LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of February 15, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner terMeer and Waldo were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Christie Coleman, 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 JANUARY 18, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

POSTING OF MEETING IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETINGS LAW:

Commissioner Pond moved that the Larimer County Planning Commission designate the Oak Street entrance to the Larimer County Courthouse as the public posting place for notices of all official actions and public meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings law (CRS 24-6-402).  Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 CHOICE CITY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #02-S1916:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone the property from C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) and to divide by Planned Land Division into seven commercial use lots and two common areas located on the south side of Highway 14, approximately 1/8 mile east of Link Lane.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if the Engineering Department’s concerns had been addressed?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes, the drainage issues had been resolved.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Choice City Business Park Planned Development, file #02-S1916, 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.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Choice City Business Park Planned Land Division, file #02-S1916, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, 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.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #2 LUCHT REZONING #05-Z1557:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone two parcels from C (Commercial) and O (Open) to PD (Planned Development) for a commercial use with outdoor storage situated on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Summit View Drive, just north of Highway 14.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Lucht Rezoning, file #05-Z1557, to rezone the property from C (Commercial) and O (Open) to PD (Planned Development), be approved 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:

 

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)

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

31.   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.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3 PEARL VISTA CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #05-S2427:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development Preliminary Plat to divide a 35 acre parcel into three residential lots of 5-7 acres and one residual parcel of 17.5 acres located off of Pearl Creek Road southwest of Crystal Lakes.  The request also includes a rezoning of a portion of the 35 acre parcel from E-1 (Estate) to E (Estate) to resolve the split zoning of the parcel.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Pearl Vista Conservation Development, file #05-S2427, for the property described on “Exhibit C’ to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1)   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Pearl Vista Conservation Development (File #05-S2427) 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 Pearl Vista Conservation Development.

 

2)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3)   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.

 

 

4)   Prior to the submittal of the final plat application the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the State Engineer as outlined in their letter from Jeff Deathrage for Dick Wolfe, dated December 22, 2005. 

 

5)   Water will be supplied by on-site wells.  The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association as noted in their letter from Jodean G. Sandquist, dated September 23, 2005 and in their Subdivision Development Policy.

 

6)   Fire sprinklers are required for new habitable construction.

 

7)   The final plat application shall include a Forest Management Plan that includes an implementation strategy and Wildfire Mitigation Plan.   The Forest Management Plan shall be implemented on the entire property prior to the issuance of any building permits.

 

8)   A water storage tank with a minimum of 3000 gallons per lot must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy of Letter of Completion for any building permit.

 

9)   During the Final Plat review process for this development and prior to approval, the applicant shall resolve the technical issues found in the referral letter from the Larimer County Engineering Department by Christie Coleman, dated January 3, 2006.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Pearl Vista Rezoning, file #05-S2427, to rezone portion of the 35 acre parcel from E-1 (Estate) to E (Estate), be approved.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4 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.  The original proposal was heard by the Planning Commission on January 18, 2006 but was tabled so issues raised during that hearing could be addressed.  Based on the remarks at that hearing, the following items were proposed to be changed:

·  property owners with existing lots would be allowed two years to establish a non-conforming use on the property that would run with the land. 

·  horses would be allowed to exceed the stocking rate for up to 90 days to match the exception for livestock. 

·  the requirement for a Special Review for equine facilities operating after 7:00 pm. would be eliminated.

·  the definition of equine facility would specify “property” rather than “place”.

 

He also remarked that the Animal Unit Equivalent table had been changed to reflect adjusted numbers, and the title of “miniature horse” had been changed to “miniature equine”.  Language relating to offspring was also revised.  An additional note was also added to the table, which stated “For animals not listed in the table, the Planning Director would determine the animal unit equivalents based on the mature weight of the animal divided into 1000 pounds.”

 

He noted that a concerned citizen had brought up the option for people exceeding the stocking rate to lease land from neighbors, an issue he felt the proposed amendments did not address.  Mr. Kadera explained that it was addressed in the proposed amendments.  He also stated that the Planning Department had received emails and letters from Sharon Green, Ron Klein, Merlue Frasier-Davies, Maureen Dower, and Christy Clark.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if a person could apply for a Minor Special Review if their property did not allow for an animal?

 

Mr. Kadera replied yes. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Harry Elder, 5300 N. County Road 11, was representing miniature horse owners in Larimer County.  He thanked staff for reconsidering the number of miniature horses on the animal unit equivalent table and believed the table was correct and fair.  He again mentioned leasing of ground and hoped that it would be addressed because he felt it could potentially be a problem for breeders.  He asked how someone could apply for a Special Review if needed?

 

Terry Turner, was representing the Rabbit Creek Emu Ranch and the Colorado Emu Association.  She asked how much a Minor Special Review would cost.  She passed out a chart to the Commission, which showed other county’s animal allowances.  She pointed out that emus where not effectively represented on the chart due to the fact that most of the counties did not address emus. 

 

Charles Bell, resident of Ridgewood Meadows Subdivision, stated that he was strongly opposed to the amendments, specifically the amendment that would change the number of horses per acre.  He explained that his neighborhood had irrigated horse properties and remarked that the proposed regulations did not allow for any difference between dry and irrigated land.  He stated that the change would reduce property values, and from his prospective felt that the changes were coming about due to people that abused the current animal allowance, and now those people that did not abuse those regulations would have to suffer.  He felt that the government was overstepping their bounds, and the proposed change would discriminate unfairly against 4-H and people that had small animal hobby businesses.  He pointed out that Larimer County was still a rural county despite the pressures to develop and such a rule change would lead to abandoning the rural character.  He did not want to see the county become another northern suburb of Denver, and he asked for the county to keep its rural feeling and allow two large animals per acre. 

 

Kathy Black, resident of LaPorte, asked why there had to be limits on rabbits when they lived in cages? 

 

Susan Moore stated that she lived on 1.3 acres on Terry Lake Road.  She stated that her main purpose for moving there was to have a horse.  She stated that one horse alone just didn’t work. 

 

Brian Robertson, 1624 County Road 56, appreciated the efforts to separate emus and alpacas from the same category; however, he still did not agree with the number of eight alpacas per acre.  The number recommended by the national association and from a survey of alpaca owners in the county was 15 alpacas per acre and remarked that a number of people would become nonconforming due to the proposed changes.  He also had a concern with the 1000 lb. determinate because that assumed incorrectly that all animals had the same impact on pastures.  He pointed out that for non-agricultural zonings Boulder County allowed 10 alpacas per acre, and Weld County allowed 13 per acre.  He stated that 10-15 alpacas per acre was more feasible than 5-8 and wanted a compromise.  He pointed out that Larimer County was a “right to farm and ranch” county. 

 

Gale Garringer, 961 Deer Meadow Way, appreciated that the 7:00 p.m. limit for equine facilities was abandoned.  He asked if there would be different regulations for stall horses?

 

Sky Weitzel, 4008 Ideal Drive, agreed that the proposed stocking rate did not consider stalled horses.  He explained that he had stalled horses and his children were involved with 4-H.  He stated that facilitation, maintenance, and education were the main factors not the number allowed.  He asked if subdivision covenants would be honored or the proposed regulations?  He stated that his property value would decrease if the regulations were adopted.

 

Ron Lindroth, resident of LaPorte, stated that he was an equine owner and agreed with past comments regarding the stocking rate.  He pointed out that the County Commissioners were examining rural business in the area, and the proposed regulations would limit the veterinarian industry, along with other businesses, if the stocking rate was reduced.

 

 

Barbara Koelzer, 5509 Norwood Avenue, wondered how a confinement area would be enforced.  She appreciated the fact that people who wanted to exceed the stocking rate could apply for a Special Review but felt that the fee was too expensive. 

 

Merlue Frasier-Davies, 1520 E. Douglas Road, stated she had Quarter horses.  She remarked that there should be a focus on practicing good range management and stewardship.  She wondered if enforcement of the regulations would be based on a complaint basis.

 

Diana Rutschman, 990 Deer Meadow Way, stated that she owned Deer Meadows Land and Livestock, which ran on 70 acres.  She remarked that if the regulations were adopted she would move her operation out of the county to an area where her operation was welcome.

 

Dan Klinzmann, 4904 W. County Road 56, agreed with the past comments.  He stated that with the proposed regulations a person was better off putting a cow on an acre.  He stated that confinement was needed.

 

Carolyn Ownby Alberts, 591 W. County Road 66E, suggested regulating a noise ordinance rather than equine activities after 7:00 pm.

 

Timothy Bratten, 1533 E. County Road 66, stated that the horse industry in the area generated a lot of money and imposing restrictions would have a great impact on businesses including feed supplies, veterinarians, equine facilities, etc.  The reduction of equine properties would only contribute to urban sprawl if people could not buy a one acre property to have horses on and some of the proposed regulations discriminated against horses.  He also remarked that the animal unit equivalent was an arbitrary measure that had no empirical data to prove that it was valid or a useful metric.  He remarked that good stewardship of the land was the issue, not numbers, and just because numbers were easy to enforce did not make it the right thing to do.  He also felt that the review process was arbitrary and expensive.  He asked for clarification on what constituted a change in character on the property. 

 

Maureen Dower, 1909 River Glen Drive, also agreed that there should be different regulations for irrigated and non-irrigated pastures.  She suggested that the time frame for equine facilities be the same as the noise ordinance.  She suggested that covenant communities have their covenants accepted.  She asked if new buyers would be able to have the same uses on the land?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that if it was an existing, legal use it would become nonconforming and the use would run with the land, not the owner.

 

Carol J. Collins stated that she raised rabbits.  She did not agree with allowing only 50 rabbits per acre when they were in cages. 

 

Gordon Kirkpatrick, 529 Mercer Drive, stated that his property was established in 1950 before the 1963 rules were established and wondered if he would be “grandfathered” in since he was there before any regulations.  He wondered why the county was trying to govern over the number of animals a property owner could have. 

 

Mr. Kadera replied that as long as there had been a nonconforming use established before 1963 when the first zoning regulations were adopted the property would be nonconforming.  The nonconformity section in the code stated that if a nonconforming use was abandoned for 12 consecutive months then the property would have to come into compliance with the current Land Use Code. 

 

Mr. Kirkpatrick also expressed concerns about the Special Review process and cost.  He also felt that the county was trying to control people’s property rights.

 

John Detweiler, 4255 Westshore Way, asked how many people had an interest in or were influenced by real estate agencies in writing the proposed regulations? 

 

Jeremy Johnson, 1529 W. County Road 56, stated that he was an equine graduate student studying agriculture extension education.  He agreed with past comments but did appreciate the effort made by Staff to continue to make changes to the proposed regulations.  He felt that the proposed regulations would affect small business in the county.  Many of the businesses would become nonconforming, and there was no stipulation in the regulation to allow for fluctuations in a business such as bringing in animals to replace others or replace animals that were going to die. 

 

Mary Haslow, 131 2nd Street, stated that she was not currently a horse owner but bought her property with hopes to own one in the next year.  She stated that she used to live in King County, Washington where they had a program that taught best management practices to horse owners.  She felt that horse owners in Larimer County were being discriminated against and was opposed to the changes.  She felt that it would be beneficial to all Larimer County citizens if more education would be used and less regulation.

 

Marty Keebler, 5901 Otero Avenue, stated he was not as concerned with the numbers of animals as he was with the stewardship of the land.  He liked the confinement area provision, but felt that it should be applied to livestock also.  He proposed a provision to state that, “Under no circumstance should no more than 10% of the area available for animal use be allowed to be an area with no vegetation where dust blowing conditions exist.” 

 

Kathleen Kilkelly, 920 Inverness Road, stated that she was a horse owner and agronomist, specializing in soils and land reclamation.  She appreciated the effort of trying to resolve what she felt was a growing problem in Larimer County.  She stated that horse property was becoming more marginalized due to the pace of development, the best agricultural soils were gone, many irrigations shares were owned by municipalities, and agricultural water was limited.  As a result, more people were being pushed onto more erodeable soils to the west and north.  She agreed that some people did mismanage their properties. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bonnie Templeton, 5223 Lone Tree Drive, wondered what the motivation was behind the stocking rate table.  She thought that if the horses were in a confined area and not on pasture, the stocking rate should go up or there should be an allowance for such a situation.  She felt the stocking rate should be at least two horses per acre if they were restricted to a confinement area.  Along with that, a retired horse in the confined area should not be counted toward the stocking rate.  She also remarked that enforcement was possible for retired horses because owners could have a note from their veterinarian.

 

James Wade, 4112 Ideal Drive, remarked that the proposed regulations would decrease his property value because there would be the burden of being nonconforming.  He felt that the regulations would not allow people who owned a home on one acre to have an animal such as a horse because there would not be a total of one acre available for the horse. 

 

Mary Beck, 503 N. Hollywood Street, stated that she could appreciate the past comments but had problems with her neighbors’ stewardship of the land.  She stated that she supported the proposed regulations. 

 

Debbie Garringer, 961 Deer Meadow Way, did not agree with the 7:00 pm equine use regulation or counting stalled horses in the stocking rate once they were not on pasture.  She also mentioned that Colorado was a right to farm state, which stated that landowners, residents, and visitors had to be prepared to accept an activity, sight, sound, and smell of Larimer County agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in Colorado.  She pointed out that the county built the Ranch to provide for agricultural based activities and had an agricultural based university.

 

Bob Mayer, resident of Waverly, pointed out that the majority of people had voiced their opposition against the proposed regulations and asked who was being represented by the change?

 

Fred Ward, 4417 Louise Lane, remarked that the proposed regulations did discriminate against large animals because a person could not have an animal on a one acre parcel with a home because one acre of land would not be available for that animal.  He also pointed out that the stocking table was cumulative and a person could not own a horse on one acre and have any other smaller animals because they would be over the cumulative stocking rate.  He asked if a Special Review would be required if you switched from having a horse to having sheep.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that once a person had established an animal unit equivalent they could swap the type of animals they had on their property.

 

Michael Labate, 2915 & 2919 W. Mulberry, asked if properties would be re-evaluated for tax purposes?  He thought it would hurt property values.

 

Gary Y., 514 N. County Road 3, saw too many gray areas in regards to the “grandfather” clause. 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION;

Mr. Kadera explained the process of applying for a Special Review or Minor Special Review.  He stated that confined rabbits still produced manure and odors, and 50 rabbits per acre seemed to be a consistent number used by other counties.  He also stated that there would be no different regulations for stalled horses.  Both covenants and County regulations would apply; however, Larimer County could not enforce the covenants.  Private covenants did not negate the County regulations, and the more restrictive regulations would apply.  He gave an example of what would constitute a change in use on a property. 

 

Chairman Boulter remarked that the County Commissioners were aware of the cost and impact of the review process and were looking into whether the costs were appropriate.

 

Mr. Kadera confirmed that the 7:00 p.m. rule for new equine facilities would be eliminated. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that the regulations should be changed to reflect a provision for stalled horses.  He also felt that people that displayed criterion such as being good stewards should be compensated with a higher stocking rate.  It also appeared that animal businesses, related businesses, and property values would be negatively impacted.  He wanted to see the regulations changed to compensate for the above mentioned items.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer felt that some provisions still needed to be made regarding the proposed regulations.

 

Commissioner Wallace believed that some sort of regulation needed to be in place and felt it would be too complicated to make exceptions to every person’s situation.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he had been in support of having livestock regulations because of existing problems.  He pointed out that rural economic development was being examined and felt that the questions and issues that were being struggled with were because Larimer County did not have agricultural zoning districts.  He felt that the county needed to step back and look at where the economical development program was headed because he did not want to set up animal regulations that would be in conflict with what that.  The proposed regulations were applicable but he was reluctant to impose the regulations when an agricultural district could be developed.  He understood that the agricultural industry could be hurt by the regulations and did not want to see unintended consequences arise from the proposed regulations.  He stated that he did not want to table the amendments, he wanted to regroup with the County Commissioners to decide and define what the role of agriculture was going to be in Larimer County and discuss the issues that had arose from discussing the proposed amendments.  He recommended that the amendments not proceed until such a time that the county could make sure that there were no unintended consequences with respect to the rural development program and whether or not an agricultural district formation or consideration would be a part of that.  He felt that there was a property rights and value diminution issue particularly with individuals that lived in a covenanted community.  He felt that they had received a lot of great input, and the regulations still needed work.

 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he felt that it would take too long to figure out whether to have agricultural zoning districts and did not feel that the people impacted wanted to wait.  He pointed out that the stocking rate was a use by right, and an individual could use their property more intensely if they applied for review.  He recognized that the whole character of the county had changed, and the county had to deal with that realization.  He also stated that he favored allowing the current owner of a lot three years to establish a non-conforming use on the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how that regulation would be enforced?

 

Mr. Helmick replied that it applied to the current owner only and some one who wanted to buy the property would not inherit that right.  He stated that enforcement would have to be through the real property records. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that enforcement was one of the issues that needed to be examined.  He felt that the Planning Commission along with the County Commissioners and Staff needed to re-examine the issues brought forth before proceeding with the proposed amendments.  A major change would occur regarding livestock regulations and too many issues needed to be addressed for the public such as how the Minor Special Review process would work, and what the fees would be.  He preferred to recommend to the County Commissioners that as currently structured the regulations would not be approved and needed more work.

 

The Commission agreed to keep the amendment to allow horses to exceed the stocking rate for up to 90 days.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with Commissioner Morgan.

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that there were too many gray areas within the regulations.  He thought that agricultural zoning was an outstanding idea and wanted to table the proposed amendments.

 

Commissioner Karabensh was conflicted with her decision.  She was not sure if the proposed amendments would conflict with the goals of the rural economic development, in which she was in support of.  She felt that there were options for people through the Special Review process but the amount of disparity in opinions concerned her. 

 

Commissioner Wallace recommended that the regulations proposed at the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission hearing be amended as follows:

 

1.         Current owners with existing one acre lots have two years to establish use of those lots.  The regulations would go into effect two years from the date of enactment of the regulations.

 

2.         All animal units have the allowance to exceed the stocking rate for up to 90 days.

 

3.         The provision prohibiting activities after 7:00 p.m. at new equine facilities be eliminated.

 

4.         The equine facility definition specify “property” rather than “place”.

 

            5.                                 Animal Unit Equivalent Table

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

For animals not listed in the table, the Planning Director would determine the animal unit equivalents based on the mature weight of the animal divided into 1000 pounds.

 

 

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 approval of the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code concerning Livestock, file #05-CA0058, as follows:

 

 

 

1.         Current owners with existing one acre lots have two years to establish use of those lots.  The regulations would go into effect two years from the date of enactment of the regulations.

 

2.         All animal units have the allowance to exceed the stocking rate for up to 90 days.

 

3.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following definitions:

 

Stocking Rate:  The number of animals allowed on a parcel 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 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.

 

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.

 

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code by adding a 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 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.

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.

 

 

5.    Amend the Land Use Code by amend the definition of “Farm” in the definition section and in Section 4.3.1 as follows:

 

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 animalsfish, plants or animals; or the raising of livestock but not including feedyards, poultry farms or fur farms, provided the stocking rate is not exceeded.  

 

 

6.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding 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.

 

 

7.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following table to Section 4.3.13.I:

 

Animal Unit Equivalent Table

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

For animals not listed in the table, the Planning Director would determine the animal unit equivalents based on the mature weight of the animal divided into 1000 pounds.

 

 

 

8.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding “Equine Facility” and “Livestock Facility” to each in zoning district in Section 4.1under the Agricultural heading.

 

 

9.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.8.6 Discontinuance of Use, 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).

 

 

10.   Amend the Land Use Code by deleting the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Delete Section 4.3.10.H Riding Horses.

 

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, and Oppenheimer voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Karabensh, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:55 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C