HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031285.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 6, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller 1T1
Bryant Gimlin Absent L J —
James Rohn '
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray r9
John Hutson Absent
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 15&April
22, 2003, was approved as read.
The following items are on the Continued Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1422
APPLICANT: Russ Otterstein - Premier Paving
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 NE4 &NE4 NE4 Section 19,T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities; including open pit mining and materials
processing; including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District..
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 8; East of and adjacent to US 85;and West
of and adjacent to WCR 27.
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services read a letter into the record requesting an indefinite continuance.
The following item is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B AmRE-499; part S2 NE4 S2 NW4 Section 1, T6N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Dairy in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 47; South of and adjacent to WCR 74.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the consent agenda. Bernie Ruesgen seconded. Motion carried with
James Rohn abstaining.
/�, The following items are on the hearing agenda:
C0YI;u+ Page -1-
S ilt- 2003-1285
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1007
APPLICANT: Lance and Julee Meiners
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3092; being part of the NE4NW4 Section 33, T9N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 5 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and one (1) Non-residential lot with Agricultural Zone Uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 100 and East of and adjacent to WCR 17
section line.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1007, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record and requesting minor changes to the Conditions of Approval. 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 dedication of land for CR 17and what is the meaning of this dedication. Peter
Schei, Department of Public Works, stated that this is to insure the right of way along the section lines. The
change of zone plat reflects that the applicant has addressed this issue.
John Folsom asked about the referral from Mr. Rohn. Mr. Rohn stated that this was his first referral and he
thought it was part of the process.
Bernie Ruesgen questioned the well permits for all the sites. Ms.Lockman stated that concerns were voiced
by the Division of Water Resources because of too many lots. The applicant has since modified this
application from six lots to five lots.
James Rohn asked about the school district and what was the final decision. Ms. Lockman stated that the
applicants submitted a letter that indicates the school district does not want a pull off or shelter. The
applicants do need to get a signed letter from the post office indicating the same thing. Mr.Rohn questioned
the money in-leu request. Ms. Lockman stated that the money will be paid prior to recording the final plan.
Michael Miller asked about the amount of water from the wells. Pam Smith, Weld County Health and
Environment, stated that quantity issue were left to the Water Resource Division.
Julie Miners,provided clarification with regard to the school district. The applicant has determined they are
paying the amount in one lump sum.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved to change condition 2E, delete the 2nd sentence in 2G and move 1 B, C(1), (2), (3) to
4 I, J, K. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1007,along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1424
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2 as shown on RS-1023; Re-subdivision of Union Colony Subdivision;
being part of Section 27, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Page -2-
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District(Food Warehouse) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of 11th Avenue and Southwest and adjacent to North 17 th Avenue.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1424,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record and requesting the deletion of 2J & L which have been completed. The
Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked about Condition of Approval#2C and the responses from the City of Greeley and the
restrictions of that condition. Ms. Lockman stated that they do have to meet all requirements as they are
getting water and sewer from the City of Greeley.
James Rohn asked why the City of Greeley did not just annex the property immediately. Ms. Lockman
stated that grants are the issue and the timing of those grants. For the project to obtain county grants it must
still be in the county then to obtain city grants it will be annexed into the city. These are Federal Grants that
are being applied for.
Michael Miller asked if the ownership will remain with the county. Ms. Lockman indicated that the site will
be handed over to the Food Bank.
Don Warden, County Finance Director, provided clarification with regard to the site. The current site has
been outgrown. There is a state Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)from the County and the
City is also getting a$200,000 (two hundred thousand)CDBG. The County is also putting$300,000(three
hundred thousand)of general fund as well as the land donation. The rest will consist of foundation or private
donors. The reason for the complication is for the County CDBG money to be obtained it is in a non
entitlement area. This is in unincorporated Weld County. The City of Greeley gets their own CDBG money
directly and non entitlement dollars cannot be used within a municipal corporation. To maximize the amount
of Federal money to be received the timing issue comes into play. The County Commissioners intend to
deed it to the Weld County Food Bank. There is a stipulation that it must be used for 25 years for this
purpose to serve the citizens of Weld County.
Michael Miller asked why the need for an improvements agreement if it was going to be County owned. Mr.
Warden stated that it will eventually be the Food Bank and that is the way the agreement was approached.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom moved to approve the deletion of#2 J & L. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1424, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Bernie Ruesgen seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1423
APPLICANT: Heather Weir
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 SE4 Section 35, T9N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a dog kennel
(not to exceed 60 dogs).
Page -3-
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 98; 3/4 mile East of WCR 33.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1423,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 Mr. Gathman about the school district payment and what is the need. Mr. Gathman
stated that there is no structure on the property presently. There will be the addition of two residences. The
language is the standard. The application does not indicate if there will be additional children but the
possibility is there.
John Folsom asked for clarification on whether or not the applicant is proposing to live on the site. Mr.
Gathman stated that the applicant will live in the same facility as the kennel. The residence would be located
at one end of the building. There will be a secondary residence with a caretaker.
Michael Miller questioned the well permit application and the water can be used to water any domestic
animals that are owned by the property owner without any restrictions. The owner would be allowed 7 dogs
as a Use By Right without having to get into the Special Use Permit for a kennel. The application is also
proposing having 10 cats on site. If two species were on site there could be 15 animals before the Special
Use would need to be applied for. There is not special formula to determine the number of animals per acre.
Heather Weir, applicant, provided clarification on the site. A model was displayed for visual affect. The
location of the facility will be in the center of the 80 acre parcel. The modular is for a caretaker to be on the
property full time. Ms.Weir works at CSU in the Veterinarian Hospital. The dogs will be indoors most of the
time. They are turned out periodically and when this occurs there will be someone there. The dogs are
indoors unless someone is with them. The turn out areas will have 3 feet of sand fecal waste will be
removed at turn out times.
John Folsom asked about the species of dogs. Ms. Weir indicated there will be greyhounds. They are
brought to the site from the race track then they are adopted out. They stay at the facility long enough to
be spayed, neutered,vaccinated and profiled personality wise then go to Adoption Groups. There may be
some volunteers that would access the site. This would be infrequent.
James Rohn asked about the number of dogs and the length of time the dogs will be at the facility. Ms.Weir
stated that she gets to a certain number of animals then takes then out of state to adoption facilities.
Normally there will be 20-30 before a trip to the adoption groups. Mr. Rohn asked about the maximum
amount and how long would that amount be needed. Ms.Weir stated it would be no more than two weeks.
Mr. Rohn would like to see this added in the conditions. Mr. Miller stated it would be tough to enforce.
Stephen Mokray asked about the dogs being trained for racing and require special exercising. Ms. Weir
stated that she wants more space so they have more freedom. Greyhounds are referred to as couch
potatoes. The racing is more of a sprint nature. The animals do fine with regular size yards. They require
less exercise then some breeds. Mr. Mokray asked if additional fence height was needed. Ms. Weir
indicated that she presently has a four foot fence but the facility will have six foot fences. They make good
family pets.
James Rohn asked about the letter from the neighbors. Is the grey hound breed that barks a lot or quiet.
Ms. Weir stated that in general they are known to be quiet dogs. The dogs are quiet and very calm. Mr.
Rohn asked the age of the dogs when they are received. Ms.Weir stated that they can range from 2 yrs to
11-12 yrs old. There are some occasions when an injured animal or puppies are received, but this is very
rare.
Michael Miller asked how far off the road the facility will be located. Ms.Weir indicated that it would be 300
feet from CR 98 and slightly to the west but centered mostly. Mr. Mokray asked how close the nearest
neighbor is located. Ms. Weir stated that to the west there is a single family home 1/4 mile away.
Page -4-
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kay Schmidt, neighbor, closest to the facility. Her concerns are that greyhounds are barkers. The animals
do not know anything but kennel life. They are muzzled because they are barking. Ms. Schmidt has had
to get rid of her dogs due to the attraction of wildlife. Those dogs ran the deer away and the antelope but
attracted the coyotes. Another concern is the traffic. The increase of 2-3 is more than what comes down
the road now. Strongly against.
James Rohn asked about the research on the greyhounds and them being barkers. Ms.Schmidt stated that
she has read is available off the internet and the Colorado Greyhound Companions. They are site hounds
and cannot be off lead and bark. A site hound is a dog that catches site of something and gives chase. That
is part of their nature, accidents happen. Mr. Ruesgen asked about getting rid of her personal dogs and if
they were in a kennel. Ms. Schmidt indicated they were in an outside kennel and the barking was not fair to
the neighbors. Her property is approximately 1300 feet from the facility.
James Rohn asked about the noise requirements. Ms.Davis,Department of Health and Environment,stated
that the applicant must meet the level or the residential zone as part of the Colorado State Statute. Mr.Rohn
asked about the decibel level. Ms. Davis stated it was 50 decibels for the residential district.
Jerry Kuntz, neighbor is planning on building a retirement home on the 36 acres west of proposed site. The
major concern is this being a commercial venture not an agriculture venture. There needs to be a
commercial well permitted if this is going to be a commercial business. He feels as though this is a
commercial venture. The school district does charge a fee for the children that will go to school. The
change from agriculture to commercial is not accepted. There is no way to control or limit the number of
dogs if the maximum is sixty dogs. Mr. Miller stated that the State Engineer has said that as long as the
dogs are owned then it is not a commercial venture.
Stephen Mokray asked where Mr.Kuntz would be located with regards to facility. Mr.Kuntz stated his house
would be approximately 300-400 feet from the facility.
Larry Williams, neighbor, own 80 acres to the west. The major concern is this property is residential not
commercial. There is a large concern for the noise from the dogs barking. The land was purchased as a
residential property not to live next to a dog kennel. The area is not a commercial type area. There is a
fine line on the ownership of the dogs.
James Rohn stated that the noise level must be under 50 decibels. The lawyer researched the information
from the letter. The applicant should have provided the surrounding property owners up to 1/2 mile the
locations of the proposed building.
Stephen Mokray asked about the noise factor and is there condition for landscape for noise suppression.
Mr. Gathman stated it could be considered. Staff took into account that there is a residence to the west of
the site. The enclosures will be on the opposite side looking to the east. The eastern parcels are presently
vacant. Landscaping of the site can be looked at for visual issues. There is nothing there so that is the
reason nothing was proposed in the condition. The location of the kennels and the character of the area was
taken into consideration.
Mr. Kuntz stated that it is hard for the dogs to get over the decibel limit but the constant factor is the issue.
Mr. Miller stated this would be a nuisance factor. Ms. Davis added that 50 decibels are similar to a private
business office.
John Folsom asked Ms. Davis about the state pet care act and does it have standards similar to CAFO with
regard to waste and other things. Ms. Davis stated she is not sure but there is a lot of standards for housing
and clean up.
Valerie Hunter Goss, volunteer dog walker, indicated that barking is not an issue. There is insulation that
can be added to the building to keep quiet. The dogs will only be out when there is someone there.
Page -5-
Michael Conine, neighbor, owns the property to the north. He has built homes on CR 100 and almost lost
a deal due to the disclosure statement indicating the proposed kennel and the purchasers not wanting to be
around a kennel. Mr.Conine questioned why they are allowed to have two residences in the 10 acres without
doing a recorded exemption. Mr.Miller indicated that the residences are a part of the Use by Special Review
process. Mr. Gathman stated that there will be help living on the site that will be covered under permit. Mr.
Conine indicated that there are hundreds of coyotes and the amount of wildlife is numerous. The concern
is that this will change when all the dogs arrive. There is no way one person can keep dogs quiet with a
squirt bottle.
Lindsay Conine, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the noise. They did not choose to have the dog
kennel next to them. It does not matter what kind of dogs, if one barks they all bark. The coyote population
is thick in the area now. The wildlife is part of the area. The CRP program is to leave the land as it is.
There are pheasants there also. Mr. Rohn asked where Ms.Conine was located. Ms.Conine indicated she
is located to the north.
Emma Weiss, neighbor,indicated concerns for safety. The greyhound are trained to chase. If one gets out
the children are not safe. Can the animals dig under the fences to get out. The number of dogs is far to
many. If you cannot count the dogs how count the decibel level. Nuisance of the huge dog kennel. There
is also a chicken farm located northeast of the property. If they are taught to chase rabbits what will happen
if one gets out and chases the chickens.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Heather Weir provided some clarification with some fo the concerns. The dogs are muzzelled at the track
and this is not to restrict them from barking. They are muzzelled when in groups for their protection. Ms.
Weir has been doing this from her house for 5 years in Loveland and in a cul de sac. It is not her desire to
disrupt the peace and quiet of the surrounding area. The dogs will be indoors most of the time. The cannot
see outdoors so the dogs will not have any reason to know the wildlife is happening around them. The
coyotes have their own domain. The dogs will not be running loose on any property. Greyhounds are not
known to be bitters. They are good family dogs.
Michael Miller asked when they are let out, how long is this time. Ms.Weir stated they would have access
to dog door to turn out are. Typically it would be around 20 minutes but when Ms.Weir is at home and can
monitor it could be longer. Ms. Miller stated the anytime there are dogs outside they will be attended to. Ms.
Weir stated that her personal dogs will have more ability to roam. Mr. Miller asked if there were any
precautions for the possibility of digging under the fence. Ms. Weir stated that the dogs are not know for
digging. There has not been any precautions for this at any race track or other facility. The dogs will be
attended to and if the digging happens it can be attended to immediately. Mr. Miller questioned the size of
the fence and if it was adequate. Ms. Weir stated that greyhounds are athletic but the do not have the
muscular structure for anything other than running.
James Rohn asked if the inside kennel will be insulated. Ms. Weir stated that the building itself will be
insulated. Mr. Rohn asked if there was anyway to limit the maximum number of dogs or the amount of time
that the animals will be there. Ms. Weir cannot predict what will happen but would like to be able to have
the flexibility if there is an emergency situation. Mr. Rohn would rather see it be limited to two weeks as the
maximum amount of time the dogs can be there or limit the number of dogs to 50. Ms. Weir stated she
would look at ways to mitigate the neighbors concerns but limiting the number of dogs will not address the
issues for them.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the water and ownership of the dogs. They are being referred to as foster dogs
and is this more of a broker situation or actual ownership. Ms.Weir said she spoke with Scott Cuthbertson
with the Resource Division on the phone. Mr. Cuthbertson likened to a small time breeder. This person
would be the owner of the dogs while they are on the property. She makes all decisions concerning them.
Stephen Mokray asked the size of the run out area. Ms.Weir stated the turn out area is approximately 70
feet x 50 and the residential area is 45x50. Mr. Mokray asked if she would be willing to place some type of
Page -6-
landscaping in the area to mitigate the noise issue. Ms.Weir indicated she would be interested in this. She
was planning on doing a wind break on the west side and planting trees and shrubbery on the east side.
These will attract wildlife.
Stephen Mokray asked about the number transported in a year and where they go. Ms.Weir said that she
transports approximately 150 year and the are transported to a Greyhound Adoption Facility in Washington
and Greyhound Friends for life in California.
James Rohn moved to insert development Standard#18 to state"The dogs shall be supervised at all times
when outdoors. The dogs shall be confined within the fences of the kennel facility at all times,"and add 2J
to state"The applicant shall submit a screening plan for review and approval by the department of Planning
services. This screening plan shall address screening from the kennel and turn out facility area from the
adjacent properties." Stephen Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Heather Weir questioned the statement about the dogs being confined to the kennel at all times. This makes
is sound as though she cannot walk the dogs on the property. Mr.Miller stated that this is just when the dogs
are loose they need to be in the kennel. It does not restrict Ms.Weir from walking her dogs on her property.
John Folsom stated that he resides in a subdivision that has a greyhound kennel and there has been no
problem. The amount of barking is minimal. There is no noise that can be heard from the kennel. There
is only a three foot fences and they have never gotten out.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1423, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, no. Motion
carried.
Bernie Ruesgen stated that the special review should be not granted based on code section 23-2-200. It
does not meet the intent of the code. It is not compatible with the existing plan residential of the neighbors
and it does not do anything to advance the general welfare of the present and future residences.
Michael Miller commented that housing animals indoors in an insulated building will greatly reduce the noise
factor. There was some concern with the additional traffic but there are plans for an increase in homes which
will bring an increase in traffic. There will be less impact from 60 dogs inside a building verses the 10-20
houses that could be built in the area in the future.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -7-
Hello