HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050568.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bryant Gimlin, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-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.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with
Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-60.D A.Goal 4. Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential,
commercial, and industrial uses will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area
that can support such development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible
with the region. This goal is intended to address conversion of agricultural land to
nonurban uses. Once converted, this land is less conducive to agricultural production.
The proposed kennel (80 dogs maximum), a single family dwelling unit other than those
permitted by Section 23-3-20.A (single family home), and a recreation facility (horse
riding lessons and day camp) will be compatible with the surrounding area through the
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. The surrounding area is primarily
single family homes on large acreages with some agricultural practices in the area.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. Sections 23-3-40.H, 23-3-40.C.8 and 23-3-40.L of the Weld
County Code provides for Kennels, Commercial Recreation Facility and a single family
dwelling unit as a Use by Special Review in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. Single family residences with outbuildings surround the
site along with some agricultural practices in the area. Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with the surrounding
area.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of
affected municipalities. The site is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement
Area but is within the three-mile referral area for the Towns of Berthoud, Johnstown, and
Mead. The Towns of Berthoud, Johnstown, and Mead in their referrals received
December 28, 2004, December 7, 2004 and December 14, 2004, indicated no conflicts
with their interests or have added comments that they do not object to this application.
EXHIBIT
2005-0568 I
Us #144
Resolution USR-1496
• Jennifer Fedak
Page 2
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required
to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The site consists
of approximately twenty (20) acres and due to the topography on site it is not conducive
for farming. The U.S.D.A. Soils Maps dated 1979 indicate that the soils on this property
are designated as prime and prime if irrigated land.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states "oil and gas exploration and
production should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and
the environment and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and
future surface uses." Section 22-5-100.6 of the Weld County Code states "...encourage
cooperation, coordination and communication between the surface owner and the
mineral owner/operators of either the surface or the mineral estate." Section 22-5-
100.6.1 of the Weld County Code also states "new development should be planned to
take into account current and future oil and gas drilling activity to the extent oil and gas
development can reasonably be anticipated." The applicant shall either submit a copy of
an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence
that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral
owner/operators. Drill envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the
State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to
include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Berthoud Fire Protection
District, as stated in the referral response dated December 21, 2004. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Little Thompson Water
District, as stated in the referral response dated December 8, 2004. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1496
Jennifer Fedak
Page 3
C. The applicant shall complete all proposed improvements including those regarding
landscaping, screening, access improvements and parking lot requirements or enter into
an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements
(access drive, parking areas, plant materials, fencing, screening, etcetera) and post
adequate collateral for all required materials. The agreement and form of collateral shall
be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior
to recording the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services
Screening/Landscaping Plan for review and approval. The plan shall include the method
of screening the outdoor storage of equipment or materials from adjacent properties and
future rights-of-way. The applicant shall maintain compliance with Section 23-2-240 and
Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code at all times. (Department of Planning
Services)
E. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. Evidence of approval for the Department of Public Health and Environment
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
F. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment that the applicant has contacted the Colorado Department of
Agriculture (CDA), Division of Animal Industry. This contact shall determine if a license
under the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA), as defined under C.R.S. 35-80-101
through 117 is required, or provide evidence that the applicant is not subject to the
PACFA requirements. Evidence of approval for the Department of Public Health and
Environment shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
G. 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 for the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be
submitted 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)
H. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets shall be labeled USR-1496 (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. County Road 1 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a
collector status road, which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There
is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. A total of 40 feet from the centerline of County
Road 1 shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way reservation for future
expansion of County Road 1. This road is maintained by Larimer County.
(Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1496
Jennifer Fedak
Page 4
4. The employee, visitors, and customer parking as delineated on the plat should
have adequate gravel or grass parking. The circulation appears to be adequate
to accommodate the facility. (Department of Public Works)
5. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with an access
permit granted from Larimer County for access to County Road 1. (Department
of Planning Services)
6. The applicant shall provide a Lighting Plan. Should exterior lighting be a pad of
this facility, all light standards shall be delineated on the plat and be in
accordance with Section 23-3-250.B.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
7. The location of the dumpster shall be delineated on the plat. Areas used for trash
collection shall be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties.
These areas shall be designed and used in a manner that will prevent wind- or
animal-scattered trash as outlined in Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
8. The approved screening plan. (Department of Planning Services)
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. 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)
5. Prior to issuance of the building permits:
A. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans
shall include a floor plan, plans shall bear the wet stamp of the Colorado registered
architect or engineer. Tow complete sets of plans are required when applying for a
building permit. Commercial buildings require a Code Analysis Data sheet, provided by
the Weld County Building Department. Automatic sprinkler requirements may be
required since the square footage of each use was not included in the USR
questionnaire. The dwelling unit may require the plans to bear the west stamp of a
Colorado registered architect or engineer. New construction will require an engineered
foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an open hole inspection
performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed
by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. The barn will probably be classified as an assembly use. The kennel will be classified B
(Business). The buildings including the bathrooms shall be accessible to persons with
disabilities. Fire resistance walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum
building height in allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset
distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
Resolution USR-1496
Jennifer Fedak
Page 5
C. An individual sewage disposal system required for the large horse barn/dog barn
structure(s) and the future small residence. The system shall be installed according to
the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations prior to operation of the kennel
or recreational horse facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development / redevelopment /
construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is grater than or
equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit
for more information. Evidence of approval shall be provided to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. Plans for the remodel work should be submitted to the Berthoud Fire Protection District
for review and approval. The applicant shall provide a written sign-off from the Berthoud
Fire Protection District to the Department of Planning Services. (Berthoud Fire Protection
District and 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
Sun Pony Ranch, Inc
USR-1496
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a Site Specific Development
Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (80 dogs maximum), a single family dwelling unit
other than those permitted by Section 23-3-20.A (single family home), and a recreation facility
(horse riding lessons and day camp) 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. The site shall not have more then eight (8) employees on site at any given time as indicated in
the application material. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The kennel shall be limited to eighty (80) dogs at any given time. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. All dogs shall be kept inside after dusk and all outside dog activity shall be supervised.
7. Dogs over the age of 6 months are counted in the maximum number of adult dogs in accordance
with Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
8. All other types of animals on-site shall comply with Section 23-1-90 regarding animal units.
(Department of Planning Services)
9. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner
that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or
deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Dog waste shall be removed at least weekly from the facility and disposed by a commercial
hauler. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
15. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
Resolution USR-1496
Jennifer Fedak
Page 2
16. The applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Colorado Department of
Agriculture (CDA), Division of Animal Industry. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall
be operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
18. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial
Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
19. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the
facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. 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)
21. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Little Thompson Water District)
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
22. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
23. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
24. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that
will reasonably preserve natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or
unplanned ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
25. The applicant shall utilize the existing gravel drive access to County Road 1. The access drive
shall be graveled or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems.
(Department of Public Works)
26. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at time of permit
application. Currently, the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International
Plumbing Code, 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
27. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of
determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and
to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in
order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback
requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building
Inspection)
28. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any new building and change of
use of any of the existing buildings. (Department of Building Inspection)
29. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot 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-1496
• Jennifer Fedak
Page 3
30. The landscaping and screening on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
landscape/screening plan. (Department of Planning Services)
31. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes
of exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance
operations associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of
Planning Services)
32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
33. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards
of Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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 James Rohn
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
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 January 18, 2005.
Dated the 18`h of January, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
I - /� .'q( 0.`7
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 M 7
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.
•
rsY 4.v,i_y',Y�
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 short 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 'A 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
Respectfsubmitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r
r
Hello