HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071885.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by James Welch that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1593
APPLICANT: Leslie Pickering Adams
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2NW4 of Section 18, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (outdoor storage of
recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and enclosed storage for
personal/household items) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 68.5; west of and adjacent to CR 13.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
The proposed use is not consistent with the following sections of the Weld County Code.
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is not consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-110.UGB.Goal 3 The County and municipalities should coordinate land use planning
in urban growth boundary areas, including development policies and standards, zoning, street
and highway construction,open space, public infrastructure and other matters affecting efficient
development.
The proposed use is located within the Town of Windsor's Urban Growth Boundary which calls for
a greater level of consideration for the Town's goals and plans for the area; an effort at
coordination is required in this instance. As stated in their referral dated January 5th, 2007 the
Town's comprehensive plan calls for a combination of Open Space, Parks, Mineral Extraction
and Single Family Residential at 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (dua). The proposed use is a
commercial use and would not be permitted in this location. The Town has indicated that the
proposed commercial use is incompatible with their Comprehensive Plan for the area.
Section 22-2-110.C.1. The County may consider approving a land use development within an
urban growth boundary area if all of the following criteria are met:
c. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
The proposed development lies within the Town of Windsor's Urban Growth
Boundary. The Town, in its referral dated,January 5,2007 stated that this proposal
does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Windsor
Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Single Family Residential and Parks,
Open Space, Mineral Extraction and Floodplains. The Single Family Residential
designation calls for residential densities of 2 to 6 dwellings per acre while the Parks,
Open Space, Mineral Extraction and Floodplains designation provides for lands and
facilities which are designed to be areas set aside for recreational uses or to provide
lands that are to remain free from development. The Town stated that the
proposed use is not consistent with their Comprehensive Plan; therefore the
proposed use is not consistent with Section 22-2-110.C.1.of the Weld County Code.
Sec. 22-2-170.C.2. New commercial development should demonstrate compatibility with
existing surrounding land use in terms of general use, building height, scale, density, traffic,
dust and noise.
EXIIBIT
2007-1885 aura
Resolution USR-1593
Leslie Pickering Adams
Page 2
The existing surrounding land uses in the area consist of rural residences immediately adjacent
to the north and east. The land to the west is undeveloped. The land to the south is also
undeveloped but CUP-17 for a gravel mining operation exists on the property. This proposal
would introduce a commercial use into an area where there are no other commercial uses. In
the immediate area, the proposed use would be an atypical intensification. Given that the
current use is a single family dwelling and the proposed use is for outdoor storage of
recreational vehicles, boats,trailers,and other vehicles,and eventually storage of personal and
household items there is no doubt that the nature and amount of traffic using the site will
intensify.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities.
The Town of Windsor, located approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the property, in their
response dated January 5,2007 objected to the proposed use. The property is located in the
Town's Urban Growth Boundary, as defined by Weld County, and within the Town's self
defined Growth Management Area. The Town has objected to the proposed use as it is not
consistent with their Comprehensive Plan. The Town's comprehensive plan calls for a
combination of Open Space, Parks, Mineral Extraction, Floodplain, and Single Family
Residential at 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (dua). The proposed use is a commercial use
and would not be permitted in this location or considered compatible with the surroundings by
the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this application the Planning Commission recommends
the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If on-site sign(s) are desired the
Department of Planning Services shall be notified in writing. If the applicant does not notify
the Department of Planning Services signs shall adhere to Article IV Division 2 of the Weld
County Code as it related to signs in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Further,the location of
the sign, if applicable shall be delineated on the USR plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant has not indicated that there will be any lighting on site. If lighting is intended a
Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the intended lights, shall be provided to the Department
of Planning Services for review and approval. The lighting plan shall adhere to the lighting
standards in accordance with Section 23-2-250.B.6.of the Weld County Code. Further,the
approved Lighting Plan shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a copy
of an agreement with the properties mineral owners/operators stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that
an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners.
(Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Department of Public Works Drainage Division a
site grading and water detention plan for review and approval. This plan shall address the
concerns/requirements outlined in the Department of Public Works referral dated December
13, 2006. Written evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Resolution USR-1593
Leslie Pickering Adams
Page 3
Services. (Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall submit a detailed Landscape/Screening Plan to the Department of
Planning Services for review and approval. The plan shall address the maintenance of the
landscaping and screening, as well as the replacement of dead, dying or decaying plant
materials. Further, given that the site is proposed to have evergreen trees and shrubs
planted in rows staff requests the incorporation of an irrigation system for the establishment
of the proposed plant materials. Staff will require an approved weed management plan and a
reseeding/post construction plan to facilitate soil stabilization and plant material growth. The
updated landscape and screening plan shall address the issue of a landscape and screening
component for the buffer between the outdoor storage component and the adjacent
properties for this proposed facility. The landscaping and/or screening shall fully screen the
facility from rights-of-way and adjacent properties in accordance with Section 23-3-250A.5.B.
and 23-3-250.A.9. of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping, transportation
(access drive, parking areas, et cetera) and non-transportation (plant materials, fencing,
screening, water, signage et cetera). The applicant shall submit to the Department of
Planning Services an itemized landscaping bid for review. The agreement and form of
collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to recording the Use by Special Review plat. Alternatively,the applicant
may submit evidence that all the work has been completed and approved by the Department
of Planning Services and the Department of Public Works. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Written evidence of approval of this plan shall be provided to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
C. The septic system serving(Septic Permit#SP-9800565)the residence shall be reviewed by a
Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the
system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic
load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found
to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with
current Regulations. Written evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
D. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Written
evidence of approval of this plan shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the facility
name, address, and phone number).
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
Resolution USR-1593
Leslie Pickering Adams
Page 4
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements and concerns of the Windsor
Severance Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response received January 3,
2007. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall address the requirement of the Windsor Severance Fire Protection
District,stated in the referral response received January 3,2007, regarding the placement of
an emergency access. The location of this access shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works. Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall address the requirements and concerns of The New Cache La Poudre
Irrigating Company,as stated in the referral response received December 6,2007. Evidence
of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1593.(Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County Code, areas used for trash collection shall
be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. These areas shall
be designed and used in a manner that will prevent wind or animal scattered trash.
The applicant shall identify the location and adequate screening of trash collection
areas on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The floodplain/floodway shall be delineated on the plat as it is shown on the FEMA
FIRM Community Panel Map#080266 0605 D. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The proposed use of the future structure shall be called out on the plat.(Department
of Planning Services)
6. The approved drainage plan and retention area. (Department of Public Works)
7. The wetlands on site shall be delineated and designated as no build zones.
(Department of Public Works)
8. County Road 68.5 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a
collector road, which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is
presently 60 feet of right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way
and the documents creating the right-of-way. An additional 10 feet from the
centerline of County Road 86.5 shall be delineated on the plat as future County Road
86.5 right-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
9. The west property line is identified as a section line where County Road 13 would be
if it extended north from the intersection with County Road 68.5. The section line
extension of County Road 13 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification
Plan as a Strategic Roadway,which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out.
A seventy (70) feet right-of—way reservation shall be shown on the plat as future
County Road 13 right-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
10. The approved emergency access shall be delineated on the plat and identified as an
emergency access. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1593
Leslie Pickering Adams
Page 5
11. The off-street parking area,access drive, and storage facility shall be surfaced with
recycled asphalt, gravel, recycled concrete, asphalt, concrete or an equivalent
material. The plat shall delineate the location and type of surfacing material.
(Department of Public Works)
12. Spaces reserved for the parking of vehicles and all loading zones shall be delineated
on the plat. This facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking spaces
indicated in Appendix 23-B of the Weld County Code. The total number of on-site
parking for Phase 1 of this facility shall be facility shall be five (5) spaces. Two
spaces shall be associated with the residence, one additional space for the office in
the residence and two spaces to be associated with the future structure. Phase 2
shall, in addition to the requirements of Phase 1, have one parking space associated
with each storage locker. In accordance with Section 23-3-350.B, Section 23-3-
350.C, Section 23-3-350.D and Section 23-4-30.C all parking, loading areas and
street access drives shall be paved with asphaltic concrete pavement or equal.
Further, all parking areas shall be surfaced in accordance with Appendix 23-A,23-B,
Section 23-3-350.8 Each parking space shall be equipped with wheel guards or
curb stops when necessary to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the
boundaries of the space and from coming into contact with other vehicles, walls,
fences, or plantings. The location of all curb stops in the parking areas per Section
23-4-30.D of the Weld County Code shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of
Public Works)
13. The applicant shall address and adhere to the American with Disabilities Act(ADA)
and ADA standards for this facility at all times.One(1)non-ambulatory/ambulatory
parking space associated with the office shall be identified and shown on the plat.
This site will be required to meet all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. ADA parking spaces are twenty (20) feet by eight (8) feet with five (5) foot
aisles. A minimum of one space must be van accessible with an eight(8)foot aisle.
An accessible path shall be required from the building to the public right-of-way.The
parking spaces must be the closest possible to the entrance. Signing will be
required. Curb cuts, ramps and other methods of providing accessibility shall be
required to reasonably attempt to meet the requirements of this Act. Should the
applicant elect to not adhere to the previously discussed Federal Standards, this
office requests that the applicant outline how their proposed site design mitigates the
requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act. (Department of Planning
Services)
H. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of
the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The
Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the
Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-7 approved June 1,2006, should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
5. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
Resolution USR-1593
Leslie Pickering Adams
Page 6
The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Prior to Construction:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment
/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or
equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit
for more information.
7. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Leslie Pickering Adams
USR-1593
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a use permitted as a Use by Right,
and Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone districts
(Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Boats, Trailers, and Enclosed Storage for
personal/household items) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, as indicated in the application
materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. As per the application materials, employees will be limited to the occupants of the residence on the
property and the owners of the facility. (Department of Planning Services)
4. As per the application materials, hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 9:00pm Sunday
through Saturday. (Department of Planning Services)
5. All users of the facility shall be advised of the restricted bridge located on County Road 68.5 east of
the facility. The weight restriction posted for this bridge is 21-32-33. (Department of Public Works)
6. The emergency access shall be used only in case of emergency; it shall remain gated and locked at
all other times. (Department of Public Works)
7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30 20
100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
8. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30 20 100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health & Environment)
10. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
11. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health & Environment)
12. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25 12 103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
13. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
Employees and patrons shall be allowed to use the restroom facilities located in the residence.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
14. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property
must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
15. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (North Weld County Water District and
Department of Public Health & Environment)
16. If applicable,the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
17. Prior to the implementation of Phase 2 and the release of building permits related to Phase 2 the
Department of Planning Services shall receive written evidence from the Windsor-Severance Fire
Protection District that their requirements have been met. (Department of Planning Services)
18. Effective January 1,2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
19. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
20. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. Buildings that meet the
definition of an Ag Exempt Building per the requirements of Section 29-1-20 and Section 29-3-20.B.13
of the Weld County Code do not need building permits, however,a Certificate of Compliance must be
filed with the Planning Department and an electrical and/or plumbing permit is required for any
electrical service to the building or water for watering or washing of livestock or poultry. (Department
of Building Inspection)
21. All building plans shall be submitted to Windsor Severance Fire Protection District for review and
approval prior to issue of Building Permits. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department
of Building Inspection prior to the release of building permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
22. The landscaping and screening on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
Landscape and Screening plan. (Department of Planning Services)
23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the approved Lighting Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the approved Signage Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
27. All vehicles located on the property must be operational and have current license plates and tags.
(Department of Planning Services)
28. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
29. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
31. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham,
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Chad Auer—Chair
Doug Ochsner—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on February 6, 2007.
Dated the 6th day of February, 2007.
`
Donita May J
Secretary
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 25th, 20O7.
Seven referral agencies reviewed this proposal. All either stated that they did not have a conflict with the
use or expressed concerns that have been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the approval of this application.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Hippely if the Planning Commission was the last voice for this case. She replied
they were. Erich Ehrlich asked about the dates of the PUD just south of the area. Ms. Hippely said the
PUD in question was Stark Farms and there were no house at this time. Don Carroll, Department of
Public Works, replied the PUD was about three years old. Roy Spitzer asked if there were additional
homes in the area. Ms. Hippely said the homes in the area would have been constructed after the public
utility facility, so they would have been aware of its existence. Tom Holton asked if all the entrances to
Stark Farms were on the east side of property. Ms. Hippely said they were on CR 37. Doug Ochsner
asked if the land size at the current substation would be increased. Ms. Hippely replied it would be
increased. Erich Ehrlich asked about the height difference between the current and proposed towers. Ms.
Hippely replied she thought the towers would not be taller, but that might be a better question for the
applicant.
Jim McClung, 550 Fifteenth St, Ste 700, Denver, CO, the contract representative for Public Service, said
they had reviewed staff comments and concurred with all staff recommendations. Mr. McClung said the
height would be regulated by existing poles on CR 84 and if there was an increase it would only be to bring
them up to Code and/or for clearance and safety issues. Tom Holton asked about the decommissioned
area and what would go there. Mr. McClung said nothing was going there that he was aware of and
deferred to Michael Diehl.
Michael Diehl, 550 Fifteenth St, Ste 700, Denver, CO, representing Public Service, said they were taking
two very small capacity transformers and replacing them with two larger capacity transformers; more land
was required for the expansion; that they do need to keep the existing substation in service but will switch
it over at some point; and that ultimately there would be only two transformers at the substation, but they
would be of larger capacity than the existing transformers.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. The public portion of the hearing was closed.
The Chair asked the applicant's representative if they agreed with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Mr. McClung replied they agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1592, be approved by the Planning Commission along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes.
7. CASE NUMBER: USR-1593
APPLICANT: Leslie Pickering Adams
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2NW4 of Section 18, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use m 4`_\
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District S
(outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and �(
Y
•
enclosed storage for personal/household items) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 68.5; west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked to be recused as he is related to the applicant.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1593 is an application by Leslie Adams for a
Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by Right, and
Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone districts (Outdoor
Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Boats, Trailers,and Enclosed Storage for personal/household items) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone
The property is located on the Weld County- Larimer County Border just north and east of Windsor.
It is, north of and adjacent to CR 68.5 and west of and adjacent to CR 13.
The surrounding properties are all zoned agricultural. Four rural residences are adjacent to the site; three
just north of the site across the Greeley#2 Canal and one to the South across CR 68.5. Uses by special
review in the immediate area include CUP-17 for a gravel pit to the south, USR-845 for a 600 head dairy
to the east.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 25`", 2007.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Eleven responded and either stated that they did not
have a conflict with the use or expressed concerns that staff has attempted to address through the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Two letters from surrounding property owners in opposition to this proposal have been received.
Expressed in the letters is the belief that a business does not belong in this area due to its rural and/or
residential nature. They are concerned that the property will not be maintained and become an aesthetic
nuisance. Concerns were also expressed regarding possible light pollution and decreased neighborhood
safety and security.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with Section 22-2-
110C.1 which calls for proposals in the UGB to meet a set of criteria. If all of the criteria are met the
County may consider a land use development within an UGB. This proposal does not meet all of the
criteria. This proposal is also inconsistent with Section 22-2-170C.2. which states that new commercial
development should demonstrate compatibility with surrounding and use in terms of general use, building
height, density, traffic, dust, and noise. This application proposes a commercial use in what is currently a
rural setting.
Tom Holton asked if we had an IGA with Windsor. Ms. Hippely replied that we did not. Paul Branham
inquired if the dairy that was mentioned was an existing dairy. Ms. Hippely replied that it was.
The applicant, Leslie Pickering Adams, stepped forward and said: she had owned the property at 6109 CR
68.5 since1986; the site was approximately eight acres in size, but only four acres would be used for the
storage business;there was one residence on the property;they were in compliance with all of the Code with
the exception of Chapter 22,which was the sole reason for the recommendation of denial;quoted the County
Code; said the proposed use was commercial and would not be permitted by the Town of Windsor; went to
Windsor Planning to speak to them but were not given any consideration by them and they were then directed
to Weld County; likes to think she has some say in how to use her land; asked for approval and emphasized
that a small recreational vehicle storage lot was a needed service and compatible with the area, which
presently included residences, farming, ranching, tree farms, gravel extraction, a flood plain, a dairy farm, a
landscape business and a kennel; they would not be intrusive to the residential neighborhood; a four lane
arterial was also proposed along the west boundary of her property;this would be a small scale business that
would be landscaped, screened and aesthetically pleasing;they run another recreational vehicle storage lot in
the Brighton area; this would provide a service for residents in the area as the majority of HOA's (Home
Owner's Associations)do not allow recreational vehicle parking;they would not allow cars,semi trailers or junk
to be stored; there would be lighting at the entrance only as no night access to the site would be allowed;
5
increased traffic would be extremely minimal,two to seven trips on weekdays,slightly more on weekends;and
closed by asking for approval and cited Section 22-2-110 of the Weld County Code.
Erich Ehrlich inquired about CR 13, the planned four lane arterial, and where she got her information. Ms.
Pickering Adams replied that it came from Windsor and the Weld County Planning Department in their packet.
She added they sit up on a plateau and the property was not visible from CR 68.5. Tom Holton asked about
their agreement with Greeley#2 Ditch Company and if they would be providing dump facilities for RV's or if
they had plans to build a road to the canal and allow customers to dump there. Ms. Pickering Adams said
they had reached agreement with the ditch company, that they would not be providing dumping facilities on
their site and had no plans whatsoever to build a road to access the canal for dumping.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,said CR 13 was designated as a strategic roadway from CR 2 north
to State 14 and improvements would be driven by future development. Tom Holton asked where the entrance
to the storage site would be. Ms. Pickering Adams replied the entrance to the property would be at CR 68.5
but the actual entrance to the storage area would be 500 to 600 feet off road before they entered the gate on
site. Doug Ochsner asked about lighting and wanted more clarification. Mr.Adams,the applicant's husband,
said it would be basically just a yard light and would not be illuminated twenty four hours a day, only during
business hours and that there would be a six foot chain link fence with barbed wire as well as a caretaker
living on the premises. Mr. Ochsner asked about signage plans. Ms.Pickering Adams said they did not put up
a sign in Brighton and may not need one here either, but would follow County guidelines if they did decide at
some point they required signage. Mr. Holton asked about the January 4, 2007 meeting with Windsor when
they said that according to the Windsor Comprehensive Plan, this area would be open space. Mr. Adams
replied that was their impression. Mark Lawley asked how far they were from Windsor town limits. Ms.
Pickering Adams said maybe half a mile. Paul Branham suggested a third of a mile from Windsor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Ochsner said he had driven past the property that morning and the location was interesting as there was
a little bit of everything in the area, including the dairy, a gravel pit, a huge subdivision, and that residences
were definitely coming. Tom Holton asked about the status of the gravel pits. Don Carroll, Public Works
Department,said the pits were on the Larimer County side,that the life of a gravel pit was usually twenty years
and those have been there five to eight years or so and were about half mined out. Erich Ehrlich mentioned
there were LaFarge and Hall Irwin pits in the area. Ms. Pickering Adams pointed out other gravel pits in the
area,which were in Larimer County,and said one has been operating ten to twelve years and another has not
even begun production yet. Mr. Ochsner asked about entrance proximity to CR 68.5 and if trailers and boats
could be parked along CR 68.5. Ms. Pickering Adams said from CR 68.5,they travel down a long lane until
they get to the gate further in on the property;that additional screening would be added to the property and the
property would be well maintained; that they would only accept vehicles for storage that were properly
maintained,as they were not interested in or willing to store junk;and that vehicles could be parked along CR
68.5. Mr. Holton asked if actual storage was elevated above the entrance and if surrounding houses were
higher. Ms. Pickering Adams replied in the affirmative to both.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said they wanted designated on the plat as a reserve, future
setbacks for structures and future rights of way for CR 13 and CR 68.5, as set forth in items H. 8. and H.9.,
page six.
The Chair asked the applicant if she had read and was in agreement with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Ms. Pickering Adams replied that she was in agreement.
Tom Holton expressed concerns for the visual including screening along the canal and questioned if they
should they require more screening. Doug Ochsner said his main concern was for adequate screening and
wanted the best effort by the applicant at screening. Ms. Hippely said Planning had asked for a landscape and
screening plan but did not have a final plan from the applicants but they could suggest adding opaque fencing.
Mr. Ochsner said that since none of the opponents were present at the hearing, they could only go by the
concerns stated in their letters. Paul Branham said he was sure the applicants were conscientious,
professional and capable, and would produce a quality site but it was in close proximity to Windsor and was
not compatible with their potential growth, and for that reason, he concurred with Planning Staff's
6
recommendation for denial. Mr. Holton said he sided with the applicant due to the nature of the other
businesses in the area; Weld County does not have an IGA with Windsor; there was a need for such a
business in the area; and he felt the business was compatible with the surrounding area. Roy Spitzer asked
about personal property rights in the Town of Windsor's growth management area;expressed concern about
encroachment on people's property rights; cited the gravel pit and dairy and questioned why this application
was any different; expressed an interest in knowing what other area property owners wanted to see for the
area; and said he was in favor of approving the application. Erich Ehrlich said: it would be nice to get input
from towns affected in these instances;the dairy would most probably not exist in five years due to the Cattail
annexation;the CR 15 corridor had been pretty much sold to developers for subdivisions;that gravel pits were
in their future;this was a viable business;that we should look at the vision of the land as it would be drastically
different five years from now;and that there were subdivisions to the east and a floodplain to the west. James
Welch said this was difficult for him as well,as he was not a huge fan of growth boundaries;that we have the
Code for a reason; that we need to respect the Urban Growth Boundary area; and he would like to approve
this application but could not if he were to follow the Code. Tom Holton asked Bruce Barker about an
IGA/UGB (Inter-Governmental Agreement/Urban Growth Boundary)with Windsor. Mr. Barker said:the IGA
spells out very specific things procedurally and substantively;there must be an annexation agreement prior to
going before County; that private property rights are the same but could depend on how the County or
municipality affects things; property owners can't do exactly what they want on their property as they must
comply with the laws;we must look at what the Comprehensive Plan says and what it details there;and it was
up to the Planning Commission to determine compatibility.
Mr. Holton added it looks like they have taken private property rights and made it open space. Mr. Barker
replied that comes up with every municipality and the Board of County Commissioners have asked the
municipalities how much input their residents have been given. We don't know in this instance, since no one
from Windsor was in attendance. Mr. Ochsner asked if the Comprehensive Plan carried any weight in the
area. Mr. Barker responded that within this half mile area, because there was no IGA, there was not much
weight given to the Comprehensive Plan by virtue of proximity. Mr. Ehrlich asked how a growing region could
work together so that applications like this could be combated in the future. Mr. Barker said this area was an
urbanizing area and as a result, the Board of County Commissioners had been considering the idea of
proposing that sub-areas of the County be dealt with differently, but because these were different jurisdictions
there would always be differences, but the goal was to make it seamless.
Mark Lawley said he agreed with Mr. Holton regarding individual property rights and that this request would
probably not be a huge conflict in the area.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1593, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,no;Doug
Ochsner, no. Motion failed.
Ms. Hippely asked the Planning Commissioners to cite their reason for their vote.
James Welch moved that Case USR-1593, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
Paul Branham commented that he aggress with the Urban Growth Boundary area and future compatibility.
Erich Ehrlich sited Section 23-2-220 A.4. of the County Code in his decision.
Tom Holton citied Section 22-1-120 A. in his decision.
Mark Lawley cited Section 22-1-120 A. in his decision.
Roy Spitzer cited Section 22-2-110.C.1. and UGB 3.1.3 in his decision.
7
James Welch cited Section 22-1-120 A. and hoped the Board of County Commissioners and the Town of
Windsor would consider the rights of private property owners.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 22-2-110 C.1. in his decision.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley,no; Roy Spitzer,no;James Welch,yes;Doug
Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Reo �Gl K �.,u _I^N
Donita May
Secretary
•
8
Hello