Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 18, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Karabensh was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 21, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Morgan.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 BERTHOUD SUBSTATION LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1579:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the Location & Extent review for a power substation for Public Service Company of Colorado located approximately ¼ mile west of U.S. 287 and ½ mile north of County Road 10E on the north side of the Town of Berthoud.

 

Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Berthoud Substation Location & Extent, file #05-Z1579, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  An access permit is obtained from County Engineering Department. 

B.  Demonstration of the legal right to use of Clayton Place is submitted to County Engineering.   

C.  Best Management Practices are followed to control erosion and dust emissions. 

D.  If this project will disturb more than one (1) acre of ground, Public Service Company of Colorado will obtain a stormwater management permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan thanked Excel Energy for their efforts on the project.  He stated that they did an outstanding job and appreciated the effort that went into the presentation.

 

 

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2 PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2269:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development to subdivide 545 acres into 47 single family residential lots and 9 residual lots located off the south side of County Road 4, seven miles southwest of Berthoud, west of U.S. Highway 287, and north of the Larimer and Boulder County Line. 

 

Doug Reed, Fine Line Consulting, stated that the proposal was to divide the property into 47 single family lots with 2/3 of the space left open as residual land.  He stated that the applicant agreed with all the staff recommendations.  However he questioned Condition H, which stated that they engage in good faith discussions to resolve the Culver Lateral Ditch Company concerns.  He stated that they were willing to do that; however, he was not sure how to gage whether good faith efforts had occurred or not.

 

John McLain, Baseline Engineering, stated that the two main access points to the property were off of County Road 4.  He explained that there was a well defined ridge line running through the middle of the property.  He explained that half of the site would drain to the north, and that two detention ponds had been implemented on the north portion of the site to catch the north basin.  He stated that outlet would occur into the County Road 4 right-of-way where there were two existing culverts, which would feed into the Culver Gulch.  He explained that half the drainage went into the Culver Gulch; the other half went south, and two detention facilities would be designed for the north half along with a large pond to catch most of the runoff from the south.  He stated that the septic fields had not been designed yet but would be at the time of building permits.  He remarked that a septic waste water report was done, which Doug Ryan of the Health Department had reviewed.  He noted that the lots on the south half of the subdivision were 1600 feet away from the ditch, and they believed that any nitrates or septic problems would degrade before they did reach the ditch. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Robert Johnson, 2120 Sherlyn Court, stated that he was concerned about the night lights and wanted to see a light restriction for the proposed subdivision.  He was also concerned about the impact to the road, and asked if the unpaved portion of the road would be paved to allow for more than one access to the properties in the area.  The retention ponds were also an issue because of the mosquito control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lowell Tveten, 8190 N. County Line Road, stated that he lived on property where the Culver Ditch ran through, and was also the president of the Culver Lateral Ditch Company.  He had concerns regarding the drainage from the development into the Culver Ditch, which was positioned to receive all of the drainage.  There were concerns regarding the amount of water coming into the ditch during the periods of heavy rain but mostly with respect to the contamination that may be involved because of the use of lawn fertilizers, weed sprays, seepage from defective septic systems, blowing trash, etc.  He noted that ditch owners did not want those materials in their irrigation water, and the ditch company had acquired legal and engineering consultants.  At the present time the ditch company did not feel that there were enough details to make a judgment before signing off on the project. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the ditch had historically accepted runoff that had come off of the old mining site?

 

Mr. Tveten replied yes; however, the difference was that it was going to be from the subdivision, which was a different runoff.  The quality of the water was the main concern, not the quantity. 

 

Conrad Brandt, 2300 Blue Mountain Avenue, was the President of the Blue Mountain Water Users Association and a board member of the Culver Ditch Company.  He stated that Blue Mountain Water Users Association had 41 families as members using the irrigation water from the Culver Ditch.  He remarked that the drainage report stated that it would release at about 30 cubic feet per second from the retention ponds, and the ditch could not accept that kind of flow.  He stated that the Engineering Department, representatives for the applicant, and he met to discuss alternate plans that could occur.  He also stated that the quality of water was important, and that they received all the drainage from the subdivision from the north and south.  He noted that quantity was important to him due to the rate the applicant was proposing to release.  He believed that additional studies needed to be done, water quality needed to be determined, and a baseline developed as to the purity at the present time before any development began.  He then recommended that when the development was completed a sample be taken on a quarterly basis to determine if there was any discharge occurring that was adversely affecting the ditch. 

 

Michael Valentine, 600 S. Airport, Building A, Suite 205, was a professional engineer hired by the Culver Ditch Company to review issues relating to the subdivision impacts that might affect the ditch both in terms of quantity and quality.  He explained that the two year runoff that was computed for the subdivision was on the northern half of the property and was approximately 24 CFS, and the ditch did not always have the excess capacity to handle that.  The predicted flows would overwhelm the ditch capacity if released at that flow rate.  He stated that new urban drainage standards have been adopted by Larimer County but the proposed subdivision was being grandfathered in under the old standards. By utilizing the old criterion the release rates from the site could be a larger.  From their perspective they wanted to keep the quantity at historic rates if at all possible.  He was not sure that the two detention ponds currently there, with discharge rates based on the old criterion and over inflated discharges as to what had been experienced, would satisfy the problem for the ditch company.  The other concern was water quality, in which impact would not be known until the subdivision was developed. 

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the 90 acres on the north half of the property at a two year storm event would have an increase from 2 CFS to 5 CFS on an historical basis.  He asked if that was the rate going out of the detention pond or the rate going into the detention pond?

 

Mr. Valentine replied that it would be the peak rate going off of the water shed.  He stated that there may be approximately 5 acres of undetained water going directly into the gulch.

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, explained that the current drainage report references the old standards for Larimer County because the development had already been submitted at the preliminary stage when the standards were changed to the Urban Drainage Storm Water Design Standards, which referenced the Urban Drainage Manuals.  The current drainage report included detaining the 100 year developed storm water between the two ponds on the north side, and the release rate was calculated at the two year historic release rate.  In a small storm water quality outlet structures would provide some detention because there was a 40 hour release rate so sediments could settle out and the water could slowly percolate.  She stated that when the applicant, Mr. Brandt, and she met the applicants’ design engineer indicated that they could provide larger pond volumes with a smaller release rate. 

 

Mr. Valentine stated that from their perspective they could accept the historic volume but the release rate was going to be the problem. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if he felt that it could be worked out in good faith negotiations?

 

Mr. Valentine replied yes but if there was an increase in discharge to the ditch over historic conditions the ditch company good not accept the proposal.  He felt that the grandfather clause to allow the applicant to continue to use the other standards was a problem.

 

George Hoffman, President of the Kent Estates Water Users Association and Vice President of the Culver Ditch Company, agreed with past statements made by the public.  He reiterated that the Culver Ditch ended at Kent Estates.  He stated that properties had been flooded several times because it had ran full. 

 

Mr. Reed stated that the development would be sensitive to night lighting, and they would be happy to include light restrictions in the covenants. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that her personal preference was to not have white, vinyl fences for the development.  She asked who would manage the residual land?

 

Mr. Reed replied that all residual land would be controlled and owned by the Home Owner’s Association.

 

Ms. Downs pointed out that the developer would be required to pave County Road 4 along the project frontage and analyze the existing pavement section as part of the Final Plat.  She also stated that any areas of chip seal along the frontage would have to be paved too.  She noted that the majority of the trips from the traffic study showed trips leaving the development and traveling east bound. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. McLain stated that the detention ponds had been designed to release at a rate that should not increase as it entered the gulch.  As far as water quality, they were going to implement a water quality measure within the ponds.  He stated that they would be willing to enlarge the detention ponds and release at a one year rate.  They also wanted the ponds to evacuate over a 40 hour period so mosquitoes would not become an issue.  He also stated that County Road 4 would be paved. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if there was the potential to overwhelm the ditch?

 

Mr. McLain replied that there was the possibly for potential bypass that could increase the volume but did not feel that would really impact it having a 7% drainage basin, releasing at 24 CFS.. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the maintenance of the ponds would be managed by the Home Owner’s Association?

 

Mr. McLain replied yes. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked for Doug Ryan’s opinion on the water quality issue.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained the Health Departments’ process for reviewing water quality issues.  He stated that for the present development the preliminary soils test indicated that there were clay soils that would require larger septic systems.  He stated that the individual septic systems would be reviewed at the time of building permits.  The design of the subdivision complied with the Land Use Code and the Health Department technical standards; therefore, the Health Department could accept the proposal.  He stated that if the development’s covenants allowed horses, the Health Department suggested that they work with the County Extension office.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked what the current discharge was off of the 91 acres?

 

Kenny Boyd, Baseline Engineering, stated that the runoff was currently at 25 CFS for a two year storm.  

 

Mr. Helmick encouraged the developers to put restrictions regarding lighting in their covenants.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if the development was going to allow horses on the properties.

 

Mr. Reed replied that horses would be allowed on individual lots, and the residual areas would be open for grazing. 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Huddleston encouraged the applicants to the use the new drainage standards.  He explained that the control of the runoff from the new subdivision could exacerbate the runoff problem for the ditch by detaining the downstream runoff.  Therefore, the detained runoff would then combine with the runoff from the upper watershed, and using the new standards from a watershed perspective would minimize the impact on the ditch.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if livestock management plan information would be attached to the covenants?

 

Mr. Helmick recommended including that as a condition of approval, specifically in condition F, which dealt with the Disclosure Notice. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she felt the information should be in both the Disclosure Notice and in the covenants so it could be enforced. 

 

Commissioner Morgan understood the concerns of ditch companies; however, felt that they would possibly need to function differently than they had historically done before. 

 

Commissioner Wallace recommended that condition F be amended by adding that the Disclosure Notice would also provide information regarding livestock issues, and condition J be amended as follows:

J.   Covenants shall require that new homeowners

a.   confine pets to their respective lots

b.   should confine “backyard livestock” such as rabbits and chickens should be confined to predator proof hutches.

c.   have individual lot plans for livestock

d.   have management plans for horse use of the residual lots

e.   provide light requirements such as down-lighting and limitations on night lighting

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development, file #04-S2269, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with amendments to condition F and condition J as follows:

 

A.  The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan & the information contained in the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development (File #04-S2269) 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 Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development.

 

B.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: the Thompson R2-J school fee, the Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

C.  The Development Agreement shall include a provision for the completion of the phased build out of roads in the project.

 

 

 

 

D.  Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

E.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This agreement shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations if required, the need for passive radon mitigation, the provision of fire protection measures and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

F.   The applicant shall sign a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat, that provides important information to potential buyers about conditions of approval, rural area issues, livestock issues, water rights, etc.

 

G.  The Final Plat application shall include a provision for the construction of a school bus staging area on County Road 4.  The design of the bus shelter must comply with Thompson R2-J School District standards and include lighting for safety during winter months.

 

H.  The applicant shall comply with the applicable requirements of Section 8.8, which requires they engage in good faith discussions to resolve the Culver Lateral Ditch Company concerns.

 

I.    The applicant must contact the Colorado Geological Survey to address their concerns regarding trenching and previous mining activities on site, as detailed in the CGS comments dated 11-8-04, to set perimeters for on-site trenching.  The results of the trenching may necessitate a requirement for over-excavation at the site to accommodate engineered foundations for the residential uses.  The final construction plans shall be designed to address the requirements of site conditions detailed by the trenching assessments.

 

J.    Covenants shall require that new homeowners

a.   confine pets to their respective lots,

b.   should confine “backyard livestock” such as rabbits and chickens be confined to predator proof hutches,

c.   have individual lot plans for livestock

d.   have management plans for horse use of the residual lots,

e.   provide light limitations such as down-lighting and night lighting.

 

 

 

 

K.  The Final Plat must identify the well location and show an access easement to the well.  The easement shall be further identified by a deed to be recorded with the final plat.  If the well is to be used to irrigate residual land (or common area lots) owned by the Homeowner’s Association, the Final Plat must also include a shared maintenance agreement for the well, to be recorded with the Final Plat.

 

L.   The Final Plat shall extend the limits of the easement around the substation to the road, to allow for access to the substation.  This easement, and the access easement to the Alverson RLUP between Lots 7 and 8 in Block 5, shall be dedicated by separate deeds to be recorded with the Final Plat.

 

M.  The Final Plat shall identify and properly label all Residual and Common Area Lots.  The applicant must provide deeds transferring ownership of the Common Area Lots for recording with the Final Plat.

 

N.  The note under “Land Dedications” on the Preliminary Plat that refers to the residual land as being dedicated for use as a County parks and recreation area, must be removed.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0058:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically review criteria for all development.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

 

George Vidacs, resident in Rist Canyon, stated that the addition of the new Subsection 2.6 should be tested in court because it sounded illegal that oppositions were eliminated and the issues were simplified too much.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that the Assistant County Attorney wrote Subsection 2.6.

 

Mr. Vidacs stated that he had lived here for 42 years and had seen illegality from the County Attorney and Assistant County Attorney’s offices and asked that it be checked.

 

DISCUSSION;

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code concerning Review Criteria, file #05-CA0058, be approved as follows:

 

Note:  The underlined text is new.

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new subsection 2.6 to read as follows:

 

Review criteria are included in this Code for each type of development application.  Because Larimer County is a diverse area in terms of topography, land use types, densities and public facilities, the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment recognize that all review criteria will not be applicable to all development applications.

 

Review criteria cannot be appealed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with review criteria or to demonstrate that a particular review criterion is not applicable to his or her application.

 

When a review criterion requires compliance with standards and requirements of this Code, an appeal of the standard or requirement that is approved has the same effect as if the standard or requirement was met.

 

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 3.8.2. Review criteria for changing the code text, by adding the following:

 

To approve a change in the land use code text, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or has been determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The proposed change is consistent with the master plan and the intent and purpose of this code; and/or

B.   The proposed change is necessary to correct an omission or error in the code.

 

 

3.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.4.4. Review criteria for zone or overlay zone district boundary or zone designation changes, by adding the following:

 

To approve an amendment to the zoning district boundaries, overlay district boundaries or zone designation of a parcel on the official zoning map, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The proposed change is consistent with the master plan;

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

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

D.   The proposed change does not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;

E.   The proposed change addresses a community need;

F.   The proposed change results in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood;

 

 

 

G.   In order to approve a rezoning to PD-planned development district, the subject parcel must be within a growth management area overlay zone district or the LaPorte Plan Area or other adopted sub-area plan, and the county commissioners must also find that the proposed land use type, density and intensity are consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations, if any, or with the LaPorte Area Plan or other adopted sub-area plan.;

H.   In order to establish or enlarge a GMA district, the county commissioners must also find that the criteria in subsection 4.2.1.B.3 have been met.; and

I.   The county commissioners may exclude or remove an area from an established GMA district boundary if they find one or more of the review criteria  in subsection 4.2.1.B.3 can no longer be met.

 

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.5.3. Review criteria for special review applications, by adding the following:

 

To approve a special review application, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

             

A.   The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood;

B.   Outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan. Within a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to the GMA district, or if none, with the county master plan or County adopted sub-area plan;

C.  The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

D.   The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

E.    The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

 

5.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.5.5. Review criteria for minor special review applications, by adding the following:

 

To approve a minor special review application the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood;

B.   Outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan. Within a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to the GMA district, or if none, with the county master plan;

C.   The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this Code;

 

 

D.   The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

E.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

 

6.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.6.3., by adding the following:

 

Section 4.6.3.   Review criteria for Zoning Variances

 

To approve a zoning variance application, the board of adjustment must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:  A.   There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested;

B.   The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner;

C.   The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code   would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship;

D.   Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure;

 

E.   Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure;

F.   Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan;and

G.  The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

 

7.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.7.3, by adding the following:

 

4.7.3. Review criteria for Zoning Special Exceptions

 

To approve a special exception application, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

A.   The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood;

B.   The recommendations from referral agencies have been considered;

C.   The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property;

D.   The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this Code;

There is reasonable justification for the use being at the proposed location rather than in a municipality or where zoning would allow the use by right or by Special Review;  

F.    The nature of the proposed use and its operations are such that there are significant benefits to the public to be located where proposed; and

 

G.   The proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan.

 

 

8.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.1.3, by adding the following:

 

5.1.3.   Review criteria for Subdivisions.

 

To approve a subdivision, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The proposed subdivision is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area;

B.   The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed subdivision can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

C.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and

D.    Approval of the proposed subdivision will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision.

 

 

9.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.2.3, by adding the following:

 

5.2.3. Review criteria for Planned Land Divisions

 

To approve a planned land division the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:  A.   The planned land division complies with the applicable supplementary regulations of the GMA district, if any, or the LaPorte Area Plan or other adopted sub-area plan, as applicable.

B.   The planned land division is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area;

C.   The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this Code;

D.   The county commissioners have approved a rezoning of the land to PD-planned development;

E.     The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and

F.     Approval of the proposed Planned Land Division will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the proposed Planned Land Division.

 

 

10.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.3.4, by adding the following:

 

5.3.4. Review criteria and process for Conservation Developments

 

A.   To approve a conservation development, county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

1.   The proposed conservation development is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area;

 

 

2.   The applicant for the proposed conservation development has demonstrated that the proposed conservation development will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

3.   The proposed conservation development will result in no substantial negative impact on environmentally sensitive areas or features, agricultural uses or other lands; 

4.  . Approval of the proposed Conservation Development will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the proposed Conservation Development; and

5.     The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

B.  All applications for conservation development require a preapplication conference, sketch plan review and a neighborhood meeting as described in section 12.2 and preliminary plat review and final plat review as described in section 5.13.  All multiple-phase conservation developments also require a general development plan review.  Single-phase conservation developments may be submitted for general development plan review at the choice of the applicant.

 

 

11.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.4.3, by adding the following:

 

5.4.3. Review criteria for Minor Land Division

 

To approve a minor land division, county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The property is not part of an approved or recorded subdivision plat;

B.   The property is not part of an exemption or minor residential development approved under the previous subdivision resolution or a minor land division;

C.   The newly-created parcels will meet the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning district. For uses resulting in a significant public benefit, such as a fire station, the county commissioners may grant an appeal from the minimum lot size and minimum lot width to depth ratio requirements, provided the proposed use meets minimum setbacks and sewage disposal requirements;

D.   The newly-created parcels meet minimum access standards required by the county engineer or the Colorado Department of Transportation as applicable; and

E.   Approval of the minor land division will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses. However, impacts from increased traffic to a public use may be offset by the public benefit derived from such use.

 

 

12.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.5.3, by adding the following:

 

5.5.3. Review criteria for Boundary Line Adjustment

 

To approve a boundary line adjustment, the planning director must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The lots are legal lots as defined in the definitions section;

B.   No additional lots will be created by the boundary line adjustment;

 

 

C.   The lots are not in a subdivision, planned unit development, minor residential development, or exemption approved under previous subdivision regulations or in a minor land division, subdivision, conservation development or planned land division;

D.   The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size and lot width to depth ratio standards of the applicable zoning district. (If either or both lots are nonconforming with respect to minimum lot size or lot width to depth ratio, the boundary line adjustment must not increase the nonconformity); and

E.   The boundary line adjustment will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building.

 

 

13.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.6.3, by adding the following:

 

5.6.3. Review criteria for Add-On Agreement.

 

To approve an add-on agreement, the planning director must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The lots being combined are legal lots as defined in the definitions section. An illegally-created lot can be combined with one or more existing legal lots, if the planning director determines the resultant lot or lots are consistent with the intent and purpose of this code;

B.   The add-on agreement will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area; and

C.   The add-on agreement will not result in a nonconformity. For example, an add-on agreement that results in two principal buildings on one lot is not allowed.

 

 

14.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.7.3, by adding the following:

 

5.7.3. Review criteria for Amended Plat.

 

To approve a proposed amended plat, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   No additional lots will be created by the amended plat.

B.   The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and the lot dimension ratio required by subsection 8.14.2.L. If any of the lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size or the lot dimension ratio, the amended plat must not increase the nonconformity.

C.   The amended plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building;

D.   The amended plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area; and

E.   Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat.

 

 

 

 

 

15.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.9.3, by adding the following:

 

5.9.3. Review criteria for Easement or Right-of-Way Vacation.

 

To approve a right-of-way or easement vacation, the county commissioners consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   Approval of the vacation request will not leave any land adjoining the right-of-way without an established public road or private access easement connecting the land with another established public road, or without utility or drainage services;

B.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and

C.   Any right-of-way that is vacated will be divided equally between the lots on each side, unless it can be demonstrated that all of the right-of-way was originally taken from one parcel. In that case, the right-of-way will be returned to that parcel. Property owners on each side of the right-of-way may agree to divide the vacated right-of-way differently but must sign deeds to transfer ownership after the county commissioners approve the vacation.

 

 

16.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.10.3, by adding the following:

 

5.10.3. Review criteria for Plat Vacation.

 

To approve a proposed plat vacation, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   Vacation of the plat will not leave any lots without adequate utility or drainage easements;

B.   Vacation of the plat will not vacate road rights-of-way or access easements needed to access other property;

C.   Vacation of the plat will not inhibit the provision of adequate public facilities or services to other property as required by this code; and

D.   Vacation of the plat is consistent with the master plan.

 

 

17.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.10.4, by adding the following: 

 

5.10.4. Review criteria for Resubdivision.

 

A resubdivision of existing lots requires review and approval through the applicable land division process. Review criteria are listed in the applicable sections of this code.

 

 

18.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.12.4, by adding the following:

 

5.12.4. Review criteria for Condominium Map

 

 

 

To approve a condominium map, the county commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.   The proposed uses in the condominium units are consistent with existing zoning of the site;

B.   The site complies with sections 8.5 (landscaping); 8.6 (off-street parking standards); and 10 (signs);

C.   The condominium map complies with the monumentation and plat preparation standards required by state statute; and

D.   The applicant has submitted property owners association documents or their equivalent that address the unit owners' rights and responsibilities with respect to parking, loading and access facilities, landscaping, utilities and any other common areas and facilities on the site. The documents must also provide for perpetual maintenance of common facilities by property owners. If property owners fail to adequately maintain the common facilities, the county commissioners may take over maintenance and charge the cost to the property owners until property owners demonstrate they can adequately maintain the property.

 

 

19.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 6.4, by adding the following:

 

6.4.   Review criteria for Site Plan

 

To approve a site plan application, the planning director must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

A.   The site plan complies with all applicable requirements of this code and any applicable supplementary regulations; and

B.   The site plan complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board under another approval process authorized by this code.

 

 

20.       Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new Section 22.2.5 Review Criteria for Appeals from Section 10 (Signs).

 

22.2.5 Appeals from Section 10 (Signs)

 

To approve an appeal from the applicable requirements in Section 10 of this Code the County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

A.   Approval of the appeal is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code;

B.   There are extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the site which would result in a peculiar or undue hardship on the property owner if Section 10 of this Code is strictly enforced;

C.   Approval of the appeal would not result in an economic or marketing advantage over other businesses which have signs which comply with Section 10 of this Code.

 

21.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 22.1 Purpose, by adding the following:

 

Section 22.1 Purpose

 

The purpose of this section is to define circumstances under and processes by which persons may appeal (i) decisions made in administration, interpretation or enforcement of this Code, and (ii) standards and requirements imposed by this Code.   Appeals of standards or requirements that are approved have the same effect as if the standard or requirement was met.

 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0058:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically storage buildings, barns and garages.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

None.

 

DISCUSSION;

 

Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code concerning Storage Buildings, Barns and Garages, file #05-CA0058, be approved as follows:

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code as follows:

 

In Section 4.1 add a new use “Storage Buildings and Garages (R)—See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)” under the “Residential” heading in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open, E-Estate, E-1 Estate, RE-Rural Estate, RE-1 Rural Estate, R-Residential, R-1 Residential, R-2 Residential, M-Multiple Family, M-1 Multiple Family, A-Accommodations, T-Tourist and AP-Airport Zoning Districts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code by amending Section 4.3.2 as follows:

 

Add Subsection I to read, “Storage buildings and garages without a single family dwelling on the lot.  Prior to the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot, each lot may include a storage building or garage, for the purpose of storing personal property of the lot owner.  All storage must be inside the storage building or garage.  No residential, business or commercial activities are permitted in these buildings.  On lots of less than 2 acres (net area) these buildings may not exceed 800 square feet.  On lots of 2 to 5 acres (net area) these buildings may not exceed 2400 square feet.  On lots over 5 acres there is no limit to the size of these buildings.  In no event shall the total square footage of detached storage buildings and garages exceed 10 per cent of the net area of any lot.”

 

 

3.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.D, by deleting the strike through text as follows.

 

Section 4.3.10.D Storage buildings,  barns and garages when there is a principal building on the lot.  Each lot may include detached storage buildings, barns and garages for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building or principal use on that lot. The total ground floor area of all storage buildings, barns and garages on a lot can not exceed ten percent of the lot's net area. Semitrailers with attached running gear (i.e. axles, wheels) cannot be used as storage buildings. A storage building, barn or garage may be constructed on a legal building site before the principal building is constructed provided the building permit for the principal building is issued by the building department within two years of the date the building permit is issued for the storage building, barn or garage. The planning director may grant, in writing, an additional two years to acquire the building permit for the principal building. The planning director may consider the following criteria and any other relevant information in granting such an extension.

1.   There are circumstances beyond the control of the property owner that delayed the acquisition of the building permit for the principal building; and

2.   There have been no objections from the neighboring property owners to the placement of the accessory building.

 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0058:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically livestock.  He explained that an animal task force was appointed, which was a group of private citizen volunteers, and did a public outreach regarding the proposal.  Along with the Agricultural Advisory Board, they made a series of recommendations.  He stated that one recommendation was to focus on land management and stewardship; however, the County did not feel that there was the ability to properly enforce something of that nature.  Therefore, the proposed amendments dealt with the numbers of animals along with an impact assessment with the goal to look at the impacts of animal uses on neighborhoods and surrounding areas. 

 

He stated that the adoption of the regulations would not eliminate any existing, legally established livestock or equine use.  He explained that several new definitions needed to be added to the Land Use Code such as Stocking Rate, Equine Facility, Livestock Facility, Confinement Area, and Zoo/Wildlife Park.  A new section would also be added, Section 4.3.13 Livestock and Equine Regulations, where the definitions and a greater definition of Equine Facility and Livestock Facility would be located.  He explained that if the facilities exceeded the stated requirements an approval would be required through the Special Review or Minor Special Review process.  He stated that Section 4.8.6 dealing with non-conformity would be amended to allow an abandoned equine or livestock facility to be re-established after three years provided the evidence of that facility remained.  He also explained the proposed Animal Unit Equivalent Table as shown below. 

 

Animal Unit Equivalent Table

 

                                                            Table 4.3.13.I

 

Offspring are not counted as separate animal unit equivalents until they reach the age when accepted industry practice allows them to be separated from the parent.

 

 

Animal

AUE per animal

Animals per AUE

Cattle

1

1

Bison

1

1

Mule

1

1

Horse

1

1

Miniature horse, pony

0.5

2

Ostrich

0.5

2

Swine

0.5

2

Sheep

0.2

5

Llama, Alpaca

0.2

5

Goat

0.2

5

Emu

0.125

8

Poultry

0.02

50

Rabbit

0.02

50

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the non-conformity went with the property or the owner?

 

Mr. Kadera replied the property.  It would not be tied to the ownership.

 

Chairman Boulter referenced the Animal Unit Equivalent Table and wondered if the title of the table should be “Animal Unit Equivalent Table per Acre of Land Available for Animal Use” to tie in the earlier mentioned definitions.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that the title could be changed.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what would trigger a change in configuration? 

 

Mr. Kadera replied that if an existing dairy facility wanted to add another milking barn it would not be a change of use if it was not intended to accommodate additional cows or was an expansion of the use. 

 

Commission Morgan confirmed that a change in configuration was tied to the stocking rate.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that it would be tied to how many animals had been established on the property as a nonconforming use.  If a facility changed the character of use, such as a boarding facility wanting to add an arena to hold riding lessons, then it would need approval. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Harry Elder, 5300 N. County Road 11, represented 12 miniature horse owners and breeders in Larimer County, which were a part of the Rocky Mountain Miniature Horse Club.  His concern was an oversight on the Animal Unit Equivalent (AUE) for miniature horses and ponies.  They were grouped together in the AUE table and miniature horses were not ponies.  A pony was over 38 inches tall, and miniature horses were 38 inches and under with an average weight of 250 pounds.  He saw a problem with the unit of measure because the average ranch horse weighed between 1000 and 1100 pounds, therefore the equivalent would be four, 250 pound miniature horses.  The table should allow 0.25 AUE per animal, which would allow four miniature horses per acre.  He noted that Elbert and Douglas Counties had established the four miniature horses per acre standard. 

 

Terry Turner, 2051 County Road 82E, represented the Rabbit Creek Emu Ranch along with the Colorado Emu Association (CEA).  She stated that only allowing eight emus per acre was not in line with emu farming across the United States.  She stated that the CEA, since 1999, had presented information to the animal task forces on emu farming, good farming practices, and the minimal amounts of food consumed and excrement left on the ground by emus.  She noted that emus were not noisy and did not erode the soil.  Her concern was that only allowing eight emus per acre would destroy emu farming in Larimer County because larger numbers were needed to be successful.  She pointed out that across the U.S. the allowable rates were between 75 and 100 emus per acre.  She also remarked that the definition of an emu in animal unit terms did not address offspring.  She stated that she would like to see a stocking rate of 0.0125, which was equivalent to 80 emus per acre.  She was willing to provide additional information and give the Commission a tour of an emu operation. 

 

 

 

Commission Huddleston stated that the offspring would not be counted as separate animal unit equivalents until they reached the age when accepted industry practice allowed them to be separated from the parent.

 

Lindenwood Turner, 2051 County Road 82E, explained the emu breeding operation.  He stated that it was essential to have 80 emus per acre in order for operations like his to be profitable.

 

Brian Robertson, 1624 W. County Road 56, stated that he was an alpaca owner and breeder and had concerns with the allowable alpacas per acre.  He thanked Mr. Kadera for his work on the amendments.  He examined other county’s codes and stated that there was no consensus on what the number should be.  He stated that the allowed number Larimer County was proposing, which was five alpacas per acre, was about half of what any other county in Northern Colorado was allowing and permitting.  He stated that Boulder County had an animal unit equivalent table of five animals with a multiplier that allowed up to 20 alpacas per acre depending on specific zoning.  Morgan County allowed 16 per acre and Jefferson County had no regulation for anything over one acre.  He encouraged that before adopting the proposed table it be revised to achieve a better understanding of what numbers should be permitted.  He stated that the multiplier should be added to the table.  He believed that at the very least 10 alpacas per acre should be allowed and the number should be tied to the zoning.  Ten per acre would not be appropriate for a more densely populated area but would be too low for agricultural.  He explained that he was new to the business and was trying to expand his herd.  If the proposed amendments were adopted it would limit his business opportunity. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston clarified that the table did not count offspring. 

 

Mr. Robertson stated that even if you had an animal that was industry acceptable to leave its parents, one was not always able to sell that animal right away.  Therefore, in his case, he would only be allowed 12 alpacas on his farm, and if he had 12 adult alpacas and their offspring he would have to sell six alpacas which was not necessarily a market feasible thing to do nor a good thing for his business plan.  He recognized that there needed to be a limitation; however, the number proposed was too low.

 

Dan Klinzmann, 4904 W. County Road 56, asked what made him legal and nonconforming?

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the Planning Department had a zoning certificate, which was research that could be done by Planning Staff, to determine if the property was legal.

 

Commissioner Pond stated that he felt that the purpose of the proposed code amendments were to prevent dust bowls and weed patches from over grazing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amanda McGuinness, 1529 W. County Road 56, stated that she was a senior at Colorado State University double majoring in equine and animal science specializing in equine reproduction and dairy sciences.  She had a concern with the stocking table for goats.  As proposed, there would only be five goats per acre allowed.  She felt that it was under what most dairies could operate at, and they would not be able to have a feasible dairy operation.  She thought that the number should be doubled.  She stated that she wanted to start her own agricultural business after she graduated, and the proposed numbers would prohibit herself or anyone to start new operations, grow, and provide further agricultural opportunities within the County.  She stated that the proposed amendment that required equine facilities that operated after 7:00 p.m. to go through the Special Review process was not feasible.  Every equine facility, small or personal, operated after 7:00 p.m. during some point of the year.  That was especially true for boarding operations that fed or trained later or rode when the sun went down and it was cooler.  In regards to the offspring, dairy operations separated the offspring off of the parents.  She remarked that the number proposed was not feasible to be able to start an operation. 

 

Fred Ward, 4417 Louise Lane, stated that he lived on a one acre parcel, which currently allowed 2 horses per acre.  He stated that the new regulations would basically down zone the property to where no horses would be allowed.  He bought the property for horse property but now since he would not have an existing, nonconforming use on the property it would be made less valuable.  He confirmed that he would need to buy a horse before the regulations went into effect just so he would have an established use on the property and make sure that it did not lapse for more than three years so he could sell it as horse property.  His concern was that the only people that would be able to afford to have horses would be people that could buy larger acreages or people that could afford to board their horses and not have their horses available on their own property.  He confirmed that he had not purchased any horses yet but had bought the property so he could have horses there in the future.  He stated that the number of horses for a one acre parcel should not be reduced from two to zero.  He could understand reducing that number to only allow one horse per acre but to totally eliminate the use was a problem.

 

Gale Garringer, 985 Deer Meadow Lane, stated that he raised paint horses and had a breeding ranch.  He stated the new regulations were ridiculous and explained that offspring could be sold for a lot more if they were allowed to grow and be trained for a couple of years.  He pointed out that places like Glacier View Meadows had restrictions in their covenants regarding the number of animals people could have and wondered if the County would supersede those covenants.  He stated that he had 50 acres and with the proposed regulations he could only have 50 horses, which would not be profitable for his business.  He felt that the County was putting burdens on it residents and noted that Larimer County was an agricultural based county. 

 

George Vidacs, Rist Canyon, stated that the regulations did not account for other animals such as cats and dogs.  He stated that the proposed code amendments did not say anything about what would be done if someone was not performing to the code.

 

Jack Spies, 9303 N. County Road 3, stated that his main concern was the stocking rate for horses and for all the other animals.  He stated that he had lived in the County for 35 years and raised horses.  He agreed with previous comments and remarked that a horse operation would have the horses on hay feed, not a pasture operation because it was not feasible in the area.  He understood that neighbors were complaining but stated that it was not fair for people to move into an area and complain about an established operation when they knew that operation had existed. 

 

Marty Keebler, 5901 Otero Avenue, stated that he supported the change.  He wished the changes would be effective immediately with no grandfather clause because he had a poor situation with a neighboring property.  He stated that the confinement area regulations should enforce the use of them so pastures were not used.  He also had concerns about offspring because it allowed twice the horses until separated from the parent.

 

Bonnie Templeton, 5223 Lone Tree Drive, supported the business owners and stated that the restrictions would not allow those businesses to be profitable.  She stated that she was a pleasure owner of horses, not a businessman.  She was the Vice President of the Larimer County Horseman’s Association and stated that pasture management was very important.  She stated that one of the goals should be education and restrictive numbers would not necessarily accomplish the goal.  It was not how many horses per acre but how those horses per acre were handled.  She wondered what would happen if a 2.5 acre lot with two horses had one horse became elderly and could not be ridden anymore.  She felt that the horse should be able to retire; however, the regulations would not allow horses to be replaced until they died.  She thought that there were unintended consequences from the proposed regulations and that getting people to manage their horses better was more along the lines of what needed to be done.

 

Kenneth McCanless, 1507 W. County Road 56, stated that he was an alpaca owner.  He remarked that alpacas and llamas should not be categorized together in the Animal Unit Equivalent table.  He stated that he was never informed of a previous animal task force. 

 

Carolyn Alberts, 591 W. County Road 66E, stated that she had 9 acres on which she had a horse, alpacas, and boarded a couple of horses for extra money.  She stated that the proposed regulations would make an equine facility.  She asked what an equine activity was and stated that the proposed regulations seemed overly restrictive.  She also agreed with Mr. Ward who spoke on property values and horse property investments.  She remarked that the table should be revised according to weight, etc. because alpacas, llamas, and goats were not the same size.  She also thought that a multiplier in the stocking table was a good idea. 

 

Jeremy Johnson, 1529 W. County Road 56, stated that he owned horses and goats.  His concern was how the proposed regulations were going to affect him in the future as a person who was attempting to start a business or who had one in the future.  He explained that he wanted to expand his business and would not be able to with the proposed regulations and felt that they were setting people up for failure.  He asked if a person would be defined as nonconforming according to what was currently occurring on the property or what was proposed for the property? 

 

Mr. Kadera stated that a nonconforming use defined in the Land Use Code was a use that was legal that became out of compliance upon the adoption of a new regulation.  As a result, it depended on when a person established the use compared against when the regulations were adopted, and if it was legal at the time.  He explained that the use could continue indefinitely but could not expand or change the character of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gary York, 514 N. County Road 3, agreed that the 7:00 p.m. deadline for equine facilities was not logical.  He stated that probably from April to September people would be performing activities after 7:00 p.m.  He pointed out that there was no guarantee that a process such as a Special Review would be approved if someone needed to expand their operation.  He stated that he would not buy or advise anyone to buy horse property in Larimer County and would advise them to go to Weld County.

 

Audrey Stockton, 4821 Rutters Drive, suggested that the 90 consecutive day requirement for a livestock facility also be included for an equine facility for short time and seasonal activities.  She thanked the effort put forth for the regulations and understood that it could not be set by management practices.  She stated that the Animal Unit Equivalent table had many problems.

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Morgan suggested the livestock amendments be revised and heard again at the February 15, 2006 Planning Commission hearing.

 

Chairman Boulter agreed that the amendments needed to be revised.

 

Commission Waldo also agreed and stated that there seemed to evidence that the AUE table was inaccurate for a baseline.

 

Commissioner Pond had a concern with the stocking table.  He also had a concern with the confinement areas.  His biggest concern was the maintenance of the pasture and felt that special consideration should be given to people that did have a confinement area for their animals.

 

Commissioner Huddleston felt that the miniature horse and pony along with the llamas and alpacas should be defined as separate animals in the stocking table.  He felt that the offspring definition for the stocking table also needed to be revised to accommodate certain animals.  He also had a concern with the 7:00 p.m. requirement for equine facilities.  He thanked Mr. Kadera for his efforts.

 

Commissioner terMeer also thanked Mr. Kadera for his efforts.  She was concerned about the inability to acquire another horse if someone had an elderly horse that needed to retire.  Another concern was adding the 90 day requirement for equine facilities for short term use.  She thought that a multiplier for the stocking table should also be examined.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer agreed that the 7:00 p.m. rule for an equestrian center was ridiculous.  He felt that the stocking table numbers were skewed and should be revisited. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the definition for Confinement Area should be revised to state “must” be contained instead of “can” be contained, and an Equine Facility should be defined as a property instead of a place.  With respect to the 7:00 p.m. limit for equine facility activities, she felt that the activities should be defined.  She also felt that “Livestock for personal use” should clarify that there was still the requirement for a confinement area.  Along with that she felt that the confinement area for indoor animals should be doubled.  She remarked that the Animal Unit Equivalent table should remain as currently proposed with the exception that certain animals were separated and classified differently.

 

 

Commissioner Morgan agreed that the stocking table should remain as proposed.  He suggested that a better explanation of the Special Review process be included in the proposed amendments. 

 

Chairman Boulter agreed with previous comments by the Commissioners except the stocking table.  He felt that miniature horses, ponies, llamas, alpacas, goats, and emus needed to be considered separate animals and have different stocking rates for each.  He felt that the requirements of other surrounding Counties as well as industry standards should be examined.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that it came down to stewardship and not numbers.  He felt that the stocking rates were way to low for a baseline.  He also did not want a small piece of property to have its animal use eliminated.

 

Chairman Boulter also agreed that a small horse property should not be eliminated if not already established.

 

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code concerning Livestock, file #05-CA0058, to February 15, 2006.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Helmick reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

 

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.