HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201740.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Elijah Hatch,
Skip Holland.
Also Present: Diana Aungst and Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light,
Department of Health; Melissa King, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall,
Secretary.
Motion: Approve the May 19, 2020 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Elijah Hatch,
Seconded by Skip Holland. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR20-0010
APPLICANT: PAUL AND VALERIE TAMS
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA LARGER
THAN FOUR PERCENT (4%) OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 BLOCK 2 NORTHMOOR ACRES; BEING PART OF SECTION 24, T4N,
R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 42; APPROXIMATELY 440 FEET EAST
OFCR11.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0010, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Staff received a petition from seven surrounding property owners within 500
feet of the parent parcel stating, "The neighbors in the Northmoor Acres Subdivision who have signed below
are asking that the permit be denied." No further explanation for the denial request was included. One
phone call was received from one of the petitioners citing a distrust of the applicant and expressing
confusion over the application and neighbor rights; however, no specific impacts were mentioned. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Commissioner Cope asked why the County requires access permits for a platted subdivision. He said he
would think the accesses would have been approved at the time the subdivision design was planned. Ms.
King replied that she believes this subdivision was created prior to the access permit code and therefore
not all the lots in the subdivision have access permits at this time.
Commissioner Holland asked staff if the property already has an access. Ms. King stated that the property
has a driveway onto Yucca Court that is an existing access, but the access is not permitted. She explained
that an access permit would be required with the USR application in order to permit the access to the
driveway.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Paul and Valerie Tams, 5110 Yucca Court, Johnstown, Colorado. Mr. Tams explained that they are
requesting a new building to store his collector cars, vintage tractor, and camper.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Tams how long they have lived on the property. Mr. Tams replied 22
years.
CoMMun;Gv.+;on$ 2020-1740
6/l7/2O
The Chair said that after reading some of the neighbors' comments, it appears there is some confusion that
they may think the building is going to be used for a business. Mr. Tams said it will only be used for their
personal use. He said he is against having any businesses ran out of the neighborhood. Mr. Tams said
his office is in Loveland.
Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Tams what size the lots are in the neighborhood. Mr. Tams said they are
approximately 1.24 acres; some may be a little bit larger. Commissioner Holland asked the applicant if he
is aware of any other properties in the neighborhood that have exceeded the 4% rule. Mr. Tams said he
knows that three other neighbors have applied but is not aware of any of them moving forward with building.
Mr. Tams explained that the Homeowners Association has approved the new building. Commissioner
Holland asked if the HOA is acceptable with approving buildings that exceed the 4% rule. Mr. Tams said
his wife is on the HOA. Ms. Tams explained that the Architectural Control Committee approved the building
and that they have a letter stating the approval. Mr. Tams said that they informed all the adjoining neighbors
about the building and received no objections at that time. He said that one of the neighbors is a member
of the ACC.
Mr. Tams said that three of the neighbors who signed the petition are not in good standing with the HOA.
Two of them are running businesses from their homes and the other one is a truck driver and brings trucks
into the neighborhood. He said another person who signed the petition, is not a homeowner. Mr. Tams
feels that because his wife is on the HOA Board, the neighbors are trying to coerce his wife into changing
her position to allow commercial businesses in a residential neighborhood. He said they do not agree with
businesses being allowed in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Tams if one of his adjoining neighbors proposed to build a structure as
big as he is requesting, would he be in agreement with them. Mr. Tams said he would be in approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bob Hughes, 5031 Yucca Court, Johnstown, Colorado. Mr. Hughes said he lives a couple houses away
from the applicant. He said that seven homeowners on the street signed the petition. Mr. Hughes said
there are already two big buildings and adding another big building will make it appear like a business
district. He said that he feels the ACC is a joke. Mr. Hughes said when Ms. Tams went around to the
neighbors, she did not explain that their building would exceed the 4% rule. He said he has lived on his
property for 45 years and no one has had an issue with people having a home business before now. Mr.
Hughes said the current HOA Board is trying to get rid of the home businesses.
Mr. Cope asked Mr. Hughes if he has a home business. Mr. Hughes said he does not; he has been retired
for 23 years. He said he never had a home business.
Gary Rees, 5071 Yucca Court, Johnstown, Colorado. Mr. Rees stated he lives directly across the street
from where the building is going to be built. He said no one from the ACC spoke to him about it; he heard
about it from the other neighbors. Mr. Rees feels the Tams try to control all the rules in the subdivision, but
they are asking for an exception to the Weld County rules. He feels because they are on the committee,
they want special privileges. Mr. Rees said the Tams already have one big building on their property. He
is not in agreement with them adding another building.
Beth Thielbert, 5070 Yucca Court, Johnstown, Colorado. Ms. Thielbert stated that her husband is on the
ACC. She said that Ms. Tams did not notify all the neighbors of the new building. Ms. Thielbert said that
at the architectural meeting, the Tams did not clarify that the building was going to exceed the 4% rule.
Neighbors learned of the building exceeding the 4% rule from the notice that the County sent them.
The Chair closed public comment.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff how much over the 4% rule would the building exceed. Ms. Snyder
replied 7/10 of a percent.
The Chair stated that the Planning Commissioner does not base their decisions on rules of the HOA or the
ACC but base their decisions on County Code. He asked for further direction from Council for the Planning
Commission. Mr. Choate, Assistant County Attorney, explained that the job of the Planning Commission is
to apply the criteria that are under Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code to the information being provided.
The Board needs to make sure the information provided is relevant to the USR provisions. The County
does not enforce private covenants.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Choate if the applicant could legally park the collector vehicles on the
property. Mr. Choate said if the vehicles are currently registered, he would believe so.
Commissioner Ford asked the applicant what size building they want to build. Mr. Tams replied 32' x 40'.
Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Tams if they would consider building a smaller building that would comply
with County Code. Mr. Tams explained they need the building to be 32' x 40' to store their camper, two
vintage tractors, and other personal equipment.
Mr. Tams said that sometimes real estate brokers fail to inform their buyers that they are buying a home
that has a homeowner's association. The buyer should review all the homeowner documents before
closing. He said the homeowner's association does not allow businesses. Mr. Tams said they want to
build the building so they can get all their vehicles stored inside instead of parked outside on the property.
He explained the ACC does not ask for permission to build, but instead notifies neighbors that it is
happening. The ACC approves/declines decisions based on their guidelines. Mr. Tams said the ACC only
notifies adjacent property owners. He said that Beth Thielbert is not a property owner; her husband is the
owner of the property.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR20-0010 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
No: Skip Holland.
Commissioner Johnson stated that staff was diligent in their staff comments and conditions of approval.
He would rather have collector vehicles stored inside a building then parked outside. Commissioner
Johnson said it is his opinion that the building would not be derogatory to the community.
Commissioner Stille said that the staff did an excellent job of looking into Sections under Chapters 22 and
23 of Weld County Code. He said they as a commission have to follow these guidelines.
CASE NUMBER: USR20-0009
APPLICANT: ELLEN OMAN, C/O KEATON CRAWFORD
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN ANIMAL BOARDING AND ANIMAL TRAINING FACILITY, A
KENNEL, AND THE KEEPING, RAISING OR BOARDING OF EXOTIC ANIMALS
IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 REC EXEMPT RE -1314, PART S2NW4 SECTION 28, Ti N, R66W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 0.25 MILES SOUTH OF CR 6 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.5
MILES WEST OF CR 31.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0009, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Staff received one letter from the closest neighbor on May 27, 2020. The letter
outlines concern about privacy, traffic, dust, maintenance of the shared easement and the impact of cars
that have been lined up in front of her house due having the gates closed to the facility. This letter of
concern was sent to the applicant on May 28, 2020. Ms. Aungst said the applicant is proposing to submit
a zoning permit that is separate from this USR. The applicant may submit a ZPAG permit to apply for a
business on this property. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Johnson asked how exotic animals are figured out compared to regular animal units. Staff
explained four large animal units are allowed per acre. Animals such as a zonkey and a kangaroo would
be considered a large animal, similar to a horse. Ms. Aungst explained there are limitations for some of the
exotic animals. She said a tortoise would be considered a reptile. Commissioner Johnson asked why the
applicant is asking for more than four large animal units per acre; he is concerned with that number of
animals being allowed. Ms. Aungst explained the applicant currently has a few exotic animals, but they
plan on having more. She said she does not think they will ever exceed the four large animals per acre.
Commissioner Cope confirmed with staff that this USR permit does not include the business but includes
allowing the applicant to exceed 4 large animal units per acre. Ms. Aungst said that is correct. She
explained the applicant needs a USR permit to board exotic animals, a private kennel because of the
number of barn cats and guinea pigs, and an animal boarding and training facility which would allow them
to exceed 4 large animal units per acre.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the training facility is part of the business. Staff explained the
applicant will not be doing any training, it is the code language for this particular USR.
Commissioner Cope asked if boarding animals for pay would be considered a business. Staff explained
the applicant is only boarding their own animals.
Commissioner Stille asked staff to list what exotic animals the applicant has. Ms. Aungst said currently
they have a few giant tortoises, a zonkey, two kangaroos. She said she will let the applicant address this
question.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Lance Fondren, 3934 Padre Drive, Loveland, Colorado. Mr. Fondren said he was representing Ms.
Crawford. He said that she will be able to answer the questions regarding the animals. Mr. Fondren stated
that the family has a long history with animals and are very passionate about them. He addressed the
concerns of the Sack family and the Yarbrough family. Mr. Fondren explained the intent of the applicant is
to house their animals on their property. Whether they apply for a business later on or not, they still want
their animals permitted. He said that there is a road maintenance agreement in place allowing legal access
to the property. Mr. Fondren said that the applicants have been communicating with Ms. Yarbrough
regarding her concerns about her pets, fencing and traffic. He said the applicants plan to work with all the
neighbors to mitigate concerns and the application complies with Weld County Code. The applicants will
be in compliance with Weld County, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Department of Agricultural, Planning
Department, Public Works and any other regulators.
Keaton Crawford, 22740 Indian Head Road, Golden, Colorado. Ms. Crawford explained that her mother,
her older sister and herself will be moving to the property and expressed how excited they are. They are
currently under contract to purchase the property. She said her family is centered around their animals and
the animals are part of their family. Ms. Crawford shared that her and her sister have been riding horses
since they were five and six year's old and have beeninvolved with agriculture. They currently live on a
14 -acre property and wish to move to Weld County where they will have 60 acres of land. She said their
most important mission is the best care and wellbeing of their animals. Their goal is to take care of animals
that are in need. Ms. Crawford said they are not asking for more than 4 animal units per acre; the only
exception they are requesting is to exceed the amount of pet animal units such as their dogs, cats, guinea
pigs and pet rats. Referencing Chapter 11 of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Code, Ms. Crawford said it
defines what an unregulated wildlife animal is and lists the different types of animals. She said they will not
have any animals on their property that are on the regulated list. Ms. Crawford stated they will have all
licenses required by Weld County, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the USDA.
The Chair asked Ms. Crawford if they had to get rid of any animals to comply with this application. She
said they did. Ms. Crawford explained the only reason they would want some of these animals would be in
a rescue situation. She said they respect the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Code and will follow it. Animals
that were listed in the application that are not legal to possess are anteaters, armadillos, capybaras, fennek
foxes, grey kangaroos, koalas, porcupines, skunks, squirrels and certain species of hedgehogs.
Commissioner Ford asked if this USR would cover a sanctuary. Ms. Aungst replied that this USR covers
their ability to board exotic animals on the property. Ms. Crawford stated that the Department of Agriculture
has a distinction between a sanctuary and pet animals. She said right now the Department of Agriculture
considers what they have as pet animals. Ms. Crawford stated that if they would decide to become a
sanctuary, the Department of Agriculture would determine it based on intent and not by how many animals
or the types of animals they have.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if the animals will be in a confined situation or free to roam.
Ms. Crawford replied each animal type will have their own fenced in areas. They plan to have a perimeter
fence as well. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant how they plan to keep the property from
becoming a feed lot. Ms. Crawford explained that they plan to give the animals adequate room, for example,
they plan to put the two kangaroos on a half of an acre. Commissioner Johnson asked if they will be feeding
the animals or expecting them to graze. Ms. Crawford said they feed them and have special diets and
supplementals for each type of animal. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant will have to
continually modify the USR with any changes they make. Ms. Crawford said they may apply for a ZPAG if
they decide to move forward with a business operation. She said they want to move to this property no
matter what and want this to be their new home for them and their animals. This is their main priority, not
the business.
The Chair asked Ms. Crawford for an inventory of the animals that will be moving onto the property. Ms.
Crawford replied nine horses, a donkey, a zonkey, three giant tortoises, two red kangaroos, eight rabbits,
two guinea pigs, three rats, and their personal pets which include their four dogs and nine cats. Most of
the cats are barn cats but a couple of them are house cats.
Commissioner Cope asked staff if a USR is required primarily because there are exotic animals on the
property. He said he doesn't think it seems like there are that many animals to require a USR. Ms. Aungst
said that Weld County Code states if you are boarding an exotic animal, you are required to have a USR.
She also explained if a property is 10 acres or greater, 16 pets are allowed. The applicants exceed 16 pets;
therefore, they need a USR for a kennel.
Commissioner Hatch asked staff what defines an agricultural animal. Ms. Aungst said there are definitions
for livestock, exotic animals and pets. Commissioner Hatch used a horse for example, couldn't the horse
be considered a pet and livestock. Commissioner Wailes said he wondered the same thing about the
zonkey and kangaroos. Ms. Aungst read the definition of livestock which includes cattle, bison, mules,
burros, lamas, ostriches, elk, horses, swine, sheep, goats, poultry, yaks, camels and rabbits.
Commissioner Stille asked the applicant how they intend to regulate people that hear about these animals
and want to come see them. Mr. Fondren said the property is interior and the only way to access the
property is through a gate so there is not anyway for spectators to see these animals from a road or fence.
Ms. Crawford said that they have had these animals for five years and no one has ever asked to come see
them until they started marketing as a business. In the event the applicant decides to apply for a business
on the property, Commissioner Stille asked staff if there are traffic regulations on the easement. Ms. King
explained that the easement would be a private concern between the parties, but the actual access to
County Road 6 would have to be a commercial access. Ms. Crawford said traffic will not be an issue with
this USR, this USR is not the business application. Commissioner Stille asked staff what the water supply
is to this property. Ms. Light responded it has a domestic well.
Commissioner Ford asked staff if the barn cats are considered pets. Ms. Aungst replied they are considered
pets. Commissioner Ford said that he knows from experience that the barn cats multiply. Ms. Crawford
said all their barn cats are spayed or neutered. The barns cats came from shelters and they have rescued
them.
Commissioner Cope said that he knows this USR application is not related to the business but was curious
as to what kind of business the applicant is thinking of applying for. Ms. Crawford said one idea is an
agritainment business and they would educate the public on the different types of rights and responsibilities
that are associated with animals. Small groups of people would be allowed to come on the property and
interact with the animals and learn about them.
Commissioner Hatch asked the applicant if they plan on containing the smaller pets such as the guinea
pigs, rats, rabbits, and barn cats. Ms. Crawford said they want to build a barn that would contain the pets
in their own areas. Each area will have indoor and outdoor space. The barn cats will not be contained
during the day, but they will put them inside at dusk in order to keep them safe from coyotes, etc.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern for the applicant. He said he is concerned that this USR could
get approved and later on down the line when they apply for a business license, it could be denied.
Commissioner Johnson wondered if it would be better to put them all under one permit. Ms. Crawford
answered that this is her family's dream property and they want to have their animals in the right place.
She said they are not relying on an income from the property and if the business doesn't work out, that is
not their top priority.
Ms. Crawford stated that each of their animals are cared for by a licensed veterinarian that has experience
with the different types of animals.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jeri Yarbrough, 14512 County Road 6, Fort Lupton, Colorado. Ms. Yarbrough said she is the neighbor to
the east and the neighbor who shares the driveway. She said her biggest concern is the business aspect
of the applicant's future plans. Ms. Yarbrough is an animal lover herself. She said she is concerned about
the location of the applicant's dumpster if they are going to be filling it up with animal feces. The dumpster
is right next to her house and she doesn't want to smell the odors. A top concern is the shared driveway.
Ms. Yarbrough said she bought her house because it is 35 acres from the road, her house is secluded, and
she is able to let her dogs out without being worried they will get hit by a car. She said she wouldn't be
concerned if it was just the applicant sharing the driveway, but she is very concerned about traffic driving
past her house if they have a business. Ms. Yarbrough explained that if the applicant's gate is closed, the
traffic would build up right next to her house. She is concerned about her future and privacy. Her dogs
love to greet anyone who comes down the driveway. If there is a business, she will be forced to have to
contain her dogs bybuilding a fence. Ms. Yarbrough explained she is a flight attendant on furlough and
does not have the funds to build a fence. She said the applicants offered to give her $1,500 but that is not
enough to pay for all the fencing. Ms. Yarbrough said she has asked the applicants if they can leave their
gate open if they are planning an event, so traffic doesn't line up in front of her house, but she said they
don't want to do that. She owns the road and will not be concerned if this USR is approved, but she will be
very concerned if they add a business.
Commissioner Beck asked how wide the legal easement is. Ms. Yarbrough answered 30 feet.
Commissioner Johnson asked who owns the land underneath the easement. Ms. Yarbrough replied that
she thinks she does. Ms. King said that the easement is on Ms. Yarbrough's property.
Commissioner Hatch asked if Ms. Yarbrough if she has a written easement agreement with the current
landowner Oman. She answered that she did not. She purchased the property from Joe Archuleta. Ms.
Yarbrough said there is an easement agreement between Mr. Archuleta and the owner prior to Oman. He
told her that the easement agreement was for residential use only. Commissioner Hatch asked if the
easement is recorded. Ms. Yarbrough answered that she did not know.
Commissioner Beck commented that a lot of the discussion going on with this USR case is related to if the
applicant applies for a zoning permit for the business. He said these problems will be discussed and
explained by staff at that time. Commissioner Beck said it is important that both property owners understand
the easement is shared. He said it is the responsibility of a property owner to fence other problems out.
Commissioner Cope said he understands Ms. Yarbrough's concern about the location of their dumpster.
He suggested them moving the dumpster north to mitigate the problem.
Gina Sacks, 14323 County Road 6, Fort Lupton, Colorado. Ms. Sack said that Mr. Fondren had mentioned
their right to farm. Ms. Sack said the right to farm is defined as a well -established, long-standing agricultural
business. She wondered how them just coming in would be considered long-standing. Ms. Sacks said she
is concerned that with urban people coming in, it will be like a circus. She said if they don't have access to
their house, they will cut across her property. The Sacks have cattle and horses on their property. Ms.
Sacks is concerned that the applicant's gate could be left open and a kangaroo could come up to their
cattle, and the cattle will not know how to react. She asked if she would not be allowed to shoot them. Ms.
Sacks said they hunt and shoot guns on their property and wonders how the applicant's animals will react
to the gunshots all year long. She feels like there will be a lot of issues with the new neighbors. Ms. Sacks
is also concerned about disease and ticks that kangaroos or the other exotic animals carry that could be
detrimental to her cattle and horses. The applicant stated they will have their animals vaccinated but how
do the Sacks know this is true. She said the applicants are bringing in exotic animals into an area that is
landlocked. Ms. Sacks does not think it is fair.
Commissioner Beck said that a number of livestock breeders that do not want their cattle nose to nose with
neighbors will build their own fence, so it is double fenced to protect their livestock. He said there is less
chance of a transmission of disease that is communicated in that matter.
Barron Davis, 14995 County Road 6, Fort Lupton, Colorado. Mr. Davis said they live in a residential and
agricultural community. He has lived on his property for 14 years. Mr. Davis is anti -commercial and anti -
business. He said this is his third time to come before the Planning Commission or the Commissioners to
oppose business development in this community. Mr. Davis is concerned about the impact on the quality
of their lives. They enjoy the peace and quiet that comes with living out in the country. He is concerned
about traffic, dust, road maintenance, noise pollution and light pollution.
Mr. Davis asked if this application grants the applicant the right to have a kennel. He said he understands
the applicant is saying they are only boarding their own animals at this time, but will the application allow
them to board or train additional animals.
The Chair said they will direct Mr. Davis's question to staff when the applicant comes back up to the podium.
Mr. Davis stated that he appreciates that the Board of County Commissioners support for their community.
He said the Board has denied each application for a business in their community so far.
The Chair asked Mr. Davis is he is against the sale of the property to the Crawford's. Mr. Davis said he is
not against them moving onto the property but against them having a petting zoo, wildlife sanctuary or any
kind of business. He said they are a farming and ranching community.
Colleen Heitman, 2706 18th Street Road, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Heitman said she is a partial -interest
mineral owner of the property. Her family has owned mineral rights to the property since 1906. She is
concerned that their mineral rights could be jeopardized by losing their right to drill because of the kennel.
Ms. Heitman expressed concern with the applicant's applying for a business after they take ownership of
the property and is upset there are two separate applications being considered. She said she grew up on
the property and it is an agricultural, residential community.
The Chair asked council to address Ms. Heitman's concern about mineral rights. Mr. Choate explained that
the USR would not preclude the acquisition of the mineral rights underlying the property.
Toni Thieman, Remax Northwest, 11200 Pecos Street, Suite 160, Westminster, Colorado. Ms. Thieman
said that she is the listing agent on the property and represents the seller of the property. She said the
property is irrigated and has good hay crop. Ms. Thieman said there is a full -use domestic well on the
property that is adequate for their use. She said she has been to the Crawford's property in Golden and
saw the kangaroos and tortoises. Ms. Thieman said the Crawford's are extremely experienced horse
women. Their animals are their lives. She said their current facility is amazing. Ms. Thieman feels this
property would be a great fit for the Crawford's and that they are agricultural related. She said they will grow
hay and they will take great care of their animals. Ms. Thieman said she has a copy of the road easement
agreement if anyone wished to see it.
The Chair closed public comment.
The Chair called for a recess at 3:02 pm and reconvened the meeting at 3:16 pm.
Mr. Fondren said the Crawford's want to find solutions for Ms. Yarbrough's concerns and they are
committed to being good neighbors. He addressed Ms. Sack's concern and said the Crawford's plan to
have a double fence, in fact it is required by the USDA. Mr. Fondren said that the qualified veterinary care
that the applicants plan to have goes above and beyond what is required. He said he believes this
application complies with County Code and relates to agricultural use. There will never be any dangerous
animals on the property. Mr. Fondren said he has an oil and gas background and with current technology
mineral rights would not be affected.
Ms. Crawford said she feels they have done their diligence to make sure they do not disrupt the
neighborhood. She said their main concern is to have their animals on their property. Ms. Crawford said
they do plan on having fencing to protect their animals and fencing is required by the USDA in their case.
She said that their current neighbors shoot guns, so their animals are used to it. The Crawford's are not
concerned and welcome the Sack's to continue to use their property in their own way.
Ms. Crawford wished to clarify the difference between the terms "exotic animal" and a "regulated animal".
The animals that the Crawford's have are considered unregulated wildlife through the State of Colorado.
She said when the term "exotic animal" is used, a lot of people think it includes animals such as lions and
tigers. Ms. Crawford said they are requesting non -dangerous animals.
Ms. Crawford said she did not come prepared to defend the business. She said they have not even finalized
their ideas at this point. If they do apply for a business, it would be something small that would not disrupt
the neighborhood and that would be agricultural. Ms. Crawford said their main concern is moving onto the
property along with their animals.
Commissioner Cope asked the applicant if the USDA has definitions on what exotic animals are considered
dangerous and non -dangerous. Ms. Crawford said there are definitions. Commissioner Cope said he
would like the language in the development standards to reflect no dangerous animals are permitted on the
property.
Ms. Crawford requested the development standards be changed to say their kennel is for their private use
and no outside animals can be boarded on their property..
The Chair asked the applicant how the USDA regulates their site. The applicant responded that the USDA
does not regulate non -regulated animals unless they are being exhibited. If the animals are exhibited, the
USDA will send out an inspector for an initial inspection. She said the USDA has highly regulated rules
that have to be followed and they will show up for random inspections.
Commissioner Stille asked the applicant if they would be required to have a health certificate or Coggins
test on the equine while moving them to the new location. He stated that the neighbors would most likely
be concerned. Ms. Crawford said they would be willing to have the Coggins test done on the equine.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if they are required to license the animals with the Colorado
Department of Agriculture. The applicant responded that they do not because they have not exceeded any
of the thresholds. Ms. Crawford said she remains in contact with them to keep educated on what the
thresholds are. If they had a sanctuary, they would be required to obtain a license.
The Chair asked the applicant if all the animal feces will be put in the dumpster or if most of it is naturally
composted. Ms. Crawford said that they put it in the dumpster so that it can get hauled away quickly so
they don't get rodents or flies. She said they can talk to Ms. Yarbrough and figure out a place to relocate
the dumpster.
Commissioner Holland asked the applicant how many years of experience they have with taking care of
their animals. Ms. Crawford said her, and her sister have had horses since they were five and six years
old, so about 20 years. Her mom grew up on a farm in Golden and raised sheep for market. Ms. Crawford
said they have been dealing with animals for as long as she can remember. Commissioner Holland asked
Ms. Crawford if any of their animals have ever gotten a disease. Ms. Crawford replied no.
Ms. Aungst, Planning Services, said staff recommends removing Development Standard 3 because of the
conflict with any future enterprise that may be presented for this particular property. Staff would like to
replace the language for Development Standard 3 to read "The kennel is for the private use of the property
owners and no boarding of animals owned by others is allowed."
Motion: Remove Development Standard 3 and replace language to read as staff recommended. Moved
by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked Ms. Aungst if Development Standard 6 should be removed. Ms. Aungst agreed. Ms.
Aungst said staff would recommend a new Development Standard 6 to read, "No dangerous animals are
permitted on the site, including but not limited to lions, tigers, leopards, cougars, bears, wolves, rhinoceros,
and elephants."
Motion: Remove Development Standard 6 and replace language to read as staff recommended. Moved
by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. King, Public Works, said staff recommends removing (60') from Condition of Approval 1.D.9. The rest
of the language will remain.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.D.9. as recommended by staff. Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded
by Richard Beck. Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR20-0009 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Richard Beck.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
No: Bruce Johnson.
Commissioner Cope said that he feels that Sections from Chapters 22 and 23 of the Weld County Code
have been met. He said the Planning Commission understands that the USR covers the animal units and
the exotic animals but does not include the business application that may come at a later date.
Commissioner Johnson said he appreciate the compassion of the applicant but feels like there are too
many uncertainties that could come up with this situation if a business is allowed.
Commissioner Stille said he is in approval of the USR case they heard today, but if it was the case for the
business, he would have voted no.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Johnson expressed his concern with the transition period of the new Comprehensive Plan
taking effect. He said there is a lot of confusion understanding the changes with land use applications.
Commissioner Cope agreed and used Recorded Exemptions as an example of land use applications
changing. What was once allowed is now being changed to other applications.
There was further discussion about the upcoming land use changes and changes with water and
transportation.
Commissioner Holland suggested that staff provide more education to the Planning Commission. The
Chair said that the luncheons usually include education and perhaps lunches could begin at 11:00 am so
there is more time. He also said if there is a light day, the Planning Commission could stay to have
discussions and debrief with staff from Planning, Environmental Health and Public Works.
Meeting adjourned at 4:32 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Wall
Secretary
Hello