NO AUDIO AVAILABLE

 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of March 17, 2010

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, and Morgan were present.  Commissioners Boucher and Wallace were absent.  Commissioner Weitkunat presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Samantha Mott, Planner II, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Hart, and Weitkunat on a site visit to College Lake Substation 1041 and Columbine Lodge Special Review.  Commissioner Hess visited the sites independently.

 

Vice-Chairman Weitkunat welcomed new commissioner, Sean Dougherty.

 

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 FEBRUARY 17, 2010 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, REGARING FOSTER ANIMALS #10-CA0106:  Ms. Mott provided background information on amending the Land Use Code, Sections 0.1, 4.3.1.O, and 4.3.10.C to add information related to foster animals.  The issue arose from a public comment.  She noted that the proposed code amendments were examined at a previous worksession.  Since the worksession minor changes had been made but were not reflected in the printed agenda.  She showed the correct proposed amendments.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-CA0106, be approved as follows:

 

 

1.    Add a new definition to Section 0.1:

 

Foster Home for Pet Animals:   A foster home for pet animals is a site which, through a written agreement with a Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA) licensed rescue facility, provides a temporary home for the care and/or rehabilitation of pet animals.

 

2.    Revise Section 4.3.1.O (agricultural uses) to exclude Foster Home for Animals from pet animal facilities.

 

Pet animal facility.  Any place or premise used in whole or in part, which part is used for the keeping of pet animals for the purpose of adoption, breeding, boarding, day care, training, grooming, handling, selling, sheltering, trading or otherwise transferring such animals. Pet animal facility also includes any individual animals kept by such a facility as breeding stock. Pet animal facility does not mean a common carrier engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce. Two or more pet animal facilities that have the same or similar purpose and operate from one place or premise are considered a single pet animal facility.   A foster home for pet animals is excluded from this definition.

 

 

3.    Revise Section 4.3.10.C (accessory uses) to include Foster Home for Animals as an accessory use to residential uses.

4.     

Pet animals.  Pet animals are permitted as an accessory use to residential uses. Hobby breeder facilities and foster homes for pet animals are permitted as part of this accessory use.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  COLLEGE LAKE SUBSTATION 1041 #10-Z1776:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a 1041 permit for an electrical substation and appurtenant facilities including interconnect to existing transmission system located on the CSU Foothills Campus east of College Lake, north of Rampart Road in the southwest area of the Colorado State Forest Service compound.  He noted that an application for an appeal to the 1041 permit was submitted by the applicants in late 2009 and was denied. 

 

 

 

 

Brian Chase, Director of Facilities for Colorado State University, explained that previously they had submitted an appeal to the 1041 process in order to expedite the process but based on the neighborhood reaction they realized that the proposed location would not work.  A neighborhood meeting was held on December 08, 2009 to discuss the relocation of the substation to its current location.  He stated that they agreed to all of the conditions of approval. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked how much additional traffic would be generated by the proposal?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there would be construction traffic but once the substation was in place the long term impact would be minor as it would be an unmanned substation.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if wetlands would be affected by the substation.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that they would not be affected by the substation itself as it was above the canal.  There was a concern addressed in condition of approval #3 that the interconnect pole and construction avoided impacts to the wetlands and drainage course of Soldier Creek.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if placing the wires underground was considered.

 

Mr. Chase replied that it was extremely expensive to put the high voltage wires underground.  He stated that they were actively looking at running some of the wires from the substation to the campus underground in the future. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan stated that the 1041 process went well and thanked CSU and Xcel for going through the process.  He also thanked the staff for their work.  He supported the approval of the project.

 

Commissioner Hart agreed and noted that there was no significant impact to traffic or the wetlands.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 College Lake Substation 1041, file #10-Z1776, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Final construction plans shall be consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the College Lake Substation 1041 permit file # 10-Z1776, 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 College Lake Substation 1041 permit.

 

2.   Final construction plans for the access roads, substation pad and any drainage facilities must be reviewed and approved by Larimer County.

 

3.   Placement of the poles/towers for the interconnect line and the access/construction access shall avoid impacts to the water course. 

 

4.   Prior to construction the applicant must provide to Larimer County confirmation that the concerns and issues of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company, as noted in the letter of 2/9/10, have been satisfactorily addressed and resolved.

 

5.   Prior to construction the applicants shall provide easements or agreements which insure that there is access to the site and any drainage or detention ponds will be protected. 

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

Commissioner Dougherty disclosed that he had a past working relationship with the applicant unrelated to the Special Review.

 

Commissioner Morgan and Vice-Chair Weitkunat asked that Commissioner Dougherty recuse himself.

 

Commissioner Dougherty recused himself from participating in the Columbine Lodge Special Review.

 

ITEM #3  COLUMBINE LODGE SPECIAL REVIEW #09-Z1745:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Special Review for an existing non-conforming resort lodge and retail store, and expansions to include a tent campground and office/retail space for a recreational business located on the north side of Highway 14 (Poudre Canyon), approximately 10 miles west of Highway 287 in the Poudre Park Subdivision.  The request also includes appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 18.4.1.B to allow the camp ground facility on less than 8 acres in area (site is 1.97 acres), Section 18.4.3.B to allow the internal drives serving the campground to be 12 feet in width (existing) versus the required 16 feet for one way traffic, and to allow the same 12 feet width versus 20 feet for two way traffic areas, Section 18.4.3.D to allow a deviation from the required 75 foot setback for camp sites from property lines and a deviation from the required 250 foot setback from a residential dwelling situated on an adjoining property, and Section 18.4.4.A to allow a vaulted privy where a comfort station is required.  He stated that the Development Services Team was recommending approval of the appeals.  He explained that the site had previous issues under a different owner, and the current owner wished to bring the site into conformance.  He showed where the vaulted privy would be located and where the designated FEMA floodplain was on the site.  He noted that no tent sites would be allowed in that area but the existing, non-conforming cabin would be able to remain. 

 

 

 

He stated that the Development Services Team was recommending approval with nine conditions of approval.  He noted that condition #4, bullet #1 would be revised to state,  “Provide a signed and recorded access easement for those portions of the internal circulation road that are situated on the adjacent property or the access be moved to be situated entirely in the subject property.”  He noted that a portion of the access road was on an adjacent property and that property owner stated that he would not be willing to grant an easement.  He stated that if no access agreement could be secured then the access would have to be moved to be entirely on the subject site. 

 

Michael Jensen, Manager of Poudre River Paradise, LLC, stated that the property had been a lodge and campground since 1929.  He purchased the property three years ago not realizing the extent of the troubled history of the site.  He remarked that he had upgraded the facility and property since the purchase and showed pictures of the lodge and the property.  He showed the area where the road overlapped the property line onto the adjacent property owner’s lot.  He stated that he had spoke with that property owner regarding an easement for that portion of the road but the owner only agreed to grant an easement if it could be revocable.  He stated that he worked with the neighbors to address noise and had put in trees to help mitigate the issues. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked where the access would be to the three trailers.

 

Mr. Jensen replied that the parking would be by the lodge or up by the campsites.  Campers would then have to walk through the campsites to get to the trailers.  He stated that the campsites were 30-foot circles. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there were any constraints in moving the road entirely on to the subject property.

 

Mr. Jensen stated that there was an electrical telephone pole in the way. 

 

Commissioner Morgan wondered about dust suppressant.

 

Mr. Jensen replied that it was a sedimentary, large rock and gravel road and not very dusty.  He stated that he would be open to dust mitigation.  He also noted that the speed traveled on the road was minimal. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked how often the vaulted privy would have to be pumped.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, replied that the privy would have to be serviced when needed;  therefore, depended on the amount of usage.  The Health Department required a vault of at least 400 gallons. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if there were issues with smell when it was being pumped.  She was concerned because it was close to the residence to the west.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the Health Department had not received complaints from campgrounds or trailheads where privies were used.  He stated that the new vaulted privies were more usable and sanitary compared to the old style vaults.

 

 

Commissioner Glick asked what would happen to the waste from campground cooking, etc.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that trashcans would need to be supplied at the site along with a water tap.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Tim Lahnert, adjacent property owner to the west, stated that Mr. Jensen had done a good job cleaning up the site.  He stated that two of the employees had done a wonderful job maintaining the campsite.  He stated that in the last year there had been a couple of times when noise got bad, and they had to call about it.  He stated that dust was not an issue.  He also stated that the privy was very close to his property and asked that it be moved to a different area.  He stated that many campsites had security and quiet hours and suggested that some rules and regulations be put in place.  He acknowledged the work and willingness of Mr. Jensen and the two employees. 

 

Allen A., former manager at Columbine Lodge, suggested moving the privy by the septic tank area.  He also suggested realigning the road behind the telephone pole and having the campsites on the other side of the road. 

 

Edward Miller, stated that Mr. Jensen had done a good job on the site.  He stated that last year they did establish security.  He also thought realigning the road and campsites was a good idea.

 

Allen A., noted that there were dumpsters on the site along with trashcans.

 

Dawn Niesent, property owner to the west, stated that she had many concerns.  It was a 1.9 acre site and many people drifted to her property.  She stated that last year she had to call the Sheriff’s Department three times due to people trespassing and her dog was injured do to the trespassers.  She noted that she did have several no trespassing signs on her property.  She also stated that noise was an issue.  She believed that most campers would not want to camp on the small sites and a majority of the campers would be overflow from Mishawaka’s parties.  She did not see it as feasible camping and wondered how camping outside of the floodplain would be regulated.  She stated that she had contacted the property owners regarding the issues and acknowledge the clean up of the site.  She also noted that she did put a call in to Mr. Jensen but never received a response.  She did not believe that two port-a-potties would be adequate for the site and wondered how many people would be allowed on one campsite.  She did not think that the site should be able to hold more then 25 people.  She believed that the additional camping would be just a party, and she did not want the proposal to be approved.

 

Mr. Jensen offered that he was always available to help with any issues and was not in receipt of any phone calls from Ms. Niesent.  He stated that they did hold a public open house, and she was not in attendance.  He stated that there were at least 25 people at the open house.  He remarked that he wanted to be a good neighbor and had tried to work with all of the issues.  He explained that the river fluctuated and when it was down many people walked the riverbank and that was where the trespassing became an issue.  He stated that he had made a goal to have some rules and regulations in place by the end of the month and before the County Commissioners hearing.  He stated that he would be willing to schedule a private meeting with everyone involved to further have an open dialogue on how they could be good neighbors.

 

 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if he was open to modifying the site plan and possibly moving the privy and the road.

 

Mr. Jensen replied that he was.  He stated that he thought that the easement issue had been resolved and only found out a few days ago that it had not.  He did see that it might free up some congestion on the site to move the road closer to the trailers and move the campsites on the other side of the road.  He understood the privy vault concerns and was happy to look at other sites for it to be located.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if tent camping included pop-up trailers.

 

Mr. Jensen stated that he identified tent camping as any temporary overnight structure.  He stated that he rarely saw pop-up trailers and mainly saw primitive camping.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat confirmed that he had a business plan.

 

Mr. Jensen stated that he did have a business plan which included upgrading the store and attracting a more “wholesome” crowd.  He believed that was done by appealing to people that came to the canyon to recreate which meant to camp, hike, kayak, etc.  He was not trying to attract a party crowd but did understand that it did happen.  He stated that the Poudre Canyon was underserved regarding infrastructure and facilities to accommodate all of the users, and they met a need. 

 

Commissioner Hart had a concern about moving the road and encroaching on the leach field.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that there was a condition of approval to have a barrier around the leach field but was not concerned if people wanted to walk, etc. on it.

 

Commissioner Hess asked how many campers were allowed on each campsite.

 

Mr. Jensen replied that there were 12 campsites and would accommodate 35 campers. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked about his proposed rules and regulations.

 

Mr. Jensen stated that he was going to research other campgrounds and get examples of what worked at other areas and implement them at their site.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that tent trailers would be allowed on the site. 

 

Kristine Lahnert, adjacent property owner to the west, stated that there was no overnight security.  She wondered who would enforce the 35 camper rule and who they should call when they did have enforcement issues?

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that if there was an immediate compliant the Sheriff’s Office would handle it.  If it was not an immediate issue the Code Compliance Department could handle complaints. 

 

Commissioner Cox was concerned about having campground rules for the property not just the owner.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan stated that it appeared there had been significant improvements to the property with the new owner.  He also remarked that the corridor was underserved for accommodations and felt that it was a reasonable expansion.  He felt that the use could be compatible with the existing operation and the issues could be mitigated.  He suggested that before the Board of County Commissioners heard the application that the staff and Mr. Jensen revise the site plan to reflect the movement of the access road entirely on to the property as that seemed to be the direction it was going.  He then believed the road relocation would be a significant enough change to warrant the reassessment of the tent camping locations and the vault location.  He asked that staff be involved with those changes and create a condition of approval.  Also, as part of the final approval he asked that staff determined rules and regulations that would be posted and made available to all occupants which would then be incorporated into the final conditions of approval.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Columbine Lodge Special Review, file #09-Z1745, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and amending condition #4, bullet #1 to state, “Provide a signed and recorded access easement for those portions of the internal circulation road that are situated on the adjacent property or the access be moved to be situated entirely in the subject property.”:

 

Commissioner Weitkunat questioned the location of the privy primarily due to Condition #4, Bullet #7 which stated, “Permit and construct a vaulted privy at the location illustrated on the plans found in the file for the subject application.”

 

Commissioner Morgan commented that he felt that if staff and the applicant were going to deal with the road issue and relocation then they would deal with the privy location at the same time. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked that the Motion be amended to add a condition of approval that staff incorporated campground rules and regulations. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he wanted to address it informally.  He was suggesting that staff would develop rules and regulations for the campground and incorporate posting of the property boundaries near the river, which would be worked on before the Board of County Commissioners’ hearing.

 

Commissioner Cox explained that she wanted a condition of approval that staff and the applicant work to create rules and regulations for the site, indicate property boundaries, and post trespassing signs.  She wanted to have rules and regulations that ran with the special review approval not just the owner. 

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested to stated that occupancy rules and regulations be incorporated, as determined by staff, as part of the final conditions of approval for the Special Review. 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan amended his Motion and 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 Columbine Lodge Special Review, file #09-Z1745, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with an amendment to condition #4, bullet #1 to state, “Provide a signed and recorded access easement for those portions of the internal circulation road that are situated on the adjacent property or the access be moved to be situated entirely in the subject property.”, and an amendment to condition #4 to add a bullet #10 which would state, “Provide occupancy rules and regulations for the occupants of the campground and further post trespassing markers to indicate the property boundaries which shall be incorporated into the final conditions of approval for the Special Review.”: 

 

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 Columbine Lodge Special Review, File #09-Z1745, 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 Columbine Lodge.

 

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval or adopted County laws and/or Ordinances (i.e. Noise Ordinance) may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.

 

4.   Prior to the commencement of any tent camping on the property the applicant shall:

 

·   Provide a signed and recorded access easement for those portions of the internal circulation road that are situated on the adjacent property or the access be moved to be situated entirely in the subject property.

 

·   Provide documentation that the State of Colorado Department of Water Resources has issued a commercial well permit for the use on the property.

 

·   Provide documentation that the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has reviewed and approved the plans for the public non-community water system for the uses.

 

·   Construct/install the public non-community water system as approved and install a water service tap in the vicinity of the tent camp sites.

 

·   Install identification signs, fire rings and other appurtenances for each of the tent camp locations.

 

 

·   Install barriers between the existing septic absorption filed and vehicular circulation drives.

 

·   Permit and construct a vaulted privy at the location illustrated on the plans found in the file for the subject application.

 

·   Provide documentation from the Colorado Department of Transportation indicating their acceptance of the parking configuration on the property adjacent to the Highway 14 frontage.

 

·   Provide documentation from the Colorado Department of Transportation indicating the approval of the access drives from Highway 14.

 

·  Provide occupancy rules and regulations for the occupants of the campground and further post trespassing markers to indicate the property boundaries which shall be incorporated into the final conditions of approval for the Special Review.

 

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.   The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) before the use commences, or within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review, whichever occurs first.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

Commissioner Glick 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 Columbine Lodge Special Review appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-Z1745, be approved.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:45 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Karen Weitkunat, Vice-Chairman                              Gerald Hart, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

PRELIMINARY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF

COLLEGE LAKE SUBSTATION

 

THE INFORMATION CONVEYED IN THIS EASEMENT DESCRIPTION IS FOR

REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAND SURVEY.

 

A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 7

NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF

WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

 

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8;

 

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 SOUTH 85°08’42”

WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2679.23 FEET, THENCE NORTH 05°49’59” WEST A

DISTANCE OF 44.40 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

 

THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 05°49’59” WEST A DISTANCE OF 347.79 FEET,

THENCE NORTH 66°14’43” WEST A DISTANCE OF 153.94 FEET,

THENCE SOUTH 84°30’25” WEST A DISTANCE OF 273.15 FEET,

THENCE SOUTH 05°49’31” EAST A DISTANCE OF 422.85 FEET,

THENCE NORTH 84°31’45” EAST A DISTANCE OF 407.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF

BEGINNING.

 

CONTAINING AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 3.84 ACRES (167,113.57 SQ. FT.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

LOTS 42, 43, 50 AND 51, AND THAT PORTION OF VACATED ROAD LYING SOUTH OF SAID LOTS 42 AND 43 AND NORTH OF SAID LOTS 50 AND 51 AS VACATED BY DEED OF VACATION RECORDED IN BOOK 861 AT PAGE 30, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; ALL IN POUDRE PARK ANNEX, EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 50 CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS RECORDED IN BOOK 867 AT PAGE 533, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.97 ACRES OR 85,766 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

 

PARCEL ADDRESS:  9940 POUDRE CANYON HIGHWAY, BELLVUE, CO  80512