HomeMy WebLinkAbout20173554.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Michael Woodruff
Case Number USIA 7-0038
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1
Nelson — Feuer Letter of Objection dated July
31,
2017
' 2
Woods
Letter
of
Objection
dated
August
2, 2017
I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the sc edul.--ci Planning Commissioners hearing.
Kim Ogle '1-_ ner
325 Cedar Avenue
Eaton, CO 80615
(970) 454-3426
July 31, 2017
Weld County Department of Planning Services
ATTN: Kim Ogle, Planner
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case # USR 17-0038 (Woodruff / 41640 CR 39, Ault)
riPAPEn
AUG 03 2011
r
We are writing this letter to express comments and objections related to the above stated
planning request. We have reviewed the available information for this proposal via the online
Weld County citizen access link. We are land owners of parcel #070905200039 (Julie Ann
Nelson Living Trust & Barry James Reider Living Trust) which is within 500 feet of the property
under review.
Comment / Objection #1
Community Meeting 6-10-2017
Per Barry Reider's recollection of the conversation summarized in the community meeting
memo, Michael Woodruff never stated that the conversation was being held to solicit input to
the said proposal. We were shockingly surprised to find an account of this casual conversation
uploaded to the review file. We never received a copy of this memo recording the
conversation prior to it being submitted to the county. It was Barry's takeaway from the
conversation that the Woodruffs were at the very early stages of considering some type of
brewing business — not something that had been in the works since November 2016 (Planning
Pre -Application docs), Also to note, Barry represents only 1 of 2 property owners named in
this conversation summary. There has never been a request by the Woodruffs to speak to
Julie Nelson.
Secondly, it is unclear from the community meeting summary if the Woodruffs have even done
due diligence to speak to the other three property owners within 500 feet of the property
under review. It would seem that it would be in the best interest of the Woodruffs to establish
relationships with neighboring land owners and current tenants. If the requirement, or even
the recommendation, from the county is to gather community input, then they have definitely
not met the requirement.
Comment / Objection #2
Anticipated Customers
Throughout the documents which have been uploaded to the review file, it has been
repeatedly stated that the Woodruffs anticipate 15-20 customers at any given time. This does
not match up to the planned seating within the taproom and the associated parking spaces.
Ta room: The building schematic plan identifies 35 seats, and plans to expand the building by
another 15'x20' (phase 3) Parking: The USR application signed & dated in April 2017
proposes 14 regular spaces plus 2 ADA spaces. The multiple site plan layouts propose 22
regular spaces plus 2 ADA spaces.
EXHIBIT
Also, in an email submitted to the county by the Woodruffs on 7-2-2017 (Trub definition), the
applicants express the following: The taproom will only have one bathroom for customers to
use and we plan on being a small craft nanombrewery, growing slowly and steadily as we learn
the business,
what binds the Woodruffs to a maximum patronage of 20 individuals? Flow will the operators
limit the amount of customers? If the number of anticipated customers increases, are the
owners required to file another planning application? We have concerns on parking extending
onto the county road. We have concerns about trash haphazardly spreading onto adjacent
properties. We have concerns about the increased traffic flow on County Road 391 which is
unpaved and not well maintained.
Comment / Objection #3
Anticipated Hours of Operation
In the documentation available, it states the taproom hours of operation would be Fridays 5-
8pm, Saturdays 1.-8pm and Sundays 1-8pin. Does this Use by Special Review limit the hours of
operation to those times, or could the owners decide to extend business hours later into the
night at will? Will larger special events or live music be allowed? Will there be any limitations
on noise?
Comment / Objection #4
Safety and Security
We have concerns about safety, specifically having customers consuming alcohol in a rural
area with not much law enforcement presence. Also, being a rural area, there are few if any
alternative transportation options+ will the Sherrifffs office be patrolling the area on a regular
basis? We have concerns about customer safety as well. There are swift moving irrigation
ditches and irrigation divider boxes as well as openings into underground irrigation pipes that
are located within 10 feet of the property. These areas can pose a serious risk to children who
are unaware of the dangers. We have concerns about security of property and equipment on
adjoining farms. Expensive and dangerous machinery are often left unattended on these
properties as part of normal farming operations, and could be seen as easy theft targets.
FINAL REMARK
We are not opposed to the brewery portion of this proposal/ however, we do not support the
establishment of a taproom to accompany the brewery.
Respectfully,
.C • ICHAL
Julie A. Nelson
<77
\S„:7 IC L'aTh ip
Barry) Reider
cc Darryl & Sue Woods
City of Thornton (Brian Foss)
Brahmin Broadcasting Corp (Steven Silberberg)
20378 Weld County Road 86
Ault, Colorado 8061O
(97O)834 -274Q
August 2, 2017
Weld County Department of Planning Services
AU: Kim Ogle, planner
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 8O631
R?.C.Clist41C-r$
01:0G. TAII
Reference: Case # USR17-0038 (Woodruff/4164O CR 39, Ault, Colorado)
This letter is in response to the postcard we received from your office informing
us of the zoning change for the property referenced.
As the postcard was the first we heard of this, we viewed the Weld County citizen
access link on the Internet. The property we own is located on south property
line, (parcel #070905000031).
Under Department of Planning Services 1* 8 Woodruff stated that there was a
community meeting on 6/1O/2017 at 4:00 p.m. Apparently Reider was the only
property owner Wood ruffs contacted for such meeting. No one had contacted
us. Woodruff's could have been more forthright with the "community meeting".
Documents that we have reviewed, the Woodruffs fs anticipated 15-20 customers at
any given time, but the taproom and the parking space don't match up. The
taproom identifies 35 seats with parking is 14 to 22 spaces.
What guarantees that the taproom will be "small", or who would monitor the
number of patrons inside taproom at any one time, and cleanup of the trash
which might haphazardly get into our irrigation ditch causing problems with
delivery of water to our property.
We are not opposed to a brewery, but we cannot support the establishment of
the taproom along with it.
Respectfully,
W
kr—e—A--
Sue A. Woods
EXHIBIT
%an - c733
2
Hello