HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application----~-----....... I
f<
I
------
-~
II
•
r
I
I
•
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS
FROM: MARKBEAN
DATE: APRIL 29, 1993
RE: MEETING ON MONDAY, MAY 3, 1993
Enclosed is information brought into our office by Mitch Heuer, for your consideration at the
meeting on Monday, May 3, 1993 at 6:30 p.m ..
If you have questions, please call me or Dave Michaelson.
TIME:
PLACE:
DATE:
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
AGENDA
6:30 p.m.
Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301
May 3, 1993
1)
2)
3)
4)
Call meeting to order
Roll Call
Continued Public Hearing for an Appeal of Administratiave
Interpretation of"uses by right'', Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution that allows Personal Service
Establishments including a go-cart track.
Applellant: Bill Crymble
Adjournment
•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
• • GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARK BEAN~~
APRIL 26, 1993
MEETING OF MAY 3, 1993
Please be advised that the continued Public Hearing for an Appeal of Administrative
Interpretation of "uses by right", Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
that allows Personal Service Establishments including ago-earl track, Appellant: Bill Crymble,
is scheduled for May 3, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. at the Garfield County Courthouse, Room 301. We
do anticipate a fairly large citizen attendance at the meeting.
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
• GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL •
MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARK BEAN J.#;:f_
APRIL 16, .1993
MEETING ON APRIL 22, 1993
-----------·---------" -------._ ....... .........._ _______ -·--~1 r1 a£ ....
Please be informed that we have two items on the agenda, one of which is an appeal of
administrative interpretation. Subsequently, sta!Tfeels that this meeting will run longer than
usual. Mr. Harold Raymond has informed us that he will have to leave at 5:00 p.m .. We do
need a quorum, (four members), so please contact this office if you plan to attend.
At that time, you will be asked to detem1ine the interpretation of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution or you may continue the public hearing to another date. We anticipate afairly large
citizen attendance at this meeting.
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TIME:
PLACE:
DATE:
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
AGENDA
3:30 p.m.
Garfield County Courthouse, Suite .Jill.
April 22, 1993
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Call meeting to order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
October 22, 1992
March 25, 1993
Public Hearing or a Variance from Section 3.07.06(1), Minimum
Front Yard Setback in the C/L Zone District.
Applicant: Slattery Investments
Public Hearing for an Appeal of Administratiave Interpretation
of"uses by right", Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution that allows Personal Service Establishments including
a go-cart track.
Applicant: Mitch Heuer
Adjournment
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
• •
MEMO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1 MARK BEAN; /.~
STEVEN J. ZWICK, ASST. GARCO. ATTY.27)
APPEAL OF ADMIN. INTERPRETATION, SEC. 3.07.01;
ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT LEGAL ISSUES;
5/3/93
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is an administrative
appeal from Mark Bean's interpretation of section 3.07.01 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution, that Personal Services
Establishments, which are uses by right within the
Commercial/Limited Zone District, include a commercial go-cart
track. As the staff comments on this appeal dated 4/22/93
indicate, the salient issue before the Board in this matter is the
proper interpretation to be given to the following provision:
3. 07 C/L--COMMERCIAL/LIMITED, 3. 07. 01 Uses by right: ....
Personal service establishment including bank, barber or
beauty shop; laundromat, laundry or dry-cleaning plant
serving individuals only; miniature golf course and
accessory facilities, mortuary, photo studio, shoe
repair, tailor shop, restaurant, reading room, private
club, theater and indoor recreation.
The zoning official has interpreted the underlined phrase
"including" to connote that the uses listed are intended to be
illustrative and not as a limitation as to the types of uses
listed. There are few Colorado court decisions which address this
type of legal issue. The two relatively recent cases which I have
found dealing with Board of Adjustment appeals regarding staff
interpretations of zoning regulations both state that when
construing ambiguous language in a zoning regulation, the opinion
of the zoning administrator, who has dealt with the regulation on
a day-to-day basis, is to be accorded significant weight. See:
Humana. Inc. v. Board of Adiust. of City of Lakewood, 537 P.2d 741
(1975); and Comprehensive Addict. Treatment v. Denver, 795 P.2d 271
(1989, Colo. App.)
For the reasons stated in the staff comments on this appeal, it
appears that a reasonable legal argument can be made that the use
of the word "including" in the language at issue should be
construed as meaning that the uses listed are illustrative of types
which are considered to be uses by right in the zone district, and
was not intended to limit the permitted uses solely to those
listed. The appropriateness of this construction is reinforced by
examining the resolution language used in describing the uses
permitted in the other zone districts. In describing the permitted
• •
MEMO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARK BEAN
PAGE 2
5/3/93
•
uses in the other zone districts, rarely, if ever, is the word
"including" used when listing the specific permitted uses. This
would indicate that the use of this phrase in the C/L district was
intentional. The normal rule of legal construction for uses
permitted by zoning is that the listed uses are intended to be
exclusive, no others being allowed unless the specific language of
the regulation indicates a contrary intent.
Assuming staff's interpretation of the relevant language is legally
correct, that the listed uses are intended to illustrative and not
exclusive, the issue before the Board then becomes: Is the
proposed use, a go-cart track, sufficiently similar to one or more
of the personal service establishment permitted uses, i.e. a
miniature golf course and accessory facilities, that it should also
be considered to be a use by right in the C/L zone? However, in
order to resolve that issue the Board must first decide what is the
appropriate method for determining what uses are sufficiently
similar to the listed uses that they should be deemed to be
permitted as personal services establishments.
This issue contains both planning and legal components.
Unfortunately, the only other provision of the zoning resolution
which appears to be relevant is section "2.02.52 Use, (3)Use, by
right: a use allowed in a particular zone district when listed
thereunder with no further conditions or approval required other
than the general terms and stipulations of this Resolution." A
literal reading of this definition would appear to indicate that
if a specific use is not listed as a use by right within a given
zone district it is not permitted. This interpretation appears
legally correct for those zone districts in which the uses by right
are simply listed without use of the qualifying phrase "including."
My understanding of Mark's interpretation of the Personal Service
Establishment language is that it allows any business or commercial
establishment where an individual could purchase any type of good
or service for their own personal use or enjoyment. Specific
reference to recreational facilities/parks, as permitted uses, can
only be found in the A/R/RD zone, where they are allowed under
3.02.03, only as special uses, and not by right. While Mark's
interpretation, as the county planning director, is entitled to
significant weight, it is not binding and conclusive on the Board's
discretion. Clearly, Mark's interpretation is very expansive,
permitting innumerable uses beyond those listed. It is equally
within the Board's legal discretion to adopt a more restrictive
interpretation, if an appropriate legal and factual basis can be
/ • •
MEMO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARK BEAN
PAGE 3
5/3/93
laid for it, at the hearing on the issue. The crucial
consideration for the Board in making its interpretation is
determining the intent of the provision from the language used in
the regulation, as well as the overall context in which the
critical words are placed.
There is language in section 3.07.01 which indicates that certain
general factors are to be considered in determining what types of
commercial establishments are permitted in the C/L zone. The
factors specified are:
(1) All fabrication, service and repair operations are
conducted within a building;
(2) All storage of materials shall be within a building
or obscured by a fence;
(3) All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted
on private property;
(4) No dust, noise, glare or vibration is projected
beyond the lot;
From the language used in the regulation, it appears that the
intent was that the factors enumerated above are to be used to
evaluate whether proposed uses, which are not specifically listed
as permitted, are sufficiently similar to those specifically set
forth, that they should also be considered commercial
establishments, permitted as uses by right in the C/L zone. If
this is the correct interpretation of how the scope of what are
permitted commercial uses in the C/L zone is to be determined, the
Board should evaluate the proposed go-cart facility in accordance
with these factors. The issue then becomes: On the basis of the
evidence in the record, does the proposed use satisfy each of the
factors listed? If the Board is unable to find, on the basis of
substantial competent evidence in the record before it, that the
proposed use satisfies each of the factors it would not appear to
meet the requirements set forth in the regulations for treatment
as use by right commercial establishment.
SJZ
PLANNING\GOCART.BOA
•
REQUEST:
• •
BOA4/21/93
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Appeal of administrative
interpretation of "uses by right",
Section 3.07.01 of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution.
APPELLANT: William R. Crymble
I. ZONING:
Section 9.04.01 states the following:
"Appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment ("Board") may be taken by any
person aggrieved by his inability to obtain a permit (other than a Special Use
Permit), or by the decision of any administrative officer or agency based upon
or made in the course of the administration or enforcement of the provisions of
this Resolution."
Per the above provisions, Mr. Crymble has appealed a determination of County staff
interpretation that a go-cart track and other accessory recreational uses are a use by
right in the CommerciaVLimited zone district. Additionally, the appellant has
questioned the allowance of a "flea market" on the property (See attached letters pages
1-9 ).
II. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The appeal is based on statements ma~ by staff during a public hearing on April 5,
1993 before the Board of County Collimi.ssioners that a go-cart track with other
recreational activities and a flea market are considered uses by right in the
CommerciaVLimited zone district, even th~h they are not specifically listed as a use
by right (See enclosed zoning page -10 -). It was further explained that this
interpretation is based upon the language in the Zoning Resolution such as :
"Personal service establishment including bank, barber or beauty shop;
laundromat, laundry of dry cleaning plant serving individuals only; miniature
golf course and accessory facilities, mortuary, photo studio, shoe repair, tailor
shop, restaurant, reading room, private club, theater and indoor recreation,"
The word relied on by staff in determining whether or not the zoning allowed the
previously noted uses is "including". This word is the basis for saying that the
previously noted list of uses classified as "personal service establishment" is not an
exclusive list, but a list to be used as an example of such uses. As a result, uses such as
"miniature golf course and accessory uses," "theater," and "indoor recreation" were
viewed as commercial recreation uses. Ago-cart track and other commercial recreation
1
---- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------. -"-----.... _ .. _.. ... 4~-·-----------------~-• •
uses were viewed as being similar to the commercial recreation uses allowed in the
zoning, thus an allowed use.
The other part of the appeal is related to whether or not a "flea market" is allowed by
the Commercial/Limited zoning. Similar logic is used, in that a "flea market" is a place
that wholesale and/or retail sales of products may occur. The Zoning Resolution in
Section 3.07 .01 allows "wholesale and retail establishment including sale of food,
beverages, dry goods, furniture, appliances, automotive and vehicular equipment,
hardware, clothing, mobile homes, building materials, feed, garden supply and plant
materials."
It is recognized that a "flea market" is not listed as a use by right, but it is an area where
the sale of all of the above products could be sold. Whether or not they are in one
building or a defined outdoor area is not really defined in the Zoning Resolution. The
various vendors and flea market owner would have to comply with the requirements of
the zone district in terms of setbacks, dust, noise, glare, etc ..
III. Other Comments
The appellant notes that the proposed uses would be incompatible with the neighboring
uses due to traffic, noise and unlimited hours of operation. ·Staff concedes that the
County Zoning Resolution does not have jurisdiction over the hours of operation of any
business n a commercial zone district, that is a use by.~ght. The noise standard says
that no noise can be projected beyond the property line~Since the term "noise" is not
defined in terms of decibel limits, the County has relied on an operation complying with
the noise standards contained in C.R.S. 25-12, 1973, as a basis for establishing noise
parameters. Traffic generated by the use may be a problem, but the County does have
some control of the problems via signage and law enforcement. The zoning cannot be
used to control traffic of "uses by right."
The other issues noted regarding wetlands and flooding are a part of the Special Use
permit process for development within a floodplain. The applicant's engineer has
provided certification that the proposed go-cart track and facilities will comply with the
requirements for developing in a regulated floodplain. As a part of the process, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will have to approve any encroachment in a wetland area.
IV. SUMMARY
It is the staffs position that the language in the Commercial/Limited Zone district is
permissive in that it allows a wide range of uses as "uses by right." The decision to allow
a wide range of uses was made at the time commercial zoning was approved for the
area. The County Commissioners did not make the decision to rezone the area based
on the applicant's desire to place a landscaping business on the property, since it is an
allowed use in the AIR/RD zone district.
2
'"-.,._
' -· ,_
•,
•
/
,I
----~-
/
'· l
_,_
I
I
I
. 'Yi .1 .
.•.
' .
i« ....
" •' "
I
•
• ,/
ll
' • 1\·
1~!
-------------------
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Slattery Investments Zoning Variance Request
A. A Sketch Map showing all improvements on site, the building
location and size and setbacks and access points is attached.
B. A Vicinity Map is included on the Sketch Map.
C. A copy of the original Warranty D.eed from Carl J. Midland to
Slattery Investments, dated September 16, 1991, is attached
and includes the legal description of the property. The
property contains 0.61 acres, more or less.
D. A practical description of the site is as follows:
The site is 514 ft. long in the front and 316 ft. long in the
rear. The maximum width of the site is on the southeast
boundary and is 69 ft. The site location is northwest of, and
adjacent to, 5050 to 5080 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado. When constructed, the building' on the site will
bear a post office address of 5010 to 5040 County Road 154.
The site is on the north side of County Road 154, about 1 mile
northwest of the intersection of Highway 82 and County Road
154.
E. The names and addresses of the property owners adjacent to or
within 200 feet of the site are contained on a list attached
hereto.
F. The source of domestic water for the site· is a Permitted 15
g.p.m. commercial well, with the water supply guaranteed by
contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. In 1985,
two variances were approved for the site. The first variance
was for a reduction in the allowable rear yard setback from
twenty-five (25) feet to four (4) feet. The second variance
will allow for the placement of an individual sewage disposal
system on a lot of less than two (2) acres without central
water.
G. The Plans and Specifications for the proposed building to be
built on the site are attached.
H. A narrative explaining why the variance is being requested is
as follows:
Beginning in the late 1960's, commercial development
began to evolve in the area of the site along the north side
of County Road 154 from its intersection with Highway 82 (the
CMC turnoff) and proceeding for about 1 mile northwesterly to
the subject property. On the south side of County Road 154,
commercial development proceeded from the Highway 82
intersection northwesterly for about 1/ 3 of this distance.
The remainder of the property northwesterly of the site along
the north side of County Road 154 has naturally developed as
residential property. This is true also along the south side
of County Road 154.
The westerly end of the subject property is an unusually
shaped, narrow, triangular slice of land that is unusable
because of its shape. It is also beautiful because of its
natural growth and it is higher than the land both to the
northwest and southeast of it. Therefore, it is a visual
buffer between the remainder of the subject site and the
residential properties to the north and west of the site. It
is a buffer between the commercial and residential
developments along the north side of County Road 154.
In 1991, Slattery Investments bought the property and
received County approval to change the zoning of the site from
R/G/SD to C/L. At this time, Slattery voluntarily downzoned
-~-
----------------------------------------~.:=;;.___::...::.::..;;;;....;...:..:...:.:...:..::::::::::::::::::::~
his property to the southeast from C/G to C/L. The zoning
change was granted because: (1) the Board recognized the
property as a natural buffer between commercial and
residential development, (2) the Board was impressed with the
commercial development of the adjacent properties by Slattery
Investments, and (3) residential neighbors came to the hearing
in support of the zoning change.
All of the lots that have been commercially developed
along the north side of County Road 154 bear the same common
characteristic. Each lot is extremely shallow in depth, front
to rear, and is extremely long in frontage along County Road
154. Maps provided with this variance request show that one
commercial building has previously been granted a zero setback
and several have setbacks of 3 feet or less. Variances have,
in the past, been granted to each and every commercial
building along the north side of County Road 154, resulting in
a reduction in· both the front and rear yard setbacks to all of
the properties. ·
The site in question is typical of all of the commercial
sites on the north side of County Road 154. On the west end
of the site (see the discussion of a buffer, above), the site
is unusable for about 150 feet because of its narrow width.
The maximum width of the lot is along the east boundary, a
width of 69.03 ft. The C/L zone district setbacks of 50 ft.
(front yard) and 25 ft. (rear yard) would completely consume
the entire lot. Even with the granted rear yard setback
variance of 4 ft. (19B5 variance), if the front yard setback
of 50 ft. is not alleviated only a 15 foot strip would exist
within which to build on.
The criteria in the Zoning Resolution for granting a
variance of this type includes language directing the granting
of a variance " by reason of exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property .•. ".
This case is a classic example of how and when such language
in the Zoning Resolution should be applied to grant relief to
a property owner by reducing the front yard setback.
Furthermore, other factors outside of Applicant's control
have contributed to the unusual shape of the site, and such
factors existed at the time of enactment of the Zoning
Resolution. To the rear of the site is the Denver and Rio
Grande Railroad. Its right-of-way is 100 feet, instead of the
usual 50 feet that prevails over many of its miles of track.
County Road 154 is the result of a vacation to the County of a
previously dedicated State Highway. Consequently, its width
is BO feet instead of the usual 60 feet.
Because of the BO foot width of County Road 154, if the
requested 3 feet 1 inch setback is granted, there will still
be a setback of the building 43 feet 1 inch from the center of
the County Road and 2B feet 1 inch from the edge of the road.
While a 3 foot 1 inch setback is being requested, the actual
base of the building on the ground will be no closer than 9
feet 1 inch from the front lot line. The add! tional 6 foot
setback has been requested because of the roof overhang.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the building to be
built on the site will be a near duplicate of the Slattery
Investments building on the adjacent property to the
southwest. As such, the building will be of the same high
quality in visual appearance and landscaping. Just like the
adjacent commercial building, the front area of the building
to be constructed on the site will be paved by Slattery from
the edge of the building to the edge of the roadway, thus
presenting a visually pleasing and safe shoulder along the
County Road.
--3-
·-·--------.. --·-··-·------------
I. See H, Above.
J. See H, above.
K. A $250.00 check for the variance fee is attached.
_,'I-
-----------------------------------------···-·--· ·-----
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Slattery Investments Variance Request
The following is
property owners within
Investments, upon which
a list of adjacent property owners, or
200 feet of the site owned by Slattery
a front yard setback variance is requested:
David and Michelle Franklin
4904 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Iron Mountain Condominium Association
Suite C-lA, Village Plaza
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160i
Katherine Monroe Honea
P O Box 288
Basalt, CO 81621
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad
P O Box 5482
Denver, CO 80217
Theodore R. Gaugler, Ellen J. Gaugler, & Robert II. Gaugler P
O Box 71
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Merle N. Carver
8339 Foxfire Drive
Orangevale, CA 95662
Robin Little Garvik & Kenneth W. Garvik
0424 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, co 81623
Kurt J. & Elsbeth R. Wigger
P 0 Box 1985.
Glenwood Springs, co 81602
Richard T. & Grace M. Moolick
5109 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ken Kriz
0497 County Road 167
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Alfred John and Elizabeth Hood Nemoff
P O Box 2106
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Golden Buff Enterprises
P 0 Box 2104
Glenwood Springs, co 81602
Virginia C. McDonald
204 Makee Road
Honolulu, HI 96815
Michelle M. Balcomb
P O Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, co 81602
'
-------~------------.~
RESTAURANT and LOUNGE
P.O. Box 1985
Glenwood Sp~ngs, Colorado 81602
Kurt & Elsbeth Wigger
Box 1985
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Garfield County Zoning Board of Adj.
Att: Mr. Mark Bean
Court House
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Co, 81601
To whom it might concern;
March· 24. 1993
Re: Bill Slattery -new office building on 154 Rd. Glenwood Springs,
We will be out of town for Bill Slattery's hearing on April 22. 1993.
We do not oppose with his plans of errecting a commercial building and
.. ',,.
we do not object to a set-back variance. We much rather have a commercial~
building there, the way his is going to look, than an ugly apartement
building where you don't know who is moving in. Bill's existing building
,-, '
is very attractive and does not bother anybody.
plans.
" ' ;., ;.:'
We hope you aprove his
• •
April 14, 1993
Garfield county Board of Adjustments
c/o Mark Bean
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, co 81601
Re: Appeal of the Fun Land Application by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer
Dear Mark:
This letter, by reference, incorporates the contents of my letter
to you dated April 9, 1993. In addition, I would also like to
voice my concerns regarding the associated flea market proposal
which raises the same concerns set forth in that letter.
Finally, .the entire rezoning for this land which was approved by
the County Commissioners was premised upon the applicant's
representations that the rezoning was primarily based upon opening
and the operation of a landscaping business. To the best of my
understanding based on the current proposals by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer, the landscaping proposal appears to have been, in
part, abandoned. ' ·
pc: Carl Midland
Mitch Heuer
,,
~4~1f~<H
William R. Crymble;' .
1168 Road 113
Carbondale, co 81623
(303) 945-1202
I
:; T
i
I'
1 ·
' 1,
I ~
' i·· .
' 1:.
<:.
~ !
'"
r. !
'
·i '
l
j.
I j,
' I
•
April 9,
Garfield county Board of Adjustments
c/o Mark Bean
Garfield county courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, co 81601
•
. ) --
'APR 0 9 1993
1993 GARFIELu ..,..,,Jl'ffY
Re: Appeal of the Fun Land Application by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer
Dear Mark:
Please take notice that pursuant to Section 9.04.01 of the Garfield
county Zoning Resolutions of 1978, as Amended, that an appeal is
hereby taken from the determination that Fun Land has a use by
right to construct a go-cart track, etc., at.the intersection of
Colorado Highway .82 and Cattle Creek Road (County Road 113) since
it does not appear that such use is permitted by any of the uses by
right in section 3.07.0l.
It is our positfon that even though the uses by right set forth in
Section 3. 07. oi· are general, that the adverse impact of traffic
' accessing the project from Cattle Creek Road and Highway 82, and
the noise created by the go-carts, when in use, would be
incompatible with the currently existing use~ of the land in that
area.
It is also our position that this use by Fun Land is not limited by
usage hours; especially in times during which daylight savings time
is recognized by the state, i.e., use the go-carts could operate
well into the ev~ning.
We are also very concerned about the fact that the area where the
go-cart track is: or may be located is a wetlands area and that
there has not been a significant environmental study accomplished
to address that 'issue and the wetlands issues. we also believe
that the.Army Corp of Engineers should be consulted prior to the
construction of any permanent improvements within that area which
may affect the wetlands.
To buttress our position, it is not uncommon for cattle Creek to
flood in that area during the spring·runoff or for flooding to be
arbitrarily occurring simply at the whim of the ditchowners when
they close their gates. We believe that these and many unanswered
r
I
I
I
I
' '
.';
l,'
I ,. •" I r
I
----------·----------------------
Mark Bean
Page 2
April 9, 1993
questions need to be addressed prior to allowing the construction
of the go-cart area at the above mentioned site.
This appeal is of the proceedings which took place, we believe,
before the Board of Adjustment. We also feel if construction is
allowed to take place without the granting of this appeal, that not
only the homeowners in the area, but also the people of Garfield
County will be irreparably harmed by allowing the construction to
begin.
, If you have additional questions, pl~ase contact me.
'i, residence is one mile from the proposed project.
My place of
po: Carl Midland
Mitch Heue:r:
Sincerely,
/JJ ;M&;4,, Ji? {]IAµu /4
William R. Crymble /
1168 Road 113
Carbondale, CO 81623
(303) 945-1202
;, __
I
f ' ';; 'i'
[.,
,,
I.'
f •' t (
'.
'' I
' .
~
'l i ~
'
' ' ' i 1 j
I
: I
: )
' .. ~.
~·
----------------------------------------------
3.07
3.07.01
3.07.02
3.07.03
3.07.04
3.07.05
3.07.06
3.07.07
3.07.08
;J.07.09
C/L --COMMERCIAULIMITED
usAy righl: Single-fomily, lwo·fnmily and .plc:fomily dwelling, and
customary uccessory uses including building for sheller or enclosure of
unimnls or properly accessory lo use of lhc lot for residcnlinl purposes
nod fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park;
boarding and rooming house; hotel, motel, lodge;
Church, community building, day nursery and school; uudilorium, public
building for administration, fraternal lodge, art gallery, museum, library;
Ilospitnl, clinic, nursing or convalescent home;
Office for conduct of business or profession, studio for conduct of arts
and crnfls, provided ull activity is conducted within a building;
Com111ercial eslablish111ents, as listed below, provided lhe following
requirements are observed:
(1) All fabrication, service nnd repair operations arc conducted within a
building;
(2) All storage of materials shall be within a building or obscured by a
fcnce;
(3) All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted on private
property;
(4) No dust, noise, glare or vibration is projected beyond the lol;
Wholesale and retail establishment including sale of food, beverages, dry
goods, furniture, appliances, automotive and vchiculnr equipment,
hardware, clothing, mobile homes, building 11111lerials, feed, garden supply
and plant materials;
·.Personal service establishment, including bank, barber or henuly shop;
laundromat, laundry or dry-cleaning plant serving individuals only;
miniature golf course and accessQry f~cili!ig, morlunry, photo studio, shoe
.repair, tailor shop, restaurant, rending room, private club, lhenler nml
indoor recreation;
General service establishment, including repair and service of automotive
and vehicular equipment, vehicular rental, service and repair of appliance,
shop for blacksmith, cabinetry, glazing, machining, mini-storage unlls,
printing, publishing, plumbing, sheet metal and contractor's yard. (A. 86-
10; 89-058)
Uses, conditional: Row house; home occupation; parking lot or gurage as
principal use of the lot. (A. 86-09)
Uses·. spccjnl: Automotive service slntion or washing fncilily; cnmpcr
park;, mobile home park;
An~' use, by right, in this wne district used 'principally as a drive-in
eslab)ishment where the customer receives goods or services while
occupying a vehicle; water impoundments, storage, commercial park;
utility lines; recreational support fncililics. (A. 80-180; 81-145; 81-263)
Minimum Lot Arca: Seven thousand five hundred (7500) square feel nnd
as further provided under Supplementary Regulations.
Maximum Lot Coyerngs;: Seventy-five percent (75% ), except for
commercial uses which shall be eighty-five percent (85%).
The County Commissioners may require adcquat.e screening or nll parking
and roadway areas in commercial uses from adjoining residential uses and
public streets. A maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total parking and
roadways areas may be required to be devoted exclusively lo landscnplng
of_tre~, shrubs and ground cover lo r"duce visual impacts. {A. 81-99)
Minimuni Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street
centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lol line, whichever is greater; (h)
local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-live (25) feel
[rom front lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Tuenly-five (25) feet from renr fol line for lot occupied
by residential uses; seven anll one-half (7.5) reel for lots with no
residential occupancy;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lol line or one-hnl[ (112) the
height of the principal building, whichever is greater. (A. 79-132)
Maximum !-!eight of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feel.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.50/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations.
Additional Requiremenls: All uses shall be subject lo the provisions
under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulntio,!!s). ,J LJ - .
------------.-.-:-..:;;;.:;;.:-...-....-~;;: - -............... -.;;;-....... - -.. -.. --,. . ·---·--------• •
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Kathy Barto
Leo Jammaron
Stephanie Lavorini
Harold Raymond
Peter Cabrinha
MINUTES
October 22, 1992
Meeting #168
STAFF PRESENT
Don DeFord, County Attorney
Dave Michaelson, Planner
Meeting was called to order. Roll call was taken with all members present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Barto moved that the minutes of Meeting #163, March 28, 1991; Meeting #164, August
20, 1991; Meeting #165, April 30, 1992; Meeting #166, May 7, 1992 and Meeting #167, May
28, 1992 be approved. Mr. Raymond seconded the motion. The motion passed with a
unanimous vote.
AV ARIANCE FROM SECTION 3.04.06 -MINIMUM SETBACK -Applicants: Tom and
Beverly Clark.
County Attorney Don DeFord questioned the applicants about proof of publication and
adjacent landowner notification. After a thorough examination, Mr. DeFord determined that
the public notice was adequate and that the Board was entitled to proceed with the public
hearing.
Dave Michaelson, Garfield County Planner, asked the Chairman that he needed to submit two
exhibits along with the return receipts, and proof of publication. They are the staIT report and
(D) letter dated 9-30-92 from Mr. & Mrs. Potter. Mr. Michaelson summariz.ed the staff report.
Mr. Michaelson said the applicants would encroach about 10 feet into the required 30 foot
setback required at the Ranch at the Roaring Fork. Mr. Michaelson said that after visiting the
project and the Potters letter, he recommended approval. It does not represent a situation that
he could not approve in the rear or the side. He also noted that the 20 foot utility easement,
25 foot county setback, and the PUD requires a 30 foot setback. Whenever a covenant or a
county zoning requirement differ, traditionally the one that has the most restrictive requirement
comes into play, and that would be the 30 foot setback.
Mr. Clark told the Board that no one has gotten hurt, but they would like to enjoy the time
they spend outside without having to worry about the golfers.
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~-~-~-------~~-• •
Motion
Harold Raymond made a motion to accept the request for a variance from the required thirty
foot (30'') rear yard setback on the north side of the lot along the 6th fairway of the golf course
to allow for the extension and screening of the existing porch. Peter Cabrinha seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.·
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• •
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Kathy Barto
Leo Jammaron
Harold Raymond
Peter Cabrinha
. MINUTES
March 25, 1993
Meeting #169
STAFF PRESENT
Steve Zwick, Assistant County
Attorney
Dave Michaelson, Planner
Meeting was called to order. Roll call taken with Stephanie Lavorini absent.
VARIANCES FROM SECTION 5.07.09-MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT; SECTION
5.07.07(9)-NUMBER OF SIGNS PER LOT; SECTION 5.07.06-SIGNS OVER GAS PUMP;
AND SECTION 5.07.09-MAXIMUM SIGN AREA -Applicant: Burning Mountain RV
Park (Rippy RV Associates)
Assistant County Attorney Steve Zwick questioned the applicants about proof of publication
and landowner notification. Mr. Zwick noted that the application is for a variance to allow for
a sign in excess of 30 foot height limitation, a variance to locate a sign with the required 25 foot
setback on CR 335 and a variance to allow for more than one sign on the property on the
above described property. The issue of the maximum sign area was not requested by the
applicant and was not noticed, though Staff does note it in the staff report. After a thorough
examination, Mr. Zwick determined that the public notice was adequate and the Board was
entitled to proceed with the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Michaelson introduced the following exhibits into the record:
a. Staff report;
b. Application;
c. Proof of publication;
d. Proof of mailing
e. Resolution 92-056 (Burning Mountain PUD)
f. PUD Zone District regulations
g. Sign Code excerpts
h. 3-25-93 letter from Stephanie Lavorini
i. Vicinity map
Motion made by Kathy Barto to enter the exhibits into the record. Harold Raymond
seconded. All in favor.
Mr. Michaelson informed the Board that he needed to clarify some things about what is
actually being requested. There are two variances being requested in the application and were
noticed in the proof of publication. The first is a variance from Section 5.07 .09, which is
1
--------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.;-...;:::.:;;.,;;-.. ;-. .;;:.;--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·~~----• •
maximum sign height and the other is Section 5.07.06 which is number of sign per lot. The
maximum .sign area being proposed does exceed our sign code. The problem is that in the
original application and what was noticed in the proof of publication does not cite that. What
that means to the applicant is that the sign area would have to fit our code in terms of
maximum sign area, which for the AIR/RD zone district, is 90 sq. ft .. If the applicant still
intends on requesting a sign area in exceed of 90 sq. ft., they would have to request an
additional variance. That was Stairs error. The applicant makes reference to signs over gas
pumps, although no variance is necessary. The code excludes signs over gas pumps from being
included in the maximum number of signs per lot. The applicants have requested a sign
separate from the gas pumps.
Mr. Michaelson summarized the staff report. He noted that even though the project was
established within the PUD process, there was no sign code written into it. Because there is no
sign code in the PUD, the underlying zoning is AIR/RD and it falls back into that. The sign
area is not an issue as the applicants would have to apply for another' variance.
Mr. Michaelson noted that Resolution No.92-056, condition #4 requires.that all site lighting
shall be adequately shielded and shall not extend beyond the property lot limits or above the
horizontal plane and shall be of high pressure or low pressure sodium variety. He noted that
he has had several phone calls asserting that what is really being built here is a truck stop. It
has been suggested that by advertising diesel, the situation is being created that implies a truck
stop.
Discussion was held regarding the various signs, heights, total square footage and number of
signs.
Gary Swallow, of Swallow Oil company explained to the Board that the signs were drawn to
show the sign, not the order in which they would be sold. He does not see any significance in
whether RV park, diesel or store would be in any particular order. The design is up to the
applicant.
Greg McKinnis addressed the Board noting that the adjacent land owners supported the
original PUD representations. This is primarily to be an RV park. The lighting was an issue
that the adjacent landowners were concerned with. He is concerned with a lit 40 foot sign. He
feels that sign would go against what he thought had been agreed to up front several years ago,
as far as trying to rniniillize the oIT site light impacts. His concerns also include the heighth of
the sign. He feels that everyone needs a bigger, better sign. He requested the applicant address
the concerns.
Dow Rippy, applicant stated that this is not just an RV Park, it is a convenience store and
commercial business. They are there to help serve the interstate traffic. They want to be able
to help the traffic visually see their signs in time for them to get oIT the interstate.
Kathy Barto asked the applicant how they could stay within the code and and keep a 90 ft sign?
Mr. Rippy said that Mr. Swallow has told him that the next size sign would be a 7 x 7 and if
they moved the RV Park, diesel and store down two feet, that would be 91 sq. ft.
Mr. Michaelson informed the applicant that 91 sq. ft. is still 1 sq. ft. over the sign code and
would require a sign variance.
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - -
•
. --------------'-------• •
Mr. Swallow noted that the 40 ft. sign would have been helpful to help the traffic get o!Tthe
interstate. He said that the 30 ft. sign would be fine. The sign will be internally lit. It does not
project alot of light out, it projects within itself. The canopy lighting will be high pressure
sodium.
Further discussion regarding the RV park area, diesel pumps, signage on I-70 to advertise the
RV Park, camping, and gas station.
Mr. Swallow said that at this time he would not like to come back with a variance for 252 sq.
ft. sign.
Kathy Barto asked Mr. McKinnis if what is now proposed (a 30 ft. heighth sign and 90 sq. ft.)
is acceptable to him?
Mr. McKinnis replied yes.
Kathy Barto made a motion to allow the applicants a 30 ft. high sign and allow two signs on
the property. Peter Cabrinha seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted
3
• •• .. •
To whom it may concern;
Glenwood Funland is meant to be a mini amusement park for family entertainment . The location
we have chosen is one that will allow the development of our facility with no adverse degradation
to the environment or the community. Our first attractions will be a Go-Kart Track, an arcade and
a food concession. The arcade will be available to kids from the age of 4 on up, it is to be housed
in a 5,000 square foot building along with the concessions, kart maintenance and storage. This
building is to be of a steel frame with wood and vinyl siding in a earth tone finish. Glenwood
Funland will be operated by a local family and it is our intention to develop a very clean and
attractive facility.
The following are our responses to recent concerns from residents near Cattle Creek regarding
Glenwood F'wlland's mini amusement park.
1. What are the future attractions?
Future attractions will be added slowly as they can be afforded. We hope to add the
following, not particularly in this order, batting cages, horse back riding. miniature golf, miniature
train, old fashion photographs, ice and roller skating and we hope to add some attractions for the
toddlers as soon as it is feasible. This mini amusement park was never intended to be an "Elitch's"
type park.
2. Will cars and people be searched as they enter the park for drugs and alcohol?
Will breath analyzers and urine analysis be given before one may drive a kart?
How is the non use of drugs and alcohol going to be enforced?
Is it your main goal to combat the substance abuse in this county?
Glenwood Funlands intentions are to operate an alcohol and drug free facility. We will
enforce our policies to the best of our ability within the law. Any person who is obse!Ved with
drugs or alcohol will be asked to leave. If someone is suspected of being under the influence they
will not bo allowed to ride the karts. If oomeone geto by undetected and beoomeo both ...... ome on
the track, the track personal will be able to control their kart through remote control devises and
remove that person from the track. We will not be able to combat the drug and alcohol abuse in
the entire county alone but we are confident that we can control our facility and are open to any
suggestions that you may have.
3. Flea Market?
Glenwood Funland is not involved with the Flea Market.
Glenwood Funland is currently only involved with a portion of Mr. Midland's property, namely the
north side of the creek, from the Hwy to a point several hundred yards east of the existing steel
building. not all the way to the salvage yard.
4. Pond?
Glenwood Funland is not involved with any development of a pond.
1
.. • •
5. ~lopment of the wetlands?
Glenwood Fwiland has no intention of encroaching on the wet lands and is currently
worlcing with a independent engineering firm and the Anny Corp of Engineers on delineating the
existing wetlands near the Go-Kart track site. We have agreed not to begin construction of the
track until the delineation has been completed. See attached letter to the county planning dept.
from Mitch Heuer.
6. Emissions?
The engine that is used is a Honda GX160Kl gasoline powered four cycle engine. These
1993 engines will pass the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) standards for 1994.
7.Noise?
The one concern that keeps coming up with a Go-Kart Track is "noise". Noise is a
legitimate concern, however the public has a misconception of our type of Kart and the noise that
they produce. With the help of the attached information we hope to minimize this concern. Our
initial development will include 10 karts (two of which can cany two pasons). These karts are
quiet. They have a noise level similar to a passenger car traveling at 65 mph at 25 ft (77Db-a) or
even a vacuwn cleaner (70 Db-a). These Karts should not to be confused with the "karts of old",
or with any type of a race car or kart, they are qyiet and will have no Impact on neighbors or the
environment. "Noise is merely sound that is, subjectively, unwanted because of intensity,
frequency, or location. Just as grass becomes a weed when growing in a garden, even music
becomes "noise" if it disturbs one's sleep". A few important facts to keep in mind about noise are,
with distance from the source, the noise level will decrease and with the addition of sound
absorbing Items (grass, trees, buildings etc.) the level of noise will decrease even further.
Example at a distance of 300' from the source, the noise level will drop to 54 Db-a with all
karts operating. Note: a dish washer on rinse will produce 60 Db-a and golf karts equipped
with a gasoline engine will produce 69.S Db-a. The following attached information was
primarily obtained from Johnson Kart, Milwaukee Wisconsin, a Go-Kart manufacturer. The Karts
we will use are manUfactured by Shaller Enjuneering, Schulenburg Texas, the engine used Is the
same as one of those used by Johnson Kart for there noise study, the Honda 5 horsepower, model
GX160KI. The Honda engine has a noise level of 77 to78 Db-a, operating at 3600 rpm, at 30 feet.
Noise does not increase 10 fold with the use of 10 karts. There is only a 10 Db-a increase withlO
Karts compared to 1 kart. We have researched the noise factor of these karts in depth. If these
karts were to make a substantial amount of noise we would not want to work with them all day
long. In the event that a kart began to exceed its normal noise !eve~ (this could only happen if the
muftler fell oft), we would replace the muftler.
Please see the attached information on noise.
2
. . • •
8. The following Questions are regarding the fact that Glenwood Funland will be open year round.
A. Will the track be plowed and chains put on the karts?
B. How safe is an icy track?
Glenwood Funland will be open year round, however the track will only be operated
weather pennitting and when the track is dry (an icy track is unsafe). The primary kart season is
from May to September. Chains will not be used. The arcade will remain open regardless of
weather.
9. The following questions are regarding OW' unique position to assist with the alcohol and drug
abuse among OW' young people and OW' desire to participate with local school systems in clll'rent
programs and to implement new programs.
A. What is the plan for creating positive attitudes?
B. Is there really one? It takes more than just a Go-Kart!
C. Is written documentation available and do the school systems approve?
D. Do the schools even know about these so-called programs?
They are right it takes more than a Go-Kart to combat alcohol and drug abuse. Glenwood
Funland does feel that it will be in a unique position to help with the problem of teenage substance
abuse and to help create positive attitudes, first by providing an alternative to going out and
partying, secondly by providing a alcohol and drug free gathering place and by worlcing with area
schools and other groups in various programs. We have some ideas on these programs and have
been in contact with other track owners who worlc with schools in their areas but we have not
completed OW' programs at this time. We have been in contact with Jim Phillips, principale of the
Glenwood Elementary School. Jim is vecy much in favor of OW' idea. He believes that there are not
enough activities for the youngsters in this community and a positive, drug and alcohol free facility
would be beneficial to the youngsters as well as the entire family. Any input that you might have
would be appreciated, as it is OW' every intention to implement some type of program. Also it is
OW' understanding that the limited amount of "things to do", contributes to crime and to the drug
and aloohol abuse in Glenwood Spring&, espeoially for teenageni who live in the area. Admittedly
we do not have all the answers or a "so-called easy cure", but we are concerned and we will
contribute as much as we can to help with these problems. With a controlled atmosphere, as we
intend to maintain, we believe that the Glenwood Springs community will benefit from OW'
recreation facility.
10. Safety?
Glenwood Funland will obtain $1 million in liability inslU'ance. The injury rate is very low
because of several factors, a few are; the karts have been designed with safety in mind,
incoiporating a three point seat belt, a shock absorbing bumper around the entire kart, the
maximum speed is governed to 20 mph, and a very effective bumper rail system will be installed
on the inside and outside of the track.
3
.. • •
11. Wildlife?
Glenwood Fwtland will be sensitive to the wildlife in the area. Every effort, within reason,
will be made to maintain any existing habitats. Any wildlife will be welcomed and will enhance the
beauty of our facility.
12. Location of Cattle Creek water users water line?
Glenwood Fwtland will cooperate with the Cattle Creek Water Association in locating and
maintaining reasonable access to their water line easement.
13. If the business goes under will the track and buildings remain as an eye sore for the
community?
It is our belief that this business will succeed, but in the event that it should fail, the
buildings and the track could be removed. However the buildings that we will be constructing will
not be offensive. Also we will be landscaping the area heavily.
14. Transportation for youths who do not drive?
We do intend to haw transportation available and several options are being considered at
this lime.
15. Loud music?
Music will be provided by Glenwood Fwtland inside the building and will be at a moderate
level.
16.Llghts?
Glenwood Fwtland intends to light the track and the parking area only. We will be using
lights that are to be directed downward from approximately 10 feet in the air.
17. Traffic?
Yes this facility will increase traffic, to what extent we are unsure, however this intersection
is oapable of hllndling an inore1111ed flow of lnlffio 1111 it lllrelldy luis aooeleration and de-aooeleration
lanes for north and south bound traffic. Currently the traffic amount is minimal compared to other
intersections in the area.
The county staff has conceded that the County Zoning Resolution does not have jurisdiction over
any business in a commercial zone district, regarding hours of operation, traffic, noise, glare,
vibration, etc. these are uses by right. The various venders and owners of such districts would have
to comply with the requirements of the zone district. Also Glenwood Fwtland can not be denied
their use because someone may trunk that Glenwood Funland will be in violation of any zoning
requirement
4
--------------------------.. .. • •
The issue at the commissioners meeting was that since Glenwood Funland's improvements
incroached into the regulated flood plain, they must, with the help of their engineers, prove to the
planning staff and the county commissioners that these improvements will not impact the flood
plain. The recreation use is a use by right as inteipreted by Mark Bean the County Planner. The
special use petmit can only be denied or not denied in respect to the engineers detennination on
impact in the flood plain and that's itl It was determined that there will be absolutely no impacts on
the flood plain by the engineers.
The only issue before the board of adjustment is whether or not Mark Beans inteipretation that go
karts are a use by right in the CIL zone district, is correct. The county regulations in section
3.07.01 offer only examples of personal service establishments, which are not exclusive uses.
Similar outdoor recreation uses allowed in C/L zoning are; miniature golf, golf courses, a riding
stable/trail and bungee jwnping. Bungee jwnping has already been allowed on this same property.
NOTE: The following are a few Colorado fun parks that incorporate both miniature golf and go-
karts· I
Estes Ride A Kart, in Estes Park CO ..
Mile High Recreation, in Henderson CO.
Sports Glenn, in Northglenn CO.
The Autobahn, in Loveland co.
Riverside Miniature Golf, in littleton CO., also they are located within a full size golf course
Fun and Stuff, in Boulder CO.
Also golf courses are allowed by right in the AIR/RD, R/USD, RllAJD AND R/G/UD zone
districts. All of these zone districts are a type of residential zoning. All golf courses use golf karts
that produce a very similar Db-a noise level. If these karts are allowed by right in a residential area,
then our karts should by allowed by right in the C/L zone district.
We believe that Mark Bean's interpretation of our use by right is correct and should be upheld.
Following is a list of some of the residents that live along Cattle Creek who have signed our
petition;
Fred Sefcovic 0617 County Rd. 113 Cattle Creek
Fred has recently built a new home just beyond the junk yard on the north side of Cattle
Creek Rd. less than an 118 mile from Hwy 82. He is the second closest resident to the site and he
thinks its a great ideal
Noble Yeoman 4853 County Rd. 113 Cattle Creek
Joy Long 4853 County Rd. 113 Cattle Creek
5
.. •
Rick Becvaric 4802 County Rd. 113 Cattle Creek
Cindy Becvaric 4802 County Rd. 113 Cattle Creek
•
The Following is a list of some of the businesses that have signed our petition;
William Hill owner of the Knotty Pine Lodge
Eric Mirick owner of Coors Western Slope
Joe Oconnell owner Orrison Distributing
Lynn Livingston owner of The Mart
Steve Harris owner of El Jebowl
David Tut11e owner of Turtle Liquors
Andy Bossard manager of the Hot Springs Club
Kirt Wigger owner Sopris and Buffalo Valley restaurants
The Modem Cabinet Shop
The 82 Grill
Colonial Inn
Ponderosa Motel
Holiday Inn
Budget Host
Red Mountain Inn
Affordable Inns
Homestead Inn
Terra Vista
Silver Spruce
6
. . ' .. ~ • •
Glenwood Motor Inn
Ramadalnn
Frontier Lodge
Glenwood Bowl
Cedar Lodge
Caravan Inn
Of the 600 plus signatures, several people have commented that "this town needs more things to
do and what better place to put it than near a jlmk yard and next to a highway on a commercial
comer.?"
Also we have been in contact with Mazy Ann Vergili of the Glenwood Springs Chamber of
Commerce, she has stated that the Chamber is in full support of our project.
V em Soucie (the Garfield Cowity Sheriff) was contacted and said that the Sheriff's department is
in support of our facility, his only concerns were safety and insurance, which we have already
addressed.
Garfield Youth Services has also been contacted and they approve of our purposed family
entertainment facility.
It U. also our boliof that Mr. Crymblo and tho other rosidont8 would objoot to any typo of
development of this property. If they wished to control the development of this property, than
perhaps they should have purchased it!
7
Mitch Heuer
Glenwood Fwtland
---........ . -
•
I'/'
_\
• •
,.. '
) . .t,, ..
Test Report: Go-Kart Noise Levels
. ' j •. .
' '
: ' ,,.
d•• •·.
Prepared by: L,W, Sandow & Associates
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
'.,., ·~ I
',! ' .. , ..
for: Johnson Kart Manufacturing Company
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
i.
'
" ; '.> '·'
'
Louis W, Sandow, P.E.
',. '.
·1.··1 • ,.. : .
• -~-• ·"
Introduction
A continued and growing concern for the community environment has
prompted the Johnson Kart Manufacturing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
to undertake an evaluation of noise levels resulting from operation
of a commercial go-kart track. This report sunnnarizes results of that
evnl11Rtion,
Sound, Noise, and Decibels
·sound is a disturbance in.air that travels as a wave having a frequency
of between 20 and 20,000 hertz and having an amplitude great enough
to be heard. Noise is merely a sound that is, subjectively, unwanted
because of intensity, frequency, or location, Just as grass becomes a
weed when growing in a garden, everl'"fuusld'' bec;omes~1'noise'." if' it disturbs, ..
one.' s sle!!Pll
Sound is sensed by a microphone which converts the pressure fluctuations
of the sound wave to an electrical signal. This signal is conditioned
by the circuitry of a sound level meter and the intensity is indicated
in units of decibels (dB). The term decibel is defined to be equal to
10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of two power
quantities. Power can be in watts, horsepower, or, in the case of sound,
pressure squared, The advantage of a decibel scale is that smaller
numbers can be used in calculations. A disadvantage with this definition,
as it relates to sound measurement and analysis, is that sound power
cannot be measured directly. The"decibels" indicated on a sound level
meter relate to the sound pressure level and not power level.
It was noted that, in addition to intensity, sound is further charac-
terized by frequency of the sound wave. Since response of the human
ear is not the same for all frequencies, various weighting systems
have been devised to correlate the sound level meter readings to human
response to sound. The "A" weighted scale is presently accepted as
resulting in the closest correlation. Table 1 shows the amount.of
attenuation or amplification of sound pressure level over the audible
·frequency range for the A weighted scale. Table 2 shows average noise
levels for some sources typically encountered in a community enviro-
nment. An interesting point of Table 2 is the human response to loudness.
Technically, doubling the sound pressure level causes a 3dB increase
in reading or a 6dB increase in sound power level, However as shown in
Table 2, the human ear doesn't perceive a sound as being twice as loud
until the difference in sound pressure level approaches lOdB,
Test Program
Test procedures followed were in general accord with accepted industry
standards as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers in SAE J 331
and SAE J 986. The sound level meter was a Bruel & Kjoerr Type 2209
equipped with a dondensor microphone (Bruel & Kjoerr Type 4165),
Instrument calibration was accomplished on site at the time of test
using a General Radio Model 1562-Acalibrator. Accuracy of calibration
is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Instruments conform
to requirements of SAE J 184 and American National Standards Institute
.specifications ANSI Sl,4 -1971 and ANSI 81.11 -1966,
The test sit chosen was the kart track of Johnson Park, Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin. Track layout and microphone positions are shown in figure l. Nine
,,.
'.I. '
.
\ •
..
, ,.•. .it.·•, .-........ , •'4''t·"\!'' 1•'r'l""fr••w"1'll''lfill':V. \ . • • -2-
karts in total were evaluated, both singly and in combination of up
to three machines although, at most times, all 'nine machines were in_,.
operation on the 'track during' the data gathering process. Since the
tests were conducted during the normal operations of the park, it was
possible to factor out any influence of operator characteristics in
the results. Fifty-four operator/machine combinations were considered
during the test period,
The test sample consisted of nin~ machines broken down into two groups
of Johnson Kart Manufacturing Company production models (four each)
and one experimental machine. Differences between kart models are
primarily in the engine used to drive the kart. The mne uses a 5
horsepower, 197 cc, Bonda Model G200 engine while the other utilizes a
4 horsepower, 146 cc, Kohler Model K91T engine. The experimental Kart
was powered by a Kawasaki engine. Regardless of kart model, ell machinaa.
have engines governed to maximum speeds of 3000-3100 rpm. With either
a roller chain or Vee-belt drive between engine and drive axle, kart
speeds are then limited to 1 17.~20 mph by ,the kart .manufacturer i
Data were obtained on the afternoon of June 7, 1979.
Ambient conditions were:
Temperature: 73°F
Barometer: 29.97 inches Hg
Wind: SSW 7 mph
Background noise level: 53dBA
For the microphone,PO$itions sqo~ on figµre 1 test results were:
Position
High
Low
A ... 1s-r~t..r
80.s
76
B -J.'fi'·ff•' C _ S» F4~ r
72 66
70 64
Avg ~1·~~· ''~i:m.)7.B.,15 :~l'"' 1]112 "'1"11J'•16418.ll
There was no detectable difference in overall A weighted sound levels
between karts having different final drives (Vee-belt or roller chain),
Although the roller chain can be heard as a distinct sound, the frequency
is low enough for the sound to be attenuated in the weighting scale
of the sound level meter such that it does not add significantly into
the overall level.
Conclusion
,11 Go kart" is still synonymous in many minds with the racing machines so
'popular in the 1950's and '60's. These karts were powered primarily by
two-stroke cycle engines running at speeds of 8000-9000 rpm and higher.
Exhaust systems were simple expansion chambers for optimum power output.
And they were loud! Noise levels at trackside often exceeded 100 dBA.
Noise levels measured during this test program show that therl!" is'•
I
re ally no·· COl!lp4r111 Dn~ be tween" .these•• l!Afl}l 'hiachi ill!lf'"A!ld'''ttHliiy •·11 •l:ommer ciltl""
kart.
To answer the original question that prompted this study, i.e; ,"How
·well does a commercial kart track operation fit into the community?",
.,..
' r:,
" ,,
,.
'
,.
:· ti•
I
I
l
' 'I
I
.;
• • -3-
we have reviewed some of the existing laws relative to noise snd would
cite here the state of New York and the city of Chicago. These represent
some of the most stringest requirements in the country with the possible
exception of some purely 11 bedroom11 connnunities.
Legislation of interest in the state of New York as listed in the Official
Compilation of Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, Sub-
chapter C, Title 6 deals with noise crossing property boundary lines
and ignores the noise source. Receiving properties are classified
as commercial, industrial or residential. Allowable continuous noise
levels (in dBR) crossing boundaries into these receiving properties
are 65, 80, and 65 (hours between 7 A.M. and 11 P.M.) respectively.
Noise entering residential property between the hours of 11 P.M. and
7 A.M. is limited to 45 dBA.
The Municipal Code of the City of Chicago, Chapter 17 Section 17-1.6
lists go-karts as a specific among a general classification of "Recrea-
tional Vehicles." Limits of sound pressure levels in dBA. as measured
at 50 feet from the centerline of vehicle travel are specified as not
to exceed 73 dBA for vehicles manufactured in 1975 and beyond.
Comparing test results with the above cited legislated limits on noise
emission clearly shows that a commercial go-kart track, particularly
one operating Johnson karts can fit into the community without degrada-
tion of the noise environment.
,
I
' -~ .,
1. ' .
• • 1-' ,._· ____________ (3 ----------•-i
<Ji
I
' '
.....
..
I\) a
'
'
. '
i· I '·
. ' .. : ;.
,, .
. ~·
t
I
~ ' •
Fr"quency
10
12.5
16
20
25
31.5
40
50
63
BO
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
BOO
1,000
1,250
1,600
2,000
2,500
3,150
4,000
5,000
6,300
8,000
10,000
12,500
16,000
20,000
• \
TABLE 1
A-weighting
relative
reaponae
db
-70.4
-63.4
-56~ 7
-50.5
-44.7
-39.4
-34.6
-30.2
-26.2
-22.5
-19.l
-16.l
-13.4
-10.9
-B.6
-6.6
-4.~
-3.2
-1.9
-o.e I
0
+0.6
+l.O
+1.2
+l.3
+1.2
+l.O
+o.5
-0.1
-1.1
-2.5
-4.3
-6.6
-9.3
'
~·
• • ,•
7350 NORTH 76TH STREET
August, 1985
Johnson Kart
MANUFACTURING, INC.
QUALITY CONCESSION KARTS
PHONE (414) J5J.5969
TOI Prospective Track Operators
RE: Noise level of the K-91 Kohler Engine
We are quoting an excerpt from a letter dated
December l, 1972 from Kohler Co.,
Kohler, ~isconsin
",,,,,for the engine noise, 1 agreed to send
you the noise levels we have measured on the
engine running at full throttle, 4000 RPM,
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53223
taken 50 feet from engine. Using our standard
muffler, the noise level was 74 dba, By adapting
a remote automotive type muffler (our #21413)
the noise level can be reduced to 69 dba"
OHNSON KART MFG, CO., INC.
1
J
}
•
•
(~-
~
~
80
70
60
50
....
40
10
0
Subjective
impression
JDOderately
loud
quiet
just audible
threshold of
hearing
CammunitY*
(outdoor) !! I'
high urban ambient sound
(80 dba) passenger car
65 mph at 25 ft. (77 dba)
freeway at 50 ft. from
pavement edge 10 A.M •
(76-6 dba)
~
air conditioning condensing
unit at 15 ft. (55 dba)
large transformer• at 100 ft.
C 50 to 60 dba)
bird call• (44 dba) lower
limit urban daytime ambient
noise (40 dba)
scale interrupted
Benne or IndustrY*
(indoor)
living room music
(76 dba)
TV-audio
vecuWll cleaner
(70 dba)
\.
Rel~ive
101.. .HISS I
hmnan judgment
of different
sound· levels
reference
loudness
.....
cash register at 1/2 as loud
10 ft. (65-70 dba)
electric typewriter
at 10 ft. (64 dba)
dishwasher rinse at
110 ft. (60 dba)
conversation (60 dba)
1/4 as loud
1/8 as loud
1/16 aa loud
~·
•
•
..
\
. \· ..
(dba)
130
120
110
100
~.go·
Subjec~ive
impression
uncomfortably
loud
very loud
Communi~y*
(outdoor)
military jet aircraft takeoff
with afterburner from aireraft
carrier at SO ft. (130 dba)
turbofan aircraft at takeoff
power under flight path at
200 ~. (118 dba)
Rome or Industry*
(indoor)
oxygen torch
(121 dba)
riveting machine
(110 dba)
rock-n-roll band
(108-114 dba)
Relative
loudness
human judgment
of different
sound levels
32 time•
aa loud
16 times
aa loud .
'
~------------~------------------------~~~--~--~-8 times
same jet flyover at 1000 ft.
(103 dba) Boeing 707 DC-8 at
6080 ft. before landing (106
dba) Bell J-2A helicopter at
100 ft. (100 dba)
Boeing 737 DC-9 at 6080 ft.
before landing (97 dba)
motorcycle at 25 ft. (90 dba)
Car wash at 20 ft. (89 dba)
Prop. plane flyover at 1000 ft.
(88 dba) diesel truck 40 mph at
50 ft. (84 dba) diesel train at
45 mph at 100 ft. (83 dba)
power mower at 25 ft. (85 dba)
newspaper press
(97 dba)
food blender (88 dba)
milling machine
(85 dba)
garbage disposal
(80 dba).
as loud
4 time•
as loud
2 times
as loud
'
I.OCATION
Al JOO' from
11oise sow:ca
Bl "ISO' from
a.oise source
Cl lOOO' from
noise source .
Dl USO' from
uoise source
El 1350' from
noi:ie source
..
• •
· ENVIRONKENTJ\L NOISE MIAI.1'SXS
DISTANCE CORREC:ION TRAP" :El'l.'ECl' .. GROUND ATIENDATION
WL w\\\ l\cw<-
(0 /(4r-'t.S
'/
U:Q !Db ?OR
DROP DI SOOND OVER •A.tLOWMICE !OR E'AC:OR, SOUND ABSORBED ntDICl= I DISTANCE ?ROH SOURCE soona uo-r BY GRASS, 'rl\EES, UC
BEING :tN , OVER DISTAllCE TO
CONSTANT SPO'r LOCA'rION
-16 Db - 8
No ground attn.
Gr. a.ctn. faC'Cor - 2
-24 Db - s
llo ground attn.
Gr. attn. factor - a
-26 Db -" Ila ground attn.
Gr. att:n. faccor -10
-28 Db -3 Na ground at'tJl.
Gr. at:.1:ll. fa=or -12
-29Db - 2
Ila ground attn.
Gr. Att:n. fa=or -u
Al LOCA'rION Measurinq devices were placed
the indicated nwnber of feet
fro111 edqe of track
Bl DIS'rANCE CORllEC'l'IDN
DI GROUND ATTEN.
El LEQ (Dbl FOR
INDIC:.TED
NUMBER OF
KJ\RTS
This is the normal drop in
Leq !Dbl over these various
distances. This is without
any effect from surroundings
As the.source of sound lkartsl
ara t=vel:Linq around a track,
this is tha factor for correctinq
to tha averaqa sound fro111 any
ainqla spat on the track
Tha amount of sound which is
absorbed by qrass and small
trees llesa tban 6'1 while
travellinq over tha various
distances
Tha actual sound level at the
various locations with various
,numbers of kan:s on the track.
l LO 15 30
46 S6 SB 61
H. S4 S6 59
4l Sl 53 56
ll 43 45 48
40 50 S2 SS
JD 40 42 45
39 49 Sl 54
27 37 39 42
39 49 Sl S'
26 36 38 4J
Horizontal Gasoline •gine
GXllO GX120Kl G}{.140 S;tl~ GX160K1
~
E.~
I ... ~~~~
:~-,,:. J.i...,.
~l~ll
... tla a.-n.
Perlonnance Curve --
64X45
144
3.5/3,600 5.0/3,6(
2.7/3,600 2.8/3,600 3.8/3.6(
0.67/2,500 0.75/2,500 1.0/2,5(
8.7 : 1 8.5 : 1 s. 7 : 1 '
Counterclockwise (from P.T.O. side)
1,400±150 1400± 200
• 150 1,400±150
3.900±100 8,900±100 3,900±1"~
230 +--
2.5 +-3.6
0.6 -.,_
Forced splMh
Centrifogal mechanical governor
Transistor
305X341X318 325X365>
·,
rKi
n.J1l#il
• 1 der, inclined
68X45
163
~ ; .• i.5/3,600
,.0/3,600
.1/2,500
8~5 : 1
1.400:1; ~2~
3,900:1:100 -
<--
. 1-;. I, n c entl
15.Q
. ---'-----I
l2XS62X335
W/111 YAMA/111, YOU
HET 11/E JOYS OF
LOW NOISE
Cf1,uf 1 --\:1m.1h11roisfcrcrl its 1110sr
il11r1css1vr wio ;,, 111e ;1crchu;1tio11 nnise tr.st.
f1101r 1/1,111 .5 dfl/I q11irlm tl1c1n eit11e1 C/11b C.11
01 I 7·f.o.
Clm1t P --111 2!i fl.. 1t wo11ld 1.1ke .1bo11t 7
~:·1m,1lr.ts to equal !Ira noise of just 2 E-Z-Go
Ct11S (l{ p Club C11s
• •
Yamaha's G2-A topped Club Car and E-Z-Go in three separate noise-
level tests. In the acceleration noise test, the three cars stopped in front
of ·a sound-level meter, then accelerated at full throttle. Yarnaha
triurnphed by more than 5 dBA' (Chart 1 ). To deterrnirw noise level on a
level fairway, the cars were driven alongside the sourHt-lr.vel
meter at their maximum speed. Yarnaha beat both E-Z-Go and
Club Car by about 3.5 dBA. To complete the sweep, Yamaha
easily won the hillclimbing noise-level test.
When you compare the dBA figures in Chart 1, just rcrnerntier
that the gap between Yamaha's 63.9 dBA and the clecihol
readings for Club Car and E-Z-Go is more significant !Iran it first
appears. Chart 2 shows you another way to visualize these
figures. Imagine that you're standing on a green arHI a
foursome drives by in two E-Z-Go gas cars. From a distance ol 2!i feet,
those two E-Z-Go cars make lhe same arnotint ol noise as ahout seven
Yamahas. When Club Car goes head lo head anainst Ya111alrn, flw figures
are about the sarne: it takes nearly seven Yarnahas to equal lire noise or
just two Club Cars.
Benefit To You: lhe Yamaha G2-A is 3 -4 ti111es quieter !Iran ils E-Z-Go
and Club Car counterparts --something that golfers and your course's
neighbors will appreciate.
'dBA stands for decibels, tire numerical expression ol the relative lo11d11css of a
sound.
~-----------------·-------------------·----·----···----·
EQUIVALENT SOUNO LEVELS AT 25 fEETf SOUN/J LEVEL 68.9 d/JA
-)-
..
' .. ..
,j'j
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
)-FLOODWAY-' I
/ I
/
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I ,
I ' I I
I I
/ I
I I /
!) I ,'~ ,'
(I
\;
I .
l:>
' (\
rf I
-;
Precision Bell Drive and Massive
Aluminum Hubs (both sides)
Speclllcatlona (Bodied & Non-bodied):
Heavy Duty Spindles and Pedals,
Adjustable Pedal Stop
Twin 6" Drum Brakes, Brake Blas Bar
actuates bolh brakes evenly without
adjustment. Linkages used throughout
(no cables).
Engine ....................... 6.5 HP Honda OX 160 RH Tires ...•.... 12• x 4" x 5' Powermaster (extra thick !read)
Drive .•..•.... 36mm wide, emm pllch, Gales Polychaln OT Brakes •..••....••.......... Twin 6" shoe-and-drum type
Size ........................... 48"W x 79V2 'L x 37'H Frame .......... S1eel lubing (.120" wall) Mlg welded In Jig
Weigh! .•• 380 lbs., less body. Optional body approx. 50 lbs. Body (optional) .•.. Fiberglass (relalned wllh four 3/8" bolls)
Wheela Sleel 6' 3 hole Bumper. .. 2·plece, .360' x 3' spring sleel, perlmeler dealgn
\ ... .... .. .. r .. Sl-i_1!f,~ER ,,
DIVISION OF SHALLER INVESTMENTS, INC.
. ' r r·, • ., .....
·"'
Garfield County Planners
3/7/93
109 8111 Street
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Attn: Dave Michaelson
tl'"l '·~ ~-
RE: Midland I Cattle Creek Property -Wetlands Delineation
Dear Dave,
•
I hereby agree ll1at the construction of the Go-Kart track, near the wet lands, In the
flood way, shall not begin until llte Wetlands Delineation has been completed on lltis
portion of tho above mentioned property. I also agroo lo comply with 1110 Anny Cotp of
Engineers on Utls mallcr.
Slni/)//~
Milch Heuer
I
I
I
- - - -
~ ·• ·: • •••
, •. • • • •• -.
.,, ...
-~-• --·· .. -
---
•
•
•
Garfield County
Board of Adjustments
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eight Street
Glenwood, Springs, Colorado 81623
•
P. 0. Box 34
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
May 3, 1993
RE: APPEAL OF ZONING RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION OF "USE-BY-RIGHT" FOR
GO-CART TRACK ON CATTLE CREEK
We are five year residents at 3266 Cattle Creek Road. As we have
previously written to the Garfield County Commissioners, we now
reiterate to the Board of Adjustments:
WE ARE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED TO ALLOWING A GO-CART TRACK ON
CATTLE CREEK ROAD!
It is a completely inappropriate use of land relative to surrounding
properties, it will destroy the wildlife habitat and wetlands, pollute
lower Cattle Creek and turn the area into a noisy, dusty, dangerous
intersection.
We implore you to listen to your own Planning and Zoning Department's
recommendations (which goes back to their initial suggestion that the
entire propery not be re-zoned last year until the County Master Plan
was in place), remember that the County Commissioners turned down
Mitch Heuer's request for the go-cart track on Midland Avenue last year,
and use common sense in looking at this proposal.
Please, overturn the interpretation that a go-cart track is a "use-by.;.
right".
J;:r/g,
Mr. and Mrs. Neal H.
-----------------------J . • ~
,f~ECE~VEDD" 0 r>~
APR 1·.mJ
ClAHfJELO
UGUNTY COMAllSS!ONfR'S
,
PUBLIC NOTICE
•
TAKE NOTICE that the Carl Midland/Mitch Heuer have applied to the Board of County
Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Floodway Special Use Permit
in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State
of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: See Attached
Practical Description: Located at the southeast corner of CR 113 (Cattle Creek Road) and
State Highway 82, between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.
Said Floodway Special Use Permit is to allow the Petitioners to construct a Go Cart track and
accessory facilities in the regulated floodplain of Cattle Creek.
on the above described properties.
All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Special Use
Permit request, as the Board'ofCounty Commissioners will give consideration to the comments
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the
request for the Special Use Permit. This Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the
office of the Planning Department located at I 09 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County
Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
That public meeting on the application for the above Special Use Permit has been set for the
April S, 1993, at the hour of2:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County Commissioners,
Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
---·--···----. ---------
Planning Department
Garfield County
, ' I """'""F r,, • {c,, ;; :. ~: ' ; ,·fl " ... "··' ..:..;_ ___ , ___ ,_;.;._.:,..t:. :~'-· -'---··_:1_·· ____ ...__\~_._.;_'·-~ ... ·-;;_1 _;_>~·~!:..:''~;:...;;.:;_ •• _; ..
• A parcel of land siAe in Loi 5 of Section 7 and Lois I A 7 of Section 18,
Township 7 South,""'!lange 88 West of the 6th PrincipalMerldian, Garfield
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No.
113, whence the Northeast Corner of said Section 18 bears East a· distance of
248.11 feet; thence along said right-of-way 83. 76 feet along the arc of a curve
to the lefi having a radius of 2,632.31 feet, the chord of which bears South
43°55'38" E.1sl a distance of 83.76 feel lo a line as described in Document No.
316907; thence along said line South a distance of 1,751.37 feel lo the North line
of Lot 8 of said Section 18; thence along the North line of said Lot 8 South
89°59'01" West a distance of 461.51 feel to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 8;
thence along the West line of said Lot 8 South 00°06' 10" Wes!' ·a distance of
846.85 feel to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 8; thence along the.South line of
Lot 7 North 89°48'47" West a distance of 143.02 feet to the norlheaslerly righl-
of-way line of Colorado Stale Highway No. 82; thence along said right-of-way
778.72 feel along the arc of a curve lo the right having a radius of .11,240.00
feet, the chord of which bears North 22°05' 16" West a distance of778.57 feet;
thence along said right-of-way North 31•14'09" West a distance of 100.20 feet;
thence along said right-of-way I, 179 .10 feel along the arc of a curve lo the right
having a radius of 11 1260.00 feet, the chord of which bears North I 6°28'55"
West a distance of I, 178.56 feel; thence along said right-of-way North 29°54'39"
West a dis lance of 206.00 feet; thence along said right-of-way 1,271.54 feel along
!he arc of a curve lo. the right having a radius of 11,320.00 feel, the chord of
which bears North 09°15'08" West a distance of 1,270.87 feel; thence along said
right-of-way No~lh 06°02'39" West a distance of 117.23 feel lo !lie North line
of said Lot 5 of Section 7; thence along the North line of said Lot 5 E.1sl a
distance of 84.43 feel to the southwesterly right-of-way line of said County Road
No. IJ.~; lhe1J~~-al9.11g .. said righ\:_oJ:w.ay_ 13_4 ,72 .fee! .along.Jh~.~rc_pf_a_.c_ui:v.e.Jo_
lhe left having a radius of 2,567 .97 feel, the chord of which bears South
56:04;26:: East a d:islance of 134.70 feet; thence along said right-of-way South
57 34 36 East a drslance or 242.62 feet; thence along said right-or-way 213.78
feet along the arc of a curve lo the left having a radius of 550.98 feel the chord
o.r which bears South 68 ° 41 '3 I" East a distance of 212.44 feel; thence' along said
r~ght-of-way South 79°48'27" East a distance or 61.85 feet; thence along said
rrght-of-way 152.85 feet along the arc of a curve lo the right havirig a radius of
944.11 feet, the cho~d .of which bears South 75°10' 10" East a distance of 152.68
feet; thence along said right-of-way South 70°31'53" East a distance of 112.09
r~el; thence along S<)id right-of-way 271.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the
nghl having a radius of 1,52 t .83 feet; ')he chord or which bears South 65°24'56"
~'Isl a ~lstance of 271.39 feet; thence along said right-of-way South 60°18'00"
East a drstance of 45,94 feet; thence along said right-of-way 259.4 l feel along the
arc of a curve lo the right having a radius of 8 I 9. 74 feet, the chord or which
bears South 51°14'03" East a distance of 258.33 feel; thence along said righl-of-
way South 42 ° 10'07" East a distance of I 05 .17 feel; thence along said right-of-
way South 41°1 I '3I" East a distance of 28.08 feet; thence along said righl-of-
way 83.77 feet along th~ arc of a curve lo the left having a radius of 2,632.31
feel, the chord of which bears South 42°05'49" East a distance of 83.77 feel to
the point of beginning. ·
All bearings contained herein are based on a bearing of North 00°22.'00" West
along the East line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. · .
.. _~,
i ! i · .. ;
. -;· : ... .-
•
•
PUBUC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICEttlal:Wllam R. Cryrrt>ie has appealed to """""""-"'--"""""· ..... DI Ccbacto.' of an~ o1Seclion3.07.01, of
... -Ccu<y Zoning -al 1"78. • atnlndlcL~ -........ Qfficaro d ... Counly.
The iSIP8al • ol lhe ~ of Sectian 3.07.01,
1hel llclM PMOMI MrYice-WC E In••• incUSing a
l)O-C:Mlla, •• ~bV f\1N.
......... ....;.. ................. Zoning .....
~-; . at8il'Ml9dl0---Mdllll81"eir
.. ~ OI ~ I )'OU C8fWll appa.,
PMlOnillly. M such ~ 1b1n you ••urged 10 1U118 ~ .. -................ .__ .. ___ ... __ ... g;,._...
INilion10U.~ol~aflecled in deciding
...._D~Of'CWMIJln*tb J 'f'n Thia
flqU8ll mayt» .......... olioe ol h Pl9wling ~-·-"""""~ 1(11 .......... -303, -Spfogo, "°""""°' ··---.. ---"""-. -.gh'Friday. .,,,....,.,""'"'9 ..... _ .... __
.... Zoning--Jlao-.....
1ht22nd*tof .... 1993. at the hour of 3:30 p.m., al
h' Garfield Col.wily-Courthcue. Sultli 30'l, 1()g 8lh --..... """'-
Planning OepanlllOnl -""""" Niilhed Aprl.19, 1'193 i't lhe Glenwood Poat
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
GLENWOOD POST
STATE OF COLORADO. }
SS,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD.
pi..A
N~ 23459
Robert L. Krecklow I, ...................................................................................................... do solemnly
swear that I am ..................... P..!1..b..! .. i..S..~.E'!.r. .................................... of the
GLENWOOD POST; that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole
or in part, and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colo-
rado and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has
been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of
Garfield for a period of more than fifty-t\YO consecutive weeks next
prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise-
ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States
mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of
March 3. 1879, or any amendments thereof. and that said newspaper
is a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and ad.
vertisements \Vithin the meaning of the la\vs of the State of
Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for
the period of ....... 1. ....... consecutive insertions; and that the first pub-
lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
April 19 93 . . . .. ......................................... .A.D., 19 ............ , and the last pubhcat1on of said
. . h . f 'd d d Apr 19 'D nouce was in t e issue o sai newspaper ate ........... : ............... -Ao .,
93 19 ............ .
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .... J.9..~.~ ....
day of ............... ~.P.E.P: ....................... A.D., 19 .... ~} .. ..
~
Subscribed and sworn to,))efore me, a notary public in and for the
Co arfield, State of Colorado. this .............. J.9..~.~ ............ day
o.£1'>-~.Y-_f.u"". P.:<:.i..! .................... ~ .. A.D., 19.9.) ..... .. o'-··· ··.<:/'<. ~ ~..... ··· .. ,,,. 1 . ., i/f.( ,(~EAL) _ .,Cl ........... (2 .~ .. b... ... .. .......... ..
f AMARA G. ;_ Notary Public
,pl.~~~!;~ ires ...... ~ .. ;~ ...
1
.... ~.1
..... ~.~ .. ~.'. .. ~.~: ............ .
~"... ./0 '9;, ·... , .. · ,si £a-;·-;.·(.,-;,, o '<2
~e., Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
I !.~C~omll'fpij~~tef:"lte_m_s_1~.n-d-/o_r_2_f_or_•_d_d-~-on-,-,-.. -,.-,,-.-.-.~~~~~~"lr-~l~a~ls-o~w~i-sh:--t-o~r-e-ce-i~v-e~th-e-
I • Complete Item• 3, end 4a & b. following services (for an extra J'
• Print vour name end eddre11 on the reverie of this form so that we can fee): •
· return this card to vou.
:'. • Att1ch this form to the front of the mallplece, or on the back If space 1. (J Addressee's Address
. does not permit. : .J • Write ''Return Receipt Requested" on the m1Hpiece below the article number· 2. 0 Restricted Delivery I
• The Return Receipt wm 1how to whom the article wee delivered and the date . 8 =•~·'~'·~"~ed~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-C""on~s~u~lt'-"~os~t~m~•~•~t•~•-f~o~r~f~••~·'--~
'
· .. 1· 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number J
p 317 384 742
• Complete Items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete Items 3, and 4a & b.
• Prlnt vour name and address on the reverse of this form
retum thl1 card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mallplece, or on the
doe• not permit .
• December 1991 *u.s.aP0:1-DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
" u.s.aP.o.' 1992-001-000 DOMESTIC RETURl\I RECEIPT
GARFIELD
A1 Midland ~6 County Road 137
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
4b. Service Type
D Registered
19 Certified
D Express Mell
7. Dete of Delivery APR
8. Addreaeee'o dre
and lea lo poldl
, December 1991 .. u.s.G.P.o .. 1002-001-530 OOMES1'.IC RETURN ReCEIPT
rJij,
----------------~--~~~~~~~~~~~~-
•
,,,
CJ)
.,,
.. p ::117 384 603
Receipt for
Certified Mail
- - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• ~ -UPfl•IOSTAff~
oo<;!" SUrY•'<
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
!See Reverse)
Sr.ni tu
Mitch Heuer
s1'.P~! ~~ Ncnox 1412
i · l!;l~dl'I ''Springs, co 8160
r·f'ostage <· .29 I •I
Cert.f1nr1 Fee 1.00
Spf'(.1al Ddver)' r,,.,
f f!estooct<Jd Delowry Fee
r >ieturn f1ecn1r1 St1ow1ng
lCJ Whom & Daw Del1vert:d r R()turn Ren11pt S~>ow1ng to Whom,
Dato, and Addre~see·o Addrt'o~ 1.00
1 rTOT/\i Po,taq" e, F.;e~ $ 2.29
I
E
0 u.
hVitrnark or D,1te
Oi en
§ ...,
t -384 P. 317
Receipt for
Certified Mail
922 •
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
5 'e1Jl:-1 Midland
5 Q'Y!6NCounty Road 137
P.e 1state and Z(f C~e i enwoo pr ngs, co 816Q
Pos1age $ .29
Certifmd Fee 1.00
Special Delivery Fee
Restr+cted Delivery Fee
Return Receopt Showing
to Whom & Date Del111ercd
Return Rccc1pt Show1'19 to Whom. 1.00 Date. and Addressee's Addre~s
TOTAL Postage $ 2. 29 & Fees
Postmark or Date
.
[Jl
"'
p 'l17 384 921
Receipt for
Certified Mail • No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(Soe Reverse)
5"tfhliam Crymble
5 t'1'6!f "Road 113
' · ··ea S~e an~lfrode i r on a e, co 81623
r f'ostagc <-v ,29
rCmt1!1rd fc(' 1.00
Spec•al Del1vtJty Fee
Restricted Dehvcrv FcC'
Return Receipt Snowing
10 Whoni & [lJh' Ot:l1vered
Rnturn Rccc•pt St.ow1ng to Whorn, 1.00 Date, and Ar1drcsscc'5 Address
r TOT Al ro~tagc e, Fiws $ 2. 29 r .... ,, ..
-----
• • •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that William R. Crymble has appealed to the County Board of Adjustment,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, of an interpretation of Section 3.07.01, of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, by an administrative officer of the County.
The appeal is of the interpretation of Section 3.07.01, that allows personal service
establishments including a go-cart track, as a use by right.
All persons affected by the appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation are invited to appear
and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting,
then you are urged to state your views by letter particularly if you have objections to such
appeal as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of persons affected
in deciding whether to uphold or overturn the interpretation. This request may be reviewed at
the office of the Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street,
Suite 303. Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the request of the above appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation
has been set for the 22nd day of April, 1993, at the hour of 3:30 p.m., at the Garfield County
Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that William R. Crymble has appealed to the ~ .mnty Board of Adjustment,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, of an interpretation of Section 3.07.01, of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, by an administrative officer of the County.
The appeal is of the interpretation of Section 3.07.01, that allows personal service
establishments including a go-cart track, as a use by right.
All persons affected by the appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation are invited to appear
and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting,
then you are urged to state your views by letter particularly if you have objections to such
appeal as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of persons affected
in deciding whether to uphold or overturn the interpretation. This request may be reviewed at
the office of the Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, I 09 8th Street,
Suite 303. Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the request of the above appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation
has been set for the 22nd day of May, 1993, at the hour of 3:30 p.m., at the Garfield County
Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
" '" I )l. 317 384 74i'!
;;;
CJ)
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to Carl Midland
S11l)7and No 26 County Road 137
P.C(;ftatc and ll~,=(~' i enwoo pr ngs, C081601
Pos1agc $ .29
Cenil1Cd Fee 1.00
Special Delivery fep
Restrocted Delivery Fee
Re!urn Receopl Showmg
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Show1'lg to Whom, 1.00 Date. and Addressee's Address
TOTAl Pos1age $ 2.29 "
iarl:: or Date
- -----------
-,
- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
p 317 384 741
Receipt for
Certified Mail a-No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
ISee Reverse)
f '~"1 i liam Crymble
5 'f!6'1! N!l.oad 113
' , . ~a ~'\l·ond~fe'.'~ co 81623
' ["r'os1agc <-.29 I .,
f Curt1!ir·(1 fep 1.00
Spcc•al OPl•vury fPc
Res1r1cie'1 Delivery fpp
r '1etum Rcce1rt S~1owmg
t•l Whom & DdtP Dnl1vcred
f flf'IUtn fkce1pt Showong to Whom,
lJa!C. and J\dclrt•sscc"s Add<c~s 1.00
TOTAL f'ostag•· $ 2.29 -ar~ or Date
..
"' "'
.
31'/ .:1114 923
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
''IU'tch Heuer
Sty~ fJ~ N~OX 1412
P cc· Stale and Zld Co§' Li. lenwoo pr ngs, co 8160
Postage $ .29
Certof1ed Fee 1.00
Special Delivery fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Re1urn Receipt Showing
to W~1om & Date Delivered
Returr Receipt Showmg to Whom, 1.00
Date. and Add<esoee's Address
TOTAL Postage $ 2.29 & Fees
nark Or Date
--
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that William R. Crymble has appealed to the County Board of Adjustment,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, of an interpretation of Section 3.07.01, of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, by an administrative officer of the County.
The appeal is of the interpretation of Section 3.07.01, that allows an outdoor recreation facility
that includes a go-cart track, as a use by right.
All persons affected by the appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation are invited to appear
and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting,
then you are urged to state your views by letter particularly if you have objections to such
appeal as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of persons affected
in deciding whether to uphold or overturn the interpretation. This request may be reviewed at
the office of the Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street,
Suite 303. Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the request of the above appeal of the Zoning Resolution interpretation
has been set for the 22nd day of May, 1993, at the hour of 3:30 p.m., at the Garfield County
Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
November 24, 1992
Mitch Heuer
P.O. Box 1412
i. ~ GARFIELD COUNTY ·•(fft1
~E:GULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEi.'.·'
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Heuer:
----·--·-·-·-----
please consider this letter to be a stalT interpretation of the Uses by Right in the
Commercial/Limited (C/L) zone district contained in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
of! 978, as amended. Within the C/L zone district, a use allowed is "miniature golf course and
accessory facilities" (see enclosed). The "accessory facilities" provision has been interpreted to
allow for uses such as a go-cart track and bungy jumping facilities even though the miniature
golf course is not directly associated with the use.
If you or anyone else have any further questions, feel free to call or write to this office.
Sincerely, u1u· _
<.-./)/) -U-,A.--
1 r //IA._.
Mark L. Dean, Director
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
MLD/sa
Enclosure
10981H STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
m
r'",::J r,·~ ~y-;~;')A.,.~ .1:·~1f,, ,.. l.·I 1/l2::. I .. In !I \_ .-., •·•_.[ ~~-·· .. ~ . -~·:.:I ( -. ~11
'APR 1 1; 1993 j: ! ~
lie. .............•. · ....
• •
April 14, 1993
Garfield County Board of Adjustments
c/o Mark Bean
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Appeal of the Fun Land Application by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer
Dear Mark:
This letter, by reference, incorporates the contents of my letter
to you dated April 9, 1993. In addition, I would also like to
voice my concerns regarding the associated flea market proposal
which raises the same concerns set forth in that letter.
Finally, _the entire rezoning for this land which was approved by
the County Commissioners was premised upon the applicant's
representations that the rezoning was primarily based upon opening
and the operation of a landscaping business. To the best of my
understanding based on the current proposals by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer, the landscaping proposal appears to have been, in
part , abandoned. ·
pc: Carl Midland
Mitch Heuer
~4~1f~~~HP
William R. Crymb;eJ' .
1168 Road 113
Carbondale, CO 81623
(303) 945-1202
•
April 9, 1993
Garfield County Board of Adjustments
c/o Mark Bean
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, co 81601
Re: Appeal of the Fun Land Application by Carl Midland and
Mitch Heuer
Dear Mark:
Please take notice that pursuant to Section 9.04.01 of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolutions of 1978, as Amended, that an appeal is
hereby taken from the determination that Fun Land has a use by
right to construct a go-cart track, etc., at the intersection of
Colorado Highway 82 and Cattle Creek Road (County Road 113) since
it does not appear that such use is permitted by any of the uses by
right in Section 3.07.01.
It is our position that even though the uses by right set forth in
Section 3.07.01 are general, that the adverse impact of traffic
accessing the project from Cattle Creek Road and Highway 82, and
the noise created by the go-carts, when in use, would be
incompatible with the currently existing uses of the land in that
area.
It is also our position that this use by Fun Land is not limited by
usage hours; especially in times during which daylight savings time
is recognized by the State, i.e., use the go-carts could operate
well into the evening.
We are also very concerned about the fact that the area where the
go-cart track is or may be located is a wetlands area and that
there has not been a significant environmental study accomplished
to address that issue and the wetlands issues. We also believe
that the Army Corp of Engineers should be consulted prior to the
construction of any permanent improvements within that area which
may affect the wetlands.
To buttress our position, it is not uncommon for Cattle Creek to
flood in that area during the spring runoff or for flooding to be
arbitrarily occurring simply at the whim of the ditchowners when
they close their gates. We believe that these and many unanswered
Mark Bean
Page 2
April 9, 1993
• ._)
questions need to be addressed prior to allowing the construction
of the go-cart area at the above mentioned site.
This appeal is of the proceedings which took place, we believe,
before the Board of Adjustment. we also feel if construction is
allowed to take place without the granting of this appeal, that not
only the homeowners in the area, but also the people of Garfield
County will be irreparably harmed by allowing the construction to
begin.
If you have additional questions, please contact me. My place of
residence is one mile from the proposed project.
pc: Carl Midland
Mitch Heuer
Sincerely, w ;,ek:,, R. {1i,, 14
William R. Crymble
1168 Road 113
Carbondale, co 81623
(303) 945-1202