HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090291.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Robert Grand
ABSENT
Erich Ehrlich
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker, Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 6, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case on consent into the record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
CZ -1149
Charles & Alice Greenman
Jacqueline Hatch
Change of Zone from C-1 (Commercial) and E (Estate) Zone District to A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Part of the SW4 NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Approximately 'A mile South of State Highway 66 and East of and adjacent to
CR 1.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied yes.
The Chair asked if the applicant was here and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The
applicant indicated yes.
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 Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wish to pull this case from the consent agenda to be
heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR-1681
Charles & Alice Greenman
Jacqueline Hatch
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (antique business with warehouse for antique furniture and personal
storage) in the C-1 (Commercial) and E (Estate) Zone District.
Part of the SW4 NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Approximately'/] mile South of State Highway 66 and East of and adjacent to
CR 1.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied yes.
2009-0291
The Chair asked if the applicant was here and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant
indicated yes.
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 Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wish to pull this case from the consent agenda to
be heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
PZ-1151
Kristi Walker
Jacqueline Hatch
Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) Zone District to PUD with C-3, C-4, I-1, 1-2
and 1-3 uses.
Lot A and B of RE -3949 being part of NW4 of Section 20, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to State Hwy 85 and approximately 1/8 mile south of CR
20.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied yes with a
small change to the request. She stated that she would like to leave this item on consent; however there
has been an alteration to the request by the applicant.
Ms. Hatch stated that originally this was a PUD Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD with C-3, C-4, I-
1, 1-2, and 1-3 Zone Districts. The applicant is requesting that it be altered to a straight Change of Zone
application from Agricultural to only the 1-3 Zone District.
Ms. Hatch commented that staff and the county attorney are in support of this request. She indicated that
she has handed out revised staff comments to the Commissioners outlining the changes. The only
change in the staff comments are the section numbers for the reasons of approval. She also stated that
at the end of the staff report there is a standard which states that at the time of final plat these items need
to be submitted; those items have been deleted from staff comments since no PUD Final Plat is required.
Ms. Hatch stated that staff is still in support of leaving this case on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Ochsner asked for clarification on the zoning request. He asked if I-1 is a more intensive
use than 1-3. Ms. Hatch said that 1-3 would be the most intense use. She added that legal notice was
given including the 1-3 Zone District designation. The applicant originally requested C-3, C-4, I-1, 1-2, and
1-3 and now they are requesting only the 1-3 Zone District. Ms. Hatch added that it is an intense use but it
is one that has already been notified as such.
Commissioner Grand asked if the County Attorney approves of this change. Mr. Barker replied yes.
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 Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wish to pull this case from the consent agenda to
be heard. No one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that the Consent Agenda including CZ -1149, USR-1681, and PZ-1151, be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair read the first case on the hearing agenda into the record.
CASE NUMBER: 2008-XX Amendment 1
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
2
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
Michelle Martin
Part of Sections 17 and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Southeast Weld
Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use
Map.
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Robert Grand stated that he is a member of the RE -3J School District which is in included in this area;
however he feels that he can make a fair judgment on the items coming before the board today.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicants have applied to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan in order to modify the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Map 2.1.
This amendment includes Part of Sections 17 and 18, Township 2 North, Range 64 West and Sections 2,
Township 2 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M.
The areas in question as a part of this amendment were already approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in the original boundary in 2006.
The two areas we are focusing on today are Sections 17 and 18 as well as Section 2.
If this amendment is approved the overall number of residential units transferred to Section 17 and 18 would
be 1000 units. Currently Section 2 is classified as residential and parts of Section 17 and 18 are classified as
agricultural. In this amendment the applicant is proposing to change Section 2 to agricultural and move the
residential units to Sections 17 and 18.
The applicant has also signed an Affidavit of Agreement stating that they agree to all the previous triggers and
commitments as determined by prior applications and actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
Over the last year the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the change of zone for Pioneer. In the
change of zone Section 2 was not included.
The Weld County Department of Public Works stated in their referral dated October 9, 2008 that the drainage
and traffic report submitted with the application are conceptual at this phase of the development and therefore
additional information will be required at the Planned United Development process.
If the amendment is approved, the residential component from Section 2 would be relocated to Sections 17
and 18, which are adjacent to existing residential areas. This places the new residential area closer to 1-76
and allows for connectively with existing and planned infrastructure within the core areas of the MUD as well
as the regional supporting area of the Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg. The amendment would also
designate the residential component in Section 2 to "Agricultural," which is also consistent with the existing
surrounding land uses.
If approved the amendment will designate 613 acres from residential to Agricultural and 295 acres from
Agricultural to residential; this is an increase of 320 acres of Agricultural production from the original plan
adopted in 2006.
According to the applicant the proposed 295 acres for residential will yield 1,000 units this assumes a
residential population of 2,550 people.
The applicant has committed to relocate an elementary school in Section 17 and a park in Section 18. The
applicant has indicated that the planned middle school and high school facilities would be capable of handling
the additional students.
The areas in question were part of the original service area and therefore will be serviced by Resource
Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan District as stated in the letter dated July 27, 2005.
The Henrylyn Irrigation District in their referral dated October 3, 2008 has asked the applicant to exclude the
property that is proposed for residential use. The applicant wrote a letter to the ditch copy on October 21,
3
2008 stating that at this time the use of the property will remain Agricultural and would like to defer the transfer
of these rights until the Planned Unit Development Process.
Public Service Company of Colorado/Xcel Energy in their referral dated October 6, 2008 reminded the
applicant of the necessary setbacks for single family development, multi family development and commercial
development. The applicant wrote a letter to the Xcel Energy dated October 21, 2008 stating that they will
work with the utility companies through the Planned United Development Process on the necessary
easements.
Planning Staff recommends both of the above comments are better addressed at the Planned Unit
Development Change of Zone process.
The boundary is within the RE -3J School District as well as the Southeast Weld Fire Protection District and the
Hudson Fire Protection District.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the applicant has adequately demonstrated
compliance. 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.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
Jack Reutzel, Reutzel & Associates, 9145 E Kenyon Ave, Ste 200, Denver CO. Mr. Reutzel said that the
First Amendment reflects some of the education that they received during the last change of zone process
where they decided with the help of staff that Section 2, although designated residential in the approved
Structural Land Use Map, because of its satellite nature and the cost of providing utilities became difficult
if not impossible to perform.
Without changing the boundaries of the MUD, they are proposing to remove the residential designation
and replace it with agricultural and vice versa. He added that the residential change makes better sense
as it is getting closer to the 1-76 corridor, closer to the growth centers of both Hudson and Kennesburg. It
is a better fit for adjacent land uses.
Mr. Reutzel said that they were mindful that when the Structural Land Use Plan and MUD was approved in
2005 the Board of County Commissioners set up a range of residential population between 7,389 dwelling
units to 12,425 dwelling units. With the switch they are proposing, they are well within that range so that
they are not in violation of any of the structural land use plan elements.
Mr. Reutzel referred to Ms. Martin's comments regarding two of the referral comments which were
received. He stated that they did respond to the referrals. The RE -3J School District did submit a letter
dated December 20, 2008 asking for the applicant's further commitment to work with them to locate
school sites and to have this capital facility foundation in place prior to development. In a letter this
morning he has committed to both of those matters in writing. As part of the change of zone they did
create a capital facilities district that is a means in which development would help prime the pump for
school facilities prior to the time that property tax kicks in. It is in place and does apply to this amendment
as well.
Mr. Reutzel commented that with the switch there is the same number of schools with probably less
number of students but it does reflect the agreement that they have with the school district.
Mr. Reutzel noted that last Wednesday evening he addressed the Hudson Planning Commission at their
request to talk about these amendments. Their concerns were in making sure that they applicant was
holding fast to their commitment to not have more than 200,000 square feet of commercial development
which this amendment does not change. Hudson wanted to make sure that the applicant is working in
close coordination to the School District which by that letter they have complied with.
Commissioner Grand clarified that in relation to the switching of the properties it basically takes a piece
out of Hudson Fire District and puts it into the Southeast Weld Fire District area and asked if the applicant
has been in contact with the Fire Districts. Mr. Reutzel replied that they are in constant contact with the
4
Fire Districts and are negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement with both of them with regard to future
facilities in the way that the applicant might financially participate in that. He added that they have ongoing
discussions with both of the Fire Districts.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the difference of residential units was from the original application. Mr.
Reutzel stated the residential units are the same.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker, Public Works, said that a Preliminary Traffic Study and Drainage letter were submitted and
they address background and conceptual parameters of the trading of the areas from agriculture to
residential and vice versa. For the increased traffic the applicants are proposing to construct County Road
20 as a two lane collector road from County Road 51 to County Road 49. In addition they will construct a
full movement signalized intersection with the turn lanes at the intersection of County Roads 49 and 20.
They also propose to construct the section of County Road 49 from the 1-76 Interchange to County Road
20.5 as a six -lane arterial; it was previously shown as a four -lane arterial. As a lot of this is conceptual in
background staff anticipates more detailed information as it proceeds through the different county
processes.
Mr. Dunker commented that the applicant is proposing the 100 -year detention 5 year historic release. As
staff receives more information during the different process there will be more detailed information given.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that since this is just transferring the land use they don't have
any objections. It is still in the Metro Water & Sanitation District so staff will get more in depth when the
applicant comes back in to submit platting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mark Lawley moved that Case 2008-XX Amendment 1, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
2008-XX Amendment 2
Prospect Farms II Holdings LLC
Michelle Martin
Part of W2 of Section 5, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment for inclusion of additional acres
into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1
Structural Land Use Map
In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicants have applied to amend the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan in order for inclusion of additional acres into the Southeast Weld Mixed Use
Development Boundary.
This amendment includes part of west half of Section 5 Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.,
which is east of and adjacent to County Road 51 (section line) and north of and adjacent to County Road 24
(section line).
The area in question is adjacent to the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area on three sides or
approximately 10,516 feet which is 67% of the total 15,761 feet of the perimeter; therefore the property meets
the requirement of 1/6th contiguity with the existing Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area.
5
The applicants are proposing to include the 320 acres for a combination of residential and a limiting site factor
which corresponds to the 100 -year floodplain in the future.
According to the EIS Phase 1 conducted by A.G. Wassenaar dated September 18, 2007, there is no evidence
of recognized environmental conditions in connection with these 320 acres, with the exception of two gas wells
and batteries. An Ecological Assessment was also conducted on the property by Wildlife Specialties LLC
dated January 15, 2008, which states the property does not have habitat capable of supporting species listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. A Class 1 Archaeological Literature Review
conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants, dated January 2, 2008, did not reveal any cultural resources
or inventories in the project area. The applicant has also signed an Affidavit of Agreement stating that they
agree to all the previous triggers and commitments as determined by the zoning and any prior applications and
actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Weld County Department of Public Works stated in their referral dated October 9, 2008 that the drainage
and traffic report submitted with the application are conceptual at this phase of the development. Additional
information will be required at the Planned Unit Development process.
If the amendment is approved, a residential component, along with an area designated limiting site factor
would be included in the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Area. This would allow for a variety of
connections to the existing residential areas, trails, parks, school, and transportation networks.
According to the applicant the proposed 317 acres for residential use could yield 445 units this assumes a
residential population of 1,135 people.
The applicant has designated open space down the middle of the site which encompasses a trail that
connects to the other developments to the east.
The site can be provided with sanitation and water from Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan
District as stated in their letter dated January 22, 2008.
The Town of Hudson in their referral dated October 13, 2008 indicated that they have some concerns
regarding the off -site impacts caused by the modifications such as schools and public utilities. The applicant
spoke to the Town administrator regarding the referral and will be talking about that.
Public Service Company of Colorado/Xcel Energy in their referral dated October 16, 2008 reminded the
applicant of the necessary setbacks for single family development, multi family development and commercial
development. The applicant wrote a letter to the Xcel Energy dated October 21, 2008 stating that they will
work with the utility companies through the Planned United Development Process on the necessary
easements.
Planning Staff recommends both of the above comments are better addressed at Planned United
Development Change of Zone process.
Staff received a late referral from the Weld County School District 3J has stated that they would like the
applicant to acknowledge in writing that they will continue to work with the school district on future schools for
the area. The applicant did supply a letter dated today that they will continue to work with the school district.
Ms. Martin commented that at this time there is no designation for schools or parks.
Ms. Martin added that this area is outside of the Intergovernmental Agreements that the County has with the
Town of Hudson and the Town of Keenesburg.
Jack Reutzel, 9145 E Kenyon Ave, Ste 200, Denver CO. Mr. Reutzel stated that they had anticipated the
idea that from time to time this Southeast Weld MUD may need to be expanded. Therefore the
amendment process that they underwent last year had to do with under what criterion might this Southeast
Weld MUD be expanded.
6
The Southeast Weld MUD was capable of being amended but you needed to demonstrate at least the 1/6
contiguity. There is contiguity on all three sides of the existing MUD. This amendment was actually driven
by this wastewater treatment plant which is where the Resource Colorado Wastewater Treatment Plan will
be located. The idea that they would collect and put a sewer line through the creek bottom is basic utility
planning. When the opportunity came along to acquire the 317 acres it became evident to them that it
would be an ideal place to run the sanitary sewer line. With that in mind, they took a look at the
surrounding area and felt it was a logical expansion of those uses.
Mr. Reutzel commented that they did talk to the school district and have committed to working with them
to make sure that during the county processes there will be a proper number of schools in the appropriate
locations.
Mr. Reutzel said that 445 additional units are what they anticipate and that is well under the maximum of
12,435 dwelling units set forth by the approved MUD.
Commissioner Grand said that the Fire District is a volunteer organization and asked if they have been in
contact with them in developing a plan to service the additional 445 homes. Mr. Reutzel said that they
have been having discussions with them and there will be more details on the IGA. What the IGA will do
is to locate not only an interim fire station but a permanent fire station and to talk about cost sharing of the
necessary equipment to get a response out there. He added that they plan to have an IGA with both Fire
Districts.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there was a goal for groundbreaking. Mr. Reutzel said that they had
initially thought that they would be in a position to get a final plat approved sometime in 2010 but with the
economy the way it is it will probably be extended somewhat. They are currently burning the mylars for
the change of zone and the next step is the final plan which is the first phase of a plat. They are working
on it internally and are hoping to be in a position to submit that sometime in early 2011 depending on the
market.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker, Public Works, stated that they submitted a Traffic Addendum letter which is an addendum to
the original Traffic Study which was an addendum to the Amendment 1 that they just went over. Again,
they address background in conceptual parameters for the additional 320 acres. They are proposing to
construct County Road 20 as a two-lane collector roadway from County Road 51 to County Road 49. The
will also construct a full movement signalized intersection with turn lanes at the intersection of County
Roads 49 and 20. In addition they will construct the section of County Road 49 to 1-76 from County Road
20.5 as a six -lane plus the applicant also suggested to do some intersection improvements along County
Road 53 where it was adjacent to the new land that was going to be added. There is a FEMA regulated
100 -year floodplain and during the different county process more detail will be required to be submitted.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that the additional acreage will provide for open space and
regional trails which they support. She added that staff will look at this again in more detail when the
applicant comes back with the change of zone and final platting. Staff has no issues with this proposal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Holton asked if they are using the old comp plan or the new comp plan. Ms. Martin stated that
we are using the old comp plan. Staff is using the new comp plan for applications that were submitted to the
Department of Planning Services on or after December 9, 2008. This application was submitted back in July
2008.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2008-XX Amendment 2, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Nick Berryman.
7
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair announced that the next two cases will be heard together as one presentation but the Planning
Commission will give separate motions. He reminded the applicant and staff to clarify to which application they
are referring to.
The Chair read both cases into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1673
APPLICANT: Cynthia Hutt
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for a Kennel (for
50 dogs of a non-specific breed including performance training) and twice a year
three day special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs of a non-
specific breed in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 Block 1 Country Estates #4 part of SE4 of Section 23, T1 N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Tate Street approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6 and
approximately 3/4 miles east of CR 33.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1674
APPLICANT: Cynthia Hutt
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (for 50 dogs of a non-specific breed including performance training) in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 Block 1 Country Estates #4 part of SE4 of Section 23, Ti N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Tate Street approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6 and
approximately 3/4 miles east of CR 33.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, stated that for USR-1673 Cynthia Hutt has applied for A Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Kennel (for 50 dogs of a non specific breed including
performance training) and twice a year three day special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs
of a non specific breed in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on January 9, 2009 by staff.
The site is approximately 9.3 acres and is located within County Estates #4 filing Subdivision located west of
and adjacent to Tate Avenue approximately 1/4 mile north of County Road 6 and approximately % miles east of
County Road 33. The address on this property is 2331 Tate Ave.
The Department of Planning Services recommends that this request be denied for the following reasons:
Section 22-2-170.C C.goal 3 states: "Address the compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent uses."
The applicant is proposing to operate a Kennel for 50 dogs including performance training and twice a year
three day long special agility, obedience and rally events for up to 200 dogs in the Agricultural Zone District.
The property is located within Country Estates 4'h filing subdivision. Country Estates subdivision has a total of
63 lots comprising of approximately 9 acres each with Agricultural Zoning. Each filing consists of 16 lots. The
primary use of the surrounding property is residential uses. There is currently one USR approved within
Country Estates 3rd filing, USR-697 is for an accessory structure over 1,500 feet in a platted subdivision
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 23, 1985. It has also been brought to the
attend of the Department of Planning Services that there are active covenants in place within the Country
Estates subdivision that do not allow commercial businesses but Weld County does not have the ability to
enforce covenants.
The surrounding properties are zoned agricultural but consist of residential uses. There are fourteen (14)
property owners located within five hundred feet (500') of the site. At this time, the Department of Planning
8
Services has received nineteen (19) letters in opposition to the proposal. The surrounding property owners
are mainly concerned with noise, loose dogs, odor, disease and traffic to name a few. Staff believes that the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will not be able to ensure that the use will be compatible
with existing surrounding land uses.
The Town of Lochbuie, Adams County and the Cities of Fort Lupton and Brighton are within three (3) miles of
the site. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated December 5, 2008 state that they have no concerns
with the application. No comments were received from the City of Brighton and Adams County. The Town of
Lochbuie in their referrals dated October 2, 2008 and November 21, 2008 state that the application does not
comply with their Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Lochbuie's Comprehensive Plan has the entire section
zoned as rural residential. The Town's zoning for rural residential does not allow kennels, boarding facilities
and commercial activities. The Town of Lochbuie is in objection of the request because of the large quantity
and the breed of dogs not specified. The property is located in close proximity of the Blue Lake Subdivision
and the possibility of the dogs being dangerous can affect future residents. Staff believes that the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards will not be able to ensure that the use will be compatible with existing
surrounding land uses.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case, five referral agencies had no comments, six referral agencies
included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and
conditions of approval.
Staff is recommending as outlined in the memorandum presented to you today the following change to
condition of approval 1.1 regarding the Improvements Agreement. Basically the condition of approval remains
the same in that the Improvements Agreement is still required but the language has just been clarified.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied.
Commissioner Berryman referred to a USR presented on a visual slide which is located within a mile of
these properties. Ms. Hatch said that it is USR-1244 for a 12 dog kennel and it is approximately 1 mile to
the east of these properties. Mr. Berryman asked if there was any background on that case or if it is a
recent case. Ms. Hatch said that it is not that old of a case but indicated that she could look up some
more information on it. She added that it is not located in the Country Estates Subdivision.
Commissioner Branham referred to a memo handed out by Ms. Hatch from the Adams County Sheriffs
Department and it addresses the use of the property in question on June 22, August 19, 20, and 27 of
2008 that they used it at that time as training of horses. Mr. Branham asked if this was a permitted use on
this property currently and if this is approved for dogs will it also apply to horses. Ms. Hatch said that the
letter from the Adams County Sheriffs Office is pertaining to property at 2391 Tate Avenue which is not this
property; it is a neighboring property. Ms. Hatch mentioned that in one of the letters from the surrounding
property owners it was brought up regarding the horse training on this property. Adams County is replying
to activities that are occurring on another piece of property.
Cynthia Hutt, 2331 Tate Ave, commented that she has lived here since April 2000. She purchased the
property with an active kennel operating.
Ms. Hutt stated that she is a retired neurosurgeon in the study of neuroanatomy. She worked for over 30
years at the University Hospital and National Jewish.
Ms. Hutt has been training dogs publicly since 1978 and currently works with problem dogs. She works at
a facility called Blue Springs and Katydid Dog Training Center in south Denver. She trains dogs for
herding, performance events and all other kinds of events. She has helped with five dogs in the past 10
years for Disney programs. Most all of her dogs are registered show dogs in the American Kennel Club,
United Kennel Club, Border Collie with the Border Collie Society of America.
The sheep, cattle and ducks she bought are for the purposes of training the dogs. She is a licensed judge
with the Australian Shepherd Dog Club of America and is in the process of becoming an American Kennel
Club licensed judge.
9
The K-9 Health Program, which she has, covers every dog and consists of spaying and neutering, micro
chipping, vaccinations and behavior modifications. Most of the dogs she gets are between 6 months and
2 years of age.
Dogs that come to the property that are chronic barkers and if behavior modification does not work she
debarks the dogs. She has a letter of referral from the veterinarian which comes to the site and
recommends it.
The reason for this USR permit is because she wants to be in compliance with the county. She has a
non-profit organization called Performance Akitas of Colorado. She does not charge for anything
including the boarding of the dogs that she takes care of or trains. She indicated that she does not want a
commercial business. She wants most of the students that she works with to come where she lives to be
able work with their dogs. She has all the equipment and lives in a good place which allows that so she
would like to continue to do that.
Ms. Hutt commented that she works with a lot of dogs and rescue organizations to keep dogs out of the
pounds so they can find new homes. She does not currently have any rescue dogs on her property but it
could change and that is why they are requesting up to 50 dogs. She indicated she has no reason to think
that she could take care of more than that in her daily routine.
Ms. Hutt indicated that she would like to breed her dogs. She has had 5 litters in 35 years just to continue
the bloodline she has produced. She has never sold a dog and she does not charge for any of the training.
Ms. Hutt's goal is to be in compliance with what they are doing. She bought the property as a kennel and
has spent over $150,000 refurbishing and renovating everything that was on the property to make it livable
and safe for her dogs. She has installed fencing all along the property to prevent the neighborhood dogs
from visiting them. In addition, she put in a 900 ft asphalt driveway to eliminate dust. The property next
door was purchased for training.
Debra Fletcher, 2331 Tate Ave, Ft. Lupton, CO. She stated that she is the owner of one of Cyndy's dogs.
She commented that their presentation will be inclusive of the two properties but emphasized that the
events will be on the 2331 Tate Ave property. They presented a slide show to show the Planning
Commissioners and the audience a background of what they do.
Ms. Fletcher stated that Ms. Hutt purchased the property at 2331 Tate Avenue from Sue Brough. She
indicated that Ms. Brough bought the property in 1984 and put the kennel on it at that time. She added
that Ms. Brough housed anywhere from 20-40 dogs on her property running their private kennel operation
to include showing, breeding and boarding dogs until they sold it 16 years later.
Ms. Fletcher stated that there are 18 runs in the kennel. It is lighted and heated. She added that it is an
indoor/outdoor kennel. The dogs can be locked inside at night for heat.
Ms. Fletcher indicated that when they have training and educational sessions they are all free; there is no
fee for these services.
Ms. Fletcher noted on a visual slide all the USRs in the surrounding area. She pointed out that in Section
24 Patricia Healy has 12 dogs on 1.74 acres and it is located in a subdivision.
Ms. Fletcher showed a spreadsheet that she received from Ms. Hatch which shows all the surrounding
USR kennel permits within Weld County. Ms. Fletcher commented that they don't feel that 50 dogs on 10
acres is unreasonable.
Ms. Fletcher recited Weld County's definition of a commercial business. She detailed the uses by right
describing a home occupation which requires a Certificate of Compliance. She indicated that according to
Ms. Hatch there are only three Certificates of Compliance for a Home Occupation license in the
surrounding area. She listed home occupations within the Country Estates Subdivision which she
researched through the Secretary of State's office.
10
Ms. Fletcher wished to describe what activities they want their event for. She showed the audience
through a video of their dogs' agility trials and herding performances.
Ms. Fletcher stated that Ms. Hutt has no problems with what Mr. Ryan is doing with his property. In Mr.
Ryan's letter to Ms. Hatch he has two special events per year for tryouts and training with the Adams
County Sheriffs Posse where they volunteer and donate their time and facilities as necessary. Ms.
Fletcher indicated that this is the same thing Ms. Hutt wants to do with her property. She wants to bring
two to three students and go out with their dogs in her fenced area and use it as Ms. Brough had sold it to
her to be used. She wishes to have two events per year with her dogs.
Ms. Fletcher continued to say that Mr. Ryan also notes in his letter that trainers who come in charge for
their personal training. Ms. Hutt does not charge for anything. Ms. Fletcher stressed that this is not open
to the public but rather by invitation only. Ms. Fletcher compared Mr. Ryans horse training to that of Ms.
Hutt's but only in the dog arena.
Commissioner Holton asked how many dogs are on the property now. Ms. Hutt replied that there are 4
dogs on the property now.
Commissioner Grand asked that if there are no fees exchanged is it considered a commercial operation.
Ms. Hatch replied that staff determined that due to the number of dogs it falls under a kennel definition
and that is always a commercial use. The property would be used as a commercial intensity.
Commissioner Grand asked if the code addresses intensity or primarily use. He added that we have
heard that there is no exchange of fees and asked if it is really a commercial venture not addressing the
issue of intensity. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that even though the applicant is arguing
that there are no fees exchanged that argument should have taken place prior to today. He added that by
applying for the USR it is in essence an admission that they need to obtain one. However If they wish to
argue that they can continue without a USR and argue that in court. He agreed with Ms. Hatch and
recalled that in the past they have required kennel USRs regardless of whether or not fees were
exchanged by virtue of intensity. Today you are hearing the USR to determine if it is compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Branham referred to the previous owner who ran a kennel and asked if Ms. Hutt had any
indication at the time she purchased the property if it was in violation of the Weld County Codes or of the
covenants of the subdivision. Ms. Hutt replied that she was not aware of it at the time she purchased the
property but commented that approximately in 2004 she became aware of it because she wanted to have
more dogs on her property.
Commissioner Branham referred to the application where it states that boarding will consist of client dogs.
He asked if by the use of client that implies that they pay or make donations in some way to compensate
Ms. Hutt. Ms. Hutt said that these people just want training and they leave their dog with her. Mr.
Branham commented that there are 50 dogs and clarified that the applicant doesn't charge them anything
to board or feed them. Ms. Fletcher commented that Ms. Hutt does not board 50 dogs but rather more
like 1-3 dogs. She stated that when they started this process they were told to plan for the next 25 years;
therefore the 50 number was chosen to suffice the next 25 years.
Ms. Fletcher commented that if she boards anyone's dog it would be from her sister, brother or friend who
had a family emergency over a period of a weekend. She gave an example that it might be for dogs for
rescue for a fire in the area. It is more of an emergency situation than to make any money as a business.
Commissioner Branham clarified that if in the future you board 50 dogs there won't be any fees associated
with that. Ms. Hutt stated no and added that it is a service to the dog community that she works within.
Commissioner Ochsner said that may be where a lot of the confusion is. He asked for clarification as
these are two separate applications for two separate 50 dog kennels. The confusion is that there could be
100 dogs 365 days a year plus three days of the year an additional 200 dogs. When you think of it in that
scope it is different than from what the applicant is saying. Ms. Fletcher commented that when they went
through this process they didn't get any assistance or guidance from staff. Ms. Hutt owns both properties
11
and the intention is that if she wants to move to the other property she would like to take those dogs with
her. Ms. Fletcher commented that Ms. Hutt does not want 50 dogs, but she would like to have 10.
However they had to plan this out for the next 25 years.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the 200 dog event shows and asked if there will be 200 dogs there that
day. Ms. Fletcher said that it depends because even though they invite several people only 5 or 10 people
may enter. She asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that they had to plan for the next 25 years.
She added that for a specialty event there is probably 25 dogs in one day.
Commissioner Holton asked how many dogs they can have right now between the two properties. Ms.
Hatch said that they can have 4 dogs on each property; however they can't cross over the property.
Commissioner Holton said that the big problem seems to be the number. He commented that if the
number is decreased they can come back in the future and do an amended USR. The applicants
indicated that they would rather not due to the cost.
The Chair called a recess at 3:17 p.m.
The Chair reconvened the meeting at 3:26 p.m.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that their comments are based on the numbers so if that number
changes it is possible that some of those requirements might change also. He commented that he treated
this application as two USRs because they are adjacent properties with the same type of use.
The existing accesses are from Tate Avenue. The property at 2331 Tate Avenue does have a 900 foot
paved driveway. The adjacent property has a gravel driveway.
Mr. Carroll stated that the applicant is asking for some off-street parking for visitors to the site and special
events. Staff asked the applicants to show some overflow parking for special events.
Public Works is looking at the historical stormwater drainage patterns and runoff using best management
practices.
Tate Avenue is designated as County Road 33.8 and is a local gravel road with 60 feet of right-of-way.
Most recent traffic counts are between 140 and 170 ADT taken between 2004 and 2008. County Road 8
is at the north of the subdivision and is a collector status road with 80 foot of right-of-way. It is a paved
road and traffic counts are over 800 ADT. The average speed on that road is 64 mph.
According to the application it identifies 200 additional traffic trips. Mr. Carroll commented that with this
additional amount it kicks it over to the number which would require a dust abatement plan. He added that
staff is requiring the applicants to do some dust abatement from their entrance north to the nearest paved
road which is County Road 8 for the two special events each year.
Mr. Carroll commented that they want to make sure that for the special events the main gate is open prior
to the events so visitors can get into the facility to prevent staging on the road.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there is ample parking on the applicant's property for both events. Mr.
Carroll said that they would need to use both pieces of the property but believes that there is enough
parking.
Commissioner Ochsner said that the special event number pushed it over limit and triggered the dust
abatement plan. He asked what number triggers that. Mr. Carroll stated that if there are over 200
vehicles in a 24 hour period it triggers the dust abatement.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
12
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that staff looked at this as two separate USRs based on
what was submitted by the applicant. Water is going to be provided by wells and the applicant does have
a commercial well permit already on one property and they have applied for a commercial well permit on
the other. The State said that there is sufficient water for a commercial well.
There are existing septic systems on both lots. They were sized for 3 -bedroom houses so they will need
to get an engineered evaluation to ensure that those existing septic systems can handle the hold whether
it is from one extra volunteer or a visitor to the site.
The applicant did submit a Waste Handling Plan which is sufficient. Nose is restricted to the commercial
level.
The applicant will be required to obtain a license through the Department of Agricultural Pet Animal Care
Facility Act.
There is not a complete Dust Abatement Plan; however the applicant's do have a 900 foot paved
driveway. Ms. Light indicated that staff will want to see something for the parking area because it is
identified as native grass.
With regard to the special events, staff will need some more information. The applicants indicated that
they would bring in portable toilets which would be acceptable because it is two temporary events a year.
However, there is no information of bringing in drinking water or handwashing units. Staff included
Development Standard 15 on USR-1673 regarding special events which requires bottled water, portable
toilets and handwashing facilities. Staff would like something in writing from the applicants that they
understand that for 100 people over an 8 hour period they would need at least three portable toilets as well
as providing bottled water and making the handwashing units available.
Commissioner Branham referred to the number of employees and visitors in Development Standard #3.
He commented that typically he has seen it say that it is limited to a certain number of employees. Ms.
Hatch said that it was kept as employees and visitors because the applicant does a lot of non profit work
and it was difficult to classify those persons.
Commissioner Grand said that in theory this is a non-profit organization and clarified that it is more of a
volunteer status. Ms. Hatch commented that you would want to include the employees because in case
she does decide to hire employees in the future it would be covered.
The Chair opened up the hearing for public comment. He reminded everyone that testimony would be
limited to 3 minutes per person.
Fred Jenson, 2211 Tate Ave, lives directly south of 2271 Tate Avenue. Mr. Jenson commented that the
target keeps moving. The summary by Ms. Hatch indicated that USR-1673 is for 2271 Tate Avenue and
is where the proposed rallies will be. However from the presentation today he understands that the rallies
will be on 2331 Tate Avenue.
Mr. Jenson said that he admired everything the applicant has done including her dedication and what she
has done with her dogs as well as what she wants to give back to the community. He commented that
everything she has accomplished and shown through her visual slide presentation has not been
accomplished on her property. They have been accomplished at fairgrounds, parks, people's houses and
different facilities. He doesn't wish to take anything from her but added that we are talking about these
two specific properties. He thanked Ms. Fletcher for showing how beautiful their community is and that it
is why they are here to protect what they have.
Mr. Jenson handed out a map which shows the different filings in the subdivision. He added that this is a
petition. There are 60 homes that are occupied at this time and of those 49 households signed that they
are against this application.
Mr. Jenson said that the residents of Country Estates are against the issuance of USR-1673 and USR-
1674 for reasons specified in the restrictions set by developer Roy Matthews in 1969 for Country Estates.
13
Paragraph G of the covenants states "No business or activity may be conducted on any lot which may be
or become a nuisance or an annoyance to the neighborhood". He added that the covenants were put into
place in 1969 and are valid until the majority of the homeowners vote to change them. Although it is
understood that the County does not enforce the neighborhood restrictions they ask that the County
respect them in making this decision.
The requests for these cases state that the intended use is for kennels to include boarding, breeding,
training, and rescue. According to the application boarding requires dogs to be dropped off, picked up and
groomed on the property. Training will consist of classes which will be taught 7 days a week. Rescue or
Foster Care will be provided by volunteers who will have access to the kennels.
The community is concerned about the noise, traffic, odor, disease, dust and the devalue of their homes
and investments. The kennels are not compatible with the current or future use of the development of this
area. This is agricultural and there are a lot of people who farm.
Appendix 22.E Right to Farm statement describes normal activity expected around farms. This case is a
special review for a kennel and is not a normal farming activity.
Mr. Jenson commented that the City of Lochbuie is also against this as it does not comply with their
Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Lochbuie considers this a rural residential area that does not allow for
commercial and kennel activities.
Mr. Jenson stated that the neighborhood is asking the Planning Commission to deny USR-1673 and USR-
1674 as did the staff as these kennels are not compatible with their current use of the neighbors land.
Truman Whiting, 2392 Tate Av, commented that he lives primarily in an equestrian community and he is
representing those people. They chose to live in this equestrian neighborhood because it was removed
from main roads and traffic. They frequently ride these roads and are concerned with the risk of increased
traffic that is unaccustomed to equestrians as well as loose or aggressive dogs which could harm or
spook their horses causing risk of injury to the riders. In addition, horses pulling a cart are unable to move
off of the road because it would risk going into a ditch that runs on each side of the road which could
cause the cart to turn over and endanger not only the horse but the person driving it. He concluded by
asking the Planning Commission to respect their neighborhood restrictions and keep this road rural and
agricultural consistent with the reasons they chose to live there.
Larry Smith, 16903 CR 6, commented that he borders the Town of Lochbuie. He moved there in 1969
and built his home in Country Estates in 1983. He worked in the Town of Lochbuie Planning Department
and also served on the Council. He commented that Country Estates is a unique community because of
the rainfall. The City of Lochbuie averages much more rainfall than he does in Country Estates. The
rainfall in a 2 mile wide area and runs 4-5 miles long is less than the Sahara Dessert. He doesn't believe
that with the rainfall and the traffic situation with the dust is a reasonable situation to have a dog kennel
there.
John Cunningham, 2151 Tate Ave, commented that he moved here in January of 1996. When he bought
the property and built his house the restricted covenants came with the deed. Everybody that bought
property and built out there should have gotten a copy of the covenants. Ms. Hutt claims that she did not;
however everybody living out there knows what those covenants are. He understands that Weld County
cannot enforce the neighborhood covenants; however they are asking for the Commissioners to give
some respect to the restrictive covenants so that they can keep the neighborhood the way everybody
intended it to be.
George Eberly, 2272 Tate Av, commented that he purchased the property in 1976 and built his home in
1980. He referenced the property at 2331 Tate Avenue and commented that it was owned by William and
Josephine Smith. They sold it to Jim and Sue Brough and the kennel in back was Bill Smiths hobby. He
had some pigs, chickens and ducks; it was not used for a kennel. When the Broughs purchased the
property she had Chows and at most there were 10 dogs there and it was no nuisance to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Eberly reference F in their covenants which he indicated it states all the different types of buildings that
14
can be rebuilt on the properties and what the restrictions are on that. The most important part of it says
"..any other erected in compliance with the established residential pattern it being expressly provided that
none of these shall be of a commercial nature".
Patty Jenson, 2211 Tate Ave, re-emphasized that once Ms. Hutt is issued these USR permits she could
sell these properties and her comments of debarking and the cleanliness will not apply. Living out there in
the country they have wildlife and one of the problems is coyotes. Once the coyotes start howling the
dogs go off. She can't imagine what 100 dogs barking at coyotes are going to be like.
Dovie Trotter, 2271 Tate Ave, commented that she is the resident at that location. She has been a
Colorado resident since 1975. She has been employed on the accounting side of business for about 30
years and is now retired. She has been a member of the dog sport/recreation since 1970. She knows
Ms. Hutt to be an honorable and reputable person and everything that has been shown here today has
been absolute fact. She added that Ms. Hutt is a pillar of the community of their dog fancy and her
recommendation is to approve these USR permits.
Ms. Trotter commented that anyone in their community who sells their property can allow the person who
buys it to do whatever they wish with it. She has seen a lot of change in Colorado and added that often
time we need to look at that as progress in our communities.
Ms. Trotter said with regard to aggressive or loose dogs, Ms. Hutt and herself both have interior perimeter
fences that the dogs stay within. Unfortunately she has witnessed other neighbor's dogs being aggressive
and menacing to UPS drivers. She stated that Mr. Jenson is correct that there is a lot of confusion about
the addresses and numbers. She believes that has lead to some of the problems of understanding what
is going on. She clarified that the events are for 2331 Tate Avenue and not for 2271 Tate Avenue.
With regard to odor and disease Ms. Trotter said that she can't imagine where these concerns are being
pulled from. For people to invest as much of their lives as they have with a sport or recreation whether it
be pigs, birds, dogs, or horses for those animals to be performers you have to take care of them. She
added that you do not jeopardize your investment by poor management of your stock in any way.
Ms. Trotter has been a personal acquaintance of Jim and Sue Brough for about 25 years. She added that
she is aware that they had over 20-25 dogs on the property.
Ms. Fletcher wished to read some statements by individuals in support of Ms. Hutt that could not make it
here today. The Chair asked how many letters there were. Ms. Fletcher replied that there are 17 letters.
Mr. Ochsner asked her to submit them to the Planning Commission to read. Ms. Fletcher asked if she
could read the first 3 or 4. Mr. Ochsner allowed her to read one and asked her to submit the remaining
letters.
Ms. Fletcher recited a letter submitted January 15, 2009 from the Animal Clinic LLC by DMV Troy Doddy.
"To Whom It May Concern, I have examined Cynthia Hutt's property, facility and animals on this day at 4
pm. Her property is fenced with 5 foot panels on the perimeter with a gate at the entry. There are three
exercise runs measuring 25 feet by 400 feet in length with six foot chain link fencing. The kennel is clean
and well ventilated. I would hear no barking upon entering. I noticed that only dog barking had been
debarked. The sheep have a good shelter and the livestock have adequate water and feed. There is also
a large corral and paddock space for all livestock. All six sheep and the miniature Herford steer are all in
excellent body condition and health. All four dogs examined are in good condition and have very
adequate kennel space. All rams have been castrated and all sheep are shorn and are growing a good
amount of fleece for this time of year. The owners claim that this is not a ? facility and is intended to be
used for personal use and in addition for boarding, training and K-9 events. I have found no problems with
either the facilities or the treatment of the animals during my visit."
Ms. Fletcher submitted the remaining letters to the Planning Commissioners.
Colleen Lang Mortiz, 2332 Tate Ave, lives directly across from 2331 Tate Avenue. She tried to remember
when this happened but said that it was after Ms. Hutt moved in. She was in front of her yard watering her
trees and her dog was with her. Three dogs came down Ms. Hutt's driveway and into her yard and toward
15
her. She commented that they scared her because there were three of them. She used the water to keep
the dogs at bay until she reached the house. She noticed that the dogs milled around outside for a while
until they finally wandered off. After that she had seen one of those dogs at least two more times in her
yard.
Robert Ryan commented that he is the one that has been referred to training horses on his property. He
said that is not the case. He is a volunteer with the Adams County Sheriff's Department and added that
he is a Lieutenant on the Posse and has been doing this for 18 years. They lost their facilities due to the
cost of the renting of fairgrounds. As volunteers they have less than $200 in their treasury to assist the
sheriff with.
Mr. Ryan said that he is concerned about the barking. He indicated that on April 20th you will find a 911
report that there was barking dogs. He stated that Ms. Hutt is complaining that he would not approach
her. He added that he will not approach anyone's fenced property after 1:30 in the morning with loose
dogs around the house. Mr. Ryan said that the barking sounds like fighting dogs. He apologized but he
does not want it and would like to have the covenants respected.
Al Gurule, 2257 Tate Ave, commented that all the people here today are from the neighborhood. They
took off of work and showed up to make the point that they do not want this kennel in their neighborhood.
They do not want a business or commercialization of their neighborhood. He wants the Planning
Commission to respect the fact that they took the time to show up here to say that they do not want this in
their neighborhood.
Patty Charf, 2631 Tate Ave, commented that they moved here in 1972. She had not planned on speaking
but when it was stated that everything up here was stated as fact she felt she needed to speak. Ms. Chart
said that their name was listed that they have a business running out of their home which is a lie. Their
business is located in Carma City. She added that mail would come to them under their company name
but there is no commercial business out of their home. She reiterated that everything here is not a fact
and she is thoroughly against the kennel.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the applicant to address the concerns during
public testimony.
Ms. Fletcher said that there is talk about commercial business and that there is none going on in the
neighborhood. She stressed that there are and began listing some names. If you are a home occupation
you have to have a license to do so within Weld County. She added that Ms. Hatch gave her the list of
individuals who have a home occupation licenses and none of them are in Country Estates subdivision.
Ms. Fletcher listed home occupations in her neighborhood who receive fees for their services. There were
some disputes in the audience. The Chair explained that this information is not pertinent to this case. He
said that we are only reviewing this case and no other businesses in the area.
Ms. Fletcher would like to address the covenants. She said that there are no covenants on 2331 Tate
Avenue and added that covenants do not follow the chain of title. The Chair stopped Ms. Fletcher and
said that unfortunately the covenants issue is with the subdivision and that is a legal issue that you will
have to deal with.
Ms. Hutt commented that when she went to the Water Board pre -hearing she asked the people that
attended if there had been any problems with barking and so forth. She indicated that there was one
compliant in regard to Mr. Ryan's property. Other than that some people said that they didn't even know
that there were a lot of dogs or any dogs there. She added that there were no complaints against the
Broughs and no complaints against the property when she had other dogs or students there. Ms. Hutt did
admit that it was her dogs that came down the driveway to Ms. Lang Moritz's property. That is when she
put the perimeter fencing in to prevent that ever happening again.
Ms. Fletcher emphasized that the letters of opposition came in after the Planning Department sent a
referral letter to the Colorado State Water Board stating that the USR was for a 200 dog kennel. They
contacted Ms. Hatch immediately and asked her to send out a retraction and a corrected referral to the
16
agencies. The correction went out but no retraction was sent and no damage control was ever managed
for the mistake made by the Planning Department. The letters of concern were dated October 28th and
the Planning letters sent out to the surrounding neighborhoods giving notice of the USRs within 500 feet
were mailed November 17`" and 18th. The original referral letters went out with wrong information in them.
Commissioner Grand wished to clarify with Mr. Barker the covenants and county code. The property is
zoned agricultural and that is the overriding determination for the covenants. Mr. Barker said that the
covenants can be enforced by any member of the community who is a party to those covenants. It is in
essence a contract between that property owner and all the property owners in that subdivision. The code
things that we take care of have nothing to do with covenants. Therefore it is a comparison between
apples and oranges.
Commissioner Ochsner said he is still confused with regard to intensity. If you are applying for two 50 -dog
kennels and if that is the applicant's intent that in 20 years they want to have two 50 dog kennels operating
on their property with events that feature 200 dogs then they need to base their decisions on that. If it is
not the applicant's intent then it may change a lot of things. He asked for further clarification from the
applicant.
Ms. Hutt said that the hard part with that is they need to plan for the future. She would like to have more
than 4 dogs on each piece of property especially if she needs to take in rescue dogs. She added that is
the reason for up to a maximum of 50 dogs.
Commissioner Spitzer asked the applicant if she wants 50 dogs for each property. Ms. Hutt said yes.
Commissioner Grand said that given the concern of the community and the covenants of the community
and the council's interpretation that intensity of the use defines commercial, he has a problem with having
a 100 dog operation. However, he respects the individual property rights owner but can't support 50 dogs
per lot.
Commissioner Grand asked what kind of compromise can be obtained. He emphasized that the majority
of the neighbors are not happy with what is being proposed. He suggested that this USR be made
specific to the owner of the property and that it is not transferrable.
Mr. Barker expressed concern over the fact that it could be facilitated from now until 8:00 tonight and
negotiate out something but any number that you have that they would say they would be comfortable with
you would pretty much have to go through the entire route again to hear what the comments would be
about that number. He added that the applicants came in with a specific application and you have to go
with what you've got. If they want a smaller number then they can come back with a different application
that has been properly noticed.
Commissioner Grand voted to deny the applications for USR-1673 and USR-1674 based on staff's
recommendations. Before accepting Mr. Grand's motion, the Chair noted that he needed to follow some
points of procedure. Mr. Grand withdrew his motion.
The Chair asked the applicants if they wished to add anything else. Ms. Fletcher commented that they are
cooperative to changing the numbers if that is the case.
Commissioner Ochsner asked that if the applicants came back with a new USR would it be a new fee.
Ms. Hatch said that it depends on how we go from this point. She commented that this could be tabled
and renotify with a lower number and come back under the same application. She reminded the
Commissioners that staff is not able to give numbers for the amount of dogs and it is the applicant's desire
for the amount of dogs they want.
Commissioner Branham felt that they should deal with this current application and vote on it. He added
that a lot of people took off work and the applicant has put a lot of time and effort into it. He suggested to
move on with this application.
Commissioner Lawley agreed with Mr. Branham.
17
Tom Holton moved to add a new Development Standard #3 and renumber according to both USR-1673
and USR-1674. Development Standard #3 shall read "The Special Use Permit shall not be transferrable
to any successors and interests to the prescribed property and shall terminate automatically on
conveyance or lease of the property to others for operation of the facility." Robert Grand seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously
Tom Holton moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.1 in both USR-1673 and USR-1674 as
recommended by staff, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to clarify on which property the 200 dog event will be. Ms. Hatch said that
the addresses are switched and that it will be corrected prior to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked the applicant if she has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that USR-1673 and USR-1674, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of denial, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill
Hall, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Branham commented that he is concerned with the discussions held that it might lead the
community and the applicant to conclude that if she comes back with another number that it might be
acceptable. It is also very possible that any number over 4 would be highly opposed by the community
and there is no assurance that any number over 4 would be approved. He just wanted to caution the
applicant on that matter.
Commissioner Grand commented that we recognize the community's concern but stressed that it is a
community and the applicant is a member of that community. He added that they all need to work
together to make it an overall inclusive community and be sensitive to everyone's needs and desires as
best you can.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that he respected what the applicants do and believes that they have
an amazing organization. He felt that if it was a smaller number just taking care of the dogs it would have
made a difference to him. The 200 dog event maybe something you want to take somewhere else. He
believes that it is a community and we have to respect the code as written.
The Board of County Commissioner's hearing for these cases will be on February 4, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4" UsAy UJP J'1 11 Mr\
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
18
Hello