HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080484.tiff •
RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Bill Hall that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1636
APPLICANT: Roger& Diane Andreason
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel
(to accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a
pet supply retail component) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile west
of CR 1.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-60 A.Goal 1 states,"Conserve agricultural land for agricultural purposes which
foster the economic health and continuance of agriculture." The area consists of
approximately 13.75 acres and already has existing buildings and improvements making it
impractical to farm the site.
• B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.K of the Weld County Code provides for Kennels along with
training classes and a pet supply retail component as a Use by Special Review in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The proposed kennel facility will be approximately 1/8 of a mile south
of the nearest residence and 1/8 of a mile from the nearest residences to the west and east
of the site. The site is well screened by mature trees from State Highway 52. The site is
adjacent to the town limits of Erie to the east.There is an access to a gravel facility/proposed
treatment plant in this location.Attached Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
will ensure that this use is compatible with adjacent uses.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities.The site is located within the 3-mile referral area for the Town of Frederick,the
City of Dacono and Boulder County. The Town of Frederick indicated no conflicts with the
proposal and recommended that the applicant consider annexation when contiguity is
established and to consider visual buffering and sand barriers for barking dogs. No referral
responses were received from the City of Dacono and Boulder County.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The site is located within the floodplain as defined by FIRM map
080266-0850C, dated September 28, 1982. Any proposed or future development within the
floodplain will require a Flood Hazard Development Permit.
• , _.r
.4
2008-0484
Resolution USR-1636
Roger & Diane Andreason
Page 2
• Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The site is located in land
designated as "irrigated, non-prime" according to the according to the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Map, dated 1979.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
H. Section 23-4-400 —The attached conditions of approval and development standards will
ensure that the kennel will be operated according to the supplementary kennel requirements
outlined in this Section of the Weld County Code.
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 Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
• 1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All plat sheets shall be labeled USR-1636. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall indicate specifically on the plat the type of right-of-way/easement
that exists on the property. (Department of Public Works)
3. The type and size of the proposed trees shall be indicated on the plat.Trees should
be a minimum of 2.5 inch caliper in size if deciduous and/or six feet in height if
evergreen species. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The proposed sign shall be shown on the plat a minimum of 20-feet to the north of
existing and/or proposed right-of-way for State Highway 52.(Department of Planning
Services)
5. The dimensions of parking spaces shall be indicated on the plat. Parking shall meet
the design requirements for off-street parking outlined in Appendix 23-A of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Public Works as outlined
in their referral received 11/14/2007. Department of Public Works requirements are as
follows:
•
Resolution USR-1636
Roger & Diane Andreason
Page 3
• Floodplain Restrictions—the entire property is located in the Zone A Special Flood Hazard
Area (floodplain) for Boulder Creek, as published on FIRM Panel 080266-0850-C, dated
September 28, 1982.
The applicant must provide evidence that the proposed development and associated
structures proposed for the USR are reasonably safe from flooding, under requirements
published in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations(44 CFR),Sections 60.3 and 65.2(c).
All proposed buildings and accessory structures on the parcel are currently located in the
FEMA regulatory floodplain for Boulder Creek, and may or may not be located in the
floodway.
Weld County will not permit any development(as defined by 44 CFR 59.1)that would occur
in a floodway and cause any rise on adjacent properties, per Weld County Code 23-5-250.
If an appropriate Letter of Map Change (LOMC)is not approved by FEMA,then the current
effective Zone A SFHA will be enforced from FIRM Panel 080266-0850-C.
Areas located in a SFHA will likely be inundated during a 100-year storm event, and will
provide no detention storage if fully-or partially-filled. SFHAs need not be detained,but must
provide structural appurtenances for water quality treatment. If a LOMC is provided to show
the property is above the BFE,then detention of the 100 year developed condition rainfall and
release at the 5 year historic undeveloped will be required. The current Letter of Map
Amendment(LOMA)dated May 17,2007,case#07-08-0556A for the property is applicable
only to the existing structure,and may not be used for any new development on the property.
• A Flood Hazard Development Permit (FHDP) must be prepared for, submitted to, and
approved by Public Works for any development in the SFHA prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits in the floodplain. (Department of Public Works)
Evidence of Public Works approval shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
D. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Evidence of Health Department approval shall be provided to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Weld County Department of Public Health
and Environment that the applicant has contacted the Colorado Department of Agriculture
(CDA), Division of Animal Industry. This contact shall determine if a license under the Pet
Animal Care Facilities Act(PACFA),as defined under C.R.S.35-80-101 through 117.C.R.S.
is required,or provide evidence that the applicant is not subject to the PACFA requirements.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health&Environment. The plan
shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
•
Resolution USR-1636
Roger& Diane Andreason
Page 4
• 2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed(including the facility
name, address, and phone number).
Evidence of Health Department approval shall be provided to the Department of Planning
Services.
G. The property owner shall submit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting
that USR-1388 be vacated. (Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Mountain View Fire Protection
District as stated in their referral response received October 30, 2007. Written evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Mountain View Fire
Protection District)
The applicant shall attempt to address the recommendations of the Town of Frederick as
stated in their referral response received November 1,2007.Written evidence of such shall
be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Town of Frederick)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/recommendations of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife as stated in their referral response received November 9, 2007.Written
evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Colorado
Division of Wildlife)
• K. The applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan for review and approval by the
Department of Planning.
L. The applicant shall enter into a joint access and maintenance agreement for the thirty foot
access agreement for the neighboring property to the north or provide evidence an adequate
attempt to reach agreement has been made.
M. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1.above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval.The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat
and additional requirements shall be submitted within sixty(60) days from the date of the Board of
County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review, Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to maps(Wco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to Construction:
A. An approved CDOT access permit should be provided to the Department of Planning
• Services/Department of Building Inspection. (Colorado Department of Transportation)
Resolution USR-1636
Roger& Diane Andreason
Page 5
• 5. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed Office/Kennel and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. Prior to Operation:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land
disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. The applicant shall inquire with the
Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit if they are required to obtain a
stormwater discharge permit. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from WQCD
that they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
7. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
•
•
Resolution USR-1636
Roger & Diane Andreason
Page 6
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Roger& Diane Andreason
USR-1636
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a kennel (to accommodate 150
dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a pet supply retail component)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District, and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. A CDOT access permit must be obtained prior to construction of the proposed kennel facility.(CDOT)
4. Hours of operation shall be 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday-Friday(till 5:30 PM for Daycare and till 9:00
PM for classes),8:00 AM-3:00 PM Saturday,9:00 AM-10:00 AM and 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Sunday
as stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The facility shall be limited to seven(7)full-time employees and two(2)part-time employees as stated
in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Dogs and cats shall be kept indoors during night-time hours(7 PM to 7 AM).(Department of Planning
• Services)
7. Animal and feed wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that
vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards, and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be
removed at least weekly from the facility and disposed by a commercial hauler. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
9. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act,30-20-100.5,C.R.S.,as amended.(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
12. The applicant shall comply with the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), Division of Animal
Industry, if applicable. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
•
Resolution USR-1636
Roger& Diane Andreason
Page 7
• 13. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
14. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property
must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Left Hand Water District) (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
18. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
19. The applicant must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for
best management practices. (Department of Public Works)
• 20. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. (Department of Public Works)
21. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
22. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
23. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
24. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
25. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development,completion,recompletion,re-entry, production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
26. The property owner acknowledges that mineral owners and lessees have real property interests that
entitle them to surface use in accordance with Colorado State Statutes and applicable Colorado oil
and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
• Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
Resolution USR-1636
Roger& Diane Andreason
Page 8
• 28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
29. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment, Planning Services
and Public Works shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure
the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all
applicable Weld County regulations.
30. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
• Doug Ochsner—Chair
Tom Holton —Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to
serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 18, 2007.
Dated the 18th of December, 2007.
lOl1klj 1i1 �oj
Donita May
• Secretary
/ 401
• The Chair read the Consent Agenda cases into the record and explained to the audience that two Planning
Commissioners must ask for a case to be removed from the Agenda for it to be heard. The public would be
given the opportunity to voice concerns prior to the Commissioner's decision.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1626
APPLICANT: Jeff Seewald
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1710, part of the S2 SW4 of Section 6, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an
accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(heavy duty truck and equipment repair)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 36.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1626 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1630
APPLICANT: Rejoice Lutheran Church
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 4, Ranch Eggs Subdivision, Filing 2, being a part of the NW4 of Section
34, TIN, T68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a public and
• quasi-public building (Church) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Lowell Lane, approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 7 and
approximately 1/2 mile north of CR 2/Baseline Rd.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1630 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1635
APPLICANT: Elaine Stuart& Larry Speer
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 66, 2"" Filing, Aristocrat Ranchettes, being part of the SW4 of Section
27, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for accessory buildings with
gross floor area larger than four percent(4%)of the total lot area on a lot, part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Barley Avenue and 1/4 mile east of CR 31.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1635 would remain on the consent agenda r- ,
CASE NUMBER USR-1636
• APPLICANT: Roger& Diane Andreason
PLANNER: Chris Gathman ',
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
3
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to
• accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a pet supply
retail component) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 1.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning, said they had received two letters of opposition but Staff was
comfortable with it remaining on consent. The applicant agreed to the case remaining on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern.
Richard Armstead, 219 Hwy 52, Erie, CO, residing just west of the applicant's property, said he sent a fax to
the Planning Department yesterday and suggested today that notification to surrounding property owners
should be more than 500 feet due to the noise from the barking dogs. He also expressed his concern over his
reduced property value and opposed the application.
Vernon Bauer,389 Hwy 52, Erie,CO,voiced his opposition to the approval of the application. He said he lives
just to the north of the applicant's property and also cited the noise from the barking dogs. Mr. Bauer pointed
out that he and the applicant share a common driveway which was paved at his(Mr. Bauer's)expense. He
expressed concern over additional traffic on the shared driveway as well as Hwy 52 and added that he had
sent a letter of opposition to Mr. Gathman.
Susan Bauer,389 Hwy 52, Erie,CO, said she resides on the back ten acres and the applicant's have the front
fourteen acres, all of which used to be one property. She also spoke about the shared drive and added that
she objected to the smell and noise from the neighboring business, that she has severe allergies, was
concerned for their lower property value due to the gravel pit and the kennel in the area and she does not
support the application.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
• The Chair asked the Commissioners if they wished to hear the case. Tom Holton asked about the shared
driveway and if there was an easement or access problem. Mr. Gathman explained that the access
agreement originated in 1988 when the lot line adjustment was made. At the time when the back ten acres
were removed from direct access onto State Hwy 52, there was a thirty foot access easement designated to
access the back lot. It was undefined and does not specify who/what can or cannot use the easement. It just
designates a thirty foot access easement at this point.
The Chair and another Commissioner were in favor of hearing the case so it was removed from the consent
agenda and added to the hearing agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1625
APPLICANT: Aurora Dairy Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 29, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for agricultural service
establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including; veterinary clinics or
hospitals,livestock confinement operation for a 3,000 head dairy and multiple single-
family dwelling units per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20A and
multi-family dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in farming,
ranching or gardening in the agricultural zone district.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and west of CR 17.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning,said Staff and the applicant were requesting it remain on the consent
agenda. He clarified the request and said the veterinary clinics/hospitals were referring specifically to the
• hospital/barn facilities associated with the dairy. Also currently there were eighteen modular homes and a
couple of stick built houses on the site but he believed all were single family dwellings. Mr. Gathman said he
would revise the description prior to the BOCC hearing to clarify the uses,though the uses would not intensify
4
the use above and beyond what was in the present description. In fact, it may decrease it so they did not feel
• it was a substantial change to what was shown today and that was the reason for recommending it remain on
the consent agenda.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Gathman why this specific USR was necessary when they were already operating
and they were requesting less usage today. Mr.Gathman explained that Staff determined it was a substantial
change based on additional structures put on the site so the decision was that a special use permit was
required at this time. Mr. Gathman said prior to today there was no special use permit for the property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was voiced by any
member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair said Case USR-
1625 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1634
APPLICANT: Reynaldo &Mayra Bonilla c/o Larry Carroll with the Carroll Group
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 10,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an
accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (truck
parking, maintenance and office)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately one mile north of CR 22 and approximately one and a half miles east
of CR 41.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1634 would remain on the consent agenda.
• Tom Holton moved the amended Consent Agenda 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. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1636
APPLICANT: Roger&Diane Andreason
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to
accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a pet supply
retail component)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 1.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning, said Roger & Diane Andreason, being represented by Dennis
Drumm (Associated Land Consultants)have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a kennel(to accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats,along with training classes and a pet supply retail
component) in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
• The site location was north of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately'''/ mile east of County
Road 1.
5
• Thirteen referral agencies reviewed the case. Nine referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The proposed kennel facility would be approximately 1/8 of a mile south of the nearest residence and 1/8 of a
mile from the nearest residences to the west and east of the site.The site was well screened by mature trees
from State Highway 52.The site was adjacent to the town limits of Erie to the east.There was an access to a
gravel facility/proposed treatment plant in this location.The site was well screened from State Highway 52 by
mature trees.
The applicants have indicated that the facility will use public water(Left Hand Water District).
Two letters of opposition had been received from surrounding property owners to the north and west of the
site. Concerns outlined in the letters re: barking dogs and traffic.
The site utilized a shared access with the property to the north.The access easement was created through a
subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment to allow access to the northern parcel. The access was
indicated as a 30-foot access easement. No uses were specified under this easement so it was undefined.
The applicants were proposing to place trees for screening along the north and west sides of the site. Due to
the noise concerns raised by neighboring property owners, the Department of Planning Services
recommended the exercise area on the west side of the proposed kennel/office be screened by opaque
fencing material. Currently it was proposed to be a chain link fence.
There was an attached Development Standard number six which says dogs and cats would be kept inside
during night time hours, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Hours of operation, as proposed in the application, would be
from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,with extended hours until 5:30 p.m.for day care.If classes were
being held,operation hours would extend to 9 p.m. Weekend hours would be from 8 a.m.to 3 p.m.Saturday
• and 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, per the application materials.
The access permit would need to be obtained prior to the construction of this facility.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards were
sufficient to mitigate the concerns of surrounding property owners and referral agencies and recommended
approval of this application.
Robert Grand asked if there had been discussion between the applicant and the Bauer's(who had paid for the
road)regarding future road maintenance,considering the increased use of the facility with this application. Mr.
Gathman said he did not know if there had been discussion and would defer to the applicant for that answer.
Paul Branham asked Mr.Gathman about the change to the proposed fencing.Mr.Gathman suggested chain
link fencing with opaque screening material that blocks views of the exercise area or an opaque wooden
fence. Mr. Gathman said noise was of greater concern than views.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Gathman about dog confinement and was it inside a kennel or inside a building. Mr.
Gathman said his understanding was that dogs and cats were contained indoors.
Dennis Drumm,3405 Penrose PI, Boulder, CO,80301, applicant's representative,said out of respect for the
Commissioners time, he wanted to address neighbor concerns,if the Commissioners agreed. Mr.Andreason
has run a similar facility in Broomfield for twenty eight years and has dealt with many of the same concerns
expressed today at the Broomfield facility. That speaks to the Andreason's ability to run a considerate
operation. Mr. Drumm said he was certain Mr. Andreason would be amenable to changing the fencing
materials as requested. He then addressed the view to the west saying that soil from the pond in the area
was proposed to be used in earthen berms in that area to provide noise diffusion and provide screening.
• Roger"Pat"Andreason,applicant, 342 North Shore Cr,Windsor,CO,said on the day of Mr.Armstead's visit it
was a snowy day and the dogs had been confined indoors and were therefore quite noisy when they entered
the building in which they were contained. He cited his Broomfield facility and said they had never exceeded
6
the noise level allowed there and doubted the dogs barking at the proposed facility could be heard over the
• trucks moving about the adjacent gravel operation or over the traffic on Hwy 52.
Robert Grand asked about the Bauer's paving the road at their expense and would he be agreeable to setting
up a mechanism with them,given the incremental traffic that would now be traveling on his portion of the road.
Mr. Andreason said the road access needed to be expanded and widened. He felt his business would
increase the value of the property due to improvements made to the property.
Tom Holton asked about intent of the earthen berm on the west side of the operations area. Mr.Andreason
said an earthen berm with trees on top for visual and noise screening was what they had proposed. Mr.
Holton suggested they might contact the neighboring gravel pit if they needed more dirt for the earthen berm.
Bill Hall asked what height they were anticipating the earthen berm to be. Mr.Andreason said five feet. Mr.
Hall then asked how tall the kennels were at their Broomfield facility. Mr.Andreason replied the buildings at
the Broomfield facility were two story buildings with apartments on the top level. The proposed facility would
be a one story building.
Tom Holton asked if a height requirement/limit of five feet for the berm on the west side would be agreeable to
him. Mr.Andreason said he would agree to that.
Paul Branham asked how many animals were at the Broomfield facility and what other modifications had he
made. Mr.Andreason responded that currently numbers could go to 150 or more over a holiday season. Mr.
Branham asked if a five foot berm would be high enough to control noise from the barking dogs. Mr.
Andreason said it would.
Don Dunker, Department of Public Works, said that since this property was in a flood plain, the applicant
would need to berm with caution so as not to increase the flood risk to neighboring properties.
• Dennis Drumm, applicant's representative, said they were aware of the grading permit requirements for
berming, but the house was removed from the floodplain by a letter of map amendment. The letter was
careful to say that it only applied to the house, so the option available to the property owner was to request a
second letter of amendment for the kennel portion of the property. The flood level that was cited was forty
eight feet at elevation and the lowest point on the property was fifty one feet. It would appear that the elevation
of almost all of the entire cite was three feet above flood stage, which might bode well in this discussion
regarding the berm's location and whether or not it was in the floodplain. Mr.Andreason planned to pursue a
letter of map amendment for the kennel portion of the property as well.
The Chair opened the floor to the public.
Richard Armstead, 219 Hwy 52, Erie, CO,said he bought the property to the west thirty seven years ago and
the first year he owned it before he built there, the entire property was under water, including the applicant's
property. If the application was approved, he requested the kennels be moved to the back of the building to
the west. Mr.Armstead also said he felt a five foot berm would not stop the noise and suggested evergreens
rather than deciduous trees.
Kenneth Schell, 833 State Hwy 52, Erie, CO, lives east and north of the applicant's property and was most
concerned about road traffic due to gravel mining and said there was a free for all fight to get onto the
roadway. Mr. Schell said his driveway was right next to truck traffic driveway and it was a disaster and there
was no control over traffic. Traffic has been known to back up from CR 1 to CR 5 over two miles. The noise
from the dogs was most evident in the summer. Mr.Schell said if he purchased property near an existing dog
kennel, then it was his fault, but if he owns property and they come in and build a kennel, then he feels a
responsibility to speak against it. They are moving into our territory,we are not moving into their territory.
Vernon Bauer,389 Hwy 52, Erie,CO, moved out there seven years ago for the peace and quiet of the country,
expecting to have cows and horses and peace and quiet. A gravel pit has come in since and will leave at
• some point, but the dog kennel could be forever. Mr. Bauer did not feel a widened drive would alleviate
increased traffic which would still impede his ability to get in and out of his own driveway.
7
The Chair closed public portion of the hearing.
• The applicant's representative, Dennis Drumm, stepped forward to address concerns. Mr.Drumm said they
understand resident's concerns but the Broomfield facility proves this type of facility can and does work in a
more urban area. Noise levels established by the State have never been breached. He added there may be
an impact but past evidence says there hasn't been at the Broomfield facility and he was confident they could
all coexist at the proposed facility.
The Chair asked Public Works about traffic issues. David Snyder, Public Works Department, said
unfortunately it was CDOT's area and they had no input.
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, shared noise level information and septic system
information. The decibel level for commercial zoning was sixty from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A sixty decibel limit
would sound something like an air conditioner at twenty feet or normal speech. From 7 p.m.to 7 a.m., it was
fifty five decibels. Fifty five decibels was also the residential noise limit from 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. From 7 p.m.to 7
a.m. the level was a fifty decibel limit,which was equivalent to light auto traffic at one hundred feet. She did
not have an equivalent for fifty five decibels, but this should give them an idea of the range. Seventy decibels,
which she believed was light industrial, would sound like a vacuum cleaner.
Roy Spitzer asked if there were decibel limits for the agricultural zone district. Ms. Smith responded there
were not, they included only residential, commercial, light industrial and industrial.
Ms. Smith said the existing house on the property does have a septic permit from 1988. The new kennel
office would have its own septic system per the Staff comments and would be designed by an engineer for the
standards and the uses they would have. The septic system would have to be designed to accommodate the
employees and the visitors and the uses at the kennel, but would not be an uncommon septic system for this
type of operation.
• Tom Holton asked who the neighbors contact if there was excessive noise. Ms. Smith said they should call
the Environmental Health Department and they would dispatch someone to the site to record the noise levels.
Roy Spitzer asked how that would be monitored. Ms. Smith cited Development Standard fourteen which
addresses that issue.
Bill Hall asked about the difference between pine trees and broad leaf trees regarding sound baffling. Ms.
Smith said conifer or evergreen would offer greenery year round to buffer sound as opposed to deciduous
trees that lose their leaves in the fall. Mr. Hall asked if the applicant would be amenable to providing a
different type of tree. Mr. Drumm said they would commit to doing the most effective type of landscape
screening possible and would follow any landscape plan suggested. Trees would be planted in such a manner
that noise/screening would be maximized. Mr. Hall asked how far the facility was from the closest neighbor to
the south. Mr. Drumm said about 800 to 850 feet to the house on west and the house to north was maybe
1000 feet from the kennel. Mr. Drumm added that CDOT told them they would need an access permit due to
the use of the property changing, but the mount of traffic would not warrant any major changes as traffic would
not be increased that much.
Tom Holton asked Mr.Gathman about additional landscaping requirements/recommendations. Mr.Gathman
said Kim Ogle,Department of Planning,would make additional landscape recommendations concerning types
of planting and configuration. Mr. Gathman also suggested adding a condition, 1.K. and renumber,that the
applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan for Staff review and approval.
Tom Holton asked if the landscape screening would be in combination with the berms. Mr.Gathman said the
Department of Public Works had a condition regarding the flood plain that might affect the berming. They
would all have to tie in together. Mr. Holton inquired about two sided berming. Don Dunker, Public Works,
said berming would need to be parallel to the water flow and they would have to look at the plan and make
sure they didn't create a flood risk to surrounding properties.
• Roy Spitzer asked for restatement of commercial noise levels. Ms. Smith replied the decibel level for
commercial zoning was sixty from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A sixty decibel limit would sound something like an air
conditioner at twenty feet or normal speech. From 7 p.m.to 7 a.m., it was fifty five decibels. Fifty five decibels
8
was also the residential noise limit from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the level was a fifty decibel
• limit, which was equivalent to light auto traffic at one hundred feet.
Robert Grand inquired about the decibel level of a barking dog. Ms. Smith said she did not have that
information as most of the literature does not have that information. Perhaps it could be equated to a vacuum
cleaner which is a seventy decibel level.
Paul Branham asked if a decibel meter set 850 feet from the property line on the west could measure noise
levels. Ms. Smith said that could be done.
Bill Hall said that since traffic would be increasing on the access to the property and the road had been paved
by the neighbor, had any concessions been made by the applicant with the neighbor for repair and
maintenance of the road. Mr. Drumm said CDOT had done nothing regarding regulation of the mining
operation,excel/decel lanes, or right hand turn lanes. Mr. Hall reminded him that the Bauer's had paved the
road. The applicant would use that access to get on the highway and the applicant should make some kind of
arrangement for maintenance with the Bauer's. Mr. Drumm said the applicant had acknowledged
responsibility as to widening the access, etc., as they would have the majority of the use.
The Chair asked Staff if an agreement between all users was required or could they make improvements
without approval. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said the applicant could make improvements as long as it
was not changed to the point that it was inaccessible and the neighbors did not object. He added they have
every right to go ahead and do so.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman about the landscaping plan and additional verbiage. Mr. Gathman
suggested changes to page 6;add an item 1.K.,and renumber,which shall say,"The applicant shall submit a
landscape screening plan for review and approval by the Department of Planning." He added they could
specify that the landscape and screening plan shall address the screening from the north and west sides of
the property. Mr. Oschner asked if the berming issue could also be addressed or was it represented
• elsewhere.
Tom Holton suggested landscaping and noise level mitigation be added. Mr. Gathman's response was that
the landscape and screening plan shall also address noise reduction and mitigation.
Robert Grand asked if the kennel could be located further away from the surrounding property owners and
would it be feasible to provide an increased buffer for the neighbors if the facility moved closer to Hwy 52. Mr.
Gathman said buildings to the south were to be torn down and they might be able to shift it a bit.
Tom Holton motioned to accept the Staff recommendation to add an item 1.K., page six, and renumber
accordingly, which shall say, "The applicant shall submit a landscape and screening plan for review and
approval by the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall address noise buffering and noise mitigation
issues through potential techniques such as fencing and berming." Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes;Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bill Hall asked again about an agreement regarding maintenance of the driveway.
The Chair asked if traffic needs to be specifically addressed regarding maintenance. Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, suggested a maintenance agreement because if one were not in place then they won't know who
should do what or who should pay what. An easement agreement or any agreement means that two parties
were willing to consent to an agreement. They participate in good faith to achieve cooperation, which was
implied.
Mr. Gathman suggested item L. and renumber accordingly to read, "The applicant shall enter into a joint
•
access and maintenance agreement for the thirty foot access agreement for the neighboring property to the
north or provide evidence an adequate attempt to reach agreement has been made."
9
Roy Spitzer motioned to accept the Staff recommendation to add an item 1.L., page six, and renumber
• accordingly,which shall say,"The applicant shall enter into a joint access and maintenance agreement for the
thirty foot access agreement for the neighboring property to the north or provide evidence an adequate
attempt to reach agreement has been made." Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Drumm was asked if he had read and understood the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and was he in favour. He responded they were.
Bill Hall moved that Case USR-1636, 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. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Robert Grand commented that the neighbors have a right on the noise standard issue to pursue that if in fact it
is in violation and secondly,on the traffic issue, it is another example where we have a CDOT question and a
County question and it falls in no man's land. He reiterated that we need to be more careful and figure out a
process that allows for better input so the neighbors can deal with the traffic problems. We can help them
rather than ignore them.
CASE NUMBER: Highways 1041 Regulations
PRESENTER: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Bruce Barker,County Attorney,reviewed the Highways 1041 Regulations and said they are a result of House
Bill 1041. Specific applicable sections are 2465.1.
Mr. Barker said that in looking at the title of regulations, there were massive descriptions including arterial
• highways, interchanges,collector highways, including private toll roads and toll highways, mass transit, rapid
transit terminals, stations and fixed guide ways and areas around those, which come directly from State
statutes. The County has added private toll roads and toll highways. We have set up specific items we can
regulate and modified them and limited it to private toll roads and toll highways. We have taken what the State
has given us and have pared it back. The County was targeting private tool roads and private highways and if
you looked at the two exemptions,the specific one would be in 21-4-100. State statutes 7-45-101 and 38-2-
101 were added in 2006 and modified later. If you compared these regulations to electrical regulations(21-3-
100)you would see the same general format,as we want them to be consistent throughout. Section 21-4-100
talked about a variety of general topics and protected private properties. The regulations were not intended to
stop private toll roads or toll highways but give much more protection to private property owners,which was of
prime concern to the BOCC. Specifically it provides protections for agricultural lands, irrigation ditches and
irrigation systems, existing county roadways.
Mr. Barker continued that page six deals with permits and prohibition on site selection and construction. We
need to add in paragraph A.,24-1-300,after"or fixed guide way, as defined herein and specifically as limited
pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of this article,within the unincorporated portions of this County
without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the terms of this Article IV." The same language would be added to
item B.just after fixed guide way,"as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100
and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated portions of this County." That puts the
limitation on it but also makes it so that a permitting process must be followed. Mr. Barker added he would be
surprised if they ever got an application of this type, but wanted the Planning Commission prepared never the
less. In the event of an application, the Planning Commission would hear the request and make a
recommendation as they do with electrical permits and they would then send it on to the BOCC. The PUC
(Public Utilities Commission)does not regulate these permits but they can overturn, by State statute, BOCC
decisions. In this particular instance,the PUC does not have that capability,which was a benefit,and makes a
distinction between the two. Mr.Barker said Sharon Croghan,who worked on these regulations with him, had
some suggestions for changes: further down on page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., say instead "significant
• environmental or economic damage",which would include devaluation of property due to a"Super Slab"going
in. The BOCC could then look at economic damages to surrounding property owners and make mitigation
recommendations. Ms. Croghan's next recommendation was that page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., be
10
Hello