Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of October 19, 2011
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Wallace and Zitti were present. Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman. Commissioner Miller was absent. Also present were Linda Hoffmann, Planning and Building Services Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary.
Ms. Hoffmann, Mr. Lafferty, and Mr. Ryan accompanied Planning Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Glick, Hart, Wallace and Zitti, and Larimer County Commissioners Donnelly, Gaiter, and Johnson on a site visit to Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review. Nearby neighbors to the project also attended the site visit.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE:
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Cox approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code – Solar, File #11-CA0118, was removed from the agenda and rescheduled to November 16, 2011 Planning Commission hearing.
ITEM #1 BINGHAM HILL ROAD 3924 SPECIAL REVIEW # 11-Z1855: Ms. Hoffmann provided background information on the request for the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review for: 1) a Community Hall, 2) amendments to the Seasonal Camp element of the Pope Special Review and Appeal (File # 10-Z1777), 3) an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Land Use Code to allow a road base surfaced access and parking lot where a paved surface is required, and 4) an appeal to Section 10.5.E of the Land Use Code to allow off-premise signage for the proposed uses. The property is situated on the north side of Bingham Hill Road, approximately ½ mile west of Overland Trail and is 10 acres in size. The site was not accessed from Bingham Hill Road but rather by a private drive. She explained that in 2009 an application for Special Review for a community hall use and seasonal camp was submitted and denied. Following that denial the application was revamped and resubmitted in 2010 asking for a separate approval for the community hall from the seasonal camp use. Both uses were approved. Once the use was in operation concerns arose by neighbors that conditions of approval were not being met. In December 2010, additional complaints from the public led to a second show cause hearing thus revoking the community hall use on the site. A new application was submitted in July 2011, which showed significant changes to the previous proposal.
Ms. Hoffmann noted that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee heard the application on September 20, 2011 and approved the Special Review application with a 4-3 vote. She showed the site and the existing facilities, which included a 62-lot parking lot, gymnasium, existing residence, outbuildings and a gazebo. The proposed site plan included removing a roof over a deck, adding a storage room attached to the north of the gymnasium, and use of tents on the east side of the gymnasium. Also, a six foot high solid wood fence was proposed to the southwest of the pond to provide for some noise mitigation. As proposed, the total events on the site would be 45 events/activities, which would be allocated as 7 business/corporate events, 33 weddings/celebration events and 5 seasonal camp sessions. Event activities would occur both inside and outside but any events that had “amplified entertainment or dance music” would be held inside the existing 4,500 square foot gym/multipurpose building. She noted that the application proposed 40 events with a maximum of 130 attendees with a total possible 5,200 people to the site a year, which was a significant decrease from the original application denied in 2009. She noted some of the proposed conditions of approval for the application, which included periodic inspections, fire sprinklers in the gym, a two hour limit for events by the pond, and a private security firm hired to monitor and report on operation. She also mentioned that with the proposal the current seasonal camp, which allowed up to 60 sessions, would be reduce to 5 sessions. The applicant was also asking for an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C to allow the parking lot and access drive to not be paved, which the Development Services Team was recommending denial of. A second appeal was being proposed to Section 10.5.E to allow an off-premise sign, which the Development Services Team was also recommending denial of.
Commissioner Cox asked if the report provided by the security firm would have standard actions to be monitored and reported on?
Ms. Hoffmann noted condition of approval “q” , which listed the content that the security firm would report on.
Commissioner Hart asked if staff would be able to monitor the many conditions of approval on the application.
Ms. Hoffmann agreed that there were many conditions and noted that having a third party to monitor would help. She assured that staff would implement and monitor the conditions to the best of their abilities.
Commissioner Zitti asked if any other approved uses required a security firm to report on the events.
Ms. Hoffmann replied that there had been other contentious uses some of which had several conditions and also stipulations from the court, specifically W.O.L.F. Special Review.
Chairman Glick asked about background noise compared to other noise such as voices, music, etc.
Doug Ryan, Health Department, replied that a test would be taken of the background noise, which would be when the event was not occurring. It would then be compared with the noise from the sounds from the event.
Chairman Glick asked who would educate the security firm on how to take the noise readings.
Mr. Ryan stated that the noise stipulations tested per the condition of approvals would be the outdoor speakers during a ceremony, which was a simple measurement. If a security firm was bonded, the security firm would have to demonstrate that they knew how to take those readings.
Chairman Glick confirmed that the background noise would be based on the speaker level and any crowd noise was what needed to be in compliance with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Ryan stated that the security firm would not be asked to take noise measurements at the property line or at others properties. They were to take noise levels and assure that the sound system was not over a certain volume.
Chairman Glick noted the LAPAC meeting minutes specifically regarding the LaPorte Area Master Plan.
Mr. Lafferty explained that that the LaPorte Area Master Plan was a policy document of future growth for the LaPorte geographic area of the county. According to the document, the land use objective for the property would be residential development at a rate of one house for every two to ten acres of area. He explained that there was existing zoning in place created prior to the Land Use Code that allowed certain uses with other uses requiring approval virtue certain reviews. The Master Plan did not specify where commercial, residential, etc. had to be. It specified where it would like those uses but respected existing zoning rules.
Chairman Glick asked about the appeal to the paving of the parking lot. He asked if the apron on the site was appropriate.
Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, replied that during the last application the applicant did construct an apron on the roadway, which was sufficient.
Chairman Glick asked about the leach fields on the site.
Mr. Ryan stated that a second septic system on the site had been specifically designed to allow flows expected with the use.
Randy Pope, applicant, thanked the commissioners for visiting the site and the staff for all their work. He asked for questions from the commission.
Commission Hart asked if there was general agreement with the conditions of approval.
Mr. Pope replied yes.
Commissioner Hart confirmed that the beach area could be used for 2-hour periods. He asked if it could be lighted when not in use.
Mr. Pope stated that generally most activities took place in the afternoon and in the summer when light was not an issue. He noted that there was no code requirement for lighting. He stated that lights would not be on in the area when it was not being used.
Commissioner Wallace asked how people making reservations would know of the requirements/restrictions of the site.
Mr. Pope stated that they had an extensive interview process. He stated that in the contract the rules would be noted. He also explained that there would be a locked gate by the beach area so no one could use the area when not allowed. He stated that a lot of work had occurred on the property, and they did not want the property destroyed.
Commissioner Zitti asked if a security firm had been contacted.
Mr. Pope replied no as it was premature but did confirm that monitoring could occur by a security firm.
Commissioner Jensen asked if an event of 15 people would be considered an event just like an event with 130 people.
Mr. Pope replied yes. He stated that it became difficult to control the number of people coming to an event, especially weddings. Effectively they could not exceed 130 people.
Commissioner Gerrard pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners decided that the conditions of approval of the last application were not met. He wondered how the conditions could be met this time.
Mr. Pope stated that the conditions were much more specific. He stated that a security firm would be able to effectively monitor and report the checklist. He acknowledged that they needed to meet the conditions this time because another revocation was not an option.
Chairman Glick asked what would happen if more cars showed up then were allowed in the parking lot.
Mr. Pope stated that the additional cars would have to be parked somewhere else with people going to pick them up. He stated that the events held in 2010 did not go over the parking capacity.
Chairman Glick asked about the “penalty clause” in the contract to customers.
Mr. Pope stated that it would be made clear to customers that only a certain number of people were allowed. He stated that he would have to make sure they were under the limit of people every time. He pointed out that they would be held to the highest common denominator but have to use the lowest common denominator. He also noted that there were several commercial businesses within the area.
Chairman Glick asked about the noise concerns and how they would be addressed.
Mr. Pope stated that the Sheriffs Department had been called three times in the past and once by him at his request. All four times, they were told that the noise levels were not an issue. He noted that the Swing Station created a lot of noise and complaints. He stated that they had never had the music at 80 decibels and were confident that they had not went over the noise ordinance. He also noted that they had never had one personal complaint as all were driven toward the county staff. He mentioned college and professional sports games and noted that noise was not heard unless the crowd was cheering for a touchdown, etc. He went on to discuss the off-premise sign appeal and stated that he was asking to have a small, real estate size sign with balloons only on the days of events. He stated that he had permission from the property owner. He spoke to the appeal to Section 8.6.3.C and believed that paving would create a lack of rural character in the area, which they wanted to maintain. He mentioned that the surrounding neighbors did not want it paved either. He explained the maintenance of the road and noted that the cost of paving was outrageous and would be a hindrance to the business. He mentioned that three properties used the access road.
Commissioner Gerrard asked if there would be an incentive as a business owner to have a well-maintained road.
Mr. Pope replied yes. He also stated that they did not want the dust.
Commissioner Dougherty asked if the road was able to handle the amount of traffic proposed.
Mr. Tracy replied yes. He explained that if the exact same use was off of an unpaved road then paving would not be required.
Debbie Dirks, lived on Bingham Hill, stated that her husband and she were in favor of the application as it would be a wonderful project for the community. She hoped the commission would give them a chance.
Matt Martindale, professional MC wedding DJ since 1989, stated that he had done 1,165 weddings. He was concerned about the sound measurement three feet in front of a speaker. He stated that according to OSHA, a refrigerator was 40 to 50 decibels, rainfall was at 50 decibels, and birds at 25 feet were 55 decibels. He felt there could be an economic impact with a strict noise ordinance as Larimer County records showed that there were approximately 2,200 weddings held in Larimer County. He stated that the noise ordinance was restrictive and mentioned that he was taking decibels readings with his instrument while Ms. Hoffmann was speaking, and she ranged between 55 and 58 decibels, which would make her out of compliance. He stated that it should be examined how strict the ordinance was.
Mr. Jensen asked everyone in the room to clap to determine what a decibel reading would be.
Mr. Martindale stated that the decibel reading was between 78 and 82.
Kay Johnson, stated that her family wanted to have a wedding at the site but was unable to because of the revoked approval. She did not believe that it was detrimental to the community. She noted that the dance music would be moved inside. She hoped that their efforts were supported.
William Boyd, was in favor of the application. He said that the applicants had put a lot of effort in to accommodate all of the requests and requirements. He stated that he had been in the catering business for years and had never seen anyone have to take decibel readings of their speaker volume. He felt that it was getting to the point where people could not enjoy celebrations. He understood and respected the neighbors’ opinions but also believed that they should respect the applicants’ efforts.
Virginia Fisher, concurred with previous speakers. She stated that she was at a wedding at the site and left early. As they left they stopped on Bingham Hill Road and tried to hear the activity from the wedding but were unable to. She stated that the applicants had made a great effort for the county and subjected themselves to so much. She urged that the application be approved as it was an asset to Bingham Hill and the county.
Billy Glisan, was in favor of the application. He stated that it was a special place, and the applicants were special people. It was a great and beautiful venue, and it has helped the community.
Priscilla Dressen, was a veterinarian for WOLF and was familiar with sound issues. She knew the applicants and stated that they had always kept up their property. They were taking responsibility, trying to comply with the stipulations, and trying to be good neighbors. She hoped that they would be approved.
John Fisher, professional photographer, supported the applicants. He stated that he had done many weddings all over the country, and it was a one of the best venues. He thanked the commission for their time. He stated that he supported the activity and application.
Reid Pope, stated that he moved to LaPorte in 1956 and was a principle at Poudre High School for 21 years. The government stressed that small businesses would be what helped to get the economy going, which the applicants were trying to do. He pointed out that you could not see the venue from the road. He stated that a community could not grow if no one came, and it would help the economy as people would be getting hired and be working. He supported the project as it was a new business that could possibly keep the community going.
Kelly Jo Stadleman, lived on Bingham Hill, stated that she worked for the applicants until December when the event center was revoked, and she lost her job. She was an event planner and noted that the application/venue was being held to a higher standard than others. She mentioned that the issue had torn the community apart. She stated that the applicants were doing the best they could and at each event always tried to be in compliance.
Travis Thompson, LaPorte resident, stated that he ran a business in LaPorte so having something that could draw people to the area and help people spend money in the area was a good thing.
Johnna Noonan, concurred with previous speakers. She stated that they were great business owners and people. She hated to see their opportunity being denied and thought that they must want it bad enough to endure all of what they had. She hoped they would have the opportunity to have a small business and make it work. She was in favor of the application.
Mike Codd, was in support of the application. He also stated that his family needed a venue, and he felt that taking away choices was not good. The conditions put on the application from a business sense made it a great challenge; however, he knew that the applicants would be able to do it.
Beverly Taylor, lived on Bingham Hill and was opposed to the proposal. She was upset that zoning changes to the property could effect a quiet area and felt relieved when the approval had been revoked. She also felt that the new application asked for more than the original application, which concerned her. She believed that anyone would seek to protect their neighborhood from proposals that were not zoned for and went against their current quality of life. She begged that the residents of Bingham Hill be allowed to listen to the quiet of the area and enjoy their homes.
Liz Whitney, 4130 Bingham Hill, stated that she was at the site visit. She noted her property was on the hill to the west of the proposal, and the sound was higher at her property. She felt that it was hard to reproduce the sound of 130 people talking. She stated that it seemed that the new proposal increased the large celebratory events and would allow a wedding or event to occur every weekend, potentially two per weekend. She was glad that the music had to be in the gym. She hoped that people would see the neighbors’ perspectives who were directly in visual or hearing distance.
John Schmid, 4009 Bingham Hill Road, stated that he was opposed to the project as he felt it brought a commercial aspect to the area and brought a considerable impact to the area. The changes in the proposal also seemed to increase the incompatibility. He was also concerned about the property value to the area.
Shelby Majors, lived on Bingham Hill Road, reminded the commission that the property was part of a residential development limited to single-family residential uses, and the applicant removed the restriction but the neighbors were never notified. She stated that music was not in designated areas before so wondered why would they be now. She mentioned that the applicants also held camps after the allowed time period.
Ken Ecton, 4008 Bingham Hill Road, stated that the request was for a use not authorized by zoning, which needed Special Review. Section 2.3.A.1 stated that the purpose of the Land Use Code was to provide for preservation of character and quality in rural areas and that was what the surrounding property owners were trying to do. Section 4.5.3 spoke to compatibility, and he noted that there were no commercial businesses in the area. He felt that it would also have an adverse effect on the surrounding property owners. He stated that it was not a popularity contest or economic opportunity vote.
Raye Sullivan, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, pointed out that the land use code required the proposal to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She felt it was incompatible due to the opposition, and the voices of the neighbors should be heard as they would be impacted the most. She pointed out on a map all the surrounding property owners opposed to the application. She stated that there was an increase of celebratory events per year, which would equate to weddings every weekend. The current application had more impact than the previous one revoked
Lee Thompson, stated that he lived in the area and could not believe what the applicants were having to go through. He stated that he visited the site, and it was totally different from what he had anticipated from all of the talk around town. He noted that the commissioners went into a partnership with the applicant, and as a result the applicants improved the site according to that partnership. He pointed out that the applicants were not given an opportunity to rectify the situation and had the partnership revoked right away.
Sandy Walker, 4008 Bingham Hill Road, stated that she felt lucky to live in the area. She stated that compatibility and harmony with the neighbors was not being met, and an events center would not keep the harmony or compatibility.
Joe Sullivan, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, stated that history repeated itself. He pointed out that the applicants did not comply in the past. He stated that property rights were important and the residents stood to loose as much as the applicants stood to gain.
Arlene Yusnukis pointed out that things change and stated that the process had been followed by the applicant. She stated that it could never be determined what would occur in the future. She felt that the process should be carried forward and not be based on conjecture and supposition.
Mr. Pope stated that the current proposal was not an increase in events as the application proposed 33 events. He also did not understand why the weddings were of such concern and pointed out that if the dance music was inside that it would be no different then any other event. He understood what caused the revocation and what impacts occurred from that. As a result, they would be sure diligent in following all the rules and conditions. He pointed out that they took great care of the property and would continue. He stated that there had been no communication, compromise, or cooperation by the surrounding neighborhood and all of the changes were an attempt to try to work with the neighbors. He pointed out that they went through the county process regarding the MRD and followed the rules of the Land Use Code. The basketball camps held were not illegal, and the Planning Staff were aware of them. He was also upset that many documents were submitted at the last minute before the hearing, and the applicant did not have a chance to review them ahead of time. He mentioned that there were 47 property owners on Bingham Hill Road and did not believe that all of them were in opposition. He reiterated that there would only be one event per day. He stated that they had bent over backwards to try to make it work because they wanted to but now they had to. They had invested over $400,000 into the project after going into the “partnership” with the county, and they had to move forward. He stated that they had addressed all issue brought up with the revocation and pointed out that all issues had been addressed by the revocation hearing date. He stated that they wanted to move forward and had agreed to all of the conditions of approval. He stated that they would make it something the community could be proud of.
Commissioner Gerrard wondered how the number of guests could be limited. He asked where the number 130 came from.
Mr. Pope stated that they had to take the lowest common denominator. He stated that in the past he had notified the county when an issue came about and the number went slightly higher. He was told to go ahead with the event, and he put on his log that 147 people attended. He explained that the 130 number came about to try to become compatible. He mentioned that in the new proposal he asked for an average of 130 people over one quarter but was told that it would not work. He noted that the parking lot also fit 130 people.
Mr. Lafferty also added that a septic system was designed and installed for 130 people.
Commissioner Gerrard stated that events were not something where you could predict how many people would come. He thought more of a sliding number over time would be better. He believed that setting a number could set the applicants up for failure.
Mr. Tracy explained that with the first application the Engineering Department examined the traffic generation from the type of use being proposed compared with the facilities on Bingham Hill Road. He stated that above the stipulated number the applicant would have been tripping a right hand turn lane into his property.
Commissioner Gerrard asked what the average number of attendance was before revocation.
Mr. Pope thought it was about 90 to 110 people.
Commissioner Jensen asked which condition was the most onerous.
Mr. Pope replied the limit of guests. He stated that they took out many loans for the project and then were revoked which stopped the cash flow coming in. He stated that they were in default and the only way to stay on the property was to declare bankruptcy or get the application approved. As a result, they were willing to take the chance as they did not have any choice.
Commissioner Zitti asked for clarification on the number of events proposed compared to the previous application.
Mr. Lafferty explained that during the review for the previously approved Special Review it was determined that weddings would have more impact due to the reception aspect. As a result, the applicant agreed to have 18 weddings in the first year and after that the wedding events would reduce down to 12. The applicant was now willing to sprinkler the building, and as a result they were able to fit more people into the building. Due to that, it was felt that a wedding was no different from any other event because the impacts would be contained within the walls of that building.
Commissioner Wallace pointed out that the neighbors were still not in favor of the application.
Ms. Hoffman stated that the department took the findings of incompatibility from the revocation and tried to address those issues.
Chairman Glick wondered what would trigger a noise complaint. He wondered if the noise problem could be solved. He pointed out that the Special Review would be in perpetuity and wondered the long-term impacts of the property and surrounding property.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the issue came up with every Special Review.
Chairman Glick asked about the issue of paving the road.
Mr. Tracy stated that it was a private, local access road, which required paving per the Land Use Code. When evaluating paving, the Engineering Department determined if the use was generating a certain number of vehicle trips that exceeded the threshold to require paving. In this case, the applicant was under the paving threshold. He stated that if the road was maintained properly it could sufficiently handle the amount of traffic that would occur on the road. The question was if the gravel road could provide the level of service that the code intended and meet the expectation for the proposed type of use. He mentioned that if the board did approve the appeal then a maintenance plan needed to be created. He noted that the applicant had been maintaining the road sufficiently and to a standard that would provide for its purpose.
Ms. Hoffman stated that in the Pope Special Review an appeal regarding paving was included. The appeal was approved to wave the paving for the first year but after that it would be required.
Commissioner Dougherty appreciated all of the comments. He felt the people that lived closest to the property needed to be taken into consideration. He mentioned that the first application was revoked due to the applicants’ actions. He noted that it was difficult to see the facility from the road and at the site visit he did not hear the music from others properties but did hear voices and talking. He stated that the condition of approval limiting outside events to 2 hours would help with compatibility. He did not believe it would disrupt quality of life. He was also in favor of approving the appeal to the paving of the road.
Commissioner Zitti agreed with Commissioner Dougherty’s comments regarding the public participation and neighborhood feelings in proximity of the site. He pointed out that it had been approved once and wondered if he should be allowed a second chance. The new proposal had many conditions of approval which caused concerns regarding enforcement. He stated he was inclined to approve the appeal to paving the drive as it would take away from the character of the site. He encouraged the street sign to the day of the event.
Commissioner Jensen stated that it was a rural area, and he didn’t think people would expect the road to be paved. He felt that all the conditions of approval could set the applicants up to fail. He did not agree with giving some of the conditions to a third party and putting a sound requirement on the property. He had a problem with the property owner being put into a position where he did not have a choice.
Commissioner Gerrard understood Staffs’ hard work with the issues. He did not know how the conditions would physically be met or enforced. He didn’t understand why people could not get along anymore and work with their neighbors; however, he did sympathize with the neighbors. At the site visit he felt that the noise coming from the school was much louder. He felt that the drive should stay gravel and felt that it would be a financial burden to pave and to maintain. He also supported the sign appeal and felt that a small sign would help direct traffic so they were not burdening other properties and drives. He mentioned that he tried to view all the components from a neighbor perspective.
Commissioner Cox stated that there was history of residential uses in the area, and the neighbors did not choose to live next to a commercial enterprise. There was a lot of incompatibility in the area and pointed out she was opposed to the compatibility issue in the last proposal. She stated that their were rules appointed to the last approval, which the applicants chose not to follow. She pointed out that it was the first application to ever be revoked. She felt that a precedence would be set giving a second chance, and she did not know if a second chance should be allowed. She did not believe the road needed to be paved.
Commissioner Hart felt that the Planning Commissions’ job was to determine how well an application met the requirements of the Land Use Code. He did not feel that the application met the review criteria regarding compatibility and harmony with the neighborhood. He agreed with approval of the two appeals.
Commissioner Wallace noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the first application because most did not feel the use was compatible with the area. She did not feel that it was compatible with the community no matter how many restrictions were placed on the application.
Chairman Glick stated that he was concerned that the use would not work as property ownerships changed. He also had concerns with impacts to Lot 1, potential parking lot overflow, changes in noise and measurement, and the economic impact to the undeveloped property to the west. He felt that there were 22 conditions of approval, which were 22 reasons why it was not compatible with the area. He felt that the surrounding property owners would be responsible to police most of the conditions. He pointed out that people did not expect the use when they moved to the area and concerned with the future economic development of the property as businesses need to grow. He did not feel that the application showed that it could be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He also did not feel that the road needed to be paved. He felt that a road maintenance agreement should be proportional to use so the other two lot owners were not paying to subsidize the enterprise. He also was in favor of the appeal to the off premise sign.
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review, file #11-Z1855, as shown on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved as follows:
h. There shall be no more than 40 Community Hall activities allowed annually on the Bingham Hill 3924 property, which activities shall be allocated as 33 wedding/celebration receptions and 7 business/corporate events. The number of events shall be counted from January 1 to December 31 in each calendar year, without carryover into subsequent years.
i. Each of the 33 wedding/celebration receptions and 7 business/corporate events held each calendar year shall be limited to a maximum of 130 guests, and 12 service personnel. It is recognized that an “event” includes the primary gathering of people for the meeting, wedding or celebration as well as some visits to the facility during event planning. For example, wedding rehearsals (not including rehearsal dinners) are considered to be part of the single event, even if the activity occurs on the day prior to the event.
j. The owner/operator shall ensure that all patrons and service personnel park in the designated parking lot, which parking lot contains 62 parking spaces (three of which shall be handicapped spaces).
k. Fire access roads and fire lanes requirements as outlined in the referral letter found in the application file from the Poudre Fire Authority, by Carie Dann, Fire Protection Technician and dated August 8, 2011 shall be complied with at all times.
l. All fire lanes as identified by the Poudre Fire Authority shall remain open and unobstructed during Community Hall events.
m. Prior to any Community Hall use associated with the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review, the applicant/owner shall install an automatic fire sprinkler system in the gym/multipurpose building. Said system shall be approved and inspected by the Larimer County Building Department and the Poudre Fire Authority prior to use of the building.
n. Any activities held in the area around the north and west sides of the pond (including the beach area, lawn area, deck and gazebo) shall be limited to 2 hours in duration. It is recognized that set-up, limited activities by a limited number of event hosts, and tear down/clean up activities will extend beyond the 2 hour period.
o. The area described in the previous condition (# n.) shall be separated by a locked gate from other use areas to the east and north.
p. Events shall only be allowed on the property for the Bingham Hill Road 3924 community hall use between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
q. The owner/operator of the events center at Bingham Hill Road 3924 shall hire a security firm licensed and bonded in the State of Colorado to monitor and report on the operations and functions of all events, which reports shall at a minimum address the following (to address unforeseen issues the following list of reported items can be expanded by the Larimer County Planning Director at any time) :
i. Placement and orientation of all speakers being used outside of the Gym/multipurpose room per the approved speaker placement and orientation plan dated _______,
ii. One decibel reading per hour at a distance of three (3) feet from the front of each speaker,
iii. Number of guests attending the event,
iv. Number of service personnel at the event,
v. Areas of the site used for activities (including the amount of time in each space),
vi. Start and finish time for the event,
vii. Number of vehicles in the parking area, and
viii. Any other pertinent information such as neighbor complaints and/or visits by County or Poudre Fire Authority personnel.
r. The owner/operator shall provide contact information for the security firm overseeing the event at least 24 hours in advance of the event. Notice may be provided via website posting on the business web page or via e-mail or direct mail to the Planning Department and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the subject property.
s. A complete signed report from the security firm must be received by the Planning Department within 10 calendar days of each event.
t. Prior to any use activity associated with the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review, the applicant/owner shall remove the roof from the existing deck at the southwest corner of the pond.
u. The applicant/owner shall ensure that all transportation to and from the site by guests and service personnel shall be via typical surface transportation. No alternative transportation (helicopter, hot air balloon or similar transports) shall be allowed for the event uses and activities.
v. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners public hearing for this request, the applicant shall provide a Speaker Placement and Orientation Plan. Said plan shall address the location, orientation and height of all speakers used for Community Hall activities outside of the gym/multipurpose room, and further shall be consistent with the sound analysis, provided with the original application submittal, prepared by Harms Sound Labs and dated June 24, 2011.
Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, and Zitti voted in favor of the Motion.
Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in opposistion of the Motion.
MOTION FAILED: 4-4
Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution if the Board of County Commissioners approve the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the conditions of approval for the Pope Special Review and Appeal, File #10-Z1777 pertaining to the Seasonal Camps, see also Findings and Resolution at Reception 320100038712, as shown on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be amended as follows:
a. This Special Review approval, for the Seasonal Camp, shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
b. The Seasonal Camp portions of the Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bingham Hill Farms Special Review, File #10-Z1777, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Pope Special Review.
c. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners
If the Pope
Special Review for the Community Hall is not approved the applicant shall
provide a revised site design illustrating a 7-10 stall parking instead of the
50 stall parking lot proposed with the initial application.
e. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
f. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
g. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
h. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
i. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall provide a commitment letter from the City of Fort Collins Water District for expanded water service for the use.
j. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall obtain a Change of Use Permit from the Larimer County Building Department for the occupancy of the gymnasium for the uses proposed. This permit shall include approval by the Poudre Fire Authority with regards to fire protection.
k. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall obtain approval a septic permit, the septic system shall also be completed
be no more than 5 Seasonal Camps annually, per calendar year. The Seasonal
Camps will be limited to the following characteristics:
allowed number and
occupancy of Seasonal Camp activities allowed shall be as follows:
Seasonal Camp (2-7 day camps)
Camps limited to 20 participants
Camp season from March 1 to September 30 annually
m. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall to coordinate with Larimer County Engineering Department to install signage at the site access and Bingham Hill Road to warn drivers to use caution due to high levels of bicycle traffic along Bingham Hill Road.
n. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall provide a maintenance agreement for the shared access road serving the site.
Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution if the Board of County Commissioners approves the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the of the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Land Use Code, file #11-Z1855, be approved with the condition that a road maintenance agreement be created proportional to use.
Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution if the Board of County Commissioners approves the Bingham Hill Road 3924 Special Review:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Appeal to Section 10.5.E of the Land Use Code to allow an off-premise sign as proposed by the applicant above, file #11-Z1855, be approved.
Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.
Scott Glick, Chairman Nancy Wallace, Secretary
TRACT 2, POPE MRD 96-EX0830