the outcome of a “popularity contest” will very likely result in delay or denial of grants already approved and probably obligate our town to pay for services already rendered that would become potentially unuseable. Our troubled country is currently enduring a chaos of governance imposed by the “on again/off again” policies of the Executive Branch in Washington. It would be foolish indeed for Estes Park to emulate this misdirected style in the conduct of a vital project to correct our shameful avoidance of alleviating our ongoing traffic congestion. I implore those residents who would bring a halt to this well planned town project that the time for debating The Loop is over. At long last they are obliged to support the work of their representatives or just get out of the way! Steve Komito 151 Courtney Lane Estes Park 586-5391 32 To: Estes Park Mayor and Board of Trustees From: James H. Pickering Chair, Board of Directors Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Date: July 6, 2018 Subject: Resolution of Support: Downtown Loop Project o �OOIEOWlE n JUL O 6 2018 � a Attached, please find a copy of the Estes Park EDC's August 20, 2015 resolution of support of the Downtown loop Project made possible by Federal Lands Access Development Program (FLAP) funding. Speaking for myself, but with the confidence that I express the view of most my colleagues on the Estes Park EDC Board of Directors let me add the following: A decision to withdraw from this project and repay in excess of $2 million in incurred costs will clearly do irreparable fiscal damage to the Town of Estes Park and its ability to help with the funding of other high priority projects such as workforce housing and childcare. It will also seriously damage the Town's credibility and reputation and its ability to receive state and federal grant funding for future badly needed projects as suggested in Town Administrator Frank Lancaster's May 11, 2018 memorandum to you. Five years ago, in February of 2013, planning experts from Downtown Colorado, Inc. unflatteringly observed in its Community Assessment that Estes Park demonstrated "A pattern of division and discord in planning and prioritizing needs" and that "most successful community initiatives seem to be in opposition to something." Let's not let Estes Park become known as the community that said 11 no" after it said "yes." 33 RESOLUTION #2 -2015 CONCERNING CONTINUANCE OF THE FLAP GRANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, INCLUDING COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ESTES PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation) Dated August 20, 2015 WHEREAS the Town of Estes Park was awarded a $13 million grant under the Federal Lands Access Program; WHEREAS in order to expend such grant monies, the proposed project must undergo an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); WHEREAS transportation projects involve the consideration of a wide variety of complex and competing factors, such as public safety, congestion, environmental impacts, and economic impacts; WHEREAS the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in a similar transportation project in Aspen, Colorado that proposed citizen initiatives were administrative in character and therefore were not a proper exercise of the people's initiative power. WHEREAS placing such a matter before the voters-especially before completion of the Environmental Assessment-would circumvent a complex and multi-layered administrative process for the approval of the location and design of a state highway WHEREAS this process incorporates both technical expertise and public input and involves not just the Town of Estes Park, but also state and federal agencies; WHEREAS it appears likely that the Downtown Loop project as currently proposed would lack sufficient funds for completion; WHEREAS Town staff is diligently pursuing a third alternative that would meet the terms of the FLAP grant while addressing local transportation issues; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Estes Park EDC wishes the Town to receive the full benefit of the pending grant application, including completion of the EA process and the possible consideration of a third alternative; 1 34 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that: 1)The Board of the Estes Park EDC supports the Town Board's reaffirmation that the decision concerning the FLAP grant should be made by the Town Board after completion of the EA process. 2)The Board of Estes Park EDC recognizes that the Town Board serves as our representatives, and will continue individually to provide comments to the Town Board concerning the FLAP grant. DATED this ·2Q 2015. The undersigned officer certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors on August 20, 2015, and such resolution is now in full force and effect. ATTEST: .l:L�,---- 2 35 Fwd: Loop Vote From: RANDY MARTIN <plumcreekshoes@yahoo.com> Date: July 9, 2018 at 8:41:44 AM MDT To: tjirsa@estes.org Subject: Loop Vote Hello Todd, Randy Martin here, after 40 years in Estes Park I would hope all the citizens will have the right to vote on which direction the loop will go. This is a necessity to stop the dissension and start working to makes Estes even greater! Please just let us vote! Thank You Randy Martin Loop support Kristen Berg <kaberg22@yahoo.com> Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:44 AM Reply-To: "kaberg22@yahoo.com" <kaberg22@yahoo.com> To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org> Good morning- I will not be able to attend the public meeting on July 10th concerning the downtown Loop, so I wanted to express my written support for the project. I think approving the loop is a necessary and first step to make the downtown corridor more accessible and safe. I understand this is a very divisive issue for our town, and while I do not take the opposing side opinion's lightly, I believe to lose this money would be extremely financially irresponsible. Looking at the public memo, it seems like we stand to lose around 2.5 million dollars, and that's just with my very basic understanding of this project. I know that amount is much higher if you consider the loss of future support on other projects we will need to do in the future. If we have 2.5+ million dollars surplus in our town budget for these costs incurred should we withdraw, I'd like to know where that money is or where it will come from? What town services and town budget items will need to be cut in order to pay back that amount? I know that your job is difficult and I appreciate your efforts. I ask that tonight you will vote to continue with the loop application. Kristen Berg Fwd: Loop From: Susan Speedlin <sspeedlin@icloud.com> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:10 PM Subject: Loop To: cbangs@estes.org Thank you for finally doing something positive about the downtown traffic problem. I am a native Coloradoan and Estes Park has been my home for over 40 years and in that time the traffic situation has continually been discussed with no one willing to actually do something about it. "Shut the gate newcomers" always seem to think they know best. The town finally has a reasonable option. Lets take it. Susan Speedlin       Fwd: Loop From: Rita Kurelja <ritakurelja@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:28 PM Subject: Loop To: "tjirsa@estes.org" <tjirsa@estes.org>, "cwalker@estes.org" <cwalker@estes.org>, "rnorris@estes.org" <rnorris@estes.org>, "cbangs@estes.org" <cbangs@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "kzornes@estes.org" <kzornes@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org> Cc: "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org> Mayor Jirsa and Trustees The Estes Park Valley has been my home for the last 44 years. Over that time the downtown traffic has gotten progressively worse. This traffic does nothing to add to the charm of Estes Park. The loop project is FINALLY a step in the right direction in correcting this problem, which is showing no sign of improving on its own. Lyons has a loop and it works quite well in keeping the traffic moving. Loveland also is designed as a loop and its downtown area is growing and thriving and I have never been stuck in traffic there. I do not believe that this change to our traffic pattern will 'ruin Estes Park' as the opposition would have you believe. This opposition is based on fear of change. Neither fear nor change is a valid reason for not moving forward. I was extremely pleased when the Trustees voted to move ahead with the project and not put his matter to a public vote. It showed courage and vision and made me proud to call this my home. The job of the trustees is to make these very tough decisions based on what is best for the community. This loop project is what is best for the community. I was even more pleased when it was suggested that this project be expedited. Please do not let the vocal opposition deter you from making the best decision for this community. If this items goes to a public vote, where does it end? Will every controversial development that brings out neighbor opposition go to a public vote? Will every decision that the Trustees are faced with have to be voted on by the public? Please vote to move ahead with this important project. Rita Kurelja Support for Acceleration of the Loop Kirby Hazelton <kirby.hazelton@gmail.com> Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM To: tjirsa@estes.org, cbangs@estes.org, kzornes@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, Cody Walker <cwalker@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Rnorris <rnorris@estes.org> Cc: Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Mayor and Trustees, Many of you are already familiar with my support of the Downtown Estes Loop. For those who are not, I have been reasonably well involved with the project since its inception -- attending forums, reading reports, speaking with state and federal representatives, discussing with Town staff and elected officials, etc. Even with this level of background, I am not naive enough to think that I know more about the project than all of you. It is not my job to know the details of this project, inside and out; to be frank, I don't have time to be intimately familiar with every aspect and implication of the Downtown Estes Loop. I respectfully request that you utilize your leadership, your role of trust, to make the difficult (yet highly informed) decisions that frame and build the future of our community. Based on what I do know, I also would like to voice my support for moving forward with this project. My personal analysis and experience cause me to believe that the Loop will be a (very positive) start of improvements to our downtown congestion and infrastructure. Will it be the perfect solution, causing no distress? Of course not - nothing ever could be. But the Loop is a good beginning with many benefits. Again, my support comes from a place of a reasonable amount of education and lots of experience (I live downtown on Davis Hill, work in Picadilly Sqaure, and am in the thick of summer traffic every single day, morning and night, regardless of whether I need to drive, walk, or bike); however, it is still an opinion. I appreciate the work you do for our community and trust that you are the most educated in making this decision. Warmly, Kirby Nelson-Hazelton 260 Lott Street Fwd: Loop From: Kristen Ekeren <kristenekeren@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:53 PM Subject: Loop To: CBANGS@estes.org, TJIRSA@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, pmartchink@ estes.org, kzones@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, flancaster@estes.org, jwilliamson@estes.org Dear Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees- I would like to weigh in on the Loop project and express my support for moving the project forward. Some of my thoughts are as follows: I do not believe the Loop project needs to be subject to public vote. The recent election of new Town Trustees allowed residents (the ones that live within Town limits anyway) to vote for candidates that support their views on the Loop. Therefore, I believe the current Town Board has the authority it needs to make a decision on this matter. Downtown traffic is a problem. I work east of downtown, and live west of downtown. I have a "summer" and "winter" route to work. I avoid downtown during my commute to work each day during the summer due to the congestion and general confusion I see downtown. I think the Loop is an opportunity to improve our downtown corridor in many ways. I especially love the addition of bike lanes and bike road sharing opportunities downtown and hope that bike lane connectivity increases around Town! Biking would be a great way for residents, visitors and families to get around downtown from their homes, vacation rentals, or the parking structure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Kristen Ekeren 1795 Silver Tree Lane Estes Park   TO ThE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING THE LOOP PROJECT I am Steve Komito,and I am occasionally amused by a cynical saying I have heard.The saying is “No good deed ever goes unpunished”.In the 47 years that I have located my home and business in this town,I have thought that this saying could be paraphrased to read “No good project in Estes ever goes unopposed” From the creation of a sign code in the l970s that reduced the neon jungle ;vhich had overgrown our local businesses to the creation of the Urban Renewal Authority in the 19$Os trying to improve the pedestrian environment in our central business district,there have regularly been residents who protested that these project were unnecessary and harmfUl to their personal concerns. And now responding to the deplorable traftic congestion that impedes the movement of residents and visitors alike,a project to provide desperately needed traffic improvement is being met by objections of those who maintain that there is no traffic problem,and this plan won’t fix it anyway. I wish to offer counter arguments to the objections to the Loop Plan that I have heard most &equently. I)The Loop Project will provide only a few minutes reduction to the time spent in the peak traffic gridlock. I think that this oft repealed statistic is as inaccurate as the information issued by the present employees of the White House in Washington.ft doesn’t require a traffic engineer to predict that 2 lanes of traffic traveling in the same direction will move more vehicles more rapidly than one lane.I have often observed this fact during the afternoon egress that becomes a bottleneck on eastbound Moraine Avenue’s one lane leading through town.This impediment often extends as far back as Beaver Point a mile to the west.The 2 eastbound lanes provided by the Loop Project must certainLy reduce the driving time by more than a few minutes. 2)The National Park is already overcrowded.Increasing the westbound traffic flow through town will only worsen the problem. This argument ignores the fact that Moraine Avenue is the major artery serving over a dozen businesses, over a hundred homes,and (oh yes)the YMCA campus which is the largest lodging facility in town. Residents and businesses west of town will certainly benefit from the improved traffic flow.The National Park will need to deal with its own congestion. 3)The Loop Project will require the acquisition of private property. Well,yes.That is often how public improvements are created.The land for the town library and its adjacent parking lot,the land for Riverside (Hix)Plaza,the land for the West Riverside (Baldwin)Park, and the land for the critical Moccasin Circle Drive to our hospital,these and many other public works have been made possible by the acquisition of private property. This project has also addressed improving the safety of the very hazardous intersection of Moraine Avenue and Crags Drive.Should it require a catastrophic collision at this location to convince my fellow residents that traffic safety is a more pressing issue than than access to donuts? Obviously our elected officials want to give attention to the concerns of their constituents,But this does not require passing a vital decision to a public vote,simply because the issue is a source of controversy.Our public leaders bear the responsibility to be leading. 1 urge the Board Members to continue with this well reasoned project to alleviate the perennial traffic congestion that has been allowed to impede our movement around our town and to demean our image as a refUge for “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free”or at least to breathe a lesser amount of exhaust ffimes in traffic gridlock.Then maybe we can all breathe more easily. Steve Komito       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: July 10, 2018 RE: Resolution No. 15-18: Support Development of a New Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Review and decide upon Resolution No. 15-18, formally initiating a rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and providing Town Board guidance to the Planning Commission, staff, stakeholders, and the public regarding proposed process and schedule, during 2018 – 2021. Present Situation: Colorado Revised Statutes require a joint role for Planning Commissions and governing bodies in creating and updating Comprehensive Plans. The Resolution is a formal commencement of the Town Board’s role in setting broad parameters on the process and schedule for rewriting our 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The current Plan is now twenty-two years old. It has served its purpose reasonably well, but conditions have changed considerably since 1996 – among other changes, the Estes Valley Development Code and joint Town/County Planning area were created after the Plan. (The Plan in fact played an important role in setting the stage for the joint Planning and Development Code area.) Our community has also changed, and will continue to change. On June 14, 2018, a joint meeting was held among the three bodies of officials with primary responsibility for planning in Estes Valley: the Town Board of Trustees, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Planning Commission. This meeting was focused especially on the Comprehensive Plan rewrite structure and process. A consensus was informally determined to proceed with the rewrite. There was consensus to begin pre-planning in 2018, with major tasks to begin in 2019 and continue into 2020, x x x 36 with adoption in 2021 if not earlier. Some Plan elements might be adopted before then if they are completed as stand-alone sections. Proposal: This proposed Town Board Resolution is brought forward in order to formally confirm the Town governing body’s authorization of this effort and outlining a reasonable process and time frame to the Plan rewrite. It is also important to recognize that key stakeholders, and the public as a whole, need to have seats at the table from beginning to end of the update process. The process and schedule outlined in the Resolution are expected to accomplish that. The Resolution also identifies the fact that resources will need to be committed to the Plan process. Although the annual budget adoption process will be the main step(s) in accomplishing the resource commitment, starting in 2019 and continuing in 2020 and possibly into 2021, this Resolution will guide the Town in setting out the overall framework for budgeting specifics. Finally, adoption of this Resolution is a valuable step in applying for grant funding. Agencies that fund comprehensive planning want to be sure the community is committed to the effort. The primary commitment they look for is funding, but the Resolution is useful in demonstrating that local funding is anticipated and the community wishes to see the Plan process through from beginning to end. Parallel Resolutions will be presented this month to the Planning Commission (July 17) and the Board of County Commissioners (July 23). If approved, the Resolution will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners in a format suitable for their review and approval. Once both bodies have made their decisions, Two other items on tonight’s agenda will dovetail with the Resolution: appointment of a temporary Advisory Committee to oversee pre-planning for the rewrite during the rest of 2018, nd an element in the mid-year budget resolution to authorize an additional $10,000 (with 50 percent of that reimbursed by the County) in the 2018 budget for this pre-planning effort. Advantages: *Complies with EVDC §2.1.B: Code Administration and Review Roles. *Complies with Colorado Revised Statutes regarding Comprehensive Plan creation and updates – specifically 31-23-206 and 31-23-208. *Provides an accessible and transparent process for approaching the Plan update. Disadvantages: *A multi-year process for the Plan update is lengthy and involved, and will require affirmative efforts by all parties to sustain momentum toward completing the update. Action Recommended: Staff is recommending that Town Board and the other two bodies all approve substantially identical versions of the Resolution. 37 Finance/Resource Impact: Staff estimates approx. $300,000 (50/50 split with the County) for the full 2019-2021 rewrite. We hope to secure a substantial amount of the budget via grant funding. Level of Public Interest High. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of Resolution No. 15-18. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 15-18. 38 RESOLUTION NO. 15-18 A RESOLUTION TO OUTLINE PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DURING 2018-2021 WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-206 provides that a Planning Commission shall “… adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality, including any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the governmental body having jurisdiction thereof…”; and WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 31-23-208 provides that an “…attested copy of the plan or part thereof shall be certified to each governmental body of the territory affected and, after the approval by each body, shall be filed with the county clerk and recorder of each county wherein the territory is located”; and WHEREAS, Sec. 2.1.B of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) similarly provides for jointly shared authority over the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan’s adoption and amendment among the Estes Valley Planning Commission, the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, twenty-two (22) years have elapsed since the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was duly approved by the applicable authorities in the Estes Valley Planning Area; and WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate that a Comprehensive Plan rewrite be undertaken according to mutual concurrence among the three aforesaid official bodies; and WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Town Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners, and Planning Commission to provide guidance in shaping the process and schedule for a Comprehensive Plan rewrite: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, that: Section 1. Upon the adoption of this Resolution and parallel adoption of similar resolutions by the Board of Larimer County Commissioners and Estes Valley Planning Commission, a general process and schedule is hereby determined for a 2018-2021 rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. In order to allow adequate time for all interested stakeholders, the public, and elected and appointed officials to accurately determine and weigh various elements and aspects of the Comprehensive Plan rewrite, it is determined that a minimum of 18 to 24 months is appropriate and necessary for a thorough and transparent process. All elements in the Comprehensive Plan rewrite will be conducted 39 with adequate time and attention to public and stakeholder review, with mutual consultation among the Planning Commission and governing bodies as appropriate. Section 3. Within the 18-to-24-month time frame, the following elements should generally be addressed: A.An update of statistical and similar basic data in the Plan; B.A general text-based outline of land-use policy; C.An element addressing population growth, housing needs and housing supply; D.An element addressing economic development; E.An element addressing transportation; F.An element addressing utilities and similar infrastructure; G.An element addressing parks, trails, and recreational and tourism needs of residents and visitors; H.An element addressing public safety and emergency-service needs; I.An element addressing environmental considerations; J.Any other element(s) as determined appropriate, necessary, and/or required by law; and K.An element addressing implementation of the updated Plan. Section 4. The 18-to-24-month time frame should begin approximately when the Town Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners, and Planning Commission have approved resolutions similar to this one. Section 5. It is expected the remainder of 2018 will be spent in pre-planning tasks, with major work on the Comprehensive Plan rewrite beginning in 2019. Section 6. It is anticipated that the estimated budget for the Comprehensive Plan rewrite will be approx. $300,000, beginning in 2019 and ending with adoption of the new Plan. It is hoped that a substantial proportion of the estimated cost can be offset by grant funding. An additional estimated $10,000 will facilitate pre-planning work in 2018. Section 7. After receipt and review of public and stakeholder input and completion of any final revisions, it is expected the Planning Commission would approve the Comprehensive Plan update followed by certification to and approval of the two governing bodies, according to the Colorado Revised Statutes as recited herein. DATED this day of , 2018. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 40 41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: July 10, 2018 RE: Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Formation and Appointment (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Review and determine two (2) appointees for a temporary (2018 only) five (5) member Advisory Committee to engage in pre-planning tasks and provide preliminary guidance for the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. Present Situation: On June 14, a three-part meeting of both governing bodies and Planning Commission resulted in consensus to begin a rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. A parallel agenda item this evening (Resolution No. 15-18) sets out more specifics regarding this undertaking. One task identified on June 14 was the desirability of getting underway with pre-planning activities in 2018, in anticipation of a budget and full-fledged work-program approval to begin the major Comp Plan work in 2019. Proposal: Staff is recommending a five-member Advisory Committee (AC) to guide the pre- planning work in 2018. We suggest a committee of two appointed by Town Board (one Trustee and one staff), two appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (one Commissioner and one staff member), and one appointed by Planning Commission (a PC member). These are only suggested members and other persons could be considered. The important elements that staff would suggest: (a) a 5-member committee is a good number – not too large, not too small – and (b) the Committee be appointed soon and get to work quickly, because there is a lot to do and 2018 is over the halfway mark! X X 42 Some specific tasks for the AC include: •Guiding identification of key stakeholder groups and entities in Estes Valley, and beginning outreach and dialog with them on the new Com Plan; •Setting forth greater detail on the structure of the Plan (e.g., spelling out in more detail what would go into the component list in Section 3 of Resolution No. 15-18); •Reviewing other communities’ Comp Plans and considering which features are worthy of adaptation in our new Plan; •Helping guide the work of consultants during the pre-planning phase. On the last point, the Town has had a respected, knowledgeable consulting firm under contract for general long-range planning services since early 2018: Ayres Associates. Ayres Associates is a multi-branch firm with an office in Fort Collins. We have the services of three professional planners, all of whom have been through Comprehensive Plan preparation, writing and adoption in several communities, both “new” Plans and updates. We have confirmed that the Ayres team is available and willing to add Comp Plan duties to their task list. However, we would stress that much of the technical work will be handled in-house. In addition to the bullet points above, a final and crucial task of the AC will be helping to write, refine, and finalize an RFP for the full-fledged Comprehensive Plan rewrite beginning in 2019, assuming budget is approved Advantages: *Provides oversight and accountability from the beginning of the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. Disadvantages: *We expect to meet (in person or by conference call) every other week for around an hour, and there will be homework in-between. Action Recommended: Staff is recommending that Town Board and the other two bodies appoint AC members as suggested above. Finance/Resource Impact: Staff estimates approx. $300,000 (50/50 split with the County) for the full 2019-2021 rewrite. We hope to secure a substantial amount of the budget via grant funding. Level of Public Interest Comp Plan rewrite: High. Staff is not aware of specific interest in the Advisory Committee at this time. 43 Sample Motion: I move to appoint _______________ and _______________ to the Comprehensive Plan’s Advisory Committee, for a term to begin upon appointment and ending on December 31, 2018. 44 45 FINANCE DEPT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: 7/10/18 RE: Resolution # 16-18, Supplemental Budget Appropriations PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To obtain approval of Resolution # 16-18 to appropriate funding for Prospect Mountain Water Company System Improvements, the Willow Knolls Legacy Project, the Veterans Monument and a few other small items. Present Situation: General Fund: The Town received notice of a $24,675 grant award from the Colorado State Historical Society for the Willow Knolls Legacy project to make preservation repairs to the Birch Cabin and other site improvements. This grant will be matched with earmarked revenues of $19,203 from the licensing of the Centennial logo from 2017 and other restricted donations. Also included are appropriations for the final expenses on the Veterans Monument project of $8,016 paid out of restricted donations. These two items are included in the Executive Department land improvements capital outlay account. The Municipal Court has requested an additional $6,000 to fund a contracted prosecuting attorney instead of police officers filling this role. Community Development has requested an additional $10,000, with $5,000 to be reimbursed by Larimer County, for additional long-range consulting planning services in preparation for the comprehensive plan revisions. The Parks Department budget increase of $5,611 is for the final expenses on the Veterans Monument. These are budgeted from the remaining restricted donations received for the monument. Currently, after paying for the costs on the project as of June 30, 2018, the restricted donation balance for future maintenance costs on the memorial is $11,984. 46 With operations concluded at the Senior Center, the budget for the final senior center costs has been refined to reflect actual costs as of June 30, 2018. Larimer County Open Space Fund: The Larimer County Open Space Fund appropriations have been increased by $2,000 to allow for participation with the County and the Land Trust on the Prospect Mountain Properties appraisal costs. Water Fund: The Prospect Mountain Water Company (PMWC) is transitioning over to the Town and there will be a future USDA loan to fund the necessary improvements to bring the system up to Town standards. However, the system needs some immediate improvements in order for the Town to take over current operations prior to the much larger USDA project. These immediate improvements in the amount of $262,035 are being funded by the bankruptcy trustee out of PMWC’s net assets. The Town has already received the $262,035 check from the bankruptcy court. Revenue and appropriations will be increased to fund these immediate improvements. Proposal: To complete these items, the moneys must be appropriated within the proper funds. The attached budget resolution provides for the required appropriations. Advantages: The Town will be able to complete the grant projects and the immediate work on Prospect Mountain Water Company without further delays. Disadvantages: This will appropriate Town funds for these purposes, reducing funding available for other purposes, although much of this amendment is funded from restricted sources or grants. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the supplemental budget resolution. Finance/Resource Impact: The General Fund is currently projected to end 2018 with a 21% fund balance. Each fund is expected to end 2018 with a positive fund balance as well. Level of Public Interest The Prospect Mountain Water Company customers will be very interested in continuing the transition to the Town funded within this budget resolution. The donors for the Veterans Monument and the Willow Knolls Legacy Project will also be interested in seeing these projects completed as well. 47 Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution #16-18 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2018 Budget. Attachments: Attachment A – Resolution #16-18 Supplemental Budget Appropriations to the 2018 Budget Attachment B – Recap of Proposed Budget Amendments and supporting schedules 48 RESOLUTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2018 BUDGET NO. 16-18 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2018 annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 28th, 2017; and WHEREAS, additional projects and activities have been identified that were not known or included in the original annual budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the appropriations be increased by $315,032 for funds specified below and these amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each fund. Fund # Fund Name Existing Appropriations Amendment Amended Appropriations 101 General Fund 20,882,471 50,997 20,933,468 204 Community Reinvestment Fund 4,646,341 0 4,646,341 211 Conservation Trust Fund 32,541 0 32,541 220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 1,293,730 2,000 1,295,730 236 Emergency Response System Fund 45,685 0 45,685 238 Community Center Fund 696,700 0 696,700 244 Trails Fund 300,000 0 300,000 260 Street Fund 5,635,833 0 5,635,833 502 Light & Power Fund 19,983,031 0 19,983,031 503 Water Fund 10,218,788 262,035 10,480,823 606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,002,909 0 2,002,909 612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 426,571 0 426,571 625 Information Technology Fund 715,771 0 715,771 635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 366,916 0 366,916 Total All Funds 67,247,287 315,032 67,562,319 49 ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 2018. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 50 TOWN OF ESTES PARK RECAP OF PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018 RESOLUTION 16-18 AS OF July 10, 2018 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 260 GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CONSERVATION TRUST LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMUNITY CENTER TRAILS STREET Revenues, As Amended $23,265,098 $4,123,453 $32,550 $1,748,847 $69,800 $696,700 $356,930 $2,021,900 Expenses, As Amended 20,933,468 4,646,341 32,541 1,295,730 45,685 696,700 300,000 5,635,833 Net 2,331,630 (522,888)9 453,117 24,115 0 56,930 (3,613,933) Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/18 2,122,505 620,097 54,957 (371,804)31,802 0 193,744 4,334,169 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/18 $4,454,135 $97,209 $54,966 $81,313 $55,917 $0 $250,674 $720,236 Budget Reserves Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance & Restricted Donation 60,000 Total Restricted Fund Balance 60,000 21.0% 502 503 606 612 625 635 LIGHT & POWER WATER MEDICAL INSURANCE FLEET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTAL Revenues, As Amended $16,952,962 $5,858,783 $2,590,625 $428,825 $726,276 $892,419 $59,765,168 Expenses, As Amended 19,983,031 10,480,823 2,002,909 426,571 715,771 366,916 67,562,319 Net (3,030,069)(4,622,040)587,716 2,254 10,505 525,503 (7,797,151) Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/18 8,863,275 7,721,291 767,950 363,418 252,382 1,484,478 26,438,264 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/18 $5,833,206 $3,099,251 $1,355,666 $365,672 $262,887 $2,009,981 $18,641,113 Attachment B 51 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018 RESOLUTION 16-18 AS OF July 10, 2018 Fund/Dept Fund Name Current Budget Amendment Budget As Amended 101 GENERAL FUND 23,400,342 (135,244) 23,265,098 204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 4,123,453 - 4,123,453 211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,550 - 32,550 220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 1,748,847 - 1,748,847 236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 69,800 - 69,800 238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700 244 TRAILS 356,930 - 356,930 260 STREET 2,021,900 - 2,021,900 502 LIGHT & POWER 16,952,962 - 16,952,962 503 WATER 5,596,748 262,035 5,858,783 606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,590,625 - 2,590,625 612 FLEET 428,825 - 428,825 625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 726,276 - 726,276 635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 892,419 - 892,419 TOTAL 59,638,377 126,791 59,765,168 Attachment B 52 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018 RESOLUTION 16-18 AS OF July 10, 2018 Fund/Dept Fund Name Current Budget Amendment Budget As Amended 101 GENERAL FUND 101-1100 Legislative 213,362 - 213,362 101-1200 Judicial 80,131 6,000 86,131 101-1300 Executive 380,090 32,691 412,781 101-1400 Admin Svcs 639,868 - 639,868 101-1500 Finance 549,452 - 549,452 101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)805,068 10,000 815,068 101-1700 Facilities 1,325,331 - 1,325,331 101-1800 Employee Benefits 159,651 - 159,651 101-1900 Community Service Grants 1,070,241 - 1,070,241 101-2100 Police - Patrol 3,359,637 - 3,359,637 101-2155 Police - Communications 1,003,181 - 1,003,181 101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 348,097 - 348,097 101-2300 Building Safety Divison 589,092 - 589,092 101-2400 Engineering 529,397 - 529,397 101-2600 Visitor Center 461,529 - 461,529 101-3100 Streets 2,885,989 - 2,885,989 101-5200 Parks 1,182,604 5,611 1,188,215 101-5304 Senior Center 21,250 (3,305) 17,945 101-5500 Special Events 2,401,439 - 2,401,439 101-5600 Transportation 926,678 - 926,678 101-5690 Parking Services 240,000 - 240,000 101-5700 Museum 360,062 - 360,062 101-9000 Transfers 1,350,322 - 1,350,322 101 GENERAL FUND 20,882,471 50,997 20,933,468 204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 4,646,341 - 4,646,341 211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,541 - 32,541 220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 1,293,730 2,000 1,295,730 236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 45,685 - 45,685 238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700 244 TRAILS 300,000 - 300,000 260 STREET 5,635,833 - 5,635,833 502 LIGHT & POWER 19,983,031 - 19,983,031 503 WATER 10,218,788 262,035 10,480,823 606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,002,909 - 2,002,909 612 FLEET 426,571 - 426,571 625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 715,771 - 715,771 635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 366,916 - 366,916 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 67,247,287 315,032 67,562,319 Attachment B 53 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018 RESOLUTION 16-18 AS OF July 10, 2018 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc by Depts 2018 Additional Appropriation Revised 2018 Capital Project Budget VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT VETMON 101-1300-413-31-13 LAND IMPROVEMENTS - - 8,016 8,016 WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY PROJECT WILL17 101-1300-413-31-13 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 19,204 5,776 24,675 49,655 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP DOCMGT 101-1400-414.37-01 SOFTWARE 159,483 - - 159,483 FLEET/STREETS ROOF FLROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 150,000 - - 150,000 WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT MGT WFHOUS 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 32,100 - - 32,100 TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE)THWIND 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 125,000 - - 125,000 MPEC SERVER ROOM AC EC AC 101-1700-417.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10,000 - - 10,000 SECURITY CAMERAS PHASE 2 SECCAM 101-1700-417.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 26,000 - - 26,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 101-2400-424.22-02 ENGINEERING 103,268 - - 103,268 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN STORM 101-2400-424.22-02 ENGINEERING 37,038 - - 37,038 STORMWATER UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY STMFEE 101-2400-424.22-02 ENGINEERING 10,294 - - 10,294 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS FHWAFC 101-3100-431.22-02 ENGINEERING 461,616 - - 461,616 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS 5CATC 101-3100-431.22-02 ENGINEERING 47,718 - - 47,718 SANDER REPLACEMENTS - 2 STSNDR 101-3100-431.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 16,000 - - 16,000 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS FHWAFC 101-3100-431.36-55 FHWA-FISH CREEK REPAIRS 1,138,702 - - 1,138,702 FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRS 5CATC 101-3100-431.36-55 FHWA-FISH CREEK REPAIRS 55,213 - - 55,213 SMALL 4X4 TRUCK, CART, ETC.ECCART 101-5200-452.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,001 - - 1,001 SANDER REPLACEMENT - 1 ECSNDR 101-5200-452.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,000 - - 10,000 ATV & WEED SPRAYER WEEDSP 101-5200-452.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 20,000 - - 20,000 REBUILD ARENA FOOTING AT EVENT CENTER ARNAFT 101-5500-455.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 125,000 - - 125,000 EVENT CENTER ACOUSTIC IMPROVEMENT ECACST 101-5500-455-33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 60,000 - - 60,000 MOBILE STAGE MSTAGE 101-5500-455-33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 150,000 - - 150,000 STANLEY PARK MASTER PLAN SPMSTP 101-5500-455-35-62 MASTER PLANS 68,000 - - 68,000 REAL TIME PASSENGER INFORMATION SERVICE RTINFO 101-5600-456-33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 8,300 - - 8,300 ELECTRIC TROLLEY ELTROL 101-5600-456-34-42 VEHICLES/TRUCKS 460,000 - - 460,000 PARKING SERVICE SOFTWARE & EQUIP PKSOFT 101-5690-569.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 100,000 - - 100,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,393,937 5,776 32,691 3,432,404 - - MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITY MUSCOL 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 81,100 - - 81,100 MUSEUM REMODEL MUSREM 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 192,000 - - 192,000 PARKING GARAGE COUNTER & COM EQUIP PCOUNT 204-5400-544-33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 40,000 - - 40,000 COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGN COMMDR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS 90,000 - - 90,000 COMMUNITY DR INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION CDINTR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS 600,000 - - 600,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS 2,178,208 - - 2,178,208 DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN DTNPKG 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS 5,169 - - 5,169 PARKING GARAGE CVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS 6,000 - - 6,000 PARKING LOT REPAIRS PARKLT 204-5400-544.35-52 PARKING LOTS - - - - DMS ELECTRONIC SIGNS US36/US34 DYNMSG 204-5400-544.36-52 FEDERAL GRANTS-CMAQ 176,354 - - 176,354 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 3,368,831 - - 3,368,831 - - Attachment B 54 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc by Depts 2018 Additional Appropriation Revised 2018 Capital Project Budget SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAM CDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 ENGINEERING 5,140 - - 5,140 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE MORBRG 220-4600-462-35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 225,000 - - 225,000 FISH CREEK TRAIL 11CATG 220-4600-462.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 1,021,290 - - 1,021,290 TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 1,251,430 - - 1,251,430 - - 4TH DISPATCH CONSOLE PROJECT DCCONS 236-3600-436.33-31 - - - - TOTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND - - - - BRODIE TRAIL EXTENSION BRODIE 244-3400-434-35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS - - - - FALL RIVER TRAIL FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-60 FED GRANT-FR TRAIL - - - - TOTAL TRAILS FUND - - - - STREET OVERLAYS OVRLAY 260-2000-420-35-51 STREETS 500,000 - - 500,000 BRODIE AVE IMPROVEMENTS BRODIE 260-2000-420-35-51 STREETS 336,000 - - 336,000 FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTS FLAP 260-2000-420.36-60 FED GRANT - FLAP 3,920,202 - - 3,920,202 TOTAL STREET FUND 4,756,202 - - 4,756,202 BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-6501-560.22-98 PROF SERVICES/FEES OTHER 10,000 - - 10,000 GLEN HAVEN FIBER INSTALL FOR PRPA GHFIBR 502-6301-540-25-33 UNDERGROUND 649,000 - - 649,000 METERS ELMTR 502-7001-580.33-34 METERS 515,000 - - 515,000 TRANSFORMER PURCHASES TRANSF 502-7001-580.33-35 TRANSFORMERS 157,824 - - 157,824 SMART METER PURCHASES SMRTEL 502-7001-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 35,000 - - 35,000 NONSPECIFIC TOOLS EQUIP 502-7001-580.33-41 TOOLS 40,638 - - 40,638 SKID STEER TRAILER LPSKID 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 20,000 - - 20,000 SNOW OUTAGE EQUIPMENT SNWEQU 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 30,000 - - 30,000 EQUIPMENT TRAILER LPTRLR 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 15,000 - - 15,000 PLOW LPPLOW 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 15,000 - - 15,000 NONSPECIFIC EQUIPMENT EQUIP 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 20,000 - - 20,000 STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES LIGHTS 502-7001-580.35-55 STREET LIGHTS 50,000 - - 50,000 OH LINE REBUILD - GOBLIN CASTLE GC2018 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES 105,000 - - 105,000 OH LINE REBUILD - LONGS PEAK AREA LP2018 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES 140,000 - - 140,000 OH LINE REBUILD - DANDIE WAY DWAY18 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES 50,000 - - 50,000 OH LINE REBUILD - HWY 34 OHBT18 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES 155,000 - - 155,000 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT OVERHEAD WORK AP2016 502-7001-580.35-57 OVERHEAD LINES 64,413 - - 64,413 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND WORK AP2016 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS 169,885 - - 169,885 UNDERGROUND LINE REBUILD - NONSPECIFIC LRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS 125,000 - - 125,000 FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS 183,807 - - 183,807 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSING MORB17 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS 90,134 - - 90,134 MORAINE BRIDGE SOUTH - L&P MORAVE 502-7001-580.35-58 UNDERGROUND CONDUCTORS - - - - NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS WOKEXT 502-7001-580.35-59 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINES 150,000 - - 150,000 BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 27,726 - - 27,726 MIDDLE MILE FIBER TO ALENSPARK/LITTLE VALLEY AP2016 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 209,694 - - 209,694 WATER JET MINIJET 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 28,822 - - 28,822 HWY 34 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL FOBT18 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 250,000 - - 250,000 Attachment B 55 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc by Depts 2018 Additional Appropriation Revised 2018 Capital Project Budget GIS MAPPING IMPROVEMENTS GIS18 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 75,000 - - 75,000 AR & CLICK-TO-GOV UTILITY BILLING MODULES UBPRTL 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 60,626 - - 60,626 TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND 3,442,569 - - 3,442,569 - - GLACIER CREEK LAND CONSOLIDATION PROJECT GCLAND 503-7000-580.31-11 LAND 240,712 - - 240,712 LAND-LOT 1 KEARNEY MINOR SUBDIVISION KEARNY 503-7000-580.31-11 LAND 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 BUILDING WORK AT GLACIER PLANT GPBLDG 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 30,000 - - 30,000 MARY'S LAKE WTP - METERING/CFE SAMPLING VAULT MLVALT 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 35,000 - - 35,000 GLACIER CREEK WTP - DISCHARGE OUT STRUCTURE GCDSCH 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 110,000 - - 110,000 WONDERWARE SOFTWARE WONDER 503-7000-580.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 19,000 - - 19,000 METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SMRTW 503-7000-580.33-34 METERS 300,000 - - 300,000 SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTP GPSCAD 503-7000-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 225,807 - - 225,807 FEEDER REPLACEMENT WTFEED 503-7000-580.33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 17,000 - - 17,000 STORAGE TANK MIXER WTMIXR 503-7000-580.33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 28,000 - - 28,000 TOC ANALYZER, UPS, UV 254 ANALYZER WTTOC 503-7000-580-33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 35,000 - - 35,000 CONFINED SPACE ENTRY EQUIPMENT WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 5,000 - - 5,000 WALK BEHIND ASPHALT SAW WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 40,000 - - 40,000 PRESSURE TESTING EQUIPMENT WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 17,000 - - 17,000 SAFETY EQUIP (TRENCH BOXES AND SPEED SHORING EQUIP WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 30,000 - - 30,000 BULK WATER DISPENSER WTDISP 503-7000-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 35,000 - - 35,000 TANDEM AXLE DUMP TRUCK 90393 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 162,000 - - 162,000 SKID STEER TRAILER WSKIDT 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 3,500 3,500 SKID STEER & BACKHOE TRADE-IN EQUIP 503-7000-580-34-98 OTHER MACHINERY / EQUIP 6,500 - - 6,500 PRV VAULT METERING PVRMTR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 16,000 - - 16,000 PEMPWCo SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PEMPWC 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 1,113,075 - - 1,113,075 PROSPECT MTN USDA LOAN IMPROVEMENTS PMLOAN 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - - PROSPECT MTN WATER O&M PMWCON 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - - PROSPECT MTN PRE-USDA LOAN IMPROVEMENTS PMIMPV 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - 262,035 262,035 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE UTILITY CROSSING MORB17 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 309,538 - - 309,538 MORAIN BRIDGE SOUTH WATERLINE MOBS17 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 20,000 - - 20,000 REDUNDANT WATER SOURCE - BIG THOMPSON WATER RIG WTRABT 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - - ACACIA DR 8" MAIN HYDRANTS ACACIA 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 30,000 - - 30,000 PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE/METERING PRVLM 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 16,000 - - 16,000 CIP ASPEN AVE LINE REPL ASPENL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 180,760 - - 180,760 4TH STREET LINE REPL 4STLR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 250,000 - - 250,000 HWY 34 TO VISTA LANE LINE REPL H34LR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 106,000 - - 106,000 HWY 7 - ARAPAHO & CHARLET RIDGE LINE REPL HWY7AC 503-7000-580-35-54 WATER SYSTEM 37,500 - - 37,500 18" MAIN VALVE INSTALLATIONS 18VALV 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 120,000 - - 120,000 NCWCD MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT INCLUSIONS NCWCD 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 21,000 - - 21,000 GLACIER CREEK WTP INTAKE ENGINEERING GCINTK 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 80,000 - - 80,000 CIP ROCKWELL/WEST RIVERSIDE DR 16" MAIN ROCKWL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 320,000 - - 320,000 CIP BUREAU AREA PHASE 2 WTBRP2 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - - CIP BIG THOMPSON AVE (HWY 34) MAIN BTHOMP 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 507,903 - - 507,903 NORTH FISH CREEK WL EXTENSION WTNFCE 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 8,000 - - 8,000 UTILITY MASTER PLAN WTRMPL 503-7000-580.35-62 UT SYSTEM MASTER PLAN - - - - GIS WORK WTRGIS 503-7000-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 48,000 - - 48,000 CIP USA WATER RIGHTS WITH BOR WTRRBR 503-7000-580.37-10 WATER RIGHTS 44,000 - - 44,000 TOTAL WATER FUND 5,567,295 - 262,035 5,829,330 - - Attachment B 56 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Capital Project Budget 2018 Budget Realloc by Depts 2018 Additional Appropriation Revised 2018 Capital Project Budget FIREWALLS NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 40,000 - - 40,000 NEW NETWORK SERVER NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 20,000 - - 20,000 NEW NETWORK SWITCHES NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10,000 - - 10,000 CONTENT FILTER APPLIANCE NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 7,000 - - 7,000 PRPA RING SWITCHES/GEAR FOR NEW CIRCUIT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT - - - - TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND 77,000 - - 77,000 - - L&P 93323A 06 FORD F-550 4X4 93323A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 11,893 - - 11,893 PARKS G-60A FORD F-550 4X4 G-60A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 14,722 - - 14,722 POLICE G-78B 09 DODGE CHARGER G-78B 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - - STREETS G-63A 08 FORD F-550 4X4 G-63A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 12,852 - - 12,852 SMALL 4X4 TRUCK, CART, ETC.ECCART 635-7000-435.34-42 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 7,997 - - 7,997 L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 2 - 93387A & 93388A 93387A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 62,329 - - 62,329 WATER FUND JD EXCAVATOR 90393 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 29,122 - - 29,122 POLICE G-72 PD INTERCEPTOR G-72 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 60,071 - - 60,071 POLICE LIGHT BARS G-72 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 14,000 - - 14,000 L&P UNIT 93319 - 07 GMC K1500 4X4 93319 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 30,485 - - 30,485 L&P UNIT 93315B - 11 FORD EXPLOYER 93315B 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 33,445 - - 33,445 POLICE NEW PATROL CAR FOR NEW OFFICER POSITION G149 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 60,000 - - 60,000 PW NEW FACILITIES MAINT WORKER TRUCK G212 635-7000-435-34-42 TRUCKS 30,000 - - 30,000 TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 366,916 - - 366,916 TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 22,224,180 5,776 294,726 22,524,682 Attachment B 57 TOWN OF ESTES PARK SCHEDULE OF GRANT REVENUES FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018 RESOLUTION 16-18 AS OF July 10, 2018 Project Name/Description Grant # Project Code Grantor Agency Grant Type (Fed or State) FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Current 2018 Grant Budget 2018 Budget Realloc by Depts 2018 Additional Appropriation Revised 2018 Grant Budget WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY DESIGN NA WILDES CO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE 101 101-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue - 2,721 2,721 WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY CONSTRUCTION NA WILL17 CO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE 101 101-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue - 24,675 24,675 FLOOD PERSONNEL FUNDING F15S7634 DO7634 DOLA STATE 101 101-1600-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 181,267 (181,267) - DOLA DOWNTOWN PLAN F16S7795-81959 DTDOLA DOLA STATE 101 101-1600-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 62,212 62,212 BULLET PROOF VEST GRANT BVP BVEST US DEPT OF JUSTICE Fed 101 101-2100-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 445 445 CDOT POLICE ENFORCEMENT GRANT 411013245 CDOT CDOT STATE 101 101-2100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 7,145 7,145 POLICE ENFORCEMENT GRANT PDPOST 1718 Training PDPOST PDPOST STATE 101 101-2100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 1,598 1,598 POLICE ENFORCEMENT GRANT STATE PDPOST PDPOST STATE 101 101-2100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 5,244 5,244 POLICE ENFORCEMENT GRANT 17-18 LEAF PDPOST PDPOST STATE 101 101-2100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 5,000 5,000 POLICE ENFORCEMENT GRANT HVE PDPOST PDPOST STATE 101 101-2100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 10,000 10,000 IMMEDIATE THREAT STREAM RUNOFF 4145 PW958 17CATB FEMA STATE 101 101-2300-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 358 358 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs CDBG-DR #P16-026 STORM HUD Fed 101 101-2400-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 52,466 52,466 FLOOD PERSONNEL FUNDING #2 F16S9044 DO9044 DHSEM STATE 101 101-2400-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 58,262 58,262 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE REPL F16S9044 MORBRG DHSEM STATE 101 101-2400-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 153,427 153,427 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs CDBGDR2-EST-01 FHWAFC HUD Fed 101 101-3100-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 413,668 413,668 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs CDBGDR2-EST-02 5CATC HUD Fed 101 101-3100-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 63,018 63,018 FISH CREEK FLOOD REPAIRS Thru Larimer Cty FHWAFC US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Fed 101 101-3100-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 4,188,113 4,188,113 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs 4145 PW197 15CATC DHSEM STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 7,917 7,917 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs 4145 PW5 2CATB DHSEM STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 595 595 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs 4145 PW43 5CATC DHSEM STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 67,957 67,957 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs 4145 PW69 6CATC DHSEM STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 14,765 14,765 CDBG-DR Flood Repairs 4145 PW258 8CATF DHSEM STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 921 921 FISH CREEK FLOOD REPAIRS Thru Larimer Cty FHWAFC CDOT STATE 101 101-3100-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 450,654 450,654 ELECTRIC TROLLEY ELTROL Fed 101 101-5600-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 360,000 360,000 101 Total 6,105,032 - (153,871) 5,951,161 DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN AQC M 405-020 DYNMSG CDOT-CMAQ Fed 204 204-0000-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 136,000 136,000 MORAINE AVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CDBGDR2-EST-04 MORBRG HUD Fed 204 204-0000-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 2,569,131 2,569,131 PARKING GARAGE AQC M 405-016 (19013)CVBPRK CDOT-FASTER STATE 204 204-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 50,000 50,000 204 Total 2,755,131 - - 2,755,131 LOTTERY PROCEEDS NA NA STATE TREASURY STATE 211 211-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 32,250 32,250 211 Total 32,250 - - 32,250 FISH CREEK FLOOD REPAIRS CDBGDR2-EST-03 11CATG HUD Fed 220 220-0000-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 3,561 3,561 FISH CREEK FLOOD REPAIRS PW195 4145 11CATG FEMA Fed 220 220-0000-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 629,599 629,599 CARRIAGE HILLS REPAIRS DEF-EST-01 (94434)CDBGCH DOLA STATE 220 220-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 278,434 278,434 FISH CREEK FLOOD REPAIRS PW195 4145 11CATG DOLA STATE 220 220-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 134,003 134,003 220 Total 1,045,597 - - 1,045,597 FALL RIVER TRAIL CO-20-X007-00 FRTRL US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Fed 244 244-0000-333-00-00 Federal Grant Revenue 4,830 4,830 244 Total 4,830 - - 4,830 BRODIE AVE IMPROVEMENTS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL BRODIE CDOT STATE 260 260-0000-334-30-00 State Grant Revenue 336,000 336,000 336,000 - - 336,000 FLOOD PERSONNEL FUNDING F15S7634 DO7634 DOLA STATE 502 502-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 1,034 1,034 BROADBAND F16S9095-90426 BB0001 DOLA STATE 502 502-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 10,698 10,698 ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION POGG12018-0386 ELCHRG COLORADO ENERGY OFFICE STATE 502 502-0000-334-20-00 State Grant Revenue 12,520 12,520 24,252 - - 24,252 Grand Total 10,303,092 - (153,871) 10,149,221 Attachment B 58 59 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer Date: July 10, 2018 RE: Historical Sign Approval – Applicant / Strong & Co. LLC, Bird & Jim (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve or deny the use of the neon roof sign located at 915 Moraine Avenue, in accordance with the Estes Park Municipal Code, §17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs. Present Situation: The roof sign was constructed sometime in the 1950’s and remains in place today. A portion at the top of the sign had been removed more than ten (10) years ago (specific date unknown). This sign is not compliant with current sign code regulations that prohibit roof signs, however was allowed with Larimer County sign codes prior to annexation in 2005. The owners have restored the sign identical to when it was first constructed, but to meet current requirements for wind and snow loads. Proposal: To allow the sign to remain and be illuminated as was originally constructed and in accordance with EPMC Title 17.66.071 which allows the Town Board of Trustees to approve signs that can demonstrate the historical significance. Ad vantages: •This sign is considered iconic to the community. •The sign poses no threat to the health and wellbeing to the public. •This sign represents the intent of the adopted sign code with respect to historical signs. 60 Disadvantages: •Other businesses in town may request the same type of roof sign, and upon denial it could be perceived as bias. Action Recommended: Staff: Approve the application of or this historical sign. Finance/Resource Impact: There are not budget implications with a decision to approve or deny. Level of Public Interest Low: The Town has not received any comments in regard to this application. Sample Motion: APPROVAL I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the application of Bird & Jim to use the neon roof sign in its original and authentic form, finding that it meets the requirements of the Estes Park Municipal Code, Title 17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs. Attachments: 1.Application 2.Photographs (8) 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Fwd: Alpine Coaster ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marcia Kelly-Gerritz <marciakgerritz@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:35 PM Subject: Alpine Coaster To: Cbangs@estes.org Dear Ms. Bangs, Thank you for your service to the town of Estes Park. As a trustee I recognize that you have many difficult decisions to make on behalf of the people of our town. I’m sorry to add to your burden by asking you to delay the permit for the Alpine Coaster project on the property of Sombrero Ranch at the intersection of Dry Gulch and Highway 34. It is my understanding that there will be no trustee or public involvement in issuing the permit because there are less than 20 parking spaces proposed. As a resident of the larger Estes Park community I can’t help but think that the proposed project has the potential to impact traffic, cause erosion, and impact Dry Gulch, and set the stage for unplanned development of the property should the coaster become popular. I think it is inappropriate to allow the initial development of the coaster without assessing the larger effects of the project over time. It is my belief that the assessment should involve the EP planning department with oversight by the trustees. Thank you, Marcia Kelly-Gerritz 2508 Cirrus Lane Estes Park, CO 8057