Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 18, 2008

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Hart, Morgan, Waldo, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Karabensh, Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, and Wallace today on a site visit to McBlair Ranch Special Review, Woody Biomass Location and Extent, Wilder-Nest B&B/Retreat Special Review, and Tico’s Roofing Special Exception. 

 

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 MAY 21, 2008 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

There were members of the audience who wished to speak regarding the McBlair Ranch Special Review.  Chairman Wallace moved the item to discussion item #1.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  WOODY BIOMASS LOCATION AND EXTENT  #08-Z1694:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a collection site for woody biomass activities which would include forest health material disposal and sorting for commercial uses off site.  The site would be located approximately 1/8 mile west of Stove Prairie Road and ½ mile south of Rist Canyon Road.  It would serve the Rist Canyon/Bellvue and Buckhorn area of the County and would operate 2-4 days a week during daylight hours but not more than 8 hours a day.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there were any neighborhood meetings held or comments received from the public.

 

Dave Lentz, Natural Resources Department, stated that invitations were sent to everyone within one mile of the site.  A meeting was held on June 10, 2008 at the Stove Prairie School where they had one respondent.  In total, 27 letters were mailed out. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Woody Biomass Location and Extent, file #08-Z1694, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Temporary facilities such as portable toilets and bottled water will be provided at the site for those individuals operating the site.

2.   Access shall be coordinated with the Larimer County Engineering Department and if an access permit is required one will be obtained and any necessary improvements will be installed prior to any operation or activity at the site.

3.   Obtain the necessary air quality permits for both the site and any equipment which may operate at the site. 

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  MCBLAIR RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW #07-Z1664:  Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to allow a personal and 4-H Shooting Range in the O-Open zone district located approximately 2 miles northwest of Masonville on County Road 27 on the north side of the road.  The request also included an appeal to Section 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code which would require the applicant to provide right-of-way for County Road 27, and the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the appeal. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the intent was to allow shooting on weekends?

 

Ms. Stauffer replied yes.  They had addressed all concerns brought up by the County and referral agencies but did receive letters from the neighbors regarding the shooting hours and times.  As a result, it was suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors to restructure when the shooting occurred although changing the hours and times was not a condition of approval because the application met the requirements.

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that there was nothing in the Land Use Code that restricted land owners from doing recreational shooting on their property.

 

Ms. Stauffer replied no.  The application allowed additional users into the facility, a public group, so that classified it as a development requiring a Special Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Linda Bilsing, 8829 Fox Court, stated that the ordinance regarding noise levels in unincorporated Larimer County, Ordinance #97-03, stated that the maximum noise between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. could not exceed 55 decibels for more than 15 minutes for more than a one hour period.  Yet the application stated that the noise levels of the muzzleloaders with the powder charge of 60 grains measured at 68 decibels at the north property line and 62 at the south property line.  Both of the measurements exceeded the maximum limits set for daytime use; therefore, she felt that they violated the ordinance.  Secondly, the ordinance also stated that noise within the limits could still constitute a disturbance in violation of the ordinance when it created an unreasonable interference with enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort, and outdoor recreation of an individual or individuals of ordinary sensitivity inhabants.  She stated that seven neighboring households had submitted letters stating that the noise from the shooting range interfered with their enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort, and outdoor recreation.  Finally, she asked if the noise limitations and abatement plans were really adequate to address the issues.  Revising the range orientation to direct noise “away” from adjacent homeowners was negated by the fact that it was on a valley floor where noise echoed and carried up the hillsides into the surrounding communities.  She wondered if anybody else would be willing to listen to gun fire for two hours in the morning, noon, or night. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if there were exemptions for the noise ordinance?

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the noise ordinance did have exemptions for certain types of use such as air craft, agricultural farming equipment, and general traffic noise.  The proposed use would not be exempted and would be expect to comply with the ordinance.  The Health Departments’ perspective on the issue was that the applicant provided an abatement or minimization plan, which they did.  It identified a number of strategies that would be committed to including limiting the Special Review activities to ten, two hour sessions a year for the small caliber 22 and ten, one hour sessions for the muzzleloaders limiting the charge to 60 grains to try to cut down on the noise.  Changing the orientation of the range to south facing and limiting shooting to daytime hours was also included in that plan.  They also committed to work with the neighbors on an ongoing basis to identify and resolve conflicts.  Based on that, the Health Department felt that those were reasonable commitments and would help to limit noise at nearby residence.  He also suggested in his comments that people came to the hearing to offer their perspective based on their experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Jacobson, stated that his property line was 500 feet from the shooting range.  He presented some slides of the area to the Commission.  He stated that he had developed a Rural Land Use Plan in 2000 where he restricted shooting of firearms on the properties in his covenants.  He had concerns because he wanted to sell the properties and felt that the shooting range could cause some harm to doing that.  The shooting had been occurring for the past three years.  He stated that if you compared agricultural equipment noise to shooting there was quite a difference.  The shooting noise was annoying and it affected his animals.  Also, the location of the shooting range made the noise worse because there were cliffs behind it and the echo went up and down the canyon.  He suggested moving the site to the southwest corner of the property.  He stated that it was becoming a residential area and suggested that the shooting occur at the shooting range east of I-25 near The Ranch.  He felt that the County had been lax in not having anywhere for people to go and shoot.  He handed out copies of an article regarding that shooting range. 

 

Chad Brunmeier, 3875Thelma Lane, was a shooting sports instructor that helped with the proposed shooting range.  He explained that the reason the range was moved to the present location was because the City of Fort Collins had purchased the Tom Brown farm and removed the 4-H shooting range from there.  The Clausens were kind enough to let them shoot there and the youth outdoors program was a good program but so was 4-H.  There were approximately 3,000 kids in the state that participated in the 4-H shooting sports program.  It was very regulated and controlled and was probably the safest outdoor activity.  As far as the noise and direction, he stated that he was also a NRA certified range safety officer, and he had laid the range out with consideration of neighboring properties.  The site was also chosen for the back drop in case a stray bullet did go over the berms that were in place.  He noted that they were very regulated on the amount the kids shot, which was one day a week for the 22 caliber and one day a week for the muzzleloader for approximately one to two hours at the most.  There were not large amount of kids per day with approximately 40-50 kids doing the 22 caliber and 10 kids doing muzzleloaders.  Also, they allowed the County to shoot once a year in July, which was the biggest day and was a weekend.  Therefore if they were restricted to certain times the kids that were participating at the County fair, which it was part of, would be difficult to run.  He noted that they usually shot from 6-7 p.m. and weekends because people had to work during the day. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if he was familiar with the other shooting range that Mr. Jacobson had spoken about?

 

Mr. Brunmeier replied yes and stated that the terrain did not provide adequate backstop unless they shot directly into the forest service property and used their hillside.  He stated that they would not shoot across property line. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that it was commendable to take the time to invest into 4-H youth. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat clarified that out of 365 days a year they would only be shooting approximately 30 hours?

 

Mr. Brunmeier replied yes.  They only shot in the spring, not in the winter.  They started in May and were done in August.  They were shooting on Wednesday nights and Sunday.  On Wednesday night they ran from 6 to 7 p.m. sometimes 7:30 p.m.  On Sundays, they started at noon and were done by three at the very latest.

 

 

Bob Mayer, stated that he lived in the Waverly area and was also a 4-H shooting sport coach.  In the staff report it was noted that lime would be needed to reduce the pH in the soil, lead removal would be required, etc.  He asked if the other ranges in Larimer County were required to do the same thing?

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the USEPA had declared several abandoned shooting ranges as hazardous waste sites and one of the requirements of a land use Special Review was a finding that the use would be compatible with an area.  So in order to try to prevent a site from being potentially declared a hazardous waste site, the Health Department had asked the applicants to prepare a lead management and mitigation plan.  The County did not specify any specific management techniques except asked the applicant to develop a suite of techniques to prevent the site from becoming a hazardous waste site.  The Health Department had indicated based on their management plan that it was a satisfactory plan and would in fact prevent the site from becoming a hazardous waste site. 

 

Doug Kindsfater, 13024 Owl Canyon Trail, stated that those types of facilities were very few and far between.  His daughter had been involved in 4-H shooting, and Mr. Clausen had been very supportive of the sport.  The County had become very restrictive regarding shooting even on their own property which made the site even more necessary.  Both his daughter and he had recently become certified instructors in order to provide that type of program for other 4-H youth in their area.  He pointed out that 4-H was a County endevour.  The facility had been donated for 4-H to make it a viable place for youth development.  He felt the record keeping and bureaucracy was enough to make the Clausens not want to donate their land and facilities anymore.  He felt that instead of restricting the facilities they should be encouraging people to make more of them available because it was wonderful program.  He was very much in support of the facility and hoped that they would be allowed to continue to operate as they had been operating. 

 

Phil Chalk remarked that Commissioners Kathay Rennels and Glenn Gibson did approve the site for the shooting range.  His son used the range and pointed out that they had done an incredible job of laying it out and keeping it safe, and they were going above and beyond to make it an enjoyable experience for the shooters.  The 4-H kids were required to shoot at least four times out there and there was rarely more than ten people there at a time.

 

David Ringler was the 22 caliber superintendent for the year.  He stated that it was a great experience for the kids and for the adult teachers.  He stated that a two hour session was duable and noted that the County shoot would be a longer time period which would be maybe six hours on a once a year basis.

 

Laura Johnson, 15695 N. County Road 27, was the daughter of the applicant.  She stated that she grew up on the ranch and her father was a 4-H leader for ten year.  She was in 4-H and stated that she would appreciate it if they let them continue the use.  It had been great for her kids as well as all of the other 4-H members.  In Larimer County shooting sports was very popular and remarked that their junior muzzleloading team took state last year which was representing Larimer County and the senior team took champion.  There had been 3 or 4 kids go nationwide and to the Junior Olympics.  All of their superintendents did a wonderful job and if it wasn’t for the range there would be no place for the kids to do it.  She mentioned that the property was also used for orienteering, outdoor skills, etc.  She felt that her parents had gone above and beyond allowing those types of things for the children and the community. 

 

Larry Jackson, 240 Mountain Range Drive, purchased the property 1 ½ years ago.  At that time he was not aware that he would be moving into a shooting range.  He thought that it was great to provide a place for the kids to shoot but not in his backyard.  He felt that the range should be moved and remarked that if you lived there it was a different situation no matter what the times and hours. 

 

Charles Clausen, 12115 Buckhorn Road, was the applicant and stated that because he was offering all of it for free to the public and 4-H kids he wanted to see the right-of-way requirement avoided.  He remarked that he could not afford to give property that was worth $30,000 for 1/3 of an acre.  He stated that if he was forced to five up his property then why should he continue having a free opportunity for the kids as it was almost 3 acres that the right-of-way would be consuming.  He mentioned that it had already costed him well over a few thousand dollars to present the application to the board, and he would get no return out of it.  He was very disappointed that it would be a requirement when it was a free enterprise.  He stated that his family had been and would continue be involved in the 4-H activities. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan stated that not all situations were the same.  He stated that he felt that the pH testing was a little out of line as he suspected that the soil would probably test between 6.5-7 all the time.  It seemed like the applicant was trying to help the 4-H program.  The County had a long history of investment and support of 4-H yet we wanted to put him through something that didn’t even fit in some respects with the kids shooting 30 hours a year.  He felt that it was overkill and sent a message that the County did not want to support 4-H.  He thought that if the proposal went forward the County should sit down with the applicant to go over everything to find out what really needed to be done, support them, and not put those kind of requirements on them which did not even belong in that particular area. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that 30 hours a year was quite small for the value added to the community.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked for clarification on the right-of-way requirement.

 

Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, stated that the Department recognized that the applicant was not charging the users and the seasonal nature of the 30 hours a year; however, it was a development activity that was required to go through Special Review.  Special Review applications were subject to right-of-way dedication requirements in the Land Use Code.  The existing right-of-way next to the property did not meet the current classification widths or requirements; therefore, they looked to the applicant to provide a deed of dedication to dedicate the right-of-way to meet the current classification.  He noted that County Road 27 was classified as a major collector, which required 100 feet of right-of-way.  He explained that it was not entirely clear how much currently existed but it was either 40 to 60 feet.  As a result, it could be a somewhat significant width of additional dedication.  As far as a future dedication, the Department asked for dedication when the development occurred.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that it was unfair to ask for a deed of dedication for a right-of-way when there was no monetary gain.  Also, the hours were very limited and wondered if on occasion it could be expanded once or twice a year when needed.  She felt that the limited hours set them up to receive complaints. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the events were vital to the 4-H program so perhaps being good neighbors could be a condition where the neighbors were notified of extra events or longer hours. 

 

Commissioner Morgan agreed that the right-of-way appeal was not necessary, and he would not support a denial of that appeal.  He also felt that there needed to be some flexibility with the schedule and hours. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if the applicant’s had ever been sited for ordinance issues?

 

Mr. Ryan replied that he was unaware of any complaints but that did not mean that complaints did not come into other departments of the County.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if an exemption could be placed on the application so they would not be sited?

 

Mr. Ryan replied no, the ordinance did not allow for that.  They could be sited but the complaints were usually dealt with by the Sherriff’s office where they would look at the situations carefully.  The applicant had provided mitigation techniques which should help the situation.

 

Commissioner Hart asked what the daily traffic count was for the road?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that it was less than 1,000 trips per day.

 

Commissioner Cox moved to approve the McBlair Ranch Shooting Range Special Review and the appeal to 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Waldo suggested using email as a notification option. 

 

Ms. Stauffer suggested that the 4-H group, applicant, and neighbors work out a situation that would be acceptable to them and present that as a supplement to their application materials.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that he would not support that suggestion as it might not be possible for all three groups to work out a recommendation.  He hoped that before it went to the County Commissioners that Planning Staff would have some suggestions. 

 

Commissioner Wallace also did not like that idea. 

 

Chairman Wallace extended the Motion so more discussion could occur.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested added 10E to allow shooting special events to be allowed 3 times a year a maximum of 5 hours with prior notification to the residents who reside within one mile.  

 

Chairman Wallace stated that the Motion stood with the addition of Condition 10E.

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Review appeal to Section 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-Z1664, be approved.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Review, file #07-Z1664, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and added Condition 10E:

 

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 information contained in the McBlair Ranch Special Review, File # 07-Z1664 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement by the County and the applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the McBlair Ranch Special Review, File # 07-Z1664.

 

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

 

5.   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.

 

6.   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.

 

 

 

 

 

7.   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.

 

8.   The applicant will be required to paint the portable chemical toilet within 30 days of the approval of this application. The toilet shall match the existing surroundings. The applicant will be required to screen the toilet with a fence or vegetative plantings within 60 days of approval of this application. Additionally the unit will need to be serviced regularly by a licensed systems cleaner. If use of the shooting range exceeds or differs from the level of use outlined in the proposal, this report, and the findings of the County Commissioners, the applicant will need to revise the level of service provided for sewage disposal and apply for an amended special review.

 

9.   The applicant must comply with the lead mitigation plan as outlined in this proposal and report. Lead mitigation practices include:

A.   Limiting use of the range to single shot rifles and .22 caliber or .54 muzzle-load black powder rifles. No semi-automatic or repeating handguns, rifles, revolvers, or shotguns will be allowed.

B.   Earthen backstops shall be provided and shall be free of rocks and debris. Concrete barriers shall be placed behind earthen backstops.

C.   The applicant or range operator shall be required to periodically treat the soil with lime or other acceptable pH lowering additive.  Soils will be treated up to 15 feet in front of the backstops and applied as necessary based on regular soil testing. Testing and treatment should be done several times per year as needed and done in manner to be effective during times of seasonal variability.

D.   The applicant or operator shall periodically rake and sift the earthen barriers and surrounding range land to remove lead bullets. Removal of bullets shall be done a few times per year as necessary. The range shall be monitored and records shall be kept to determine if screening, vacuuming, or soil washing is necessary. The applicant or operator will be required to dispose of collected lead using professional reclaiming services.

E.   The applicant or operator will be required to keep extensive records of shooting activity at the range. Record keeping shall include the dates of range use, the number of shots fired, location of stray shots, the dates of maintenance actions, and documentation of other management practices used to control lead migration. Records will be kept for the life of the facility and for ten years after closing the range.

 

10.   The applicant must comply with the noise mitigation actions as outlined in this proposal and report. Noise mitigation practices include:

A.   Limited shooting periods. Shooting of .22 caliber rifles will be limited to two hours per week for ten sessions. Shooting of muzzleloaders will be limited to one hour per week for ten sessions.

B.   Range hours will be limited to daylight hours only, no shooting will be allowed between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.

C.   Limited powder charges. Muzzleloader power charges will be limited to 60 grains.

 

D.   The shooting range shall be oriented so as to direct noise and gun fire away from adjacent neighbors.

E.   Shooting special events be allowed 3 times per year a maximum of 5 hours with prior notification to the residents who reside within one mile.  

 

11.   The applicant should work with neighbors to find acceptable days or times for shooting activities.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #3  WILDER-NEST B&B/RETREAT SPECIAL REVIEW #07-Z1638:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a proposed Equine Therapy Retreat and Horse Boarding business and a Special Exception for a wedding venue located on the east side of County Road 25E (Glade Road), just south of the intersection with West County Road 38E.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Land Use Code relating to off-road non –residential paving requirements.  He explained that there was discussion regarding the provision of water, and the Development Services Team believed that a solution had been developed in regard to the use of the existing well permits that the applicant currently held that needed to be converted through the State processes.  It was stipulated in the conditions of approval that a commercial exempt permit would need to be acquired for the retreat use and a water augmentation plan would need to be approved through the State court to have the horse boarding use on the property. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Shellie Larson, 8824 N. Glade Road, stated that the biggest issue was regarding the water.  The issue with having the commercial exempt well permit was that they could only use that water in the house, which was fine.  She explained that they owned 53 shares of Colorado Big Thompson Project Water, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts’ recommendation was that they could use the water that was used for irrigation as well as for the facilities outside such as the landscaping, grass, etc.  In addition, she stated that they could use the water in a cistern so that it could be captured and used for livestock, etc. during the winter months.  She explained that the retreat was at 9144 N. Glade Road and her address was 8824 N. Glade Road so the properties came to together.  The horses had the option of being on the other property and there was pasture that went to their property that had a domestic well that had watered them traditionally.  She remarked that they were their personal horses and she understood that they would need permission from the water court before they could board any horses.  She explained that the proposal as far as boarding horses was very limited, and it would be maybe 20 horses for 20 days per year.  Her purpose for wanting that was in case somebody wanted to bring their horses for the retreat but those people could bring their own water. 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Wallace explained that if they came up with an alternative way for use of water they would have to get approval from the Planning Department again because the application recommendation and requirements were that the water would have to be received through an augmentation plan. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that his concern was that under the Larimer County regulations if you had a horse boarding facility it put you into a special area of basically a commercial use and in order to do that use and have it in compliance with State water law you then had to go through an augmentation plan.  If you chose to board then you had to supply the services and one of those services would be adequate water.  Then an approved augmentation plan would be required in order to have that water available. 

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that the State was very clear in terms of if the applicant wanted to do the retreat and wedding venue the one well where the site was located had to be converted to a commercial exempt permit.  The applicant had an additional well at the residence north of the site where the retreat would be and his understanding was that it would be used for the applicant’s own irrigation and livestock purposes.  The State also said that if the applicant wanted to do the horse boarding with the one well by the site then she could not do the retreat and horse boarding at the same time.  The boarding of other horses other than her own would require approval of an augmentation plan by the State. 

 

Ms. Larson stated that she had no problem not doing the horse boarding.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that they did not have a problem with her doing the horse boarding provided that she did the augmentation plan.

 

DISCUSSION:

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 Wilder-Nest Special Review and Special Exception, file #07-Z1638, appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code related to off-road non-residential paving requirements be approved.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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 Wilder-Nest B&B/Retreat Special Review, file #07-Z1638, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

1.   All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless modified by other Conditions of Approval.

 

2.   Prior to approval from the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved Commercial Exempt Well Permit from the State Division of Water Resources for the Retreat use, or a letter from the State agreeing to grant the Commercial Exempt Well Permit.

 

3.   Use of the Retreat facilities is limited to a total of 9 guests in the lodging, and guests coming to the site for the purpose of study or instruction for a fee related to include Equine Psychotherapy or small group meetings.  Lodging guests must be participating in on site study, instruction or any other approved purpose.

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Special Review.

 

5.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval associated with the approval of this Special Review.  Other items related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code may also be included.

 

6.   Horse Boarding is not allowed until the applicant provides evidence of an approved Augmentation Plan issued by the State Water Court.  When such evidence is provided the applicant shall be approved to offer Horse Boarding without further review, but limited to  guests utilizing the Retreat under the stipulations provided for in Condition #3. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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 Wilder-Nest Wedding Venue Special Exception, file #07-Z1638, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless modified by other Conditions of Approval.

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Prior to approval from the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved Commercial Exempt Well Permit from the State Division of Water Resources for the Wedding Venue, or a letter from the State agreeing to grant the Commercial Exempt Well Permit.

 

3.   Use of the Wedding Venue is limited to a total of  9 guests in the lodging, and no more than 25 guests coming to the site for a wedding or reception.  Lodging guests must be associated with a wedding party or using the site for another approved purpose.

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Special Exception.

 

5.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval associated with the approval of this Special Exception.  Other items related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code may also be included.

 

6.   Horse Boarding for wedding venue use is not allowed until the applicant provides evidence of an approved Augmentation Plan issued by the State Water Court.  When such evidence is provided the applicant shall be approved to offer Horse Boarding for the wedding venue without further review, but limited to guests utilizing the site for a wedding venue under the stipulations provided for in Condition #3.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #4  TICO’S ROOFING SPECIAL EXCEPTION #07-Z1629:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for approval for an existing roofing business located on the north side of County Road 40, east of Interstate 25, and west of County Road 5, north of Timnath.  He mentioned that the Town of Timnath commented on the application and stated that it did not comply with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  He also stated that the application did not meet all of the review criteria under the Land Use Code; therefore, the Development Services Team was recommending denial. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Troy Jones, MTA Planning and Architecture, was representing the owner of Tico’s Roofing.  He showed photographs of the property and where the business operations were being operated on the property.  He explained that staff did come to the site and initially there were many trucks coming and going from the site but it was prior to the applicant being aware that there was such an issue with that traffic.  The applicant was originally from Costa Rica and about 70% of their business was in Steamboat Springs and 30% was in Northern Colorado.  He had looked for properties for his business where he would be able live and operate the business.  He bought the current property not realizing that it needed a zoning approval and that a business was not allowed in that zone.  There was currently a zoning violation on his property; therefore, they were trying to resolve that and request that a trade use be allowed in the FA-1 Farming zoning district.  He showed how he felt that they met the review criteria and pointed out that there were other businesses operating in the neighborhood.  He acknowledged that the applicant had many personal vehicles along with business vehicles which might have been confusing the situation.  The neighborhood also had a lot of outdoor storage, and the applicant’s property was very clean and well kept.  He stated that FA-1 zoning had allowed uses such as farms, sod farm, tree farm, nursery, and packing facility which all had vehicles coming and going.  Uses allowed by Special Review in that zone were a garden supply center, poultry farm, feed yard, boarding stable, veterinary clinic, and kennel which would all have vehicles, deliveries, outdoor storage, and employees.  He stated that the Town of Timnath’s planner stated that the business was not in compliance with comprehensive plan.  He pointed out that there was a diagonal line of the downtown core designation through the property to the east, and he felt that it was premature to state that the property in question would automatically be zoned rural-residential.  The current use would have fewer impacts than what was allowed or could be allowed in the zone.  The property was also a good location because it allowed the owner of the business to be on the same property therefore reducing the number of trips back and forth to town reducing pollution and vehicle miles traveled.  The Master Plan showed the property, which was out of the Growth Management Area, to the east by Timnath as rural lands but rural zones allowed for different types of businesses similar to the one in question.  He stated that there was one section of the covenants which questioned whether commercial uses were allowed, and he noted that the covenants did provide for nonresidential outbuildings, which could be approved by the HOA committee. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if there was a possibility that the business could be scaled back to fit under the home occupation regulations?

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that it was difficult to monitor the use of the structures.  Home occupations allowed only one other employee and had a space limitation of 800 square feet. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that if the applicant could demonstrate that they could comply with the requirements of the home occupation then it would fit under that requirement.  Those criteria were that if they operated in a detached building that they not be allowed to consume more than 800 square feet of their building area for the home occupation and six vehicle trips would be allowed per day and one full time equivalent employee.  He noted that the vehicle trips only counted the business trips not residential trips.  If a person could not meet those requirements then they could go through the Minor Special Review process where they would be allowed 10 vehicle trips per day and could encompass 1200 square feet of building area, have outdoor storage, and the residential character of the property did not change. 

 

 

Mr. Jones explained that the business was scaled back once they received the zoning violation by having the employees take the trucks home and go directly to the job site.  The only time they now had deliveries was when there were extra materials that needed to be stored inside the barn.  He stated that they had been trying to rectify the zoning violation and had looked at the Minor Special Review process but it was determined that it would not work.  As a result they submitted the Special Review application. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how long the business had been operating.

 

Martin Hidalgo, 5028 E. County Road 40, stated that the business had been in Fort Collins for 7 years.  He started out with one employee and his business grew.  He lived in the City of Fort Collins and the company grew to 5-6 employees so he looked for two years for a new location where he could locate his family and business.  He explained that he was not real familiar with the rules of the country and was learning more every day.  He bought the current property and acknowledged that he did have workers coming and going from the property.  However when he heard of the first complaint he stopped that and had the materials delivered to the workers instead of the business.  He acknowledged that the company was growing but most of it was growing in the Steamboat Springs area.  He stated that two years ago before the complaint they had five trucks parking in the yard now they only had one truck.  He did mention that he had a personal truck, his wife had a truck, and one company truck was on the property.  He stated that sometimes one or two employees did come to the property but they tried to leave everything on site.  On the weekends they did have friends come over and once in a while they had their employees over for a barbeque.  He stated that they worked very hard to keep the property clean. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that building permits for the structures on the property started in 1989 and commenced around 1997.  The Code Compliance Department had indicated that the building permit in 1997 for the property owner at that time requested that the building in question being used for offices, etc. be converted to a shop building with an office and a closet.  When that permit was approved it was indicated by that application that it could not be used for commercial use.  It was suppose to be used as a private office.  The current owner purchased the property in 2005 indicating that the business had probably been there since then.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jack Salsibury, 4701 E. County Road 40, stated that as a neighbor his impression was that the nature of the work of the business had to be done at the customers’ property.  He did not see any difference in the property than he did years ago when there was an alpaca farm and before that when there was a stucco business.  As far as traffic, there were a lot of horse boarding facilities where the traffic count would be exceeded every hour, and he did not see where it was a problem.  He urged that some type of variance be granted for the owners to allow them to keep doing their business with the caveat that it could not be expanded on the property and the business would cease when the title on the property changed.  He stated that he would hate to see them uprooted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Scrivner, 5030 E. County Road 40, stated that he was the neighbor to the subject property.  The property changed hands in September 2005.  He stated that the covenants for the minor residential development allowed a home occupation but it could not be a nuisance to the neighbors.  He passed out a picture of what the property looked like prior to the business moving to the property.  He stated that between 2005 and 2006 the neighbors tried to work with having the business there but it expanded and there were materials everywhere.  The buildings that were converted to offices and sheds were changed to have electricity.  The Hidalgos agreed to reduce the size of the business but the neighbors were still noticing a lot of activity.  He showed pictures of what was occurring on the property such as many vehicles, employees, etc.  He stated that they had tried to cooperate but the employees started to heckle his wife while she was riding her horses, and it started to become unbearable.  He stated that it was not a small business, and it was not an area where any large business would come into.  He also mentioned that there were stored materials on the property all of the time, and they did not have the area for ingress and egress so they parked some of the semi-trucks on County Road 40 and unloaded and loaded the trucks.  Of the four lots in the development he stated that there were three letters from the neighbors that stated they did not want the business there and many of the other neighbors in the area agreed that the business was getting too big.  He did believe that business in rural areas was important but they should do no harm, and the business was causing harm. 

 

Mr. Hidalgo stated that the photos that were shown by Mr. Scrivner were when they did have a lot of people coming to the property.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if it would have to go through the annexation process if it was a development proposal?

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that they did have the option to annex.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that it had been the history of other municipalities that when a zoning violation existed on a property if they were not inclined to approve it they usually opted not to annex. 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that Mr. Jones made an effective argument but he would support Staff’s position.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that if the business could be scaled back to a home occupation level the location would be possible but the deliveries and employees were the problem.  It needed to be downscaled or moved somewhere else.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that it did not meet the criteria of the Master Plan.  It was a commercial occupation and did not fit in the area.  She stated that she felt very empathetic with the situation.

 

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 Tico’s Roofing Special Exception, file #07-Z1629, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #5  CONSIDERATION OF AND ACTION ON COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS FOR THE NISP TO BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM THE LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:  Mr. Helmick and Mr. Ryan explained that the Planning Commission needed to forward a recommendation regarding the Draft EIS for NISP/Glade Reservoir to the Board of County Commissioners.  A draft memo was prepared which would be forwarded after the Planning Commissions review and approval.  Mr. Helmick noted that no public testimony would be taken regarding the issue. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace discussed item six of the memo regarding the realignment of Highway 287.  Based on the information that the Commission was given during the last worksession the western alignment would be a substantial impact but she did not think it would be as great of an impact as implied.  She felt that the Army Corps. of Engineers should analyze both of the routes in terms of their visual and community impacts. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that during the worksession last month it was believed that the two reasons that the western alignment was less advantageous was because of the visual aspects and the rock cut was a paleontological fossil resource.  However, it was not the belief that those reasons should be expanded upon and a more detailed analysis should be done of the land use and cultural aspect of the two different alignments.

 

Commissioner Wallace replied yes and stated that she was not sure that the rock cut would be as dramatic as what was implied.  She wanted to receive the impacts of both routes.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she supported that change.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the choice of the route should be the route that best integrated with the County transportation plan.  He felt that the cut would look similar to the cut that already went through the hogback where the drainage went through.  He felt that both alternatives needed to be examined to see what mitigation would be applicable in both cases and the long range transportation plan should play an integral part of that decision.

 

Commissioner Hart agreed that there needed to be social, economic, and environmental analysis of the two alternative routes. 

 

Commissioner Cox agreed with Commissioner Hart.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that paragraph six should be revised to state that “the Draft EIS did not adequately analyze the routes in conjunction with the social, economic, and environmental analysis and that both alternatives needed to be fully examined and that the choice should also incorporate the route that best integrates with the County’s transportation plan.”

 

Commissioner Hart agreed but with the caveat that when the consequences of the different routes were given that the County’s transportation plan might change. 

 

Mr. Helmick summarized by saying that “the EIS did not provide an analysis of the economic, social, land use, and environmental impacts of either of the alternative routes and there was no analysis of how either of the alternative routes would connect and integrate with Larimer County’s Transportation Plan.”  He also mentioned that the last sentence of paragraph six could go forward.

 

Commissioner Hart commented on item one regarding the impacts and stated that the sentence “the visual aspects of the Highway 287 relocation, particularly with regard to the western alignment” should be deleted.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that the pipelines in that paragraph should be identified and it should be more specific. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat suggested bulleting the impacts.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested rewriting paragraph four of the memo and taking that discussion out of paragraph one.  He suggested stating that “the Draft EIS does not adequately document the potential benefits of the no action alternatives for lessening the pressure to convert agricultural water to municipal water and a lack of a regional water management focus will mean the market forces will continue to trend toward conversion of agricultural water to municipal use.”  He stated that the EIS did not adequately document the potential benefits and the concept of a regional water management. 

 

Commissioner Hart wondered over what period of time would the 70,000 acres of agricultural water be lost.  He looked at the 1987-2002 change in agricultural and 69,000 acres was barely three years of that average; therefore, we would loose three years or be able to protect at the maximum three years of the historic loss.  In the 1987-2002 period in Weld County 275,000 acres of agricultural land was converted, which was 18,200 acres per year.  The EIS did not say that it was a relatively minor effect on the total change that had occurred historically. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the real issue was what water and where did the water go.  One requirement was that you could not damage other irrigators and if you started taking water out of other ditches you would affect that ditch along with everything down stream of that.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that there was never a cumulative effect analyzed rather than taking each type of conservation method and looking at that as a separate piece. 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ryan suggested adding conservation measures as the EIS did not put together an alternative that had numerous, small features that might add up to a whole project.  He suggested numbering paragraph four of the memo and having the topic of that paragraph be the purpose and need statement.  He stated that what he was hearing from the Planning Commission was that they felt that it was too narrow and overly restrictive the consideration of alternatives.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that from the standpoint of Larimer County what had the least impact on Larimer County and what was the best option for Larimer County needed to be looked at.  When looking at the action alternatives he did not feel that there were any good alternatives for Larimer County. 

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that the Planning Commission would be doing the citizens a disservice if the Commission did not say that they disagreed with the purpose and the scope and that other alternatives should have been taken into consideration.  She suggested making each paragraph of the memo a numbered paragraph.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the mitigation portion of the EIS was very inadequate.  The mitigation should be looked at regarding the low flows and the morphology.  He stated that there was a real opportunity to “expand the scope of the mitigation process to include municipal water to either acquire or supplement in stream flows and the use of water rights in conjunction with the Colorado Water Conservation Board.  And one could further consider the initiative to involve the Colorado Water Trust that would acquire water conservation easements that would allow additional water.”  He remarked that there was an opportunity to take the damn along with a lot of recent legislation to protect instream flows through the Water Conservation Board and the ability to get water conservation easements.  He stated that the problems that were really degrading the water in the river today could be improved which were the flows in August.  With respect to the entire mitigation he remarked that the scope needed to be expanded to include recent legislative actions that allow for the Colorado Water Conservation Board to acquire water rights, deal with private dedications, and help to mitigate and restore the river.

 

The Commissioners agreed to include that in their recommendation.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that many people wanted to stop the reservoir but fix the river and it didn’t work that way.  There was an opportunity to build in conjunction with the reservoir to build in acquisition of water rights to help the river.  If the reservoir did not go through then there needed to be some analysis of what would happen to the water as somebody else would come get the water.  He stated that if we were really concerned about our river than we needed to do everything possible to get the best deal with a local group, which was the Northern Colorado Conservancy.  The County Commissioners needed to say that if they were really concerned about Larimer County then a way needed to be found to rehabilitate and restore our river, and that the reservoir may be a very integral part of that. 

 

The Commission decided to delete paragraph 7 (item 5) of the draft memo. 

 

Commissioner Cox mentioned that it was not clear in the EIS what the true benefits to Larimer County were going to be. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that one of the justifications that was used was that all of the recreation benefit would accrue to Larimer County even though there would be a loss down stream through Fort Collins.  He thought that it was not real clear where the benefits were going to come from.  He stated that he would support Commissioner Cox’s request to include more clarification on what the recreation benefits were. 

 

Mr. Ryan confirmed that what was being said was that it was not clear how the recreational benefits of Glade Reservoir, not how the reductions of the Poudre River, would be calculated and if they on an even comparison with the Poudre River losses.

 

Commissioner Wallace added that there was nothing mentioned about what they were committed to such as wakeless, motorboats, etc. 

 

Commissioner Cox wondered if it was clear in the EIS about the flood plain changes, flooding, and the impact to the residents around the area for flooding potential, etc. 

 

Mr. Ryan did not believe that was addressed. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated there would not be a flood plain identified below the reservoir. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission will forward a resolution to the Board of County Commissioners that summarizes the discussion which took place on June 18, 2008.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Morgan, Waldo, 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 10:30 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                                            Mina Cox, Secretary

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado.

This legal description was taken from the Warranty Deed recorded under Reception No. 96080078 on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of said County. It does not represent a field survey or rnonurnented land survey by this office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Those portions of the East half of Section 14 and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, all in Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North half of the Southeast Quarter of said section 14; thence along the West line of said Southeast Quarter North 1°54’30" East 1325.09 feet to the center corner of said section; thence along the South line of the Northwest ¼ South 89°46’17” West 1303.44 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence along the West line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter North 1°58 '29" East 41.47 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of County Road #38E (Masonville to Fort Collins Road), said point being on a curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 38º28 '26", a radius of 433.94 feet, thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 291.39 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 22º34'02" East 113.78 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of 59°10’00”,a radius of 487.52 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 503.44 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 81°44’02” East 1003.88 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 84°44’50”, a radius of 408.10 feet; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve 603.63 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 03°00’48" West 1406.80 feet to the North line of said East half of section 14; thence leaving said County Road #38E and along said North line North 89°24’11” East 2089.66 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section 14; thence along the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 14 South Olºll’lO” West 2636.22 feet to the East quarter corner of said Section 14; thence along the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 14 South 01°57'22" West 1322.02 feet to the South line of the North half of the SE1/4  of said Section 14; thence along said south line South 89º42'12" West 2614.74 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO including all water rights, irrigation privileges and lateral rights thereto appertaining, and all Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District water allocated to or used upon the above described property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Together with and subject to a 60' road for ingress and egress lying 30' on each side of the following described course: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North 1/2 of the Southeast ¼  of said Section 14, thence along- the South line of said North ½  North 89º42'12" East 502.09' to the true point of beginning of said centerline; thence continuing along said South line North 89º42'12" East 763 .60’ to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the South having a central angle of 17º37'10”, a radius of 200.00'; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve 61.50' to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve South 72º40'38" East 857.52' to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the North, having a central angle of 52º14'05” a radius of 150.00'; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve 136.75' to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 55º05'17" East 173.60' to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 29°07'22", a radius of 150.00' ;thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 76.24 ' to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 25º57'55" East 355.46' to the East line of the Southeast ¼  of said Section 14 and the end of said centerline. Subject to County Road right-of-way #38E (Masonville to Fort Collins Road), and County Road #25E, and all other easements and rights-of-way of record.

 

Except the, parcel sold to James W. Hickman and Kristi L. Hickman described in Warranty Deed recorded June 26, 1987, at Reception No. 87037597 and the parcel sold to Marilyn Stephan and Mark Stephan described in Warranty Deed recorded May 14, 1991, at Reception No. 91020330 and the property described in Warranty Deed recorded on June 15, 1990 at Reception No. 90025875.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

Lot 2, Haley Acres MLD S-5-88, in Township 27, Section 7, Range 68, Larimer County , Colorado.

 

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