HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220513.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
CASE USR21-0021 - JOHN AND MEGAN SCHRIEFER
Exhibit Submitted By
A.
Planning
Commission
Tyler
Pane # Description
Resolution of Recommendation
Planning
B. Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 2/1/2022
C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation
D.
Applicant
PowerPoint Presentation (received 2/16/2022)
Letter of support from Kacy Mitchell
E.
Applicant
(received 2/16/2022)
F.
Sherrie Jay
Letter of support (received 2/16/2022)
G.
Julianne Fritz
Letter of opposition (received 2/16/2022)
Thumb drive with photos of the neighborhood
H.
Terri Geist
(received 2/16/2022)
Letter of opposition, read by his daughter Nyla Bristow
I.
C.H. Clark
(received 2/16/222)
IJ
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
2022-0513
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER
REQUEST:
PLAN AND
BOARDING
OVER THE
OBEDIENCE
US R21-0021
JOHN AND MEGAN SCHRIE
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
KENNEL LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) DOGS
AGE OF SIX (6) MONTHS AND CANINE
CLASSES IN SUBDIVISIONS
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
• LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 10
PINNACLE
IN THE A
PARK 2ND
FILING, BEING PART OF SECTION 14, T6N, R66W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
• LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO
LONGS PEAK ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET WEST
OF CR 35, APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET NORTH OF STATE
HIGHWAY 392.
h; 6i14f � ' "rl'\ yR'��•Mt
i �: AP
.. t ��
1 � Y \ i - IS� CIS S U 5 l .S.. �d
�- S ✓ar t � _ _ r If
i 1 NJn�CY a'a ` �54`✓bSJ1/ 4 �)\ki�� X11 I .�Sa
4 ( .•— . . !kr llJ'jr._ . "`111
•' { =�j Via. i
�. a �: ♦ f.�
Crr i�iry
VV.
• � r
1
6i� Y41♦ T£ YYY�a �[1�ppii I
fPJd 'l
4-i
r W ry vd y� y�
frF Ir ie1 rC�: P` ,.r. &qi ..4.iC�yrJ4 L1�?r
Yea j ..y Y. i•' a K\�Li f Gi r f
•
C`!i i- -� . H....�I
a
a!r_
�r h .•
r.�fii Ali
ii y
Ir
- -
y �^"f'� —^—rwr�_a.�..- -:maw
I¢.
�fV y
yR
{- 6T
Access into Pinnacle Park subdivision from County Road 35
1.
_w
G ` i
-o -.
I
a'
Y ` M
p.
.
• ro
ateIm
Im
Y
t
r
Schriefer residence west property line looking south
Y r
k
lI
[i s ''S
♦ i r
S
♦ 0
ass
j.
•
i u
+ .. -
F
i W
•
.1 • S
. } • `,I�'
fin y r u�l. Y". • 4- y ♦ -
#Yirr /.
I.
Li• YY
,,yy� Ic YT
r •lrtr +iaA-. spT`
', i.. - Ate.
- :
::SA,jet • /ly u"`.. - ..._
o.. � ...Pa
- •tea. -
- 1�- •it'll _ ,'�R' _ - _
YI! ly 4
. I •"�-` _ yam. ;
� 1
Jl .
A p�.
J 's_ • __ -_ 'ira_� - ter_
. t - - - - ' .v.a 5. p�c+ may... t
- h_ - u Si- •`�- F _.
♦
Y.
y.. .S e�rf
•
b Y�
wry„' _ ,. _ _• �: ��AH
r___Yl���i���Y� ry 1'.��Jl�ld � z ��y�u••_= _.._ ______ —�
f.
' K S
S
9
♦ l ♦ 1 V` -� � i ♦l. .i �1
Q a
'-� '
•I
I
C4 ---titi. -P
'I
Indoor classroom
and outdoor training
facilities area
r
WY
ii r Iw' .1
4
a
_ fir•
li —
— � � _ �
•"
.ir.�� .- ._�, c
+icy
-yin
_ ey e.� w_. _ Y_� �r.. .`L Y i•'-t -
— �..
r
i . -
c=
w I'i
• � �• nf
11*4Y ,11`, R ��
/ !II..I.W '31'
mw _.
' [ Al
I- [Vs
d
1 f
�Ii 1F�1't� s.w e. _
T �{
� [T
f .' _ ,.. -""^'S ...Ms►�'►''>• a
.�_;rw•.w�—[r Off. - y
.r+ys"wsz+t,Ar+e . ,
`y. Y
Adjacent property to west
a
�•
¶- -r--j---j:
Adjacent property to north
« e
•
V L
.1v1 S�� •5 •
Y
{
_
5t
'.M V
f 1 , +A ♦ 1 l
. •• - .ice •� .. ',
.. � • •
r _ _ • , -`ice`{
�1 •!
f 1.- • '.. ` 51 yg.
L'
it •.
rr — —
F R _ N. • d•
V* '.- 1
Adjacent property to north
View looking north from State Highway 392 onto Schriefer property
]S.1} •cr r..
\ t
I
as _ r. \
-^'._s$1'� �.l:p '�. i`�?
� 71,
•
i
'.T'�/ � �1zMi ''_!+ �F }\ �F' y I '.ti' • tl 1�1� -ir �y� T 11[1.. 1', V^ 'Z�X1 ryf y�1 F-' rY� �1.��.e .. �1 t: I 1.e,r 4 � 1��+'- 1 �'T'�.fY��/•.� 'rir
YC1Y �'. I 1 -�-`�Ji. .T<
; ~ ., .•aFaF_a 4Y 1•F' _ Tflf ♦'' f • F_ Y t = iq lr.�r
j
�:l art a .. ..
HV IZS p... - jF • ! ��•' l' nvr ; :'r ' a .:_ r \a .a -
} . a. ', f; ;l .: Iwl r ;1•,�!y,�a
r
1
. 1 1 4 ' _ _
I /•
J_ / 1 I l - r• a�
$ i r 1�{�• -W
Y 0 Fl a M1M1
L
_ �-•� "' rs £fit���'� '.��, ,•,.
- 1. y'.. f �) tea_ �� -
EXHIBIT
tzr-ooa\
HIGH PLAINS K-9 CONNECTIONS
11
John & Megan Schriefer
Greeley, CO I February 16, 2022 — Board of Commissioners
Kimley)))Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.
view
Peak Rc
.l Zone
X16876 Longs Pea R'd
1 e
� l
s .
T
�S �oF7rv. F!I
yt=i
Mary Adams Country B raker$
a- ss. I
900 fl
i
rj
:illr II i _ TATISI,i
• Sec 23-3-10 Intent
• Proposal is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural
Zone District.
• Section 23-3-20 outlines the Uses By Right within the A
Zone district which includes:
• Animal Boarding and Animal Training Facilities where the
maximum number of animal units or household pets permitted
in Section 23-3-70D is not exceeded
• Neighborhood has corresponding Agricultural
uses — many residents have horses, chickens,
cows, etc.
Kimiey
r
Expect More. Experience &after.
• • • • • ' •
• Megan has lived in Weld County
for over 20 years. She currently
teaches at Progressive School for
Dogs and Hopes to Open her Own
Business: High Plains K-9
Connections with this USR
Approval
• Licensed by the Pet Animal Care
FacilitiesAct (PACFA) from CO
Dept. of Agriculture
• Certified AKC Evaluator
• Graduated as Professional Dog
Trainer in Oct 2014 from Karen
Pryor Academy
ness
SI- -
IMIcy
Expect More. Experience Befter.
Proposed Business
• Group Canine Obedience Classes (Max. 10 dogs per Class
Weekday Evenings
• Boarding for up to 20 dogs for Training -focused Boarding
(this is not a vacation boarding facility). Boarded dogs will
receive one-on-one training with Megan.
• WC Planners encouraged applicant to apply for absolute
maximum future growth potential for USR.
KImIey Horn
Expect More. Experience Befter.
• Megan chooses her Clients.
aggressive dogs. Her training f
and recently adopted dogs, for
obedience.
• Meqan and John live on the i
She does not train
ocuses on young dogs
basic commands and
roaert
young children. There will not be uncon
nuisance barking.
with their
trolled dogs or
Boarding will be indoors. Any of the dogs that are
boarded for obedience training will be indoors and only
outside for potty / playtime. Barking will not be
tolerated.
Kolmlcy)))
Horn
Expect More. Experience &after.
Business Growth Plan & Impact
• With Approved USR, Applicant I Owner can start hosting dog
obedience classes at her property wit" max. 10 dogs per class.
• Applicant / Owner intends to save business profits to construct
a future indoor boarding / training facility building to "ost up to
20 dogs for boarding training.
• KH Engineers prepared Traffic Letter and Drainage Letter
outlining (bayed on future max. expansion of business):
• Project anticipated to generate Ad daily trips and 2 Peak Hour trips and
is therefore a very low traffic generator. Traffic Engineer anticipates the
project will be successfully incorporated within the existing roadway
network. Trip generation based on maximum business capacity.
• Proposed building improvements will have minimal impacts on
surrounding site. Implementation of a grass buffer for flow attenuation
and water quality treatment will be required. Kimlc;v>>> Horn
Expect More. Experience Befter.
Ssif
i,.
Li
fl-
urauyL & RsG6
PARCEL W111BEW14e+gfftIC1
wl+f0.
PMYI(A,E PART[ Pt4w8wpE '30
£ � PAECft nAMBER OBIGtNP.pPf
C
A ftXbSCM
tayf+g
N�— \ e
— °e
/ 4h
Ct
I!$)6 LL#S S PEM Rah
POSE/
WPiAaE m1�R V661�PARA3N11fG h4 L
PAq['FLM91
—a
SO�PFR IEflIX Y lqN
4fl
s+j'ji l r
50.4
—4.,2 . . . . IA
>5J
� � 4
------------
-
- -
---------.- -- ----.-- . . -- . -
- -- .- .- _______
- .---. - - -1 . --., ------ -.- -. -
— - --
r 9®
PVPM PYiFaAItl(LiG PfiPYE. ttP
iEl A16P1_MH�R UY6' tYY,695,
ONNE(.
[i₹LAV I9iK](E N HMYEC
KImIey
Expect More. Experience Befter.
Proposal Support
• Neighborhood Open House Held in August 2021
where applicant and consultant answered
questioner to interested neighbor. Invitations to t"e
neighborhood open house were mailed to t"e
surrounding owners within 500'
• Four (4) neighbors wrote letters of support for t"is
application after t"e Open House, and one (1)
spoke in favor at t"e Planning Commission hearing
• More t"an ten (10) current clients of Megan wrote
favorable recommendations of support for Megan
and t"e proposed facility
• Weld County Planning Staff Recommends Approval
bated on Compliance wit" WC Code
KImIey Hr n
Expect More. Experience Befter.
40
j' r
4F•
S
is
rj
EXHIBIT
Regarding High -Plains K9 Connections
To whom it may concern:
Ia
L.sPLa\-60x;1
While I would have rather been at this hearing to present my words and feelings myself, I have a
medically complex child whose schedule will not allow me the time to get away on a Wednesday. I am
trusting whoever is reading this to convey my thoughts on the business approval for High Plains K9
Connections.
It's no secret there are a lot of varied opinions in the neighborhood and a lot of high emotions. Our
homes are our escapes and the places we spend the most time, and usually money. I completely respect
every single one of my neighbors and as one of the "new families" hope that my support of the plans of the
Schreifer's to open their home -based business is not taken personally.
Let me start by saying that when I heard a couple was moving into the neighborhood and starting a
boarding kennel my knee-jerk reaction was to be upset and appalled that it could happen. All I could see in
my mind was the large kennel on 392 with 100's of dogs being re-created in my own neighborhood. But
before I got too angry I made the decision to walk down to the home and meet the new neighbors. That night
I met John who was cleaning up the yard and barn with his parents while his two young boys played. He
explained Megan's history with other kennels, her desire to have a business her kids could help with, and
walked part of the property to explain the dream to me.
Next I met Megan, and from the moment she opens her mouth you see her pride, you feel her
excitement, and you can clearly hear her expertise in everything "dog". She has more experience than most
people twice her age and this is a career she has pursued for most of her life. I left that conversation sure that
what they had planned would fit in with our neighborhood. For the purposes of time I will simply state my
initial concerns below and how they were addressed by Megan in that conversation and the meetings since:
**TRAFFIC:
I was worried about the
traffic during
classes both heading
into and
out of the neighborhood. As
one of the
only families with young
children, and
one of the homes off
the main
road it was a concern.
-Megan has shown me specific instructions asking their patrons to exit off of CR35 onto Longs Peak Rd
and to maintain a speed of no higher than 10mph. This satisfied any worries I had even as someone in the
path of the traffic because I am much more concerned about the unrelated traffic that detours through our
neighborhood after an accident on the HWY that blows through at 40mph than I am about a few dog owners
going 10 to one specific location. There is also designated parking on the property for the dog owners so they
are not clogging up our road with street parking.
**NOISE: I know we are in the country but I did not want to listen to barking dogs in a kennel all night long.
-The kennels for the 10 dogs who will be boarded will be inside and there are plans to have a chain link
fence and privacy fence surrounding any outside areas so the dogs do not see anything outside of their areas
to bark at. Owners will also have to sign two waivers regarding noise; one that allows Megan to use a bark
collar if needed, and one that allows her to use a training collar if needed. Also, dogs mostly bark when bored,
there won't be a great opportunity to get bored when there are 9 other dogs to run around with. I am
confident that Megan respects her neighbors enough to be on top of any animal who might be making too
much noise and address it right away.
**FUTURE PROPERTY VALUES: I was not sure how having a "commercial" business in the neighborhood would
affect market values of surrounding home.
-Since the Schreifers moved in I have seen a consistent and marked improvement in the look and
condition of their home and property. It is something they love and take pride in and it shows in their care of
the place. I also learned that the business permit is for THEIR FAMILY ONLY and that if they sell the home the
"commercial" distinction does not sell with it. The use permits essentially dies and the property would
convert back to Agriculture. There are also no plans for large signage on the property, but rather small signs
that do not scream that it is a business. Because of that I do not see how it could affect future property values.
In conclusion after many discussions and meeting with the Schreifers directly to hear their dream and
see their plans we fully support the opening of High Plains K-9 Connections. We are a community of
agriculturally zoned properties and to me the definition of "AGRICULTURE" encompasses the cultivation and
art of a business based around animals. Megan has her craft perfected to an art. She is patient, she is caring,
and passionate about the dogs she cares for. She has no desire to have a cash -cow impersonal boarding
kennel or to squeeze in dogs for more dollars. She wants her boys to be able to interact with every animal, for
the animals to feel loved, and to provide more of a "boutique" boarding facility where dog lovers know their
furry -family is getting plenty of one-on-one attention.
We trust that whatever decision made will be the decision that is best for the neighborhood and
regardless of the outcome our hope is that the neighborhood can maintain a sense of community and support
for every single family represented.
Sincerely,
Kacy Mitchell
16917 Longs Peak Rd
Greeley, CO 80631
EXHIBIT
February 16,2022
To the Weld County Commissioners:
My name is Sherrie Jay and I come here today in support of Megan
Schreifer. We live at the entrance to Pinnacle Park at Road 35 and Longs
Peak Road. We have lived here since 1991 and enjoy the rural life as much
as all of our neighbors do. If anyone should have a concern about traffic, it
would be us.
When John and Megan moved here, we were excited to see some new,
young people in the neighborhood. Their place was pretty run down and
they came in and did a wonderful job of fixing it up and making it look nice
which only adds value to all of our homes. Megan is a professional dog
trainer and they bought this place hoping to follow her dream and to raise
their two little boys in the country.
I have no problem with what Megan wants to do. Why? Because I took the
time to talk to her and she showed me her business plan. She put a lot of
thought and consideration of the neighbors into this plan. She has gone
above and beyond to jump through every hoop to make this happen and do
it the right way. I am appalled at the behavior of some of my neighbors
whom I've known for many years. Have any of them taken the time to ask
Megan about her business plan? Do they know that she limits her classes
to 8 people? Do they know that she does not advertise boarding and only
offers it to people who have attended her classes? Do they know that she
is home all day with these dogs because this is her business and she
would know if there is any barking going on? People are assuming worst
case scenario rather than gathering information. Maybe instead of
snapping photos and calling the the county several times a day to protest
they could act like an adult and go talk to her. The problem is this:
someone made a bunch of phone calls to everyone trying to get them to
jump on this bandwagon. Otherwise, nobody would even know or care
what is going on at that address. Mike Anderson is running his baseball
clinic from his home. Do I care? Not at all. Do his clients drive past my
house? Yes they do. They are nice people and they don't bother me at all.
It is not ok to allow one person to run a business and tell the next one they
can't. The person who lived in that home several years ago bred and
trained quarter horses and gave riding lessons. Did anyone complain? NO.
We do not live in Cherry Hills. We do not live in a gated community. We live
in mee little subdivision where people enjoy the country life. So what i 'she
wants to help people train their puppies? The majority of the people
complaining would have ZERO traffic from this based on where they live in
proximity to the Schriefers. It is absolutely ridiculous that they are even
complaining.We have some 16 year olds in the neighborhood who cause
way more concern to me than Megan does. I ask the Commissioners to
pass this and let this young couple follow their dreams.
Sincerely,
Sherrie Jay
EXHIBIT
Id;
- clfl2
Voice Opposition to Special Review Permit
As property owners in the Pinnacle Park Subdivision, we would like to voice opposition to the proposal.
Pinnacle Park subdivision was developed in the late 1960's.
There are 31 properties in the subdivision. Although the east side of Pinnacle Park is zoned as
Agriculture, and the west side is zoned as Residential, the entire 31 properties function as one small
acreage rural residential neighborhood.
In the draft resolution, Section 23-2-230 B.1. —The proposal may be approved with
local regulations and does not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of others.
This proposal does infringe upon other property owners through direct impact with noise, lighting,
additional traffic, and negative impact to property values. (Geist pictures of view from property.)
Geist property main entrance to the home will directly face the dog kennel as it sets not directly to the
street but to the west (sits side -ways to land).
Hoffman property is in close proximity to the dog runs/ and kennel and will have significant noise, light,
and traffic to his property line. (as visualized by the overview site map — this is in close proximity to
the adjacent neighbors and residential homes).
Section 23-2-230.8.3 —The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with with existing
surrounding land uses.
This
proposal to develop a sizeable commercial
business
within a residential area, which has
animals
such
as horses, cattle, chickens, and other farm
animals
is not congruent or compatible land
use.
The draft proposal states that there were no written correspondence or telephone calls received
regarding concerns with the proposal. This is not correct. There are many homeowners in the Pinnacle
Park subdivision which have voiced concerns with the proposal — including:
• Negative impact to property values.
• Increased traffic in the residential neighborhood
• Traffic on narrow roadways (Longs Peak Rd. and Pikes Peak Dr.) in which residents walk with
children and grandchildren. There are no sidewalks and increased traffic is a safety concern for
residents.
• Only 2 narrow residential roads in and out of neighborhood.
• Noise and light pollution to a rural, quiet, residential neighborhood.
• Commercial business is not consistent with residential neighborhoods.
Exhibit H is a thumb drive
containing photos and is
in the physical file
EXHIBIT
County Commissioners:
I appreciate my daughter reading my letter to you as I reflect on the proposal for the land that is directly
across the street from me.
I heard what the plan is at the present time. Two classes a day, Monday through Thursday. Limit of 10
dogs per class. No aggressive dogs. Only dogs that are receiving obedience training will be boarded
That is the plan now. We all know that plans change. So if this project is approved, is there anything
that will prevent there being 4 or more classes a day, any day of the week? Is there anything in this
proposal, if approved, which will prevent this from being a vacation boarding facility for up to 20 dogs?
Is there anything that will prevent aggressive dogs from being housed at the facility?
Since this is a cul-de-sac, there is one way in and one way out. All traffic does pass by my home. Even
with the plans as they stand, that can mean 10 cars leaving at the same time, at the end of class. Since
there is only one way out, that may mean a line of 10 cars trying to get onto Hwy. 392 from Pikes Peak
Dr. We all know how busy Hwy. 392 has become.
I do not have the answer to this, but how many businesses have operated in this subdivision since it was
started about 60 years ago? I had looked at property for a number of years in Pinnacle Park because of
the quiet nature and ability to have my horses on the property. I never saw any sign that there was a
business in the subdivision. Most of the people that I am familiar with came to the neighborhood so
that they could have a little space and in several cases, have their horses and cattle.
At the planning commission meeting, as�oke to having done her homework before buying and
moving into the house and pursuing her dream. If that is the case, why is she now awaiting litigation,
contingent on this outcome of this, for beginning her business before approval? If homework was done,
then the business would not have started before being approved.
It is with a heavy heart that I think about the outcome this has for all of us if this proposal is approved. It
will most definitely impact the neighborhood.
Hello