HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071898.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2007-56
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1593
FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR 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 - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS
A public hearing was conducted on July 25, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden - EXCUSED
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Hannah Hippely
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 6,2007,and duly published July 11,2007,in the
Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Leslie Pickering
Adams for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1593 for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or 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. Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chair Long advised Bill and Leslie Adams,applicants,that
they have the option of continuing the matter to a date when the full Board will be present. However,
if they decide to proceed today, it will require three affirmative votes, or in the case of a tie vote,
Commissioner Masden will listen to the record and make the determining vote. Ms. Adams
indicated she would like to proceed today.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written.
She stated the site is located adjacent to County Road 13, which divides Weld and Larimer
Counties, and north of County Road 68.5, and she gave a brief description of the uses of the
surrounding properties. She stated fourteen referral agencies reviewed the request and eleven
responded favorably or provided comments which have been addressed in the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. She further stated the Department has received letters of
opposition from surrounding property owners,with concerns regarding maintenance of the property,
light pollution, and the lack of safety and security. Ms. Hippely stated the Department of Planning
2007-1898
PIr191
A l�L feu
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR#1593)
PAGE 2
Services recommended denial of the application,due to inconsistency with Sections 22-2-110.C.1
and 22-2-170.C.2 of the Weld County Code, and she reviewed each Section for the record. She
clarified the application proposes a commercial use within a rural setting, and she displayed
photographs of the site. In response to CommissionerJerke, Ms. Hippely stated the site is located
within the Urban Growth Boundary for the Town of Windsor, and she indicated the boundaries on
the provided map. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Hippely stated the land directly
east of the current gravel pit is undeveloped, and a dairy operation is located directly north of the
undeveloped land.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated there is an existing residence on
the site,with an existing septic permit to handle the effluent flow. She stated the three employees
will utilize the existing septic system on the property;however,the applicant is required to have the
septic system evaluated for the commercial uses, in addition to the residential uses. She further
stated the applicant has indicated there will be a future office building on the property, and the
existing house will serve as the caretaker residence. Ms. Smith stated the new office building will
be required to have a separate septic system, and stated comments listed in a referral from Char
Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, were inadvertently omitted from the
Resolution. She requested the addition of new Development Standard#15 to state,"An Individual
Sewage Disposal System is required for the proposed future office and shop facility, and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System(l.S.D.S.)Regulations,"
and new Development Standard#16 to state, "The septic system is required to be designed by a
Colorado registered professional engineer, according to Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations."
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated State Highway 392 is located to the south of the
site, and County Road 13, adjacent to the site, is classified as a strategic roadway,which requires
140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. He stated the applicant is required to reserve 70 feet for
right-of-way along the western boundary of the property. He further stated a restricted bridge is
located on County Road 68.5, there is one main access at the top of the hill, and the southwest
corner of the site is located within the floodplain, which will not be developed. Mr. Carroll stated
County Road 68.5 is a collector status road,which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full buildout,
and reiterated the site is in close proximity to the Town of Windsor.
Ms. Adams stated she is a Weld County property and business owner, and submitted a map
depicting commercial land uses, marked Exhibit M. She stated she has owned the property,located
adjacent to the intersection of County Road 13 and Jacoby Road(County Road 68.5),since 1986,
and the site is approximately eight acres total. She clarified she has proposed to only utilize four
acres of the property for storage uses. She stated the site contains an existing residence,and the
caretaker will reside in the residence to ensure proper maintenance and security for property. She
further stated she and her husband have been working on this project for over a year,and she has
been told that the application complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, with the
exception of Chapter 22,which states the County and municipalities shall attempt to coordinate land
use in Urban Growth Boundary areas. Ms.Adams stated the Town of Windsor does not have plans
to annex the property, nor to provide service to the property, and the site is located more than
one-half mile from the nearest boundary of the Town of Windsor. She stated the Town of Windsor
has indicated the site is not compatible with the existing land uses within the area, as designated
in its Comprehensive Plan. She further stated she approached the Town of Windsor with her
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR#1593)
PAGE 3
proposal in the summer of 2006,which is before the Comprehensive Plan was finalized, and she
was directed to proceed to Weld County with her proposal. She stated after beginning the
application process within Weld County,she attended a required meeting with the Windsor Town
Board, at which time she presented her proposal. She further stated she was informed that her
proposal was not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically because it was a
commercial use within a residential area. She stated the Comprehensive Plan was formally
adopted at the same meeting, and she was instructed that the Comprehensive Plan could not be
amended. Ms.Adams referenced Section 22-2-110.C.1 of the Weld County Code,and stated the
Board of County Commissioners may consider approval if the proposed use attempts to be
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan of the adjacent municipality. She stated her property is
designated as residential in the Windsor Comprehensive Plan; however, she understands the
designations are conceptual guidelines,and do not indicate the actual Zone District of the property.
She explained she believes inconsistencies exist within the Windsor Comprehensive Plan, and
provided examples of the inconsistencies. She stated she believes her property is compatible with
the surrounding land uses, which include a commercial tree farm, commercial dairy farm,
commercial mining operation, and a retail garden/nursery. Ms. Adams stated she wishes to
preserve the existing residence and provide a low-intensity development to serve the surrounding
area. She explained the irrigation ditch acts as a natural boundary and buffer from surrounding
properties,and the four-lane arterial road planned for County Road 13 will encourage commercial
uses within the area.
Ms. Adams stated in response to her request for annexation, the Town of Windsor Planning
Department indicated the property could not be annexed due to contiguity requirements. She stated
the Town also indicated it has no plans to annex the property anytime in the near future,therefore,
annexation is not legally possible. She reiterated the Board may consider her proposal,since the
Town of Windsor has no plans to provide service to the property, nor to complete the annexation
process. She clarified the property located to the southwest lies within the 100-yearfloodplain,and
is currently being utilized for commercial mineral extraction,and she believes a small storage facility
will have a minimal impact on the existing residences. She understands that two adjacent property
owners have expressed concerns regarding the property creating an eyesore; however, the
submitted plans have addressed this issue. She clarified the site will be utilized for parking of RV's,
boats, and campers, and storage of cars, semi-trailers, and junk will not be allowed. Ms.Adams
stated lighting will be limited to a decorative yard light at the entrance only,since it is company policy
that no clients are allowed in the lot after dark,for safety and security reasons. She stated she has
obtained copies of the Lighting,Screening,and Landscaping Code requirements from the Town of
Windsor, and she is willing to meet, and exceed, all requirements of both the Weld County Code
and the Town of Windsor Code. She stated the additional traffic created will be minimal, with an
average of seven additional vehicle trips per day, and transportation improvements have already
been addressed by the Town of Windsor and the County. She further stated the needs of the area
residents should be considered, and there is a need for storage of boats and other recreational
vehicles. She clarified many Homeowners'Association covenants do not allow for storage of these
types of vehicles within subdivisions, and several real estate companies have expressed support
for a storage facility within the Town of Windsor area. She stated many of the clients associated
with her current business live in covenant-controlled subdivisions and they believe the service
provided is essential and the property is kept properly maintained. Ms.Adams stated it seems unfair
and unjust to require strict compliance with the Town of Windsor's Comprehensive Plan since there
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR #1593)
PAGE 4
is not an established Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the Town of Windsor.
She believes the Town of Windsor should not be allowed to restrict quality commercial development
to occur within Weld County. She explained she currently operates a successful storage lot
northwest of the City of Brighton,which was approved through Use by Special Review Permit#1312
in April, 2001, and she believes the surrounding land uses at the proposed site are very similar to
the established site. She explained the photographs provided depict the current storage lot is kept
very clean and blends well with the surrounding properties, and Mr. Spitzer of the Planning
Commission gave compliments on the existing business. Ms.Adams reiterated she would like to
have the right to utilize her property for this use and encouraged the Board to not let the Town of
Windsor ultimately control the decision. She reviewed UBG. Policy 3.1 for the record,and reiterated
her proposal meets the requirements listed. She stated she has worked diligently to minimize
impacts to surrounding property owners,and the storage lot is a needed service. She clarified the
site will be self-sufficient and will generate revenue for the County. She stated the Planning
Commission hearing contained lengthy discussion regarding the lack of clarity of the UBG policies,
and the rights of property owners. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms.Adams stated
the ditch canal is located to the east of the property, and the commercial dairy is directly east, as
well. She further reiterated an active gravel pit is located to the southwest of the site,and another
gravel pit is proposed directly west of the site. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Hippely stated the property directly north of the site is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary,
and clarified the tree farm is located within Larimer County. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Ms. Adams stated water is provided to the site by the North Weld County Water
District, and sewer service is not available from the Town of Windsor, therefore, the residence
utilizes a septic system.
Diana Aungst, Town of Windsor Associate Planner, stated she represents the Town of Windsor
Planning Commission, which is requesting denial of the application. She stated the use is not
consistent with the current land use depictions, and sufficient sewage and waste facilities do not
exist for this use. She further stated the site is visible from Jacoby Road and County Road 13,and
the use is not compatible with the future development associated with the planned Katella
Annexation, which is under review for single family residential zoning. She stated two other
subdivisions are located within close proximity to the site. In response to Commissioner Garcia,
Ms.Aungst stated the dairy approved under Use by Special Review#845 is currently an active dairy,
the Town has approved a petition for annexation,and the site is currently under review to become
single family residential development. She further stated she believes the dairy will cease
operations upon completion of the annexation process. In response to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Aungst stated the nursery has been existence for quite some time; however, the Town of
Windsor Planning Commission has recommended denial for that use as well. There being no
further comments, Chair Long closed public testimony.
Ms. Adams stated the provided map depicts many uses within the surrounding area and
demonstrates this is not strictly a residential area. She stated if residential housing is proposed
where the dairy is currently located, an additional need for storage will exist. She clarified North
Creek Subdivision is located in very close proximity to her existing business, and many of the
property owners within the subdivision are clients of the storage business and are pleased that a
storage facility exists nearby. She reiterated the facility will be kept clean and provide high quality
service. In response to Chair Long, Ms.Adams stated the nearest storage facility is located south
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR #1593)
PAGE 5
of her property, by the Wal-Mart Distribution Center,and a marina and boat sales center located on
Interstate 25 does have some boat storage as well. Further responding to Chair Long,Ms.Adams
stated she was not aware that the office facility will require a separate septic system,as described
in previous discussion. She stated there is not a public restroom located in the office at her current
storage facility; however,patrons are allowed to utilize the restroom within the residence on that site.
She further stated within the last five years,no one has ever requested to utilize the restroom,even
though it is made clear to clients that it is available for use. She clarified an additional septic permit
is an unnecessary expense. Ms. Smith stated at the time the applicant files for a building permit,
a referral to the Department of Public Health and Environment will be made, and the need for a
septic system may be evaluated at that time. She clarified, in many cases, if a restroom facility is
available within 200 feet of the office building,the existing restroom may be utilized. She stated staff
will be negotiable; however, potential conditions are listed, since staff is not aware of future plans
at the time the application is filed. She further stated a septic system may not be necessary in the
future if sewer service is provided within the area. In response to Ms.Smith,Ms. Hippely suggested
a Condition could be added requiring the applicant to have an evaluation by the Department of
Public Health and Environment prior to issuing a building permit. In response to Chair Long,
Ms.Adams concurred with Ms. Hippely's suggestion. In response to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Adams stated a couple live in the residence on the site, and they will act as caretakers for the
property. Further responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr.Adams stated there is no exact
timeframe for the construction of the office building, and it will be constructed when it is needed.
Commissioner Rademacher stated he concurred with the language which would make a
determination about the need for a septic system at the time when a building permit is applied for.
Chair Long advised Ms. Adams that she assumes the risk of accepting the determination of the
Department of Public Health and Environment at a later date,and Ms.Adams stated she understood
the risk.
Ms.Adams stated she had additional concerns regarding the screening. She clarified at her current
business, natural greenery has been utilized as a buffer and for screening purposes, and at the
proposed site, a fence lined with fabric is required. She stated she believes natural aesthetics are
more pleasing,and she requested the landscaping on the future site be allowed to be similar to the
existing site. Mr. Adams stated he realizes the plants are not fully mature when first planted;
however,they mature within two to three years. Ms.Hippely stated the Department has historically
requested opaque screening for these types of uses,and the fabric was proposed by the applicant,
which has previously been approved. She clarified the applicant needs to provide screening from
County Road 68.5 and the surrounding properties,and small plants do not provide the appropriate
screening. She stated the applicant does not wish to install larger plants which provide the
necessary screening; however, a different type of fencing may be installed. In response to Chair
Long, Ms. Hippely stated the screening on the site is required to be opaque for the entire perimeter
of the property. Ms.Adams stated she was not required to provide opaque screening at her current
business location. (Changed to Tape#2007-22). In response to Ms. Adams, Ms. Hippely stated
each use is considered with a site-specific plan, therefore, requirements may differ at various
locations throughout the County. She clarified the Department of Planning Services strives to be
consistent with the requirement to provide opaque screening for commercial uses within residential
areas. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr.Carroll reiterated access to the site will be
on County Road 68.5, and not on County Road 13.
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR #1593)
PAGE 6
Commissioner Rademacher stated he would prefer for screening to completed with natural
shrubbery, as long the height is adequate; however, fenced screening is more appropriate along
County Road 68.5, due to safety concerns with traffic. Ms. Adams stated there are existing
cottonwood and pine trees located on the site,which are 40 to 50 feet in height,and the neighbors
to the east are screened by these trees. Ms. Hippely stated it may require a long amount of time
before the trees are mature enough to provide sufficient screening, therefore, no screening is
provided for the neighbors in the meantime. Ms. Adams stated a willow tree was planted on the
current business property approximately four years ago is already at a height of 20 feet, and she
reiterated her desire to have natural shrubbery fulfill the screening requirements. Mr. Adams
suggested the placement of lilac bushes as a method of providing screening,since the bushes grow
fast and provide a large amount of coverage. Ms.Adams clarified the property sits on a plateau,and
sits higher than County Road 68.5,therefore,the elevation advantage makes it hard to see into the
property from the road. At the request of Commissioner Rademacher,Ms. Hippely again displayed
the photographs of the site, and Ms. Adams indicated the locations of the nearest surrounding
residences. She stated the property owner to the east does not have any concerns, and she has
worked to address the concerns raised by the other surrounding property owners.
In response to Chair Long, Ms. Hippely stated staff has approved the Landscaping Plan as
submitted by the applicant, including the proposed opaque fencing for screening purposes. She
stated if the applicant would like to present modifications to the Landscape Plan,staff would need
to re-evaluate what is proposed prior to recording the plat. Responding to Chair Long, Ms.Adams
stated she would like to provide opaque fencing only along County Road 68.5. Ms. Hippely stated
the Department still has concerns regarding providing screening for the residences located across
the canal. She stated the utilization of natural plants is not the issue;the main issue is the size of
the plants and the rate at which the plants will grow. In response to Chair Long, Ms. Hippely
recommended Condition of Approval #2.K be added to state, "The applicant shall submit a
Landscaping Plan, for review and approval, including plantings along the ditch canal which will
sufficiently screen adjacent residences, and opaque screening along County Road 68.5." The
applicant concurred with the language provided by Ms. Hippely. Responding to Chair Long,
Ms. Adams stated she has reviewed, and concurs with, the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards as presented and modified.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Adams stated the gravel pit to the west of the
property has been in operation for approximately five years, and the area used to be utilized as a
hayfield. Chair Long stated due to a recommendation of denial, a motion of approval must be
justified with the appropriate Code references.
Commissioner Jerke stated he agrees with the findings of the Planning Commission. He stated
surrounding property owners have presented issues, and the Town of Windsor has outstanding
issues of compatibility. He further stated two of the Planning Commission members from the
surrounding area did not support the proposal, and he believes these members would have a
greater understanding of the surrounding area. He stated County Road 13 will become a strategic
road in the near future,which will handle a large amount of traffic, and the use proposed is not as
attractive as other uses which could be proposed. He clarified he is not in support of the application.
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR #1593)
PAGE 7
Commissioner Rademacher indicated he did not agree with Commissioner Jerke. He stated the
use is compatible with the surrounding area, especially since two large gravel pits are located
immediately adjacent to the site. He further stated a dairy farm is currently located directly east of
the site,and it is possible that the property may never complete the annexation process to the Town
of Windsor. He explained he is in support of the application,since the use is compatible with other
current surrounding uses.
Commissioner Garcia stated he agrees with the comments provided by CommissionerJerke,and
he believes the highest and best use of this property will be something other than an RV storage
facility.
Chair Long stated he is conflicted about some of the uses within the area;however,he concurs with
Commissioner Jerke regarding the comments provided about County Road 13. He stated he is not
in support of the application.
Commissioner Jerke moved to deny the request of Leslie Pickering Adams for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1593 for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right,
Accessory Use, or 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, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the
Planning Commission. In response to Mr. Barker,Commissioner Jerke stated his motion is based
on the facts that the application is not consistent with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, the
proposed use is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses,nor future development of the
surrounding area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia. Chair Long stated he
understands and appreciates the need for this type of storage; however, he does not believe this
location is the best choice. Upon request for a roll call vote, the motion carried three to one, with
Commissioner Rademacher opposed. There being no further discussion, the hearing was
completed at 11:30 a.m.
2007-1898
PL1912
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS (USR #1593)
PAGE 8
This Certification was approved on the 30th day of July 2007.
APPROVED:
BO D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
��� WE COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: geld � c' i EL , v X CT
- i. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board Iasi
BY: . Jerk e ?ro-Tem
r' "sip,. 7 2
Deputy Cle to the Board -
�'liam F. Garcia
TAPE #2007-21 and #2007-22 EXCUSED
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2007-56 - 7 ocJ c„ c-w PLC
Douglas't2ademache
2007-1898
PL1912
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR#1593 - LESLIE PICKERING ADAMS
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 02/06/207)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing (Filed under Legals)
E. Planning Staff Memo re: Items Prior to Scheduling, dated
06/04/07
F. Applicant Signage Plan
G. Applicant Lighting Plan
H. Applicant Mineral Plan
Planning Staff Memo re: Condition of Approval #1.D, dated
06/04/07
J. Applicant Landscape, Screening, and Irrigation Plan
K. Applicant Letter re: Summary of Application, dated
04/30/07
L. Applicant Letter re: Request to proceed with hearing
M. Applicant Map of Surrounding Land Uses
N. Planning Staff Certification of sign posting
Q.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
ao
Q No
J \ \
i
t
c `�i
('ITS
��) N. �t .,
C u \ '
o I) �� �
V m N �v' v
C a m c•-- •Z
`9F.��
a o N CO {^
U N o ., w C .l�
Z ): V d ` U \7 I
K
Q 7 1% E v a°'i - y' 1`� 1.
❑ LL N O R 4-.
'� I\ r`' "�V
Z WO >fx 0 co 2 4� 'lV
F I— o w E E N 3 . b'`
Q I O 3 a W 1:' A. 7C� 0 `'t% cam'
N I- V O E W Q'a O Si 1 ' erk `M.
2 co 7.� a < E
F o O Ol C
ZL.
3---
o N g. U t g
a Clia ( Y 1 -
CO C �`
as ✓!
•te• rn m a ti f\
a.0 • 2J y p ZThti '`
Q I,,
W q � � 3 V
0 0 0 a l
Q 000 3a
Cl) N N N a
Z W W W Q W ❑ cn % q
2 Y Y Y �
W 000 -I Z rccx . NJ \
S 0 0 0 a
Hello