LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

 Minutes of January 17, 2018

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Jensen, Lucas and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Gerrard and Miller were absent.  Also present were Terry Gilbert, Community Development Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Savanah Benedick-Welch, Planner II, Rebecca Smith, Planner I, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Lea Schneider, Health Department, Ned Sparks and Carrie Dann, Loveland Rural Fire Protection District, and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

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 NOVEMBER 15, 2017 AND DECEMBER 13, 2017 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Jensen.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Chairman Dougherty stated that the order of Item #3 Glover Short Term Rental Special Review and Item #4 Commerford Short Term Rental Special Review would be changed.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 WALKER SUBDIVISION REZONING #17-ZONE2254:  Ms. Smith provided background information on the request for a Rezoning the property that the hangar building is on, which is being added to Lot 1 of the Walker Manufacturing Subdivision from FA-1 Farming to I-Industrial, which property was located at the south west corner of Harmony (County Road 38) and County Road 3.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Walker Subdivision Rezoning, file # 17-ZONE2254 , to rezone the property from FA-1 Farming to I-Industrial, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Jensen, Lucas, Wallace and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

 

ITEM #2 CAMPION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #17-ZONE2258:   Ms. Benedick-Welch provided background information on the request for an Amended Special Review for an increase of the proposed addition to the Campion Academy Seventh-Day Adventist Church.  The original Master Plan allowed for a 2,500 square-foot addition, therefore an amendment was required to reflect a size increase to approximately 10,800 square feet.  The property was located directly south of 42nd Street Southwest and west of Highway 287, between Loveland and Berthoud; 300 42nd St. SW, Loveland.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Campion Seventh Day Adventist Amended Special Review, file #17-ZONE2258 , for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, 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.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Campion Seventh-Day Adventists Amended Special Review, File #17-ZONE2258 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 Campion Seventh-Day Adventists Amended Special Review.

 

3.   All other conditions of approval that applied to the original Special Review approval shall continue to apply to the subject property.

 

4.   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.

 

5.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement unless the applicant cannot demonstrate that all on-site and off-site improvements connected with the use will be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy.

 

6.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

7.   All required plans and reports, including but not limited to a detailed site plan, landscaping plan, drainage report, fire protection plan and water availability shall be completed by the applicant/property owner and approved prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit.  The plans shall be reviewed per the Site Plan Review process administered by the Larimer County Community Development Department.

 

8.   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.

 

9.   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.

 

10.   The expansion shall address and comply with the requirements outlined by the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau as detailed in the memo from Carie Dann, Deputy Fire Marshall, dated November 7, 2017.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Jensen, Lucas, Wallace and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4 COMMERFORD SHORT TERM RENTAL SPECIAL REVIEW #17-ZONE2217:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a Special Review to allow a Short Term Rental in the O – Open zoning district, which was located at 28 Sly Fox Road, Drake.  The property was 0.39 acres in size and contained a two-bedroom single-family home and a detached, two-car garage.  He explained that single-family homes could not be rented for a period of less than 31 day and occupancy of single-family homes was limited to one living unit.  He noted that the Code Compliance Office received a complaint from a nearby property owner in June 2017 regarding the short term rental of the property.  The property owners submitted a Special Review application a few weeks later.

He mentioned that the request also included an Appeal to Section 8.1.4.G.1 of the Land Use Code regarding Fire Protection.  It required that the Short Term Rental be equipped with a fire sprinkler system because the building was not within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant connected to a public water supply with adequate pressures and flows. He also noted that a neighborhood meeting was held regarding the proposal.  Additionally, separate comments had been received outside of the neighborhood meeting that noted concerns with other surrounding property owners expressing no concern. 

 

 

Ned Sparks, Fire Marshall Loveland Rescue Fire Authority, and Carrie Dann, Deputy Fire Marshall, were in support of the Land Use Code regulations.  They explained that residential fire sprinklers were important to residential structures due to the fuels that burn within homes currently compared to the past.  A short video was shown.  Mr. Sparks explained how the sprinkler system would operate.  He also noted that a church south of the property burned, and it took 10 minutes for the volunteer fire department to arrive and 22 minutes for firefighters from the Loveland Fire Rescue Authority to arrive.  Ms. Dann noted that there was no water district serving the home. 

 

Commissioner Jensen asked where the water was stored, how it was winterized and what the cost was for a residential fire suppression system.

 

Ms. Dann stated that 95% of the sprinkler systems were called a tank and pump.  Per the code, depending on the square footage of the house, it would need 7-10 minutes of water supply.  Residential sprinklers 12-15 gallons per minute.  It was a heavy plastic tank filled with water with a pump connected to the pipes in the home.  Minimum system pressure was typically 35-40 pounds at the source.  She explained that there were ways to prevent freezing such as running side wall sprinklers or ‘tenting’ in attic space.  She stated that the cost would be dependent on the size of the house.  Commercial buildings were $3-$5 per square foot to retro fit with sprinklers.    She explained that there was a way to retro fit a commercial building and have the money refunded on the taxes.  She stated that she had questioned the National Fire Sprinkler Association as to whether it would apply to short term rental uses; however, she had not received answer back yet.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked how they would be beneficial.

 

Ms. Dann explained how the sprinkler system worked.  The intent was to allow people time to exit the building safely.

 

Mr. Sparks explained when and how the sprinkler would operate.

 

Commissioner Lucas asked if there could be something in leu of sprinklers.

 

Mr. Sparks stated he would need some time to determine that. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked about requiring fire extinguishers and smoke detectors.

 

Mr. Sparks stated that it was not as reliable solution.

 

Commissioner Cox asked about the maintenance on the sprinkler system.

 

Ms. Dann replied that it was minimal and would not require a commercial check. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked what powered the system.

 

Ms. Dann stated that it was an electric pump.  

 

Commissioner Cox asked if a water supply in the system would support a sprinkler system.

 

Ms. Dann stated that there was no public water supply in the area.  The tank would be inside the home.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked if the standard applied to rural areas, urban areas or both.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that there were different standards for properties in and outside Growth Management Areas. 

 

Pat & Teresa Commerford, applicants, mentioned that there were hundreds of vacation rentals in Larimer County; however, they were trying to be one that was operating legally.  They explained that they picked the house due to the access to the highway, location of river, the house being on a slab, and it not being a two story home.  They also mentioned that each bedroom had two windows.  He noted that a tank for sprinklers would not fit in the home unless it was in the living room.  He stated that he was not opposed to a sprinkler system and thought it was a good idea but did not know how practical it was.  He understood that it was a broader conversation not just for their property. 

 

Commissioner Caraway asked about the compatibility with the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Commerford replied that their next door neighbor did not have an issue, and the other property next door was vacant.  They gave notice to their renters of the boundaries of the property to try to avoid trespassing.  He stated that they were trying to use it the way it had been and were not trying to rent to more people or increase the use.  He mentioned that the location and good condition of the structure were factors they considered with looking at compatibility. 

 

Ms. Commerford noted that notices of the proposal were sent out to 30 people or more.  She stated that they had contacted a number of their neighbors so they could understand their concerns.  They were trying to minimize any impacts.

 

Mr. Commerford stated that they could do long term rental; however, they were concerned with rental rights and the issues that could come with that. Therefore, they decided to do a short term rental. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if they would consider installing fire sprinklers if they lived at the property full time.

 

Ms. Commerford replied no. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Dallas Maurer, surrounding property owner, was opposed to the use.  Trespassing was an issue along with the potential for fires. 

 

Lee Roy Rady, lived on River Fork Road, stated that there were numerous power outages in the area last year.  He also wondered about the well and its output.  Parking and feeding wildlife had been some of the issues with the renters. 

 

Terry Rady, stated that there was low representation from the neighborhood due to Highway 34 construction.  She was concerned with the water well, and its capacity.

 

Maggie Clauser, lived adjacent to the proposed property, spoke to the fire that occurred in the area.  She was concerned that there was no fire suppression system.  She also pointed out that it was not a commercial property.

 

Mrs. Rady, stated that renters had been feeding the wildlife.  She was also concerned that trash was being set out, which could attract bears and other wildlife.

 

Mr. Commerford stated that trash currently on the property was hauled to a bear proof container.  If approved, there would be a bear proof container at the property.  He pointed out that there were written rules for all renters to follow.  They also had security cameras at the property.  The next door neighbor also had their contact information so they could contact them if there was any sort of problem.  He stressed that they were trying to be good stewards. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace asked if fire sprinklers were required for newly built homes.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that if a new lot was created or a change of use occurred, a fire sprinkler system would be required.  He spoke to the requirements of the Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Cox pointed out that a Special Review approval went with the property.

 

Commissioner Lucas asked about a previous discussion regarding inspections of short term rental properties.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that it only applied to the Estes Valley.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked about changing the well from residential to commercial.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that it was a standard that the applicants would have to meet.

 

Commissioner Jensen stated that he felt it could be compatible with the surrounding area.  However, he did not feel that he could support averting from the standard for fire protection.

 

Commissioner Caraway felt that compatibility in a rural or urban area was very different.  He also felt that going against the fire department recommendation would not be wise. 

 

Commissioner Wallace did not think it was compatible with the immediate area.  It could be made harmonious by ensuring renters knew the rules.  She also remarked that the property owners needed to provide their contact information so issues could be dealt with immediately.  There needed to be conditions of approval that applied to short term rental applications.

 

Commissioner Lucas was concerned about setting a precedent for short term rental applications.  The location of the home from a hydrant and fire services was a concern.  He pointed out that renters would not be familiar with the home and ways to escape in an emergency.  He also understood the expense and obligation of a homeowner to install a fire suppression system but felt it was something that should be examined if they were renting out a home.   

 

 

 

Commissioner Dougherty felt that the compatibility could be managed.  He was unsure he could support the appeal due to the fact that it was being rented.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Commerford Short Term Rental Special Review, file #17-ZONE2217 , for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, 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.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Commerford Short Term Rental Special Review, File 17-ZONE2217 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 Commerford Short Term Renal Special Review.

 

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

 

4.   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.

 

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Jensen, Lucas, and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Caraway and Wallace voted Against the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-2

 

Commissioner Wallace clarified that she voted no to the Motion due to the need to clarify the conditions of approval for short term rentals.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Commerford Short Term Rental Special Review, file # 17-ZONE2217 , appeal to Section 8.1.4.G.1 of the Land Use Code Regarding Fire Protection.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Jensen, Lucas, Wallace and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

ITEM #3 GLOVER SHORT TERM RENTAL SPECIAL REVIEW #17-ZONE2216:   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a short-term rental in the O-Open zoning district, which was located at 7707 Hwy 7, Estes Park, CO.  The request included an appeal to paving requirements of Section 8.6.C.3.c Larimer County Land Use Code.  He explained that Allenspark Fire District provided fire protection service for the area.  The district noted that a dry hydrant, located on the fire station site adjacent to the applicant’s site, was adequate to serve the site. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked about the commercial well permit.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant was in the process of applying for a commercial well permit.

 

Commissioner Wallace wondered if the fire protection standard should be applied to this property.

 

Commissioner Lucas wondered about the specification of a dry hydrant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Henry Glover, applicant, stated that VRBO’s had been around for years.  He pointed out that most people would keep up a home to attract good renters and would have rules they expected their renters to follow.  He stated that he did not have any neighbors as he was on a 25 acre lot.

He also stated that he was trying to be legal.  He remarked that a contract between a renter and a rentee could not be controlled.  He felt that all the worst case scenarios were being presented and were being blown out of proportion.  He suggested having a ‘buyer beware’ advising renters that there were no fire sprinklers in the home.  In his opinion, there should be a yearly permit required for the short term rental properties.  He pointed out that there were hundreds of short term rentals that were not registered with the county, and if fire sprinklers were required then it would deter people from applying for the Special Review. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace felt the application was more compatible; however, she was concerned about precedence of the fire protection standard.

 

Commissioner Jensen pointed out that the fire district did not have an issue with the application and that the property was adjacent to Covenant Heights.  He felt that if the process was made onerous than it would deter people from applying for a Special Review.  He supported the application and felt it was a reasonable accommodation having the dry hydrant.

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that the fire protection standard should have been presented as an appeal.

 

Commissioner Lucas stated that there was no proper process in place to handle the decisions regarding short term rentals and fire protection.  He felt that the Code should be followed regardless of where the property was located.

 

Commissioner Christman disagreed.  The circumstances were different, and she supported the application.

 

Commissioner Lucas pointed out that the approval went with the property and there needed to be consistency.

 

Commissioner Caraway pointed out that the property had direct access off of the highway and was a larger acreage not in a subdivision.  He felt there could be an exception to the rule regarding fire protection.  He stated that more work needed to be done regarding short term rentals and standards needed to be developed.  He stated he would support the application. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty felt that Staff made an interpretation based on the location.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Glover Short Term Rental Special Review, file # 17-ZONE2216 , and appeal to Section 8.6.3.c to not require paving of the drive and parking areas, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, 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.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Glover Short Term Renal Special Review file #17-zone2216 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 Glover Short Term Renal Special Review.

 

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review (Special Exception) 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 appeal regarding paving of the parking and access drive are approved. 

 

9.   The access drive shall be widened to meet the current standards.

 

 

 

10.   The subject property is within a black bear habitat so wildlife resistant containers must be used for refuse disposal

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Caraway, Christman, Cox, Jensen, Wallace and Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioner Lucas voted Against the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

Commissioner Lucas stated that he voted against the Motion due to consistency and fire safety.

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:40 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Sean Dougherty, Chairman                                         Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

LOT 1, WALKER SUB; LESS ROW 20160046631

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

BEG AT PT 363 FT W OF SE COR NE 1/4 2-4-69, TH ALG S LN NE 1/4 W 1250 FT M/L TO E LN R/R ROW, TH N ALG SD ROW 1730 FT M/L TO S LN NEISNER SUB, TH S 79 51' E 25.97 FT, N 72 19' E 57.6 FT, N 83 26' E 181 FT, S 79 52' E 86.5 FT, S 85 53' E 136 FT. S 80 25' E 50.75 FT, N 89 42' E 657.34 FT, N 45 12' E 56.25 FT, S 44 48' E 200 FT TO BEG CUR TO R HAC C/A S 45 12' W 373 FT, L/C BEARS S 22 23' E 282.46 FT, TH ALG ARC SD CUR 287.7 FT TO POT, TH S 0 18' E 131 FT, N 89 42' E 170 FT TO W LN HWY 287, TH S 0 18' E 300 FT, S 89 42' W 170 FT, S 0 18' E 123.8 FT, S 72 54' E 178.15 FT TO W LN SD HWY, TH S 0 18' E 515 FT, S 89 19' 30" 333 FT, S 0 18' E 242 FT TPOB; ALSO ALL LAND LY WRLY OF R/R ROW IN NE 1/4 2-4-69; ALSO COM AT NE COR NW 1/4 2-4-69, TH N 89 40' W 1238 FT, S 1 55' E 1477.8 FT TPOB, EX BEG AT PT N 89 40' W 871 FT FROM NE COR NW 1/4, TH N 89 40' W 367 FT, S 1 55' E TO N LN HOME SUPPLY DITCH, TH NRLY & ERLY ALG SD DITCH TO PT WH BEARS DUE S OF TPOB, TH N TPOB, ALSO EX BEG AT NE COR NW 1/4, TH W 336 FT, SERLY TO PT ON E LN NW 1/4 232 FT S OF NEW 1/4, TH N 232 FT TPOB, ALSO EX 1233-81 & 1290-346; ALSO BEG AT PT ON N-S C/L WH N ¼ COR 2-4-69 BEARS N l 56' W 1477.8 FT, S 1 56 E 1305.57 FT, S 89 19' 30" W

1237.42 FT, N 1 56' W 1325.57 FT, S 89 45' E 1238 FT TPOB; LESS RD ROW PER 2002091681

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

LOT 11, BLK 3, AMENDED PLAT 1ST ADD TO HAYDEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, WHICH S MONUMENTED BY A G.L.O. BRASS CAPPED PIPE; THENCE SOUTH 36 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 2246.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, (ALSO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1486 AT PAGE 664 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS); THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST

LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35 A DISTANCE OF 548.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 867.39 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COLORADO HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE NORTH 23 DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 64.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 549.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 349.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 139.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 326.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL BEARINGS ARE RELATIVE TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST

QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35 BEARING SOUTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES EAST.

COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO