> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 05/07/07  

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, May 7, 2007

 

land use hearing

(#59 & #60)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Larry Timm, Planning Director; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Sean Wheeler, Samantha Mott, Matt Lafferty, and Candace Phippen, Planning Department; Christie Coleman, Matt Johnson, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Ernie Marx, Extension Office; Linda Connors, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Wagner opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Wagner then explained that Items 1 through 3 were on consent, and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

 

 

1.  BUCKHORN RANCH AMENDED RURAL LAND USE PLAN (RLUP) AND AMENDED PLAT - #06-S2692:  This is a request to divide the original approved Residual Lot A into three Residual Lots designated as Residual Lots A, D, and E in the Buckhorn Ranch RLUP 99-RLP0033.  Where there was one residual lot (private open space), there will be three.  The uses and look of the land will remain the same.  The number of home sites in the Buckhorn Ranch project will not change.  The existing Residual Lot A is divided by County Road 27, which is a significant physical impediment to effective management.  The creation of the proposed Residual Lots D and E will separate the portion of Residual Lot A on the west side of County Road 27 from the east side.  The new proposed Residual Lots D and E will be sold to a third party.     

 

In July 2002, the plat for the Buckhorn Ranch RLUP received final approval.  The original project contained 1509.38 acres and was approved with 78 Residential Lots, 3 Residual Lots, and 8 Common Area Lots.  The residual lots were protected by a covenant in perpetuity. 

 

Two new Residual Lots will be created by the proposed amendment.  However, creating these new residual lots will have no impact on the development density allowed by the Rural Land Use Process.  There are no new home sites proposed with this amendment.  The applicants propose only to divide the original approved Residual Lot A into three Residual Lots designated as Residual Lots A, D, and E.  Where there was one residual lot (private open space), there will be three.  The uses prescribed by the current Development Agreement and look of the land will remain the same. 

 

The existing Residual Lot A is divided by County Road 27, which is a significant physical impediment to effective management.  The creation of the proposed Residual Lots D and E will separate the portion of Residual Lot A on the west side of County Road 27 from the remaining portion of Residual Lot A on the east side.  There are approximately 231 acres on the west side of County Road 27; 100.5 acres dedicated to residential development (28 lots) and the balance is residual land and common area.  The new proposed Residual Lots D and E will be sold to a third party, Soaring Eagle Ranch, LLC, and will be managed in conjunction with its other contiguous land holdings on that side of County Road 27.

 

The existing access points to all of the residences will remain unchanged.  Maintenance responsibilities for the undeveloped portion of Residual Lots A, D and E will also remain unchanged—it will be the responsibility of the owner.  All covenants, deed restrictions and other conditions which applied to the original Rural Land Use Plan will also apply to the new lots.  Water will be supplied by Little Thompson Water District and on-lot septic systems will be used for all residences. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the Amended Rural Land Plan and Amended Plat for Buckhorn Ranch RLUP 99-RLP0033 and Amended Plat of Residual Lot A, Buckhorn Ranch RLUP 99-RLP0033 subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Amended Plat recorded by November 7, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Amended Plat, the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, and add a note to the plat that any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots will also apply to the resultant lots.
  3. Any legal documents that may need to be amended for the Buckhorn Ranch R.L.U.P. 99-RLP0033 to allow creation of these new lots must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the Final Amended Plat.

 

 

2.  RANCH ACRES 2ND TRACT G AND LOTS 1 AND 2 AMENDED PLAT - #07-S2681:  This is a request for an Amended Plat of three lots in the Ranch Acres Second Subdivision to reconfigure lot lines between Tract G of the Replat of Ranch Acres Second Subdivision and Lots 1 and 2 of the Amended Plat of Tracts L and M.

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agency has stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator; The Larimer County Engineering Department; Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat; the Code Compliance Section noted that no building permit could be located for a 320 square foot tool shed on the property.  Code Compliance will need to be contacted to obtain the required building permit and inspection approvals; and the City of Loveland also had no comments on this application.

 

The proposed plat amendment of Amended Plat of Tract G, Replat of Ranch Acres Second Subdivision and Lots 1 and 2, Amended Plat of Tracts L and M, Ranch Acres Subdivision 2nd Addition will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that this request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Amended Plat of Tract G, Replat of Ranch Acres Second Subdivision and Lots 1 and 2, Amended Plat of Tracts L and M, Ranch Acres Subdivision 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by November 7, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated April 18, 2007.

3.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall revise the note on the plat to say “…as set forth by the Replat of Ranch Acres Second Subdivision and the Amended Plat of Tracts L and M, Ranch Acres Subdivision 2nd Addition.”

 

 

3.  DAVIS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW - #07-Z1641:  The applicant seeks Minor Special Review approval to allow an Accessory Living Area on a 35 acre property situated on the east side of County Road 3, approximately 1/2 mile south of County Road 60.  The property has an existing 3068 square foot residence and the owner is proposing an 810 square foot accessory living unit within the upper level of an existing 3180 square foot garage shop building.  The remainder of the existing structure that the accessory family dwelling is being proposed will be used for a workout room, garage, and shop.

 

The Land Use Code states that accessory uses are intended to allow property owners the full use of their property, while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood.  To meet these goals, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property.  They must be located on the same lot with the principal use and the accessory living area should not be used as a rental unit.  It is the assessment of the Development Services Team that this request can meet the standards provided the owner complies with the requirements for an Accessory Living Area, and satisfies the recommended conditions of approval below.

 

There are outstanding permits and inspections required for the building.  Compliance with these requirements is not intended to create an inconvenience for the applicant.  However, the permit process exists to ensure that structures are built to the best possible standards to protect all who will live in and use them.  The conditions of approval below address the building permit and inspection requirements.

 

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Davis Minor Special Review for a detached Accessory Living Area subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Davis Minor Special Review (File #07-Z1641), 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 Davis Minor Special Review.

2.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.  The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.

3.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

4.   The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the new residence, the Accessory Living Area.  All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.  Within 90 days from the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding building permits and inspections for all previous work in the existing building. 

5.   Per Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the habitable space of the current structure shall not exceed 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling or 810 square feet whichever is less.

6.   At the time of the building permit application, the owner shall sign a Detached Accessory Living Area Agreement which will indicate what the owner has agreed to as well as advise potential future lot buyers of the restrictions placed on the Accessory Living Area.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 3, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

4.  SHIELDS MINE SPECIAL REVIEW - #06-Z1590:  This is a request for Special Review approval to mine sand and gravel at a 50-acre site for commercial purposes.  The request also includes an appeal to the paving standard for parking areas required by 8.6.C.3.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to allow the use of gravel as a parking area.

 

Mr. Wheeler outlined aspects of the Shields Mine Special Review, and explained that several letters were received by staff from surrounding neighbors with questions and concerns related to the mining pit.  Mr. Wheeler also explained that Condition 1 of approval was modified to allow more time for mining and reclamation.  The change was made to increase the completion time from three years to five years. 

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend approval of the Shields Mine Special Review subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.  Mining activities shall be completed within no more than five years from the start of operations.
  2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Shields Mine Special Review (File #06-Z1590) 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 Shields Mine Special Review.
  3. The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recording Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer than one year after the date of approval.
  4. No operation of the gravel pit shall occur at any time on Sundays, or the following holidays:  New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.  Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, with equipment warm-up starting no earlier than 7:00 am.  Saturday hours are proposed from 9:30 am to 3:00 pm, with equipment warm-up starting no earlier than 9:00 am.
  5. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
  6. Reclamation shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each section and no later than the start of the next growing season.
  7. The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the 01-31-07 memo from the County Department of Health and Environment:

a.   State air emission and storm water discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each phase.

b.   The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

c.   Noise mitigation measures identified in the sound impact analysis mitigation plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine.

d.   Electric grid power shall be used for the gravel conveyor system in order to avoid noise from diesel generators.  A diesel generator may be used to power the dewatering pumps in order to limit noise from diesel generators.  After the initial six-month period, electric grid power shall be used for the dewatering pump for the duration of the mining operation.  Diesel generators may be utilized in emergency situations.

  1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department:

a.   The applicant is required to pay a Capital Transportation Expansion Fee within 90 days of the date of approval by the county.  The amount will be calculated by the Engineering Department.

b.   The applicant shall increase from 30 feet to 40 feet, the access easement for the Roselle-Shields MLD to ensure adequate travel and drainage spaces.

c.   The applicant shall provide structural drawings for the conveyor system for review and approval by the Engineering Department within 90 days of the date of approval.

d.   No more than 45 days before the planned commencement of construction or mining activity at the site, the applicant shall apply for a Development Construction Permit with the County Engineer and shall be subject to the requirements of this permit.

  1. Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the state that details overall compliance with the storm water management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.
  2. The applicant shall provide a signed Agreement to Annex with the City of Fort Collins.
  3. The applicant shall provide copies of all final plans including mining, landscape and reclamation plans within 90 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, for review and approval by staff prior to commencement of mining operations.
  4. The applicant shall provide secondary containment for outdoor storage areas that are sized correctly to contain possible spills.  All flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored per the requirements in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.

 

Eric Reckentine, of Lafarge North America, explained that the company goal is to mine the natural resources available at the Shields Mine, and return the land to its original state.  He also outlined different aspects to the mine, including noise mitigation techniques, safety fencing, dust reduction and hours of operation. 

 

Jennifer Vecchi described the plan for reclamation of the land once mining was completed.  She explained a self-sustaining environment with a pond and vegetation.  Ms. Vecchi said that the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval and Lafarge will also be responsible for the evaporative costs associated with the pond. 

 

At this time, Chair Wagner opened the hearing for pubic comment.  No one from the audience addressed the Board.

 

Ms. Coleman explained that the Board will need to approve the appeal to the paving standards for parking areas because as it currently stands, the applicant would need to have paved parking for the mining site.  She said county staff agrees that this is not necessary since the parking lot is for Lafarge employees only, and work at this site is limited to five years.  Ms. Coleman said that the applicant will use gravel for parking instead. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to the paving standards for parking areas required by 8.6.C.3.1 of the Land Use Code to allow the use of gravel in the parking area.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Shields Mine Special Review, subject to Conditions 1 through 12, and to include the amendment to Condition 1, as stated above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

5.  BIG BUCK RIDGE AMENDED REZONING - #07-Z1630:  This is a request to amend the existing Big Buck Ridge Planned Development (PD) zoning to allow all the same uses as the O-Open zoning district and in addition, allow enclosed storage and trade uses with no outside storage, which are not allowed in the O-Open zoning district.  The applicant proposes to rezone the property to allow the full list of uses allowed by the O-Open zoning district, rather than just the residential and agricultural uses currently allowed.  Additionally, the applicant requests approval for enclosed storage use and trade uses with no outdoor storage, which are not allowed in O-Open zoning district. This application was heard by the Larimer County Planning Commission at a public hearing on April 18, 2007.  The Larimer County Planning Commission adopted the recommendations presented by the Development Services Team, after hearing testimony from the applicants and entertaining questions from one adjoining property owner.  

 

Mr. Helmick said that staff does not support the request for approval of an enclosed storage use and trade uses with no outdoor storage.  These items are currently not allowed in the O-Open zoning district.

 

Judy and Gene Devore outlined their intentions for the property and said that a sale of the property was contingent upon the allowance of the storage shed.  Bradley Krauss, real estate agent, explained that it has been very difficult to sell this parcel.  He believes that by changing the allowed zoning in the area, there is a better potential to sell the property. 

 

Tim O’Hara, Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC) member, explained the purpose of the committee to the Board.  He said that LAPAC would like to see the owners able to make the requested zoning changes.  Much discussion among the Commissioners and staff ensued. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to amend the Big Buck Ridge Planned Development to allow the same uses as the O-Open zoning district as well as enclosed storage and trade uses with no outside storage.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Big Buck Rezoning Planned Development amended rezoning from PD zoning district to O-Open, File #07-Z1630, subject to the following conditions:

  1. The taxidermy and game processing uses previously approved by the Board of Adjustment and represented in variance files #93-MV0227 and #93-MV0260 are allowed to continue subject to the conditions attached to the original approvals. 
  2. Any remodeling, modifying, expanding or changing of character of the existing building will be subject to review and approval by the Poudre Fire Authority.  Poudre Fire Authority may require fire protection in the form of building sprinklers.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

6.  HAINES APPEAL - #07-G0133:  This is a request for an appeal to the January 19, 2007, Planning Director’s interpretation that the definition of boarding stables applies to alpacas, not just horses.  Therefore, Special Review approval is required prior to operation. The subject appeal has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Haines, who own property in Bellvue and utilize their property for, among other things, the boarding of alpacas.

 

By way of background, the Larimer County Code Compliance office, on November 7, 2006, received a complaint regarding the Haines property and an apparent illegal alpaca operation, citing level of activity, vehicles and such, as the core reasons for the complaint.  Following a period of gathering additional information, the planning director made an interpretation regarding alpacas and boarding stables on January 19, 2007. 

 

Section 0.1 Definitions of the Larimer County Land Use Code defines “boarding stable” as follows:  “Boarding Stable. A facility for the care and feeding of more than four horses for a fee.”  Boarding stables are allowed in only a few zoning districts, and in all cases, it requires Special Review approval prior to operation.

 

The Planning Director has the authority to make interpretations of the Code text per Sec. 3.5.A:  “All interpretations of code text are made by the planning director.”  The Planning Director’s interpretation, made on January 19, 2007, is as follows:

 

Livestock on a Farm, Boarding of Livestock – The definition of “livestock” includes numerous listed animals as well as ‘…any other animal designated by the State Agricultural Commissioner, which is raised for food or fiber production.”  A farm is defined as “any parcel of land containing at least three acres used primarily for the …raising of livestock.”  Livestock is defined as “cattle, horses, mules, burros, sheep, swine, llamas and goats, regardless of use….”

 

Interpretation: Because the Land Use Code cannot address every possible use or land situation, some flexibility is necessary and it is appropriate to allow some analogies.  Although alpacas are not listed specifically under the definition of livestock, alpacas are similar enough to other types of animals included as livestock (e.g. horses, llamas) to be included in this definition.  Therefore, the raising of alpacas on a farm as defined above is a use allowed by right and would further the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code.  By contrast, boarding stables are specifically called out in several zoning districts as a use allowed only by Special Review.  A boarding stable is defined as “a facility for the care and feeding of more than four horses for a fee.”  Again it is appropriate to analogize an alpaca to a horse and allow the property owners to apply for a Special Review to allow them to use their property to board other persons’ alpacas for a fee. The (Board of) County Commissioners has the prerogative to deny the Special Review if they believe allowing boarding of alpacas is not appropriate either because alpacas present a host of problems unlike horses and or will not meet the Special Review Criteria.

 

The current definition of “livestock” includes “cattle, horses, mules, burros, sheep, swine, llamas, and goats, and any animals, except dogs and cats, that are used for working purposes on a farm or ranch and any other animal designated by the state agricultural commissioner, which animal is raised for food or fiber production.”  The above interpretation includes alpacas as livestock.

 

Since the definition in the Land Use Code of “livestock” includes horses, the above interpretation extends the definition of “boarding stable” to include all types of livestock when they are in a situation of “care and feeding for a fee”.  If the number of animals exceeds a certain point (clearly, 4 in the case of horses), that becomes a situation where Special Review is required.   

 

While this interpretation was in response to the specific case of Mr. and Mrs. Haines, and the need to determine how alpacas are to be treated in a boarding stable situation, it also would apply to other types of “livestock” as defined and interpreted, including but not limited to “cattle, mules, burros, sheep, swine, llamas and goats.”  The above interpretation expands the definition of “livestock” to include alpacas.  At the same time, it expands the application of the boarding stable definition to all livestock, not just horses.

 

Planning Department staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Haines on January 24, 2007, to discuss the complaints and what would be needed to address them.  During discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Haines, it was determined that alpacas were being boarded on the site, and therefore Special Review approval is required prior to operation.  At this time they were given the option of appealing the planning director’s interpretation or have a pre-application conference for a Special Review application for a boarding stable. 

 

Mr. and Mrs. Haines disagree with this interpretation, and are appealing its application to alpacas to the Board of County Commissioners per Sec.3.5.B:  “The planning director’s interpretations of the code text can be appealed to the county commissioners.”  Note that per Sec. 22.2.2.A.6, Burden of Proof, “The…planning director’s interpretation will not be reversed unless it is shown by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.”

 

Given the Planning Directors interpretation above, boarding stables are not limited to horses only. This matter goes beyond simply the type of animal being boarded. A boarding stable operation could have significant impacts on a site and a neighborhood depending on the nature of the boarding stable and the specific site itself, e.g. the number of animals, the types of animals, the operational methods (hours of operation, lighting, etc.) of the boarding stable, the frequency and type of traffic from both off-site animal owners and service vehicles, specific site characteristics, effects on neighbors, and so on.  Even though, as the Haines argue, alpacas are smaller than horses, other use/site factors are also involved in determining whether a given boarding stable operation is appropriate.  These factors are not known until and unless a Special Review type of review and analysis is carried out. 

 

A possible option for the Board to consider has to do with the number of animals in a boarding stable situation at which the Special Review requirement is activated.  Clearly, the Code says that a boarding stable for more than four horses must obtain Special Review approval prior to operation.  Without further clarification or interpretation by the county, any number of livestock over four in a boarding stable situation requires Special Review approval prior to operation.  However, the Board could use an animal equivalency (Animal Unit Equivalent, AUE) basis to determine the threshold for Special Review for other types of livestock.  An AUE table has been developed by the CSU-Larimer County Cooperative Extension Office based on considerable research.  For example, the Board could determine that the AUE for a horse is 1, while the AUE for an alpaca is 0.125 or 8 alpacas per AUE.  This would mean that a boarding stable for alpacas that had more than 32 alpacas required Special Review approval prior to operation.  However, the AUE table is based upon impacts on grazing, and does not take into account the other types of impacts that could come from a boarding stable situation, such as traffic generation.  At best, if the AUE table is applied to boarding stables, it should be done so as an interim approach until the County’s livestock regulations are more thoroughly reviewed and refined.

 

In summary, the Planning Director believes that the information provided by the applicant does not provide a preponderance of proof, as required by Sec. 22.2.2.A.6, Burden of Proof, that the Planning Director’s interpretation is in error.  Instead, he thinks that the appropriateness of a boarding facility for alpacas can be determined only on a site and case specific basis via the Special Review process.  Hence, the interpretation of the Planning Director as it pertains to alpacas should be upheld.  Further, all other types of livestock as defined by the code and by interpretation should also require Special Review for boarding stable operations regardless of the type of livestock being boarded.  If the Board agrees with the Haines and finds that the definition of boarding stables does not apply to alpacas, then the Board should affirm that the boarding stable definition does apply to all other types of livestock as defined by definition and interpretation.  Furthermore, if the Board chooses, it could apply the AUE table suggested by the CSU-Larimer County Cooperative Extension Office to any type of livestock in a boarding stable situation, and thereby establish that the Special Review threshold is met when an AUE of four (equivalent to four horses) is exceeded.

 

Note that this appeal was not submitted to analyze or review the current operations of the Haines property, but to determine the meaning of the Land Use Code with respect to livestock and boarding stables.

 

The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners uphold the January 19, 2007, Planning Director interpretation that boarding stables shall apply to all types of livestock animals, including alpacas, not just horses.  Furthermore, the Board should  determined that the AUE table suggested by the CSU-Larimer County Cooperative Extension Office may be applied to any type of livestock in a boarding stable situation, and thereby establish that the Special Review threshold is met when an AUE of four (equivalent to four horses) is exceeded.

 

Mr. Timm, Planning Director, explained his interpretation of the current Larimer County Land Use Code.  He also presented the AUE to the Board and said that based on the AUE table, 32 alpacas could be boarded without the need for a Special Review. 

 

Ethelyn Boak, applicant representative, said that Mr. and Mrs. Haines do not approve of the interpretation made by Mr. Timm, but are willing to approve the AUE table if it applies directly to the number of alpacas that are able to be boarded on the property.  Denise and Ron Haines explained that boarding is necessary to the industry of raising alpacas.  Many people use alpacas as an investment, but do not have the capability to house them on their own.  Also, alpaca owners sometimes want to start their breeding and fiber business before barns are built on their own property.  There are times when it is necessary to board alpacas before the owners can care for them on their own.  Mr. and Mrs. Haines said they also use boarding as an informational tool, and provide small educational seminars on their property as well. 

 

At this time, Mr. Lafferty read a letter in support of the Haines’ from Kathleen Galvin.  Dan Wilke, Walter VanPoollen, Peter Ziek, Tom Griswold, Pat Alger, Jeffrie Carver, Debbie Leighton, and Kathryn Pesch described the necessity of boarding stables for alpacas.  Mr. Wilke said that he would not have been able to start his business if it had not been for the option to board his alpacas.  Ms. Alger believes the current interpretation made by Mr. Timm, Planning Director, will negatively affect 4-H projects involved in alpaca care.  Ms. Carver said she thinks the ability to board alpacas allows new owners the time to learn proper care for the animals. 

 

Cheryl Robinson, neighbor, said that she believes if someone chooses to board animals, there will be an impact on the property and surrounding areas.  Ms. Robinson questions the use by right on the Haines’ property and their ability to hold seminars at their home. 

 

Commissioner Gibson said that he was in support of the AUE chart.  Commissioner Rennels said that she did not feel comfortable approving the entire AUE table without providing proper public review for all animals listed on the chart.  She also emphasized the fact that the AUE table was designed for grazing equivalency, not boarding.  Chair Wagner said that she would like to see a distinction made between boarding and grazing.  Discussion among the Board and staff ensued. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the January 19, 2007, Planning Directors interpretation that the definition and requirements for boarding stables shall apply to all types of livestock animals, including alpacas, not just horses. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

The meeting ended at 5:55 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#61)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gael Cookman, Clerk and Recording Office; John Lee, Information Technology Division; Lt. Deb Russell, and Lt. Jim Wacker, Sheriff’s Office; Craig Secher, and Tobin Hendricks, Realities for Children; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Meghan Wooldridge presented a proposed amendment to the residency requirement for participants in the Larimer County Fair and Rodeo Lady-In-Waiting program.  She outlined the current rules and regulations and asked that the Board modify the 90-day residency requirement for participation.  Ms. Wooldridge’s proposals included the allowance of participants based on a set number of years of exclusive Larimer County 4-H involvement and/or allow a set number of years of school attendance within Larimer County as a substitution to the 90-day physical residency obligation.  She suggested that these requirements be set at the discretion of the Queen’s Committee, Fair Board, and County Commissioners.

 

Discussion among the Commissioners ensued.  Commissioner Gibson said that he would be willing to review the proposal more thoroughly.  Commissioner Rennels agreed that the proposal made by Ms. Wooldridge should go to the Queen’s Committee and Fair Board for review as well.

 

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 30, 2007

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of April 30, 2007.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 14, 2007The Board reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Mr. Lancaster.

 

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for May 8, 2007:

 

ABATEMENTS:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement were approved:  Judith Squires; Garret and Marjorie M. Lenderink; GPM Investments LLC (.50) and V & B Investments, LLC (.50); Clifford J. Nemeth; Troy W. and Samantha J. Vernon; Building A, LLC; and Demetrios A. and Traci M. Mellos.

 

05082007A001           GRANT OF TRAIL EASEMENT AGREEMENT AMERICAN HONDA EDUCATION CORPORATION AND LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BETWEEN AMERICAN HONDA EDUCATION CORPORATION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY

 

05082007A002           STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ILLEGAL ALIENS

 

05082007A003           SECOND ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT

 

05082007D001           DEED OF DEDICATION FROM D & J INVESTMENTS, LLC

 

05082007R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FRANDSON EXEMPTION RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMENT VACATION

 

05082007R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS 2 AND 15 IN WAVERLY PLACE SUBDIVISION

 

05082007R003           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 207 AND 208 OF GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 12TH FILING

 

05082007R004           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 107 AND 108 OF CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH FILING PUD

 

05082007R005           RESOLUTION ADDING A SLIDING SCALE FEE TO GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE TRACKING (GPS)

 

05082007R006           RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM

 

05082007R007           RESOLUTION SETTING WORKENDERS/MIDWEEK INMATE FEE FOR INMATES

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  FY07 Enhanced Dislocated Workers Expenditure Authorization; PY06 Wagner-Peyser Funds.

 

The following appointments were approved:

PID #20 Ptarmigan:  Chuck Brauch, and Jay Gould appointed to a 4-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2011; Joseph Russ appointed to a 2-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2009.

 

PID #30 Poudre Overlook:  Heather Baumgartner and Lester Van Horn appointed to a 4-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2011; Jeff Ballweber appointed to a 2-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2009.

 

PID #35 Bruns:  Patrick Eitenbichler and Larry Marcinkewicz appointed to a 4-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2011; Rainey Corbyn appointed to a 2-year term beginning May 8, 2007, and ending November 30, 2009.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: Play Point, LLC, dba Fort Fun – Tavern – Fort Collins; and Red Feather Supermarket – 3.2% Beer Retail – Red Feather Lakes.  The following liquor license was approved: Wolverine Farm Publishing/Rollerland Skate Center – Special Event 6% - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

5.  PROCLAMATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY DETENTION OFFICER’S WEEK:  Lt. Russell explained that detention officers are often not recognized for risking their lives while working in, and maintaining, the detention center and its inmates.  Lt. Wacker said that the detention center staff makes a difficult situation work.  At this time, Commissioner Rennels read the proclamation aloud.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the week of May 6 – May 12, 2007, as Larimer County Detention Officer’s Week.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

6.  WAIVE THE 45 DAY APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR A SPECIAL EVENT:  Mr. Secher said that the Realities for Children Poker Run has been in existence for six years, but this is the first year they realized a Special Event Permit was required.  The event will run from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 27, 2007, beginning in Lucerne, Colorado and ending at Thunder Mountain.  Several stops along the motorcycle route are liquor license establishments, two of which have applied for a Modification of Premise in order to serve alcohol in the parking lot. 

 

Mr. Lancaster said that a Special Event Permit is required for an event like the Realities for Children Poker Run because there may be extra requirements that need to be addressed by the Health and Fire Departments.  The primary reason for a Special Event Permit is to help ensure public safety and to protect the promoters as well.  Discussion among the Board, staff, and the applicant ensued. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve waiving the 45 day requirement needed to apply for a Special Event Permit for the Realities for Children Poker Run. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Ms. Cookman explained that the application for a Modification of Premises for City Limits Lounge should have been included as an action item in the meeting or put on the Consent Agenda.  She requested that the Board approve the modification today since it is for the Realities for Children Poker Run as well. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Modification of Premises for City Limits Lounge to serve alcohol in the parking lot for the Realities for Children Poker Run event. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

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

 

 

8.  LEGAL MATTERS: Executive Session (Affidavit provided).

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go in to Executive Session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended and the following action was taken.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney’s Office to file suit against Lafarge for amounts owed for road contributions under their development agreement at Taft Hill Road, if that becomes necessary.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Executive Session (Tape #62):

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go in to Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended, and no action was taken.

 

 

Executive Session (Affidavit provided):

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go in to Executive Session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended, and no action was taken.

 

 

Executive Session (Affidavit provided):

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go in to Executive Session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

The Executive Session ended at 11:55 a.m. with no further action taken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

KAREN A. WAGNER, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 _________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk