The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2003-10-14. 4 Prepared 10/08/03 The Miesion of the Town of Eetee Fark le to plan and provide reliable, h10h-value eervicee for our citizens, vieitors, and employeee. We take great pride eneurin0 and enhancin0 the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public reeouride and natural eettine BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 23,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, October 2,2003: 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, September 10, 2003 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Appeals, September 5,2003 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 9,2003 (acknowledgement only). 7. Estes Valley Planning Commission, September 16, 2003 (acknowledgement only) 8. Resolution #10-03 - Approving Contract #04 HA4 00030 and #04 HA4 00032 between CDOT (80%) and the Town (20%) for the Hike/Bike Trail along Fish Creek Rd., from Country Club Dr. to Carriage Dr., and the Fall River Hike/Bike Trail, Phase 111 along Fall River Rd. from Valley Rd. to the Sleepy Hollow Subdivision area. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS. A. Pawnee Meadow, Second Filing, Lots 4 and 5, Pawnee Meadow Subdivision, First Filing, Scott & Kim Miller/Applicants. CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 11, 2003 - APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 1 Continued on reverse side 2. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Solitude Condominiums 111, Supplemental Map 11, Lot 3, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. B. Solitude Condominiums IV, Supplemental Map 11, Lot 4, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. C. Cedar Ridge Condominiums Ill, Supplemental Map 1, Portion of Lot 4, Beaver Point Third Addition, Cedar Ridge at Estes, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor- Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #17-03 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor - Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Portion of Block 7 Amendments, modifying Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #11-03 - INTRODUCTION OF PRELIMINARY 2004 BUDGET. (The public hearing for adoption of the 2004 Budget is scheduled November 11, 2003.) 2. A. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. ORDINANCE #18-03. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. 1 B. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. C. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. j ~i 2. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Solitude Condominiums Ill, Supplemental Map ll, Lot 3, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. B. Solitude Condominiums IV, Supplemental Map 11, Lot 4, Solitude Subdivision, Crystal Creek Development, Inc./Applicant. C. Cedar Ridge Condominiums Ill, Supplemerhal Map 1, Portion of Lot 4, Beaver Point Third Addition, Cedar Ridge at Estes, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: A. Mayor - Open Public Hearing B. Staff Report C. Town Attorney White read Ordinance #17-03 D. Public Testimony E. Mayor- Close Public Hearing F. Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Portion of Block 7 Amendments, modifying Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #11-03 - INTRODUCTION OF PRELIMINARY 2004 BUDGET. (The public hearing for adoption of the 2004 Budget is scheduled November 11, 2003.) 2. A. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, ORDINANCE #18-03. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. B. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. C. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Town Attorney White and Finance Officer Brandjord. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 2. t , 'i Prepared 10/08/03 ~623- The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, h10h-value eervlces for our citizens, visitors, and employets. We take 0reat pride eneuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by beinG 0005 stewarde of public resources and natural eetting. ~22*Erby, BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, October 14,2003 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. - Town Board Minutes dated September 23,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, October 2,2003: 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, September 10,2003 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Appeals, September 5,2003 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 9,2003 (acknowledgement only). 7. Estes Valley Planning Commission, September 16,2003 (acknowledgement only). 8. Resolution #10-03 - Approving Contract #04 HA4 00030 and #04 HA4 00032 between CDOT (80%) and the Town (20%) for the Hike/Bike Trail along Fish Creek Rd., from Country Club Dr. to Carriage Dr., and the Fall River Hike/Bike Trail, Phase 111 along Fall River Rd. from Valley Rd. to the Sleepy Hollow Subdivision area. l A. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLATS. A. Pawnee Meadow, Second Filing, Lots 4 and 5, Pawnee Meadow Subdivision, First Filing, Scott & Kim Miller/Applicants. CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 11, 2003 - APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 1 Continued on reverse side . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 23,2003 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 23rd day of September, 2003. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W. Gillette David Habecker Lori Jeffrey-Clark G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Assistant Town Administrator Repola Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: None Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 9,2003. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, September 11, 2003: 1. Light and Power Shop Asphalt Paving, Coulson Excavating, $14,400. 2. Fall River Tank Project Design/Construction Management Scope of Services, Cornerstone Engineering, $76,000. B. Public Works, September 18, 2003: 1. Knoll-Willows Trail, Phase I, $70,083.00. 2. Fish Creek Trail Change Order (increase to original bid contract), $56,600.00. 3. Lease for placement of Rooftop Antenna Dish on Municipal Bldg. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Gillette) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - September 23,2003 - Page 2 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #16-03 - ADDING CHAPTER 7.18 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO AN ANIMAL RESCUE OPERATION. Town Attorney White reported that existing regulations do not provide for the small-scale operation of animal rescue as an accessory use in residential zoning districts. The use definition and restrictions were reviewed. Responding to questions from Trustee Habecker and Jim Baine, Town Attorney White stated the licensee must be affiliated with a local non-profit organization or a local veterinary clinic to receive locally abandoned dogs; revocation of the license will be managed by the Town Clerk's Office; and, regulation is complaint-based and the Municipal Court will hear these cases. Attorney White read the ordinance, and it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey-Clark) Ordinance #16-03 be approved, and it passed with Trustee Habecker voting "No". 2. FULFILLMENT TASK FORCE REPORT/DISCUSSION. Mayor Baudek announced that the following format would be observed: * Task Force Presentation + Public Testimony * Town Board adjourn to Executive Session (1) Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the following specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b), and (2) For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under 24-6-402(4)(e). * Return to Open Session for Town Board discussion. Mayor Baudek expressed the Board's appreciation to all Task Force members for their hard work, dedication, and concern for the community. Assistant Town Administrator Repola commented on the charge of the Task Force, which was to recommend future directions for the Town's Fulfillment Program. Task Force members include Kathy Asche, Jeff Barker, Deeva Boleman, Peggy Campbell, Don Cheley, Bruce Grant, Judy Haggard, Kent Meyer, Al Wasson, and Ted Williams. Town Administrator Widmer served as the Facilitator, and Town Staff Peter Marsh, Tom Pickering, and Randy Repola provided technical support. Task Force Co-Facilitator Peggy Campbell presented the following recommendations and reviewed same in detail, including reasoning for each: > Long-Term * Short-Term > Equalization Fee Trustee Barker commended Mayor Baudek and Task Force Members for their work and commitment in such a short time frame, adding that his skepticism was not proven out. Public testimony was heard (generally in support of retaining the distinct separation between the EPCRA and the Town) from: Lois Smith/Baldpate Inn, Ken Coleman/Estes Print Works, Marnie Richter/Riverview Pines, Jim Tawney/Ponderosa Lodge, Craig Bigler/2445 Hwy. 66, Deeva Boleman, Board of Trustees - September 23,2003 - Page 3 Dir./EPCRA, Wayne Chen/940 N. Lane, Jim Baine/340 Davis St., and Norman Pritchard. Concluding all public testimony, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey-Clark) the Town Board go into Executive Session for a conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b), and determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, etc. under 24-6- 402(4)(e), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:12 p.m. Mayor Baudek reconvened the meeting to Open Session at 8:49 p.m., and following comments from the Town Board (generally in support of a contract extension)2, a consensus was reached to: (1) extend the existing contract for 3 months between the EPCRA and the Town, that includes Town funding for telephone answering and a portion of the Vacation Planner mailing, and (2) the formation of a Marketing Board. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Stanley Park Fairgrounds Revitalization Community Meetings. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that 3 meetings have taken place thus far, with 40-45 people in attendance. The two remaining meetings are scheduled Wednesday, September 24~h and Monday, Sept. 29th at 7.00 p.m. at the fairgrounds office. Trustee Habecker responded to Mr. Chen's previous comments regarding business licenses, stating that the Town takes such negative customer service very seriously, encouraging Mr. to Chen to talk to the Administrator. Trustee Barker commented on the "Patriot Act" and search warrants, encouraging all citizens to contact their legislators Trustee Doylen commented on the upcoming High School Homecoming Football Game, and urged the community to support the 4/0 Bobcats. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 2,2003 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 2nd day of October 2003. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Barker and Habecker Attending: All Absent: None Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Directors Joseph and Kilsdonk, Sr. Center Mgr. Thompson, and Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MUSEUM/SR. CENTER DEPARTMENTS. Event Critique. * July 4~h Coolest Car Show. The estimated attendance for this 1-day event was 2,500 (5~h year) and the net income for the Museum was $8,445.02. Discussion followed on the growth potential, event location, and vehicle/pedestrian traffic improvements. Museum Bi-Monthly Report. Director Kilsdonk reported on the following: â€¢ The design/build contract for the Museum expansion has been executed. Director Kilsdonk will arrange a brief "ground breaking" ceremony immediately following the November meeting. * The Friends of the Museum hosted a book signing on September 13th for their new publication /n the Vale of Elkhanah. 4 Quilts: Pieces of History, featuring quilts from the Museum's collection, opened with a Friends-sponsored reception on September 15th. * Programs and events. * Attendance statistics for August. Senior Center Bi-Monthly Report. Mgr. Thompson reviewed the following: * Mgr. Thompson announced her resignation as Sr. Center Director effective November 7th. * Board of Directors. The Center received an additional $44,000 from the Durrett Trust in September 2003. An endowment fund, totaling $244,000, has been established to accommodate the funds. â€¢ Food Service Operations. The privatization of the food service operation has been a success. Catering for All Occasions continues to provide high quality meals and service. * United Way Funding. The Center received a grant to help subsidize the meals program. A breakdown of the disbursement is as follows: $10,000 in 2003- 2004; $12,500 in 2004-2005; and $15,000 in 2005-2006. Written status and outcome measurement reports are required every 6 months. + Office on Aging (OOA) - The Center will no longer receive funding from the 0OA due to the privatization of the meal program. * Meals on Wheels. The Town implemented a sliding scale for those unable to pay the full price for the meals. Meal charges are no longer considered a "donation." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - October 2,2003 - Page 2 * Programs and Activities. Educational, social, nutritional, and cultural needs of the senior population are the focus of the programs and activities. â€¢ Facility. The facility is in excellent condition. The Town has committed to keeping all equipment, furnishings, and fixtures in top condition. Senior Center, Inc. has kept its pledge and raised funds to install handicap doors, acoustical tile, and landscaping. * Budget. The Center is operating at a fiscally sound level. The Committee expressed their appreciation to Mgr. Thompson for her efforts and dedication to the Center and wished her success in her future endeavors. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REPORTS. Building Permit Summary. Director Joseph presented a monthly Building Permit Summary from 1999-2003. Permit totals year-to-date are up 3% from the previous year. Development Application Fee Schedule - Policy Revision - Discussion. Director Joseph reported that the Town's development application fee is substantially inadequate to recover public costs associated with development review. Generally, the Town's application fees are $50.00 and applicants are billed for publication costs and Town Attorney review fees. Therefore, the General Fund is subsidizing the review process. Director Joseph presented an Application Fee Comparison Table outlining proposed increases to the following categories: development plan, special review and PUD, rezoning preliminary subdivision plat, final subdivision plat, minor subdivision plat, amended plat, boundary line adjustment, right-of-way or easement vacation, street name change, , preliminary condominium map, final condominium map, separate lot review, variance petitions, administrative appeal, annexation, and temporary use. Director Joseph explained that Larimer County recently completed a cost recovery study and approved a new fee schedule based on a cost recovery of 50% of the actual cost of development review. Discussion was held regarding the County fees, variance petitions, staff costs, and fee reductions/waivers. Consensus was reached to refer this item to the October 30th Budget Study Session for further discussion. MISCELLANEOUS. Little Kids. Big Plans Week. Trustee Jeffrey-Clark introduced Janice Newman, Susan Strom, and Frank Chadwick and reported the National League of Cities has designated October 19-25, 2003 as Little Kids, Big Plans Week. Local officials, nationwide, are encouraged to convene town hall meetings or mayoral summits focused on early care and education and develop municipal strategies for supporting early childhood initiatives. The Committee then viewed a video entitled Whv Earlv Childhood Matters. Discussion was held regarding current community funded programs, alternate funding options, networking, and limited availability of Town funding. Concluding all discussion, Trustee Jeffrey-Clark requested the Town: 1) prepare a proclamation declaring October 19-25, 2003, as Little Kids, Big Plans Week; 2) host a community forum breakfast on October 22th to kick off the event (cost between $1,000- $1,500); and 3) host an 8-hour retreaUsummit to develop a strategic plan to address the needs of the community. The Committee recommends 1) preparation of a proclamation for the Mayor's signature; 2) financially assist with the October 22~h RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - October 2,2003 - Page 3 "Community Discussion" breakfast; and 3) raise awareness of the issue, but not take a leadership role. Chairman Doylen offered a $500 donation from the Economic Development Funds (Account #101-5820-450-2708) to assist with the breakfast expenses. Any funds disbursed from the Mayor's Contingency Fund will be at the Mayor's discretion. The Committee referred Trustee Jeffrey-Clark and staff directly to the Mayor for any additional funding support. There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: September 10,2003 Members Present: Susan Doylen, Karla Porter, Eric Blackhurst, Catherine Jensen Members Absent: Jack Dinsmoor Staff Present: Rita Kurelja, Sam Betters, Rich Ekwall, Frank Lans, Others Present: Joe Wise Guests: The September 10,2003 meeting of the Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Chairperson Susan Doylen at 8:40 a.m. in Room 203 0 f the Estes Park Municipal Building APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made to approve the August 13,2003 minutes of Estes Park Housing Authority Board of Directors meeting by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Catherine Jensen. Vote was called for- All voted Aye. Motion to approve the August 13,2003 minutes passed. FINANCIAL REPORTS - No Financials COMMITTEE REPORTS- Sue Doylen mentioned the letter she had received from Maryann Kundtz. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Talon's Pointe Apartments- Rich Ekwal reported all is ahead of schedule. Leasing- Frank Lans reported that 33 leases have been signed to date. 5 or 6 more were spoken for. Vista Ridge Development- Rich reported that Sinnett Builders are now approximately 3 weeks behind schedule due to a delay in getting the Cabinets. It is believed that Sinnett placed the order late. Alternatives are being investigated. Will make every effort to have the unit due to close on 9/30 ready on time. Sam suggested we give Sinnett our drop dead dates. John Spooner and Dave Lingle are ready to go with phase 2. Rich will be distributing plans for bids to Sinnett, Drahota and Coe. All agreed. Marketing- Joe Wise reported that 6 0 f the affordable units are now under contract and one market rate. Will schedule a Board o f Realtors tour when the model unit is nearer to completion. Rita reported on the FHA update- still in review. Open House Sam reported on the open house Fannie Mae will be holding for Vista Ridge. Wayne Allard will speak. Sam suggested Joe and Rita get together to work on. Will have DOH and Bank, Sue and Investors do a presentation. Joe contacted Disabled Resources regarding the Handicap Unit. Don Marhoney will but in front of their Board of Directors. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Cleave Street Frank reported there is still one vacancy OTHER BUSINESS- Sam told the Board that Frank Lans had resigned his position with his last day to be 9/26. Frank was thanked for all of his hard work. Rita reported that the community coalition no longer has a member from the Housing Authority since Lee Kundtz's death. Karla Porter suggested that instead ofhaving one of our members at their meetings that we invite one of their members to attend the EPHA meetings. Rita will contact and perhaps make a presentation periodically. Discussion on the future of the EPHA including becoming financially independent, gradually phasing out the dependency of the Town and HACOL. Sam will put together a financial projection. , ADJOURN No further discussion motion to adjourn was made and seconded. All voted Aye and meeting was adjourned at 9:39 am. Respectfully submitted; Rita Kurelja Estes Park Housing Authority Program Manager EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .. ..u- Â· A- :'t J 'fÂ·g> Cht. â€¢CÂ· .' Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Appeals September 5,2003,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Kerry Prochaska, Members Steve Lane and Karl Ertl Attending: Prochaska, Lane, Ertl A Also Attending: Attorney White, Chief Building Official Birchfield and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: None Attorney White called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. ELECTION OF CHAIR It was moved and seconded (Lane/Ertl) that the Kerry Prochaska be appointed chair and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Ertl/Prochaska) that the Steve Lane be appointed vice chair and it passed unanimously. 2. ADOPTION OF RULES AND PROCEDURE It was moved and seconded (Lane/Ertl) that the Rules and Procedure for the Board of Appeals be adopted and it passed unanimously. 3. APPOINTMENT OF RECORDING SECRETARY It was moved and seconded (Lane/Prochaska) that the Community Development Secretary be appointed as the recording secretary and it passed unanimously. 4. APPEAL OF ZAHOUREK CONSERVATORY LLC OF NOTICE AND ORDER #01- 2003, JULY 16, 2003 Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official for the Town of Estes Park, was present and gave a presentation regarding the issuance of Notice and Order 01-2003 issued on July 16, 2003. He stated that Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code empowers and directs the Chief Building Official to enforce all the building codes adopted by the Town, which includes the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. He stated the purpose is to ensure public safety. Mr. Birchfield stated that as a member of the volunteer fire department he responded to a call regarding a structure fire at the Elkhorn Lodge on June 10, 2003. Upon arriving on site, he discovered hundreds of feet of exposed gas piping lying on top of the ground. The gas pipe was later determined to be the cause of the fire. Mr. Birchfield's supervisor, Bob Joseph, had a meeting with Mr. Zahourek regarding the life safety issues on the property and the need for the Chief Building Official to inspect the property. Mr. Birchfield reviewed the letter Mr. Joseph wrote to Mr. Zahourek. Mr. Birchfield advised that he received a directive from the Town to inspect the property, which he did with the aid of the State Electrical Inspector, County Health Inspector and the Estes Park Fire Chief. He reviewed the letter he sent to Mr. Zahourek after performing the site inspections. Mr. Birchfield reviewed Section 3401, Section 3402, and Section 3403.5 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. He reviewed the concept of legally nonconforming and the term historic building. He RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . , - -~ - A~ ~. 0. . Estes Valley Board of Appeals A,, '.Aâ€¢ -4,1. M-~~'A 1. IA.3 L..1. L â€¢F 1 7 2 U.LL , ) .; , '.3 -September 5,2003 stated the code gives the Building Official full discretion to determine which requirements of the code must be met for a historic building to continue its use. Mr. Birchfieid advised the Elkhom Lodge is not exempt from obtaining building permits and inspections; all unsafe conditions must be abated; structures and all their parts must be properly maintained; and only the building official is authorized to approve nonconformance to the requirements of adopted codes. He stated there is site evidence and file documentation that work has been routinely performed without obtaining required permits and inspectgns. The cumulative total of the serious health, fire and life safety violations require that the public safety be protected. The Town is not asking the property owner to bring the property up to the current code. The Town is simply asking that proper maintenance be performed in order to make the property safe for the public. Mr. Birchfield stated that Notice and Order 01-2003 closed the Main Lodge building. Mr. Zahourek has since performed required maintenance and repairs, and has hired an electrician that provided a letter stating there are no imminent life safety issues at the Main Lodge building. The Main Lodge has been reopened to the public. Mr. Birchfield advised the appeal of Notice and Order 01-2003 has subsequently placed a hold on the other 27 Notices and Orders for this property until the Board makes its determination. If the Board finds in favor of staff, the Notices and Orders go back into affect. Jerry Zahourek, 600 W. Elkhorn, was present to represent the Elkhom Lodge. He stated the Elkhorn was approved by Congress as a National Historical. District in 1977. He stated when he bought the property in 1991 the kitchen and laundry //'. facilities were in disrepair along with the failure of 5 roofs on the property. He advised they repaired the kitchen and laundry along with the 5 roofs. He does not recall if they had permits. Mr. Zahourek reviewed S6ction 3402 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. He stated the code requires that all devices or safeguards shall be maintained with the code edition under which they were installed. He stated 99 percent of the items the Chief Building Official has issue with, were done 100 years ago when there was no code. Therefore, there are no code requirements for the maintenance of this equipment. He stated the 1997 Uniform Building Code protects historical building by requiring maintenance of the facilities under the code in which it was installed. Mr. Zahourek reviewed Section-3403 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code which states a restored building or structure will be no more hazardous based on life safety, fire safety and sanitation than the existing building. He stated this is an admission by the code that historical buildings are inherently dangerous. He advised that historical buildings have different hazards than modern buildings. He feels the Town has misapplied the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Mr. Zahourek stated that Section 3402 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code protects the Elkhom Lodge from meeting today's standards. Chair Prochaska called for a recess at 10:00 a.m. Chief Building Official Birchfield gave his rebuttal. He stated the current code was used to show that there were numerous code:issues. He advised the code states not all the requifements need to be brought up to current standards. Mr. Birchfield stated that the Notices and Orders are not requiring the Elkhorn Lodge to come up to the 1997 Uniform Building Code standards. The code requires that proper maintenance be performed and that life safety issues be addressed. Mr. Zahourek stated to apply today's standard to an historic boilding will put the Elkhorn Lodge out of business. He does not feel it is fair or reasonable to shut down a building based on non life threatening issues. He believes these startdards are too stringent to apply to an historic building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS : - .~ - ~ , Estes Valley Board of Appeals. ..' 3 September 5,2003 Public Comment None. Board Member Lane stated the life safety issues need to be addressed, and expense does not absolve anyone from performing necessary maintenance. He stated there may not be imminent life threatening issues at the Elkhorn Lodge; however it seems many of these issues could be corrected without substantial cost, reducing the life safety issues. He feels each of the violations illustrated by the 28 Notices and Orders only exasperate the problem. He stated the Building Official has the right to ask that the life safety issues be repaired. Chair Prochaska stated the code does not concern itself with cost or time frame with regard to code compliance. It does specificly address life safety. He advised that safety is first and foremost within the code. It was moved and seconded (Lane/Ertl) this appeal be denied and that Notices and Orders 01-2003 through 28-2003 issued by the Chief Building Official be upheld and the motion passed unanirnously. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Ch~~f ~oumed the meeting at 10:47 - a.m. 1*UL- <Rer#/Prociiaska,Chair J*que~n Williamson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS â€¢i- I Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 9,2003,8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager, One Vacancy Attending: Chair Baker, Members Lamy, Newsom and Sager - Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson , Absent: One Vacancy Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENTAGENDA a. The minutes of the August 5,2003 meeting. 2. LOT 11, PARK HILLS SUBDIVISION, 287 JOEL ESTES DRIVE, APPLICANT: STEVE MCNEILL - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. This item was continued from the August 5,2003 Board meeting. Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He presented a photo simulation to show the view from the Bucher's bay window. He stated the view lost is below the horizon. The applicant hired an architect to provide the Board with elevation and floor plan drawings. He stated the applicant has cleaned up the property as requested by the Board at the last meeting. Linda Grice, an appraiser, showed a map of the area and stated the current zoning of 2.5 acres does not fit the neighborhood, which consists of lots mostly less than 1 acre. She stated all ttie homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming structures in regards to the current setbacks. The neighborhood is non-homogenous and in a state of change. She stated Mr. McNeill has one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. To illustrate the area is mixed; she showed photos of the surrounding neighborhood. She stated a triangular shaped home would be the only structure to fit inside the setbacks on Mr. McNeill's lot. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated it is staffs opinion the requested variance is substantial due to the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed expansion would be larger than other houses in the neighborhood, which has developed primarily as summer cabins. The current house is entirely non- conforming as to the setbacks; therefore, it is impossible to do any expansion without a variance. Based on the substantial nature of the request, it is staffs opinion this request does not represent the least deviation from the standards that would allow the applicant to expand the house and provide for a typical garage. Director Joseph stated there is clearly a hardship in this case and that a variance is required. He advised that it is not clear the requested variance is the least deviation to alleviate the hardship and protect the character of the neighborhood. He stated it is not uncommon in Estes Park for summer cabins to be replaced with year round housing. Board Member Sager feels most of the homes in the area are single level and the requested 3 story addition is out of character with the neighborhood. Public Comment: Charlie Phillips stated he provided the exterior drawings of the home. He stated the applicant is trying to limit the encroachment into the setbacks by limiting the footprint '~ f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS :It: '6::.:7:': 'â€¢Â·: .. , ..7- :.2 ,.t C - X f.., 1 I i Estes Valley Board of,Adjustmente, 7,1.13#4117,>li,i.- .f ,;: ,â€ž .4 â€ž Â· 2 Â·P,st .tu Valluv 1- September 9,2003 of the addition to approximately 800 square feet. He feels if the addition were designed as a two story home rather than a 3 story it would encroach further into the setbacks and mature trees may need to be removed. He feels the 3 story addition would have less impact. Board Member Newsom asked for staffs opinion on a 2 story addition rather than a 3 story. Planner Shirk stated lowering the elevation of the house would help the character of the neighborhood. Spreading the addition out would probably cause the loss of a mature tree and have less impact on the view corridor. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would consider lowering the elevation of the house by spreading out the addition into =the available building triangle, which would affect more of the neighbors view. Camilla Saint, 2341 Larkspur Avenue, was present to represent the Buchers. She stated her clients are not against approval of a variance for this lot. They are against this particular variance request.. She feels the request is unrealistic and does not represent the least deviation to afford relief. She stated her clients question the need for a large detached garage. She called into question the applicant's track record regarding construction on the property. The Buchers would like some assurance that the construction will not drag on and will be completed in a timely manne'r. Ms. Saint stated the Spruce Knob Water Company is a small water company. If the proposed pldn calls for a significant increase in the number of plumbing fixtures, they would like to have a study' done to make sure the water supply is adequate, or prior to construction have the McNeill's connect to Town water. She stated her clients are concerned that the photo simulation provided by the applicant's engineer is not accurate. Ihey would like the chance to obtain a private party to do a photo simulation before a variance is granted. Becky Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the applicant wants to put the largest house on the smallest lot in the neighborhood. Jerry Casler, 350 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed variance request. He feels the proposed addition and the garage are too large for the size of the lot. Diana Bucher, 295 Joel Estes Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. She stated the photo simulation provided by the applicant's engineer is not complete. Elmer Phinney, 309 Joel Estes, spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request. He feels the architectural drawings provided do not show a clear overall picture bf the proposal. He feels the design does not fit with the neighborhood. Rick Toth, Tierra Surveys, Inc., was contacted' by Duane Bucher to prepare a photo simulation to quantify the view lost from the Bucher home by the proposed addition to the McNeill home. He stated he.was unable to gain access to the applicant's property in order to produce the photo simulation. He asked the Board to table the request until the next meeting. This would allow Tierra Surveys time to obtain permission to enter the applicant's property to conduct the photo simulation. He also suggested the potential for an informal arbitration meeting in order to come to a workable solution for atl parties. Board Member Lamy stated she needs more information from the applicant in order to make a decision. Mr. Sheldon stated he would bring more information to the next meeting and perhaps show other options for the layout of the addition. He also stated if the applicant were to build toward the buildable area the view lost by the .. . Buchers would be increased. The applicant is willing to decrease the size of the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant will have to get a building permit and' a construction loan at a higher interest rate, both of which are incentives to finish construction in a timely manner. The applicant has stated the water is metered and tkiNGÂ»-,534, 'tf:, n.,u '. ...1-, U. . 0, ', - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS"*5*DED, 't ..6 r fato. , ... W-1Â·Â· /* U..b,6.. ~p 4 f.:, v H. 1 Â·-4*Â·~2';â€¢'~ht .> s './/7.4:K 1 , c. 1, ' Jâ€¢ r -xirÂ¢Â· :~ a- . , ~, " t. Estes Valley Board of.Adjustment y ... ,â€¢.Cullf .e.'rÂ¥ -Â·.r J â€¢i; â€¢:Â· â€¢ i--iâ€¢ -- â€¢ - .4-, â€¢:..- 3 September 9,2003 they have never exceeded the allowable usage. Mr. Sheldon is in favor of continuing this request to next month's meeting. Chair Barker questioned if there was any proposal that would be acceptable to the Buchers. The Buchers feel that a compromise could be reached if the applicant would build a 2 story home instead of a 3 story home. Director Joseph read into record a letter in support from James and Joan Milne and a letter in opposition from Clayonna Gilliland. Board Member Newsom questioned what direction the Board is giving the applicant for the revised plan. Board Member Sager stated he has suggested they remove the 3rd story of the addition. He has not however suggested that they expand the 2nd level. Mr. Sager stated there are limitations as to what can be done on the lot. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy) to continue the request for the addition to the house to the October 7,2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. Board Member Newsom suggested the Board accept the reduced size of the garage at 24 feet by 36 feet, as offered by the applicant. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would cut 6 feet off the west end of the garage. Ms. Saint would like to see the 6 feet taken off of the east end. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant would prefer to keep the garage closer to the house. Board Member Lamy stated the house and the garage are interrelated. She stated until the layout of the house is known a decision on the garage can not be made. Chair Barker and Board Member Newsom agree. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to continue the request for the garage to the October 7,2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one vacancy. Chair Barker call for a recess at 9:47 a.m. 3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, MOUNTAIN MAN SUBDIVISION, 362 EAST ELKHORN AVENUE, APPLICANT: PIKA PROPERTIES LLC - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.4.C.1 AND SECTION 4.4.D.3, TABLE 4-7 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to allow a building to be constructed as shown on East Riverwalk Condominiums Development Plan #03-09. The setback will vary from a minimum of eighty feet to a maximum of 115 feet from the front (northern) property line. This exceeds the maximum allowable front setback of sixteen feet in the "CD" Downtown Commercial zoning district. This is also a request to allow a twenty-four space parking lot to be constructed between the front property line and proposed building. The Estes Valley Planning Commission conditionally approved Development Plan #03-09 at the August 19, 2003 meeting. The approval was conditioned on the Board of Adjustment approval of the requested variances. There are special circumstances associated with this lot that are not common to other lots in the "CD" zoning district that face an arterial or community collector street. This is the first lot on the southern side of East Elkhorn Avenue; therefore setting the proposed building back more than sixteen feet from the front property line will have less impact on the character of the zoning district than elsewhere in the district. Staff finds the requested parking lot a substantial variance because all proposed parking will be built between the lot line and the building line. The variance will not affect the delivery of public services. The applicant's predicament could be mitigated by redesigning the plan, locating the proposed building near the front property line and placing the parking lot near the riverwalk. The variance offers the least deviation that will afford relief. 00* I. C#'- ~ . * .Â·:.t:tim-*;ipÂ·t.â€¢uÂ·.h> :'/.4 Â·. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS LF.680.CiÂ©04{50 , Â·s. ...4,71 - h. ...... &=- IL- . ' . , .4 .... 11.t I - . . .... ... e. 4. .... . i . , ' 4 1 -'~. Estes Valley Board of'Adjustment c :.. 3.'11#U: 7...6....1.Â·v,-:.-. - r September 9,2003 - Steve Lane of Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He reviewed the project. He stated staff encouraged the location of the building along the riverwalk during the preliminary design phase. He stated the current layout allows vehicles to interface directly with the parking lot and street, whereas the placement of the building allows pedestrians, to interface with the riverwalk. He advised moving the building forward would create a vehicle alley and reduce the size of the retail building. He also stated the parking lot is a current use. Public Comment: None. Board Member Sager stated the applicant has offered solid reasons for the location of the parking lot and retail building. He does question the layout of the parking lot and would like to suggest the applicant redesign the spaces to meet code. Planner Chilcott stated Planning Commission approved a variance to allow the parking spaces to be 8.5 feet wide instead of the required 9 feet. Board Member Sager stated he does not feel it is appropriate to make the parking spaces narrower in order to gain more parking spaces. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request to allow for a front property line setback greater than the maximum of sixteen feet in the "CD" Downtown Commercial zoning district to construct a building as shown on the approved Development Plan 03-09 and to approve off-street parking to be located between the lot line and the building line facing an arterial or collector street in the "CD" Downtown Commercial zoning district to allow construction of a parking lot as shown on the approved Development Plan 03-09 and the motion passed with one vacancy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 4. LOT 4, MCCREERY SUBDIVISION, 1285 CHASM DRIVE, APPLICANT: THOMAS & DIANE ENGLES - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a 27.5 foot variance from the fifty foot front yard setback to build a two-car garage 22.5 feet from the front (southern) property line, and a ten foot variance from the fifty foot side yard setback to build a two-car garage forty feet from the side (western) property line. The dimensions of the proposed two-car garage are twenty-four feet wide by twenty-eight feet long for a 672 square foot garage with a deck above. The existing deck which extends further into the front yard setback than the proposed garage/deck, but not as far into the side yard setback, will be removed. TW Beck Architects have stated the proposed garage/deck addition will require removal of six trees. The addition will also be built close to a natural drainage swale. There are special circumstances associated with this lot. A majority of the lot consists of large rock formations and slabs located on steep, heavily wooded terrain. The existing house occupies the most buildable portion of the site within the setbacks. The lot is undersized for the "RE-1" zoning district however the lot does meet the minimum lot size and the minimum width for the zoning district. It is staffs opinion that the requested variances are substantial. The proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant could not add a one or two- car garage on this lot without encroaching into the setbacks, unless part of the existing house was converted into a garage. The proposed variances offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Thomas Beck of TW Beck Architects was present to represent the applicant. He stated they do not have problems with the conditions of approval. He stated they looked at numerous alternatives for the garage and.feel this proposal will have the least encroachment into the setbacks. 41,/ 1 + .' :.f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 - 1.11 ,? Estes Valley Board of Adjustment;: adju'jit::,wtiÂ·J: .,Â· 5 2.; 1 0 s V / c? September 9,2003 Thomas Engles, applicant, stated all the surrounding cabihs are summer cabins. He stated this proposal seems to be the best site with the least amount of disturbance. Public Comment: - None. Because of the rock outcroppings it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy) to approve a variance request of twenty-seven feet six inches (27.5) from the front yard setback of fifty feet (50) and ten feet (10) from the side yard setback of fifty feet (50) to build a two-car garage twenty-two feet six inches (22.5) from the front property line (southern) and forty feet (40) from side property line (western) and the motion passed with one vacancy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. As recommended by Larimer County Engineering, ensure drainage is adequately addressed with a small culvert or cross-pan. 2. A detailed grading and drainage plan should be submitted with the building permit application which includes existing and proposed contours, top of foundation elevation(s), finished floor elevation(s) and finished grade at building corners, and drainage arrows. 3. As recommended by Larimer County Engineering, ensure the twenty-four inch diameter Ponderosa and its associated drip line is adequately protected from construction and future disturbances. 4. Building Permit 88-E2292 shall be renewed and a final building inspection conducted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage. 5. The applicant shall check with the Larimer County Building Department to make sure permits are not needed for any recent remodel to the cabin. If any work has been done that requires permits, permits for the cabin shall be obtained prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed garage/deck. 6. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 7. A limits of disturbance shall be established to protect the rock outcroppings from development in the future prior to issuance of a building permit for this garage/deck addition, with the location agreed to by staff and the applicant. 5. METES AND BOUNDS, SEC 35, T5N, R73W, 1213 GIANT TRACK ROAD, APPLICANT: RICHARD ORLEANS - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-2 AND SECTION 5.2.D.6 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build a detached two-car garage, which would require a front yard setback and building separation variances. The required setback for all property lines in the "E-1" district is 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 15 feet. Placing the building in this location would, however, provide a 6 foot separation from the main house in lieu of the 10 feet required by the code. The applicant has chosen a location that he feels will minimize the impact on the lot. This location would have the least impact on the lot due to the following factors: slope of the lot in the area north of the house, existing water/propane lines, propane tank, water cistern, and large lilac bush. It is staffs opinion the combination of factors creates special circumstance that would result in practical difficulty in building a garage without a variance. Staff does not consider the request substantial due to site conditions. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change substantially. The applicant has submitted a petition with signatures from seven nearby neighbors, who are in support of the variance request. He stated the garage could be rotated to the northeast corner, minimizing the request. a ~~ 4 1 * 3. Â·Â· r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,> 1 Estes Valley- Board of,Adjustment b< Ar. 1.yot",2- 6 4.4 1 I. I . 9., .. ... .., W. - 1.4.41.i UN'i.P. A September 9,2003 Charlie Phillips was present to represent the applicant. He stated rotating the garage would require moving the propane line. He stated placement of the garage was infiuenced by grade of the lot, water drainage, and the increased cost of attaching the garage to the current home. The garage could be placed farther down the hill; however the homeowner would like to use this area to expand the house in the future. He stated moving the garage close to the house would impact the utilities and the trees on the lot: The applicant purchased the property 20 years ago when the setbacks were 15 feet. Mr. Phillips does not feel it would affect the character of the neighborhood. Richard Orleans, applicant, stated he has concerns regarding any construction near the very old cistern. He feels this location creates the least disturbance. Public Comment: Patricia Cusumano, 1190 Giant Track Road, spoke in favor of the requested variance. It was moved and seconded (Lamy/Newsom) to approve a variance request of ten feet (10) from the front yard setback of twenty-five feet (25) to build a garage fifteen feet (15) from the front property line and to allow the building separation between the house and garage to be five feet six inches (5.5) and the motion passed with one vacancy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building ,Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan. 3. Overhead lines will need to be moved in accordance with Larimer County Uniform Building Code standards. 4. Nearby trees shall be protected with construction fencing during all construction activities. 6. LOT 6, SPANIER SUBDIVISION, 1752 HIGHWAY 66, APPLICANT: CAROLYN S. LAMB - VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4, TABLE 4-5 AND CHAPTER 6 "NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES" OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a commercial accommodations cabin at Skyline Cottages. This site was originally developed in the 1920's, when no setback requirements were in place. The applicant proposes to build the new cabin 7 feet from the property line, which requires an 8 foot variance. This request is to build a "replacement" cabin for one that was removed earlier this year. The previous cabin was a legal non-conforming structure that had side yard setback of only a few feet; any "grandfathered" status ended when the original cabin was removed. The property is sub-sized for a typical accommodations lot; however, it is staffs opinion this does not constitute special circumstances in terms of the requested variance. The request is substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. At the time the applicaht purchased the property, it was zoned T Tourist which had a 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Randy Williams, attorney for the applicant, stated the problems with obtaining earlier building permits were due to the contractor the applicant hired in the past. She assumed the contractor was obtaining the necessary permits. The neighbor to the east had concerns regarding the location of the new building. The neighbor dropped their objection once they found out the building would be placed 7 feet back from the property line. Mr. Williams also stated there would be a boundary line adjustment to straighten out the property lines. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 0,â€ž.01., ' 7 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment .Â· . r . I '11 September 9,2003 Sue Lamb, applicant, stated she has always had safely, cleanliness and beautification of the property as an utmost importance. She stated that the wooden deck on her property is about 20 feet off the ground; therefore it would not be a good location for the cabin. She presented a letter from Jessie Atkins, Estes Valley Home and Garden Center, stating her support for the requested variance. Public Comment: Sharron Bryan, 1785 Moon Trailway, spoke in favor of the requested variance. She feels if the building is pushed further into the parking lot it will make it more difficult for cars to maneuver. Joyce Bublitz, 1774 Highway 66, spoke in favor of the requested variance. She stated the applicant has made many upgrades to her property over the years. Robert Krasusuki spoke in favor of the requested variance. Board Member Sager questioned if the applicant recognized any exchange of land with the neighbor may affect her ability to meet the density calculations. Mr. Williams stated that land would be exchanged with the property owner to the east with a net exchange of approximately 150 square feet. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to approve a variance request of five feet (5) from the side yard setback of fifteen feet (15) to build a new cabin ten feet (10) from the side property line and the motion passed with one vacancy. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record an amended plat to combine the two parcels, which the proposed building would straddle. As part of this amended plat, appropriate right-of-way dedications would need to be made. At that point, a new density calculation would be required to determine if the applicant has adequate land area to build the proposed unit. If adequate land area to support the requested density is not available, Board approval would automatically become null and void. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Larimer County Building Department. 3. Compliance with the submitted site and building plan. 4. The applicant shall submit a certificate, from a registered land surveyor, which states compliance with the site plan. This certificate shall be submitted to the building official at his convenience, during normal office hours. 7. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the changes the Board suggested last time have been addressed and reviewed by the County and Town Attorneys. The by-laws are ready to be reviewed by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. Board Member Sager stated he would like the following added to item I.C.3., "if and when personal communication has taken place it shall be declared at the meeting." There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary C 4.--th<24 ' 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSÂ»Â»: " 1 .-Â·. Â·râ€¢ â€¢Â·w Â·, i - Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 16, 2003, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Chair Wendell Amos, Commissioners George Hix, Richard Homeier, Bill Horton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, and One Vacancy Attending: Chair Amos, Commissioners Hix, Homeier, Horton, Kitchen, and Pohl Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Williamson Absent: Town Board Liaison Habecker and One Vacancy Chair Amos called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 19,2003. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Pohl) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one vacancy. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBIDIVISION, COYOTE SUBDIVISION, PORTIONS OF SECTION 8, T5N, R72W, East Side of Devil's Gulch Road near intersection of McGraw Ranch Road and Devil's Gulch Road, Applicant: Carol Bissell Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a boundary line adjustment to realign four existing parcels and a preliminary plat for a potential open space subdivision. This preliminary plat would be valid for one year from approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed preliminary plat would preclude development from several areas deemed important in terms of the Estes Valley Development Code, including wetlands, a stream corridor, steep slopes, forestation, and a ridgeline. The applicant is requesting variances to maximum cul-de-sac length, paving, and sanitary sewer requirements. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners must grant the variances. Staff recommends waiving the cul-de-sac length standard, maintaining the sanitary sewer standard and maintaining the paving standard for the proposed open space development. The applicant is requesting a density bonus for the preliminary plat to allow a fifth 2.5 acre lot, which must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The open space subdivision would deed restrict a 30 acre open space outlot. The North End Property Owners Association has submitted a letter in opposition to this proposal. Several nearby residents have phoned or met with staff in the office. None were in favor, though not all were opposed. Planner Shirk stated the boundary line adjustment will not be acted on today because a legal notice was not published. Amy Plummer of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. She stated the applicant would like to have wildlife friendly perimeter fencing. She presented a drawing which illustrated the proposed subdivision density is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She stated without the clustering, the applicant would be forced to create a lot on the ridge and build a long road through the property. Bill Van Horn of Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He addressed the conditions of approval. He feels it is not necessary to include a pumping station and tank as requested by Public Works. He stated a pump and tank already exist 200 from the proposed subdivision; therefore there is no need to ' ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS }(,.-12&-T.t .. ...... a.Â·. - 1-Â· "0 2 - i Z -_ 13Â·pr '40. . i. .'i '.' l..., --=.0 .Estes Valley Planning Commission,Â·, : .r r.9.,Â· t.:.r.".5 ._ 1644 .~* Mil. Â·A Â·4 'LÂ·Â·' 'Â·â€¢ ~, - . Â·Â·Â· h '3 9 -, 15â‚¬1) September 16,2003 duplicate current facilities. Mr. Van Horn questioned whether the level of service on Eagle Rock Road would warrant paving. He also questioned who would maintain the road once it was paved. In order to meet the sanitation requirements, a major sewer main extension will need to be added. He stated this service line will only have 5 users and will be expensive for the public to maintain in the future. , Commissioner Horton asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the road if it were paved. Mr. Van Horn stated he did not know; however if and when a maintenance agreement was created the new lots would pay their share to maintain Eagle Rock Drive. Chair Amos questioned if the applicant was still persuing the wells. Mr. Van Horn stated the applicant currently has 4 well permits that can be drilled anytime in the next 3 years. The boundary line adjustment does not affect the legality of the wells. Public Comment: Jack Overly, 133 Little Beaver Drive, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He stated the North End wants to maintain the 10 acres minimum and is not in favor of cluster housing. He is also not in favor of allowing perimeter fencing or any lighting of the roadway. Director Joseph stated in a cluster subdivision the open space created is permanent. He advised that land in the RE-1 zoning district could be subdivided without clustering; however 30 percent of the land would still be set aside as open space. This would yield a net density of 1 home for every 10 acres, and the lot size would be 7 acres. In a cluster subdivision 70 percent of the land is set aside as permanent private open space maintained by the private land owner. This would also yield a net density of 1 home per 10 acres with a potential minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The cluster subdivision is a discretionary subdivision with a potential bonus of 20 percent, which is ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners. Don Widrig, 2661 Eagle Rock Drive, spoke in favor of the boundary line adjustment and spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He feels that a cluster development in the North End violates the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision would also increase the traffic on Eagle Rock Drive that would impact his quality of life. Betty Hull, 1723 Stonegate Drive, Secretary of the North End Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. She read letters from the applicant, in her role as the president of North End Properly Owners Association in opposition to additional development or subdivision in the North End. Phil Edwards, 1882 Devils Gulch Road, President of the North End Property Owners Association (NEPOA), spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He stated NEPOA feels this proposal could set a precedent for the potential carving up of the North End into small lots. He quoted from a letter NEPOA wrote to Dave Shirk on August 13, 2003. He stated the cluster development creates a density that is not appropriate for the North End. Commissioner Pohl questioned how many property owners in the North End have 10 acres. Mr. Edwards stated there are many lots less than 10 acres. Chair Amos asked what the average lot size is for Eagle Rock Ranches. Mr. Edwards stated the lots average 6 acres per lot and Beaver View Estates averages 4.3 acres. Andy Johnson, 2435 Eagle Rock Drive, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He stated most of the smaller lots were created before the 10 acre zoning was passed by the County in 1996. He is in favor of 1 home per 10 acres and opposes the cluster development. He stated the road should be paved if the proposal is approved. He also stated concerns with the applicant's requested variance to the sewer standards. He feels there could be issues with septic systems contaminating nearby wells. He does not object to the boundary line adjustment. . I .irt 'V~'1% RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . ..22:-. uâ€ž. .. Â· Estes Valley Planning Commission v .SL'. 2...:j.,2 3 1 . . September 16, 2003 Ronald Kane, 3000 Puma Drive, spoke in support of the preliminary plat. He stated leaving the meadow in front of Coyote Ridge as open space would help maintain the visual integrity and accordingly would be beneficial for the elk, the North End and the entire Estes Valley. He would encourage the Commission to uphold the code. Jerry Thorson-Boudreaux, 1726 Devil Gulch Road, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He is opposed to the cluster housing concept. If approved he would like the sewer and paving requirements upheld. Bud Hampton, 1575 Devils Gulch Road, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, he would recommend the approval be contingent on an agreement being reached between the open space landowner and the Estes Valley Land Trust for the maintenance of the open space in perpetuity. This proposal of 5 residences on 12.5 acres is the obviation of the property rights of the many in the North End that do, have, and will rely on the 10 acre zoning to protect the integrity of the natural environment of the North End and their own individual rights and expectations. Jerry Brownlee, 2420 Hondius Way, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He does not feel it is appropriate to have 2.5 acre lots placed up against two current subdivisions with substantially larger lots. He stated if the proposal is approved, the requested waivers to the subdivision regulations should be denied. John Elder, 3040 H Bar G Road, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He feels the 10 acre zoning is a benefit for the whole Estes Valley. Terry Parent 2145 McGraw Ranch Road, spoke in opposition of the preliminary plat. He feels the 10 acre minimum should be maintained. Amy Plummer stated that in regards to density, this subdivision proposes 8.8 acres per family unit. Clustering the home sites will minimize the impact on the land. She feels the clustering of the lots and homes tucked up into the trees, fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Bill Van Horn stated distances between the homes that exist now in the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed home sites are not significantly different. He stated that clustering is not in violation or contrary to the master plan, which encourages open space. He stated historically the North End has been zoned with 2.5 acres as the largest lot size and therefore, the 2.5 acre minimum is not out of character for the North End. He advised that when open space is dedicated on a plat it is deed restricted. The intent is to place a conservation easement on the property. Chair Amos called for a recess at 3:50 p.m. Commissioner Kitchen stated the code is written with a potential bonus to encourage a property owner to cluster the development. She feels the applicant has the right to develop the land to the full extent. She also stated that septic systems are safe. Commissioner Hix stated we have a legal obligation to apply the code if the proposal meets the requirements. He does not feel that 4 or 5 houses at the end of a dirt road will create a significant amount of traffic. Commissioner Homeier understands the concerns of the North End property owners regarding the sewer and road requirements. He stated this proposal does not change the density of the area and it preserves a large open space. He feels the road should be paved. Commissioner Horton does not feel that 5 additional homes will have a significant impact on the road. He stated a paved road does not fit in with his concept of country living. He also feels that the applicant should have the option of septic. Â· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission ~ 4 ~ September 16,2003 Chair Amos stated he supports the clustering concept. It was moved and seconded (Horton/Hix) to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Preliminary Plat, Coyote Subdivision, Portions Of Section 8, T5N, R72W, East Side Of Devil's Gulch Road Near Intersection Of Mcgraw Ranch Road And Devil's Gulch Road and it passed unanimously with one vacancy. 1. Compliance with applicable standards of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. The developer shall hire a professional forester shall, to work in cooperation with the Wildfire Safety Specialist, create a forest management plan for the entire subdivision. 3. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat. 4. Access easements shall be labeled as private. 5. A utility easement bridging the open space proposal across proposed Outiot B to Lot 4 shall be provided. 6. Outlot A shall include label "Non-buildable". 7. Compliance with Town Attorney White's memo dated July 28,2003. 8. Compliance with Public Works memo dated July 22,2003. 9. The future east lot cluster shall be required to join any existing or future road maintenance association or improvement district that may be formed within the Eagle Rock Ranches, at a proportional rate. 10. Perimeter lot fencing shall be prohibited. 11. Only native landscaping shall be allowed. 12.All garbage containers shall be bear proof. 13.The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has requested an intermediate pullout area along Eagle Rock Drive. The location shall be determined with final platting of the proposed open space subdivision. 14.The applicant has submitted ISO fire flow calculations that indicate the need for one fire hydrant placed along the curve of the proposed extension of Eagle Rock Drive. This shall be installed prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed open space development. 15. Lots 5-9 of the preliminary plat shall be amended to further restrict developable area. 16.A disclosure notice including the requirements for this development shall be recorded with the final plat. 17.An improvement guarantee shall be submitted for recording with the final plat. This shall include provision of adequate public facilities. 18. Conditional to the approval of the boundary line adjustment. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Hix) to recommend denial of the requested waivers for the sewer'and road standards and it failed. Those voting "Yes" Hix, Homeier, and Pohl. Those voting "no" Kitchen, Horton, and Amos. 4. ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE It was moved and seconded (Hix/Horton) to continue the public hearing to the next meeting and it passed unanimously with one vacancy. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Wendell Amos, Chair Jacquelyn Williamson, Recording Secretary TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum October 8,2003 TO: Town Board FROM: Bill Linnane A-/ U - r SUBJECT: CDOT Trail Grant Contract Resolution BACKGROUND: The Town received a Federal ISTE Grant through CDOT for $341,000 for the construction of the Fish Creek Trail, Phase 2, and the Fall River Trail, Phase 2. Both trail projects were in the original 2003/2004,2-year budget The Grant Contracts between CDOT and the Town require approval by a resolution, which has been prepared by Attorney White. COST/BUDGET: N/A ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution for the $341,000 Trail Grant Contract with CDOT. BL/mjs RESOLUTION NO. 10-03 WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has previously budgeted and appropriated in its 2003 Budget, sufficient funds for the Town's required financial partidipation in the (1) Fish Creek Hike/Bike Trail, Phase 11 (along Fish Creek Road from Country Club Dr. to Carriage Dr., and (2) Fall River Hike/Bike Trail, Phase 111 (along Fall River Road from Valley Road to the Sleepy Hollow Subdivision area; and WHEREAS, in order for the Project to commence, it is necessary for the Town to enter into a contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to approve and authorize said Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby approves and authorizes the execution of this contract by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Town of Estes Park for the Fish Creek Hike/Bike Trail, Phase ll, and Fall River Hike/Bike Trail, Phase 111. 2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute the contract as the same has been presented to the Town. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director and Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 Date: October 8,2003 Subject: Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude 111 Condomini ums Background. The applicant, Crystal Creek Development, Inc., has submitted a final condominium map application for Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude 111 Condominiums. This consists of two units, Units 4 and 6, on Lot 3, Soliti.ide Subdivision, addressed 1870 Sketch Box Lane. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the use is accommodations. Residential uses are not permitted. This map and declaration do not reserve the right to develop additional units beyond those approved with Development Plan No. 02-10, expand units, or withdraw property from the association. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. Development Plan No. 02-10 has been approved for seven resort lodge/cabins on this lot. This condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. The Town Board approved Supplemental Map No. 1 of Solitude Ill Condominiums at the July 8,2003 meeting. Location Map The applicant should discuss business licenses for individually owned condominium units with the -p-:-ir--z-- ~ LAXE ESTES Town Clerk's Office and the applicant should notify future owners of condominium units of ~ --I :AN\.EN P./ FISH business licensing requirements. CREEK INLET Budget. ITE 3 5 SO<XXS None. CROCKER RANCH %F AVE + ====... ===C i-SOUTUCE SUB Action. - Approval of Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude - 9~~ 'E 111 Condominiums. VICINITY MAP 61 1" = 1,000' +/- Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11 and Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 8,2003 Subject: Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude IV Condominiums Background. The applicant, Crystal Creek Development, Inc. has submitted a final condominium map application for Supplemental Map No. 2 of Solitude IV Condominiums. This consists of two units, Units 4 and 7, on Lot 4, Solitude Subdivision, addressed 1855 Sketch Box Lane. The lot is zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the use is accommodations. Residential uses are not permitted. This map and declaration do not reserve the right to develop additional units beyond those approved with Development Plan No. 02-11, expand units, or withdraw property from the association. Location Map Development Plan No. 02-11 has been - ~ ' - U~KE .TES -,32\ approved for seven resort lodge/cabins on this -k lot. This condominium map is consistent with ),2 L+ the approved development plan, with the \&9 . Ar I \NS>5Â« ' STANLE. PAgp< J 1 - MaT j exception that Unit 4 and 7 deck designs have JJ-X \ WANFORD AVE j. been changed. An as-built development plan z , SEE is required once construction of improvements i 8 'AM is completed which will reflect the revised deck BRODI â€¢6 4 design. The Town Board approved r==:==.=: 1 -1- SOUTUDE ..4. Supplemental Map No. 1 of Solitude IV - soÂ«d CROCKER Condominiums at the June 10, 2003 meeting. 15 }OLE 00\F COMASE The applicant should discuss business 41 ~El /4 1 1 ' = 1,000' +/- VICINITY MAP licenses for individually owned condominium Page 1 of 2 units with the Town Clerk's Office and the applicant should notify future owners of condominium units of business licensing requirements. Budget. None. Action. Approval of Supplemental Condominium Map No. 2 of Solitude IV Condominiums. Page 2 of 2 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director Date: October 9,2003 Subject: Cedar Ridge Condominiums - Final supplemental map Background. On March 21, 2000, the Estes Park Planning Commission approved development plan 00-04 for Cedilt Ridge III 1 --. \I the final phase of Cedar Ridge Condominiums. That approval - 4-/~ included five units. The plan has , /14 \ / \ .-* I 1 -*-7-*Ge,-Per \ since been amended to four units. x 'ynwooÂ¢ \, 1 1 All In October 2002, the Town Board - 5921 On The Yl--0./1,0/ I" v j approved the preliminary condominium 9 '' 1 vic map for this portion of Cedar Ridge. In 4- 4\ .3- January 2003, the Town Board approved n 1 1 1 the first supplemental condominium map. This supplemental condominium map will finalize the project. Budget. The Town of Estes Park would assume maintenance of Cedar Ridge Circle, a dedicated public street. Action. Staff recommends approval of the requested final supplemental map of the Cedar Ridge 111 Condominiums. ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK SEVEN AMENDMENTS (PORTION) WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Develobment Code, Block Seven (Portion); and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Six set forth on Exhibit "A' and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2003 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2003, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk EXHIBIT "A" Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Seven - (Portion) -- Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet. com CHAPTER 9. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Â§ 9.1 PURPOSES .......................................................................................... 9-1 Â§ 9.2 APPLICABILITY AND TYPES OF PUDS ALLOWED........................... 9-1 A. PUDs Allowed inthe CO District Only............................................ 9-1 B. Types of PUDs Allowed .......................... 9-1 Â§ 9.3 PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT......................................... 9-1 A. Permitted Uses............................................................................... 9-1 B. Minimum Parcel Size..................................................................... 9-2 C. Number of Units Allowed/Density................................................... 9-2 D. Applicable Development Standards ............................................... 9-2 CHAPTER 9. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Â§ 9.1 PURPOSES In order that the public health, safety and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanizaiion, commercial and industrial development, and growing demand for housing of all types and design, this Chapter is designed to encourage planned unit developments (PUDs) in the Estes Valley for the following purposes: A. To encourage innovations in residential and commercial development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to such buildings; B. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those who need homes; C. To provide a process that can relate the type, design and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site's natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes of this Chapter; D. To provide for well-located, commercial sites and well-designed residential developments while minimizing the impact on roads, streets and other transportation facilities; and E. To conserve the value of the land. Â§ 9.2 APPLICABILITY AND TYPES OF PUDS ALLOWED A. PUDs Allowed in the CO District Only. Application for a planned unit development may be made for land located in the CO Outlying Commercial Zoning District. A PUD may be established by overlaying a PUD development plan over the existing CO zoning district. All PUDs shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter and the procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code. B. Types of PUDs Allowed. A Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-M) shall be the only permitted PUD overlay in the CO zoning district. Â§9.3 PUD-M, PLANNED MIXED-USE DISTRICT The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, is created to provide for the development of 0lanned mixed-use commercial and residential developments. It is intended to promote developments with a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses that provide services and employment opportunities in close proximity to residents of the district. The PUD-M, Planned Mixed-Use District, may be permitted as an overlay only in the CO Outlying Commercial District. Within a PUD-M District, the following standards shall 2 be applied and uses and densities may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body, depending on the location of the proposed PUD. A. Permitted Uses. Within a PUD-M district, the following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of the Decision-Making Body: 1. Uses permitted by-right or by special review in the underlying zoning district; 2. Residential uses; or 3. Accommodation uses. B. Minimum Parcel Size. The minimum parcel size of a mixed-use PUD shall be three (3) acres. C. Number of Units Allowed/Density. 1. Residential Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of units allowed (density) shall be determined by applying the maximum permitted net density allowed in the RM Multi-Family Residential Zoning District (see Â§4.3.C.5 above). 2. Accommodation Uses in a Mixed-Use PUD. The maximum number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by applying the minimum developable land area per accommodations unit requirement allowed in the A Accommodations/Highway Corridor Zoning District (see Â§4.4.C above). Any unit that is less than or equal to 800 s. f. in size shall be considered a guest unit, regardless of kitchen configuration, for purposes of density calculations of a commercial accommodations use in a Mixed-Use PUD. 3. Land Area Requirements Not Cumulative. The density allowances set forth in this Section are not cumulative, but shall be calculated independently for each residential and/or accommodations use proposed in a mixed-use PUD. Each independently calculated land area shall be deducted from the total land area available for development to determine the permitted density on a site. D. Applicable Development Standards. 1. Yard, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements. Yard, bulk and dimensional requirements set forth in Chapter 4, including but not limited to minimum lot area, shall not apply to interior lots or building sites within a PUD-M that do not abut land uses located outside the PUD-M development parcel. 2. All Other Zoning Requirements. A\\ other zoning development and design standards shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to Â§3.6, "Variances." 3. Subdivision Regulations. The requirements of Chapter 10, "Subdivision Standards," shall apply to all PUD-M's unless otherwise specifically exempted, modified or varied pursuant to this Chapter or to Â§3.6, "Variances." 4. Private Open Areas. 3 - a. At a minimum, a PUD-M development shall set aside thirty percent (30%) of the site's total gross area for open areas, plazas, courtyards, sitting areas and other similar public-accessible spaces. b. At its discretion, the Decision-Making Body may require additional private open areas or public trail dedications based on a review of the following factors:, (1) The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; (2) Unique drainage, topographic, vegetation or other such physical conditions; (3) Type and density of development; or (4) Overall need for open space and recreational facilities. c. All open areas or trails provided in a PUD shall be owned and maintained as common (private) open areas by the developer, owner of the broperty or an organization established for the ownership and maintenance of common open areas, unless the relevant Board accepts public dedication of the open areas. d. Open areas or trails dedicated for public use shall comply with all applicable dedication requirements set forth in Â§7.4 of this Code. 4 RESOLUTION TO INTRODUCE THE BUDGET NO. 11-03 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE FOR EACH FUND, AND PRESENTING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2004, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2004. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has appointed Richard D. Widmer, Town Administrator, to prepare and submit a proposed budget to the Governing Body at the proper time; and WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published in accordance with the law, said proposed budget will be open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing will be held on November 11, 2003, and interested taxpayers will be given the opportunity to file or register any comments on the proposed budget; and WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the attached preliminary budget, as submitted, aod summarized by fund, is hereby presented as the budget of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004, and that the budget when approved and adopted shall be signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk and made a part of the public records of the Town of Estes Park. ADOPTED this day of .2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Section 1: The expenditures for each fund are as follows: 2004 General Fund $ 11,936,137 Community Reinvestment Fund 2,059,484 Museum Fund 253,847 Conference Center Fund 513,271 Conservation Trust Fund 30,000 Special Events Fund 850,531 Senior Center Fund 189,736 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund 147,500 ' Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund 9,800 Building Authority 93,575 Light & Power Fund 9,748,037 Water Fund 3,324,929 Medical Insurance Fund 302,800 Fleet Maintenance Fund 267,976 Firemen's Pension Fund 89,000 Policemen's Pension Fund 2,565 Friends of Stanley Hall 401,000 Total $ 29,820,188 Section 2: That the estimated resources for each fund are as follows: 2004 General Fund from unappropriated surpluses % 3,868,488 from revenue sources other than general property tax 11,870,649 from the general property tax levy (1.753 mils) 238,806 Community Reinvestment Fund from unappropriated surpluses 3,123,106 from revenue sources and transfers in 606,498 Museum Fund from unappropriated surpluses - from revenue sources and transfers in 238,041 Conference Center Fund from unappropriated surpluses 4,420 from revenue sources and transfers in 513,104 Conservation Trust Fund from unappropriated surpluses 20,180 from revenue sources and transfers in 26,385 Special Events Fund from unappropriated surpluses 25,444 from revenue sources and transfers in 789,838 Senior Center Fund from unappropriated surpluses 51,340 from revenue sources and transfers in 162,788 Larimer County Open Space Tax Fund from unappropriated surpluses 93,469 from revenue sources and transfers in 200,368 Park Entrance Estates Debt Service Fund from unappropriated surpluses from revenue sources and transfers in 8,128 Building Authority Fund from unappropriated surpluses from revenue sources and transfers in 93,575 Light & Power Fund from unappropriated surpluses 1,714,749 from revenue sources and transfers in 9,265,784 Water Fund from unappropriated surpluses 1,902,115 from revenue sources and transfers in 2,647,842 Catastrophic Loss Fund from unappropriated surpluses 2,048,777 from revenue sources and transfers in 31,365 Medical Insurance Fund ~ from unappropriated surpluses 74,563 from revenue sources and transfers in 365,921 Fleet Maintenance Fund from unappropriated surpluses 187,855 from revenue sources and transfers in 285,679 Firemen's Pension Fund from plan net assets 960,199 from revenue sources and transfers in 123,207 Policemen's Pension Fund from plan net assets 14,127 from revenue sources and transfers in 572 Friends of Stanley Hall from unappropriated surpluses 411,670 from revenue sources and transfers in 5,410 Total $ 42,198,183 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR BAUDEK, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, & TOWN ADMINISTRATOR WIDMER FROM: PETE BRANDJORD, FINANCE OFFICER SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ACTION ITEM TWO, A. B. & C DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2003 CC: Background. Due to the debt financing that the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is currently undertaking, the documents referenced in Action Item Two require revision. Item A the Second Amendment to the Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement between EPURA & the Town, is being amended to reflect the payment schedule for the refunding of the current debt financing for the Conference Center. The current lease schedule is designed to closely match the corresponding debt payment. The refunding of the issue will accomplish two objectives. (Background continued on page 2) Budget. The budget implications of the EPURA bond issue are a shift in the manner in which excess increment revenue flows to the Town, and the timing of these cash flows. It will require a larger portion of the incremental tax revenue to be held in reserve with the trustee to satisfy debt obligations. The flow of excess incremental revenues to the Town has been simplified in the process; there will no longer be a set amount flowing from EPURA in separate transfers to the Community Reinvestment Fund and Town General Fund. The funds will only be transferred directly to the General Fund of the Town, and appropriated by the Town Board through the budget process. Action Policy Issues - The agreements as amended bring the Town and EPURA into accord with the provisions of the upcoming bond issue to refund existing debt and provide additional capital to continue construction of improvements in the increment area. Staff recommends approval ofthe agreements. Background (continued from page 1) First, it will create a more level schedule of lease payments. The current schedule requires the next payment due in January of 2004 to be $400,000, then escalating to a payment of $700,000 in 2008. The exact amount of annual debt service with the revised schedule will not be known until the bonds are sold, but it is estimated to be approximately $360,000 per year (for the refunded portion of the issue only) through the final maturity in 2008, and the lease schedule payments will be in corresponding amounts. Second, the restructuring of the schedule and lower interest rates available result in a significant savings in interest expense. The net present value of this savings is estimated to be $140,000. Item B, the Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between EPURA and the Town is necessary to reflect the change in the sizing of the bond issue. The Third Amendment specified an amount of $750,000 of total revenue to be retained by EPURA for payment of debt service and operating expenses of $200,000. At the time, the refunding of the original issue was not included in the debt service to be paid by EPURA, and when this expense is included, the $750,000 amdunt is not sufficient. Total debt service for the Refunding and Improvement Bonds is estimated to be approximately $900,000 per year through 2007, and a final payment of approximately $500,000 in 2008. The Fourth Amendment allows for the combined repayment of the debt for the additional funds borrowed, and for the repayment of the refinancing ofthe existing debt. Item C, the Second Amendment to the Cooperation Agreement between the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority & the Town of Estes Park, revises the original agreement that was adopted in 1988 to provide for the flow of excess funds from the increment area. This amendment brings the agreement in line with the conditions of the current bond agreements and conditions. Most notably, the timing of the payment of incremental sales tax to the trustee is to occur on a monthly basis rather than annually as is currently the practice. el ORDINANCE NO. 18-03 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of November 15, 1989, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of December 1, 1993 (collectively, the "Lease"), entered into by and between the Lessor and the Town. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. The Second Amendment to Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated here and by this reference, is hereby adopted. Section 2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the second Amendment to the Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement. Section 3. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby finds, determines, designates that this Ordinance is necessary in order to immediately amend the Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement to facilitate the issuance of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Board of Trustee, an emergency exists, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF OCTOBER 2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "Second Amendment") is dated as of October 15, 2003, and entered into by and between the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (the Lessor"), a Colorado Urban Renewal Authority duly organized, existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of Colorado, and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO (the "Town"), a political subdivision duly organized and existing under the constitution, statutes, and laws of the State of Colorado; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of November 15, 1989, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Conference Center Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of December 1, 1993 (collectively, the "Lease"), entered into by and between the Lessor and the Town; and WHEREAS, all other capitalized words and terms used in these recitals and in this Second Amendment shall have the meanings assigned them in the Lease and in these recitals and this Second Amendment, and in that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of October 15, 2003 (the "Indenture"), between the Lessor and The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, the Lease was originally executed in connection with the issuance by the Lessor of its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 (the "Series 1993 Bonds"), pursuant to that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of December 1, 1993 ( the "1993 Indenture"), between the Lessor and The Bank of Cherry Creek, N.A., as trustee; and WHEREAS, the Lessor has, by resolution adopted on September 17, 2003 (the "Bond Resolution"), authorized the issuance of refunding bonds designated "Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003" (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Bonds are being issued to refund the Series 1993 Bonds pursuant to the Indenture; and WHEREAS, after the issuance of the Bonds, the Series 1993 Bonds will be defeased and the lien of the 1993 Indenture will be discharged; and WHEREAS, the Lessor and the Town wish to reflect the substitution of the Bonds for the Series 1993 Bonds for purposes of the Lease and to re-define certain other terms to reflect the issuance of the Bonds; and - WHEREAS, pursuant to the Indenture, the Lessor will pledge all monies received under the terms of the Lease to the Trustee; and WHEREAS, only those provisions of the Lease which are specifically modified by this Second Amendment shall be affected by this Second Amendment, the intent being that the Lease, as amended by this Second Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein and in the Lease contained, the parties hereto agree to modify, add, and delete provisions of the Lease as follows: Section 1. Amendment of Certain Definitions. The following terms in Article I of the Lease shall be amended as follows: ~ Bond Fund' means the Debt Service Fund created under Section 4.02 of the Indenture. "Bond Holdef means the owner or holder of any of the Bonds that are outstanding. " Indenture" means the Indenture of Trust dated as of October 15, 2003, between the Lessor and The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank. U Original PurchaserÂ» means George K. Baum & Company, and its successors and assigns. ' Reserve Fund' means the Reserve Fund created under Section 4.02 of the Indenture. "Reserve Fund Requiremenf' means the amount specified in the Indenture, plus, in the event Additional Bonds are issued by the Lessor, an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the aggregate principal amount of such Additional Bonds or such other amount as is the maximum allowed under federal law. " Trustee" means The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank, acting in the capacity of Trustee for the Bond Holders pursuant to the Indenture, and any successor thereto appointed under the Indenture. Section 2. Deletion of Section 7.2 of the Lease. Section 7.2 of the Lease is hereby rescinded and deleted. Section 3. Amendment of Section 7.4 of the Lease. The first sentence of Section 7.4 of the Lease is hereby rescinded and deleted. Section 4. Amendment of Section 10.2 of the Lease. The words "Construction Fund" in the penultimate sentence of Section 10.2 of the Lease shall be amended to read "Debt Service Fund." 2 Section 5. Amendment of Exhibit B to the Lease. The dollar amounts under the column "Base Rentals" in Exhibit B to the Lease shall be amended to the dollar amounts payable each year by the Lessor on the portion of the Bonds issued to refund the portion of the Series 1993 Bonds issued to refund the Lessor's Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 1989. Section 6. Ratification of Lease. The Lessor and the Town hereby ratify the terms and provisions of the Lease, with amendments as set forth in this Second Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor has executed this Second Amendment in its name with its seal hereunto affixed and attested by its duly authorized officer; and the Town has caused this Second Amendment to be executed in its name and the seal of the Town affixed and attested by its duly authorized officer, all of the above are effective as of the date first above written. ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, as Lessor [SEAL] By: Chairman Attest: Secretary TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO [SEAL] By: Mayor Attest: Town Clerk 3 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, entered into this day of October 2003, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation ("Town"), and THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a Colorado Urban Renewal Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado ("Authority"). WHEREAS, the Town and the Authority entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 16th day of August, 1990, as amended by that certain Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 11 th day of October, 1994, by that certain Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 25th day of March, 1997, and by that certain Third Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement dated the 26th day of August, 2003 (collectively, the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Authority is in the process of issuing Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Authority are desirous of amending certain provisions of the Agreement in order to maintain payment of and security for the Authority's proposed Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003, to facilitate the continued implementation of the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program (the "Redevelopment Plan") and to provide the Town with funds to meet the administrative and capital needs of the Town related to the redevelopment projects undertaken and to be undertaken by the Authority and the Town in connection with the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE TOWN AND THE AUTHORITY AGREE TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Third Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby repealed and rescinded and shall be null and void from and after the date hereof. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: "The Authority is issuing its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003, pursuant to the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") between the Authority and The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"). Under the Indenture, the Authority has pledged, among other revenues, its revenues derived from property taxes imposed upon the incremental increases in assessed valuation of properties within the Increment Area, as defined in the Indenture ("Incremental Property Tax Revenues"). For the years commencing January 1, 2003 through and including December 31, 2008, the Authority shall transfer annually to the Town's General Fund all revenues that are not Incremental Property Tax Revenues and that are r. released to the Authority under the provisions of the Indenture, except $200,000 annually to be retained by the Authority for administrative and capital expenditures related to the Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this paragraph, Incremental Property Tax Revenues shall be considered spent first after their receipt by the Trustee and to the extent not so expended, shall be considered to constitute all or any part of the $200,000 to be retained annually by the Authority as specified above. The Authority shall not seek to amend Section 4.06 or Section 4.08 of the Indenture without first obtaining the consent of the Town Administrator. The Authority shall continue to transfer to the Town all revenues which are available to the Authority by virtue of the passage of the ballot issue on November 8, 1994. ~The transfer of funds from the Authority to the Town shall take place at various times throughout the year with the total payment on or before May 31 of the following year." 3. Section 15 of the Agreement shall be-amended to read as follows: "This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2003 through and including December 31, 2008." This Fourth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement is dated this day of October, 2003. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY By: By: Mayor Chairman ATTEST: ATTEST: Town Clerk Secretary 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT (this "Second Amendment") is dated as of October 15, 2003, and entered into by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation (the "Town"), and the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a Colorado Urban Renewal Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado (the "Authority"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Cooperation Agreement dated as of September 1, 1988, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Cooperation Agreement dated as of December 1, 1993 (collectively, the "Cooperation Agreement"), entered into by and between the Town and the Authority; and WHEREAS, all capitalized words and terms used in these recitals and in this Second Amendment shall have the meanings assigned them in the Cooperation Agreement and in these recitals and this Second Amendment, and in that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of October 15,2003 (the :'Indenture"), between the Authority and The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, the Cooperation Agreement was originally executed in connection with the issuance by the Authority of its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 (the "Series 1993 Bonds"), pursuant to that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of December 1,1993 (the "Indenture"), between the Authority and The Bank of Cherry Creek, N.A., as trustee; and WHEREAS, the Authority has, by resolution adopted on September 17, 2003 (the "Bond Resolution"), authorized the issuance of refunding bonds designated "Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2003 (the 'Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Bonds are being issued to refund the Series 1993 Bonds pursuant to the Indenture; and WHEREAS, after the issuance of the Bonds, the Series 1993 Bonds will be defeased and the lien of the 1993 Indenture will be discharged; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Authority wish to reflect the substitution of the Bonds for the Series 1993 Bonds and to insure that the cooperation agreed upon in the Cooperation Agreement with respect to payment of the Series 1993 Bonds will continue with respect to the payment of the Bonds issued pursuant to the Indenture; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Authority entered into that certain Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 16, 1990 (the "Intergovernmental Agreement"), which by its terms rescinded Sections 5 and 6 and the first paragraph of Section 7 of the Cooperation Agreement; and WHEREAS, only those remaining provisions of the Cooperation Agreement which are specifically modified by this Second Amendment shall be affected by this Second Amendment, the intent being that the Cooperation Agreement, as modified by the Intergovernmental Agreement and as amended by this Second Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein and in the Cooperation Agreement contained, the parties hereto agree to modify, add, and delete provisions of the Cooperation Agreement as follows: Section 1. Amendment of Section 1 of the Cooperation Agreement. The words "Redevelopment Area" used in Section 1 of the Cooperation Agreement shall be changed to "Increment Area." Section 2. Amendment of Section 2 of the Cooperation Agreement. Section 2 of the Cooperation Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: "In accordance with the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), between the Authority and The Bank of Cherry Creek, a branch of Western National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"), dated as Â·of October 15, 2003 (incorporated herein by this reference), in relation to the Tax Increment Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Sdries 2003 (the "Bonds"), issued by the Authority, the incremental sales tax revenues collected within the Increment Area are hereby pledged and shall be paid monthly by the Town to the Trustee for the payment of the Bonds. Any adjustments that are necessary to comply with this Section 2, following the annual audit of the incremental sales tax, shall be made by the Town or the Authority within thirty (30) days of receipt of the audit." Section 3. Trustee as Third Party Beneficiary. The Cooperation Agreement, as amended by this Second Amendment, shall constitute a third party beneficiary contract for the benefit of the Trustee and the registered owners of the Bonds. Said third party beneficiaries shall be entitled to enforce performance and observance by the Authority and the Town of the respective agreements and covenants contained in the Cooperation Agreement and this Second Amendment as fully and completely as if such third party beneficiaries were parties thereto and hereto. 2 . . The parties have executed this Second Amendment effective on the date first above provided. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Mayor Chairman ATTEST: ATTEST: Town Clerk Secretary 3