Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of September 19, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Morgan, Waldo, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, and Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Jeri Feil, Engineering Department, Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Morgan, Waldo, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Bokelman/Walters Pit Special Review, Carstens Backbone View Subdivision, W.O.L.F. Amended Special Review, and Mountainview Metropolitan District.  Commissioners’ Hart, Karabensh, and Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Boulter visited the site independently.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Wallace.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Mr. Helmick asked that Item #6:  Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development be moved to the consent agenda.  Chairman Boulter stated that he would move the item to consent.

 

Chairman Boulter informed the audience that no new items would be heard after 9:45 p.m.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  BOKELMAN-WALTERS PIT SPECIAL REVIEW 05-Z1536:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to mine sand and gravel at a 201-acre site on the north side of State Highway 402, two miles east of I-25 at the Larimer-Weld County line.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.C.3.1 (paving standards for parking areas) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  He noted that condition of approval #13 should be two separate conditions.  He also stated that the applicant wanted to discuss condition of approval #7.c.  He explained that the applicant and Staff could have further discussion before the Board of County Commissioners hearing in order to resolve the issue of paving on the internal haul road. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that if the condition would be discussed then it would be removed from the consent agenda. 

 

Peter Weiland, Weiland Inc., stated that the project could stay on the consent agenda with the understanding that he would like the condition discussed at the Board of County Commissioners hearing if an agreement could not be made beforehand with Staff.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo 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 Bokelman-Walters Pit Special Review and appeal to Section 8.6.C.3.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #05-Z1536, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

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.  Mining activities shall be completed within no more than 20 years from the start of operations.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bokelman-Walters Special Review (File #05-Z1536) 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 Bokelman-Walters Special Review.

 

3.   The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerks Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer then 60 days after the date of approval.

 

4.   No operation of the quarry shall occur at any time on County recognized holidays.  Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to include the time required for equipment warm up and staging.  Saturday hours of operation are permitted for loading and transportation of material to the Johnstown Ready Mix Plant between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to include the time required for equipment warm up and staging.  Exceptions to the above hours are allowed for emergency operations or operations that are imperative based on extraordinary circumstances. 

 

5.   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.

 

6.   Reclamation shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each section and no later then the start of the next growing season.

 

7.   The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the 07-10-07 memo from the County Department of Health and Environment:

 

a.   State air emission and storm water discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each phase.

 

 

 

b.   The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

 

c.   The internal haul road shown on the Site Plan shall be paved and maintained by the operator in order to limit particulate emissions throughout the life of the quarry.

 

8.      The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated 6-12-07:

 

a.   The applicant is required to pay a Capital Transportation Expansion Fee within 60 days of the date of approval by the County in an amount to be calculated by the Engineering Department.

 

b.   As a condition of approval, please submit a stamped and signed design for the proposed slurry wall construction for staff to review.

 

c.   No more than 60 days before the planned commencement of construction or mining activity at the site, the applicant shall apply for a Development Construction Permit with the County Engineer and shall be subject to the requirements of this permit.

 

d.   All existing fences and structures must be moved out of the existing and proposed dedicated right-of-way for this proposal.

 

9.      Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the storm water management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.

 

10.    No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way

 

11.    Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

12.    Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

13.    The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.

 

14.    The applicant shall provide copies of all final plans including mining, landscape and reclamation plans within 60 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, for review and approval by Staff prior to commencement of mining operations.

 

15.    Applicant shall provide a signed and recorded copy of their agreement with Weld County of the long term maintenance of CR#901 (a.k.a. County Line Road or WCR#13).

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #2  SWIERS-BELOIN CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #06-S2588:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development of 39.77 acres into two single-family residential lots, and one residual lot with a single-family building envelope located on the north side of the intersection of County Road 66 and County Road 5, approximately ¾ miles east of I-25, northeast of Wellington.  The request also included two appeals the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 8.14.2.N to allow an access easement in place of a public road for two of the lots, and Section 8.14.2.S - Connectivity.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo 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 Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development and appeals to Section 8.14.2.N and 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-Z1652, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan & the information contained in the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development (File #06-S2588) 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 Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development.

 

2.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This agreement shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, the provision of fire protection measures and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat, that provides important information to potential buyers about conditions of approval, rural area issues, water rights, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: the Poudre R1 school fee, the Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

5.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

6.   Residential sprinkler systems, fire system horns and strobes are required for all new residential construction, per the requirements of the Wellington Fire Protection District.

 

7.   Engineered footings and foundations are be required for all new habitable construction. Engineering for any new residential and/or septic system construction shall be done in consideration of the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey as outlined in their letter on this project dated June 28, 2006.

 

8.   The applicant shall provide written evidence that the State Division of Water Resources has agreed to use of the well for the single residential lot.  Without such written evidence, or if the State objects to the request, all three lots must connect to the existing service offered by the Northern Colorado Water Association.

 

9.   As part of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make any technical corrections required as part of this review, and provide the additional information requested by the referral agents as part of this review.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, explained that there were three items to be discussed, which were all interrelated.  She remarked that there was a logical progression to what was being proposed, and it would be easier to discuss the proposals in reverse of the agenda order.  She stated that Item #5 would be discussed first followed by Item #4 and then Item #3.

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY RURAL AREA ROAD STANDARDS AND FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION MAP #07-CA0076:  Ms. Wilkinson provided background information on the request to adopt the proposed changes to the Rural Area Road Standards and the Roadway Functional Classification Map.  She explained that the Rural Area Road Standards were used for design and proposed developments that were in the rural areas outside of the Growth Management Areas.  She listed a few items that would be amended, which included:  items in right-of-way such as fencing, monument mailboxes, and private utilities; consistency of culvert design information; acknowledgment of roundabouts as an alternative; colors of road name signs in mountains; access specifics; use of ‘low volume road’; and requirements for traffic impact analysis.  She stated that there were a few minor corrections to the Functional Road Classifications from what was adopted last year.  She stated that the biggest impact that may occur from changing the functional road classification of a road would be for existing properties that had existing structures that were very close the right-of-way line.  She explained that there were four properties that would have potential problems, two of which were only outbuildings that had potential setback issues.  She stated that the Engineering Department contacted all four property owners and did not receive any concern back from those owners.  She stated that the benefit of the changes would be consistency in applying the functional road classifications all the way through the County.  She stated that public outreach, comments, and reviews received throughout the process mostly occurred during the original effort in 2006, which included open houses, letters, meetings, informational mailings, etc.  In 2007, the outreach was toward a more targeted audience, specifically to the people that might have been impacted by the changes.  She stated that feedback received was of support or limited interest. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Rob Persichitte, Intermill Land Surveying, was concerned about the changes to the items in the right-of-way such as the fencing and mailboxes.  He understood new fencing may have to be erected on a new right-of-way line but asked if existing fencing could remain until the road was widened.

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, stated that the County’s position was that the best option for the County was to have the fence moved back to the right-of-way line as the development occurred. 

 

Mr. Persichitte stated that he would rather not see that comment if the proposal was for a minor land division, boundary line adjustment, or just a three lot subdivision because it was most likely that the highway would not be widened in those cases.

 

Ms. Wilkinson replied that the wording written in the standards was that those items were “generally” not allowed in the right-of-way; therefore, it left some flexibility in a case by case basis.  She stated that on a bigger scale if those kinds of things were consistently allowed to occur in the right-of-way then it would become an operational and maintenance issue for the County.  Having all of those improvements in the right-of-way might start an expectation that the County would maintain them and there would become an expectation from the lot owners that it was the right-of-way line.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Persichitte stated that he understood that the items should not be there for new developments.  He asked what would occur if a development was put in place along a street frontage and there was landscaping that came up through the borrow ditch to the shoulder line?  He wondered how that could be irrigated if a sprinkler system would not be allowed?

 

Ms. Downs stated that it was not encouraged to have landscaping up to the ditch.  She stated that one could do some drought tolerant, low-lying landscaping but it was discouraged to have trees, bushes, and flowers.

 

Mr. Persichitte brought up the scenario where it was ones responsibility to landscape the right-of-way because of a development, and the home owners association chose to sprinkler system into the right-of-way to make a nice greenbelt up against the road.  He wondered if it was the HOA’s responsibility to take care of that sprinkler system.

 

Ms. Downs stated that the County would not maintain the sprinkler system.  She stated that if the Road and Bridge Department needed to do some improvements and a sprinkler head was broken it would cause some issues; therefore, the stance was that the right-of-way was intended for public purposes and not as much for private infrastructure.  She stated that the County would work with the land owners as cases evolved.

 

Ms. Wilkinson stated that it was not a new item to the standards.  It was just clarifying the items that should not be in the right-of-way.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace 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 Amendments to the Rural Area Road Standards and the Roadway Functional Classification Map, file #07-CA0076, be adopted immediately.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE STORMWATER STANDARDS UNDER THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0075:  Ms. Feil provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards.  She stated that the standards were adopted in June of 2005.  She explained that there were two components to the Stormwater Design Standards:  Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals:  Volume I, II, and III. and the Larimer County Addendum.  She stated that it had been determined that the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals had been updated by doing some minor changes such as formatting, clarification of the text and figures, and adding additional options for calculations.  She remarked that Staff had reviewed the changes, which were technical in nature, and had determined that the changes did not necessitate any type of policy changes or requirements for the County portion.  She stated that the County legal staff advised the department to re-adopt the manuals so it would be current.  She explained that in the Larimer County Addendum the submittal requirements for drainage plans had been consolidated, a formula that was incorrect had been corrected, the culvert references were changed to be consistent with the Rural Road Standards, and the formatting and section numbers had been updated. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace 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 Amendments to the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, file #07-CA0075, be adopted.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE AND COUNTY CODE #07-CA0074:  Ms. Downs provided background information on the request to amend the Land Use Code which was necessary because of the updates to the Rural Area Road Standards, the Functional Road Classification Map, and the Stormwater Design Standards proposed today and the ones that were adopted last year.  She stated that the changes were general housekeeping items and clarified the code further.  She stated that the specific code changes included making the text consistent with the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards and the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, minor formatting and heading changes for clarity, and added some flexibility in the floodplain section, which was suggested by the Flood Review Board.  She explained that there was also one change to the Larimer County Code, which was to repeal Article III in Chapter 50 of the County Code that included the former access policy.  She explained that with the changes and updates that occurred in 2006 that the access policy was included with the road standards, and therefore it was no longer needed.

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace 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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-CA0074, be adopted.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Article III in Chapter 50 of the Larimer County Code, file #07-CA0074, be repealled.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #6  MOUNTAINVIEW METROPOLOTAIN DISTRICT #07-G0144:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for the formation of a Metropolitan district on 112 acres with the purpose of funding and maintaining development of a subdivision located north of County Road 30, ¼ mile west of I-25, and 3/8 mile southwest of the Highway 392/I-25 interchange.  The metropolitan district proposed to fund the construction of water, sewer, roads, drainage and recreational facilities, and to maintain roads, drainage and recreational facilities.  He stated that there were districts available to the area to provide service and maintenance of water and sewer.  He also noted that the applicant had supplied a response letter which was given to the Planning Commission along with a memo from the Larimer County Attorney.  He stated that the Special District Review Team found that there was little detail with respect to the actual and projected maintenance costs to be expected, which made it difficult to judge the capability of the district.  There was also concern regarding the assumptions included in the financing plan.  Additional concerns included the size of the district, the number of lots, and the taxable districts parcels, and the owner participation.  He stated that the Special Review District Team was recommending denial of the service plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jacqueline Murphy, Seter and Vander Wall, PC, stated that the financial plan demonstrated the districts ability to support $2.1 million in total debt which would be secured by property taxes and facilities fees.  The developer would fund any difference between the total cost of the improvements and what the district bond proceeds would fund.  She explained that the Board of County Commissioners had approved the request for a General Development Plan for the proposed area.  Now they were requesting approval of a metropolitan district to serve as a financing mechanism for the public infrastructure that the county would proscribe as part of the subdivision process.  She stated that the recommendation of denial had come as a surprise as they had supplied the material, met the statutory requirements, and met the requirements of the county’s resolution.  She stated that the district met the $2 million threshold required by the county’s resolution.  She remarked that the district was crucial to the development of the subdivision because the county would not maintain the subdivision roadways, and it would be a funding source for ongoing road maintenance.  She emphasized that residents would not be in jeopardy if the exact assumptions in the financing plan were not met because there were protections in the law.  She stated that a separate governmental entity would be created but the county could keep track of what was occurring plus examine the financial plan after five years.  The use of a special district for the proposed development would ensure that development paid its own way and fostered the creation of a quality master planned community within the county.  She noted that it was difficult to know what improvements would be needed until the subdivision was approved, explained that the developer would be responsible for those improvements, and stated that the district would be tool to finance the infrastructure.  She asked that the Planning Commission to consider a conditional recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the applicant providing certain documentation to give Staff the comfort level that was needed. 

 

Jon Benallo, Southwestern Investments Group, stated that two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the project and during both meetings the project was well received with the exception of a few typical issues brought forth.  He remarked that many of the comments heard from those meetings were regarding the level of amenities that would be provided such as the lakes, trails, and open space.  The district did not only allow a highly amenitized subdivision but also had a regional significance regarding the Highway 392 interchange project.  He stated that a roadway would be a significant part of the plan, and the district would allow the roadway to be provided as part of the highway plan.  He noted that without the district there would not be the funding to make the commitment to construct the road as part of their subdivision. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sandra Wortley, stated that she was one of the owners of the property.  She explained that various members of her family had lived in Larimer County since 1917.  Her father purchased the subject property in 1969 and farmed it until 1997.  She stated that the farm had been left to his three children, and as the family considered that farming was no longer a financially viable alternative they decided to sell the family farm.  She stated that they had watched as County Road 30 and 32 had increased in traffic; therefore; when Southwestern Investments approached her with the idea of the roadway it seemed to be a reasonable solution to some of the traffic problems that existed in the area plus help her family to sell their farm.  If the citizens of Larimer County would be benefiting from such a road then increased density of housing, assistance in construction costs, and other unmanned cost participation devices on the part of the county would be and should be granted.  She explained that do due her timeframe she put Southwestern Investments in a situation where they could not accurately generate cost estimate figures before the approval to allow the subdivision plan.  As a result, the additional ten units granted by the Board of County Commissioners were insufficient to cover the costs of the road.  She requested as a property owner that the proposal be given consideration and given any thoughts that would help achieve an amenable and mutually beneficial solution to the problem.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the road that was proposed?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that any development proposal on the property irrespective of the district or not would be asked to participate at some level in the construction of the improvements of the roadway for the area.  He explained where the road would be located, on the east side of the site.

 

Commissioner Wallace confirmed that the Fort Collins-Loveland Water and Sanitation District could serve the area with water and public sewer and asked if the district would be used to finance the roads and amenities?

 

Mr. Benallo replied yes.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that there was a total development budget of $7.5 million of which $2.1 million would be financed by a bond and $1.7 million would go toward the $7.5 million development cost.  He remarked that approximately $35,000 per lot would be shifted to the people that would buy homes in that subdivision.

 

Ms. Murphy replied that the benefit of having any of the portions of the costs financed by the metro district would be the tax exempt nature of the debt.  The property owners’ mill levy would repay the $2.1 million and would be deducted from the homeowner’s property taxes whereas if everything was funded through the developer the price of the homes would have to go up to reflect that absorbed cost.  In more mature communities where there was a home owner’s association and metro district there often came a point where there was a resident controlled board determining how to finance maintenance.  When the maintenance was funded by a special district the maintenance funds were derived from the operating mill levy.  Similarly, the homeowners would have a benefit through the ability of having the tax deductibility on their income tax returns. 

 

Commissioner Wallace pointed out that with a homeowners association the homeowners would have the benefit of not paying 30 years worth of interest on bonds; whereas, if they had to pay $35,000 up front on their home then it would only cost that amount. 

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that he did not feel that the market study addressed the issue of market absorption.  His concerns were that the number of units per year were beyond what had occurred in Larimer County.  The other concern was the $5,000 front end fee which was projected to be $75,000 per year, and if not met then the financial plan would not work. 

 

Mr. Benallo stated that he could not determine how many houses would sell; however, their brokers had looked at the area specifically, the absorption rates, and the lot pricing and based on their analysis it was not unrealistic.  He stated that it was the risk of the builders and developers to take on and stated that they would not be proposing the project if they did not believe it was a viable project.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that there was nothing in the material submitted with detail regarding the absorption of lots in the proposed price range.  He gave examples of districts that went under and stated that all those projects had a significantly higher amount of homes.  The current proposal was for only 59 lots.

 

Mr. Benallo replied that the size was the appeal.  With the market as it was now builders were not going to construct 200 lots.  The proposal allowed the developers to come in incrementally. 

 

Zach Bishop, DA Davidson, stated that his firm prepared the financing plan for the district and had experience with issuing for over 200 of the metropolitan districts in Colorado in the last five years.  He explained that all of the $1.7 million net proceeds of the $2.1 million bond issuance were escrowed with a trustee who would send that money back to the district once building permits were issued.  If a scenario occurred where only 20% of the homes were built in the district ever then the escrow proceeds would still be there and then the bonds would be called back so that the residents would not have an undue debt burden on the district.  He also stated that the mill levy cap did protect the residents.  It did not allow residents to pay for then 50 mills per debt or more than 65 mills for debt and operations combined. 

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that all of the infrastructure would have to be constructed up front.

 

Mr. Bishop replied that the risk of that was born by the developer and not by the bond holders, the residents, or the county.  He explained that once the bonds were issued then the debt service was due up to the mill levy cap.  If development did not occur then the residents would only pay up to the cap and the bondholder would be responsible.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what happened if the $75,000 up front was not obtained?

 

Mr. Bishop explained that the residents would never pay over the 50 mill cap, and the bond holders that the bonds would be sold to would understand how the districts worked and would buy the bonds at a rate that would compensate them for the risk if development did not occur.  He stated that he felt comfortable saying that there was a market for the bonds and that those investors understood the risks that they were taking.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he was worried about the residents that would buy houses in the proposed development. 

 

 

Ms. Murphy stated that the covenants in the district’s bond documents would clearly shift the risk back to the bondholders so that it would be clear that the residents would not be charged anything above the mill levy cap. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if there were any failures of the metropolitan districts?

 

Mr. Bishop replied that there may have been 2-3 of the 200 that he had worked with that had been involved in restructuring of the debt in order to keep them from defaulting but there had never been any defaults.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that his concern was that just the maintenance and administration per lot on 59 lots as projected would be $1,050 a year, and there was no inflation built in to the projections.  He stated that it was just a 1% projected inflation and felt that the number was grossly inadequate for the reality for how it would work.

 

Mr. Bishop replied that the 1% corresponded to 1% annual inflation that was shown on the homes once built and should that rise then there would be more money for operations. 

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that there was nothing in the service plan to build up reserves, and the developer had to make advances for five years in order to maintain the maintenance and operation.  The repayment of those advances took until the year 2030. 

 

Ms. Murphy stated that often a certain amount of those developer advances would be forgiven. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the developer would put up some sort of letter of credit to make sure that those maintenance costs would be funded?

 

Ms. Murphy replied that typically the developer would be on the board and would advance those funds for operations until the district could stand on its own feet and reasonably be governed by a resident board.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what would happen if the developer could not make the advances for the maintenance four or five years after.

 

Ms. Murphy replied that in her ten years of doing the work that she had never seen that scenario occur.  Her experience had been that the developer was the steward of the project until it was economically viable itself.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that most of the metropolitan districts that she had seen were large and wondered how many were small like the one proposed?

 

Mr. Bishop replied not many but at least ten to twenty.

 

Commissioner Cox asked how many were because of wanting extra amenities?

 

Mr. Benallo stated that most of the amenities that they were proposing were the roads.  All the districts that were done in the same size range were done for the purpose of funding publicly used infrastructure such as the roads.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that most every development would have the same issue so it seemed like there would be a lot of little tiny government entities within the county and wanted to understand that impact rather then having the developer pay their way.

 

Ms. Murphy stated that it was important to project into the future.  She stated that she was representing more mature communities that were glad that they had a metro district in place because they had aging infrastructure and were pleased to have an entity with the ability to get tax exempt financing to upgrade that infrastructure instead of having to do an exorbitant home owners association assessment to upgrade or repair.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if a group could form a metropolitan district later in its life cycle? 

 

Ms. Murphy replied that it was not as common and would be a much more challenging scenario.  She stated that she hoped if the commission was inclined to recommend denial that they instead recommended a conditional recommendation of approval allowing them to provide some of the documentation that was in question. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that one of the review criteria stated, “The existing services in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs” and made her wondered about some of the recreational amenities proposed.

 

Ms. Murphy stated that Fort Collins-Loveland Water and Sanitation District was not willing to build the improvements to tie into their system.  She explained that the developer would need to do that and wanted a district in order to finance that piece.  They were not just talking about recreation center amenity improvements. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she would understand the proposal if the developer did not have the money to construct the roads or the tie ins to the sewer and water but it seemed that the developer really wanted the district to be able to do the extra amenities listed. 

 

Ms. Murphy responded by saying that the State legislature saw it fit to put the statutory scheme in place to enable property owners to finance public infrastructure through tax exempt financing.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that it bothered her to approve it because it did not meet the review criteria.

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he was looking at whether a build out time of 2-3 years was a reasonable time frame to build out 45 lots at $800,000 per house.  He noted that other referral agencies such as Stifel Nicolaus had concerns about the proposed assumptions also.

 

Ms. Wortley stated that as an owner the proposal was necessary because the county was asking her to give ¾ of a mile of road easement for no cost, and the developer to bear the cost of constructing it.  It was a road that went between the new hospital, and a ¼ of a mile within Carpenter Road overpass.  Therefore, as a homeowner it was difficult to bear the cost on 59 lots because she had an 80% open space requirement.  She stated that she was trying to provide a service but also get rid of a farm.  She state that the county was getting ¾ of a mile of road for nothing. 

 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if she received a density bonus?

 

Ms. Wortly replied yes, ten units.  She wondered if she was suppose to construct ¾ of a mile of road for a profit of ten houses, which was unreasonable.  The county had to decide if they wanted the road or not.  If they wanted the road then they would have to help her sell her farm. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that he was sympathetic to the concerns.  He stated that there were potential vehicles that could come from the Highway 392 interchange study that could fund roadway improvements.  If the development did not occur the public entities involved in the construction of the improvements to the 392 interchange would have to address a way to construct that roadway separate from any development proposal. 

 

Commissioner Wietkunat stated that metropolitan districts would transpire in the future as it may be one of the only ways the county would be able to build infrastructure in some areas outlying in the county.  She stated that more work needed to be done to have the proposal more adequately portrayed.  She remarked that she had to examine the proposal from the county’s financial review committee’s perspective, which seemed to point to an inadequacy of information.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Cox stated that she agreed with Commissioner Weitkunat.  There was not enough information plus the number of lots proposed and build out time did not seem reasonable.  She stated that she could not support the proposal as it stood.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he would support an initial higher price for the properties to cover the cost as opposed to a long drawn out process.  He felt that it would be better for the lot buyers.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she did not believe that the proposal met the requirements of the state statue.  It was not meeting the review criteria regarding the inadequacy for present projected needs and the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.  She stated that it did not meet the requirements, and the commission had no choice but to oppose the proposal.

 

Commissioner Morgan concurred with Commissioner Wallace.  He stated that he was not opposed to metropolitan districts because they had a very viable use and were a great tool particularly with public infrastructure.  He remarked that he relied on the county’s financial people and his own sense regarding the absorption, and the risk inherence in the assumptions was beyond his ability to concur with them.  He felt that the commission would be remiss if the district was approved with the types of protections outlined.

 

Chairman Boulter stated that there was a significant number of concerns, and it seemed that the county’s financial department and other consultants had an issue with the proposal also.  He stated that metropolitan districts seemed to be a viable way of offsetting some public improvements that may not get paid any other way.  He also stated that private development issues to enhance a property with upgraded amenities made sense but the particular proposal fell short.  He stated that he would recommend denial not to keep the applicant from having the district but to send the message that the proposal had some flaws.

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Mountainview Metropolitan District., file #07-G0144, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #7  CARSTENS BACKBONE VIEW SUBDIVISION #05-S2496:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a subdivision of 27.54 acres into seven single-family residential lots situated west of Devil’s Backbone geologic formation east of Glade Road (County Road 25E) and approximately 300 feet north of West 35th Street in Loveland.  The property being divided was Lot 1 of the Carstens 2nd Minor Residential Development, which contained an existing house and outbuilding on the eastern portion of the lot near the base of Devil’s Backbone.  The six additional proposed residences would be along the western boundary on lots ranging from 2.31 acres to 2.52 acres.  The remaining 9.24 acres would contain the existing buildings.  The request also included two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 8.14.2.H (lot width to depth ratio) and Section 8.14.2.Q (dead end length).  He noted that some issues had been raised by the neighborhood with respect to the drainage report and drainage. 

 

John Mathy, 3866 W. County Road 16H, stated that he was the consultant for Mr. Carstens.  He stated that they agreed with the Planning Staff’s recommendations.  He remarked that he felt that they had met or exceeded the County requirements for the subdivision. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Brandon Soule, 3508 Moffat Avenue, stated that Mr. Dudley and he were representing the neighborhood.  He stated that they understood that the development would occur but wanted to make sure that there was accountability.  He asked that the Commission consider prudence in reviewing some of the items in regards to the neighborhood concerns regarding public safety, and the adverse effects the development might have around the community.  He remarked that the first concern dealt with the emergency vehicle access.  It conformed to the constraints for getting a vehicle through the area to the new community but there was concern about the one fire hydrant that would be one mile within Lot 3.  He wondered if the developer would have to install another fire hydrant.  The other issue was in regards to the traffic study.  They believed that the traffic study was not conducted or properly represented the actions or the community traffic in that environment.  The traffic study was done in late December of 2006, and they did not believe that it properly represented the community when there would be after school commute traffic.  He stated that other items of concern were the water considerations for the environment and sanitation and hoped that the developer would consider minimal environmental impact for the homes surrounding the area.  He remarked that the most important concern was the engineering of the property. 

 

Jeff Dudley, 3620 Glade Road, stated that he had been a resident in the area for over 20 years and also had engineering education.  He stated that their goal was not to have the development occur but to have the issues considered so that it did not have any adverse effect to the area around it.  He stated that the sizing of the detention pond, overflow plan, and discharge of the water arose some concern.  He stated that the capacity of the pond was equal to one inch of runoff over the site and the hundred year effect was just over three inches.  It was also reported that the site had Type B soils. In reviewing the site flow it was determined that the water flowed from the north and the east down through the property and headed from the northeast down to the southwest.  It did not appear that there had been any consideration for the off-site flow for the topography of the site; therefore, they questioned whether the pond was sized appropriately.  He presented the Commission with some pictures that were taken by some of the neighbors on August 6, 2007 when they had 2 ¾ inches of rain in roughly an hour.  The pictures showed the area north of the property and down Glade Road for the full length of the property.  He stated that in regards to the overflow of the pond, Section 4B of the drainage plan stated that the existing grade along the western property line would act as the overflow for the detention pond.  He stated that the detention pond was practically on the property line, and the small amount of area between the detention pond and property line was flat so the lots below would receive the overflow because it would not be contained on-site.  He noted that there were outbuildings within 25 feet of that property line and if the pond did overflow those pole barns would get flooded out and potentially the homes could be too.    He remarked that the swale coming into the detention pond and the dirt that blew around filled in at approximately one inch per year so the depth of the water surface on swale C was 0.05 feet lower then the depth of the entire swale.  As a result, in one year there would be enough dirt blown around with the existing conditions to actually fill it in and would no longer meet the design intent.  He noted that Swales AA and BB would fill in at six years.  He stated that there was a note in the drainage plan stating that the detention pond might be excavated additionally deep and if that did occur they asked that there be provisions for pumping out any existing standing water.  He asked that the Commission reconsider if the Noah Numbers represented the true precipitation rate in the area. 

 

Ed Beard, 6508 Devils Backbone Lane, had a concern regarding the roadway extension on Moffat Avenue.  He wanted to be assured that he would not have to give up his land for an extension of that road. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the general policy of Larimer County was to provide for continuation of roadways.  Until he developed or sold the property there would not be a road pushed through the property. 

 

Janine Hayashi, 3616 N. Glade Road, stated that her property was located directly below the discharge of the detention pond and based on the calculations there would be approximately 300 gallons per minute being discharge onto the property which was 50 yards from her home.  She stated that she had lived there for five years and three times had seen the culverts full.  She stated that the water used to be evenly distributed, and now it would all go to a detention pond which was proposed to be inadequate based on the experience of all the residents that lived there regardless of what Noah’s figures were.  She asked that the Commission consider that the discharge go through a ditch, swale, or an underground pipe directly to Glade Road instead of it being discharged directly behind her home.  She stated that she was not trying to stop the development but stop the adverse effects to her home.  She was also concerned with the size of the detention pond.

 

Jim Tilger, 3500 Glade Road, stated that he had concerns regarding the traffic study.  He stated that traffic had increased in the last three years.

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, spoke to the outlet to the detention pond.  She stated that the preliminary drainage plan showed an outlet swale from the detention pond down through the off-site property directly to the south.  It would detain 100 year flows from the site and release at the two year historic flows.  The release rate would be 0.69 cubic feet per second plus the off-site flows that were not part of the basin.  The 100 year historic release rate would have been 42 cubic feet per second; therefore, the development was detaining that 100 year flow in the pond and releasing it at a very slow rate.  She remarked that the off-site property owner had been working with the developer and design engineers and had committed to dedicating a drainage easement from the outlet of that pond across his property all the way to Glade Road.  Within that drainage easement there would be a swale that would be designed to convey the flows for the release rate from the pond.  She stated that it was very important for the overflow spillway to be designed, directed, and graded in such a way that the off-site swale could be sized and accounted for any overflow.  As a result, instead of being directed directly to the west side of the pond it would be more specifically routed down the off-site easement that would be dedicated from the property owner.  She remarked that every site had upstream, off-site flows.  She explained that the County did not require every new development property to detain all the off-site flows upstream from them. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if there was a backup plan if the pond overflowed in the form of swales and other contouring?

 

Ms. Downs replied yes, and there was emergency overflow.  As far as the long-term design intent of the plan she agreed with the neighborhood concerns that there were historic silting problems.  However, as part of the development’s covenants and development agreement would be during construction and during the two year warranty period the developer was responsible for maintaining the entire site including the roads plus the drainage systems and swales.  Once the developer was released from that two year warranty period it was the responsibility of the home owner’s association to maintain those drainages, drainage swales, and roadside swales.  She stated that if the Engineering Department received a call from a homeowner stating that they were not maintaining their drainage features then the Department would step in.   She explained that during construction the final plans would offer more detail especially in terms of erosion control.  She stated that the water could be pumped out and incorporated in to the final requirements.  She also explained that it was not part of the standards to require developers to do soils testing in regards to their detention and water hydraulic design. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked what would happen to the drainage and detention pond if the area did have a 2-3 inch rain event?

 

Ms. Downs stated that the pond would be designed for the one hundred year storm.  As far as the traffic study, six additional lots did not warrant any auxiliary lanes.  There was also adequate site distance in both directions so there were no safety issues in regards to pulling in and out of that access. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Helmick noted that the date on the traffic study was January 31, 2007 but it was not based on observations from that date but from historic and current traffic counts that were taken at peak times of the year. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how much more traffic would need to frequent the road to warrant a change?

 

Ms. Downs stated that it was well below the threshold. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it was important for the neighbors to understand the drainage issue but it was an engineering standard in which the applicant had to meet. 

 

Chairman Boulter assured the neighbors that Staff would not allow the subdivision to move forward if it was not compliant with the engineering standards that were required. 

 

Mr. Mathy stated that there was a fire hydrant that would be installed in the subdivision. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that part of the problem was the existing drainage along Glade Road.  He asked who was responsible for the drainage on that road.

 

Ms. Downs stated that there was likely a silting problem on the Larimer County road side ditches that needed to be cleaned out more frequently then what had been occurring.  It was not the developer’s responsibility.  The neighborhood could work with the County regarding the drainage issues along the road that affected the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Dudley stated that the concern was not the culvert or ditches along Glade Road.  The flow rate which was 214 cubic feet per second was coming down off-site and some of that volume of water was coming down through the property and the terrain facilitated some portion of that volume of water directly into the detention pond. 

 

Jim Loonan, Loonan & Associates, stated that the drainage plan met the County and State requirements for detention.  The peak runoff from the site was being reduced to two year historic levels.  The peak off-site and on-site runoff combined would be less and would reduce the impact downstream with the volume and amount of water coming off.  He noted that the outlet structure did not have a final design yet.  He stated that he would work with Staff and the neighbors to come up with a solution. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick stated that he would add an additional condition of approval which would state, “Road maintenance participation by the development on W. 35th Street and Moffat Avenue must be incorporated into the final development plans.”

 

Commissioner Wallace 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 Carstens Backbone View Subdivision and appeals to Sections 8.14.2.H (lot width to depth ration) and 8.14.2.Q (dead-end length) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #05-S2496, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and an added condition that “A road maintenance agreement between W. 35th Avenue and Moffat Avenue must be incorporated into the final development plans.”:

 

·  The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Carstens Backbone View Subdivision (File #05-S2496), 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 Carstens Backbone View Subdivision.

 

·  The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

·  Fire Requirements -- All new residential structures shall be required to install residential fire sprinklers.  The applicant is further required to install a new fire hydrant within one mile of lot 3.  The location shall be designated and agreed upon by the applicant and fire district as a part of the Final Plat application.  

 

·  All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

·  Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

·  The applicant will need to submit; with the adjoining owner a Boundary Line Adjustment/Amended Plat application as a part of the Final Plat application.  This application will need to be approved and completed prior to the finalization of the Final Plat.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #8 W.O.L.F. AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #07-Z1640:  Chairman Boulter stated that Item #8 would be tabled to October 17, 2007 Planning Commission hearing due to time constraints.  The applicant agreed to the tabling. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the W.O.L.F. Amended Special Review, file #07-Z1640, to October 17, 2007.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:12 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS LAND OWNED

BY BILL R. WALTERS

 

A 20.00' by 100.00' parcel land to be used as an access easement, located in the

Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,

Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows;

Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 as bearing North

89°46'09" West, with all bearings contained herein relative thereto.

Commencing at the Southeast comer of the said Southeast Quarter; thence North

89°46'09" West, along the South line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 1,362.98 feet

to the Southeast corner of that certain parcel of land as described in a deed recorded at reception number 95020634 of Larimer County records;

thence North 00°18'51" East, along the East line of said parcel described in reception 95020634, also being the East line of the West One-half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24, a distance of 847.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,

thence continuing North 00°18'51" East, along said East  line, a distance of 100.00 feet

thence North 89°41'09" West, a distance of 20.00 feet, to a point on the Westerly Line of said parcel of Land described in Reception 95020634;

thence South 00°18'51" West along said Westerly line, a distance of 100.00 feet

thence South 89°41'09" East a distance of 20.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNNG.

Containing 2,000.00 square feet or 0.0459 acres, more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 'A" Continued

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LOVELAND READY MIX CONCRETE

TO PURCHASE FROM ROBERT WALTERS

 

A parcel of land located in Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 68 West of the 6th

P.M.,L arimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows;

Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 as bearing South 89°46'09" East, with all bearings contained herein relative thereto.

Commencing at the Southwest comer of the said Southeast Quarter, thence South

89°46'09" East along the South line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 427.05 feet;

thence North 00° 13'5 1 " East, a distance of 50.00 feet;

thence North 00°58'04" West, a distance of 87.96 feet;

thence North 04°07'55" East, a distance of 708.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;

thence North 04°07'55" East, a distance of 101.55 feet;

thence North 00°1 8'25" East, a distance of 1,073.40 feet;

thence North 87°52'04" East, a distance of 361.48 feet

thence South 54°58'13" East, a distance of 61 1.94 feet to a line parallel with and 20' west of, measured at right angles to, the East line of the West one-half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24, said line being the Westerly line of that certain parcel of land as described in a deed recorded in Reception number 95020634;

thence South 00°18'51 " West along said parallel line, a distance of 868.13

thence North 87°56'4O” West, a distance of 871.19 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing 949,830.43 square feet or 21.8051 acres, more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A Continued

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

LAND TRANSFER FROM

ROBERT WALTErs TO

LOVELAND READY MIX

 

A Portion of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal

Meridian;

Considering the East line of the West one-half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24 as bearing North 0°21'27' East with all bearing contained herein relative thereto;

Commencing at the Southeast comer of said West one-half of the Southeast Quarter,thence North 0°21'27" East along said East line of the West one-half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1,912.15 feet; thence North 70°07'00" West a distance of 21.22 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 70°07'00" West, a distance of 572.45 feet; thence North 05°16'06" East a distance of 179.94 feet thence North 32°'34'58" East, a distance of 122.09 feet hence North 10°10'31" East, a distance of 157.40 feet & thence South 32°34'58" West a distance of 282.19 feet thence South 05°16'06" West a distance of 144.75 feet; thence South 49°33'57" West a distance of

146.67 feet; thence South 83°28'59" West, a distance of 98.78 feet; thence South 00°2127" West, a distance of 36.56 feet; thence North 87°54'40" East, a distance of 301.42 feet; thence South 54°55'28" East, a distance of 61 1.94 feet thence North 00°21'27" East, a distance of 233.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNinG.

Containing 119,116 square feet or 2.734 acres. more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Legal Description:

The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest l/4 of

Section 23, Township 9 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado.

Containing 39.77 acres.

As recorded in Book number 666 at Page 0793.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

Lot 1, Carstens 2nd M.R.D. S-85-90, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

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