April 16, 2013
Members present: Carla Brookman, Susanne Cordery-Cotter, Andre Duval, Mandy Kotzman, Ed Ott, Paul Resseguie, Cordelia Stone, Ed Stoner.
Larimer County Planning Staff Members Present : Samantha Mott, Michael Whitley, Savannah Benedict, Terry Gilbert.
Meeting Called to Order: Mandy Kotzman (Chair) called meeting to order at 7:05 p.m
Agenda: adopted (motion by Paul, seconded by Ed Stoner, all in favor.)
Meeting Minutes: October 16, 2012 meeting minutes adopted with two minor edits. (motion by Andre, seconded by Ed Stoner, all in favor)
Introductions: Samantha introduced Mr. Terry Gilbert, Community Development Director, recently joined the County. Others present from the County: Smantha Mott, Savannah Benedict, and Michael Whitley. Mr. Whitley will be the LAPAC backup person for Samantha.
County Communication Items (by Samantha Mott):
LAPAC Member Communication items: None.
Personal Appearances: None
1. Posting of meetings incompliance with open meetings law.
See language on Agenda. Motion by Ed Ott, seconded by Andre, all in favor, motion carries.
2. Boutique Event Center Special Review:
Michael Whitley of Larimer County planning department presented the project information included in the application. The proposed development includes an event center and lodging use on 20.38 acres at 4623 and 4625 Rist Canyon. Details are not repeated here; please refer to the packet provided to each LAPAC member for details.
LAPAC Member comments and questions:
Andre Duval stated that waste management might be an issue, he has trapped a bear in that location and the facility needs bear-proof refuse collection. Mandy asked whether the cabins are for weddings and whether weddings are considered a "recreational" use. She also asked whether events and lodging are separate. Mr. Whitney indicated that yes, they can be. Ed Stoner asked whether LAPAC is to separate the events from the lodging when we make our recommendations. Mr. Whitney responded that it is up to LAPAC. Carla Brookman asked about the plantings shown, she asked whether they are all existing. Mr. Whitney responded that some are existing some are proposed, he indicated which are proposed on the plan. Paul Ressigue asked about the size of the proposed development shown on the plan. Mr. Whitley responded that the developed piece comprises about 4 acres. Andre asked whether it is and will be grazed. The response was there have been horses grazed there. Mandy asked about the sound trial, and whether there were neighbor concerns. Mr. Whitley answered that there were neighbors present and there have been no neighbor concerns about noise. A question about wildlife came up, and whether lighting be a problem. Mr. Leibow stated lighting will be subtle, shielded, and downfacing. Susanne stated that the septic and leach field are close to river, and sized for 10 gallons per person per day (gpcd), but County ISDS regulation requires sizing for more flow, cottages and small dwellings (seasonal occupancy) should be sized for 50 gpcd in the County ISDS regulation. 10 gpcd sounds too low, where is it allowed? She believes this should require a waiver. Mr. Leibow responded that County representatives Dave McClosky and Doug Ryan have said that 10 gpcd is fine. Susanne stated that she is in favor of the paving waiver, and pervious surface would be better than asphalt. Mandy asked whether the parking size is adequate, it is sized for 49 spaces and allows 109 people at an event. Mr. Whitley answered that it translates to 2.2 persons per vehicle which is lower than the County's amount when estimating parking, so it is adequate. A couple of LAPAC members asked how the applicant will enforce the number of people requirement. Mr. Leibow responded that he will require guests to sign an agreement stipulating the number of persons per car. Mr. Whitley said that enforcing this type of requirement is done on a complaint-basis by the County. Ed Ott indicated that recent Bingham Hill event center parking was overflowing on the road, and asked whether this applicant has considered overflow parking. Mr. Leibow indicated they have talked to the church across the street.
Cordeila asked whether the agreement with the guest policy would go away if the Liebows sold the event center. Mr. Whitley indicated that any new owner is bound by representations made during the application. Mr. Gilbert interjected that he has a concern that a private agreement probably is not enforceable by the County for subsequent buyers.
The applicants, Allan and Emily Leibow, made their presentation. They reinforced that their plan is for a rustic, beautiful and elegant facility. There was discussion about the walking distance from parking to the structures, and associated lighting. Mr. Leibow has expertise in lighting, it will be low level. There is handicapped parking adjacent to the house. There was a discussion about events in December. Mr. Liebow indicated they would be smaller events and held inside the house. There is no commercial kitchen, food will be catered. There will be a preparation area. Mr. and Mrs. Leibow indicated that compared to other event centers in the area that are sized for 225 guests, this is smaller and accommodates 99 guests. They indicated that there have not been neighbor concerns associated with this application. The biggest concern was sound, and it has been studied and does not appear to be a problem.
Janis Smith: neighbor, indicated the Liebows have been good about commutating, there was a wedding there prior to them moving there, it was okay, parking is okay, road base is okay. She requested that they please provide trees to hide the parking lot.
Larry Smith: neighbor, asked whether the Liebows plan to keep this as their primary residence, if future owners and valets run it they will not be diligent regarding parking and sound. The Liebows responded yes, they will keep this as their primary residence. Also, Mr. Leibow said they will provide contact information to neighbors in case of complaints.
Bobbie Randolf: Tapestry House owner, requested that the Leiows please pave the parking lot. Ten years ago the Tapestry House was required to pave the parking. All weddings are seasonal, and that is not a good reason not to pave. She asked that all event centers have the same requirements and be given a level playing field. If road base is allowed it will set a precedent for other locations. Mr. Leibow commented that they cannot afford to pave, a six-month seasonal operation would not be required to pave and they are asking for an additional two months with no paving. . Mr. Leibow commented that the Bingham Hill event center did not have to pave because cars enter from a different address. Discussion about paving ensued, LAPAC members discussed the disadvantages of road base, they include dragout, potholes and dust. Asphalt paving would require detention pond. Asphalt paving is not required for 30 or fewer events, or for six months or less operation. This has been County code since 2000, The Tapestry House began in 2003. Ms. Randolf asked whether water usage would be required for the food/catering service Mr. Leibow responded that there would be some water usage. Ms. Randolf had a tax question for Mr. Whitley regarding two parcels one business. He responded that the tax assessor would categorize and assess accordingly.
Brian Cook: friend of Leibows, had help from Allen regarding lighting. Allen did it in a responsible fashion and environmentally friendly way. The Leibows are gracious hosts, they are a great addition to the neighborhood.
LAPAC members discussed the application. They agreed that it conforms with the LaPorte Area Plan and neighbors seem to be okay with the proposed development, Mr. Whitley has fielded questions from citizens but had no negative feedback from neighbors, nor are there neighbor concerns expressed at LAPAC tonight.
Clarification by Mr. Whitley: the cabins are 8-month operation also, not year-round as stated in the application.
LAPAC members proceeded to make motions as follows:
Ed Ott made a motion to approve the event center with the addition of bear-proof trash, require standards as shown in the application packet, and with the verification of the septic volumes. Ed Stoner seconded the motion. Vote: ayes = 7, nays = 0, abstained = 1. Motion carried.
Cordelia made a motion to approve the three cabins and home as lodge as stipulated in the packet, provided there is bear-proof refuse facility. Ed Ott seconded the motion. Vote: ayes = 8, nays = 0, abstained = 0. Motion carried.
Mandy made a motion that the parking lot be screened from the road with suitable vegetation. Ed Stoner seconded the motion. Discussion: Ed Ott indicated that he felt vegetation is not necessary. Vote: ayes = 4, nays = 1, abstained = 3. Motion died.
Ed Ott made a motion that LAPAC recommend the BCC accept the appeal and allow pervious surface for the parking lot. Susanne seconded the motion. Discussion: Ed Stoner said he is against it, it sets a precedent, the County needs to look at their standards, it is better to do a six month limit and thereby have the impervious surface. Andre agreed with Ed Stoner. Vote: ayes = 4, nays = 4. Motion died.
Ed Stoner made a motion that LAPAC recommend the BCC deny the appeal and recommend they be granted seasonal basis of six months to permit the pervious surface. Paul Ressigue seconded the motion. Discussion: Cordelia stated that the six month limit may not make this development financially feasible which would be too bad. Ed Ott was also not in favor of this limit. Vote: ayes = 3, nays = 4. Motion died.
Meeting adjourned 9:03 p.m.