HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050460 7IQL'e't V L
FEB 0 3 2005
3:35 jam.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24'%, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Don Carroll, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 4,2005,
was approved as read.
The following items will be Continued:
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1067
APPLICANT: Villano Brothers Properties, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2W2NW4 of Section 17, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27, south of and adjacent to CR 10.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1068
APPLICANT: V &V Properties, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, T1N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; north of and adjacent to CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 15,
2005. The applicant would like to see the outcome of the Fort Lupton hearing in which annexations are being
reviewed.
Michael Miller asked if the annexations that are being reviewed have no bearing on these properties. Mr.
Gathman indicated there is a Villano property being considered but it is not the two before the Planning
Commission. There is the option of exploring annexation regarding these properties.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1416
APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3589; Pt of the NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
teuLdit, 01/7/2005 2005-0460
Industrial Zone District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment
staging facility along with an office) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; Y� mile east of CR 53.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Organic Dairy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NESE4, E2NE4 and part of the NE4NW4 of Section 31,T3N,R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for a 28,803
square foot Milk Processing Facility with a future expansion of 19,000
square feet along with a Livestock Confinement Operation (1700 milking
cow dairy) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; Approx 3/4 mile east of CR 13.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
The following item will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 &N2 SE4& part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being
part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B
of RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1488,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked about the Division of Wildlife response and what it included. Ms. Hatch indicated the
referral states that there will be no stripping of the topsoil between the months of April and July.The referral
also examined the existing vegetation on site and the wildlife that currently uses the site
Doug Ochsner asked where the homeowners that are in opposition to the application are located. Ms. Hatch
indicated Reflection Bay is located to the north of this site and Virginia Shaw's property is also located to the
north of the site.
Michael Miller asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about the transportation of materials across CR 3 %. Mr.
Carroll stated he is not aware of the method but has asked for clarification with regards to the movement of
materials from one side of the road to the other.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about Hwy 52 west of the interstate and will there be improvements to CR 3'%
. Mr. Carroll stated there have been improvements along the section,there might be a slight turn land along
CR 3 %but he is not aware of a turn slot. Mr. Carroll stated he would rely on what CDOT is asking for. Mr.
Carroll did not receive a copy of the referral from CDOT. Mr. Carroll stated the planner would receive the
referral response. Ms. Hatch stated it was in the original packet and their response indicated there needed to
be 100 feet of right of way north of the highway centerline. CDOT is currently installing southbound to
eastbound left turn exceleration lanes. CDOT is also requesting to see the traffic study. Mr. Folsom asked if
there was any provision in the requirements for the applicant to comply. Ms.Hatch indicated it was a Conditon
of Approval.
Peter Wayland, representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the proposal. Mr.Wayland would like
to address some of the issue brought forward from the surrounding residents. The applicant tried to get a feel
for the concerns. Originally the life of the mine was to be 15 years and the applicant decreased this to 6 years
to try and mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbors and the impact. They did have a neighborhood
meeting with adequate turnout. The neighbors main concern was the traffic along with the intersection of Hwy
52 and CR 3 %< . Highway 52 is a busy road with a great amount of traffic going to west in the morning. A
traffic study has been done and the results will be presented. The other concerns from the neighbors were
noise and dust. The project is proposing to mitigate the noise by running the processing below ground which
will also mitigate the dust. The applicant has applied for a APEN permit from the State and it will include water
requirements that must be adhered too. The applicant wants to maintain a good relationship with neighbors.
If there are any concerns please contact Jon File, he will be directly involved with the operations. Ben
Waldmen, traffic engineer for the project, provided information on the traffic study that was done. Mr.
Waldmen stated they looked at the existing traffic and projected the traffic from the pit onto the roadway
network. The study was done with the assumption the acceleration lane was completed. The determination
was by adding the left turn acceleration lane it allows the vehicles going south and turning left onto Hwy 52 to
make a two stage left turn. It was also determined that the existing traffic volumes would be a good level of
service, which would be a level B. In the long term with traffic growth using CDOT growth rates the level of
service will be a level B. The left turn acceleration lane is the reason for the better flow. The primary cause
for the delay is not due to county road but due to growth on the highway. The delay will continue to be there.
John Folsom asked Mr. Waldman when the traffic study was conducted. Mr. Waldman indicated it was
completed in October 2004. Mr. Folsom asked if LaFarge was in full operation at that time. Mr. Waldman
stated they had ceased hauling north. Mr. File added they contributed to rebuilding the road. Mr. Folsom
asked if all the hauling will be south on CR 3 % then east on Hwy 52, there will be none going west. Mr.
Waldman indicated the ratio will be 25% going west while the majority(75%)will be going east. Mr. Folsom
asked if the acceleration lane is done. Mr.Wayland indicated it is done and being stripped at this time. Mr.
Folsom stated there is one acceleration lane going east,there is nothing going east bound on Hwy 52 to north
CR 3 Y. Mr. Wayland stated there is no deceleration lane off the highway. Mr. Waldman indicated the
software that was used does not take into account the acceleration lane. The analysis is, therefore,
conservative and the delays will be shorter. Mr. Folsom asked that the return traffic to the pit would in effect
have to stop traffic to make the turn onto CR 3'/. Mr. Waldman indicated that CDOT has a requirement for a
certain volume which would require a left turn deceleration lane. Mr. Folsom asked about the traffic to the pit
west bound on Hwy 52, is there a deceleration or right turn lane. Mr.Waldman and indicated there was not,
CDOT has criteria that would trigger the need for the lane which was not exceeded at this time. Mr. Folsom
asked about the letter from Virginia Shaw regarding comments about water rights. Mr.Wayland indicated the
applicant has applied for and received a well permit and water supply plan for the operation of the mine. In the
permit there is replacement of water that is taken. The applicant is required to run return flows to the ditch.
The farm still owns the water rights. The farm will continue to operate until the phase takes over the farmed
ground. Mr.Wayland indicated if there is concerns with the flows not being correct contact Bob Carlson,water
commissioner, and he will straighten things out. Mr. Folsom asked if the pit will be lined. Mr. Wayland
indicated the pits will not be lined during operation there will be ground water going to dewatering trenches
then pumped out and injected into an existing cistern. Mr. Folsom asked if there were any water flows from
the south side of Hwy 52 to Boulder Creek to the north that would be interrupted. Mr. Wayland indicated
nothing will be affected. Mr. Whelan described the drainage to the north and west on a map presented.
Peter Wayland described with the oil and gas that is on the property. The drilling sites have been outlined and
the agreements are in writing. Mr.Wayland described,on the map,the locations of the drilling windows. Mr.
Wayland continued by addressing the crossing from the east side of CR 3 1/4 to the west side. The applicant is
proposing placing a conveyor under the road. The applicant will continue to work with Public Works to
determine the best method possible. According to the original application the applicant asked for the hours of
operation be 8:00am to 5:0o pm but they would like that to be changed to daylight hours. According to the
Weld County Code those hours are standard. Mr. Whelan added they understand gravel mining is an
inconvenience to the area but it is consistent with the land use in the area. This area would need to be mined
before any development could occur on the property.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the response from Bernard, Lyon&Goan regarding a reclamation well.
Mr.Whelan indicated when the initial application was made there was a use by right for a 111 mining permit.
This is a six month use and once the six months was over the operation stopped. There was a well permit
associated with the mining. The gravel was not mined in this area. The suggestion by the applicant is to use
the existing well permit for the first year of operations. The application states the permit will be amended to
include the entire application area. The objection from Gatison & Caan was they would like the applicant to
get the substitute water supply plan for the entire duration of the pit to protect the interest of the water rights on
Boulder Creek. If the pit was operating without a plan there could be affects on Boulder Creek. The applicant
obtained a new well permit and water supply plan for the entire life of the mine. The applicant will lease water
from City of Lafayette for replacement.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the ground that will be mined,there are 300 acres total and 120 acres
will be mined while the rest remains farmed. Mr. Whelan indicated the areas on the maps provided. The
applicant's intent was to permit the entire parcel,there could be some potential earth work in the future and it
would be easier to amend the permit. There is presently nothing planned for the area not being mined. There
would be more leeway with the State in the future. The permit boundary is the same as the property boundary
so the future amendments would be easier. Mr. Wayland showed the different areas on the map that will
continue to be farmed until the mining operation begin.
James Rohn asked if there was PUD at one time on this site. Mr. File stated it was designed to be a 9 lot
subdivision but the nine lots would have been a possible violation so the gravel mining was decided upon. Mr.
Rohn asked how they are going to adjust their plans in order to adhere to the Division of Wildlife, specifically
not removing the topsoil. Mr.Whelan indicated that will be something that needs to be addressed. The area
that will be mined in the first year all the topsoil has already been relocated. Mr. Rohn asked about removing
any black tail prairie dogs prior to construction. Mr. File indicated there were some along the railroad area but
that area will not be mined.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll if CDOT is planning on widening Hwy 52 to go into four lanes. Mr. Carroll
indicated he is aware of them working on the area but has no information regarding the possible widening.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Wayland about the 110 permit and two 111 permits and whether they will be
consolidating these into one. Mr.Wayland stated they would be consolidating them into one. The bond has
not released because it is waiting for approval of the 112 permit. Once the 112 permit is in place the
remaining permits will be dissolved. Mr. Miller asked about the entire property being in the permit area but the
mining being limited to a specific area. Mr. Miller asked if they will be stockpiling materials on the areas that
will not be mined. Mr.Wayland stated the mining plan is for concurrent reclamation. Mr. File stated that in the
event the material could not be moved across the road they would utilize some of the land. Mr. Miller asked
Mr. Morrison whether any material could be stockpiled on any area outside the mining operation. Mr.
Morrison stated if it is part of the mining operation and not part of another construction site it should be
incorporated into the permit. Mr. Miller added the entire property is part of the application but there is a
designated area for the mining,would stockpiling be limited to the mining area or could it be done on the entire
property. Mr. Morrison stated if the whole property is in the permit and it show stockpiling outside the mining
area it would be fine.
James Rohn asked Mr.Carroll his opinion on the conveyer belt over or under CR 3%. Mr.Carroll stated there
are several places in the county where this occurs. The county has permitted using conveyor belts with strict
requirements. Public Works would not recommend something under the road so the new asphalt would not
be destroyed. Mr. Carroll stated there could also be a crossing which has requirements. There are three
possible options.
Don Carroll asked for clarification on the traffic study regarding the level of service B prior to adding the truck
traffic. Mr.Weidman indicated the final service level would be D which is delay of 30 seconds or less. This is
with the 2010 traffic projections. Mr. Carroll asked if this was acceptable to Weld County. Mr. Weidman
stated he believed that level was in the standards. Mr.Whelan clarified the level of service D was for 2025,
the level C was for 2010. Mr. Carroll stated those statistics could be reviewed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dave Poss, neighbor in Reflection Bay, indicated concerns about the time schedules and road traffic. The
road has been replaced and is wonderful. If the traffic builds up on the road again it will be destroyed again.
There is the hope the traffic will be directed onto Hwy 52 other than CR 3 %. The Shaw pit has not been
reclaimed yet and it was a 6 year permit. Mr. Poss would rather see a three year permit and a reclamation
schedule. The concern is the road is improved and will deteriorate with the increased traffic. The traffic
pattern is an issue that does not reflect the possible backup traffic. Mr. Miller added the reclamation plan is
submitted to Mine Reclamation and what is submitted must be followed.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant will enter into a road maintenance agreement with the county. Mr.Carroll
stated Weld County and LaFarge worked together in the reconstruction of CR 3%. The venture totaled eight
hundred thousand dollars. Lafarge committed to restore the road because of their haul route. The road was
replaced back to a local paved residential road. A heavy hauling operation would need more asphalt. The
long term road maintenance agreement Public Works will be asking for included additional asphalt to
accommodate the heavy hauling on the road.
Dave Poss asked what happens with truck traffic on Hwy 52 east when the traffic begins to back up. Mr.
Carroll indicated the traffic study will be reviewed along with the levels of service. Mr. Poss stated it was a
major concern with the Shaw pit. Mr. Carroll indicated the intent with the Shaw pit was to take the material
across CR 16 %to a conveyor then to the Cottonwood Plant on CR 20.
Greg Volmous, neighbor, indicated his objection with what is being presently discussed and what they were
told. Mr. Volmous disagrees with the traffic study. There is a slight hill on Hwy 52. This will create many
accidents. Is there a possibility of taking the materials from this site to Asphalt Specialties to the west. The
residents will not be able to use the road. Mr. Volmous objects to the daylight hours especially during the
summer. There is already noise from Asphalt Specialties. If this is going to be developed it needs to be on a
3 year plan. The Shaw pit promised to be done in 6 months and that was 3 %years ago. There is still a 50
foot tall, 100 foot wide and '/ mile long berm out his front door. There is also a concern for property tax
devaluation because of the mining. Mr. Miller added the materials being conveyed off the property would need
to be a decision by the applicant, it is not something the Planning Commission can do anything about. The
hours of operation in the Weld County Code for gravel pits are specific about daylight hours
John Hap,neighbor, indicated his main concern is the traffic on CR 3%and Hwy 52. There is no left turn lane
onto CR 3 '/. Anderson Farms gets extremely busy at certain times and the concern is for accidents. The
turn onto Hwy 52 will be difficult especially during peak hours. Mr. Hap suggests anything that can be done to
mitigate the problem will help everyone in the end.
James Rohn stated if they redirect the haul route it would go by the homes. Mr. Hap would not be in favor of
this.
Virgina Shaw, indicated their concerns are with the water flow. Another letter was added to the record. The
previous mining on the File property has deleted water and they do not want this to happen again. Mr. Miller
asked if the issues had been dealt with with the Water Commissioner. Ms. Shaw indicated they have.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Peter Wayland indicated that traffic is the biggest concern from the surrounding neighbors and the hope is that
between the traffic engineer and Public Works it can be worked out.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if a traffic study will be submitted to Public Works and CDOT. Mr. Carroll
indicated both agencies will evaluate the study. They will look at CR 3 % and see what is necessary. Mr.
Miller asked about a left turn land for eastbound Hwy 52 and what the threshold would be. Mr. Carroll stated
CDOT has certain criteria that must be adhered to and if the numbers exceed this then CDOT would require
one. Mr. Miller asked if this is something that could be addressed in the future. Mr.Carroll stated they would
evaluate the situation now.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the turn lanes and acceleration lanes and them being CDOT
enforcement. Does the County have any influence on CDOT. Mr. Carroll stated it was their system but the
County can make recommendations.
Michael Miller indicated Planning Commission needs to address staff changes.
James Rohn commented Development Standard #18 should be eliminated and the hours of operation of
8:00am to 5:00pm be added. Mr. Rohn added the traffic at those times would be easier on the haul route.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the Weld County Code states the hours of operation for a mining permit
are limited to daylight hours or can they be something else. Mr. Morrison stated this was a default position, if
Planning Commission recommends something different and the Board of County Commissioners accepts this
it can be applied.
Chad Auer commented he agrees with Mr. Rohn with the hours of operation. Mr. Auer added that if it were
daylight hours the operation would adjust their hauling to not affect the peak hours. This would assist in the
mitigation of the traffic. This would help the quality of life concerns in the area.
Michael Miller added it could actually work against the smooth flow of traffic by limiting the hours from 8:00am
to 5:00pm. Typically the operation sends the first trucks out at 7:00am and during the peak travel times the
truck traffic tapers off. If the hours are limited,the peak out of the pit will be at 8:00am when everyone wants
that situation the least. Mr. Miller would be more acceptable to the daylight hours because of the possible
traffic hazards. It does allow extended hours in the summer but Planning Commission could possibly address
the late operation hours.
James Rohn indicated the concern is rush hour is approximately 7:30 am to 9:00am and it would be difficult to
tell workers to be at work at 7:00am but cannot leave the pit until 8:00am. There is a concern with the amount
of truck traffic entering the highway.
Bryant Gimlin agrees the daylight hours would lessen the impact with the traffic. Drivers by nature want to get
an early start. Mr. Miller added the concern for daylight hours is the operation is run in the pit until 7:30 pm or
8:00pm. Mr. Miller would propose sunrise until 6:00pm.
Peter Wayland indicated they would prefer to operation any day of the week with daylight hours. There is a
specific amount of materials in the pit and with the shorter life of the mine the hauling will be more intensive.
With the ability to run seven days a week the intensity will not be as bad as if the hours and days were limited.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll if it would be obnoxious to ask for a stop light at Hwy 52 and CR 3 'A. Mr.
Carroll stated those are funded projects and the funding for that is not available. The question would be who
would pay for the light and where would the money come from. The next concern would be the traffic volume
and if it is warranted. The need is based on accidents and there have been none at this site.
Michael Miller added that was not a realistic request with the traffic operations that were existing.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Development Standard 18 to indicated the hours of operation will be from
sunrise to 6:00pm,add Development Standard 19, new F and re-letter, remove referral and add as outlined in
the memo from staff. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried with James Rohn voting no.
Jacqueline Hatch indicated 1 D should be re-instated. It addresses adequate water supply.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to re-instate item 1 D. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Peter Wayland indicated the applicants have a concern with 5 M, and would like it deleted. The reclamation
plan that has been developed does have some angle of curvature. Mr. Miller added the reason those are
requested is that historically gravel pits have been very uniform and not aesthetically pleasing. Mr.Wayland
added the final purpose is for water storage and the maximum volume that can be stored. The capacity is
diminished when the areas is decreased. Mr. Miller asked if they were planning on having future home sites.
Mr.Wayland stated that could happen and the view from the surrounding properties would be limited. If these
are residential properties they will not be extravagant homes with the benefit of a lake view. This is a water
storage resource. Mr. Wayland continued with the concern of Condition 5 A for the septic system and the
applicant would like to have this deleted. The reason for the deletion is that there is a home on site and that
will be used for facilities. The home is across the street and the home will become the facility for the gravel
operation. There is currently a septic system on site and potable water.
Char Davis added that she is not in favor of eliminating 5 A. Ms. Davis indicated it was not in the application
that the home would be used for the operation, it was stated there would be a new sewage disposal system.
The recommendation is to have sanitary facilities. The information provided is not complete. Mr. Miller asked
if there was a concern of anyone using the facilities would need to cross the road to get to them. Ms. Davis
indicated that would be of great concern and needs to be reviewed. Ms. Davis is not infavor of deleting the
requirement.
Michael Miller indicated he would not be in favor of deleting either request.
James Rohn moved to deny USR-1488 based on health, safety and traffic concerns. Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1488, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented he has great concerns that CDOT will not follow through to have adequate controls
accessing Hwy 52.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes the traffic is an issue that needs to be addressed but he has faith in
CDOT and the County. The gravel pit is consistent with current land use.
Chad Auer commented the safety issue is a concern especially with the traffic volumes. Mr.Auer believes that
measuring the need for traffic mitigation based on fatality rate is not a good practice.
Bruce Fitzgerald added he echoes the safety concerns.
James Rohn commented he is going to vote yes based on the use is consistent with what is in the area but
has concerns with the traffic.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1496
APPLICANT: Jennifer Fedak, David Signer, and Monica Signer (Sun Pony Ranch, Inc)
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of 2AmRE-2576; Pt of the SW4 of Section 31,T4N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel
(80 dogs maximum), an additional single family dwelling unit, and a
recreational horse facility (horse riding lessons and day camp) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1, approximately 3/4 mile south of CR 40.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1496,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked if there was a Development Standard for soundproofing the kennel building or rather one
can be added. Ms. Hatch indicated it could be added if the Planning Commission would like.
Ginger Fedak, applicant, provided clarification on the project. Ms. Fedak believes the overall perspective of
the application was presented in a scary way. The 80 dogs will not be an every day occurrence,it will only be
on high volume occasion which are typically holiday season. The 80 dogs is not something that will occur
anytime soon. If the operation maintains 10-20 dogs it would satisfy them. Ms. Fedak indicated the
Development Standard and Conditions of Approval are something they want to adhere to. If these were not
done they would not have a viable business. The premise for the business is for it to be a facility with a ranch
theme. The noise and waste management issues are important to the applicants because they will be living
on site. The applicants want to continue with open communication and be good neighbors. The applicants
would like the kennel away from the road and out of site, the pastures will be improved. The area being
reviewed for the kennel area was the past owners waste dump. The existing barn will be the only thing visible
to the current neighbors,the only additional areas will be the outside play areas and they intend on mitigating
the noise and site issues. They were told to place everything possible in the application and most of the items
will be in the future and maybe never. The only thing that will take place immediately is the existing small barn
will be turned into a dog kennel. The building will be soundproofed and the issues will be taken care of.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the kennel was strictly for boarding or breeding. Ms. Fedak stated no breeding will be
done. The intent is strictly for a day care facility for people who want to take the dogs for a fun day in the
country. Dog day care is becoming a more popular idea. They are intending to limit the daycare to 20 dogs,
while the boarding may bring in the extra dogs.
James Rohn asked how many days will the dogs be boarded. Ms. Fedak stated that can vary but it will not be
a month. The majority will be a weekend with a week being the top. The majority will be a shod term
placement while the pet owners are away.
Michael Miller indicated his concern for there only being 3 employees and with a possible 80 dogs that is not
feasible. Ms. Fedak indicated it is a PACFA requirement to have 1 employee for every 15 dogs. The
applicants believe they are considered owner operators and not considered employees. There will be
additional help during the holidays. Mr. Miller is concerned with the 80 dogs in an area where there are
neighbors and is the maximum number of 80 a set number. Ms. Fedak stated 80 dogs would occur maybe 5-
10 days out of an entire year. During those times there would be a schedule where the dogs would not be out
at the same time. Ms. Fedak suggested that during high volume times when the need is there the daycare
program for the dogs could be discontinued. Mr. Miller asked if there will be adequate room for 80 dogs. Ms.
Fedak they will keep the current barn to a specific number and adding facilities when the numbers increase.
Monica Signer,applicant,added the numbers are 60 dog overnight boarding and 20 for daycare. The daycare
could be discontinued when the boarding reached the maximum number of 60 dogs. Mr. Miller clarified that
there will be facilities to board 60 dogs overnight. Ms. Signer indicated that would be if the approval for
expansion was given, at this time they do not have the facilities. Mr. Miller clarified there is a licensing facility
and asked what their requirements for adequate room are. Ms.Signer stated the regulations are being sent to
them.
James Rohn added when the greyhound rescue was done up north they were asking for a maximum of 60
dogs and it was capped at the amount of time. It has been stated that they maximum will be 80 dogs,60 for
boarding and 20 for daycare. The 80 dogs will not be in one place for a maximum amount of time. This
should be reviewed as two parts to the application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Marcello Bernquist, neighbor, indicated concerns with the number of animals and this being approximately
500-600 feet from the noise and the smell. The kennels will be behind the main house. This application is for
too many dogs for the area. The noise is a concern and there is no standard for the noise level. Mr. Bernquist
does not want to call the neighbor when the dogs are barking. Mr. Bernquist would agree this is a reasonable
business but not the right location;this is agricultural land not a place for a kennel. This operation would also
depreciate the home value in the area. The concern is not an issue with dogs but is a use for the land. The
application is very open ended meaning anything that may be required to run this business must be approved
at this time. The property the applicant is looking at expanding cannot support the use,the land will become
crowded. Mr. Bernquist purchased his land not to be next to structures and people. Mr. Bernquist suggests
striking some of the requirements and make the stipulation that whatever will be built should be done in a
certain amount of time. Mr. Bernquist is sure neighbors his would do a fine job with the proposed application.
James Rohn indicated there is a Development Standard with a maximum noise standard. Ms. Davis stated
the commercial noise level of 60 decibels is what is being required. Ms. Davis indicated 60 decibels would be
considered normal speech or an air conditioning unit at 20 feet.
Bryant Gimlin stated he believes the traffic impact should be based on the number of animals. Mr. Bernquist
stated the driveways are close together and there would be a concern until the customers get used to the right
driveway,this is not a major concern right now. Mr. Bernquist added the 60 decibels are a function of sound
power with the difference in the location. Ms. Davis stated the 60 decibels needs to be taken 25 feet from the
property line. Mr. Bernquist stated this would be difficult to achieve. The best solution is for the dog kennel
part of the application is denied.
John Folsom asked how far is his home from the kennel. Mr.Bernquist estimated it to be approximately 400-
500 feet. Mr. Bernquist clarified the location on a map provided. Mr.Carroll added that according to Arc View
it was approximately 900 feet.
Marlon Godfree,neighbor,indicated concerns with the proposal and the dogs. The guess is that the dogs that
will be at this facility are the ones that get ticketed for barking in town. The main concern is the noise and in
the middle of the night.
Ruth Grout, neighbors, indicated concerns with the dogs especially the noise level and the barking. There is
an existing kennel to the east and the barking can still be heard.
The Chair closed the public portion
Michael Miller asked if there is Development Standard that requires the dogs be brought in after a certain time
during the day. Ms. Hatch indicated it has been done in the past but has not been included in this application.
The applicant has indicated the dogs that bark will have a collar placed on them that sprays citronella. Mr.
Miller believes Planning Commission should address especially when the dogs need to be brought indoors.
James Rohn would like to see language added towards soundproofing of the kennel building. Mr.Miller asked
what it would be. Mr. Rohn is not aware of how it was done in a previous case. Ms. Davis added the
requirement was for the dogs to be supervised when outside. Ms. Hatch added that the new language could
be Development Standard #6 and renumber and consist of"All dogs shall be kept inside after dust and all
outside dog activity shall be supervised.
James Rohn moved to accept the language. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Michael Miller indicated his concern with 80 dogs.
Chad Auer asked how many dogs can utilize the current facility?. Ms.Hatch stated the PACFA regulations will
limit this according to the size of the existing facility. The number of employees will also need to be increased.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the employees and this would be people on site. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified 3
people and 3 employees for a total of 6. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the bathroom facilities would be sufficient for
that number. Ms. Davis added the sewage disposal system will be looked at by an engineer and installed
properly. An 80 dog kennel with the use of the septic system could be a large facility. The system will need to
be engineered and staff will review again. Ms. Davis added she would suggest changes to Development
Standard 8&9. Ms. Davis would like to remove the last sentence in Development Standard 8 and remove the
first sentence in Development Standard 9 and change the language from "such to dog waste." Mr. Miller
clarified the applicant can have 4 horsed per acre. Ms. Davis stated that can be land applied.
James Rohn moved accept the language provided by the Health Department. Chad Auer seconded. Motion
carried.
Don Carroll suggested changing the language in two items located in 2 H 3&5 which indicate Boulder County
instead of Larimer County.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve the changes from Public Works. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll how all of the amenities suggested will affect traffic on CR 1. Mr. Carroll
stated they do not all come at the same time, there may be 6-10 vehicles at one time. The estimate is there
will be 100-200 vehicles on the traffic count. The road is in good shape and there should not be a problem.
The users will more than likely come from Bounder County and there should be no concerns.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about soundproofing the kennels. There is a noise standard at 25 feet and
how can a Development Standard be structured to address this. Mr.Gimlin indicated the applicant has agreed
to do this anyway. Ms. Davis stated this may be more of a building issue.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Morrison about the number of dogs being applied for. Is there a precedent to limiting
the number in boarding and daycare and after a year there are no concerns the number could increase. Mr.
Morrison stated Planning Commission has to make a recommendation based on the application and if the
applicant is not willing to drop the numbers it must be decided upon as applied for.
Michael Miller indicated his concern with the 80 dogs and would the applicant be willing to drop this number.
Ms. Fedak stated they would consider a smaller number in order to get the case to move forward. The
applicant would like Planning Commission to consider that the outside area will be supervised,and the dogs
that bark will be taught to not bark with methods approved like citronella collars. A nuisance dog will not be
allowed to come back. The applicant would like Planning Commission to consider the elimination of the
daycare dogs when the boarding times were maximized. There is a definite need for boarding during high
holiday times. The other option could be to have the 80 dog maximum 10 days a year. Ms. Signer added it
makes more sense to go to a maximum of 60 dogs for boarding. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there would be
records. Mr. Fedak stated they must have records according to the PAFCA regulations. Mr. Miller asked if
there was any information from PAFCA regarding the space needed. Mr. Signer indicated there are
requirements but that number is not known. The 80 dog maximum was including an additional facility. There
are also record requirements with PAFCA and they are reviewed once a year.
James Rohn indicated the 60 dog maximum needs to be done and the applicant can figure the spacing
requirements. When the new facility is needed an amended USR could be done. Mr.Gimlin added 80 dogs
sounds high but it is subjective. If the applicant applied for a permit with 80 dogs and did a business plan on
that number of dogs it should be considered this way. Mr. Miller added that a few poorly cared for dogs would
be noisier than 80 well cared for dogs. There must be some control measures in place.
Chad Auer clarified the expansion. Ms. Fedak stated that in the proposal there is the request for an additional
kennel building. In order to maintain the maximum number of 80 dogs a new facility will need to be done.
There will be mitigation for dogs. Mr. Auer stated an amended USR would not be required.
James Rohn stated the 80 dogs will not happen soon. Mr. Rohn does not believe 80 dogs are out of the
question when employees and help have been added.
Michael Miller suggested the number of employees needs to be increased. Ms. Fedak indicated 6 would be a
fine. Most of the employees will be part time employees. A discussion on the number of employees. Mr.
Miller suggested the number be 8.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change Development Standard 3 from 3 to 8 employees. James Rohn seconded.
Motion carried.
Ginger Fedak indicated their concerns with the requirements that they install a septic system. The applicant
will be getting a system that will support the two bathrooms. The question is the septic system being in place
prior to any operations. The applicant would like to be able to begin the horse lessons and use the home for
restroom emergencies during that time. The septic system will be done as the first order of business. Ms.
Fedak said the home has facilities and the barn has the plumbing. Ms. Davis stated some facilities need to be
there,the home bathroom will be used in this situation. Ms. Fedak stated the lesson is 1 '/ hour lesson and
the students can use the home when needed. Ms. Davis stated she would need to look at the distance from
the barn to the home. The issues suggested if this is going to be considered the system will need to be
evaluated by engineer. Ms. Davis stated a port a potty could be allowed for 6 months. Mr. Miller suggests
leaving this requirement and in the event the standard cannot be met discusses the standard with Ms. Davis.
Ms. Fedak had concerns with the hours of operation being 7:00am -9:00pm daily because the kennel
operation will begin at 6:30 am.
Bryant moved to amend Development Standard 4 to state the hours of operation will be 6:30 am to 9:00pm.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Chad Auer moved to limit Development Standard 5 to 60 dogs. There was no second.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1488, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello