LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of October 18, 2017
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Gerrard, Jensen, Miller and Wallace were present. Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chairman. Commissioner Lucas was absent. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Lea Schneider, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary.
The Planning Commission went on a site visit to WOLF II Special Review.
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 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Cox moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Miller. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
ITEM #1 WOLF II SPECIAL REVIEW #16-ZONE2038: Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a Pet Animal Facility for W.O.L.F., which was requesting to have up to 60 animals and support facilities, a visitor education center and a gift shop. The proposed site location was at 16278 CR 74E, Red Feather Lakes, which was north of CR 74E at Log Cabin at the intersection with CR 68.
The applicant, WOLF, was proposing to relocate from their current facility located off of Rist Canyon Road on Spring Valley Road. The current facility was originally approved in 1999 for the care of up to 30 animals. An amendment to that use, both a numeric and area expansion, was proposed in 2007 but was not approved by the County. Limitations on the access, a history of some neighbor issues, impacts from the High Park Fire and the Flooding of 2013 along with a change in leadership has prompted the proposal to relocate and expand.
The proposal was to utilize an 180-acre parcel of land and develop the site to accommodate up to 60 animals supported by a staff of 2-12 per day. The facilities proposed would include initially up to 20 enclosures adding more as the population warranted. Two phases were proposed. Phase One was for up to 30 animals and a limited set of improvements, which were to improve the cabin and shop building, and add a vaulted toilet and pavilion off of CR 74E for visitors, staff and by appointment visiting public. Phase Two expanded the number of animals to 60 and included a visitor/education center and gift shop. Public access to the site would always be by invitation only, and the facility would exist behind a locked gate. The existing structures on site, a cabin and shop building, would be used in support of the use.
The applicant was also proposing that they be allowed the opportunity to divide off no more than two, 35-acre tracts for residential development.
Mr. Helmick noted that a substantial number of comments had been received regarding the impacts of noise, air and water quality. From a technical standpoint, the issues with the application were associated with the level of activity on site, traffic safety and other issues related to the standards in the Land Use Code. Staff believed that most of those issued had been addressed to their satisfaction. He noted that noise was a significant concern and issue. As a result, the applicants did conduct a noise study. The opponents to the application also conducted a review of their own of that analysis. From that study, it was reasonable to assume that at times the animals on site would be audible to neighbors. While howling or noise associated with the animals might be heard from neighboring properties, the Development Services Team did not believe that it would represent a noise disturbance or would rise to the level of a noise disturbance.
Based on approvals in the immediate area, the level of activity and the general use of the site was consistent with other approved uses in the area (existing subdivisions, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and guest lodges). The level of activity and traffic proposed for the site were similar to and or less than other uses in the area. There were a number of residential lots in the area; some were seasonal and some were year round. He remarked that within 3500 feet of the site there were approximately 140 individual parcels, most in Red Feather Highlands and Glacier View Meadows. Most of the area was zoned O-Open or RE-Rural Estate, which did allow for pet animal facilities by Special Review.
He mentioned that there were existing ranching operations in the area, and there was belief that the presence of the animals would negatively impact the operation of the ranching; however, there was no real evidence to support this. He pointed out that if the site was developed residentially it could potentially have a greater impact with uncontrolled pet animals versus the confined animals at this site.
He explained that the applicant proposed to use existing or new individual sanitation systems to treat the domestic waste produced on site, which the Health Department had noted was feasible. The applicant indicated that there were several springs on site, which had been developed for use on site. Access and traffic generation have been identified as issues from the Engineering Department, and the applicants have provided a traffic study and an access plan that demonstrates the site could operate at a safe level. The access to the site would be relocated to insure a safe access.
The State Division of Wildlife (DOW) had commented on the proposal with respect to the importance of this area as migration corridors, which had been address with the applicant’s current plan. DOW also made a recommendation regarding the enclosure noted as ‘V-1’, which was recommended to be eliminated/relocated along with controlled use of ATV’s on site.
Noise compliance was a concern, and any additional noise may be seen as an impact. Noise mitigation plans and modeling have noted that the site could meet the technical standards but that there were times and locations for which the animal noise might be audible. Many of the opponents would argue that if it was audible then it was in violation of the noise disturbance section of the Noise Ordinance. Enclosures 12-17, at the north central part of the site, would require additional noise analysis to insure the standard of the ordinance was met due to their proximity to the private property to the north.
Mr. Helmick noted that the applicant had proposed a double fenced system to increase the level of security of the enclosures for the animals. The fencing would be 10 feet tall; eight feet of fencing topped with 2 feet of electric fencing within a perimeter of similar fencing. Individual enclosures would have a smaller pen area within them for feeding and handling of the animals.
He noted that the applicant was requesting an appeal that the drive and parking areas not be paved as required under Section 22.214.171.124 of the Land Use Code, which Staff was supporting.
Commissioner Jensen asked how many properties in the area were developed and how many were full time residents.
Mr. Helmick was unsure of the number of developed vs. undeveloped and could not determine which were seasonal or full time use.
Commissioner Jensen asked what the observed speeds were in the traffic study.
Clint Jones, Engineering Department, stated that they were based on design speeds per the Rural Area Road Standards and not on posted speed limits.
Commissioner Christman asked how the noise ordinance was enforced.
Mr. Helmick stated that they would be in violation of the conditions of approval if it was proven that the violation existed. The applicant would have the opportunity to rectify the situation or be brought before the County Commissioners for a show cause hearing.
Lee Martin, Landmark Engineering, explained the WOLF Sanctuary and what they did. He mentioned that only wolf dog hybrids would be at the sanctuary and clarified that the Sanctuary was not an attraction, it was a rescue. He explained that volunteers and Staff inspected the site and the enclosures. The current facility had 2-3 animals within an enclosure and up to 30 animals in 14 enclosures. He mentioned reasons that drove to move the facility to a new location, which were limited fundraising ability, limited and difficult access, small enclosures, annual flooding, lack of electricity and indoor plumbing, along with cramped caretaker facilities. He also mentioned that much of the property had been burned in a fire. The new proposed site had good access, existing buildings, and good vegetation. He mentioned that during the sketch plan phase of the proposal, the concept of having weddings and camping were proposed but had since been removed from the proposal. He pointed out that if the use was not approved, the land would be developed in the future to residential lots. He also pointed out that the enclosures could not be seen from the access road into the property. He mentioned the proposed hours for tours and explained about the enclosures, which would have a double fence and would have 1/3-3/4 acres per enclosure. He spoke regarding noise, which he stated would be minimal. Noise mitigation had been taken into consideration and applied to the proposal. He also spoke to the traffic analysis.
John Rehberg, 53 Elk Chase Court, noted the opposition to the proposal and that the proposed was not compatible with the surrounding area.
Jim Bortym, licensed professional engineer specializing in acoustics, had visited the site. The noise assessment/report completed by EDI for the applicant misled the reader about noise disturbance. From his study, he found that out of 6-14 residences studied, noise would be clearly audible at those residences. He mentioned that annoyance by noise was disturbing and noise did not need to be loud to be disturbing. In his opinion, he believed that the noise created from the facility would create an annoyance and disturbance and therefore violated the noise ordinance. As a result, the facility should not be permitted.
Ed Hansen, was representing his family and ranch, which was directly adjacent to the proposed site. He was in opposition of the WOLF Sanctuary due to the effect it would have on his ranch and livestock. He explained that barking and the close proximity would most certainty affect their cows, and the stress created would also have a negative impact on their cows. He stated that the site was not a viable option or an appropriate site and asked that the Commission help protect and assist the agricultural activities in Larimer County. He stated that the proposal would affect the entire area and asked that the proposal be denied.
Commissioner Dougherty asked what they currently did about wildlife in the area.
Mr. Hansen explained their ranching operation.
Commissioner Gerrard asked how much the cattle were harassed by coyotes.
Mr. Hansen remarked that it depended. He stated that the coyotes did howl and put the cattle in stress.
Rob Phillips, stated that the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners as well as the State of Colorado had recognized the importance of ranching. He pointed out the criteria that Special Review applications had to meet and remarked that the proposal would have a substantial impact. He remarked that one of the dogs had escaped at the current site, that wolf-hybrids did kill and wolf-hybrids were not currently regulated. He also stated that the sign required to post on the property regarding the proposed use was not posted on the property 14 days prior to the hearing.
Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Bortym had completed his study from the proposed location.
Mr. Bortym stated that he did not take any decibel levels. He relied on the noised study provided by the applicants to make his analysis.
Commissioner Miller recapped that because annoying noises were objective or subjective to an individual, disturbing noises were difficult to define for groups of people as a whole.
Mr. Bortym replied that was correct. There was considerable literature in the acoustics profession about disturbance and annoyance and detectability and irritation from noises of that type – low level noises that were disturbing.
Commissioner Miller reiterated that noise of that type was subjective to individuals.
Mr. Bortym replied yes.
Commissioner Gerrard asked about the requirement to post a sign on the property prior to the hearing.
Mr. Helmick stated that posting of the property was not a failure of the Code. It was curtesy to the public.
Ray Harrison, stated that the question was where the most appropriate place was for the Sanctuary was. They had property rights but other adjacent property owners were entitled to property rights too. He mentioned the unintended consequence of property values decreasing. The neighbors had rights to quiet living, and the noise ordinance must be enforced.
Pamela Princ, Larimer County Stock Growers, expressed concerns regarding the effects on the cattle due to barking and howling. She pointed out that there were issues with the noise ordinance at the current location. Cattle under stress could lose babies, loss of appetite, illness, poor meat production, etc.. The constant barking from up to 60 animals would cause extreme stress. She noted that the Right to Farm and Ranch was established by the County Commissioners.
Michael Gainer, Shambala Mountain Center, felt that WOLF would be a good neighbor and would rather have them as a neighbor over a new subdivision.
Caryn Hughes, Officer Manager of Red Feather Lakes Community Association, stated that mail fraud had occurred. A document was returned back to them, which was addressed to the Investigative Reporting Team that was from the Citizens of Fairness. It had a return address of the Community Association. She stated that the letter from the opponents had misinformation, and they were committing mail fraud because the letter was sent out not using their own return address but the return address of the Community Association.
Fred Johnston, felt that there was hysterical reaction to change which was unfounded but was a common occurrence in the Red Feather Lakes area. He owned a real estate company and stated that facts did not support loss in property values. People that had purchased a property in the area should have been notified of the proposed Sanctuary when considering purchasing a home. He stated that 6 residential homes sold since May 2016 with purchase prices between $260,000-$500,000 with an average of 41 days on the market.
Ron Weeks, stated that his property was located at the east fence line of the proposal. He wondered why they wanted to go in the area that was already established. Who was it benefiting. No one except the applicant. The barking would be bad. He felt that it needed to be at another property.
Marty Vermilyea, Member of Local Chapter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, stated that the proposal was in conflict of their mission statement. He provided a history of the elk in the area. He stated that the elk would not do well with that many wolf-hybrids in the area.
Rob Miedenzu, residents of Red Feather Highlands, stated that he and his neighbors valued the safety and quiet area they lived in, which would be taken away with the proposal. He stated that at a neighborhood meeting, WOLF provided theirs plans; however, they had purchased the property but had no idea of who the surrounding properties, and they also dismissed many concerns brought up by neighbors.
Loranne Schaffer, real estate agent, spoke to properties values within an approximately 2-mile radius of the existing facility and stated that homes in that vicinity had sold recently. She stated that home 700 feet away from the current facility sold for $490,000. In her opinion, the WOLF facility did not affect the value of the surrounding properties in a negative way.
Becky Robertson, volunteer with WOLF Sanctuary since 2009, spoke to the safety policy and procedures at the Sanctuary. She noted that neighbor concerns were a concern for the applicants. She also mentioned that it was a wonderful educational opportunity.
Ronnie Weeks, lived on the property to the east fence line of the proposed location. He was concerned about the barking and howling dogs, extra traffic, and dramatic impact on the wildlife. He pointed out that the business would impact others. Everyone was tax payers and their concerns should take precedence. WOLF already had complaints at the current facility and those complaints would transfer to the new location. He felt that people would not have purchased their property if WOLF had been located at the proposed location. The people were saying ‘no’, which should be considered as they were the ones that had to live next to it. He asked that it not be approved.
Julie Sauter, new resident of Red Feather Highlands, stated that she would not have bought her property if she knew about the Sanctuary. She stated that she was never notified about the proposal before she bought her property. She stated that it would be uncontrolled noise that you could not shut off and would cause a disturbance. She pointed out that it would be more than a Sanctuary, it would be a money-making operation.
Ralph Sauter, voiced his disapproval of the proposal. He also pointed out wildfire concerns. He stated that they should have to keep records of the dogs on site.
Melody Orso, 1739 W County Road 74E, stated that she owned horses and was concerned about the noise and safety of herself, her horses, her grandkids and wildlife in the area. She voiced concerns regarding the proposed fencing and about potential escapes. She asked that the sanctuary not be approved.
Milo Trusty, Red Feather Highlands, stated that his property adjoined the proposed property. He stated that the noise would be heard. He pointed out the many people that were against the proposal.
Brian Orso, 1739 W County Road 74E, pointed out that the mountains were quiet. He also mentioned that raw meat would be fed to the dogs, and it would draw in more predators. He pointed out that the people were there first.
John Melgaard, Red Feather Highlands, agreed with the opposition and their comments. He stated that he moved to the area for the peace and quiet.
Darlene C, President and Founder of Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center located west of Colorado Springs, which had been a licensed sanctuary for 25 years. She stated that in all those years she had not received a complaint regarding noise. She also pointed out that her sanctuary was next to people and cattle ranches, and next door was a horse ranch, which had boarding and training.
She also stated that she had free range horses of her own and did ride her horse next to the enclosures. She stated that the cattle ranch did have calves but they were used to the dogs and they never had an issue. They had a lot of wildlife in the area but it did not disturb, frighten or cause stress to the wildlife or other animals. She was in support of the proposal.
Andrew Godfrey, stated that he bought a house in December 2016 in Red Feather Highland area. He stated that the view from his deck would allow them to see the pens. They had safety concerns for their young daughters along with concerns about fallen trees on the fence enclosures. He remarked that the animals in the area were used to their surroundings, and the change of the wolves in the area would cause a disturbance and a stress. He stated that he was against the proposal.
Charlie Allgood, resident of Red Feather Highlands since 2010, expressed his concerns regarding the stress and noise that would be created. He pointed out that the wind would carry the noise. He asked that the residents in the area be supported in their opposition.
Dennis Marsh, asked if any animals would be released to the wild.
Commissioner Dougherty replied no.
Mr. Marsh wondered how emergency personnel would rescue and evacuate the wolves during a disaster.
William Altenburg, livestock producer, agreed with previous comments. He pointed out that it was hard to tell the difference between a hybrid and actual wolf. How would you protect your cattle from wolves or wolf hybrids if they escaped. Wolves were an endangered species so it was not legal to kill a wolf. He wondered if Larimer County would be in charge of capturing/killing an escaped animal and wondered why the tax payers should have that burden.
Christian Anderson, was a licensed realtor and had property in the Red Feather Highlands. He pointed out that people would not want to buy a property next to barking dogs. The market was cyclical and properties would be sold and sold for high prices. He remarked that it was a quiet area, and the close proximity of the facility would be an issue and would affect property values.
Mike B, was amazed by the preparation of the applicant. He felt that the applicants were trying to address the issues.
Richard Meyers, stated that his property was 1/8 mile from the entrance of the proposal. He stated that the sound would torture his wife who had suffered from a stroke, and it would exacerbate his PTSD.
Rob Phillips, stated that posting of the site was a requirement according to Section 12.3.3 of the Land Use Code.
William Pansire, opposed the proposal.
Sharyn Smith, stated that she was ‘log cabin’, which was the structure surrounded by property proposed. She pointed out that she heard coyotes and gun shots. People needed to be educated about the animals before jumping to conclusions.
Stewart McGregor, author of the noise report, stated that he understood that new noise would be an annoyance; however, it was about how noise was perceived. There was a frequency involved. Dogs did not bark continuously and did not howl at all times of the day. There were limited times during the day that they did vocalize. He pointed out that noise generated would be quieter than the traffic noise generated on County Road 74E.
Commissioner Miller was disappointed in the oppositions sound professional. He was hoping a decibel test would be completed prior to the BCC hearing.
Michelle Proulx, Director of Animal Care at WOLF Sanctuary, spoke regarding preventing animal escape measures and evacuations. She explained that they would implement deterrents of animal escape by using enclosures, fencing, dig guard protection, etc. as well as an additional perimeter fence. She also mentioned that they were hoping to also utilize security cameras. She remarked that there was protocol to do multiple rounds a day to check all animals and enclosures. An issue with an enclosure would be fixed quickly and effectively. During bad weather, they would also monitor the enclosures more closely in case of downed trees, etc. She explained that in the event of an animal escape or observed animal escape there were methods in place to capture that escaped animal. If an animal in either situation could not be captured, multiple agencies would be notified along with the surrounding neighborhoods. She mentioned that one animal did escape in 2013, which was an observed animal escape. When that occurred, they had individuals come to the site to try to improve the enclosures, capture protocols, etc. She remarked that their evacuation protocol for natural disasters had been more defined since the High Park Fire.
Commissioner Christman asked if there was someone at site 24 hours a day.
Ms. Proulx replied yes. At the new site they hoped to have 2 on site 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Christman asked if they had written disaster/evacuation plan.
Ms. Proulx replied yes and mentioned that they were working with the fire department to create one for natural disasters.
Commissioner Jensen asked how high the property perimeter fence would be.
Ms. Proulx stated that the enclosures would be at least 10 feet. The perimeter fence would be at least 8 feet tall.
Commissioner Jensen asked about feeding the animals raw meat.
Ms. Proulx stated that the meat was removed from the enclosure if not eaten.
Commissioner Gerrard asked how the animal had escaped.
Ms. Proulx replied that the first escape was by the animal climbing the fence, and she explained their process for capturing the dog. The second escape was due to the dog jumping, which was later found to be from an overhang that was placed incorrectly. That was corrected and an electric fence was also added. She remarked that the dog had not since attempted another escape.
Commissioner Gerrard asked if it was common for wolves to bark at a visitor.
Ms. Proulx stated that it was not common for them to bark. They would generally howl, whine or growl. She stated that the wolves could bark but it was not a common vocalization on wolves.
Mr. Martin mentioned that the property line fence would be barbed wire.
Commissioner Miller asked if the fence would remain for the migration of wildlife.
Mr. Martin replied yes but stated that it would allow wildlife to get through.
Dr. Valerie Johnson, veterinarian and worked at WOLF Sanctuary, mentioned that it was legal to have wolf hybrids as pets. They were not necessarily more aggressive than a normal dog, which of course depended on different factors. She explained how the veterinary care for the dogs was handled.
Commissioner Jensen asked if there was human interaction on a daily basis within the enclosures.
Ms. Johnson stated that the staff knew which animals were more comfortable with humans and which weren’t.
Commissioner Wallace asked why or when they would howl.
Ms. Johnson stated that it was normally during feeding time or at morning or at dusk.
Commissioner Gerrard confirmed that there was not rabies vaccination for wolf-hybrids.
Ms. Johnson replied that there was not a vaccination specifically labeled for wolf-hybrids.
Commissioner Gerrard asked which animals in the area could carry rabies or disease in the area.
Ms. Johnson replied that the number one carrier of rabies was bats followed by skunks, foxes and raccoons.
Shelly Coldiron, applicant, remarked that they would do and would continue to do fire mitigation on the land. She stated that they had already started thinning out trees, and that when doing fencing design they would consider trees and falling trees. She stated that she took the facility over during the time of the High Park Fire and was trying to improve the facility. She mentioned that the facility would be set up with security measures utilizing people, cameras, etc. She explained that they were not wild animals. They were used to captivity, used to being fed and would not be able to find food for themselves. She stated that they were licensed with the USDA and DOW and mentioned that the fencing met USDA requirements. She explained that the perimeter fence would go around the different enclosure pods not the entire property. She mentioned that they had seen a horse and only a couple cows on the D-Dart Ranch property since they moved in. She also mentioned that the ranch property had previously been for sale with a commercial realtor. She spoke about having a nature center and having education to try to prevent more wolf-hybrids.
The applicants showed a video of cows coming near the enclosures with no concern at their current location.
Commissioner Gerrard asked why people did not want these dogs.
Ms. Coldiron explained that they needed companionship. They needed more stimulation than a regular dog. She also mentioned that the humane society would not accept the hybrids or they would euthanize them.
Commissioner Cox asked how many noise complaints were recorded in the current facility.
Mr. Helmick replied possibly a half dozen.
Commissioner Dougherty asked what the proximity of surrounding neighbors at the current facility.
Mr. Helmick stated approximately 450 feet from the closest enclosure.
Commissioner Christman asked why the expansion was not approved in 2007.
Mr. Helmick stated that the Board of Commissioners did not feel it was appropriate due to the site, access and history of the facility.
Commissioner Wallace asked how the noise concerns could be addressed.
Mr. Helmick stated that it was a complaint driven system and explained some requirements of the noise ordinance.
Mr. Lafferty explained that the noise ordinance spoke to noise in two ways: in a measurable way through decibel levels and by disturbances. He referenced Article V of the County Code which outlined the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Wallace questioned what made something compatible in regards to noise.
Commissioner Cox asked if enclosures 12-18 would be eliminated if it was found that they could not meet noise standards.
Mr. Helmick replied yes. They were part of Phase II, and they had to provide that study before they could be built.
Commissioner Jensen explained that he was sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns. He stated that noise had to be looked at through a numeric value not through how noise was perceived.
Commissioner Wallace pointed out that there was a Right to Farm Act in Larimer County. She wondered the compatibility of cattle and wolves and pointed out that there was not concrete proof the wolves would affect cattle. She pointed out that it could be a compatibility issue.
Commissioner Caraway thanked the WOLF organization for their efforts, and he wanted to see it succeed. He felt that the applicant needed to do a better job to ‘win-over’ the neighborhood prior to moving forward with the project and an approval. He stated that he would vote against the proposal.
Commissioner Gerrard appreciated the neighbors and their concerns and admitted that it was a difficult decision. He stated that he would vote for approval.
Commissioner Dougherty believed that WOLF had a good track record regarding safety. He remarked that Phase II might be too close to the surrounding properties regarding noise; however, the pens would be naturally mitigated from noise due to the topography of the property. He stated that if they did violate the noise ordinance then it could be addressed. He remarked that he was not convinced on the potential damage to cattle. He admitted that hearing from another sanctuary helped give perspective.
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the WOLF II Special Review, file #16-ZONE2038, for the property shown on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, 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.
2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the WOLF II Special Review File # 16-ZONE2038 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 WOLF II Special Review.
3. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners
4. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
5. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) at the issuance of the first building permit for the site.
9. This approval excludes enclosures 12-17 until the applicant can show that the use of these pens will not violate the numeric noise standards. Upon the provision of an updated noise analysis these pens or a portion of them may be constructed and utilized.
10. Enclosure V-1 shall be eliminated or relocated to satisfy the concerns of the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife.
11. This approval does not allow for direct public contact with the animals. In the alternative, the protocol recommended by the Health Department in their July 24, 2017 memo with respect to rabies, waivers and testing shall be implemented.
12. The applicant shall construct all required access improvements no later than 90 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the site.
13. The site is intended to be developed in at least two phases, as detailed in the applicant materials dated June 12, 2017.
14. The appeal to the parking and access paving standards is approved, provided that the access apron to CR74E is paved.
15. The applicant shall be allowed to divide off no more than 2- 35-acre parcels. There shall be no further divisions allowed and prior to the division the applicant must provide an overall site plan detailing access and building locations to the County for approval, prior to any transfer. A notice of the existing approval of WOLF shall be provided to any purchaser.
16. All the structures and enclosures shall be required to obtain building permits.
17. The noise limits of the Larimer County Noise Ordinance shall be enforced as the standards for noise for this project.
Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Gerrard, Jensen, Miller and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.
Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox and Wallace voted against the Motion.
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission and audience that the WOLF II Special Review would be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on December 4, 207. He also spoke about the tiny home issue in Cherokee Park, which was brought up by a citizen at a previous hearing. He stated that currently there was no violation.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:25 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.
Sean Dougherty, Chairman Mina Cox, Secretary
EX HIBIT A
Pa rcel A
The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the southeast
quarter, Section 9, Township 9 north, Range 72 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of
Larimer, State of Colorado, except that Parcel described in the deed recorded December 11,
1989, under Reception No . 89056890.
A tract of land situated in the west one half of Section 9, Township 9 north, Range 72 West of
the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter and that part of the northeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 72 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
lying northeast of the present County Road right of way, except a tract of land described in the
deed recorded January 30, 1957 in Book 1038 at Page 143.
That part of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 8, and the southwest
quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, range 72 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, lying north and east of the right of way of the County Road between
Livermore and Red Feather Lakes, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Together with any and all rights and interest the Granter has in and to Jess Scott Spring, Freda
Scott Spring , Bennett Spring, RR McEldowney Spring, and Ryckert Spring as stated in Water
Division I, State of Colorado Case No . W1616 Filed August 22, 1975 .