HomeMy WebLinkAbout992733.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Arlan Marrs that the following resolution with the addition of Condition of Approval #3A and
Development Standard #14 with subsequent renumbering be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
APPLICANT: Patricia Healy _--
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Kennel. -
PLANNER: Ben Patton
CASE NUMBER: USR-1244 I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 5, Green Acres Subdivision; located in part of Section 24,
TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Appaloosa Avenue; immediately north of Pinto Street.
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 24.7 of the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
a. Section 24.3.1.2-That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural) Zone
District. Section 31.4.8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides for a kennel as a Use
by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
b. Section 24.3.1.3 --That the proposal will be compatible with the existing surrounding land
uses. Surrounding land uses include large-lot residential uses. The Green Acres Subdivision
is an Agriculturally-zoned subdivision that includes many rural uses. This kennel does not
present a use which will substantially detract from the character of the neighborhood.
c. Section 24.3.1.4 --That the proposed use will be compatible with future development of the
surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as
projected by the Comprehensive Plan or Master Plans of affected municipalities. In a referral
response dated 8/30/1999, the Town of Brighton stated that they had no concerns with this
application
d. Section 24.3.1.7 --The Design Standards (Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance, as amended), Operation Standards (Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance, as amended), 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:
4 EXHIBIT
1 992733
[Asia #lay9
RESOLUTION
Patricia Healy
Page 2
1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on
the Special Review Plat prior to recording the plat. The completed plat shall be delivered to the
Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 30 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Planning Dept.)
2. 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. (Planning Dept.)
3. Prior to Recording the Plat:
a. A landscaping and screening plan shall be submitted to Department of Planning Services'
staff. This plan shall include a solid 6 foot fence which runs along the north edge of the
property form the back side of the house west to the property oine. Upon staff approval, the
plan shall be placed on the mylar plat to be recorded.
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Arlan Marrs
Fred Walker
Stephan Mokray
John Folsum
Jack Epple
Bruce Fitzgerald
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
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, Trisha Swanson, 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 October 19, 1999.
Dated the 19th of October, 1999.
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Patricia Healy
USR-1244
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a Kennel for twelve(12)adult dogs
in the(A) (Agricultural)Zone District as indicated in application materials on file in the Department of
Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. (Planning Dept.)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 90 of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, as amended. (Planning Dept.)
3. The dogs must remain inside from 9:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
4. The maximum number of adult dogs allowed on this site at any one time shall not exceed twelve(12).
5. All liquid and solid wastes shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Health Dept.)
6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. (Health Dept.)
7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Health Dept.)
8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. (Health Dept.)
9. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the residential limit of 55 dB(A), as measured
according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. (Health Dept.)
10. The facility shall utilize the existing well. (Health Dept.)
11. The facility shall utilize the existing septic system. (Health Dept.)
12. In the event the facility boards animals, the facility shall receive and maintain a permit from and
comply with the United States Department of Agriculture Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the
Administration and Enforcement of the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act. (Health Dept.)
13. Animal and food 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, or more frequently, from the facility and hauled by a commercial hauler.
(Health Dept.)
14. The solid 6 foot fence, as shown on the approved screening plan, shall be in place within 3 months
from recording of the plat
15. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
16. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
17. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Planning Department 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.
18. 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 Planning Commission 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.
19. 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.
4
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 2
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1246 be continued indefinitely at the
request of the applicant to allow time for the applicant to come into agreement with surrounding property
owners concerning access to the site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1246, be continued indefinitely. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsum, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: S-505
APPLICANT: Les Gelvin/ Remington Place
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1723; located in the NE4 of Section 7, T7N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 4 lot Minor Subdivision.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 15; approximately '% mile north of State Hwy 14. For
a more precise location, see legal.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented Case S-505. Ben read the recommendation into
the record, and stated that the Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ben stated that the Utility Board had approved the
final plat on October 14, 1999, with the addition of the fire hydrant placement on the plat.
John Folsom asked why 4.6.9.12, addressing ingress and egress, was not in the conditions of approval. Ben
stated that these criteria were implicitly addressed elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval.
Fred Walker had questions concerning reasonable access and right of way to the ditch as well as water
drainage at the site. Ben stated that the building envelopes were far from the ditch and that the applicant had
adequate documentation from the ditch company and could address any ditch questions.
Les Gelvin, Applicant, stated that he is aware that his deed starts 50 feet from the ditch and was willing to
work with the ditch company if they had any concerns. The drainage would be less than the current amount
at the site and would not contaminate the ditch water. The applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jack Epple moved that Case S-505 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; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
sistiesk
CASE NUMBER: USR-1244
APPLICANT: Patricia Healy
PLANNER: Ben Patton m
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 5, Green Acres Subdivision; located in part of Section 24, _ _1
TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. K v c�
W
♦
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 3
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Kennel.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Appaloosa Avenue; immediately north of Pinto Street.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1244. Ben read the case into the record
and stated that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Arlan Marrs asked if the covenants are still in effect, but Ben stated that no evidence of active covenants were
apparent in the application. Bruce Barker stated that the covenants are between the landowners in the
neighborhood and would deal with the compatibility of the neighborhood but could be a factor for the Planning
Commission to consider. Michael Miller asked how many animals would be allowed without the USR. Ben
said 5 animals of one species of domestic animal are allowed here.
Stephen Mokray asked if this application is a business. Ben explained that this could potentially be a business
but that the USR application if for a kennel. Bruce stated that this case deals with the intent and that the
request is for the kennel. John Folsom asked if the usage changed in the future to a business would the
applicant have to reapply for a USR. Ben stated that they might if there were a large increase in the number
of animals on the site or if, for example, there were large trucks on the site.
Patricia Healy, Applicant, stated that they have several Doberman Pincers and Boxes that they show at
American Kennel Club(AKC)competition. They occasionally sell them for pets, but mostly breed to restock
for show purposes. She stated that this is a hobby, there is no profit and that it costs more than it gains to
have these animals. The runs that the animals are in exist on the interior of their property and that even if the
dogs got out of that fence, there is still another fence before they could get off the property. She also stated
that when they bought the property, the covenants had expired. Ms. Healy further stated that they want to
come into compliance by applying for this USR permit for the number of dogs on their property.
Arlan Marrs asked what kind of fence existed on the exterior of the property. The applicant stated that the
rear fence is a field fence, with a wooden picket fence on the south side of the property, but they are working
on placing chain link fencing on entire property. The exterior of the dog runs are chain link with hog panels
in between the three separate dog runs.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Charles Crumbly, adjacent landowner, is concerned with the constant barking and the number of dogs. He
stated that there were 21 dogs when the applicant moved in and that the barking is from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. He also stated that the dog runs are 8 feet from the fence. Jack Epple asked Charles if he knew of the
covenants for the subdivision. Charles stated that the covenants had expired. Stephen Mokray asked how
long this has been going on and asked if Charles had spoken with the owner about the dogs barking. Charles
stated that it has been about a year and that they tried to talk to the owners concerning the barking but to no
avail. He also questioned the health aspect with his well being only 60 feet down. Michael Miller asked how
many animals Charles had on his property and how many other property owners had over 10 animals.
Charles stated that he has one horse, two dogs and some chickens and that there are some property owners
with more than 10. Arlan Marrs asked how Charles thinks the noise problem should be solved. Charles
doesn't feel hours of operation would affect the noise problem.
Michael Miller asked Bruce if there were any legal recourse for the barking of the dogs. Bruce Barker stated
that there was not an addition to the Ordinance concerning barking. Michael asked how loud the barking
would have to be to be a health issue. Ben stated that 55 decibels is the residential limit for noise according
to state statute and that the dogs would be limited to the hours of 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. through the Development
Standards Michael asked if the noise was measured at the property line. Sheble McConnellogue,
Department of Public Health and Environment, stated that C.R.S. suggest that the noise levels be recorded
25 feet outside of property line. At the site, the dogs of the property owners were quieter than the dogs of the
adjoining property where the noise level was being tested.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 4
Fred Walker asked Charles if the covenants had expired and if so why Charles didn't look into re-establishing
the covenants. Charles said that the neighborhood was quiet and that they never thought they would need
one. Sheble also stated that the septic system must be 100 feet from a well and that the waste should be
controlled as well.
Maryann Bower, neighbor, stated that she had a problem with Doberman Pincers in particular in the neighbor
from the past attacking children and herself. Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicant's dogs had been out.
Maryann stated that no, they were different dogs.
Kiko Crumbly, neighbor, stated that she was upset that the quality of living had gone down for them since the
dogs moved in next door. Her children are not comfortable playing outside with the dogs barking all the time
and she can't entertain outside anymore with all the noise. Arlan asked where her property was in comparison
to the applicant's land. Kiko pointed out her land directly north of and adjacent to the applicant's. Fred asked
what kind of fence was between the property. Kiko stated that the fence was a field fence, wire squares of
about 9"X9".
Stephen asked the applicant if she would be willing to remove the voice boxes of the dogs or work with the
noise issue. Ms. Healy stated that there were never 21 dogs on the property, and that the dogs don't run loose
all day, they are outside for a short time for exercise and meals, etc., but that they are indoor pets. She stated
she would be willing to debark the dogs to keep them, but would prefer not to. Ms. Healy stated that they are
placing the fence up as quickly as finances allow. She also stated that Mr. Crumbly also has several goats,
not just the one horse and two dogs he stated and that several property owners have many animals, as many
as fifty goats on one property and a miniature horse farm on another.
Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to ease the barking impact on the neighboring properties. The
applicant stated that as soon as they are approved AKC judges, the breeding will lessen and the number of
dogs will decrease. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that a 6'wooden fence would be the
most effective form of landscaping to lessen the noise.
Discussion ensued concerning the possible options open to the applicant to diminish the noise.
Michael Miller commented that he feels that fencing alone may not solve the problem and that further steps
may be required to end this problem and that there may be a better way to do so than the aforementioned
fence.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he felt that these conditions are all that the Planning Commission members
are authorized to do, that to act further would be entering into a neighborhood dispute that may be better
served in another governing body.
Stephen Mokray commented that this may not be the ultimate solution, but it is a compromise that could work.
Jack Epple commented that this is an agricultural area and regulating every dispute along these lines would
take a lifetime.
John Folsom supported Bryant, Jack, and Stephen's assessment of the decision.
Stephen Mokray moved that Condition of Approval#3 A as follows: "A landscaping and screening plan shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services staff. This plan shall include a solid 6 foot fence which
runs along the north edge of the property from the back side of the house west to the property line. Upon staff
approval, the plan shall be placed on the mylar plat to be recorded.", Development Standard #14 with
subsequent renumbering should read as follows: "The solid 6 foot fence, as shown on the approved screening
plan, shall be in place within 3 months from recording of the plat." Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 5
Arlan Marrs commented that he doesn't feel this is the best solution, but it is better than doing nothing.
Michael Miller commented that he agrees with Arlan and he feels it may not solve the problem, but there may
not be a solution to the problem.
The applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1244 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
added Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval and the applicant investigate other options that may be more monetarily efficient and to reduce
the noise factor and be prepared to present those findings at the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Eaton IGA
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the Eaton Intergovernmental Agreement. Bruce explained that this
IGA was the result of Weld County Commissioners and the Town of Eaton officials desires to work toward
a coordinated planning agreement. Bruce explained that this agreement is identical to Ordinance 207 with
the Town of Keenesburg. The Town of Eaton has approved this agreement. The version presented today
has the complete contents as well as a map to define the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the
Comprehensive plan area covered. The map is a part of the Eaton IGA and is attached as Exhibit A. The
Comprehensive plan area is fairly close to the referral area. Bruce mentioned that all growth within the UGA
(Urban Growth Area) has to be urban development as defined with the requirement of Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission.
Bruce mentioned subparagraph F in Section 3.3 on page 4 which states "To the extent legally possible as
determined by the County, the County will deny proposals for non-urban developments in the UGA.", Section
3.2 page 3 states"To the extent legally possible, the County will disapprove proposals for Urban Development
in areas of the Municipal Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area." Section 4.1 "The Municipality will give
serious consideration to all petitions for annexation of lands within the Urban Growth Area and will consider,
in any determination to annex such properties, without limitation, the following factors: (I)the extension of one
or more municipal services to the area would place and unreasonable economic burden on the existing users
of such services or upon the future residents or owners of property in the area itself; (II) the area is not
reasonably contiguous in facet to the Municipality's existing boundaries, and its annexation would result in
disconnected municipal satellites."
Arlan Marrs questioned Section 3.3 as the denial of different uses such as Special Review Permits. Bruce
stated that those permits would be subject to review on the definition of Non-Urban Development, and that
each application would be different. Arlan stated his concern with the reduced flexibility of county residents
in the Urban Growth Area to utilize their property because this property is adjoining a city. Fred Walker
questioned if Recorded Exemptions are going to be affected. Bruce mentioned that the definition of
development in Section 2.1 states that recorded exemptions and subdivision exemptions are not considered
development. Fred asked if these two processes would not be required to have sewer as the other
developments would be required to have within this UGA. Bruce stated that they would not have to have
sewer pursuant to this agreement, that it is not subject to the same rules as it is not considered a development
in this agreement.
Arlan asked what type of development would be subject to the last few lines in the definition of development,
if this included 5-Lot minor subdivisions. Bruce stated that he and Anne Best Johnson had decided that would
cover an Agricultural PUD due to a state statute concerning water. Fred asked if this would apply to Weld
Hello