No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-98-01City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Clerk's Office FROM: `N,Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-01/Large Animals Regulations DATE: December 1, 1999 Attached is a copy of the minutes from the September 28, 1999, Animal Welfare and Control Commission meeting whereby a process was developed to handle citizen complaints regarding large animals. Please schedule this item for the December 20, 1999, City Council meeting agenda under "Decisions, Resolutions and Motions". p(SwIA I OkAdy 1 "n Att~Htd ~ * Proce°vof, dew Orj by W- Awcc fov w owe w~ a5 t ~UUt~<< I Qd0r-H 0 v\ 12420 P9. Animal Welfare and Control Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 PRESENT: Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Tom Hammerschmidt; Bob Hance; Kim Fear; Nick Fisher ABSENT: Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Dr. John Maulsby, Advisor; Monica Gregerson; Bea Slingsby; Debby Mauldin. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the July 16, 1999 meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: The large animal ordinance passed with the suggested change. Under Section (f) the following was added: UPON RECEIPT OF ANY COMPLAINT INVOLVING LARGE ANIMALS AS DEFINED HEREIN, STANDARD NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED. ADDITIONALLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WILL MAKE THE COMPLAINT KNOWN VIA THE APED SUPERINTENDENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WHO SHALL BE AVAILABLE IN ANY ADVISORY CAPACITY AT ANY TIME. THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WILL INVESTIGATE ALL CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING LARGE ANIMALS OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS. THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WILL DEVELOP WRITTEN PROCEDURES AS TO HOW CITIZEN COMPLAINTS WILL BE INVESTIGATED, MONITORED, AND DISPOSED OF. THESE WRITTEN PROCEDURES WILL BE FORWARDED FOR COUNCIL REVIEW NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 2000. The Commission suggested the following procedure: + Code Enforcement receives complaint + Complaint is forwarded to APEO + APE Supervisor will contact three members of the AWC Commission + An on-site inspection will be conducted + A written report detailing the findings will be submitted + A schedule of "manure management" can be presented at the time of the inspection or a meeting can be called to discuss the situation further. ♦ The Commission/APED will notify the owner that unannounced visits may be made. + The situation will then be monitored. In the case of a "defiant" owner who has been ordered to participate in a manure management program and is refusing to cooperate, the process will be documented and a summons will be issued. If the case is clearly a Code Enforcement issue then it should conclude in Code Enforcement. The rabies vaccination ordinance passed 7-1 with no issues raised. NEW BUSINESS: A new exotic permit was received for four potbellied pigs. Kim Fear to accompany APEO to inspect. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. I-- Dr. William Trefz, Chairpers n Michelle Stodde , Secretary 2 CHDA Mi::sion The Colorado Horse Development Authority believes in the value of the horse industry to improve the quality of life for participants, providing agricultural, recreational, and sporting activities. - CHDA Vision The Colorado Horse Development Authority is working to raise the level of con- sciousness regarding the horse; recognize the versatility and economic impact of the hor~.e; promote the health, care, and welfare of the horse; ensure the horse maintains agricultural status; acknowledge the universal facets the horse provides, improving the quality of life. CHDA Priorities 1999 • develop data base of horse owners and support industry services • market and distribute results of Economic Impact Surveyof Colorado's horse industry • develop program to ensure livestock and agricultural classification of horses • develop programs to benefit the horse industry through identification of re- search and educational priorities D• Serv,ice.: Center - yam Name yam New Afdresa City. State. dp Phone Fax E-mail (Someone yo, know who should he added to our mailing list) Name New Addrerro City State: !Ip Phi Fax E-mail Quantity Price Total BROCHURES Colorado Horse Care n/a Colorado Horse Promotion n/a Colorado Equine Reader $1.00110 Colorado Horse Facilities Survey $2.50 VIDEOS - Management of Small Acreage $5.00 _ Horse Care and Pasture Management $5.00 POSTAGE/HANDLING $1 so Make checks payable to CHDA TOTAL Mail to: OW o m oc Z Y n a a= o n ~ v en an 117 j t- rn a` °r O F- = 4 r * to * Z v m « a to -10 2e ri ID C * It ~ 3 * Q U o-Y C N # r 111 W p o o .p w 0 o N d r W 00 a) =5 h o 41 USUQ ~oV * 4~Q W O W * = m = v O R O *,90 do n R 6 E ~ I „ L C4 C6. ° . Y C1" E v c a o e o W LLI w o eo*N W o d = ~ p N F o w rob N ~y 6 s; o = e v 9 m 5 T ° C U) o~ s_ v:. U 0 T) 0 a N ° 41 -0 LLI 00 M 0 Z 8 C ° `o s ¢ o ° IOJ ~a U rs , o 3 0 X 0 0 N a 8 M ta T n 6 y O Zo R 01 U y `T' o r c !0 41 S `o U y S L U c_7 0 vt o u The Colorado D )rse a , Development Autharif,o > THE CHDA Winter;ssac, 1999 Moving the hors a industry forward The Colorado Horse )evelopment Authority is a. promotion and mar- keting group for Colorad )'s horse industry. It is established by State leg- islation and represents v; rious equine interests within the State. In 1998 the legislature revised thr Board's establishing legislation, which changed the Colorado Horse Devi lopment Board to the Colorado Horse Develop- ment Authority and mad : provisions for a Colorado horse promotion fee to be assessed in coajm ction with State horse brand inspections. The small promotion assessor it fee allows the Colorado Horse Development Authority to be self-suss iuing and to be supported by those it serves. - While the primary so nice of funding is the Horse Promotion Fee, the Authority's other fundir; source is contributions. Over the past three years, individuals, busine ;ses, and equine related groups have contribute $48,000 in support of Co oracle's Equine Economic Impact Survey, wh' is scheduled for complet in in September :999. The most important It retion of the Colorado Horse Development AL thority is to promote and maintain Colorado's horse industry for the ber: efit of all people associat d with equine in the State. Another priority is to support education of hr rse owners and the general public on equine health, horsekeeping, Ian 1 management, land use regulation, and other is- sues of vital importance o Colorado's horse people. - The Colorado,Horse• Development Authority believes in networking with other agencies and ; :roups to strengthen Colorado's horse industry's position in the State's ag-: culture community as well as the economic sec- tor. The Auti.ority has ~ orking relationships with the Colorado Depart- ment of Agricaiture, the State Veterinary Office, the State Brand Board, Colorado Se^te Universit /'s College of Agriculture and Cooperative Ex- tension, Colorado State 1 fniversity's College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Diagnostic Labor atory, and, of course, the Colorado Horse Coun- cil. The Authority feels 1.1eserelationships help in serving horse interests by maintaining a "brain rust" and by providing channels to disseminate the horse industry's mess age. Information, educatmi , and promotion are the key to the success of our State's horse industry. TI ~gether, we can "hold the reins far a better life!" CHDA Officers & Board 783849 Norm Brown - President Wellington Representing State wida Norse' „ Organizations, Laura Miller-Vice President Wastchffe Representing Breed/Discipline Tim: Lars Weasurer Castle Rock Representing Horse Industry Support . Services Tina Estes - Secretary Gypsum Representing: Breed/Discipline :.:.DIRECTORS G. Marvin Beeman, DVM Littleton Representing: Horse Industry , Support . Services Doug Butler, PhD LaPorte "r Representing Horse Industry ' Support Services Steve Carlos Penrose rRepresenting Breed/Discipline Jack Galt, DVM Monument `"Representing State Vetermar- Ian Group Eloise Joder, Boulder '..Representing Breed/Discipllne,: , Helen. Krieble `Parker '.Representing State-wide Hone', Organization - Jerry Martinez -.Lafayette Representing Breed/Discipline David McManus Olathe Representing State Horse Show Association Cathleen fission 'Steamboat Springs Representing Horse Industry Support Services Ann Smoker, PhD Ft. Lupton Representing University Equine Extension Program Libby firaham has been the Ex- ecutive D rector of the Colorado Horse De zelopment Authority for over a year. She is a fourth generation ' Colorado tative and has extensive non-profit management experience. Before coraing.to the CHDA, Libby, worked in be Center for Member Ser- vices of th : Association of Operating Room Nor: es, Inc., the world's largest nursing six cialty non-profit. A horse owner for most of her life, Libby brcc American Quarter Horses for 15 yea s. She belonged to state - and local f orsemen's and breed asso- ciations in two states. Libby was in- strumental in the creation of a thera- peutic rid:i g program in North Caro- lina and v°s.s responsible for the devel- opment o.` in equestrian trail and pub- lic equest ion exercise arena in Lake- wood, CC,. "Horses and our industry have al- ways player I such an important role in the economy and western heritage of our State. The CHDA gives its a tre- mendous o; rportunity to build and ex- pand on tuna tradition!" Horse Promotion Assessment Your dollars at work • assisted in publishing Hold Your Neat Horse Show In Colorado -A Guide to Colorado Horse Faci;ities, • served on the State Veterinary Office's Vesicular Stomatitis Steering Committee • provided support for the National Animal Health Monitoring Sys- tem (NAHMS)Colorado study • worked with other livestock groups to develop a practical and effec- tive Colorado Animal Emergency Management Plan; sponsored workshops on show management, grant writing, and other industry-related issues; • helped fund an "Equine Reader" edition of the Colorado Reader • produced and distributed Management of Small Acreage and Horse Care and Pasime Management educational videos • published the Colorado Horse Care brochure • established an educational resource program for Colorado police departments and academies Financial Report Proposed income and expenses INCOME Horse Promotion Assessment Carry Over Sponsorships EXPENSES Promotion Unification Education General Management Refunds Brand Board Admin Fee Community Outreach Industry Services Fund Raising $125,000 890/ 7% 0 23% $120,500 4 How Can We Help Y'ou'? From industry stakeholders The horse industry in Colorado is changing. With the urbanization of our society, we are faced with pressures of land use restrictions. Not all aspects of our industry are val- ued. We asked you to let us know what you felt were important issues of focus for the CHDA. These aye responses are from CHDA sponsored events and also from the CHDA web page. - • "keep horse farms zoned agricultural" • "helping promote events to the general public" • "influence our youth" • 'instructor certification training" • "helping small all-breed shows get started" We'd like to know... Haw can we help you? Please call the CHDA office at (303)292-4981• fax (303)297-8044 or e-mail cohoco@cohoco.com Reader Survey ❑ Yes O No Should the CHDA continue to assure that horses remain classified "livestock?" ❑ Yes O No Should the CHDA develop the Colorado Horse Promotion program? if so... What is the most important concept you would like the CHDA to market? (Please rank in order 1-5, with 1 being most important)? Buy you, next horse from Colorado. - Bring more national and international horse shows to Colorado. - Bring your horse to Colorado to live. Ride in Colorado - beautiful mountains and trails. - Bring national trainers or every discipline of riding. The Power of the Horse- economic impact of the horse in Colorado. Continue to develop horse education materials - care, welfare, and land use. Continue support for Colorado's Economic Impact Survey so that we will know more information on population and impact of the horse county-by-county. Support Colorado's Foundation for Agriculture - production of Equine reader. and other materials for distribution at education centers. Develop. solutions that plague Colorado horse owners, such as supply and quality of hay - manure management issues 13nd use/right to farm - water contamination - - unfriendly land use restrictions - 8bility to continue to use State/federal lands Please use this convenient TEAR-OFF sheet and mail td: Colorado Horse Development Authority 220 Livestock Exchange Building 4701 Marion Street Denver, CO 80216 Horse Buying Decisions (Best to have a horse expert & veterinarian help you with these decisions) -mr Breed of horse. -vf Age of horse -Tr Temperament of horse -T!r Horse`s level of training Styles of riding Horse's overall health -Tr Experience of rider -vr Any previous illness or injury to horse Before ownership, you may want to consider leasing a horse first to make sure that purchas'ng a horse is the correct decision. You may also want to examine.the oration of boarding the horse. You have purchased a horse and want to take it hc(mel.- What now? Legalities: By Colorado law a brand inspection certificate is needed as proof of ownership at the time of sale. Also; a brand inspection ct rtificat,3 is needed if a horse is transported more than 75 miles from home or leaving the state. Bow stall: 'mmiammaimmmu ,im Space & Shelter: Horses need a large e:cercise area, such as a corral or pasture. They also need naturrl or man-made shelter from the elements, both hot and cold. This can vary from a protective stand of trees 'o a 3-sided shed to a complete stable with box stalls. A man-made she`ter should be clean and well ventilated with no drafts. Vlinimum space requirements are shown here. Preferred floor is clay dirt N a " 10 to 12 ft. +ikiir Fencing: Whether using a traditional board fence, a rail fence, or electric wire fencing (wide ribbon wire is best), the most important thing is ,hat the `ence must be VISIBLE to the horse. This keeps the horse from becoming tangled in the fenc 1, or from running through the fence and onto the highway. Electric fencing should ONLY be used as an inter is r fence and never as a major exterior fence. Manure: You must have a plan for mi: nure disposal or use. You may want to start a composting project to convert manure and yard was i• into orc•anic fertilizer. You will also need a plan to control flies and other insects. Feeding: An average saddle horse t ,at weighs 1,000 pounds will eat approximately 17 to 22 pounds of feed per day (total ration). Tht total ration is a combination of hay, grain and pasture. Salt should always be available to the horse. .ook ins de for more detailed information on feeding and watering your horse. Contact the Colorado State Univeef ity County Extension Agent in your county to get additional infor nation ;an all of these topics. - Important Phone Numbers for Colorado Horse Owners To contact your Colorado State County Extension Agent and/or 4-H Youth program: Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, 1 Administration Building, Ft. Collins; CO 80523-4040 9701491-6281 (office hours 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F) Website: w .colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/ To contact your Colorado State Equine Extension Specialist: Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Animal Sciences Department, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.1171 9701491-6271 (office hours 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F) Colorado Veterinary Medical Association 1780 S. Belaire, Ste. 103, Denver, CO 80222 303/759-1251 (office hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F) American Association of Equine Practitioners 1-800-438-2386 Rocky Mountain Farriers Association 303/646.2548 Colorado Horse Council Colorado Horse Development Board 220 Livestock Exchange Bldg., 4701 Marion St., Denver, CO 80216 303/292-4981 Colorado State Brand Inspection Office 201 Livestock Exchange Bldg., 4701 Marion St., Denver, CO 80216 303/294-0895 This pamphlet sponsored by. Wlo'a~ laurs~~hv CoopempcratiArz- Extension COLORADO HORSE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Horses are Agricultural This pamphlet is designed to help new or inexperienced horse owners understand the responsibilities of caring for a horse. Feeding and Watering Your Horse Pasture: such as hay (see below for i or pasture. A hose weighing 1000 lbs. ' will eat forage, information 500 lbs. of forage each month. How much land will you need to feed one horse for a year? If this is the only source of forage, your horse will need about 28 acres of dryland (non-irrigated) pasture a year. To keep pasture grass healthy, DO NOT let the horse overgraze the land so that grass will no longer grow. Overgrazed dryland pasture may never recover. Irrigated pastures with adequate moisture will grow more forage than dryland pasture so less acreage is needed. The amount of land needed for one horse ranges from 3/4 to 1 1/4 acres. The horse will not eat grass that has been trampled or has manure on it. Overgrazing will also damage irrigated pastures. For good quality regrowth, leave about 1/3 of the grass uneaten. Manage your pasture as a crop by soil \ testing, fertilizing, clipping weeds and managing manure. Mater: Your horse must have plenty of clean, fresh water available at ALL times. A horse will drink 10 to 12 gallons of water each day, depending upon temperature, humidity levels, ration content and work load. In the winter months, stock tank heaters will help stop ice buildup so that water is ALWAYS accessible to the horse Hay: Your horse will need supplemental hay during Grain: A grain mix (usually oats and corn) should be added to the diet when you increase the horse's training, work or activity. Young and old horses may also need grain. This chart shows how much grain to feed an average 1000-!b. horse: No work No grain Light work 1.11/2 lbs. Grain (1.2 hours per day) per hour of work Medium work 11/2.2 lbs. Grain (2-4 hours per day) per hour of work Heavy work 11/2.21/2 lbs. Grain (4 or more hours per day) per hour of work periods of snow cover or other times when pasture forage is not available. Feeding hay will also extend the grazing season on properties with small acreage. A small rectangular bale of hay can weigh between 45 and 85 lbs. How much hay to buy and feed to your horse should be based upon the weight of the bales and the nutrient value of the hay. You can feed less hay if it is of higher quality. It is best to have your hay analyzed to determine the nutrient value. An average 1000-lb. horse will eat 20-Ibs. of medium quality hay per day. How do you determine how much hay to buy? Use this formula and fill in the blanks with your own numbers: _ Number of days to feed hay X 20 His. hay per day - _ [be. of weight per bale = # of bales needed. example.: 365 days X 20 lbs. hay per day _ 50 Ibs. per bale = 146 bales needed for one year for one horse. Contact the Colorado State University County Extension Agent in your county to get additional information on all of these topics and more. Quick Facts About -11 Legume (alfalfa and clover) hay is higher in protein than gr iss hay so you need to feed less (weight) legume hay than grass hay. Grass hay will keep th.a horse'-usy eating longer and prevent boredom. Second and third cuttings of hay are higher in proton than Srst cutting. Horses only need 10-12% protein in their feed. Sedmd and hird cutting alfalfa hay averages 18-24% protein which '.s more r nan the horse needs. This hay is also more expensive. Hay for horses•must be mold and dust free. Weeds have limited nutritional value. Weed seeds can be l i.ssed through the manure and infest your pasture. Buy hay that 1 i free of weeds as some weeds are poisonous to horses. Minimum Health Car(a. Requirements r a It is critical that you deve op a partnership with a veterinarian prior to an a;mere lency situation. This can be done by consulting your vet winarian for your horse's routine and Preventive health care. Dental Care:. Teeth should be checked by a veterinarian at least once a year. The teeth may need to be floated (filed) due to uneven wear from the grinding motion used while eating. First Aid: Vaccination 3: All horses shoulclbe vac( inated at least once a year; usually in spring. A vaccination program is c etermined by age, use anc overall I iealth of your horse. Time of year influences the risk of infamous diseases. Contact your veterinar an for recomm sndation:;. Consult your veterinarian about an appropriate first aid kit. It should contain bandage material, a thermometer, ointments and other related items. Contact a veterinarian any time your horse appears sick or disoriented, or has been injured. Internal Parasite Control: Your horse needs to be de-wormed several times each year. The frequency of treatment varies with your horse's management. Foot Care: Clean out hooves before and after you ride. Exami le them regularly for problems. Hooves shot Id be trimmed regularly. The need for hoof care varies with the use and age of your horse. Contact a qualified farrier (horseshoer) for recommendations for your horse. Contact a veterinarian and farrier in your area to get additional information on all of these topics anc more. Z,D 14-e~8 0 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DiTullio Council Bill No. 28 Ordinance No. 1166 Series of 1999 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, AND BUILDINGS WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer; and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of and all efforts of Code Section 26-30(L)(1) have been exhausted as testified to in writing by the Animal Welfare and Control Commission and signed by the Chairperson of that Commission. An animal care officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, must testify in order to satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such KLE\53027\294660.01 person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 6 to 0 on this 9th day of August, 1999, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for August 23, 1999, at 7 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 7 to 1, this 23rd day of August, 1999. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 31st day of August ATTEST: x 7V0,11 /t~,4 WANDA SANG, CITY K 1st Publication: August 13, 1999 2nd Publication: September 3, 1999 Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: August 24, 1999 1999. KLE\53027\294660.01 2 z©~-°r8 ~1 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DITULLIO Council Bill No. 18 Ordinance No. 1165 Series of 1999 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Planning Commission, Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zene ALL ZONE districts. heFe pemflittea- THIS SECTION (U SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A-1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. e3~ept that enly seetien (1=)(1) (a) below ..plies to the AgFiewltwal eliStFiets. Fame (1) Large Animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals efe sebjeet to SHALL MEET the following requirements: a. Minimum afee ef let, g afea - by and atta and _ludi hed gafages, shall be MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GED1530271275470.06 1 GARAGES. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) HORSE, ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) ALPACAS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, FOUR (4) GOATS, OR TWO (2) PONIES. b. MANURE OR LIQUID WASTE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE SO AS TO CAUSE A NUISANCE AS REGULATED BY WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15. C. The pen, corral or fenced area allotted to the animals shall meet the following requirements: 1. The fence or other enclosure must be constructed e; FnateFials and ,Tust be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately AND HUMANELY contain the animals. OWNERS OF ANIMALS USING FENCES BELONGING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO BE USED FOR THE CONTAINMENT OF ANIMALS MUST HAVE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER OF THE FENCE IN QUESTION IN WRITING. 2. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3. No part of an enclosure for the. keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. 4. ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (d) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. GED%530271275470.06 2 e. AFTER A COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE KEEPING OF A LARGE ANIMAL ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD SIZED AGRICULTURAL LOTS WITH CORRALS LESS THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THE OWNER SHALL FOLLOW AN APPROVED MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ANIMAL WELFARE CONTROL COMMISSION. f. UPON RECEIPT OF ANY COMPLAINT INVOLVING LARGE ANIMALS AS DEFINED HEREIN, STANDARD NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED. ADDITIONALLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WILL MAKE THE COMPLAINT KNOWN VIA THE APED SUPERINTENDENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WHO SHALL BE AVAILABLE IN ANY ADVISORY CAPACITY AT ANY TIME. THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WILL INVESTIGATE ALL CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING LARGE ANIMALS OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS. THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WILL DEVELOP WRITTEN PROCEDURES AS TO HOW CITIZEN COMPLAINTS WILL BE INVESTIGATED, MONITORED, AND DISPOSED OF. THESE WRITTEN PROCEDURES WILL BE FORWARDED FOR COUNCIL REVIEW NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 2000. (g) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 1165, SERIES OF 1999, SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a) THROUGH (h) (minimum let aF shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION (g), PERIODIC REMOVAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF PASTURING SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE DISCONTINUANCE OF USE. (h) NONCONFORMING A-1 and A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A-2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (g) OF THIS SECTION. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that'this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and GED\53027\275470.06 3 safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any clause, section, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by 6 vote of 6 to 2 on this 26`h day of July, 1999, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and, Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for August 23, 1999, at 7 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 8 to o , this 23`' day of August, 1999. SIGNED by the Mayor on this ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City CI 31st day of Cerveny, 1999. Appr d As To Form: erald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: August 6. 1999 Second Publication: September 3, 1999 Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: September 18, 1999 GED\53027\275470.06 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 23, 1999 Page - 2 - Motion by Mrs. Shaver to add Item 10 B., which is a companion Resolution to Item No. 10 for the purpose of splitting the ballot question on Tabor Revenue Limitations; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill 18 - An Ordinance amending Section 26-30(L) of the City of Wheat Ridge Co e of Laws, r regvlatiohsappJtcbietheein&. s Council Bill 18 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title and summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1165. Meredith Reckert was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. The following speakers were sworn in by the Mayor: Tom Hammerschmidt, 3215 Flower St., represented the Animal Welfare & Control Commission and thanked Council for the votes on the Ordinance as written and as stated that as private citizen he also supports the Ordinance. Ed Moreno, is opposed to the Ordinance because of the 60 day pasture issue, he believes that it is necessary for the horses to run, kick and be out. Mr. DiTullio explained that this issue is only for non-conforming lots. Claudia Callas, 8701 W. 38th Ave. read a letter from the President of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association in support of Council Bill 18. Mrs. Callas added a personal note, "it is all in the managing not the size of the pen". Tracy Dowson, President of Jefferson County Horse Council, spoke in support of the Ordinance. Kim Fear, 7340 W. 32nd Ave., spoke in support of the Ordinance and stated that management of the horse is important. John Maulsby, Assistant State Veterinarian with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, spoke in favor of Council Bill 18 and stated that a 6000 foot lot size per horse is adequate, 9000 feet is too restrictive and 800 feet is adequate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 23, 1999 - Page - 3 - Louise Turner, 11256 W. 38th Ave., asked that the Council Bill be passed as written and spoke to nonconforming uses. Paul Emrie, 10671 W. 45' Ave., recommended written procedures for the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. He stated that the quality of animal health is lacking and asked Council to consider extending the fence area (Item #2) to 50 feet of the front lot line and also in Item#3 extending to 50 feet of residence. Polly Pinkston, 10630 W. 461 Ave., opposed to the manure and liquid waste portion because there is no time line as to when it has to be cleaned; a 50 foot setback from a residence is needed; praised Code Enforcement Officer, Cindy Hagerman, for the work that she has done; believes that guidelines are needed. Stacy Carroll, asked for clarification on measurements and believes that there are issues that need to be addressed further. Tami Lanting, thanked Council for writing this Ordinance, her daughter is in Westernaires and they are glad that they can keep their horse. Joanne Howard, 7260 W. 3151 PI., had various questions regarding the Ordinance that Mr. Dahl explained and answered. Tex Junker, questioned the setbacks for pen, corral and fence. Nicolas Landuzzi, was offended by some of the comments that were made tonight; cleans his corral as often as possible; his corral size is bigger than currently required; has always made an effort to be neighborly; neighbor is a chronic complainer. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 18 (Ordinance 1165) be approved for the following reasons: 1. Based on testimony and evidence presented, it is the general sentiment that large animals should continue to be allowed in residential areas in the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. The current ordinance is too vague regarding the maximum number of animals allowed. 3. The current ordinance has no standard for corral size. 4. The current ordinance has no provisions for the keeping of animals on substandard, agriculturally zoned properties; seconded by Mr. Donnelly. Motion by Mr. Siler for an amendment under paragraph f. to add "Animal Welfare and Control Commission will investigate all citizen complaints regarding large animals or their equivalents. Animal Welfare and Control Commission will develop written procedures as to how citizen complaints will be investigated, monitored, and disposed of. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 23, 1999 Page - 4 - These written procedures will be forwarded for Council review not later January 1, 2000. Seconded by Mrs. Dalbec. Mrs. Shaver asked to divide the question between the first and second sentences. Part 1: That the Animal Welfare and Control Commission will investigate all citizen complaints regarding large animals or their equivalents; carried 8-0. Mrs. Dalbec asked that the next sentences also be divided because she doesn't like the date portion, that doesn't need to be in the ordinance. Part 2: The Animal Welfare and Control Commission will develop written procedures as to how citizen complaints will be investigated, monitored, and disposed of, carried 6-2 with Mrs. Worth and Mrs. Shaver voting no. Mrs. Shaver is voting no because she likes the idea, but doesn't think it should be part of the ordinance. Part 3: These written procedures will be forwarded for Council review not later than January 1, 2000; carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Dalbec, Worth, and Shaver voting no. Motion by Mrs. Worth for an amendment under Section c. 1. "Owners of animals using fences belonging to adjacent properties to be used for the containment of animals must have permission of the owner of the fence in question in writing"; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 8- 0. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec for an amendment under Section (g) "discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, unless the animal is pastured away from the property for the summer months of May, June, July and August; seconded by Mrs. Worth; failed 5-3 with Councilmembers Dalbec, Shaver and Siler voting yes. Motion by Mrs. Shaver for an amendment to Section (g) "for the purposes of this subsection g periodic removal of a horse for more than sixty (60) days shall not be considered discontinuation of use; seconded by Mrs. Worth. Friendly Amendment by Mrs. Worth to add the words "for the purpose of pasturing". Amendment with friendly amendment tied 4-4; Mayor broke the tie by voting yes, carried 5-4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 23, 1999 Page - 5 - Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to amend Section (h) to read "....shall follow the provisions of Items (a) through (g) of this section'; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. Original Motion as amended carried 8-0. Item 2. Council Bill 28 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title and summary. Clerk assigned Ordinance No. 1166. Jerry Dahl opened up the Public Hearing with a presentation of the staff report. The following speakers were sworn in by the Mayor: Tom Hammerschmidt, questioned how does the neighbor know he is being complained about; you do not know until you get a summons into court and as a horse owner he feels it is unfair if not given the chance to correct the problem before hand. Mr. Dahl and Mr. White explained the standard procedure when a complaint is received. Tracy Dowson, expressed her concern about neighbors ganging up on somebody because there isn't any clear definitions by an Animal Control Officer or somebody of the sort, determining what good management practices are. Kim Fear, wanted a little clarification on the procedure of a complaint. Polly Pinkston, stated that she is in favor of this Ordinance and that everybody needs to take responsibility for what they own. Paul Emrie, also spoke in favor of this Ordinance and emphasized that his neighbors or himself would not gang up on anybody. JoAnne Howard, had a few questions and asked for clarification on some points of the Ordinance. Barbara Hanze, asked for clarification of the word "neighboring". Also asked if the standard of requiring 2 witnesses as written in the Ordinance also applies to other Ordinances (i.e. too many junk cars, too many weeds, etc.). Council Bill 28 - An Ordinance amending Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: August 23, 1999 Page - 6 - Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 28 (Ordinance 1166), revising Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to Nuisance Regulations, be approved for the following reasons: 1. Large animal complaints are typically related to the nuisance affects of the keeping of animals. 2. The current nuisance ordinance does not allow for effective testimony in court proceedings; seconded by Mrs. Worth. Motion by Mrs. Worth for an amendment after the word "of"in Section 1 (e), 6' line add, "and all efforts of Ordinance 1165 have been exhausted as testified to in writing by the Animal Welfare and Control Commission and signed by the Chairperson of that Commission. ";seconded by Mr. Mancinelli; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Shaver for an amendment to Section 1(e), last two lines delete the word "may" add the words "must testify in order to" continue the rest of the sentence to the word "witness", delete the remainder of the sentence; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. Motionliy Mrs. Worth for an amendment to Section 1(e) fourth line, to strike the word "neighboring"; seconded by Mrs. Shaver; failed 5-3 with Councilmembers Dalbec, Shaver and Worth voting yes. Motion by Mr. DiTullio for an amendment to Section 1(e) to say "witnesses from separate households neighboring within 100 feet or adjacent to the subject property"; seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; failed 5-3 with Councilmembers Dalbec, Shaver, and Worth voting yes. Original Motion as amended carried 7-1 with Mrs. Worth voting no. Item 3. Council Bill 19 -An Ordinance providing for the approval of a rezoning from restricted commercial to residential-three and restricted commercial on land located at 6690 W. 38th Ave., City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado (WZ-99-07): Council Bill 19 was introduced on second reading by Mr. Donnelly; title and summary read by the Clerk; Ordinance No. 1167 assigned. Mr. Leo Davis, 700 Elm Circle, the applicant, was sworn in by the Mayor. Mr. Davis gave a report to Council on the status and plans with the property Sean McCartney was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. AGENDA ITEM RECAP AGENDA ITEM #02. August 23, 1999 QUASI-JUDICIAL _ XX Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS _ CITY MGR. MATTERS _ PROC./CEREMONIES _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ PUBLIC COMMENT _ INFORMATION ONLY _ ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case No. ZOA-98-O1/Nuisance Regulations _ ORDINANCES FOR I ST READING X ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ RESOLUTIONS SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Attached is a copy of the revised nuisance regulations approved on first reading. A recommendation of approval is given. ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED 1)Council Bill No. 28 ITEM: Yes No 2) 3) Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Exepnd.S Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Council Bill No. 28, revising Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to Nuisance Regulations, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Large animal complaints are typically related to the nuisance affects of the keeping of animals. 2. The current nuisance ordinance does not allow for effective testimony in court proceedings." E:\Reckert\ZOA-98-Olcovereheet2.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DiTullio Council Bill No. 28 Ordinance No. Series of 1998. TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, AND BUILDINGS WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of. An animal care officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. KLE\53027\294660.01 Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severabili ty. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on fast reading by a vote of 6 to 0 on this 9th day of August 199,9, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for August 23 , 1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day of , 199. . SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 199 . ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK 1st Publication: August 13, 1999 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY KLE\53027\294660.01 2 AGENDA ITEM RECAP AGENDA ITEM #1 August 23, 1999 QUASI-JUDICIAL _ XX Yes No X PUBLIC HEARINGS - CITY MGR. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING _ PROC./CEREMONIES - CITY ATTY. MATTERS X ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ PUBLIC COMMENT - RESOLUTIONS _ INFORMATION ONLY - ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Case No. ZOA-98-01/Large Animal Regulations SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Attached is a copy of the large animal regulations revised pursuant to changes made on first reading. A recommendation of approval is given. ATTACHMENTS : 1) Council Bill No. IS 2) 3) BUDGETED ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Exepnd.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation No Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Council Bill No. 18, revising Chapter 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the keeping of large animals, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. Based on testimony and evidence presented, it is the general sentiment that large animals should continue to be allowed in residential areas in the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. The current ordinance is too vague regarding the maximum number of animals allowed. 3. The current ordinance has no standard for corral size. 4. The current ordinance has no provisions for the keeping of animals on substandard, agriculturally zoned properties." ,Reckert\ZOA-98-Olcoversheet.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DITULLIO Council Bill No. 18 Ordinance No. Series of 1999 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Planning Commission, Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable. to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in mne ALL ZONE districts. whefe-peFm;fted- THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A-1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. exeeBt that e„4 (1) Large Animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals efe subjeet to SHALL MEET the following requirements: a MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GED\53027\275470.05 1 GARAGES. Shall -Fneet-the-fell eE~rin~Fegdirements THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) HORSE, ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) ALPACAS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, FOUR (4) GOATS, OR TWO (2) PONIES. b. MANURE OR LIQUID WASTE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE SO AS TO CAUSE A NUISANCE AS REGULATED BY WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15. C. The pen, corral or fenced area allotted to the animals shall meet the following requirements: 1. The fence or other enclosure must be constructed e€ matefials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately AND HUMANELY contain the animals. 2. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel 4. ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (d) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. e. AFTER A COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE KEEPING OF A LARGE ANIMAL ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD SIZED AGRICULTURAL LOTS WITH CORRALS LESS THAN 1,000 GED\53027\275470.05 2 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THE OWNER SHALL FOLLOW AN APPROVED MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ANIMAL WELFARE CONTROL COMMISSION. f. UPON RECEIPT OF ANY COMPLAINT INVOLVING LARGE ANIMALS AS DEFINED HEREIN, STANDARD NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED. ADDITIONALLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WILL MAKE THE COMPLAINT KNOWN VIA THE APED SUPERINTENDENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION WHO SHALL BE AVAILABLE IN ANY ADVISORY CAPACITY AT ANY TIME. (g) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non- conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(A) THROUGH (G) (FRORiFAUFn shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. (h) NONCONFORMING A-1 and A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A-2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (e) OF THIS SECTION. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability: Conflictina Ordinances Revealed. If any clause, section, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. GEM530=5470.05 3 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 6 to 2 on this 26" day of July, 1999, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for August 23, 1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this 23`d day of August, 1999. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 1999, ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk First Publication: August 6> 1999 Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Gretchen Cerveny, Mayor Approved As To Form: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney GED\53027@75470.05 4 CN) `r--7'z) sus (rz_ ifrF O \F I `i I ALam{ D ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY ZONING MA I -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY J~ D (DESIGNATES OWNER5HIP> WHEAT RI DGF - -CITY LIMIT LINE COLORADO - WATER FEATURE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: February 8, 1995 DEPARnIEB i OF R_AhHW AND DE`,EORF F?!f - 135-2852 L:\OAAW!NGS\PLANNING\GS\SW16 o w wo xo xn +co SCALE 1'=400 i O117' F I G I A L -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY NE ZONING M A - -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY f~ j~ (DESI6NATES OWNERSHIP) N EA_ D f`I DGE -GITY LIMIT LINE o b~_ COLORADO WATER FEATURE SCALE I'-400 MAP ADOPTED: Qne 15, 1994 Lost Revision: December 22, 1994 OEPn,RTY,EIT OF PILANN7N6 40 OEVELOFM5ff - ?E6-2652 L:\ORAW?NGS\PLANNSNG\QS\NE16 OFFICIAL -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY ZONING M ?,~P -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) NHEAT RIDGE - -CITY LIMIT LINE o wio moo 00 COLORADO WATER FEATURE SCALE 1*~ 00 DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES MAP ADOPTED !une 15, 1994 ~5-MTNENT OF PLM4NIN6 MV DEVEOP1 8~r - 2'5-2852 L:AD3AWINGS\PLANNING\GS\NW16 ARV. OFFIOIAL ZONING MAF WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: October 7, 1997 b AREA REQUIRING 51TE PLAN APPROVAL ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) CITY LIMIT LINE WATER FEATURE . DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES N~ N S♦ 1 5 w .co ax ~ro +w SCALE I'-4<DO 05 AR IaU OF PUPf Ry AI V pEVELP td( - 735-:852 µ ~ r a].I z r R--c 1615 L TJ yy f N _ .1m a k'J) 4185 µ50 e 4190 µ91 H69 u9 u HIO H65 µ60 4y35 D-2 41&1 1181 .70 4471 (rye 1~C` 1µ4 Hd3 H10 µ15 Iifi w 0 upl j.~ µ63 N O i APE - 4JTH R µR3 µ'0 H35 ewlaz $ I P/~K RI 14}0 4125 Hip Iµ5 1410 u4 H50 H35 H:0 „5 J_ 6 w 44TH AVE ^ OFFICIAL J -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY ZONING MAP -PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNER5HIP) W H E A RIDGE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSE5 COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: Lne 15, 1994 Last Revision: January 9, 1995 L?_MTi'ENT OF PLN.` * MD DEVELCR NT - 235-2852 L \ORAWINGS\PLANNING\OS\NE23 1580 L I 459f 45]1 156t 1570 q]I yy L r s 4551 4580 1361 1535 x550 1536 1525 420 U2' 1515 1310 a515 505 4 'AO COS 95 i I 75 F N N ^ ~ ) G I SS 6 55 / s 1✓ - - - - W 44TH AVE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: Line 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 16, 1996 rr--.t . ICO-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES Nl^ 25 o w im w >oo .oo SCALE 1'-400 DEFARi1 ~.I`fr CF FLA*IN6 AND DE VaLFMcNr - 735-1552 L:\DPAWINGS\PLANNING\DS\NW23 L 7.:E d, h:: W 423 AV `•/mar",t2'C --t--' . i ~ :v , - Q-C A-1 8 Nc\~DER VIS 4071 4081 '051 4w R-2 PRD nl °a o 1 a. LlJ 1m I -1 _ _ _ r ~ n ~e4a i WQ~ . 5axo • • ~I •d _ 10593: W 3B ~ AVc OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTE2 June 15, 1994 Lest Reviaicn; ApHI 19, 1999 WL7 v .rya - 3053 ,]803 H u J~ l •.s/ WZ-01'r] x_11 ® AREA REQUIRING 517E PLAN APPROVAL 100-YEAQ FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE D15TQICT DCUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT 6CUNDRY (DE5IGNATE5 ObdNERSHIP) HATSR F=-4TLRE + DENOTE5 MULTIPLE AODQE55E5 W 4.4 A~. IG-C rv~ _-'.2 Q w:-.~- BL EVIN5 5U5 C- I C> L 2 N a z im v~ ex .co xA~ 1'.400 XPAQTI`Vr CF 0.n%%G AW FVH.~I_~J(- Zl5-2852 I~ l n b02/~• ~ -2 f"i n n b U m ~ m ~ W 34in FL ~ = u 39TH _ R i A-1 n 3015 ~I ~ R uH }~I w ~ AvE H MT. 0. OFFICIAL ZONING MAF WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: Jane 15, 1994 Last Rev6cn: September IT, 19;% D r'ARTMeff OF Pb"IN5 AND Di--VFiOFFF-W - 235-2052 n 3 =1 =1 W 39TH AV 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - ZONE DISTRICT BOtNDRY PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) - - - - WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSE5 W w 39TH F '~^n S ~ffi ~I 88_ S~ gR - - p%p w 3aTn 4y4 I - - - -O - N O C1G W 38TH R 10960 a S ~ SW 2 o » ~ro aoo xo SCALE 1=400 L \ORAWINGS\PLANNING\OS\SW27 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: April 19, 1999 ® AREA REQUIRING 517E PLAN APPROVAL ;i 100-Y5AR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE DISTRICT BCUNDRY PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DE51GNATE5 ONNER5HIP) - WATER FEATURE . PSNOTF5 MULtIPLE AMPE55E5 NW 2 o » uo m 5CALE 1'400 ViPARit-£4i OF R INM MD PEVS-CRSa - 7352052 -2A t, 13 J I W ~IIM FL tQa L.y~ ,.RH ~o g xI g V15 'I IOSIS I u 16Tl1 Avg 8 8 =RU1 I DAL_ P TIO e x Kra ✓ nN b~ 4 j/ WZ-0i-36 ~ KIPJVA"!O 3 TJ.,EGIV151Cf1- ~T F70 FRG'ffTnL-E RD SGVTN i C-~ ;tdale ~ . , i-0tn STR_'~'T VILL.,C= T~ P1 \ D - jyp Pert; ' P \ E) 5 OT GUP T.j / R-3 Prnat-now G- I PRE) 2_ 7e [ WZ-0o-3'] R-1 RG v G 2 - 10301 V15, - - - - - - - v Y PRD a.~ G~ _ I wz-nol I . _ .EATS IN ^~Y ^ 4LV &1-I+ / 0:CWX PnR: jiEVcL T WSP-01~a ;A-4 9411 OFFICIAL AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL NE 21 ZONING MAP~~'' WHET RI DIJ~ 100-TEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) _ o x m xo .w COLORADO - PAZONE RCELI/LOTCDNYRY SCALE 1'=400 (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) MAP ADOPTED: _ ine 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 19, 1996 - - - - WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES DEFART`Of PLAtM6 NO DEVSXPIEM - 235-2852 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLOPADO MAP AOCPTE2 June 15, 1994 Last Revision: November 10, 1997 ® AREA RECUIRING 51TE PLAN APPROVAL r ;i 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) ZONE D15TRICT DOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT 60UNDRY VE51GNATE5 OWNERSHIP) - - WATER FEATURE SE 20 wmv SCALE 1•-400 C~PAZTWNT OF PL"N r MD DerXPo1M . 2352852 i 1 1 Utii~L.a2PGRAT~J' A- N 42i0 AVE I$ 1 I r r / 1 rl ~ 1 t 1 1 t ~ j l r l.'il.. r ~ ~GD t; A~ tl wZ v•f, ~e I 1 ~ o ,7 SHApC k S It'l 2 ;1 ~ R-1A OFFICIAL ~ AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL S ~ 7 20 ZONING MAP 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WH>=~T RIDGE _ APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - GOLOI\T~DO -ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOLINDRY MAP ADOPTED: -Lne 15, 1994 (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) Last Revisian: January 15, 1995 - CITY LIMIT LINE WATER FEATURE CEFARTI°_.l Ci- PvANN 3 AND DEV-CCF ,ENT - 235-2852 J _ i 'a tiJ AVE - - .d o; I II-- " sl~a V5 9P I U a~b ~I , sI,> L$q$~ O L:J Nl'~ I I I ~ 1~ ~~S O T P I D Lr-----~ z ~ EE aoW a. u EcTH A _ ~ ~r z i o T i I n paD~ pr wz__ 8 W.N^""Y ~OWD=RHOR~ PARN ; -l rt rN'r Nggpa MIINO. DI V!SIO ~ I hi-d'r:b po,_ !:DFJ anru: iq CD I " v a d N LA~^':h CYO Y_t3. i ~tiTAiN ViSTh PARZ ~ PID ~ nl D PGD GRAGi NICf'.^A.AS GAR:^~ i~-WZ- - -1 WZ-S°-;1 TRACT b r~G " Us l3 WZ-TS-C4 2.IRE! NT SG^:^~.NITY I nZ-7a-Ha G2 uz-es a I $ I ~ c~ ryI :;I T 1_70 FRCNTAE'c RA IITI O r- I I C I 7`-\ L ZONING MAP ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY -PARCEL/LOT BO JNDR Y W HA R i DGL 0,^NERSHIP) T - CITY LIMI LI COLORADO WATER FEATURE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1995 Last Revision: July 20, 1998 RTMEIIT ()F ~iNNNG A,SD DEVEi'- --'iT - 2352852 ARVADA sE 17 ~aaern O A Ntl '.[q %V KV SCALE I'=400 NEST I-TO F CNTAC_ R NG OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: J ne 15, 1994 Last Revisian: 5epte bu 20, 1996 'fPARTt•c T OF Lthl ?6 &M DEVS_ORMEEW - 35-2852 I ARVADA I 1 i I l/iI AREA REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL - ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) - CITY LIMIT LINE - - - - WATER FEATURE- - DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES 5E I o w v zo xn w SCALE 1'-400 L: \GRA'KNGS\PLANNING\GS\SEA6 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADCPrED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: March 19, 1999 ® AREA RECUIRING 517E PLAN APPROVAL i'• i 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (PPROXIMAic LOCATION) ZONE 015TRICT DOUND2Y PARCrL/-OT DOUNDRY VE5IGNATF5 OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE DENOTES MULTIPLE ADORE55E5 NW 22 'c'xm o x m w SCALE 1'=?CO GEPAZi Eqr OF R-k% G 1N) 6-VEOPMcvt - 735-:552 OFFICIAL ZONING MAF WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 Last Revision: September 19, 1996 DEPARTMa C} R-kNNS MO CrVELCFraT - 235-2652 AREA REQUIRING 51TE PLAN APPROVAL 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) - - - - WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES SN 2G warn o eo ao :co m .w SCALE I'=400 L:ADRAI'JTNGS\PLANNTNG\QS\SW22 OFFICIAL ZONING MAF NHEA I RI D6E COLORADO MAP ADOPTED: Junc 15, 1994 Last Revision: January 9, 1995 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) - ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDRY - PARCEL/LOT BOUNDRY (DESIGNATES OWNERSHIP) WATER FEATURE • DENOTES MULTIPLE ADDRESSES NE 22 1r.~ O b U~ 1'V ].:V 4V SCALE 1'=400 DB~ARTML-J CF RAN I'S 'lO DEVFLOR-aT - 235-2852 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: July 26, 1999 Page - 3 - Item. 2~ Council Bill 16 - An Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 3 of the ,\iV Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Pertaining to the Regulation of Sexually Oriented ILK Businesses. Vi Council Bill 16 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title and summary; Clerk assigned Ordinance No 1164. City Attorney, Jerry Dahl, was sworn in by the Mayor and explained the reasons for this Ordinance and entered exhibits into the record. Alan White was sworn in by the Mayor and gave background on how they arrived at the maps. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to continue this Item to the August 9, 1999 meeting at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 7-1 with Mr. Siler voting no. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Iterate, Council Bill 18-- An Ordinance amending Section 26-30(L) of the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning regulations applicable to the keeping of animals. r Council Bill 18 was introduced on first reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title. Mr. Dahl pointed out various corrections that need to be made in the Ordinance. The following speakers were present: Tom Hammerschmidt, 3215 Flower Street, member of the Animal Control Commission, speaking as a private citizen, stated that it isn't fair that horse owners are being legislated over and over again, when so few complaints are filed. Was not in. favor of the 15 ft setback, doesn't accomplish anything. Lizabeth Hill, 3215 Flower Street, spoke on behalf of her daughter and her daughter's horses, that are members of their family; they moved to Wheat Ridge because of the zoning for large animals and are afraid that this is changing. Spoke against the 15 ft setback; can't imagine taking that much-room away from the horses. Don Mac Dougall, 9815 West 39' Avenue, spoke against the 15 ft setback. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: July 26, 1999 Page - 4 - Barbara Hance, 11818 West 52nd Avenue, is opposed to the 15 ft setback, it will be breeding ground for bugs and full of weeds. Kim Fear, 7340 West 32nd Avenue, is opposed to the 15 ft setback; had questions on the complaint process portion of the Ordinance. Louise Turner, 11256 West 38`h Avenue, agreed with the previous speakers; 15 ft setback will create many non-conformities; six animals have been complained about in 30 years, 3 horses, a pigeon, a rabbit, and a duck; why do we need a full page of restrictions for that? This setback drastically restricts where the pen can go; the more you constrict an area, the more it intensifies any type of sanitation; use as much space as possible for the animals. Take out the 15 ft setback and bury it and never bring it back; don't penalize good owners. Claudia Callas, 8701 West 38t' Avenue, feels that the few complaints do not warrant all that legislation; she would hate to see large animals leaving Wheat Ridge; keep the bit of rural life that is left. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 18 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, August 23, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication; with the following change: that under Section 1. g. 1. the sentence "The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within fifteen (15) feet of the side or rear lot line" be deleted; seconded by Mrs. Worth. Motion by Mrs. Worth for an amendment on page 2, b. Sections 1 through 5 be deleted and the following substituted: "Upon receipt of any complaint involving animals other than dogs or cats, standard nuisance abatement procedures will be followed. Additionally, Code Enforcement Personnel will make the complaint known via the APEO Superintendent to the members of the Wheat Ridge Animal Welfare and Control Commission, who shall be available in advisory capacity at any time"; seconded by Mrs. Shaver; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Worth for an amendment to move former Item 5. g. to be 1. a. and to read: "the fence or other enclosure must be constructed and maintained in such a manner so as to adequately and humanely contain the animals"; and to direct the City Attorney to renumber everything accordingly; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Shaver for an amendment under Section 1. (L) the words "where permitted" be stricken; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: July 26, 1999 Page - 5 - Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to change Section 1. (L) a....minimum area of lot to read like Section 3. c., which will be renumbered as b.; and to direct the City Attorney to make sure that the minimum open lot area description only appear once in the Ordinance; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Worth to change Page 4 "This Ordinance shall take effect one day.." to "15 days"; seconded by Mrs. Shaver; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec that on properties less than 1000 square feet the Code Enforcement Officer and the Animal Welfare involvement is to see that the property owner is following an accepted manure management program; seconded by Mrs. Worth. Motion by Mr. DiTullio to go past 11:00 p.m. and finish the Agenda through Item 10 plus the executive session and then adjourn; seconded by Mrs. Shaver; tied 44 with Councilmembers Dalbec, DiTullio, Donnelly, and Shaver voting yes. Mayor broke the tie by voting yes. Motion failed. (Needed six votes to pass) Motion by Mrs. Worth to go past 11:00 p.m. and finish this Agenda Item and continue the rest of the meeting until July 27 at 7:00 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Siler; tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Siler, Shaver, Worth, and Donnelly voting yes. Motion by Mr. DiTullio to go past 11:00 p.m. and finish Agenda Item 9 and executive session; seconded by Mrs. Dalbec; failed 5-3 with Councilmembers Mancinelli, Siler, and Worth voting no. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to finish this Agenda Item, the first readings and the Consent Agenda and the executive session; seconded by Mr. DiTullio. Motion by Mrs. Shaver to amend to add Item 9; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; Mrs. Dalbec accepted this as a friendly amendment. Motion tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Dalbec, Shaver, DiTullio, and Donnelly voting yes. Motion by Mr. Siler to complete Item 3, adjourn for the night, and the Mayor will schedule a special session to complete the Agenda; seconded by Mr. Mancinelli; carried 7-1 with Mr. DiTullio voting no. City Clerk, Wanda Sang, listenedto Mrs.-Dalbec's motion on the tape and repeated it for Council. Motion carried 6-2 with Mr. Mancinelli and Mr. Eafanti voting no. Motion by Mrs. Shaver to include the words "Planning Commission" in the second where as; seconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 6-2 with Mr. Siler and Mrs. Worth voting no. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: July 26, 1999 Page - 6 - Motion by Mrs. Shaver to delete paragraph d on page 3; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 5-3 with Mr. Eafanti, Mr. Siler and Mr. Mancinelli voting no. Original Motion as amended carried 6-2 with Mr. Siler and Mr. Mancinelli voting no. Mayor Cerveny stated that she will call a special meeting on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 7:00pm. City Clerk Wanda Sang clarified that special meetings need to be published as such and there would not be enough time to do so; however, this meeting could be continued to Wednesday, July 28, 1999, then publication would not be necessary. Mr. Dahl agreed with Mrs. Sang. Motion by Mrs. Dalbec to reconsider the Motion for the term special meeting to a continuation of this meeting; seconded by Mrs. Worth; carried 8-0. Motion by Mrs. Worth to continue this meeting to Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. to continue the agenda; seconded Mr. Donnelly; carried 7-1 with Mrs. Dalbec voting no. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. July 28. 1999 The Continuation of the July 26, 1999, City Council was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Jerry DiTullio, Lloyd Donnelly, Don Eafanti, Ralph Mancinelli, Janelle Shaver, Ken Siler, and Claudia Worth. Teri Dalbec arrived at 7:04 p.m. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; Acting City Manager, Bob Goebel; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; Director of Planning, Alan White; Director on Parks and Recreation, Gary Wardle; staff; and interested citizens. Item 4. Council Bill 19 An Ordinance providing for the approval of a rezoning from Restricted Commercial to Residential-Three and Restricted Commercial on land Q \ located at 6690 West 38th Ave., City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State \ (I of Colorado. U" AGENDA ITEM RECAP AGENDA ITEM July 26, 1999 QUASI-JUDICIAL - X Yes No -PUBLIC HEARINGS _ CITY MGR. MATTERS X ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING - PROC./CEREMONIES _ CITY ATTY. MATTERS _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS _ PUBLIC COMMENT _ RESOLUTIONS _ INFORMATION ONLY ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ZOA-98-01/City of Wheat Ridge SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance revising Section 26-30(L) modifying regulations applying to all zone districts where animals are permitted other than conforming lots in the A-1 and A-2 zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memo dated July 14, 1999 from Gerald Dahl 2) Council Bill No. BUDGETED ITEM: Yes Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount $ Requested Expend.$ Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation No Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Council Bill No. , be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, August 23, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication." C:\Barbara\CCRPTS\zoa981coverpage.wpd. GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM TO: Wheat Ridge City Council FROM: Gerald E. Dahl DATE: July 14, 1999 RE: Ordinance Concerning Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals Enclosed please find the current version of the Ordinance Concerning Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals, which is the product of numerous hearings and study sessions before the City Council and the Animal Control Commission. Among other things, the ordinance provides as follows: 1. The regulations apply to all zone districts where such animals are permitted, other than conforming lots in the A-1 and A-2 districts. 2. The concept of a "horse equivalent unit" has been introduced, which enables the City to regulate varying forms of livestock under a comparable impact standard. 3. A conflict resolution and enforcement mechanism has been introduced which addresses nuisance-related issues such as manure management. 4. Minimum open lot areas are provided for, and limitations on pens, corrals, and fenced areas address the issue of density, i.e.: numbers of animals on lots. 5. Manure accumulation standards have been introduced to facilitate nuisance and code enforcement. 6. New requirements on pens, corrals, and fenced areas relative to side and rear lot lines have been introduced to aid in keeping these uses harmonious with the desires of abutting landowners. KLB153027U22024.01 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1999 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Associatiorj* and the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. p`,.y~,r;.ee BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in Fene ALL ZONE districts a°c6°rP na"^ THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A-1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. °~p that enly .'lies `e the ltbiFal ElistFiets. applies ~ iEene (1) Large Animals. Private stables for 'the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals eFe s• •b e' t-& SHALL MEET the following requirements: a. Minimum area of lot, excluding area covered by a main structure and attached carports or patios, and excluding detached garages, shall be nine thousand (9000) square feet for the first anal ANIMAL and an additional six thousand (6000) square feet for each additional ea+ffial HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) HORSE, ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) ALPACAS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, FOUR (4) GOATS, OR TWO (2) PONIES. GED\53027\275470.02 1 b. FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD SIZED AGRICULTURAL LOTS WITH CORRALS LESS THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THE FOLLOWING ENFORCEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROGRAM SHALL APPLY: 1. UPON RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN, SIGNED AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT THAT A NUISANCE CONDITION EXISTS ON A PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY ("SUBJECT PROPERTY"), THE ANIMAL WELFARE AND CONTROL COMMISSION SHALL SET A PUBLIC HEARING. 2. NOTICE OF THE HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE COMPLAINANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND TO OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DEPOSITED IN THE U.S. MAILS AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. 3. IN THE EVENT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT PRIVATELY RESOLVED AND WITHDRAWN WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF ITS FILING, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL REMOVE ALL MANURE AND LIQUID WASTE FROM THE CORRAL DAILY UNTIL FINAL ACTION BY THE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PURSUANT TO WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15. 4. AT THE HEARING, THE COMPLAINANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE MAY TESTIFY. THE COMMISSION SHALL ACCEPT ANY WRITTEN EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER A MANURE AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ("MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM") SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. A MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MAY CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE TECHNIQUES OR METHODS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO REMOVAL, SPREADING, DRYING, CHEMICAL TREATMENT, OR STOCKPILING. IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION IMPOSES A MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, FAILURE OF THE OWNER TO COMPLY WITH THE PROGRAM SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GED\5 3 02727 547 0.02 2 OFFICER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PURSUANT TO WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15. 5. IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT NO MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS REQUIRED, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE DISMISSED. C. MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. d. FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD SIZED AGRICULTURAL LOTS, MANURE AND LIQUID WASTE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS IN CORRALS 1,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER IN SIZE SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AND BY THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15. f. THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. g. The fence or other enclosure must be constructed e FiqateFials and ;tee maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. -21. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA FOR THE REGULAR KEEPING OF SUCH ANIMALS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) FEET OF THE SIDE OR REAR LOT LINE. 2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. GED\53027\275470-02 3 h. Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. i. ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE NO. SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. j. NONCONFORMING A-1 and A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A-2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (1) OF THIS SECTION. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability• Conflicting Ordinances Reoealed. If any clause, section, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of , 1999, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1999, at GED\53027\275470.02 4 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 1999. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of . 1999. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR Approved As To Form By City Attorney Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney GED\53027\275470.02 - 5 Memo To: City Council From: Animal Welfare and Control Commission Date: July 21, 1999 Subject: Recommendations concerning regulations applicable to the keeping of animals, Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. The Animal Welfare and Control Commission recommends Section 26-30(L)(1)(b)(1-5) be deleted in its entirety and allow these matters to be handled by Code Enforcement who can issue a manure management program. Initiating a hearing procedure would set a precedence that other complaints should be handled through public hearings. The AWCC recommends addition of the words "and humanely" between "adequately" and "contain" in section (g). With all the materials available for fencing, owners sometimes utilize materials that cause injury to animals. The inclusion of the clause helps insure cruelty is prevented in the city. The AWCC opposes the inclusion of the fence setback in section (g)(1). We determined that it was added in an effort to alleviate the following: 1. Odor problems 2. Insect problems 3. Offensive visual images, and 4. Damage to adjacent fencing. It is our opinion that the proposed setback will solve none of the aforementioned concerns. 1.) Unless there is a "no wind condition," 15 feet of airspace is not sufficient to significantly dilute an odor. 2.) Many types of obnoxious insects (including flies) breed in vegetation as well as animal waste. The increase in vegetation could increase the insect carrying capacity of said space. 3.) Moving animals 15 feet away will not materially decrease the view of animals housed in the enclosure. 4.) If an animal causes property damage to a neighbor's fence, it should be a civil action between the neighbor and the offending animal owner. In addition to these specific concerns, we feel inclusion of the setback clause may create public relations and legal liabilities for the city. A 15 foot unused moat of pasture may create additional weed control problems. The setback further restricts available space for the animals, which may create a perceived humane issue. Requiring a setback might be construed as seizing property of the citizenry. If a property owner relies on the property as a portion of his or her Page 1 of 2 livelihood, this could cause legal problems for the city. The philosophy of making a large percentage of the populace non-conforming is counter productive in intelligent governance. If your intent is to eliminate horses from the city, have the courage to address the issue squarely. The fervor that has resulted from two recent cases would not materially change housing conditions and the disgruntled neighbors views. Writing a bad law to appease these neighbors, that adversely affects the rest of the community, is a move in the wrong direction, punishing the horse owning public. cc: Meredith Reckert Page 2 of 2 m ~ o o ~ o ~ x sz~ A;.~ d ° z ° m ° co 7~ cD o o CD a. ~ y p ~ J + Y ^ q -41 ~V o~+~~ OF O~'Rmnv~o m ~o m n `~o w 12 m g'w'O x ,7 v o o ti n o n O n c^T. 0 te'a' ~ W o ~m 5^0 ~:s' a0 0o a ; W as og-oovo~'NNO^°ona°g~'SN~~ na -3 a N n' y v U' N (ao O ro ° v N .e N _Ef IS, rho oU, m rr-HO O ~ ~ m Y0 0 ~a P'v~i 7 t"o 7 c"o O P- (o ° G n rn m o '77`nn G R. C O' 'Q a v ^ C A. O O n w n fn N O O' d O O m ^ v R.O~a O NN. a o P. n a .x+ O n O p o v O q~_ b m O. n n o O ^ O n O 0,0 n o' P. O 5i N a m m m C P..m^. c o G o '0 p M" r0o °°a- o 0 o° ~P ~ncm~7mx°~va °c a° Z00 a rv pOp O n n O 7 rt G 0' 0 0 O^ °0 0 P. rt v `mNC a N N -ne (`D^ Q Oa y N N ry ry ny v. N 7 ~ n n 'rJ+' v 7 p r. a:s yV ryw ~ oho ~O '7 - o ^ Q1 N 00 a. n L N a a 6i Q• Qp 5 R, 0 n O N S~ °o ° R. 03 wrOo o F"C c n °q at m' O ro o rv n n 7 o n ro = a in rv a (o r' o rno N v' vOi v ti o O 7 rn v v O n o n O n ~ O O^ ro v .n P v C ~D 'O. v v 0 0~ n rn a'p^n av rn as ^ c ° ° a ao~~ aoo o^ ~rt^a~aoo^ o^ C P' n O O N R? n O O b O n O v R .N-. m O R 0 M-0 R. T' ~b R.N G v. n° o m no Q.a~ n n O O N ti O O N n N ^O r7l 0 0 0 0 E o 0~ c n o m< o o'0 E oP a 0on5° aNoN¢0nm_•o~Q.O.v 9n°, n C) 20 am n ~j'o N^o m mM .0 0 7 n 0 n N o' m v 0.0 N ~ v 9 cmo ~ -`i' tr4 ~ v 0 `-coq o ~ q R. rho o o' m .~O T C-).. d.. n _Pn' rt N N O G O R. O n g 0 O 0. ^ O N < n N O^ O x O n? 0 7 O O _ n v O 0 a N rt~ 0 9 n 5v -0 o_o v m o o o o rr`o° C7 m N m o o- ~ naa~ m o 0 o p- ao a3 0'So CD CA cD• CO) PEP C ~V VrL Cl) mot CDCD i~ rr y m y c N y on p .9 of s N N O \P4 H q CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINTTES U m CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Municipal Building OR Aoo _Juiie 21. 1999 - The City Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Jerry DiTullio, Don Eafanti, Claudia Worth, Teri Dalbec, Lloyd Donnelly, Janelle Shaver, and Ralph Mancinelli. Ken Siler was absent due to illness. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; City Manager, Robert Middaugh; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; staff; and interested citizens. Consensus failed 1-6 to move Item 3 to Item 2. Item 2. Discussion on Charter change regarding the method of Council Election. Mr. Mancinelli made opening statements and asked Mr. Fleshman to speak on the Charter change. Harry Fleshman, 7980 W. 41st Avenue, gave an overview of his proposal. Mr. Fleshman feels the structure of the charter is not fully democratic because he can only vote for 2 of the 8 Council representatives. Louise Turner, 11256 W. 38th Avenue, spoke against putting this issue on the ballot on the basis of 172 signatures. Consensus failed 1-6 to bring this forward on 1st Reading to a regular City Council meeting. Y Item 3. Discussion of the large animal Ordinance. Meredith Reckert gave an overview of how this issue was addressed. Y STUDY SESSION MINUTES: JUNE 21, 1999 PAGE -2- Polly Pinkston, 10630 W. 46th Avenue, suggested that the manure be cleaned up daily and to pass an Ordinance for no more than a three day clean up policy. Paul Emrie, 10671 W. 45th Avenue, also suggests a daily clean up. Consensus was 7-0 to suspend the rules and extend this hearing for at least another 45 minutes. bon MacDougall, 9815 W. 37th Avenue, is a horse owner and has many years of experience in caring and owning horses. Mr. MacDougall gave some suggestions on the clean up and management of horse manure. He also gave some suggestions on the language used in the Ordinance. Barbara Hanze, 11818 W. 52nd Avenue, would like to add another animal to the Ordinance called alpaca, a smaller relative of a llama. Ron Scott, neighbor of Ms. Pinkston, had some of the same complaints as the surrounding neighbors. Louise Turner, 11256 W. 38th Avenue, reminded Council that in the 30 years of existence of Wheat Ridge there have only been 3 complaints to go to court. She also made some suggestions on the language of the Ordinance. Consensus was 7-0 to extend the hearing until all people have spoken and 30 minutes in discussion. Joanne Howard, 7260 W. 31st Place, provided some pictures of a particular violation of a horse corral and suggested a once a day clean up. She feels it is ridiculous to have to put up with the smell of horse manure. Consensus was 7-0 to move agenda Item 5 before Item 4. Consensus was 6-1 to meet on the budget later. Consensus was 7-0 to have Mr. Dahl rework the ordinance based on the consensuses made tonight and bring it back. Consensus was 7-0 to add 1 horse equivalent equals 4 alpacas. Consensus was 7-0 if a complaint is generated it shall be heard before the Animal Welfare and Control Commission and the horse owner is responsible for cleaning up the property every day until the hearing. STUDY SESSION MINUTES: JUNE 21, 1999 PAGE -3- Consensus was 4-3 to add a sentence at the end of paragraph (e)1. to say, `and no pen, corral, or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall be no closer than 15 feet to the side or rear lot line'. Consensus failed 3-4 to strike 30 feet and change to 50 feet in paragraph (e)2. Consensus was 6-1 to take 10 more minutes to finish this item. Consensus was 4-3 to add in all zoned districts' in Section 1. (L) and strike in districts where permitted'. Consensus was 7-0 to follow the City Manager's language for the Ordinance in regard to the previous consensus of hearings on complaints. Item 5. Continental Homes Proposal re: road construction north of Ridge Road. Mr. Middaugh made opening statements followed by a presentation by Bob Goebel. Consensus was 5-2 to have 1 lane on the Wheat Ridge side on 54th Avenue, 1% lanes on Miller Street, a separated sidewalk and the designated bike trail. Reschedule this item for the July 12, 1999 agenda. Consensus was 7-0 to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. -44 Wanda Sang, City-,E'lerk City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ZOA-98-01/1,arge Animal Regulations DATE: June 12, 1999 Please find attached the proposed revisions to Section 26-30(L)(1)- Keeping of Large Animals and Section 15-23 - Nuisance Regulations which were approved by Planning Commission on March 4, 1999. Included behind that is all background information provided to Planning Commission and Animal Control in chronological order as follows: 1. _ Minutes from December 1997, Planning Commission meeting. 2. Planning Commission packet for February 5, 1998 meeting including a list of large animal properties from each district. 3. February 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 4. Planning Commission packet for February 19, 1998, meeting including comparison table from other entities and original recommendations from the Animal Control Commission. 5. Memo to Nick Fisher dated March 2, 1998 requesting ACC input including draft PC minutes of Feb. 19, 1998. 6. Memo To Nick Fisher dated March 12, 1998. 7. Planning Commission packet for December 17, 1998, including minutes from the Planning Commission meetings dated February 17, 1998, and May 21, 1998, and Animal Control Commission's meetings dated March 17, 1998, and October 20, 1998. 8. Planning Commission packet for March 4, 1999, meeting including December 17, 1998, Planning Commission meeting and the January 19, 1999, Animal Control Commission meeting. 9. Minutes from the March 4, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. _ Series of 1999 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30 (L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A- I OR A-2 DISTRICTS. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals-are-svbJcctto SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) attached cmpvrts ot patios, and excluding detached gmngcs, shall be nin THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, FOUR (4) GOATS, OR TWO (2) PONIES. 6. (b) FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SUBSTANDARD SIZED AGRICULTURAL LOTS, MANURE AND LIQUID WASTE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE FOR MORE THAN ONE WEEK IN CORRALS LESS THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND MORE THAN TWO WEEKS IN CORRALS 1,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER IN SIZE SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AND BY THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 15.- (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The pen,, corral or fenced mea foL die keeping of stich animals shall meet th folio wing requirements. (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (e) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of rnatCLials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3.2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel (d)-t-. (f) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel. AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. 3 (g) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. _ SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. (e) (h) NONCONFORMING A-1 AND A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A- 2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (g) OF THIS ORDINANCE. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1999, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 1999. q SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1999. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: C:Barbra\CCRPTS\RES0-0aD\zoa980 I.wpd CITY- OF' WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. TITLE: AN ORDINANCE RIDGE CODE APPLICABLE TO AND $UILDINGS Series of 1993 AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and --WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such'as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS-FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) ' For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of:. An animal'Zt2 officer, police officer or code .enforcement official who has personally -investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. KLE\53027\294660.01 Section'2}"Safety Clause:`"The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is'pr6mulgated'f6r the health, safety, and welfare of the public.and that this Ordinance is necessary. for the.preseivation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare: The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to tfii proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3: Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. ' '""INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this' day of 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK 1st Publication: 2nd Publicatioa: Wheat Ridoqe Transcript Effective Date: GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY BPAT3027T268143.01 2 The new business was the re-election of Chairmen and a Vice Chairmen Chairmen WILLIAMS stated that he has enjoyed being Chairmen and appreciated the opportunity to positively contribute to the City of Wheat Ridge. The final vote resulted in the new Chairmen position being appointed to Janice Thompson and the Vice- Chairmen position being appointed to Anne Brinkman. Commissioner THOMPSON wanted to discuss the billboard ordinance. She would like to see the wording on billboard separation be reviewed and possibility revised. The Commission agreed by consensus to have staff deliver packets and if it is not possible to call the Commission and they will pick them up on their own. Commissioner SHOCKLEY stated if any Commissioner has a problem picking up packets, he would be more than happy to deliver the packets to them. It. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS Discussion and review of Animal Regulations was open for comment. Ms. Reckert explained that the keeping of large animals has been controversial topic in past and present. There has been sudden movement to see if the Planning Commission would review and revise the the regulations. The City of Wheat Ridge needs to figure out what direction the Planning Commission would like to proceed forward with. Ms. Reckert stated that they needed to decide what method or process they wanted to pursue for revisions on animal regulations. Louise Turner, 11256 W. 38th Avenue, citizen. She wanted to update the Planning Commission on the Animal Control Commissions involvement. Ms. Turner stated that the Commission had come up with some recommendations for the Planning Commission to review. Discussion continued. The next meeting for the Animal Control Commission is in January and if the Planning Commission needs any . information provided, Ms. Turner, would be happy to do that. Ms. Turner commented about the court throwing out two controversial cases because the wording of the law was to vague, particularly the nuisance law pertaining to livestock. Commissioner BRINKMAN made some suggestions. The first suggestion was to research large animal regulations in Metro-wide. Secondly, suggested a field trip be done by the Planning Commission. Commissioner SNOW suggested that the Judge be involved in the current controversial case come to a Planning Commission meeting and discuss his interpretation of the animal regulations and law. hairmen THOMPSON stated that even though a property owner has A-1 or A-2 zoning, they should be required to have a minimum lot size to allow a certain number of animals on that property. The O Commission requested that a study session be scheduled for January, 1998. A motion was made by Commissioner SNOW, seconded by Commissioner CERVENY, to schedule a study session for February, 1998, invite the Animal Control Commissioner, Code enforcement officer, and the judge who made the ruling Judge. Public comment would not be allowed. Motion carried 7-0- There was continued discussions on the proposed field trip. The Committee agreed that this would need to be on a Saturday. Ms. Reckert suggested that the staff put together a homework packet together for the Commission to review before the field trip. The Commission agreed by consensus to schedule a field trip. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. by consensus. Jenifer Roche, Recording Secretary 9 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memo To: Planning Commission From: Alan White, Planning and Development Director Subject: Large Animal Field Trip Date: January 30, 1998 Attached is a list of properties throughout the City that currently house animals of various kinds. This list is provided so that Commission members can examine the properties prior to discussion of the issue at the February l9th Planning Commission meeting. Tim and Ann Osterloh have invited anyone into their backyard who wishes to view the property located at 9733 W. 32nd Avenue. Their address is 3295 Independence Court and their phone number is 239-9397. Mr. Osterloh asks that whenyou arrive you knock first, if no one answers the door you are welcome to enter the backyard.on your own. He suggests that you look over their back fence to see what you need to. /0 MEMORANDUM °FW"EqT a To: Meredith Reckert m From: Susan Elio/ Code Enforcement Re: Horse Property e~ eRPOo Date: January 29, 1998 Flease find below a list of properties within the City of Wheat Ridge that currently board large animals/livestock or have in the past. Some of these properties board animals that are own by the property owner and some board animals for others. 7340 W. 32"' Ave. - Property zoned K-1, one large animal permitted, one horse boarded. This property was the subject of a trial by the court with Judge Charles Rose presiding, for manure odors with the burden of proof placed neighbors. The owner of the horse and the property was found not guilty of such violations. 9733 W. 32" Ave. - Property zoned K-1, four large animals permitted, one-four horses boarded. This property was the subject of a trial by the court for charges of manure odor. The burden of proof was on the neighbors because the City could not prove it with out them. Prosecuting Attorney Tammy Greene Dismissed the charges on the basis of lack of evidence. 11555 W.32"' Ave. - Property zoned R-1 , one large animal permitted, one horse boarded. This property prompted complaints from neighbors regarding manure odors and treatment of the animal. Property owner eventually clean the property and removed the horse. Poor treatment of the animal was unfounded. 10595 W. 36`h Fl. - Property zoned K-2, three large animals permitted, one to three horses boarded. This property prompted complaints from neighbors regarding the Small size of the lot and the allowing of horses. They felt this was inhumane. The property meets requirement for lot size with the inclusion of a parcel they own on the other side of Lena Gulch which runs through their property. 4320 Xenon Street - Property zoned A-2, unlimited large animals permitted, numerous cows one pig, chickens, ducks and one horse. 4220 Kipling Street - Property zoned K-2, five animals permitted, three horses and one cow on the property. 46" to 48t" on 5wadley - Numerous properties zoned R-2, each permitted to have at least one large animal, several board horses. 4610 Jay 5treet - Property zoned R2, chickens permitted, numerous chickens located on the property. 5520 W. 27°h Ave. - Property zoned R-1C. two animals permitted, one horse and one goat boarded. 3363 Jay 5treet - Property zoned R-2, three animals permitted, two horses boarded. 2850 Teller 5treet - Property zoned R-2, four animals permitted, four horses boarded. 4611 Robb 5treet - Property zoned A-1, one animal permitted, one horse boarded. 6631 W. 26'h Ave. - Property zoned R-1, two animals permitted, two horse boarded, rabbits and chickens also. 3650 Jay 5treet - Property zoned R-2, one animals permitted, one horse boarded. 3508 Marshall 5treet - Property zoned R-2, chickens permitted, 12 chickens located on the property. 6105 W. 49" Ave. - Property zoned R-2, 10 animals permitted, 2 horcec boarded. 12215 W. 32"a Ave. - Property zoned R-1, 2 animals permitted, two horses boarded. This list is was created by simply remembering properties that I have had contact with in the pact. In some cases it has been a couple of years since my last contact was made, therefore, the current status of the property is unknown. My contact was not always made because of a complaint or a problem. There are many more properties that allow large animals or poultry within the City that most people do not know about. Comparably, very few ever come to Code Enforcement's attention because of problem or complaint. The number of animals permitted, on a piece of property was based on an approximate lot size. If the measurements were calculated from a survey, the number of animals permitted could change. 1 a--~ 9. OLD BUSINESS None. 10. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner SNOW discussed the need to clarify language within the Ordinance allowing non-residential counseling within the commercial zones. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW, seconded by Commissioner RASPLICKA and unanimously carried with Commissioner SHOCK-LEY absent to direct staff to draft clarifying language to the commercial zones as it pertains to non-residential counseling and to have that language consistent throughout the code. 11. DISCUSSION & DECISION ITEMS Commissioner BRINKMAN discussed the tour of horse and large animal properties throughout the City. The following addresses were noted to be added to the list: - 5 properties on Vivian Street and 42nd Avenue (go south on Vivian Street from 44th Avenue) - 2 horse properties on Ward and 44th Avenue (horses are kept in the front yard) - Wright Street (continuing west on 44th Avenue before you reach Xenon) - Ridge Road - Parfet Street going north several properties have cattle and horses (behind Medved) Several on Tabor Street north of 44th Avenue 38th Avenue The Commission discussed whether or not it wanted to tour properties as a group or individually. It was the consensus of the Commission that it would tour the sites individually and contact each other if necessary. 12. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS None. Planning Commission Page 13 02/05/98 )3 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: 4REDITH RECKERT, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: CASE NO. ZOA-98-1/ANIMAL REGULATIONS DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1998 The following information has been included for your review: Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining the keeping of animals (existing regulations). An ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's office which has incorporated changes recommended by the Animal Control Commission. Pursuant to customary practice, additions to existing language are indicated in bold and deletions are shown as strike-throughs. A table comparing various governmental entities' regulations for the keeping of animals, minimum corral sizes and provisions for excrement removal. Both Susan Ellis, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and Nick Fisher, APEO Supervisor, will be at the Planning Commission meeting to answer questions. Charles Rose, the presiding judge at recent court hearings regarding large animals, will not attend the meeting. He indicated that he and Judge Randy Davis believe it is not appropriate for them to participate in this legislative process. However, they will discuss pertinent issues with Tammy Greene, the City's prosecuting attorney, who will be in attendance on their behalf. At the last Planning Commission meeting, Janice gave a list of properties you may want to visit. They included the following: 1. Five properties in the Vivian Street/42nd Avenue vicinity, south of 44th Avenue. Zoning in this area is R-1, properties appear oversized (larger than the R-1 minimum of 12,500 square feet). 2. Two properties in the Ward Road/44th Avenue vicinity where horses are kept in the front yard - 12400 W. 44th Avenue and 12410 W. 44th Avenue These properties are zoned A-1 and do not meet the 1 acre minimum. 3. Wright Street , south of 44th Avenue - zoning in the area is A-2, many of these lots appear to be substandard. Some of them are through-lots with frontage on both Wright and Xenon. ZOA-98-1/Animal Regulations Planning Commission February 19, 1998 4. Along Ridge Road between Tabor and Miller - zoning in the area is R-1, R-2 and A-1. This would include the Hance property to the northwest of Ridge Road and Tabor Street which has llamas. It is zoned R-1 but is undeveloped. 5. Parfet Street north of the north 1-70 frontage road - zoned C-1 across the street from Medved with A-1 zoning north of that - lot sizes vary. 6. Tabor Street north of 44th Avenue - 4440 Tabor Street is zoned A-1 and exceeds the one acre minimum. Some of the houses along Swadley which back onto and are visible from Tabor have horses - they are zoned R-2 and are over-sized. 7. Ernestine Williams' property - 11100 W. 38th Avenue. This property is zoned A-1 and is several acres in size. Louise Turner will allow you onto the property if you call her at 422-5134 (around dinner time is the best). For your information. MR/bd r~ EXISTING REGS (2) Within any area designated as a multiple use area or an activity center upon the Comprehensive Plan, site plan approval shall be required prior to final approval of any rezoning, final development plan or special use permit. The planning commission and the city council shall review site plans which comply with the requirements of section 26-6(E)(1) for a Type I site plan, and shall review proposed uses within said areas so as to determine that such uses as proposed, and design criteria within such development as proposed, are compatible with other uses made, and design criteria utilized, within the neighborhood and the surrounding area. Uses provided for in underlying zone districts may be limited, modified or eliminated, and/or additional design criteria may be imposed upon the expressed finding by the planning commission and/or city council, based upon evidence deemed persuasive by the city council and adequately appearing in the record of a public hearing before either the city council or the planning commission, that the uses limited, or the design criteria modified, are incompatible with uses made upon surrounding properties; or that such uses as proposed would create excessive traffic, noise or air pollution; or that such uses or project design would result in a density or intensity of use which would be deleterious to the stability and integrity (both economic and aesthetic) of the surrounding area. Nothing contained herein shall divest any property owner of any uses by right granted by underlying zone districts or existing by virtue of zoning on property as of September 1, 1986, except upon review of rezonings, final development plans, and special use permits as specified herein; provided further, that nothing contained herein shall require submission of a site plan prior to the development of single-family residential units in any area which carries a zoning designation of R-1, R-lA, R-1B, R-1C or R-2. 7V_ (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted, except that only subsection (L)(1)(b.). below applies to the Agricultural zone districts. (1) Large animals. Private stable for the keeping of horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to the following requirements: (a) Minimum area of lot, excluding area covered by a main structure and attached carports or patios, and excluding detached garages, shall be nine thousand (9,000) square feet for the first animal and an additional six thousand (6,000) square feet for each additional animal, except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept-until weaned. (b) Manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to 169 Yp accumulate so as to cause a nuisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) The pen, corral, or fenced area for the keeping of such animals shall meet the following requirements: 1. The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of materials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 2. The pen, corral, or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. 3. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. (d) 1. Structures or those portions of structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line, and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel. 2. The structures for keeping of animals are accessory structures and shall not be located within the required front yard setback. (e) The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of ani- mals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said, keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. (2) Small Animals and Poultry. The private keeping of small animals, such as rabbits and chinchillas, or poultry, such as chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants or pigeons, shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) Poultry houses and pigeon coops or the portions of structures used to house these animals shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet of ground floor area nor twelve (12) feet in height. (b) Hutches for small animals shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of ground floor area with a maximum of two (2) floors or levels. (c) Maximum ground floor areas for small animals or 170 / poultry set forth above, may be increased by fifty (50) percent for each acre in addition to the minimum lot size for the zone district. (d) All houses, coops, hutches or portions of structures housing animals shall be located other than in a front yard, shall be set back at least fifteen (15) feet from side and rear property lines, and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet from a residence or other main structure on an adjacent property. (e) The accumulation of animal waste to, the extent that such becomes a nuisance to surrounding prop- erties is prohibited, as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, section 15-23. (f) The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of ani- mals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. (3) Keeping of bees. The private keeping of bees is permitted in all zone districts, subject to the follow- ing requirements: (a) Beehive structures shall be located other than in a front yard and shall be set back from rear and side property line a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. (b) Beehive structures shall be enclosed within a fenced area or fenced yard. (M) Bed and Breakfast Rooms: Bed and Breakfast rooms are allowed as a special use as a subordinate use of single-family dwelling subject to the following requirements: (1) The dwelling must be occupied by an owner or permanent on-site manager. (2) In addition to the owner's (manager's) sleeping quarters and those of his family who also legally reside within the dwelling, up to a maximum of four (4) additional sleeping quarters for transient occupancy may be provided for rent based upon the following requirements: (a) Twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet of lot area is required for the first bed and breakfast room. (b) An additional one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area is required for each additional room, up to a maximum of four (4) bed and breakfast rooms in total. (c) Off-street parking, in addition to the spaces required for the single-family dwelling, shall be provided at the rate of one (1) space for each bed 171 / 5 CHANGES PER ACC CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(I)(1) of the Wheat Ride Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE A-1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS., exeept that .,1., ubseetion i~ vivivh (1) Large animals. Private stableS for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) Minimum area or let, eheluding area eavered by otr, ,.t„re and attaehed earperts o atiess t,A Enain ..ludi g Eletaehed rt shall he t. o th..,,cnnd (9009) F.,et F0r the flirt ..I rl a-H squaFe addition-.1 ° thousand (6000) square Foot t;qr ea -10A-1444PAJ animal THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) ANIMALS (HORSES, COWS, LLAMAS, SHEEP OR GOATS) PER ACRE, /I except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. (b) Manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND sow a to use regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF A LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The I 4 d area 4 the keeping of a-Dani;:R8 I s s11t1=1et the fallowing (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM.OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. 4-(E) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of materials- and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. -2771. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. 2 d0 -3-2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. '-1(F) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet, to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. zTh etures for keeping of animals and 'hall of hn I.. ..m.9 '411: the required 4ent yard s@tback. W(G) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NONCONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE 1998- SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(1)(a); (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severabilitv. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court F1111 .j102-1068 111.01 3 Al of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of - to _ on this _ day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ATTEST: , 1998. WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Il I'I ~"U]M 141A1 4 a~ JURISDICTION ALLOWED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS EXCREMENT YES NO MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE ADDRESSED Arvada X 9,000 for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for No each additional horse. 100 foot setback required from residences. Aurora X Livestock including horses: No 1 animal for every 1/< acre in the RA zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Boulder X 1 horse for every %Z acre. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Brighton X Allowed in RE or PUD only. Yes Requires permit. Corral sizes are not regulated. Broomfield X Livestock and horses are prohibited. No Castle Rock X Not allowed within the City. Yes Cherry Hills NO RESPONSE Commerce City X Not allowed within the City. No Denver County/City X 1 animal for every %x acre in the Yes Residential zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Englewood X Does not allow large animals. No Erie X Not allowed within City. No -3 Estes Park X 2 horses - 1 acre Yes 3+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Allowed in the RS or RM zones only. Setbacks for corrals: 25' to any building used as residence or human habitation; 50' from street or property line. Federal Heights X No Livestock allowed including No horses. Fort Collins X Yz acre per animal. Uses Larimar County Code for farm animals. Corrals are not regulated. Ft. Lupton NO RESPONSE. Ft. Morgan NO RESPONSE. Gilcrest X 1 horse for every Y< acre except where there is less than 5 acres then 1 horse per 1 acre; except for offspring until 7 months of age. Corral sizes are not regulated. Glendale X Not allowed within City. No Golden X 9,000 sq.ft. for 1 horse; 6,000 sq. ft. Yes for each additional horse. Special Use Permit required. Allowed in the Agricultural zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from the lot line; 15 feet from the side or rear lot line. Large Animal Matrix Page 2 a~ Greeley NO RESPONSE. Greenwood Village X 1 horse per 1/3 acre; 2 with acre; Yes 3 or more %z acre each additional horse. Space must be dedicated solely to animal (i.e., stable and corral). 12 x 12 stall areas max. if corral is built. Lafayette X SUP only in RE1 and RE2 with Yes 40,000 and 20,000 square foot requirement. Corral sizes are not regulated. Lakewood X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre except that offspring can be kept until weaned. Corrals minimum is 300 sq. ft. per horse. Littleton X In RE: 25,000 sq.ft. minimum per animal; other zoned areas require 2 acre minimum (trying to discourage). Corral sizes are not regulated. Longmont X Existing animals are grand fathered. No longer allowed within City. Louisville X RRR and AgA only. Yes 1 acre minimum. Corrals must be 150' from any building occupied as a residence or used for human habitation. Matrix - Large Animal Page 3 as Loveland X V2 acre per horse - no livestock. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Northglenn X Thornton NO RESPONSE. Westminster X With PUD or minimum of 10 acre Yes lot. Corral sizes are not regulated. Parker X 1 horse for every 2 acres. Yes Corralling or containment of animals is required with only limited periodic grazing; is to be "adequate" for the number of animals involved but not to exceed 10% of the lot area; shall not be closer than 100' to any off-site residence or business on an adjoining property. Platteville X 1 horse - 1/3 acre 2 horses - %2 acre 3 horses - 1 acre 4+ horses - I acre for each additional horse. Acreage requested is that solely devoted to horse (i.e., stable or corral area) Matrix - Large Animal Page 4 a~0 Adams County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. Yes - for less ft. for each additional horse, but not than 35 acre lots. to exceed 4 horses per acre; does not include horses below weaning age or 6 months whichever is less. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from any off-property residence or place of business and 25 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the front lot line. Jefferson County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre with exception for offspring until 7 months of age. These numbers exclude the area for the one-family dwelling. Corral sizes are not regulated. Summit County X Without a CUP: 1 horse - 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq. ft. up to 35 acres. With a CUP: 2 horses - 40,000 to 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq.ft. up to 35 acres. Corral sizes are not regulated. TOTAL RESPONSES: 30 21 9 Revised: February 19,1998 d\fi Ies\wp\barbs\animlord.wpd Matrix - Large Animal Page 5 a7 /,-~6 zng6/g1 o Housefly House Fly, common name for the most familiar species of nonbiting muscoid fly, found in the vicinity of human habitations throughout the world. It is often a carrier of such diseases as typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, trachoma, and anthrax. The adult fly transmits disease by contaminating food with disease organisms it has picked up on its hairy legs or has ingested and then regurgitated. The taste-sensitive cells of the common house fly are located on its feet as well as on its mouthparts. The female lays an average of 150 white eggs in a mass about 1 mm (about 0.04 in) long. The eggs are laid in horse manure or other decaying substances. The female lives about two and one-half months and lays between 600 and 1000 eggs during its lifetime. The eggs hatch in about 12 hours into white, legless larvae called maggots, which grow to 12.5 mm (0.5 in) in length. The maggot pupates in five to six days. The new adult emerges in another four to five days if the weather is warm or in a month or later if weather conditions are unfavorable. On the average, 12 generations of house flies are produced in one year. The stable fly is in the same family as the common house fly. It is a biting species that feeds on blood. The little house fly is another member of the family. It resembles the common house fly but is smaller. It is most abundant in late spring and early summer. Scientific classification: The house fly belongs to the family Muscidae. It is classified as Musca domestica. The stable fly is classified as Stomoxys calcitrans, and the little house fly as Fannia canicularis. See also Flesh Fly. Further Reading "House Fly," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 96 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (c) Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved. q City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Susan Ellis, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor Tammy Greene, Prosecuting Attorney Charles Rose, Judge FROM: "Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Animal Regulations DATE: February 2, 1998 The City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department is in the process of considering revisions to the city's existing regulations regarding the keeping of animals. A study session will be held at the February 19, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Please consider this correspondence an invitation to the study session where we will be discussing recommendations from the Animal Control Commission, regulations in other metro area cities, and recent City court cases. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at extension 2848. dl City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Nick Fisher FROM: iVXleredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: March 2, 1998 Attached please find a draft copy of the February 19, 1998, Planning Commission minutes where the City's large animals regulations were discussed. Planning Commission has requested further input from the Animal Control Commission in regard to properties zoned A-1 or A-2 and the interface with adjacent residential properties. As an example, if an A-1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off-site residences. Would this of setback be appropriate in Wheat Ridge? Communities requiring this type of setback include Arvada, Golden, Parker, Louisville and Adams County. Please let me know when the next Animal Control Commission is scheduled. Planning Commission would like ACC's input for their April 16, 1998 study session. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at extension 2848. V City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Nick Fisher, APEO Supervisor FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animals Regulations DATE: March 12, 1998 Another item of concern expressed by Planning Commission regarding the large animal regulations is that of amortization of non-conforming uses. The existing code relative to amortization of non-conforming uses is such that if the use ceases to exist for more than 60 consecutive days, the property cannot be used again unless it conforms to the current code. One comment from a speaker at the meeting held on February 19 was that in the summer he takes his horses into the mountains for an extended period of time. Under the existing non- conforming provisions, if his property or the corralling on his property is non-conforming, and the horses are gone for 60 days (two months), the legal, nonconforming status is gone. Commissioner Snow asked both Staff and the Animal Control Commission to review this provision and recommend changes. Attached find draft minutes from the March 5 meeting where this was brought up. We will be.discussing the proposed regulation changes at the Planning Commission's April 16 meeting. eAplanning\fo=s\memotemp 3I City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum ~OR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: December 11, 1998 Attached are materials related to the Planning Commission's public hearing regarding the City's large animal regulations. Because of the length of time between study sessions, staff has included all relevant information from early 1998 through the present. We realize that most of this information has been previously distributed, however, we wanted you to have all the information in a single packet of material. Included in this packet are the following items: 1. A copy of an ordinance incorporating Animal Control Commission's original recommendations (attachment 1). 2. A copy of the matrix of other cities' regulations (attachment 2). 3. A copy of the minutes from Planning Commission's February 19, 1998 meeting (attachment 3). 4. A copy of the minutes from the Animal Control Commission's March 17, 1998 meeting. Staff requested their input on several issues generated by Planning Commission (attachment 4). 5. A copy of two articles from the May 7, 1998 Jefferson Sentinel (attachment 5). 6. Comments from the City Attorney regarding the revised animal regulation ordinance (attachment 6). 7. Minutes from the May 21, 1998 Planning Commission study session (attachment 7). 8. A copy of a proposed revision to the nuisance ordinance with commentary generated by the City Attorney's office (attachment 8). 9. A copy of the October 20 Animal Control Commission meeting where they approved changes to the nuisance ordinance (attachment 9). 10. Additional correspondence received regarding the issue (attachment 10). 11. A copy of the revised animal regulation ordinance incorporating changes being recommended (attachment 11). 30Z STAFF COMMENTS It appears from the testimony presented and evidence discussed at various study sessions, that there is a general sentiment that the keeping of large animals in residential areas is appropriate and traditional within the City of Wheat Ridge. However, they also felt that the current large animals regulations needed to be "tightened up," as well as a more effective means of receiving testimony for the prosecution of alleged effects of the keeping of animals in court. In the final version of the revised ordinance (attachment 11), staff has added a section dealing with substandard A-1 and A-2 zoned lots. The keeping of animals on agriculturally-zoned lots that are less than one acre in size (substandard) should follow the regulations for residentially zoned properties (one animal for the first 9000 square feet, etc). This provision has been inserted between sections (f) and (g) of the first ordinance. Staff believes that sections (a) through (f) should apply to substandard A-1 and A-2 properties. Based on the discussion at the May 21, 1998 meeting, horse equivalents have been added as recommended by the Animal Control Commission (ACC). This has been accomplished by expanding the language under section (a) of the first ordinance. References to "animal" in section (c) have been replaced with "horse equivalent unit." The horse equivalent equivalents that have been discussed are as follows: One horse equivalent unit = one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: LARGE ANIMAL REGULATIONS Option A: " I move that Case No. ZOA -98-1, a revision to Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as modified by staff under Attachment 11, be recommended for APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. Based on testimony and evidence presented, it is the general sentiment that large animals should continue to be allowed in residential areas in the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. The current ordinance is too vague regarding the maximum number of animals allowed. 3. There are currently no horse equivalent units specified. 4. There is no provision for the keeping of animals on substandard, agriculturally zoned lots." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA -98-1, a revision to Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as modified by staff under Attachment 11, be recommended for DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. 2. NUISANCE REGULATIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-1, a revision to Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as proposed by the City Attorney under Attachment 8, be recommended for APPROVAL, for the following reasons: 1. Large animal complaints typically are related to the nuisance affects of the keeping of animals. 2. The current nuisance ordinance does not allow for effective testimony in court proceedings." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-1, a revision to Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as proposed by the City Attorney under Attachment 8, be recommended for DENIAL, for the following reasons: 1. 2. " C:O.b.\PCRPTS\zoa981 PCI, ariag.wpd 3q CHANGES PER ACC CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(I) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Annuals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE A-1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS-, exGept that only "hwetion n y, ) h'I, pli th., A .Ir., of dkt 6iS (1) Large animals. Private stableS for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: ,.I di shall h d l d a n thousand t` ara es e e e ie g g , THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) ANIMALS (HORSES, COWS, LLAMAS. SHEEP OR GOATS) PER ACRE, ATTACHMENT 1 ~s except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. (b) Manure or liquid waste shall not ;e- allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to eaus@ regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF A LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY AMAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The pen, 60FI-al 0!- feneed area ka!- keeping 11AI aHi,m,lls- Shall --+ne«tile following (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM.OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. 4-(E) 'rhe fence or other enclosure must be constructed s :ateFials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. Ll. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except liar lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. 3.r2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. (d) 1.. (F) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to aside or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. Tl; tares for iieeping of ais are .A Shall 149t ho In d h: 1 i 1'.. orl...~l. (e-)(G) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NONCONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE 1998- SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days m more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(1)(a); (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, satiety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. 'Fhc City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severabilitv. It' any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court 11!'~ 'iE '_I~S I4 1 3 3 of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section. 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of - to _ on this day of , 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West ?9th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this - day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 1998. ATTEST: W;ANDA SANG, CITY CLERK lst Publication: 2nd publication: Wheat Ridae Transcript Effective Date: GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY lit'I U'- ins l I;M 4 F f JURISDICTION ALLOWED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS EXCREMENT YES NO MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE ADDRESSED Arvada x 9,000 for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for No each additional horse. 100 foot setback required from residences. Aurora X Livestock including horses: No 1 animal for every acre in the RA zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Boulder X 1 horse for every %z acre. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Brighton X Allowed in RE or PUD only. Yes Requires permit. Corral sizes are not regulated. Broomfield X Livestock and horses are prohibited. No Castle Rock X Not allowed within the City. Yes Cherry Hills NO RESPONSE Commerce City X Not allowed within the City. No Denver County/City X 1 animal for every 1/2 acre in the Yes Residential zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Englewood X Does not allow large animals. No ATTACHMENT 2. Erie X Not allowed within City. No Estes Park X 2 horses - 1 acre Yes 3+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Allowed in the RS or RM zones only. Setbacks for corrals: 25' to any building used as residence or human habitation; 50' from street or property line. Federal Heights X No Livestock allowed including No horses. Fort Collins X /2 acre per animal. Uses Larimar County Code for farm animals. Corrals are not regulated. Ft. Lupton NO RESPONSE. Ft. Morgan NO RESPONSE. Gilcrest X 1 horse for every acre except where there is less than 5 acres then 1 horse per 1 acre; except for offspring until 7 months of age. Corral sizes are not regulated. Glendale X Not allowed within City. No qD r Golden X 9,000 sq.ft. for 1 horse; 6,000 sq. ft. Yes for each additional horse. Special Use Permit required. Allowed in the Agricultural zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from the lot line; 15 feet from the side or rear lot line. Greeley NO RESPONSE. Greenwood Village X 1 horse per 1/3 acre; 2 with %2 acre; Yes 3 or more '/2 acre each additional horse. Space must be dedicated solely to animal (i.e., stable and corral). 12 x 12 stall areas max. if corral is built. Lafayette X SUP only in REl and RE2 with Yes 40,000 and 20,000 square foot requirement. Corral sizes are not regulated. Lakewood X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre except that offspring can be kept until weaned. Corrals minimum is 300 sq. ft. per horse. Littleton X In RE: 25,000 sq.ft. minimum per animal; other zoned areas require 2 acre minimum (trying to discourage). Corral sizes are not regulated. Matrix - Large Animal Page 3 qi Longmont X Existing animals are grand fathered. No longer allowed within City. Louisville X RRR and AgA only. Yes 1 acre minimum. Corrals must be 150' from any . building occupied as a residence or used for human habitation. Loveland X % acre per horse - no livestock. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Northglenn X Thornton NO RESPONSE. Westminster X With PUD or minimum of 10 acre Yes lot. Corral sizes are not regulated. Parker X I horse for every 2 acres. Yes Corralling or containment of animals is required with only limited periodic grazing; is to be "adequate" for the number of animals involved but not to exceed 10%0 of the lot area; shall not be closer than 100' to any off-site residence or business on an adjoining property. - Large Animal y~ Platteville X 1 horse - 1/3 acre 2 horses -'/z acre 3 horses - 1 acre 4+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Acreage requested is that solely devoted to horse (i.e., stable or corral area) Adams County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. Yes - for less ft. for each additional horse, but not than 35 acre lots. to exceed 4 horses per acre; does not include horses below weaning age or 6 months whichever is less. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from any off property residence or place of business and 25 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the front lot line. Jefferson County X 9,000 sq. ft. for I st horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre with exception for offspring until 7 months of age. These numbers exclude the area for the one-family dwelling. Corral sizes are not regulated. Matrix - Large Animal Page 5 Summit County X Without a CUP: 1 horse - 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq. ft. up to 35 acres. With a CUP: 2 horses - 40,000 to 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq.ft. up to 35 acres. Corral sizes are not regulated. TOTAL RESPONSES: 30 21 9 Revised: February 19, 1998 d\files\wp\bubs\m im lord. wpd Matrix - Large Animal Page 6 qq It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner THEANDER to approve the Jefferson County North Plains Community Plan, Fairmount Subarea, and the section on enclaves as it pertains to the areas three miles from the existing boundary of Wheat Ridge with the following changes: (1) That recreational vehicle parks and residential (up to 15 dwelling units per acre) be removed from Area 20 which is listed as an in-fill area; and (2) to add the two areas that were forgotten by the Jefferson County Plan (off of 52nd Avenue) to the enclave exhibit; and that the motion be based upon recommendation and approval by the City Attorney. Following brief discussion, the motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing to be closed. It was moved by Commissioner THEANDER and seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS to amend the agenda to move item 1 I to the next order of business. The motion carried 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. 11. Case No. ZOA-98-1 Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations Mr. White presented a brief history of this matter explaining that there have been some code enforcement issues concerning large animals which resulted in the Animal Control Commission suggesting changes to the animal regulations within the Code. He stated that as a result of City Council direction to staff to work on these changes, it was decided to set this date as a study session. Meredith Reckert introduced Susan Ellis, Supervisor of Code Enforcement Division, and Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor. Ms. Reckert distributed to the Commission copies of a matrix showing large animal regulations in other metropolitan communities and then presented slides showing various large animal properties in the City of Wheat Ridge. These properties reflected a broad cross section of residential, agricultural and commercial zonings throughout the City. (Commissioner SNOW arrived at 8:12 p.m.) Ms. Ellis addressed enforcement challenges associated with animal regulations which included: 9.000 square foot regulation. Ms. Ellis noted that in order to determine if the property meets lot size requirements it is necessary for the City to go by the Assessor's maps which aren't always accurate. She explained that a survey is necessary to accurately determine the square footage of a property; sometimes property surveys are not available. Manure and liquid waste. Ms. Ellis noted that these cases are presently prosecuted in criminal court which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that three of these cases have been thrown out of Planning Commission ✓ Page 4 02/19/98 ATTACHMENT 3 court because of the court's opinion that they do not belong in criminal court, but rather in civil court where cases can be decided on testimony. She also noted that manure accumulation and odor are two different problems and are very difficult to enforce. Pen, corral and fenced areas. Ms. Ellis stated that the Code contains some ambiguity in defining fences, corrals and structures such as barns. She added that there have only been three properties which cause problems and only five that have ever been cited. Three that were cited were adjacent to residential and concerned manure accumulation or odor. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what procedures the City would take in a situation where a potential purchaser takes the word of a realtor that they can have horses and then a neighbor complains. Ms. Ellis replied that her office would check the size of the property according to their records and then request a survey from the owner to determine actual square footage and the number of animals they would be allowed. If there is insufficient space, the owner would be given 30 days to remove the animal, obtain a variance, etc.; and if they don't comply at that time, a summons to court is issued. She also noted that she has never had to issue a summons for this type issue in the past seven years. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if property owners were allowed to board animals. Ms. Reckert explained that boarding is allowed in Agricultural Districts; however, in residential areas, it is assumed you own the animals on your property as an accessory use. In response to Commissioner THEANDER's question as to what constitutes the three major reasons for citing owners of large animals, Ms. Ellis replied they are (1) odor and manure accumulation; (2) corral setback issues; and (3) too many animals on the property. Commissioner GOKEY discussed whether or not some of these conditions could be cited as animal abuse cases. Ms. Ellis explained that animal control would be called in if abuse was suspected. Commissioner SNOW asked Ms. Ellis' opinion regarding whether or not the proposed changes in the ordinance would resolve code problems. Ms. Ellis replied that she believed the changes would present -uidelines to follow such as how often a property owner needs to clean the animal areas. Commission SNOW asked for a comparison of the present ordinance with the suggested changes. Ms. Reckert replied that the suggested changes from the Animal Control Commission included a provision for no more than four animals per acre, a two week cleaning rule, pen arid corral sizes, and clarification of fences and corrals vs. barns and other structures. She noted that a grandfather clause is included that would apply unless the property owner ceases owning a horse for more than sixty days. Commissioner BRINKMAN and Commissioner GOKEY discussed the minimum open lot area of 9,000 square feet for the first horse and 6,000 square feet for each additional horse. Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 5 q w c Ms. Reckert stated that the animals do not have to have access to the entire area and that these requirements are consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County. Mr. White added that this requirement is to set forth a guideline for the number of animals allowed on a property. Mr. Fisher addressed the Commission stating that at the request of City Council, the Animal Control Commission conducted two or three public meetings with input from the Livestock Association regarding proposed changes to the ordinance. The Commission was recessed at 9:00 p.m.. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m. by Chair THOMPSON. Chair THOMPSON addressed a rumor that the City is trying to get rid of all large animals. She stated that this is a misconception and that the Commission is only interested in clarifying the existing ordinance. The following people addressed the Commission: Ann Osterlow - 329 Independence Court Ms. Osterlow stated that she lives adjacent to a property with four horses on one acre and is concerned with the health issues related to the large number of flies that are attracted by manure accumulation. She indicated that she does not want to get rid of horses in Wheat Ridge, but only wants horse owners to keep their properties clean. Tim Osterlow - 329 Independence Court Mr. Osterlow presented a video showing the large amount of flies swarming in the summer near their patio. He noted that the case was taken to court but thrown out because the code was too vague. He also stated that he does not object to property owners having horses, but wants the owners to be responsible to keep their property clean. He also suggested that if a horse owner does not comply with the City's request to clean up manure, that the City clean it up and charge the owner. He also distributed copies of a poster from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a copy of an article from Encarta Encyclopedia describing health issues involved with flies. Bob Rock - 4300 Tabor Street Mr. Rock urged the Commission to continue allowing horses in Wheat Ridge; however, he agreed there may be a need for changes to the present ordinance. Warren McCoy - 3275 Dudley Street Mr. McCoy stated his opinion that horses should be allowed in the City; however, horse owners need to be responsible about taking care of the animals and cleaning up after them. Planning Commission Page 6,. 02/ 19/98 47 Don McDougal - 9815 West 37th Avenue Expressed concern that the City of Wheat Ridge is attempting to ban horses from the City and asked that the Commission not allow this to happen. Kevin Craig - 10615 West 46th Avenue Urged Commission to continue allowing horses within the City of Wheat Ridge. Dr. Rob Hilsenroth (no address given) Dr. Hilsenroth is a veterinarian and an advisor to the Animal Control Commission. He recommended that the City place the burden of proof on a home owner to prove they are complying with the area requirements. He also encouraged the Commission to look objectively at the issues and not confuse humane considerations with nuisance issues. He suggested trying the two-week cleanup rule with the use of photographs to suffice as evidence of whether the criteria has been met. He also expressed his opinion that it is much better to educate people on how to properly take care of their animals than to take them to court. He felt that the grandfather clause would prevent people from having to get rid of their animals as a result of the changes to the ordinance. In response to Commissioner GOKEY's question regarding penalties for violations, Ms. Ellis replied that an owner could be fined up to $999.00 for a violation. Commissioner SNOW asked if Ms. Ellis felt it was feasible for the city to clean up manure if owner does not comply with request to do so, much the same as is presently done with the weed ordinance Ms. Ellis replied that while weeds can be measured, manure cannot; and that cleaning the manure would require entering private property containing animals and would open the City to various lawsuits. Louise Turner - 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner, member of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission, suggested that education along with the nuisance law would be vehicle to deal with these problems. She doesn't believe the answer is to get rid of the animals, but to take proper care of them. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the proposed changes would give Code Enforcement enough ammunition to take care of the few violators within the City. Ms. Turner stated that she would like an opinion from the judge or the city attorney as to whether or not the changes would take care of the problems. Chair THOMPSON asked if there were others present who would like to speak to this issue. Hearing no response, she stated that the individuals who spoke would be notified of future meetings and asked if there were others present who wished to be added to the notification list. Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 7 y8 c t- , Commissioner THEANDER asked how other cities addressed the excrement issue. Ms. Reckert replied that most cities' codes were vague and referred to their nuisance laws which are similar to those of Wheat Ridge. Mr. White summarized the statements from the public, stating there seemed to be a sentiment that horse.property is a part of the lifestyle in Wheat Ridge and that the complaints seemed to be centered around the nuisance aspect. Mr. White suggested we take a look at the agricultural regulations and to have no restraints on the number of animals in these zones except when they are nonconforming lots in which case, the residential district requirements be applied. He commented that the two week cleaning rule sounds simple, but it might require hiring a full time person to keep track of who has cleaned in the past two weeks. Commissioner SNOW suggested that less cleaning should be required for fewer animals on large lots and more frequently on a small lot and in the summer. She stated her desire to hear an opinion from the court or city attorney as to whether or not this would solve the legal problems. Ms. Ellis commented that it has been her experience that three of the five citations she has issued in the past seven years have been personal neighborhood battles. Commissioner SNOW asked how many of these complaints have been a real problem over the past seven years to which Ms. Ellis replied that there has only been one. Mr. White requested to poll the Commission for a consensus as to whether or not it is desired to allow horses on residential and commercial properties. In response to Chair THOMPSON's poll, there was a consensus that horses be allowed in Wheat Ridge. Commissioner GOKEY commented that the property must be taken into account as to whether it is suited to having large animals. Chair THOMPSON commented that photos could be taken at the time the complaint is received and that the owner be informed that they have two weeks to clean it up and let them know that you will be back in two weeks to check for compliance. Ms. Ellis was not sure if thejudge could determine from photos if the ordinance had been complied with. Chair THOMPSON asked if it was true that the burden of proof of square footage rested with the property owner. Ms. Ellis replied that it is up to the City to prove the lot size. Planning Commission Page 8, 02/19/98 LI q It was the consensus of the Commission that the city attorney's office review the ordinance as to (1) whether it is a good starting point; (2) removing the section containing manure issue to the nuisance ordinance; (3) a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size; (4) look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units; (5) rewrite this section to make it easier to understand; and (6) review the nonconforming portions of the ordinance. Commissioner SNOW requested that the agricultural property issues be taken to the Agricultural Commission for their research and opinion. It was the direction of the Commission to staff that this matter come before the Commission the second meeting in April. 9. OLD BUSINESS None. 10. NEW BUSINESS Mr. White asked if the Commissioners wished to renew the subscription to the Planning Commissioner's Journal. The consensus of the Commission was to renew the subscription. Commissioner GOKEY asked if there was a nation-wide proportional land use book which could be used for guidelines. Mr. White responded that he would look into this. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Ann Lazzeri, Recording S retary C4 ~ Jaffe Thompson, Chair U Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 9 6D DRAFT Animal Control Commission Minutes March 17, 1998 PRESENT.• Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Greg Feudner; Monica Gregerson; Bea Slingsby; Debby Mauldin; Nick Fisher; Michelle Stodden. Citizens present: Agnes Renwick. ABSENT: Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Joseph Ashker. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the January 20, 1998 meeting were approved. Minutes of the special meeting held on February 19, 1998 were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Nick distributed memos and reviewed Planning Commission minutes from Meredith Reckert regarding the large animal regulations and requested recommendations on the following issues: 1. Removing the section containing the manure issue to the nuisance ordinance 2. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units 3. If an A-1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc, have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off-site residences. 4. The existing code relative to amortization of nonconforming uses is such that if the use ceases to exist for more than 60 consecutive days, the property cannot be used again unless it conforms to the current code. (Take horses into the mountains for an extended period of time, the legal, nonconforming status is gone.) A discussion was held regarding all of the above issues. Louise also updated the Commission on the Planning Commission meeting. The following motions were made: 1. Motion made to support the effort to move the manure issue from zoning to the nuisance ordinance to facilitate. the prosecution of these cases. Motion made by Debby, seconded by Bea, motion passed. 2. Motion made to establish the following horse equivalent units: one horse equivalent unit equals one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. Motion made by Louise, seconded by Debby, motion passed. (A revised copy of the ordinance is attached with the above changes included.) Ostriches and emus still fall under exotic permits. ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT Motion made stating: The Animal Control Commission takes no action because the feeling of the Commission is that Al and A2 should have no further restrictions. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. 4. Motion made stating: The temporary (seasonal) removal of animals does not constitute discontinuance of the nonconforming use. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. (It was felt that the resident that brought up this issue is a conforming use. Louise will call the gentleman.) Nick reported that Dr. Maulsby looked at the horses at 32nd and Independence and they looked good and appeared healthy. Louise reported that Suzie Ellis stated at the Planning Commission meeting that three of the five citations she has issued for odor/accumulation have been personal neighborhood battles. NEWBUSINESS. Kennel inspections were made and applications reviewed. Nick reported that there are no problems noted and no changes from last year. Cat's Cradle - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Greg, motion passed. American School of Dog Training - motion by Debby to approve application, seconded by Bea, motion passed. Cat Spa - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Monica, motion passed. Pet Village - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Debby, motion passed. Monica expressed some, concerns with the previous management of Pet Village and wants to be sure the new management has improved the conditions. Nick has been there on several occasions and has not noticed any violations. It was suggested that Nick conduct a surprise inspection on Pet Village. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary 5d-~ Something'ttitksit Wheat Ridge z Editor. Our netghliorhood would like an expla nation from'the Wheat Ridge city man `ager and/or`our District 3-City Council 'persons'regardnig the following situatiom We live'.in Wheat Ridge in aresidential' neighborhood. An adjacent property - owner has corralled four horses since Dec 16, 1996, and has not removed any ma - nure. For f6 months oueineighborhood-1tas'. 'this propertyvhder Section 15 of the. city codes and he refused. The city manager has ignored calls for explanation. We think that it is clearly stated in Section 15 of the city codes that the manager has; this power. We have presented our case before they t` City Council. The City Council repre- sentatives in District 3 are very sympathetic and tell us that they will help. We have. waited for them to return calls with sugges-. tions and advice, and are still waiting: The Animal Control Commission and the Plan- ning Commission are both considering. - changes that need to be made to the Wheat - Ridge codes in order not to allow this kind of neglect to continue to happen. Both com- missions have been honest in stating that this will take time, and conceivably no - changes will be voted upon until the fall. For 16 months the manure has increased and continues to pile up. This year's flies be- gan to emerge on March 13 and remained even through the April snows. We are m, able to use our patios because of the }lies. - This is a health hazard for all of us. Flies spread disease to other animals and hu- mans. The manure is spread in the dust- that blows from the property. _ We are not asking that the horses be re-, moved, only the manure. Our neighbor- hood will be living with this situation for, another season of outdoor actAY:'e r-.R city manager has the power to clean it up,^, but refuses to: do so. We are asking fora fir', reasonable explanation as to why he won't act, or an explanation of how the` :codes are restricting his action - ANNE AND TIM OSTERLOA' 1. ROSE AND WALT MORRIS! .:TORN AND DEANNA GAMMON' Wheat Ridge ATTACHMENT 5 63 150 7 "c n u 1 j0 7 v •5 n(~n N (0 a 0,00 Jb -m V (d N-a U 03 2, 4 ECOC~' wY ~'~570~C:p:.'r'7( 4"J" OU- C .r7- W... 3.RRd ya Or CL ~o o U Uy d NBC y~T 11 U4 bD 0 ;a I tlCtl _VcvG~3~ w ~$a $,,,a OD p rwo EO 3c o b~~ (+•C qrS 8 o v.. c o to= ~ G~SI yy~~/~~ Ny OO 1~~ ~ ~ y~ 41M U"y N ?@ W/A.c~ OJ are ao:$a~o m v y v a 'O a.. C'O Oq NI~'L y. U ^C A,1 0 ^ .S.S oU W ~ C tl pi..( ~k U m ,G C ~U (C N U R' v0 ~ ° a ~p 0 $pcv. ~ a v: C .pC Y~+~ ~ .gr o co v (A 0 ~ O E as a° ~ t`~ V J7 .p+•C :9 PC > U n a h0itl ~ 'C,~ C~ bCfi~ ol w A'C 'C O O00 oo~x a cIs~ ="aaom•v3 o 11 - 111. ~ C""T7 vi C.,,y ~OSJ - r •q N ~(y 0.J aCi,w O a~+. Z F C a J: a+ ca 90 wm , PC V_.-', o" `o i 4 u O w ~.h-O A - 0 Lam'.. IOUd . .QO~. 1 Lei DA~ 4 , Y Cd 1zti a > e ~_yyeTr V.~ "•y'ag'Rn"' 'Jx0 d~CS. 1 ~ „n. grant and refus censes, assess lees yestiga:ions an d ..v ,Ly ..uuu~u aueuwer c"eaa ue on the orauthority However I )f the -,nor autihority°8ocsnt. - anie w me amens asea'groU ' Worth said =She favors having _ r- rfod,for the bar ound.check. ' the citycounal continue to act as They also restricted the crime - the liquor auttrority`for the city. nal background check'io in- - , The council7agreed tofor' elude only those records from ' an a ght member authority - the WheafRidge Police I)ePazt ; mcluding two representatives ~ment In the previous. ordi ' - ` ...fromieachdistrict- with. four Hance the check-would have g , members having three-year been. conducted :bythe,Colo- ' ' , rado Bureauof Investigations Weyfeel likethe ci ty'of `Wheat Ridge should take same ;responsibility'' CONTINUEDbom`page t~ ordinance is a-' long and delicate wants -them to sue him. process;:, Middaugh said'that, unfor- - _ "1'd love` them to (sue me) ' tunately, all the neighbors can because I'd like to sue them," he do is wait until the ordinance is said. "I strongly feel 'that .'the changed. - ,crap'thatthey pulled is total „I„understand they're all 7rarassmenf and I d Itke to have `frus'trated, but. there's really ' my day in cqurt" x< nothing I can ng .do „ v a a We donY. want to cue }any He said tbafthe city is trying wni body Osterloh; said". 'We. feel - to find a.""soluiion'tn' the"",nmh - conflict between ;_lkediger,~ind - ins de;,the hordes of flies and- He-said.the city his neighbors. ' mosquitoesswarming around i is trying e g into her - bark- and m ulation of the mak -thee c yard would do the manure aviolation. . . "We like.to cook-out aiid'sit ' But he said that theissue is on our porchTim OSterich sensitive because horses have said.. "We have-a Beat view of been a staple of 'the qn-6cape - the mountains and we can't en-, mthe,ctty~r " Joy7t ,~yP a ti, Within the.cgmmumty "Nobodpseemstothinkthat there's a long tradition.ofkeep having 16 mohths of matituc ing horses and large: animals sitting aroundAs a` problem Middaugh said. Torohange the said Anne Osterloh.' r OS/IS/98 13:25:18 GBRF-H KIRGIS-> 383 235 2857 Ria'`FAR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: . Planning Commission and City Council Gerald Dahl May 15, 1998 Large Animal Regulations The Planning Commission has asked me to review and provide comments on the attached ordinance for large animal regulation, and specifically to.comment upon: 1. Whether the ordinance is a good starting point. 2. Moving the section on manure to the nuisance chapter. 3. Suggesting a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size. 4. Comment on establishing "horse equivalent units". 5. Rewrite the ordinance to make it easier to understand, and 6. . Review the section on nonconforming uses Page 882 I have also reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of February 19, 1998 at which this ordinance was reviewed, and am familiar with discussion of the issue before the Animal Control Commission and the City Council. I believe that three principles should guide the City's regulation of large animals (primarily horses): 1. While some cities have prohibited large animals being kept within their municipal boundaries, there is a strong desire in Wheat Ridge (or at least a strong perception of that desire) to permit those animals to be kept in the city. 2. For a large animal ordinance to really be effective, that is to actually result in fewer neighbor complaints on odor, flies, etc., the lot size, corral size and set back dimensions in the present ordinance must be greatly increased. The present set back of 30' from adjacent residential structures is simply too small, no GED'630127'QS5303.01 5~ 85/1S/98 13:2S:S1 GBRT-1 RIRGIS-> 383 23S ZBS7 Rig!-'OAX Page 883 matter how often manure, etc. is removed, to eliminate the kinds of neighbor complaints that are the primary source of the City's problems with large animal control. 3. The present nonconforming use section, which allows nonconforming situations to continue indefinitely, simply perpetuates the problem. To be effective, the Section should be changed to amortize nonconforming large animal situations within a time period, for example, one .year. 1. Is the ordinance is a good starting point? Answer: The present ordinance is a good starting point to the degree it addresses the key considerations for large animal regulation: `What is considered a large animal? 'Minimum lot size and corral size per animal `Required set backs from corral to adjacent residential structures 'Provides for abatement of nonconforming uses 2. Should the section on manure be moved to the nuisance chapter of the code of laws? Answer: Yes. 3. Should Wheat Ridge adopt a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size? Answer: Lot Size: This. is one of the two most important aspects of the ordinance (the other being the required set back of corrals from residential structures). The present ordinance requires 9,000 square feet for the first animal and an additional 6,000 square feet for each additional animal, with a maximum of four animals per acre. Three horses, for example, could be kept upon a lot which, after subtracting structures, carports, garages, patios, etc. is only 21,000 square feet or one half acre in size. In practice, this is simply too small to adequately contain odor, etc. In the Planning Department survey of 30 jurisdictions, the 9,000/6,000 square foot standard, while used in a few places, including Jefferson and Adams Counties, was on the small side of the scale. More representative were acreages from one-third to one . GED:53017`?35303.01 BS/15/98 13:26:37 GORR11"9 RIRGIS-> 383 Z3S Z857 Rig!'FOX Page 084 acre per animal, with requirements that those numbers be larger when the lot size is less than 5 acres. Finally, the City might well consider a minimum lot size of one-half acre or larger for the keeping of any large animal. It is simply to much to expect that a horse kept on a 15,000 square foot lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood won't cause problems. Corral Size and Location: Most important for reducing complaints is the distance from the corral (or barn) to adjacent residential buildings. The larger the distance, the greater chance for success. The Wheat Ridge standard of 30 feet is simply not enough for real odor control, even under the best of circumstances. Louisville, for example is at 150 feet. 4. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units. Answer: The current Wheat Ridge ordinance effectively establishes horse equivalent units by counting cows, lamas, sheep, goats and similar animals as equivalent to horses. This can be made more explicit. 5. Review the nonconforming portions of the ordinance. Answer: Presently, the ordinance permits nonconforming uses (the keeping of large animals on lots which are too small or in areas too close to, the neighboring-residences) indefinitely, unless the use is abandoned for 60 days or more. In practice, it is very difficult to enforce this and to terminate nonconforming uses on this basis. To have any real impact, the section should be made into an amortization section, requiring that the nonconforming uses cease within a specified period of time (for example, one year), or upon sale of the property to the next owner, in addition to the present 60-day rule. 6. Rewrite this section to make it easier to understand. Answer: This can easily be done. The following is an outline for a possible revision of the ordinance. 1 . Application of Section: All districts except A-1 and A-2. 2. Definition: Horse equivalent units: Large animals include horses, cows, lamas, sheep, goats and all animals in excess of pounds at maturity; such animal is one horse equivalent unit GED`630?i'• 85803.01 85/15/98 13:27:25 GORS'l RIRGIS-> 383 235 2857 Rig" °A% Page 885• I Lot Size Restrictions: Minimum acre per animal for lots in excess of acres in size; minimum of acre for animal for lots less than acre in size. 4. Corral Size and Location: Minimum _ square feet for the first animal and additional square feet for each additional animal; all corrals, stables and barns must be located no less than feet from the nearest lot line and no less than feet from the nearest residence or retail commercial structure. No variances may be permitted to these set back requirements. 5. Nonconforming Uses: Existing legal nonconforming keeping of large animals may continue so long as they remain otherwise legal, but must be terminated when: • The property is sold, and/or • Within _ years of adoption of this ordinance. I will be pleased to elaborate or answer questions. GEU53027`aS 5803.01 1 51 Animal Control Commission Minutes March 17, 1998 PRESENT.• Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Greg Feudner; Monica Gregerson; Bea Slingsby; Debby Mauldin; Nick Fisher; Michelle Stodden. Citizens present: Agnes Renwick. ABSENT.• Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Joseph Ashker CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the January 20, 1998 meeting were approved. Minutes of the special meeting held on February 19, 1998 were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Nick distributed memos and reviewed Planning Commission minutes from Meredith Reckert regarding the large animal regulations and requested recommendations on the following issues: 1. Removing the section containing the manure issue to the nuisance ordinance 2. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units 3. If an A-1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc, have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off-site residences. 4. The existing code relative to amortization of nonconforming uses is such that if the use ceases to exist for more than 60 consecutive days, the property cannot be used again unless it conforms to the current code. (Take horses into the mountains for an extended period of time, the legal, nonconforming status is gone.) A discussion was held regarding all of the above issues. Louise also updated the Commission on the Planning Commission meeting. The following motions were made: Motion made to support the effort to move the manure issue from zoning to the nuisance ordinance to facilitate the prosecution of these cases. Motion made by Debby, seconded by Bea, motion passed. Motion made to establish the following horse equivalent units: one horse equivalent unit equals one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. Motion made by Louise, seconded by Debby, motion passed. (A revised copy of the ordinance is attached with the above changes included.) Ostriches and emus still fall under exotic permits. Motion made stating: The Animal Control Commission takes no action because the feeling of the Commission is that Al and A2 should have no further restrictions. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. ~0 ' ATTACHMENT 6 At, 4. Motion made stating: The temporary (seasonal) removal of animals does not constitute discontinuance of the nonconforming use. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. (It was felt that the resident that brought up this issue is a conforming use. Louise will call the gentleman.) Nick reported that Dr. Maulsby looked at the horses at 32nd and independence and they looked, good and appeared healthy. Louise reported that Suzie Ellis stated at the Planning Commission meeting that three of the five citations she has issued for odor/accumulation have been personal neighborhood battles. NEW BUSINESS: Kennel inspections were made and applications reviewed. Nick reported that there are no problems noted and no changes from last year. Cat's Cradle - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Greg, motion passed. American School of Dog Training - motion by Debby to approve application, seconded by Bea, motion passed. Cat Spa - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Monica, motion passed. Pet Village - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Debby, motion passed. Monica expressed some concerns with the previous management of Pet Village and wants to be sure the new management has improved the conditions. Nick has been there on several occasions and has not noticed any violations. It was suggested that Nick conduct a surprise inspection on Pet Village. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. DV. t'l Dr. William Trefz, Chairper o " 2 Miche le Stodden, ecretary 6 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL NIENIBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L)(I) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals: and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO. AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Section 26-30(I)(1)(1) or the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is_herebv amended as follo«:s: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE A-1 OR A-2 nvnr~_~(~ DISTRICTS., tsieept that „i„ supsevtian below applies to the gAgrieuhffal Mile . (1) Large animals. Private stableS for Elie keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas. sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) 'ir-ea of l6t, RJ and attaelied eafp,*-*- exciuding d . elied ~Shall ' thousand ggafa es, i Widitional ;ix. thousand (6000) squafe t;eet f THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) A"r"ALA (HORSES. eE)WS, Lz~S EP OR GOATS)~ER-AC- , OR HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TUO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP OR FOUR (4) GOATS . except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. (h) ~1anure or liquid waste shall nef be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY . THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as te s< _ as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE Replace word THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE "Animal" with - FIRST ANIMA AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX words "HORSE OR THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ".MAL. FOR THE PURPOSES HORSE EQUIVALENT OF THIS SECTION, "OPEN LOT AREA" UNIT" 2 places in MEANS A PORTION OF A LOT EXCLUDING this paragraph AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. 4u(. 11 . ammvlS Shall meet the '911 1A'i g a (d) THE PEN. CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM.OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. OF ANY SPECIES. -h(E) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed fflatffials- and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. ?-1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. - The first paragraph, third line, under Item 7, Public Hearing, should be amended to read "Planned Commercial Development" instead of "Planned Community Development." It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Dunn absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01: Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations. There was a consensus of the Commission to receive public comment even though the case was being presented as a study session item rather than a public hearing. Meredith Reckert distributed copies of the Nuisance Regulations and copies of the final approved minutes of the Animal Control Commission meeting of March 17, 1998. She informed that after the last Planning Commission study session on this matter, Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor, presented the Planning Commission's concerns to the Animal Control Commission for their consideration. The Animal Control Commission supported moving the manure accumulation issue to the nuisance ordinance; established horse equivalent units of one horse being equal to one cow, two llamas, two burros, four sheep and four goats; did not take any action on increasing the setbacks in A-1 and A-2 zoning when adjacent to residential; and recommended that seasonal removal of animals did not constitute discontinuation of the nonconforming use. Gerald Dahl reviewed his memorandum of May 15, 1998 to the Planning Commission and City Council as well as an outline for possible revision of the large animal ordinance, noting that lot size restrictions, setbacks, etc. will have to be determined. Discussion followed. Commissioner GOKEY suggested that wording in Section 15-23 such as "unsatisfactory condition", "offensive odors", "deemed a nuisance", etc. need to be more clearly defined. Tammy Greene stated that it is extremely difficult to prosecute these cases in court; and that more definitive guidelines are necessary. She also noted that the municipal court is not equipped to prosecute an odor case unless there is assistance from the Health Department which has technical equipment that can measure odors. There was discussion concerning the problems of manure accumulation and flies. Planning 05/21/98 utes rage ATTACHMENT 7 Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested the placement of fly catch buckets similar to those used for fruit flies in California, to measure the number of flies present at different times of the day in order to determine what amount would constitute a nuisance. Commissioner SNOW commented that it would be impossible to eliminate all complaints because people who want a strictly urban environment will still complain about horses. Chair THOMPSON suggested special use permits be required in A-I and A-2 districts when properties are adjacent to residential uses and, further, that increased setbacks should be considered. There was lengthy discussion regarding horse equivalent units. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that the equivalent units were too high, especially in regard to goats. Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested that mules should also be included in the ordinance and that a mule should be considered the same as one horse. In response to a request from Commissioner, Mr. Dahl stated that he would look into nuisance regulations from other communities. He also commented that if the City of Wheat Ridge is going to have animals, the City is obligated to come up with a very precise system to address neighborhood complaints. Ms. Reckert commented that there are still some subjective issues to work through as far as manure accumulation is concerned. Mr. White commented that he believed regulations also need to apply to agricultural zoning. Chair THOMPSON invited public comment and the following individuals addressed the Commission: Tim Osterloh 329 Independence Court Mr. Osterloh referred to his previous appearance before the Commission and presented the history of his complaint that his next door neighbor keeps four horses in his back yard and never removes the manure. A little over a year ago, code enforcement cited the neighbor at which time the case was dismissed by the court because the code was too vague. He stated his opinion that the code should require manure to be cleaned up; however, he felt it would be difficult to measure because the horses trample it down. He stated that the fly problem from his neighbor's horses begins in March and worsens throughout the summer and thought the fly catchers, as suggested by Commissioner BRINKMAN, might be helpful. He concluded by stating that he is not opposed to people having horses on their property, but only wants a method to ensure that horse owners will be responsible in taking care of their animals. Kim Fehr 7340 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Fear stated that she purchased her property in order to keep her aging horse. She stated Planning Commission Minutes 05/21/98 Page 6 s that although she removes manure every other day, her neighbors still complain. She also thought the fly catchers were a good idea. She suggested instituting a time limit for horse owners to remove manure because she felt measuring would be very difficult. Walt Morris 3285 Independence Court Mr. Morris expressed concern that the ten tons of hay stored in the neighbor's back yard presented a fire hazard that could result in the loss of several homes in the area if the hay caught on fire and, in turn, ignited the pine trees in the neighborhood. He was also of the opinion that fly traps would work. He suggested that once an agricultural property has not housed horses or other large animals for a number of years, that they not be allowed on the property any more; and that he would like to see R-1 zoning changed so that horses are not allowed. However, in the meantime, he would like to see a method to enforce the proper care of horses. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of requiring setbacks for haystacks. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner was appearing on behalf of the Animal Control Commission as well as a private citizen. She noted that public comment received at the Comprehensive Plan meetings indicated that the majority of citizens wish to keep horse property within the City of Wheat Ridge. She pointed out that the suggested requirement of 9000 square feet for the first horse (or equivalent unit) and 6000 square feet for the second was taken from the Jefferson County standard established in 1967, and that several municipalities have adopted those requirements. She noted that there have been remarkably few court cases regarding large animals, and that there have been far more complaints regarding dogs, trash, etc. She felt that the Animal Control Commission had arrived at reasonable figures based upon what has worked in Wheat Ridge in the past. She agreed with code enforcement's recommendation that the manure issue be removed from the zoning code and addressed under the nuisance law. She informed that the Animal Control Commission was very strong in its recommendation that no changes be made to the agricultural zoning; and that the Commission took a position that temporary or seasonal removal of an animal did not constitute discontinuance of its use. In regard to pen or corral requirements, the Commission felt that 800 square feet for the first animal with an additional 100 square feet for each additional animal of any species was a reasonable recommendation. She also noted that she was opposed to setback regulations for A-1 and A-2 zone districts as well as setbacks for haystacks. There was discussion regarding problems arising from new property owners not realizing that adjacent property is zoned for large animals when they purchase their property. John Gammon 3305 Independence Court Mr. Gammon appeared in support of the property owners directly adjacent to the property in question on Independence Court. His property is at the corner of the subject property but is Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 05/21/98 (0 V also affected by presence of flies as well as odor making it difficult to enjoy their backyard patio. He stated that he is not opposed to having horses in Wheat Ridge, but would like to see some teeth added to the nuisance law to address irresponsibility of some horse owners. He supported the suggestions from the Animal Control Commission and felt that bigger setback requirements would not solve the problem. He also wanted to see health concerns resulting from flies addressed. Ms. Reckert informed that the minimum lot size for R-1 zone property is one acre and 140 feet lot width, and that there are many substandard A-1 lots in the city for which the staff will be recommending the 9000-6000 square feet requirements. Code enforcement pointed out that some entities rely on the Department of Health for enforcement proceedings when the public health, safety and welfare are affected; however, this is not a high priority for the Department of Health. Don McDougal 9815 West 37th Avenue Mr. McDougal informed that if fresh manure is added to a pile daily, there will be no flies because the heat burns the larvae; and that scattering and drying manure will not produce flies. He noted other ways to control flies and thought the fly traps may work. He felt the crux of the matter is in proper management by animal owners. He also commented that when he worked for the Health Department, there were a large number of complaints concerning horses and that in almost every case, horses were there before the complaining parties purchased their properties. Don Hammerschmidt 3215 Flower Street Mr. Hammerschmidt stated that he purchased his property in order to have a horse. He commented that it is important to keep the stables clean and that sometimes, in spite of cleanliness, horses attract a certain number of flies. He did not want to see the City require horse owners to stable their animals somewhere else during the summer. He expressed his opinion that improperly stacked hay can create fire hazards as a result of internal combustion. Kevin Craig 10615 West 46th Avenue Mr. Craig stated that he did not want to see horse property eliminated from the City of Wheat Ridge and wanted to ensure that the right to have horses on his property would be grandfathered in for future sale of the property. He also expressed concern that the City would require him to remove his barn which is located eight feet from the property line and a hundred feet from his neighbor's house. He also stated his opinion that a haystack presents no more of a fire hazard than having pine trees on a property. There was discussion concerning the location of Mr. Craig's barn. Ms. Reckert explained that the barn is presently nonconforming but would not have to be moved unless the bar were to be destroyed and rebuilt for some reason. The new structure would then have to conform to the present code. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 05/21/98. 67 Commissioner BRINKMAN responded to Mr. Craig's concerns stating that the City is only attempting to refine language and clear up vague areas in the code in order to address nuisance properties, and not to get rid of horse properties. Commissioner GOKEY assured Mr. Craig that the City has no intention to make him get rid of his barn or his horse. Following the public comments, Mr. Dahl stated that he understood the direction to be as follows: (1) lot sizes, setbacks and corral sizes should not be changed; (2) the nonconforming or amortization schedule should not be changed; (3) the horse equivalent units should remain as recommended by the Animal Control Commission; and (4) that effort should be concentrated on the nuisance aspect of the code. He informed that he would obtain sample ordinances from other entities regarding enforcement of these types of nuisance problems. Commissioner SNOW suggested that the horse equivalent units include one horse, one cow, one burrow, one mule, one llama, four sheep and two goats and noted that there have been numerous complaints about goats in past years. She was also concerned that the ordinance doesn't result in allowing even more animals to be kept in the city. . Commissioners BRINKMAN and SHOCKLEY felt that the Animal Control Commission's recommendations should be followed. Commissioner SNOW requested that- Section 1-A of the proposed ordinance be incorporated into Section 1-C. Mr. Dahl suggested that the section concerning the removal of horses to summer pastures needs to be clarified and a time limit determined. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if it could be made mandatory that prospective property owners be given a list of adjacent properties and their zoning before they purchase a house (similar to flood plain requirements.) It was a consensus of the Commission that the City should not be involved in this process. Chair THOMPSON declared a recess at 10:08 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing portion of the meeting open. B. Case No. ZOA-98-04: The Planning and Development Department is proposing to amend Section 26-6 of the Code of Laws: Legislative and Administrative process and procedures concerning right-of-way vacations. Meredith Reckert presented this item and referred to the staff's recommendations for an amendment to Section 26-6: Legislative and Administrative Process and Procedures: Right- of-way Vacation Procedures. She informed that the City has been following those procedures and using the criteria in all of the vacation cases, but the procedure has never been formally Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 05/21/98 169 GORSUCH 'ATTO`RNEYS At LAW A RECEIVED S EP 0 91998 FROM: KELLY ELEFANT AND GERALD E. DAHL DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998 RE: ISSUES RELATED TO ODORS CAUSED BY MANURE ACCUMULATION In response to your inquiry, we have reviewed the codes of other jurisdictions you have provided us and which have addressed this issue. Currently, citation and prosecution of property owners permitting manure to accumulate, cause offensive odors, or attract excessive amounts of flies may be accomplished under several provisions of the Wheat Ridge Code, as manure is currently addressed in three locations, including sections on Animals, Nuisances, and Zoning. Animals Per Section 4-9, it is unlawful fo any animal owner to allow any animal or animals to create a nuisance. For the purposes o that section, a nuisance includes causing of offensive odors. Animal owners are strictly liab a under Article I, Section 4 and any persons found to be in violation of the chapter may be punishable by a fine not to exceed $999 or by imprisonment. Nuisances Under the definition of litter in Section 15-1, offal composed of animal matter or any noxious or offensive matter whatever, including waste material is prohibited from causing a public nuisance, which includes unlawful pollution or contamination of the air and any activity indecent or offensive to the senses which interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property (15-1). In order to enforce the nuisance sections, inspections and rights of entry are permissible and to the extent possible, notice must be given of the offense and an opportunity for the property owner to bring the property into compliance (15-3). Subsequently, abatement may be conducted by the City (15-5) and charges may be assessed against the property owner (15-6). KLE\5302T294623.01 ATTACHMENT 8 /n KI RG IS-LLP Under Section 15-23, regarding the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings, (c) provides that whenever manure or any other organic material shall accumulate and affect the health of the public, it may be forbidden and designated a nuisance under the provisions of that chapter. Further, under Subsection 15-23(c), it is unlawful and it constitutes a nuisance for any persons to` allow' any premises or use to become offensive in odor, or to create an unsanitary `or hazardous health condition. Zonin Section 26-30(L)(1)(b) provides that manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to accumulate so as to cause a nuisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. The violations and penalties are violations of the zoning code found in Section 26-500 through 503 and include civil actions, fines, and imprisonment. - CHANGES TO EXISTING ORDINANCES As the manure problem appears to be primarily one of enforcement and prosecution rather than lack of existing prohibitions in the Code, we suggest the following revisions to the Nuisance provisions of the Code in order to make it easier for Municipal Court to rule in favor of the City in violations cases and to preclude a finding that the sections are too vague to support conviction and imposition of fines. The new sections provide for increased penalties and for an evidentiary mechanism whereby rather than having to scrutinize pictures of manure accumulations, a court may rely on testimony from neighbors and/or enforcement officials to find a nuisance has been committed.. KLE153027\294623.01 2 -70 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. ..Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, AND 13UILDINGS WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of:. An animal'' officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. KLE\53027\294660.01 -7l Section-2:"'Safewdause. `-The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public_and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preserVkion'of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare: -The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to -the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. - - - INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this day of , 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 1998. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: BPM302M68143.01 2 Animal Control Commission Minutes October 20, 1998 PRESENT: Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Monica Gregerson; Debby Mauldin; Joseph Ashker; Bea Slingsby; Nick Fisher. ABSENT: Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Dr. John Maulsby, Advisor; Greg Feudner; Kim Fear. Prior to the meeting, Nick showed pictures taken with the new remote camera purchased by the City to try to capture pictures of the mountain lion. No mountain lions were seen, but other wildlife (racoons, fox, squirrels) were photographed. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the August 17, 1998 meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Nick distributed a memo and proposed ordinance from the city attorney to Meredith Reckert concerning the odor and manure accumulation issues. Meredith would like to get input from the Animal Control Commission. A discussion was held and committee members liked the Animal Control Commission's earlier recommendations that stipulated "time frames" better. The proposed ordinance looks like it will still be subjected to "opinions". Nick explained that they added a part where animal parks, police, or code officers could use their "reasonable judgement" and that their opinions could be used to satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. After discussion, the following motion was made by Louise, seconded by Bea: If the attorney feels this would be more effective in terms of enforcement, the Animal Control Commission agrees. The Commission also agrees the issue belongs in the nuisance ordinance rather than in the zoning ordinance. We support the new ordinance as presented to us. Motion passed. Nick updated the Commission on the mountain lion issue. There was an informational meeting held on October 5' with DOW. There have been only two confirmed sightings, but none lately. The mountain lion may have marked this area as part of his territory and may be back occasionally. Louise would like to see the Ranger program reinstated. It was a nice, comfortable program. There were three rangers that patrolled the greenbelt as well as presented nature talks. Nick was asked it there had been an increase in crime since the ranger program was discontinued. Nick reported that over all crime has increased. There are not a lot of violent crimes in the greenbelt. There are quite a few vandalism calls and now a lot of first aids at the skate park. ATTACHMENT 9 ~3 NEW BUSINESS: Louise reported that the Kennel Ordinance went before City Council and passed on first reading. Louise was concerned with the specific times listed (lam - 5pm) for inspections to be conducted. Nick reported that Council added the times. Louise made the following motion, seconded by Debby: The Animal Control Commission recommends, upon second reading, that inspections be conducted during "normal, posted business hours Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary 2 ~4 A. Curtis and Kimberly A. Fear 7340 W. 32 Ave. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303-274-9124 (H) November, 28, 1998 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Attn: Barbara Delgadillo 7500 W. 29`h Ave Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 A RECEIVED D EEC 0 119913 Please accept this letter as input for the December 17 Planning Commission meeting. I will, unfortunately, be out of town that evening, however I feel it is vital that my position be heard. I strongly support the amendments to the City's Animal Regulations, as proposed by the Animal Control Commission. These new amendments will not only improve the animal regulations in the City, but should also help reduce neighborhood battles. I believe that feuding neighbors rather than real problems with the animals drive the majority of large animal complaints in this city. Two years ago, my husband and I moved into our house on 32 ° Ave. Shortly thereafter, we brought my horse to the house. She is the reason that we bought this particular piece of property, so that I could have her here. My neighbors dislike the fact that I have the horse at my house. They have raised complaints with the City ranging from animal abuse to nuisance violations for "odor". All charges and accusations were unfounded, and the nuisance violations went to court as well. I feel that these new amendments will help protect the animal owners, such as myself, who DO care for their animals from the vindictiveness of neighbors. Additionally, the regulations should protect the neighbors of those animal owners who DO NOT care for their animals properly. The City should avoid the risk of overreacting to a few problems by attempting to disallow all large animals in the City. Yes, there are a few problems, however for the most part the City has had a long, and successful, relationship with large animals, and humans in the area. The City should not punish all animal owners for the neglect of a few, and worse yet, for the unfounded complaints of disgruntled neighbors. Let us have our animals, on our property, as long as we care for them appropriately. If city employ ees should determine that there are issues around the care and upkeep of animals, deal with the individual property owner at that time. Sincerely, Kimberly A. Fear ATTACHMENT 10 ~S INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. _ Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30 (L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(LL)(1) of the Wheat Rime Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A- 1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. except that only subsection (L)(f)(a) belovv applies to theAgricaltmal zone districts. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) ?9fitrityrtmi area or lot, excluding area co veted by a inain stmeture art attached earpoits or patios, mid excluding detached garages, shall be nit thousand (9000) squate f~ct f6t the first attirrial and aLl additional six thousand (6000) square feet for earh additiortal animal THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, OR FOUR (4) GOATS. (b) Manure or liquid was shall not be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to cause a rittismiee as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The pen cotral or &need area f6r the keeping of sueh animals shall trieet the folio vving requirements, (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (e) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed ofmaterials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 2-.1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3.2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. {d})- (1) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel.- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. (e) (g) NONCONFORMING A-1 AND A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A- 2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE T7 PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (f) OF THIS ORDINANCE. (h) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. _ SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of 1998. 17 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: C\Barbara\CCRPTS\RESO-ORD\zoa980 Lwpd q City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Acredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: February 25, 1999 At the Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 1998 (minutes included as Exhibit `A'), the Commission approved the proposed revisions to the large animal regulations presented as Exhibit `B' (attached) with the exception of the pen cleaning provision of two weeks (section (b)). They had instructed staff to devise a formula whereby smaller pens would be cleaned more often than larger pen. After numerous hours spent on this, staff has concluded that it is impossible to devise a formula which addresses the manure clean-up issue consistently using the parameters of lot size, number of animals and setback from adjacent property line. There are too many variables involved, not to mention the change of seasons. Therefore, we would propose that an arbitrary size limitation be used in determining periods between clean-up. We recommend that pens less than 1000 square feet in size be cleaned every week and that pens 1000 square feet and over be cleaned every two weeks. In support of the one week clean up period for smaller lots is the fact that the incubation period of a fly is from seven to ten days. If the commission is worried about proximity to adjacent residential properties, Section (e)(2) could be revised to have the enclosure setback of 30' from property line rather than adjacent structure. At the December 17 meeting, the commission also continued the proposed revisions to the nuisance ordinance included as Exhibit `C'. Staff is recommending no changes. As staff was in the process of trying to devise a manure removal formula, staff discussed the issues raised by the Commission with Nick Fisher who, in turn, discussed them with ACC at their January 19, 1999 meeting. The ACC moved to keep the two week clean-up period but to specify for residential properties only. They also made a motion to delete paragraph (e) from the changes to the nuisance ordinance. (See minutes included under Exhibit `D'.) Staff would note that this provision for residential properties should include substandard agricultural lots as well. In conclusion, staff recognizes that the proposed legislation probably does not address every potential scenario in the City, but it is a vast improvement over the existing ordinances. We ~?Lo would encourage Planning Commission to recommend approval. It can always be amended in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Animal Regulations: Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be approved for the following reasons: The proposed changes to the clean-up period address different sized corrals in residential zones and on substandard agriculturally zoned lots. 2. With the following condition: Section (b) be revised to read: "For residential lots and substandard sized agricultural lots, manure and liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than one week in corrals less than 1000 square feet in size and more than two weeks in corrals 1000 square feet or larger in size shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Wheat Ridge." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be denied for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." Nuisance Regulations: Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be approved for the following reasons: It will allow personal testimony as prima fascia evidence in court. 2. 3." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be denied for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." gI passed 4-0 with Commissioner SHOCKLEY abstaining and Commissioners BRINKiMAN and THOMPSON absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up. to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01 (Continued from December 3, 1998) An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented a brief history of the proposed ordinances. She reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances. Commissioner SNOW asked if the staff knew how many A-I nonconforming properties existed in the City of Wheat Ridge. Ms. Reckert replied that she didn't know the exact number but could have that information available for the City Council hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW concerning the nuisance ordinance, Mr. Dahl'replied that it has been nearly impossible to enforce the nuisance complaints concerning flies and odor because of lack of evidence. He stated that the proposed ordinance would require complaining parties (one of which would be the City's code enforcement officer) to testify in court as to the nature of the nuisance. He explained that thejudge would then be able to make a decision based upon testimony given in court. Commissioner GOKEY asked about the possibility of disallowing the keeping of large animals in residential areas if a property had not been used for that purpose for a certain number of years. Mr. Dahl stated that, while many metropolitan cities have taken the position that large animals are not appropriate in a small urban situation, it was his understanding that the City of Wheat Ridge does not want to preclude having large animals within the City limits which makes it necessary to address the associated issues. He did note that there is an alternative to make smaller lots legal nonconforming uses that, once interrupted, cannot be used. Commissioner GOKEY stated that he did not necessarily want those people who have large animals to be penalized and lose the right to have the animals on their property; however, as the community goes through transitions, amortizing the keeping of large animals in residential areas may have to be considered. Planning Commission Page 2 12/17/98 EXHIBIT A Commissioner SNOW stated that she does not agree with the idea of amortizing the keeping of large animals. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner was swom in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. She stated that she was appearing on behalf of the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. She stated that she did not agree with Mr. Gokey's comments and that it seemed to be the consensus of Wheat Ridge citizens to continue the keeping of large animals in appropriate areas. She noted, for clarification, that the 9,000 square feet requirement pertains to 9,000 square feet of open area and does not include the areas which contain structures. She noted that this requirement appears to be adequate based on the fact that there have been very few complaints regarding large animals over the years. She stated that the 800 square foot requirement for pen size was originally in the ordinance up until about ten years ago when it was inadvertently left out when the zoning laws were rewritten. She stated that this pen size was recommended by the Animal Control Commission as well as the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association. She also pointed out that the pen size does not relate to horse equivalents units, but is required for each animal. She stated that the limit of four horses per acre was also included in the law long ago under the county and was also inadvertently dropped out at the same time as the pen size regulation. The Livestock Commission suggested that the limit of four horses per acres be put back in the proposed ordinance. The one change that did not come through the Commission was the staff recommendation pertaining to undersized agricultural lots. In view of the fact that undersized lots do exist, she believed this portion of the code made sense. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance as written based upon the recommendations of the Animal Commission, the fact that the nuisance issues have been removed from the zoning ordinance and placed in the nuisance ordinance, and the fact that there is support from the City Attorney as well as public support expressed at the previous hearing, In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Ms. Turner replied that the Livestock Commission's decision regarding the nuisance law was to support the City Attorney's proposals. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that a horse owner who removes his horse from a property to go to summer pasture might lose the right to keep the horse. Mr. Dahl explained that if a property is in conformance with the ordinance, the owner has the right to remove his horses and bring them back at any time. Commissioner MacDOUGALL commented that the problem of manure accumulation is a managerial situation. He stated that he believed a requirement for removal of manure every two weeks would probably solve the situation and that it would probably be necessary to live with the ordinance for awhile to see if it accomplishes its purpose. Planning Commission Page 3 12/17/98 ~3 Bob Rock 4300 Tabor Street Mr. Rock was sworn in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. Mr. Rock stated that he was in agreement with the ordinance; however, he expressed concern about Section B which requires manure to be cleaned up every two weeks. He felt this should depend on the size of the property. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Rock replied that his property is zoned A-2. Commissioner SNOW then advised Mr. Rock that the ordinance does not affect him because it does not apply to agricultural districts. Ms. Reckert affirmed that this was true. Joann Howard 7260 West 31st Place Ms. Howard was sworn in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. She presented photographs of a situation in her neighborhood where a horse is kept by one of the neighbors. She stated that she lives in an area where cul-de-sacs meet and because of setbacks, the horse owner does not have the required 800 square foot pen and that she unable to open her windows in the summer because of the odor. She stated that one of the neighbor's kitchen is only 30 feet from the pen where manure is allowed to accumulate. She asked that these types of situations be addressed in the proposed ordinance. She asked the Commission to consider alternatives such as the City of Golden has instituted which allows the keeping of large animals through a special use permit process where, if the owners do not comply with conditions of approval, they lose the right to keep the animals. She also stated that when she calls the City with a complaint, a representative does not investigate until several days later and there is no one to contact after 5:00 p.m. or on the weekends. Commissioner COLLINS advised Ms. Howard to contact her council member. She replied that she had contacted her council member on several occasions. Commissioner SNOW asked the staff if they had any suggestions to set a ratio of lot size to the time period required for cleanup. She felt that a small lot needed to be cleaned more often than two weeks. Mr. Dahl replied that this could be considered in order to mike the requirements more objective. Mr. White suggested requiring one day for every 100 square feet of pen size which would require, for example, an 800 square foot pen to be cleaned every eight days. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner suggested that rather than coming up with a formula, inserting the words "or as determined by the code enforcement officer." Commissioner MacDOUGALL stated that another solution to manure problems is to add to a small diameter pile every day which, if done on a regular basis, remains hot enough that there would be no flies and very little odor. He commented that this could be determined to be an accumulation but would also be considered proper management. He thought there needed to be an alternative. Planning Commission Page 4 12/17/98 P`I Vice Chairman GOKEY stated that he felt the code enforcement officer needed guidelines such as the one suggested relative to a certain number of square feet being equal to a certain number of days between cleanup. He stated that he felt the situation depicted in Ms. Howard's photographs was offensive, and that smaller confingd areas should be required to be cleaned more frequently than larger areas. He stated that he wanted to see property owners allowed to keep large animals but wanted the care and management of these animals to be enforced. Commissioner SNOW asked if this ordinance had been published for City Council hearing. Ms. Reckert replied that it had not. Commissioner SNOW suggested postponing the hearing on the ordinance until alternative options concerning cleanup could be addressed by the staff Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner MacDOUGALL seconded that the zoning portion of the ordinance be continued and brought back to Planning Commission within three months with proposals to amend paragraph B with suggestions for change as related to the size of the corral and the distance from adjacent residences, and that the proposals be given to the Animal Control Commission for review and comment one month before coming before the Planning Commission. Testimony will be taken at that time only on the amendments to paragraph B. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and THOMPSON absent. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Dahl stated that both of the ordinances should be continued for action only. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner SHOCKLEY seconded that the proposed amendment to the nuisance portion of the Wheat Ridge code of laws be continued to the same date, within three months; and that if there are any suggested changes, the changes go to the Animal Control Commission for consideration and, if not, that the ordinance be heard again with the same language as presented at this meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and THOMPSON absent. (Vice Chairman GOKEY declared a recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 P.M.) B. Case No. WZ-98-16. An application by Kaiser Permanente for approval to zone property located at 4803 Ward Road and known as Kaiser Permanente Medical Center as C-l. This case was presented by Martin Omer. He reviewed the staff report and presented overheads of the subject area. He entered the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, case file, packet Planning Commission Page 5 12/17/98 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. _ Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30 (L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A- 1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. the Agticultural zone distrietT. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals-art-subject fa SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) Nfinirrimn area or lot, excluding area eoveted by a inain struettue an attached cmpo, ts or patios, and excluding detached garages, shall be Tfine thotismid (9080) square feet fbi the first mfirrial mid art additional six thousand (6000) square feet f6i each -!iditiorral mrhn.i THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, OR FOUR (4) GOATS. (b) Manure or liquid was shall not be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE EXHIBIT B 17Cp THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to cattse a nuisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. T'he pen; coirai or ferreed area f6i dre keeping of such anirrials shaff meet the (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (e) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of materials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 2-1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3. 2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent r. parcel. (d)r (f) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel.- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. (e) (g) NONCONFORMING A-1 AND A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A- 2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE F -7 PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (f) OF THIS ORDINANCE. (h) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. _ SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to ,this day of 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: C:\Bubm\CCRPTS\RESO-ORD\zoa9801.wpd g9 - CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. ...Ordinance No. TITLE: AN ORDINANCE RIDGE CODE APPLICABLE TO AND $UILDINGS Series of 1998 AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such as odors and flies. . BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) . For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of. • An animal" officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. KLE\53027\294660.01 EXHIBIT C Section`2.°-Safety Clause: `-The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated: for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary. for the preservation.of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare: The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. . - - - - INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 1998. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: BP1\53027\268143.01 91 Animal Welfare and Control Commission Minutes January 19, 1999 PRESENT. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Louise Turner; Bea Slingsby; Kim Fear; Nick Fisher. Visitors: Karin Heine. ABSENT. Dr. John Maulsby, Advisor; Greg Feudnbr; Monica Gregerson; Joseph Ashker; Debby Mauldin. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the October 20, 1998 meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Louise and Kim updated the Commission on the recent Planning Commission meeting regarding large animals. The Planning Commission was hung-up on the two week clean up requirement. The "manure" issue has been sent back to the AWCC for a recommendation. The discussion centered around size of lot and weather conditions. Some properties need to be cleaned more often than others. Dr. Hilsenroth thought maybe the issues being discussed are overreactions to one or two isolated problems in the City. At least one of the horse problems is a neighborhood feud. After discussion, the Commission decided to leave the two week time frame in and to add "in a residential area" to eliminate the restriction on agricultural properties. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise: Manure or liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than two (2) weeks "in a residential area "shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement officer and regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. Motion passed. The Commission also discussed section 15-23 concerning regulations applicable to the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings. Section (e) concerns the AWCC. This section allows two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign a complaint and shall testify at trial regarding a nuisance - this shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section. There is at least one neighborhood in particular that, if this passed, would have two separate households calling in complains. This should not constitute prima facie evidence. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise: to strike section (e) in Section 15-23 of the neat Ridge Code of Laws. Motion passed. The kennel ordinance and name change passed!! The commission is now the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. There have been no new mountain lion sightings. APEO went out on a call which turned out to be coyote tracks. EXHIBIT D 91 NEW BUSINESS: Council would like the Commission to look into changing the rabies vaccination requirement from annually to three years. Nick reported that there is currently a bill before the legislature that would change the requirement. A discussion was held concerning compliance, over vaccinating, vets would like to see animals every year, rabies tags are currently used for identification purposes. If the rabies requirement goes to every three years maybe an ID should be required. Nick also reported that Arvada and Westminster have already passed an ordinance honoring multi-year vaccinations. Nick to attend a Jeffco-wide meeting on January 20th to discuss the issue. Dr. Maulsby may also have info on the issue. It was decided that the rabies issue would be tabled and discussed at the next meeting. Nick reported that a new APEO was hired in December and resigned after two weeks. Another APED, Chad Eshleman, was hired the end of'December. i Louise had a concern regarding a goat being attacked by a wolf-hybrid and then having the wolf- hybrid released in Table Mountain,, Nick explained that the wolf-hybrid was not released in the wild but was actually released to Table Mountain Animal Center. The owner was issued a summons and Nick will check status of court case. Louise wondered if wolf-hybrids should be considered exotic animals. Nick wouldn't be in favor of a "breed" specific ordinance. Denver's pit bull ordinance has been hard to enforce. It was decided that wolf-hybrids would not be added to the exotic animal list. ADJOURNMENT.- There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner GOKEY moved and Commissioner COLLINS seconded to approve the minutes of the February 18, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner DOYLE abstaining and Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. 6. - PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01 (Continued from December 17, 1998) An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented a history of the proposed ordinances. She stated that this case was continued from the December 17, 1998 Planning Commission at which time the Commission was in favor of the proposed changes with the exception of the pen cleaning provision. There was consensus at the hearing that regulations for clean-up should be based upon the size of pen or corral. After further research and review, staff is now recommending requirements for corrals less than 1,000 square feet to be cleaned once a week and corrals 1,000 square feet and over to be cleaned every two weeks. This recommendation is intended, in part, to give code enforcement officers some firm guidelines for enforcement of the ordinance. Ms. Reckert stated that Nick Fisher, staff representative to the Animal Welfare and Control Commission, reported that a motion was made at the Commission meeting of January 19, 1999 that the two-week clean-up period be specified for residential properties only and that paragraph E be deleted from the nuisance ordinance. Staff is recommending that the two- week cleanup period for residential properties should also apply to substandard agricultural properties. Staff is also recommending that an additional phrase be added to the condition of the suggested motion for approval as follows: "and by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15." Commissioner GOKEY expressed concern about the lack of definitive guidelines in determining clean-up violations. Mr. White commented that, since this will be very difficult to monitor, the best solution seems to be the suggested change to the nuisance ordinance which requires testimony.to be presented in court by two or more neighbors from separate households. Planning Commission 03/04/99 Page 2 qq Ms. Reckert stated that she had thoroughly researched the clean-up matter with many experts who had differing opinions as to the amount of time that should be required to clean up manure. Commissioner MACDOUGALL stated that Colorado State University is working on manure management in residential areas but has not, as yet, reached a solution. Ms. Reckert commented that she spoke with a Dr. Ann Swinker from CSU who was of the opinion that a two-week clean-up requirement was reasonable. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested that the words "private stables" in Section 1 (L) (1) be changed to "as an accessory use at a private residence." She also stated that she had received comments from citizens who felt that the 800 square foot requirement was too large for smaller yards and were in favor of reducing the requirement to 300-500 square feet. Chair BRINKMAN invited public comment. The following individuals addressed the Commission: Diane Christensen 4311 Tabor Street Ms. Christensen stated that she was in favor of reducing the 800 square foot pen requirement and also requested that compost piles be permitted. Tracy Dowson 28546 Golden Gate Canyon Road, Golden Mr. Dowson spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County Horse Council. She stated that the Council attempts to educate horse owners in the proper care of their animals, composting methods, etc. She asked if the proposed ordinance addressed weather conditions such as extended freezing temperatures which would prevent clean-up. Ms. Reckert replied that this situation is not specifically addressed. Ms. Dowson stated that the one of the state standards for horse equivalent units is that two horses are equal to one cow in contrast to the proposed ordinance which indicates one horse is equal to one cow. She stated that she felt this ordinance would be extremely difficult to enforce. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Dowson what the Horse Council recommended for pen sizes. She replied that, due to variables in types of horse management, it is difficult to come up with one required size. David Murphy 12710 West 42nd Avenue Mr. Murphy asked if there had been numerous complaints which precipitated this ordinance. He stated that his neighbors have horses and there has never been a problem in his area. He suggested that if horse pens are not cleaned properly, it may be a matter for the Humane Society or similar organization. He expressed concern that property values could be reduced Planning Commission Page 3 03/04/99 1 if horses are no longer allowed on a nonconforming property. He expressed concern that this ordinance-will be very difficult to enforce. Ms. Reckert explained that if a nonconforming property does not meet new regulations, the right to keep animals is transferable as long as the keeping of horses does not cease for more than sixty days. Shirlene Mekelberg 4596 Parfet Ms. Mekelberg agreed with comments made by Tracy Dowson of the Jefferson County Horse Council and stated that she was not in favor of regulating pen size. Bonnie R. Botham 3380 Pierce Street Ms. Botham stated that she has been a member of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association since its inception and stated that this Association would be willing to assist in the area of education, etc. when problems arise in neighborhoods. Chair BRINKMAN asked if the Association had been involved in the recent cases which precipitated this ordinance. Ms. Botham replied that she did not know whether the group had assisted in these two situations. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner stated that she is a member of the Wheat Ridge Animal Welfare and Control Commission (formerly known as the Wheat Ridge Animal Commission) and stated that the 800 square foot pen requirement originated with the Jefferson County Horsemen's Association and became part of the code of laws when Wheat Ridge was incorporated. She explained that this portion of the code was inadvertently omitted when the entire zoning law was rewritten in 1989. She stated that the Commission recommended the 800 square foot pen size. In response to Mr. Murphy's previous question about complaints, she stated that there have only been two complaints over a period of thirty years, both of which occurred in July, 1998. She stated that the Commission originally stated they would support the city attorney's recommendations regarding the nuisance law; however, upon a review of the ordinance, the Commission is now requesting that the requirement for two witnesses to appear in court be deleted. She explained that she had personally checked the situation at 32nd and Upham on more than one occasion and had never seen a problem with manure accumulation; however, there were two neighbors who complained vigorously. She stated that she was not involved with the other complaint situation. She also stated that she was in favor of allowing composting. Commissioner THOMPSON asked staff to comment on the request to delete this portion of the ordinance. Mr. White replied that this would take the city back to the position of having Planning Commission Page 4 03/04/99 q la no means of enforcement. He stated that, since animal waste and odor problems are difficult to prove in court, this requirement would give a judge and jury a basis of testimony to use as evidence in trying nuisance complaints. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON regarding the wording concerning private stables, Ms. Turner replied that she felt people should have the right to keep animals on lots where there are no residences. Chair BRINKMAN asked if it would be possible to add wording to the ordinance which would require witnesses from two separate households as well as the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. Ms. Turner stated that her inspections were not performed as a representative of the Animal Welfare and Control commission, but on behalf of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association which is an organization which polices large animal owners. If it appears that animals are not being properly cared for, the Association will approach the owner and ask that they correct the situation. Mr. White stated that he would prefer to have the city's animal and parks officer provide back-up opinions in these situations. Joann Howard 7260 West 31st Place Ms. Howard stated that her property is adjacent to horse property which continually causes odor problems at her residence and in her street. She presented photographs of the horse property to members of the Commission for their review. She stated that she didn't think it would be proper to have a member of the Animal Welfare Commission member take part in regulation of nuisance problems because her neighbor was a member of that Commission. Ms. Reckert stated that the subject horse pen has been moved twice, and is still thirty feet from adjacent neighbors which meets the requirement that the enclosure be located thirty feet away from a main structure (not thirty feet from the property line). Ms. Howard stated that moving the pen had not alleviated the odor problem. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she could understand Ms. Howard's problem and asked Ms. Howard to comment on the proposed nuisance ordinance. Ms. Howard replied that she thought the nuisance ordinance was ridiculous and that she would like to see each property considered individually on the basis of its impact on surrounding neighbors. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested the possibility of requiring certain properties in situations such as this one to be cleaned more often. Planning Commission 03/04/99 Page 5 Ms. Howard suggested instituting use permits similar to those used by the City of Golden. Ms. Reckert stated that the reason Golden adopted the right to use permit was in order to craft something for each property; however, this permit process doesn't seem to be the sentiment of the citizens of Wheat Ridge. Chair BRINKMAN commented that, after looking at maps of Wheat Ridge, Ms. Howard's neighborhood seems to be the only area in Wheat Ridge where a subdivision has designed two cul-de-sacs to back up to each other this drastically. Commissioner DOYLE asked if the pictures were taken over a one day, one week, or one month span. Ms. Howard replied that she didn't know because she had not taken the pictures. She also stated that the photos were taken two years ago. K. W. Penn 4675 Parfet Street Mr. Penn asked about the continuous use requirement. He stated that his property is under a half-acre and he has two horses, one of which will be removed from the property for approximately one year for breeding purposes and asked, in the event something should happen to his remaining horse, if he would lose the right to keep horses on his property. He asked how horse equivalent units would apply to miniature horses. He also commented that the ordinances are trying to address two complaints while there have never been any problems with horse properties in his neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Ms. Reckert stated that Mr. Penn would not lose the right to keep a horse, if he doesn't have continuous use, because of the provision for A-1 substandard lots requirement for 9,000 square feet. Mr. Penn asked if he was going to have rebuild his stud pens. Chair BRINKMAN replied that he would not. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. White stated that if a lot size is correct for a horse and the pen size is correct, it is not nonconforming because the use is grand fathered in. Chair BRINKMAN declared a recess at 9:05 to give opportunity for the staff to discuss the continuous use on nonconforming properties. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Mr. White corrected his previous statement regarding continuous use on nonconforming properties. He stated that, as the ordinance is presently written, a horse owner in a nonconforming situation would be allowed to keep the nonconforming status unless the horse is away from the property for two months or longer. Planning Commission Page 6 03/04/99 ~g Chair BRINKMAN requested that staff notify Mr. Penn of this error since he had already left the meeting. Ms. Reckert stated that she would definitely contact Mr. Penn, and commented that it is difficult for staff to make determinations during meetings without the benefit of zoning maps and site layouts showing positions of buildings, etc. Chair BRINKMAN stated that the issue of continuous use is not covered for A-1 and A-2 properties and asked if this was the intention of the ordinance. Ms. Reckert replied that this was probably an oversight and that it should apply. Kim Fear 7340 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Fear stated that her property is the subject of the photographs submitted by Ms. Howard. She stated that as soon as she was notified by the Code Enforcement officers, she moved her pen. She moved the pen a second time after Code Enforcement came back and told her that the pen needed to be 15 feet inside the property line. She stated that second time she moved the pen was due to an error on the part of code enforcement. She stated that her property is conforming in that she has 10,000 square foot of land and her pen is 942 square feet and would still be conforming under the new regulations. She stated that since the pictures were taken, she has been very conscientious in cleaning the pen two to three times a week and more during summer months and that she doesn't have trouble with odor in her house. She stated that she is doing her best to be accommodating but that she didn't think her neighbor will be satisfied until her horse is removed from the property. She stated that she is a member of the Animal Commission and agreed with Ms. Howard that it would present a conflict of interest to have the Commission involved. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if it would be possible to add a sentence in the ordinance to the effect that in specific cases, as determined by code enforcement officers, more frequent cleaning could be required to address particular situations. Ms. Reckert stated that this was discussed at a previous hearing and the city attorney was uncomfortable with giving that discretion to a code enforcement officer. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested adding another person such as the animal parks enforcement officer. Mr. White stated that he would not want a code enforcement officer to be acting as policeman and judge out in the field, but perhaps there was a way to include recommendations from both a code enforcement officer and an animal parks enforcement officer. Rick Lopez 10755 West 46th Avenue Mr. Lopez stated that he was in favor of the proposed ordinance but was concerned about Commissioner THOMPSON's suggestions to require extra cleaning in certain situations. Planning Commission Page 7 03/04/99 Wayne Wendell 3430 Vivian Court Mr. Wendell sated that there are a number of lots in Wheat Ridge that meet the square footage requirements to have a horse but would present an immediate source of problems to the neighbors. He did not think the proposed ordinance will be a solution to all the problems that could occur with horse properties within Wheat Ridge. Diane Christensen returned to the podium and asked if her land was agricultural. Ms. Reckert informed Ms. Christensen that her property was zoned A-1 and in order to have a horse, she has to have 9,000 square feet of open space plus an 800 square foot pen. Mr. Christensen asked if composting is allowed. Mr. White replied that his interpretation of the ordinance is that if the compost pile is not offending adjacent properties by either odor or flies, then a compost pile would not be in violation. Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were others present who wished to address the Commission. There was no response. Commissioner THOMPSON moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that Case No. ZOA-98-0 1, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be approved for the following reasons: The proposed changes to the clean-up period address different sized corrals in residential zones and on substandard agriculturally zoned lots. With the following condition: Section (b) be revised to read: "for residential lots and substandard sized agricultural lots, manure and liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than one week in corrals less than 1,000 square feet in size and more than two weeks in corrals 1,000 square feet or larger in size shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Wheat Ridge and by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. 2. Sections (L) (1) (a) be amended to include two ponies as a horse equivalent. Commissioner MACDOUGALL stated that, based upon his previous experience in dealing with manure management issues while employed by the Health Department, he felt it will be difficult to enforce the ordinance. Chair BRINKMAN offered the following amendments: That the words "liquid was" in Section (L) (1) (b) be changed to "liquid waste." Planning Commission Page 8 03/04/99 100 2. That Section (L) (1) (g) and (L) (1) (h) be swapped for the sake of consistency. The amendments were accepted by Commissioners THOMPSON and GOKEY. Mr. White asked for clarification regarding section (L) (1) concerning private stables. Commissioner THOMPSON replied that after hearing Ms. Turner's comments, she was satisfied with the present wording. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. Commissioner COLLINS moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that Case No. ZOA- 98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be approved for the following reason: It will allow personal testimony as prima fascia evidence in court. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BRINKMAN declared the public hearing portion of the meeting closed. 9. OLD BUSINESS A. State Beauty Supply Chair BRINKMAN stated that lighting in the rear of this property shines directly into neighboring yards on the east of the property and asked that staff contact the owners to redirect the lights. B. DRCOG 20 20 Plan Commissioner THOMPSON asked if staff would look into the feasibility of purchasing the Ridge Home property as open space under the DRCOG's 20 20 buffering plan. C. Lingerie Modeling Businesses Commissioner THOMPSON asked if staff had been able to address this issue. Mr. White replied that the city attorney is presently reviewing the appropriate regulations. D. Absence Commissioner GOKEY stated that he will be out of town from March 20 through March 28. E. COMP PLAN Hearings Mr. White distributed copies of material for discussion at the next Comprehensive Plan hearing to be held on March 18, 1999. Planning Commission Page 9 03/04/99 o by: G11Y Oh WHtAI H1Urit a~ucur.+acv, ~vf,.,fa, i..»f n,,~caloa ---f•-e MEMORANDUM TO: GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNFY FROM: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: LOT SIZE FOR HORSE PROPERTY Dear Jerry, Ms. JoAnne Howard, 7260 W. 31' Place, came into the clerk's office today to check on the code section addressing the square footage for horse property in R-1 Zoning. Ms. Howard questioned the comments that were made at a city council meeting and at an animal control commission meeting, that the corral size for properties with large animals had inadvertently been left out of the code during re-codification. T remember it being said in a city council meeting and I was surprised that it was the first time I had heard anything about it. However, Ms. Howard is objecting to the fact that just because the lot size was inadvertently left out is not a reason to abandon the requirements. Ms. Howard also questioned the R-1 district zoning. She stated that when she went to court on October 6, 1997, one witness stated that she rented a basement apartment in the residence that has the horse in question and lived 15 feet from the horse and it had no smell. How can a. R- I residence have a rental? For your information, the re-codification was finished in 1987. No one has asked for the code to be amended to have the square footage verbiage re-inserted into the code. My question to you is how do 1 answer this citizen's questions, if there is an answer. 1 need to know this information flor my own benefit, since it is in regards to the codification of the City code, which 1 am responsible for. Also for your information, the property in question is 7340 W. 32' Ave. Thank you, cc:~Is_ JoAnne Howard ~aa 10/07/97 TUE 13:44 [TX/RX NO 72101 Th6 ly of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80215-6713 - (303) 234.5900 GWh e at City Admin. Fax 234.5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235.2949 ';Ridge January 29, 1998 Ms. JoAnne Howard 7260 W. 31st Place Wheat Ridge, CO -80215 Dear JoAnne: I am responding to a question that you posed to the Wheat Ridge City Clerk regarding provisions of the City. Code pertaining to corral sizes for large animals. As you have become aware, there is certainly some level of confusion regarding the status of our Code requirements on corral size for large animals. A number of Councilmembers have indicated that the provision used to exist within the City Code and apparently said provision was dropped in a future amendment process. In the past, while there may have been provisions regarding corral size for large animals, the fact that they are not within the current City Code means that my staff cannot enforce the old provisions. We can only use the provisions and the words that are provided for us in the document. While it is not possible to address minimum corral size under,* current Code provisions, as you are also aware there is a process' being undertaken by the Planning Commission to review the large animal regulations within our community to address among other items, the minimum corral size that should be required. It will be important for the members of the Planning Commission to hear your specific concerns as part of their discussion. By copy of this letter, I will be asking that the Planning Department notify you of upcoming Planning Commission discussions regarding the large animal regulations. You may choose to attend the specific meetings or share your concerns by letter as you prefer. I have also asked the Planning Department to investigate the question you posed regarding a rental unit in the basement of the RECYCLED PAPER property at 7340 W. 32nd Avenue. If there is an illegal rental or inappropriate land use, we will take the appropriate corrective action. Sincerely, Robert C. Middaug City Manager cc: Wanda Sang, City Clerk Jerry Dahl, City Attorney Jerry DiTullio, Councilmember, Dist. I Lloyd Donnelly, Councilmember, Dist. I i, "The' Carnation City" 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 May 15, 1998 The City of Tim and Anne Osterlow 3295 Independence Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dear Tim and Anne: Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Wheat Ridge By sheer coincidence, I noticed a letter to the Editor in our local newspaper regarding your concerns with the adjoining property owner. While I have tried to make my position very clear in several conversations in the past, it appears as if a written communication might be more appropriate at this juncture. As you are well aware, the City has frequently inspected the Redigers' property in response to your concerns with their keeping of horses and the condition of their property. In one instance, a citation was issued which subsequently was dismissed from Court for lack of appropriate supporting evidence. In none of our other inspections has a violation been detected which would be grounds for a citation from the City of Wheat Ridge. As you correctly point out the current City codes do have a provision which enables me to provide for the abatement of a nuisance within our community. To utilize this provision of the City Code, there must be a situation that exists that would warrant an enforcement action by the City of Wheat Ridge which could be corrected by the abatement process. The first action required in an abatement undertaking is to notify the property owner of the violation and to provide a time frame in which the violation must be corrected prior to an abatement undertaking. In the situation involving your adjoining property owner, since there is no violation I cannot comply with the first requirement of the abatement proceedings. Absent a violation of City Code, the abatement process is not available for enforcement purposes. To undertake an abatement process, absent a violation, would put the City in a situation of entering a person's private property, performing work on that property, and then attempting to lien said property without legal support or justification. The City would be exposed to litigation and a very appropriately leveled charge of abuse of governmental authority. In the event that a situation occurs with the adjoining property which is actionable by the City, we will, of course, respond and take appropriate measures to address and correct the situation under our current codes and ordinances. As I have informed you in the past the best opportunity to have your concerns addressed is to /0s- CO RECYCLED PAPER seek a change in the City's current codes regarding the keeping of animals so that there is actually a law which the City can enforce. This very review of the City's codes is being undertaken now by the Planning Commission and will ultimately be forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration at some point in the future. Your concerns need to and should be expressed in the Planning Commission meetings and before the City Council so that the concerns which you are experiencing with your adjoining property owner are properly heard and can be incorporated into the discussion of the Planning Commission and the City Council. While I appreciate the concerns you have expressed, there currently is no legal authority which the City can exercise to address your concern and change the behavior of the adjacent property owner. Sincerely, Robert C. Middaugh City Manager cc: Mayor and City Council L5.15 /a( "The Carnation City" Z.O i A. Curtis and Kimberly A. Fear 7340 W. 32 Ave. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303-274-9124 (H) November, 28, 1998 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Attn: Barbara Delgadillo 7500 W. 296' Ave Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 RECEIVED DEC 0 11998 Please accept this letter as input for the December 17 Planning Commission meeting. I will, unfortunately, be out of town that evening, however I feel it is vital that my position be heard. I strongly support the amendments to the City's Animal Regulations, as proposed by the Animal Control Commission. These new amendments will not only improve the animal regulations in the City, but should also help reduce neighborhood battles. I believe that feuding neighbors rather than real problems with the animals drive the majority of large animal complaints in this city. Two years ago, my husband and I moved into our house on 32 d Ave. Shortly thereafter, we brought my horse to the house. She is the reason that we bought this particular piece of property, so that I could have her here. My neighbors dislike the fact that I have the horse at my house. They have raised complaints with the City ranging from animal abuse to nuisance violations for "odor". All charges and accusations were unfounded, and the nuisance violations went to court as well. I feel that these new amendments will help protect the animal owners, such as myself, who DO care for their animals from the vindictiveness of neighbors. Additionally, the regulations should protect the neighbors of those animal owners who DO NOT care for their animals properly. The City should avoid the risk of overreacting to a few problems by attempting to disallow all large animals in the City. Yes, there are a few problems, however for the most part the City has had a long, and successful, relationship with large animals, and humans in the area. The City should not punish all animal owners for the neglect of a few, and worse yet, for the unfounded complaints of disgruntled neighbors. Let us have our animals, on our property, as long as we care for them appropriately. If ci emolovees should determine that there are issues around the care and upkeep of animals, deal with the individual property owner at that time. Sincerely, Ie`~ Kimberly A. Fear N THIS IS - WHAT HAPPENS WHEN .A FLY LANDS O YOUR -FOOD FLIES CAN'T [AT SOLID FOOD, to TO 'SOrTEN IT UP THEY VOMIT CU IT. ,.02. `ILK THEY STAMP THt VOMIt IN UNTIL IT'S A LIQUI[i. URELSUAttY STAMPING III a FEW GERMS FOR GOOD MEAS THEN WHEN IT'S COOD AND RUNNY THEY SUCK IT BACK AGAIN, PROBABLY DROPPING SGML EXCREMENT AT THE SAME TIME. A.NU THEN, WHEN THEY'VE HNISH11) tATING, . IT'S YOUR TURN 1,5 ils c< pa5tfr d 0 fr; h,7 i4 IpyedorS L, s i r So you think zoning issues are someone else's worry, another citizen's responsibility? You're as snug as a bug with your few/many horses on your few/many acres, going along as you've always done, possibly even planning an upgrade-a new bam, a better fence, an indoor arena-that couldn't possibly be anyone's business but your own. Now hear this: Unless you're a day's ride from civilization, your business or pleasure of keeping horses usually is somebody else's concern, whether you're aware of it or not. That somebody could be a disgruntled private citizen, a real estate developer or a public official. All can have an effect on local land-use and building regulations-the sorts of ordinances generally lumped under the heading of "zoning," and the most common means of influ- encing how citizens keep and use horses. Try this real-life case on for size: Husband and wife decide to build the boarding stable of their dreams in an agriculturally zoned area within an urban district. Three quarters of the way through construction of the 40-stall facility, the question of the business aspect of the operation is raised. Shouldn't this be zoned as a commercial, not an agricultural, property? And if that's the case, shouldn't this horse business have the same parking facilities and curbs and light- ing that are required of all other businesses covered by the ordinances? The permit is pulled; construction is halted; money is siphoned off into legal expenses; anticipated income is delayed and delayed, a dream grows tattered about the edges. Maybe you're just a few-horse, hobby kind of /,0q owner who can't really relate to the scale of that prob- By Julie L lem. See if this zoning set-to seems a little closer to Fershtman, home: For no greater reason than some neighborhood attorney at law ill will between a horse owner and a nonowner, the government of a suburban municipality decides to change zoning ordinances to reduce the number of horses allowed per lot and increase the minimum lot [ size for horsekeeping from one acre to two. This change will effectively eliminate half the horsekeepers in the area and create a real quandary for the few 7 owners whose mazes are pregnant and soon to pro- duce illegal third horses on their lots. To add annoyance to injury, a third proposed zoning change bans the use oft= the electric "hot wires" many owners attach to their (required) wood fences as insurance against breakouts. Suddenly, - horsepeople who have enjoyed their small properties without quibble since the start of the subdivision real- ize how tenuous their security is. The problem of horse-harmful zoning N HORSES affects owners across the country and threatens to worsen into the next millennium. Peo- K pie are escaping city life PA R in large numbers to seek more rural en- vironments to call home. Some are horsepeople themselves, seeking the space and free- dom to enjoy their hobby, but 93 Here's how to win friends for your equestrian interests and influence local zoning decisions. Riders often must share public recreation areas with other outdoors enthusiasts. ED GAMELLI most newcomers do not understand or appreciate the horses that are just part of the scenery to longtime residents. The mix of new and established property owners provides a particularly incendiary situation for land-use disagreements. As an individual and as part of the larger horse community, you can protect your equestrian interests by learning how the system works and how best to work the system. Then, when you get involved in the process, you'll have effective ways to avoid conflicts, or, if you do have to take a stand against ordinances that threaten to squeeze the life out of the local equestrian community, you will have maximized your chances for success. 94 EQUUS 24] 1/a What is zoning? Cities, villages, townships and counties have the power to enact regulations, known as ordinances, that are effective within their territorial bounds. Ordi- nances that regulate the use of land and buildings in- volve "zoning." By constitutional authority, zoning and other land-use ordinances are intended to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. Such ordi- nances typically follow-and must be consistent with-the community's comprehensive land-use plan (often called a "master plan"). Communities began enacting zoning ordinances in the early 1900s, mainly to control congested areas as society became mechanized. Over time, however, the objectives have diversified to include ■ stabilizing property values, ■ regulating population density, ■ avoiding conflicting land uses between neigh- boring properties, ■ reducing fire hazards, ■ planning the community's land-use needs well into the future. A typical zoning ordinance categorizes the munici- pality into zones (for example, A-1 for agricultural uses and A-2 for agricultural and rural residential uses) and then describes what land uses are permitted or prohibited within those classifications. Zoning ordinances can also regulate other provisions and aspects of land use. S~ Local legislative bodies that adopt zon- ing ordinances do not necessarily draft them themselves. Rather, in many com- munities, the local government delegates much of this work to a subcommittee known as a zoning (or planning) board (or commission). Before formally recommend- ing new or changed zoning ordinances to the local legislative body, this board must first evaluate the need for the ordinance and invite public involvement through notice procedures established by law. After that, the zoning board prepares a draft ordinance for public comment. Once hearings conclude, the group votes on whether to recommend adoption of the ordinance. With an affirmative vote, the proposed ordinance advances to the city council or, other municipal governing body for final approval. Before that body votes on the ordinance, however, another round of public hearings takes place. What does a typical horse-related ordinance include? Specifications in horse-related zoning ordinances typically address safety, health and appearance issues. They may include ■ minimum lot sizes for family dwellings. ■ maximum number of horses per acre. ■ maximum number of buildings per lot. ■ setback restrictions for fencing and hams, specifying the minimum distance from a property line or street that a build- ing, fence or arena can be erected. ■ height restrictions for structures and fences on the lot. ■ restrictions on the percentage of a lot that can be covered by buildings or other structures. ■ "horse permits," requiring people to file an application, sometimes annually, and perhaps pay an associated fee to keep horses (and, in some cases, adjacent land- owners may even have the opportunity to challenge issuance of these permits). ■ equestrian-district or agricultural zon- ing with large lot sizes set as minimums. ■ restrictions on business uses of the property, such as boarding, training or lessons. ■ permitted fencing materials, types and heights. Why do zoning battles erupt? Zoning disagreements between horse people and others in the community tend to arise from two basic types of proposals: land-use changes and variances. Proposed zoning or land-use changes: The municipality or roperty owners can pro- 0 The most trusted name for Thoroughbreds SIXTY YEARS OF SERVICE FOR THE PROFESSIONAL HORSE INDUSTRY The effective, clean and invigorating rub that quickly stimulates superficial circulation and reduces soreness resulting from fatigue or strain. BIGELOIL, diluted with water, makes a refreshing brace or body wash when applied to tired, overheated animals after strenuous muscular activity. Unmatched for: *BUCKED SHINS • WRENCHED TENDONS *SORENESS eSWELLING •TIGHTNESS • EXERTION *PAIN FROM INJURY *SKIN IRRITATIONS The Perfect Antiseptic For CUTS, WOUNDS, & ABRASIONS AVAILABLE THROUGH YOUR LOCAL DEALER O W. F. YOUNG, INC. SPRINGFIELD, MA 01102 www.absorbine.com EQUUS 247 97 Where do zoning ordinances come Won? BIGELOIL Five strategies for protecting horse- friendly zoning ® Become active in your community. By participating in community groups that sponsor worthwhile events, you'll meet others and show them that you're a reasonable, likable person who shares their concerns. Community organizations often serve as feeder groups for leaders in community government, and, sooner or later, fellow association members will end up on the city council, planning commission or zoning board of appeals. They'll remember you. Perhaps you'll become a local decision maker yourself, able to have a positive influence on local horse-related issues. As a member of my town's planning commission, I helped local government evaluate new land-use ordi- nances. Some of the proposed ordinances directly affected horse owners, including one that concerned large animals and others relating to fence types and locations. Keep your horse facility as neat and clean as possible. It's hard to argue that a neat, properly maintained horse facility threatens property values or commu- nity safety and health. Opponents of horse- favorable zoning eagerly seek examples of rundown horse farms that detract from neigh- boring property values. Don't even give them a chance; start with your own facility. The oppor- tunities are endless: Remove horse droppings from the road, paint the barn, clean out all rubbish, relocate manure piles, seed bare pastures, add flowers, touch up the fencing. Keep your nonhorse•owning neighbors happy. Who typically leads the battle against horses in suburban communities? Disgruntled neighbors who have never owned a horse. You may not get them to share your love of horses, but you cannot afford to ignore their concerns. Make all of your neighbors comfortable with your horse facility. Inform them of plans to install fencing or structures near property borders, even if you have no legal obligation to do so. In my own experience, I relocated part of my new pasture fencing after negotiating the line with my neighbors. In the long term, the loss of pas- ture space was a worthwhile investment: My neighbors are happy; they enjoy my horses; they respect-and have never forgotten-the fact that I accommodated them. Be responsible. If you live in a community like mine, where horse facilities are not common, remember that you're in the public eye every minute. Respect others' property and privacy. Don't trample or cut across someone else's property without permission. Set an example for other horse owners in your area. Get organized. In any battle that involves horses and zoning, there is strength in numbers. The struggle to keep horses in your community is an ongoing one. The slightest hint of trouble should find you actively seeking out allies, whether they're horse owners or horse admirers. But why wart for that? Drive (or ride) around the community to find properties that stable horses. Introduce yourself, exchange phone numbers, and share information about local government candidates known to have anti-horse or pro- horse leanings.--/ulie Fershtman L pose changes to the way in which land in the community has previously been used. Sometimes the proposals aim to make it harder to keep horses (although horse supporters can always seek changes through their local government to make zoning favorable to equestrian interests). Horses may also become unintended casualties of other proposals, as when a developer petitions to rezone property formerly used as riding trails to allow con- struction of a new subdivision, shopping center or other facility. Variances: What if you wish to expand your barn, but your plans run afoul of a setback restriction requiring at least a 50-foot distance from the barn to the edge of your property? Even though your proposal would violate the law, you still can petition your local government for a variance. The process differs by municipality, but variances typically are issued through an entity known as the zoning board of appeals or board of ad- justment. This body reviews special mat- ters and hardship cases and has the power to officially recommend that the property owner can deviate from the black-letter language of the ordinance. Variances are more likely to be issued if the deviation is minor, and if the existing ordinance would impose a hardship or other diffi- culty on the property owner. The entity that considers your variance petition, aside from evaluating the merits of your proposal, takes into account your neighbors' concerns as well. Before the variance hearing, the municipality gives notice to owners of property located with- in a certain distance of your property. The notice advises nearby landowners that you have petitioned for a variance, de- scribes the nature of the variance and gives the date and time of the variance- petition hearing. With that information, those landowners will have the opportu- nity to attend the hearing and voice their comments-positive or negative-about the proposed variance and whether it should be granted. After the variance peti- tion has progressed through that stage, hearings may follow before the planning commission and later before the munici- pal governing body. How can zoning battles be avoided? If you plan to buy property with the goal of stabling horses on it, get clear, reli- able and (preferably) written answers to the following questions before you sign any contracts or part with your money. What is the property's zoning classifica- tion? A visual inspection of the property's current use tells little about its permitted future use. Conflicts may be waiting to happen if, for example, you buy property that has housed the seller's own horses, but plan to transform it later into an oper- ation for horse breeding, boarding, train- ing or riding instruction. If the property was zoned for residential or agricultural purposes, the municipality-correctly or not-might classify your new use as "commercial" and assert that it runs afoul of the zoning laws. Will local ordinances affect lliture fencing plans? Local ordinances specifying wood fencing only may affect your subsequent choice to install metal or vinyl fencing. In such cases, you're virtually assured of an appearance before your community's zon- ing board of appeals. The same holds true if your planned fencing does not meet height and setback restrictions. Will zoning ordinances and restrictions allow the addition of new structures, such as another residence, a managers residence, new barns or an indoor arena.? If not, get very reliable assurances (possibly from a knowl- edgeable lawyer) that you will ultimately secure the proper municipal approvals or are likely to prevail in litigation against the municipality to bring your building plans to reality. In this situation, you will need to be patient, and you should budget for legal and professional fees if you ex- pect to enjoy your land as intended. Does the municipality have manure- disposal restrictions? Your operating costs will change substantially if you are pre- vented from spreading manure or must comply with detailed waste-management procedures. What can be done to protect horse interests? No matter how carefully you investi- gate and comply with zoning ordinances in everything you do inside the confines of your own property lines, issues outside your perimeter fence can jump up and change your life if you don't remain alert and willing to take action. If your community is now considering a proposed new ordinance or an ordi- nance change that will somehow affect the keeping and enjoyment of horses, the following strategies will improve your chances of successful intervention: ■ In preparation The way you go about entering the decision-making process will have a lot to do with the outcome you achieve. Remember your audience. The people who run the hearings or meetings of the planning commission or local governing body typically are municipal leaders who have little contact with horses. The over- whelming majority have never owned horses, and winning their support for your view does not necessarily mean you will win them over as horse lovers. Learn the terminology, and understand the legislative process in your community. Expect to hear (and be able to use appro- priately) terms like "public hearing," "setback restrictions," "planning commis- sion" and "grandfather clause." Keep abreast of meeting agendas. Know where the local government publishes or posts the meeting notices for its planning commission and governing body, and check to see if any items on the agenda are of interest to you. Remember that the municipality must give advance notice of its agenda and cannot "sneak in" impor- tant measures, such as a revamped horse ordinance, without following proper channels for advance notice and hearings. Consider establishing an association. A well-organized group of horse pro- ponents (whether incorporated or not) can strengthen its odds for success. An association can pool its resources, raise funds and direct its members to track im- portant local government meeting dates, retain legal counsel (or arrange for legal consultation), develop a phone network to notify concerned residents about key meetings, evaluate proposals (and develop reasonable alternatives), plan orderly pre- sentations at public hearings and share other important information. Understand the municipality's established procedures. To safeguard your interests and make sure you aren't locked out of the process by technicalities, you have to know how the system works. For exam- ple, how far in advance of a public meet- ing must the municipal body post or publish its meeting notices? At what meetings is public comment required? Where horse-related zoning is involved, make sure that the municipality has not overstepped its bounds or failed to follow established rules and procedures for meet- ings and hearings. Educate the public positively. If you are allowed to do so, consider inviting local planning commissioners and community leaders to a friendly, well-organized "open house" or community horse-barn tour. In planning the event, select presentable 0 facilities, invite all members of the plan- ning commission and local government, as well as others, and take the guests through the farms in a formal tour. This type of event may be an eye-opener to some participants, helping break down long-held beliefs that horsekeeping gen- erates offensive sights, sounds and odors, or that horses threaten neighborhood property values. Gain support through community activi- ties. Good community relations are en- hanced by fund-raising activities with horse themes. Large horse shows and other equestrian competitions often align themselves with local charities-hospitals and children's aid funds, for example--as a way of attracting the larger community. But the effort can be as imaginative as the annual Franklin, Michigan, "Fox Hunt," in which area riders gather for an enjoy- able, quiet ride through the streets of their quaint Detroit suburb, jumping a few jumps set up in pastures along the route. An invitation-only reception in the evening is well attended by municipal leaders, and cash donations required of all participants are used for community pro- jects. Last year's proceeds were earmarked for planting new trees. The success of this event strengthens ties between horse sup- porters and the larger community. ■ The hearing process Let's assume that the municipality has now drafted a proposed new ordinance or a change to the old one. The process, which some might call the "battle," has just been set in motion. Now, more than ever, the need for organized efforts and ju- dicious action is paramount. Study all ordinance proposals very care- fully. If the municipality presents a pro- posal to change an existing ordinance or to enact a new one, go over it rigorously. Understand exactly how the proposed new ordinance varies from the old, and consider drafting a chart that compares features of the two point by point. Plan a careful and reasonable strategy. Threatening the local government or its members is a sure way to fail. Be reason- able when addressing the local planning commission or governing body. Be re- spectful, not disruptive, at meetings. Show the municipal leaders that you share their concerns. Some real estate developers and other businesspeople who have had suc- cess with local governments make it a practice to remain in attendance at mu- nicipal meetings long after their hearings have ended. Just a few hours of unobtru- sive attendance, during which they do nothing more than sit quietly near the front row while the meeting continues, can have tremendous impact on the deci- sion makers and help earn their respect. Designate one of your members to serve as a spokesperson. A likable member of local equestrian circles-particularly someone who has earned respect in the community or has a distinguished history of serving in area government-lends credibility as your group addresses municipal leaders. Listen to your opponents. Where allowed by law, meet with members of the munic- ipal body before or between hearings on your issue, even if these people do not share your support of horses. But keep in mind that Open Meetings Act laws or similar laws require that almost all local government meetings take place in public. Ask a member of the municipal body what generated the undesirable zoning or land-use proposal. Discuss his or her con- ' terns. Talking to those whom you once dismissed as enemies might produce far better results than you imagined. Actively involve your allies. Because municipal leaders typically fear making unpopular decisions, there is strength in numbers. When important hearings or meetings take place, encourage as many people as possible to be there. A written petition loaded with signatures is nice, but a roomful of concerned, cooperative con- stituents says far more. Borrow language from other ordinances. If you can locate favorable ordinances adopted by neighboring jurisdictions, especially those that have been in effect without challenge for many years, con- sider presenting them to your own munic- A ipality. You might be able to borrow some language to replace the unfavorable pro- [ posal at issue. Accentuate the positive. Show the extent to which horses have benefited your com- munity. Discuss how local children are involved with horses, and point out the character-building effects of horse owner- ship and care. Cite involvement in Pony Clubs or 4-H programs, equestrian teams, handicapped-riding programs, local horse shows and other organized activities. Use hard numbers to demonstrate the eco- nomic impact of equestrian events and horse-related employment and retail sales. Consider seeking a lawyer's help. Zoning battles involve serious legal issues, and a knowledgeable lawyer can be your best coach as you make your way through the thicket. A lawyer can work behind the scenes or as a visible member of your group, addressing the municipality di- rectly (where appropriate), retaining con- sultants, helping select effective residents to address the municipality, reviewing or writing statements to be presented, devel- oping effective media relations and more. When all else fails, zoning and land-use conflicts may have to be resolved through the courts. A lawyer can evaluate tactics and prospects for your success. oitchfork N doubt you think of horse care s what happens at the end of a and feed scoop, but the day may come when looking after your horses involves defending them against harmful or capricious regulations imposed by local government. Fortunately, the zoning process follows a system that allows room for your comments and influence. If you understand the process and work the system, you can protect your right to enjoy horses-both on your property and in the larger community-at the same time as you carry out your responsibilities as a property owner and a good neighbor.; Author Julie L Fershtman is an EQUUS con- sultant and a longtime horse owner and ex- hibitor. Her law practice, based in Bingham Fanns, Michigan, serves the horse industry, on a national level. Size is also the author of the book Equine Law & Horse Sense. A frequent speaker at conventions across the country, Fershunan is scheduled to speak at this year's Equitana USA in June. APPENDIX The following are more fascinating facts staff discovered in the search for the truth about large animal manure. City of Boulder requires corral clean-up everyday. City of Estes Park requires manure removal at least once per week and that it be kept in a vault or box which is emptied periodically. New Jersey Horse Council recommends manure be removed daily into a manure pile over 50' away from the property line. City of Aurora requires removal of animal matter at least once per week. Denver Dumb Friends League recommends that if a horse is corralled, the pen be cleaned every day. City of Golden requires the outside storage of manure in piles be located 100' from property lines and 75' from sides and rear property lines. A conditional use permit is required to have a horse on a residential lot in Golden. One horse can produce up to 50 pounds of manure per day. Dr. Ann Swinker, professor with the Animal Science Department at CSU who also works with the CSU extension service, thinks corral clean-up of two weeks is about right. Some thought that allowing horse to trample manure into dust which will repel moisture is better than composting. Colorado Horse Council representative said that she is more concerned with the storage of manure (i.e., how big the pile is, and how often it's gotten rid of) than the frequency of corral clean-up. Thinks every two weeks is reasonable. The Horse Protection League representative believes that if a horse is corralled, that four times per week is necessary, however, it depends greatly on weather, size of pen, proximity to neighbors, etc. She personally tries to clean up everyday and deposits in dumpster. Trash company is okay with it. The gestation period of the fly is seven to ten days in the summer depending on conditions. Up to 100 eggs can be laid in each batch. A batch can be produced every week. Average life span of the fly is one to three weeks with a one week average in the summer. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner GOKEY moved and Commissioner COLLINS seconded to approve the minutes of the February 18, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner DOYLE abstaining and Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01 (Continued from December 17,1998) An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented a history of the proposed ordinances. She stated that this case was continued from the December 17, 1998 Planning Commission at which time the Commission was in favor of the proposed changes with the exception of the pen cleaning provision. There was consensus at the hearing that regulations for clean-up should be based upon the size of pen or corral. After further research and review, staff is now recommending requirements for corrals less than 1,000 square feet to be cleaned once a week and corrals 1,000 square feet and over to be cleaned every two weeks. This recommendation is intended, in part, to give code enforcement officers some firm guidelines for enforcement of the ordinance. Ms. Reckert stated that Nick Fisher, staff representative to the Animal Welfare and Control Commission, reported that a motion was made at the Commission meeting of January 19, 1999 that the two-week clean-up period be specified for residential properties only and that paragraph E be deleted from the nuisance ordinance. Staff is recommending that the two- week cleanup period for residential properties should also apply to substandard agricultural properties. Staff is also recommending that an additional phrase be added to the condition of the suggested motion for approval as follows: "and by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15." Commissioner GOKEY expressed concern about the lack of definitive guidelines in determining clean-up violations. Mr. White commented that, since this will be very difficult to monitor, the best solution seems to be the suggested change to the nuisance ordinance which requires testimony to be presented in court by two or more neighbors from separate households. Planning Commission Page 2 03/04/99 Ms. Reckert stated that she had thoroughly researched the clean-up matter with many experts who had differing opinions as to the amount of time that should be required to clean up manure. Commissioner MACDOUGALL stated that Colorado State University is working on manure management in residential areas but has not, as yet, reached a solution. Ms. Reckert commented that she spoke with a Dr. Ann Swinker from CSU who was of the opinion that a two-week clean-up requirement was reasonable. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested that the words "private stables" in Section 1 (L) (1) be changed to "as an accessory use at a private residence." She also stated that she had received comments from citizens who felt that the 800 square foot requirement was too large for smaller yards and were in favor of reducing the requirement to 300-500 square feet. Chair BRINKMAN invited public comment. The following individuals addressed the. Commission: Diane Christensen 4311 Tabor Street Ms. Christensen stated that she was in favor of reducing the 800 square foot pen requirement and also requested that compost piles be permitted. Tracy Dowson 28546 Golden Gate Canyon Road, Golden Mr. Dowson spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County Horse Council. She stated that the Council attempts to educate horse owners in the proper care of their animals, composting methods, etc. She asked if the proposed ordinance addressed weather conditions such as extended freezing temperatures which would prevent clean-up. Ms. Reckert replied that this situation is not specifically addressed. Ms. Dowson stated that the one of the state standards for horse equivalent units is that two horses are equal to one cow in contrast to the proposed ordinance which indicates one horse is equal to one cow. She stated that she felt this ordinance would be extremely difficult to enforce. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Dowson what the Horse Council recommended for pen sizes. She replied that, due to variables in types of horse management, it is difficult to come up with one required size. David Murphy 12710 West 42nd Avenue Mr. Murphy asked if there had been numerous complaints which precipitated this ordinance. He stated that his neighbors have horses and there has never been a problem in his area. He suggested that if horse pens are not cleaned properly, it may be a matter for the Humane Society or similar organization. He expressed concern that property values could be reduced Planning Commission Page 3 03/04/99 if horses are no longer allowed on a nonconforming property. He expressed concern that this ordinance will be very difficult to enforce. Ms. Reckert explained that if a nonconforming property does not meet new regulations, the right to keep animals is transferable as long as the keeping of horses does not cease for more than sixty days. Shirlene Mekelberg 4596 Parfet Ms. Mekelberg agreed with comments made by Tracy Dowson of the Jefferson County Horse Council and stated that she was not in favor of regulating pen size. Bonnie R. Botham 3380 Pierce Street Ms. Botham stated that she has been a member of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association since its inception and stated that this Association would be willing to assist in the area of education, etc. when problems arise in neighborhoods. Chair BRINKMAN asked if the Association had been involved in the recent cases which precipitated this ordinance. Ms. Botham replied that she did not know whether the group had assisted in these two situations. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner stated that she is a member of the Wheat Ridge Animal Welfare and Control Commission (formerly known as the Wheat Ridge Animal Commission) and stated that the 800 square foot pen requirement originated with the Jefferson County Horsemen's Association and became part of the code of laws when Wheat Ridge was incorporated. She explained that this portion of the code was inadvertently omitted when the entire zoning law was rewritten in 1989. She stated that the Commission recommended the 800 square foot pen size. In response to Mr. Murphy's previous question about complaints, she stated that there have only been two complaints over a period of thirty years, both of which occurred in July, 1998. She stated that the Commission originally stated they would support the city attorney's recommendations regarding the nuisance law; however, upon a review of the ordinance, the Commission is now requesting that the requirement for two witnesses to appear in court be deleted. She explained that she had personally checked the situation at 32nd and Upham on more than one occasion and had never seen a problem with manure accumulation; however, there were two neighbors who complained vigorously. She stated that she was not involved with the other complaint situation. She also stated that she was in favor of allowing composting. Commissioner THOMPSON asked staff to comment on the request to delete this portion of the ordinance. Mr. White replied that this would take the city back to the position of having Planning Commission Page 4 03/04/99 no means of enforcement. He stated that, since animal waste and odor problems are difficult to prove in court, this requirement would give a judge and jury a basis of testimony to use as evidence in trying nuisance complaints. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON regarding the wording concerning private stables, Ms. Turner replied that she felt people should have the right to keep animals on lots where there are no residences. Chair BRINKMAN asked if it would be possible to add wording to the ordinance which would require witnesses from two separate households as well as the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. Ms. Turner stated that her inspections were not performed as a representative of the Animal Welfare and Control commission, but on behalf of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association which is an organization which polices large animal owners. If it appears that animals are not being properly cared for, the Association will approach the owner and ask that they correct the situation. Mr. White stated that he would prefer to have the city's animal and parks officer provide back-up opinions in these situations. Joann Howard 7260 West 31st Place Ms. Howard stated that her property is adjacent to horse property which continually causes odor problems at her residence and in her street. She presented photographs of the horse property to members of the Commission for their review. She stated that she didn't think it would be proper to have a member of the Animal Welfare Commission member take part in regulation of nuisance problems because her neighbor was a member of that Commission. Ms. Reckert stated that the subject horse pen has been moved twice, and is still thirty feet from adjacent neighbors which meets the requirement that the enclosure be located thirty feet away from a main structure (not thirty feet from the property line). Ms. Howard stated that moving the pen had not alleviated the odor problem. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she could understand Ms. Howard's problem and asked Ms. Howard to comment on the proposed nuisance ordinance. Ms. Howard replied that she thought the nuisance ordinance was ridiculous and that she would like to see each property considered individually on the basis of its impact on surrounding neighbors. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested the possibility of requiring certain properties in situations such as this one to be cleaned more often. Planning Commission Page 5 03/04/99 Ms. Howard suggested instituting use permits similar to those used by the City of Golden. Ms. Reckert stated that the reason Golderf adopted the right to use permit was in order to craft something for each property; however, this permit process doesn't seem to be the sentiment of the citizens of Wheat Ridge. Chair BRINKMAN commented that, after looking at maps of Wheat Ridge, Ms. Howard's neighborhood seems to be the only area in Wheat Ridge where a subdivision has designed two cul-de-sacs to back up to each other this drastically. Commissioner DOYLE asked if the pictures were taken over a one day, one week, or one month span. Ms. Howard replied that she didn't know because she had not taken the pictures. She also stated that the photos were taken two years ago. K. W. Penn 4675 Parfet Street Mr. Penn asked about the continuous use requirement. He stated that his property is under a half-acre and he has two horses, one of which will be removed from the property for approximately one year for breeding purposes and asked, in the event something should happen to his remaining horse, if he would lose the right to keep horses on.his property. He asked how horse equivalent units would apply to miniature horses. He also commented that the ordinances are trying to address two complaints while there have never been any problems with horse properties in his neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Ms. Reckert stated that Mr. Penn would not lose the right to keep a horse, if he doesn't have continuous use, because of the provision for A-1 substandard lots requirement for 9,000 square feet. Mr. Penn asked if he was going to have rebuild his stud pens. Chair BRINKMAN replied that he would not. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. White stated that if a lot size is correct for a horse and the pen size is correct, it is not nonconforming because the use is grand fathered in. Chair BRINKMAN declared a recess at 9:05 to give opportunity for the staff to discuss the continuous use on nonconforming properties. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Mr. White corrected his previous statement regarding continuous use on nonconforming properties. He stated that, as the ordinance is presently written, a horse owner in a nonconforming situation would be allowed to keep the nonconforming status unless the horse is away from the property for two months or longer. Planning Commission Page 6 03/04/99 Chair BRINKMAN requested that staff notify Mr. Penn of this error since he had already left the meeting. Ms. Reckert stated that she would definitely contact Mr. Penn, and commented that it is difficult for staff to make determinations during meetings without the benefit of zoning maps and site layouts showing positions of buildings, etc. Chair BRINKMAN stated that the issue of continuous use is not covered for A-1 and A-2 properties and asked if this was the intention of the ordinance. Ms. Reckert replied that this was probably an oversight and that it should apply. Kim Fear 7340 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Fear stated that her property is the subject of the photographs submitted by Ms. Howard. She stated that as soon as she was notified by the Code Enforcement officers, she moved her pen. She moved the pen a second time after Code Enforcement came back and told her that the pen needed to be 15 feet inside the property line. She stated that second time she moved the pen was due to an error on the part of code enforcement. She stated that her property is conforming in that she has 10,000 square foot of land and her pen is 942 square feet and would still be conforming under the new regulations. She stated that since the pictures were taken, she has been very conscientious in cleaning the pen two to three times a week and more during summer months and that she doesn't have trouble with odor in her house. She stated that she is doing her best to be accommodating but that she didn't think her neighbor will be satisfied until her horse is removed from the property. She stated that she is a member of the Animal Commission and agreed with Ms. Howard that it would present a conflict of interest to have the Commission involved. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if it would be possible to add a sentence in the ordinance to the effect that in specific cases, as determined by code enforcement officers, more frequent cleaning could be required to address particular situations. Ms. Reckert stated that this was discussed at a previous hearing and the city attorney was uncomfortable with giving that discretion to a code enforcement officer. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested adding another person such as the animal parks enforcement officer. Mr. White stated that he would not want a code enforcement officer to be acting as policeman and judge out in the field, but perhaps there was a way to include recommendations from both a code enforcement officer and an animal parks enforcement officer. Rick Lopez 10755 West 46th Avenue Mr. Lopez stated that he was in favor of the proposed ordinance but was concerned about Commissioner THOMPSON's suggestions to require extra cleaning in certain situations. Planning Commission Page 7 03/04/99 Wayne Wendell 3430 Vivian Court Mr. Wendell sated that there are a number of lots in Wheat Ridge that meet the square footage requirements to have a horse but would present an immediate source of problems to the neighbors. He did not think the proposed ordinance will be a solution to all the problems that could occur with horse properties within Wheat Ridge. Diane Christensen returned to the podium and asked if her land was agricultural. Ms. Reckert informed Ms. Christensen that her property was zoned A-1 and in order to have a horse, she has to have 9,000 square feet of open space plus an 800 square foot pen. Mr. Christensen asked if composting is allowed. Mr. White replied that his interpretation of the ordinance is that if the compost pile is not offending adjacent properties by either odor or flies, then a compost pile would not be in violation. Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were others present who wished to address the Commission. There was no response. Commissioner THOMPSON moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be approved for the following reasons: The proposed changes to the clean-up period address different sized corrals in residential zones and on substandard agriculturally zoned lots. With the following condition: Section (b) be revised to read: "for residential lots and substandard sized agricultural lots, manure and liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than one week in corrals less than 1,000 square feet in size and more than two weeks in corrals 1,000 square feet or larger in size shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Wheat Ridge and by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. Sections (L) (1) (a) be amended to include two ponies as a horse equivalent. Commissioner MACDOUGALL stated that, based upon his previous experience in dealing with manure management issues while employed by the Health Department, he felt it will be difficult to enforce the ordinance. Chair BRINKMAN offered the following amendments: That the words "liquid was" in Section (L) (1) (b) be changed to "liquid waste." Planning Commission Page 8 03/04/99 2. That Section (L) (1) (g) and (L) (1) (h) be swapped for the sake of consistency. The amendments were accepted by Commissioners THOMPSON and GOKEY. Mr. White asked for clarification regarding section (L) (1) concerning private stables. Commissioner THOMPSON replied that after hearing Ms. Turner's comments, she was satisfied with the present wording. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. Commissioner COLLINS moved and Commissioner GOKEY seconded that Case No. ZOA- 98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be approved for the following reason: p 1. It will allow personal testimony as prima fascia evidence in court. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioners SHOCKLEY and SNOW absent. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BRINKMAN declared the public hearing portion of the meeting closed. 9. OLD BUSINESS A. State Beauty Supply Chair BRINKMAN stated that lighting in the rear of this property shines directly into neighboring yards on the east of the property and asked that staff contact the owners to redirect the lights. B. DRCOG 20 20 Plan Commissioner THOMPSON asked if staff would look into the feasibility of purchasing the Ridge Home property as open space under the DRCOG's 20 20 buffering plan. C. Lingerie Modeling Businesses Commissioner THOMPSON asked if staff had been able to address this issue. Mr. White replied that the city attorney is presently reviewing the appropriate regulations. D. Absence Commissioner GOKEY stated that he will be out of town from March 20 through March 28. E. COMP PLAN Hearings Mr. White distributed copies of material for discussion at the next Comprehensive Plan hearing to be held on March 18, 1999. /OFZ PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA-98-01 DATE: March 4, 1999 REQUEST An appliction by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. (PLEASE PRINT) Speaker Name Address/Phone In Favor / Opposed Poc"'S( o`Zt l C'M4 /1)') -S" ° MLaRPffj t y;~I LL), 4a~~ C - I 0 W ' ( K)-b t /U © T 5,1,0 -E Uff 6rn ZY14 ~S 3 ( jtvex -q J 04) rtit P 2 ` ? r 2 (ce S~ - LA a~ e mac' P~ o td .;:71 / l t is e fJA17elt t'/[ / 7~/5 d~crr Q APome~ C 45 0"V\-Q tZeMd' 3g E) n U Ji C':t- Wr- 01 , Vqol~' 72-0 -2, PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA-98-01 DATE: March 4,1999 60,U71410,5Q /A117/957' REQUEST An appliction by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. (PLEASE PRINT) Speaker Name Address/Phone In Favor / Opposed February 8, 1999 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you that Case No. ZOA-98-01 which is a request by staff to amend the City's Animal Regulations will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on March 4,1999 at 7:30 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Barbaz \PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\zoa980I Wet PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA=98=01 DATE: December 17,1998 (Continued from December 3, 1998) REQUEST: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30 (L) of the Code of Laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15.23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. (please print) Speaker Name Address/Phone In Favor / Opposed /1,:qcz,- w3r City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: teredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: December 11, 1998 Attached are materials related to the Planning Commission's public hearing regarding the City's large animal regulations. Because of the length of time between study sessions, staff has included all relevant information from early 1998 through the present. We realize that most of this information has been previously distributed, however, we wanted you to have all the information in a single packet of material. Included in this packet are the following items: 1. A copy of an ordinance incorporating Animal Control Commission's original recommendations (attachment 1). 2. A copy of the matrix of other cities' regulations (attachment 2). 3. A copy of the minutes from Planning Commission's February 15, 1998 meeting (attachment 3). 4. A copy of the minutes from the Animal Control Commission's March 17, 1998 meeting. Staff requested their input on several issues generated by Planning Commission (attachment 4). 5. A copy of two articles from the May 7, 1998 Jefferson Sentinel (attachment 5). 6. Comments from the City Attorney regarding the revised animal regulation ordinance (attachment 6). 7. Minutes from the May 21, 1998 Planning Commission study session (attachment 7). 8. A copy of a proposed revision to the nuisance ordinance with commentary generated by the City Attorney's office (attachment 8). 9. A copy of the October 20 Animal Control Commission meeting where they approved changes to the nuisance ordinance (attachment 9). 10. Additional correspondence received regarding the issue (attachment 10). 11. A copy of the revised animal regulation ordinance incorporating changes being recommended (attachment 11). A_k STAFF COMMENTS It appears from the testimony presented and evidence discussed at various study sessions, that there is a general sentiment that the keeping of large animals in residential areas is appropriate and traditional within the City of Wheat Ridge. However, they also felt that the current large animals regulations needed to be "tightened up," as well as a more effective means of receiving testimony for the prosecution of alleged effects of the keeping of animals in court. In the final version of the revised ordinance (attachment 11), staff has added a section dealing with substandard A-1 and A-2 zoned lots. The keeping of animals on agriculturally-zoned lots that are less than one acre in size (substandard) should follow the regulations for residentially zoned properties (one animal for the first 9000 square feet, etc). This provision has been inserted between sections (f) and (g) of the first ordinance. Staff believes that sections (a) through (f) should apply to substandard A-1 and A-2 properties. Based on the discussion at the May 21, 1998 meeting, horse equivalents have been added as recommended by the Animal Control Commission (ACC). This has been accomplished by expanding the language under section (a) of the first ordinance. References to "animal" in section (c) have been replaced with "horse equivalent unit." The horse a equivalents that have been discussed are as follows: One horse equivalent unit = one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: LARGE ANIMAL REGULATIONS Option A: " I move that Case No. ZOA -98-1, a revision to Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as modified by staff under Attachment 11, be recommended for APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. Based on testimony and evidence presented, it is the general sentiment that large animals should continue to be allowed in residential areas in the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. The current ordinance is too vague regarding the maximum number of animals allowed. 3. There are currently no horse equivalent units specified. 4. There is no provision for the keeping of animals on substandard, agriculturally zoned lots." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA -98-1, a revision to Section 26-30(L) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as modified by staff under Attachment 11, be recommended for DENIAL for the following reasons: 1. 2. A- 'Z NUISANCE REGULATIONS Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-1, a revision to Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as proposed by the City Attorney under Attachment 8, be recommended for APPROVAL, for the following reasons: 1. Large animal complaints typically are related to the nuisance affects of the keeping of animals. 2. The current nuisance ordinance does not allow for effective testimony in court proceedings." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-1, a revision to Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws as proposed by the City Attorney under Attachment 8, be recommended for DENIAL, for the following reasons: 1. 2. " C9BarbuaWPPMzoa98 I PChearin8.wpd A-3 CHANGES PER ACC . CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains re_MilatlonS for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ride Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section L Section 26-30(L)(1)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applituble to the Keeping oj" Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in z*He districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) S14ALL NOT APPLY TO THE A-1 OR A-2 n v i v i.n. DISTRICTS., exeep[ •h„ only subsection helow applies to Elie Ag!-ieukuFal Zone distFiets. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) excluding delaelled g-al-ages. shall he nine illousand (9000) squal-0 f;eet 4)1. tile animal ani. an additional six thousand (6000) squaFe f;aet ibi- each THERE SHALL BE NO MORE TI4AN FOUR (4) ANIMALS (HORSES, COWS. LLAMAS. SHEEP OR GOATS) PER ACRE, ATTACHMENT 1 A_4 except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. T (b) Manure or liquid waste shall not hL allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to eause regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF A LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. 5 (d) THE PEN. CORRAL OR FENCED ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS ENCLOSE A MINIMUM.OF EIGHT HUI (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. AREA MUST JDRED FIRST ONE EACH -1-(L') "rhe fence or other enclosure must be constructed of mate, n;:r and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 271. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. 3-2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. `''(F) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet. to aside or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel- AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. 2, T-110StfHetffeS f4 keeping of anifnals are- tile !-equiFed P'- (e-)(G) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NONCONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE 1998- SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal. nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(1)(a); (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and well:ue. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court IW,~ _-'o\u;ni 3 of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date.. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. - INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this day of , 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ. ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this - day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK Is[ Publication: 2nd publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 111-1 <j,i N6S14101 4 , 1998. GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY JURISDICTION ALLOWED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS EXCREMENT YES NO MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE ADDRESSED Arvada x 9,000 for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for No each additional horse. 100 foot setback required from residences. Aurora X Livestock including horses: No 1 animal for every acre in the RA zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Boulder x 1 horse for every '/2 acre. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Brighton X Allowed in RE or PUD only. Yes Requires permit. Corral sizes are not regulated. Broomfield X Livestock and horses are prohibited. No Castle Rock X Not allowed within the City. Yes Cherry Hills NO RESPONSE Commerce City X Not allowed within the City. No Denver County/City X 1 animal for every % acre in the Yes Residential zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Englewood X Does not allow large animals. No ATTACHMENT 2 A_g (C. F Erie X Not allowed within City. No Estes Park X 2 horses - 1 acre Yes 3+ horses - t acre for each additional horse. Allowed in the RS or RM zones only. Setbacks for corrals: 25' to any building used as residence or human habitation; 50' from street or property line. Federal Heights X No Livestock allowed including No horses. Fort Collins X %2 acre per animal. Uses Larimar County Code for farm animals. Corrals are not regulated. Ft. Lupton NO RESPONSE. Ft. Morgan NO RESPONSE. Gilcrest X 1 horse for every '/4 acre except where there is less than 5 acres then 1 horse per 1 acre; except for offspring until 7 months of age. Corral sizes are not regulated. Glendale X Not allowed within City. No A -q Golden X 9,000 sq.ft. for 1 horse; 6,000 sq. ft. Yes for each additional horse. Special Use Permit required. Allowed in the Agricultural zone only. Coral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from the lot line; 15 feet from the side or rear lot line. Greeley ' NO RESPONSE. Greenwood Village X 1 horse per 1/3 acre; 2 with''/2 acre; Yes 3 or more %z acre each additional horse. Space must be dedicated solely to animal (i.e., stable and corral). 12 x 12 stall areas max. if corral is built. Lafayette X SUP only in RE1 and RE2 with Yes 40,000 and 20,000 square foot requirement. Corral sizes are not regulated. Lakewood X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre except that offspring can be kept until weaned. Corrals minimum is 300 sq. ft. per horse. Littleton X In RE: 25,000 sq.ft. minimum per animal; other zoned areas require 2 acre minimum (trying to discourage). Corral sizes are not regulated. Matrix - Large Animal Page 3 A-r0 Longmont X Existing animals are grand fathered. No longer allowed within City. Louisville - X _ RRR and AgA only. Yes I acre minimum. Corrals must be 150' from any I building occupied as a residence or used for human habitation. Loveland X % acre per horse - no livestock. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Northglenn X Thornton NO RESPONSE. Westminster X With PUD or minimum of 10 acre Yes lot. Corral sizes are not regulated. Parker X 1 horse for every 2 acres. Yes Corralling or containment of animals is required with only limited periodic grazing; is to be "adequate" for the number of animals involved but not to exceed 10% of the lot area; shall not be closer than 100' to any off-site residence or business on an adjoining property. Matrix - Large Animal Page 4 Platteville X 1 horse - 1/3 acre 2 horses - '/xacre 3 horses - 1 acre 4+ horses - I acre for each additional horse. Acreage requested is that solely devoted to horse (i.e., stable or corral area) Adams County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1 st horse; 6,000 sq. Yes - for less ft. for each additional horse, but not than 35 acre lots. to exceed 4 horses per acre; does not include horses below weaning age or 6 months whichever is less. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from any off-property residence or place of business and 25 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the front lot line. Jefferson County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre with exception for offspring until 7 months of age. These numbers exclude the area for the one-family dwelling. Corral sizes are not regulated. Matrix - Large Animal Page 5 1 Summit County X Without a CUP: 1 horse - 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq. ft. up to 35 acres. With a CUP: 2 horses - 40,000 to 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq.ft. up to 35 acres. Corral sizes are not regulated. TOTAL RESPONSES: 30 21 9 Revised: February 19, 1998 d\ fi I es\w p\b arbs\an i m I o rd. w pd Matrix - Large Animal Page 6 A-13 It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner THEANDER to approve the Jefferson County North Plains Community Plan, Fairmount Subarea, and the section on enclaves as it pertains to the areas three miles from the existing boundary of Wheat Ridge with the following changes: (1) That recreational vehicle parks and residential (up to 15 dwelling traits per acre) be removed from Area 20 which is listed as an in-fill area; and (2) to add the two areas that were forgotten by the Jefferson County Plan (off of 52nd Avenue) to the enclave exhibit; and that the motion be based upon recommendation and approval by the City Attorney. Following brief discussion, the motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing to be closed. It was moved by Commissioner THEANDER and seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS to amend the agenda to move item I I to the next order of business. The motion carried 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. 11. Case No. ZOA-98-1 Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations Mr. White presented a brief history of this matter explaining that there have been some code enforcement issues concerning large animals which resulted in the Animal Control Commission suggesting changes to the animal regulations within the Code. He stated that as a result of City Council direction to staff to work on these changes, it was decided to set this date as a study session. p Meredith Reckert introduced Susan Ellis, Supervisor of Code Enforcement Division, and Nick Fisher, E Animal Control Supervisor. Ms. Reckert distributed to the Commission copies of a matrix showing large animal regulations in other metropolitan communities and then presented slides showing various large animal properties in the City of Wheat Ridge. These properties reflected a broad cross section of residential, agricultural and commercial zonings throughout the City. (Commissioner SNOW arrived at 8:12 p.m.) Ms. Ellis addressed enforcement challenges associated with animal regulations which included: 9.000 square foot regulation. Ms. Ellis noted that in order to determine if the property meets lot size requirements it is necessary for the City to go by the Assessor's maps which aren't always accurate. She explained that a survey is necessary to accurately determine the square footage of a property; sometimes property surveys are not available. Manure and liquid waste. Ms. Ellis noted that these cases are presently prosecuted in criminal court which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that three of these cases have been thrown out of Planning Commission Page 4, 02/19/98 ATTACHMENT 3 court because of the court's opinion that they do not belong in criminal court, but rather in civil court where cases can be decided on testimony. She also noted that manure accumulation and odor are two different problems and are very difficult to enforce. T Pen, corral and fenced areas. Ms. Ellis stated that the Code contains some ambiguity in defining fences, corrals and structures such as barns. She added that there have only been three properties which cause problems and only five that have ever been cited. Three that were cited were adjacent to residential and concerned manure accumulation or odor. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what procedures the City would take in a situation where a potential purchaser takes the word of a realtor that they can have horses and then a neighbor complains. Ms. Ellis replied that her office would check the size of the property according to their records and then request a survey from the owner to determine actual square footage and the number of animals they would be allowed. If there is insufficient space, the owner would be given 30 days to remove the animal, obtain a variance, etc.; and if they don't comply at that time, a summons to court is issued. She also noted that she has never had to issue a summons for this type issue in the past seven years. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if property owners were allowed to board animals. Ms. Reckert explained that boarding is allowed in Agricultural Districts; however, in residential areas, it is assumed you own the animals on your property as an accessory use. In response to Commissioner THEANDER's question as to what constitutes the three major reasons for citing owners of large animals, Ms. Ellis replied they are (1) odor and manure accumulation; (2) corral setback issues; and (3) too many animals on the property. Commissioner GOKEY discussed whether or not some of these conditions could be cited as animal abuse cases. Ms. Ellis explained that animal control would be called in if abuse was suspected. Commissioner SNOW asked Ms. Ellis' opinion regarding whether or not the proposed changes in the ordinance would resolve code problems. Ms. Ellis replied that she believed the changes would present guidelines to follow such as how often a property owner needs to clean the animal areas. Commission SNOW asked for a comparison of the present ordinance with the suggested changes. Ms. Reckert replied that the suggested changes from the Animal Control Commission included a provision for no more than four animals per acre, a two week cleaning rule, pen and corral sizes, and clarification of fences and corrals vs. barns and other structures. She noted that a grandfather clause is included that would apply unless the property owner ceases owning a horse for more than sixty days. Commissioner BRINKMAN and Commissioner GOKEY discussed the minimum open lot area of 9,000 square feet for the first horse and 6,000 square feet for each additional horse. Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 5 A-is ( f: Ms. Reckert stated that the animals do not have to have access to the entire area and that these requirements are consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County. Mr.. White added that this requirement is to set forth a guideline for the number of animals allowed on a property. _ Mr. Fisher addressed the Commission stating that at the request of City Council, the Animal Control Commission conducted two or three public meetings with input from the Livestock Association regarding proposed changes to the ordinance. The Commission was recessed at 9:00 p.m.. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m. by Chair THOMPSON. Chair THOMPSON addressed a rumor that the City is trying to get rid of all large animals. She stated that this is a misconception and that the Commission is only interested in clarifying the existing ordinance. The following people addressed the Commission: Ann Osterlow - 3295 Independence Court Ms. Osteriow stated that she lives adjacent to a property with four horses on one acre and is concerned with the health issues related to the large number of flies that are attracted by manure accumulation. She indicated that she does not want to get rid of horses in Wheat Ridge, but only wants horse owners to keep their properties clean. Tim Osterlow - 3295 Independence Court dlr. Osterlow presented a video showing the large amount of flies swarming in the summer near their patio. He noted that the case was taken to court but thrown out because the code was too vague. He also stated that he does not object to property owners having horses, but wants the owners to be responsible to keep their property clean. He also suggested that if a horse owner does not comply with the City's request to clean up manure, that the City clean it up and charge the owner. He also distributed copies of a poster from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a copy of an article from Encarta Encyclopedia describing health issues involved with flies. Bob Rock - 4300 Tabor Street Mr. Rock urged the Commission to continue allowing horses in Wheat Ridge; however, he agreed there may be a need for changes to the present ordinance. Warren McCoy - 3275 Dudley Street Mr..McCoy stated his opinion that horses should be allowed in the City; however, horse owners need to be responsible about taking care of the animals and cleaning up after them. Planning Commission Page 6 02/19/98 Don McDougal - 9815 West 37th Avenue Expressed concern that the City of Wheat Ridge is attempting to ban horses from the City and asked that the Commission not allow this to happen. Kevin Craig -10615 West 46th Avenue Urged Commission to continue allowing horses within the City of Wheat Ridge. Dr. Rob Hilsenroth (no address given) Dr. Hilsenroth is a veterinarian and an advisor to the Animal Control Commission. He recommended that the City place the burden of proof on a home owner to prove they are complying with the area requirements. He also encouraged the Commission to look objectively at the issues and not confuse humane considerations with nuisance issues. He suggested trying the two-week cleanup rule with the use of photographs to suffice as evidence of whether the criteria has been met. He also expressed his opinion that it is much better to educate people on how to properly take care of their animals than to take them to court. He felt that the grandfather clause would prevent people from having to get rid of their animals as a result of the changes to the ordinance. In response to Commissioner GOKEY's question regarding penalties for violations, Ms. Ellis replied that an owner could be fined up to $999.00 for a violation. Commissioner SNOW asked if Ms. Ellis felt it was feasible for the city to clean up manure if owner does not comply with request to do so, much the same as is presently done with the weed ordinance Ms. Ellis replied that while weeds can be measured, manure cannot; and that cleaning the manure would require entering private property containing animals and would open the City to various lawsuits. Louise Turner - 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner, member of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission, suggested that education along with the nuisance law would be vehicle to deal with these problems. She doesn't believe the answer is to get rid of the animals, but to take proper care of them. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the proposed changes would give Code Enforcement enough ammunition to take care of the few violators within the City. Ms. Turner stated that she would like an opinion from the judge or the city attorney as to whether or not the changes would take care of the problems. Chair THOMPSON asked if there were others present who would like to speak to this issue. Hearing no response, she stated that the individuals who spoke would be notified of future meetings and asked if there were others present who wished to be added to the notification list. Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 7 Commissioner THEANDER asked how other cities addressed the excrement issue. Ms. Reckert replied that most cities' codes were vague and referred to their nuisance laws which are similar to those of Wheat Ridge. Mr. White summarized the statements from the public, stating there seemed to be a sentiment that horse.propefty is a part of the lifestyle in Wheat Ridge and that the complaints seemed to be centered around the nuisance aspect. Mr. White suggested we take a look at the agricultural regulations and to have no restraints on the number of animals in these zones except when they are nonconforming lots in which case, the residential district requirements be applied. He commented that the two week cleaning rule sounds simple, but it might require hiring a full time person to keep track of who has cleaned in the past two weeks. Commissioner SNOW suggested that less cleaning should be required for fewer animals on large lots and more frequently on a small lot and in the summer. She stated her desire to hear an opinion from the court or city attorney as to whether or not this would solve the legal problems. Ms. Ellis commented that it has been her experience that three of the five citations she has issued in the past seven years have been personal neighborhood battles. Commissioner SNOW asked how many of these complaints have been a real problem over the past [ seven years to which Ms. Ellis replied that there has only been one. \fr. White requested to poll the Commission for a consensus as to whether or not it is desired to allow horses on residential and commercial properties. In response to Chair THOMPSON's poll, there was a consensus that horses be allowed in Wheat Ridge. Commissioner GOKEY commented that the property must be taken into account as to whether it is suited to having large animals. Chair THOMPSON commented that photos could be taken at the time the complaint is received and that the owner be informed that they have two weeks to clean it up and let them know that you will be back in two weeks to check for compliance. Ms. Ellis was not sure if thejudge could determine from photos if the ordinance had been complied with. Chair THOMPSON asked if it was true that the burden of proof of square footage rested with the property owner. Ms. Ellis replied that it is up to the City to prove the lot size. Planning Commission Page 8 02/19/98 4 -IF Y It was the consensus of the Commission that the city attorney's office review the ordinance as to (1) whether it is a good starting point; (2) removing the section containing manure issue to the nuisance ordinance; (3) a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size; (4) look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units; (5) rewrite this section to make it easier to understand; and (6) review the nonconforming portions of the ordinance. Commissioner SNOW requested that the agricultural property issues be taken to the Agricultural Commission for their research and opinion. It was, the direction of the Commission to staff that this matter come before the Commission the second meeting in April. OLD BUSINESS None. 10. NEW BUSINESS Mr. White asked if the Commissioners wished to renew the subscription to the Planning Commissioner's Journal. The consensus of the Commission was to renew the subscription. Commissioner GOKEY asked if there was a nation-wide proportional land use book which could be used for guidelines. Mr. White responded that he would look into this. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. v ~%lc?~..~ /Ati Ann Lazzeri, Se re~ tary ezle J uce Thompson, Chair L, Planning Commission 02/19/98 Page 9 s 1 DRAFT Animal Control Commission Minutes March 17, 1998 PRESENT: Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Greg Feudner; Monica Gregerson; Bea Slingsby; Debby Mauldin; Nick Fisher; Michelle Stodden. Citizens present: Agnes Renwick. ABSENT.• Dr. Robert Elsenroth, Advisor; Joseph Ashker. CALL TO ORDER. . Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the January 20, 1998 meeting were approved. Minutes of the special meeting held on February 19, 1998 were approved. OLD BUSINESS. Nick distributed memos and reviewed Planning Commission minutes from Meredith Reckert regarding the large animal regulations and requested recommendations on the following issues: 1. Removing the section containing the manure issue to the nuisance ordinance 2. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units 3. If an A-1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc, have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off-site residences. 4. The existing code relative to amortization of nonconforming uses is such that if the use ceases to exist for more than 60 consecutive days, the property cannot be used again unless it conforms to the current code. (Take horses into the mountains for an extended period of time, the legal, nonconforming status is gone.) A discussion was held regarding all of the above issues. Louise also updated the Commission on the Planning Commission meeting. The following motions were made: 1. Motion made to support the effort to move the manure issue from zoning to the nuisance ordinance to facilitate the prosecution of these cases. Motion made by Debby, seconded by Bea, motion passed. 2. Motion made to establish the following horse equivalent units: one horse equivalent unit equals one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. Motion made by Louise, seconded by Debby, motion passed. (A revised copy of the ordinance is attached with the above changes included.) Ostriches and emus still fall under exotic permits. ATTACHMENT 4 A _w DRAFT 3. Motion made stating: The Animal Control Commission takes no action because the feeling of the Commission is that Al and A2 should have no further restrictions. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. 4. Motion made stating: The temporary (seasonal) removal of animals does not constitute discontinuance of the nonconforming use. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. (It was felt that the resident that brought up this issue is a conforming use. Louise will call the gentleman.) Nick reported that Dr. Maulsby looked at the horses at 32nd and Independence and they looked good and appeared healthy. Louise reported that Suzie Ellis stated at the Planning Commission meeting that three of the five citations she has issued for odor/accumulation have been personal neighborhood battles. NEW BUSINESS: Kennel inspections were made and applications reviewed. Nick reported that there are no problems noted and no changes from last year. Cat's Cradle - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Greg, motion passed. American School of Dog Training - motion by Debby to approve application, seconded by Bea, motion passed. Cat Spa - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Monica, motion passed. Pet Village - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Debby, motion passed. Monica expressed some concerns with the previous management of Pet Village and wants to be sure the new management has improved the conditions. Nick has been there on several occasions and has not noticed any violations. It was suggested that Nick conduct a surprise inspection on Pet Village. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary /-)-Z-1 Somethzngstz;i s in Wheat Ridge. Editor '2. „4.:_ - "Our netghliorhood would like aneipla_ .nation from.the Wheat Ridge city man-, lager andlor our District 3-City Council.- `persons regarding the following situati on. We live in Wheat Ridge in a residential' neighborhood :An adjacent property owner has corralled four horses since Dec. 16, 1996, and has not removed any ma nure. For 16 months o4neigbborhodhas-;. 'this?property-under.Section 15 of the. city codes and he refused. The city manager < has ignored'calls for explanation. We -flunk that it is clearly stated in Section 15' of the city codes that the manager has'.,;. i this power. \Se have presented our case before the " City Council. The City Council repre- sentatives in District 3 are very sympathetic and tell us that they will help. We have waited for them to return calls with sugges- tions. and advice, and are still waiting. The:';'_ . Animal Control Commssion and the Plan- ning Commission are both considering ch:mges that need to be made to the Wheat Ridge codes in order not to allow this kind of neglect to continue to happen. Both com- missions have been honest in stating that this will take time, and conceivabiv no ' changes will be voted upon until the fall. For 16 months the manure has increased and continues to pile up. This year's (lies be- , gan to emerge on March 13 and remained even through the April snows. We are un able to use our patios because of the flies. This is a health[ hazard for all of us. Flies spread disease to other animals and hu- mans. The manure is spread in the dust that blows from the property.' , We are not asking that the horses bere", moved, only the manure. Our neighbor- i hood will be living with this situation for, t. n79h another season of outdoor acta ty. city manager has the power to dean it up, j but refuses to do so. We are asking for a' 1ri reasonable explanation as to why he sN-rv won't act, or an explanation of how the ` codes are restricting his action. ANNE AND TIM OSTERLOR ROSE AND WALT MORRIS .'s= JOIIN AND DEANNA GAMMON Wheat Ridge d ATTACHMENT 5 ,4,' Z2 s O N _ ¢sR tl~ u cW w~ v tl C a?~ tl~ nee O tl°~ tl~ C.tl ' $ ~ V aG~g. Opp rroo ..zsV 0 tlV~ w (~C n a~ mt y W atl" L E tl da°y Ca a~ o V ae E a o'Vo O❑.'S~ C~,. 'G u.o O.N V~ 5 ~ r^R m-mv V VE 04~myw~u ca j'O M'. 4 Q "OX Oa 0. ix ~..oooV- c~~3`p' ~B^r cup-ACV V a ouu um_=>E8uv__m bAl ~ T'., yp V O to w 7 T O.'°0 7`, co 4 L. 6,5. p-.~ ~V~lV. •O a+3 Ldw dl 0 r~ -a 4~~ ~d ma , V ~E° vc u V4 a p E~ C ...t~.02 Gi ~A m m [u2 '~4 ~ 0gt' 3 t aV1~o-k uE.`°~G~u« 'VV cdc ut~ ~'cx a uv.E cd~E vvv°c~ouou; .,,4 a.uw `1j u 2p~.jy m E m V'13x I L^OO~to V mg om E'V mm- 0 r7 WJ 1, c'm °Or o c= V'03 E o,c>, $8 . , u c •o c v ro ~ 'fbx V E c 8.v O. p C •t~p u V O V O w E iC U m ~ V 5 ~ U a qp 4' 4 y E V ,C O9u04~~ Y~~V 3y~C' wJ °cc 8~ o« -o 4; m d ...•.aC u°-•tm u V cry ° QUA .O >.4g38 , ouo>va oo 4 > T '$o: v E E u C~ b 0 :0 3' '3 ~w5u0}'; =uco`~mmVt«`omouE O.^ OO V 4 3e i~fp$ VU4x~v ~3VU' ~V, Kr3u 8, 3 V~uwO 8Eo0~ mCo }-1 u wcou uO VILm 2f M~> m ,t 4a i V w'4 Y V 4 mar' ' y G,~ o WWI. v AG.~^ '.m 0 U u.0'l4~ Y« V -.~0. X11 M1 'fr 11 ~r #N my,A O y•7 ~'O' mCCt V. s~ 4: 4,G ^J6x V u «w,y C m ~ 'V x.C « x a nd refuse liquor assess fees, conduct or '.Y auciuuca ~A uc on the' V`.orauthority However y "I just think; hat rthe:.liquor !ore thadseven years The council cordpromised --authority sshquld be„account ' I , . r able to the citizens as a' and agreed to a seven-year pe P#P " ' Hod for the background check. Worth said She favors having The also restricted the crimi thecitycouncilcontinuet6actas nah back ountl.'check-- to. in- the liquor autfi`rity for the city: grThe council agreed to `form' elude only those records from ~an.elght-niember authority me Wheat Ridge Polioe Depart- iricludmg two ;representatives . merit In the previous ordl -'from, each district-.with.four Hance' the_ check-would have been.conducte& by the. color • ` ~ members having three year rado Bureau of Investigations. We feel, like the city.of wheat, Ridge. _ should take someresporisibility' coNnNUED fmn page ordinance is along and delicate co? process. _ wants them to sue him.-.. Middaugh 'sald lhat,nunfor- -I'd love them to (sue me) ' tunately, all the neighbors can because I'd like to sue them," he do is wait until the ordinance is said. "I strongly feel that the changed. ,crap that they pulled is -total -,;I understand they're all harassment and 1 d like to have frustrated; but -there's really. ' . my day in court" a F;. nothing I can.do 'We dori.warit to sueany - _Hesaidthafthecitytrying ,body," Osterloh•sald: We feel to find"a"solutlon'to the prob like the cityof Wheat;-Ridge : lem;:"They may not'like the so should take some responsibil lutfon but We're . 7n [he. r , Y :process Wehavethls"code'and'thts [n"the'meantlme Osterloh _ Mr said his neighbors. He said the'city is trying to change the codes to make the accumulation of the manure a violation - But he said that thelssue is sensitive because horses have been a staple.of the landscape; in the city "Within the cgmmun4. there's along tradition of keep- ing horses--and large,ariimals,". said thaf the manure is ruining her quality oflife. She said that, lf$he;smell didnt,force-them. instde7 the hordes of flies and mosquitoes: swarming around the manure and into her back- yard would do the trick: "We like. to cook-out and sit on our -porch,- Tim Ostedoh. said., ?Wehave a great view_ of the mountains and we can t en-. joy it r n ; ,r .Nobody,seerns to think that Middaugh said. "Tomhange the ' _sald t ; s s' 0 G f O r 47 [ . . , ui i " L BS/1S/98 13:ZS:18 GBRF-H HIRGIS-> 383 235 ZBS7 Rip"FAX Page 88Z MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Gerald Dahl DATE: May 15, 1998 RE:. Large Animal Regulations The Planning Commission has asked me to review and provide comments on the attached ordinance for large animal regulation, and specifically to.comment upon: 1. Whether the ordinance is a good starting point. 2. Moving the section on manure to the nuisance chapter. 3. Suggesting a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size. 4. Comment on establishing "horse equivalent units". 5. Rewrite the ordinance to make it easier to understand, and 6. . Review the section on nonconforming uses. I have also reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of February 19, 1998 at which this ordinance was reviewed, and am familiar with discussion of the issue before the Animal Control Commission and the City Council. I believe that three principles should guide the City's regulation of large animals (primarily horses): 1. While some cities have prohibited large animals being kept within their municipal boundaries, there is a strong desire in Wheat Ridge (or at least a strong perception of that desire) to permit those animals to be kept in the city. 2. For a large animal ordinance to really be effective, that is to actually result in fewer neighbor complaints on odor, flies, etc., the lot size, corral size and set back. dimensions in the present ordinance must be greatly increased. The present set back of 30' from adjacent residential structures is simply too small, no GED.530?7?95307.01 - 25 85/15/98 13:25:51 GBRSI-4 RIRGIS-> 383 235 2857 Rig]-'PAX Page 883' matter how often manure, etc. is removed, to eliminate the kinds of neighbor complaints that are the primary source of the City's problems with large animal control. 3. The present nonconforming use section, which allows nonconforming situations to continue indefinitely, simply perpetuates the problem. To be effective, the Section should be changed to amortize nonconforming large animal situations within a time period, for example, one year. 1. Is the ordinance is a good starting point? Answer: The present ordinance is a good starting point to the degree it addresses the key considerations for large animal regulation: 'What is considered a large animal? 'Minimum lot size and corral size per animal 'Required set backs from corral to adjacent residential structures 'Provides for abatement of nonconforming uses 2. Should the section on manure be moved to the nuisance chapter of the code of laws? Answer: Yes. 3: Should Wheat Ridge adopt a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size? Answer: Lot Size: This is one of the two most important aspects of the ordinance (the other being the required set back of corrals from residential structures). The present ordinance requires 9,000 square feet for the first animal and an additional 6,000 square feet for each additional animal, with a maximum of four animals per acre. Three horses, for example, could be kept upon a lot which; after subtracting structures, carports, garages, patios, etc. is only 21,000 square feet or one half acre in size. In practice, this is simply too•small to adequately contain odor, etc. In the Planning Department survey of 30 jurisdictions, the 9,000/6,000 square foot standard, while used in a few places, including Jefferson and Adams Counties, was on the small side of the scale. More representative were acreages from one-third to one . GED330?9'•^35307.01 A-Z l0 85/15/98 13:26:37 GBRF""H RIRGIS-> 383 23S 2857 Rig"FA% Page 884 t acre per animal, with requirements that those numbers be larger when the lot size is less than 5 acres. Finally, the City might well consider a minimum lot size of one-half acre or larger for the keeping of any large animal. It is simply to much to expect that a horse kept on a 15,000 square foot lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood won't cause problems. Corral Size and Location: Most important for reducing complaints is the distance from the corral (or barn) to adjacent residential buildings. The larger the distance, the greater chance for success. The Wheat Ridge standard of 30 feet is simply not enough for real odor control, even under the best of circumstances. Louisville, for example is at 150 feet. 4. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units. Answer: 'The current Wheat Ridge ordinance effectively establishes horse equivalent units by counting cows, lamas,.sheep, goats and similar animals as equivalent to horses. This can be made more explicit. 5. Review the nonconforming portions of the ordinance. Answer: Presently, the ordinance permits nonconforming uses (the keeping of large animals on lots which are too small or in areas too close to the ne ig hboring 'residences) indefinitely, unless the use is abandoned for 60 days or more. In practice, it is very difficult to enforce this and to terminate nonconforming uses on this basis. To have any real impact, the section should be made into an amortization section, requiring that the nonconforming uses cease within a specified period of time (for example, one year), or upon sale of the property to the next owner, in addition to the present 60-day rule. 6. Rewrite this section to make it easier to understand. Answer: This can easily be done. The following is an outline for a possible revision of the ordinance. 1. Application of Section: All districts except A-1 and A-2. 2. Definition: Horse equivalent units: Large animals include horses, cows, lamas, sheep, goats and all animals in excess of pounds at maturity; such animal is one horse equivalent unit. GED`330?i ~-~.d5803.01 OS/1S/98 13:27:25 GBRS'l RIRGIS-> 383 23S 2857 Ric''"RR Page BBS• 3. Lot Size Restrictions: Minimum acre per animal for lots in excess of acres in size;. minimum of acre for animal for lots less than acre in size. 4. Corral Size and Location: Minimum square feet for the first animal and additional _ square feet for each additional animal; all corrals, stables and barns must be located no less than feet from the nearest tot line and no less than feet from the nearest residence or retail commercial structure. No variances may be permitted to these set back requirements. 5. Nonconforming Uses: Existing legal nonconforming keeping of large animals may continue so long as they remain otherwise legal, but must be terminated when: • The property is sold, and/or • Within years of adoption of this ordinance. I will be pleased to elaborate or answer questions. GED`S301-7V35403.01 / ` - 29 ry1 4-' Animal Control Commission Minutes March 17, 1998 PRESENT.• Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Greg Feudner; Monica Gregerson; Bea Slingsby; Debby Mauldin; Nick Fisher; Michelle Stodden. Citizens present: Agnes Renwick. ABSENT.• Dr. Robert Flilsenroth, Advisor; Joseph Ashker. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the January 20, 1998 meeting were approved. Minutes of the special meeting held on February 19, 1998 were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Nick distributed memos and reviewed Planning Commission minutes from Meredith Reckert regarding the large animal regulations and requested recommendations on the following issues: 1. Removing the section containing the manure issue to the nuisance ordinance 2. Look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units 3. If an A-1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc, have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off-site residences. 4. The existing code relative to amortization of nonconforming uses is such that if the use ceases to exist for more than 60 consecutive days, the property cannot be used again unless it conforms to the current code. (Take horses into the mountains for an extended period of time, the legal, nonconforming status is gone.) A discussion was held regarding all of the above issues. Louise also updated the Commission on the Planning Commission meeting. The following motions were made: 1. Motion made to support the effort to move the manure issue from zoning to the nuisance ordinance to facilitate the prosecution of these cases. Motion made by Debby, seconded by Bea, motion passed. 2. Motion made to establish the following horse equivalent units: one horse equivalent unit equals one (1) cow, two (2) llamas, two (2) burros, four (4) sheep or four (4) goats. Motion made by Louise, seconded by Debby, motion passed. (A revised copy of the ordinance is attached with the above changes included.) Ostriches and emus still fall under exotic permits. 3. Motion made stating: The Animal Control Commission takes no action because the feeling of the Commission is that AI and A2 should have no further restrictions. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. ATTACHMENT 6 k.. 4. Motion made stating: The temporary (seasonal) removal of animals does not constitute discontinuance of the nonconforming use. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise, motion passed. (It was felt that the resident that brought up this issue is a conforming use. Louise will call the gentleman.) i Nick reported that Dr. Maulsby looked at the horses at 32nd and Independence and they looked good and appeared healthy. Louise reported that Suzie Ellis stated at the Planning Commission meeting that three of the five citations she has issued for odor/accumulation have been personal neighborhood battles. NEW BUSINESS: Kennel inspections were made and applications reviewed. Nick reported that there are no problems noted and no changes from last year. Cat's Cradle - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Greg, motion passed. American School of Dog Training - motion by Debby to approve application, seconded by Bea, motion passed. Cat Spa motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Monica, motion passed. Pet Village - motion by Bea to approve application, seconded by Debby, motion passed. Monica expressed some concerns with the previous management of Pet Village and wants to be sure the new management has improved the conditions. Nick has been there on several occasions. and has not noticed any violations. It was suggested that Nick conduct a surprise inspection on Pet Village. ADJOURNMENT.- There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairper o " Michelle Stodden, ecretary A-3 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL tNIENIBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for Elie keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: • •tion . Section 26-50(L)(1)(1) of the Wheat Rider Code of Laws is herebv milen led us follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zon districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SMALL NOT APPLY TO THE A-1 OR A-2) DISTRICTS., that only .,°...eeEi.,., (1) Large animals. Private stableS for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals are subject to SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) MiRiffiUM aFea 8F 10E, ' and attaehed , ,.ludi .,eta-1 x.,,..11 be HiRe `llausand WICU 4eaa! aeimal THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) ANIMALS iHORSES. COWS, I A M A 5: 914iro no 'GOATS) nc AGRgE OR HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT EQUALS ONE (1) COW) TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) ' BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP OR FOUR (4) GOATS . except that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. (h) Manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) WEEKS - SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to cause _s regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE Replace Word THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE "Animal" With FIRST ANIMA L AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX words "HORSE OR THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH HORSE EQUIVALENT ADDITIONAL ' "-L. FOR THE PURPOSES " " OPEN LOT AREA of THIS SECTION, UNIT" 2 places in MEANS A PORTION OF A LOT EXCLUDING this paragraph AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. suElt animals shall meet the Wlew;:, (d) THE PEN. CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM.OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH - ADDITIONAL ANIMAL. OF ANY SPECIES. 4-(E) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of ;T and must -be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. The-pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structures. - 2 A--3z The first paragraph, third line, under Item 7, Public Hearing, should be amended to read "Planned Commercial Development" instead of "Planned Community Development." It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Dunn absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A '«CaseNo ZOA-98-01c !;Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations. There was a consensus of the Commission to receive public comment even though the case was being presented as a study session item rather than a public hearing. Meredith Reckert distributed copies of the Nuisance Regulations and copies of the final approved minutes of the Animal Control Commission meeting of March 17, 1998. She informed that after the last Planning Commission study session on this matter, Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor, presented the Planning Commission's concerns to the Animal Control Commission for their consideration. The Animal Control Commission supported moving the manure accumulation issue to the nuisance ordinance; established horse equivalent units of one horse being equal to one cow, two llamas, two burros, four sheep and four goats; did not take any action on increasing the setbacks in A-1 and A-2 zoning when adjacent to residential; and recommended that seasonal removal of animals did not constitute discontinuation of the nonconforming use. Gerald. Dahl reviewed his memorandum of May 15, 1998 to the Planning Commission and City Council as well as an outline for possible revision of the large animal ordinance, noting that lot size restrictions, setbacks, etc. will have to be determined. Discussion followed. Commissioner GOKEY suggested that wording in Section 15-23 such as "unsatisfactory condition", "offensive odors", "deemed a nuisance", etc. need to be more clearly defined. Tammy Greene stated that it is extremely difficult to prosecute these cases in court; and that more definitive guidelines are necessary. She also noted that the municipal court is not equipped to prosecute an odor case unless there is assistance from the Health Department which has technical equipment that can measure odors. There was discussion concerning the problems of manure accumulation and flies. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 05/21/98 ATTACHMENT 7 Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested the placement of fly catch buckets similar to those used for fruit flies in California, to measure the number of flies present at different times of the day in order to determine what amount would constitute a nuisance. Commissioner SNOW commented that it would be impossible to eliminate all complaints because people who want a strictly urban environment will still complain about horses. Chair THOMPSON suggested special use permits be required in A-1 and A-2 districts when properties are adjacent to residential uses and, further, that increased setbacks should be considered. There was lengthy discussion regarding horse equivalent units. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that the equivalent units were too high, especially in regard to goats. Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested that mules should also be included in the ordinance and that a mule should be considered the same as one horse. In response to a request from Commissioner, Mr. Dahl stated that he would look into nuisance regulations from other communities. He also commented that if the City of Wheat Ridge is going to have animals, the City is obligated to come up with a very precise system to address neighborhood complaints. Ms. Reckert commented that there are still some subjective issues to work through as far as manure accumulation is concerned. Mr. White commented that he believed regulations also need to apply to agricultural zoning. Chair THOMPSON invited public comment and the following individuals addressed the Commission: Tim Osterloh 3295 Independence Court Mr. Osterloh referred to his previous appearance before the Commission and presented the history of his complaint that his next door neighbor keeps four horses in his back yard and never removes the manure. A little over a year ago, code enforcement cited the neighbor at which time the case was dismissed by the court because the code was too vague. He stated his opinion that the code should require manure to be cleaned up; however, he felt it would be difficult to measure because the horses trample it down. He stated that the fly problem from his neighbor's horses begins in March and worsens throughout the summer and thought the fly catchers, as suggested by Commissioner BRINKMAN, might be helpful. He concluded by stating that he is not opposed to people having horses on their property, but only wants a method to ensure that horse owners will be responsible in taking care of their animals. Kim Fehr 7340 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Fear stated that she purchased her property in order to keep her aging horse. She stated Planning Commission Minutes 05/21/98 A-3 i- that although she removes manure every other day, her neighbors still complain. She also thought the fly catchers were a good idea. She suggested instituting a time limit for horse owners to remove manure because she felt measuring would be very difficult. Walt Morris 3285 Independence Court Mr. Morris expressed concern that the ten tons of hay stored in the neighbor's back yard presented a fire hazard that could result in the loss of several homes in the area if the hay caught on fire and, in turn, ignited the pine trees in the neighborhood. He was also of the opinion that fly traps would work. He suggested that once an agricultural property has not housed horses or other large animals for a number of years, that they not be allowed on the property any more; and that he would like to see R-1 zoning changed so that horses are not allowed. However, in the meantime, he would like to see a method to enforce the proper care of horses. , There was some discussion regarding the possibility of requiring setbacks for haystacks. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner was appearing on behalf of the Animal Control Commission as well as a private citizen. She noted that public comment received at the Comprehensive Plan meetings indicated that the majority of citizens wish to keep horse property within the City of Wheat Ridge. She pointed out that the suggested requirement of 9000 square feet for the first horse (or equivalent unit) and 6000 square feet for the second was taken from the Jefferson County standard established in 1967, and that several municipalities have adopted those requirements. She noted that there have been remarkably few court cases regarding large animals, and that there have been far more complaints regarding dogs, trash, etc. She felt that the Animal Control Commission had arrived at reasonable figures based upon what has worked in Wheat Ridge in the past. She agreed with code enforcement's recommendation that the manure issue be removed from the zoning code and addressed under the nuisance law. She informed that the Animal Control Commission was very strong in its recommendation that no changes be made to the agricultural zoning; and that the Commission took a position that temporary or seasonal removal of an animal did not constitute discontinuance of its use. In regard to pen or corral requirements, the Commission felt that 800 square feet for the first animal with an additional 100 square feet for each additional animal of any species was a reasonable recommendation. She also noted that she was opposed to setback regulations forA-1 and A-2 zone districts as well as setbacks for haystacks. There was discussion regarding problems arising from new property owners not realizing tha adjacent property is zoned for large animals when they purchase their property. John Gammon 3305 Independence Court Mr. Gammon appeared in support of the property owners directly adjacent to the pr question on Independence Court. His property is at the corner of the subject pros Planning Commission Minutes Pa, - 05/21/98 also affected by presence of flies as well as odor making it difficult to enjoy their backyard patio. He stated that he is not opposed to having horses in Wheat Ridge, but would like to see some teeth added to the nuisance law to address irresponsibility of some horse owners. He supported the suggestions from the Animal Control Commission and felt that bigger setback requirements would not solve the problem. He also wanted to see health concerns resulting from flies addressed. Ms. Reckert informed that the minimum lot size for R-1 zone property is one acre and 140 feet lot width, and that there are many substandard A-1 lots in the city for which the staff will be recommending the 9000-6000 square feet requirements. Code enforcement pointed out that some entities rely on the Department of Health for enforcement proceedings when the public health, safety and welfare are affected; however, this is not a high priority for the Department of Health. Don McDougal 9815 West 37th Avenue Mr. McDougal informed that if fresh manure is added to a pile daily, there will be no flies because the heat burns the larvae; and that scattering and drying manure will not produce flies. He noted other ways to control flies and thought the fly traps may work. He felt the crux of the matter is in proper management by animal owners. He also commented that when he worked for the Health Department, there were a large number of complaints concerning horses and that in almost every case, horses were there before the complaining parties purchased their properties. Don Hammerschmidt 3215 Flower Street Mr. Hammerschmidt stated that he purchased his property in order to have a horse. He commented that it is important to keep the stables clean and that sometimes, in spite of cleanliness, horses attract a certain number of flies. He did not want to see the City require horse owners to stable their animals somewhere else during the summer. He expressed his opinion that improperly stacked hay can create fire hazards as a result of internal combustion. Kevin Craig 10615 West 46th Avenue Mr. Craig stated that he did not want to see horse property eliminated from the City of Wheat Ridge and wanted to ensure that the right to have horses on his property would be grandfathered in for future sale of the property. He also expressed concern that the City would require him to remove his barn which is located eight feet from the property line and a hundred feet from his neighbor's house. He also stated his opinion that a haystack presents no more of a fire hazard than having pine trees on a property. There was discussion concerning the location of Mr. Craig's barn. Ms. Reckert explained that the barn is presently nonconforming but would not have to be moved unless the barn were to be destroyed and rebuilt for some reason. The new structure would then have to conform to the present code. Planning Commission Minutes - Page 5 05121/98 A- -3b Commissioner BRINKMAN responded to Mr. Craig's concerns stating that the City is only attempting to refine language and clear up vague areas in the code in order to address nuisance properties, and not to get rid of horse properties. Commissioner GOKEY assured Mr. Craig that the City has no intention to make him get rid of his barn or his horse. Following the public comments, Mr. Dahl stated that he understood the direction to be as follows: (1) lot sizes, setbacks and corral sizes should not be changed; (2) the nonconforming or amortization schedule should not be changed; (3) the horse equivalent units should remain as recommended by the Animal Control Commission; and (4) that effort should be concentrated on the nuisance aspect of the code. He informed that he would obtain sample ordinances from other entities regarding enforcement of these types of nuisance problems. Commissioner SNOW suggested that the horse equivalent units include one horse, one cow, one burrow, one mule, one llama, four sheep and two goats and noted that there have been numerous complaints about goats in past years. She was also concerned that the ordinance doesn't result in allowing even more animals to be kept in the city. . Commissioners BRINKMAN and SHOCKLEY felt that the Animal Control Commission's recommendations should be followed. Commissioner SNOW requested that- Section 1-A of the proposed ordinance be incorporated into Section 1-C. Mr. Dahl suggested that the section concerning the removal of horses to summer pastures needs to be clarified and a time limit determined. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if it could be made mandatory that prospective property owners be given a list of adjacent properties and their zoning before they purchase a house (similar to flood plain requirements.) It was a consensus of the Commission that the City should not be involved in this process. Chair THOMPSON declared a recess at 10:08 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing portion of the meeting open. B. Case No. ZOA-98-04: The Planning and Development Department is proposing to amend Section 26-6 of the Code of Laws: Legislative and Administrative process and procedures concerning right-of-way vacations. Meredith Reckert presented this item and referred to the staff's recommendations for an amendment to Section 26-6: Legislative and Administrative Process and Procedures: Right- of-way Vacation Procedures. She informed that the City has been following those procedures and using the criteria in all of the vacation cases, but the procedure has never been formally Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 05/21/98 GORSUCH KIRGI °ATTORNEYS A-t'LAVV` MEMORANDUM TO MEREDITH RECKERT FROM: KELLY ELEFANT AND GERALD E. DAHL DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998 . A RECEIVED S EP 0 91998 P RE: ISSUES RELATED TO ODORS CAUSED BY MANURE ACCUMULATION In response to your inquiry, we have reviewed the codes of other jurisdictions you have provided us and which have addressed this issue. Currently, citation and prosecution of property owners permitting manure to accumulate, cause offensive odors, or attract excessive amounts.of flies may be accomplished under several provisions of the Wheat Ridge Code, as manure is currently addressed in three locations, including sections on Animals, Nuisances, and Zoning. / Animals Per Section 4-9, it is unlawful fo any animal owner to allow any animal or animals to create a nuisance. For the purposes o that section, a nuisance includes causing of offensive odors. Animal owners are strictly liab a under Article I, Section 4 and any persons found to be in violation of the chapter may be punishable by a fine not to exceed $999 or by imprisonment. Nuisances Under the definition of litter in Section 15-1, offal composed of animal matter or any noxious or offensive matter whatever, including waste material is prohibited from causing a public nuisance, which includes unlawful pollution or contamination of the air and any activity indecent or offensive to the senses which interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property (15-1). In order to enforce the nuisance sections, inspections and rights of entry are permissible and to the extent possible, notice must be given of the offense and an opportunity for the property owner to bring the property into compliance (15-3). Subsequently, abatement may be conducted by the City (15-5) and charges may be assessed against the property owner (15-6). ATTACHMENT 8 KLE\57027\294623.0I - Under Section 15-23, regarding the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings, (c) provides that whenever manure or any other organic material shall accumulate and affect the health of the public, it may be forbidden and designated a nuisance under the provisions of that chapter.- Further; under Subsection 15-23(c), it is unlawful and it constitutes a nuisance for any persons to"allow'-any" premises or use to become offensive in odor, or to create an urisanifary or, hazardous health condition. Zoninsi-- . - Section 26-30(L)(1)(6) provides that manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to accumulate so as to cause a nuisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. The violations and penalties are violations of the zoning code found in Section 26-500 through 503 and include civil actions, fines, and imprisonment. CHANGES TO EXISTING ORDINANCES As the manure problem appears to be primarily one of enforcement and prosecution rather than lack of existing prohibitions in the Code, we suggest the following revisions to the Nuisance provisions of the Code in order to make it easier for Municipal Court to rule in favor of the City in violations cases and to preclude a finding that the sections are too vague to support conviction and imposition of fines. The new sections provide for increased penalties and for an evidentiary mechanism whereby rather than having to scrutinize pictures of manure accumulations, a court may rely on testimony from neighbors and/or enforcement officials to find a nuisance has been committed.. KLE\53027\294623.01 2 ~ -3 I TITLE: AN ORDINANCE RIDGE CODE APPLICABLE TO AND $UILDINGS Series of 1998 AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such'as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of • An animal~ras'~'e-officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. KLE\53027\296660.01 A4o Section'2.'-Safety Clause:"-The-City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated: for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary-.for the,preservation-of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and are, The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to -the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance of Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. - - - - INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day of , 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK day of , 1998. GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY lst Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: BPA53027T268143.01 GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 2 A ' l Animal Control Commission Minutes October 20, 1998 PRESENT: _ Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Louise Turner; Monica Gregerson; Debby Mauldin; Joseph Ashker; Bea Slingsby; Nick Fisher. ABSENT. Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Dr. John Maulsby, Advisor; Greg Feudner; Kim Fear. Prior to the meeting, Nick showed pictures taken with the new remote camera purchased by the City to try to capture pictures of the mountain lion. No mountain lions were seen, but other wildlife (racoons, fox, squirrels) were photographed. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the August 17, 1998 meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Nick distributed a memo and proposed ordinance from the city attorney to Meredith Reckert concerning the odor and manure accumulation issues. Meredith would like to get input from the Animal Control Commission. A discussion was held and committee members liked the Animal Control Commission's earlier recommendations that stipulated "time frames" better. The proposed ordinance looks like it will still be subjected to "opinions". Nick explained that they added a part where animal parks, police, or code officers could use their "reasonable judgement" and that their opinions could be used to satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial. After discussion, the following motion was made by Louise, seconded by Bea: If the attorney feels this would be more effective in terms of enforcement, the Animal Control Commission agrees. The Commission also agrees the issue belongs in the nuisance ordinance rather than in the zoning ordinance. We support the new ordinance as presented to us. Motion passed. Nick updated the Commission on the mountain lion issue. There was an informational meeting held on October 51h with DOW. There have been only two confirmed sightings, but none lately. The mountain lion may have marked this area as part of his territory and may be back occasionally. Louise would like to see the Ranger program reinstated. It was a nice, comfortable program. There were three rangers that patrolled the greenbelt as well as presented nature talks. Nick was asked it there had been an increase in crime since the ranger program was discontinued. Nick reported that over all crime has increased. There are not a lot of violent crimes in the greenbelt. There are quite a few vandalism calls and now a lot of first aids at the skate.park. ATTACHMENT 9 A-4-2- NEW BUSINESS: Louise reported that the Kennel Ordinance went before City Council and passed on first reading. Louise was concerned with the specific times listed (lam - 5pm) for inspections to be conducted. Nick reported that Council added the times. Louise made the following motion, seconded by Debby: The Animal Control Commission recommends, upon second reading, that inspections be conducted during "normal, posted business hours Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary 2 A' A s A. Curtis and Kimberly A. Fear 7340 W. 32 Ave. Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303-274-9124 (H) November, 28, 1998 I a RECEIVED DEC C 11998 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Attn: Barbara Delgadillo 7500 W. 29d' Ave Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Please accept this letter as input for the December 17 Planning Commission meeting. I will, unfortunately, be out of town that evening, however I feel it is vital that my position be heard. I strongly support the amendments to the City's Animal Regulations, as proposed by lire Animal Control Commission. These new amendments will not only, improve the animal regulations in the City, but should also help reduce neighborhood battles. I believe that feuding neighbors rather than real problems with the animals drive the majority of large animal complaints in this city. Two years ago, my husband and I moved into our house on 32"d Ave. Shortly thereafter, we brought my horse to the house. She is the reason that we bought this particular piece of property, so that I could have her here. My neighbors dislike the fact that I have the horse at my house. They have raised complaints with the City ranging from animal abuse to nuisance violations for "odor". All charges and accusations were unfounded, and the nuisance violations went to court as well. I feel that these new amendments will help protect the animal owners, such as myself, who DO care for their animals from the vindictiveness of neighbors. Additionally, the regulations should protect the neighbors of those animal owners who DO NOT care for their animals properly. The City should avoid the risk of overreacting to a few problems by attempting to disallow all large animals in the City. Yes, there are a few problems, however for the most part the City has had a long, and successful, relationship with large animals, and humans in the area. The City should not punish all animal owners for the neglect of a few, and worse yet, for the unfounded complaints of disgruntled neighbors. Let us have our animals, on our property, as long as we care for them appropriately. If city enrplovees should determine that there are issues around the care and upkeep of animals, deal with the individual property owner at that time. Sincerely, 2Cc~_ Kimberly A. Fear ATTACHMENT 10 x-44 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30 (L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A- 1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. the Agricaltmal zone distticts. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animals-re-subjcctto SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) Minfirmin =a v, lot, excluding =a IMCLed by a Main bhU&MC M1 attached emports ot patios, and excluding detached gmagC3, Shaii bC nin THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR HEEP, OR FOUR (4) GOATS. -x(b) Manure or liquid allowed to accumulate FOR MORE A -46- ATTACHMENT 11 THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to cause a rittisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The pen, corral OL fenced area for the keeping Uf SUCh MihnalS Shall Lneet tit (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT. HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (e) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed -pis and nmst be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. ?-.1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. a. 2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. (d* (f) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than. thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel: AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. (z) (g) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. _ SHALL CONSTITUTE /J~ -4~ A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive T = days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the, preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction, invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 1998. A- 1, SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: ` C:\Barbara\CCRPTS\RESO-ORD\zua9801.wpd 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01. An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY to continue Case No. ZOA-98-01 to December 17, 1998 upon recommendation of the City staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner SHOCKLEY absent. B. Case No. ANX-98-04/WZ-98-16. An application by Kaiser Permanente for approval to annex 32.886 acres of unincorporated land into the City of Wheat Ridge and to zone the property as C-1. Property is located at 4803 Ward Road and known as Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. White explained that Gerald Dahl, City Attorney, advised him the zoning portion of this case could not be decided at this meeting due to the lack of quorum for the November 19th Planning Commission meeting when the matter was originally scheduled and the publication requirements not being satisfied. He advised that comments regarding zoning could be taken for the record. This case was presented by Martin Omer. He reviewed the staff report and presented overheads and slides of the subject area. He entered the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits into the record which were accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. He advised that staff recommended approval of the annexation and that there was jurisdiction for the Commission to hear the case. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern about impact on the proposed annexation would have on possible incorporation of the Fairmount area. Mr. Omer replied that, from an economic standpoint, it would seem that incorporation by Fairmount is no longer viable. Mr. White stated that annexation petitions take precedence over incorporation petitions and that the Fairmount incorporation election was set aside for the cities of Arvada, Wheat Ridge and Golden to take action on annexation. Decisions on annexation would have to occur before a judge would allow incorporation proceedings. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if rezoning can occur without a formal motion from Planning Commission. Mr. White replied that Planning Commission will be making a formal motion at the December 17 hearing; however, comments from the Planning Commission at this meeting would to be forwarded to City Council as part of the staff report. Planning Commission Page 2 12/03/98 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Meat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 November 19, 1998 Dear Interested Citizen: Ridge I wanted to inform you that due to the size of the Planning Commission agenda on December 3, 1998, ZOA-98-01, amendments to the City's Animal Regulations, will be continued by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998, and actually heard for discussion on December 17, 1998. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office at 235-2846. Thank you for your interest and input. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT /bd C: \Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOKPUBHRG\zoa98011trs.wpd NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge PLANNING COMMISSION on December 3, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: Case No. ZOA-98-01: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26- 30 (L) of the Code of Laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings. Barbara Delgadillo, Recor mg Secretary ATTEST: ~~t,~ Wanda Sang, City k To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: November 13, 1998 C.Barb..WCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\ I2dmeelingpub /wu West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 Ridge FAX 303/234-5924 November 9, 1998 Dear Interested Citizen: The Planning and Development Department would like to inform you that a public hearing to discuss ZOA-98-01, amendments to the City's Animal Regulations, will be heard by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office at 235-2846. Thank you for your interest and input. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT /bd C ABarbam\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\zoa98011hs.wpd fi --j. la ~Q a_c~ ~1 o 6L4 l u 01 T Louise Turner Mr. & Mrs. Osterloh JoAnne Howard 11256 W. 38` Avenue 9733 W. 32"d Avenue 7260 W. 31" Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Bob Rock 4300 Tabor Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Kevin Craig 10615 West 46" Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Vinn Dunsmoor 3085 Upham Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 John Gammon 3305 Independence Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Warren McCoy 3275 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dr. Rob Hilsenroth Animal Commission Diane Tipton 4311 Tabor Street Wheat Ridge, CO Don MacDougall 9815 W. 3Th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Kim Fear 7340 W. 32"d Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Walt Morris 3285 Independence Ct. 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Tom Hammerschmidt 3215 Flower Steet Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 C.\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBI-02G\ZOA980 I mail i,1ist.wpd Z' to IA-q g-O 1 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FROM: BARBARA DELGADILLO, CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SUBJECT: NUISANCE ORDINANCE DATE: JUNE 1, 1998 The City of Wheat Ridge Planning Department is currently in the process of reviewing its ordinances pertaining to animals including nuisance abatement and regulations. We would appreciate a copy of your nuisance ordinance governing animals (clean up, noise, odor, etc) or any other law covering the keeping of animals. Please fax to: 235-2857 or mail to: City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Attn: Barbara Delgadillo 7500 W. 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 I appreciate your assistance with this issue. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 235-2846. Thank you. Barbara Q\Bubwa\BARMiuismu lWecwpd City of Arvada City of Aurora City of Fort Collins Code Enforcement Code Enforcement/Nusiance Control Code Enforcement 8101 Ralston Road 1470 S. Havana Street P.O. Box 580 Arvada, Co 80002 Aurora, Co 80012 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Town of Gilcrest City of Lafayette City of Lakewood Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Code Enforcement 304 8th 1290 South Public Road 445 S. Allison Parkway Gilcrest, CO 80623 Lafayette, CO 80026 Lakewood, CO 80226 City of Littleton City of Longmont City of Parker Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Code Enforcement 2255 West Berry Ave. 350 Kimbark 19600 E. Parker Square Littleton, CO 80165 Longmont, CO 80501 Parker, CO City of Platteville County of Jefferson Summit County Code Enforcement Nusiance Abatement/Code Enforcement Code Enforcement 411 Goodrich 100 Jefferson County Parkway P.O. Box 68 Platteville, CO 80651 Golden, CO 80419-3550 Breckenridge, CO 80424 ju c-et~ JURISDICTION ALLOWED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS EXCREMENT YES NO MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE ADDRESSED Arvada X 9,000 for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for No each additional horse. 100 foot setback required from residences. Aurora' X Livestock including horses: No 1 animal for every `/o acre in the RA zone only. . Corral sizes are not regulated. Boulder X 1 horse for every %2 acre. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Brighton X Allowed in RE or PUD only. Yes Requires permit. Corral sizes are not regulated. Broomfield X Livestock and horses are prohibited. No Castle Rock X Not allowed within the City. Yes Cherry Hills NO RESPONSE Commerce City X Not allowed within the City. No Denver County/City X 1 animal for every %2 acre in the Yes Residential zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Englewood X Does not allow large animals. No Erie X Not allowed within City. No Estes Park X 2 horses - 1 acre Yes 3+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Allowed in the RS or RM zones only. Setbacks for corrals: 25' to any building used as residence or human habitation; 50' from street or property line. Federal Heights X No Livestock allowed including No horses. Fort Collins X /2 acre per animal. Uses Larimar County Code for farm animals. Corrals are not regulated. Ft. Lupton NO RESPONSE. Ft. Morgan NO RESPONSE. ,Gilcrest X 1 horse for every %a acre except where there is less than 5 acres then 1 horse per 1 acre; except for offspring until 7 months of age. Corral sizes are not regulated. Glendale X Not allowed within City. No Golden X 9,000 sq.ft. for 1 horse; 6,000 sq. ft. Yes for each additional horse. Special Use Permit required. Allowed in the Agricultural zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from the lot line; 15 feet from the side or rear lot line. Greeley NO RESPONSE. Greenwood Village X 1 horse per 1/3 acre; 2 with ''/z acre; Yes 3 or more '/2 acre each additional horse. Space must be dedicated solely to animal (i.e., stable and corral). 12 x 12 stall areas max. if corral is built. Lafayette X SUP only in REl and RE2 with Yes 40,000 and 20,000 square foot requirement. Corral sizes are not regulated. Lakewood X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1 st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre except that offspring can be kept until weaned. Corrals minimum is 300 sq. ft. per horse. Littleton X In RE: 25,000 sq.ft. minimum per animal; other zoned areas require 2 acre minimum (trying to discourage). Corral sizes are not regulated. Zongmont X Existing animals are grand fathered. No longer allowed within City. Matrix - Large Animal Page 3 Louisville X RRR and AgA only. Yes 1 acre minimum. Corrals must be 150' from any building occupied as a residence or used for human habitation. Loveland X % acre per horse - no livestock. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Northglenn X ~ 0 Thornton NO RESPONSE. Westminster X With PUD or minimum of 10 acre Yes lot. Corral sizes are not regulated. ;Parker X 1 horse for every 2 acres. Yes Corralling or containment of animals is required with only limited periodic grazing; is to be "adequate" for the number of animals involved but not to exceed 10% of the lot area; shall not be closer than 100' to any off-site residence or business on an adjoining property. llatteville ` X 1 horse - 1/3 acre 2 horses -'/2 acre g j j 3 horses - 1 acre to 4+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Acreage requested is that solely devoted to horse (i.e., stable or corral area) HR z, Matrix - Large Animal Page 4 Adams County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1 st horse; 6,000 sq. Yes - for less ft. for each additional horse, but not than 35 acre lots. to exceed 4 horses per acre; does not include horses below weaning age or 6 months whichever is less. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from any off-property residence or place of business and 25 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the front lot line. Jefferson County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1 st horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre with exception for offspring until 7 months of age. These numbers exclude the area for the one-family dwelling. Corral sizes are not regulated. Summit County X Without a CUP: Q 1 horse - 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional 000 80 f 2 ~ acres over , or every horse sq. ft. up to 35 acres. With a CUP: 76~I k't 2 horses - 40,000 to 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq.ft. up to 35 acres. Corral sizes are not regulated. TOTAL RESPONSES: 30 21 9 Revised: February 19,1998 d\files\wp\bubs\animlord.wpd Matrix - Large Animal Page 5 Matrix - Large Animal Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA-98-01 DATE: May 21, 1998 REQUEST: Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations. Position on Request (l as h 4 SPEAKER NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE (PLEASE PRINT) IN FAVOR OPPOSED 60 Ae m r-cQ-A, LAD a 4., y 36- mml TK (5\V 3'a.7 3 ~LvwE~ _ e:/planningWorms/phroster. frm - ,v City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: 6 MEREDITH RECKERT SUBJECT: CASE NO._ZOA-98-1/LARGE ANIMAL REGULATIONS DATE: MAY 15, 1998 Attached, are materials related to Planning Commission's continued discussion regarding the City's large animal regulations. Included in this packet are: 1. A copy of an ordinance incorporating Animal Control Commission original recommendations (previously distributed). (Attachment 1) 2. A copy of the matrix of other cities' regulations (previously distributed). (Attachment 2) 3 A copy of the minutes from Planning Commission's February 15, 1998 meeting. (Attachment 3) 4. A copy of the draft minutes from the Animal Control Commission's March 17, 1998 meeting. Staff requested their input on several issues generated by Planning Commission. (Attachment 4) 5. A copy of two articles from the May 7, 1998 Jefferson Sentinel. (Attachment 5) 6. Comments from the City Attorney regarding the revised ordinance (#1 above) and the keeping of large animals in general. (Attachment 6) Tammy Greene, the City's prosecuting attorney, will be available at the meeting to answer questions. C:\Bubua\PCRPTS\ZOA981. WPD 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 Ridge ZO 1 1~,- April 7, 1998 Dear Interested Citizen: The Planning and Development Department would like to inform you that further discussion regarding the City's Animal Regulations will be brought back to the Planning Commission on May 21, 1998. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office at 235-2846. Thank you for your interest and input. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT /bd C:\Bubna\LETTERS\mimalord.wpd ~4 Ann OsterlowEND FIELD, 3295 Independence CourtENDFIELD Wheat Ridge, COENDFIELD Bob RockENDFIELD 4300 Tabor StreetENDFIELD Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDII ENDRECO.RD! Warren McCoyENDFIELDI 3275 Dudley Street ENDFIELD' Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELDi ENDRECORD= Don McDougall;NDFIELD; 9815 West 37th AvenueENDFJELD Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELD` Kevin CraigENDFIELD€ 10615 West 46th AvenueENDFIELD` Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELD Dr. Rob HilsenrothENDFIELD!- ENDFIELD ENDF`IELD' ENDREGORDi Louise TumerENDFIELD 11256 West 38th AvenueENDFIELDt Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELD Kim FearENDFIELD 7340 W. 32nd AvenueENDFIELD Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELD Diane TiptonENDFLEL-D 4311 Tabor StreetENDFIELD Wheat Ridge, CO 80033ENDFIELD ENDRECORD' City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: KVleredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: February 25, 1999 At the Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 1998 (minutes included as Exhibit `A'), the Commission approved the proposed revisions to the large animal regulations presented as Exhibit `B' (attached) with the exception of the pen cleaning provision of two weeks (section . (b)). They had instructed staff to devise a formula whereby smaller pens would be cleaned more often than larger pen. After numerous hours spent on this, staff has concluded that it is impossible to devise a formula which addresses the manure clean-up issue consistently using the parameters of lot size, number of animals and setback from adjacent property line. There are too many variables involved, not to mention the change of seasons. Therefore, we would propose that an arbitrary size limitation be used in determining periods between clean-up. We recommend that pens less than 1000 square feet in size be cleaned every week and that pens 1000 square feet and over be cleaned every two weeks. In support of the one week clean up period for smaller lots is the fact that the incubation period of a fly is from seven to ten days. If the commission is worried about proximity to adjacent residential properties, Section (e)(2) could be revised to have the enclosure setback of 30' from property line rather than adjacent structure. At the December 17 meeting, the commission also continued the proposed revisions to the nuisance ordinance included as Exhibit `C'. Staff is recommending no changes. As staff was in the process of trying to devise a manure removal formula, staff discussed the issues raised by the Commission with Nick Fisher who, in turn, discussed them with ACC at their January 19, 1999 meeting. The ACC moved to keep the two week clean-up period but to specify for residential properties only. They also made a motion to delete paragraph (e) from the changes to the nuisance ordinance. (See minutes included under Exhibit `D'.) Staff would note that this provision for residential properties should include substandard agricultural lots as well. In conclusion, staff recognizes that the proposed legislation probably does not address every potential scenario in the City, but it is a vast improvement over the existing ordinances. We 14-1 would encourage Planning Commission to recommend approval. It can always be amended in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Animal Regulations: Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be approved for the following reasons: The proposed changes to the clean-up period address different sized corrals in residential zones and on substandard agriculturally zoned lots. 2. With the following condition: Section (b) be revised to read: "For residential lots and substandard sized agricultural lots, manure and liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than one week in corrals less than 1000 square feet in size and more than two weeks in corrals 1000 square feet or larger in size shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Wheat Ridge." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the zoning code relative to the keeping of large animals, be denied for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." Nuisance Regulations: Option A: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be approved for the following reasons: It will allow personal testimony as prima fascia evidence in court. 2. 3." Option B: "I move that Case No. ZOA-98-01, proposed revisions to the code of laws relative to nuisance regulations, be denied for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3." 4-a passed 4-0 with Commissioner SHOCKLEY abstaining and Commissioners BRINKiMAN and THOMPSON absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up. to speak before the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-98-01 (Continued from December 3, 1993) An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26-30(L) of the code of laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge code of laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer and buildings. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented a brief history of the proposed ordinances. She reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinances. Commissioner SNOW asked if the staff knew how many A-1 nonconforming properties existed in the City of Wheat Ridge. Ms. Reckert replied that she didn't know the exact number but could have that information available for the City Council hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW concerning the nuisance ordinance, Mr. Dahl'replied that it has been nearly impossible to enforce the nuisance complaints concerning flies and odor because of lack of evidence. He stated that the proposed ordinance would require complaining parties (one of which would be the City's code enforcement officer) to testify in court as to the nature of the nuisance. He explained that thejudge would then be able to make a decision based upon testimony given in court. Commissioner GOKEY asked about the possibility of disallowing the keeping of large animals in residential areas if a property had not been used for that purpose for a certain number of years. Mr. Dahl stated that, while many metropolitan cities have taken the position that large animals are not appropriate in a small urban situation, it was his understanding that the City of Wheat Ridge does not want to preclude having large animals within the City limits which makes it necessary to address the associated issues. He did note that there is an alternative to make smaller lots legal nonconforming uses that, once interrupted, cannot be used. Commissioner GOKEY stated that he did not necessarily want those people who have large animals to be penalized and lose the right to have the animals on their property; however, as the community goes through transitions, amortizing the keeping of large animals in residential areas may have to be considered. Planning Commission Page 2 12/17/98 EXHIBIT A Commissioner SNOW stated that she does not agree with the idea of amortizing the keeping of large animals. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner was swom in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. She stated that she was appearing on behalf of the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. She stated that she did not agree with Mr. Gokey's comments and that it seemed to be the consensus of Wheat Ridge citizens to continue the keeping of large animals in appropriate areas. She noted, for clarification, that the 9,000 square feet requirement pertains to 9,000 square feet of open area and does not include the areas which contain structures. She noted that this requirement appears to be adequate based on the fact that there have been very few complaints regarding large animals over the years. She stated that the 800 square foot requirement for pen size was originally in the ordinance up until about ten years ago when it was inadvertently left out when the zoning laws were rewritten. She stated that this pen size was recommended by the Animal Control Commission as well as the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association. She also pointed out that the pen size does not relate to horse equivalents units, but is required for each animal. She stated that the limit of four horses per acre was also included in the law long ago under the county and was also inadvertently dropped out at the same time as the pen size regulation. The Livestock Commission suggested that the limit of four horses per acres be put back in the proposed ordinance. The one change that did not come through the Commission .vas the staff recommendation pertaining to undersized agricultural lots. In view of the fact that undersized lots do exist, she believed this portion of the code made sense. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance as written based upon the recommendations of the Animal Commission, the fact that the nuisance issues have been removed from the zoning ordinance and placed in the nuisance ordinance, and the fact that there is support from the City Attorney as well as public support expressed at the previous hearing, In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Ms. Turner replied that the Livestock Commission's decision regarding the nuisance law was to support the City Attorney's proposals. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that a horse owner who removes his horse from a property to go to summer pasture might lose the right to keep the horse. Mr. Dahl explained that if a property is in conformance with the ordinance, the owner has the right to remove his horses and bring them back at any time. Commissioner MacDOUGALL commented that the problem of manure accumulation is a managerial situation. He stated that he believed a requirement for removal of manure every two weeks would probably solve the situation and that it would probably be necessary to live with the ordinance for awhile to see if it accomplishes its purpose. Planning Commission Page 3 12/17/93 /'T v 1 Bob Rock 4300 Tabor Street Mr. Rock was sworn in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. Mr. Rock stated that he was in agreement with the ordinance; however, he expressed concern about Section B which requires manure to be cleaned up every two weeks. He felt this should depend on the size of the property. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Rock replied that his property is zoned A-2. Commissioner SNOW then advised Mr. Rock that the ordinance does not affect him because it does not apply to agricultural districts. Ms. Reckert affirmed that this was true. Joann Howard 7260 West 31st Place Ms. Howard was sworn in by Vice Chairman GOKEY. She presented photographs of a situation in her neighborhood where a horse is kept by one of the neighbors. She stated that she lives in an area where cul-de-sacs meet and because of setbacks, the horse owner does not have the required 800 square foot pen and that she unable to open her windows in the summer because of the odor. She stated that one of the neighbor's kitchen is only 30 feet from the pen where manure is allowed to accumulate. She asked that these types of situations be addressed in the proposed ordinance. She asked the Commission to consider alternatives such as the City of Golden has instituted which allows the keeping of large animals through a special use permit process where, if the owners do not comply with conditions of approval, they lose the right to keep the animals. She also stated that when she calls the City with a complaint, a representative does not investigate until several days later and there is no one to contact after 5:00 p.m. or on the weekends. Commissioner COLLINS advised Ms. Howard to contact her council member. She replied that she had contacted her council member on several occasions. Commissioner SNOW asked the staff if they had any suggestions to set a ratio of lot size to the time period required for cleanup. She felt that a small lot needed to be cleaned more often than two weeks. Mr. Dahl replied that this could be considered in order to make the requirements more objective. Mr. White suggested requiring one day for every 100 square feet of pen size which would require, for example, an 800 square foot pen to be cleaned every eight days. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner suggested that rather than coming up with a formula, inserting the words "or as determined by the code enforcement officer." Commissioner MacDOUGALL stated that another solution to manure problems is to add to a small diameter pile every day which, if done on a regular basis, remains hot enough that there would be no flies and very little odor. He commented that this could be determined to be an accumulation but would also be considered proper management. He thought there needed to be an alternative. Planning Commission Page 4 12/17/9; d`5~ Vice Chairman GOKEY stated that he felt the code enforcement officer needed guidelines such as the one suggested relative to a certain number of square feet being equal to a certain number of days between cleanup. He stated that he felt the situation depicted in Vis. Howard's photographs was offensive, and that smaller confingd areas should be required to be cleaned more frequently than larger areas. He stated that he wanted to see property owners allowed to keep large animals but wanted the care and management of these animals to be enforced. Commissioner SNOW asked if this ordinance had been published for City Council hearing. Ms. Reckert replied that it had not. Commissioner SNOW suggested postponing the hearing on the ordinance until alternative options concerning cleanup could be addressed by the staff Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner MacDOUGALL seconded that the zoning portion of the ordinance be continued and brought back to Planning Commission within three months with proposals to amend paragraph B with suggestions for change as related to the size of the corral and the distance from adjacent residences, and that the proposals be given to the Animal Control Commission for review and comment one month before coming before the Planning Commission. Testimony will be taken at that time only on the amendments to paragraph B. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKiMAN and THOMPSON absent. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Dahl stated that both of the ordinances should be continued for action only. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner SHOCKLEY seconded that the proposed amendment to the nuisance portion of the Wheat Ridge code of laws be continued to the same date, within three months; and that if there are any suggested changes, the changes go to the Animal Control Commission for consideration and, if not, that the ordinance be heard again with the same language as presented at this meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and THOMPSON absent. (Vice Chairman GOKEY declared a recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 P.M.) B. Case No. WZ-98-16. An application by Kaiser Permanente for approval to zone property located at 4803 Ward Road and known as Kaiser Permanente Medical Center as C-1. This case was presented by Martin Omer. He reviewed the staff report and presented overheads of the subject area. He entered the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, case file, packet Planning Commission Page 5 12/17/98 4- G INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. _ Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30(L)(1) OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WHEREAS, Section 26-30 (L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the keeping of large animals; and WHEREAS, the council wishes to amend the section as a result of recommendations of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 26-30(L)(1) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (L) Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of Animals: The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted. THIS SECTION (L) SHALL NOT APPLY TO CONFORMING LOTS IN THE A- 1 OR A-2 DISTRICTS. except that oniy subsection beio n applies to the Agiictfltmal zone districts. (1) Large animals. Private stables for the keeping of LARGE ANIMALS SUCH AS horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and similar animalsjeetto SHALL MEET the following requirements: (a) Nfinitirmix wea u, lot, excluding area covered by a main stmetme an thotismid (9000) square feet fo, die first anfinal and an additional six thousand (6000) square feet for each additional animal THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) HORSE EQUIVALENT UNITS PER ACRE EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. ONE HORSE EQUIVALENT EQUALS ONE (1) COW, TWO (2) LLAMAS, TWO (2) BURROS, FOUR (4) SHEEP, OR FOUR (4) GOATS. (b) Manure or liquid was shallnot be allowed to accumulate FOR MORE EXHIBIT B THAN TWO (2) WEEKS SHALL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND so as to cause a ntrismice as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) MINIMUM OPEN LOT AREA SHALL BE NINE THOUSAND (9000) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SIX THOUSAND (6000) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HORSE EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. "OPEN LOT AREA" MEANS A PORTION OF LOT EXCLUDING AREA COVERED BY A MAIN STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED CARPORTS OR PATIOS, AND EXCLUDING DETACHED GARAGES. The pen corral ot fenced area f6i the keeping of such aninials shall rzteet the foilowing . (d) THE PEN, CORRAL OR FENCED AREA ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS MUST ENCLOSE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED (800) SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL OF ANY SPECIES. (e) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed of materials and must be maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. 2-1. The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one (1) acre or, if under one (1) acre if the lot has no main structure. 3.2. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. _ (d)l- (fl Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS or those portions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel. AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. (e) (g) NONCONFORMING A-1 AND A-2 PROPERTIES (I.E., A-1 AND A- 2 LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE) SHALL FOLLOW THE A-S PROVISIONS OF ITEMS (a) THROUGH (f) OF THIS ORDINANCE. (h) ANY KEEPING OF ANIMALS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY THE PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. SHALL CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING KEEPING OF ANIMALS. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of subsection (L)(1)(a), (c) and (d) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of 1998. 14-9 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: C:\Barbara\CCRPCS\RESO-ORD\zoa980 Lwpd A-1 D CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. - Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-23 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITION OF STABLES, FERTILIZER, AND $UILDINGS WHEREAS, Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws contains regulations for the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to amend the Section 15-23 as a result of a need to better enforce and prosecute violations relating to manure accumulation and resulting nuisances such as odors and flies. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by the revision of the title to read: Condition of PROPERTY, Stable, Fertilizer, AND Buildings and by the addition of new subsections (e) and (f) which shall provide as follows: (e) For purposes of civil or criminal enforcement of violations of this Section under Section 15-9, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section if there are at least two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign such complaint and shall have testified at trial regarding the nuisance complained of.. An animal'A g`-officer, police officer or code enforcement official who has personally investigated the complaint of a single complainant and observed offensive odors, excessive flies, and/or amounts of manure giving rise to that person's belief, in his or her reasonable judgment that the manure accumulation constitutes a nuisance, may satisfy the requirement for the second complaining witness and may give testimony to such observations at trial (f) The municipal court judge is authorized to double the applicable fine otherwise imposed upon any person under this Section if such person has been previously convicted of the same or a similar violation within the preceding twelve (12) months. ICLE\53027\294660.01 EXHIBIT C p~ I I Section'2:-Safety Claus e:."The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated: for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary. for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare'The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to "the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severabilitv. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or Application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be judged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinaifce or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect one day following final approval. . - - - . INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to - on this day of 1998, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day of 1998. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1998. ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: BPN3027T268143.01 GRETCHEN CERVANY, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 2 Animal Welfare and Control Commission Minutes Janzcary 19, 1999 PRESENT: Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson; Dr. Robert Hilsenroth, Advisor; Louise Turner; Bea Slingsby; Kim Fear; Nick Fisher. Visitors: Karin Heine. ABSENT. Dr. John Maulsby, Advisor; Greg Feudnbr; Monica Gregerson; Joseph Ashker; Debby Mauldin. CALL TO ORDER: ` 1 Meeting was called to order by Dr. Trefz. Minutes of the October 20, 1998 meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS: Louise and Kim updated the Commission on the recent Planning Commission meeting regarding large animals. The Planning Commission was hung-up on the two week clean up requirement. The "manure" issue has been sent back to the AWCC for a recommendation. The discussion centered around size of lot and weather conditions. Some properties need to be cleaned more often than others. Dr. Hilsenroth thought maybe the issues being discussed are overreactions to one or two isolated problems in the City. At least one of the horse problems is a neighborhood feud. After discussion, the Commission decided to leave the two week time frame in and to add "in a residential area" to eliminate the restriction on agricultural properties. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise: Manure or liquid waste allowed to accumulate for more than two (2) weeks "in a residential area "shall constitute a nuisance as determined by the Code Enforcement officer and regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 15. Motion passed. The Commission also discussed section 15-23 concerning regulations applicable to the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings. Section (e) concerns the AWCC. This section allows two or more complaining witnesses from separate households neighboring or adjacent to the subject property who shall sign a complaint and shall testify at trial regarding a nuisance - this shall be considered prima facie evidence that a person is in violation of this Section. There is at least one neighborhood in particular that, if this passed, would have two separate households calling in complains. This should not constitute prima facie evidence. Motion made by Bea, seconded by Louise: to strike section (e) in Section 15-23 of the neat Ridge Code of Laws. Motion passed. The kennel ordinance and name change passed!! The commission is now the Animal Welfare and Control Commission. There have been no new mountain lion sightings.. APEO went out on a call which turned out to be coyote tracks. EXHIBIT D 14-13 NE PV BUSINESS: Council would like the Commission to look into changing the rabies vaccination requirement from annually to three years. Nick reported that there is currently a bill before the legislature that would change the requirement. A discussion was held concerning compliance, over vaccinating, vets would like to see animals every year, rabies tags are currently used for identification purposes. If the rabies requirement goes to every three years maybe an ID should be required. Nick also reported that Arvada and Westminster have already passed an ordinance honoring multi-year vaccinations. Nick to attend a Jeffco-wide meeting on January 20" to discuss the issue. Dr. Maulsby may also have info on the issue. It was decided that the rabies issue would be tabled and discussed at the next meeting. Nick reported that a new APEO was hired in December and resigned after two weeks. Another APED, Chad Eshleman, was hired the end of December. i Louise had a concern regarding a goat being attacked by a wolf-hybrid and then having the wolf- hybrid released in Table Mountain,,, Nick explained that the wolf-hybrid was not released in the wild but was actually released to Table Mountain Animal Center. The owner was issued a summons and Nick will check status of court case. Louise wondered if wolf-hybrids should be considered exotic animals. Nick•wouldn't be in favor of a "breed" specific ordinance. Denver's pit bull ordinance has been hard to enforce. It was decided that wolf-hybrids would not be added to the exotic animal list. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Dr. William Trefz, Chairperson Michelle Stodden, Secretary 2 Vi -1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING b/ Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge PLANNING COMMISSION on March 4,1999, at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard: 1. as!/C a No. ZOA-98-01: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend Section 26- 30 (L) of the Code of Laws pertaining to the Keeping of Animals and Section 15-23 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the condition of stables, fertilizer, and buildings. 4dr_~ L/? ~ Barbara Delgadillo, P4mning Secretary ATTEST: L4 Wanda Sang, City Cl To be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: February, 12, 1999 C:\BarbaraTCRPT TLANGCOMWUBHRGU-0meeting.wpd City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Nick Fisher FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA- 98- 1/Large Animal Regulations DATE: March 2, 1998 Attached, please find a draft copy of the February 19, 1998, Planning Commission minutes where the City's large animals regulations were discussed. Planning Commission has requested further input from the Animal Control Commission in regard to properties zoned A -1 or A -2 and the interface with adjacent residential properties. As an example, if an A -1 zoned property meeting the one acre minimum can have an unlimited number of animals, should the corrals, etc have a greater setback? Many entities within metro Denver require separations of 100'+ from off -site residences. Would this of setback be appropriate in Wheat Ridge? Communities requiring this type of setback include Arvada, Golden, Parker, Louisville and Adams County. Please let me know when the next Animal Control Commission is scheduled. Planning Commission would like ACC's input for their April 16, 1998 study session. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at extension 2848. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner THEANDER to approve the Jefferson County North Plains Community Plan, Fairmount Subarea, and the section on enclaves as it pertains to the areas three miles from the existing boundary of Wheat Ridge with the following changes: (1) That recreational vehicle parks and residential (up to 15 dwelling units per acre) be removed from Area 20 which is listed as an in-fill area; and (2) to add the two areas that were forgotten by the Jefferson County Plan (off of 52nd Avenue) to the enclave exhibit; and that the motion be based upon recommendation and approval by the City Attorney. Following brief discussion, the motion carried by a vote of 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing to be closed. It was moved by Commissioner THEANDER and seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS to amend the agenda to move item 11 to the next order of business. The motion carried 7-0 with Commissioner SNOW absent. 11. Case No. ZOA-98-1 Review and discussion of the City of Wheat Ridge Animal Regulations Mr. White presented a brief history of this matter explaining that there have been some code enforcement issues concerning large animals which resulted in the Animal Control Commission suggesting changes to the animal regulations within the Code. He stated that as a result of City Council direction to staff to work on these changes, it was decided to set this date as a study session. Meredith Reckert introduced Susan Ellis, Supervisor of Code Enforcement Division, and Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor. Ms. Reckert distributed to the Commission copies of a matrix showing large animal regulations in other metropolitan communities and then presented slides showing various large animal properties in the City of Wheat Ridge. These properties reflected a broad cross section of residential, agricultural and commercial zonings throughout the City. (Commissioner SNOW arrived at 8:12 p.m.) Ms. Ellis addressed enforcement challenges associated with animal regulations which included: 9.000 square foot regulation. Ms. Ellis noted that in order to determine if the property meets lot size requirements it is necessary for the City to go by the Assessor's maps which aren't always accurate. She explained that a survey is necessary to accurately determine the square footage of a property; sometimes property surveys are not available. Manure and liquid waste. Ms. Ellis noted that these cases are presently prosecuted in criminal court which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that three of these cases have been thrown out of Planning Commission Page 4 02/19/98 court because of the court's opinion that they do not belong in criminal court, but rather in civil court where cases can be decided on testimony. She also noted that manure accumulation and odor are two different problems and are very difficult to enforce. Pen, corral and fenced areas. Ms. Ellis stated that the Code contains some ambiguity in defining fences, corrals and structures such as barns. She added that there have only been three properties which cause problems and only five that have ever been cited. Three that were cited were adjacent to residential and concerned manure accumulation or odor. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what procedures the City would take in a situation where a potential purchaser takes the word of a realtor that they can have horses and then a neighbor complains. Ms. Ellis replied that her office would check the size of the property according to their records and then request a survey from the owner to determine actual square footage and the number of animals they would be allowed. If there is insufficient space, the owner would be given 30 days to remove the animal, obtain a variance, etc.; and if they don't comply at that time, a summons to court is issued. She also noted that she has never had to issue a summons for this type issue in the past seven years. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if property owners were allowed to board animals. Ms. Reckert explained that boarding is allowed in Agricultural Districts; however, in residential areas, it is assumed you own the animals on your property as an accessory use. In response to Commissioner THEANDER's question as to what constitutes the three major reasons for citing owners of large animals, Ms. Ellis replied they are (1) odor and manure accumulation; (2) corral setback issues; and (3) too many animals on the property. Commissioner GOKEY discussed whether or not some of these conditions could be cited as animal abuse cases. Ms. Ellis explained that animal control would be called in if abuse was suspected. Commissioner SNOW asked Ms. Ellis' opinion regarding whether or not the proposed changes in the ordinance would resolve code problems. Ms. Ellis replied that she believed the changes would present guidelines to follow such as how often a property owner needs to clean the animal areas. Commission SNOW asked for a comparison of the present ordinance with the suggested changes. Ms. Reckert replied that the suggested changes from the Animal Control Commission included a provision for no more than four animals per acre, a two week cleaning rule, pen acid corral sizes, and clarification of fences and corrals vs. barns and other structures. She noted that a grandfather clause is included that would apply unless the property owner ceases owning a horse for more than sixty days. Commissioner BRINKMAN and Commissioner GOKEY discussed the minimum open lot area of 9,000 square feet for the first horse and 6,000 square feet for each additional horse. . Planning Commission Page 5 02/19/98 Ms. Reckert stated that the animals do not have to have access to the entire area and that these requirements are consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County. Mr. White added that this requirement is.to set forth a guideline for the number of animals allowed on a property. Mr. Fisher addressed the Commission stating that at the request of City Council, the Animal Control Commission conducted two or three public meetings with input from the Livestock Association regarding proposed changes to the ordinance. The Commission was recessed at 9:00 p.m.. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m. by Chair THOMPSON. Chair THOMPSON addressed a rumor that the City is trying to get rid of all large animals. She stated that this is a misconception and that the Commission is only interested in clarifying the existing ordinance. The following people addressed the Commission: Ann Osterlow - 3295 Independence Court Ms. Osterlow stated that she lives adjacent to a property with four horses on one acre and is concerned with the health issues related to the large number of flies that are attracted by manure accumulation. She indicated that she does not want to get rid of horses in Wheat Ridge, but only wants horse owners to keep their properties clean. Tim Osterlow - 3295 Independence Court Mr. Osterlow presented a video showing the large amount of flies swarming in the summer near their patio. He noted that the case was taken to court but thrown out because the code was too vague. He also stated that he does not object to property owners having horses, but wants the owners to be responsible to keep their property clean. He also suggested that if a horse owner does not comply with the City's request to clean up manure, that the City clean it up and charge the owner. He also, distributed copies of a poster from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a copy of an article from Encarta Encyclopedia describing health issues involved with flies. Bob Rock - 4300 Tabor Street Mr. Rock urged the Commission to continue allowing horses in Wheat Ridge; however, he agreed there may be a need for changes to the present ordinance. Warren McCoy - 3275 Dudley Street Mr. McCoy stated his opinion that horses should be allowed in the City; however, horse owners need to be responsible about taking care of the animals and cleaning up after them. Planning Commission Page 6 02/[9/98 Don McDougal - 9815 West 37th Avenue Expressed concern that the City of Wheat Ridge is attempting to ban horses from the City and asked that the Commission not allow this to happen. Kevin Craig - 10615 West 46th Avenue Urged Commission to continue allowing horses within the City of Wheat Ridge. Dr. Rob Hilsenroth (no address given) Dr. Hilsemoth is a veterinarian and an advisor to the Animal Control Commission. He recommended that the City place the burden of proof on a home owner to prove they are complying with the area requirements. He also encouraged the Commission to look objectively at the issues and not confuse humane considerations with nuisance issues. He suggested trying the two-week cleanup rule with the use of photographs to suffice as evidence of whether the criteria has been met. He also expressed his opinion that it is much better to educate people on how to properly take care of their animals than to take them to court. He felt that the grandfather clause would prevent people from having to get.rid of their animals as a result of the changes to the ordinance. In response to Commissioner GOKEY's question regarding penalties for violations, Ms. Ellis replied that an owner could be fined up to $999.00 for a violation. Commissioner SNOW asked if Ms. Ellis felt it was feasible for the city to clean up manure if owner does not comply with request to do so, much the same as is presently done with the weed ordinance Ms. Ellis replied that while weeds can be measured, manure cannot; and that cleaning the manure would require entering private property containing animals and would open the City to various lawsuits. Louise Turner - 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner, member of the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and the Animal Control Commission, suggested that education along with the nuisance law would be vehicle to deal with these problems. She doesn't believe the answer is to get rid of the animals, but to take proper care of them. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the proposed changes would give Code Enforcement enough ammunition to take care of the few violators within the City. Ms. Turner stated that she would like an opinion from the judge or the city attorney as to whether or not the changes would take care of the problems. Chair THOMPSON asked if there were others present who would like to speak to this issue. Hearing no response, she stated that the individuals who spoke would be notified of future meetings and asked if there were others present who wished to be added to the notification list. Planning Commission Page 7 02/19/98 Commissioner THEANDER asked how other cities addressed the excrement issue. Ms. Reckert replied that most cities' codes were vague and referred to their nuisance laws which are similar to those of Wheat Ridge. Mr. White summarized the statements from the public, stating there seemed to be a sentiment that horse. property is a part of the lifestyle in Wheat Ridge and that the complaints seemed to be centered around the nuisance aspect. Mr. White suggested we take a look at the agricultural regulations and to have no restraints on the number of animals in these zones except when they are nonconforming lots in which case, the residential district requirements be applied. He commented that the two week cleaning rule sounds simple, but it might require hiring a full time person to keep track of who has cleaned in the past two weeks. Commissioner SNOW suggested that less cleaning should be required for fewer animals on large lots and more frequently on a small lot and in the summer. She stated her desire to hear an opinion from the court or city attorney as to whether or not this would solve the legal problems. Ms. Ellis commented that it has been her experience that three of the five citations she has issued in the past seven years have been personal neighborhood battles. Commissioner SNOW asked how many of these complaints have been a real problem over the past seven years to which Ms. Ellis replied that there has only been one. Mr. White requested to poll the Commission for a consensus as to whether or not it is desired to allow horses on residential and commercial properties. In response to Chair THOMPSON's poll, there was a consensus that horses be allowed in Wheat Ridge. Commissioner GOKEY commented that the property must be taken into account as to whether it is suited to having large animals. Chair THOMPSON commented that photos could be taken at the time the complaint is received and that the owner be informed that they have two weeks to clean it up and let them know that you will be back in two weeks to check for compliance. Ms. Ellis was not sure if the judge could determine from photos if the ordinance had been complied with. Chair THOMPSON asked if it was true that the burden of proof of square footage rested with the property owner. Ms. Ellis replied that it is up to the City to prove the lot size. Planning Commission Page 8 02/19/98 It was the consensus of the Commission that the city attorney's office review the ordinance as to (1) whether it is a good starting point; (2) removing the section containing manure issue to the nuisance ordinance; (3) a different standard for the ratio of animals to lot size; (4) look into the possibility of establishing horse equivalent units; (5) rewrite this section to make it easier to understand; and (6) review the nonconforming portions of the ordinance. Commissioner SNOW requested that the agricultural property issues be taken to the Agricultural Commission for their research and opinion. It was the direction of the Commission to staff that this matter come before the Commission the second meeting in April. 9. OLD BUSINESS None. 10. NEW BUSINESS Mr. White asked if the Commissioners wished to renew the subscription to the Planning Commissioner's Journal. The consensus of the Commission was to renew the subscription. Commissioner GOKEY asked if there was a nation-wide proportional land use book which could be used for guidelines. Mr. White responded that he would look into this. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Ann Lazzeri, Recording S retary J ice Thompson, Chair Planning Commission Page 9 02/19/98 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE N07 ZOA-98-1 DATE: February 19, 1998 REQUEST: Review and discussion of the city of Wheat Ridge's Animal Regulations. Position on Request (Plk1 SPEAKER NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE (PLEASE PRINT) IN FAVOR OPPOSED a~7 -93~~ CPzo 5 a~ ~ 13 b "k) - oO S zmA, Ao co,. att d/wp/forms/phroster.frrn c JURISDICTION ALLOWED LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS EXCREMENT YES NO MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE ADDRESSED Arvada X 9,000 for 1st horse; 6,000 sq.ft. for No each additional horse. 100 foot setback required from residences. Aurora X Livestock including horses: No 1 animal for every''/4 acre in the RA zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Boulder X 1 horse for every %x acre. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Brighton X Allowed in RE or PUD only. Yes Requires permit. Corral sizes are not regulated. Broomfield X Livestock and horses are prohibited. No Castle Rock X Not allowed within the City. Yes Cherry Hills NO RESPONSE Commerce City X Not allowed within the City. No Denver County/City X 1 animal for every %2 acre in the Yes Residential zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. Englewood X Does not allow large animals. No Erie X Not allowed within City. No Estes Park X 2 horses - 1 acre Yes 3+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. - Allowed in the RS or RM zones only. Setbacks for corrals: 25' to any building used as residence or human habitation; 50' from street or property line. Federal Heights X No Livestock allowed including No horses. Fort Collins X h acre per animal. Uses Larimar County Code for farm animals. Corrals are not regulated. Ft. Lupton NO RESPONSE. Ft. Morgan NO RESPONSE. Gilcrest X 1 horse for every'/4 acre except where there is less than 5 acres then 1 horse per 1 acre; except for offspring until 7 months of age. Corral sizes are not regulated. Glendale X Not allowed within City. No Golden X 9,000 sq.ft. for 1 horse; 6,000 sq. ft. Yes for each additional horse. Special Use Permit required. Allowed in the Agricultural zone only. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from the lot line; 15 feet from the side or rear lot line. Large Animal Matrix as, Greeley NO RESPONSE. Greenwood Village X 1 horse per 1/3 acre; 2 with '/2 acre; Yes 3 or more % acre each additional horse. Space must be dedicated solely to animal (i.e., stable and corral). 12 x 12 stall areas max. if corral is built. Lafayette X SUP only in REI and RE2 with Yes 40,000 and 20,000 square foot requirement. Corral sizes are not regulated. Lakewood X 9,000 sq. ft. for lst horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre except that offspring can be kept until weaned. Corrals minimum is 300 sq. ft. per horse. Littleton X In RE: 25,000 sq.ft. minimum per animal; other zoned areas require 2 acre minimum (trying to discourage). Corral sizes are not regulated. Longmont X Existing animals are grand fathered. No longer allowed within City. Louisville X RRR and AgA only. Yes 1 acre minimum. Corrals must be 150' from any building occupied as a residence or used for human habitation. Matrix - Large Animal Page 3 Loveland X %2 acre per horse - no livestock. Yes Corral sizes are not regulated. Northglenn X Thornton NO RESPONSE. Westminster X With PUD or minimum of 10 acre Yes lot. Corral sizes are not regulated. Parker X 1 horse for every 2 acres. Yes Corralling or containment of animals is required with only limited periodic grazing; is to be "adequate" for the number of animals involved but not to exceed 10% of the lot area; shall not be closer than 100' to any off-site residence or business on an adjoining property. Platteville X 1 horse - 1/3 acre 2 horses - %2 acre 3 horses - 1 acre 4+ horses - 1 acre for each additional horse. Acreage requested is that solely devoted to horse (i.e., stable or corral area) Matrix - Large Animal Page 4 Adams County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. Yes - for less ft. for each additional horse, but not than 35 acre lots. to exceed 4 horses per acre; does not include horses below weaning age or 6 months whichever is less. Corral sizes are not regulated. 100 feet from any off-property residence or place of business and 25 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the front lot line. Jefferson County X 9,000 sq. ft. for 1st horse; 6,000 sq. ft. for each additional horse not to exceed 4 horses per acre with exception for offspring until 7 months of age. These numbers exclude the area for the one-family dwelling. Corral sizes are not regulated. Summit County X Without a CUP: 1 horse - 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq. ft. up to 35 acres. With a CUP: 2 horses - 40,000 to 80,000 sq. ft.; 1 additional horse for every 2 acres over 80,000 sq.ft. up to 35 acres. Corral sizes are not regulated. TOTAL RESPONSES: 30 21 9 Revised: February 19, 1998 d\files\wp\barbs\anindord.wpd Matrix - Large Animal rage D The L of 7500 V r=ST 26TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80215 February 8, 1999 Dear Property Owner: Wheat 9Ridge This is to inform you that Case No. ZOA-98-01 which is a request by staff to amend the City's Animal Regulations will be heard by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The meeting will be held on March 4, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify any other persons whose presence is desired at this hearing. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2846. Thank you. Planning Division. C:\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\zoa9801 inlet (303) 234-5900 • ADMINISTRATION FAX: 234-5924 POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX: 235-2949 Louise Turner 11256 W. 381' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Mr. & Mrs. Osterloh 9733 W. 32nd Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 JoAnne Howard 7260 W. 3151 Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Bob Rock 4300 Tabor Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Warren McCoy 3275 Dudley Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dr. Rob Hilsenroth Animal Commission Diane Tipton 4311 Tabor Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Tom Hammerschmidt 3215 Flower Steet Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Don MacDougall 9815 W. 371' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Kim Fear 7340 W. 32nd Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Walt Morris 3285 Independence Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 C:\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\ZOA9801 mail inglist.wPd Kevin Craig 10615 West 461h Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Vinn Dunsmoor 3085 Upham Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 John Gammon 3305 Independence Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 GORSUCH KIRGIS LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER 1, SUITE 1000 1 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET 1 DENVER. COLORADO 80202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 I FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 GERALD E. DAHL DIRECT DIAL (303) 376-5019 email: gdahl@gorsuch.com February 6, 1998 Mr. Nick Fisher Animal Control Officer City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29" Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Dear Nick: Enclosed please find: 1. Draft ordinance incorporating the suggestions for largely animal control and corrals which you sent me; 2. Table of corral sizes used in other jurisdictions; 3. Bob Middaugh's correspondence with JoAnne Howard on corral size. Please let me know if I can help further. Sincerely, 9LLP 6w Gerald E. Dahl GEDimmw Enclosures City of Wheat Ridge Council Bill # Ordinance # Series of 1998 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-30 (L) of the CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING THE KEEPING OF LARGE ANIMALS: ESTABLISHING MINIMUM CORRAL SIZE, ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF ANIMALS PER ACRE AND CLARIFYING WHAT CONSTITUTES A NUIS- SANCE AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ACCUMULATION OF MANU RE AND LIQUID WASTE. WHEREAS etc etc (L ).Regulations Applicable to the Keeping of LARGE Animals. IN W16VIj NOX 16i W4 U ~ilaffa aigx ma (1) PRIVATE STABLES FOR THE KEEPING OF LARGE ANIMALS IN DISTRICTS OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICTS SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. Only subsection MGM), below applies to the Agricultural zone districts. (a) THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) ANIMALS (HORSES, COWS, LLAMAS, SHEEP OR GOATS) PER ACRE, EXCEPT THAT OFFSPRING OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT UNTIL WEANED. (b) Manure or liquid waste 6X11 W the allowed to accumulate M. ii U dW i MUMAU FOR MORE TI4AN TWO`WEEKS -SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A NUIS- SANCE as regulated by Wheat Ridge Cade of Laws, Chapter 15. (c) Minimum OPEN lot & area, iiifAW4 iHi WOHA W JkUW4 AdidiA #i~ shall be nine thou- sand (9000) square feet for the first animal and an additional six thousand (6000) s uare feet for each additional animal PERMITTED 64f ae wwfO a ( ) OPEN LOT AREA MEANS PORTIONS OF LOT NOT COV- ERED BY MAIN BUILDINGS, ATTACHED CARPORTS AND PATIOS AND DETACHED GARAGES. The iAix ~ ~rfcorral or fe W 60 oifi Oill n~~~~aN ,fbX~~~~~i~~0~~j&I- ( ) 0 Oki ALLOTTED TO THE ANIMALS SHALL BE 800 SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIRST ANIMAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 100 SQUARE FEET FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ANIMAL PERVITTED. ( ) The fence or other enclosure must be constructed d W#Wi iM 000 U AND maintained in such a manner so as to adequately contain the animals. ( ) The pen, corral or fenced area for the regular keeping of such animals shall not be permitted within thirty (30) feet of the front lot line, except for lots over one acre or if under one acre if the lot has no main structures. ( ) No part of i~ THE FENCED enclosure for the keep- ing of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a residence.or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. ( ) Structures SUCH AS BARNS OR SHEDS OR those por- tions of SUCH structures where animals are housed shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or-'rear lot line and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel N WUW6 10 yigfq bf waxg iii iaagiq 06006 and shall not be located within the required front yard setback. ( ) SITUATIONS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY CHANGES IN THIS LAW SHALL BE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. The legal, non-conforming keeping of such animals may be con- tinued so long as such keeping of animals remains otherwise lawful; except where such keeping of ,qnimals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of ani- mals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease. Upon sale of a property, the minimum require- ments;of subsection (0(1)(6) (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. ~ R- 9Y-I 7500 West 29th Avenue The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Wheat Telephone 303/ 237-6944 FAX 303/234-5924 February 3, 1998 Ms. JoAnne Howard 7260 W. 31 st Place Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 DearMs. Howard: Ridge I am following up on behalf of the City Manager in regards to your interest in the current zoning provisions pertaining to corral sizes for large animals. The Planning Department is just starting the process of considering revisions to the City's existing regulations regarding the keeping of large animals. An initial meeting to discuss this issue has been scheduled with the Planning Commission for February 19, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 7500 W. 29th Avenue in the municipal building. We look forward to hearing your ideas and encourage your participation. Please feel free to call the Planning and Development Department should you have any questions at 235-2846. Sincerely, A ~l C v Alan C. White, AICP Planning and Development Director AW:bd cc: City Manager d\fi l e s\wp\al a n\j howard The amity of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 January 29, 1998 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 Ms. JoAnne Howard 7260 W. 31st Place Wheat Ridge, CO `80215 Dear JoAnne: Wheat 9Ridge I am responding to a question that you posed to the Wheat Ridge City Clerk regarding provisions of the City Code pertaining to corral sizes for large animals. As you have become aware, there is certainly some level of confusion regarding the status of our Code requirements on corral size for large animals. A number of Councilmembers have indicated that the provision used to exist within the City Code and apparently said provision was dropped in a future amendment process. In the past, while there may have been provisions regarding corral size for large animals, the fact that they are not within the current City Code means that my staff cannot enforce the old provisions. We can only use the provisions and the words that are provided for us in the document. While it is not possible to address minimum corral size under -current Code provisions, as you are also aware there is a process' being undertaken by the Planning Commission to review the large animal regulations within our community to address among other items, the minimum corral size that should be required. It will be important for the members of the Planning Commission to hear your specific concerns as part of their discussion. ,copy 'of`"_this letter, I will be asking that the Planning..,,. Department notify you of upcoming Planning Commission discussions re gar'ding::the.large animal regulations. You may choose to attend the specific meetings or share your concerns by letter as you prefer. the ,^p RECYCLED PAPER of the .tXat340 W -32nd Avenue. If there is an illegal rental or inappropriate land use, we will take the appropriate corrective action. sincerely, Robert C. Middaug City Manager cc: Wanda Sang, City Clerk Jerry Dahl, City Attorney Jerry DiTullio, Councilmember, Dist. I Lloyd Donnelly, Councilmember, Dist. I i, "The Carnation City" City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Susan Ellis, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nick Fisher, Animal Control Supervisor Tammy Greene, Prosecuting-Attorney:. Charles Rose, Judge FROM: V' eredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-98-1/Animal Regulations DATE: February 2, 1998 The City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department is in the process of considering revisions to the city's existing regulations regarding the keeping of animals. A study session will be held at the February 19, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Please consider this correspondence an invitation to the study session where we will be discussing recommendations from the Animal Control Commission, regulations in other metro area cities, and recent City court cases. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at extension 2848. November 6, 1979 SECTION 16: R-1 RESIDENTIAL-ONE DISTRICT o ig. 2-3-41) A. INTENT AND PURPOSE 1. The Residential-One Zone District is intended to provide areas for low density residential development where continuation of certain agricultural uses are compatible with this development. (orig. 11-6-79) 2. Contained in this section are the allowed land uses, building and lot standards (including minimum setbacks) and other general requirements specified for this zone district. (orig. 11-6-79) B. PERMITTED USES 1. One-family dwelling. (orig. 2-3-41) 2. Private garage. (orig. 2-3-41) 3. Private greenhouse and nursery, non-commercial conservatory for plants and flowers. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 11-6-79) 4. Private poultry house and pigeon coop with no more than 400 square feet of floor area; private rabbit and chinchilla hutch with no more than 100 square feet of floor area. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 12-7-53; am. 11-6-79) 5. Private building for housing dogs, cats or similar domesticated pets. The maximum total number of dogs, cats and similar domesticated pets which may be kept shall be 3. Litters of puppies or kittens may be kept until weaned. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 4-24- 72; am. 11-6-79) 6. Private stable and/or barn for keeping horses, cattle, sheep or goats. All such animals shall be kept in a fenced area. The total number of animals, listed above, is limited as follows: (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 4-24-72; am. 11-6- 79) The minimum square footage of open lot area, not including the dwelling, shall be 9,000 square feet for the first animal and 6,000 square feet for each additional animal. The total number of such animals that may be kept shall not exceed 4 per 1 acre; except that offspring of animals on the Section 16 Page 1 June 14, 1988 property may be kept until weaned. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 4-24-72; am. 11-6-79) 7. Church, parish house or parsonage. (orig. 5-6-46; am. 11-6-79) 8. Public, parochial and private schools. Not included are private vocational, trade or professional schools, schools of art, music or dance and schools for subnormal or mentally disturbed adults. Exceptions listed above shall not preclude home occupations authorized by Section 8 or Section 13 of this Zoning Resolution. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 6-20-66; am. 11-6-79; am. 6-23-81; am. 6-14-88) 9. Group home for up to 8 aged persons not located within 750 feet of another such group home; state licensed group home for up to 8 developmentally disabled persons not located within 750 feet of another such group home; state licensed group home for up to 8 mentally ill persons not located within 750 feet of another such group home or group home for aged or developmentally disabled persons. (orig. 6-14-88) 10. Public library, public or private non-profit museum. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46) 11. Public park, non-commercial playground, or other public recreational use. Private golf course, country club or other private club operated for benefit of members only and not for gain (but not including a private club which provides a service customarily carried on as a business). (orig. 2-3- 41; am. 5-6-46) 12. Home occupations provided the requirements and conditions of Sections 8 or 13 of this Zoning Resolution are met. (orig. 6-23-81) 13. Special Uses: The following uses. shall be permitted only upon review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of County commissioners: (orig. 11- 15-65; am. 11-6-79) a. Telephone exchange, electric substation, including electric transmission and distribution lines or gas regulator station where no repair or storage facilities are maintained. (orig. 5-6-46; am. 11-15-65) Section 16 Page 2 June 14, 1988 b. Water supply reservoir and irrigation canal. (orig. 5-6-46; am. 11-15-65; am. 11-6-79) C. Railroad right-of-way, but not including freight yards, passenger station, switching or storage. (orig. 5-6-46; am. 11-15-65) d. Group, foster or communal home, or shelter from domestic violence, licensed or certified by the state if applicable, in which 7 or more residents who are not legally related live and cook together as a single housekeeping unit, and where such home or shelter is not located within 750 feet of another similar type home or shelter. (orig. 6-26-79; am. 6-14-88) e. State licensed day-care center or large day- care home or preschool or nursery. (orig. 6-14-88) f. Oil and gas drilling operations. Such operations shall conform to the standards contained in Section 4 of this Zoning Resolution, except as modified by the Board of County commissioners in the resolution approving the special Use. (orig. 10-17-83) C. LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS 1. Height Limitation: No building shall exceed 35 feet in height. (orig. 5-6-46) 2. Lot Standards: The minimum lot area for a dwelling or other main building shall be 12,500 square feet. (orig. 5-6- 46; am. 11-6-79) 3. Front Setback: a. The minimum front setback for a dwelling or other main building shall be 20 feet when the front yard is adjacent to a local or collector street. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 4-7- 69; am. 11-6-79) b. The minimum front setback for a dwelling or other main building shall be 30 feet when adjacent to a major arterial street as Section 16 Page 3 ?.ugust 6, 1980 4 5 6 designated on the "Jefferson County Major Thoroughfare Plan". (orig. 4-7-69; am. 11-6- 79) C. Corner lots must comply with the vision, clearance requirements outlined in the "General Requirements" portion of this section. (orig. 11-6-79) d. Private garages shall have the same front setback as the dwelling or other main building to which they are accessory. (orig. 5-6-46) e. Accessory buildings housing horses, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, chinchillas, poultry and pigeons shall be set back at least 100 feet from the front lot line. All other accessory buildings shall be set back at least 50 feet from the front lot line. (orig. 5-6- 46; am. 4-7-69; am. 11-6-79) Side Setbacks: a. The minimum side setback for any building shall be 15 feet on each side. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46) b. The minimum side setback for any building adjacent to a local or collector street shall be 20 feet. The minimum side setback for any building adjacent to a major arterial street as designated on the "Jefferson County Major Thoroughfare Plan" shall be 30 feet. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 4-7-69) C. Corner lots must comply with the vision clearance requirements outlined in the "General Requirements" portion of this section. (orig. 11-6-79) Rear Setback: The minimum rear setback for any building shall be 5 feet. (orig. 2-3-41; am. 5-6-46; am. 12-7-53) Fences and Retaining Walls: a. Maximum fence height: 6 feet. (orig. 8-6-80) b. Fence permits are required for any fence over 42 inches in height. (orig. 8-6-80) Section 16 Page 4 June 14, 1988 C. No fence more than 42 inches in height of any type shall be permitted in the area between the front setback line and the front lot line. (orig. 8-6-80) d. Retaining walls over 42 inches in height which are within 3 feet of a public right-of-way or public utility, drainage or other easement shall require a certification by a Professional Engineer as to design and structural stability. (orig. 8-6-80) e. No barbed wire or electric fence shall be permitted in this zone district. (orig. 8-6- 80) f. Fences on corner lots must comply with the vision clearance requirements outlined in the "General Requirements" portion of this section. (orig. 8-6-80) g. On adjacent lots where allowed fence heights differ, the lower height restriction shall govern. (orig. 8-6-80) 7. Off-Street Parking Requirements: a. Each parking space shall be no less than 300 square feet in area to include that area which is required for ingress and egress thereto. Spaces for small cars, where authorized, may be 250 square feet in area. (orig. 8-6-80) b. Each parking space shall be at least 9 feet in width and 18 feet in length except for small car spaces, where authorized. Small car spaces shall be no less than 7.5 feet in width and 16 feet in length. (orig. 8-6-80) C. Residential: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. (orig. 8-6-80) d. Church: 1 space per 4 seats. (orig. 8-6-80) e. Elementary and junior high school: 1 space per teacher and staff member. (orig. 8-6-80; am. 6-14-88) f. Group home for aged persons: 2 spaces per home and 1 additional space for each bedroom above 4. (orig. 6-14-88) Section 16 Page 5 June 14, 1988 g. Group home for developmentally disabled or mentally ill persons: 2 spaces per home and 1 additional space for each staff member above 2. (orig. 6-14-88) h. High schools: 1 space per 4 students. (orig. 8-6-80) i. Library and museum: 1 space per 300 square feet gross floor area. (orig. 8-6-80) j. Parks, playgrounds, golf courses or other recreational uses: (1) one parking space for each 100 square feet of floor area devoted to club, clubhouse or similar purposes including those used for sports facilities. (orig. 8-6-80) (2) One parking space for each 4,000 square feet of outdoor area used for such purposes as golf, archery, etc. (orig. 8-6-80) (3) One parking space for each 1,000 square feet of outdoor area used for such purposes as tennis, swimming, lawn bowling, etc. (orig. 8-6-80) (4) Two parking spaces for each 3 employees. (orig. 8-6-80) k. Special Uses: Parking requirements will be determined at the time of application for any Special Use permitted in this zone district. (orig. 8-6-80) 1. For any use requiring more than 10 parking spaces, accommodation for small cars may be made in the review and approval of the parking plan submitted to the Zoning Administrator. (orig. 8-6-80) 8. Signs and Outdoor Advertising Devices: Signs and outdoor advertising devices shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of this Zoning Resolution. (orig. 7-20-81) Section 16 Page 6 November 6, 1979 D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Corner Vision Clearance Requirement: No fence, wall, hedge, shrub, structure or other obstruction to view which is over 42 inches in height shall be erected, placed or maintained within a triangle formed by the point of intersection of lot lines abutting a street and/or railroad right-of-way and the points located along the lot lines 55 feet from the point of intersection. (orig. 11-6-79) 2. All setbacks shall be measured from the foundation or wall; however, eaves, roof overhangs and fireplaces may protrude 24 inches into the setback. (orig. 11-6-79) 3. No structure may be erected, placed upon or extend over any easement unless approved in writing by the agency or agencies having jurisdiction over such easement. (orig. 11-6-79) 4. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate so as to cause a hazard to the health, welfare or safety of humans and/or animals. The outside storage of manure in piles shall not be permitted within 100 feet of the front lot line and shall conform to the side and rear setback requirements of a dwelling. (orig. 11-6-79) 5. Stallions and bulls shall be kept in a pen, corral or run area enclosed by a 6 foot chain link fence, or material equal or greater in strength, except when it is necessary to remove them for training, breeding or other similar purposes. (orig. 11-6-79) Section 16 Page 7 INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERRL Ordinance No. 818 Series of 1989 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 27. REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS, OF APPENDIX A. ZONING ORDINANCE, OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Appendix A. Zoning Ordinance of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge Section 27. Regulations Applicable to All Districts is hereby amended`as follows:. TIOhT'T7' Generg.l_Rgg~~" sons The provisions and regulations set forth in this section 27. are generally applicable throughout the various saw districts Furthermore., these regulations are In addition to any regulation, standard or requiresent'specifically set forth in any other section of this toning Ordinance or any other section of the Wheat: Ridge Code of Laws. A. Storage of Flammable Liquids or. Gases: we.. .N:..am storaae. of. flammable liquids or gasses in anl. district other than the industrial itted; . pears as District unless approved a spacisi:t8ae and.in conformance with the Uniform Fire code and other applicable laws, B. Building lots: Every buiidirig or 'structure hereafter erected within the City at Ridge shall be located on a lot, as defined harain, and in '"nstanca shall there be more than one main building oh, coo lot except as permitted . . . . a. 11 1 6"Wev 1 0&0*- 04-0000-t 4010 Within a &lanned'Development District as set forth in Section 20., or as permitted by the Planned Building g Croup Irse) provision set forth below. C plan ied Building Groups (PRO): 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of this provision is to allow.: flexibility and diversification in the location of structures and the design and land use of a lot b4t u` nder -single or common ownership by permitting SO" thaa.dne main structure `to be constructed . therson. it promotes better overall utilization of a Building site by promoting improved vehicular and '4 -26- a zoning designation of R-1, R-IA, R-18, R-1C or R-2. L.. Regulatinns Applicable to the Keeping of Animals The following regulations apply to the keeping of animals in zone districts where permitted, except that only subsection l.b. applies to the Agricultural Zone districts. i Large Animals: Private stable for the keeping of horses,. cows, llamas, sheep, goats, and similar ani- mals, are subject to the following requirements: a. Minimum area of lot, excluding area covered by a main structure and.attachwd carports or patios, and excluding detached gauges, shall be nine thousand (9400) square feet for the first animal and an additional six thousand (6000) square feet for each additional animal, t„cept that offspring of animals on the property may be kept until weaned. b. C. Manure or liquid waste shall not be allowed to accumulatesoastocause a nuisance as r%gulated by Wheat Ridge.. Cod a.' of two, Chapter 13, Sec. ll. The pen, corrRi,or fenced area for the keeping of such animals shall meet the following require- ments: 1. The fence or other anclosure must be contracted of materials and be maintained in such a server so as to adequately contain the animals. 2. The pen, corral, or fenced area for the regular keeping Of such animalsshall not be permitted wi-TI thirty (30} fast of the front lot line, Except for lots over one (1) acre, or if under one (1) acre if the. lot has no main structures. 3. No part of an enclosure for the keeping of such animals shall be permitted within thirty (30) feet of a'residence or other main structure on an adjacent parcel. d. 1. Structures or those portions of structures, where animals am housed, shall be no closer than fifteen (15) feet to a side or rear lot line, and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to a residence or other main structures on an adjacent parcel. 2. The structures for keeping nt animals are I -27- accessory structures and shall not be located within the required front yard setback. e. The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continued so long as such keeping of ani- mals remains otherwise lawful, except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease." Upon sale of a property, the minimum requirements of Section 27.L.1.a. (minimum lot areas) shall be met or the keeping of animals must cease. 2. Small Animals and Poultry: the private keeping of small animals such as rabbits and chinchillas, or poultry such as chickens, ducks,. geese, pheasants, or pigeons, shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Poultry houses, and pigeon coops or the portions of structures used to house these animals shall not Gxvat~! four hundred (400) square feet of ground floor area nor 12 ft. In height. b. -Hutches for small animals shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of ground floor area with a maximum of 2 floors or levels. c. Maximum ground floor areas for small animals or poultry set forth above, maybe increased by 50% for each acre in addition to the minimum lot size for the zone district. d. All houses, coops, hutches or portions of structures housing animals shall be located other than in a front yard, shall be setback at least fifteen (15) feet from side and rear property lines, and shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet from a residence or other main structure on an adjacent property. ' 'a. The accumulation of animal waste to the extent that such becomes a nuisance to surrounding prop- erties prohibited, as regulated by Wheat Ridge code of Laws, Chapter 13, Seq. 11. f. The legal, nonconforming keeping of such animals may be continues so long as such keeping of ani- mals remains otherwise lawful, except where such keeping of animals is discontinued for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or more, then said keeping of animals must conform to the provisions hereof or must cease." -~a~T.>k e~Y a: Y l.:Sy~ .df mew F -"e n'' ...£9. }r ,Y tt s'R~ J g~q~~es MtyH, -28- 3. Keeping of Bees: The private keeping of bees is permitted in all zone districts, subject t4Lthe follow- ing requirements: a. Bee hive structures shalt be located other than in a front yard and shall be setback from rear said side property line a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. -b. Bee hives structures shall be enclosed wit a fenced area or fenced yard. H. -H. Bad and Breakfast Rooms Bed and Breakfast rooms are allowed as a Special Use as s subordinate use of singe family dwelling subject to the following requirements: a. The dwelling must be occupied by an owner or permanent on-site manager. b. Inadditi.m to the owner's (manager's) sleeping quarters and those of his family who also legally reside within the dwelling, up to a maximum of four (4) additional sleeping quarters. for transient occupancy may be provided for rent based upon the following requirements: (1) 12,500 square -feat of lot area is required for the first Bed & Breakfast room. (2 An-addition:al.1,000 square feet of lot area is required for each additional room, up to a maximum of four (d) Bed & Breakfast rooms in.total. (3) Off-street parking, in, addition to the spaces ' required for the isingl* family. dwelling, shall be 3 provided at the rate of me (1) space for each Bed Y & Breakfast,rcaa. The mcation,'surfacing, buffer- ing and access, requirements ter such parking shall be. established by. Planning' Commission and. City Council as the required Site Plan is reviewed by those approving bodies. (4) Rooming and boarding to excluded as an accessory usewhere ,Bed& Breakfast useispermitted. C. All Building, Fire, Health, and other applicable codes of laws shall be met prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the usa even though the Special Use may have been approved. d. Signage: One (1) noes-illuminated freestanding or wall sign, 'not in excess of four.(4) square feet per face. 'Free standing signs shall be setback at least ten (10)