The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20053266.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Michael Miller, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: USR-1521 APPLICANT: Ruth Bucy PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 27-33, Block 24, Townsite of Camfield; Part E2 of Section 18, T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel for up to 14 Schipperke dogs in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51 and approximately Y mile south of CR 82. be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: Nor Section 23-2-220.A.3 --The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this application, the Department of Planning Services recommends the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing: A. The applicant shall written provide evidence that the dog kennel has been incorporated in the Camfield Water Users Association Augmentation Plan #2005CW61. (Division of Water Resources/Department of Planning Services) 2. Prior to recording the plat: A. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Evidence of approval from the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following: 1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include expected volumes and types of waste generated). 2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site. 3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the facility name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and Environment) B. The applicant shall attempt to address the conditions/recommendations of the Weld County Sheriff's Office as stated in their referral received August 17, 2005. Written evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (County Sheriff's Office) C. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. All sheets of the plats shall be labeled USR-1521. (Department of Planning Services) 2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services) 3. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. An exception to this requirement is the scale of the proposal. The drawing shall be drawn to a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'). (Department of Planning Services) EXHIBIT 2005-3266 Resolution USR-1521 Ruth Bucy Page 2 4. The application materials do not identify the location of the dumpster (trash container) on the plat. The plat shall delineate the screened enclosure as outlined in Section 23-3- 250.A.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 5. County Road 51 is designated on the Weld County Classification Plan as a collector status road, which requires an 80-foot right-of-way at full build out. A total of 40-feet from County Road 51 shall be indicated This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works) 6. The applicant shall utilize the existing access to the site. All approved accesses shall be clearly shown on the plat. (Department of Public Works) D. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) 3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services) 4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period. 5. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to maps@co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services) 6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services) SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ruth Bucy USR-1521 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Kennel (for up to 14 Adult dogs) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, as indicated in the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services) 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 3. Dogs shall be kept indoors from sunset to sunrise, or in a location that prevents the noise from barking dogs to carry beyond the property boundaries. Dogs shall be supervised when outdoors. (Department of Planning Services) 4. This application shall be in compliance with Section 23-4-400 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 5. Animal and feed wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards, and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be removed at least weekly from the facility and disposed by a commercial hauler. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 6. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 7. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 8. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 9. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of Public Health and Environment) 10. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 11. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 12. Adequate toilet and handwashing facilities shall be provided (Department of Public Health and Environment) 13. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 14. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes (domestic and commercial well#234085). (Department of Public Health and Environment) 15. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 16. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR-1521 Ruth Bucy Page 2 17. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and-or unplanned ponding of storm run-off. The applicant must take into consideration stormwater capture/quantity and provide accordingly for best management practices. (Department of Public Works) 18. Utilize the existing access to the USR from Boulevard D. No direct access shall be granted from County Road 51. (Department of Public Works) 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 23- 2-240, Weld County Code. 20. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. 21. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. 22. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. Motion seconded by Tom Holton VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Michael Miller Bruce Fitzgerald Chad Auer Tom Holton Doug Ochsner James Welch Erich Ehrlich Roy Spitzer The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on September 6, 2005. ted the 6`h of September, 2005. D n L Voneen Macklin Secretary The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously Michael Miller asked Ms.Davis about the restroom facilities. Ms.Davis indicated the application stated there will be restrooms in the office. Mike Johnson agrees with the amended Development Standard and Conditions. Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1520, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. — CASE NUMBER: USR-1521 APPLICANT: Ruth Bucy PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 27-33, Block 24, Townsite of Camfield; Part E2 of Section 18, T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel for up to 14 Schipperke dogs in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51 and approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 82. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1521, 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. Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the building the dogs will be housed in at night. Mr. Gathman stated it was in an existing garage and a Development Standard indicated daylight hours. Michael Miller asked if there have been any complaints from the noise. Mr. Gathman stated he was not aware of any. This application is to address a zoning violation. Ruth Bucy, applicant, provided additional information with regard to the proposal. Ms. Bucy indicated this is a hobby and not a commercial operation. She raises the dogs and shows them. Ms. Bucy raises approximately one litter a year. The animals are in the back section of the garage at night. They are let out in the mornings but not earlier than the bus since they do bark at the bus. She has indicated she will be purchasing some bark collars in an attempt to mitigate the problem. There are approximately 4-5 animals that can get in and out of the garage, while she is at work. Ms. Bucy does understand that the main concern is the noise and she is trying to mitigate this. She would like to continue her hobby and intends to be well under ten animals. Bruce Fitzgerald pointed out the application lists up to 14 dogs. Ms. Bucy indicated that is what she has presently. Tom Holton asked if the building that housed the animals was insulated. Ms. Bucy stated it was not but that is the intent. Michael Miller asked about the breed and whether they were barkers. Ms. Bucy stated it varies as to the animal. Michael Miller asked if he has attempted to stop the barking. Ms. Bucy stated she has attempted to bring " 1 in the ones that seem to be doing the majority of the barking and does get after them to not bark. The ci barking seems to be the biggest concern for the neighbors. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Joyce Grimes, neighbor,indicated the concerns with the noise. There is dogs barking at all hours of the night and there is not a noise ordinance for agricultural area. The basic concern is the noise. There is a concern that if the animals get out there are only two animal control officers for the area. If dogs are sold from the property the speed limit needs to be amended. It will take more water for the dogs and cleaning of them. There is a water board and will there need to be more shares of water for them? Charlene Fraser, neighbor to the south, indicated her concerns for the barking. Her property is approximately 100 feet from the property line. The barking happens the entire time she is outside. Ms. Fraser is home all day and spends most of her time in the back yard during which time they do nothing but bark. There are two other dogs that seem to do the barking when Ms. Bucy is not at home. The dogs need to be put up when they are not at home. The noise is unreasonable. The Chair closed the public portion. Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the animal waste disposal being through trash pick up. Ms.Davis stated it was appropriate. Roy Spitzer asked for clarification on the Camfied Water Board. Mr. Gathman stated that the existing wells are for indoor use and they are augmenting wells for outside irrigation of lawns. This is a Condition proposed that prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing written permission from the Water Board be provided to allow the dogs to be included in the augmentation plan. Ruth Bucy added she is aware of the barking but it is not all day long. She has been home on the weekends and this does not occur. There is more barking when there is movement. There are presently four dogs out and the Aussie will go to work with her when weather cools. She is purchasing bark collars and a high frequency sound system to help with barking. Ms. Bucy does have a share for water for augmentation. The animals will utilize approximately 2-5 gallons a water per day when it is hot outside. The use will be minimal and there will be very little traffic impact. Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the two other dogs. Ms. Bucy stated that the other two are included in the 14. There are presently 12 adult dogs with 3 puppies on site now. Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on a USR and how many animals can have. Mr. Gathman stated that up to 4 dogs on 10 acres is allowed and five and above would be a USR. Chris Gathman would like to see Development Standard #4 amended to remove the last sentence. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how the onsite visit was and Mr.Gathman indicated the dogs barked when he was along side of the house. The Planning Commission continued with extensive discussion on the barking since the Development Standard addresses removing the supervision of the animals. This number of animals is three times what is allowed. Staff does not believe they have the ability to recommend the barking collars just that barking needs to be controlled. Michael Miller stated that in the past kennels have been supervised when the dogs are outside. This is addressed in the Development Standards. Erich Ehrlich asked how many animals are kept inside and how many have the ability to be out. Ms. Bucy stated the door to the garage is left open for them to go in and out. This would be 5 dogs outside, 4 in the house and a couple in a pen in the garage. Bruce Fitzgerald reiterated Development Standard#4 with regards to the supervision and when the dogs are allowed out. Ms. Bucy indicated she was under the impression it would be supervision from sunset to sunrise versus the daytime. There would be problems if it were from sunrise to sunset for the animals that are outside during the day. Tom Holton stated that the first Development Standard states specifically the Schipperke animals not the two other Aussie dogs. They are all adult animals. Erich Ehrlich asked what the penalty was for having more animals than allowed. Mr. Gathman stated the County is the enforcing body and there would be a land use violation. The Weld County Animal Control would assess the monetary punishment for dogs at large or such. Mr. Ehrlich suggested that there could be a possible increase in animals if a specific breed is limited. Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the posted sign. Mr. Gathman stated the sign is posted in the appropriate time frame as recommended by the code. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the notification. Mr. Gathman stated that notification is of property owners within 500 feet of the site is required. Roy Spitzer asked Mr.Gathman what had previously been done with other kennels regarding supervision. Mr. Gathman stated this was standard language but the Development Standard and Conditions need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Mr. Miller stated that even if this was in the country it would still be a concern for the neighbors. There are things that happen when the animals are not supervised which compounds the problem. They will need supervision due to possible problems. Mr. Miller disagrees with removing Development Standard#4 last sentence. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the request for removal was based on the lifestyle of the applicant and her being away from home. Mr.gathman stated that staff was concerned with how this conditioned would be enforced. Mr. Gathman stated the main issue is barking during the daytime. Chad Auer is in support of keeping the language because this is a request to increase the number per code by three times. This type of variance compiled with the irritating variable of barking will need to be addresses. The supervision could include collars. Tom Holton stated that if the language is removed it will be in conflict with Development Standard#3. Michael Miller stated he does not like the fact the animals will be locked up 22 hours a day. The way the Development Standard reads the animals are not allowed outside during the evening. Mr. Holton added that with the 4 added by right there could be 18. Mr. Gathman stated the applicant needs to clarify more prior to the Board of County Commissioners with regards to the dogs and the number of animals. Typically the USR will include the total number of animals. There was continuous discussion on the number of animals. Chad Auer moved that under Development Standard #1 the "Schipperke" name should be deleted and replaced with adult. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried. Chris Gathman stated there are other options for Development Standard #3 regarding the employee since supervision will be needed. This is a hobby and not a commercial operation. Mr.Miller suggested deleting the entire requirement. Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standard #3. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried. Ruth Bucy asked for clarification on letting the animals outside after dark to relieve themselves. Mr.Gathman stated that as long as they are supervised that will be fine. Ms. Bucy asked if there would be a need someone to supervise them when they are outside,the only choice is to lock all of them up while she is away from the home. This will not fix the barking problem. Ruth Bucy indicated her agreement with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval. Michael Miller indicated he has a problem with application; it is not realistic to keep 14 animals on Y acre. This is not compatible with neighbors. Training animals not to bark is difficult. The kennels that have been approved in past have been commercial with supervision and it is cruel to lock up an animal 24 hours a day all winter. If the animals are not locked up it is not fair to the neighbors. This type of operation is not compatible in a neighborhood setting. Bruce Fitzgerald agrees but the twist to this situation is this is a private owner and is not for profit although the same issues occur. Erich Ehrlich commented on how the animals would be monitored during the day. This was the biggest concern. This does not seem compatible with the Development Standards preliminary. Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1521, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chad Auer commented this was to intense of a use. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1087 APPLICANT: Ed Orr PLANNER: Sheri Lockman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3181 being part of the W2NW4 Section 30, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for nine (9)residential lots with Estate Zone uses (Orr Estates). LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 64.5; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 23.5. Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1087,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. Rob Cassaday, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the proposal and is available for questions. Michael Miller asked if these were two acre sites. Mr.Cassaday indicated they were. Mr. Miller asked if they were providing irrigation water. Mr.Cassaday stated they are applying for an irrigation tap for the open space from North Weld County Water District. Michael Miller asked how much open space was on site. Mr. Cassaday stated there are 24 acres with 15% open space and this does not include the detention pond. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Sandra Miller, neighbor, indicated she would rather have the acreage homes instead of bottle plants or commercial developments. Gloria Gazman,mineral right owner, indicated her concern with re-zoning agricultural property to residential. It is not a good policy to take agricultural land out of production. The water is a concern. Lisa Lowes, neighbor, indicated she would like to see the speed limit adjusted on the road. The traffic from Kodak and the bottling plant makes this a very busy road. The posted limit is 55 mph and this is posted near Kodak. Ms. Lowes would like to see the retention ponds to the north of the homes. Robert Jacobs, Public Works, stated that the ponds are located at the south end of the subdivision. The road is classified as a collector and is 55 mph. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how that could be amended. Mr. Carroll stated the best way would be to draft a letter the Department of Public Works requesting the change and indicating the concerns. An engineer would do s site inspection for a safety analysis, and evaluate the possible concerns. Should a change be warranted then it could be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners at a hearing. The Chair closed the public portion. Michael Miller asked Mr.Jacobs if this was in conflict with the re-alignment of O Street. Mr.Jacobs indicated this section would not cause any concern and there has not been a final alignment determined. Ms.Lockman added that at the latest meeting regarding O Street which was held in Windsor this section would not be of concern. Hello