> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 03/27/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, MARCH 27, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#36)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Larry Timm, and Matt Lafferty, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Tom Garton, and Candice Phippen, Building Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.   Chair Gibson then noted that Items 1 and 2 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.  CHOICE CITY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - #02-S1916:  This is a request to rezone from C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) and to divide by Planned Land Division (PLD) into seven commercial use lots and 2 common areas for shared site elements.

On February 15, 2006, the Development Services Team presented the Preliminary Plat for the Choice City Business Park Rezoning and Planned Land Division to the Planning Commission as a consent agenda item.  No public testimony regarding this application was offered; therefore, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to approve the Rezoning and Planned Land Division as recommended by the Development Services Team.

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend that the Choice City Business Park Planned Development, File #02-S1916, request to rezone from C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) be approved subject to the following conditions:

A.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat of Choice City Business Park Planned Land Division Plat.

B.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Choice City Business Park Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

PD (Planned Development)

A.   Principal uses:

Agricultural

Garden supply center (R)

Pet animal facility (R)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Commercial

Convenience store (R)

Automobile service station (R)

Professional office (R)

General retail (R/S) See section 4.3

General commercial (R)

Personal service (R)

Takeout restaurant (R)

Sit-down restaurant (R)

Nightclub (R)

Instructional facility (R)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Clinic (R)

Institutional

Health services (R)

Hospital (R)

School, public (L)

School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3

Rehabilitation facility (R)

Church (R)

Recreational

Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3

Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Accommodation

Hotel/motel (R)

Industrial

Enclosed storage (R)

Trade use (R/S)--See section 4.3

Light industrial (S)

Utilities

Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

Radio and television transmitters (S)

B.   Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.   Minimum lot size:

5,000 Square feet

2.   Minimum setbacks:

a.   Front yard - 15 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b.   Side yards - 10 feet.

c.   Rear yards - 20 feet.

d.   Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

3.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

4.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the minor special review process.

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the special review process described in section 4.5.

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in section 4.3 (use descriptions).

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in section 13.0.

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend that the Choice City Business Park Planned Land Division, File #02-S1916, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Choice City Business Park Planned Land Division/Planned Development (File #02-S1916), except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Choice City Business Park Planned Development and Planned Land Division.

B.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance:  Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and applicable drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

C.   Development of the property shall be consistent with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision for the Hudek Business Park as approved by FEMA.

 

2.  LUCHT REZONING - #05-Z1557:  This is a request to rezone two parcels from C (Commercial) and O (Open) to PD (Planned Development) for a commercial use with outdoor storage.

The subject request is to rezone the split zoned property situated on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Summit View Drive and a portion of the adjacent property added to the subject property from O (Open) and C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) with the provision that outdoor storage associated with the existing fencing business be allowed upon the approval of adequate screening through the site plan process.  Currently existing on the C (Commercial) zoned portions of the property is a fencing business, which business has the need for limited outdoor storage of fencing materials.  If this request is approved, the northern portion of the property that is zoned O (Open) will be utilized for the storage of the fencing material used in the business.

In addition to this application the property boundary for this property and the property to the west of the site are being adjusted to coincide with an existing fence that separates the properties, but was improperly located when built.  Therefore a small portion of the adjacent property is included within this application.

Upon the approval of this application, but prior to full use of the northern portions of the site for storage, the applicant will need to submit for review and approval a site plan illustrating how the storage will occur and be screened.  Additionally, drainage, access and similar site elements as outline in Section 8.0 (Standards for all development) will be evaluated during the site plan process.

The Lucht Rezoning request to rezone to PD (Planned Development) as proposed, and in conjunction with the recommended conditions of the Development Services Team, will comply with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Larimer County Land Use Code.  As such, the Development Services Team is recommending approval of the Rezoning request.

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:

1.   The proposed change is consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.

 

2.   The proposed change is compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and is the appropriate zoning for the property.

3.   Conditions in the neighborhood have changed to the extent that the proposed change is necessary.

4.   The proposed change will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

5.   The proposed change addresses a community need.

6.   The proposed change results in a logical and orderly development pattern.

 

The Development Services Team and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to rezone the Lucht property from O (Open) and C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) as represented in the Planning Department File #05-Z1557, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Lucht Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

C.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

PD (Planned Development)

      i.    Principal uses:

Agricultural

Garden supply center (R)

Pet animal facility (R)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Commercial

Convenience store (R)

Automobile service station (R)

Carwash (R)

Professional office (R)

General retail (R/S) See section 4.3

General commercial (R)

Personal service (R)

Takeout restaurant (R)

Sit-down restaurant (R)

Nightclub (R)

Instructional facility (R)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Clinic (R)

Outdoor Storage (limited to current use as a fence company only, upon change of use no further outdoor storage will be permitted) (R).

Institutional

20.   Health services (R)

21.   Hospital (R)

22.   School, public (L)

23.   School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3

24.   Rehabilitation facility (R)

27.   Church (R)

Recreational

28.   Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3

29.   Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

30.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Accommodation

       i.   Hotel/motel (R)

Industrial

32.   Enclosed storage (R)

33.   Trade use (R/S)--See section 4.3

34.   Light industrial (S)

Utilities

37.   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16

38.   Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

B.   Lot, building and structure requirements: 15,000 square feet

1.   Minimum setbacks:

a.   Front yard--Refer to Section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways or county roads). The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b.   Side yards--ten feet.

c.   Rear yards--20 feet.

d.   Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

2.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

3.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by Right.

Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process.

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in section 4.5.

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by Right or require Special Review approval based on thresholds in section 4.3 (use descriptions).

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the Location and Extent Review process described in section 13.0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 and 2, as listed on the consent again and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Timm explained that Item 3, regarding the Double Permit Fee Waiver Program, is being removed from the agenda in order to conduct more research on this issue. 

 

The hearing recessed at 3:05 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#36 & 37)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Frank Lancaster, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners' Office; Russ Legg, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Ernie Marx, Cooperative Extension Office; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Chair Gibson explained that due to the number of interested citizens present, public comment will be limited to three minutes per individual.

 

1.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS:  This is a request to amend regulations pertaining to horses and other livestock.

 

Leading up to the Planning Commission hearing and this hearing a large number of comments regarding the actual and perceived impacts of the proposed amendments to the regulations have been received.

Many of the comments we have received reflect that the public is unaware of the animal regulations currently in place and this effort is to update those regulations.  Regulations adopted from 1963 to about 1988 and incorporated into the Code require full Special Review approval for boarding stables, riding academies, feed lots, poultry farms and fur farms.  Some of these uses that currently exist do not have the required special review approval and are not in compliance with the Land Use Code.  Their status depends on when the use was commenced.  The Special Review requirement carried over from the Zoning Resolution that was in effect prior to the adoption of the Land Use Code.  Livestock regulations are not new to Larimer County and they have existed in some form since 1963.

In 1998-1999, when the Land Use Code was being written the same misconception pertaining to animal regulations was prevalent in the County.  At that time, an attempt was made to update the regulations but the controversy was so great that the Commissioners directed staff to leave the animal regulations alone.  The Animal Task Force was created and appointed to investigate animal uses in the County; after many public meetings the task force made their recommendations which were discussed at great length by the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners in several work sessions.  The task force had some good ideas but some were not found by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners to be workable in the Land Use Code.  The matter was referred to the Agricultural Advisory Board, which is appointed by the County Commissioners; they met several times and provided their recommendations.  Again the recommendations were discussed at great length by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners.  Combining elements of the Animal Task Force recommendations with some of the ideas espoused by the Agricultural Advisory Board, resulted in the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code.  All of the proposed livestock regulations were derived from the work session discussions based on the recommendations of the Animal Task Force and the Agricultural Advisory Board.  The Environmental Advisory Board reviewed the recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Board and concurred with the recommendation to adopt a stocking rate of one animal unit equivalent per acre of land actually available to the animals.

When the decision was made to proceed with the amendments the Planning Staff inquired about the public outreach that should be done prior to starting the hearing process.  Staff was advised that significant outreach had been done by the Animal Task Force and the public hearing process should commence as soon as possible.

The revised regulations were referred to the 4-H personnel at the Extension Office and they support the amendments.  The Extension Office has been directly involved in the discussions concerning animal equivalent units and the stocking rate.

The proposed amendments to the livestock regulations are intended to address some of the issues that are not currently addressed in the Code.  For instance, if a person wanted to know how many alpacas would be permitted on a parcel, there is no way to answer the question.  The Code has no information on numbers of animals except as they relate to personal riding horses, feed lots and boarding stables.  There is no way to apply this information to any other types of animals.  The proposed animal unit equivalent table will provide this information.

The proposed amendments will provide a tiered approach to getting approval for various equine and livestock uses.  Rather than making all applications subject to full Special Review, as they are now, the revised regulations will provide for a Minor Special Review process for the less intense uses.  Full Special Review takes eight months and can cost three or four thousand dollars.  Minor Special Review costs $600 and takes about two months.  Discussion regarding the fees for Special Review and Minor Special Review is a separate County Commissioners’ issue.

Existing, legal livestock and equestrian uses will remain legal uses if the amendments are adopted.  Zoning regulations are not applied retroactively; therefore, existing legal uses that do not meet the proposed regulations would become non-conforming.  There is a provision in the Planning Commission’s recommendation that would allow the reactivation of a non-conforming livestock or equestrian use within three years of its discontinuance as long as evidence of the use remains such as corrals, barns, etc. 

Following is the Planning Commission’s recommendation with the changes called for in their motion.

The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommend the following amendments to the Land Use Code as recommended by the Planning Commission:

            1.  New definitions to be added to the Code

Stocking Rate:  The number of animals allowed on a parcel is based on one animal unit equivalent (AUE) per acre of land available for animal use.  AUE’s are determined by using Table 4.3.13.I.

Equine Facility:  A property where horses and/or other animals of the horse family are kept for the purpose of boarding or training the animals; or for the purpose of instructing people in riding, driving, jumping, or showing; or for the purpose of offering horses to ride for hire; or for the purpose of recreational uses such as roping, cutting or racing.  Horses owned by the owner of the property will be included in the calculations to determine the appropriate approval process for an equine facility.

Livestock Facility:  A property where livestock, except animals of the equine species, are kept for more than 90 consecutive days and the number of animal unit equivalents (AUE) exceeds the stocking rate.

Confinement Area:  Fenced corrals or pens where horses and other equines can be contained to restrict access to pastures.

Zoo/Wildlife Park:  A place where animals are kept for the purpose of exhibition, photography or as a sanctuary, rescue or rehabilitation facility for the animals.

           

            2.  New Section 4.3.13 Livestock and Equine Regulations

A.   Livestock Facility-A place where livestock, except animals of the equine species, are kept for more than 90 consecutive days and the number of animal unit equivalents (AUE) exceeds the stocking rate.

 

1.   Livestock facilities with more than 1 AUE per acre up to and including 5 AUE per acre of land available for animal use require approval through the Minor Special Review process.  See Section 4.5.

2.   Livestock facilities with more than 5 AUE per acre of land available for animal use require approval through the Special Review process.  See Section 4.5.

B.   Equine Facility-A place where horses and/or other animals of the equine species are kept for more than 90 days for the purpose of boarding or training the animals; or for the purpose of instructing people in riding, driving, jumping or showing; or for the purpose of offering horses to ride for hire; or for the purpose of recreational uses such as roping, cutting or racing.  Horses owned by the owner of the property will be included in the calculations to determine the appropriate approval process for an equine facility.

 

1.   Equine facilities with up to and including 5 times the stocking rate require approval through the Minor Special Review process.  See Section 4.5.

2.   Equine facilities with more than 5 times the stocking rate require approval through the Special Review process.  See Section 4.5.

3.   All equine facilities with pasture or grazing land must include a confinement area of at least 500 square feet per AUE but not to exceed three acres or 10% of the land area available for animal use, whichever is less.

C.   Horses and other equine animals for personal use-Animals of the equine species may be kept by the owners or occupants of a parcel for their personal use provided that the stocking rate is not exceeded and a confinement area is provided to allow for pasture recovery.  The confinement area must be at least 500 square feet per AUE and not exceed 3 acres or 10% of the area available for animal use, whichever is less.  This is not considered to be an equine facility.  If the stocking rate is exceeded, the use becomes an equine facility which requires approval as determined in Section 4.3.13.b above.  Current owners of lots which contain one acre or less will have two years from the date of adoption of these amendments to acquire one or two horses based on one horse per half acre of lot and establish a non-conforming use.

D.   Livestock for personal use-Livestock may be kept by the owners or occupants of a parcel for their personal use provided that the stocking rate is not exceeded.  This is not considered to be a livestock facility.

 

            3.  Amend the definition of “Farm”

The current definition includes references to the animal uses that are being deleted from the Code.

            The revised definition follows with deleted text crossed out and new text underlined.

Farm.  Any parcel of land used primarily for the commercial, soil-dependent cultivation of an agricultural crop; the facilities and storage necessary for the management of a commercial custom farming operation or the hauling of farm products; the raising of aquatic plants or animals fish, plants, horses or other livestock but not including feedyards, poultry farms or fur farms, provided the stocking rate is not exceeded.  

            This definition should replace those found both in the definition section and in Section 4.3.1.

            4.  Zoo/Wildlife Park

The Land Use Code does not have a provision for zoos or wildlife parks.  This type of use would be most appropriate in the same zoning districts that allow equine and livestock facilities.  Special Review should be required to address the impacts on surrounding properties.

Add the use “Zoo/Wildlife Park (S)” under the Recreational Category in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts.  Add these uses to the Zoning Table located after Section 4.1.22 in the Code.

            5.  Animal Unit Equivalent Table

Adding the following table to the Land Use Code will provide the tool we need to determine how many animals can be kept on a property.

Table 4.3.13.I

The following table, combined with the stocking rate of one animal unit equivalent per acre of land available for animal use, will determine how many animals can be kept on a parcel.

Offspring are counted when they are weaned or, in the case of animals which are not weaned, the animals are counted when they reach half their adult weight based on industry standards.

For animals not listed in the table, the Planning Director will determine animal unit equivalents based on the mature weight of the animal, based on industry standards, divided into 1,000 pounds.

 

Animal

AUE per animal

Animals per AUE

Cattle

1

1

Bison

1

1

Mule

1

1

Horse

1

1

Pony

0.5

2

Ostrich

0.5

2

Swine

0.5

2

Miniature equine

0.25

4

Sheep

0.2

5

Llama

0.2

5

Alpaca

0.125

8

Goat

0.125

8

Emu

0.1

10

Turkey

0.04

25

Chicken

0.02

50

Rabbit

0.02

50

 

            6.  Amend Zoning Districts

Add “Equine Facility (MS/S)” and “Livestock Facility (MS/S)” to each zoning district in Section 4.1 under the Agricultural heading.

            7.  Amend Non-Conformity Section

Section 4.8.6 deals with the discontinuance of a non-conforming use.  The recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Board and the Animal Task Force are to allow a non-conforming livestock facility to be re-established after being discontinued for up to three years.

Amend Section 4.8.6 as follows:  If a non-conforming use, except a non-conforming livestock or equine facility, is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, the use cannot be re-established.  If a non-conforming livestock or equine facility is discontinued for up to three years the use may be re-established if conclusive evidence of the non-conforming use remains in place.  Conclusive evidence could consist of barns, corrals, pens or other improvements.  If a question arises as to whether a non-conforming use was discontinued or whether conclusive evidence of a livestock or equestrian facility remains, the property owner must show by competent evidence that the non-conforming use has not been discontinued.  The planning director will make the final decision concerning the evidence.  The planning director’s decision can be appealed to the County Commissioners under Section 22 (Appeals).

            8.  Items to be deleted from the current Code.

Definitions-Delete definitions for Commercial Poultry Farm, Feed Yard, Fur Farm, Livery Stable, Boarding Stable, Riding Academy, and Stable.

Use Descriptions in Section 4.3-Delete Commercial Poultry Farm, Feed Yard, Boarding Stable, Fur Farm, Riding Stable, Riding Academy and Riding Horses.

Zoning Districts in Section 4.1-Delete the following uses in all zoning districts-Commercial Poultry Farm, Feed Yard, Fur Farm, Livery Stable, Boarding Stable and Riding Academy.

            Section 4.3.10.H Riding Horses.

 

Mr. Helmick explained the proposal as outlined above, noting that animal regulations have been in place since 1963, but have not been updated on a regular basis.  He stated that when the Land Use Code was first adopted the animal regulations were included; however, some of the regulations have not been updated since 1963.  Mr. Helmick explained that the proposal will allow current horse owners to establish a non-conforming use within two years of the adopted changes.  Mr. Helmick further noted that the proposal allows the non-conforming use to be re-established even if it lapses up to three years. 

Chair Gibson explained that he had a number of "sign-in" sheets with the names of individuals who wished to address the Board with comments on this topic.  Chair Gibson explained that they would hear the comments regarding horses first, and all other animals and livestock issues would be heard afterwards.  Chair Gibson again asked for cooperation from the citizens in keeping their comments limited to three minutes, and to show their support of comments being made by raising their hands, instead of shouting or clapping.  Approximately two and a half hours of public testimony occurred. 

The following individuals addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed regulations:  Timothy Bratten, Julia Hillen, Diana Lustick, Ron Klein, Jill Cook, Fred Ward, Pam Marshall, Heather Zadina, Chad Zadina, Kelly Lee, Greg Deal, John Garnand, Chase Swift, Sherry Butler, Carolyn Culhane, Meg Cicciarella, Steven Rutledge, Jim Robbins, Wendy Chase, Tom Bender, Karin Livingston, Patti Herrington, Holly Trumble, Keith Jacobson, Marcie Sowko, Wayne Arndt, Jan Richardson, Christel Beckers, Karen Delahney, Gale Garringer, Emily Graves, Racquel Rodenheaver, Lou Kinzli, Richard Binger, Robert Michel, Barbara Shaffer, Sky Weitzel, Alan Jones, Tim Jackson, Gary York, Ken Malone, Robert Dobson, Charlie Dehn, Lisa Rakow, Kathy Porter, Lauren Light, Lawerence Patterson, Edward Aitken, Norm Brown, Patty Kuehl, Wayne Phipps, Carol Joy Collins, Jackie Worthington, Caleb Cramer, Maryann Snyder, Terry Turner, Linn Turner, Denise Haines, Evelyn King, and Mike Alps.

Their reasons for opposing the proposed regulations were outlined as follows:  1. This is a land management and an education issue, not a numbers issue.  If the land is already being mis-managed, then reducing the number of horses from two to one will not make a difference.   2.  If the proposed changes are adopted, property values will decrease.  3.  Properties were purchased as horse properties and owners would like the right to convey that use if the property is ever sold, even if there are no horses currently on the land.  4.  The stocking rate table is not accurate.  5.  Dust is a part of living in the rural setting.  6. Individuals stressed the need to evaluate why the regulations would be passed, as they did not see a "problem" and wondered what these regulations were supposed to "fix."  7.  The regulations were written by staff members sitting behind a desk - individuals with no horse ownership experience.  8.  The proposed changes will hugely impact the 4-H program and will be a hindrance for children wanting to participate in 4-H.  9.  It creates a down-zoning of their properties.  10.  Reference was made to the Code of the West, which stresses and embraces the differences between life in the country and life in the city.  11.  Reference was made to the Right to Farm, and how the proposed regulations negatively impact ranching and agricultural businesses.  12.  There is no provision for enforcement of the regulations.  13.  Therapeutic Horse back Riding programs would be in jeopardy of losing their business.  14.  There are already regulations in place to address noxious weeds and dust.  15.  The horse business is a $1.6 billion industry in the state of Colorado, and government entities should be very careful about creating regulations that will negatively affect the local economy.  16.  The regulations will cause conflict between neighbors.  17.  Stocking rates will not address the dust issue; however, confinement and pasture rotation measures to protect overgrazing will.  17.  Larimer County will see horse owner's move to Weld County, or other communities where there are no restrictive regulations.  18.  Horse owners buy big trucks, trailers, and parks passes, so they can do a multitude of recreational activities with their horses, which in turn supports and stimulates the economy.  19.  The regulations are discriminatory to horse owners. 20.  The regulations will negatively affect the Colorado State University Veterinary program.  21.  Larimer County is building a multi-million dollar 4-H building, which will serve no purpose if there if the regulations discourage horse and livestock ownership.  22.  Restricting the number of rabbits will place a strain on business, considering one rabbit only produces 4 to 6 ounces of angora each harvest.  23.  The Animal Task Force recommended the regulations be based upon impacts and management.  24.  How will the regulations address seasonal animals, such as turkeys that are only kept for three to four months out of the year?  25.  Ten emus per acre is not the norm in other states, and alpaca breeders suggest a minimum of ten alpacas per acre.  26.  What are the expected improvements for dust control?  27.  How will the zoning and tax rate for these properties be affected?

The following individual expressed support for the proposed regulations:  Marty Kuebler.   Mr. Kuebler stated that he has had neighbors who have practiced bad horse management.  Mr. Kuebler stated that he believes that regulations should be in place and that fewer horses would be easier to manage.

Chair Gibson closed public comment. 

Mr. Helmick stated that the non-conforming use has to be maintained or re-established within three years.  Mr. Helmick stated that this regulation would be as enforceable as any regulation Larimer County adopts. 

Commissioner Rennels recognized that although the proposal came with the support of the Planning Commission, she believes it is an issue of education and confinement.  Commissioner Rennels stated that she is not comfortable taking a stab at arbitrary stocking rates; she also noted concern with how the regulations might affect youth and in particular the 4-H program.   Finally, Commissioner Rennels stated that the proposed regulations seem to conflict with the Rural Economic Pilot Project, which is an effort to stimulate and support businesses and economic growth in rural areas. 

Commissioner Wagner stated that it was refreshing to hear individuals talk about their sense of place and agricultural heritage, and noted that the smaller acreages provide a nice buffer between the towns and communities.  Commissioner Wagner stated that there should be some regulations or guidelines in place; however, maybe the odor and dust control should be dealt with as a Code Compliance issue. 

Chair Gibson agreed that it seems as though the problems trying to be rectified relate more to land management.  Chair Gibson stated that the property owners land values should be upheld, and further stated that he could not support changes as proposed, and suggested that the stocking rates be recommendations rather than requirements. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the amendments to the Land Use Code pertaining to horses and other livestock as presented in the recommendation by the Planning Commission.

Under discussion of the motion, Commissioner Rennels requested that staff work on a parallel track with the Rural Economic Development Pilot Project in order to update the livestock regulations so the efforts in each area do not conflict.  Commissioner Wagner thanked staff and citizens alike for their efforts and participation in this issue.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 38)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Assistant County Manager Neil Gluckman.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Frank Lancaster, Donna Hart, and Cheri Pineda, Commissioners’ Office; Ginny Riley, and Angela Mead, Human Services Department; Candice Phippen, Building Code Enforcement; Jerry White, Engineering Department; Julie Duran, and Marie Edwards, Latino Issues Task Force Members; Andy Paratore, Information Technology Division; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:   Randy Whitman addressed the Board with questions surrounding the history of his property and past zoning violations.  Mr. Whitman requested direction from the Board regarding how he might get approval to run his business utilizing mini-storage units.  Discussion ensued regarding this topic, and the possibility of Mr. Whitman's property being annexed into the City of Fort Collins.   The Board stated that they honor the Intergovernmental Agreements they hold with the municipalities, and recommended Mr. Whitman check with the Planning Department to make sure that his business ideas comply with the zoning in his area.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 20, 2006

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 20, 2006, as amended.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 3, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for March 28, 2006:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are DENIED:  Anton and Diana Sertich; Earl and Barbara Tackman; Molander Family Trust; Erwin and Mary Boettcher.

 

03282006A001           COURTHOUSE SECURITY SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TWIN CITY SECURITY, INC.

 

03282006A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR MCCLELLAND'S CREEK PLANNED LAND DIVISION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FOSSIL LAKE PUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

 

03282006R001           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR MCCLELLAND'S CREEK PLANNED LAND DIVISION

 

03282006R002           RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Final Plat for McClelland's Creek Planned Land Division; Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Proposal to the Colorado Division of Housing.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  287 Discount Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins.   The following action was approved:  Pool Tyme Billiards - Modification of Premises - Loveland.  The following licenses were issued:  Red Feather High Country Restaurant - Tavern - Red Feather Lakes; Vern's Place - Beer and Wine - LaPorte.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION:  Ms. Mead explained that April 2006 is being recognized nationally as Child Abuse Awareness Month, and that Larimer County will be holding a ceremony on April 3, 2006.  She stated that there will be a child abuse survivor speaking at the ceremony, and they will also be recognizing a case worker for efforts and progress made in this area.  Commissioner Wagner then read the proclamation aloud.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   ROUND BUTTE RANCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH MAPS 1 AND 2: Mr. White presented two maps of the Round Butte Ranch Conservation Easement, and explained that the City of Fort Collins is purchasing the 1,360 acre Round Butte Ranch, which is located about 18 miles north of Fort Collins.  Mr. White stated that the City of Fort Collins is utilizing a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant to help fund this purchase, and a condition of the GOCO grant requires that the conservation easement must be granted to another public agency or land trust.  He noted that the City of Fort Collins is requesting Larimer County to hold the conservation easement, and if in the future, the property goes back into private ownership, then the conservation easement will revert to the City of Fort Collins.  Finally, Mr. White stated that the conservation easement is being granted in two phases, and requested approval on both phases although only Phase I (640 acres) is being presented today. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Deed of Conservation Easement for Round Butte Ranch, Phase I to be signed at this time, and Phase II to be signed at a later date.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

03282006D001           DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR ROUND BUTTE RANCH (PHASE I) BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS

 

7.   APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL:  Ms. Pineda presented the recommendations for appointments to the Citizen Review Panel as follows:  Carlos Romero and Arthur Trevethick, for a 2-year appointment beginning March 28, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2008.  Robin Ferruggia, Rebecca Hannaway, Nancy Kain, Cathy Lund, and Dushan (Duke) Sumonia, for a 3-year appointment beginning March 28, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2009.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the Citizen Review Panel, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSITION PLAN:   Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Paratore presented the final draft of the Information Technology Service Implementation and Transition Plan, noting that when this item was originally presented the Commissioners requested that a more solid schedule of activities and performance measures be included in the plan.  Mr. Paratore stated that formation of the plan was a collaborative effort by Information Technology staff and the Technical Advisory Board.  

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final Information Technology Service Delivery Implementation and Transition Plan and Associated Appendices.

  

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.   PROPOSAL TO CONTINUE THE LATINO ISSUES TASK FORCE:  Mr. Gluckman explained that the Latino Issues Task Force was created in June 2005 to explore Latino issues pertinent to Larimer County.  He stated that the task force identified the following three areas to study and evaluate in order to make recommendations to the Commissioners:  1. Diversity; 2. Accessing Services; and 3. Voting.  Ms. Duran stated that the task force would like to continue their efforts, and would like to replace members that have decided to no longer participate in the task force.  Commissioner Rennels asked how many members have resigned.  Ms. Duran stated that three members have resigned.  Commissioner Wagner stated that although only three members have officially resigned, there are other members who have only attended one meeting thus far; therefore, she recommended contacting all members to see if they are still interested, as there may be a need to recruit more than three members to fill vacancies on the task force.    

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve continuing the Latino Issues Task Force for an additional year, expiring July 31, 2007.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  WORKSESSION:   There were no worksession items to discuss.

 

11.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.  

 

 

12.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no Legal Matters to discuss.

 

The meeting recessed at 10:40 a.m.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

(#39)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:30 p.m. to consider multiple Petitions for Abatement.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Linda Arnett, John Cowling, Christine Murray, Ann Piccone and Patty Ring, Assessor’s Office; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR GENERATION H ONE & TWO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SCHEDULE NUMBER R1541102:  Ms. Ring presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is a commercial building built in 1997, which currently houses a Circuit City retail store.  Ms. Ring explained that three similar commercial properties were used as comparables to determine the actual valuation of $2,400,000 and asked the Board to uphold this value.

Chair Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not in attendance at the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement for Generation H One & Two Limited Partnership, Schedule Number R1541102, and uphold the 2003/2004 assessed value of $2,400,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR BANK WESTERN FEDERAL, SCHEDULE NUMBER R0041106:  Ms. Murray presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is a commercial building built in 1973, which is currently being used 80% as a bank and 20% as office space.  Ms. Murray explained that three other office buildings in the area were used as comparables to determine the actual valuation of $617,000 and asked the Board to uphold this value.

Chair Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not in attendance at the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement for Bank Western Federal, Schedule Number R0041106, and uphold the 2003/2004 assessed value of $617,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR BANK WESTERN FEDERAL, SCHEDULE #0343820:  Mr. Cowling presented his appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  He explained that the property is a commercial building built in 1981, which is currently being used as a bank.  Mr. Cowling explained that three other office buildings in the area were used as comparables to determine the actual valuation of $1,060,000 and asked the Board to uphold this value.

Chair Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not in attendance at the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement for Bank Western Federal, Schedule Number R0343820, and uphold the 2003/2004 assessed value of $1,060,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR THELMA KNAUKE, SCHEDULE #0577448:  Ms. Arnett presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is a residence built in 1920.  Ms. Arnett explained that three other residences in the same subdivision were used as comparables to determine the actual valuation of $191,723 and asked the Board to uphold this value.

Ms. Knauke approached the Board and shared details regarding the home’s construction and various additions, outbuildings, etc.  Ms. Knauke went further to detail previous assessed values and to explain her concern that the assessed value of her residence increased so dramatically since the 2003/2004 assessment. 

Discussion ensued regarding the original price Ms. Knauke paid for the residence and the correlation between assessed value and sellable value, and the fact that Ms. Knauke’s property had likely been significantly undervalued in previous years.  Each of the Commissioners, at various times during the discussion, cautioned Ms. Knauke that she should prepare for the value of her property to increase in future assessments, even if they agree to an abatement of her 2005 property value.

Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding abatement of the 2005 value of Ms. Knauke’s property to her original purchase price of $170,000 (which still results in an increase in value of more than $32,000), with the understanding that her property value will likely increase to current market values with the next assessment.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve reducing the 2005 value on the property owned by Thelma Knauke, Schedule Number R0577448, to $170,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

(#40)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. to consider multiple Petitions for Abatement.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Brooke Walser, Alexis Smith, and Ann Piccone, Assessor's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   ABATEMENT HEARING FOR MICHEL J. THAI, SCHEDULE NUMBER R0061824:  Ms. Walser presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is a located on a busy road and that all four comparables she used were also located on busy roads.  Ms. Walser stated that she believes the comparables support the actual value of $223,481, and asked the Board to uphold this value.

Stephen Miller, Agent for the petitioner, presented and reviewed his packet with the Board.  Mr. Miller presented comparables that were closer to the subject property.  He also presented a spreadsheet of paired sales, which identified the rate of increased valuation on a monthly basis.  Mr. Miller explained that in December of 2005, the Assessor's Office approved an abatement of taxes for this property, and decreased the value from $210,600 to $182,900.  Based upon this, Mr. Miller continued, there is no evidence to support a 22% increase in value in that two-year period.  Finally, Mr. Miller stated that the house was built during the depression era, which greatly affected the quality of the house from the very beginning.

 

Commissioner Rennels asked Ms. Walser if she considered the recent abatement of taxes on this piece of property.  Ms. Walser stated that they do not consider past abatements, as the property is being re-evaluated in a completely different time period with updated sales data.   Commissioner Rennels stated her concerns regarding the recent abatement of taxes; therefore, she recommended a downward adjustment to $205,000. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve an abatement of taxes, and reduce the 2005 value on the property owned by Michel J. Thai, Schedule Number R0061824 to $205,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR BRACE N. RODENHISER, SCHEDULE NUMBER R1537601:   Ms. Walser presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board, noting that all six comparable she used were within the same neighborhood as the subject property.  Ms. Walser requested the Board uphold the assessed value of $441,176, as the comparables and sales in the area support this value.

Stephen Miller, Agent for the petitioner, presented his packet which included comparables and paired sales analysis.  Mr. Miller explained that this parcel was awarded an abatement of taxes in 2005, in which the value was lowered from $401,900 to $363,400.  Some discussion ensued regarding whether the value should be lower for those properties that border County Line Road.  Ms. Walser noted that one of the comparable she used does border County Line Road and it sold for the highest amount.   

Commissioner Rennels stated that due to the recent abatement of taxes, she recommended a decreased value of $410,700.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve an abatement of taxes, and reduce the 2005 value on the property owned by Brace N. Rodenhiser, Schedule Number R1537601 to $410,700.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR EDWARD E. AND BETTY E. MOTZKO, SCHEDULE NUMBER R0162914:  Ms. Walser presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  Ms. Walser noted that the subject property is lakefront property, and although she could not find any lakefront properties to use as comparables, the comparables she did use are all on Terry Lake Road.  Ms. Walser requested that Board uphold the actual value of $414,127. 

Edward Motzko addressed the Board, noting that he is retired and on a fixed income.  Mr. Motzko stated that he was unprepared for his property taxes to jump from $1,600 per year, to $2,800 per year.  Mr. Motzko presented photos of his home and surrounding homes in his neighborhood; he explained that he bought his home 30 years ago, and although there are many large homes being built in his area, his is a much older home.  Mr. Motzko explained that he currently has his home for sale.

Discussion ensued regarding how much Mr. Motzko had his home listed for.  Ms. Walser noted that she included Mr. Motzko's property listing in her packet, which indicates a sale price of $490,000.  Mr. Motzko explained that he has had his home listed for a year and has had to continually lower the listing price because the home will not sell.   

Commissioner Rennels stated that given the fact that large updated homes are being built in this neighborhood, it can become more difficult to sell an older existing home, as many would prefer raw land to build the home they want, versus substantially re-modeling an older home.  Commissioner Rennels recommended the Board reduce the value of this property to $400,000.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve an abatement of taxes, and reduce the 2005 value on the property owned by Edward and Betty Motzko, Schedule Number R0162914 to $400,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR JAMES D. AND CORNELIA CLAUDIA WHITE, SCHEDULE NUMBER R1598547:  Ms. Smith presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is vacant land located next to the Devil's Backbone open space.  Ms. Smith stated that all of the lots in this subdivision have been overlooked in past reappraisals and at one time they were all exempt; however, the lots are now being sold for development.  She explained that she has discounted the property utilizing the present worth method, which eases the burden on developers until the infrastructure is established.   Ms. Smith requested the Board to uphold the actual value of $123,200.

Chair Gibson noted for the record that the petitioners were not present at the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement for James and Cornelia Claudia White, Schedule Number R1598547, and uphold the actual value of $123,200 for the 2005 tax year.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 11:10 a.m.

 

    __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk 

 

 

___________________________________

Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk