HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100900.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2010-12
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
#1719 FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR USE
BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS
(RV, BOAT, AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORAGE) ALONG WITH ONE (1)
MOBILE HOME USED AS LIVING QUARTERS FOR CARETAKERS OR SECURITY
PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING OR GUARDING THE PROPERTY
(A MODULAR/MOBILE HOME TO BE USED AS AN OFFICE AND AS A RESIDENCE
FOR EMPLOYEES) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT — MARY ANN
PLONKA
A public hearing was conducted on May 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long - EXCUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Chris Gathman
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
Public Works representative, Heidi Hansen
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated March 22, 2010, and duly published March 25,
2010, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Mary
Ann Plonka for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1719 for
a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts (RV, boat, and construction equipment storage) in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Chair Rademacher advised Mary Ann Plonka, applicant, that she has the option of continuing
the matter to a date when the full Board will be present. However, if she decides to proceed
today, the matter will require three affirmative votes, or in the case of a tie vote, Commissioner
Long will review the record and make the determining vote. Ms. Plonka indicated she would like
to proceed today.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal
and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as
written. He stated the applicant is also proposing the use of a modular building to be utilized as
an office for the storage business, as well as a residence for an on-site employee. He indicated
the surrounding properties are predominantly agricultural in nature, with several rural residences
in close proximity. He further indicated, approximately three-quarters of a mile from the site,
one parcel is zoned Commercial, and one parcel is zoned Industrial, with an active batch plant
PL i PW, P�-� .L ef[ . 2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 2
on the site. He clarified the property north of the site, and directly adjacent to State Highway 52,
has been annexed to the City of Fort Lupton. He stated eleven referral agencies reviewed the
application materials, and eight had no concerns, or provided comments which have been
addressed within the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. He indicated the site
is located within the three-mile referral area for the City of Fort Lupton; however, it is located
outside of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) boundary with the City. Mr. Gathman
reviewed Sections 19-12-50.B and 19-12-40 for the record, and indicated the proposed use will
not be connected to central water or sewer systems, and it lacks other elements consistent with
the definition of urban development. Therefore, the use is not consistent with the warrant for
recommendation of denial based upon non-compliance with the Coordinated Planning
Agreement. He stated the City of Fort Lupton provided a referral response which indicated the
proposed use falls within the majority of the future development area, and the uses within the
employment area are generally defined as important job centers, such as business parks and
large-scale retail. He further stated the referral indicated the uses within the employment area
must be adequately buffered from less intense uses, and must comply with the design
standards of the City of Fort Lupton, therefore, the City requested the use be buffered from
State Highway 52 and adjacent uses. He indicated three letters and two telephone calls were
received from surrounding property owners, and two of the letters were in opposition to the
proposed use, referencing concerns regarding loss of property value, lack of water resources,
pollution, runoff, emissions from vehicles, lack of demonstration of a need for this type of use,
and compatibility issues. He explained the property located north of this proposed use is
significantly higher in elevation, therefore, the property owner believes the applicant will not be
able to adequately buffer or screen the site. He indicated the second letter of objection
referenced concerns regarding the property being located within the Tier One Employment
Area, and it is not an allowed use within this area. He clarified the property to the north of the
site has been annexed to the City of Fort Lupton and is intended for residential development.
Mr. Gathman stated the applicant does have an approved Access Permit with the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), and the well on the site is permitted for commercial
livestock, domestic animal watering and irrigation, and is allowed up to seven acre feet of water
on an annual basis. He confirmed the Colorado Division of Water Resources did not indicate
any objections to the proposed use, and he displayed photographs of the site and the
surrounding area. He clarified the RV storage area will be along the eastern portion of the
property, and will encompass approximately 40 percent of the overall area of the property. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman confirmed the access is shared with the
residence to the west of the site, the first row of RV parking spaces are expected to be in fairly
close proximity to State Highway 52, and the applicant's residence is approximately one-eighth
of a mile back from State Highway 52. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman
indicated the applicant has previously discussed the possibility of annexation with the City, and
he confirmed he recommends approval of the application since the use is considered to be
non-urban in nature.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman indicated the uses allowed within the
City of Fort Lupton's Tier One Employment Area are generalized as light industrial, including
public schools, recreation, etcetera, as well as auto/truck/trailer sales, service, and repair,
outdoor commercial recreation facilities, farm equipment sales and service, etcetera.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she believes the Tier One does not allow outdoor storage,
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION -MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 3
and a member of the audience has indicated Tier Two areas do allow outdoor storage. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman indicated the applicant is required to
attempt to address the concerns presented by the City of Fort Lupton; however, the Board may
still approve the application if the applicant is not able to comply with the design standards.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Gathman clarified the RV storage spaces will be
located on the eastern portion of the applicant's property,a distance of approximately
one-quarter mile from the residence located to the west. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the
map appears to indicate the site is entirely located within a Tier One area, or an Urban
Residential area. Mr. Gathman clarified the letter provided by Mr. Oldenburg details the allowed
uses within the area.
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, stated the access to the site is on State
Highway 52, which is under the jurisdiction of CDOT. She confirmed the applicant does have
an approved Access Permit, and intends to utilize the existing access, which contains good site
distance in both directions. She clarified the Department is requesting that the access drive be
paved from State Highway 52 to the future office building, especially since the access is a
shared access, and the internal parking areas on the site may be gravel, in accordance with
County standards. She indicated the proposed water quality feature on the property has been
deemed acceptable. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Hansen indicated the Department
is requesting that the access road be paved to help control dust from the big vehicles entering
and exiting the site, as well as because the access is shared with the residence to the west.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hansen indicated the site will contain 152 parking
spaces for RV's, and up to four employees will be accessing the site; however, she is not sure
how many employees are expected to be at the site at the same time. Further responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman confirmed the shared access was approved through the
Recorded Exemption process, and the adjacent neighbor has provided a letter indicating
consent for the use of the access for the propose use. Ms. Hansen concurred and confirmed
the applicant did obtain an updated access permit from CDOT as well.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the applicant has a current
well permit which allows for the proposed uses. She explained the existing septic system has
been evaluated; however, the applicant has since slightly modified the proposed uses;
therefore, the system may be re-evaluated for the upgraded uses, or an additional system may
be installed within the new office building. She confirmed there will be no washing area or dump
station located on the site, and there is a dump station at a nearby truck stop. She clarified the
applicant did submit the Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans, therefore, Conditions of
Approval #1.C and #1.F may be deleted.
Commissioner Garcia indicated one of the letters of opposition indicated a concern for the lack
of water resources, and he questioned whether it was a valid concern since the site will not
contain a washing area or dump station. In response, Ms. Light confirmed the well permit
allows the applicant to utilize water for commercial purposes, and the well is actually drilled into
a deeper aquifer, therefore, she does not have concerns regarding the availability of water for
the site. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer's previous question, Mr. Gathman read the
allowed uses for both Tiers One and Two into the record.
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 4
Ms. Plonka stated her property is approximately 29 acres in size, located on the south side of
State Highway 52, and is approximately three miles east of the City of Fort Lupton. She
explained there is an oil well in the center of her property; however, she does not own any of the
mineral rights associated with her property. She explained her property is predominantly dry
land, and she is not able to do much with it; however, she does have several horses. She
clarified she began researching the types of business she would like to incorporate on the
property, and the RV parking and storage seemed like the best fit. She confirmed the site is a
good location for the proposed use, since it is along State Highway 52, and it is less than five
miles from Interstate 76, where a Love's truck stop has an RV dump station. She further
clarified the site is only four miles east of U.S. Highway 85, and approximately ten miles east of
Interstate 25. She indicated State Highway 52 tends to have a high volume of traffic, and this
location seems like a good place for people to be able to store their RV's for easy access to
camping sites within the surrounding area. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms.
Plonka stated the Planning Commission did require that she provide opaque screening, and she
intends to construct a fence similar to the one found at another RV storage location on County
Road 8. She confirmed she has the Landscaping Plan prepared, and she has selected various
plants which are suitable for her dryland property. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Ms.
Plonka indicated she discussed the possibility of annexation of the property with the former
Mayor of the City of Fort Lupton; however, the City indicated the site is not within their plans to
annex, even though the property directly north of hers has already been annexed.
Commissioner Garcia stated Development Standard #22 indicates that all vehicles on the
property must be operational, with current license plates and registration tags, and he
questioned whether Ms. Plonka expects that the RV's on her site will be stored on a seasonal
basis. In response, Ms. Plonka confirmed she expects that the RV's will be stored continuously
on the site during colder winter months, and that customers will come and go multiple times
during warmer spring and summer months. Further responding to Commissioner Garcia, Ms.
Plonka indicated she understands that the vehicles must have current license plates. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Plonka reiterated she had discussions with the City of
Fort Lupton, regarding annexation of her property; however, she was told the City was not
interested in pursuing annexation.
Tom Oldenburg indicated he is an Architect/Planner and he is representing the two surrounding
property owners who own the property north of Ms. Plonka's site, which has been annexed into
the City of Fort Lupton. He clarified the City of Fort Lupton annexed that particular property
because it has the highest elevation of the surrounding area, and the City wanted to preserve
future water storage options. He submitted a map of the Fort Lupton Comprehensive Plan,
marked Exhibit G, and he clarified within the Commercial Districts, outdoor storage is
considered to be an accessory use, and is only allowed to be a primary use within the
Industrial (1-2) District, known as a Tier Two area within the City of Fort Lupton. He explained it
is his opinion that the Planning Commission may have not given this subject full consideration
because it may be 20 years or more before the surrounding area is developed; however, he
confirmed he did present his argument at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Oldenburg
indicated he believes the outdoor storage of RV's constitutes an industrial use, since the use of
the site is primarily targeted to customers from other municipalities and surrounding areas. He
clarified the use should be considered as a "destination" use, since most customers will not be
driving down the road and just happen to stop by the property to park their RV. He indicated the
Weld County Code requires that a minimum of 15 percent of the property be dedicated for
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 5
landscaping, and typically, detention ponds and water quality features account for five percent
of the total land area. He clarified it appears the applicant is planning to create future phases on
the property, as referenced on the plat, therefore, he is concerned that the proper landscaping
requirements will not be met. He confirmed the lack of landscaping will create a negative
impact for the public, and creating several small areas of landscaping will be expensive to
maintain, due to watering requirements. He requested the Board require the proper
landscaping minimum of 15 percent of the overall lot, and that at least ten percent of that
requirement be located along the frontage of State Highway 52, to create an additional buffer.
He further requested that the applicant be required to move the first row of parking spaces
farther back from State Highway 52 so that RV's are not parked right next to the road. He
confirmed it is his belief that having vehicles parked right next to the road will not help the
applicant gain additional customers.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Oldenburg confirmed he can think of many
negative examples of screening and buffering for this type of use, especially a site located along
the Interstate 25 Frontage Road within the City of Longmont. He clarified is it common sense
for the use on the site to be set back a specific distance from a high-traffic road, and the
installation of adequate landscaping along the frontage of the road provides a positive image for
the business. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Oldenburg confirmed at the
time the property to the north is developed, it will be beneficial for the applicant's property to
contain mature landscaping and be set farther back from the road, creating more of a buffer. He
clarified he understands it is not known when the property to the north will be developed, and he
understands the Board does not desire to place a large burden on the applicant since the
property is currently vacant. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Oldenburg clarified if
the proposed use were his property, he would eliminate the first two rows of proposed parking
spaces to create an additional buffer space for landscaping and he would remove the proposed
fence line so that is it not right up against the future right-of-way for State Highway 52. He
further clarified the fence line should be set back a distance of 100 feet from State Highway 52,
then a buffer zone for landscaping should be located behind the fence. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Oldenburg clarified it appears the first row of RV parking is approximately 50
feet from State Highway 52, and he recommended the fence be set back an additional 25 feet
from the road. Commissioner Conway clarified if the applicant intends to utilize the open space
on the property as future parking areas, then the applicant will be required to amend the permit,
which will include additional review by the Board. Mr. Oldenburg indicated he is requesting that
the applicant simply modify the fence line and possibly one row of where the RV's will be
parked. He clarified it is possible that the applicant may never fill all of the RV spaces,
therefore, it is possible that the RV's may only be parked adjacent to State Highway 52. There
being no further discussion, the Chair closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Ms. Plonka clarified the requirement from the Department of Planning services is that the fence
be located at least 75 feet from the centerline of State Highway 52. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
indicated 75 feet from the current centerline of the road is still within the future right-of-way
required for the road, therefore, the applicant will not have adequate space for landscaping.
She confirmed the applicant should allow 150 feet from centerline so that the setbacks for the
future right-of-way may be adequately met. Mr. Gathman clarified landscaping does not have
any specific setback distances listed within the Code, and the only potential structure is the
proposed sign, which cannot be located closer than 20 feet to the right-of-way. He confirmed
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 6
the applicant's original plan indicates a 50-foot reservation; however, there is room to work with
a new setback requirement. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman confirmed staff is
requiring the applicant to install an opaque fence because of the outdoor storage of materials on
the site. He clarified he does not have concerns regarding the type of fencing proposed, and to
help meet the requirements provided by the City of Fort Lupton, the applicant will be required to
install a fence to completely surround the outdoor storage.
Chair Rademacher indicated it needs to be made clear to Ms. Plonka that the fence will need to
moved farther back on the property to accommodate the necessary setbacks. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Ms. Plonka confirmed she is willing to do whatever is necessary and
reasonable to comply with the requirements for setbacks. Chair Rademacher clarified the
additional setback should not create an added expense if the fence moved back before it is
constructed; however, if it is constructed in its current location, it will have to be torn down when
State Highway 52 is expanded. In response, Ms. Plonka reiterated she is willing to work with
staff to determine the proper placement of the fence.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer confirmed the property to the north is at a high elevation, therefore, it
is appropriate for the applicant's property to contain an adequate buffer. She indicated other
similar facilities have created adequate screening buffers with a mix of fences and landscaping,
and she believes if the buffering is done correctly, it will create additional value for the
surrounding area. She referenced a facility on County Road 8, between County Roads 11 and
13, as an example of appealing buffering uses, and she explained to Ms. Plonka that the
standards of the City of Fort Lupton do not allow barbed wire on top of the fence.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated if the landscaping and screening are completed in an
appropriate manner, the surrounding property owners will be happier, and the area will look
much nicer. She further indicated if the work is completed in compliance with the standards set
forth by the City of Fort Lupton, the necessary compatibility will exist when the site is eventually
annexed by the City of Fort Lupton. She confirmed she does not want additional costs to be
levied upon Ms. Plonka; however, it is important that the fence be moved back from its current
location so that it is not located within the future right-of-way for State Highway 52. Ms. Plonka
indicated she is aware of facilities located on County Roads 2 and 6 which utilize barbed wire on
top of the fence, and she was planning to use barbed wire for additional security at the site.
She explained that she eventually intends to subdivide the property at some point in the future,
so that she is able to gift property to each of her three grandchildren.
Commissioner Garcia clarified it has been discussed that screening will not really benefit the
neighbors to the north, due to the differences in elevation, therefore, he questioned whether an
opaque fence is really necessary. He confirmed he believes fences which contain inserted slats
tend to look less appealing than an area of developed landscaping. Chair Rademacher
concurred, and indicated he believes the applicant will be able to create a more attractive
frontage of the property by planting trees and bushes, which could eventually grow to more than
six feet in height. He clarified the costs may be higher with landscaping materials, and it is
necessary to have a good water supply; however, he is convinced a six-foot privacy fence will
not adequately screen this site. Commissioner Garcia clarified it has been stated that it is
impossible to completely screen this site, and if landscaping is not installed, a wheat field will
most likely grow between the fence and the highway. Commissioner Conway clarified a fence
surrounding the site is a necessity, to provide adequate security and protect what is being
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 7
stored. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified opaque fences can end up being unattractive,
therefore, the Board does not have to direct that the applicant install opaque screening, rather,
she should be allowed to screen the property from surrounding property owners and State
Highway 52, to the best of her ability. She further clarified the applicant will have the ability to
design an appealing way to provide a buffer and still meet the necessary requirements, similar
to other facilities which have used a variety of items to achieve an attractive frontage.
Chair Rademacher clarified he knows of at least one facility located on State Highway 66 and
Interstate 25 which utilizes only a chain-link fence, and he agrees that the applicant does not
have to provide opaque screening. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Hansen confirmed
the applicant is not required to install a detention pond, and a water quality feature on the site
will be adequate. She clarified the applicant has removed the detention pond designation from
the previously submitted site plan. She further clarified since more than one acre of land will be
disturbed, the applicant must apply for a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the State. Further
responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Hansen confirmed the required water quality feature is
addressed through Condition of Approval #1.G, and she explained the applicant has already
designed the area and it is shown on the submitted plans.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Gathman clarified the applicant is required to submit a
Landscape and Screening Plan, and he suggested the landscaping be required to meet a
minimum setback of 50 feet. Chair Rademacher concurred an additional setback of 50 feet, in
addition to the currently required setback of 75 feet from centerline, will be adequate, especially
since CDOT may not have plans to widen State Highway 52 within the near future. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman confirmed there will not be any buildings constructed
in close proximity to State Highway 52, and the parking spaces will most likely be affected by an
additional setback; however, it will be acceptable to install landscaping within the additional
50-foot setback. Mr. Barker clarified the definition of a "setback" within the Code is from the
future right-of-way; however, it is only for buildings or structures, therefore, the parking spaces
do not fit the definition of a required a "setback." He further clarified the Board is indicating they
prefer for the plat to indicate an additional buffer area so that the parking spaces are located
farther back from State Highway 52, commiserate with a setback of 50 feet, and the Board
concurred. Mr. Barker confirmed Condition of Approval #1.H contains language which requires
an opaque fence, therefore, he recommended the language be modified, if it is the Board's
desire, that the applicant not be required to install an opaque fence. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
suggested the language be modified to indicate that the property should be screened on all
sides, with an additional buffer from State Highway 52 and the property to the north. She
concurred that the requirement of an opaque fence should be deleted, and an additional buffer
area will help to meet the interests of the City of Fort Lupton. Responding to Commissioner
Garcia, Ms. Plonka explained the proposed first row of parking spaces will need to be eliminated
to meet the proposed additional buffer area, which would eliminate approximately 42 spaces.
Mr. Gathman clarified it may be possible that only half of the 42 parking spaces will need to be
removed, and the site can be reconfigured to move the spaces farther to the south, avoiding
elimination of the parking spots.
Responding to Chair Rademacher, Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested the applicant be
required to attempt to meet the design standards for fencing, as defined by the City of Fort
Lupton, since the City has specifics regarding what type of fencing is not allowed. She
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 8
confirmed doing so will help to ensure compatibility within the future. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Plonka confirmed there is vacant land to the south, her personal
residence is west of the proposed parking area, and there are two residential properties east of
the site. Commissioner Kirkmeyer read the allowed fencing materials approved by the City of
Fort Lupton into the record, and confirmed the applicant has a variety of materials she may
utilize. Chair Rademacher indicated the applicant should keep security needs in mind when she
is deciding on which fence material to utilize for the site, especially since she might have
specific requirements to be met for insurance purposes. Ms. Plonka confirmed she will utilize a
gate with a locked access code at the front of the property.
In response to Chair Rademacher, the Board concurred with the deletion of Conditions of
Approval #1.C and #1.F, with the required re-lettering. Chair Rademacher indicated the
language within Condition of Approval #1.H needs to be modified to indicate the applicant
should be required to attempt to meet the requirements of the City of Fort Lupton. Mr. Gathman
suggested Condition of Approval #1.A.14 be modified to state, "The fence shall be delineated a
minimum of 50 feet from the edge of future right-of-way for State Highway 52, as requested by
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)." He further suggested the addition of
Condition of Approval #1.A.15 to state, "A 50-foot landscape buffer, from the edge of future
right-of-way for State Highway 52, shall be indicated on the plat." He suggested the language
for Condition of Approval #1.H be modified to state, "The applicant shall submit a Landscape
and Screening Plan, for review and approval by the Department of Planning Services. The
applicant shall make a good-faith effort to address the fencing and screening standards, as
required by the City of Fort Lupton." Mr. Barker suggested the proposed second sentence
instead state, "The applicant shall attempt to comply with the fencing requirements of the Fort
Lupton Code." Mr. Gathman further suggested the amended language continue to state, "The
plan shall also address landscaping of the 50-foot landscape buffer to the south of the future
right-of-way for State Highway 52." The Board concurred with the proposed amendments to
Condition of Approval #1.A.14 and #1.H, and the addition of Condition of Approval #1.A.15.
Chair Rademacher indicated the hours of operation are listed as daylight hours, which appears
to be adequate since the hours are longer during summer months. He questioned whether the
applicant may be interested in allowing more than four employees at the site, since the septic
system already has to be re-reviewed. Following discussion between Chair Rademacher,
Ms. Plonka, and Ms. Light, Ms. Plonka requested that Development Standard #20 be modified
to indicate a limitation of six (6) employees. Commissioner Conway explained that Ms. Plonka
is not obligated to employ six outside persons; however, she has the option of utilizing up to that
many employees, and Ms. Plonka confirmed she understood. The Board concurred with the
modification of Development Standard #20, as requested.
Ms. Plonka expressed her confusion regarding the fencing requirements and requested
clarification. In response, Chair Rademacher explained the facility will be required to be
surrounded by a fence, for security reasons; however, it is the applicant's choice as to what
materials will be utilized for the fence. He further explained the applicant shall create an
additional buffer area along the north side of the property with additional trees and landscaping,
to mitigate screening concerns.
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 9
At the request of Chair Rademacher, Lynette Mount, applicant's daughter, provided a proposed
site plan map, marked Exhibit H, and clarified the fence was originally drawn to indicate the first
phase and second phase of the outdoor storage parking spaces. She requested that the fence
be allowed to encompass the area for phase one, and then, when needed, the fence may be
expanded to encompass phase two. Chair Rademacher concurred when it becomes necessary
to utilize phase two, the entire area will be required to be fenced.
Commissioner Garcia expressed his concern regarding Development Standard #22, which
requires that all vehicles on the property must be operational, with current license plates, and he
does not want the applicant to be found in violation if customers do not follow through with
renewing license plates in a timely manner. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified if it is not
required that the vehicles be operational and licensed, the applicant would essentially be
creating a non-commercial junkyard. She indicated the owners of the vehicles know that license
renewals are good for a period of one year, and should be required to keep the registration of
the vehicles updated. Chair Rademacher concurred the applicant will need to enforce this
requirement by ensuring customers know the rules before parking the vehicles on her site.
Commissioner Garcia reiterated his concern regarding the USR permit being put in jeopardy at
the hands of a third party, and he believes deleting the requirement will not cause the applicant
to essentially operate a non-commercial junkyard. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested
Ms. Plonka indicate within her rental agreement that all vehicles must be operational and have
current license plates so that her customers are aware of the requirement up front. Chair
Rademacher concurred the requirement should remain within the Resolution and that it is the
applicant's responsibility to enforce this requirement. Commissioner Conway concurred and
indicated the intent of the storage lot is for temporary storage of RV's, therefore, if a customer
decides to leave the RV on the property for successive years, it will be required for the license
plates and registration to be kept up to date. Ms. Plonka confirmed that is the intent of the
business.
Mr. Gathman indicated the applicant has proposed a sign to be located along the front of the
property, which meets the necessary setbacks on the plat; however, the size of the sign is
requested to be 24 square feet. He clarified the Board must concur on any signs over 16
square feet in size. The Board concurred with the larger size, as long as the sign is kept out of
the future right-of-way for State Highway 52.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Plonka indicated she has reviewed, and concurs with,
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as modified.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve the request of Mary Ann Plonka for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1719 for a Use Permitted as a Use by
Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts
(RV, boat, and construction equipment storage) along with one (1) Mobile Home used as living
quarters for caretakers or security personnel responsible for maintaining or guarding the
property (a modular/mobile home to be used as an office and as a residence for employees) in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the recommendations of Planning staff and the
Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered
into the record. His motion included the modification of Condition of Approval #1.A.14 to state,
"The fence shall be delineated a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of future right-of-way for
2010-0900
PL2058
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARY ANN PLONKA (USR-1719)
PAGE 10
State Highway 52, as requested by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)."; the
addition of Condition of Approval #1.A.15 to state, "A 50-foot landscape buffer, from the edge of
future right-of-way for State Highway 52, shall be indicated on the plat."; the deletion of
Conditions of Approval #1.C and #1.F, with the required re-lettering; the modification of
Condition of Approval #1.H to state, "The applicant shall submit a Landscape and Screening
Plan, for review and approval by the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall
attempt to comply with the fencing requirements of the Fort Lupton Code. The plan shall also
address landscaping of the 50-foot landscape buffer to the south of the future right-of-way for
State Highway 52."; and the modification of Development Standard #20 to state, "The number of
employees for the business shall be limited to six (6)persons." (Clerk's Note: New Condition of
Approval #1.C was also modified to reflect six (6) employees). The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Garcia. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated it is obvious that surrounding property
owners had some valid concerns, and she expressed her appreciation to the neighbors for
working with staff regarding the concerns. She stated she is hopeful that Ms. Plonka will work
with her neighbors to the north, and work in conjunction with them regarding ideas for the buffer
zone. She confirmed she is willing to vote in favor of this application because it is apparent that
the applicant is willing to make concessions, and Chair Rademacher concurred. Commissioner
Garcia expressed his appreciation to Mr. Oldenburg for being present today, and confirmed he
presented good information for the Board to review. He indicated he is pleased that the
applicant was willing to be flexible regarding several requirements. He indicated he still has
concerns about customers who find themselves in a negative financial situation not maintain the
proper registration on an RV vehicle, which will cause concerns for the applicant; however, he
does support the application overall. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously. There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:30 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 10th day of May, 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY OLORADO
ATTEST: .Il,.-naAr
a Dougla Radem Cher, Chair
Weld County Clerk to th .,:o- �� `'•
0 EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
BY' a�/!! / • 2.�1��v ./_i '
Deputy Cl;" to the Bo't U
Sean P. Conway
kid cia
EXCUSED
David E. Long
2010-0900
PL2058
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR-1719 — MARY ANN PLONKA
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated April 6, 2010)
D. Planning Staff Certification and photo of sign posting
E. Glenn Jesser Letter of concern, received 04/21/2010
F. Mayvis Brown Two letters of concern, received 04/21/2010
G. Tom Oldenburg Map of Ft Lupton Comp Plan (2007 Update)
H. Applicant USR Plat Map
I. Planning Staff E-mail re: Revisions to Resolution, dated 05/06/2010
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
�
/
&
c
1--
_
o00
\ \
a
a _C » t�
0
«
C.) RI i
c 4 L \
in a / a
° B \ ® � » t" 'N
Z > $ $ o d a
o , m e \ I
z _ 2 v t
w
a 0 \ 5 In \ \ CIA% \
§ E la N ^ ® � '
; « 2 x
2 2 co
co
z o 2
0 E 0 I
n c
§ E----)-1-
0
cu \
• i G
co " \ / c-
§ o 2 -� �
0 _ if o
k2 Ili cx c
I 0 a
k —
Hello