Town of Nederland

TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING

NEDERLAND COMMUNITY CENTER 750 Hwy 72 Nederland, CO 80466 May 15, 2012, 7:00 P.M. AGENDA

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

C. CONSENT AGENDA

• Approval of May 15, 2012 Accounts Payable

• Approval of May 1, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

• Approval of Motor Vehicle Review Policy amendment to the Personnel Policy Manual

D. STAFF REPORTS 1. Alisha Reis, Town Administrator 2. Teresa Myers, Town Clerk 3. Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer 4. Jake Adler, Town Marshal 5. Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager 6. Dawn Baumhover, Community Center Coordinator

E. BOARD OF TRUSTEE REPORTS 1. Mayor’s Report 2. Trustees’ Reports

F. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (Speakers limited to 3 minutes)

Town of Nederland

G. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. BOT Goals Update 2. Proposed change to Nederland Municipal Code Chapter 16, amending sections

concerned with non-conforming lots and structures.

H. ACTION ITEMS 1. Consideration of permission for Teens, Inc. to allow a graffiti wall on Town

property at the Teen Center site. 2. Consideration of Special Event request to allow camping in Chipeta Park during

NedFest. 3. Consideration of Ordinance 707, adding parking lot guidelines to Design Guidelines

and Standards. 4. Consideration of Ordinance 708, authorizing the Town Marshal to issue a fire ban. 5. Consideration of Special Review Use for the Roasted Toad BBQ, 229 Boulder

Canyon Dr. 6. Consideration of DDA Board appointments. 7. Consideration of RFP award for Comprehensive Plan Updates.

I. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Discussion of permission to allow the Chamber to post an art sign at the Visitor’s

Center.

J. OTHER BUSINESS

K. ADJOURNMENT The Board of Trustees encourages citizen participation. Public hearings and the “unscheduled citizens” agenda item allow an opportunity to address the Board. Discussion is limited to 3 minutes and please address your comments to the Board. Thank you for your cooperation. The Board of Trustees may take action on any item included on this agenda, regardless of the heading under which such item appears. Discussion items may become action items if the Board determines that deferring final action on an item to a subsequent meeting is unnecessary or unwarranted and that taking immediate action does not compromise any third-party's rights. The Board of Trustees meeting packets are prepared by Friday before the Tuesday meetings and are available for inspection at Town Hall during normal

Town of Nederland

business hours. The information is reviewed and studied by the Board of Trustee members, eliminating lengthy discussions to gain basic understanding. Short discussion on agenda items does not reflect lack of thought or analysis. The agendas are posted at Town Hall, the post office, and on the Town's website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Copies of the agenda and meeting packet are available at no cost via email from the Town Clerk or from the Town website at www.nederlandco.org.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING:

May 15, 2012

Responsible Department: Administration

Contact Staff Member: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Consent Agenda Items which are not controversial in nature; have been

previously discussed and considered

A. Approval of May 15, 2012 Accounts Payable “Schedule A”

B. Approval of May 15, 2012 Accounts Payable “Schedule B”

C. Approval of May 1, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

D. Approval of Motor Vehicle Policy amendment to the Personnel Policy

BOARD MEMBERS MAY:

Move TO APPROVE the Consent Agenda

Or

Move TO AMEND by removing or adding from the Consent Agenda

By A roll call vote of the Board of Trustees

TOWN OF NEDERLAND WARRANTS

WARRANTS FOR 05/15/12 Schedule A

Date Number VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION3-May 26290 Clarence Jagt 444.00$ community center maintenance/BOT set up3-May 26291 Accounting Specialists 100.00$ professional accounting fees for Treasurer vacation3-May 26292 Ace Hardware 1,005.14$ minor tools & equipment for Town facilities3-May 26293 Acme Septic 325.00$ professional services related to waste water plant repairs3-May 26294 Annette Price 500.00$ professional fees related to appraisal of Open Space property3-May 26295 Accurate Payroll Solutions 150.00$ Payroll charges for April3-May 26296 B&F 199.31$ misc. sundries/BOT meals/other supplies3-May 26297 Boulder County AIDs Project 100.00$ purchase of backup cartridges for IT3-May 26298 Boulder County Finance 6,321.17$ fuel depot charges for Town equipment for Feb/Mar3-May 26299 The Business Connection 53.55$ printing and supplies3-May 26300 Canyon Plumbing & Heating 762.00$ repairs for visitor center and community center3-May 26301 Colonial Supplemental 118.90$ supplemental insurance for Town employees3-May 26302 Commerce Bank 3,580.45$ monthly lease payment for front loader/PD vehicle3-May 26304 Dewco Water Equipment 205.13$ minor tools & equipment for water3-May 26305 DPC Industries 986.82$ chemicals for water/sewer3-May 26306 East Street Garage 315.98$ repairs on Ford (PD)3-May 26307 Five Star Products & Services 972.64$ chemicals for water/sewer3-May 26308 Eva Forberger 3,300.00$ professional services related to accounting for April3-May 26309 Grainger 96.40$ minor tools & equipment for public works and water3-May 26310 Grimshaw & Harring 50.75$ counsel for DDA3-May 26311 Hach Company 96.15$ minor tools & equipment for water3-May 26312 Home Depot 210.80$ minor tools & equipment for public works3-May 26313 Indian Peaks Electric 382.50$ electrical upgrades at community center3-May 26314 J&L Plumbing 1,263.64$ professional services related to plumbing for water meter project3-May 26315 The JP Cooke Co 57.60$ misc. supplies for Police Dept3-May 26316 Meriwether Maps 220.00$ professional services related to GIS 3-May 26317 The Mountain Ear 20.00$ classified AD for receptionist position3-May 26318 Napa Auto Parts 93.85$ minor tools & equipment for public works3-May 26319 Office Depot 527.55$ office supplies for town facilities3-May 26320 Safebuilt 344.39$ professional services related to building permitting and review3-May 26321 Sherman & Howard 8,000.00$ legal counsel on DDA for the Town $3k; for elections $5k3-May 26322 Molly Swan 558.00$ professional fees related to Town uniforms3-May 26323 Tundra Specialists 122.13$ janitorial supplies for Town Hall3-May 26324 TZA Water Engineers 1,106.00$ professional fees related to water rights3-May 26325 UMB Bank 21,364.38$ Interest payment on G.O. Bond for Community Center renovations3-May 26326 Vranesh and Raisch 26.50$ professional fees related to water rights3-May 26327 Western Radiant Systems 291.38$ minor tools & equipment for water3-May 26328 Wireless Advanced Communications 291.64$ minor tools & equipment for police dept

Total Non Payroll Warrants 54,563.75$

Schedule B3-May 26303 Alpenet 1,363.50$ IT services for Town facilities March-April

Total Non Payroll Warrants 1,363.50$

BOT- 051512.xls/Warrant Approvals - 1 -

1 | P a g e

TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES: May 1, 2012, 7:00PM

NEDERLAND COMMUNITY CENTER

750 Hwy 72 Nederland, CO 80466 ______________________________________________________________________________

A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting convened at 7:02 PM.

B. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Joe Gierlach, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller, Trustees Chris Perret, Randy Lee, Peter Fiori and Annette Croughwell. Absent: Trustee Ledge Long. Also present: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator, Teresa Myers, Town Clerk, Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer, Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager, and Carmen Beery, Town Attorney.

C. CONSENT AGENDA

• Approval of May 1, 2012 Accounts Payable

• Approval of April 17, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes

• Approval of Agreement with Wild Bear for use of Town-owned van

• Approval of Licensing Agreement with ASCAP

• Approval of Community Center Kitchen Leases

Trustees Perret and Fiori asked that the Wild Bear and the ASCAP agreement, respectively, be considered separately from the rest of the Consent Agenda.

2 | P a g e

Motion to approve the Consent Agenda, except for the Wild Bear agreement and the ASCAP licensing agreement, was made by Trustee Lee, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously. Trustees Perret, Fiori, and Mayor Pro Tem Mueller asked about the lease agreement for the van. Forberger and Beery answered their questions about precedence, financial implications, and liability. Trustee Fiori explained that his experience with ASCAP suggests that the Town does not need an ASCAP license and he believes that the Town does not need to comply with ASCAP’s request for a license. Beery explained that it was less expensive to comply with the ASCAP request than to defend even a frivolous lawsuit later. Motion to approve the Wild Bear Agreement and the ASCAP Agreement was made by Trustee Lee, seconded by Trustee Croughwell, and approved by a vote of three in favor (Gierlach, Croughwell, and Lee), two against (Mueller and Perret), and one abstaining due to a financial conflict of interest (Fiori).

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (Speakers limited to 3 minutes) No public comment was received.

E. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Presentation concerning creation of a Mayor’s Task Force on Housing

Atashnaa Medicine Shield Werner, of Greater Nederland, asked the Board to create a Mayor’s Task Force on Housing to study housing options for low-income families and seniors. She informed the Board of other Boulder County municipality initiatives to create more low-income housing. A general recitation of her presentation is included in the packet of record. The Board discussed the availability of current services and the increasing need for senior services due to the aging populations. The Mayor informed the Board of DRCOG initiatives in this area, and expressed his support for a Task Force to research and investigate options and opportunities. Trustees Fiori, Lee, and Perret expressed support for creation of a Task Force.

3 | P a g e

By voice vote, the Board voted to create a Mayor’s Task Force on Housing and Human Services. Interested parties can apply via Town Hall by June 1, 2012.

2. Announcement of DDA Board application deadline and appointment procedures. Myers explained the DDA application procedures, and the Mayor explained how Board voting on the DDA applicants would occur.

F. ACTION ITEMS 1. Consideration of appointment of Susan Gerhart to the Community Center

Foundation Board (CCFB). Dale Porter spoke in favor of Gerhart’s appointment and informed the Board of Gerhart’s qualifications. Gerhart was available to answer any questions. Motion was made by Trustee Perret to appoint Susan Gerhart to the CCFB, seconded by Trustee Croughwell, and approved unanimously.

2. Consideration of appointment of Mark Stringfellow to the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). Stringfellow was available to answer any questions. Trustee Perret asked if Stringfellow’s occupation as a General Contractor in Town posed a conflict of interest. Beery replied that it did not. Motion was made by Trustee Fiori to appoint Mark Stringfellow to the BZA, seconded by Trustee Lee, and approved unanimously. The Mayor called a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:15PM.

3. Consideration of DRCOG funding for storm water management and pedestrian pathways (NedPed). The Mayor, as the DRCOG representative from the Board, explained the background of the item and briefly outlined the major points. The Mayor highlighted some aspects of the design that may be considered, including building pathways or sidewalks not on CDOT rights-of-way, using materials other than concrete, employing the Nederland Planning

4 | P a g e

Process in the design consideration, and using an environmental survey company to determine impacts. The Mayor also explained the proposed calendar for moving forward with the project, as contained within the packet. Trustees Fiori and Croughwell asked whether DDA funding could be used to fund pathways outside the DDA boundaries, and Beery responded that she would research the answers. The Mayor Pro Tem reminded the Board that it had received information from the state that DDA funds could be used outside DDA boundaries in order to achieve DDA goals. Trustee Lee asked about staff resources to accomplish these goals, and Reis explained that oversight of this project would impact staff time on other projects. The Mayor raised the possibility of using a portion of the funding to hire a project manager to handle the details of the project. He noted that using CDOT funds to address the drainage issues in the downtown area would allow the Town to direct other resources to other problem drainage areas, such as in the Big Springs neighborhood. Donna Kirkpatrick, of Nederland, thanked the Board for listening to the 2nd St. concerns about drainage. She noted that she hadn’t wanted the town to give up the funds previously, and would be glad to see a way to have them retrieved. Trustee Lee asked if the Board could discuss this in its goal-setting workshop. The Mayor explained that DRCOG is meeting tomorrow and he is under the gun for an answer. Trustee Perret pointed out that, in his opinion, the Board is being asked to proceed with authorization without an adequate plan, because of DRCOG deadline pressure. Mayor Pro Tem Mueller felt that the Board was misled as to how its decision to turn down the funds originally would affect subsequent funding. He felt that the Board’s previous decision should not have affected later funding, such as the Safe Routes to School grant money, which the Town lost, in part due to having accepted and then rejected the sidewalk funding. Reis explained that decisions made by funding entities necessarily contain an element of subjectivity because the scoring is conducted by people examining the application in a broader context, so that will always happen.

5 | P a g e

The Mayor Pro Tem requested that a study of the watershed be a first step and that the Town consult with a biomimicry engineer before going any further. He also made several changes to the Mayor’s proposed calendar for the NPP. Trustee Fiori expressed some concerns about how to insure that the public meetings are productive and civil. The Mayor noted that mediators could be hired to run the meetings, and the Mayor Pro Tem added that people are going to need to get their opinions – and frustrations – out as part of the process. Trustee Perret asked that all experts hired be familiar with the unique concerns and problems faced by mountain communities. Trustee Fiori expressed his disappointment that so few members of the public appeared at the meeting, but he said he chose to view their absence as a demonstration of faith in the new Board. He voiced his support for the ambition of the Mayor’s plan. He also commended staff for their commitment to working with this process, and he supported the changes offered by the Mayor Pro Tem. He encouraged the Mayor to exercise the continued leadership necessary to keep the public meetings productive and civil.

Trustee Lee opined that he is not entirely comfortable with the heavy workload, both for the Board and for staff. He is worried that the tone of the public meetings will spoil the conversation or hijack the outcome of the discussion. Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Mueller to extend the meeting until 10:15PM, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved by a voice vote of five to one, with Trustee Perret voting no. Trustee Croughwell supported the process and thought it will demonstrate to the constituents that a public process can be employed to address some large infrastructure problems in Town and also potentially reclaim substantial funding.

Trustee Perret felt that it is not a good idea to proceed without additional public input. He agrees that the drainage problems on 2nd St. need to be addressed but was concerned that Trustee Fiori’s assumption that the public has faith in the current Board is possibly

6 | P a g e

misplaced. He commended the Mayor’s work toward organizing the project and creating the calendar. Motion was made by Trustee Fiori to extend the meeting until 10:30PM, seconded by Trustee Croughwell, and passed by a voice vote of five to one, with Trustee Perret voting no. Mayor Pro Tem Mueller said he supports pursuing the money in order to gather additional information and design ideas to adequately address infrastructure and traffic and pedestrian circulation issues. Motion was made by Trustee Perret to direct the Mayor to convey to DRCOG that the Town intends to proceed with the project, that staff to continue working on this project in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the materials, and that $58,000 of DDA funding be applied toward this project, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously.

4. Consideration of Ordinance 707, approving an amendment to the Use Group Table in the Nederland Municipal Code Section 16-32, to authorize Bed and Breakfast uses as a Special Review Use in residential and commercial zoning districts. This item was tabled to the June 19th meeting.

5. Consideration of Ordinance 708, adding parking lot guidelines to Design Guidelines and Standards. This item was tabled to the May 15th meeting.

G. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Discussion of amendments to Chapter 2 of the Nederland Municipal Code. Beery introduced the item and explained her suggested changes. Mayor Pro Tem Mueller

felt that the public comment portion of the Code should be retained, and his opinion was supported by Trustees Perret, Croughwell, and Mayor Gierlach, Trustee Fiori disagreed and opined that the Mayor should be able to control the meeting and the length and degree of public comment in order to insure decorum and productivity of meetings. Trustee Lee agreed with Trustee Fiori’s comments.

7 | P a g e

Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Mueller to extend the meeting until 10:45PM, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and passed by a voice vote of five to one, with Trustee Perret voting no.

2. Discussion of Town contribution toward employee health/dental/vision benefits.

Reis introduced the item and reminded the Board of previous discussions on these issues during budget conversations. Forberger explained the details of the plan options and how various possibilities would affect both the Town budget and employees. Trustee Lee suggested that the Board move the item to an Action Item. Motion was made by Trustee Perret to move the item to an Action Item, seconded by Trustee Fiori, and approved unanimously. Motion was made by Trustee Fiori to approve the proposed changes to the Town contribution for employee health/dental/vision benefits, seconded by Trustee Croughwell, and approved unanimously. Motion was made by Trustee Fiori to extend the meeting to 11:00PM, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mueller, and approved unanimously.

H. OTHER BUSINESS

I. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Trustee Perret, seconded by Trustee Croughwell, and approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00PM. Approved by the Board of Trustees. _________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

AGENDA INFORMATION

MEMORANDUM

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Meeting Date: May 15, 2012

Initiated By: /s/ Teresa Myers

Dept: Administration

Consent Agenda ___X___

______________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM:

Approval of Motor Vehicle Review Policy amendment to the Personnel Policy

Manual.

SUMMARY:

By adopting a Motor Vehicle Review Policy, the Town will be meeting one of

CIRSA’s “base” loss control standards and receive additional credits during

its Loss Prevention Audit later this month.

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:

The attached Motor Vehicle Review Policy allows the Town to conduct review

of motor vehicle records for any staff that drives vehicles as part of their

employment with the Town. Such reviews identify safety risks and allow for

corrective action to prevent future injury.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. The new Motor Vehicle Review Policy.

2. Proposed changes to the motor vehicle section of the Personnel Policy Manual.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Minimal financial impact, although some savings might be result from a

better Loss Prevention Audit score.

Motor Vehicle Record Review, May 2012 1 | P a g e

TOWN OF NEDERLAND

Motor Vehicle Records Review Policy

POLICY ADOPTED: xxxx, 2012

POLICY EFFECTIVE: xxxx, 2012

I. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to establish procedures and standards for the review of employees who

drive motor vehicles on Town business.

II. Responsibilities

The Town Clerk’s office shall administer this policy.

III. Prospective Employees

Each prospective employee must have a valid Colorado driver’s license of the appropriate type, if

one is required for the position. Each such prospective employee must provide, at his or her own

expense, a current Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) that is no older than 30 days.

The Clerk’s office will evaluate the prospective employee’s MVR prior to hiring. No person shall be

hired into a position requiring a driver’s license unless the person’s MVR meets the criteria listed

in Section V below.

IV. Current Employees

Each current employee must have a valid Colorado driver’s license of the appropriate type if one is

required for the position. The Clerk’s office will obtain at least annually, at the Town’s expense, a

copy of the MVR for each such employee.

MVRs for current employees may also be requested and reviewed in the following situations:

After an on-the-job collision determined to be preventable by the Clerk’s Office in

consultation with the employee’s supervisor.

If a complaint is received regarding the employee’s driving while on Town business.

If an employee transfers to a position requiring a valid Colorado driver’s license (or into a

position requiring a different type of driver’s license than required for the current position).

V. Evaluating MVRs and Driving Records

The following criteria will be used when evaluating MVRs and driving records:

Clear MVR – No minor convictions or preventable collisions in the last three (3) years and no

major violations/convictions in the last five (5) years.

Acceptable MVR –

No major violations/convictions in the last five (5) years; OR

Motor Vehicle Record Review, May 2012 2 | P a g e

Two (2) minor convictions in the last three (3) years; OR

One (1) preventable collision and one (1) minor conviction in the last three (3) years.

Marginal MVR –

Three (3) minor violations/convictions in the last three (3) years; OR

Two (2) preventable collisions in the last three (3) years; OR

Any combination of minor convictions and preventable collisions totaling three (3) in the

last three (3) years.

Unacceptable MVR –

One (1) or more major violations/convictions in the last three (3) years; OR

Four (4) or more minor convictions in the last three (3) years; OR

Three (3) or more preventable collisions in the last three (3) years; OR

Any combination of minor convictions and preventable collisions totaling four (4) or more in

the last three (3) years.

Major and minor convictions are listed below. The Town’s Vehicle Accident Review Policy will be

used to determine the preventability of motor vehicle accidents for current employees.

Major Violations/Convictions include, but are not limited to, the following:

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) or while ability is impaired (DWAI)

Reckless driving

Racing/speed contests

Leaving the scene of an accident

Failure to report an accident

Making a false accident report

Vehicular homicide or manslaughter

Attempting to elude a police officer

Driving while license is suspended, revoked, or restricted

Driving an Town vehicle that has been locked/tagged out

Minor Violations/Convictions include, but are not limited to, the following:

Speeding

Running a stop sign or red light

Making an improper turn

Passing across a double yellow line

Failure to Yield

Following too close

Failure to wear a seatbelt

Careless driving

Failure to possess a valid Colorado driver’s license

Failure to provide proof of insurance if operating their personal vehicle

Motor vehicle equipment violations

Operating a defective or unsafe vehicle

Failure to stop for a school bus with its red flashers activated

Motor Vehicle Record Review, May 2012 3 | P a g e

VI. Corrective Action for Marginal and Unacceptable Driving Records

When an employee’s MVR falls into the unacceptable category, corrective action up to and

including termination of employment will be taken.

When an employee’s MVR falls into the marginal category, corrective action, including, but not

limited to, the following, will be taken:

Attending a defensive driver training program.

Participating in a documented ride-along evaluation.

Other actions as deemed appropriate.

VII. Driver’s License Suspensions, Revocations or Restrictions

It is the employee’s responsibility to notify the supervisor immediately if the employee’s driver’s

license is suspended, revoked, or restricted for any reason. Failure to do so may be grounds for

corrective action, up to and including termination of employment.

23

Employees may be considered for re-employment provided they qualify for the position of interest and while they were employed with the Town maintained satisfactory performance and attendance. Smoking

It is our objective to provide a smoke-free environment within our organization. Smoking is prohibited within all areas of the building and within 15 feet of the main entrance into the building. Employees may smoke in designated outdoor areas. This restriction applies to all employees and visitors, at all times, including non-business hours. Use of Town Vehicles

An employee operating a Town-owned vehicle or personal vehicle on Town business must possess and maintain an appropriate, valid Colorado driver's license. If the employee's driver's license is suspended or revoked by the State of Colorado, the employee is required to immediately notify their supervisor and to cease operating Town vehicles and personal vehicles used on Town business and/or property. Employees who fail to notify of such loss will be subject to disciplinary action. The Town will annually verify employee’s license status and driving record, and take action as deemed necessary to insure the safety of the employee and Town residents, per Town motor vehicle records review policy. Members of the Public Works and Police Departments may, at the discretion of the Town Administrator, be permitted to use a take home vehicle for official business only.

1

MEMORANDUM To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Alisha Reis Date: May 15, 2012 Re: Administrator's Report

PLANNING PROJECTS UNDERWAY IN COMMUNITY The update of the Comprehensive Plan is set to begin this summer. This plan, also sometimes referred to as a master plan, governs land use decisions for the community. “A comprehensive plan promotes the community's vision, goals, objectives, and policies; establishes a process for orderly growth and development; addresses both current and long-term needs; and provides for a balance between the natural and built environment” (Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)). The relationship in Nederland between community vision and land use regulation looks roughly like this:

On May 15, the Board will consider the recommendation of a firm to assist the Town with the update. A 14-member steering committee comprised of the Planning Commission and several other community representatives, reviewed and scored proposals, interviewed two finalists, and drafted their recommendation. The steering committee will also work with the consultant, the community and Town staff to oversee the project over its six- to eight-month lifespan, starting this June.

The plan, last updated in 2003, will be augmented with new population, economic, household and other data from the 2010 Census. The growth projections are different today than they were during the bustling period early in the new century. Growth in Nederland was 26 percent in the decade before the 2000 Census (similar in rate to

Envision 2020

Comprehensive Plan Land Use Codes

Parks/Rec/Open Space/Trails Master Plan

Master Infrastructure

Plan

2

much of Colorado at the time), but that slowed to 3 percent in 2010 Census. Now is a good time to check in with residents on the direction of the community, as well as to incorporate tenets of the community vision, Envision 2020. Envision 2020 is informing all planning processes, from the overall Comprehensive Plan to all sub plans, such as the ongoing Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Master Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan will provide estimated population at “build-out”, once a community reaches its threshold for development. This build-out, as well as guidelines established in the plan, will inform the Master Infrastructure Plan to be conducted in 2013. This plan is a strategic approach to understanding the community’s water, wastewater, streets, drainage and other infrastructure needs, then drafting short- and long-term goals and financial plans for meeting them.

Update on Parks/Rec Master Plan

Preliminary results are in for the survey conducted to support the update of the Town of Nederland and Surrounding Areas Open Space, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Gateway Park Planning and Conceptual Design project. A public meeting to share final survey results, as well as other public input from focus groups and an earlier public meeting will be Monday, June 11 at 7 p.m. at the Community Center. A design charette in support of the gateway park planning will follow on Monday, June 25 at 7 p.m. at the Community Center. An inventory of community assets has been conducted, as well as collection of demographic and mapping information. Project information is posted on the Town Web site: http://nederlandco.org/government/town-boards/prosab/ under “Projects”.

Upon completion, the updated parks/recreation/open space/trails master plan will be incorporated into the updated Comprehensive Plan, as part of the guidelines on all community development.

Learn more about planning

To get more information about the basics of community planning, visit these resources:

• Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Community Development Office: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251594456054

• American Planning Association: http://www.planning.org/ • Urban Land Institute: http://www.uli.org/ • International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) Knowledge Network:

http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/topics/kn/Topic/204/Planning • Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute:

http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/rmlui-practice • Smart Growth Network (EPA): http://www.smartgrowth.org/?res=1152

www.nederlandco.org

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees

From: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Date: May 15, 2012

Re: Clerk’s Report

This past month, the Clerk’s office has been busy with the following:

1. Michele and I have spent quite a bit of time working on business license compliance,

both in terms of renewals and obtaining applications from previously non-compliant

businesses. So far, nearly all businesses have been very obliging. In the three

weeks since we mailed reminder letters, we have received 58 business license

applications. This is a good return. I feel certain that some form of enforcement will

be necessary for a few businesses, but only for a few.

2. Also on the business license front, I have been contemplating ways to add value to

the business license process and to promote economic sustainability for compliant

businesses. A couple of ideas I have so far: a “Local Business Corner” of the

website, where we could highlight one business a week, and also advertise any

specials or promotions a local business was running; we could also use our social

media outlets to promote the same. This corner could also be a useful source of

information for local businesses, where they could access necessary Town forms and

see news of upcoming events that might be of particular interest to them as business

owners, such as TIPS trainings. I will be meeting with Katrina Harms of the

Chamber of Commerce to brainstorm additional ideas. I would invite you to send me

any ideas you have, as well. Michele and I will consider all options and evaluate

them in light of staff time and monetary resources.

3. The Town’s Technical Review Committee completed a post-event TRC meeting to

consider the Frozen Dead Guy Days event and debrief on lessons learned and

successes realized. I have attached to this report the memo staff compiled after that

meeting. Of particular note is a new requirement that all event organizers provide

written contingency plans for potential weather occurrences that could hinder or

require cancelation of the event. The TRC agreed that such plans are necessary

moving forward.

www.nederlandco.org

4. I recently received the results of CIRSA’s property appraisals for our Town.

Unfortunately, due to years of sub-market appraisals, the new appraisals CIRSA

will be using are dramatically elevated from previous years. Many property values

increased by 100% or more, some by as much as 600%. These new appraisals will

almost assuredly increase our premiums, but I will not know those numbers until

the end of August. I have spoken at length with our underwriter to attempt to

negotiate an alternative to such steep increases, but thus far have not been

successful. I raise this issue now merely so that you are aware of it, and I will keep

you apprised as things develop.

5. Social media update: We currently have 389 Facebook “likes” (up 20 from March)

and 548 Twitter “followers” (up 23 from April).

6. Web statistics for the period from April 9th to May 5th, along with an arrow indicator

showing whether this is an increase or decrease over the previous month:

6,268 visits; ↑65

15,359 page views (individual pages on the website); ↑121

2.45 pages per visit on average; ↓0.01

45.15% bounce rate (this indicates visitors who landed on our page and

immediately left; our rate is fairly low); ↓0.37%

2.40 minutes spent on the website on average; ↓0.06 seconds

62.25% of visits are new visits; ↓1.69%

Also of note on the website: check out the Board of Trustee page

(http://nederlandco.org/board-of-trustees/board-of-trustees/), with the new mining

motif photo of the Board, and the Town Hall and Town Department pages, with

photos of staff.

www.nederlandco.org

MEMORANDUM

To: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator

Jake Adler, Town Marshal

Rick Dirr, NFPD Chief

Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager

Eva Forberger, Town Treasurer

Dawn Baumhover, Community Center Coordinator

Amanda MacDonald, FDGD Coordinator

From: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Date: April 27, 2012

Re: Frozen Dead Guy Days 2012 Post-Event TRC Memo

On Friday March 2nd – Sunday March 4th, 2012, Frozen Dead Guys Days was held in

Nederland, under the oversight of Butterfly Effect Promotions, LLC. This year’s event

suffered from some unfortunate weather occurrences and some logistical issues. On

Thursday, April 26th, I convened a post-event meeting of the Technical Review Committee

to discuss these issues and strategize better solutions for coming years.

Attached hereto are memos from the Nederland Police Department and the Public Works

Department. Recommendations contained therein were discussed at the post-event TRC

meeting. Nearly all of the issues raised in these memos were identified and acknowledged

by the event organizer prior to the meeting.

Issues Reported To the Clerk’s Office

1. Given the unpredictable nature of Nederland weather even during the best of

seasons, in future organizers need to have contingency plans for wind, snow storms,

and for fast-melting situations (mud, rain). These plans must be shared, in advance,

with the Fire Department, the Police Department, and Town staff. Protocols for

cancellations of the events need to be outlined and provided in writing, so that Town

departments can appropriately and adequately support and respond to any

cancellations. Communications regarding postponements and cancellations should

be coordinated with Town communication outlets to insure minimal confusion for

event attendees.

www.nederlandco.org

It was agreed that a confidential Contact List for Contingencies would be created

and disseminated prior to the event next year. Additionally, organizers will develop

written contingency plans for weather occurrences.

2. Event staff needs to be better trained concerning appropriate behavior during the

event. Examples:

a. I received a report – separately confirmed later – that a FDGD staff member

or volunteer had posed as a Town employee when requesting the assistance

of a resident with a bobcat for use at Chipeta Park for the coffin races. The

resident suspected the individual was not actually a Town employee and

declined to help. Impersonation of Town staff is not acceptable.

The event organizer was very concerned about this and will confer with Jason

Morrison to determine the identity of the individual.

b. The picnic table located on First Street next to (and owned by) the Co-op was

enlisted for use in an event and subsequently broken. The Co-op was not

notified of the damage, but discovered it Monday morning. Use of private

property without prior permission is not acceptable.

The event organizer will be following up with the Co-op management to

determine how to rectify the damage.

The general perception held by many residents is that event staff treats the

Town like their event stadium for the weekend and then leave behind the debris

and hard feelings. These small examples do nothing to dispel that sentiment.

The event organizer agreed to conduct more thorough volunteer training.

3. My office received two noise complaints about the event, one specifically noting the

throbbing bass tone from the music tent. Neither of these complaints alleged that

the event had violated the Town’s noise ordinance; rather they requested that the

noise permit not be issued at all.

The event organizer agreed to work with sound engineer to explore ways to muffle

the sound as it leaves the music tent.

4. I also received a complaint from a resident (and former trustee), who was concerned

with how much public services were expended to support the event, particularly

those of the Public Works and Police Departments.

The Town Administrator emphasized to the event organizer that the event must

move away from reliance on Town employees to haul snow and do clean-up, as

indicated by the Board of Trustees when it granted the in-kind contribution to the

event this year.

www.nederlandco.org

5. General debris from the event was also noted by residents. Part of this probably

stems from the problems the event organizer encountered with the trash collection

and hauling company.

6. Finally, Calvary Chapel had a banner stolen from its property over FDGD weekend

(PD confirmed that it was not torn off by the wind due to evidence at the scene).

While this is not the fault of the event organizers, I wanted all to be aware of this, as

it contributes to the perceptions and impressions held by some in town.

Additional Issues Discussed at the Post-Event TRC

1. The event organizer and police chief discussed the prudence of closing First Street

for the duration of the event, due to safety and crowd flow issues. This was agreed

to be revisited next year. Event organizers agreed to attempt to obtain greater buy-

in from First Street merchants for supporting the event and the possible closure.

2. The event organizer discussed in detail her research into and attempts to achieve a

zero waste event, including the possibility of changing the debris sorting for next

year’s event to a post-event sort conducted by the trash and recycling contractors.

This was deemed to be a more cost-effective and thorough means of sorting the

materials and lessening landfill impacts.

3. Representatives from the Fire Department reported that they felt that the flow of

the crowd and the low level of call volume for emergency calls were indicative of a

successful event. However, the lack of communication left FD staff scrambling to

respond to resident inquiries; contingency plans are definitely necessary.

Additionally, FD staff pointed out that the FDGD headquarters tent needs to be

identified to the TRC group and used by Town staff as a point of contact for the

event organizer in case of emergency.

4. Fire and Police officials requested the creation and publicizing of a “Meeting

Place/Lost and Found” location for the event. The event organizer agreed that this

was a good idea, and one she’d considered previously.

5. Sales tax collected from the event was paid to the State of Colorado, Department of

Revenue on 04/17/12 in the amount of $2,424.00.

6. Payment for police services is still outstanding and will be pursued by the Town

Treasurer.

www.nederlandco.org

MEMORANDUM

To: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator

From: Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager

Date: April 10, 2012

Re: Public Works Investment in Frozen Dead Guy Day Preparation

The following outlines the cost for using Public Works (PW) resources to prepare for and

clean up after Frozen Dead Guy Days (FDGD).

Signage (Prior to event):

Loader 1 hr. @ $75/hr. $75.00

Labor 3 hrs. @ $50/hr. $150.00

$225.00

Wood Chips (Prior to event):

Labor 13 hrs. @ $50/hr. $650.00

Wood Chipper 4 hrs. @ $50/hr. $200.00

17 cubic yards of chips @ 10.50/yd delivered $178.50

Loader to haul chips 1.5 hrs @ $75/hr $112.50

$1141.00

Signage (Post event):

Loader 1 hr. @ $75/hr. $75.00

Labor 3 hrs. @ $50/hr. $150.00

$225.00

www.nederlandco.org

Additional Labor

Labor to get power to traffic circle 4 hrs @ $50/hr $200.00

Scrape snow @ Chipeta Lot and Move snow pile

Move Rock back that was moved without permission

Labor 4 hrs @ $50/hr $200.00

Loader 4hrs @$75/hr $300.00

$700.00

Total cost to utilize PW during FDGD this year was $2,291.00

Additional costs involved include loss of productivity on street maintenance and snow pile

removal. Also, Chipeta Park received significant damage, which is due to the heavy foot

traffic and vehicles driving on the wet grass. Several straw bales and straw mess still

remain at the park a few weeks post event, so PW will need to rake up the debris, haul it

off, and dispose of it in a proper fashion. I would estimate this task taking 3-4 hours. Not

included in the estimate are the various meetings, which consumed a few hours here and

there, such as spending my time to negotiate snow hauling for BVSD.

Public Works can assist with special event preparation, but it does have a significant cost.

Since the Public Works Department has a small staff and limited resources, it is

recommended that future special events are planned better using private resources. As well

as using private resources, Public Works would follow the recommendation of Trustee

Randy Lee to charge a damage deposit in the future, I would recommend $5,000 as a

minimum since I feel that clean up was not taken seriously. For this amount, a private

contractor could be hired to clean up and repair all damage done to Chipeta Park. Public

Works has enough work to do without cleaning up after an event like this.

In the future only clean snow will be allowed to be used for the coffin races. This is due to

the piles of rock around the park, which was not a consideration but effects summertime

maintenance of the park. Better planning in the future for the resources PW provides is a

must. PW plans and schedules its resources based the amount of work requested so last

minute requests are not always able to be met. This is one more reason that a private

contractor should be used in the future.

www.nederlandco.org

Nederland Police Department

60 Lakeview Drive, Nederland CO 80466 Office: 303-258-3250 Dispatch: 303-441-4444 Fax: 303-258-7519

2012 Frozen Dead Guy Days

Police post-event summary The 2012 Frozen Dead Guy Days suffered several setbacks, which severely impacted the overall operations of the event. A cancelation was posted by the promoter early on Saturday 3, which set in motion several issues. The event continued as planned on Sunday 4, with events in Chipeta Park. The following report documents the working information, provided by the officers who staffed the event and Boulder County Deputies who were contracted for assistance.

Alcohol:

Law enforcement did not see a tremendous spike in alcohol related issues this year, due largely in part to the closure of open alcohol sales on Saturday. Many parties were contacted for public alcohol violations, and all efforts were made to issue warnings. Several tickets were issued to those who were not compliant with our requests and warnings. As the events progressed into the evening hours, many persons were seen outside local businesses (bars) with alcohol. I recommend in the future the businesses take extra effort to control the ingress and egress of persons who have purchased alcoholic beverages. On a positive note, the bars, with our assistance were successful in meeting the 0200 shut down times and patrons were moved along.

Frequent checks were made on Friday at the beer tent area in Chipeta Park. Officers first observed that the liquor licensing was not posted and event staff was warned to correct the issue. The volunteer(s) who were checking identification (for entry into the tent area) were seen to have no flashlight, illumination or ability to even read or see identifications in the dark. These volunteers, who had no ability to see alcohol going in and out, were completely ineffective for their assigned duties. It is strongly recommended in the future a light of some type is posted in the entry gate area for complete visibility of this critical entry point.

www.nederlandco.org

Medical calls:

While there were very few medical calls this year, several individuals were checked for high levels of intoxication and one party was taken to the hospital for dangerous intoxication and injury, resulting in him falling to the ground.

Traffic:

Issues with traffic were very minimal, again due to the cancelation issues. Officers were able to maintain good flow patterns through town and only a few issues were reported. The parade, while announced at the last minute was completely disorganized and did not follow established schedule time lines. The highway was closed promptly at 12:00, the parade did not reach the highway until 12:16 and the road had to be re-opened and closed twice to address this issue. Upon its arrival (to the highway) it was quickly moved per the operations plan and the road was secured.

Event staff did not keep the parade moving as requested and were reminded to do so. There was no crowd control (fences, boundaries) to control the surge of spectators and they quickly closed in on the parade route. Several times the route was cleared for parade entry traffic, but with no visible lines, people continued to move closer to moving vehicles, causing a dangerous situation.

Noted issues:

As stated before, it is understood why the event was canceled on Saturday (weather conditions). This is where the communication break began to cause multiple issues. Several times, officers attempted to contact the promoter and were unable to do so; it is strongly recommended in the future a communications plan is established prior to the event.

Alcohol needs to be monitored much more closely. Many people were seen around the beer tents (outside perimeters), in the streets and attending events with open alcohol containers. A briefing with the attending volunteers is highly recommended prior to this event in the future, to educate them on open container violations. It should also be noted that there was no effort to contain First Street events and because of the lack of communication with Police, it was never made clear what was needed in regards to assistance, closures, etc. in this area

Officers observed many locations with broken glass (again, alcohol bottles and containers, specifically FDGD event glasses). It is strongly recommended in the future the promoter looks at plastic or other materials for beer sales.

The additional contract of Sheriff’s Deputies was very successful in maintaining order and provided much needed assistance to patrons with questions and issues. The

www.nederlandco.org

visible presence of added security kept major issues at bay this year and will be utilized in the future with this event.

The repeated requests for postings to the sign at the base of the canyon (via the promoter, FDGD staff) can no longer be allowed. Many issues of misinformation and causing poor relations with CDOT were a factor for this event. It is strongly recommended that any information to be posted on or with outside media be done by the police department only, one time only, to control correct information and maintain good working relations with all associated agencies.

In the future, the promoter needs to keep constant communications with the Police Department, specifically the Chief of Police in regards to event informational relay. Many officers were told many things (by event staff) about cancelations and projected event scheduling, which led to confusion and misinformation to the public. A typed daily evolution/event plan should be done and adhered to throughout the event. This will establish clear and informative directives for all agencies involved in public communication roles for the event.

It is recommended that First Street be either deemed open or closed for this event. There was great confusion in trying to either open or close this route and moving stationary cars cannot be done once the street is accessible. I would recommend complete closure of the East First Street area throughout the event to alleviate problems.

Conclusion:

Obviously, the promoter was presented with significant challenges for the event. I believe the best job was done by all those involved to meet the unexpected issues of weather and communications. The event needs primary and secondary protocol operations plans to address these unexpected atmospherical and logistical issues in the future.

Alcohol continues to be an issue. This is expected with any type of event such as this; however, greater lengths need to be achieved to control the consumption and control of the “designated drinking” areas. I recommend only one large area (Chipeta Park) in the future, to try and alleviate illegal consumption and transportation around town during the event.

If I can be of further service, please contact me at anytime.

Chief Jake Adler

Nederland Police Department

MEMORANDUM

To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Chief Jake Adler Date: 5/8/12 Re: Staff Report – Police Department State of the department My office is currently involved in multiple large scale investigations that are consuming a lot of time and effort. All in all, we are doing well and making progress on our annual goals, to include staffing restructure and new vehicles. We are preparing for a busy event schedule this summer as well. What is going on The team and I recently completed a Boulder Sheriff-sponsored “Core” training class. The course was extremely insightful and offered new and structured techniques in interview and interrogation practices. Our new patrol truck has finally arrived! It is currently in Golden, getting all the police bells and whistles (or siren) put on and we cannot wait! This new patrol car will offer more room, greater usability and allow for far more officers to safely and comfortably utilize in patrol duties. Officer Smith is the newest graduate of the KravMaga force training for instructors. We are very excited to get started on a rigorous in-house training schedule for topics such as hand-to-hand defense and extreme conflict management techniques. As stated earlier, we are focused on several major investigations, to include sexual assault on a child, several dog-related enforcement issues and an increase in check fraud and assault cases. These investigations have

consumed a large portion of the shift work time and we hope to get to trial on most of these cases in the next few weeks. We are continuing to see several issues with one of our local bars. I am currently working with the Town Clerk in regards to enforcement sanctions, liquor review for this establishment and how to proceed to reduce the amount of calls and issues at this establishment. As summer begins, with new businesses in town, we are looking at new parking problems. We are working with the businesses and Town Hall to find viable and clear solutions to these impeding issues. The team has been extremely vigilant in the area of East Second Street. We have not seen or observed any driving infractions to date; however, we will continue to monitor the area. The future We continue to strive to meet the increasing call loads. As stated earlier, I will be completing a staffing restructure in the upcoming weeks. This plan will strengthen our current work force, eliminate complete reliance on part-time help and control expanding budgetary issues with part-time staffing models. This plan will also allow greater evening/morning coverage and hopefully eliminate the large amount of on-call issues. We will continue to focus efforts on dog and dog- related enforcement issues. We statistically have very few problems with dogs, though however rare and isolated incidents are, they can ignite awareness or concerns and we will work with the community to find viable and clear enforcement solutions for any and all dog issues. I am available to each and everyone for anything! Please contact me anytime.

1

MEMORANDUM To: Nederland Board of Trustees From: Public Works Date: May 9, 2012 Re: Staff Report – Public Works

The current issues within Public Works include:

1. Water Treatment Plant The new plant is treating this year’s light run-off water with reliability. We have sent our last set of backwash water samples to the lab to confirm the favorable results found previously. This information will allow the State Health Department to permit our backwash water diversion from our sewer plant and return to Middle Boulder Creek. Josh McGibbon with JVA Engineers is coordinating this effort.

2. Water Distribution System

Staff has replaced one of the two pressure regulating valves in our Bridge Street station and is coordinating with an electrician to install a new electrical service to the Conger Street station. The Conger Street vault renovation is expected to be completed this summer. Our goal is to have the stations’ monitoring and control upgraded to be remotely accessible from the Water Plant’s computer system.

3. Current Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plant modifications have made it difficult to maintain compliance through the lagoons’ transition to spring. The lack of the third lagoon has created operational challenges that we are attempting to optimize until the new plant comes online. The warmer temperatures are expected to stimulate the biological activity necessary to maintain proper treatment. Aslan construction has begun pouring the walls on the tanks this week and when these are done and cured, they can begin the top slab and do leak testing.

4. Wastewater Collection System

The waste water collection system is working fine with one small exception. A service line at Navajo Trail and Highway 72 has an obstruction and is being worked on at this time. Best case scenario, dislodge obstruction. Worst case scenario, replace service line.

5. Streets and Drainage

Locates have been called in throughout town in order to properly grade roads and pull and clean ditches. As these areas are completed, we will use the water truck to flush culverts along these

2

ditches to try to maintain proper storm water run-off. This project will take most of the summer and possibly into the fall. We need to break this job up into sections in order to do other tasks as well. All in all we have our work cut out for us. The rock to line the ditches on Navajo Trail was trucked up this week, so we can wrap that project up soon. A gas line was found only 3 inches below the road on Navajo Trail, so grading and resurfacing had to wait until proper locates and utility mapping could occur. We are going to work with Xcel Energy to encourage them to bury utility lines to a proper depth. We are also working with Asphalt Specialties to have a few loads of asphalt hauled up to patch some of the really bad areas in town.

6. Parks The repairs at the Chipeta Park bathrooms are about 75 percent complete after the recent vandalism. The pavilion has been sanded and prepped for paint or a dark stain; we first need to remove one of the entrance doors to the bathrooms and redo the siding at this door prior to staining. The monitoring well in the Guercio ball field has been kept in place in case more testing is needed in the future, but we were able to cover and bury the well. A plan for watering and maintaining this field is in the works but the field is now in usable condition.

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Trustees From: Dawn Baumhover

Community Center Coordinator Date: 5/08/12 Re: Staff report

The 9HealthFair (9HF) was held on April 28th at the Community Center. In spite of last minute schedule changes resulting in both additions and subtractions to the posted screenings, we served a record number of people at our site. Our previous goal had been 250 participants, and over 300 people attended this year’s Fair. With a generous donation of vouchers from the 9HF staff, we were able to provide 35 free blood screenings to those in need. The site leadership team was assisted by 80 community volunteers, the Lions Club, Peak to Peak Rotary and local restaurants without whom the event would not be possible. We were paid a surprise visit by the President and CEO of the 9HealthFair, Jim Goddard, who spent a couple of hours here at our Nederland site. I have received very positive feedback on this year’s fair from the community and the Metro Council. As always, we seek to improve the event every year with input from the community and observations from the site leadership. We will focus on improved traffic flow and parking for next year. A post-event TRC is scheduled for next week.

I was very pleased to meet Sue Stapleton of Play It Again Sports, 2012 sponsor of The Fitness Place. Dale Porter of the CCFB arranged for her to come to Nederland and I believe our partnership will be ongoing and beneficial. Fitness Place membership is holding steady despite the advent of nice weather.

This month is host to a plethora of meetings, trainings, and special events. Two graduation parties will be held here on May 19 – as far as I know, these are the first high school graduation parties since the 1990’s! The Fire Mitigation meeting sponsored by PROSAB and presented by Boulder County Land Use was very well attended by over 50 people. The Center will host award-winning bluegrass guitarist David Grier on May 14 for the Sanfacon Fundraiser and there will be a special movie showing, “No Water to Waste” on May 24, addressing the Gross Dam expansion.

The Center volunteer staff is experiencing the usual seasonal flux as we say goodbye to some and welcome new faces to assist us. With the help of the volunteer staff, I am continuing to work on community-based emergency resources and templates. The members of the Intra-Mountain Alliance will be meeting in Lyons on May 23 and sharing our collective information. Senator Heath plans to attend a portion of that meeting.

Art at the Center will be receiving new submissions this Friday and Saturday and hanging the new show on Saturday. The opening will take place on June 7, sponsored by High Peaks Art Festival.

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

2010-2012 Goals Action Objectives Report

Report #16: May 9, 2012

Black text: ongoing tasks

Bold italicized text: updates

GOAL 2012 ACTION OBJECTIVES

EST. COMP. DATE

COMMENTS

Complete all water and wastewater infrastructure projects ► Water Treatment Plant ► Wastewater Treatment Plant ► Inflow & Infiltration

Develop operations, maintenance manual for the plants

Complete meter replacement project to streamline readings and identify leaks more quickly

Complete construction of WWTP

Q4 2012 Q2 2012 Q4 2012

WWTP construction to begin in Spring 2012; dewatering began week of April 9; concrete forms for main plant building were laid in late April and for tank walls this week

A project to repair excess water used in backwashing operations at the WTP was approved by the Board on Oct. 18, with work to be completed largely by the Public Works crew; work scheduled for Spring 2012

A contract for utilities assistance, including creation of Standard Operating Procedures for the WTP plants will be before the Board for approval on June 5

Develop drainage and streets improvement plan (Master Infrastructure Plan)

Characterize scope of work and costs for the project

Q2 2012 Project anticipated for 2013, as funding is allowed

Develop sustainability action plan

Sustainability Adv. Board to complete

2012 Project developing via Sustainability Advisory Board

Achieve financial sustainability for the Community Center

Develop holistic plan for revenue growth and sustainability

Develop analysis of all expenses, building, program needs for Center strategic plan

Ongoing Analysis ongoing in 2012 for long-term financial policies, staffing/operational needs; direction setting for CC begun during joint meeting of Community Center Foundation Board and Board of Trustees on Feb. 13 – established marketing, site planning goals

Implement emergency preparedness outreach/communication program

Coordinate emergency communications expectations

Create outreach program

2012 Follow up on resources identified in discussion with Sheriff’s Office

Clerk’s Office coordinating emergency data for Web site, with input from Town departments

Community Center coordinator updating community resources plan for 2012 season

Police Department pursuing IGA with Gilpin Co. for evacuation resources

Update Comprehensive Plan

Draft and issue RFP for pre-qualified firms -- complete

Q4 2012 Funding of $20,000 for plan update approved in 2012 Budget

Recommendation for contract award before

the Board on May 15; project scheduled to begin in June

Develop plan for a gateway park (PROSAB)

Include in update of the Parks, Rec, Open Space, Trails Master Plan underway

Q4 2012 Public input process began on Jan. 19 with several focus groups; first town wide meeting on Feb. 23 attracted approximately 50 people; survey to public released in early April with April 20 deadline; Public meeting on findings to be June 11 at 7 p.m. at Community Center; Gateway Park design charette planned for June 25 at 7 p.m. at Community Center

Follow through on Envision 2020

Adoption of report/ findings -- complete

Develop next steps

Incorporate vision in Town guiding documents

2012 Discussion of incorporating vision statements into Town agenda, advisory board work plans occurred at Oct. 13, 2011 Board Retreat

Adoption of report/findings occurred at Board on Sept. 6, 2011

Envision 2020 to be included as a required influencing document to update of Parks, Rec, Open Space, Trails Master Plan; update of Comprehensive Plan

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: May 15, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration/Zoning Information___X____ Discussion_______ Action______

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM Information on proposed change to Nederland Municipal Code Chapter 16, amending sections concerned with non-conforming lots and structures. SUMMARY Town staff has fielded a number of inquiries into additional development – e.g. additions, renovations and accessory structure projects – on lots that are defined by the Nederland Municipal Code as “non-conforming”. According to the code’s definition, a nonconforming lot is “any parcel of land, held in separate ownership from adjoining properties, that does not conform to the minimum lot area or any other lot requirement required by this Chapter, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein or any predecessor or amendment thereto.” This situation was clarified with NMC Section 16-184 Nonconforming Lots of Record, which states that development may occur on nonconforming lots – confirmed by the Town Attorney. However, a subsequent Ordinance 455, adopted by the Board of Trustees on July 22, 1997, restricted development on nonconforming lots. Ordinance 455 (attached) specifically added provisions16-185 and 16-186, which contain prohibitions on expansion of a structure on a non-conforming lot and the ability to remodel such structures:

“No structure on a non-conforming lot shall be allowed to expand beyond the existing building footprint; unless the Town determines that such alteration, repair or enlargement is necessary to correct a hazardous condition.” Section 16-185 (b) “A structure existing on a non-conforming lot may be repaired and maintained under the following conditions: …(2) the work performed shall not result in an expansion or remodeling of the structure; and …

2

…(4) the work to be performed does not increase the usable or finished square footage of the structure or increase the footprint of the structure.” Section 16-186

Additionally, Ordinance 455 added the following to Section 16-182:

“A variance shall not be allowed for a non-conforming structure, use or lot unless the variance granted reduced or eliminates the existing factor(s) of non-conformance.” Section 16-182 (b)

Altogether, the non-conforming uses, structures and lot code is then interpreted by both Town planning and legal staff to mean that new building may occur on non-conforming lots but that any expansion or remodeling is prohibited on such lots. This has meant that Town planning staff has turned away at least a half dozen projects since late 2010 that would otherwise meet zoning and building requirements of the Town, with the exception that the lots on which they would be placed did not meet the minimum square footage required for their zoning district. Often, these lots are just shy of the requirement, such as a lot that has 0.97 acres in a one-acre minimum zoning district, such as a recent case in which a resident wished to add a garage to his property in the Hilltop neighborhood (see attached letter re: 36 Navajo Trail). Another example (described in attached letters re: 46 Doe Trail) is 0.89 acres in a one-acre minimum zoning district, and the resident wishes to build an addition to his home in Big Springs. The current code seeks to achieve conformity over time. However, Town staff would argue that many of the properties caught in the consequences of this code would lose economic viability over such time and are nowhere near a blighted property, which is likely what was being sought to repair with Ordinance 455. As shown in the attached analysis of three neighborhoods in Nederland – Big Springs, Old Town, and Sunnyside/Hilltop – the issue of non-conforming lots is far-reaching, with 65 percent of the lots in Big Springs measuring less than their required one acre for the Mountain Residential (MR) zoning district, 25 percent of Old Town at less than the required 4,000 square feet, and about 40 percent of Sunnyside/Hilltop at less than their respective square footage minimums. It is staff’s estimation that at least one-third of the community combined is comprised of non-conforming lots. Many communities have such provisions on the books – to push for conformity over time. Often, this occurs with sections that prohibit continued use of a property in a non-conforming fashion (e.g. a home within a commercial district) after a sale of the property or after it has ceased being used as such for a period of time, usually one year. Also, many codes approach this issue by allowing expansion as long as it does not further complicate a zoning issue – such as further violate a height restriction or required setback. For example, many codes allow homeowners to build on to their homes, provided they meet setback, height and density (lot coverage) rules, even if they do not meet minimum lot size rules. Town staff would argue that this approach would allow the community to continue to seek conformance but also to allow for reasonable development that meets the intent of the zoning code.

3

Additionally, the prohibition on remodeling – even within the footprint of the existing structure – is far less prevalent in land use codes. The goal of this code section is unclear. Considering all of this information and other issues, the Planning Commission on April 25 directed Town staff to draft an ordinance for their consideration at their May meeting to amend the Zoning Code to retract some of these code provisions. The Commission will be conducting a public hearing at such time, in addition to much public comment that was offered at their April 25 meeting in support of a change. The Board of Trustees will hear their recommendations at its June 5 meeting. I can answer any further questions on this issue prior to or at the May 15 Board meeting, where this memo will be offered on Information. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION The Planning Commission had been talking off and on with Town staff regarding the issue of non-conforming lots over the past year. The Planning Commission formally took up the subject at their meeting of April 25, directing Town staff to draft language to amend Chapter 16 related to non-conforming lots and uses to remove certain restrictions on building on non-conforming lots, including those prohibiting all renovation and expansion regardless of compliance with other zoning regulations. The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) spoke on the subject at their meeting of April 12, agreeing that some among their membership would testify before the Planning Commission on April 25 to relate their own experience dealing with the impacts of the code sections governing non-conforming lots. BZA member Debbie Davenport, also a local architect, testified, as did longtime BZA chairman Mark Stringfellow. The Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 455 in July 1997 to address issues of illegal lot splits and moves by some to house horses on the substandard lots. However, the Ordinance went much further than that in adoption, effectively erasing the standing of Section 16-184, which recognized as legal lots all non-conforming lots in place prior to the 1982 original Zoning Code. ATTACHMENTS

1) NMC Article VII, related to non-conforming lots and situations 2) Non-conforming lots analysis – sampling Big Springs, Old Town, and

Sunnyside/Hilltop neighborhoods a. Map b. Matrix

3) Letters re: addition project at 46 Doe Trail (Lot 161, Big Springs Filing III) 4) Letter re: garage project at 36 Navajo Trail (Lot 17, Hilltop Terrace) 5) Ordinance 455, amending the Nederland Municipal Code related to allowable

development on non-conforming lots

ARTICLE VII Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots

Sec. 16-181. Continuation of nonconforming uses or structures. (a) A nonconforming nonresidential use may be continued; provided, however, that if a nonconforming nonresidential use is discontinued for a period of one (1) year regardless of intent to resume active operations, the structure or tract of land where such nonconforming use previously existed shall thereafter be occupied and used only for a conforming use. (b) A nonconforming structure may continue to be occupied; provided, however, that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the actual building valuation as determined by the records of the Boulder County Assessor, it shall be restored only to a conforming structure. If a nonconforming structure is damaged less than seventy five percent (75%) of the actual building valuation as determined by the records of the Boulder County Assessor, it may be repaired or restored, provided that any such repair or restoration is started within twelve (12) months and is completed within eighteen (18) months from the date of partial destruction. (c) If a nonconforming structure is moved for any reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located after it is moved. (d) A nonconforming residential use in a conforming structure that has been damaged or destroyed in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) of its actual building valuation as determined by the records of the Boulder County Assessor, may be continued if the structure is repaired or restored under the following conditions: (1) The damage or destruction was not caused directly or indirectly by an intentional act of the owner of the property or the structure or any agent or representative of such owner as determined by the appropriate governmental agency; (2) Restoration of the structure is commenced within six (6) months after the date on which the structure was destroyed and completed within eighteen (18) months after the date on which the restoration was commenced; and (3) The structure is restored to its original location, floor area and height in compliance with the then applicable federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations. (Ord. 209 Art. VI §1, 1981; Ord. 382 §10, 1994; Ord. 455 §2, 1997) Sec. 16-182. Change or variance of nonconforming use or structure. (a) A nonconforming use may be changed only to a conforming use. (b) A variance shall not be allowed for a nonconforming structure, use or lot unless the variance granted reduces or eliminates the existing factor of nonconformance. (Ord. 209 Art. VI §2, 1981; Ord. 455 §3, 1997) Sec. 16-183. Expansion or enlargement of nonconforming use or structure. (a) A nonconforming building or use shall not be expanded or enlarged unless the entire structure or use conforms with the provisions of this Chapter. (b) A nonconforming use shall not be extended throughout any part of a building which was arranged or designed for such use prior to the enactment of this Chapter. (c) If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of twelve (12) months, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished and future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of the current zoning regulations. Single-family residential units in all zoning districts are exempt from this provision when used as a residence only. (d) The hours of operation, lighting, traffic flows, parking lighting, noise and similar characteristics of a nonconforming use shall not be altered to adversely impact adjacent properties. (Ord. 209 Art. VI §3, 1981; Ord. 382 §11, 1994)

Sec. 16-184. Nonconforming lots of record. (a) In any district, principal and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any legally existing single lot of record which existed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein. Such lot must have been in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots under the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements of the district in which it is located for area, width or both area and width; provided however, that the requirements of the district for minimum yard dimensions shall be met unless a variance to said requirements has been granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. (b) If two (2) or more legally existing lots, or combinations of legally existing lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership, are of record prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and part or all of said lots do not meet the requirements of the district in which they are located as to area, width or both minimum area and width, for the purposes of this Chapter, the lands shall be considered to be an undivided parcel. No portion of said parcel shall be sold or used in a manner which diminishes compliance with the lot width and area requirements established by this Chapter unless a variance permitting such lots to be considered and regulated as nonconforming lots of record in separate ownership is granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. (c) Provisions of Subsection (b) above shall not apply to lots in the Mountain Residential (MR) Zoning District, provided that each lot which is created by the nonapplication of said Section is at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area. (Ord. 209 Art. VI §4, 1981; Ord. 288 §1, 1988) Sec. 16-185. Restoration of damaged structures on nonconforming lots. (a) A conforming structure existing on a nonconforming lot may continue to be occupied; provided, however, that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the actual building valuation as determined by the records of the Boulder County Assessor, it may be repaired or restored under the following conditions: (1) The damage or destruction was not caused directly or indirectly by an intentional act of the owner of the property or the structure or any agent or representative of such owner as determined by the appropriate governmental agency; (2) Restoration of the structure is commenced within six (6) months after the date on which the structure was destroyed and completed within eighteen (18) months after the date on which the restoration was commenced; and (3) The structure is restored to its original location, floor area and height, in compliance with the then applicable federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations. (b) No structure on a nonconforming lot shall be allowed to expand beyond the existing building footprint, unless the Town determines that such alteration, repair or enlargement is necessary to correct a hazardous condition. (Ord. 455 §4, 1997) Sec. 16-186. Maintenance of structures on nonconforming lot. A structure existing on a nonconforming lot may be repaired and maintained under the following conditions: (1) A building permit is obtained for the work to be performed, and all work is performed in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and laws; (2) The work performed shall not result in an expansion or remodeling of the structure; (3) Such work is necessary to repair damage, destruction or deterioration of the structure that affects the habitability or structural integrity of the structure or corrects a hazardous condition; and (4) The work to be performed does not increase the usable or finished square footage of the structure or increase the footprint of the structure. (Ord. 455 §4, 1997)

Sec. 16-6. Definitions. As used in this Chapter the following words shall be interpreted and defined in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section: … Nonconforming lot means any parcel of land, held in separate ownership from adjoining properties, that does not conform to the minimum lot area or any other lot requirement required by this Chapter, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein or any predecessor or amendment thereto. Nonconforming situation means the situation when, on the effective date of this Chapter, an existing lot or structure or use of an existing lot or structure does not conform to one (1) or more of the regulations applicable to the district in which the lot or structure is located. Among other possibilities, a nonconforming situation may arise because a lot does not meet minimum square footage requirements, because structures exceed maximum height limitations, because the relationship between existing buildings and the land (in such matters as density and setback requirements) is not in conformity with this Chapter, or because land or buildings are used for purposes made unlawful by this Chapter. Nonconforming signs shall not be regarded as nonconforming situations for purposes of this Chapter but shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18, Article V. Nonconforming structure or use means a lawful existing structure or use at the time the ordinance codified herein or any amendments thereto became effective which does not conform to the requirements of the district in which it is located.

NON-CONFORMING LOT ANALYSIS - April 5, 2012

Conforming Non-Conforming299 Alpine Drive 1.48 295 Alpine Drive 0.53253 " 1.26 291 " 0.61203 " 2.09 283 " 0.6173 " 1.83 277 " 0.49161 " 1.53 275 " 0.5149 " 1.33 269 " 0.71111 " 1.12 263 " 0.6756 " 1.1 257 " 0.5595 " 1.85 247 " 0.79

241 " 0.52233 " 0.58277 " 0.59137 " 0.62127 " 0.7794 " 0.71140 " 0.72154 " 0.67168 " 0.67194 " 0.8198 " 0.69218 " 0.82230 " 0.71238 " 0.49248 " 0.57258 " 0.3774 " 0.4880 " 0.4183 " 0.6255 " 0.8957 " 0.4245 " 0.9191 " 0.520 " 0.58

68 Doe Trail 2.86 86 Doe Trail 0.8856 " 2.86 78 " 0.5660 " 1.89 74 " 0.7453 " 1.88 64 " 0.7847 " 1.25 58 " 0.6852 " 1.02 54 " 0.71

57 " 0.4163 " 0.7471 " 0.5

MR Zone = 1 acre minimum (Big Springs Area)

75 " 0.481 " 0.4285 " 0.3691 " 0.7743 " 0.7937 " 0.7631 " 0.646 " 0.8942 " 0.7640 " 0.2236 " 0.7532 " 0.5928 " 0.4622 " 0.89

66 Wildewood Drive 1.14 86 Wildewood Drive 0.9776 " 1.43 92 " 0.7180 " 1.12 44 " 0.9295 " 1.45 30 " 0.9885 " 1.2679 " 1.3271 " 1.261 " 1.1249 " 1.0631 " 1.3823 " 1.413 " 1.683 " 1.2438 " 1.50 " 1.50 " 1.0334 " 1.1218 " 1.5510 " 1.992 " 1.1824 " 6.7732 Wildewood Lane 1.02 32 Wildewood Lane 0.3126 " 0.960 W. Wildwood Drive 10 " 10 " 1.0936 Blue Spruce Drive 1.25 8 Blue Spruce Drive 0.8454 " 1.06 16 " 0.977 " 1.47 42 " 0.5749 " 1.05 52 " 0.7925 " 1.06 66 " 0.69

76 " 0.66

86 " 0.7969 " 0.8519 " 0.511 " 0.5

33 Pinecliff Trail 1.01 82 Pinecliff Trail 0.6199 " 0.991 " 0.9179 " 0.4571 " 0.3959 " 0.3651 " 0.3910 " 0.8540 " 0.4246 " 0.350 " 0.4162 " 0.58

98 Barker Road 1.76 78 Barker Road 0.9190 " 1 66 " 0.80 " 1.95 54 " 0.8332 " 1.02 44 " 0.825 " 1.12 24 " 0.84

99 " 0.7289 " 0.969 " 0.9949 " 0.7517 " 0.85

0 Big Springs Drive 1.24 300 Big Springs Drive 0.5680 " 2.63 290 " 0.67224 " 1.16 24 " 0.98214 " 1.14 244 " 0.98233 " 1.02 234 " 0.610 " 2 204 " 0.930 " 3.5 196 " 0.43

172 " 0.48275 " 0.45265 " 0.48281 " 0.90 " 0.35

235 Big Springs Point 1.058 Valleyview Drive 1.04 18 Valleyview Drive 0.7848 " 1.06 22 " 0.798 " 1.01 26 " 0.7235 " 1.57 38 " 0.7145 " 1.23 56 " 0.9775 " 1.06 60 " 0.9585 " 1.02 64 " 0.84

82 " 0.8490 " 0.989 " 0.9955 " 0.8565 " 0.8595 " 0.96

97 Peakview Drive 1.85 67 Peakview Drive 0.9587 " 1.23 65 " 0.7171 " 1.2 47 " 0.8969 " 1.18 37 " 0.9231 " 1.16 19 " 0.842 " 1.18 68 " 0.8954 " 1.4784 " 1.340 " 1.060 " 1.060 " 1.0890 " 1.0881 Ponderosa Drive 1.08 26 Ponderosa Drive 0.47157 " 1.7 38 " 0.52

50 " 0.5766 " 0.6586 " 0.9496 " 0.99102 " 0.48124 " 0.31136 " 0.27148 " 0.4917 " 0.933 " 0.5145 " 0.5461 " 0.9293 " 0.4899 " 0.41107 " 0.28125 " 0.43139 " 0.35

Average Lot Size 1.44 0.67# of Lots Sampled 81 143 224Conform vs. Nonconform 36% 64%

Conforming Non-Conforming91 Tejas Lane 2.17 26 Tejas Lane 0.9461 " 1.0635 " 1.1

MR Zone = 1 acre minimum (Hilltop Terrace Area)

58 " 188 " 196 " 1.270 Navajo Trail 1.04 64 Navajo Trail 0.510 " 1.09 62 " 0.5778 " 1.01 64 " 0.9497 " 1.22 74 " 0.9287 " 1.01 92 " 0.9883 " 1.01 91 " 0.8677 " 1 65 " 0.8755 " 1.02 29 " 0.951 " 1.01 22 " 0.9345 " 1.14 32 " 0.9541 " 1.01 36 " 0.9721 " 1.13 38 " 0.9319 " 1.36 50 " 0.99

22 " 0.9395 Ute Way 1.06 33 Ute Way 0.9888 " 165 Pomo Way 1.07 90 Pomo Way 0.8840 " 1.08Average Lot Size 1.12 0.89# of Lots Sampled 23 17 40Conform vs. Nonconform 58% 43%

Conforming Non-Conforming200 W. Pine Street 11,108 212 W. Pine Street 3927224 " 9621 0 " 3959228 " 21,425326 " 8485360 " 8046394 " 81730 " 98510 " 4154530 " 18,497572 " 12,647590 " 12,210590 " 8262474 " 6276466 " 6189462 " 8113225 " 4089247 " 4122269 " 4079300 " 14,542

HDR Zone = 4,000 sq. ft. minimum (Old Town Area)

359 " 10,446475 " 8049551 " 63410 " 6107625 " 4153697 " 14,1940 " 10,8540 " 10,7210 " 11,2830 " 7,935705 " 12,626455 S. Tilden Street 9833 336 S. Tilden Street 3984455 " 8768 206 " 3688396 " 12,077196 " 5,360595 S. Hendricks Street 6138 416 S. Hendricks Street 2075311 " 8120 446 " 2975350 " 4107 316 " 3901396 " 40670 W. Spruce Street 8468630 " 5107660 " 5673690 " 7758609 " 6098637 " 9387655 " 5149692 " 21,058650 " 15,568624 " 8403380 S. Jackson Street 4063 226 S. Jackson Street 3942391 " 7487 131 " 3366347 " 5238299 " 4086281 " 7018255 " 9875211 " 7401191 " 7368116 " 4771440 W. Spring Street 4525 450 W. Spring Street 3389470 " 4014 496 " 39490 " 4115 394 " 3649332 " 7973 258 " 3993274 " 4050 226 " 380231 " 7024291 " 15,457351 " 11,238

369 " 5940393 " 5506429 " 4102473 " 11,243491 " 6396

136 S. Johnson Street 2023196 " 3943

186 W. Boulder Street 6028 128 W. Boulder Street 3966150 " 6161 111 " 363557 " 7691 131 " 299089 " 9511 193 " 797149 " 4987 90 " 362560 " 8546230 " 12,892154 S. Jefferson Street 5027 108 S. Jefferson Street 3938186 " 8217 240 " 3490208 " 10,913 260 " 3480232 " 4386 181 " 3725264 " 4103288 " 11,627

795 Bridge Street 8636Average Lot Size 8225.49 3647.96# of Lots Sampled 83 26 109Conform vs. Nonconform 76% 24%

2 Sundown Trail 19,49684 " 21,32488 " 23,07392 " 21,368104 " 20,756108 " 23,809112 " 34,29019 " 19,64923 " 18,86927 " 19,18231 " 19,12535 " 16,6623 " 18,7805 " 21,26291 " 21,67595 " 19,730103 " 22,66230 " 18,00826 " 17,34522 " 24,091

LDR Zone = 16,000 sq. ft. minimum (Sunnyside Area)

18 " 20,37614 " 21,87010 " 23,9626 " 28,47192 Sundance Circle 31,525 28 Sundance Circle 15,37490 " 28,868 24 " 15,14888 " 16,43486 " 16,67182 " 16,00478 " 17,40674 " 18,22970 " 17,38566 " 25,04858 " 23,84954 " 16,17350 " 22,72546 " 23,99840 " 17,96836 " 17,35932 " 16,18920 " 16,23227 " 27,16631 " 21,75135 " 19,80641 " 19,94371 " 18,09875 " 18,23683 " 26,422

17 Caribou Road 15,697Average Lot Size 21,028 15406.33# of Lots Sampled 48 3 51Conform vs. Nonconform 94% 6%

To Whom It May Concern,

I purchased my home at 46 doe Trail in Big Springs with the dream of making improvements to it. I liked how the house was small but on a big lot, and envisioned repairing and enclosing the steps up to the house from the driveway in order to make them safer, as well as adding an attached garage as a good way to enhance the look of the house by not having cars parked in front of it all the time. My vision with the addition is to increase the property’s desirability and resale value and also as an achievable way for me to afford a house large enough and safe enough for the family I hope to have.

Last fall with the help of my friend and fellow Nederland resident Craig Talbot of CJT Construction, I applied for a permit for the addition. The plans call for enclosing the steps from my driveway to my house, making them safer and bringing them into code. Next to the enclosed stairs/entryway we would like to add an attached garage on one level and small sunroom/yoga room above. I have been saving for the project over the last several years since moving in. Many of my financial goals and family goals are hinged upon the project. The plans passed through Safe-Built as well as the town’s review and we were told that we would likely have the permit the next day after clearing zoning. We prepared to begin work. When I went to pick up and pay for the permit I was informed that there was a problem. Apparently no improvements can be made to my home because MR zoning requirements are such that lots less than 1 acre are deemed “non-conforming” and cannot be modified or improved. My lot is 0.89 acres.

As it has been explained to me, the purpose of this zoning requirement is to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. In fact the addition would bring my house closer to the look, size and value of the homes around it. The improvements we are proposing would enhance the feel of the neighborhood, add to the tax base of the town by increasing the homes value, provide revenue from the permit, provide a job for a local contractor, and most importantly, make the home safer and more livable.

I have looked at the other house lots on my street and discovered that many of them are less than 1 acre and would also be prohibited from making any improvements according to this rule. I hate to think that I can’t make any improvements to my home, or that my neighbors can’t make improvements to theirs. The way this has been explained to me, if the zoning requirements are enforced to the letter, the majority of my neighbors and I are not even allowed to remodel a bathroom or a kitchen, as these are considered modifications. The current zoning limits us to repairs only. This does not make sense to me. I have been informed that I cannot apply for a variance. I wonder if there is anything that can be done to have this issue reviewed and potentially make changes so that our zoning requirements serve their own intentions better. I believe my case is an example of why variances should be allowed in Big Springs or the zoning rules should be altered. I hope there is something that can be done to allow me to make these improvements to my home, neighborhood, and town. Any guidance in the matter will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve King, 46 Doe Trail

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Craig Talbot. I am a resident and a local business owner. This past fall I submitted plans for review on a property located at 46 Doe Trail. The plans were for an addition totaling 1526.5 Square feet. The existing house is 2355 square feet. The total new square footage would be 3881.8 square feet. This includes a detached garage that is pre-existing, which is down the hill and so far away it is used for storage only. The plans passed through Safe-Built with no problems and passed through the town’s review with no problem except zoning.

Due to the fact that the property is located in MR zoning, the lot needs to be 1 acre or more to modify the property. This includes all additions. The lot is estimated at .89 acres. I can understand and appreciate the need to keep building under control and not let the mountain feel of the neighborhood be lost. On the other hand I see the need for either allowing variances in such circumstance where the house would ‘fit’ in to the neighborhood or the zoning for the Big Springs sub-division needs to be revised. This revision or variance would more closely reflect the type of sub-division it is and separate it from other MR zoned areas that need to stay within the existing MR zoning requirements.

The addition would increase the value of the property and therefore generate more tax base revenue for the town. The proposed total square footage is comparable to the surrounding residences. It would not be a project that would make the house look ‘out of place’. In fact, the project also entails new siding on the original structure that would replace the existing wood lap siding with fire resistant cement siding or stucco, thus reducing the concern of wildfires affecting the structure. The addition alters the design of the front steps in a way to make them safer and bring them in compliance with code. Along with the fact that the addition would generate revenue for the town it would also be done by a builder who lives in Nederland. I am that local builder and I intend to spend that money in the town at local shops, stores, restaurants and with other services the town provides.

In summary, the MR zoning for the Big Springs sub-division and the inability to apply for a variance puts unnecessary restrictions on the property owner. The proposed addition will not only provide the home owner with their dream home but it will also provide the town with added revenue in the form of property tax and sales tax.

I hope that you will consider revising the zoning for the Big Springs sub-division or allow a variance process for this and future additions that run into this issue.

Thank you for your time and concern over this matter.

Sincerely,

Craig Talbot

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: May 15, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Lara Ruggles Dept: Teens Inc. Action __X_____ Discussion ______

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of permission for Teens Inc. to allow a graffiti wall on Town property at the Teen Center site. SUMMARY: See attached. HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: See attached. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following boards recommended approval of the project: Parks, Recreation, Open Space Advisory Board (PROSAB), Planning Commission, and Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) ATTACHMENTS:

1. Project proposal 2. Project budget 3. Project blueprint 4. Project site map 5. Photos 6. PROSAB recommendation 7. SAB minutes 8. Planning Commission minutes

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: See attached.

Dear Nederland Town Board of Trustees, We, the leader and youth of VIEW, ask you to consider our proposal to build a legal public art wall on teen center property. We believe that creating this space for legal public art would be positive not only for the youth of Nederland, but for the teen center and the Nederland community. Who: TEENS, Inc. and the teens of VIEW (Voices In an Expressive World), who have worked hard in past years to make a positive impact in the Nederland community by outreaching projects such as last year’s music video about education, “If We Are the Future”, and the previous year’s play about teen health, “This Is Beauty”. Project Schedule

• Wall Size: approximately 25 feet long, 7 feet tall and 8” wide, with a 4’ deep, 30” wide footer. The wall would be open to the public.

• Materials: Poured concrete and rebar • Site: On teen center property to the North of the parking lot just south of the

proposed road to the water treatment facility. (See site map) • When: Fundraising Spring 2012; Construction Summer 2012

Budget and Fundraising: see attached budget form. Positive Impact We believe that building a legal public art wall on teen center property will reduce illegal tagging around Nederland, help show our community that legal graffiti art is non-destructive, and provide a much-needed space for youth to express themselves artistically. Having an art wall on teen center property would allow TEENS, Inc. to create even more after-school opportunities and activities for youth, such as street art workshops, art contests, a calendar of the best art, and events that would bring the community together to support artistic expression. Operations: Conflict Management/ Monitoring: We recognize that having an art wall on teen center property may create some concerns or conflicts, including concerns about profanity or derogatory language, and the concern that illegal tagging in the skate park would increase. Here’s how we plan to address these concerns:

• TEENS, Inc. offers to assume responsibility for the clean-up of any inappropriate, profane or derogatory tags and any illegal tagging on teen center property or in the skate park. We will add the monitoring of the wall and cover-up of inappropriate tags to the job description of our teen peer supervisors, so that our teen participants may take ownership of the wall and its care. We will keep materials for graffiti clean-up on hand in the teen center, and should any illegal tags appear on teen center property or in the skate park, we will work with the offender to either carry out a restorative justice plan including the clean-up of the

graffiti, or take legal action and have TEENS, Inc. staff and youth employees clean up the illegal tag.

• TEENS, Inc. offers to provide signage for the skate park making it clear that any tagging in the skate park will result in arrest, large fines and legal consequences.

• TEENS, Inc. will erect a sign by the wall spelling out guidelines for its appropriate use (see “Rules” and photos provided of the Boulder Graffiti Wall’s signage.)

Rules: We will erect a sign with guidelines for the use of the wall including the following:

• No derogatory language, profanity, nudity, etc. • Keep area clean • Respect surroundings and other writers – limit art to this wall where it’s legal • Illegal activity in this area is monitored and will be prosecuted • Please dispose of paint cans in the designated trash bin

Structural: Current VIEW employee Paul Fruth drew up plans for a poured concrete wall reinforced with rebar with the help of Jeff Fruth of Fruth Construction. Engineer Mike Ikeler signed off on the structural viability of Paul’s drawings and put his engineer’s stamp on the drawing. The wall would have a 4’ deep, 30” wide footer underground for stability. Our research tells us that a poured concrete wall would stand up to Nederland’s high winds and be safer and more low-maintenance over the long term than other building materials. See drawing, attached. Maintenance: TEENS, Inc. plans to keep supplies on hand for painting over or cleaning up any inappropriate or illegal tags. Based on the information given to us by Alice Swett in Boulder Parks and Recreation about the Boulder graffiti wall, the possibility of needing to strip the paint periodically was discussed when the wall went up in 1998, but to her knowledge that has never happened and in the last 14 years, no other maintenance of the Boulder wall has been required. This is why we believe a poured concrete wall would be the best option, due to its longevity and low need for maintenance. Background We are still administering surveys and so far have received 89 responses from youth and adults. At this point, 51% of respondents ages 11-59 from both Boulder and Nederland have said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to use the art wall. 42% have said that having an art wall would reduce their illegal tagging, while 27% answered “maybe” and another 27% don’t tag, legally or otherwise. 98% have said they think the impact of a graffiti wall on the Nederland community would be positive, and 85% are in support of the wall. We are still collecting surveys and have made our survey available online through surveymonkey, as well as around town at the community center, library, co-op and Buffalo Bill’s. The Nederland Town Marshall is in support of the wall and several surveys were filled out by Nederland Police Officers.

We recently received a message from a couple in Melbourne, Australia– they informed us that Melbourne has adopted a policy to accept and promote street art and they will be making a short video about it to send to VIEW in support of our project!

We have also been in contact with Alice Swett of Boulder Parks and Recreation about the process of building the Boulder graffiti wall. Below is a summary of the information we’ve gathered on that front:

• The Boulder Graffiti Wall was proposed in January 1997, approved that summer, and built in the spring and summer of 1998. It was built about a year before the Boulder Skate Park.

• Finding a suitable location for the Boulder wall was a challenge. Neighbors, artists, the city, and the floodplain were considerations.

• The Boulder Wall received a grant for $4600, which was the estimated budget for its construction.

• The actual cost of the Boulder Wall was close to $9000. • The Parks and Recreation Department in Boulder took on the responsibility of

painting over inappropriate or illegal tags as necessary. There was a task formed to meet periodically to address issues related to the wall. They met rarely.

• The primary issue with the Boulder wall has been tagging near the wall. Tags were eradicated as soon as they appeared, and this is no longer an ongoing issue.

• The Boulder Wall is not monitored or supervised, though Alice says its location between the fire station and the skate park helps people use it respectfully.

Education and Outreach: Art Exhibition: First Street Pub, Happy Trails, Buffalo Bill’s, Town Hall, the Nederland Community Library, and the Community Center all currently have youth art displayed in their businesses to outreach VIEW’s project and the positive aspects of street-style art. Youth pieces are displayed with a description of our project and a way to collect donations at each location. We know that graffiti art can be a complex and impressive form of art that is used in many positive ways and we want to show the community that. The art we’ve hung around Nederland will show positive examples of legal street-style art and spread awareness that the desire for a legal art wall in Nederland exists and we are working toward its creation. Workshops: In order to allow our peers to fully experience graffiti art in all its legal forms, we plan to host a graffiti workshop at TEENS, Inc. This workshop will occur at our benefit barbeque on Saturday, May 19th. Ace Hardware and McGuckin Hardware each donated over $50 worth of spray paint and Resource donated the wood for the workshop. We are talking to two professional artists who are interested in teaching this workshop and helping youth understand graffiti art and how to use it in a positive and respectful way. Through teaching youth to find their own personal street art style we will be gathering more support for the wall since more teens will want to use it if they know more about graffiti art technique.

Fundraising Event: We are planning a BBQ fundraiser on Saturday, May 19th to culminate VIEW’s 2011-2012 project. This event will include BBQ food, art on display, information about our project and what we accomplished this year, and a street art workshop for anyone and everyone in the community. Future positive impact: Our future vision for this proposed art wall is that it will become a space that inspires the community through continued art workshops not only for teens and youth but for community members of all ages; through a monthly art contest in which winners would see their art become part of an annual calendar; through youth feeling like they have a sanctioned space to express themselves creatively and becoming involved in the contests and workshops; and then those same youth feeling ownership of the wall and taking the responsibility to monitor, respect, and keep the wall clean. We believe this wall has the potential to bring people of all ages together and change the perception of what graffiti art is for the better. Summary: In February we presented our proposal to the TEENS, Inc. Board of Directors and it was approved. We then presented our proposal to the Nederland Town Board of Trustees, and it was requested that we go through the process of taking our proposal to the relevant advisory boards and bringing it back to the town board. In April, we took our proposal to the Sustainability Advisory Board, PROSAB, and the Planning Commission. SAB recommended that the town board approve the proposal with the following suggestions:

• That non-toxic spray paint alternatives would be used on the wall and that TEENS, Inc. would provide those alternatives for would-be artists

• That TEENS, Inc. would agree to provide some kind of education about non-toxic alternatives to spray paint

• That TEENS, Inc. would research alternative construction materials for the wall • That TEENS, Inc. would build some kind of functional structure, such as a large

concrete recycling bin, that would meet a sustainability goal or have another function besides being a public art space

• That TEENS, Inc. would oversee proper disposal of empty paint cans and make sure all paint cans used would end up at a hazardous waste facility

• That VIEW would agree to do a carbon offset project for the wall, such as planting trees or volunteering in the community garden

TEENS, Inc. can provide education about non-toxic spray paint alternatives, however we can’t control what materials individuals bring to use on the wall. As a public art wall, any person who would like to use the wall would be free to bring the materials of their choice and create a piece on the wall during use hours. We are happy to research the source of our concrete to make sure it does not contain any toxic waste or other toxic materials. However, we chose concrete for our wall because of its smooth surface, conducive for art, and its ability to withstand the elements for a long time. Concrete is the most durable and conducive material for this project. While large concrete recycling bins that double

as public art spaces are a great idea, it’s a completely different project than the one we’re working on. We are proposing a public art wall. While we can provide a trash can for disposal of paint cans and make sure the contents of that can are disposed of properly, we have no way of making sure that every paint can used ends up in the designated trash can or that every artist complies with this request other than making the suggestion on the guidelines sign that would accompany the wall. We can agree to do a volunteer shift in the community garden as a carbon offset for the wall. PROSAB’s recommendation is as follows: “Members in attendance found no applicability to the goals of the Nederland and Surrounding Areas Open Space, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan and so evaluated the project in terms of its potential impact on Town parks facilities. Appreciating the fact that this project will give opportunity for youth to express themselves in an artistic manner, PROSAB members voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Graffiti Wall project. PROSAB recommends that any agreement between TEENS, Inc. and the Town include the requirement that the Teen Center clean up any spillover tagging on nearby property in a timely manner and contain consequences for failure to do so.” TEENS, Inc. is committed to taking responsibility for cleanup of any illegal tags in the immediate area of the wall, including teen center property, the skatepark and immediately surrounding area. We have outlined our plan regarding cleanup of illegal tags in the “Operations” section of this proposal. As far as consequences for failure to do so, we are open to any suggestions the Board may have. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Graffiti Wall project proposal as it stands. Fundraising: Since February, we have applied for a grant from the Alan Green Foundation, received $155 in individual donations toward the wall and secured an in-kind donation of excavating services from Dan Martin excavating worth $675. Conclusion: Thank you so much for considering our proposal. We hope you agree with us that having a graffiti wall on teen center property would have a positive impact on our community by creating more opportunities for youth to express themselves in a constructive way. Sincerely, Emma Paul Danielle Lara VIEW 2011-2012

Project Budget TEENS, Inc. Graffiti Art Wall

Source of Funds Amount Date SecuredCASH

Alan Greene Memorial Fund 1000 PendingGilpin County Commissioners 1000 ProjectedIndividual donations 155 SecuredIndividual donations 1845 ProjectedTEENS, Inc. 750 Committed

IN-KINDDan Martin Excavating 675 CommittedHome Depot 800 Pending

TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS 6,275

CASH Use of FundsConcrete, construction and labor 3800Graffiti clean up kit 80Signs 250Excavating Fuel Costs 100

CASH SUBTOTAL 4,230

IN-KINDExcavating 675 CommittedRebar 800 Pending

IN-KIND SUBTOTAL 1,475Contingency Funds 10% of cost 570

TOTAL PROJECT COST 6,275

Memorandum Date: April 23, 2012 From: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Advisory Board To: Town of Nederland Mayor and Board of Trustees Re: TEENS, Inc. Graffiti Wall Proposal

At its April 19th meeting, PROSAB listened to a presentation by TEENS, Inc. and the teens of VIEW (Voices In an Expressive World) who are proposing to build and maintain a concrete graffiti wall near the Teen Center, to the north of the parking lot just south of the proposed road to the water treatment facility. (Proposed site map below).

Members in attendance found no applicability to the goals of the Nederland and Surrounding Areas Open Space, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan and so evaluated the project in terms of its potential impact on Town parks facilities. Appreciating the fact that this project will give opportunity for youth to express themselves in an artistic manner, PROSAB members voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Graffiti Wall project. PROSAB recommends that any agreement between TEENS, Inc. and the Town include the requirement that the Teen Center clean up any spillover tagging on nearby property in a timely manner and contain consequences for failure to do so.

Nederland Planning Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 ~ 7:00 pm Nederland Community Center

750 Highway 72 North ______________________________________________________________________

1) Call to Order

Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. 2) Roll Call

Present: Chairman Bill Martin and Commissioners Kris Larsen, Mikki Osterloo, Roger Cornell, and Denise Jackson Also present: Town Administrator Alisha Reis and Deputy Town Clerk Michele Martin Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller and Commissioner Williams

3) Approval of minutes from March 28, 2012 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Cornell , seconded by Commissioner Jackson, and unanimously approved. Chairman Martin suggested changing the order of the agenda to allow Teens, Inc. to go first to allow the students to leave earlier.

4) Public Comment

5) Discussion Items

a. Proposed Graffiti Wall at Teen Center

Paul Fruth, 845 Cold Springs Road, was present on behalf of the View (Voices in an Expressive World), a youth employment program from Teens, Inc., to discuss their proposal of a legal Graffiti Wall on Town-owned property that houses the Teen Center. The Town has a 99 year lease with Teens, Inc.

The wall will be approximately 25’ long, 7’ tall, and 8” wide, and very similar to the Graffiti Wall at the skate park in Boulder at Arapahoe and 30th. The View has been in contact with Alice Swett of Boulder Parks and Recreation in regards to their wall and process. The View’s goal is to be approved by the Town advisory boards, ultimately the BOT, and then begin their fundraising stage this spring, with plans for construction over the summer. Fruth explained the View’s belief in graffiti as an art form and not as a form of destruction or rebellion. The graffiti wall would provide free space for expression.

Town Administrator Reis stated that this proposal was the first to come under the new Nederland Planning Process (NPP) that was just passed by Resolution at the BOTs meeting on March 20th. The NPP is an innovative approach to involving local residents, business owners, and community members in the public policy-making process and consideration of public projects. By using the NPP, the BOT will have a means of gauging public concerns and enthusiasm for various new projects. The View has gone before PROSAB and SAB, with the Planning Commission its last stop before going back to the BOT on May 15th.

Chairman Martin asked how our code would apply to this use and Reis said this would be regulated as an accessory structure and would not be required to seek a SRU agreement. This would generally be reviewed by staff, but since it falls on public property, the BOT wanted to implement the NPP. Reis went on to say that staff is working with the group on technical aspects, and they would still need to pull a building permit, and have their plan reviewed by Safebuilt. There are no zoning issues, the visual clearance is fine, it is by the roadway adjacent to the site on the ball field property to access the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) property, and it’s well outside of any WWTP concerns. There would be an amendment to the agreement to state that this would be a self-policed structure and the Town would not get involved in any conflicts. There was no public comment. Chairman Martin opened the discussion to the Committee. Martin asked if there was any comment back from the SAB or PROSAB. Lara Ruggles, who leads the View, said that PROSAB told them it wasn’t in their jurisdiction. PROSAB chair Randy Lee raised concerns over what impacts it would have with other parks.

Commissioner Larsen wondered why they chose this location. Fruth and Ruggles stated there were other sites considered, but they were ruled out due to floodplain, proximity of cars, or future expansion areas.

Nederland Sustainability Advisory BoardMeeting Minutes, 2012-04-04

Nederland Community Center Members: Greg Willson, Dallas Masters, Geneva Mixon, Chelsea Gittle, Jesse Seavers, Alan AptGuests: Ron Mitchell (NCBDR), Jane Curtis Gazit (Keep Magnolia Clean), James Woods (Boulder County Resource Conservation Division), Lara Ruggles (Teens Inc. VIEW Program Coordinator) 1. Teens Inc. Graffiti Wall, Lara Ruggles from Teens Inc brought the Teen Board which voted to make the Graffiti Wall their primary summer project. They distributed a completed Sustainability Scorecard. Dallas: Does graffiti wall increase tagging?-Boulder has a graffiti wall in place, they said at first it did increase tagging, but long term people acclimate and get used to the wall being the appropriate place to tag. Dallas stated the key to decreasing tagging is removing tags quickly....can they add a removal clause for tags to be removed quickly..if teens inc removed tags it would promote good will. Does the Teens Inc group have a tag?-The group has a piece of art that represents them, but it is not a tag. Alan: What kind of paint will be used?-Spray paint what about the cfc etc? What are the potentially toxic impacts of your proposal?-cement, materials, Alan: 7000 dollars is a lot of money to spend on art. Geneva: Wants to ensure that there are adequate trash and recycle receptacles near the wall. Also wants to ensure that any toxic waste (oil based paint) is disposed of responsibly. Greg: What about art on the recycle bins instead of a wall? Youth were encouraged to think outside the box of ways they could minimize their impact...chalk, other media Jesse informed the group he is not very supportive of their project. Jesse: Can you use an existing structures, can you come up with more ideas for sustainability...you are the future. what can you do to make this sustainable. Dig deeper and help us as a community for more creative solutions: war, hunger, injustice, etc. Beseeching them to help the world. Jesse can see how this project helps the teen group personally. He told the group:We [the SAB] are charged with steering Town Government to help make sustainable solutions. He would like to see more community and cultural identity embraced by the Graffiti Wall proposal. How does this project help move SAB goals forward?

Lara responds: The project promotes cultural identity. We strive to create a more positive perception of graffiti. We want to create learning about the teen culture and encourage ownership by promoting non-illegal use of graffiti art. "View" mission is to bridge gap through art...also to empower the teens with small steps and shows them they are empowered to make bigger impacts on the world. Teens respond: They could look into ways to offset the carbon footprint of the wall construction. Greg: Supports project but is concerned about the risk xylene poses to youth. Is there a way to bring less toxicity to the environment? Dallas: Does SAB with to provide a recommendation to the BOT? Greg moves that we support the project, with the recommendation that the teens consider enhancing their proposal by 1.) addressing the impact on the environment, 2.) using non-toxic paints, 3.) providing proper hazardous waste disposal, trash, and recycling facilities, 4.) consider offsetting their carbon footprint as they proposed. Additionally, we would like to see future projects from VIEW follow the Town’s sustainability goals in the preliminary phase and seek SAB input prior to developing the project too far. Seconded by Jesse. Approved unanimously. 2. Introduction and Overview of Keep Magnolia Clean the new full service trash hauling company run by Jane Curtis Gazit who lives on Magnolia Road. Jane informed the SAB that her business provides residents and businesses in the Greater Nederland Area recycling, compost, and trash service along with organic egg delivery.Resident response is positive. She has been conducting outreach to a variety of folks (eg NedCompost, and Town Hall via Geneva Mixon. Also working with Jill Dreeves at Wild Bear.In addition she is working with realtors both residential and comercial. She provides incentives to recycle and compost and has gotten positive response converting new recyclers. Keep Mag Clean provides many service options and has a lower carbon footprint then a big haulers due to the local focus of her business. She has submitted proposal to town to service their recycle pilot bins and and for many upcoming events. Jane makes special trips to CHARM, and is interested in being a one stop shop She is interested in partnering and sharing resources esp for composting. Keep Mag Clean is working with NedCompost. Jane asked for an update about where Ned is relative to the Boulder County Zero Waste Action Plan recently passed by the BOT. How can she assist with that? Also background in Education and wants to promote understanding...spends time with local residents teaching them the basics. She understands that audiences vary and so her contribution can vary. In regards to the implementation of Boulder County’s Zero Waste Action Plan. How do we meet goals of Zero Waste plan?Jane is ready to help the Town meet these goals. Keep Mag Clean returns compost to the residents that generate it. Jane takes trash to the Green Bins where she gets a per bag rate. She takes all recycling to green bins. Plus she brings additional hard to recycle goods down to boulder

A side not from James Woods about recycling: #1,2, & 5 plastics are recyclable but no lids or big cups at Green Bins...in boulder they take all plastics... if confused then recycle it....please educate yourself on what can be recycled and change your way of purchasing. Do not buy products with containers that can not be recycled Does SAB have any say about how contracts are awarded? When Dallas was on SAB he proposed and implemented the 10% rule for Town purchases and contracts. If something can be acquired locally and it is less than 10% more to purchase from out of Town than it must be purchased locally. As NedCompost member, Jesse is keenly interested in the success of Keep Mag Clean, Is there competition or cooperation? Element of competition, but competition breeds improvement. Jane reached out to Jesse and is interested synergy and cooperation etc. Jane’s Keep Mag Clean is “for profit” whereas NedCompost is a non-profit business. Geneva will get Jane in touch with Teresa to set up info on the Town webpage 3. Ron Mitchell wanted to address some concerns that came from a FOIA request that came through Town Hall to see all correspondence that mentions him. Jesse and Greg submitted a chat that Ron found objectional. He wanted to clear the air with the SAB. Ron addressed the SAB “He grew up WWII and loves recycling and appreciates what SAB does. There was a misunderstanding recently and he wants to clear the air. Ron got complaints about the compost set up.” Dallas reminded Ron that this is not a NedCompost business meeting but an SAB meeting. Ron has been involved in composting and recycling all his life and he would love to be a partner of the SAB and the Town to meet recycling, composting goals. Dallas: As one of the largest business owners in Town, I would like you to work with your tenants to become energy efficient Ron: He has tried but his tenants are independent thinkers so any changes need to be addressed through ordinances. Ron would like to see a centralized cardboard compacting facility. someone could make money bailing cardboard. Mcguckins has reduced trash bill to $0. because of the cardboard recycling. They let anyone use the facility once the owner of Mcguckins has enough cardboard collected to bail he sells it and makes money from the sale. (Dave Height is the owner of McGuckins.)We are ruining the earth. Rachel Carlson "we have to stop ruining the earth." Dallas encourages Ron to return and bring ideas to the table and to write conditions into the leases. Ron reminded us that many of these things are community problems. James Woods is going to connect Ron to a carboard compactor 4. Updates

A. Geneva gave update on RCAB, Spring Cleanup, Ecopass, and Wild Earth B. Alan provided an update on the Solar Garden. There was only one person at the last event (library). How can we publicize. Town website should promote more. Solar Garden has made the threshold is lower so ppl can get involved at lower income bracket. There is a need to work with the Town Clerk to get projects promoted a little higher on the website. Right now many of our projects are not promoted as SAB would like. C. Zero Waste Event Planning workshop, network with Town Clerk...does she have an email list? SAB is responsible for set up and break down. It will be on April 9th. Dallas, Greg, James, Jesse, and Alan is a maybe. They will help set up and break down 6:30-8:30. D. Jesse re:NedCompost. We need to keep NedCompost separate from SAB, but they are using Town Facilities so what is the update relative to Town? Growing customer pool (16). Electricity is very close and the part should be here soon volunteers are out collecting on bi weekly basis. Greg is no longer active as director of NedCompost but he wants to keep partnering etc. E. Jesse and James gave an update on the County’s proposed Sustainability Tax....Jesse told County Commissioner, Cindy Domenco, that her plan lacked creativity. Cindy left the meeting and the sustainability folks from the participating Towns talked and brainstormed...great networking. Town Administrator, Alisha Reis gave an awesome report on Ned and then Boulder followed with a report that was much like Nederland. By June, James will have a report on what has happened with the 2005-2010 Tabor Tax Money. When the county showcases what has been accomplished and where they think we could go then that progress will become a tool for others working on sustainability to use. An inventory and Framework will be sent by James. He got everyone to say what they are doing to provide a story and those working in the county on Sustainability issues with a history. The county is searching for money for its sustainability program. They plan a June showcase illustrating what has been done by county for the sustainability movement. The hope is to promote what has been done and garner support for the future. We briefly discussed that building codes are too prescriptive. Build Smart was the code program but folks always find a workaround. Jesse will be the point person for updates on the proposed tax. Town Administrator, Alisha Reis and Jesse had a great brainstorming session about “nimble” little Ned. Also they discussed a possible Microloan program here in Ned for sustainability projects. James Woods from Boulder County Resource Conservation Sustainability Team is willing to assist with the Nederland Sustainability Assessment. At a future meeting, James can help us go through the DOLA plan and then James will guide the process. We will also review the Envision 2020 Final Report and draw from that document. Narrow the goals and then have a few in the wings. Dallas: can we leverage James to assist us in moving forward with the SAB plan? We could use assistance with goals, outlines, etc. 5. Zero Waste Action Plan Implementation Jesse’s Ideas:

● construction and waste diversion

● compost 2 groups who need to be supported● 1400 residents● town online survey of who is currently composting● best is compost on their own ● Eldorado Springs cultural establishment 250 customers is the tipping point 10% Jesse

has mapped a strategy for the innovators ● promote NedCompost BOT employees SAB members etc● trying to ID the low hanging fruit...1- pursue ● RCAB May 1st meeting● Greg networking with Chris Perret and Ron Mitchell and he is working on mushroom

sprouts that will assist with construction waste What aspects of the Zero Waste are easily attainable (low hanging fruit)?1. compost--need short term goal2. zero waste events... need to draft the language for an ordinance Action Item: Jesse will work on whittling down the Zero Waste Action Plan into workable ideasAlan: Fort Collins---the amount of paper...cardboard--commercial cardboard. also residential compost is a pet issue. Easy first step: All events in Ned will be zero waste, but first we need to see the language for the ordinance. Jesse: Recommendation to create zero waste ordinance. Action Item: -Geneva get example of other ordinances passed in other communities 6. Other Buiness Planning Commission has a Steering Committee to review Nederland’s Comprehensive Plan. Dallas is going to be on the Comp Plan Steering Committee. Moving forward Dallas will provide updates about the Comprehensive Plan process.

AGENDA INFORMATION

MEMORANDUM

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Meeting Date: May 15, 2012

Initiated By: /s/ Teresa Myers

Dept: Administration

Information ______ Action ___X____ Discussion ______

______________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Special Event request to allow camping in Chipeta Park during

NedFest.

SUMMARY: The Peak to Peak Music Education Association (PPMEA), organizers of NedFest,

seeks permission from the Board to rent Chipeta Park during NedFest and sublet

camping rights to NedFest ticketholders that weekend.

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Section 11-83(1) of the Nederland Municipal Code explicitly prohibits camping in

parks or open space in Town, “unless otherwise approved by the Board of Trustees

on a case-by-case basis, based on a finding that the approved activity will not

negatively affect the health, safety or welfare of the Town’s citizens.”

Based on this, the PPMEA is seeking permission from the Board to rent the Chipeta

Park space and then sublet their interest in the park to campers attending NedFest.

I am attaching the memorandum staff generated following the NedFest Post-Event

Technical Review last September, for your additional information.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends allowing camping in Chipeta Park, but only if accompanied by a

deposit of $5,000.00, sufficient to restore the Park subsequent to the event. This

amount is expected to cover the costs of clean-up, re-sodding, and potential damage

to the pavilion and/or restrooms.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request for Consideration from the PPMEA.

2. NedFest Post-Event Technical Review Memo

1 | P a g e

MEMORANDUM

To: Alisha Reis, Town Administrator

Jake Adler, Police Chief

Rick Dirr, NFPD Chief

Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager

Dawn Baumhover, Community Center Coordinator

Michigan Mike Torpie, Event Organizer

From: Teresa Myers, Town Clerk

Date: September 26, 2011

Re: NedFest Post-Event Technical Review

This year’s NedFest event was very successful in so many ways. The event is constantly

improving and I was really pleased to have another year without a major health or safety

incident.

Public Feedback

Feedback from residents was much more subdued this year over last. Town Hall only

received two formal noise complaints about NedFest, and one of those emphasized the noise

coming from the bars moreso than the festival itself. The other complaint cited multiple

code and legal violations, including public drinking and intoxication, car camping around

town, public urination, and public marijuana smoking. These are indeed of concern and

will need to receive additional attention from both the event organizers and the Police

Department (PD).

Town Hall also received a message from a visitor, strongly supporting the festival

generally, but complaining that the Chipeta Park camping area closes prior to the end of

the event, thereby increasing the possibility of sending intoxicated drivers on the road,

rather than allowing them to sleep it off at their campsite. This is certainly of concern and

can be raised in next year’s TRC and before the BOT when it considers the camping portion

of the application. There is, however, some degree of personal responsibility inherent in the

choice to drink on a Sunday afternoon when knowing that you’ll be navigating a car home

later that afternoon or evening.

Sales Tax

The Town of Nederland received sales tax from the event in the amount of $1,244.00.

2 | P a g e

Public Works

The Public Works department incurred some small expense in assisting with NedFest this

year. This included:

General staff labor (6 hours @ $50.00) = $300.00

Backhoe use (1 hour @ $75.00) = $75.00

TOTAL: $375.00

Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager, also noted that Chipeta Park and the Guercio

Ballfield were left in good condition following the event.

Police Department

The Nederland Police Department reported a good year generally and very good cooperation

from event organizers. Five (5) arrests were made and multiple citations issued over the

weekend. Several suggestions were made by the Police Chief to improve or continue

improvements into next year’s event. These suggestions will be included as conditions of

the special event permit issued for future NedFests. A copy of the Police Chief’s memo is

attached hereto as Attachment A.

Sustainability

In recognition of the Board of Trustees’ commitment to sustainability, this year NedFest

partnered with Nederland Compost & Resource Recovery to manage trash, recycling, and

composting efforts during the festival. The effort was deemed a great success after

diverting 2/3 of the festival’s waste from the landfill. A memo detailing the efforts involved

and successes achieved is attached hereto as Attachment B.

Unfortunately, not all of the zero-waste initiatives went smoothly. Dunking tanks

belonging to the Teen Center were appropriated –without permission – for use as compost

tubs. Understandably, this created some frustration and annoyance for Teen Center

management when they arrived to work on Monday morning. Town Hall staff were notified

of the problem on September 1st and assisted in coordinating with NCRR to restore the

tanks to their original location and condition with 24 hours.

Conclusion

All in all, I was very pleased with the cooperation between Town officials and event

organizers. Some problems are more easily addressed than others, and some are simply

inherent in having a music festival-type event. Overall, I think we saw a very well-

conceived and well-executed event that needs only small corrections. I look forward to next

year’s application.

3 | P a g e

Attachment A

4 | P a g e

Attachment B

1

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: May 15, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Administration/Zoning

Action __ X ____ Discussion ______ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Ordinance 707, updating the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines to add Commercial Parking Guidelines SUMMARY:

UPDATED INFORMATION In connection with the approval of Ordinance 698 (Nov. 1, 2011) to amend Nederland Municipal Code Section 16-210 to designate parking lots of 20+ spaces as a Special Review Use (SRU), the Board of Trustees directed the Planning Commission to draft guidelines for review specific to parking lots. Attached is the draft guidelines document created by Town staff for the Planning Commission’s consideration in meeting this mandate from the Board. The Planning Commission voted March 28 to recommend approval of the proposed guidelines for commercial parking. The guidelines, incorporated into the 2000 Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines, could be applied to any commercial parking lot, as they encourage use of alternative materials. Additionally, any SRU-triggering lot (20+ spaces) could be considered for additional conditions. The suggested language was drafted by the Deputy Clerk and reviewed and edited by the Public Works Manager, Public Works consultant (Mark Weritz, a licensed professional engineer), and Town Administrator for compliance with best practices in planning, engineering, construction, and hydrology.

PREVIOUS ANALYSIS Public Works has reviewed the concept of accepting unpaved or alternately paved lot designs. Public Works Manager Jason Morrison said he supports

2

designs that are most likely not to wash away in storms and deposit material into drainage ways. Items such as permeable pavers and set-in-place materials are most recommended. He does not support recycled asphalt, unless it is mixed with oil and spread like traditional asphalt, as it tends to move and redeposit in drainage areas as a fairly significant pollutant. Loose gravel needs a lot of attention to keep it in place, so plans would be necessary to contain it as best as possible, with the recognition it would need to be refilled.

Given that the code requires adequate drainage on site, Town staff would recommend adding drainage plans and alternative materials plans to the SRU application requirements. Additionally, Town staff review or outside geotechnical expert review (if no longer contained on staff in the future) should be required in order to offer opinion on the site-by-site viability of parking lot proposals and drainage plans. The Town will be undertaking a Master Infrastructure Plan (including drainage study) in 2013. Any parking SRU approval should be congruent with it. Town staff recommends these requirements only be added to the existing SRU approval criteria in order to maintain the flexibility needed for the case-by-case study of these lots, with particular attention paid to drainage mitigation.

Influence of Comprehensive Plan, Envision 2020 Envision 2020 speaks heavily to environmental preservation, including the use of alternative building materials and preservation of clean water, both of which can be supported by the application of these new parking lot design guidelines. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue in a number of ways:

1) “The Town should make every effort to identify and mitigate, or eliminate all together, the adverse impact of any economic activity, including non-resident visitors. In those instances where a negative impact exists, the Town should work with the business to mitigate the impacts to acceptable levels.” (Economic Policy Statement, pg. 18)

a. This policy is met as Planning Commission reviews large lots on a case-by-case basis and may seek to enact conditions to allow for better drainage and erosion control on sites.

2) “The Town discourages outdoor irrigation of non-native, water intensive grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, exotic trees and shrubs, and large garden.” (Water, pg. 19)

a. This policy would regulate the use of various landscaping in connection with parking lot design.

3) “The Town should be concerned with the protection of natural drainage ways, prevention of erosion, minimizing of public and private property damage from storm drainage and flooding, and the maintenance of surface water quality.” (Utilities Policy Statement, pg. 22).

3

a. This policy is clear, encouraging consideration for drainage management at all opportunities.

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: On September 28, 2011, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of Trustees changes to NMC Section 16-210 to allow for case-by-case (SRU) review of the previous requirement to pave parking lots of 20+ spaces. The Board of Trustees voted to approve the recommended changes on November 1, 2011. Also at that time, the Trustees requested the Planning Commission to draft guidelines specific to review of parking lot SRU applications, including consideration of drainage conditions on the individual sites. On February 22, 2012, the Planning Commission directed Town staff to draft guidelines for review. On March 28, 2012, the Commission voted to recommend the guidelines’ approval to the Board of Trustees. This item was tabled by the Board of Trustees on May 1, due to lack of time, to the May 15 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Trustees approval of the addition of Commercial Parking guidelines to the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines

ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance 707, amending the Nederland Design Standards and

Guidelines (2000) 2) Draft Design Standards and Guidelines – Section on Commercial Parking

Development (full document is available at: http://nederlandco.org//wp-content/files/nederland_design_standards.pdf)

3) Memo from Mark Weritz regarding bioretention feasibility in Nederland 4) Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2012 – Section regarding design

guidelines addition FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Gravel and leveled dirt lots are exceedingly less expensive than paved lots – for example, a standard 20-space gravel lot of 3” would cost about $10,000 vs. about $60,000 for new asphalt paving. However, additional drainage

4

engineering and construction would add cost to unpaved or alternately paved lots.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND Boulder County, Colorado

ORDINANCE NUMBER 707

AN ORDINANCE OF THE NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES AMENDING THE NEDERLAND DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 23, Title 31, C.R.S., the Town of Nederland (“Town”) Board of Trustees (“Board”) possesses the authority to adopt laws and regulations governing the zoning, planning and use of land within its jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, under this authority, the Board previously adopted the Nederland Design

Standards and Guidelines by reference by Ordinance 533 on November 28, 2000, codified as Section 18-125 of the Nederland Municipal Code and authorized amendments thereto; and

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that design standards and guidelines in addition

to those previously adopted are necessary to govern the development of commercial parking lots; and

WHEREAS, the Town has conducted several public meetings related to the subject of

commercial parking lots.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO:

Section 1. The Commercial Parking Development standards, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines, previously adopted by Ordinance No. 533. As of the effective date of this ordinance, the Commercial Parking Development standards are incorporated into the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines. No existing portion of the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines are amended or otherwise affected by this ordinance.

Section 2. Any and all Ordinances or Codes or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent herewith are, to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, hereby repealed; provided, however, that the repeal of any such Ordinance or Code or part thereof shall not revive any other section or part of any Ordinance or Code provision heretofore repealed or superseded.

Section 3. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Ordinance or of Code provision enacted hereby be judicially determined invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance or of such Code provisions, the intention being that the various sections and provisions are severable.

INTRODUCED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of May, 2012 TOWN OF NEDERLAND By: ________________________________ Mayor Joe Gierlach ATTEST: _________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Carmen Beery, Town Attorney

Feasibility of Bioretention Systems in Nederland, Colorado

For the Town of Nederland, a bioretention system appears to be an effective stormwater management method to reduce the detrimental effects of modern development upon natural ecosystems. Development of parking lots, in particular, significantly increases stormwater runoff and mobilizes pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, oil & grease, etc.) into surface water. If stormwater can be routed into bioretention systems, pollutant levels in runoff can be significantly reduced by natural treatment processes such as filtration, adsorption, and vegetative and microbial uptake.

A bioretention system generally consists of an elongated shallow basin situated adjacent parking lots, or drainage swales, and receives stormwater to generally allow a maximum of 6 inches of water to pond within the basin during a runoff event. Overflow during higher runoff events is routed (short circuited) through the basin and into the local stormwater drainage system.

Construction of a bioretention basin usually entails overexcavation of existing subgrade to a depth of 4 feet, and backfilling with a free-draining mixture of sand and compost material (planting soil). A controllable underdrain at the bottom of the planting soil is sometimes incorporated into the bioretention system to adjust water residence time within the basin. An experienced site engineer is best suited to design a bioretention system as precise grading and drainage control is necessary.

Vegetation planted within a bioretention system must be able to thrive in well-draining,low-moisture soil. Bioretention system maintenance usually consists of mulching, plant replacement, pruning and weeding. Landscape specialists can aid in selection and care ofplantings within the basin.

During cold seasons when frost is present, studies have shown that infiltration can still occur within a bioretention basin provided that the planting soil is free draining, which prevents “concrete frost,” or impermeable frost from developing. Frozen free-draining soils that develop as “granular frost” or “porous frost” can still allow infiltration to occur.

As bioretention systems are initially incorporated into the management of local stormwater systems, I recommend that they be periodically re-visted during different seasons to evaluate their performance. Design “standards” of newer bioretention systems can then be adjusted based on observations of previous installations.

Mark Weritz, P.E.Town of Nederland March 12, 2012

***DRAFT – Not yet approved by Planning Commission***

- 1 -

Nederland Planning Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 ~ 7:00 pm Nederland Community Center

750 Highway 72 North

______________________________________________________________________

1) Call to Order

Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 7:09 pm. 2) Roll Call

Present: Chairman Bill Martin and Commissioners Kris Larsen, Mikki Osterloo, Roger Cornell, Steve Williams, and Denise Jackson

Also present: Town Administrator Alisha Reis and Deputy Town Clerk Michele Martin

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Mueller

3) Approval of minutes from February 22, 2012

A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Cornell, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, and unanimously approved with Commissioner Cornell abstaining. Commissioner Jackson was absent during this part of the meeting.

4) Public Comment

There was no public comment.

5) Discussion Items

a. Comprehensive Plan Update RFP Review Process

Town Administrator Reis provided an update. Out of the 12 RFQ submissions received, staff and the Commission have been able to narrow down the choice to five firms based upon a scoring matrix which included review criteria. The RFP went out to these five firms on March 23rd. They are due back on April 16th. They will be uploaded

***DRAFT – Not yet approved by Planning Commission***

- 3 -

RFP interviews are tentatively scheduled for late April. We will have an SRU application as well as some discussion items on that Planning Commission date. The first Steering Committee meeting can be scheduled on that date, and after the Commission has selected a firm. The interviews should take approximately 30-40 minutes per firm. It was decided to hold the interviews after April 25th either late April/early May. Staff will check on availability and suggest a date. Time will be 6:00pm-9:30pm.

The adopted budget for the Comp Plan is $20,000. Chairman Martin will plan to attend the May 15th BOT meeting to present the Steering Committee s recommendation.

***DRAFT – Not yet approved by Planning Commission***

- 4 -

6) Action Items

a. Draft update to the Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines to add Commercial Parking Development

Town Administrator Reis presented an update to the Design Standards and Guidelines, which includes two additional pages dedicated to Commercial Parking Development. Staff s approach was to add commercial parking development to the document to focus on the use of green infrastructure and the management of drainage as a dual design. This section can be implemented for a 20+ space parking lot, a subdivision, or any other type of lot. Historically, drainage was designed by channeling the storm water through concrete gutters, inlets and storm drains. This green infrastructure replaces that approach, takes the storm water, and slows it down by keeping the water on permeable surfaces.

This update was reviewed by Jason Morrison, Public Works Manager, from an operations and logistics point of view, and also Mark Weritz, aCivil Engineer and Hydrologist consultant we have on staff. Mark also supplied an additional memo regarding the Feasibility of Bioretention Systems in Nederland, which concurs that this can be done and examples of how it can be designed. Our SRU application provides for the hiring of an engineer, by the applicant, to review plans as needed in the future if Mark is no longer with us.

The Commission thought this was a reasonable approach, indicating they want the applicant to provide a drainage plan to the Town for review, not for the Town to design their drainage plan. If an applicant isn t sure want the Town is looking for based on the Design Standards and Guidelines, the Town s Hydrologist will meet with them to discuss options.

Commissioner Cornell made a point that a roof can be as big of a problem with drainage as a parking lot, giving the example of the new Bike and Café building at Second and Snyder streets.

Commissioner Jackson wondered where this left the Thai Restaurant, as this was the application that preceded the update. Reis explained that the Thai Restaurant received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy to move in and set-up, knowing they would still have to design their parking lot once the Town set up some guidelines. Once the Board of Trustees amends the Standards and Guidelines to incorporate this update, then the restaurant will be required to come

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NEDERLAND TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: 5/8/12 Initiated By: Chief Jake Adler Dept: Nederland Police Department Information_______ Discussion _____ Action ___X____

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Ordinance 708, authorizing the Town Marshal to issue a fire ban. SUMMARY

:

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Colorado Statute grants County Sheriffs the authority to issue fire bans as needed. Additional statutory authority grants the Town Marshal “similar authorizations as the sheriffs.” No current municipal code exists to explicitly grant the Marshal power to enforce a fire ban issued by the County Sheriff. When Sheriff Pelle issued a fire and shooting ban recently, Chief Adler issued a notice that the County fire ban would be applied within the Town limits, as well. At least one resident seriously challenged Chief Adler’s authority to enforce such a ban, necessitating clearer authority for fire bans within Town limits. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 708, authorizing the Town Marshal to issue a fire ban. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NUMBER 708

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 10-88 OF THE NEDERLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE DECLARATION OF FIRE BANS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, the Town of Nederland, Colorado (“Town”) is a statutory town, duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-15-401(1)(q), the Town Board of Trustees (“Board”) possesses the authority to all things expedient and necessary to control fires within the Town, including the authority to ban and restrict the permissible location of fires; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds and determines that the geographic location and largely natural forest environment of the Town render it a high wildfire risk; and

WHEREAS, the Board further finds that the prevention of wildfires is a priority concern and in the interests of the public health and safety; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is often necessary to respond immediately to wildfire threats as weather conditions and existing fires may rapidly change and move; and

WHEREAS, the Board determines that it is impractical and unwise to retain all authority quickly the Board may convene and vote to take official action; and

WHEREAS, the Board therefore desires to delegate to the Town Marshal the authority to declare fire bans under certain circumstances, as further set forth in this Ordinance, and to declare this ordinance effective immediately as an emergency ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Nederland, Colorado, as follows:

Section 1. Article V of Chapter 10 of the Nederland Municipal Code, defining offenses

against public health and safety, is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 10-88, to read in its entirety as follows:

Sec. 10-88. Fire Bans. (a) The Town Marshal is hereby authorized to declare emergency fire bans on open fires, as necessary from time to time, to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town. For purposes of this Section, an “open fire” shall be defined as any outdoor fire, including but not limited to campfires, warming fires, bonfires or the prescribed burning of fence rows, fields, wild lands, trash and debris.

When a fire ban is declared, the Town Marshal shall cause to be posted, at each location designated by the Town Board for the posting of notices of Town Board meetings, a notice that states as follows:

PUBLIC NOTICE TOWN OF NEDERLAND OPEN FIRE BAN IN EFFECT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-88 OF THE NEDERLAND TOWN CODE

(b) At any time during which a notice is posted in accordance with subsection (a) above, it shall be unlawful to set, maintain, or allow the setting or maintenance of an open fire within the Town. (c) The following fires shall be exempt from any ban imposed under this Section:

(1) Fires contained within liquid-fueled or gas-fueled stoves or chimneys;

(2) Fires in fireplaces or stoves within all buildings;

(3) Charcoal-fueled fires contained within grills;

(4) Town-approved public fireworks displays;

(5) Fires used to inflate and propel hot air balloons; and

(6) Fires authorized by a Fire Protection District, United States Forest Service or Boulder County pursuant to a properly issued burn permit or equivalent U.S. Forest Service administrative approval.

(d) When the office of Town Marshal is vacant or when the Town Marshal is unavailable to perform the duties authorized by subsection (a) hereof, such duties may be performed by the Town Administrator.

Section 2. Emergency declared; Effective date Pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-16-105, the Board finds, determines and declares that passage of this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety in order to prevent the Town’s inability to quickly respond to a wildfire threat within the thirty days following the adoption and publication of this ordinance. The Board finds that following the ordinary ordinance adoption procedure would delay the authorization granted to the Town Marshal hereunder for four to six weeks. Given the consideration of this ordinance in May, at the beginning of the summer season, the Board finds that such a delay in the effective date of this ordinance presents an unreasonable and unnecessary threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, this ordinance is adopted as an emergency ordinance to become effective immediately upon adoption, as authorized by law.

Section 3. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Ordinance or of the Code provisions enacted hereby be judicially determined invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance or of such Code provision, the intention being that the various sections and provisions are severable.

Section 4. Any and all Ordinances or Codes or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent herewith are, to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, hereby repealed; provided, however, that the repeal of any such Ordinance or Code or part thereof shall not revive any other section or part of any Ordinance or Code provision heretofore repealed or superseded. INTRODUCED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE BY AT LEAST ¾ OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS 15th DAY OF MAY, 2012.

TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO

_________________________________ Joe Gierlach, Mayor

ATTEST: _________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Carmen Beery, Town Attorney

AGENDA INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TOWN OF NEDERLAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Date: May 15, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Planning & Zoning Action __X_____ Discussion ______

______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of granting a Special Review Use (SRU) to Dawfish Inc. dba The Roasted Toad BBQ, 229 Boulder Canyon Drive (also known as 229 Highway 119). SUMMARY: The applicant, David Walter, is proposing to start a business in Nederland. He has a mobile food cart built for BBQ and is requesting to park it year-round at the Kwik Mart retail building (formerly Ben’s Emporium) to serve his food. He plans to use the building for storage, refrigeration, the use of the mop sink, and employee restrooms only at this time. It will not be open to the public. If the business is successful for two years, he plans to remodel the building into a BBQ “to go” restaurant. The property in question is zoned Central Business District (CBD), which requires a review for outdoor sales, eating and drinking, or other outdoor commercial activities or establishments. The applicant plans to prepare most of his food at the Community Center kitchen and use the Community Center as his commissary. He plans to put the greasy water from the smoker into a 55 gallon drum and hire a service to remove the grease and clean the grease trap at the Community Center. The applicant does not plan on requesting a sign permit or additional lighting at this time. His cart has the business logo painted on it, the gas station has exterior lighting, and the retail building has a flood light on the east side of the structure. The mobile trailer hours will be from 11am-7pm. He would like to be open for business by Memorial Day. Town staff determined that the application met the requirements of Nederland Municipal Code Section 16-55 (Approval criteria and conditions.).

HISTORY AND PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Previously for this property, an SRU was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2011 for Ben’s High County Emporium to add a drive-thru coffee window to its then-existing business. Conditions upon that application approval were that there be a clearly marked one-way lane ensuring that traffic will not back up into the Highway 119 right-of-way; and that the applicant obtain approval from the utility company indicating adequate clearance from the guy wire, if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board considers approval of the SRU application. On April 28, 2012, the Planning Commission heard the application and recommended it for approval with one condition – that there be an agreement formalized with Kwik Mart for use of bathrooms by BBQ cart patrons. ALTERNATIVES:

1. Decline to approve the application 2. Approve the application with further conditions

ATTACHMENTS:

1. SRU application (photos will be provided at the meeting or can be picked up at Town Hall)

2. Draft SRU Agreement related to the use 3. April 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes, section on Roasted Toad SRU 4. Town Attorney Memo re: Special Review Use Process and Criteria 5. Staff review background documentation

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Applicant plans to lease the building and parking spaces from the Kwik Mart, as well as lease the kitchen from the Community Center. The applicant also plans to hire several employees, local contractors, and apply for his business license.

SPECIAL REVIEW USE AGREEMENT For a Mobile Food Service Truck

229 Boulder Canyon Drive

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 15th day of May, 2012, by and between the Town of Nederland, a Colorado municipal corporation (“the Town”) and Dawfish Inc. dba The Roasted Toad BBQ, a Colorado corporation (“the Applicant”).

WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes certain land uses at a location within the Town of Nederland in the Central Business District zoning district with an address of 229 Boulder Canyon Drive (NW point of Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, Nederland Wohlcke NE Subdivision) (the “Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to use the Property to locate and operate a mobile food service truck; and

WHEREAS, such proposed land use constitutes an outdoor eating and drinking establishment and, as such, is eligible under Section 16-32 of the Nederland Municipal Code (the “Code”) as a Special Review Use in the Central Business District zoning districts of the Town, including at the Property, provided the criteria for a special review use are satisfied as well as the criteria detailed in Sections 16-52 through16-55 of the Code; and

WHEREAS, the Town has approved the use of the Property for location of the mobile food service truck as a Special Review Use, subject to entering into this Special Review Use Agreement, and the terms and conditions set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant acknowledges that the Town’s review and approval of plans for the proposed special review use have been done in furtherance of the general public’s health, safety and welfare and that no immunity is waived and no specific relation with, or duty of care to the Applicant or third parties is created or assumed by such review approval; and

WHEREAS, the Nederland Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed special use on April 25, 2012, and

WHEREAS, following proper notice, the Nederland Board of Trustees has considered the Applicant’s application to locate the mobile food service truck on the Property as a special review use and has concluded that such use is proper under the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Nederland Board of Trustees grants to the Applicant the right to locate and

operate a mobile food service truck on the Property in conformance with the Applicant’s complete and approved Application for a Special Review Use,

2

including but not limited to the Site Plan included therewith, such Application attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Application”), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

2. The Applicant shall comply and shall ensure that the mobile food service truck

and associated operation complies with all applicable local, state and federal governmental regulations and requirements, including but not limited to building, zoning, licensing, design standards, performance standards, rights-of-way, sidewalk, nuisance, floodplain, floodway, health and sanitation regulations, utility, tax, permit fees and other payment obligations and any other applicable rule, law, requirement or regulation. When requested by the Town, proof of such compliance shall be provided in a manner satisfactory to the Town.

3. Allegations concerning a violation of one or more of the terms or conditions of

this Agreement may give rise to a review of the special review use approved for the Property. Such review shall be conducted pursuant to Code Section 16-61. If, as a result of a hearing held pursuant to said Section, the Board determines that a violation exists, then the Board shall have the following options, in its discretion:

a) Terminate the Agreement, in which event the use of the Property under the

special use permit shall cease. b) Suspend the Special Review Use Permit until the breach is remedied. No

use shall be made of the Property during such suspension. c) Modify the Agreement on such terms and conditions as the Board deems

appropriate, including but not limited to, restricting the uses that may be made of the Property or the portions of the Property in which such uses may be made or adding additional terms or conditions to the Agreement.

4. Delinquent fees, charges and payments. The Applicant must be current and in

compliance with all Town regulations and requirements concerning fees, charges and payments due and owing the Town, as required by Section 2 of this Agreement. The Applicant’s failure to comply with Town requirements concerning such payments shall constitute grounds to conduct a review of the special review use approved hereby pursuant to Section 3 above..

5. Modification and Waiver. Pursuant to Section 16-57 of the Code, no special

review use may be altered in any way, including but not limited to expansion of such use, unless such alteration is approved in accordance with the procedures applicable to approval of a special review use as set out in Article III of Chapter 16 of the Code. It is expressly agreed that, except as may otherwise be provided by applicable statute or ordinance, no official of the Town has the authority to waive or modify any provision of this Agreement without the approval of the Board of Trustees.

3

6. Right of Use and Authority. Applicant warrants to the Town that it is, at the time of its execution of this Agreement, entitled to exclusive possession and use of the Property and that Applicant has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement.

7. Transfer and Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned without the

written consent of the Town. If such transfer or assignment is to a new owner or applicant for the same use as authorized by this Agreement, then the Town shall not unreasonably withhold its consent. Transfer or assignment of the Property for any other use shall terminate this Agreement as well as the Special Review Use Permit.

8. Expiration. If the use approved by this Agreement is not operated on the Property

for at least one (1) year, the approval granted hereby shall expire and the Property may not again be put to such use unless approved in accordance with the Nederland Municipal Code.

9. Approval; Execution. This Agreement shall not be final until it has been

approved by the Board of Trustees and has been fully executed by each of the parties hereto.

10. Recordation. Once it is final, this Agreement shall be recorded with the Boulder

County Clerk and Recorder. Applicant shall reimburse the Town for the costs of recording.

11. Issuance of Special Review Use Certificate. Upon execution of this Agreement

and compliance with all other conditions precedent as stated in this Agreement, the Town shall issue a Special Review Use Certificate to Applicant. Applicant shall take no action in reliance on this Agreement and shall have no rights under the Special Review Use process until such time as the Special Review Use Certificate is issued.

12. Severability/Governing Law. This Agreement is to be governed and construed

according to the laws of the State of Colorado. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in violation of any local, state or federal law, and thereby rendered unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if the unenforceable provision had never been included in this Agreement.

13. By entering into this Agreement, the Town does not waive or intend to waive

those protections provided to it as a result of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Sections 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.

4

ATTEST: TOWN OF NEDERLAND, COLORADO A municipal corporation

_________________________________ By: ________________________________ Teresa Myers, Town Clerk Joe Gierlach, Mayor APPLICANT: DAWFISH INC. dba THE ROASTED TOAD BBQ, A Colorado Corporation By: ________________________________________________ David Walter, CEO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2012, by David Walter as CEO of Dawfish, Inc. Notary My Commission Expires: _______________. [S E A L]

5

EXHIBIT A

[THE COMPLETE APPROVED APPLICATION, INCLUDING SITE PLAN]

1) Action Items a. Consideration of SRU application – David Walter (The Roasted Toad BBQ), mobile food cart, requesting approval to park permanently at the Kwik Mart retail building, 229 Boulder Canyon Drive, also known as 229 Highway 119. David Walter, 3201 West Avenue Place, Broomfield, is the owner of Dawfish Inc., dba The Roasted Toad BBQ, and he is before the Commission tonight to request approval to park his mobile food trailer and smoker at the Kwik Mart retail building on a permanent basis. He has lived in Broomfield for 16 years now, but plans to sell and move to Nederland to further commit to his business. He wanted to stress that even though he is using a mobile trailer, his intent is to locate to a permanent structure in the next year or two. He just doesn’t have $50,000 to remodel a building right now. He was waiting to submit his final plans to the Health Dept., and has found out that if his trailer is not fully equipped with all the water and cooking requirements needed, then he would have to drive his trailer up to the Community Center each day to dump water and do dishes. If that is the case, he would park in the same location every day back at the Kwik Mart. Other options would be to hook up to town water and sewer, or move into the building. These options are still be explored once he meets with the County. The Commission received his Special Review Use (SRU) application packet with details and photos of his proposal, as well as Town department reviews. Town Administrator Reis introduced the application by reminding the Commission that the property in question is where Ben’s Emporium was located. It is located in the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district where outdoor sales, eating and drinking, or other outdoor commercial activities or establishments are allowed by SRU. It was noted that this application was properly noticed within the 15 day public noticing period. Town staff felt Mr. Walter met all requirements of the SRU, so Reis and Town Attorney Carmen Beery took the liberty to draft an SRU Agreement with conditions, if the Commission was so inclined to approve the application.

Mr. Walter had conducted further research on the State Health Department’s Performance Standards and handed out Section 11.A.6 Exemptions where it relates to smoke and opacity. He went on to explain the difference between a smoker from a grill. Smokers have a fire box off to the side making it impossible for the grease to fall down to create a grease fire. Also, smokers burn pure hard wood. There is no dripping grease.

Mr. Walter also handed out new drawings of where his smoker and picnic tables would be located. He wanted to move the picnic tables closer to the Kwik Mart, as he would be directing patrons to use their bathroom facilities, if needed. He found out from the Health Department that if he offered tables for sitting, then he was required to provide bathrooms. There was no public comment, so Chairman Martin opened the discussion to the Commission. Commissioner Osterloo asked about the fire ban and red flag days. Mr. Walter explained the restriction days relate to open fires not contained fires in a fire box as his is. It was noted that NFPD Chief Dirr had approved the application as part of staff’s review process. It was noted that Town Attorney Beery, in her review of the application, requested the Town receive an executed lease between the property owner and Mr. Walter verifying Mr. Walter’s authority to use and occupy the land in the manner proposed. Reis stated that he is scheduled before the Board of Trustees on May 1st to have a lease approved between himself and the Community Center to use their kitchen for his commissary. Commissioner Cornell was unclear how many parking spots were proposed. Mr. Walter explained that it is a big open lot and he plans to use railroad ties to section off his trailer, smoker and picnic tables which will leave parking on the east side of the building by the Peace Garden, there is public parking behind the building, and he anticipates people parking at the Kwik Mart and walking over. Cornell suggested, that if approved, the parking spots should be defined. There was concern that parking should meet code and not back-up on the highway. Three spaces, plus one handicapped space would meet the code based on his seating area. There is parking available behind the building on the property as well. Staff will work with him to define his spaces. Reis noted that Public Works will help and oversee the placement of the railroad ties, so there won’t be a drainage problem. Commissioner Jackson didn’t think the amount of parking spaces was that crucial. Martin wondered what the use of the building would be. Mr. Walter explained that since there are no sinks or grease traps in the building, he can’t cook in there which is the reason for the lease with the Community Center. Once his business and finances begin to grow, the goal would be to remodel the interior and to get rid of the trailer to move it all indoors.

Martin suggested a 3-5 years timeframe trial in the SRU to see if this works. Mr. Walter plans to be open seven (7) days/week during the summer, and Friday-Sunday for winter months. Lighting was discussed next. He plans to be open from 11am-7pm, so there may not be a need for additional lighting. He will have the lights from the gas station, and the building has a little porch light. He thought maybe just a spotlight on his smoker/cart for security would be needed. Reis commented that he would have to come in for an electrical permit and would have to meet Town lighting code. Martin asked about CDOT. Reis stated that all ROWs are granted for this site. Smoker and cart are not permanent structures, and CDOT will take that into account. CDOT will not get involved unless it is a new development.

Mr. Walter handed out a copy of what his artwork/logo will look like on his trailer. He is not in need of a sign at this time. Reis will confirm with the Fire Department on the Fire Ban question for the SRU Agreement. Martin suggested as part of the Agreement that Mr. Walter include a scaled, detailed map with delineated parking and the location of the smoker and trailer. Commissioner Larsen moved to approve the application as is with a condition of agreement with the Kwik Mart for bathroom use, seconded by Commissioner Jackson, and unanimously passed.

1

MEMORANDUM TOWN OF NEDERLAND Meeting Date: May 15, 2012 Initiated By: /s/ Alisha Reis Dept: Planning & Zoning Re: Roasted Toad SRU

______________________________________________________________________ Staff Review Police, Fire, Public Works, Geotech, Legal, Xcel, and DDA have received this application for review, and the following are their responses:

• Police and Fire – approved with no comments • Public Works – had a few questions from Section 1F:

1. Is grey water being dumped into sink grease free? 2. What steps will be taken to contain spills when dumping into drum or

contain overflows of drum? 3. Is a 55 gallon drum big enough?

Applicant’s response: The sinks in the mobile unit will only be used for hand washing and emergency utensil washing. We can minimize the need for utensil washing by having extra clean ones on hand. We will use paper towels to remove the grease and large particles before washing in the sinks, this is the normal procedure from the Health Department anyway. All of the dirty dishes with grease will be taken back to the Community Center kitchen to be cleaned. The grey water emptied at the gas station will be minimal. I have the same concerns for the water tanks in my mobile unit, I do not want grease in there. There is also a concern about freezing temperatures at night. I might only have the option to use these sinks for 3 months out of the year. It would not be practical for us to drain and winterize the tanks and water heater each night. I am very motivate to install a grease trap in the gas station building when I have the money to do so. Most mobile units do not have sinks and the Health Department recommends a portable sink/cabinet. This portable sink could be emptied at the Community Center kitchen. We will have to use one of these choices before winter arrives. The grease from the smoker is contained inside the smoker until the valve is manually released. There is no dripping grease, so there should not be any overflows. We will use a metal bucket to transfer the grease to the oil drum. We are going to use a garden wagon with side rails to move the grease bucket to the oil drums. We are renting an empty dumpster stall from the Kwik

2

Mark. There will not be a dumpster in the stall, so we could fit at least six 55 gallon drums if needed. We could also install some type of floor covering in the dumpster stall. I am also considering installing a water tank and pump in the back of my pick-up truck for the purpose of cleaning out the grease drums. This might be more cost effective than hiring a service.

and from Section 1I: 1. Will an extension cord be used to plug in at new outlet? If not how will it

be hard wired in? If so what steps will be taken to secure cord or preventing a trip hazard?

Applicant’s Response:

Please see picture of the electric box and plug. The cord is approximately 20' long and can be plugged into a 210 outlet. We could hard wire directly in to the building. We could dig a trench and bury the cable since it would be a tripping hazard. We plan to hire an electrician and ask them the best way to do this. We will also need to install a phone line for the credit card machine. The phone line can also be buried with the power cable in conduit.

• Geotechnical Engineer Mark Weritz: 1. The Town requests that site regrading, if any, does not increase existing

surface runoff off-site. The applicant is encouraged to utilize storm water infiltration methods to decrease surface runoff, if applicable.

3

4

Applicant’s Response: We would not be changing any of the gradients on the property. The power cable could be buried and the ground made level again. The only landscaping changes we would make are adding some railroad ties to mark off the parking spaces. I'm not sure if this would affect the water drainage or what we would do to correct that.

• Town Attorney: 1. An executed lease verifying his authority to use and occupy the land in the

manner proposed should be submitted to the Town. • Xcel Energy – there were no previous conflicts with the down guy wire at this

location. Per the attached drawing provided, there would be no conflicts with the down guy wire and the proposed use of the lot.

• DDA – the Director did not indicate any issue with the proposal.

AGENDA INFORMATION

MEMORANDUM

NEDERLAND

TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Meeting Date: May 15, 2012

Initiated By: /s/ Teresa Myers

Dept: Administration

Information ______ Action ___X____ Discussion ______

______________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of DDA Board appointments.

SUMMARY: Eight individuals have applied for the 6 vacancies on the Board of the Nederland

Downtown Development Authority.

INFORMATION: Six positions on the DDA Board are currently vacant. Two of those positions are for

one-year terms (expiring June 30, 2013), two are for two-year terms (expiring June

30, 2014), and two are for 6-week terms (expiring June 30, 2012) Those chosen for 6-

week terms will be allowed to be considered for subsequent four-year terms (expiring

June 30, 2016).

The Board of Trustees accepted applications for the DDA Board until 9:00AM on

May 8, 2012. Eight applications were received by the deadline. Applicants are

required to appear at the Board meeting at which their application is being

considered (in this case, May 15th), and should be prepared to speak to the Board

about why they are seeking appointment and should be considered. If an applicant

cannot appear at the meeting, they need to draft a letter of explanation for their

absence and their interest in serving on the DDA Board.

The Board of Trustees will discuss and vote on the appointments, after receiving any

public comments. The Board will assign terms (one-year, two-year or 6-week) to the

appointed individuals.

May 8, 2012

Honorable Mayor Joe GierlachTown of Nederland Board of Trustees

Dear Mayor and Trustees:

I am sincerely sorry that I will not be able to attend the Board of Trustee meeting on May 15, 2012, when you

will be appointing new NDDA Board members. I recently had surgery to remove a squamous cell cancer from my face and will be returning to Nederland the first part of June.

As many of you are aware, I submitted my application in February for one of the vacancies that occurred in

January. This was after talking to most of you. I believe that I would bring the following strengths to the new board:

1. Resident and property owner on 2nd St in the NDDA District

2. Researched and shared with many of you possible ideas for new directions for the DDA, helping to

identifying many problems that exist in the downtown area.

3. An in depth understanding of how and why the DDA works. I have written many times on this subject for the Column ASK PAT in the Mountain-ear. Previously worked with the Town to identify existing problems.

and helped to research corrections for those problems.

4. Share an enthusiasm for the direction you have chosen for the DDA with the TIP money presently available

and support the NEDPED project. See my column in the Mt Ear this week.

5. A strong financial background from running private corporations, working as National Accounts underwriter for major insurance company and as Treasurer and Finance person for several non-profits.

6. Strength in zoning and land development. Worked on the Master Plan sub committee for the City of Norwalk, Ct. Consultant on zoning matters for attorneys in Connecticut.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to The Town of Nederland.

Sincerely yours,

Patricia H. Everson

Patricia H.Everson114 E 2nd Street, Nederland, Co 80466