The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20121785.tiff • EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR12-0022 - ROBERT L. SELTZER FAMILY TRUST/ COLORADO OUTDOOR STORAGE, LLC Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation B. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 07/03/2012) C. Lode Welhouse Letter, dated 7/10/12 D. Bob Rickard Email re: Meeting Invitation, dated 7/10/12 E. Bob Rickard Email re: Meeting Invitation, dated 7/10/12 F. Bob Rickard Email re: USR Update, dated 7/12/12 Email re: Amended USR Questionnaire Item 1, dated G. Bob Rickard 7/12/12 H. Michael Ware Email re: SPO letter, dated 7/13/12 • I. Jeanne Ware Email re: SPO letter, dated 7/13/12 J. Bob Rickard Email re: Ware SPO Letter, dated 7/16/12 Memo re: Proposed Development Standards, dated K. Chris Gathman 7/16/12 L. Kennard Knudson Email re: SPO Letter, dated 7/16/12 M. Planning Staff Emails re: proposed language, dated 7/18/12 N. Jeanne Ware Photos from public comment O. Jeanne Ware Letter submitted during 7/18/12 public comment P. Applicant, Bob Rickard PowerPoint presentation displayed 7/18/12 Q. Michael Ware Email re: Meeting with applicant, dated 7/20/12 R. Applicant, Bob Rickard Email re: Meeting with neighbors, dated 7/18/12 Email re: Second attempt to contact neighbors, dated S. Applicant, Bob Rickard 7/21/12 T. Applicant, Bob Rickard Email re: Meeting update, dated 7/21/12 • U. Jeanne Ware Email re: Schedule conflict, dated 7/21/12 V. Applicant, Bob Rickard Email re: Meeting plans, dated 7/23/12 W. Ken and Vicki Knudson Email re: Meeting discussion items, dated 7/23/12 , R0/O2- / 78.5' • Email response to applicant re: contact information X. Clerk to the Board request, dated 7/23/12 Email response to applicant re: potential site plan Y. Planning Staff modifications and map drawing, dated 7/24/12 Email response from Health staff re: potential site plan Z. Planning Staff modifications, dated 7/24/12 AA. Michael Ware Email re: Opposition post-meeting, dated 7/28/12 BB. Jeanne Ware Email re: Opposition post-meeting, dated 7/28/12 Email re: Landscape Plan, Letter to the Board, dated CC. Applicant, Bob Rickard 7/30/12 DD. Applicant, Bob Rickard Email re: Site Plan Revision East, dated 7/30/12 EE. Applicant, Bob Rickard Email re: Water& Irrigation, dated 7/31/12 E-mail dated 7/31/2012 re: Letters and Photo from FF. Vicki Knudson 7/23/12 meeting with Applicant GG. Public Works Staff Dry Creek RUA map referenced during 8/1/12 hearing HH. I I. • JJ. KK. LL. MM. NN. OO. PP. QQ. RR. SS. TT. UU. • VV. WW. • WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 201? JUL 10 A ID 18 Dear Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED Re: case#USR12-0022 From: Mark& Lorie Welhouse 773 WCR 19 Brighton CO 80603 We are writing to you with our objection to the above case It. We are located about a half mile from the proposed site. First and foremost is our deep concern for the heavy traffic problems this will create. Where WCR 19 and WCR 2 intersect is already hazardous when semi-trucks and larger vehicles approach the WCR 19 stop sign,or when turning off of WCR 2 onto WCR19. Adding more traffic with RV's and trailers will only • worsen the safety and congest the roads. Neither road has adequate shoulders to allow traffic to pull over if needed. There is also a section in the road where it is difficult to see oncoming traffic up ahead when traveling North on WCR 19. Our second concern is the devaluing of our property with an RV storage site in such close proximity. Thirdly, eye sore -era 7t/671 iC brie wM/Artz/S-e. err �F C o® aom -innS ------: ` -- - , f ' - - V .� - M - ff e > v (-----., • 11 I ^ cry tp it) m 0 LID op al O 0 O c U o • 3L m m NI- r m Chris Gathman From: Robert Rickard Irarickard®msn.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 1:08 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: USR12-0022 Mtng Invitation Chris, I left a message for the Knudson's to see if they could meet briefly with us on site this Thursday the 12th, tentatively somewhere between 9am and 10am to discuss the USR application for Seltzer. Do have email addresses for these neighbors that attended Planning Commission, those along WCR19 so I can invite them?You are also invited of course. If it's allowed, please pass those email addresses along to me or forward this invitation and please confirm back that they were invited.We look forward to the possibility of meeting with everyone. Thank you, Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Survevinu, LLC 303-521-7376 rarickardlTmsn.com From: cgathman@co.weld.co.us To: rarickard@msn.com Date:Thu, 24 May 2012 07:29:23-0600 •ubject: RE: Neighbors letter Bob, It is 3036553751. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N.17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph:(970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 r86t ,�.ffi a•-..y.�.. ` , lr r 'UFOi a Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for She person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise rotected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return 1 e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. ("From: Robert Rickard (mailto:rarickardtamsn.comj Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:02 AM To:Chris Gathman Subject: Neighbors letter Chris,we plan to try and meet with this property owner(Knudson)to discuss his concerns. Did he leave a phone number? Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Surveying. LLC 3021 Gardenia Way Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303-429-2291 Cell:303-521-7376 rarickard(Wmsn.com From: tgathmantbco.weld.co.us To: rarickardtamsn.com; hhansen©co.weld.co.us; Ilight(iaco.weld.co.us Date:Tue, 22 May 2012 08:15:37-0600 Subject: FW: RV Project on WCR 19 Here is a surrounding property owner letter that was received for USR12-0022—Seltzer. Ohris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N.17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph:(970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 rgbr I rI - I, sts • r p _cpuNTY Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.My disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Vicki Knudson (mailto:Knudson incCtamsn.coml Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:16 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject RV Project on WCR 19 Chris, 2 Attached is my response to Case # USR12-0022 - Outdoor RV and miscellaneous storage. Would you please confirm that you received this email? •Thank you, Kennard Knudson 305 County Road 19 Brighton, CO 720-675-2084 • ' • 3 Chris Gathman •From: Robert Rickard[rarickard®msn.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 10,2012 3:17 PM To: knudson_inc,msn.com;steveneal193@live.com; lockardi@us.ibm.com Cc: Chris Gathman Subject: USR12-0022 Mtng Invitation Hi, if you are available this Thursday the 12th at 9 am,we'll be meeting at the tank battery pull-out road just north of the project on east side WCR 19. The purpose is to briefly meet in person to continue discussion of our USR proposal. We look forward to the possibility of seeing you and the others in the neighborhood at this time and place. Best regards, Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Surveying, LLC 303-521-7376 rarickard@msn.com } ti t i"4 9 spy • Ni 1 Chris Gathman From: Robert Rickard[rarickard@msn.com] Sent: Thursday,July 12, 2012 4:41 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: USR12-0022 update Chris,just to let you know none of the neighbors showed up to our on site meeting this morning.We invited those persons that you provided email addresses and I called the Knudson's home as welt. Also, since Planning Commission, Lauren Light got back and said we can present no restrooms and water to the Commissioners. I received your hard copies in the mail of the Planning Commission Meeting and noticed restrooms and water have been deleted as a condition of approval following Planning Commission's motion.We can talk further if needed but pland to leave this topic as-is, i.e. not a requirement. On our screening,we plan to provide a plan showing a wood privacy fence across the front and continuing about 80 feet on each side of the first phase.We may also add about 10 feet of river gravel in front of portions of the fence and plant several drought-resistant bushes in this rock area near the entrance. Now that you have our amended USR Questionaire Item 1 language to clarify"miscellaneous storage"(I emailed this in a letter format to you yesterday pm)will you put this in your final staff report for the BOCC? Please confirm. Thank you, Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Survevina. LLC 3021 Gardenia Way Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303-429-2291 Cell: 303-521-7376 rarickardCWmsn.com ,,.. • r ' 1 Chris Gathman rom: Robert Rickard(rarickard@msn.com] Sent: Friday,July 13, 2012 1:55 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: updated letter Attachments: Amended USR Questionaire Item 1 (7-13-12).pdf Chris,we acknowledge and took out"primarily" My revised, updated letter is attached.We can also fully clarify for the Commissioner's at the hearing.Will this be okay?Also,do you need anything from me prior to the BOCC?Please advise. Thank you, Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Surveying, LLC 3021 Gardenia Way Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303-429-2291 Cell: 303-521-7376 rarickard@msn.com From: cgathman@co.weld.co.us �To: rarickard@msn.com te:Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:39:22-0600 Subject: RE: Revd Item 1 clarification Bob, A suggestion It says"primarily".That still leaves it open for other types of storage.There were concerns expressed at the Planning Commission re:the possibility of industrial/commercial vehicles and equipment being stored on the site(one example that was brought up was oil and gas related equipment).You might want to clarify that this type of equipment will not be allowed at this site(which is the impression I was given at the hearing). Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph:(970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 1 y _COUNT ( ark ,#igi confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise 1 • July 13,2012 To: Weld County Planning C/O Chris Gathman,Planner Via Email From:Robert A.Rickard,PLS Rock Creek Surveying,LLC Agent for the Robert L.Seltzer Family Trust-Applicant Re: USR12-0022 Robert L.Seltzer Family Trust. Chris, Please note the following revision to our original USR Questionnaire,Item No. 1.You will recall during our initial public hearing at Planning Commission we were asked to clarify the wording "miscellaneous storage". Our revised language is as follows: • The proposed use of the property will be outdoor storage including but not limited to small, medium and large pick-up trucks with or without attached campers, vans, cars,stand-alone campers, motor homes, containers, boats and trailers. Please let me know if you have any questions or comment. We are scheduled to meet with the Board of County Commissioners next Wednesday,July 18,2012 at 10:00 am.We look forward to seeing you then. Sincerely, glaiA 4, gehad Robert A.Rickard,PLS For and on behalf of The Robert L.Seltzer Family Trust • Esther Gesick From: Chris Gathman •ent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 8:08 AM o: Esther Gesick; Debbie Heffel; Karla Ford; Robert Rickard Subject: FW: Seltzer RV Storage Project Attachments: Weld RV Storage Stipulations.docx Here is a SPO letter re: USR12-0022. Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley CO. 80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax: (970)304-6498 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. ---Original Message From: Michael Ware [mailto:mikeware6att.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:15 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: Seltzer RV Storage Project Chris, please review my comments regarding the Seltzer RV Storage project. Feel free to contact me for any additional comments or to ask any questions. Would you also be so kind as to send me the email addresses of our County Commissioners? Thank you. Kind regards, Mike Ware 845 WCR 19 Brighton, CO 80603 303-475-1442 4 > • 1 Chris Gathman • Weld County Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 cgathman@co.weld.co.us To Planning Commission and Weld County Commissioners: Reference: Proposed Seltzer RV Storage at CR 19 and CR 2. There are numerous concerns over this project that have not been address in a previous meeting with the preliminary review board. It appears that this preliminary board has suggested that it will recommend approval of to the Planning Commission. This is a concern for area residents. We believe the Planning Commission and our elected County Commissioners have the same high standards for development in the county as its constituents. We also believe that the Planning Commission and our County Commissioners will carefully and thoughtfully review any concerns area residents might have regarding this project and work to mitigate those concerns of existing residents. And, we are expecting the Planning Commission and our County Commissioners to hold any projects in developed areas to a higher standard. • Southern areas of Weld County have experienced multiplied growth over the last ten years as it is near the Denver Metro area. It is no longer the same rural and agricultural area it once was. With the additional housing developments and custom homes in this area and the increased home and land values in southern Weld County, we would ask that our Planning Commission and County Commissioners review any developments that would adversely affect its residents and decrease property values, and spoil the remaining rural atmosphere.. It is our opinion, as well as many neighbors, that the RV storage proposal will create multiplied and ongoing problems, issues and concerns. We are opposed to it. We ask that the County Commissioner reconsider approval for this project. The residents that will be affected in this area are within 1-2 miles of the proposed RV storage park. These resident live not only in Weld County but also in Adams County. There is already accelerated development in northern Adams County and more is planned. This development is contiguous to southern Weld County line and is basically across the road from the proposed RV storage. With the addition of a recently approved RUA that includes in the proposed RV storage area, additional housing development is inevitable and would be incompatible. • Please note that within about 1000 yards there is Eagle Shadow Subdivision and • the home values are between $400k to over $1 million. Also, Todd Creek has developments in the area as well as many numerous custom homes built on acreage over the last 10 years. Northern Adams County and southern Weld County have benefited from these types of development with increased property tax revenues for the counties. We would ask that the Planners and Commissioners consider the current existing development in the area and require all future development be commensurate and compatible with what already exists. Future development of these areas need to be complimentary not adversarial. It does not seem that the current housing developments and the RV storage facilities of this size are compatible nor is it reasonable that future homeowners and existing homeowners would consider this a benefit or a project that would add value to their properties. It is the consensus that property values will decrease as well as quality of life. For example, if professional business buildings were in the area it wouldn't be proper to allow the development of a mobile home park next to it although it might not be prohibited. That type of development wouldn't be consistent with existing construction and should only be allowed in areas consistent with that type of construction. In other words, just because it is not prohibited doesn't mean it has to be approved. Municipalities, counties and other governmental agencies have the responsibility to review compatible usage and should deny • development proposals if they don't meet a determined criteria. If compatibility is questionable but a project is approved, approval should be with stipulations to mitigate all concerns. Consideration for approval with stipulations must only be given when development is consistent with existing area construction and existing land use. We do not believe this project meets this criteria. However, it appears that the preliminary review board is recommending approval of this project in spite of residents concerns. There are still many unanswered questions. If the Planning Commission and County Commissioners concur with this recommendation of the preliminary review board, we would ask that there be certain stipulations for the approval of this project. Here are the stipulations we ask the Commissioners consider. 1. A thorough and complete site plan along with professionally prepared site elevations should be provided to all neighbors including a neighborhood meeting to discuss these plans and answer all question and concerns from neighbors. To date, this kind of information hasn't been provided. 2. A 50-75' set back from County road 19 and County Road 2 for fencing. 3. That the plan for ingress and egress be relocated to County Road 2 rather than County Road 19 and include a turning lane to mitigate traffic issues. • a. If the Commissioners continue considering the ingress and egress • on Country Road 19 that the developers be required to widen the road by adding an exit lane to the RV storage entrance to allow RV traffic to exit County Road 19 without interrupting traffic flow. b. Note: The oil exploration traffic and maintenance is only increasing on County Road 19 and will not be abating over the next few decades. This is a safety concern as well as a traffic flow concern. 4. A landscape plan should be provided by the developer for approval by County Commissioners. a. That landscape plan should include proper berming along County Road 19 and County Road 2 to mitigate visual pollution. b. That berming should be followed by an 8' privacy fence along the entire length of proposed RV storage lot along County Road 19 and Country Road 2. c. That proper landscaping with trees, ornamental grasses and a grassed green area between the country roads and the fence line should be required. 5. Signage should be only approved using local area sign codes and or county sign codes. a. If no sign codes exist, I recommend that the County Commissioners determine the limitations of signage as a stipulation for approval. b. Only permanent signage should be considered. Vinyl signage would be considered temporary and not approved. • 6. That the storage facility be reduced to no more than 250 spaces without consideration of a second phase to increase lot storage. 7. That the site for storage be paved or asphalted and there be weed mitigation requirements. 8. That county improvements be made to the eroding roadbed at the corner of Country Road 19 and County Road 2. a. There is a continuous problem with maintenance of this area because of the hundreds of heavy trucks, oil field equipment trucks, gravel trucks and other semi-trucks turning onto and off of County Road 19. b. Those vehicles make wide turns onto the two-lane CR 19. There are no road shoulders therefore these large vehicles must turn into oncoming traffic on both CR 19 and CR2. c. That intersection needs design attention, replacing and or repaving. d. If the RV storage project is approved it will certainly exacerbate this issue with the addition of private vehicles pulling large RV's. 9. Proper vetting of the developer is a reasonable request. Requiring the developer to show proof of ability to manage and oversee the property long term. This should include photos of all existing RV storage facilities they have developed, managed and are currently managing. 10.That proper review of facility on an annual basis for maintenance of grounds, and other requirements deemed necessary for license and • approval. 11. That water and toilet facilities be required and available on this site for • customer or client use. Thank you for reviewing these considerations and stipulations. Most sincerely, Michael A. Ware 845 WCR 19 Brighton, CO 80603 303-475-1442 mikeware@att.net • • Esther Gesick rom: Chris Gathman nt: Sunday, July 15, 2012 8:10 AM o: Esther Gesick; Debbie Heffel; Karla Ford; Robert Rickard Subject: FW: Seltzer USR12-0022 email#1 Attachments: Seltzer#1.docx Here is another SPO letter re: USR12-0022. Apparently two more e-mails are coming but I have not received them yet. Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley CO. 80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax: (970)304-6498 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than Se named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Jeanne Ware [mailto:ieanne(alvictorvdenver.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:01 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: Seltzer USR12-0022 email#1 Chris, I'm sending 3 emails that are continuous - I could not send them all together. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, Jeanne Ware • 1 (Because of the length and number of photos of this letter— I am sending it in • several emails — my apology for the inconvenience) EMAIL #1 Dear Chris, We are Mike and Jeanne Ware. I (Jeanne) attended the Planning Commission Meeting concerning the Seltzer Family Trust RV Storage at the corner of WCR 19 and WCR 2 (168th Avenue). After attending the meeting I realized that I have more concerns than were addressed during the PC meeting. Since my husband and I only live about 400-500 yards from the proposed sight (property line to property line) and it WILL impact our quality of life in rural Weld County with traffic and the uncertainty of what the sight plan is, I decided to take it upon myself to visit other RV Storage facilities in the immediate area. I was shocked at what I saw in light of what was and was NOT said at the meeting. Here are some of my concerns: 1. None of the neighbors have ever seen a sight plan or elevation of the property other than the number of slots proposed from what I understand to be a Phase 1 • and Phase 2. 2. Having attended other Planning Commission meetings in other counties the elevation of the sight is always available for the "neighbors" to see to relieve or calm any concerns or expectations of the surrounding residents. 3. My husband has also been involved in meetings between the proposed developer and the "neighbors" to air out, compromise, and evaluate what will be a "best fit" for the neighborhood. To my knowledge the Seltzer's "group" have not attempted to meet with the "neighbors" that were present at the meeting to mitigate our concerns. This is not in keeping with being a "good neighbor". 4. I am concerned after hearing the parties on the Seltzer side - that the owners of the other RV Storage areas are not talking "apples to apples". When discussing toilet facilities, landscaping, an RV dump station, etc. it seemed the prospective owners were only referencing to other facilities they have managed with 200 - 300 spaces. This one will be approximately 3 to 4 times larger than anything else they manage. It seems they are only concerned about using the property and not about maintaining the property. This is a great concern to me and the other residents in the area. Without water (a well) on the property and no way to water vegetation I think the "business" will eventually look run down further • condemning our property values. . 5. I have never heard how we, as a group of neighbors closest to the venture, will be able to contact the owners should there be an issue on the property - especially since there will be no one "on sight" to oversee it. 6. And since there will be no one "on sight" , what is to say that it will not turn out to look like some of the other RV Storage businesses that I visited that are in the general area? This RV Storage site proposal has requested storage of RV's as well as "other things. " What could those "other things" be? Fracking and oil field equipment? "Other things" are unspecified and could be "anything . " I might add that this particular Storage business (see below) is on a dirt road with NO $500, 000 to $ 1 , 000, 000 homes within sight of it. Case in point: Affordable RV Storage on WCR 11 r. ;= A -. . • • • • • a Vim, - 1 =f s j • . .. • • ,. NI. lir ir -14. it\\/- . . , 4/' 4T : \ HS ........ . . .1, T. '�► „...N . 4, ,.. ' \\, X36 ANT. -4." - ---\ • tr A. „( . Ars , I , .. ..._ S , N,.. S .. __ . ail - .._ `TMN 1 I Mr 1 V . •!\ill S..% . a ` + \ i • -. • '-WS IN N. \Jr:, .. - e- • • {'! 4 -.n . 1 y1 r { . 1. • u • ., "It ll•, 4 - -7., , ' '» • �- a • ,• —,lam ^` ft .: ' - ...,,,, ;if\ .../.\, . .."-. • IN R \ � \ • ./NC 0 .. : /\ ...t/IT\\‘‘ /\X. 1 \X /NN\ /\\ 1 /\ - . .. . ::V ': • 4.... t/1\ \ '— N.C. , X _ N. N. . . . ' ‘'' t ' • . \ .4' • / / or Oi k' 7• N. / • / . . ' / . II ir '1/41 ♦ /TN, f h ,, 0. 4 ./ , 41 S yr 0 Chris Gathman rom: Robert Rickard[rarickard@msn.com] ent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:54 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: RE:Ware SPO letter Thanks for emailing the Ware's letter and photos Chris.We are prepared to discuss this property owner's concerns with the Commissioners on Wednesday.We are also preparing a landscape-screening plan at this time and plan to email a draft to you, and the other persons at the County that you provided email addresses for, by tomorrow. Also,as you know, no one showed up at our neighborhood meeting last Thursday. Bob Rickard, PLS Rock Creek Surveying. LLC 3021 Gardenia Way Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303-429-2291 Cell: 303-521-7376 rarickard@msn.com From: cgathman@co.weld.co.us •To: rarickard@msn.com Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:12:42-0600 Subject: Ware SPO letter Dear Bob, Here is another letter from Ware.You received a part of this letter yesterday. However, we did not receive the rest of the letter(the remaining e-mail attachments did not go through).Attached is the complete letter that was faxed in this morning. It is my understanding that the Ware's will be submitting the original letter at Wednesday's hearing. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley CO. 80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax: (970)304-6498 r . ` ' j -cou NTY •Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise 1 MEMORANDUM lllr ' — !, • -'i ! r P TO: Board of County Commissioners couTY I DATE: July 16, 2012 FROM: Chris Gathman et, at-- SUBJECT: Proposed Development Standard for USR12-0022 The Planning Commission, at their July 3, 2012 hearing, directed the application to further define "miscellaneous storage"for this facility. The applicant recommended the first sentence and staff recommends that the second and third sentences be added to further limit storage of commercial and industrial vehicles and equipment: Staff recommends that this be added as Development Standard #4 to the resolution: The proposed use of the property will be outdoor storage including but not limited to small, medium and large pick-up trucks with or without attached campers, vans, cars, stand-alone campers, motor homes, containers, boats and trailers. No derelict vehicles, as defined in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code, shall be stored on the site. There shall be no storage of industrial and/or commercial vehicles, equipment and materials and no hazardous material • storage allowed on site. • Karla Ford rom: Chris Gathman nt: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:04 PM o: Esther Gesick; Karla Ford; Robert Rickard Cc: Lauren Light; Heidi Hansen Subject: FW: Case#USR-12-0022 Another e-mail re: USR12-0022. Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 ', r, 1 1 - A P r 1 1— C0U - Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise otected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return -mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Vicki Knudson [mailto:Knudson_inc@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:02 PM To: Chris Gathman Cc: Barbara Kirkmeyer Subject: Case #USR-12-0022 Kennard Knudson 305 WCR 19 Brighton, CO 80603 Chris Gathman Well County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 July 16, 2012 To Well County Planning, Weld County Planning Commission, & Weld County Commissioners, • This is in response to case # USR-12-0022 outdoor RV and miscellaneous storage in the agricultural zone district on Weld County RD 2 and Weld County RD 19. 1 I have written about my concerns twice before to the planning department and after leaving the July 3rd Weld County Planning Commission meeting I do not believe any of the neighbor concerns were addressed by the splicant. 1. Our home values will take a major hit and we will probably not be able to sell them unless we sold at a greatly reduced price. 2. Traffic impacts. From Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend (the expected start and stop dates for camping and boating for the majority of people)there are 15 weekends. The majority of people who rent RV storage all year, plus are making loan payments on equipment, would feel obligated to use their stored RVs a minimum of 3 times a year. Eight hundred RVs x 3 (minimum uses) would equal 2,400 visits in this 15 week time period. That's (2,400/15) 160 visits per week to pick up vehicles and another 160 visits to drop off vehicles. Most of this is happening on the weekends. How is this not impacting our lifestyle and our enjoyment of country living. The applicant's own traffic numbers peak at 43 visits per day in the summer months, but again 80% of these daily visits are probably on Friday and Sundays. That's 43 daily visits x 7 days in a week, which equals 301 weekly visits x 80% on weekends resulting in 240 vehicles over a typical weekend. 3. No Facilities.The applicant has asked for waivers on all facilities, but Weld County Environmental Health, on condition of approval stated, "a permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes, adequate drinking, hand washing, and toilet facilities shall be provided and sewage disposal shall be by septic system that complies with all provisions of the Weld County code." These requirements were per county codes including Policy 2.2 K, dated 5/08/12, which states, • "portable toilets and bottled water could be used if customer or visitors equal 10 or less per day." By the applicants own vehicle numbers, using the slowest month of 12 visits per day x minimum 2 people per vehicle,this would equal a minimum of 24 people per day. By the applicant's own numbers there will be 24 to 100 people per day visiting this site. The time customers are on site is not much different from most other businesses (approximately 15 minutes). Rather than addressing this issue,the planning commission simply voted to delete the requirements of Weld County Environmental Health Department for water and sewage the planning commission. Why do the Weld County codes not apply to this project? Why was Weld County Environmental Health overruled? Is Weld County Environmental Health not there to protect the public? 4. Screening. Applicants said at planning commission meeting that they didn't want to use trees to improve appearance of facilities because of sap from trees getting on RVs. Would this really be an issue? Pine trees outside the fenced enclosure at an adequate distance would pose very little potential of getting sap on RVs, but it would make a world of difference to the appearance of the facility. 5. Miscellaneous Storage. Even at the Weld County Commission meeting the applicant had not addressed what miscellaneous storage meant. I have written two letters of concern about this item, but their only response was they would sit down with planning and discuss. So planning and now the planning board have given their blessing for the project without knowing the contents of miscellaneous storage? Shouldn't this be nailed down and approved before final approval of this project? • summary, it looks like this project in some way, shape, or form may be approved, but the close neighbors to this project plead with you to at least address our concerns to reduce the hardships that this project will bring. 2 Closing Questions 1. Does this project really need to be this large?A much smaller storage facility would be easier to accept and more likely to comply with conditions from Weld County Environmental Health. • 2. Could this project be moved off Rd 19 at least 400-500 feet?This would make a world of difference to the neighbors, especially myself, because it's directly across the street from me. Also, it would allow more room for staggering at the gate to reduce potential traffic issues. 3. Could trees and cedar fencing be mandatory at least in the front of the facility along WCR 19 to help mitigate the visual impact? 4. Shouldn't the Weld County codes be enforced? A water service available for commercial use and an individual sewage disposal system as required by Weld County. There will be summer days where hundreds of people will be on site. 5. Can miscellaneous storage be deleted entirely? I know this is a major concern with all the neighbors on the west side of RD 19. There could be unsightly construction equipment, trailers loaded with all types of materials such as form oils, concrete curing chemicals, and oil and gas equipment and supplies. 6. Would the applicant be willing to meet any of these recommendations to fulfill Section 22-2-20 1.A. Goal 9 to reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other land uses. We ask commissioners to uphold section 23-3- 220. A7. Condition of approval and development standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and county. Thank you for your valuable time, •nnard Knudson PS- Can you please forward this to all commissioners. S 3 Hello