HomeMy WebLinkAbout20121784.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Applicant Robert L. Seltzer Family Trust Case Number USR12-0022
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
PC Exhibits
1A Sign posting affidavit X
1B Letter from Kennard Knudson—No Date X
1C Letter from Kennard Knudson dated June 5,2012 X
1D Letter from Clifford& Lucille Wagner received June 6,2012 X
1 E Letter from Lois Seltzer received June 6, 2012 X
1F Letter from Steve Neal received (via e-mail)June 17, 2012 X
1G Letter from Larry Lockard received (via e-mail)June 28,2012 X
1H Letter from Robert Rickard on behalf of the Robert L. Seltzer Family Trust dated X
July 2,2012
1I In and Out Visits for Woodman View Storage X
I hereby certify that the 9 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled
Planning Commissioners hearing.
• .lam ,...._
Chris Gathman Planner
•
2012-1784
• PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS 6/9/2012 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT
TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE
EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, Chris Gathman, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN
WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR USR12-0022 IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
Chris Gathman
Name of Person Posting Sign
IOC) LL'LE
• Signature of Person Posting Sign
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this 1 ` day of aura. , 2012.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
'
BTHAY(?' : ! i
�'•. ;`pQ
'`%c E OF
My Commission Expires: ID -14-201≤
EXHIBIT
• A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING
CERTIFICATE
• THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS July 8, 2012 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, , HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED
ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HEARING FOR USR12-0022 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
Chris Gathman
Name of Person Posting Sign
• Signature of Person Posting Sign
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this leday of ZSLts , 2012.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
àblicBETHANY t
co\ SALZMAN .Q
F�F C0k2
My Commission Expires: t o-(420 c
•
I+!' ' ', K' `-" 'RSj
-y` J .'. ,_`.-�. %4 � <r"al:. ' y71, ,
r
'� . r,j, "t N •
•••
•., _ v �.,. `ii. t .K D A.�•\V,A_/• ( D •
/ • 1' � `,- 1�. �r.�.1 'err ._!tJl_
••'> ' 4"\ '* • ) �_ �. • t• •-y •1� Ica - !'/
i.
lK tiIY
rr ` 2MY , .
` e .�1 +`.
z
1) —• •_ - _ - - \rt 3 _ 4r ,.� Yes `.•
.��` -
/
-J•' 2-,
•y - � ' •� • / -' - \ \ �1r• .,t mss;•1E / r r} '1("<-
---. I ••}'Tie ♦ �� 1
-
' • I ,>... -�,�;� : r_ , it,� 'S+'�' •
::; ~ �•
__, ...:4 ;C.
• ' 4 l
_ � 111tii� '. i '�,'
•
_ Z
01 1 4 ,LN.,.*Liisst:Nko. ;2- —'1-.\442 -r- er'\....:--'4.4•• , ' - --- —
1 2 i rl... 1 1 1ii .1 :1/4„......L,... ...\_,A. , . ‘ „. ...Th.._ : • \., ..,
•
D 0 8 m 1 ii4 6,1 g N. z-4- -,.-
•
i 12 ...., 2O 1 •• , 131 i •
i _...._
,, _.__„......,,,i.- ..,.: .
i-- 4,,,F . - 1. .
s . . . . B -
-,,,.. , 1
32c. g 0 i t-.2.41 I ti: i — u I _ •. -.
•
lifitiL“ - Pe? .4 ..-•
1IIIH1 ! th!
IS
P 0 ._,,- is 1 1 i - [
to
Y W � i a Az ;
��.
..� . —gag y fie. w.."}' -Jr
1;ar:te.,
�� •�� .i-r.,. �t � s i -vim' �� - 7r+" ��. , '.Y
illitti CA‘•�-•_ 4.l. • 4t • y•' _.• �1-►•r,•t r}c , �Se��. `.7L- �� ^� •
-r ,
•
•' go ` ♦ \ -
i. i.
•
•
t r l • _ 4 u•
:♦ • 1
t �• 1
• r`-• , •l D :ri , ^yam ` -� � ` . 4
•• ,t� ♦ • .` ; Ye } Ord .. 1 1 '�-.
•
,• ♦ * Irr a i` f Iy{- +t M ,} �' ' t • 1:r
11 ✓ •rte '�t�_
} )r of f • r ' ~• , In •
l •
-•
I
iiiimasdaaihatit
. .k; �" 'c'= k 'i iad4 rya` - " •
•
CERTIFICATION
• RE: NOTIFICATION OF MINERAL INTEREST OWNERS AND LESSEES
AND STATEMENTS BY APPLICANT
OF OUALIFYING SURFACE DEVELOPMENT
The undersigned Applicant certifies compliance with the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-65.5-
103(1), and in support thereof, states as follows:
1. That Applicant has provided notice, (a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit"A"), containing the time and place of the initial public hearing on its application
for Case Number V SILI?- 22— , the nature of the initial public hearing, the legal
description by section, township and range of the property which is the subject of the
initial public hearing, and the name of the applicant;
2. That said notice was provided thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled
public hearing, that it was provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a
nationally recognized overnight courier;
3. That said Exhibit A includes the list of the names and addresses of the
surface owners,mineral estate owners and lessees of mineral interests to whom the notice
was sent, including those persons who have requested receipt of such notices,pursuant to
C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103(3).
4. That because Applicant is submitting an application for a qualifying
• surface development, as defined pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-102(5.7), one of the
following applies(check one):
a. No mineral estate owner has entered an appearance or filed an
objection to the proposed application for development within thirty (30)
days after the initial public hearing on the application;
_ b. The Applicant and any mineral estate owners who have filed an
objection to the proposed application for development or have otherwise
filed an entry of appearance in the initial public hearing regarding such
application no later than thirty days following the initial public hearing on
the application have executed a surface use agreement related to the
property included in the application for development, the provisions of
which have been incorporated into the application for development or are
evidenced by a memorandum or otherwise recorded in the records of the
clerk and recorder of the county in which the property is located so as to
provide notice to transferees of the applicant, who shall be bound by such
surface use agreements; OR
• 1
Fs
CERTIFICATION
• RE: NOTIFICATION OF MINERAL INTEREST OWNERS AND LESSEES
The undersigned Applicant certifies compliance with the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-65.5-
103(1), and in support thereof, states and certifies as follows:
I. That Applicant has provided notice, (a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A"), containing the time and place of the initial public hearing on its application
for Case Number U ? t2'DZZ , the nature of the initial public hearing, the legal
description by section, township and range of the property which is the subject of the
initial public hearing, and the name of the applicant;
2. That said notice was provided thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled
public hearing, that it was provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a
nationally recognized overnight courier;
3. That said Exhibit A includes the list of the names and addresses of the
surface owners,mineral estate owners and lessees of mineral interests to whom the notice
was sent, including those persons who have requested receipt of such notices, pursuant took
rY
C.R.S. §24-65.5-103(3). �
APPLICANT:1 ` ,z�"ec.�
`Rani- 4 • Rtctrdeo
c/o'(Zobu-I'1..5e Z€4- FAwra-Nrittss r
• ice- 2-ea-OW So2w 'l W4
STATE OF C.O\O'CO4.O
COUNTY OF n,>XOi x'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this a(.0 day of Jtil\„Q_ , 2000;by
6 s-
Notary Public
`'�
Note: This Certification must be received by the Weld County Department of Planning
Services prior to or at the initial public hearing. If the Certification is not received by that
time, the hearing will be rescheduled to a later date, and Applicant must re-notify all
owners of mineral interests.
`
NOTARY •.
•
5 `G,¢41�
•
I4'Conebelos Beilso Sept 2012
.'
_ c. The application for development provides for the following:
• (1) Access to mineral operations, surface facilities, flowlines,
and pipelines in support of such operations existing when the final
public hearing on the application for development is held by means
of public roads sufficient to withstand trucks and drilling
equipment or thirty-foot-wide access easements;
(2) An oil and gas operations area and existing wellsite
locations in accordance with C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103.5; and
(3) That the Applicant has deposited into an escrow account
maintained at a commercial financial institution approved by the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the amount
determined under C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103.7(1), to defray incremental
drilling costs to be incurred by mineral estate owners for drilling
wells to prospective formations accessible from the oil and gas
operations area that could otherwise have been vertically drilled
within drilling windows established by the Commission, that are
not included in such oil and gas operations area; or, that as an
alternative to such deposit, the applicant has posted a letter of
credit or other security for such costs in such manner as the
Commission has determined to be adequate.
APPLICANT:
i((Z•-4.•--tt A• (2..t-jk.-.✓j
(Lcc IC. C,ry•t21c Sov ntit3 C
cioj2o tint- L.SST WC-
R--'U L`•I
STATE OF CD wr ck V
COUNTY OF 9- (Ley
'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this a_9 day of 41.1-1\o_ , 200L2,_by
I%o`o k A __%cicctrd •
Notary Public
Note: This Certification must be received by the Weld County Department of Planning
Services prior to or at the initial public hearing. If the Certification is not received by that
time, the hearing will be rescheduled to a tater date, and Applicant must re-notify all
owners of mineral interests. .•••'•••••••••.,
,o............
•
f aoTARY
• 2
ry,►'UBL\G
My Commission aplaes Septa,2012
I -•
May 14, 2012
List of Mineral Estate Owners for Robert L.Seltzer Family Trust Property in part of Section 34,Ti N,
R67W of the 6°i P.M.,Weld County,Colorado including those who have requested receipt of such
notices, pursuant to CRS 24-65.5-103(3). Robert L. Seltzer Family Trust royalty payment information and
Chicago Title Insurance Company Title Commitment Number 1487771 Schedule B-Section II was used
to prepare this list for the purpose of notification to Mineral Estate Owners, pursuant to CRS 24-65.5-103
(1), more than 30 days prior to initial public hearing for USR12-0022.
Bayswater Exploration&Production LLC
730 17th Street Suite 610
Denver, Co 80202
303-623-1777
Merit Energy Company
13727 Noel Road Suite 500
Dallas,TX 75240
972-628-1590
Colorado Properties
KP Kauffman Company Inc.
1675 Broadway Suite 2800
Denver Co 80202-4628
Kerr-Mcgee Oil&Gas Onshore LP
CAD Anadarko Petroleum Company
1099 18t Street, Suite 1800
Denver, CO 80202
Noble Energy,Inc.
1625 Broadway, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202(800-220-5824)
Encana Oil&Gas USA Inc.
370 17th street Suite 1700
Denver, Co 80202 866-917-3700
Vessels Oil&Gas Company
&Vessels Coal Gas,Inc.
730 17'"Street, Suite 340
Denver, CO 80202
HS Resources
1999 Broadway, Suite 3600
Denver, CO 80202
Peterson Energy Operating,Inc.
2154 W. Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO 80537
•
• To:Chris Gathman\Weld County Planning Services
This letter is in response to case#USR-12-0022 Outdoor RV and miscellaneous storage in the
agricultural zone district on Weld County Road 2 and Weld County Road 19.
Goal 7 Policy 7-1 of chapter 22 of the comprehensive plan states"county land use regulations shall
support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon,agriculture,to
locate within the agricultural areas,when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal,or can be
mitigated and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable."
(1) The proposed development is clearly not related to or dependent upon agriculture.
(2) The impact to surrounding properties would be major. Custom homes line the west side of
Weld County Road 19 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 4 and other building lots
have been added for more custom homes. My residence(305 Weld County Road 19) is directly
across the street from the proposed development. It was recently appraised for over
$1,000,000.That value would plummet as would my property value on the adjacent 62 acres
which I had planned to develop into like country estates if this project is approved.This RV
storage project is definitely incompatible with present and future development. All of these
people have moved out here to get away from the city and to enjoy a country living.
(3) Monitory value aside,the traffic impact is real. From Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day
weekend (the excepted start and stop of camping and boating for the majority of people)there
• are 15 weekends. The majority of people who rent RV storage all year would feel obligated to
use their stored RV's a minimum of 3 times a year. With 740 RV slots in this proposed
development a simple calculation of 740 RV's x 3 =2217 visits during the peak season. If you
divide that by 15 peak season weekends= 148 pickups of RV's on Friday and another 148 drop-
offs on Sunday. With 80%of campers and boaters being hard working blue collar workers,who
get off work at 3:30-5:00 pm on Friday and hit the RV storage yard between 4:30 and 6:00 pm
on Friday. (148 visits x 80%= 118 vehicle visits in 1'h hours.This repeats itself when 80%of the
148 drop-offs happen between 5:00—7:00 pm on Sunday.This is approximately 1 vehicle
per minute during peak weekend visit times. There is no turn lane in the plans,just staging
for 2 RV's.What happens when 1 person pulls up to the gate and is denied entrance because of
non-payment, has forgotten security code, a driver that doesn't have a code or just a problem
with the electric gate system? He can't backup, nobody is on site to open the gate what a
mess! I see a perfect scenario for head on collisions.
(4) Part of Weld County's goal is to also have adequate services. I see this development excludes all
services. By reasonable estimates of 148 visits each Friday and Sunday on summer days,with
approximately 4 people per family that's approximately 600 people daily with pets.There are no
public facilities within 3 miles of the proposed development. There could be 600 people coming
long distances from the lakes or camping sites drinking alcoholic and caffeine products all day
pulling into one of the largest RV storage sites in the state. If there were no facilities,this would
be insane
(5) What about fire protection?There is no water system in the plans for providing a fire hydrant
• which I believe is required for RV storage areas. Especially for possibly the largest RV storage in
EXHIBIT
r
• the state. If fire protection isn't required at this storage facility,wouldn't it be a joke to force
much smaller RV facilities to have fire protection?
These 5 items alone prove this proposal development doesn't meet any of the Goal 7 Policy
7.7 of Chapter 22 of the Weld County Comprehensive plan and should be denied.
Other concerns I have are:
Environmental - 18 acres of crushed asphalt with 740 RV's parked with let's say 30%-50%chance of
leaking some kind of fluids. Oil changes and other services happening daily during peak season, possibly
discarding waste on the site somewhere because the owners have no dumpster on site. The owners say
there will be no maintenance of vehicles on site, but I know this is impossible. I parked one of my
vehicles outside for two months and a rabbit moved in under the hood and ate all my spark plug wires. I
parked a truck outside over the winter and mice built a nest on top of the carburetor and ate all my
electrical wiring. With all these RV's parked in a field with critters there will be maintenance issues, let
alone oil changes,trash from campers,dumping of sewage wastes on the east end into the detention
pond, human and dog feces and urine everywhere. There is no staff housed on the site to prevent any
of this and there are no restrooms that are required.
This project would have to build an office and have full time supervision which is not on the plans.This
site is set up for major environmental fines from the EPA if approved. The nearest owner of the project
• appears to live in Greeley. If any problems mentioned in this letter happen the response time is
probably insufficient.
Screening for the project is a joke. The design has a 6'fence along Weld County Road 19.The Phase 1
fence line grading is approximately 5'6" below Weld County Road 19. For sufficient screening the fence
would need to be about 11-12 feet high? How does that work for wind loads and snow drifting?
The plans also mentions "miscellaneous outdoor storage included".What does that mean? Does it
mean unsightly construction equipment,trailers loaded with all types of materials? There could be form
oils, concrete curing chemicals, and other pollutants that would be leaking from barrels, buckets and
equipment.There should be strict guidelines for approval and proof that those guidelines could be
enforced.
As you can see, I am very concerned about the approval of this project. It will definitely affect my
property values and future development. I also have major concerns about the environmental and the
traffic issues with this project. Please keep me informed about the proposed project.
Thank you,
Kennard Knudson
305 County Road 19, Brighton, CO
•
• June 5, 2012
Chris Gathman and Weld County Planning Board
Re: USR12-0022
Chris,
I met with Bob Rickard and Craig Poulsen last Thursday(June 1,2012)to discuss their proposed
project that I have the following concerns with.
1. My first concern we discussed was the devaluation of my property by 100's of thousands of
dollars at my address,305 County Road 19 and the adjacent 62 acres if this development were
to happen directly across the road. They didn't appear to have any answers for this or any
concerns about the financial impact suffered by others.
2. We discussed traffic concerns. Craig said 80%of all RV's never get used at all,so he didn't see
any traffic issues. He also stated he would try to fill the lot with newer RV's so it would be as
neat looking of a RV storage yard as possible and have no environmental impact.
My question is if the majority of RV's are newer and being financed at$150 to$1000 a month
plus$50 a month to store,are there really that many people in the Brighton area with that kind
• of disposable income to make these payments and not even use their RV's? I seriously doubt
this. I go back to the 3 minimum weeks per peak season with traffic concerns. Having RV
storage within close proximity to wealthy suburbs would have a totally different usage numbers
than lower income areas such as the Brighton area,where money cannot be afforded to be
squandered.
3. I also asked Craig about not having toilet facilities. He stated in his other two RV storage
locations, not one person has ever asked to use a toilet. Not one?Come on, I've traveled with
my kids,they need to use the restroom as soon as we leave the last stop. Craig also said that
people just learn to go to gas stations, etc before they come to the storage location because
they know there are no toilets. He said "no one has ever gone on the ground." That's hard
to believe especially since there is no one on site to confirm this.
4. I asked about the miscellaneous storage they are trying to get approved. He said it would be
mainly construction equipment, etc. but only if they couldn't fill the site with RV's . He said
older RV's would be asked to leave if a newer one could take their place. But the feeling
I got and I believe it to be fact, is the whole purpose is to fill the lot with whatever comes
first to maximize profits and then maybe clean it up with newer RV's if they come available.
If they don't, it will be a construction storage and older RV storage yard creating environmental
and visual concerns.
Craig put a perfect sales spin on all concerns because obviously he's trying to sell this project for his
financial gains.
• EXHIBIT
�ICa
• Again,this project does not meet any of the Goal 7 Policy 7.1 of Chapter 22 of the comprehensive plan.
It definitely isn't anything related to agriculture. It definitely will impact all of the surrounding
properties and it has no services available other than electricity to the gate. As the housing market
improves,the location of this property and all of the land located on the southern tip of Weld County
will become desirable to develop. I believe country estates with custom homes similar to the homes
on County Road 19 will be desirable. Wouldn't this be the highest and best use of this prime land?
Although the market is definitely in a slump, 3 custom home lots have sold in the last year nearby. Two
on County Road 2 about'A mile to the west and one on County Road 19 less than 1000 feet north of
this project.We currently have a 7.8 acre lot for sale directly across from the proposed project. Our
neighbor to the north, Steve Neal has 2 lots on the 10 acres he owns which he plans to build custom
homes.These lots are directly across the street from this proposed project. Don't you agree that a
potential buyer coming to the country to build their dream home would be concerned about a RV and
construction equipment storage park directly across the street? This wouldn't exactly be the serene,
quiet location they would desire. This proposed project would definitely affect property values for
custom homes on County Road 19.
I request you reject his project for all the reasons stated above. Chris, would you please make sure the
Other members of the planning board receive both of my letters.
Thank you,
• Kennard Knudson
•
• 6-04-2012
RECEIVED
JUN 0 0 'n„
Weld C_t r, :1 s JapartMent
Gnu=LC r .,n ICE
Dear Chris,
This is in regard to Case#USR-12-0022, The Robert Seltzer Family Trust, for the
outdoor RV and miscellaneous storage, which is adjacent to our property.
We would like to let you know that we are not against it.
Clifford&pLucille Wagner
•
EXHIBIT
• D
, 0 . II ,F.
• May 30, 2012
RECEIVED
Case Number: USR-12-0022 JUN O4 ?01?
Weld Cour„g .u,ig Department
GREELEY OFFICE
ATTN: Chris Gathman
Dear Mr. Gathman,
I am the owner of the property located at 441 WCR #19. I have no
objections to the storage unit facility that is proposed to be built below me
on WCR#19.
Thank you,
•
Lois Seltzer
EXHIBIT
• I E
• To: Chris Gothman: Weld County Department of Planning Services
My name is Steve Neal. I am the owner of two 5-acre lots at 496 County Road
19, Brighton, CO. Both lots are within 500ft of a proposed outdoor R.V. and
miscellaneous storage facility, case# USR12-0022. My family and I are strongly
opposed to this project being approved by the Weld County Planning Commission.
Our goal when purchasing this property was, and still is, to build a home
where we can retire to and enjoy for the remainder of our days,basically a dream
home. Originally a ten-acre lot we decided 5 acres were better suited for us and
divided the 10 acres in half. One half is to have a custom home, estimated to cost
between 6 hundred thousand and 8 hundred thousands dollars, built and sold,
possibly to our daughter. Our half also will have a custom home built on it and also
be valued between 6 hundred and 8 hundred thousand dollars. We have already
installed electricity, drilled an 850 ft.well, and built a barn/ outbuilding on it. The
economy has slowed down the timetable for completion of our home but the plan is
still in place.
We are very concerned,however,that if USR-12—0022 is approved our
dreams will be crushed. We purchased the land based on agricultural zoning, as
have our many neighbors. Our vision of country living with neighbors sharing
similar outlooks about quality of life would be severely side tracked if this proposal
is granted. Not many people want a view of a large storage facility from the front
porch of their dream home. Property values of near by landowners would drop
• significantly and any further development of country estates would cease. Our plans
for over 12 years would come to an end, as would the plans of our neighbor to the
South Kennard Kundson. Many of the nearby homeowner's standard of living would
greatly decrease. Any further plans would be drastically altered.
Other concerns include an increase in traffic, especially on summer
weekends, an increase in crime, R.V. 's could attract thieves and vandals, and a lack
of any kind of monitoring of the facility. With no one watching R.V. owners could
dump their waste in the field if they couldn't conveniently find a dump station on
their way back to storage. There could also be problems with maintenance of their
R.V. and trucks. Another concern is the miscellaneous storage included in the
project. Who know what issues could arise from that. Many I'm sure.
We ask that the dreams and plans of the many neighbors, most having
already invested heavily in their properties, not be drastically altered for the benefit
of one who has no intention of living there but only wants to make a buck.We ask
that the Weld County Planning Commission rule against USR 12-0022.
Thank you,
The Neal Family
Steve Neal
EXHIBIT
• F'n
• Larry Lockard
5250 Hunters Glenn
El Paso, TX 79932
June 28, 2012
Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning
Case#: USR12-0022
cgathman@co.weld.co.us
(970) 353 6100 x3537
RE:: Comments on Case number USR12-022
I'm writing this letter in an attempt to persuade the committee to disapprove the
proposed commercial property proposed in case number USR12-022.
As you can see from my address, I am currently a Texas resident. My wife and I are
planning to retire in the next couple of years, and after spending considerable time in
your beautiful state in past years, we have made the decision to retire in Colorado. We
have done considerable research on where to build our retirement home. We wanted a
quiet place, away from the crowded sub-division that are popping up everywhere. We
selected a property and have purchased 5.5 acres of land identified as:
Lot .4 of Recorded Exemption No. 1-169..C2.-I RL-425 being a portion of the Northeast thane',,f section 11,
low nship I North. Ranue 6- W.e st of the G I'_AI . Chum of\k cid. State of Colorado.
Also known as 689 CR 19 Brighton, Colorado 8060. We purchased this particular piece
of property because it was in a quiet area, zoned as agricultural, and structured so that
the developers could not move in and start cutting it up into more sub-divisions. And the
views are beautiful beyond words.
Now that I am in the process of gaining permits to begin construction, I find that there is
a proposal in front of the planning committee to introduce commercial property into the
area. As you can see on a map, the property in the proposal is only about 1/2 mile away
from my property on CR19, and I am very much opposed to this or any other commercial
properties in this area.
I have some specific comments on this proposal:
1. The proposal states that this endeavor will not cause any additional disruption in
the area....
a. This is to be a 24 hour business, so that would place undue traffic on CR
19 all hours of the day and night, and additionally the noise and disruption
of traffic into the facility.
b. The proposal states that the entrance to the facility will be 75' off of CR
19, intending that will eliminate excess traffic on CR 19. 75' is enough
room to accommodate one large Motor Home, after that the rest of the
• traffic is naturally backed up on to CR 19. There is only one entrance to
EXHIBIT
lb et,
[Recipient Name]
July 2,2012
Page 2
• this property, so when traffic jams occur, and they will, CR19 becomes a
parking lot.
c. CR19 is a county road, not really engineered to accommodate the
additional traffic and side road parking that would surely occur in the
support of a commercial property of this size
2. Once the first commercial property is approved in this area, it can become a
precedent for others to make additional commercial property requests. This area
is close enough to the growing sub-divisions that placing commercial property
nearby will be attractive to developers and business owners. I have seen it
happen in other areas of the country. Don't let this be the start of
commercialization of a beautiful quiet countryside. . I do not want to wake up one
day to find that I need a stop light in front of my home just to get on and off of my
property.
3. An argument could be made that there is already commercialization present with
the oil &gas properties in the area. I would counter that those do not qualify as
commercial since they are private facilities that are not available to the general
public. We took those properties into consideration when we purchased the
property.
One of the main reasons we purchased this particular property was for the view; the
rolling countryside, fantastic mountain range in the distance to mention a couple. If you
go a few miles in any direction, that view changes. Others will come here to this general
• area for the same reason, so the property value along this section of CR 19 will remain
high and grow. This commercial property and others that would follow will certainly
degrade the attraction that this specific area has and property values will suffer. I am
making a significant investment in my little part of Colorado along CR 19, and I do not
want to see it fade away because someone who has no other use for the property wants
to build a commercial property in the middle of our homes.
My request is that you deny Case number USR12-022, and preserve the quiet, beautiful
countryside as was intended with the original zoning of the area.
Sincerely,
Larry Lockard
•
•
July 2,2012
Weld County Planning Commission
C/O Mr. Chris Gathman, Planner
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley,CO 80631
Re: Response letter for USR12-0022,Seltzer Outdoor Storage Facility.
Commissioners,
On behalf of the Robert L. Seltzer Family Trust I am writing this letter as additional information
for the Planning Commission in advance of our initial public hearing scheduled July 3,2012.
The Seltzer family has a long history on the land being proposed for this outdoor storage facility.
They established the family farm south across WCR 2 in 1914 and purchased the land under the
proposed USR site 57 years ago. Over these years they have engaged in various farming,
ranching and oil and gas leases as a means to produce an income from this property. Irrigated
farming is no longer an option and the family is now making this Use by Special Review
application to pursue a self-service outdoor recreational vehicle storage facility,which is
• intended to provide a positive financial return and also serve the needs of the growing outdoor
storage market.
Our site plan has been carefully planned and engineered to mitigate potential impacts on
surrounding properties. We situated the site on WCR 19 to provide a safe sight distance for
ingress-egress. The entry gate is set back to allow users to pull 125 feet into the site to access the
code gate. We have provided the County required 75 feet of stacking at future road widening.
We also propose a wood privacy fence along the frontage of WCR 19. This feature will
minimize the visual impact to nearest single family residence, located more than 500 feet to the
southwest of the entrance gate. Our USR Site Plan also includes a Water Quality Pond in
conformance with Public Works Engineering requirements.
As one of the main entries into the County, WCR 19 is slated for expansion to a full right-of-way
width of 140 feet. A typical County road is 60 feet wide. This additional width indicates this road
is being planned to handle future large volume vehicle traffic.Our site layout setback reflects
this future R.O.W. and based on historical data that we will present, traffic impacts from our site
are expected to be minimal on an every-day basis and will certainly fall within normal traffic
anticipated for this major County road.
EXHIBIT
•
1 1--�
fig ir!jt
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of traditional agricultural,oil and gas outdoor storage
uses and some large lot residential lots allowed under the Recorded Exemption process. It should
be noted that when a land owner creates a Recorded Exemption lot their plat contains the
standard Weld County"Right to Farm"note.This note is lengthy but the intent is to forewarn the
residential land owner that his entry to rural land in Weld County will come with the
understanding that other types of land uses are allowed to exist and need to be tolerated as part of
the benefit of residential living on large acreage in a rural setting. From the County's website
addressing this note:
"The intent of the agricultural goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to support all forms of
the agricultural industry and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the private
property owners to convert their agricultural lands to other appropriate land uses."
The intent of the USR process is to further evaluate uses that are not Uses Allowed by Right, and
have potentially greater impacts. We believe that we are able to demonstrate that the proposed
outdoor storage proposal is in character with the existing and planned uses in this part of the
County. At the hearing we plan to present photos of some of the existing land uses within a mile
along WCR 19.
Over the years,the Seltzer family has maintained excellent,positive relations with the other
• nearby land owners and they plan to continue this tradition by having a well-run outdoor storage
facility that is low-impact and also is in conformance with the County requirements including the
final conditions of approval that are attached to this application.
Respectfully, hrd gtaRobert A. Rickard, PLS
Rock Creek Surveying, LLC
For and on behalf of
The Robert L. Seltzer Family Trust.
•
1
In and Out Visits for Woodmen View Storage
July 2011
350 Customers
• Date Number of Visits Average Stay
Friday,July 1 20 15 minutes
Saturday,July 2 11 10 minutes
Sunday,July 3 9 20 minutes
Monday,July 4 19 17 minutes
Tuesday,July 5 17 18 minutes
Wednesday,July 6 11 12 minutes _
Thursday,July 7 11 14 minutes
Friday,July 8 12 16 minutes
Saturday,July 9 15 13 minutes
Sunday,July 10 16 14 minutes
Monday,July 11 12 11 minutes
Tuesday,July12 16 13 minutes
Wednesday,July 13 16 12 minutes
Thursday July 14 14 11 minutes
Friday,July 15 12 12 minutes
Saturday, July 16 18 16 minutes
Sunday,July 17 23 19 minutes
Monday,July 18 12 16 minutes
Tuesday,July 19 12 9 minutes
Wednesday,July 20 14 16 minutes
Thursday July 21 _ 14 15 minutes
• Friday,July 22 14 16 minutes
Saturday,July 23 15 20 minutes
Sunday,July 24 12 21 minutes
Monday,July 25 14 11 minutes
Tuesday,July 26 11 13 minutes
Wednesday,July 27 15 16 minutes
Thursday,July 28 13 12 minutes
Friday,July 29 20 19 minutes
Saturday, July 30 10 24 minutes
Sunday,July 31 14 16 minutes
Average for July 14 visits per day 15 minutes
EXHIBIT
usrz I2-
In and Out Visits for Woodmen View Storage 350 Customers
Memorial Day Week 2011
Wednesday May 25th -Tuesday May 31st
Date Number of Visits Average Minutes of Stay
• Wednesday, May 25 22 15 minutes
Thursday, May 26 20 12 minutes
Friday, May 27 16 16 minutes
Saturday, May 28 8 12 minutes
Sunday, May 29 6 10 minutes
Monday, May 30 25 19 minutes
Tuesday, May 31 19 14 minutes
Total Memorial Day 17 per day 14 minutes
In and Out Visits for Woodmen View Storage 350 Customers
4th of July Week 2011
Friday July 1st-Thursday July 7th
Date Number of Visits Average Minutes of Stay
Friday, July 1 20 15 minutes
Saturday, July 2 11 10 minutes
Sunday, July 3 9 20 minutes
Monday,July 4 19 17 minutes
Tuesday, July 5 17 18 minutes
Wednesday, July 6 11 12 minutes
Thursday, July 7 11 14 minutes
Total 4th of July 14 per day 17 Minutes
• In and Out Visits for Woodmen View Storage 350 Customers
Labor Day Week 2011
Thursday September 1st-Wednesday September 7th
Date Number of Visits Average Minutes of Stay
Thursday, Sept. 1 13 14 minutes
Friday, Sept. 2 18 16 minutes
Saturday, Sept. 3 14 12 minutes
Sunday, Sept. 4 8 20 minutes
Monday, Sept. 5 23 18 minutes
Tuesday, Sept. 6 14 13 minutes
Wednesday, Sept. 7 7 9 minutes
Total Labor Day 14 per day 15 minutes
In and Out Visits for Woodmen View Storage 350 Customers
1st Week of December 2011
Thursday December 1st-Wednesday December 7th
Date Number of Visits Average Minutes of Stay
Thursday, Dec. 1 4 6 minutes
Friday, Dec. 2 4 7 minutes
Saturday, Dec. 3 2 8 minutes
Sunday, Dec. 4 3 15 minutes
• Monday, Dec. 5 4 5 minutes
Tuesday, Dec. 6 5 6 minutes
Wednesday, Dec. 7 6 10 minutes
Total December Week 4 per day 8 minutes
Hello