Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
EPURA RESOLUTION 147
CC)RESOLUTIONNO.147ARESOLUTIONOFTHEESTESPARKURBANRENEWALAUTHORITYDETERMININGTHATTHEOUTDOORAMUSEMENTPROPOSALONLOTS5AAND9PROSPECTVILLAGESUBDIVISIONISNOTINCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEESTESPARKDOWNTOWNREDEVELOPMENTPROGRAMWHEREAS,inaccordancewithSection17.36.020oftheEstesParkMunicipalCode,theproposeddevelopmentknownasOutdoorAmusement,Lots5Aand9,ProspectVillageSubdivision,wassubmittedtotheEstesParktJrbanRenewalAuthority(EPURA)fordeterminationofcompliancewiththeEstesParkDowntownRedevelopmentProgram(Plan);andWHEREAS,anoticeofpublichearingwaspublishedasrequiredbytheMunicipalCode;andWHEREAS,pursuanttotheMunicipalCode,theEPURAstaffworkedwiththedevelopertoprotecttheBigThompsonRivercorridorfromphysicalencroachmentbytheproposedproject;andWHEREAS,asaresultofsucheffort,thedevelopersubmittedareviseddevelopmenttheweekofMarch12,1990,whichproposeduseisthatofago—cartracingamusementfacility;andWHEREAS,apublichearingwasheldonMarch15,1990beforetheEPUPABoardofCommissioners;andWHEREAS,allpersonsatsuchhearingwereallowedtopresenttestimonyandevidencetotheBoardofCommissioners;andWHEREAS,theBoardofCommissionershasconsideredallofthetestimonyandevidencepresentedatthehearingandtheproposedplanofdevelopment.NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVEDBYTHEBOARDOFCOMMISSIONERSOFTHEESTESPARKURBANRENEWALAUTHORITY:Basedonthetestimony,comments,andevidencepresentedatthepublichearing,theBoardofCommissionersherebymakesthefollowingfindingsoffact:A.ThePlanprovidesthatthesubjectareaisdesignatedforCommunity—CommercialCenteruse.Assuch,itistoserveasatransitionzonetodowntown,andshouldcontainusesforthe“usual”and“everyday”needsoftheresidentandvisitoronayear—roundbasis.Suchusesmayincludelightcommercial,offices,employmentcenters,andprofessionalfacilitiessuchasmedical,1 00dental,andaccounting.Evidencesubmittedbytheapplicantindicatesthatthego-carttrackistobeaseasonal(Summer)amusementuse,whichiswhollyunrelatedtotheyear—roundeverydayneedsofresidentsandvisitors.B.ThePlanrequirespreservationandimprovementoftherivercorridoranditsrelatednaturalenvirons.TherevisedplanofdevelopmentsubmittedbytheapplicantattemptstoaddressthismandateofthePlanbyprovidingforrivercorridorpedestrianaccess;however,thereissufficientevidencethattherivercorridorwillbenegativelyimpactedbynoise,lightandfumescausedbythego-carttrack.Itwilltakeasignificantamountoflandscapingandscreeningtominimizethenegativeaffectofthisdevelopmentontherivercorridor,whichwasnotprovidedforintheapplicant’sproposal.C.ThePlanprovidesthatentryareastodowntownshouldbeemphasizedthroughsuchmethodsasidentifyingsymbols,andthatentrydevelopmentshouldnotintrudeintothesurroundingopenspace.AnexistinglackofentryidentificationisrecognizedinthePlan.Evidenceintheformofcommentsandtestimonyatthehearing,emphasizedconcernaboutthevisualintrusivenessofthisprojectontoopenspaceandtherivercorridoradjoiningtheWestentrytodowntownEstesPark.Peopleexpressedconcernovernegativeentryareaimageofthego—carttrackandtheadverseeffectithasonresidentsandvisitors.D.ThePlandictatesthatdevelopmentorredevelopmentofpropertyshallbesensitivetoandprotectsurroundingareas.Thereisasubstantialamountofevidencethattheproposeduseofthesubjectpropertyasago—cartracingtrackwillhavesignificantnegativevisual,auditory,andaestheticimpactsuponthesurroundingresidentialarea,rivercorridor,andopenspace.Inparticular,theBoardheardsubstantialtestimonythatnoisefromtheprojectwouldnegativelyimpactthesurroundingresidentialarea.E.ThePlandirectsEPUPAtoencourageandpromoteyear—roundtypedevelopmentinandneardowntownEstesPark.EvidencetakenbytheBoard,andinparticular,theapplicant’sStatementofIntent,indicatesthisdevelopmentwillbeseasonalandconfinedprimarilytothesummertime.F.ThePlanemphasizesthattheEstesParkareahasanimageproblemwithmanytouristamusementsandinefficientutilization2 C0ofdevelopableland.Baseduponthecommentsofmanypeopleatthehearingandsubmissionofpetitionscontainingmorethan400signatures,thego-cartracingtrackdoesnotimprovetheimagequalityofthecommunityandexemplifiestheinefficientutilizationofprimeland.Developableland,whichislimitedintheEstesValleybecauseofterrain,shouldnotbedevelopedforlimitedseasonaluse.EvidenceatthehearingemphasizedtheutilizationofsuchprimelandtoenhancethenaturalbeautyoftherivercorridorandWestentrytodowntown.Basedupontheforegoing,theBoardofCommissionersherebydeterminesthat:1.TheproposedoutdooramusementonLots5Aand9,ProspectVillageSubdivision,TownofEstesPark,LarimerCounty,Colorado,isnotincompliancewiththeEstesParkDowntownRedevelopmentProgram(Plan).2.TheproposeddevelopmentisnotincompliancewiththePlan’sgoals,thesectionregardingLandUtilization,theTransition-Commercial/ServiceDistrict,andtheEntryAreaDistrictprovisionsofthePlan.3.AsrequiredbytheEstesParkMunicipalCode,theExecutiveDirectorshallfurnishacopyofthisResolutionandthespecificprovisionsofthePlanreferredtoinparagraph2abovetothedeveloperwithinthree(3)days.ADOPTEDthis29thdayofMarch1990.ESTESPARKURBANRENEWALAUTHORITYc.fjdQqirman(JATTEST:3