Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Reveiw Go Cart Track 455 Prospect Village dr 1983-01-25COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DEPART ENT AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STATEMENT OF INTENT TO THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW 90-1, GO-CART TRACK LOT 9A, PROSPECT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO The following changes are proposed to the Amended Development Plan and Statement of Intent (copy attached) for the proposed Go -Cart Track. 1. The proposed building will remain the same size, however it will be lowered by approximately 5 feet and moved approximately 10 feet in a northerly direction. The proposed floor elevation in the building will be approximately 3.5 feet above the 100- year flood plain elevation. The ramped walkway leading to the building is eliminated. 2. The proposed Kiddies Track is eliminated. 3. The size of the track is reduced. The length is reduced from 1060 feet to 765 feet. The cart loading area is lowered by approximately 5 feet. One track bridge is eliminated. The track no longer passes between the building and the street. All these changes enhance the site aesthetics. 4. The earthwork movement required for the development is significantly reduced. 5. Curb and gutter has been placed along the river side of the parking lot. 6. The chain link fence that was proposed on the street side of the building and along the building has been replaced with a decorative fence. It should be emphasized that the building design, the size of the proposed parking lots and the landscape planting density will remain as previously proposed. There are no changes proposed that would require approval beyond staff in accordance with code. Kinnie, Appli COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT DEPART ENT STATEMENT OF INTENT It is the intention of the applicant to provide a high quality family amusement facility to serve the visitors and residents of the Estes Valley. The track is 1060 feet long and is 20 to 30 feet wide. Number of cars will total 40 which allows for a much lower track density than is standard in the industry. A Kiddie Track is being provided for youngsters. Inside storage is being provided for all the cars. Restrooms, food service, viewing areas and indoor electronic amusements will also be provided. It is anticipated that three staff persons will manage the operation. Excess parking is being provided so that people using the pedestrian easement along the river will have a place to park. Provisions are made for a future pedestrian link across the river to Moraine Ave. Care has been taken to design an interesting and attractive facility. The cars have attractive fiberglass bodies and feature low noise sound -dampened Honda engines. Open areas are to be fully landscaped. Operating hours will be from 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The facility will be owned and operated by Lynn Kinnie. The proposed development complies with goals and objectives of the URA plan by providing a quality recreation opportunity within walking distance of the core area which will keep visitors in the area longer. { IJ i Ly Kinnie, Applicant Lynn A. Hammond Roger E. Clark Gregory A. White Steve Stamey Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE 200 East Seventh Street Suite 418 Loveland, Colorado 80537 303-667-1023 TELEFAX 303-669-9380 March 21, 19. Dear Steve: Enclosed please find the following documents: 1. Memorandum of Agreement -Barlow. 2. Memorandum of Agreement-Kinnie. 3. Ordinance. Alfred P. Davis Of Counsel The ordinance vacating the street right of way for Kinnie, after approval by the Town Board, needs to be filed and recorded, prior to filing of the final plat. Also, I had given you the language changes for deeding of Outlot A to the Town. If you have any questions, p lease do not hesitate to call. Ve GAW:jc Enclosure yours , )Q4/?: 6 , LA'' y A. White eJMIk L !;1j LYNN A. HAMMOND ROGER E. CLARK GREGORY A. WHITE MARTHA P. ALLBRIGHT HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 418 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET LOVELANDT COLORADO 80537 Mr. Gary Klaphake Town Administrator Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Gary: 303.667.1 OZ3 TELEFAX 303.669.9380 January 18, 1993 RE: Lynn Kinnie I���Nn1iF ALFRED P. DAVIS ,OF COUNSEL On January 14, 1993, Judge Newtor of the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado, pursuant to the directions of the Court of Appeals, remanded the matter of Kinnie vs. Town of Estes Park to the Town for rehearing. It is the interpretation of myself, Jim Windholz on behalf of EPURA, and Gilbert Goldstein on behalf of Kinnie, that this Order requires the Town to rehear the Kinnie appeal from EPURA's decision that Plan B did not conform to the applicable provisions of the urban renewal plan. It is also our opinion that it is not necessary to have Plan B revisited by EPURA prior to the hearing in front of the Town Board. In a telephone conversation with you, we determined that March 9, 1993 would be an appropriate hearing date for this matter. This date was selected in order to have enough trustees to constitute a Quorum since Trustee Habecker and Hix will not participate in this matter. I did converse with Mr. Goldstein, attorney for Mr. Kinnie, who informed me that he would not be available on March 9, 1993, as he is previously scheduled to be out of the State. If Mr. Kinnie desires to have the hearing after March 9, 1993, the Town should reschedule the same. Section 17.36.020(F)(2), Section 17.32.020(G) and Section 17.36.030(E) require that notice of this hearing be posted on the property at least 15 days before the hearing and sent postage Mr. Gary Klaphake Page 2 pre -paid to all abutters to the premises. Also, notice should be published of the public hearing in the same fashion as we publish notices for special review. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Ver truly yours, y A. White GAW:jc cc: Gilbert Goldstein Jim Windholz Art Anderson Mr. Steve Stamey Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Stamey: September 6, 1990 I am writing to you in regard to the property on East Riverside Driv4rest of the Health Club. It has been known as the Kinney addition and was the proposed site of the go-cart track, recently rejected by the Town Board. This area adjoins my propery at 309 Riverside Drive. I believe this entire region is one of the most beautiful in Estes Park. It has a magnificent view of the Front Range from Longs Peak to the Mgmmy Range and Lumpy Ridge beyond. In addition the Big Thompson River runs through the properties, one of the last sections where it is unhindered in its flow until it reaches Lake Estes. This gorgeous piece of the earth has the lowest zoning desig- nation possible in Estes Park. I was in California at the time the classification was changed from residential to un- restricted commercial. I did not receive a notice regarding this matter, but happened to arrive here on the day the meeting was held. I was the only person present who opposed the action. Mr. Harry Tregent, now deceased was mayor at that time. He offered his condolences . Our property was purchased by my parents, Frank and Alpha Somerville, in 1915 from Mr. F. O. Stanley and the large house known as Somervilla was built in 1917. I have spent almost every summer since that time in Estes and inherited the property at my mother's death in 1976. My son, David Tanton, is now a part owner and will inherit it in my estate. I am distressed by developments in the adjoining property and I would like to offer my help and encouragement in upgrading this valuable addition to our town which I hope will compliment the beautiful area on the east entrance to Estes. Thank you for you consideration, Sincerely, 4LL/J-T Aa Elaine S. Tanton DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 90--CV-0 1 • ORDER ON COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 106 • LYNN KINNIE, Plaintiff, va. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, and its BOARD OF TRUSTEES and ESTES P: RF URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a Statutory Urban Renewal Authority, and its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Defendants. Plaintiff is the owner of approximately 3.19 acres, located on the western side of Estes Park and which is adjacent to another 1.8-acre parcel that he has owned since 1970. The smaller parcel has been used by the plaintiff as a site for bumper car rides, slides, miniature golf, , etc. The larger or, subject property was proposed by plaintiff as a go cart track in his application for approval of a development plan with the Defendant Estes Park (Town) on January 30, 1990. The subject property is zoned CO or outlying commercial by the Town and lies within the boundaries of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority and its plan EPURA). The CO zone allows "commercial amusements" by special review; and since the property is within the boundaries o! the EPURA plan, EPuRA authority was also required. Under the Mnic1pa.L Code the hoard of Trustees may spar. ova a -7-1d . �� �4 A a.... ,• e � a .�, Dr dizapnra•Ya -nt:1 _ 79,.-ianl- ':or special review only when the proposals' benefits outweigh their adverse effects for the Town or the vicinity after considering several factord. On,February 20, 1990, the Town's planning commission held an advertised public hearing on plaintiff's application. After tabling the matter for one day to observe a demonstration on the go Car:., the planning commission recommended denial of the special review. On February 27, 1990, the Board of Trustees at its advertised public hearing approved the application subject to four conditions. Thereafter, plaintiff worked with the Town staff to satisfy those conditions and ultimately came up with Plan 'r5" in an effort to satisfy those conditions. In the meantime plaintiff made an application to EPURA for compliance with its plan. EPURA's commissioners held an advertised public hearing which consisted of Plan After the hearing all testimony was taken under advisement until a special meeting to be held March 29, 1990 to consider the decision. The commissioners apparently .met at a 1113,11 closed meeting on March 27 to review the testimony. When the March 29 meeting occurred, Resolution 147 recommending denial was introduced and approved without. discussion. If the EPURA commissioners found that a proposal was not in compliance with its plan, the ML;nicipal Code allows the applicant to either amend the proposal and resubmit to EPURA or see., special review approval cv =ne !own 9oard or Trustees. On May 15, the Town planning commission conducted an advertised public hearing and voted with two abstentions tp canditional1y'x'ecommend approval of Plan "s" as well as an amended plat. On May 22. 1990, the Town Board of Trustees convened its advertised public hearing to consider the special review of Plan "D." At the meeting Town Administrator Klaphake recommended that the Board table the matter until June 26 because of the anticipated appeal to the Town from plaintiff of EPURA's finding of noncompli- ance although plaintiff took the position that this "appeal" was not necessary in view of the fact that he already had Plan "Bn approved by the Town commissioners. On June 26, 1990, the Board of Trustees convened its advertised public hearing and first considering the special review of Plan "B" voted to approve Plan "air with several conditions and the amended plat. Then the Board of Trustees conducted a public hearing relating to plaintiff's "independent appeal" of EPURA's decision and at the conclusion of that hearing voted to deny plaintiff's application. The Town subsequently refused to issue a building permit, and this action ensued. Although it would appear logical that an applicant would first go to EPURA to see if his proposal complied with the purposes of the EPURA plan, the municipal ordinance males no requirement as to which order an application must proceed. Plaintiff claims that he ,houll nn have teen Lorced to Appeal iP:JF2,�'L resection and that by approval of Plan "B" the Town could not deny a building permit. Defendants on the other hand maintain that plaintiff was.responsi- ble for the ordtar in which he proceeded. Accordingly, he could not complain in having to seek review of EPURA's denial. EPURA initially argues that it should be dismissed from his case in view of the fact that it was not a quasi-judicial agency and that any decision made by EPURA was ultimately approved by the Town. it reasons that if it were an independent agency, its decision of March 29, 1990 would be final; and, accordingly, plaintiff did not timely file its complaint under Rule 106. If on the other hand, its decisions were subject to review by the Town it would be the Town and not EPURA ultimately responsible. This motion to dismiss was originally denied, and in my View that decision was correct. In order for the Court to adequately review the entire procedure, the entire record including EPURA's actions must be determined. Plaintiff claims that he was "whipsawed" by the defen- dants in that he was forced to go to EPURA unnecessarily for approval of Plan "B" and then appeal its decision disapproving it when the Town had in fact approved Plan "B." It is obvious that although the ordinance does not require it, the normal course would be for an applicant to go to EPURA for its approval of the concept and then to the Town for further action. Both the plaintiff and the defendants claim that ` to do so , fedlure'?'. this Ga('. rEIS G,`lE:fault vI C!':e Jttlbl part'. 4 In my view although cumbersome the course taken by the defendants was proper and that the decision of EPURA and ultimates the Town was etiP Y pported by some competent evidence and the proce- dures and actions taken were not an abuse of discretion. It must be remembered that being in the EPURA area, the concept had to have £PURA's approval and that in view cf the fact that the proposed use was not a matter of right under the zoning, a special review was necessary. In other words the have a plaintiff did not pright to the use he requested and that the denial of his request was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff makes a specific: objection to the proceedings of EPURA whereby it in effect denied plaintiff's application at the closed meeting of March 27, 199o. In my view, however, EPURA properly held a study session to review the evidence; and even though a resolution may have been proposed, no final decision was made until the public meeting of March 29, sea G .111 12Qa_Eaavs City,a Gl , 731 P.2d 761 (Colo. A Pp . 198 6 ), Hudaatth xd_et_QoUnty...Co s$ioners, 667 P.2d 775 (Colo. A . App. 1983), and E nar5ej,.._ IY., .jiheatrldge, 43 Colo. App. 232, 604 P.2d 691 (1979). The last issue raised by plaintiff is that two of the members of the planning commission and Board of Trustees had Conflicts of interest and nonetheless voted contrary to the provisions of the Code of Ethics contained in C.R.S. 4-18-101. et see. In my View,: howevern 'teltner of these individuals. Garrett nor Hix, truly had a conflict of interest; and therefore plaintiff's . As to merit. complaint is without it P Ms. Garrett, her affidavit inai'o'ates that she merely had a feeling that the proposal was contrary to the interests of the Town. Because of that feelings, she abstained from voting on May 15, 1990 and the special review of Plan "B" on June 26, 1990. She did, however, vote to uphold EPURA's determination that Plan "B" did not comply with the EPURA plan. This was not a true conflict in interest but Ms. Garrett's own personal views that she should not participate in the special review application because of her personal preferences but it was all right to vote in upholding EPURA's decision. Ms. Garrett did not act improperly nor unethica1ly. Inasmuch as many governmental agents are often required to cast a vote in favor or against something and yet that vote is contrary to their own personal preferences. As to Mr. Hix this is a closer case, but in my view being a major creditor of the sole competitor of the plaintiff is not a conflict of interest. Even if it were, this in and of itself would not warrant reversal of the defendant's decision. In summary the Court upon review under Rule 106 is required to determine whether the actions of the defendants were Arbitrary or an abuse.of discretion and whether or not their findings were supported by any competent evidence. The Court cannot subetItute its opinion as to the correctness of the decision after t ; ndi-q by this Court of Abuse If discretion of lack of k) jurisdiction, Although this Court may have decide different) � .d the issue Y► it will not set aside the decisio ns of the defendants which afforded the plaintiff due process and which culminated extensive public hearings and reception of considerable after onsiderabie evidence to support those decisions. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; an defendants shall have their costs incurred in this matter. d DONE AND SIGNED IN C r� • HERS PHIS day of September, 1991. BY THE COURT: RESOLUTION NO. 147 A RESOLUTION OF, THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY DETERMINING THAT THE OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT PROPOSAL ON LOTS 5A AND 9 PROSPECT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ESTES PARK DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 17.36.020 of the Estes Park Municipal Code, the proposed development known as Outdoor Amusement, Lots 5A and 9, Prospect Village Subdivision, was submitted to the Estes Park urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) for determination of compliance with the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program (Plan); and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published as required by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code, the EPURA staff worked with the developer to protect the Big Thompson River corridor from physical encroachment by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, as a result of such effort, the developer submitted a revised development the week of March 12, 1990, which proposed Ise is that of a go-cart racing amusement facility; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 15, 1990 before :he EPURA Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, all persons at such hearing were allowed to present :estimony and evidence to the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has considered all of the :estimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the proposed plan of development. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF 'HE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY: Based on the testimony, comments, and evidence presented at he public hearing, the Board of Commissioners hereby makes the ollowing findings of fact: A. The Plan provides that the subject area is designated for ommunity-Commercial Center use. As such, it is to serve as a ransition zone to downtown, and should contain uses for the isual" and "everyday" needs of the resident and visitor on a year- )und basis. Such uses may include light commercial, offices, nployment centers, and professional facilities such as medical, 1 of developable land. Based upon the comments of many people at the hearing and submission of petitions containing more than 400 signatures, the go-cart racing track does not improve the image quality of the community and exemplifies the inefficient utilization of prime land. Developable land, which is limited in the Estes Valley because of terrain, should not be developed for limited seasonal use. Evidence at the hearing emphasized the utilization of such prime land to enhance the natural beauty of the river corridor and West entry to downtown. Based upon the foregoing, the Board of Commissioners hereby determines that: 1. The proposed outdoor amusement on Lots 5A and 9, Prospect Village Subdivision, Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, is not in compliance with the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program (Plan). 2. The proposed development is not in compliance with the Plan's goals, the section regarding Land Utilization, the Transition-Commercial/Service District, and the Entry Area District provisions of the Plan. 3. As required by the Estes Park Municipal Code, the Executive Director shall furnish a copy of this Resolution and the specific provisions of the Plan referred to in paragraph 2 above to the developer within three (3) days. ADOPTED this 29th day of March 1990. ATTEST: ecretary ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY • 1 .,, , ',' .,< rr--/ '-. / - '''',.....,..___ _ _, FrAP ,„,t IJ 1/' 16