Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, October 04, 1999
LAND-USE PLANNING HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Disney were present. Also present were: Carol Evans and Matt Lafferty, Planners II; Sylvester Mabry, Project Engineer; Michelle Yeager, Administrative Services Assistant; Jean O'Connor, Senior Office Clerk; Donna Hart, Administrative Manager; Bev Miller, Secretary II; and George Haas, County Attorney. Recording Clerk: Gael Cookman.
Chair Olson noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners, Staff, or members of the audience.
1. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 11 & 75 WITHIN THE RETREAT 1ST FILING, AND VACATION/RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT (#99-S1474); S 1/2 23-06-72 - LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STREAMSIDE DRIVE IN THE RETREAT 1ST FILING SUBDIVISION, APPROXIMATELY 3/4 OF A MILE NORTH OF GLEN HAVEN ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 43); FO, FORESTRY ZONING
This is a request to amend the property line between Lots 11 & 75 within the Retreat 1st Filing, and vacation and relocation of the 10 foot utility easements. Staff findings include: 1. The proposed amended plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2. The amended plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. 3. Approval of the amended plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure. 4. Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the amended plat. Staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 11 & 75 within the Retreat 1st Filing, and vacation and relocation of the 10 foot utility easement subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of any utilities resulting from the vacation and relocation of the existing utility easement. 2). There is reserved for drainage, a drainage easement 10 feet wide, five feet on each side along all natural drainage features per the original plat of the Retreat 1st Filing. Prior to building on the proposed lots, a site/grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by Larimer County. The plan shall show that the proposed development will not adversely impact existing drainage patterns for the adjacent upstream and downstream properties.
2. MULBERRY COMMERICAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS (#99-S1476); NE 1/4, 17-07-68; MORE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 14 AND THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTRY SIDE DRIVE; C- COMMERCIAL ZONING
This is a request to condominiumize the building at Mulberry Commercial Park into 44 commercial use lots. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed Condominiumization is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2) The Condominiumization is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. 3) Approval of the Condominium will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure. 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the Condominiumization. 5) Maintenance of the building, parking lot, landscaping and other common areas will be the responsibility of the property owners association, pursuant to the declaration of covenants. Staff recommendation is for approval of the Mulberry Commercial Park Condominiums, subject to the following conditions: 1) Before the Condominium Plat is recorded the applicant shall incorporate the balance of the property into the plat map and declaration of covenants. 2) Before Certificate of Occupancy is granted on the mini-warehouse storage portion of the building, the applicant shall submit an amended condominium Plat to include additional building area and common space.
3. LIEBL MRD RELEASE OF COLLATERAL (#95-EX0652); NW 1/4 8-6-68, EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 11 (TIMBERLINE) ABOUT 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 36
All required improvements for the Liebl MRD 95-EX0652 have been completed. A lot sale restriction was in place to secure the completion of the improvements. The County Engineering Department has reviewed this request, inspected the improvements and supports the release of collateral. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request for the release of the Lot Sale Restriction for Lots 1 and 2 of the Liebl Minor Residential Development.
4. VISTA A COTTONWOOD SHORES PUD RELEASE OF COLLATERAL AND EXCHANGE OF COLLATERAL (#98-MS1261); NE 8-8-68, ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY 1, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 WITH COUNTY ROADS 9 AND 58
Most of the improvements in the Vista at Cottonwood Shores PUD have been completed and the developer is requesting release of the original collateral, which was in the form of a letter of credit, and release of the completed improvements from the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request for the release of collateral (original letter of credit) for the Vista at Cottonwood Shores PUD and release of all improvements specified in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement with the exception of landscaping subject to the following conditions: 1) Collateral shall be provided for landscaping improvements as specified in the original Subdivision Improvements Agreement, including supervision fee and 15% per the Collateral Policy. 2) A warranty collateral agreement and warranty collateral for released improvements shall be submitted prior to release of the original collateral.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendations and approve the Amended Plat of Lots 11 and 75 within the Retreat 1st Filing, and vacation/relocation of an existing 10-foot utility easement (#99-S1474); Mulberry Commercial Park Condominiums (#99-S1476); Liebl MRD Release of Collateral (#95-EX0652); and Vista at Cottonwood Shores PUD Release of Collateral and Exchange of Collateral (#98-MS1261); each, with conditions as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
Ms. Evans noted that both the Commissioner's Staff and Planning Staff worked very hard to get these items on the agenda in a timely fashion and she publicly thanked Ms. Yeager, Ms. O'Connor, Ms. Hart, and Ms. Miller for their hard work and assistance concerning the projects listed above. Mr. Timm also thanked Ms. Evans for her efforts in ensuring that these items could be presented to the Board for approval today.
Meeting recessed at 3:05 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF LAND USE PLANNING MEETING
(#530 & #531)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were: Carol Evans and Fred Starr, Planners II; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; and George Hass, County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.
Chair Olson prefaced the commencement of the hearing by requesting that comments be limited to land use issues only relating to this application; she explained the procedure to be followed tonight and noted that after the staff report and presentation from the applicant, the comments from members of the audience will be limited to 3 minutes each.
WEST OF LAPORTE AND ABOUT 2.5 MILES SOUTH OF RIST CANYON
ROAD ON FIRE ROUTE 11; 5 ACRES LEASED WITHIN A 40-ACRE
PARCEL; O-OPEN ZONING
This is a request for Special Review to allow a wolf-hybrid shelter/rescue facility for an unspecified number of animals. Staff findings include: 1) The subject property is zoned O-Open which permits kennels if Special Review approval is granted by Larimer County. The property is located in a remote mountain area where other land uses are primarily rural residential acreages and agricultural grazing. The applicants are seeking Special Review approval for an existing operation which provides shelter/rescue services for wolf-hybrid dogs and which is also licensed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as a facility to hold full-blooded wolves. It is the interpretation of the Planning staff that this use requires Special Review approval by Larimer County. 2) Public comments have been received which show both support for and opposition to the proposed Special Review. Comments in support of the operation note agreement with and appreciation for the mission of the WOLF organization; some area property owners state that they have no problems or concerns with noise from the operation. Comments in opposition include concerns about noise disturbances, safety, traffic and road use, expansion of the facility, number of animals, and sanitation. Mitigation of the concerns that have been raised is possible. 3) As the number of animals at the facility increases, so will potential impacts on surrounding properties. A simple way to mitigate impacts is to limit the number of animals that can be held at the facility. 4) The WOLF facility is licensed by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry as a Private Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue and by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as a Wildlife Commercial Park/Wildlife Exhibitor Park. 5) The proposed development is located in a severe wildfire hazard area and has a low risk of rock fall. On-going implementation of hazard mitigation plans will reduce the hazards at this facility. 6) If operated as specified in the information/plan provided by the applicants (and as it may be modified by conditions of approval), in compliance with conditions of approval, with satisfactory maintenance of the facility's state licenses (Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry for a Private Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue and Division of Wildlife for a Wildlife Commercial Park/Wildlife Exhibitor Park), and with satisfactory mitigation of impacts on area property and property owners, the WOLF facility should be compatible with existing uses in the area. The Special Review use should not result in negative impacts on the provision of services or transportation, on the natural environment, or to the public health, safety and welfare. If operated in compliance with conditions of approval, the proposed WOLF Special Review will be consistent with the intent of the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Master Plan.
Ms. Evans presented and reviewed the site plan of the facility and a vicinity map on which she tried to identify adjacent property owners; she described the request and noted that the facility has been in operation since 1995, without County approval, and zoning enforcement action has been deferred pending the outcome of the special review process. Ms. Evans stated that the special review process is used to evaluate the location and design of certain land uses on a case-by-case basis and eight criteria contained in the Zoning Resolution are considered to determine if a proposed land use is appropriate at a given location and whether impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated; she noted that her presentation tonight will focus mainly on the issues of neighborhood compatibility and concerns of safety, number of animals, unauthorized expansion, sanitation, traffic, use of the road, and noise. Ms. Evans stated that as of last week over 575 letters were received regarding this project as well as approximately 200 signatures on a petition and many more letters were received this week. Ms. Evans noted that safety issues have been a big concern for neighboring property owners; however, the application materials describe numerous provisions for safety at the facility. She also noted that the number of animals has been a concern of the neighbors and the applicants have previously not specified a maximum number of animals for the facility; however, at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicants did request a maximum number of 55 animals and indicated that under their current facility, with the current enclosures and staffing, that they could maintain this number. Ms. Evans stated that originally the organization indicated they would care for up to 20 wolf/hybrids on the property, but there are now 42 animals on site; she noted that staff believes that as the number of animals increases, so will the impacts on area properties and property owners, and staff has recommended that the number of animals be limited to a maximum number of 35. Ms. Evans stated that another concern is the expansion of use because of continued construction of dog enclosures on the subject property and the potential for additional enclosures on other properties in the area owned by the applicants. Ms. Evans stated that sanitation is also a concern of the neighbors; she noted that the application materials describe in detail the procedure that is used for cleaning the facility and animal waste is collected daily. Ms. Evans stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, there was a lot of testimony about traffic and use of the road and it was decided that this road will not be subject to the minimum private road standards; she noted that maintenance of the access road should be the responsibility of the applicant and there is a condition to address this. With regard to the noise issue, Ms. Evans stated that the applicant did conduct a noise study and she asked Mr. Ryan to address that issue. Mr. Ryan stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, several area residents indicated they had a problem with noise from the facility; he noted that noise measurements, which were previously taken by the applicants' consultant at the property line bordering this facility, showed that sound pressure levels were not greater than background levels - you could hear the noise, but the sound was well within the County's standards as specified in the County Noise Ordinance. He described another Noise Disturbance Test, which is a prohibition against noise disturbance, and noted it is more subjective than the decibel levels. Mr. Ryan stated that at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant was directed to prepare a noise mitigation plan for presentation tonight so it could be part of the discussion and incorporated into the final decision; he noted that the noise mitigation plan is in the staff report.
Ms. Evans stated that at the Planning Commission hearing there was a lot of testimony from volunteers indicating they were from some type of educational facility and the Commission questioned if the WOLF facility was serving as a type of educational center; they noted that this is inconsistent with the special review request and on-site educational visits should not be allowed and if educational groups continue to visit this site, further consideration should be given to improving the access road. Ms. Evans stated that the Engineering Department has provided a memo which addresses this issue. Ms. Evans stated that another issue raised was whether this special review of a kennel was an appropriate interpretation; she noted that animal shelters are similar to kennels, which are listed as a special review use in the O-Open Zoning District and she noted that the Larimer County Humane Society Animal Shelter went through this same review process when it was constructed and when it expanded. Ms. Evans stated that the applicants have indicated in their materials that they dispute that they are a "kennel", but staff believes that it is similar to a kennel in that it cares for a number of animals on site. Ms. Evans read aloud staff finding #6 (outlined above) which summarizes the issue.
At this time the applicant made their presentation. Mr. Z. G. Standing Bear, Vice President of Research and Education for Wolves Offered Life and Friendship (WOLF) stated that WOLF is a charitable, non-profit corporation under Section 501c(3) of the United States Internal Code and is licensed by the Colorado State Veterinarian under the Department of Agriculture, as well as the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. Standing Bear described the composition of their Board of Directors. He informed the Board that the rescue efforts for wolves and wolf-hybrids in the United States is dwarfed by the number of these misunderstood animals that come into rescue situations; he noted that in their rescue facility alone, they have turned down over 800 animals since the facility was first organized and have turned down 450 this year. He described the necessary qualifications to merit entry into their rescue and he noted that WOLF is one of three rescue facilities in the State of Colorado and they work actively with those rescue facilities, as well as in other States. He spoke briefly of their education mission, which is focused on their inappropriateness as pets and try to discourage their breeding and adoption; he presented a short film explaining the mission of the rescue facility. Pat Wendland, applicant for WOLF Rescue, submitted and read aloud a ten-page handout outlining their comments, agreements, and disagreements with the ten conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The handout also discussed the irrational fear of wolves and wolf-dogs and safety measures to counteract those fears, the traffic on the road, use of the property by neighbors, and misinformation about the rescue facility. Questions from the Board and discussion followed. Russ Sanford, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the opponents' attorney is going to discuss whether or not this Board has the jurisdiction to even hear this proposal and whether this constitutes a kennel under the land use plan. He stated that if the Board would refer to Section 27.1 of the Zoning Code, it provides that "...in any zoning district where building structure or use is enumerated, any other building structure or use which is similar to those enumerated, and not more noxious or detrimental to the area in which it is located, shall be permitted..." He noted that in 1973, the Humane Society was approved under a similar kennel rule as well as the expansion in 1994, and so that argument is without merit.
After a short break, Commissioner Disney noted for the record that the Board did visit this site a week ago and so they are aware what the facility and the animals look like; Chair Olson reviewed the rules for the evening again.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was opened and the following persons addressed the Board with their comments and concerns: Rick Zier, Keith Roehr, Kerry Tripp, Lisa Ritter, Leighton Miller, David Herrera, Tracy DeFrancesco, Walter Gates, Bob Miller, Glen Johnson, Jayne Johnson, Karen Salaz, Kathy Stowe, Matt Esposito, Tom Holtzer, and Jim Thompson. Mr. Zier, representing Ethel and Arthur Schoondermark, property owners on Fire Route 11, discussed access and traffic; he noted he wrote a letter to the Board last week, which he requested be made part of the record. Mr. Zier stated that the access road is a one-lane dirt road which is narrow and winding and has drainage and weather related issues and it would be difficult to widen or expand it as it would involve some blasting; he noted that his clients are concerned with an expansion of the use of that road if this approval is granted and he cautioned the Board not to take the licensing approval of other bodies as any measure whether or not this is an appropriate land use. Mr. Zier stated that this special review request appears to be an expansion of the use of the road and they are concerned about traffic (which is greater than indicated by applicants), cars off the road, cars parked off the road, trespassing, vandalism, litter, and damage to plants, all of which have occurred. Dr. Roehr from the Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry, which administers the pet animal care facilities and licenses over 1200 facilities in Colorado, many of which operate in a similar capacity as the Wendlands, stated that WOLF is a private animal shelter; he noted that they do routine inspections, as well as respond to complaints, and he addressed some of the land use issues raised by Ms. Evans. With regard to the safety issue, he noted that the likeliness of escape is remote because of the 10 ft. high fences and the construction of the gates with the springs and locks make human error an unlikely event. Also, with regard to the environmental impact, the number of animals that are there, coupled with the practice of removing daily fecal material from the enclosure, makes the impact of the animals on the environment or the river in this area remote. With regard to density, if they go to the maximum number of 55 animals, they will still be within the rules and regulations of their program. In conclusion, Dr. Roehr stated that with regard to level of operation, sanitation, construction, daily animal care, etc., this facility has been remarkable and has been an example to other facilities that they have denied licenses to across the State. Kerry Tripp from Louisville asked the Board to approve the variance and she asked everyone in the audience who is in favor of WOLF to stand and show their support; approximately 40 to 50 people stood in support. Someone in the audience asked how many live in Rist Canyon, but no one answered. Lisa Ritter from Fort Collins, volunteer coordinator for WOLF, described her duties and the number of trips she and other volunteers make to the rescue center. Leighton Millar from Loveland addressed the issue of the Noise Ordinance and noted that noise is subjective and noise is something we all have to live with and he is amazed that people that live a mile or more away are making complaints about the noise. David Herrera, attorney for those in opposition, stated that the applicant believes that this is not a kennel, but staff does not agree; in his opinion, it is a wild animal park, commercial wildlife park, research facility, theme park, animal refuge, educational facility, but not a kennel. He noted that the wolf/hybrids are wild animals and are not domesticated and fundamentally different than dogs. Mr. Herrera stated that he has a number of clients in the room who have asked him to speak for them during their 3-minute allotted time limit and he submitted that each citizen should be entitled to have their attorney represent them and speak on their behalf. Tracy DeFrancesco, who lives one mile from the applicant, stated that on July 28 of this year her 9-year old was bitten by one of the wolf dogs; she noted that the applicants themselves have insurance but WOLF does not and they cannot collect on a claim for the disfigurement. She stated that another concern is safety and the traffic on the road causing wear and tear. Walter Gates stated that he has owned property next to the Wendlands for 18 years and he thinks it is terrible that he can't have his attorney speak for him as much investigation has been regarding this matter and he should be given the right to speak. Mr. Hass stated that Mr. Herrera may submit his additional comments in writing for the record; the Board stated that if there is additional time before 10 p.m., and everyone has had their chance to speak, Mr. Herrera will be given another opportunity to speak. Bob Miller who has owned property adjacent to the Wendlands for 30 years stated that he comes in sorrow rather than anger because he thinks they have been misled by the Wendlands and their plans; he noted that he had no objection to 20 dogs. Glen Johnson stated that they bought their property before WOLF moved in and now they have lost their opportunity to sell and it is just getting worse. Jayne Johnson expressed concern that something like this can come into an area and disrupt their privacy and mountain atmosphere. She asked the Board if they would want this facility in their neighborhood and assured them that they don't want it in their neighborhood either. Karen Schoondermark Salaz stated that her parents have owned their property since the 1950's and they have nothing against the WOLF organization, it is just in the wrong place at the wrong time; she noted that the road is not in any way accessible for the volume of traffic on it - it was put in as a cattle road. She noted that all the people supporting this facility do not live adjacent to it. Kathy Stowe stated that in WOLF's noise mitigation plan it states "...Since no evidence or description has been presented regarding the nature, frequency or severity of the noise complaints, they are continuing to evaluate the situation..." She stated that she is here tonight to give evidence concerning the noise situation; she noted that throughout this past summer, they have been awakened several times a night by the howling and barking of the animals and at their place it sounds like a loud roar and she thinks it is magnified as it moves up the canyon walls, much like a megaphone. Ms. Stowe continued that it is their contention that the noise violates Sections 4 and 6 of the Noise Ordinance because it has severely disturbed their sleep and interferes with their enjoyment of life, quiet and comfort; therefore, they believe that the proposal is not harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood as required by the zoning resolution. She stated that the neighbors are very upset with the noise, and after 5 years of putting up with an illegal operation that only seems to get bigger and bigger, she asked the Board to please deny the facility, but if they do not, she urged them to have very strong noise mitigation measures required for the facility. Ms. Stowe offered two suggestions to resolve the noise issue: 1) Use bark collars on the animals; and 2) Put the dogs inside at night. Matt Esposito, speaking on behalf of the Village School, noted that the stated objections do not appear to be real land use issues and what he is hearing is the classic "Not in my backyard" or NIMBY syndrome. He stated that, in his opinion, WOLF is not a kennel because a kennel runs on profit and this facility provides education, which kennels do not; he submitted and read aloud a letter which states that the preserve has offered the Village School a valuable opportunity and educational experience and because of that, they have chosen to incorporate WOLF into their curriculum. Tom Holtzer made the observation that there are a large number of people in attendance tonight who are well meaning but they don't live in the area; also, he noted that there are a number of people here tonight who are close neighbors and none of them are in favor of this land use being imposed on them. He asked the Board to consider very carefully those most impacted by this new land use in their vicinity and decide what is appropriate; he noted that he is opposed to this special review and he asked those in the audience to stand who are close enough to be physically impacted by this. Approximately ten people stood. Andrew Hoying from Brighton stated that having a house in the mountains doesn't give anyone more rights than anyone in town. Mary Lockner, member of WOLF Board of Directors, addressed the noise issue; she stated that she has spent many nights at the Wendland's home and has never been awakened by noise. Mike Salaz, speaking on behalf of the Schoondermark Family, stated that we are talking about a private road, not a public road and the Schoondermarks have allowed access to this road with the understanding that it was used to access personal homes - not for a business, kennel, or educational site. He asked that in the future when a public hearing is held that the Board allow equal time for those in opposition as well as those in support. Kimberly Dickman, Therapist from Turning Point Center, stated that they did take 20 young men to WOLF for a educational presentation as well as for a work project; she noted that her concern is with the general conception of what noise is and land use. She stated that natural animals speaking out is considered noise and when people moved onto the land that belongs to the animals in the first place, it wasn't questioned by the animals; she noted that the main benefit of WOLF is the educational program. Irene Holtzer stated that everyone has a choice where they live and when they moved into this area, they were looking for quiet and seclusion to enjoy the nature and 55 animals in one spot is not a natural occurrence. She continued that these people have come into this area and created a different environment; she noted that what they are doing is great, but they have altered the standards in their neighborhood and she asked the Board to not let those standards be changed. Katherine Michelotti, a friend of the Tri-Angle Fraternity and representative from Kappa Delta Sorority, stated that when they went up a few weeks ago, they brought 18 people in five cars; she noted that she has been volunteering at WOLF for two years and she has seen a lot of changes and the Wendlands have tried to bend over backwards to satisfy their neighbors; she suggested that if the neighbors would come down and volunteer, they wouldn't complain as much. Donna Nayduch stated that she enjoys hearing the wolves sing and they don't sing every hour or constantly. William Wiser, from the Tri-Angle Fraternity and an Engineering student, explained the theory of the megaphone; he noted that there is no way the wolf noise can travel one mile and bounce off the canyon walls and make that much noise. David Herrera was given a second chance to speak for his clients; he commented on the standards by which the Board is reviewing this application. He stated that it is incorrect that there is no building beyond the established area because there is a building adjacent to Lot #9, as shown on the vicinity map. He noted that none of these animals comply with the Animal Control and Dog Licensing Ordinance because they are not licensed and yet the applicants choose to claim them to be dogs subject to the County's jurisdiction. He stated that there has been an interference with the use and enjoyment of the property of the neighbors; one of the neighbors indicated that his property values have been adversely affected by this facility. Mr. Herrera stated that this special review should be denied, not just because it is a kennel and is obnoxious and detrimental in the area, but because it is probable that the proposed use will be contrary to the public interest and is a nuisance by being dangerous, detrimental, or injurious to nearby residents' properties. He stated that these animals deserve to live, but they should not be in a residential neighborhood; this is a maximum security facility for dangerous animals, who have escaped. Russ Sanford noted for the record that WOLF does have insurance, contrary to what Ms. DeFrancesco stated previously. In response to what Mr. Herrera stated about wolf dogs being dangerous and a threat to people, Ms. Wendland noted that the General Assembly formed a committee to investigate whether or not wolf dogs are more dangerous to the general public and they found that they pose no more threat than any other large dogs. Mr. Standing Bear stated that the rationale for 55 animals was not drawn up capriciously; they looked at the size of their facility and the number of volunteer hours and compared that with comparable wolf rescue facilities in Colorado and New Mexico and came up with a conservative estimate of 55 animals. Ms. Wendland continued that Mr. Herrera stated that these are wild animals; she noted that the State of Colorado and Larimer County defines them as domestic animals and they do not license them because they are a rescue shelter and they are like the Larimer County Humane Society and do not have to be licensed.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioners' comments, questions, and discussion; the Board asked about the new enclosure on Lot #9, adjacent to Lot #8, which is owned by Mr. Gates. Ms. Wendland responded that the enclosure has nothing to do with WOLF; there is a gentleman that lives on that property and works at WOLF and the animal belongs to him. Chair Olson asked if the dogs are on chains and the response was "No".
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the WOLF Special Review with ten conditions, as modified at great length by the Planning Commission, but will not be outlined in this set of proceedings as they could be amended further after the Board's discussion on November 8, 1999.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the WOLF Special Review (#96-ZR0943) until 3 p.m. on November 8, 1999, to allow additional time for the Board's deliberation on this item, with no further public comment being taken at that time.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The hearing adjourned at 10 p.m.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were: Kathy Snell, Health and Human Services Director; Randy Ratliff, Mental Health Center Director; Patsi Maroney, Human Resources Specialist; Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; and Donna Hart, Commissioner's Office Administrative Manager. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEEK OF SPETEMBER 27, 1999:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the Week of September 27, 1999.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 11, 1999:
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of October 11, 1999.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the Consent Agenda for Document Review on October 5, 1999:
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Davis Minor Residential Development Plat (#98-S1322) and Amended Plat for Glacier View Meadows, Lot 88-A.
LIQUOR LICENSES: County approval for renewal of liquor license was granted to Mishawaka Inn - 6% - Bellvue, CO. and Rock Inn Steakhouse - 6% - Estes Park, CO. A license for Change of Ownership was issued to Vern's Liquor - 6% - LaPorte, CO.
A99-181 WARRANTY COLLATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LAKESIDE, LLC (The
Vista at Cottonwood Shores)
C99-66 ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JIM NYTES, DBA JIM'S
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF ESTES PARK AND
LARIMER COUNTY CARRIAGE HILLS GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
C99-67 ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND JIM NYTES, DBA JIM'S CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS OF ESTES PARK AND LARIMER COUNTY LITTLE
VALLEY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 14
R99-147s RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR
VISTA AT COTTONWOOD SHORES PUD
R99-148s RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF RESTRICTIONS
ON SALE OF LOTS IN LIEBL MRD (#95-EX0652)
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ENTITIES USING COUNTY OWNED SPACE: Ms. Snell stated that Mr. Lancaster requested her to conduct an inventory of the non-County entities that are using Health and Human Services facilities (free of charge) to conduct their business; she noted that there are other agencies using space in their Estes Park offices, but that those agencies are there to compliment the services provided by HHS. Much discussion ensued. The Board directed Mr. Lancaster to work with Facilities Manager Dave Spencer to draft a policy to govern non-County entities using County facilities. The proposed policy will outline the criteria necessary for entities to qualify for use of County office space, it will address the possibility of accepting grant applications to compete for the space available, and it will address liability and risk management issues.
6. DISCUSSION OF 2000 EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE: Ms. Maroney presented the Board with two options for funding the Employee Health Insurance Plan next year; she noted that option one would call for a 2.72% premium increase and maintain the Plan at status quo, and option two would add chiropractic coverage but would increase the premium to 3.37%. Ms. Maroney noted that even though the increase was not substantial, the Employee Medical Insurance Advisory Committee had mixed feelings about adding this benefit. Mr. Lancaster noted that since the County is facing the decision to cut programs due to budget constraints, it probably is not the best time to start adding employee benefits. Ms. Maroney noted that this feature could be added to the Insurance Plan at any time, so even if the Board decides not to add it at this time, it would still be a possibility in the future. The Board agreed that this was not the time to add chiropractic coverage to the Health Insurance Plan.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Option One which calls for a 2.72% premium increase for 2000 and continue the triple-option plan in its current form.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. PARKING PROPOSAL: Mr. Lancaster recommended that the Board charge county employees $10.00 per month for parking permits in the new parking structure, which leaves the County to pay the additional $26.00 per month to cover the total cost of $36 per month; he explained that the County has a limited number of parking spaces and, based on a survey conducted of county employees, the demand will be too high if they do not charge a fee for parking. Mr. Lancaster noted the advantages and disadvantages to this plan as follows: 1) Parking is made available to the courts. 2) Parking is made available to employees who wish to pay. 3) The fee is not so prohibitive that no employees will park in the garage. 4) The demand will equal the supply. The disadvantages are: 1) Many employees will be forced or choose to park elsewhere in the neighborhood. 2) Charging for parking will be unpopular with employees. 3) There is little room for mid-year adjustment and changes if the County uses all of their allocation. Some discussion followed regarding how this will affect the businesses in the area, and the Board noted that the Courthouse, along with all of the employees working within, have outgrown the downtown area; however, it was noted that the merchants would not be happy if the Courthouse relocated away from the downtown area.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve issuing employee parking permits in the new parking structure at a cost of $10.00 per month.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that there was a miscommunication between Randy Ratliff and Kathy Snell pertaining to reimbursement of mileage once Mr. Ratliff left his position in Estes Park and assumed his current position as Mental Health Center Director. Mr. Lancaster explained that Mr. Ratliff has been paid $4,129.00 for mileage reimbursement in error; however, Ms. Snell discovered this in July and he has not been paid for mileage since. Mr. Lancaster noted that the money has already been paid and accounted for in the budget, and rather than try to get the money back from Mr. Ratliff, he requested Board approval to authorize the reimbursement of $4,129.84 to Mr. Ratliff.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the reimbursement of $4,129.84 to Randy Ratliff.
Motion carried 3-0.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: Commissioner Olson noted that she had the privilege of Chairing the first joint meeting of CCI and CML; she explained that they discussed the 10-Point Plan and she then furnished draft copies of the Legislative Proposal to Improve Land Use and Growth Management Practices to the Board. Commissioner Olson noted that they will be working with the Governor's office on this issue and they intend to submit it as an item for the next legislative session.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: At this time County Attorney George Hass, and County Forester Dave Lentz joined the meeting for Legal Matters.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss negotiations, potential litigation, and legal advice.
Motion carried 3-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 with no further action taken.
CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MYRNA J. RODENBERGER
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
( S E A L )
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk