Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of April 21, 2010

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 21, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Hart, Morgan, Wallace and Weitkunat on a site visit to Pope Special Review.  Commissioner Hess visited the site independently.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 17, 2010 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

REMOVED ITEM:

 

The Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 5 and Section 12, File #10-CA0107, were removed from the agenda to be heard at a later date.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  JMJA LEARNING CENTER LOCATION AND EXTENT #10-Z1787:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information for an on-line learning center as part of a charter school agreement between the Douglas County School District and the Poudre School District located on the west side of S. Shields Avenue, between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission that the JMJA Learning Center Location and Extent, file #10-Z1787, be approved.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

 Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #2  POPE SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1777 :   Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Special Review to allow a community hall and seasonal camp located on the north side of Bingham Hill Road at 3924 Bingham Hill Road, approximately ½ mile west of Overland Trail.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the paving of the parking lot and access drive to be within one year of the approval.  Mr. Lafferty explained the history of the site and the proposal and stated that the application was previously submitted as Bingham Hill Special Review but was denied.  A new application was submitted which included significant changes from the original.  He explained the differences between the original application and the newly submitted proposal.  The modifications and new proposal was as follows:

 

Community Hall (1 day events)

 

Seasonal Camp (2-7 day camps)

20 events @ 130 guests

20 events @ 90 guests

20 events @ 50 guests

Camps limited to 20 participants

# of weddings

    18 in 2010

     12 annually in subsequent years

Camp season from March 1 to September 30 annually

Total number of events per year

     60 maximum

Each camp session reduces total number of Community Hall events by 1

 

He noted that the original application proposed 30 events with 150 guest, 50 events with 100 guests, and 50 events with 50 guests.  The seasonal camp was originally proposed to operate from June 1 to July 30.  He also noted that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee recommended denial by a 4-3 vote stating that they did not believe that it was compatible with the surrounding areas and not consistent with the objectives of the LaPorte Area Plan.  He noted that there was a tree farm on the property along with the residence.  The applicant was also expanding the gym, which was currently under construction, to have an indoor gymnasium that would accommodate a full size basketball court.  He stated that it would be a joint use building that would allow activities associated with a community hall to occur.  He explained that several trees had been eliminated along the back of the property to accommodate a new septic system, tents, and the community hall events.  The grass area behind the house would be the location where the seasonal camp participants would camp in tents set on platforms.  He remarked that there would be approximately five tents accommodating approximately four people.  He explained that the original application previously considered had the parking area next to the driveway but created a potential conflict or compatibility issue with the adjacent parcel.  Therefore, the applicant proposed to move the parking lot to a different area of the site and planned to screen it with a landscaped hedge.  It would also have the benefit of screening by the nursery trees. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked why the appeal was being recommended for approval.

 

 

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, stated that gravel access and a parking area built correctly would suffice for up to a year in time.

 

Randy Pope, 3924 Bingham Hill Road, stated that since the originally application was denied changes were made to the proposal and another application was submitted.  He pointed out that in January 2009 the Land Use Code was amended regarding community halls/event centers to be reviewed in the FA-Farming zoning district.  He showed that there were four events centers within a one-mile radius of his property and several businesses located within the area.  He pointed out that he reduced the number of events from 130 to 60, and each activity (community hall or seasonal camp event) was counted as one event.  The number of weddings was reduced to 12 per year.  He explained that they were asking for more weddings in 2010 to help jump start the business but remarked that they would rather do corporate and church events as well as family reunions.  The Engineering Department classified Bingham Hill Road as a minor collector road and had a capacity of 5,000 cars a day.  Currently the use on the road was 1,300 cars per year, which was 26% of its capacity.  He stated that the amount of traffic increased with the proposed events over a one-year time would be 1% per year.  He noted again that the intensity would lessen every time there was a camp event as it would reduce the number of the community hall events.  He also pointed out that Larimer County assumed 10 vehicle trips per day per one household, and the proposal would put 17 cars on the road per day, which would equate to two households.  He stated that the traffic engineer and the Larimer County Engineering Department addressed all concerns.  He stated that the parking area had been changed and that they would be compliant with the noise ordinance.  They would also provide the minimum amount of lighting required by the building code.  He also remarked that he did not believe property values would be affected.  He volunteered to put a calendar on their website listing upcoming and past events and keep a log for records so compliance issues would never be in question. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked for more information regarding the camp.

 

Mr. Pope stated that there might be other organizations and groups that would come to camp beside the basketball camps.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if all camps would be capped at 20 people and if they would bring their own tents.

 

Mr. Pope replied yes, they would be capped at 20.  He stated that they would supply all the tents.  He stated that each tent would have two bunk beds allowing for four people per tent. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked what other facilities were on-site to use for the retreats, etc. 

 

Mr. Pope replied that the main uses would occur within the gym or under a covered tent that was provided. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked for clarification between compatibility and use intensity.

 

Mr. Pope replied that the basketball camps were more financially viable but they were unable to have them year round due to seasonality. 

 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if any research was done regarding traffic counts of the businesses surrounding the area compared to the proposed business.

 

Mr. Pope replied that they all contributed to the trip count of 1300 cars per day on Bingham Hill Road.  He pointed that many of the businesses and vehicle trips were based on seasonality also.  He stated that the peak use of the proposal would only increase the traffic by 7%.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if there would be alcohol served at events.

 

Mr. Pope replied that a limited amount would be served. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ric Hattman, engineer for the project, pointed out the changes to the site plan that were made to reduce the impact of the property.  He stated that the existing screening would remain, and buffering would be added to screen the parking lot.  He pointed out that the closest portion of the adjacent property line to the parking lot was 300 feet, which had been reduced to 50 spaces.  The parking lot had been moved to the center of the site to better buffer from adjacent properties.  He stated that the grade in that area was also different and was approximately 7 feet lower in elevation, which would also add to the screening ability. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked what provisions had been made for overflow if more than 50 cars came to the site.

 

Mr. Hattman stated that based on traffic studies, 50 spaces should be sufficient.  If overflow did occur, there was an area around the nursery maintenance facility that could be used. 

 

Paul Pelligrino, All Occasions Catering, agreed that smaller events yielded a higher profitability as caterers had interests in events other then weddings.  The focus point for his catering business was to have multiple sites to cater too, and the additional site would benefit him.

 

Kelly Stadleman, 4110 Bingham Hill Road, stated that the Popes had altered their application to help with the compatibility issues.  She pointed out that occasionally Bingham Hill Road lanes had been closed for bike races and she was never asked if she objected to the events or asked if it was okay for her to be redirected to her home.  She was inconvenienced for a short period of time with no say in the matter but it was not the end of the world.  What was being proposed would not be an every day occurrence, and while there may be inconveniences for short periods of time to traffic it would not be significant.  She felt that healthy competition allowed consumers to make choices and in the area, there was only one choice to have events like proposed.  She encouraged them to give the business a chance to succeed.  She remarked that the applicants should be applauded for their efforts and for trying to bring new business and employment to Larimer County. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike McMillan, local businessman, stated that in 2003 he sought to combine an event center with his catering business but after learning about the process from the Planning Department he decided to abandon the idea as it seemed so overwhelming.  He noted that the Land Use Code was amended in January 2009 to allow for profit event centers in the FA-Farming zoning district under community halls.  He was concerned that the first event center proposal to come before the commissioners since the changes to the Land Use Code could be denied.  If the decision was denied it would seem to contradict the intentions of the amended Land Use Code.  He felt that the applicant’s project would have a positive effect on the local economy and have an economic impact to the area. 

 

Connie Jesser, County Road 54G, felt that if the site was smaller or if there were environmental impacts she could understand problems with the proposal; however, she could not identify an such problems.  The applicants were being transparent with their plans compared to many other individuals, such as her neighbors, that cause many compatibility issues that she had no say in.  It was their privately owned property, and it would be a shame to deny the development of a viable, credible business that had the potential to create jobs, enhance business opportunities for existing area establishments, keep the schools open, keep the community thriving, and provide local as well as regional youth with an experience designed to build character in addition to honing their athletic skills.  The applicants were long time residents of the area with family ties that spanned decades.  She hoped that their endeavor would be supported.

 

Arlene Yusnukis, 3031 Bonner Springs Ranch Road, supported the applicant’s event center.  She felt that it would provide economic opportunities, and she also new that the applicants had a sincere affection for the youth of the community and beyond.  She had lived in Larimer County for 19 years and ran a small business out of her home for the last 15 years.  She felt that it was important to support a family trying to start a new business in the current economic time.  Fifty percent of the labor force was employed by small businesses, and she believed that it should be supported in unincorporated Larimer County.  She spoke to Mr. Popes coaching talents and ability to encourage and make a difference in the youth’s lives.  She encouraged the commission to support their efforts.

 

Ken Ecton, 4008 Bingham Hill Road, pointed out that there was public trust involved in decision-making boards receiving fair, reasonable, and accurate data.  The Development Services Team firmly suggested that the proposal could meet the technical needs but to say that it was compatible was not okay.  It was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and he stated that no member of the Department had spoke to the neighbors regarding their opinion on impact.  He pointed out that from 20 feet away you could hear well, and the fence on the property line was 20 feet away from the gazebo and the event center building.  Amplified events that close would not be a quiet event.  He showed a picture of the lanterns and lights on the property at night.  He also pointed out that more honeybees could come to the site due to the extra flowers on site for the events.  He felt that it was a commercial event avoiding rezoning to commercial.  He also remarked that the seasonal camp would not be a sporting camp; it would be a second event center as some of the uses previously a part of the event center had been transferred to the seasonal camp proposal. 

 

 

 

 

 

Keegan Pope, read a letter from Joe Cooper, owner of Cooper Auto Body.  The letter stated that Cooper Auto Body was a family owned business in LaPorte since 1985.  He felt that the community needed a larger business base, and the proposal would bring in people from outside of the area and bring more traffic to the community.  It would bring additional jobs, which would help with the LaPorte schools.  He stated that the applicants had worked to mitigate all of the issues and urged the commission to support the proposal.

 

Shelby Majors, 3927 Bingham Hill Road, stated that the new Special Review request was no different from before and turned the camp into a second events center.  She felt that it would be hard to enforce the number of events, which would leave the neighbors monitoring it.  In addition, the number of days had been increased for possible events.  If the camps were to occur every day during the proposed seven months it would be possible for 4200 people to come to the property.  Twelve weddings a year could still mean one wedding a week during the summer.  A fifty-car parking lot was a huge eyesore for a residential area no matter how it was screened.  She stated that the applicant new that there was a single family restriction on his lot, which should have never been removed by the County Commissioners in October of 2009, which was done with no notification to the neighbors.  She also noted the gymnasium expansion occurred two days after the denial of his first application.  She stated that she had been a realtor in the area for almost 35 years, and the business would decrease the values of homes.  Ed Stoner, a member of LAPAC and a realtor, was of the opinion that the proposal would hurt property values in the area.  She remarked that to add two more commercial uses to the property was wrong and not compatible with the area.

 

Liz Whitney, 4130 Bingham Hill Road, showed on a map how many people were against the project in the area.  She was concerned about what would occur on the property in the future if there were different owners.  She felt that there was a difference between the home occupations in the area with a very low traffic count compared to what was being proposed.  She explained that the opposition to the weddings was mainly due to the number of people that the weddings would draw.  They were proposing to only have 12 wedding but there was 48 more events that could occur that could bring 50 to 130 people. 

 

Dick Spiess, 3605 W. Bingham Hill Road, stated that the people that lived on Bingham Hill Road did not end up there by accident; they chose to live there.  They invested in a rural community, and he believed that the Land Use Code was in place to protect rural environments.  A restriction was placed on the property to be single family residential to make a consistent use in the area.  He stated that the people in the area were affected by the use.  He remarked that the 26 week period from May to October could have 20 events with 130 people and 20 events with 90 people, which would be 40 events.  Imagine living in a rural area and then having your neighbor throw a party every 4.5 days with 90 or more people.  It was not consistent or compatible with the rural neighborhood.  He stated that all of the traffic would go within 85 feet of his front door.  In addition, there were no shoulders on the highway, many bicyclists used the highway, and there would be a conflict with the variability of speeds.  He also pointed out that alcohol was ubiquitous to celebrations.  He also wondered how compatible the events would be when the neighbor was running his tractor to maintain his fields and property.  There were many conflicts, and it was not harmonious to the neighborhood. 

 

 

 

 

He pointed out that in 2005, Mr. Pope came before the commissioners to oppose a parking lot at Horsetooth stating that it was a bad plan because the road was too busy and there was not enough room on the road for RV’s to pass safely.  He stated that it was a commercial enterprise being introduced into his neighborhood and rural area.  It was not a bad plan; it was just a bad location.

 

John Schmid, adjacent property owner to the west, was opposed to the proposal as he felt it introduced a commercial operation in a rural residential neighborhood.  It created adverse impacts to surrounding properties such as noise, parking, and property values.  There were no commercial operations in the immediate area that would create the commercial magnitude that the proposed project would.  The new structure formed a wall that would project noise outward toward the other properties.  It was proposed to be an outdoor venue, and he felt that most of it would be held on the south side of the building and the noise would be reflected back.  The parking lot had been moved but it was still visible from his property.  He also questioned whether a 50-car parking lot would be adequate.  He pointed out that the applicant’s property values would increase but the neighbors’ property values would decrease as it would change the amenities of the properties.  He stated that the number of events had been shifted over to the camp, and the camp would now being running longer just to accommodate the extra events.  He opposed the project as it degraded the nature of the neighborhood and affected the amenities of his property as well as the neighbors.

 

Joann Welch-Schmid, 4009 Bingham Hill Road and 3708 Bingham Hill Road, stated that the proposed project did not meet the intent of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  In addition, it did not meet two of the criteria under the Special Review process.  She stated that she had lived on the road for 26 years and chose the area based on the single family requirement and the FA-Farming zoning, which they believed would ensure their peaceful retirement. 

 

Rebecca Douglas, 3605 W. Bingham Hill Road, stated that she loved and appreciated the quiet area.  The project was not in harmony with the neighborhood and the amplified music, intensity of use, and more people would be in disregard to many of the neighbors.  She stated that there were many people that lived on the road that were not happy with the proposal and hoped that the decision would be based on that.

 

Dave Tweed, 4130 Bingham Hill Road, stated that after 2 ½ years of looking, he found his home on Bingham Hill but first checked the zoning before his purchase to ensure what kind of area it would be.  Bingham Hill was very historic and a very beautiful area, and he liked the area because it was peaceful, quiet, and a good place to raise his son.  There was already one commercial business on the site and with a proposal for two more commercial businesses it would increase the noise, traffic, and affect the surrounding environment.  He was also concerned about the alcohol usage.  He stated that most of the events would be on the weekend in the summer, and it was not harmonious with the neighborhood. 

 

Reid Pope, 3930 Bingham Hill Road, supported the project because he firmly believed in property rights.  He stated that he was more impacted then anybody because he lived behind the property and the guests would have to use his road to get to the parking lot.  He stated that the project would benefit people and might help impact the businesses in the LaPorte community. 

 

 

 

 

Joe Sullivan, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, stated that it had been tough to watch the building go up when there had been no approval yet.  He felt that the plan would work but it was in an area not designated for commercial use, and the location would impact the area.  He was also worried about traffic and safety.  He remarked that there could potentially be a basketball camp all week and then a wedding on the weekend, which could occur all summer.  He also pointed out that there were cyclists all day during the warm weather, which posed a conflict.  He was opposed to the project. 

 

Sheryl Pope, applicant, spoke to all the changes they had made to make the project more compatible for the neighbors.  She also revealed her feelings regarding the hurtful questioning of their integrity and business sense from their neighbors and people that up to recently had been very friendly.  She also stated that the income from the new venture would help her family as they were in a new situation with her husband being unemployed.  She stated that for her it came down to a simple question, “Did the commission believe that they could deny them the chance to at least try?”

 

Randy Pope, applicant, stated that Mr. Ecton’s property was 140 yards from his property and the fence line was 50 to 60 feet from the gazebo.  There was also a ditch, a 20-foot road, and buffer of trees before you reached the property line.  He also noted that honeybees would not be an issue.  He mentioned again that they would keep a record of events and people to help with enforceability.  He also questioned Mr. Stoner’s opinion regarding the property values.  He stated that he understood the reality of maintaining agricultural land and surrounding property owners might be caring for their land from time to time.  He stated that the events would be held on the north side of the building and most of the sound would be reflected to the north.  He remarked that all businesses had a cumulative effect on noise, traffic, dust, light, etc.  He also mentioned that the impacts of unemployment in the county were substantial, and new visitors to the area would spend money and purchase goods and services in the community.  He stated that the project would provide 10-20 part time jobs throughout the year, which might also help the community to grow and the schools to stay open. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked if staff such as caterers, etc. had been counted in the numbers.

 

Mr. Pope replied yes.

 

Commissioner Dougherty confirmed that entertainment such as music would be held within the gymnasium or on the north side of the building.

 

Mr. Pope replied yes, and the gym was air conditioned.

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that if a camp was held each week there would be an equivalent of 23 events.  Therefore, there could be 23 weeks of events with the possibility to have 37 additional events if all 60 proposed events were held. 

 

Mr. Pope replied yes, it was possible.  He asked what the intent and impact was of amending the Land Use Code to allow for profit event centers in the FA-Farming zoning district?

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there was any way that the paving could be done before the start of the event season.

 

Mr. Pope replied no; from an economic standpoint there was not any way that they would be able to accomplish that.  He stated that that the Engineering Department was willing to wave the requirement for one year. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat asked for an explanation regarding the addition to the gymnasium.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that after the first proposal was denied the applicant applied for a building permit to expand the structure with the understanding that an affidavit would have to be signed stating that the building would be used for personal, private use.  The applicant agreed, signed the affidavit, and it was recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. 

 

Commissioner Morgan explained why the code was amended regarding events centers. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the additional uses in the zoning districts were never intended to be uses by right.  They were only intended to add some potential uses subject to review. 

 

Commissioner Cox commented that the economic aspect of the proposal should not be part of the discussion as it was not a part of the standards that were under review.  She greatly weighed the comments of LAPAC as they were members of the community and their comments were to deny the application.  The testimony from the neighborhood also gave insight to the amount of impact to the community, and she did not see a big difference in change from the first proposal to the current proposal.  She was opposed to the community hall/event center.

 

Commissioner Hess agreed with Commissioner Cox.  LAPAC did deny the proposal, and they were an important voice to listen to.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that a community hall allowed for recreation, social, and cultural activities.  She understood that all things could be made to be compatible as mitigation could occur.  Compatibility issues with the proposal were lighting, noise, traffic, etc., which were addressed with the proposal.  There was a question regarding intensity and its impact to the area, and she felt that it had been dealt with in regards to the limitation of events, etc.  She stated that there was a limited window for the “season of hospitality” and when the community hall aspect of the proposal would be used.  She remarked that people wanted to have events outside of a metropolitan area and there as a need and want for events to occur in rural areas.  She believed that if the issues were mitigated then the compatibility issues had been addressed.  She believed that the community hall could be possible in the area.

 

Commissioner Dougherty did not believe that the use would save the schools.  He understood that there were very limited places to go to have an event and believed that the applicant had good intentions and intentions to be a good neighbor.  He believed that the facility could work on the site especially since the bulk of the noise should be going away from concerned neighbors. 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the code had been revised to allow the uses to occur.  The compatibility issues could be mitigated and could meet the standards.  He stated that other events centers in the area were relatively small, and he felt that the proposed use was too intense for the neighborhood.

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that when the plat note was removed it created an issue as people had the expectation of what the area would be like.  The intensity of use on a 10-acre piece of property was too great, and there was already an intensive use with the nursery on the property.  He did not support the community hall due to the intensity and size of the property.

 

Commissioner Glick agreed that compatibility issues could be mitigated but it did not equal harmony.  He reemphasized that vested interest in an area was key.  The use was not harmonious with the character of the neighborhood, and he did not support the community hall.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that Bingham Hill was a special area and place.  It was a farming area and developed for that purpose.  There were plat restrictions in place making it that way and she did not believe that it was compatible.

 

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 Pope Special Review (Community Hall), file #10-Z1777, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty and Weikunat voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

Commissioner Hess stated that she was in support of the seasonal camp in regards to the first proposal, and she was disappointed with the new proposal and its purpose.  She suggested limiting the number of events to 30 camps per year.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how the parking lot dimensions would differ with the approval of the seasonal camp.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the parking lot would have to be reconfigured.  Also, the level of transportation impact and parking would have to be determined as to whether the thresholds of the Land Use Code would even require paving.  If the seasonal camp was approved staff would work with the applicant to determine the size and location of the parking lot.

 

Commissioner Dougherty felt that the impact of the seasonal camp would be minimal and supported the approval of the seasonal camp.

 

Commissioner Hart 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 Pope Special Review (Seasonal Camp), file #10-Z1777, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with the limit of 30 events on an annual basis:

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the 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.

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners

4.   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. 

5.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

6.   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.

7.   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.

8.   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.

 

 

9.   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.

10.   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.

11.   Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall obtain approval a septic permit, the septic system shall also be completed

12.   The 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

Each camp session reduces total number of Community Hall events by 1

 

13.   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.

14.   Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant shall provide a maintenance agreement for the shared access road serving the site.

 

Commissioner Hess seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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 Pope Special Review Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C, file #10-Z1777, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following condition if the Board of County Commissioners approve the community hall events proposal:

 

1.   The applicant/owner shall pave the access drive and parking area within 1 year of the date of this approval.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Hart disagreed with the appeal and felt that it should be paved if the community hall events were to occur.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Glick, and Hart voted against the

 

Commissioners' Dougherty, Hess, Morgan, and Weitkunat voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace abstained from voting.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                          Gerald Hart, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

TR 2, POPE MRD 96-EX0830

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.