HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220512.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Schriefer Case Number USR21-0021
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 SPO McElderry e-mail of opposition rec'd 1.26.2022 X
2
SPO Sack Telephone call transcribed in opposition recd 1.28.2022
X
3
SPO Erickson e-mail of opposition rec'd 1.28.2022
x
4
5
6
7
8
SPO Fokken Telephone call in opposition rec'd 1.28.2022
SPO Fritz e-mail of opposition rec'd 1.29.2022
SPO Hoffman email of opposition rec'd 1.29.2022
SPO Schleiger email of opposition rec'd 1.29.2022
SPO Hoffman email of opposition rec'd 1.30.2022, 2nd email see # 6
X
X
X
X
X
9
SPO Geist email of opposition rec'd 1.31.2022
x
10
SPO Clark Letter of Opposition dated 1.28.2022 hand delivered 1.31.2022
X
11
12
13
14
15
I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing.
From: Garry McElderry <garrvmc42@gmail,com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Kim Ogle ckogle@weld- ov.com>
Subject: USR21-0021 dog kennel permit
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Kim:
Thank you for your explanation of difference between 'A' & R-1 zoning districts. "A" zoning standards do allow dog
kennels, if approved. I vote against the business because of property devaluation & the possibility of the subdivision
becoming a business park. Hopefully future subdivisions are not split zoning. If only 'A' zone owner votes apply then
ignore my comments. My property is more than 500 feet West of the 'A' zone boundary. Thanks. Garry McElderry Sent
from my iPhone
EXHIBIT
'5424— b2
January 28, 2022 -- Telephone Call from Linda Sack
Property Owner: Linda and Gary Sack
Situs: 16637 Longs Peak Road
PIN: 0805-14-4-05-011
Legal: Lot 25 Pinnacle Park subdivision, 3" Filing
Subject: Planning Case No. USR21-0021
Ms Sack stated she is opposed the application permit. I am against it.
Her concerns include:
1. This business will devalue my land, bring my property value down
2. Excessive barking of dogs, I already experience the barking of dogs
3. An issue of safety due to the increase in traffic on subdivision roads
4. These lots are agricultural in character
5. There are covenants
End.
EXHIBIT
a
From: Norma Erickson <normajerickson@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 6:31 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Subject: USR21-0021 Objection
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Members of the Planning Commission,
Re. USR21-0021
My name is Norma J. Erickson and I reside at 16691 Longs Peak Rd. (across the street from applicant property). I object
to the approval of USR21-0021 for the following reasons:
• Traffic; the increase in road use along Pikes Peak Dr. and Longs Peak Rd. create a burden on already
under maintained residential streets. Making the project incompatible with existing infrastructure.
• Increase in Activity Levels; this is a residential area, not a dog park.
• Light Pollution; increases in lighting come with the territory for taking care of animals, and increase
with the number of animals cared for, creating light pollution.
Noise; dogs bark, increasing dogs bark increasingly. Cars cause noise, people cause noise. This is
incompatible with a residential area.
• Hours of Operation; it doesn't really matter what hours customers are coming and going, dogs are going
to be there all the time, and activities to support the dogs are going to be there all the time. Incompatible
with a residential area.
• Dust; from cars, from dogs, from people, from cleaning up after dogs.
• Surface Water Pollution; run-off from the operation will end up in the surface water, which will then end
up in the ditch water, which will then end up on the agriculture of the area.
• Incompatibility With Established Use; as stated earlier, Pinnacle Park' was established as a residential
area, used for decades as a residential area and should remain as a residential area.
We (my family) built this house in the '70s, on an empty lot, most of the work was done by us, some was contracted by
my husband as the master contractor. We, like most families out here, were trying to build a refuge for ourselves from
the hustle -bustle of living, working, studying, in the town. In short, thus it was, and thus it should remain.
Thank you,
Norma J. Erickson
16691 Longs Peak Rd,
Greeley, CO
80631
EXHIBIT
January 28, 2022 -- Telephone Call from 'Gene Fokken
Property Owner: Eugene R Fokken
Situs: 16428 Longs Peak Road
PIN: 0805-14-3-05-004
Legal: Lot 16 Pinnacle Park subdivision, 3rd Filing
Subject: Planning Case No. USR21-0021
Mr. Fokken stated he is against the application
His concerns included -
1. Property Devaluation
2. Traffic on local roads
3. Agricultural appearance
End
EXHIBIT
r
a
n
From: sjfritz@slbbi.com <sjfritz@slbbi.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 12;09 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Cc: sjfritz@slbbi.com
Subject: Letter regarding: USR21-0021 Kennel Boarding Proposal
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mr. Kim Ogle, Weld Planning Commission
From: Steven E and Julianne Fritz, homeowner in Pinnacle Park subdivision
Please find attached a letter of concern regarding the proposed Kennel and Boarding facility proposed for the Pinnacle
Park residential subdivision.
As long term homeowner in Pinnacle Park, and a direct neighbor to the proposed development, we are not in favor of
this proposal for commercial business development in our residential community.
Our concerns are outlined in the attached letter.
Sincerely,
Steven E. and Julianne Fritz
33236 Pikes Peak Drive
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 351-7135
(970) 396-4873
jfritz@slbb{.cam
EXHIBIT
— 0o24
January 28, 2022
To: Kim Ogle. Weld County Planning Commission
Regarding: Case #: USR21-0021, Proposed Boarding Kennel for John and Megan Schriefer
16876 Logs Peak Rd., Greeley, CO 80631
From: Steven E and Julianne Fritz, homeowner in Pinnacle Park Subdivision
As a homeowner in the Pinnacle Park subdivision for over 32 years, we would like to express concerns
for the proposed Dog Boarding Kennel within the Pinnacle Park residential subdivision. We live across
the driveway from the proposed project. The proposal would incorporate a commercial business into
the residential Pinnacle Park subdivision.
Our concerns include:
1. A sizeable commercial business functioning in Pinnacle Park will negatively impact property
values in the residential subdivision.
2. The proposal will significantly increase the traffic flow into the neighborhood. The additional
traffic flow present safety and volume concerns to the neighborhood. The additional traffic flow
on and off Highway 392 are also concerns. Highway 392 has already become heavily utilized
with current growth in the region. This project will further burden traffic volume near Highway
392 and Weld County Road 35.
3. Safety with current residential roads. Pinnacle Park is a residential rural acreage neighborhood.
Many individuals walk with children, grandchildren, bicycles, and pets. The additional traffic will
create safety issues for current residents. There are no sidewalks and individuals walk on the
narrow roadways.
4. Noise from the number of dogs proposed for the facility present a concern. The dogs will have
outside runs and will definitely impact surrounding neighbors, quality of life, noise levels, and
the residential feel of the current neighborhood.
5. A lighted commercial sign designating the proposed business, as well as additional lighting
required for the proposal will impact the subdivision through light pollution.
6. The development of a commercial business within a residential subdivision sets a precedent for
additional commercial businesses being allowed to operate in the residential neighborhood.
As a long time resident of the Pinnacle Park subdivision, we are not in favor of the proposal for a
Boarding and Training Dog facility in Pinnacle Park residential subdivision.
Sincerely,
Steven and Julianne Fritz
33236 Pikes Peak Dr. Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 351-7135
sifritz@slbbi.ccom
From: Derrick Hoffman <derrick@hoffmanproduce.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 1:37 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Cc: Kristine Ranslem <kranslem@weldgov.com>
Subject: Re: USR21-0021 Objection w/ Attachment
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for responding back. Additionally I saw Kranslem@weldgov.com listed as a contact. (Kris). I cc'd him as well,
more or less as a piece of mind that my attachment made it. As it is unclear if I will be able to attend the hearing due to
prior commitments.
My objection and response with details is attached in PDF form.
Thank you for your time, and I hope everyone had a wonderful weekend.
Best regards,
Derrick Hoffman
33177 Pikes Peak Drive
Greeley, CO 80631
970-308-1905
EXH1B`T
I
RE: USR21-0021
1/29/2022
Dear Kim Ogle & Weld County Planning Services:
My name is Derrick Hoffman, and I live at 33177 Pikes Peak Drive with my wife and three
daughters. I have been a resident of the Pinnacle Park Subdivision for 12 years, and my
residency is adjacent to the planned Kennel Operation outlined in USR21-0021.
I was vaguely aware of the proposal up until I received the notification card on 1/18/2022. I sat
down to review the proposal at length on Thursday, 1/27/2022. I was very surprised that this
sort of proposal was submitted, as it seems highly inappropriate for a residential neighborhood,
from noise, traffic and safety concerns. The proposal would be a better fit for commercial
property, and I very much would like to object to this being allowed adjacent to my property.
A portion of the Pinnacle Park subdivision is zoned agriculture, which allows up to 4 dogs/cats
under 10 acres, which is well within reason. If the owners allowed up to 4 personal dogs as
personal pets, and up to 20 per the kennel operation, with a separate class that operates 5 days
a week with up to 10 dogs. This could easily put the peak occupation at 34 dogs, during a time
period when most are returning from work, or enjoying their dinner. The noise concerns at even
the current zoning/regulations are a real potential at 4 dogs, but become exponential at the
proposed peak occupation, if executed at 34.
It stands to
reason that the services being offered
in this proposal are
for
dogs that
at some
point have
been deemed by their owners to have
behavior that would
be
outside of
societal
"norms". Otherwise obedience training would not be required. It is possible to classify these
issues as unnecessary chewing, being a "puppy" or simply not obeying reasonable commands.
But also could fall under the umbrella of aggression, and excessive barking.
I fully support that we enjoy the rights to freely do what we choose on our property as it does not
infringe upon the rights of our neighbors. The threat of sustained barking at disruptive levels is
an infringement upon my family's quality of life that we have enjoyed for 12 years, as well as our
neighbors. At no point is there a guarantee in the proposal that the construction of a
commercial facility to house up to 20 dogs for overnight obedience will not generate noise. And
if this proposal goes through, upon a surface review of Weld County regulations, there seems to
be little recourse 1, as a resident, can take once the noise starts and the quality of life diminishes
and sleepless nights occur.
This does not include the threats of incursion of potentially aggressive animals. In the 12 years
I have lived on the property, it is fairly common to have dogs, cats, horses, cows, and donkeys
enter our yard after deciding to go for a saunter from their owners property. The previous
owners to the 16876 Longs Peak property housed various horses, and even a donkey at one
time, but it was abandoned because they were unable to keep the animals from entering my
property or
even
roaming to
Highway 392. Entry to my property was of no mind to me, as it is
reasonable
in an
agricultural
or rural setting.
Even upon the Schriefer's recent purchase of the property, their personal dogs have entered our
property and our garage on two occasions. If I had at the time understood the proposal for this
facility and operation, I would have noted the dates and times. But even as their chickens are
regularly in my yard, none of this, I felt then and now, was of consequence because it's within a
reasonable "norm" for our neighborhood setting. But once we have the potential for groups,
small or large, of dogs to follow these paths. Dogs that may have behaviour issues, this is a
real threat to the safety of my family and even my neighbors, and residents who choose to walk
the neighborhood road.
Which brings me to my last point, which is the neighborhood road. It is clear under their
proposal that their stated daily trips are under the regulation of no more than 60 trips per day.
Despite the well intentioned traffic proposal, the numbers on the occupancy give potential to
exceed this 60 trips. But if it is adhered to a maximum of 44 trips, this effectively doubles the
daily traffic in and out of the Pinnacle Park subdivision, as well as in front of my property, as well
as the properties to the north of my location.
This will increase. the danger of a potentially serious accident at the comer of Longs Peak Road
and Pikes Peak Drive. Pikes Peak Drive enters on the north side of Highway 392. Longs Peak
Road enters on the west side of County Road 35. Longs Peak intersects and "dead ends" at
Pikes Peak Drive, directly in front of my property. The neighborhood road then continues
westward, before curving and once again becoming Longs Peak Road.
The issue is at the intersection of Pikes Peak Drive and Longs Peak Road, as this is a "blind"
comer for anyone entering Pinnacle Park on Longs Peak Road from County Road 35. There is
no stop sign, and drivers typically slow down to make a right hand turn onto Pikes Peak Drive if
no visible traffic is seen to the left (east) on Pikes Peak Drive. They turn, not aware of any
eastbound traffic on Pikes Peak Drive or aware of residents out for walks or children on
bicycles.
I average 3 near misses a year pulling out of my driveway by drivers making that turn at
excessive speeds, not fully seeing my property or any vehicle or person on the road in front of
the 33180 Pikes Peak Drive Property as well. I would say this average can be attributed to
non-resident drivers, or commercial delivery vehicles. I feel this proposal lacks any
improvements to this intersection to mitigate the sizable increase in traffic in a residential area.
Not being aware until review of this proposal that the Schriefers had been sited for a zoning
violation for operating a commercial business without the proper permits. Intentional or not,
leads me to believe that adherence to the proposed commercial operation on their property will
not be followed, intentional or not. Which (eaves myself, my family, and neighbors with little
recourse to when the proposal is not adhered to and quality of life is diminished through
excessive noise, excessive traffic, and potential hazards I have outlined.
I respect the Schriefers for having a business goal, and a dream that brings them joy and
fulfillment. But finding an inexpensive solution to following this dream to the detriment of the
Pinnacle Park subdivision, when it can be solved and accomplished elsewhere, seems
inappropriate.
I fully respect any neighbor who chooses to house a cow or two on their property, it is well within
their right. But I would be just as disappointed, and would vocally object, in any proposal of a 34
head Organic Dairy Operation being proposed next to my property. There is simply a time and
place for everything, and sometimes a residential neighborhood is not the appropriate place.
I thank you in advance for your time and consideration,
From: WAYNE SCHLEIGER <w.schleiger@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Kim Ogle akogle@weldgov.com>
Subject: Case# USR21-OO21 Kennel facility
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, My name is Wayne Schlelger, I have attached a pdf that my wife and I composed
stating some of our concerns about a kennel being put in next to our home. We are against it and
hope that it does not occur. please see my attached pdf. Thank you so very much for your time.
Wayne and Debby Schleiger
EXHIBIT
vi 7
Case #USR21-0021
Boarding Kennel for up to 20 dogs
1/29/22
To: Kim Ogle/Planning Commission
Good day, Our names are Wayne and Debby Schleiger. We live across the street to the north
of the proposed kennel facility. (33259 Pikes Peak Dr. Greeley, CO. 80631)
We are in extreme opposition to this facility being approved. I will follow with our list of
concerns.
1. The approval of this as a commercial property will dramatically impact the property
values of our Home. It opens the door for any business that wishes to build here in
Pinnacle park to do so which will not only impact our home but all of the homes in this
subdivision. Having this kennel within 50 yards of our home will drop the value of our
home and limit any potential resale value in the future,
2. Traffic and parking. This subdivision does not have any sidewalks that run through it.
Therefore, there are a significant number of our community that use the roads to walk
not only themselves but their dogs and children. Increasing the daily use by 44 trips will
more than quadruple the amount of traffic that this road sees.That also creates a
significant safety issue for those that live in this neighborhood and use the roads to walk
on.
3. Livestock. Many of us in the neighborhood own livestock. We own several Horses as
do many in this area as well as many other forms of livestock including chickens and
miniature donkeys. There is a significant concern that should a dog/dogs escape from
this facility that there could be substantial cost if the horses are injured. I know that it is
presented that these dogs will not be allowed to roam free, however, from personal
experience with managing a kennel. There will be times that a dog/dogs escape. Be it
from jumping the fence, to getting away from the owner during transition to the facility, it
will happen.
4. Noise. There will be a great increase in the level of noise. Dogs bark, many dogs bark
more. The ratio of dogs to workers can be no more than 15 to 1. It is innate for dogs to
bark; it is their main way of communication. 20 dogs will create a very large increase in
the neighborhood affecting us all but mainly those that live right next to the proposed
kennel. One of the main draws to this neighborhood is the peace and quiet that we have
here. The kennel will disrupt everyone for a very large area. This will also affect values
of our homes because people do not want to life next to a loud commercial facility.
5. Groundwater contamination. I am aware that kennels must have a very significant
increase to the size of the septic system due to the amount of waste that is produced by
a large number of dogs compared to that produced by a normal household. This area
has a very shallow water table which can be attested to by the number of homes that
have trouble with water seeping into their basements. It will not take long for the waste
produced by the large number of dogs to enter the groundwater in this area and
contaminate it. Having a major irrigation supply ditch bordering the proposed facilities
property to the south leads to a concern about contamination of this water due to water
runoff.
Thank you for your time and letting me voice some of our concerns as to the effect that this
kennel will have on our neighborhood. Again I wish to state that my wife and I are opposed to
this facility being approved in our neighborhood.
Wayne and Debby Schieiger
From: Derrick Hoffman <derrick@hoffmanproduce.ccm>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 2:22 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@werdgov.com>
Cc: Kristine Ranslem <kranslem@weldgov.com>
Subject: ADDENDUM: USR21-0021 Objection w/ Attachment
Caution: This
email originated from
outside
of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the
sender
and
know the
content
is
safe.
Greetings again!
I attempted to further my knowledge on the situation regarding USR21-0021, but it appears the "portal" for
citizen access is down. Or potentially it's an issue with my computer. So I am not able to go further into
details beyond the application.pdf.
I have attached an addendum to my original email, so this will be two PDF's in total that I am submitting to
the commission for review.
The application submitted is incorrect, the operation is not 200 ft from my residence, but under 100
ft. Their home dwelling would be closer to 200 ft from my home. But the proposed 3500 sq ft facility
would be under 100 ft from my home, and approx. 75 ft from my bedroom. My house sits approx. 30 ft
from the fence line.
I see in the application a proposed privacy fence around the training area. But to be properly secured,
the split rail fence needs to be replaced around the property with some form of animal control fencing. At
a minimum an 8 ft privacy fence should be installed around the perimeter.
This is only if this is not directed away from a residential neighborhood. The business in question is in
operation currently at another location, and should not be moved into a residential neighborhood despite
current zoning.
Thank you again,
Best regards,
Derrick Hoffman
33177 Pikes Peak Drive
Greeley, CO 80631
970-3081-905
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 1:36 PM Derrick Hoffman<derrickia3iioffrrianproduce.com> wrote:
Thank you for responding back. Additionally I saw KranslemCcweldpov.com listed as a contact. (Kris).
cc'd him as well, more or less as a piece of mind that my attachment made it. As it is unclear if I will be
able to attend the hearing due to prior commitments.
My objection and response with details is attached in PDF form.
Thank you for your time, and I hope everyone had a wonderful weekend.
Best regards,
Derrick Hoffman
33177 Pikes Peak Drive
Greeley, CO 80631
970-308-1905
EXHIBIT
6
RE: USR21-0021
1-30-2022 Follow-up Addendum
Without a doubt, kennels and dog obedience training is a vital service to the community at large,
but here are questions that come to mind and conclusions i have come to based on
USR2i-0021.
How noisy are Dog Kennels?
A study by the Colorado State University authored by Temple Grandin in 2006 documented that
noise levels in animal shelters and kennels regularly exceeds 100 decibels (dB). To put this in
context, a motorcycle emits noise at 95 dB and a chain saw 110 dB.
Noise declines an average of six decibels for every doubling of distance. If the noise level is
100 dB at a distance of 50 feet from an outside dog run, then the level from an outside run with
no noise abatement measures would be 81 dB at the outside of a home 400 feet away and 74
d8 at 1,000 feet. Acceptable noise limits that should be expected in a residential neighborhood
should be 55 dB during daylight hours, and 50 dB during nighttime hours per Colorado Noise
Statute 25-12-103.
The location of the proposed commercial facility and operation of this business is within 100 feet
of my residence at 33177 Pikes Peak Drive. There is currently no proposed noise abatement in
the plan that would guarantee compliance at an acceptable level in a residential neighborhood.
Can a dog kennel affect the value of nearby homes?
If barking is continuous and loud enough to be disturbing, then it can affect the amount a
prospective home buyer is willing to pay. I cannot find property value impact studies specific to
dog kennels, there is a large body of research showing that excessive noise reduces property
value, with studies being conducted from 2000 to 2017.
A commercial operation in a residential neighborhood like Pinnacle Park will negatively impact
the entire neighborhood's property values. But the largest impact in value will be my property at
33177 Pikes Peak Drive, as the kennel being proposed will be within 100 ft of my residence.
Conclusion
New dog kennels should be guided to non-residential areas.
If a kennel is allowed in a residential neighborhood, it should be at a minimum of 400 ft from the
nearest residence. Further, depending on the noise and proposed noise abatement.
Regarding sa€ety, for the outdoor classes a fence that meets animal control standards should be
installed to enclose the property. For the kennel operation, a minimum of a 8 ft privacy fence
should be required, with sound abatement.
From: Terri Geist <tageist@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>; Terri Geist <tageist@yahoo.com>
Subject: Case # USR21-0021 Kennel project
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Kim Ogle and Weld County Planning Services,
We are Robert and Terri Geist and we live at 33127 Pikes Peak Drive. We are residents of the Pinnacle Park Subdivision
and have lived here for 11 years. Our property is one property away, approximately 200 feet, from the proposed Kennel
Operation.
We would like to make it known that we strongly oppose and are 100% against the proposed Kennel Operation.
We were invited to the Schiefer residence to hear about their proposal this past summer, 2021. They are new to our
subdivision, less than one year. They told us how this was a dream of theirs to train dogs. I would never try to crush
anyone's dreams but, it was also our dream when we moved here 11 years ago to live in the country, away from any
types of businesses, commercial or otherwise and especially dog kennels.
The Schiefer's moved into this residential neighborhood without any respect for the existing neighbors and started their
training business without permits or talking to the neighbors.. Without checking on what is allowed or permitted in a
residential neighborhood. Now they want to add a dog kennel, again without any respect to the affect it will have on the
neighbors. We feel that they should have looked into the rules and regulations of a residential area before purchasing
their property instead of trying to change them now.
This is not a business that should even be considered for a residential area.
Building a dog kennel 200 feet from our property (with up to 34 dogs potentially at one time) will negatively affect our
property value, our peace and quiet, our privacy and our quality of life. We are not willing to give that up! Also, with all the
current and increasing crime in rural Weld County, adding all of this extra traffic to our neighborhood is concerning and
unnecessary. Not only the increase in potential crime but also the quality of the current roads due to the extra traffic.
We also feel that adding a commercial business in our residential neighborhood is only going to open it up for others to
request businesses here as well. This proposal is just setting up an unnecessary precedence. What if other neighbors
want to incorporate a business within their property.
Why do
we in a residential neighborhood
even
have to worry
about people
trying to
bring in businesses! Why do
we in a
residential neighborhood have to
write
letters to fight
for our rights
against
a commercial
business!
If there are people who have submitted letters in favor of this proposed kennel, I would hope that you would look at how
close these people live to the kennel. Will the traffic or barking dogs negatively affect them like it will those of us who are
virtually next door or across the street. All the extra traffic will negatively affect at least 13 homes whether they come in
on Longs Peak Drive or Pikes Peak Drive.
If this is approved......
Why would we have to consider moving because of the negative affect to our neighborhood due to a commercial
business, noise or traffic? No one knows how noisy it will actually be.
Why should I have to consider moving if its to loud or annoying?
Why should I have to leave my forever home?
I also ask you who are making this decision, would you want a dog kennel two doors away from your home?
Terri and Robert Geist EKHIBIT
970-590-9099
RECEIVED
33180 Pikes Peak Dr.
Greeley, CO 80631
January 28, 2022
To Weld County Planning Commission:
JAN 3 1 2022
Weld County Planning Dept
It was with great disappointment that I received the notice of the Proposed Project,
Case #: USR21-0021 for my neighborhood.
This is a very quiet agricultural/residential subdivision. Strangers and visitors have commented
to me about what a pleasant neighborhood it is and how they like it. There is only one main
street in and out of this area, with a side street that still leads straight to the main street. My
property is located on both streets. Right now, you almost always get a wave when you pass
someone on these roads because there is a great possibility that it is a neighbor coming or
going. The increase in the traffic on the one street would affect everyone that is located on
that street prior to the entrance to the Schriefer property.
Having had dogs most of my life, I am well aware of the barking that can happen at the least
provocation. To have up to 20 dogs in one location, with access to the outdoors and near
several homes, is really a nightmare to consider. As someone who enjoys opening windows at
night during the summer as well as on nice days, sitting outside on summer evenings, and just
enjoying my yard, I do not want to look forward to hearing the constant barking from dogs that
are away from their home and feeding off of whatever stimulus may be nearby.
When it started out to be just an obedience school, I wasn't against it, but adding the Boarding
Kennel changes that immensely. Even though they may not be planning on using it as a
Boarding Facility for just any dog right now, that is what giving approval to this project can
mean at any time. It also opens up the possibility of others in the area requesting that their
business be allowed to exist on their property because of this one being approved.
It is with much passion that I very strongly oppose this request.
Sincerely,
e a✓rte
C.H. Clark
EXHIBIT
HIGH PLAINS - ECTIONS
_ -P '1
Greeley, COI February 1, 2022 — Planning Commission
K 01 m I 1C%;,Y,, ))) H o r n
Expect More. Experience &after.
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 2' x-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 and traffic to and from the
facility does not exceed 60 daily trips. Dogs are not included in
the animal unit table (Table 23.1A); the total number of dogs
proposed on the site include 10 dogs per class and 20 dogs to
be boarded at a time. The traffic letter prepared for this file
outlines the estimated trip generation as 44 daily trips.
Therefore, the proposed complies with the traffic requirements
of section 23-3-20.
Kimley»>Horn
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.
■
a
•
• • • •
-- I • • - I - I' •
11J 11'
i i
ft
a . . T
s
a
t
e
till
I r
,c4r 114
:wire
i
rj
p p
- _ r liii!
&AiIILi
[UGH PLAINS K9
a±
1
Kimiey
r
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 I Owner intends to gave business profits to construct
a future indoor boarding I training facility building to host up to
20 dogs for boarding- training.
• KH Engineers prepared Traffic Letter and Drainage Letter
outlining:
• 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.
• 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.
K 01i
i'iIey> 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
questions to interested neighbors. 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 aftert"e Open House
• 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
based on Compliance wit" WC Code
KImIey H
Expect More. Experience Befter.
40
j' r
4F•
S
is
rj
Hello