The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About820714.tiff RESOLUTION RE: DENIAL OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR DOG BOARDING KENNEL - DAVID SHOEMAKER WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 27th day of January, 1982 at the hour of 2 : 00 o 'clock p.m. in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners, and continued until the 3rd day of February at the hour of 9: 00 o' clock p.m. , for the purpose of hearing the application of David Shoemaker, 4609 W. 20th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631, for a Use By Special Review for a dog boarding kennel on the following described real estate to-wit: Part of the SEn Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. WHEREAS, evidence was presented by the applicant in support of the granting of the Use By Special Review, and WHEREAS, evidence was presented by area residents urging denial of the Use By Special Review on the grounds of adverse effects on the neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant, made an on-site inspection, the comments of area residents, the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Staff, and all exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and having been fully informed, finds that: 1. It is the opinion of the Board that this request is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 24 . 4 . 2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance which states in part: The Board shall approve the request for the Use by Special Review unless it finds that the applicant has not met one or more of the standards or conditions of Sections 24. 2 . 2, 24 . 5 and 24 . 6. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of Sections 24 . 4 . 2, 24. 5 and 24. 6 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate: a) The the USES which would be permitted will be compat- ible the existing surrounding land USES; b) That the USES which would be permitted will be compat- ible future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN or MASTER PLAN of affected municipalities; c) That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. 320714 PAGE 2, DENIAL OF USR, SHOEMAKER This opinion is based on the following findings : The propose boarding kennel is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses, nor would it be in harmony with the neighborhood. As set forth in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a Use by Special Review includes those uses which may have greater impact on surrounding uses or a potentially more intensive use than allowed by right in the zone district. Although Westridge and Ken-Wil Acres are in an unincorporated area at present, it is a platted area which has predominatly rural residential land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commis- sioners for a Use By Special Review for a dog boarding kennel on the aforementioned tract of land be, and hereby is, denied as failing to satisfy the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The above and foregoing resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 3rd day of February, A.D. , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO r /<dr_2 .— )% : /7a.. .fr„ (AYE) 141n T. Martin, Chairman (AYE) Chuck Carlson, ro Tem � ? �%/ft-0s/-•_ (AYE) Norman a��> Carlson /-'/� + J�.��/y/� (NAY) C. W. Ki y71/16112;/Me/ * E) ne K. Stea IHk ATTEST: ff° g2/1 (r .C i ,4 w ii County dlerk and Recorder and. .CJ rk to the Board, eputy CountyClerk APP ED AS TO FORM: ,,,,, y .4„..._, Coun y Attorney DATE PRESENTED: February 8, 1982 A public hearing was conducted on_ January 27 , 1982 at 2 : 00 P.M. , with the following present: JOHN MARTIN CHAIRMAN CHUCK CARLSON PRO TEM NORMAN CARLSON COMMISSIONER BILL KIRBY COMMISSIONER JUNE STEINMARK COMMISSIONER EXCUSED Also present: ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, KEITHA WHITE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, LEE MORRISON PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, ROD ALLISON & TOM HORN The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated January 11, 1982 and duly published January 14, 1982 in the Johnstown Breeze a public hearing was conducted on the request of DAVID SHOEMAKER FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A DOG BOARDING KENNEL. Mr. Morrison reviewed the notice. Rod Allison reviewed the Planning Commission' s unfavorable recommendation. Rod also read the the Planning Commission' s conditions and standards if the Board approves the application. The applicant, David Shoemaker, elaborated on the location and area of his request. He also reviewed the structure to be constructed. Several people were present and testifyed in favor to the request. Mrs. Barb McNew, attorney for area residents in oppostion to the request stated the reasons for their opposition. She presented three letters to the Board. Thom Rounds testifyed on behalf of the opposition. Several area residents testifyed in opposition. Following discussion and testimony of those present, Commissioner Kirby stated that he would like to have the Commissioners make an on-site inspection of the property and he also felt that this request is important enought that a full Board should participate in the final decision; therefore he made a motion to continue this hearing until February 3, 1982 at 9: 30 A.M. Commissioner C. Carlson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. N ,ate. / ,162,b, - AIAN �+ a C�✓twWti , 'All',ys.' OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 1/ WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY• t L./C Deputy County lerk DOCKET# 82-2 TAPE# 82-6 LHR 2097 ATTENDANCE RECORD TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 82-2 - DAVID SHOEMAKER PLEASE write or print legibly your - name, address and the DOC # (as listed above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending. NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING ? I. 7la/tvu,,v .E. 4-7.4e69 L y/ ,c. :a w %I. D. /'3 �_,.... „..,4 , ,,,4.zee / 9-2_ 1 � .7-1- --±z 1� ,�e�.z " / 'I g7- 7/- , a . ,e7 _ ! Q. W n / fi 2 c1 S c ,^, 9 tl (_)(-, LI e.-2-1_ ,0 7„ _/.7 ii. 9 ,4e,"- /4.- f:, s7 2 - ,/Z 4 id-c. 'et `' COL 07,30P (or ff 3-/: A ft 1-5'4 71 Or 11 ,/ - V (�t, /$7≤7 a I, /1 D 1 ,---)# q z_7 6_.x- d-e ts / 0 i 4-ErCk )-17 // ! ! t,,,,i4c CM � k-1,14: - 1( -914 (am. ill - .� -).7., ,,<22 A, „g7-74L I o6 3( W ;S''` ` ��y ) nct,�� :x?Sc d 7/-'G s‹._ k) ck T I _ a, 20 l X---e-.a (*xi- (--- (7-1---1-- A ,. 2. r 6 / 7-1: V n 1 /C- iV yv L-4___ n ‘3- id,,ea- .,&12 _A, . 2 ‘ _ ,s~ 6 qji JM-K---- , (S) &€a a/aL &05 6 � - /5)a. - 02, 0 iD „e AP d,"_.;„t,,,, ' . I/M. d )272,61— . l ' kk- // 777aW , Z 2/- 0l „ C., : -27p3 &1s- a Ombd2 & .cos- 6gTji 4ax iay ..2ip,-Ge-,(l' tr,) ,,,... ' _ - I '` / 0 ' 4' . (r i iqL:. n,4 ,,L .AT Ici,,/c/et. i 7.5-1.) zat) /ILO )&rt._a to ‘-'(_ 71 ---Dc' ci 1-44.4,Li 1- /•_L.s S/ ( V G). W P kdif3 x40 l� d., f"46-. 0/6 JzI C. 6 � i/ / acuLe,., an c v c/1'Yl�'Y g bd S- (0541\ 0, , (LU �I"JWJ,1 J (\�� d ii yam. ii 6.3 .37- ,- &> 457, 0A-17S:17-- -C,Ze -c> 6 3 / 6 y 0 C, „=,. , / r 04 ,. 3A-m. "'ar a'G ZS ea s Avg ( ' ' (1 ig 7 / 5j ....t -it / de' 47 ✓- // .t R 1111` a1d. 0 i .:.',.;`0 1 frit Ave 4 thieciley 0 q g ik) (Z Op6Au 2675 k- > tis C- Lrv_y do-O, -42 ^/Li2( (% 74, v NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado , Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Use By Special Review are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. DOCKET NO. 82-2 APPLICANT David Shoemaker 4609 W. 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 DATE: January 27, 1982 TIME: 2 : 00 P.M. REQUEST: Use By Special Review - Dog Kennel LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of the SEa Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Keitha White, Deputy DATED: January 11, 1982 PUBLISHED: January 14 , 1982 in the Johnstown Breeze nffidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Weld, Paula A. Barton of said County of Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am an advertising clerk of THE GREELEY DAILY TRIBUNE, and THE GREELEY REPUBLICAN that the same is a daily newspaper of general circulation and printed and published in the City of Greeley, in said county and state; that the notice or a advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said daily newspaper for consecutive the �Wino coun tIMy,I (days) fweeks); that the notice was published in the in s mm fi,'6WeI:a caoradA regular and entire issue of every number of said da.¢p IR>Fr�ntnrlwRtt el newspaper during the period and time of publication of awlW brr N4 IaYN5 n me m aey epee al NelM MM said notice, and in the newspaper proper and not in a ' Pirrrgio kitowti tat that at supplement thereof; that the first publication of said r7 ,WSW v ao3n nvn co' hD i6 may w notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper to iq igtec CNn 4, Bf Wei NtanilM, bearing �'� � date �1 in tae'Weld C 'Eentmnyl e s i .4ir t, TIEVN Fin,. colofl o. T Np a1] Eleventh APPitto T Dempshoemaker day of January A.D. 19 82 NWW T:0Street .Mfeeley,Chlora 19/0691 DATE:JanuarT'6r,1912 and the last publication thereof; in the issue of said TIMETEE'P:M. REaOEST:D»pY NAKAO Review• ,? newspaper bearing date the Opp Kennel • 6 DESCRIPTION P0r Perlot the SE Section 16,Township Norm,'R ehge 66 West of the 601 Eleventh P'W" January D. 1982 Weld day of A. pOARDOF COVNTV COMMISSION% that said The Greeley Daily Tribune and The Greeley WELDCOUNTY,COLORAO� RY:MARYANN FEUERST��-.•wO�t Republican, has been published continuously and COVN-TY[LEEK AND RECORD _ •. ERKTOTHE50ARO uninterruptedly during the period of at least six r*".. -r- j jaeati months next prior to the first issue thereof contained said notice or advertisement above referred to;that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof; and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. January 11, 1982 Total charge: $12 . 18 • Advertising Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th f January A.D. 19 82 My co miss/di-1 expires Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE STATE OF COLORADO 1 • 1 ss COUNTY OF WELD 1 I, Clyde Briggs, do solemnly swear tha ralillialiallit am publisher of The Johnstown Breez SOTICIt t that the same is a weekly newspar the to to printed, in whole or in part, and publish ll 3ti °ue gf h��s in the County of Weld, State of Colorac v5ma and has a general circulation therein; if =p2"42, d County said newspaper has been publish centersener, 915 loth continuously and uninterruptedly in s1 Street �Colorado,M the P Y em+veAll + County of Weld for a period of more th requBne ittteendandmayane fifty-two-consecutive weeks prior to f heard, first publication of the annexed legal noti BE IT ALSO KNOWN that me or advertisement; that said newspaper h textand(naps so certified by the been admitted to the United States mails Weld Planning Commis- sion of bb cieerrk to the in second-class matter under the provisions of County, Commissioners, the Act of March 3, 1879, or a located in-.'the Weld County centennial Center, 915 loth amendments thereof, and that sa Street, Third Floor, Greeley, newspaper is a Colorado. weekly newspaper di DOCKETED.82-2 qualified for publishing legal notices a advertisements within the meaaling of I APPLICANT laws of the State of Colorado. David Shoemaker GreeleyCol Colorado 880331 That the annexed legal notice or adverb: DATE: 27,1@82 ment was published in the regular a TIME: January n P.M. - entire issue of every number of said week 2: newspaper for the period of / consec REQUEST: Use By Special Review ..Dog Kennel Live insertions; and that the fir LEGAL DESCRIPTION publication of said notice was in the issue said newspaper dated 74 r:2I A . 191/Z Part of the SEy Section 18 Toumetdp 6 North .Rep a aA publication o and that the last blicatif said noti west of the .8th P.M., eweld per dat County, Colorado. was in the issue of said newspaper ..B0 AWN A.D. 19 -COIOUgWELDCSION,Ys In witness whereof I have hereunto CotoRnud my hand this - 7 day of i-_ BY:MARY ANN A.D. 19 t. .= CCppUUNNTyFEUERSTEIN MIME BY:keltha White,Deputy G DATED: January 11, 1982Publish P G 91, 1988 7 Comrkto the r. Bw Subscribed and sworn to before me, - Notary Public in and for the County Weldtate of Colorado this .t($.L.l. day ic,.C. A-D. 19,5 7 re irt. 1 %�i . .. Notary Publ My commission expires• �% " Sit yk _ fir; y BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date January 19. 1982 Case No. USR # 482:81:28 APPLICATION OF David Shoemaker, D.V.M. ADDRESS 1812 42nd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Moved by Jack Holman 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 site approval of an indoor dog boarding kennel covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: Part of the SE4, Section 16, T5N, x66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado be recommended Q 9 99 (unfavorably) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that this request is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 24.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning 0rdinance which states in part: The Plartt4Yng Commnission shall approve the request for the Use by Special Review Permit unless it finds that the applicant has not met ,24 one or more of the standards or conditions of Sections 24:5.1, 24.5 and 24.6. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of SectionA24.5, 24.6 and 24.3.1 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate: - That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES: - That the USES which would 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 the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN or MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities; and Motion seconded by Bob Ehrlich Vote: For Passage Wilbur wafel Against Passage Bette Kountz Bob Ehrlich Bob Halleran Jack Holman Jerry Kiefer The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Bobbie Good , Recording Secretary of 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 January 19. ]982 and recorded in Book No. vTTT of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 21 day of Janiary , 1982 . C�boa Secretary USR-482 :81:28 David Shoemaker, D.V.M. Request for an indoor dog boarding kennel Part of the SE', Section 16, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado Page 2 That there is adequate provision for the protection of health, safety and Welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. This determination is based on the following: - /The proposed boarding kennel is not compatible with the surrounding cresidential uses, nor would it be in harmony with the neighborhood. The concerns of the Planning Commission are the increased noise and odor generation and possible property devaluation. - As set forth in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a Use by Special Review includes those uses which may have greater impact on surrounding uses or a potentially more intensive use than allowed by right in the zone district. Although Westridge and Ken-Wil Acres are in an unincorporated area at present, it is a platted area which has predominantly rural residential land uses. If approved, this proposed operation may have a significant impact on the future development of the existing platted area which has and should continue to be developed for residential uses in the future. - The purpose and intent clause of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states that this ordinance is designed to promote the health, safety, convenience, morals, order and welfare of the inhabitants of the County. The present and future inhabitants of Weld County will be benefited through conserving the value of property; and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. It is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that approval of this Use by Special Review would not be safe-guarding this residential area. Further, it is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that approval of the Use by Special Review Permit may have an adverse effect on surrounding property values. This is indicated in comments received by letters and conversations from the surrounding property owners. - While it is the Planning Commission's opinion that this proposal is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, if the permit were recommended for approval, the Weld County Planning Commission has outlined the following conditions felt necessary for the proposal: - The standards for Use by Special Review be adopted; - The plat for the Use by Special Review Permit be placed on record by the Department of Planning Services staff prior to any building permits being issued on the site; - Reservation of an additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way along 65th Avenue. David Shoemaker USR 482:81:28 Comments The Department of Planning Services staff has received several letters and had conversations from adjacent land owners . Letters are included in the attached packets . % RA:bn Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 1982 Page 9 Wilbur Wafel, Planning Commission member, questioned Dr. Shoemaker regard- ing the earth berms, overhang and landscaping planned for this facility. Bette Kountz, Planning Commission member, discussed escape proofing of the kennel with Dr. Shoemaker. Gene Gerhardt, Ken-Will Subdivision resident, stated there are a few here who want to put something there (in the subdivision) the rest of the residents don't want. Jerry Kiefer, Planning Commission member, wished to express his thoughts before a motion was made. He stated most of the Planning Commission members were involved in the most recent zoning ordinance and the building of this zoning ordinance under which we are presently acting. It has been mentioned that this use, a dog kennel, is permissible in agriculturally zoned areas. However, in reflecting back on discussions, and the reason why, we as a County determined this use could best fit in an agriculturally zoned area, it was primarily to insure that this use would be well away from any residen- tial area, or any town. The Planning Commission did recognize that there are agriculturally zoned areas close to town and sometimes almost within city limits, but the primary purpose in designating dog kennels in agricultural zoned areas was to keep them further away. On the other hand, "C" zoning occurs near towns, inhabited areas and residential areas. In these instances the Planning Commission tries to look at the kind of activities which are compatible to a residential neighborhood. And while he understands and appreciates the fear of the residents of the Westridge Subdivision and the other surrounding areas, they should realize that sometime in the future this corner may end-up being commercially zoned. He did not know who could guarantee that it would not be, the property across the road is already commercially zoned, and if and when that happens, we have to realize that commercial enterprises may happen there and that again is a decision that will be made when such a decision needs to be made. The need for the activity is totally up to the individual business man and not the Planning Commission to determine in this case. Here we are looking at whether or not there is a need in this location to have this facility; need is not up to us to decide. Health is protected by regulations. Granted sometimes our public officials for various reasons, primarily funding, are sometimes incapable of reacting as quickly or efficiently as possible to health concerns, but regulations are there to take care of them. Again, on the future use, it is definitely uncertain, even though he, (Mr. Kiefer) personally is opposed to a dog kennel in a residential area: he will definitely go along with the staff recommendation. In the back of his mind there still is the realization, that the use, done correctly, may in the long-run be better for the neighborhood. It is just difficult guesses that we make. It is possible that no commercial acitivity will ever occur, there is no way to assure this unless someone is generous enough to buy the property and put in a park, but nobody is probably going to do that. Even though this would be a Use by Special Review permit, and we all under- stand this area will someday be inside the city limits, it is possible that in the city it would be a "C" Zone if this use were there at the time, but the city would have to be asked that question. While he lived for twenty Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 1982 Page 10 years, within two hundred feet of a dog kennel, it was not built as this one is proposed to be built, he can appreciate the problems that can happen, and he is trying to be as objective as possible because of the different plans that are presented here. Jack Holman stated he will go along with the comments made by Jerry Kiefer, his feelings are pretty much the same. He does not particularly like the idea of having a dog kennel in a residential area. He does go along with the fact that as time goes on this could be developed into more and more housing in the area, even though the zoning is currently "C" in some of that area. MOTION Jack Holman moved, with the comments made directly prior to the motion, that we forward this request to the Board of County Commissioners with our recommendation for denial. Motion seconded by Bob Ehrlich. The Chairman called for additional discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. There was none. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members for their decision. Wilbur Wafel - Feels that if this building is built under the conditions and plans, as presented, it would be about as sound-proof as anything could get with the berming, which would make a mass on three sides. He also feels the concept is good, the solar heating can be controlled in the summer by using insulated window applications. He works in the solar field and is very interested in this type of building and applications and is in agreement with the concept of the building. However, he does not feel that a dog kennel in a residential area is to the best interest of the area. Therefore, he will vote yes, recommending that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request. Bette Kountz - No. Bob Halleran stated he is kind of betwixt and between, as most of the other Planning Commission members are. When you get through all the rhetoric it comes down, basically, is this the right situation, or use for that particular property. Having built and owned dog kennels in the past, he felt the design that Dr. Shoemaker is proposing is, if not one of the best, certainlly the best, that he has seen. Again, you think, if something has got to go in there isn't that better than a Seven-Eleven, but again that is not the point. The question is---should this location have something like this, or should it be something to be decided in the future. He felt the answer is probably, wait until the future to decide, if it is still in the County (has not been annexed by the city of Greeley) at that time. Therefore, he is voting yes. Bob Ehrlich - yes; Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 1982 Page 11 Jack Holman - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes. Motion carried with five voting for denial and one against denial. The Chairman stated this recommendation for denial will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Rod Allison, Planner, announced this will come before the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, January 27, 1982, at 2:00 p.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE V. A. OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS — — — — — — Rod Allison, Planner, read the proposed amendment to the Weld County Planning Commission Bylaws. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated sometimes Tuesdays are legal County holidays. Therefore, this was rewritten to allow reschedul- ing of a meeting if there is business to be conducted. MOTION Bette Kountz moved this presented amendment be accepted. Motion seconded by Bob Halleran. Vote was taken by answering yes or no. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION Bette Kountz moved the November 2, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting be rescheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 1982, if there is business to be conducted. Motion seconded by Jack Holman. Vote was taken by answering yes or no. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c o\"1.� Qll �Y OO Bobbie Good Secretary rg/ ADDENDUM: Comments by the Planning Commission members regarding their decision for voting for denial on USR-482:81:28, David Shoemaker, D.V.M. have been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Date: January 19, 1982 CASE NUMBER: USR-482:81:28 NAME: David Shoemaker, D.V.M. REQUEST: Indoor dog boarding kennel LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE', Section 16, T5N, R66W LOCATION: 6425 28th Street - north of Greeley THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICE'S STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE denied FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that this request is not in compliance with the provisions of Section 24.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance which states in part : The Planning Commission shall approve the request for the Use by Special Review Permit unless it finds that the applicant has not met one or more of the standards or conditions of Sections 24.3.1, 24.5 and 24. 6. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of Section 24.5, 24.6 and 24.3.1 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate: - That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES : - That the USES which would 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 the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN or MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities; and - That there is adequate provision for the protection of health, safety and Welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. This determination is based on the following: The proposed boarding kennel is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses, nor would it be in harmony with the neighborhood. The concerns of the staff are the increased noise and odor generation and possible property devaluation. As set forth in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a Use by Special Review includes those uses which may have greater impact on surrounding uses or a potentially more intensive use than allowed by right in the zone district. Although Westridge and KenWil Acres are in an unincorporated area at present, it is a platted area which has predominantly rural residential land uses. If approved, this proposed operation may have a significant impact on the future development of the existing platted area which has and should continue to be developed for residential uses in the future. The purpose and intent clause of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states that this ordinance is designed to promote the health, safety, convenience, morals, order and welfare of the inhabitants of the County. The present and future inhabitants of Weld County will be benefited through conserving the value of property; and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. on, A, n, , USR-478 :81:28 David Shoemaker, D.V.M. Indoor dog boarding kennel Part of the SEA, Section 16, T5N, R66W Page 2 It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that approval of this Use by Special Review would not be safe-guarding this residential area. Further, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that approval of the Use by Special Review Permit may have an adverse effect on surrounding property values. This is indicated in comments received by letters and conversations from the surrounding property owners. While it is the Department of Planning Services staff opinion that this proposal is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, if the permit were recommended for approval, the Department of Planning Services staff has outlined the following conditions felt necessary for the proposal: - The standards for Use by Special Review be adopted; - The plat for the Use by Special Review Permit be placed on record by the Department of Planning Services staff prior to any building permits being issued on the site; - Reservation of an additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way along 65th Avenue. RA:rg B-17 H. ,ems#R a 3sr.� j " `,a r ,.1 a - r•° 'P,V-v- , If ♦t�'�j -- f11 11 Y to 41 ,r 4 .,.ram ` ''.,f�"•� � .^ _. r t14114, sat- !el GREELEY CIVIC CENTER O GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 Jannary 13 , 19 ,, PHONE (303) 353-6121 Rod Allison Current Planner Weld County Dept . of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Rod : The Greeley Planning Commission reviewed the request by David Shoemaker for an indoor dog kennel northeast of U. S , 34 Bypass and 65th Avenue at its meeting on January 12, 1982 . After con- sidering input from all interested parties, the Planning Commission recommended no objections to the request and further recommended the following be implemented by the County if the use is approved: 1 . Restrict the kennel to no outside runs as proposed by the applicant . Further minimize noise impacts through good site plan layout , sound-mitigating construction techniques, building location, and building orientation. 2 . A drainage report be brepared by a professional engineer and implemented. 3. Reservation of ten feet of additional right-of-way along 65th Avenue. 4. Provision of seven improved parking spaces. To minimize noise and headlight impacts and for customer convenience, it is recommended that the parking be provided on the south side (front ) of the kennel building. 5. As a minimum, set the kennel twenty-five feet off the future right-of-way line along 65th Avenue. "A COMMUNITY OF' PROGRESS" Rod Allison Page 2 January 13 , 1982 6. Locate the parking stalls and building a minimum of twenty-five feet off the frontage road (28th St . ) right-of-way. 7 . Not permit the development of structures or parking stalls within twenty-five feet of any adjacent residentially zoned lot . The Commission made the recommendation for no objections to the estab- lishment of this use with the recommended development standards identified above after evaluating the anticipated land use demand on this 1 .4 acre parcel and using the Comprehensive Plan policies as the guideline. The land use demand anticipated at this entire inter- section is for Highway Commercial and retail commercial (Community/ Neighborhood Commercial ) similar to other arterial street/bypass intersections such as 47th Avenue, 35th Avenue, etc. With the location of this 1 .4 acre parcel at the intersectsion , the Commission felt the intensity of use anticipated would be comparable to the uses permitted in the City ' s C-3 (General Business) Commercial District . A dog boarding kennel is a permitted use in the C-3 District and , therefore, the Commission recommended no objections to establishment of the use on the property . Further, the Commission recommended implementation of specific techniques with the intent to minimize potential negative impacts on the adjacent residential area. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have any questions with regard to this matter , please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely , • Ken McWilliams L City Planner KM:vlp Enc. ti 1ri 13 1522 Weld Co. Planning Commission APPLICATION USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado II/I CC n 4 RPhone - 356-4000 - Ext. 400 ( Case Number USI2_ L , Date Received 12--- .22- 3( Application Checked by �1 Application Fee 140. t-YJ Receipt Number I 1,0r l Recording Fee I O - Da Receipt Number 320 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the pro- posed Special Review Permit of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County Colorado: /LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: ` C y Section IC T T N, RCtW LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review Permit is proposed: Section T N, R W d, Property Address (if available) 6 y 1 S - 2 . ( S'I r o E r\ PRESENT ZONE f� OVERLAY ZONES TOTAL ACREAGE / • n c r e 1 PROPOSED LAND USE -h ci c._ I h a r-R f, A c- rennet eanC EXISTING LAND USE N o . .a e SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING: Name: q V c�l� 5 K c: Q hi ci K E r— V 7 J 1, • .. Address: I S /.z - y 2 A L e City C-- -e e /%y Zip • S C( -3 y Home Telephone # 330 - 8/ 3'7 Busines€ Telephone #33O—CccC Name: Address: City Zip Home Telephone # Business Telephone # . Name Address: City Zip Home Telephone # Business Telephone # APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) : Name: Address: City Zip Home Telephone # Business Telephone # Owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record in the Weld County Assessor's Office: Name: S7 « T F- o f /Cs rr c!" p Address: City Zip Name: Address: City Zip Name: Address: City Zip I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO Signature: Owner or Authorzed-Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of L_,1,> 194A\ SEALe-••• N�OOtARY PUBLIC . My commission expires !�• �... °" '� �' �'°• i3, "5 � UE +' -1,,.,,,�. LEGAL S1 R.� . L;—%; LD:ATED IN THE. S0'LTHEAST O:::,PTEN OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP S NURTH, we_: 3F THE t.tn .M. , COUNTY OF WELD. STATE U COLD ADO, SAID PARCEL OF LAND BEING '► ' ._ F'ARTICULA.k;.t DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTh:;', 16, A%C; C:►NSIDE.Rii:ia THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SE:TIGN 16 TO BEAR SOUTH 90° 00' 0D" EAST. AND WITH ALL OTHER . EARI'►GS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE SOUTH 90' ' 00" sT . - SAir S0':Th 3E3.0.; FEET ; i HW.` %::17- 21 ° Ll: r .l0u .LST. ✓:'.t;,;. riF7. (.G LESS. T3 A PrAN :4: THE ViRT6. F.JWHT—OF—WAY :;NE c THE :'.S'. ,.' :io,IAY :4 BYPASS. SAID POINT ALSO 6I:I;+u THE TRUE POINT CF BEGINNI NG; ; THENCE 4Ok-H 20° i;E' CO" :EST, 267.36 FEET: PSG:"h P9` ?G' S0" WEST, -203.09 FEET; THENCE h U�,i: A , URyETHE IS i 0 '3' ( N •P �' L L TO c RIGHT WHOSE Ri�DI�5 3,114{:.,.CrEc? AL WFt.TSL LONG CN�r.:l BEARS SOL TH 36°09' SO" WES' 122.79 FEET, TO T w.'. THE "1 C - ' Y LINE C= U.S. HIGHWAY • A POINT ;�. NORTH nJui'T- :r wi-. .L F.YI'ASS. THENCE ALT, THE SAIL NuP-t: RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE BY THE FCL-4WI' G CI RSES: . 0 ��_if is Vii! OD LA t+{I" . 41.89 FEET; � S027— . 's' 59' 30" EAST, 15E.8" i:.-F T , +� 2.y' _13" EAST, 132.4 . LE . '.I 'C ; 'INT jr CLG1NNING • NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME . ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION # ` crc3 /d)(/ 5 er / 5/e(c..,5 2,C &6 - Cs A., G..../ C 3r-t:.Y 09s9-1C Y-/o '' .C.,r,-j e 5.4 frnyle zcc -2- cs A/Lt G..« l� ��. J roc .y G9s9- /6 - Y-/o « C..� . it ( 4. .. /GCeri„,_ F ?6 SAS - C�514 Y� Hvr_ G•-oc%� C c°c iy 0757- i6 Y - •o - ..,r,S I F'rry 4 cc/A., ` e /r�:„,,,c v c I P J zG s- ^ a� G: c� /� re gocyy o9s7- .G Y- .0 ��i Pf,. c / 1-. i-/er 1 /4-fit R loo _ ct A .._ G. -pc /Qv c0 s oc3y o75r- ,c v -e, A - �2 44'1/4,, r SAv r- rti`i rt F4Jr 27oc - C Y r7e C & C rac } 095'7 - /C Y -C.3.- C �/ ' 3/tie.- _ /Y., .0- 1/q„ CUA, c C 3 35, - ' 5i 5 ` l--.ac C o,; 5 8=13Y c �sq'- i� Y - �-9- / ✓ :54-....-- ...4 I. /,o.,.. vQ , Wit.e cs3T w 1s St . C /..., <ceoc.y oyr?-/CY -c, - O/c Wet./ k e A' 13./7 r C,,.y C S 2 Cr l,2 - 5/ ae% C L'6fy o S / Y -/L- y-op -o/// kJ. i i9.////r// C, oT5 9-/C - Y -cY -003 Ales ^ , cc zelac„ 7` 2727 - Cs Ave - eeia" co rocyt c?o ? - r7 -, - Cj C0O /3 It r. J Me-. r", cc. Le Innr-/ 0207 5T-I Csoco /8 Wtj.,Q / Tact„ W.-T , er 2685 - 63 A.z_ C-at ( fos°csY o? % -/G- 3 -oc _ c// AL r ry /es Se.^ 0330 - S`ci, 54. Crap /c„ Co toc.# O95`? - 2/ -e - cc . (`27 Crtr/r Fzrw ti* „-- 2a2s - J C J3 Avc -=e % ccoc)r o9St _ el -0 - oc - 0/. • AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE Application No. us1'- Subject Property , c -I kc St- i1 Sec i( 7-47A' /.'-'( n• STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. A The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this -2"-A- day of , 19g1 By rlX' \a .a\p?-0 WITNESS my hand and official seal . My Commission expires : My Commission expires €eb. 13, 1985 Notary Public • AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. 1 5 /:, ,f Subject Property , ; il.e S z Y../ Sr(-. it l s A, i?O e Lti STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within • five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day y1 u (s. no, 3.. , , 19rt1 by �swo4v .,) WITNESS my hand and official seal . My Commission Expires : ova q�a No ry Public 5954 23rd Street Greeley, Colorado January 14, 1982 County Commissioners 915 10th Street Creny, Colorado Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter in :e£erence to the property located on the corner of 34 bypass and 65th Avenue. I On r;c)t intend to put David Shoemaker down in this letter as I feel he i.s a fine gentleman, but the boarding oFanimals is more complex than meets the eye. Barking is a problem, ,as well as odor and the safety of animals. David boarded animals a few years back at his present location on 20th Street. Several times escapees worked their way to our area on 59th Avenue. '.Je took a poodle in once and through advertising were able to return the dog to the animal clinic. A large dog escaped many times and we would call David to come get the dog. The use of this property has many people concerned. Thank you for your time concerning this matter. Sincerely, • ,. :..a..t-�'C.f-•Sl.� ._ Claudia Keddington V j s a._ dt7 wa;Q _ „feu en0.444-nar_ a tic./ e e-6 (O 5€. 34- _ r&8. . 0-,AL &we. -tic„, w tea, e.. cps. O - N Crvt,C.ut� _ aa _ Cfl4-4 -L tkiAt Lnt. ce tam _,312-jair a' cK48,0n.R-. ._.(,uen.. -Q,__,a eeah. G. - 01 Co. - ,kQ __2D 3 '( _ - - January 12, 19P2 Tc Yen McWilliams and the Greeley Planning Board: Pear Sirs: ;de are writing this letter to express our opposition to the proposed toardi g kers1el on the N.F. corner .of 65th Ave. and ?t, bypass . Curs is a residential neigh- torhccd and re y ill like it t0 r.t:i-ain tha.. 7ny. We _'eel ttct a boarding kennel would decrease our property value and be a detriment to cur neighborhood. There have been indications that the bearding ' ennel m•. Frcal _ to ocr{ letei•, : ...cc_s, hc�de:r. fifty dogs . .n... does not seen at all feasible . n7+t r'.:y ire have . veterinary clinic on one side; housing fewer dogs and the noise can be very annoying. The previous c*,r.:er cf the property in discussion kept ? litter cf puppies ercicsed in 2 barn and the noise level was so high, that on one occasion, during the night, I found it necessary to call the sheriff. T&'e feel that fifty dogs enclosed would present many problems. Ye also question the need for a boarding kennel in this area since there is already one less than a block away, and cite several miles down the reed which recently closed due to eccncrric reascns. Since David Shoemaker has his veterinary clinic at another location it would seem practical and logical thaf he would locate his boarding facility there as well. Therefore, due tc decreased rrcperty value, nuisance and lack of need , as well as increased traffic, we feel, as do many ethers nearby, that a bearding kennel should not to constructed in cur reighbcncccd. Thank you fcr your consideration in this ratter. Sincerely yours, 1111 1 I,cr.r .cc Tf ti., ,.r 1,5 19321111 : Weld Co. PI3nang Commission 1E),, 7 r Weld Co. Planning Commission January 11, 1982 Greeley Planning Commission: We, concerned residents of Westridge, are opposed to the proposed Dog Boarding Kennel at 6425 28th Street, Greeley, Colorado for the following reasons. 1. Noise 2. Property Devaluation 3. Odor 4. Insects 5. Appearance We hope you will take our concerns into consid- eration in making your decision. Sincerely, i �fj // ti >,3 O_ "rt - " 1J • �/i , L .-cam i / .� . 5 fig 1/, ^-; `1;� J nr' 15 Yield Co. Planning Comm+ssion January 12 , 1982 Planning Commission City of Greeley Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs: We would like to express our opposition to the proposed Small Animal Boarding Facility to be located on the corner of 65th Avenue and U.S. 34 By-Pass. This objection is being based on the following two points: 1) The proposed construction cost of $60,000 for a 3750 sq. ft. building is totally unrealistic. A facility which would adequately control noise, odor and be esthetically pleasing to the eye would cost consider- ably more than 316 per sq. ft. 2) We understand this would be developed on a special use permit as a planned unit development. In theory this is fine; however the county staff has not required that these developments be completed according to authorized plans. An example of this is the northwest ' corner of 65th Avenue and U.S. 34 By-Pass. These points are being offered in a constructive manner and hopefully they will be helpful in making a decision on this matter. Sincerely, /tat v W ne A. Wagner, DVM Ian Wagner • 1_ ) / w ns n r 'rvvtvu_a. a c3, J As one of the closest neighbors who will be directly affected should the lot which has been known as "Ken-Will Pony " a dog boarding granted a special—use permit to allow development�o kennel, we whose home and land are located at 2686 65th Avenue di- rectly adjoining the north Property line of the land in question would like the Commission. to know our opinion on the matter. We are completely against the granting of the special-use permit and the development of the kennel for the following reasons: 1e We worked very hard to be able to afford to locate our was no city clutter or commercialism, where we thought their congestion and along with more fot people going vl living o out Clnse increased crime rate. "country A to that as we can get!. 2.. We beleive that: once a special permit would be granted, the next step might too easily be zoneing which night allow anything from office buildings to a "7-Eleven". Commercial development is a proven de-valuator of appraised worth of near-by residential property.. 3 Lastly. after consultation with persons who are not now in the kennel business or related fields but have some direct'.experier.ce in such area and also after consulta- tion with persons with construction expertise , we are not convinced that the building out of which the kennel would be operating(even if built' exactly as presented to us ,by Dr. Shoemaker)• would provide our neighborhood a year-round environment having no objectionable noise or smell. Very Sincerely, 2686 65th Avenue" -' Greeley, CO 80634 Ph:.330 3089 (Atli COU.A,-Cle f C o „ .[tZa 16 5i50 JIW �1 r 'I O.Let.n. S ---- (1 Weld Co. Planning Commission X11 111.-wh C e fug-CtiApe_c 1t / a t ^4 G(�CLkRR atZp - 1(2tai,.�-C„ 'ter- p1-c7lal-A-S OIL (iGLR. N.. E. Ge.VIALt_n_. C 6 S fx J`>< �.,� . 31..2, C�i-a k-Ce- .G-Pert r. -lend- 2 Wor d, %eta.., d tYt, o sti r_ rut-w- tmitti, pitlail- j .4 _ c • -sC tc v a Actetit. J kent_¢-j Gtr^cd ¢hl ter Zee„_. h fAcsizid ,,, at ZGLIS 44'/4 G . .Y opt a4-4, " ,tr .2r,. o. ,-i..ext. ;. tirt. ,24-�.e CZA-4.cc T-{ l - a_ C 2co 4S 64/4 c . GAlai t% Co ?o6 3 e/ J /9 /i, /4 / r ,Y; CR .t ey /nL ele9 dobA,µ,ff/C.Y C.Reitz' , Cetd 5'CG3, A rr. /3:11 /4-'//3 1<n . /4' .t /4 /?Es ,,J.nt i3 As P,2 472 't/, aw.ve to r 4-es f ,Dc sO3 i//Vixc•.v _n 4F to. e xr %3 >ir, Y.f'i . ?/!c / SSQ;A. C O r ,{. j1 4'c„•• tdSc /,./? At i r Poet /9N /#N * ',9I .Si A7.c"A . E Cri2 N sea . oF lia 'CieH✓r /+ n' o _/31, i +ss /lay 3 't . --__ —_ff0its , nC cit" - Q ) - 7- 50 ;7a S e: et, -_-C 7l Ln7C -.-/) ,C ! "Y/s ors. c F Pa e ;3,.tn,s— Aid :S..- — 1 - _ /8 el /,v c 3,4 .v ; 7 4 /,; � Etc , _ _ -_..___ — -- if/c P. 6' iv c t f c; .et u-c (t_ C o.6 c ^A. e c L ------ � _ de 14"."-4"gist_ 1- eivOs .e t..Self- "Cc . I Mr LL'.sS`AL-947c i 1�F 7'f( �ft- � ea , NA /+ e✓ .2 ' rtLhew Lt ,ba.V. v4.e . SJ aN: . /LL-- v' a_rc N4...- t ,v-_t/"t/s _ � .1�..��:T - ,O• lv y & free- .3 W I 6140 - 24th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 11 , 1982 City of Greeley Planning Commission Greeley, Colorado 80631 This letter is being written to express our deep concern about an item on your Tuesday, January 12 , agenda . This item is the dog boarding facility that is proposed by David Shoemaker , D.V.M. , to be located on the north-east corner of 65th Avenue and the 34 By-pass . My wife and I are homeowners in the westridge Subdivision adjacent to the above mentioned property. Our concerns are many . The prospect of two such facilities less than one hundred yards apart must violate some building code , not to mention the air quality of the surrounding areas . Deterioration of the corner is also a concern . If a dog kennel is allowed to go in there , and does not survive, which is very likely, a potential transient problem could be created and once the die is cast, it can only get worse. The proposed building, as I understand it , is to be 24 ' wide by 150 ' long. I doubt, with the proper set back from the streets, and the existing house, that the property is capable of handling such a structure. Also the type of construction -- concrete block with a metal roof -- does not blend in with the surrounding residential architecture. Your careful consideration and eventual denial of this request for this facility is appreciated. Sincerely 1 '16 c41) Pis ae A. Mantelli MAM: lmm January 11, 1982 HAND CARRIED Greeley Planning Commission Greeley, CO 80631 Attention Bill Webster Subject: Request for Special Use Permit for Commercial Dog Kennel at 65th Avenue & Highway 34 1 Gentlemen: It is my understanding that the subject, Special Use Permit for a Dog Kennel, is on your agenda for your January 12, 1982 meeting. I urge you to recommend to the County Planning Commission that this Special Use Permit not be granted for the following reasons: 1. Dr. Shoemaker is representing that this will be a totally enclosed facility without odor or noise. He is further representing that it will be attractively landscaped. In spite of these representations, he stated to the Westridge Homeowners that his budget was $60,000 for his dog kennel facility. This budget will permit only a stark barebones facility with minimum heat and lights. It would be impossible to install air conditioning for that budget. The facility will obviously have to be very well vented during the warmer months of the year. This will be the time of the year that noise and odor are most objectionable to the neighbors. It is likely that his budget will not permit attractive landscaping. The chances are very good that it will be an unsightly commercial attraction that will lead to less desirable uses on the adjacent property and the remainder of his proposed property. 2. Dr. Shoemaker's proposed acreage and the adjacent acreage are the only acres available for obvious immediate change of use. These two tracts are not large enough for an attractive, well-designed, commercial unit. With a dog kennel on part of it, I can only imagine that the rest of it will develop in a manner similar to what exists on West Highway 34 Business. Especially in that portion of Highway 34 Business immediately west of 59th Avenue. This kind of development is unattractive, depre- ciating to the neighborhood, and totally inconsistent with the character of the Westridge residential neighborhood that has developed over the last five years. Greeley Planning Commission January 11, 1982 Page Two It is my understanding that Greeley's master plan envisions this as a commercial area in the future. I do not believe that this future zoning makes any sense in light of argument No. 2 above. I urge that all steps necessary be taken so that this property will develop residentially so that it is consistent with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,/// a Robert G. Tointon 6305 26th Street Greeley, CO 80634 bt 4 January 12, 1982 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 1. We would like to address ourselves to a proposal that affects the subdivision we live in. We are located in the Kenwill- Westridge area. 2. ' Currently we have a Veterinary Clinic and Kennel located on Hwy 34 Bi-pass and 28th St . In our opinion it would be poor business judgement and poor planning to locate a second facility a few hundred yards away. 3. We find many environmental problems associated with this proposal. The corner in question has proven to be a hazardous corner because of auto accidents/and the increased traffic flow would certainly create a larger accident pattern. There would also be a substantial increase in noise and odor problems. 4. The blueprints and cost factors presented do not seem to com- pare to current construction costs. It would seem a shame to have another business try to begin and never flourish because of economic conditions as many businesses have been doing in Greeley. 5. We believe that careful planning in both residential and com- mercial areas is for a healthy economic Greeley. But we can not feel that this proposal would benefit either Kenwill- Westridge homeowners or Dr. Shoemaker. We urgently ask you to reject this proposal. fs +1 /1J / iS2— Very truly yours, /' January 11, 1982 Andrea and Bernie Kendall 2675 65th Avenue Greeley, Colo. 80634 To the City of Greeley Council and Planning and Zoning Committee: We recently learned that your committess will review a special use permit requested by David Shoemaker, D.V.M. to build a dog boarding facility at the corner of 2Sth Street and 65th Avenue ne r Highway 34 Bypass. We also have learned that the City plans for development indicate a change of zoning from agriculture to commer₹ial once the area is incorporated within the city limits. We vehemently oppose 1) the issuance of this special use permit and 2) the city's current plan for commercial zoning in this area. We were attracted to the Westridge area primarily because of its rural character and have made considerable investment in ehhancing this country quality on our property. The addition of any commercial sites along Westridge's southern boundary will but serve onn, purpose: reduce the property value of our neighborhood and reduce the residential character of the area. We have worked too diligently to maintain our country atmosphere only now to be threatened with the commercial • aspirations of others who do not live in our area. We believe it to be in the best interest of the city and the Westridge/ Kenwill Acres areas for your groups to prohibit commercial development in the area of 65th Avenues and ?8th StreetEast. City development plans published in the January 10 edition of the Greeley Tribune indicated numerous commercial areas to accomodate shopping and office facilities in the vicinity of Westridge. In view of this, we feel that commercial expansion in our area is not necessary. We do not see a need for commercial development in our area as your plans sited in the newspaper seem adequate to deal with expansion. Similarly, we do not see a need in Greeley for another boarding facility for animals as the other boarding operations are adequate and,in fact,only utilized to capacity six weeks out of each year. We urge you to review your plans fur future development and reconsider that the most optimal use of this property presently being considered for change is residential and not commercial. More immediately, we submit that Dr. Shoemaker's special use permit request be disapproved by your committees. Such an operation will adversely effect property owners for a variety of reasons stated in the attached letter to the county. As we do not believe there to be sufficient need in Greeley for another kennel we do not foresee this operation as benefiting or rendering any significant service to the community. Our neighborhood retains a quiet retreat like atmosphere which we enjoy immensely and hope to maintain lnspite of westward expansion. Much as beautiful areas remain in Greeley 'today such as Glenmere, we hope to remain residential, free of commercial operations at our boundaries. We appreciate your willingness to receive our expressed concerns and hope that they will seriously be considered. Thank you. r;11111.-4-.C-° Andrea Kendall Bernie all( cc: Chuck Bartlett I Andrea and Bernie Kegdall 2675 65th Avenue Greeley, Colo. 08634 January 6, 1982 To the Weld County Board of Commissioners and Planning and Zoning: As property owners in Westridge, we strongly oppose the granting of a special use permit to construct a boarding kennel for dogs at the site of the former Bateman horse facility at 65th Avenue and 28th Street. In 1979 we purchased our home. in Westridge because of the rural nature of the area. We were, of course, aware&.of- the existing Westridge-Animal Hospital end Mtn, View Cider stand at the time of this purchase but did not expect_ any further commercial type expansion in this area. It is our opinion that the Westridge area will not benefit from the addition of another animal kennel facility or any other commercial type operation on its southern boundary along Highway 34 By-pass . We feel strongly that such additions will be detrimental. We have numerous good reasons for our opposition and concern that Westridge homeowners will be adversely effected by the granting of a special use permit in this area. 1. Foremost, we believe the residential, rural quality of life will further be infringed upon by the establishment of another commercial type operation. We realise that no request has been made for a change in zoning to commercial and yet one cannot deny that the proposed facility is a business venture. We dispute the given argument that since Westridge Animal Hospital and the Mtn. View Cider Stand exist that another commercial operation should not be objectionable. We feel strongly that more of these business operations definitely does not mean better! In fact, we fear that acceptance of this facility will only pave the way for future business ventures in this residential community. 2. We also believe that the property value of our home will seriously diminish if such a special use permit is granted. In an area where homes often exceen $100,000 this depreciation will be considerable and unfair to the investment of the property owners. In a recent assessment of a neighbor we learned that their house was reduced 7% for "economic obsolescence" due to its proximity to the present businesses on 28th Street. We can only assume that landowners within close proximity to the property at 28th Street and 65th Avenue will experience a similar depreciation in home value if a special use permit is granted. 3. We have strong suspicions regarding the ability of a community and county to take any significant action against a person(or persons) who make significant deviations from the plans submitted when granted a special use permit.We have heard rumors of such a thing happening with reference to a hog farm east of Greeley but do not base are lack of confidence on this. We do know, however, that Kenwil Acres landowners on 65th Avenue were supposed to share a driveway and have once access per two properties. This ruling by the county(not a subdivision covenant) has not been adhered to and yet the county has elected • page 2 not to enforce its own rule although they are aware of the infractions. In reference to this particular proposal we do not feel that the kennel will be self contained without any openness for external venting. The artists sketch which we saw indicated a solar design with no venting possible with the windows. The owners of the proposed facility di.d not mention any internal ventilating system which we feel could take care of the extreme heat which will be experienced in the hot summer months. It is our suspicion that they will discover quickly that the solar design is dysfunctional. External venting will become necessary. The most economical way will obviously be through fans and direct opening to the exterior. This will render the facility no longer self contained and burden area neighbors with the noise and odor of dogs .What guarantee do we then have from the County that they will take direct action with the owners for altering their original design and consequently effecting the neighborhood with increased noise? 4. We do not feel that 59th and 65th Avenubs can benefit from increased traffic minimal as it may seem. The present turves on this route make it a precarious thoroughfare and we have seen several accidents over the short period we have lived.herc. 5. Although we realise the County is probably not interested in the economic feasibility of a business, we are simply because we do not want to be burdened with a "white elephant" in our neighborhood. We have seen the effects of a bankrupt business in a residential community and the years of battling that has ensued as the owners claim financial hardship and attempt to change zoning to business to attract buyers. After talking with area veteranarianiregarding boarding facilities ,we have learned that the only times they are completely filled is during holiday seasons and vacations periods -- a total of 6 weeks each year. • We hope that we have expressed clearly to you that we are opposed to generally any commercial type facility in this area and also more specifically to the granting of a special use permit for a dog boarding facility. We have directed this opposition openly to those requesting this special use permit both in person and at a meeting of the Westridge Homeowners .Association. We would also like to inform the County,as we have sfready mentioned to Mr. Allison, that although the county assures those person within 500 feet of a property requesting a special use permit that they will be notified via the mail we were not so informed. We found out about this application through a neighbor. To date we have not received written notice of the meeting on January 19th. i We hope.that you, the Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Committee will consider our concerns and wishes in further discussions of this proposal of a dog kennel in our neighborhood.. Respectively yours. Andrea Aiello-Kendall Bernie Kendall 2625 65th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 11, 1982 City Planning Board City Complex City of Greeley, Colorado Dear Sirs : We understand that you are to consider a potential special use permit for the corner of 65th Avenue and the 34 Bypass. We would appreciate your informing the members of the Board of our concerns as homeowners in the neighborhood as we have outlined in our attached letter to the County Commissioners. Thank you very much. Sincerely, s ESrne t i, Jud mmett .:iLL�I /ltllt (l • 2625 65th Avenue Greeley , Colorado f.u614 January 4 , 19£12 Weld County Planning and Zoning Deportment 915 19th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs : We would like to take this opportunity to express our strong opposition to the proposed dog kennel at the corner of 65th Avenue and the 34 Bypass. As residents and property owners in West Ridge since 1972, we have seen our neighborhood develop into a beautiful well-maintained high quality residential area. We feel that the establishment of a business such as a dog boarding; kennel on this site will seriously alter the character and quality of lite in the neighborhood . We have very good evidence that properties in proximity to facilities such as this are significantly decreased hi value (see attached ) . By allowing a hoarding kennel , you will 'discourage the quality development of this corner . No other quality business or residential owner will want to be in proximity to it. We understand that the developer's plan, at present, involves keeping animals indoors in a solar-heated environment with no access to the outside. In practice, however, keeping this solar facility cool in the summertime will require prohibitively expensive air conditioning equipment. With the marginal cash flow generated by any boarding business, we envision that one of several things must happen: the kennel would have to be opened to the out of doors, contributing to noise and odor pollution (an unacceptable alter- native) ; or the general upkeep of the building and grounds would be substandard for the neighborhood, since the cost of utilities would siphon off upkeep funds, leaving the property poorly maintained; or the business would fail . We wonder why a facility like this is necessary at all when one of the developers is presently building an animal hospital at another location and could incorporate similar enclosed facilities., adequate for his clients, within his new hospital, as all the otheL veterinarians in the area have done . • The County could, with good intentions, go ahead and allow the estab- lishment of this business on a special use permit, with the idea that if it did not conform to its proposed plan, that it could be stopped . This is good theurv, but in reality, the county is understaffed for policing such situations . The County is, at present, ignoring a number of its rules and rulings due to lack of staffing. Specific examples of this are available on request and you' re probably aware of more than we are. We understand that your concern is not with the economies of a .business. That should he the developer' s concern. But in this case, it must be considered, as the facility is too specialized to be used for any other purpose should the business fail. 1 2 Our knowledge of the boarding business is extensive, as woe have mnintaine•d an animal hospital with boarding facilities for our clients for a number of years. And ! rum a strictly business point of view, anything that generate animal--rrlat ed traffic in the neighborhood would he beneficial to our practice . However, we are speaking as homeowners who see the potential for tin- serious degradation of the neighborhood because of some factors which we feel the developers have ignored . Rased on our knowledge of the hoarding, business, the following facts should be considered : L) Boarding small animals is a labor-intensive business, therefore very costly. 2) Any hoarding business operates at capacity only 6 weeks a year. 3) Adequate facilities for non-peak times presently exist . 4) Present inflated costs of operating a boarding business exceed what people .are willing or can afford to pay. Therefore, long term success of such a business is questionnahle. ll you allow a business to go in and they don' t conform to the plan, the next thing they do is claim economic hardship and require additional variances or they simply don' t conform. We know that you find it difficult to enforce rules that make people do things that they can' t economically stand to do. Please don' t put yourselves in this position. It should be noted here that nearby a nice fam.il.y-operated hoarding facility with 30 runs has recently closed down because it was no longer profitable to operate when non-family members had -to be hired to care for the animals and because in recent years the hoarding business has decreased . We understand that the agricultural zone is one of the highest possible planning uses. However, an agricultural zone with a special use permit allowing a dog boarding kennel adjacent to an existing high quality residential neighborhood has got to be one of the poorest possible planning uses. If we let this in, what comes next? Whatever happens to this property now sets the precedent for the entire corner in the future. We all have too much pride to allow degradation of the neighborhood without protesting . • • Sincerely, • James Emmett • • Judith Emmett 2305 59th Avenue Court Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 18, 1982 Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: We wish to inform you that we are very much opposed to the building of the dog run/kennels which Dr. Shoemaker is requesting to build at a site on the Northeast corner of 65th Avenue 6. Highway 85 Bypass. I This commercial business would be a continued nuisance to the surrounding residents because of the barking, the odor and the increase in traffic. Changing this area in this manner would decrease property value and damage the estate life style that has been created. Therefore, we strongly urge you to deny this request from Dr. Shoemaker. The taxpayers will benefit from your wise decision. Yours very truly, a"Plaiarti_amen d Jean Mellott cc: Greeley Planning S. Zoning Board r January 19 , 1:)82 i'C: ,ield County Commissioners JAN 18 Wr RE: Construction of dog kennel on corner of 1982 65th Ave. and ;; .28th St . , westrlbydge , b Lit Dr. David SnoemaKer. Weld Co. Planning Commission Dear Commissioners; We are residents of tae westridge community and have recently signed a petition in favor of the building of the stated kennel facility. 4e ;rust Dr. Shoemaker 's promise to our community that the proposed project will meet wita tne aiga standards of 4estridge and in no way will devaluate property by noise, odor, waste, or other types of pollution. Having a vested interest in our neignbornood as an entity, we would like Dr. Shoemaker to present formally tae following data as additional insurance to property owners regarding this project; 1. A complete cost analysis of the proposed kennel building as presented in meeting with westridge residents. 2. A complete cost analysis of the proposed land- scaping as presented in meeting with westridge residents. 3. Architectural prints of the proposed physical plant including ventilation system. 4. Re-evaluation of tne need for tais type of facility for the entire Greeley community. 5. Artist rendition of outside of physical plant after re-study of cost analysis . we would like to see this date presented formally before this project is approved by the County Commissioners. The willingness and promptness of Dr. Shoemaker in providing the requested information will be an additional credit to his integrity in tics matter. Thank you for your time and cooperation, ; Barry and Karen LaPoint 5927 ++. 28th Street Greeley. r a Russell E. Driskill, SRA Real Estate Appraiser Real Estate Valuation 211442 Avenue and Analysis Greeley. Colorado 80631 (303) 330 - 1697 January 12, 1982 Dr. James Emmett 6525 West 28th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 Dear Dr. Emmett: As you requested, I have reviewed the application by David Shoemaker (Case No. USR-482, Weld County) for permission to have a dog kennel at 6425 28th Street, Greeley, Colorado. I have also inspected the subject site. It is my opinion that the proposed kennel would have an adverse effect on approximately six surrounding residences resulting in a loss in value. Summary of Analysis Dr. Shoemaker has stated in his application he will build a 25' x 150' kennel building, which will house fifty dogs and draw traffic not to exceed twenty cars a day. Dr. Shoemaker proposes to take the following steps to reduce the adverse effects of the kennel: (1) Build a low profile building, (2) Keep dogs indoors, (3) Use landscaping as a buffer. It appears to the appraiser that should the kennel be constructed, the more intense land use will result in more local traffic and noise. Also, the kennel will be in view of approximately six or mere nearby residences. With the exception of a nearby animal hospital and a cider stand, the general area consists of upper income single family homes. It is the appraiser's opinion that the dog kennel would be considered undesirable to nearby home owners as well as to prospective btyyers of nearby homes. Conclusion The appraiser's experience has shown upper income home owners and buyers to be very sensitive to any nearby adverse influences. The proposed dog kennel would most likely be considered undesirable to nearby home owners as well as future buyers of these homes. If the kennel is constructed, future buyers would likely find houses near the kennel less appealing than similar homes without such an adverse influence. Therefore, future buyers will most likely pay less for homes near the kennel. The exact amount of the value loss to these homes would be difficult to measure. Dr. Shoemaker's proposals to reduce the adverse influence should help. However, the kennel will nevertheless be undesirable to typical prospective buyers of homes near the kennel, thus resulting in a loss of value to these home owners. Sincerely, ,,ristIsteeltiva Russell E. Driskill, SRA A ) / • r ( e-itz-iity„ O,_......„,,,„ :ye.0-0,6..8-72-€_74-4) G _,L _.1/d/-(-1. G C:2E.-I/LE t . 2- 1.e!>,_.%.,-L) /? c- 1./,/�ac'1iii�� yl r r& Gx- i� u�ii ��2GCQ-) ,�2 , fJ i> 7 - ; , ! , cl / 2( 2 2 ) z. (4(4) e. V L[->-7 /,U (-/ ? (?Th2 r“-) C cif-Le Sep-( -n i u e.,-frI71:A.-) aft) liCr-bLeJ 41694 ) IL-2 --/c / // vet 2 / LUG e-->e-) t LaD7rz . 4/ t;2 , OED al uiz,r-/"Ch ,I21/2. &fi22-z2-nce-ne-4 �Lf/S_/J. -c 4'2�e l �f_u> Gc.r-c.ti 22 �u /iLF,t at- - 2I1/ V Jr r-1 2,0-f.,(-2-27.42, /--)-z... a--2ti4J ri_,0r 11 ._12L,J?7 / L: Ai ( 16` 26 ,- (/2 CT/ j,kd / �/ ll r ' �' � r • ��v 7 M. ROBERT CREED, D.D.S. 1640 25th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 50631 353-4321 / Gate ry2 ' ! d/y d 7 d 2— / z ji+ = 1 61,m �� VI 6, 1/' 262 . 6140 - 24th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 18 , 1982 Director Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Government 915-10 Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 I wish to express to this Commission my deep and sincere opposition to the dog boarding kennel proposed for the northeast corner of 65th Avenue and 28th Street by Dr. David Shoemaker. As a homeowner in the Westridge Estates Subdivision, I am especially concerned about three points : 1 . Property values will be significantly reduced. 2 . The proposed design of passive solar will require open windows for ventilation, thereby causing extreme noise and air quality problems. 3 . The cost estimates provided by Dr. Shoemaker to build this kennel would indicate that no more than a shell of a building could be constructed. It is doubtful that funds would be available to provide adequate drainage in an area that is plagued with drainage problems . It also indicates that very little, if any of the quality refinements that would make his kennel blend into our neighborhood could or would be accomplished. It is my opinion that you, as responsible county planners and commissioners, take into consideration the needs and requirements of the already existing residents of our unique and contributing Westridge community. And in so doing, decline the requested special use permit that would turn an agricultural area into a commercial ghetto. Sincerely, , r- . . \ / Michael A. Mantelli MAN: lmm °"`` ' } Grooming ,pa f'l lly l t 4, z �.. BOARDING _c Pet Supplies BOARDI V member for Dog. - a s ISM American Boarding Kennels Association 1-17-82 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: The following comments are offered at the request of the Westridge Home-owners in an effort to present some information that may be useful to you regarding boarding kennels. Mrs. Metzler is presently a kennel operator and has served as regional director for the American Board'.ng Kennel Assoc. for the five state area including Colo. Our kennel was constructed in 1979 after spending 2 yrs. examing existing facilities and studying kennel design. It is designed on a passive solar basis, facing south, with indoor-outdoor runs. The outdoor runs are not en- closed. Cost of construction was $38.50 per square foot. The passive design includes a large south facing wall of windows - two of which can be opened for ventilation. The kennel is located in a mountain community where temperatures rarely -get above 85 degrees. Even so, the amt. of heat generated by the passive system makes ventilation necessary much of the time. If our only means of ventilation were the south facing windows they would have to bemain open for relatively long periods of time, even in the winter. Colorado Health Dept. regulations state that auxiliary ventilation (fans, vents, air conditioning) be provided any time temperatures reach 85 degrees. One question that always arises is that of noise. Since the inside surfaces of a kennel must be constructed so that they are impervious to moisture and can be easily cleshed, it is difficult to incorporate many of thesound deadening techniques that can be used in constructing other buildings. The noise reverberating off those surfaces can become loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. This noise is readily transmitted to the outside through any openings in the building. (303) 586-6606 • 851 Dry Gulch Road • P.O. Box 188 • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 .iP4 ' I Grooming BOARDING Pet Supplies Alwr member for'Dog a s - A310. American Boarding Kennels Association Weld County Commissioners - 2 It has been our experience that the outside noise levels - with the dogs inside- and the windows open- are about the same as when the dogs are outside. Some dogs bark constantly in a kennel and on an average day there is some barking going on a good deal of the time, including at night. We have had to close our windows at night to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. Even with all external openings closed, the noise is quite audible for several hundred yards. The noise that is transmitted to the outside carries in all directions even though the building faces south. In our opinion any neighbors within 1/4 mile of a facility similar to ours would experience a considerable amount of noise pollution, regardless of the direction the kennel faces. • We have no interest one way or the other in the matter you are considering but hope our comments may be of value to you in reaching a decision that will eventually be for the betterment of all involved. Sincerely, 4/garilLi° c7/7' 5% Wesley and Beverly Metzler (303) 586-6606 • 851 Dry Gulch Bond • P.O. Box 188 • Este., Pa,A, Colorado 80517 — — 811 P- - O a vo CS' �- r\1 r- Irk Cr, O -.. r•-1 4. Ljri• _ c�F o A. z Y L. U W QQ 1 U L^ r C .---:., (-57 I o o W-- QJ^ --L -.. i --ti____N 1 -. TIT 4 - a - - -- Ke © s I I 1 I I fr �. PlIW pi °I81I'oigl I I X01 ' ol NI �N N •i � � � I I � I l 'II i i+. N nca1 X9 _ I � 1 _ I1 I a I V W d I I �� Et ,- O t-:I LN ICI N LQ li � r+ a z as , w!I el I o I I O i I I 1 I Li co O.4 I - --I IZ IZNI -- -- -- fa® a 1 I t U N M CD W_Ln a e— 6� I ' :4 ___ ____k_.4.2i-4. w vr\il N Si �i s ' 1r 49, i al III of T '- to or, o� at. o ! R 0 mood Nv1 r . I ' _ LL ' W N < II- 11 !t r. Q —4 4 2 X J 1� '.WJ vl w m It-La 6\ ~p�U . �_� , O �}1O Z Q �D 9 ITN 1— O_ Zn fin , O� d-,1 i I � I t\ J I r-- �9 �1 . —1-- o Y , I N � — I ' ' I I I J I I T J I --hie � E 2 V w.Ca( E _�, I � 0 ll. Z i I w I "4 Jr M � � 1 ' $ z, � P' tilt `JQ rV1' J r 1 I y 1 _ I rI j. , I A Z �, '^ \] % 'I v` Nil sal\r� � M U J, j zj c} , let (i ... t,, 3 c lki 2 3 Q, C . IXO3 =i1 "� C 144 -il II , IL ` � � KOI f.l ‘1) t, Q N II GO 44 I s. t� x � �'' �`y Q ;! I i r 111--- -I LLI ,. �J a- tJl D 14 4 -Z RI _ � + Le. O 1 a lal J I I V HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 14::. GREELEY. COLORADO ' 2 _ 3 7 ? +2 13 14 `5 16 '7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 3' 22 16-O ti 4/11;'` 5 -- ; /..1/1 44., ,,iti.-______5' -7 - f 4 6_,..:-------- /7-------.1.-' ; - -.‘\- i . f 7 r t ,,$) a. ; ( 1 -f /",'� k/--(2-64- 41 --) ! 1.1-t_ �. -�fL,L.4 Q'S ( czE-c -.,) f r Cs- F - L c tom. e-6 (a 5 te„, 34- . V�V Iq.C L :Y1-c ". tc v e - . ,u.vweA, a e . kb Ae4,4:4.e.v.t.7ctt — — I sJ �. 9atnuoAt i8, 1987 lJtPo� Col ColAkti Plawn;keeiCl ou 96 lbs. Stitt Mttgitt, 61,9404, root Plettot ftitMot, - .. ,. f". ate. rectern, �5 6WewAR, auok, 3Y tirPa44, a clet & stiu c.4e. teu, himmek witt Mieptitut uemt otn. dam, /24-frojet, , cbfrt a to VAL mod. twee,_ auk sauna. atat art . Z. Sul. Ott awn, ctiki-envtta itao, tau& arc, kiAmmt tat &to-1 b4er /itekt i U4 & area, u cL Guff rk ni a MI two, is Oa a a�+� aam ol, •im t4 , ,fig, gat anovivhiett atakof -tat cata, kift, ?S. - .yet, Pit c�.ctisotaJ & � . 5: lc. 4S& . aea 14, a itettabui , moats , ma Ateie44449.th; Amid, el- tacia, . atIcSA, 16. 6404- CteAteifitA) (AR, NettioAtAJ tilDt &IA Q0EMuks row/ jariu-:r v L , _ 37 £0: ,eld County- Commi sioners RE Construction of dog ..ennel on corner of l ; JAN 13 1982 J5tn Ave. and 5ti St . , a estrgdge , py Dr . David Saoemak er. Weld Co. Planning Commission Dear Commissioners ; e are residents of tie westrid;e community a.nd have recently sinned a petition in favor of the cuilding of tie stated kennel facility. 4e trust Dr. Sioemaker ' a oro.aise to our community that tae proposed project will meet siti tie alga standards of ,estridee and in no way will devaluate property by noise , odor, waste, or other t , ues of pollution. Having- a vested interest in our nei__nboraood as an entity, we would like Dr. 3.ioemaker to present formally the following data as additional insurance to property owners regarding this project; 1. A complete cost analysis of the proposed kennel building as presented in meeting wita restridge residents . 2. A complete cost analysis of the proposed land- scaping as presented in meeting wits westridge residents . 3. Arcaitectural prints of the proposed pdysical plant including ventilation system. 4. Re-evaluation of tae need for t,iis type of facility for tae entire Greeley community. 5. Artist rendition of outside of pdvsical plant after re-study of cost analysis . we would like to see this data presented formally before this project is approved by tde County Commissioners. Lie a iiiin: ness end uro_:ptn_e:>a of Dr. Saoe:aar_er in providing tae requested inform ion r;i?i be en additional credit to ais integrity in tits matter. Thank you for your time and cooperation, _ Barry and Karen LeBoint 5927 23tn Street Greeley. t 5954 23rd Street Greeley, Colorado January 14, 1982 ,:ounty Commissioners 915 10th Street Grcxley, Colorado Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter in reference to the property located on the corner of 34 bypass and 65th Avenue. I do not intend to put David Shoemaker down in this letter as [eel he is a fine gentleman, but the byarding ocanimals is more complex than meets the eye. Barking is a problem, ,as well as odor and the safety of animals. David boarded animals a few years hack at his present location on 20th Street. Several times escapees worked their way to our area on 59th Avenue. We took a poodle in once and through advertising were able to return the dog to the animal clinic. A large dog escaped many times and we would call David to come get the dog. The use of this property has many people concerned. Thank you for your time concerning this matter. Sincerely, Claudia Keddington We, who have signed below, are aware of the proposal for a special use permit (boarding kennel) on property located at 28th Street and 65th Avenue. We are property owners near the affected land and we are IN FAVOR of granting the special use permit. NAME ADDRESS r CO h iiiee . 411 A ‘;e i &P ILL f,� Ave lica, . �g� -1 ,as-sb S9 72i Wettu-iii C�`c-, - e.- its e, AoC C. /d l act /. C.,54 .a-1dt- &66.2 £S,l7I Gl�~-e- © � 15 PI .44,..."-- 67/1 A M L w i 4' "''o (2( 4c) , p, 2 Sp�-- rq , f 61V '3 I 2_ tit) Cy - C. 26.27 6 �iA lc/+,�. G.. J j ale0141 C` . &AMk 23D9 6illt&&. 1t, . L --(.--_.,. seta 7 A) 14.a, % sv3 7 2i 02r 0-1 cea4 6 () 7/ 6 .21-k_isi--r2 i Harding Glass Industries, Inc. 1915 W. 9th • Greeley, Colorado 80631 • Phone (303) 352-8263 MEU) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i` FEB2 1982lL GRFFLEY- COL' To Whom it May Concern: To pieceslglass installed at an angle, with the distance between them greater at the top than, at the bottom, will deaden sound more than if installed parall to each other. ,,/,,91./CA----- ‘a55 ----� %\*AS i Lo ----- largest Distributors, Fabricators and Glaziers West at Chicago of ena? PATRICK T. ROCHE 2430 19TH AVENUE WELD C° lOWEER GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 y tL ,• FEE1 February 1 , 1982 ' ,R -Too er- Weld County Commissioners Centennial Building 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for Property Located at 65th Avenue and Highway 34 Weld County, Colorado To All Commissioners: It is my understanding that a request has been made of the Commissioners to issue a special use permit providing for the operation of a dog kennel at the intersection of Highway 34 and 65th Avenue. I am interested and concerned as to what action you may take on this request for the reasons outlined below. My wife and I just last week entered into a Specific Performance Contract to purchase a home for our family on property located just a few hundred feet from the location of the property being considered for this special use permit. At the time we entered into the Contract, we were not aware of the pending change in use of the property that is the subject of this letter. We are extremely concerned at this point that the Commissioners might allow a dog kennel opera- tion at this location because of its proximity to the home we have just purchased. We are concerned because we feel it would be inappropriate to permit the installation of such a commercial enterprise within or immediately adjacent to what otherwise would be an area that is almost exclusively residential in nature. Such an enterprise would certainly not be compatible with the surrounding residential areas and could, therefore, have a significant adverse effect on property values in the area. I am concerned that the value of the property we just contracted to purchase may very well be depressed even before we take possession if the special use permit is granted. Consideration should also be given to the noise factor that would be introduced into the neighborhood if a dog kennel operation were allowed to locate there. I understand that a meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 3, 1982, to take up this matter and to decide if a special use permit should be granted. Although I will be unable to attend the meeting due to a conflict in my schedule, I would like to respectfully urge the Commissioners to deny the special permit S 1 - �� Weld County Commissioners February 1 , 1982 Page Two for the reasons outlined above. I stand strongly opposed to any commercial development on the property in question, and I am particularly opposed to the operation of a dog kennel at this location. I have confidence that you will consider the feelings of the surrounding property owners (and property owners to be) when determining whether or not a special use permit should be issued. I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time necessary to hear my feelings on this issue. Respectfully, g r e6SAC-- Patrick T. Roche PTR/cgw tste \ • c� ' , .xstit 2--L-A Cciwko-^-0 kS4 ?-, ate" - ." Cz , • :— -c c*V. ,,.,,.,,_, rte,, , C-6..--Q\._ O-t- - Ls-_ ;-- - -- - An.rer-4 cie.y Lcir 31 ;--Y. Jnici.A......?)r.,_yo.,--....:re.---as%- , -6„ "..,_c,„;-,,cita... cgt---__ O-1,i(2-0.X . 0,--s--, ,,:,.. ref'--Q__ -:-j{ iTLYY-fi er r p , cl c cc r-k Cct 7 ' U,-,--__ /cv J VV_`''' TlcSL'' 1(---c---tiq JaHL44--N__T\ cks. \,..\.5_2..c.i_3.8,c___ . ,.\ Q.._ ,\„(Liz. 10,,, c.i,o_a_k%_._ taa,x ;__. \,_..c.5.i„......z.r. c.x.L..%., ,z_a ktr„ceLl A._ , it—, 1 A.,..e._. /..nri....r_sc-FL ,....,v.......os., $)......LL____ txh_a.....e.k.,.....5._0„ . -it._ Aa 0......s.,_ .z,rrts.c.s,..,sL ,,r....v_o__,..„.) .0...,..„.4.1...._on_ r-tr--.4-1, , AnsAs-1.. . 0 � � '-' izew •JUDSON-WELCHanu�iaafuacsa =i2=s=ntatlo=f COMPANY, INC. to at 9034 MARSHALL COURT � �ona ;ft �{ k 6 WESTMINSTER,COLORADO 80030 Etastiiaa ti utou (303)429.9775 1/26/52 Weld County Commissioners Weld County Complex Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs : The purpose of this letter is to advise that my 'wire and I are both 100% opposed to any permission being given for the construction of a dog kennel in the north east corner of the intersection of Hwy. 34 by-pass and 65th Ave. When we moved here from Littleton we spent considerable time looking for a neighborhood to our liking for our new home. We found the lot at 2631 64th Ale. to be exactly what we wanted-- a beautiful view, a very quiet neighborhood and• an area of very nice homes. That is why we bought it----that is why we built our home there---that is why we want it to stay just the way it is---just like it was. To us the construction of a dog kennel would be the source of much Uad odor and a great amount of noise. Both of these would be very detrimental to the desirability of the neighborhood. tru a y 1 •x W January 26, 1982 The Weld County Commissioners It is our opinion that the establishment of Dr. Si.oemakers proposed kennel in the Westridge/ Ken Wil area would not be in the best interest of the concerned residents. We do not feel that his place of business would be compatible with this residential area because of the noise factor in- volved and also the additional traffic created by it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. .l, .Jj Mr. & Mrs. Stan Arnold 6505 W. 26th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 N January 26, 1 ,....1.'# To the County Commissioners of Weld County - N°�,-!1 `� JA cam' Dear Sirs, _° We are presently neighbors of Dr. David Shoemaker and his family. He is also our dog' s veterinarian and we know first hand the high degree of competency and business fairness that are his standards. We feel losing him as a neighbor is truly the other neighborhoods gain and our loss. The land in question in now a horse boarding facility. Dr. Shoemaker wishes to construct a modern indoor dog kennel and live neat to it. We do not feel that the issue is discriminating against dogs over horses, but rather another veterinarian in the neighborhood, who has his clinic and kennel close to the oposite corner, tying to •laminate future competition. It makes us wonder if other businesses in Greeley go to such measures to close out competition before they get started. We doubt it, for we see Sears with Wards , Ford near Chevrolet, Safeway near Shoppin Bag and so on. This is the United States , We did attend th Planning Commission Board' s review meeting where Dr. Emmett, Mr. Tointon and Mr. Kendall expressed their opposition centered on traffic, building construction and keeping the area ina residental setting. The mount of traffic generated by a kennel facility would be minimal compared to any other tyke of commercial business. The city of Greeley has predicted the location as commercially zoned in the near future due to its location on the corner of Hwy 34 and 65th Ave. By building a kennel and residence, Dr. Shoemaker would be keeping this corner in tone with the residental atmos -lhere than say a U-Tote-Um or office buildings. We felt Dr. Shoemaker' s building was unfairly judged by Mr. Tointanin stating thgt Dr. Shoemaker could not construct an adequate facility for under 65,000 and that would be the "bare-bones building". Dr. Shoemaker nerver stated to the Planning Commisston his estimate cost. I really do not think it is up to Mr. Tointon to estimate this kennel, he is not building it. We are sure that Dr. Shoemaker would build to any expense a building t, :protect his own family and neighborhood from the standpoint of noise, order and health. He is not on a budget of $60,000 as was inferred. Although that would probably build a nice structure, considering you would not have the technical stucture inside of walls , corners, and electrical outlets as one does - for a' home or office. Many of the residents were wrongfully presented with the facts of Dr. Shoemakers' intentions. And these did not come from Dr. Shoemaker. The rumors' were set out that he would use the existing barn and have outside runs. There are still residents in the area who believe this. The Westridge Assoc. anpears to have been very selective in informing residents of facts and meeting dates. This could be a matter of further investigation. We are sorry too that the county and city meeting have to be scheduled in the early afternoon when so many people have to meet job requirements. At this time I would like to thank you for your time. We may have gotten carried away here, but We do not like to see an honest man get put down for unsound reasons. Sincerely, CindyOand Gar Witte 1811 42nd Ave. Greeley, Colo. 80634 Oat COUN11 C1i�n SI14 �A132 ada Wilbert R. Wiedeman Marjorie Wiedeman 2602 64th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 26, 1982 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Commissioners: We are writing this letter in regard to the application for a special use permit in an agriculture zone for the property at 65th Avenue and Highway 34 By-pass. We definitely oppose use of this property for a dog kennel. We purchased an expensive lot with a beautiful view in a quiet neighborhood with plans to build a new home. Many years of planning and savings made this a reality for us. Our plans, however, did not include having a dog kennel in such close proximity to our property. We strongly feel approval of this application will seriously detract from the area's present beauty and solitude and it is our sincere hope that you will consider our feelings in making your decision. Very truly yours, Wilbert R. Wiedeman 71r Marjorie Wiedeman pms E . ZED JAN 26 1982 Weld Co. Planning Commission T': // tic-r..c-J H. 1w o8`. , .h cr . r .ti L6 813 w 8 Ali a .urn tia .......,„4,,riLD:ric....:9 et,..4 Sit _' A" D C c aW S 'SAlgc- t..... NoT OVA cha4t i' OT4ER litets0DC5t4 1,RmS U.3 ic_C, alit . y � r ..- St S , , _ A 71/ _ (, toc,D r ._ i • C%e: 30i Vitt gas - I o-ta, Loaikcce, ah.A.erriezLiio v ' Lifu 0-4 LatozzezAss- c"7" /a7c/C mo o.-_" A.v. PVZL `_ Q., - -(r-N. ,� r. -1 -°-E O January 26, 1982 6 The Weld County Commissioners It is our opinion that the establishment of Dr. Shoemakers proposed kennel in the Westridee/ Ken-Wil area would not be in the best interest of the concerned residents. We do not feel that his place of business would be compatible with this residential area because of the noise factor in- volved and also the additional traffic created by it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. "CW))- 9`—?%14-- -/Er-- Mr. & Mrs. Stan Arnold 6505 W. 26th Street Greeley, Colorado 80634 JUDSON-WELCH Manµfoat+. 2i K COMPANY, INC. s/1+tuatativis 9034 MARSHALL CURT to this WESTMINSTER,COLORADO 80030 £rsatuaa( igotssats {}ttibutoaa 1303)429-9775 1/26/82 Weld County Commissioners Weld County Complex Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs: The purpose of this letter is to advise that my wife and I are both 100% opposed to any permission being given for the construction of a dog kennel in the north east corner of the intersection of Hwy. 34 by-pass and 65th Ave. When we moved here from Littleton we spent considerable time looking for a neighborhood to our liking for our new home. We found the lot at 2631 64th Ale. to be exactly what we wanted-- a beautiful view, a very quiet neighborhood and: an area of very nice homes. That is why we bought it----that is why we built our home there---that is why we want it to stay just the way it is---Just like it was. To us the construction of a dog kennel would be the source of much bad odor and a great amount of noise. Both of these would be very detrimental to the desirability of the neighborhood. tru y u x / ,ap CBUN�� JANl15(2 January 19 , 1982 Waal'caa 20: weld County Commissioners RE: Construction of dog kennel on corner of 65th Ave. and w.28th St . , Westridge, by Dr. David Shoemaker. Dear Commissioners; We are residents of tne westridge community and have recently signed a petition in favor of the building of the stated kennel facility. We trust Dr. Shoemaker 's promise to our community that the proposed project will meet with tae hign standards of Westridge and in no way will devaluate property by noise, odor, waste, or other types of pollution. Having a vested interest in our neignborhood as an entity, we would like Dr. Shoemaker to present formally the following data as additional insurance to property owners regarding tnis project; 1. A complete cost analysis of the proposed kennel building as presented in meeting with westridge residents . 2. A complete cost analysis of the proposed land- scaping as presented in meeting with westridge residents . 3. Architectural prints of the proposed physical plant including ventilation system. 4. Re-evaluation of tne need for tais type of facility for the entire Greeley community. 5. Artist rendition of outside of physical plant after re-study of cost analysis . We would like to see tnis data presented formally before tuffs project is approved by the County Commissioners. A ,'71. The willingness and promptness of Dr. Shoemaker in providing the requested information will be an additional credit to his integrity in this matter. Thank you for your time and cooperation, , Barry and Karen LaPoint 5927 'w. 28th Street Greeley. 2305 59th Avenue Court Greeley, Colorado 80634 January 18, 1982 Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: We wish to inform you that we are very much opposed to the building of the dog run/kennels which Dr. Shoemaker is requesting to build at a site on the Northeast corner of 65th Avenue d Highway 85 Bypass. This commercial business would be a continued nuisance to the surrounding residents because of the barking, the odor and the increase in traffic. Changing this area in this manner would decrease property value and damage the estate life style that has been created. Therefore, we strongly urge you to deny this request from Dr. Shoemaker. The taxpayers will benefit from your wise decision. Yours very truly, ames d Jean Hallett�� cc: Greeley Planning & Zoning Board 0ON, Mgr m,,, JA-131962 /a ; ela U dS January 10, 1982 To Rod Tuttle and the Weld County Board of Commissioners : Dear Sirs: We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the proposed boarding kennel at the corner of 65th Ave. and 34 Bypass. Ours is a residential neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. We feel that a board- ing kennel would decrease our property value and be a detriment to our neighborhood. There have been indications that the boarding kennel would be eompletely indoors, housing as many as fifty dogs. This does not seem at all feasible. Presently we have a veterinary clinic on one side, housing many fewer dogs and the noise can be very annoying. The previous owner of the property in discussion kept a litter of puppies enclosed in a barn and the noise level was so high that on one occasion, during the night, I found it necessary to call the sheriff. We feel that fifty dogs enclosed would present many problems. We also question the need for such a facility in this area since Westridge Animal Hospital is lees than a block away and another boarding kennel several miles down the road recently closed due to economic reasons. David Shoemaker has his veterinary clinic at another location, it would seem practical and logical that he would locate his boarding facility there as well. Therefore, we feel, as do many others nearby, that a boarding kennel should not be constructed in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ncerely yours, nrico Eshn O // tt 00�+4\ Althea G � L�� 1e hnert GF ' V) f /d -2— - r`e: The . 54ae..netr.S -fr«... ( USA ear—:t reT.+�,}'�- - 1 ' • Andrea and Bernie Kendall 2675 65th Avenue i Greeley, Colo. 08634 January 6, 1982 To the Weld County Board of Commissioners and Planning and Zoning: As property owners in Westridge, we strongly oppose the granting of a special use permit to construct a boarding kennel for dogs at the site of the former Bateman horse facility at 65th Avenue and 28th Street. In 1979 we purchased our homein Westridge because of the rural nature of the area. We were, of course, awarefof- the existing Westri4e- Animal Hospital and Mtn, View Cider stand at the time of this purchase but did not expect any further commercial type expansion in this area. It is our opinion that the Westridge area will not benefit from the addition of another animal kennel facility or any other commercial type operation on its southern boundary along Highway 34 By-pass. We feel strongly that such additions will be detrimental . We have numerous good reasons for our opposition and concern that Westridge homeowners will be adversely effected by the granting of a special use permit in this area. 1 . Foremost, we believe the residential, rural quality of life will further be infringed upon by the establishment of another commercial type operation. We realise that no request has been made for a change in zoning to commercial and yet one cannot deny that the proposed facility is a business venture. We dispute the given argument that since Westridge Animal Hospital and the Mtn. View Cider Stand exist that another commercial operation should not be objectionable. We feel strongly that more of these business operations definitely does not mean better! In fact, we fear that acceptance of this facility will only pave the way for future business ventures in this residential community. 2. We also believe that the property value of our home will seriously diminish if such a special use permit is granted. In an area where homes often exceen $100,000 this depreciation will be considerable and unfair to the investment of the property owners. In a recent assessment of a neighbor we learned that their house was reduced 7Z for "economic obsolescence" due to its proximity to the present businesses on 28th Street. We can only assume that landowners within close proximity to the property at 28th Street and 65th Avenue will experience a similar depreciation in home value if a special use permit is granted. 3. We have strong suspicions regarding the ability of a community and county to take any significant action against a person(or persons) who make significant deviations from the plans submitted when granted a special use permit.We have heard rumors of such a thing happening with reference to a hog farm east of Greeley but do not base are lack of confidence on this . We do know, however, that Kenwil Acres landowners on 65th Avenue were supposed to share a driveway and have once access per two properties. This ruling by the county(not a subdivision covenant) has not been adhered to and yet the county has elected .3' page 2 - I. not to enforce its own rule although they are aware of the infractions. In reference to this particular proposal we do not feel that the kennel will be self contained without any openness for external venting. The artists sketch which we saw indicated a solar design with no venting possible with the windows. The owners of the proposed facility did not mention any internal ventilating system which we feel could take care of the extreme heat which will be experienced in the hot summer months. It is our suspicion that they will discover quickly that the solar design is dysfunctional. External venting will become necessary. The most economical way will obviously be through fans and direct opening to the exterior. This will render the facility no longer self contained and burden area neighbors with the noise and odor of dogs.What guarantee do we then have from the County that they will take direct action with the owners for altering their original design and consequently effecting the neighborhood with increased noise? 4. We do not feel that 59th and 65th Avenues can benefit from increased traffic minimal as it may seem. The present curves on this route make it a precarious thoroughfare and we have seen several accidents over the short period we have lived.here. 5. Although we realise the County is probably not interested in the economic feasibility of a business, we are simply because we do not want to be burdened with a "white elephant" in our neighborhood. We have seen the effects of a bankrupt business in a residential community and the years of battling that has ensued as the owners claim financial hardship and attempt to change zoning to business to attract buyers. After talking with area veteranarianfregarding boarding facilities,we have learned that the only times they are completely filled is during holiday seasons and vacations periods -- a total of 6 weeks each year. We hope that we have expressed clearly to you that we are opposed to generally any commercial type facility in this area and also more specifically to the granting of a special use permit for a dog boarding facility. We have directed this opposition openly to those requesting this special use permit both in person and at a meeting of the Westridge Homeowners Association. We would also like to inform the County,as we have already mentioned to Mr. Allison, that although the county assures those person within '500 feet of a property requesting a special use permit that they will be notified via the mail we were not so informed. We found out about this application through a neighbor. To date we have not received written notice of the meeting on January 19th. i We hope_that •you, the Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Committee will consider our concerns and wishes in further discussions of this proposal of a dog kennel in our neighborhood. Respectively yours. a ..c. — Andrea Aiello-Kendall oe. Bernie Kendall David Shoemaker 4609 W. 20th Street Greeley, Colorado Weld County Planning Commission, I feel I must appeal a decision to delay a special use permit hearing (USR-482) . The sale of the property is contingent upon the special use permit and the owner of the property (Central Bank) has already allowed us one extension for planning procedures. We would like to prevent another if possible. Due to: the three week delay between the planning hearing and the county commissioners meeting, we would be delayed nearly a month.. If possible we would like to have the hearings completed by Feburary first. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely David Shoemaker C r ii '' :li ly :n32 (Garz y. cola Feb. 1, 1982 `I �� P`' , To the Commissioners: Enclosed are photographs of a sampling of Westridge homes. We thought they would be helpful in portraying our feeling that a dog kennel would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Please return them to us after the meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 1982. We would also like to express a few of ac reactions to comments made at the last meeting and letters submitted in your file by supporters of this facility. 1 . Westridge residents understand their neighborhood well and speak rightfully of the incompatibility of a dog kennel in its boundaries. Quite frankly, residents of Greeley have neither experienced this rural style life in Westridge nor have they any personal risk in property devaluation and health factors to consider. The Board of Commissioners are elected by Weld County residents and do ndrrepresent "City Folk!" We question the appropriateness of comments made at our last meeting by those residents of the City of Greeley living six miles away. 2. It is or understanding from conversation with Dr. Shoemaker and Gary Whitte that Mr. Whitte will be a partner inn this commercial enterprise and "manage the kennel." His letter regarding the merits of this dog kennel and his criticism of Westridge homeowners should be read with this information in mind. 3. A petition containing the names of 24 residents of Westridge in opposition to the kennel is not in your files. This petition was submitted by Dr. Shoemaker at our request at the City meeting. It should be in your file. Careful crossreference of the letters written in opposition to the kennel and the petition indicating favor of the kennel. This will demonstrate that several persons had changed their minds about the kennel after serious consideration and are now against the granting of such a special use permit. The decision now rests in your hands to determine whether Westridge will continue to be a rural setting. We enjoy our home and community because of this special character. We trust that your decision will reflect our concerns and interests. S' a y,Andre refrt.,. l 2675 65th Avenue Greeley, Colo. 820714 PL1496 FILE CONTAINS PICTURES THAT ARE NOT SCANNED Hello