County Offices, Courts, and the Landfill will all be closed on Monday, May 30, 2016 for the Memorial Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of November 18, 2009
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan and Weikunat were present. Commissioner Benton was absent. Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman. Also present were Russ Legg, Interim Planning Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Linda Hoffman, Rural Land Use Director, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Karin Madson, Planner II, Chad Gray, Code Compliance Officer, Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.
The field trip was canceled and no sites were visited.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE:
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 21, 2009 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
ITEM #1 MCCONNELL REZONING #09-Z1760: Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to rezone a 2.15 acre property from O-Open to PD-Planned Development to accommodate commercial and residential uses on the property located at 3522 W. County Road 54G, across from Cache La Poudre School in LaPorte. Ms. Stauffer noted that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee was in support of the proposal.
Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that McConnell Rezoning, file #09-Z1760, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Future uses or changes to the property shall go through the applicable County Review process, potentially including Planned Land Division, Condo Mapping, and/or Site Plan Review.
2. The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the properties shall be applied to the entire property. The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for McConnell PD (Planned Development) shall be as follows:
A. Purpose Statement
The zoning on this property is based on the LaPorte Area plan and any development on this property should conform to the elements of that plan. The plan calls for the area to be a Community Business Center and Medium Density Residential, and/or Mixed Use Development. This zone district is an interim zoning designation. If the ownership of the structures is split or if additional density, structures or uses other than the existing two structures and uses are added to this property, the proposed development may need to rezone the property and revise the zoning based on an approved development plan. Any rezoning or development of this property would receive a public hearing per current Land Use Code process guidelines.
B. Principal uses:
1. Pet animal facility (R/S)--See section 4.3
2. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S)--See section 4.3
3. Single-family dwelling (R)
4. Duplex dwelling (R)
5. Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)
6. Group home for the aged (R)
7. Group home (R)
8. Storage buildings and garages (R)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions
9. Group home for the mentally ill (R)
10. Convenience store (S)
11. Automobile service station (S)
12. Carwash (S)
13. Professional office (R)
14. General retail (R/S)--See section 4.3
15. Personal service (R)
16. Takeout restaurant (S)
17. Sit-down restaurant (R)
18. Instructional facility (R)
19. Clinic (R)
20. Health services (R)
21. Hospital (R)
22. School, public (L)
23. School, nonpublic (S)
24. Rehabilitation facility (R)
25. Child/elderly care center (S)
26. Sheriff/fire station (L)
27. Church (R/S)--See section 4.3
28. Hotel/motel (R)
29. Bed and breakfast (R/S)--See section 4.3
30. Nursing home (R)
31. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16
32. Treatment plant (L)
33. Water storage facility (L)
34. Radio and television transmitter (S)
35. Bus terminal (S)
36. Transportation service (R)
37. Parking lot/garage (R)
38. Park and ride (R)
39. Membership club/clubhouse (R)
40. Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3
C. Lot, building and structure requirements:
1. Minimum lot size:
a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.
b. Residential Development: 7,500 square feet (0.17 acre) per dwelling unit if public water and sewer are used.
c. Non-Residential Development: 15,000 (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.
2. Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)
a. Street and road setback. Setback from the edge of the CR 54G right of way is ten feet (10’) for new structures. Setbacks for internal roads will be determined at the time of a subsequent rezoning and will be based on the overall project design and continuity with the adjacent development.
b. Side yards--Ten feet.
c. Rear yards--Ten feet.
d. Refer to section 4.9.2 for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).
3. Maximum structure height--40 feet.
4. The parcel may include two principal buildings, with one as a single-family residence.
5. If the single-family residence is vacant for one year the residential use will no longer be allowed, however the structure could remain as a non-residential use or an accessory use to the primary commercial structure.
D. Development Design:
1. Access to 54G must be consistent with transportation elements of the LaPorte Plan.
2. Parking and service areas are not allowed between new structures and CR 54G.
3. Mechanical equipment on walls and roof facing CR 54G must be adequately screened or camouflaged.
4. Pedestrian and bicycle connections between the sidewalks along the adjacent roads and business entrances must be included in the development plan.
5. Proposed signs must be included as part of a development plan, and must show location, size and design. Additional criteria from the LaPorte Area Plan will apply.
Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Boucher, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
ITEM #2 ADAMS RETAIL SUBDIVISION #08-S2840: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to replat an existing 4.39 acre commercial lot into three lots with one of the lots containing the existing improvements and the remaining two for future commercial development located on the southeast corner of Highway 287 and Colland Drive.
Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Adams Retail Subdivision, file #08-S2840, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Adams Retail Subdivision Preliminary Plat File # 08-S2840, 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 Adams Bank Subdivision.
2. The applicant will as part of the Final Plat application provide all necessary maintenance agreements, easements and cross access and parking easements for the future uses of the lots.
Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Boucher, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
Chairman Wallace announced that Item #3 would not be voted on by the commission and would be tabled to date uncertain. The purpose of tonight’s meeting was to allow public testimony.
ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING HORSE BUSINESS FACILITIES #09-CA0101: Ms. Hoffmann provided background information on the request to amend Sections 0, 4, 6, and 12 and update regulations for horse business facilities. She acknowledged and thanked the members of the working group and staff. She touched on the public outreach process and the current land use code definitions and processes including the current Special Review process. She stated that the working group was proposing to change the process for horse business facilities by having definitions of what the uses were, having a scalable system that depended on the size of the business, and having applicable standards and implementation standards. The working group also proposed having a transition program for existing businesses to allow transition into the new regulations. They suggested that it be available for one year once all the changes went into effect and felt that the county should offer reduced fees during that year such as 50% reduction. As a permanent condition they proposed to eliminate or reduce the need for consultants such that an extra cost of going through the review process would be substantially lower. The working group also recommended that the county be proactive in public outreach to the existing business owners and other citizens. Along with that, there were some businesses that were operating under approval of the county’s current regulations, and they felt that the county should consider giving them special consideration to acknowledge their approval. She stated the new proposed definitions and explained the proposal to use four tiers of review. She explained that through the tiered system points would be given and added up. Based on the total points some businesses would remain use by right while others would have to go through a simplified process called administrative review. Larger businesses would have to go through either the Minor Special Review process or Special Review process. She showed examples of how the system would work and explained that points would be given to business according to the number of horses, number of people, size of property, and equestrian events held. She remarked that the working group also questioned whether the new regulations should apply to horse rescue facilities and whether the county should initiate a resource stewardship template for the businesses to use. They also wanted to examine whether Section 8 needed to be amended and how the new regulations would relate to building codes, capital transportation fees, and other applicable fees for new businesses as well as existing. She went on to explain that currently all of Section 8 standards of the Land Use Code applied to the Special Review process. As a result, the working group proposed that a small business with minimal impact not be subject to all the standards while higher impact businesses would have the standards apply. She outlined what standards would apply for each review process and noted that more standards applied as the level of review increased.
She detailed the minority report completed by two members of the working group. It included three primary recommendations. The first was to have identified geographic locations be a method of determining the appropriate level of review. If that recommendation was not accepted and the scalable system used then they proposed to lower the number and ranges so smaller businesses would qualify for higher levels of review. The third recommendation was to have some type of reward, such as granting approval to expand, to those businesses that already had approval.
Ms. Hoffman addressed the referral comments and noted that the working group did not meet after all of the comments had been received and had not had the opportunity to review or react to them. She stated that some of the major themes in the comments were that the proposal was a major deviation from the development review standards and that more clarification was needed on some matters particularly the definitions and elements of the formula. In addition, there were concerns regarding the components of the formula, the point ranges for the reviews, and that the administrative review process was not well developed and needed more clarification. Lastly, comments were made that more details were needed in regards to the transition program. She stated that the working group hoped that the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the working group’s recommendations of the code amendments. They also hoped that there would be some follow up in defining the transition program and implementation needs as noted in the working group’s recommendation.
Gary Gadsby, 3901 N. County Road 25E, stated that he had lived here for 38 years and had been in the horse business his whole life. He felt that it was ludicrous trying to tell them what they could and could not do. He felt that it was shoving the kids out of that lifestyle, and he did not want to tell somebody what to do with their property or how many horses they could have. He thought that most of the cases were just public nuisances, and the people that were in the business were not the problems.
LuAnn Goodyear, 851 W. County Road 70, operated Last Resort Equestrian Center. She stated that she boarded a small number of horses, which ranged between 6-12 horses, hosted 2-3 equestrian events every year, and provided lessons to the members of her 4-H club. She also mentioned that she retired from her position as the 4-H horse project coordinator for Larimer County last August. She disclosed that she was currently on the working group and noted that many questions arose of whether barns would be able to come into compliance with the regulations and if the new regulations would put large barns out of business. She felt that the horse business was not a “one size fits all”, and the scalable system was more financially feasible and would allow different sizes to come into compliance especially if they came in during the transition period. The working group visited many boarding stables and businesses and one consistent point throughout was how people managed their property. Along with that, neighbors had different tolerances for how people managed their properties. While management skills could not be policed the county regulations in place for safety, light, noise, dust and smells could easily be adapted to the equine business. In addition, a resource stewardship plan would help one to have a good comprehensive understanding of good business.
She stated that the working group started with 21 members represented by many equine professionals and realtors. Over the past few months they had come to agreements that took into account different aspects of the business. Since then three had left the group and two had formed a minority report. Of those three none of those people disagreed with the working group 100%. Given those numbers it could be an example of how the general public might feel about the recommendations which would mean that there would be about an 80% acceptance rate. She acknowledged that at first there was a lack of trust to having any guide of regulations but at the last public meeting in November there was almost 100% favorable agreement in regards to a scalable system. The working group committee did agree that there were issues that needed to be tweaked and assured the commission and the public that they would find a balance point that would be favorable to the majority of people on both sides. She encouraged the planning commission to help find tune the scalable system as well as the transition period so they could move closer to the goal and have the professionals in the county proud to be in compliance and be assured that they would respect their rights and the neighbors.
Lisa Oppenheimer, 5400 E. Highway 14, was a representative of the working group members who filed the minority opinion. She owned the Fort Collins Equestrian Center with her husband. She asked the planning commission to consider their recommendation of the boundary lines determining the level for horse businesses. They believed the recommendations gave an easy way to enforce guidelines in terms of code enforcement, in determining where it was appropriate to establish horse businesses, and also to help preserve the value of all properties of horse businesses and non-horse properties. She felt that the scalable system had been influenced to serve the best interest of the current non-permitted stables, and she was disappointed with facilitation of the working group. The current regulations had been in order for many years, and the county had not consistently enforced the regulations and allowed many horse operations to open over the years. She wanted to know why something as important as changing regulations in the horse community was rushed through in less than a year. She felt that more time was needed so more horse business representatives could participate in the regulations. She also felt that it was a disservice to the horse community and its neighbors to proceed with the scalable system as it stood. If approved it would only be a band-aid on the problem. She recommended that another working group be organized and facilitated so all members of the group were given the opportunity to contribute. After ten meetings she felt that the working group was just scratching the service. People’s livelihoods and property values were at stake.
Bonnie Templeton, 5223 Lone Tree Drive, stated that she was not a horse business owner but a consumer. She had four horses and did business with horse businesses for supplies, riding lessons, etc. She stated that if the current regulations were upheld and enforced most small business would be eliminated from the county, and as a consumer that was a problem because then there would be no where to buy supplies, etc. She noted that she was also a neighbor to a horse business and stated that the assumption was that neighbors were against horse businesses, which was not the case. She was in favor of her neighbors’ horse businesses and so was everyone on her street. She felt that it was important to think of small businesses and how to support them because under the current regulations a small business would have to pay outrageous fees that they could not afford. She was in favor of the working group’s proposal as the idea of a sliding scale was a good one that would help businesses get started and stay in business. The current regulations and minority report did not consider what it took to start a business. It was important to support and help small businesses to get started and grow.
Susan Kurzweil, 4765 W. County Road 14, was in favor of the scalable system. She had a small business and did not know she wasn’t in compliance. She gave five riding lessons a week and charged $10 an hour for a total of $50. Therefore, the current Special Review fee was totally out of her price range. She did not feel that the minority report was fair because setting area limits did not always mean you would impact the neighbors. She stated that the working group did a great job.
David Craighead, 5429 E. County Road 58, thanked the commission for their service. He was the co-owner of Stonestreet Stables, a permitted training and boarding stable. He was not apart of the working group but did attend many of the meetings. He was disgusted that many of the working group did not disclose that they owned non-permitted stables and businesses until after they were appointed to the working group. He wondered where the credibility was when the number of members on the working group outnumbered permitted stable owners by almost a 3 to 1 ratio. In his opinion, due to the overwhelming lack of ethics in some of the working group members he did not see how it was possible in the future to implement any of the recommendations. The precedence had been set to refuse to follow the county regulations by the working group members themselves.
Nancy Day, 11032 N. County Road 5, appreciated the hard work the working group had done and she strongly recommended approval.
Linda Fisher, 4916 Bingham Hill Road, owned and ran a boarding stable in Aurora. She was in favor of the proposal of the majority working group.
Barry Feldman, 401 E. County Road 56, was a member of the working group. He stated that the people that wrote the minority report had not attended several meetings. He also mentioned that there were comments made about the working group being imbalanced in regards to horse businesses, but pointed out that the members of the working group who had horse business, horse organization, or owned horses went out of their way to consider the neighbors.
Jill Cook, 5450 E. County Road 32E, was on the working group as the 4-H representative. She was involved with 4H and youth activities in the county and believed the working group had a diverse group of people who spent a lot of time and effort to understand all regulations, etc. The major goal was to come up with some standards that were fair and reasonable, and the sliding scale system did that. She wanted to represent the youth of the county as there was a tremendous amount of youth that wanted to own horses or livestock but did not have the property to do so. As a result, they were forced to board their horses but needed those horses to be kept in a neighborhood location where they could access and interact with those animals easily. The facilities also needed to be a reasonable cost. She stated that the minority opinion was coming from two large, permitted facilities who did not want any other businesses competing with them.
Carol Ackerman, 7784 Weld County Road 72, was on the working group and supported the sliding scale system. She hoped that the commission would approve it and protect the small business owner.
Brenda Mutchler, 3155 N Madison, owned property that was an enclave of ten acres. She had an indoor and outdoor arena and did not have any complaints. She supported the proposal because she wanted to keep her neighbors and herself happy.
Amy Allen, 3456 W. County Road 16, was one of the owners of the Rocky Mountain Lazy J Bar S Ranch. She joined the working group because after she bought the facility she came to the Planning Department to see what was needed to make sure the facility was regulated. She stated that if her facility was 300 hundred yards to the west she would be able to give riding lessons but because of where she was situated they were not able to do so. The whole community was scared of change but the wording of the current regulations was not fair to the different boarding facilities nor was it consistent. The working group wasn’t easy but all the members took it very seriously and had taken time out of their busy schedules to make sure they could make that commitment to the county. The working group made sure to address impact because it was what made the difference to their neighbors. They also were doing regulations that they felt would be best for the county at large. She acknowledged that it would not be something that would be okay for everyone and mentioned that a lot of the people on the working group were barns that would have to go through the special review process. She remarked that the majority of the working group wanted the opportunity to look at the comments received by referral agencies so they could include those in their next recommendation.
Wendy Chase, 8445 E. County Road 14, was a member of the working group, and did not miss a single meeting. She stated that she was a little disheartened from the comments that came back from the various referral agencies and staff as there were many comments against the equestrian events. The working group worked very hard on the recommendations and did not feel that Section 8 standards were needed in all cases. She stated that if the commission wanted a county that was nothing but subdivisions then the current regulations should stick but if a rural community was desired then something needed to be done to help and protect the people that were rural. She hoped that the hard work would be looked at and approved.
Sonja Craighead, 5429 E. County Road 58, owned Stonestreet Stables which was a legally permitted boarding stable. She had been a professional equine member of Larimer County for 28 years. She stated that she was a member of the working group and co-authored the minority report. She indicated that she had struggled with frustration during the months of the working group. She felt that the scalable system created by the majority working group would be even more unenforceable then the current regulations and create even more problems. She remarked that a stable could provide the county with inaccurate low numbers in hopes of tripping the system to remain in a lower category negatively impacting others and still having a non-permitted stable in operation. She mentioned all the complaints about the special review fee and pointed out that any business would have costs. She stated that Candace Phippen, Code Compliance Officer, presented to the working group and gave examples of the stables that they had received complaints about. All of the stables were non-permitted and were outlined in the minority report’s presentation. She stated that in the past ten years only one stable had been denied approval, which was due to zoning and boundary. She noted that she asked to have the issue talked about a one of the working group meetings but it regretfully was never placed on the agenda for discussion by the facilitator. She remarked that the minority group did take into account small, new businesses but felt that they should be operated and started in a right manner. She was asking the commission to consider who the ultimate benefactors of the majority working group’s recommendations were. She asked that the majority working group’s recommendation be rejected and the minority working group’s recommendations be carefully considered.
Audrey Stockton, 4821 Rutters Drive, thanked the commission for their consideration of tabling the item until more work could be done. She thought that the reference to riding horses should be eliminated and just changed to horse as there were many people that did more with their horses than ride, and they were still apart of the economics of the equine community. She also asked if the structures trying to come into compliance would have to come up to current code. She stated that the smaller facilities were more of the source of problems and what caused them to become problems were missed in the scalable system. She did not feel that the idea of the system was ready for implementation and questioned how enforceable stewardship management was. She stated that location reviews did not work either, and zoning was the issue. She felt that all businesses needed to be regulated, registered, and accountable. She asked that the new regulations be examined to determine whether they were an improvement over the current regulations rather than if they were perfect for the future.
Donna Brown, 8167 N. County Road 11, concurred with the committee’s recommendations. She felt that they had worked very hard, and the proposal was very well thought out and fair. She thanked Linda Hoffmann for her work.
Trisha Swift, 8012 N. County Road 11, was apart of the working group and believed that their recommendations were fair. She noted that the group wanted to make regulations that made enforceability easier. She stated that geographical locations brought up by the minority report made it difficult to enforce, and the recommendation to change the scalable system would make it so that some businesses that were legal now would actually have to go through review. Property management had been the source of most complaints, and the resources stewardship plan would help mitigate neighbor complaints because it would bring to mind to people the fact that they did need to manage their property.
Kathleen Kilkelly, 920 Inverness, was a member of the working group. She thought that the weight of the working group was not so unbalanced. She was in the neighbor category and felt that she did a good job at that. She felt that her professional background plus the fact that she had issues with some neighbors who were non-permitted allowed her to very well represent a side that might have problems with unregulated horse facilities. She thought that it was good that some members of the working group had facilities that were non-permitted. The majority in the county were unpermitted and what better than to hear from the “horses mouth” why some of the facilities were not permitted. She did have a stake in seeing that the future of the horse business in Larimer County was viable because she did own horses as well, and she used those facilities for various reasons. She felt that when people compared the proposed regulations to the existing regulations that most people would support the recommendation.
Meredith Hodges, 2457 S. County Road 19, owned 127-acre ranch but did not board her horses or train. The working group had done a good job in trying to identify and flush out all the problems on a multitude of different levels. She did not want to see any horse business shut down because there were many kids that needed all different sizes of horse facilities to fulfill their needs. She supported the scalable system but did feel that it needed to be examined more and the points system possibly lowered so people with existing places did not get penalized with fines. She remarked that horse businesses and horses served the community and the kids. She stated that she supported the system.
Lindy Weatherford, 840 Helena Court, owned a facility on the eastern edge of Larimer county which they had owned for over 30 years. As a professional horse trainer and resident of Larimer County for 35 years she had been following the process closely. The problem was that the current regulations were totally inflexible and unenforceable and many people did not even know they existed. At the beginning they were told that the process was started due to multiple complaints which only ended up being 25 complaints over the span of three years. A lot of the complaints were facilities complaining about other facilities and were not neighbor to neighbor complaints. Of the balance of the complaints it came out to four complaints per year. She stated that most of the regulations that had been developed were a problem because they were developed by people who knew nothing about horses or the horse business. She felt that more properties should go into the use by right category and also stated that zoning and/or boundary areas should also be looked at because it could alleviate a lot of the problems with enforceability. She remarked that professional horse businesses were by nature better stewards of the land and better neighbors than average. Their livelihood depended on the good care of their property and good human relations with clients and neighbors. She stated that she had been sadden and shocked that many people had felt that they got no response from government agencies and felt that they had no say and no influence at all.
Joyce Kelly, 3500 Terry Lake Road, supported the working group’s recommendations especially compared to the current regulations. She felt that more facilities would go through the process with the new proposed regulations.
Wayne Phipps, 5951 W. County Road 8E, was a farrier and had attended some of the meetings. Generally, he supported what the working group had done as it was a contrast to the current regulations. It was a well thought out document but felt that it should be looked at as a work in progress. He stated that the scalable system could be tweaked to include more use by right, but recommended that it be supported.
Jim Goodyear, 851 W. County Road 70, thanked the planning commission for listening to all the comments and thanked the county commissioners for authorizing a working group. He remarked that there would always be people that would be opposed to change but the proposed regulations were better then what was currently in place. It was fair and reasonable for horse facilities, allowed property valuation, and allowed proper recognition. The regulations would not be an added burden and all would be able to comply with them. He was a strong supporter of the working group’s tiered system and hoped that it would be supported.
Dennis Goeltl, 163 N. County Road 25, was president of Hearts and Horses and was apart of the working group. He stated that it was a workable, viable piece of material that solved the issue that the working group was put together to do. Much of his family’s property was gone or now a development and felt that would be what happened to the equine community if nothing was done. He stated that he had some difficulty with geographical boundaries because there was a constant state of change.
Vaughn Cook, 5450 E. County Road 32E, stated that he was a Colorado native. When the process started, he was skeptical but over the last 10 months his wife, who was on the working group, helped him to understand and made him believe that the regulations might be good to keep the horse community preserved and have something that was workable for everybody. The working group, Linda Hoffmann, and staff of Larimer County had come up with a very workable solution for the whole community. He was previously involved on the state and federal level of the Colorado Horseman’s Association and Rocky Mountain Quarter Horse Association among other committees and they all had fought the same issues. He wanted to preserve Larimer County rightfully, and the committee had come up with a very workable change that he highly applauded and Rocky Mountain Quarter Horse applauded too.
Sean Davies, 7078 E. Highway 14, was a local horse trainer and did work at facilities in Larimer County. As a result, it was important to him that they stayed in the county. He noted that many of the facilities did not know that they were not in compliance. He also stated that he volunteered at horse rescues and remarked that there needed to be places for horses to live because they were running out of places for them to go. The current regulations were ridiculous, and they did want to make things better for everyone and for the horses. He was in favor of the working group recommendations.
Jen Lewis, 6408 E. County Road 44, owned and operated Rivendale Ranch which was a very small operation. The current regulations had been in operation for many years so she wondered why the new proposed regulations were trying to get passed so quickly. She questioned who the outreach committee was and thought that they needed to address more of the small facilities other than just the large ones. Many facilities did cater to children and taught more than just riding and boarding, they were teaching a lifestyle and responsibility. She felt that the proposed use by right needed to be loosened and some of the regulations for smaller facilities needed to be looked at more in depth. She also wondered about manure removal and how it would be addressed.
Chuck Peterson, 824 Deer Meadow, stated that he was on the working group and complimented Ms. Hoffmann on her work. The purpose of the working group and changing the regulations was to look toward the future and do conflict resolution in advance. He recommended the commissioners consider the proposal.
Becky Waldo, 3905 E. County Road 66, stated that she had been on the Agricultural Advisory Committee for five years. She stated that she felt that the committee did not have very much time to address the issue, and she was not sure that their recommendation truly reflected everyone’s thoughts. She had been a member of the Larimer County her whole life and asked that the parameters of the regulations be broadened rather then more restrictive.
Polly Lauridsen, 3818 Trouble Trail, was a member of the working group as neighbor. She did not own a horse business but lived adjacent to several horse businesses. She was also the code compliance supervisor for the City of Fort Collins. She thought the group did a thorough job in considering neighbor conflict and also took the time to understand and read the Land Use Code. It was a well facilitated group and the members took it seriously.
Commissioner Hart stated that the commission had spent a lot of time on the issue also. The work performed by the working group was an improvement over the existing regulations but he still had issues. He was not comfortable with the effects to the adjacent properties for more of the urban/rural interface areas. He also wondered if zoning districts could help with the issues. He wondered about enforceability and admistration and what kind of standards would be developed.
Commissioner Cox agreed with Commissioner Hart. The proposal definitely needed more time, work, and a chance to address all the referral comments. The scalable system was workable but she continued to have problems with the enforceability of it and wanted to see if it could be made simpler.
Commissioner Hess thanked all the members of the working group. She thought that the work they did was good and liked the scalable system. However, she felt it was a little too broad and was worried about enforceability. She also thought that some of the definitions needed to be tweaked.
Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the work done was fundamental to building the code. She also agreed that more time was needed to tweak the proposal.
Commissioner Boucher agreed that there was still work that needed to be done but the final goal should be that the people operating businesses could peacefully work with their neighbors and that the transition from the old system to the new system should be as seamless and painless as possible. He was also worried about developing anything that would drive a small businesses owner out of business. He felt that the county should be working with the business owners to make sure it was an easy transition and felt that the working group had done a lot to achieve that goal. There were a few things that needed to be addressed but he felt that it was moving in the right direction.
Commissioner Glick thanked the staff and members of the working group. He was concerned how to write standard that were fair and enforceable. He also hoped that new regulations would be something that people aspired to comply with rather than fight with.
Commissioner Morgan stated that the proposed regulation would be a substantial change regarding land use in Larimer County. As a result, people needed to have notice of what was happening with the regulations and with neighboring properties. The proposed regulations needed to be looked at carefully regarding use by right and administrative review. He also wondered how the “best practices” could be enforced and stated that there was no penalty for noncompliance. The current system did not work but they needed to find regulations that worked for the county and was comparable with the code required for other businesses.
Commissioner Wallace pointed out that her biggest concern was notice as the proposed regulations did not provide for enough notice to people that there would be a change. There also needed to be enforceable regulations and there were too many gaps that needed to be examined. It was a good start, and she appreciated the work of the staff and the working group.
Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding Horse Business Facilities, file #09-CA0101, to a date uncertain.
Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Boucher, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:30 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.
Nancy Wallace, Chairman Gerald Hart, Secretary
Commencing at the NW corner of the SW Quarter of the SE Quarter of Section 29, Township 8 N, Range 69 W of the 6th P.M., running thence S 46 rods, thence E 17.5 rods, thence N 46 rods, thence W 17.5 rods to the place of beginning, containing five acres more or less; together with one share of the capital stock of the Taylor and Gill Ditch Company and one share of the capital stock of the LaPorte Lateral Ditch Company; excepting a strip of land 15 feet wide off the W side of said tract of land hereto for granted to Henry B. Newlon for road purposes, except the portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, by deed dated September 16, 1930, and recorded April 15, 1931, in Book 617 at page 448, and except reservations and easements now of record or as now established.
Also known by street and number 3520 West County Road 54G, LaPorte, CO 80535
TRACT 2-A, THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACT 2 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF COLLAND CENTER AND TRACT B OF MANOR RIDGE ESTATES P.U.D., 1ST FILING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.