PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BOCC Hearing Date: December 7, 2017 To: Park County Planning Commissioners Date: November 28, 2017 Prepared by: Case Number: Subject: Request: Jennifer Gannon, Planning Technician Sheila Cross, Director of Development Services 17PUD-01 Woodbury Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment Applicant is requesting approval for a PUD Amendment which will establish the use of now-vacant property as a rental storage facility. Application Summary: Applicant: Amanda Woodbury Owner: South Platte Prospects, LLC Location: 2.16-acre parcel in the NE1/4 of Section 23, Township 8S, Range 76W, addressed as 34881 Highway 285. Current Zone District: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Surrounding Zoning: Agricultural (A) and Conservation-Recreation (C-R) Lot Size: 2.16 acres Existing Use: Vacant Land Proposed Use: Rental Storage Facility Background: The subject case was originally heard by the Planning Commission on September 12, 2017. It was recommended for approval, with conditions, to the BOCC by unanimous vote. The BOCC heard the case on September 28 th but postponed their decision until October 12 th, 2017 when they could discuss questions with the County Attorney in Executive Session. On October 12 th, the decision was made to remand this case for further consideration by the Planning Commission due to concerns that the presentation of the case to the BOCC was different from the one to the Planning Commission. BOCC Staff Report Page 1 of 2 Woodbury PUD December 7, 2017 Hearing

New referral response requests and adjacent property owner notifications were sent, and the property was reposted. All new referral responses and public comment received since September 12, 2017 are on file. All information from the September 12 Planning Commission and the September and October BOCC hearings remains part of the record for this case. The original staff report for the September BOCC meeting and referral responses and public comments received since October 12 th, 2017 are attached here as supplements. On November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission heard this case again. The applicant read a detailed presentation and Mr. Penix and Mr. Eber, who had made comments to the BOCC in the September 28 th hearing, appeared and were heard by the Planning Commission this time. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application with a 4 to 1 vote. BOCC Staff Report Page 2 of 2 Woodbury PUD December 7, 2017 Hearing

PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BOCC Hearing Date: September 28, 2017 To: Park County Commissioners Date: September 21, 2017 Prepared by: Case Number: Subject: Request: Jennifer Gannon, Planning Technician Sheila Cross, Director of Development Services 17PUD-01 Woodbury Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment Applicant is requesting approval for a PUD Amendment which will establish the use of now-vacant property as a rental storage facility. Application Summary: Applicant: Amanda Woodbury Owner: South Platte Prospects, LLC Location: 2.16-acre parcel in the NE1/4 of Section 23, Township 8S, Range 76W, addressed as 34881 Highway 285. Current Zone District: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Surrounding Zoning: Agricultural (A) and Conservation-Recreation (C-R) a Zoning Map is provided as Attachment 1. Lot Size: 2.16 acres Existing Use: Vacant Land Proposed Use: Rental Storage Facility Background: The subject vacant land was purchased by the applicant s husband in 2001. It is on the north side of Highway 285, approximately three miles northeast of Como. It is one of five adjacent parcels that were zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) by the County in the original County zoning of 1975. In March of 1971, the original owner of this property bought the patent from the State of Colorado for the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 23, Township 8, Range 76, and the part of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 lying north of Highway 285. In June of 1971, he began splitting out the four small parcels that exist today. It is not clear why the area was zoned PUD in the first County zoning process. A BOCC Staff Report Page 1 of 5 Woodbury PUD September 28, 2017 Hearing

Vicinity Map, Aerial Map and Wildlife Impact Map are included as Attachments 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Because there was no PUD plan at the time of this zoning, the legal use of the property is considered to be the current use. This land is vacant so the applicant must request a PUD Amendment changing the use of the property and providing a new PUD Plan. The Land Use Regulations state that a change in a type of use in a PUD is a Major Amendment and that a Major Amendment must be processed as a resubmission of a Final PUD Plan and Plat. The proposed use is a storage facility with up to eight 30 ft. x 100 ft. indoor storage units as well as outdoor parking for vehicles, trucks, boats, RVs, trailers and equipment. The applicant has submitted an application including a plan for the development of the property. The PUD/Site Plan is Attachment 5. The applicant has been working with CDOT to determine appropriate access off of Highway 285 for customers using the storage facilities. CDOT has issued the access permit with all requirements and instructions, and it is attached to the application. The applicant has included three signage ideas for the business. Per Park County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-804 D, a comprehensive sign plan can be part of a PUD Amendment and, if approved by the BOCC, shall govern and control the display of signs within the PUD, notwithstanding provisions within the LUR Sign Code, Article 5, Division 8. Two of the sign ideas proposed would be taller than the specified 12-foot height for a ground sign and larger than the specified 64 square feet of surface area. They are not typical, billboard type signs, but are designed by the applicant to catch the attention of people driving by on Hwy 285, using vehicles raised on poles or on a berm. The other proposed sign is a painted wall sign on the building nearest the highway. The Planning Commission does not recommend using old vehicles as signs and proposed a condition of approval that specifies that signage must follow the County sign regulations (Section 5 Division 8) as they apply to the Commercial zone district. Land Use Regulations and Strategic Master Plan: Approval criteria for a Preliminary PUD Plan and Plat (LUR Section 5-313, E.5) are addressed, as summarized below. a. The Final PUD Plan and Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan and Plat; This property appears to have been originally zoned PUD in 1975 by the County. There is no Preliminary PUD Plan or Plat. b. The Final PUD Plan and Plat substantially conforms to the goals and policies of the Park County Strategic Master Plan; This proposed PUD plan works towards Goal 6, Evolve and Expand Tourism, by providing a place for vacant landowners to store boats and campers and belongings closer to their land than storage facilities nearer their full-time residences; thus improving recreational opportunities. It also BOCC Staff Report Page 2 of 5 Woodbury PUD September 28, 2017 Hearing

works towards Goal 7, Diversify the Economy, by encouraging services for recreational/visitor traffic and local residents. Per the 2001 Park County Visual Priority Map, the subject property is in a Highest Visibility, Highest Scenic Quality Road Corridor View. The subject property can only be seen from Highway 285 within a mile in either direction, but large steel storage structures and outside vehicle parking will negatively impact the wide open views towards the mountains that now exist along Highway 285 in this area. The applicant believes that neither fencing nor berms will work to hide the structures because the property is actually lower than the highway, but she has agreed to work with the Planning Department to choose the building color that will be the least conspicuous. Tan buildings with green trim are proposed. c. Includes all revisions and conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners during their approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan and Plat; Not applicable. d. Has addressed all professionally identified concerns regarding potential wildlife impact, water quantity and quality, wastewater treatment, traffic, utilities, drainage, and geology; The property is in a Moderate Wildlife Impact Zone so an application and referral response request was sent to Colorado Parks & Wildlife, but as of the time of this report preparation, they have not responded. If a restroom is required by the State, the County will require an appropriate wastewater system. Water can either be from a well or brought in to the site. CDOT has already addressed their issues with the applicant and is in the process of generating an access permit. The applicant is working with IREA on current and future easements for a power pole on the property. Plans for placement of structures and signs take into account the future changes in placement of the existing pole and easement. The applicant is aware that a Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Control report will be necessary in order to obtain a building permit for the property. There are no geological hazards on this property. e. Where public improvements are proposed, has had a subdivision improvement agreement approved to form and legality by the County Attorney and executed by the applicant in order to secure the timely and complete construction of the public improvements Not applicable. f. Will result in a substantial benefit to the County, compared to what could have been accomplished through strict application of otherwise applicable base zoning district standards; If the subject property were not zoned PUD, the applicant would have requested a rezoning to Commercial. If approved, the applicant would have the opportunity to develop any of the potential uses listed in the Commercial Zone District Schedule of Uses. The benefit to the County provided by a PUD amendment is BOCC Staff Report Page 3 of 5 Woodbury PUD September 28, 2017 Hearing

that we are considering only one use put forward by the applicant for approval, and that can be the only legal use on this property unless another PUD Amendment is sought and approved. g. Complies with the intent of the PUD zoning district as described in Section 5-313; It is unknown whether the purpose of PUD, defined so as to provide a mix of uses in a thoughtful manner, was met in the original zoning since no plan exists. Because the PUD-zoned land is under divided ownership, developing a cohesive plan is difficult due to reliance on several owners. It is possible that a focal point of service providers for surrounding residential developments could be developed in this location. It is unknown whether this proposal is what may spur development of additional amenities on adjacent properties, or if it will remain an independent enterprise. h. Is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of County residents. This proposed amendment should not affect the health, safety or welfare of County residents. PUD amendments are subject to one additional standard of approval a finding that the amendment is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD. This standard cannot be met due to the absence of an over-all PUD plan for the area and unknown intent of the original PUD. Impact Analysis: No significant impact is anticipated to schools, parks or utilities. Public Comment and Planning Commission Action: The Planning Department received five letters from County residents in support of, and one letter from an adjacent property owner against this proposal. The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this case on September 12, 2017. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this PUD Amendment application to the BOCC with the following conditions: 1. The CDOT permit must be approved and finalized prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. A Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Report and Plan will be required prior to issuance of the first building permit. 3. Applicant will confer with Planning Department on color of buildings prior to obtaining a permit and ordering the building. 4. Signage shall be governed by Section 5 Division 8 of the Park County Land Use Regulations as they apply to the Commercial zone district. No vehicles can be used as signs. BOCC Staff Report Page 4 of 5 Woodbury PUD September 28, 2017 Hearing

5. There will be no more than fifteen (15) outside vehicle storage/parking spaces. Recommendation: Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that PUD Amendment #17PUD-01 be approved with the above conditions. Options for BOCC action are to ask that the County Attorney prepare a resolution to either: Approve the application with no conditions, Approve the application with the proposed and/or newly identified conditions, or Deny the application. BOCC Staff Report Page 5 of 5 Woodbury PUD September 28, 2017 Hearing

Sec 14 Sec 13 Sec 23 Sec 24 HIGHWAY 285 CR 34 Subject Property Zone_Code Agricultural Agricultural Small Lot Conservation/Recreation Mining Planned Unit Development Residential Attachment 1 Zoning Map 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet Park County Planning Department

Boreas Cir Ohler Ct Ohler Gulch Snyder Creek Rd CR 35 Michigan Creek SWA Kenosha Dr Georgia Dr Michigan Hill Rd CR 77 Jeff Creek Ln Jeff Creek Ct Rocker Seven Rd Litmer Rd Jefferson Creek HIGHWAY 285 Subject Property Michigan Creek CR 34 Slater Ditch Tarryall Creek Packer Gulch Attachment 2 Vicinity Map 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 Feet Park County Planning Department

HIGHWAY 285 Attachment 3 Aerial Map Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 0 160 320 640 Feet Park County Planning Department

Sec 14 43504 44661 Sec 13 45322 1979 633 548 723 30477 Sec 23 Sec 24 125021814 HIGHWAY 285 2277 Legend 30989 30995 CR 34 Attachment 4 Wildlife Impact 45319 45524 Class 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet Park County Planning Department Subject Property Potential Wildlife Impact 2- Moderately Low 3 - Moderate 5 - Very High

Colorado Parks & Wildlife North East Region 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 P 303.291.7227 February 15, 2017 Jenifer Gannon Park County Planning Department P.O. Box 1598 Fairplay, Colorado 80440 RE: Amendment to the PUD zoning to establish use on vacant parcel for a rental storage facility Dear Mrs. Gannon, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the PUD Zoning Application. One of our goals at Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is to provide complete, consistent and timely information to all entities who request comment on matters within our statutory authority and our mission, which is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado s natural resources. District Wildlife Manager Tyler Stoltzfus recently visited the site. The current 2.16 acre tract is southwest of Jefferson along U.S. Highway 285. The property is located in an area deemed to be Mountain Plover nesting habitat. Mountain Plover can be found in South Park from mid April to September and nest from May through mid August. Other wildlife that CPW would expect to find are pronghorn and elk that forage on the open grassland. CPW finds that rezoning the 2.16 acres from Residential to Commercial will have minimal impact on Wildlife due to the small acreage and the neighboring lots already being disturbed and built on. CPW suggest that care be taken as to not disturb or destroy active Mountain Plover nests during construction. CPW also suggests that all fences be built to wildlife friendly specifications with a top wire no more than 42 inches from the ground and a bottom wire at least 16 inches from the ground. Wildlife friendly fence specifications can be found at http://cpw.state.co.us/documents/landwater/privatelandprograms/fencingwithwildlifeinm ind.pdf. As always, CPW suggests that care be taken during construction to avoid excess erosion, siltation, or disturbance of more land than necessary to accomplish the project. Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray Chris Castilian Jeanne Horne John Howard, Vice-Chair Bill Kane Dale Pizel James Pribyl, Chair James Vigil Dean Wingfield Michelle Zimmerman, Secretary Alex Zipp

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact District Wildlife Manager Tyler Stoltzfus at 303-916- 0784. Sincerely, Mark Lamb Mark Lamb Area Wildlife Manager Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray Chris Castilian Jeanne Horne John Howard, Vice-Chair Bill Kane Dale Pizel James Pribyl, Chair James Vigil Dean Wingfield Michelle Zimmerman, Secretary Alex Zipp

11.1.2017 Zoning Board, I recognize that you have received both of my letters that I have sent in the past concerning the PUD of Amanda Woodbury. I would ask that you provide them again for each board member. I will be brief with this new letter. We, in addition to many of our neighbors, are strongly opposed to this rezoning. Below are a summary of our concerns: 1. Nothing prevents this from becoming a glorified junkyard that I will view from many angles of my home and my property. 2. Outside of existing downtown Jefferson and Fairplay, this will be the only exception of its kind that will be this type of eyesore from Kenosha Pass to Fairplay and on to Buena Vista. If the applicant wants to build storage units we encourage her to purchase a lot in an area already zoned for this type of use. This will upset the view corridor in a designated Heritage District in a way that has not been done before. The applicant made the comment on the record if you don t like the looks of it then look the other way. That doesn t seem to be the proper mindset for protecting a heritage district. 3. I have submitted offers on the two neighboring houses to this proposed storage unit with the intent to purchase them and keep them as residential. I would be happy to zone them that way once I purchase them if that pleases the board. 4. Unilaterally proposing a change in PUD without consensus from other PUD owners seems unfair to the rest of us. As the largest land owner in the PUD I believe I should have a say in what does and does not happen in this PUD or it discounts that value of my PUD. The applicant has made no effort to accommodate the ideas or opinions of adjacent property owners. 5. The applicant has stated on the record that she is forced to develop the land because she wasn t able to sell it due to property value loss in the area. I have made her two written offers to purchase the property at this point. The first was at 5X the value of undeveloped acreage in the area ($1000-1600) per acre for a total offer of $15K. She countered at $45,000 which represents a 13X multiple and is far beyond what the market bears anywhere in this area. The latest offer from us was in mid-october for $26,000 which is almost 8 times the value of the land. This also represents an offer that makes the applicant 100% whole on her investment in the land and solves her problem of not being able to recoup her initial investment. We have acted in good faith and made every attempt to secure the land for a more than fair price and make her whole on her investment. 6. While we are very much opposed to this type of development, she had made no plans to protect the views or minimize the visual pollution. No fences and no berms to keep us from having to look at stored vehicles. 7. The applicant has suggested that this will add to the local economy yet she plans on having no one onsite and employing no residents aside from herself and her family. This will not grow the economy. 8. The applicant has suggested that this will enhance tourism because people will store their weekend campers and ATVs etc. First, there is no net gain in tourism as these people are already planning to come to Park County and nothing assures the county that these people will

stay in Park County. We all know that there will be winter months which make access to the vehicles near impossible with the drifts. Also, there are safety concerns with people trying to access this lot and storage after hours after a long day of recreation trying to park or pick up a vehicle with no electricity or lighting onsite. 9. There are legal concerns around the PUD that the attorneys involved will be going into detail. We understand that the PUD use should be approved by the PUD land owners. 10. Traffic concerns are real and we are not willing to grant easement for merging lanes if we have any say in that matter. If you drive by this site, the traffic passing lane ends right near this spot which means traffic is often exceeding 75 MPH to merge into one lane. This is potentially life threatening. 11. Storing vehicles onsite poses potential contamination problems to the soil and water that we depend on in this valley. 12. There is little to no evidence that this will even be a viable business. 13. Security is a major concern. Padlocks can be broken with simple $30 bolt cutters in less than 3 seconds. This place provides no additional security. It is a sitting duck for potential thieves which puts them in proximity to my home and my neighbor s homes. This puts us at risk and the applicant will bear no responsibility if and when this happens. In conclusion, the mission of Park County Planning and Zoning is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of our citizens by implementing sustainable land use and planning principles. This property poses a risk to the health and safety of neighboring properties and passersby. It does not improve the health, safety, or welfare of anyone other than the potential welfare of the applicant. This proposed plan has no evidence of being sustainable. The surrounding land is >99% agricultural and allowing for this exception is a direct violation of sustainable land use and planning principles. It is documented that your responsibility as the zoning board is to research and recommend the highest and best use of the parcels in Park County. Storage units and vehicle storage on a property surrounded by >99% agricultural and residential is not highest and best use. It could be argued that it is lowest and worst use. You have the opportunity to make the right decision for the county now. Your decision will either impact this corridor by preserving its beauty or allowing for a business that is not welcome, does not fit, and will create visual pollution for decades to come. We implore you to make the right decision to protect the interests of all the neighbors and tourists over the self- interest of an individual. Sincerely Dr. Brad and Allison Guyton Owners, Guyton Ranch 507.202.6565

From: To: Subject: Date: Agnes Fountain Jennifer Gannon Zoning application support Tuesday, November 07, 2017 1:49:08 PM We are writing in support of 17PUD-01 application for a self-storage facility at 34881 Highway 285. The storage facility is in a different part of the county than others and will be more convenient for the residents of Indian Mountain, Stagestop and Como. Because other facilities are sometimes full the additional units are needed extra capacity. Additional tax revenue from the business will be welcome as the infrastructure and other needs of Park County are always expanding. And a business with income for a local family is desirable to maintain the county population and ability of this family to support other local businesses. I believe that the full time residents of the county are deserving of the support of county government since they are the backbone of continuity in Park County. Please accept this application in view of the positive effects it will have on local life. Agnes and Charles Fountain 306 Vulture Lane Como, CO Get Outlook for ios

From: To: Subject: Date: ERIK S TAYLOR Jennifer Gannon Case #17 CUP-01 Thursday, November 09, 2017 1:03:20 PM Park county Planning Commission Park County FairPlay,Co 80440. To the Commission This letter represents a statement in strong opposition to the zoning variance requested by applicant Amanda Woodbury in the above referenced case. My husband Erik S. Taylor and I are the owners since 1961 of the Robinson Ranch located in proximity to applicant s property. Ou objection is based on several issues: Sustainability: Applicant alleges that there is a demand for storage facilities and vehicle storage in South Park yet she has failed to do even basic research as to the feasibility of this project, relying instead on anecdotal and hearsay evidence provided by her daughter in Indian Mountain. This project is clearly unsustainable on its face. Access: Applicant has received a permit from CDOT for expanded access from Hwy.285 to her property. This access is inadequate due to the high rate of speed on the highway. There are no turn lanes on the highway at this location and CDOT has indicated in the permit it may prohibit left hand turns into the property. These are real safety issues which have not been properly analyzed. Security: The site is unsecured. There is no security fence and there is presently inadequate fencing. This makes the site vulnerable to theft and vandalism. At the very least the sites should be securely fenced and access should be limited to daylight hours. Furthermore, there is no water or electricity on the site which present serious safety issues particularly as to the proposed vehicle storage. Compatibility: This project which would consist of 8 large storage buildings and 15 vehicles in outdoor unsecured storage is completely incompatible with the surrounding area which is zoned agriculture and agriculture and conservation/ recreation. The property is in one of the most scenic parts of South Park and if approved will create an eyesore. Approval would be an example of the worst kind of spot zoning and would set a dangerous precedent for similar inappropriate use. This project belongs more properly in a commercially zoned area of the County. Finally, Applicant has failed in any way to address our concerns or those of others in opposition to this project. These are legitimate concerns and cannot be ignored. Therefore, given the issues raised by opponents it is incumbent upon this commission to reject this application and instruct applicant to resubmit an application for a use of her property which is compatible with the surrounding area. Sincerely yours, Frances H.Taylor

From: To: Subject: Date: Paul McDaniel Jennifer Gannon I think I missed it, but just in case Friday, November 10, 2017 3:09:50 PM Jennifer, Paul McDaniel here. We spoke and emailed about concerns regarding the proposed storage units and RV Parking on Hwy 285 close to my property some weeks ago. It appears the petitioned is not satisfied with limiting the number of vehicles allowed to be parked there. I am strongly opposed to that change. Allowing unlimited parking for vehicles raises the odds of a major eyesore. I thought the zoning commission was firm on that, and if they are waffling on it I would like to make sure and weigh in to urge them to stand firm. I would like to see Park County be considered a pretty place to drive through and own land. I do not think unlimited vehicle storage speaks well for the county, whether I am a neighbor or a tourist. I have had a family situation which distracted me from reaching out sooner, and understand there will be another hearing soon. Please let me know if you get this and if it can be gotten to the zoning commission. Thanks, and sincerely yours, Paul McDaniel

TO PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Mike Brazell, Commissioner Dick Elsner, Commissioner Mark Dowaliby. COPY TO: Tom Eisenman, County Manager SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CASE #17CUP-01 With reference to the above matter scheduled for a Public Hearing before your Board on December 7 th the following comments are respectfully submitted: My name is Leon Krain and I own property on both sides of County Road 34 operating under the name of Krain Ranch LLC. County Road 34 intersects Highway 285 two-tenths of a mile from the site of the proposed storage facility. My nearest property line to the site of the proposed facility is approximately one-third of a mile. The 2.16-acre parcel on Highway 285 is in a road corridor view described in the Strategic Master Plan as having Highest Visibility, Highest Scenic Quality. As referenced in the Strategic Master Plan, the preservation of the scenic quality, rural character and natural beauty of Park County have been considered of utmost importance to county residents. After further consideration of this matter, I am of the opinion that the location of the proposed facility would not preserve the scenic quality, rural character and natural beauty of Park County and under the circumstances I am opposed to the application. Given the potential impact of the proposed facility on scenic quality, in the event that your Board approves the application, it is respectfully requested that your Board require that the applicant take reasonable steps to minimize the negative impact that the proposed facility would have on the scenic quality of the view corridor. While I am opposed to the application, in the event that your Board approves the application the following conditions are respectfully suggested as a condition of any such approval: 1: Outdoor parking of vehicles, campers or boats should be limited to fifteen, and the parking of these vehicles, campers or boats should only be in the identified fifteen spaces at the borderline of the property furthest from Highway 285. In a drawing included in the application and titled LONG-TERM PLAN, fifteen 10ft by 40ft parking spaces are in fact shown at the property border furthest from Highway 285. However, in another drawing submitted by the applicant entitled PHASE 1, the parking spaces are shown much closer to Highway 285. Given the applicants ability to mitigate the negative impact of the facility on the view corridor, it appears to be reasonable for your Board to require that the the fifteen parking places be limited to the border of the property furthest from Highway 285 as shown on the applicants drawing entitled LONG-TERM PLAN. 1

2: The storage buildings should be a neutral color that would best blend with the surrounding area. (For example tan buildings with red roofs might be appropriate.) 3: Before and following the completion of the contemplated eight storage buildings, or if the applicant elects not to complete all eight storage buildings, no outdoor storage (with the exception of the fifteen vehicles, campers or boats) of any type should be permitted on the parcel; and no temporary or other structures should be permitted on the parcel. 4: Any lighting on the parcel for security or other purposes should be downward facing and shielded so as not to disturb the surrounding area. 5: Any fencing around the perimeter of the buildings should be appropriate so as not to detract from the rural character of the area. For example, a chain link fence may not be the best choice. 6: The height of the buildings does not appear to be included in the application and it is suggested that a maximum height be specified in the approval. It is respectfully requested that this letter be included in the record of your Board s Public Hearing. Sincerely, Leon Krain Krain Ranch LLC December 2, 2017 2