LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of May 18, 2016

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Couch, Gerrard, Glick, Miller and Wallace were present.  Commissioners’ Christman, Cox and Jensen were absent. Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, 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 APRIL 20, 2016 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Wallace.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 DAY PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #15-S3314:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request to rezone property located at 4102 S. Garfield Avenue, Loveland; located east of S. Garfield Road approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of 42nd Street SE and S. Garfield Avenue from R-1 – Residential to Planned Development and a combined Preliminary and Final Planned Land Division of an 1.795-acre parcel into two single-family residential lots.  The request also included appeals to Sections 8.14.1.H (Lot Depth to Width Ratio) and 8.14.1.R (Connectivity) of the Land Use Code. 

 

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 approval Day Planned Land Division/Planned Development and appeals to Sections 8.14.1.H & 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code, file #15-S3314, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Day Planned Development/Planned Land Division, File 15-S3314 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 Day Planned Development/Planned Land Division.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R-2J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

 

3.   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.

 

4.   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.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Couch, Gerrard, Glick, Miller, Wallace and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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 approval of the rezoning from R-1 –  Residential to PD - Planned Development, file #15-S3314, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Day Planned Land Division.

 

2.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Day Planned Development shall be as follows:

Principal uses:

Agricultural

1. Apiary (R)

 

Residential

2. Group home (R)

3. Group home for the aged (R)

4. Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

5. Group home for the mentally ill (R)

6. Single-family dwelling (R)

7. Storage buildings and garages (R)—See  section 4.3.2

 

 

 

 

Institutional

8. Child/elderly care center (S)

9. Church (MS/S)—See  section 4.3.4

10. Congregate residence (S)

11. Hospital (S)

12. School, nonpublic (S)

13. State-licensed group home (S)

 

Accommodation

14. Nursing home (S)

 

Utilities

15. Commercial mobile radio service (SP/S)—See section 16

 

Industrial

16. Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

17. Small solar facility (R/PSP)

           

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

            b. 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

2. Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

a. Street and road setback (Refer to section 4.9.1 setbacks from highways, county roads, and all other streets and roads.) The setback from a street or road must be 20 feet from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

            b. Side yards— 5 feet.

            c. Rear yards—25 feet.

d. Refer to  section 4.9.2 for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).

3. Maximum structure height—40 feet.

4. No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection  4.3.10.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Couch, Gerrard, Glick, Miller, Wallace and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #2 LONGS PEAK FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #15-S3313:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat approval of a Conservation Development of a 83.653-acre parcel into 41 single-family residential lots, two Residual Lots with residential building envelopes and two outlots located at 509 N. County Road 19, Berthoud, which was northwest of the intersection of N. County Road 19 and W. County Road 8.  The request also included an appeal to Section 4.7.1.2 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards to not require curb and gutter where the average lot frontage is less than 200 feet.

Mr. Whitley explained that the FA-1 – Farming zoning district in the Land Use Code would allow 36 lots on the property.  The applicants were asking for a density bonus and thus proposing 43 units.  He stated that Common Lot A was proposed to be open to the public and maintained by the homeowner’s association.  He also noted that the residual land would not be further developed.  Mr. Whitley mentioned the eagle’s nest located northwest of the property, which the applicants were proposing a ¼ mile buffer between the nest, the residential lots and the residential building envelope as requested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.  He stated that concerns regarding the buffer might arise from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which would need to review the proposal to make sure ¼ mile buffer was sufficient.  Regarding the appeal, he explained the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) required developments with lot frontages of less than 200 feet to provide curb and gutter.  He stated that the average lot width proposed was 116 feet, and the applicant was proposing to have a system of ditches and culverts instead.  They were also proposing to make sure that the culverts were installed properly and that the homeowner’s association would be in charge of maintenance.  He stated that the Development Review Staff was recommending denial of the appeal based on several concerns.

 

Commissioner Glick asked why there was not just one Residual lot.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the Land Use Code encouraged but did not require that a residual lot be all one piece.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the bonus density was being asked for due to the required bald eagle buffer.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the applicant could address that question.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about the ditches and culverts.

 

Clint Jones, Engineering Department, stated that the borrow ditch would be on each side of the road, and a culvert for each driveway.

 

Commissioner Miller asked if more lots could be added later if the density bonus was not granted.

 

Mr. Whitley replied no.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if the road would be maintained by the county.

 

Mr. Jones replied no.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked about the concerns regarding drainage and the culverts.

 

Mr. Jones stated that the county had received multiple complaints about drainage issues in other subdivisions, which caused the concern to not have curb and gutter.  He stated that culvert sizes could be determined with the final drainage report.

 

Commissioner Gerrard noted that landscaping could hinder the ditch and culverts and offered some suggestions to help with potential drainage issues.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked why the property was de-annexed from Berthoud.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that there were concerns with density.  He noted that the proposal did not have any less density than it would have if developed within the Town of Berthoud.

 

Commissioner Couch asked about the public area within Common Lot A.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that there would be no playground equipment, just a trail to walk through and noted that the applicant had requested to have the public area.

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out that having a public, common area posed the issue of liability to the homeowner’s association.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked the difference between having curb and gutter versus swales.

 

Mr. Jones replied that the amount of right-of-way width was different.

 

Jim Birdsall, TB Group, spoke to the history of the property and why the proposal could comply with the Larimer County Master Plan and Land Use Code.  He noted that the design of the proposal had been altered since the Sketch Plan Review phase based on comments received.   He also mentioned that they were meeting the recommended buffers regarding the bald eagle nest and perch trees.  He stated that if the density bonus was not approved, lots within the interior of the proposal would be removed and felt that the extra lots would not affect the surrounding property owners and properties.  He stated that they were proposing culverts rather than curb and gutter as they wanted to keep a rural character on the property.  He stated that they were proposed that the ditches have native grasses, and the homeowner’s association do the maintenance of the ditches. 

 

Commissioner Couch pointed out that the homeowner’s association would have many duties.  He asked if these would be within the covenants.

 

Mr. Birdsall stated yes.  He stated that the objective was to have a high-end development.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

David Cox, lived on the north side of the development, spoke about the density level expectation for the area, which was to gradually decrease from the town towards the west.  He stated that the proposed plan was not the vision of the community.  He remarked that he would like the developer to reconsider the layout of the proposal so it was more toward the vision of the Town, and the people that lived within the area.  He asked that the density bonus not be granted.  He mentioned that he had no intentions of developing his land; therefore, the paved, stubbed road up to his property was pointless.

 

Jeff Hindman, 348 Turner Ave, Berthoud, was on the Berthoud Planning Commission in 2007 that stopped the GMA at County Road 19.   He stated that the intent was to capture the commercial development at Highway 287 & Highway 56 but it ultimately got stopped at County Road 19.   He explained the history of the annexation and de-annexation of the property and the result that came which stipulated that anything out of the 2007 annexation agreement/ anything west of County Road 19 could not be annexed without a vote by the public.  He felt that the access off of Highway 56 was good as well as the buffer to the east.  He stated that he was opposed to the density bonus, felt that the eagle nest issue needed to be resolved, and the right amount of water needed to be tied to the land if it would be used for the intended agricultural uses.

 

Elizabeth Carney, 1600 W. County Road 10E, stated that some aspects of the development were good but questioned why there were two different residual lots.  She stressed that the access off of County Road 8 needed to be reconsider and felt that access off of County Road 19 would be better.  She remarked that County Road 8 was busy, and it would be hard to pull out onto the road especially for school buses. 

 

Nancy Lamb, 1101 County Road 19, pointed out that the property directly to the east of the development was not apart of the high density commercial.  She also stated that The Town was concerned about the density of homes in that area.  The vision for Berthoud by the people was a more rural west area.  She remarked that the park proposed would not be used by the neighbors or public and that there was already a park in the subdivision to the east.  She asked that the density bonus not be granted and that the benefit of not granting it would be the benefit that occurred to the outside community.

 

Diane Pollock, stated that she owned the property to the west.  She asked that the density bonus not be granted.  She pointed out that everything the applicant proposed was already a requirement; therefore, they were not giving a significant bonus to the community.  She pointed out that the subdivision to the east had 2.3 acre lots and was not a high density.  She also agreed that the common area would not be used by the public and was not a benefit.  She asked that there be a contingent clause that water be provided.  She also stated that she support the appeal as all developments west of Highway 287 had ditches and culverts not curb and gutter.  She requested that the plat map be changed from saying buildable/residences to say perpetual conservation easement.

 

Karen Stockley, lived west of development, stated that she was a former member of the Berthoud Planning/Zoning Commission and was a part of the 2007 adoption of the GMA to County Road 19.  She was also previously was a worked with groups regarding bird groups and endangered species.  She stated that the Federal rules for buffering were 660 feet; however, the State of Colorado buffer for raptors and eagles was ½ mile during nesting and winter activity roosting.  As a result, the buffer proposed was not sufficient as the eagles needed to be protected for the long term because that land could never be again once the homes were built.  She explained that the Colorado buffer was different than the rest of the country due to vegetation, etc. and that was why the Colorado buffer was larger.  She encouraged the commission to require a ½ mile buffer and wanted the clustering moved to the east to increase the buffer. 

 

Cody Sullivan, was representing Mary Sullivan who lived at 1805 County Road 8.  He stated that they were in support of the project.  They wanted to confirm how the future stormwater would be carried through their ditch.  They also wanted it to be known that their cement ditch was not a storm sewer system and should not be operated as such.

 

Ken Benkert, live north of the property, would like the county to consider the purchase of the property.  He also mentioned that there would be no parking for the common lot.  He felt that asking for a density bonus was a serious subject, and the bar should be set high.  He also wondered why two different residual lots should be approved.  He wondered how upscale the lots could be on small lots.  He also felt that the number of shares and amount of water available should be known.

 

Chris Pollock, 2604 W. County Road 8, supported the cluster concept.  He had concerns about the density bonus.  He also asked for clarification whether there would be ponds for non-potable water and interior irrigation.  He agreed that access off of County Road 19 would be better.

 

Janice Gibb, monitors the bald eagle nest with the CDOW.  She explained the history and the uses of the nests.  She stated that the eagles had moved their nest further to the north but they still perched and roosted on the trees that had the old nests.  The pointed out that the nest was active.  She also pointed out that it was a winter nest, which meant that it was active all year long.  She remarked that the nest was important to the County and the State.

 

Karen Moschini, 1708 W County Road 10E, opposed the density bonus.  She also did not agree with the public park and did not believe that the homeowners would want the homeowner’s association to maintain the park.  She agreed that there needed to be buffers to the eagles.  She agreed that there should be no street lights and that there needed to be adequate storm drainage. 

 

Mr. Birdsall stated that there was no intention of having ponds for non-potable water or irrigation pond.  The access onto County Road 8 was discussed in length and a traffic study was completed.  He stated that they would provide additional information to Mr. Sullivan to satisfy his concerns regarding storm drainage on his property.  He felt that the buffers established met or exceeded all the suggested requirements.

 

Commissioner Miller asked if the size of the lots would be adjusted if the bonus density was not granted.

 

Mr. Birdsall stated that some lots would get larger but the developable area would not change.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked how much agricultural water would be available.

 

Mr. Birdsall replied 8 shares of Handy Ditch water.  There would be a share per each residual lot. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked about parking for the park.

 

Mr. Birdsall replied that it would be on-street parking. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked about the vision of development. 

 

Mr. Birdsall stated that the lots would be approximately 14,000 sq.ft., and the ideal target market was a high end patio home.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there were any traffic studies done for County Road 8 and County Road 19.

 

Mr. Birdsall replied yes.  No additional turn lanes were triggered by the proposed development.

 

Mr. Lafferty reassured that the residual land would be held in perpetuity per the Land Use Code.  He stated that there was nothing in the Code that stated you could not have two residual lots and stated that Residual land did not say that it had to be for ‘agricultural’ purposes.  He explained that the appeal to curb and gutter started at ½ acre lots and the lots proposed were significantly less than that.  He pointed out that the applicant wanted to maintain the rural character of the area but was proposing to have patio homes, which made you think more urban.

 

Commissioner Wallace noted that the curb and gutter would be all interior and would not be seen from the outside.  She pointed out that they did not have the ability to force people to provide water for irrigated agricultural uses.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the applicant had made representations that water would held for the purposes of residual land as well as for the lots within the development.  It had now become an expectation, and it would become a part of the development agreement.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about the drainage.

 

Mr. Jones stated that a drainage report was submitted and two detention ponds would be provided on the site.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about the impacts to the development if the buffer needed to be larger. 

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needed to review the information in order to make a recommendation as no recommendation could be made by them at the current time.  He stated that prior to the County Commissioner hearing, final comments would be received for the US Fish and Wildlife and possibly the Colorado parks and Wildlife.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Gerrard agreed swales did maintain a more rural character but understood Staff’s position and the requirements of the Code.  He stated that he was leaning towards having swales. 

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that it would be protect the home buyers if the requirements of the Code were followed.  She did not feel that there was a sufficient basis to not have curb and gutter.

 

Commissioner Miller stated that the citizens had expressed a concern about the curb and gutter and would be in favor of the borrow ditches.

 

Commissioner Couch felt that it would be better to have curb and gutter as stated in the Code.  He felt that it was important to keep the rural character but the curb and gutter would be in the interior of the development and not seen by the outside public.  He stated that he was in favor of the curb and gutter.

 

Commissioner Glick stated that the lots were small and curb and gutter should be upheld.  He stated that he was not in favor of the borrow ditches.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that if the vision was patio homes then it made him think low maintenance which meant that curb and gutter should be required.

 

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 denial of the appeal to Section 4.7.1.2 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards to not require curb and gutter where the average lot frontage is less than 200 feet.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Couch, Glick, Miller, Wallace and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioner Gerrard voted against the Motion. 

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-1

 

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 approval of the Longs Peak Farm Conservation Development with 36 lots, file #15-S3313, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Longs Peak Farm Conservation Development, File #15-S3313 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 Longs Peak Farm Conservation Development.

 

2.   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).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   Fire protection measures shall comply with the fire protection level of service standards found in Section 8.1.4.F of the Land Use Code.

 

4.   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.

 

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.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Couch, Gerrard, Glick, Miller, Wallace and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

Commissioner Glick stated he did not feel that it was justified to have the density bonus and would vote no to the bonus.

 

Commissioner Miller pointed out that sewer would be provided , and the perimeter lots would not change if the bonus was not granted.  He was in favor of the bonus.

 

Commissioner Wallace pointed out that the density bonus was a bonus on top of what was already a bonus due to the fact that there would be public water and sewer.   She did not feel that there was a significant public benefit provided by approving the density bonus. 

 

Commissioner Glick decided that he was not in favor of the bonus lots.

 

Commissioner Couch agreed with early comments and did not see a significant public benefit by having the density bonus.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that it was a well designed development.  He was not sure if there would be a significant difference if the 7 lots were taken away since they would be within the interior.  He stated that he was leaning towards allowing the bonus.

 

Commissioner Glick pointed out that it would not be compatible with the surrounding property if the 7 lots were allowed since the public had asked to maintain the rural character in the area .   He also stated that it would be setting a precedent. 

 

Commissioner Miller pointed out that requiring curb and gutter made it a more urban development. 

 

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 denial of the Longs Peak Farms Conservation Development request for a density bonus.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Couch, Glick, and Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Gerrard, Miller and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted against the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED :  3-3

 

The result of the failed (tied) Motion is equivalent to a decision in favor of the density bonus.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:34 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, Vice- Chairman                               Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

That portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 69 West of the 6th

P.M . , County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows:

 

Considering the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 36 as bearing South 00°14'22 "

East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:

 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said

Section 36; thence along the West line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said

Section 36 South 00° 14 '22" East 858.00 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of the School

House Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed recorded in Book 87 at Page 357, records of said

County and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said West line of the Southwest

Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 36 and along the South line of said School House

Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed recorded in Book 87 at Page 357 North 89°45'38" East

253.77 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of the School House Plat Of Ground, as described

in Deed recorded in Book 87 at Page 357; thence departing said South line of said School House

Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed recorded in Book 87 at Page 357 and along the East line of

said School House Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed recorded in Book 87 at Page 357 North

00° 14 '22" West 205.95 feet, more or less, to a point on the Southerly line of that certain parcel of

land as described in Deed Recorded at Reception No . 88027080, records of said County; thence

departing said East line of said School House Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed recorded in

Book 87 at Page 357 and along the Southerly line of that certain parcel of land as described in

Deed Recorded at Reception No. 88027080 North 89°45'38" East 91 . 09 feet, more or less, to a

point on the West line of the Plat of Saddle Ridge Acres P.U . D. , County of Larimer , State of

Colorado; thence departing said Southerly line of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed

Recorded at Reception No. 88027080 and along said West line of the Plat of Saddle Ridge Acres

P.U.D. South 00°30'32" East 377.33 feet , more or less, to a point on the North line of that certain

parcel of land as described in Deed Recorded in Book 557 at Page 123, records of said County;

thence departing said West line of the Plat of Saddle Ridge Acres P.U.D. and along said North line

of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed Recorded in Book 557 at Page 123 South

89°45'38" West 346.63 feet, more or less, to a point on the West line of the Southwest Quarter of

the Southwest Quarter of said Section 36; thence departing said North line of that certain parcel of

land as described in Deed Recorded in Book 557 at Page 123 and along said West line of the

Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 36 North 00°14 '22" West 171.37 feet,

more or less, to the Southwest comer of the School House Plat Of Ground, as described in Deed

recorded in Book 87 at Page 357 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

The above described parcel contains 78,193.7 Square Feet (l.795 Acres), and is subject to all

existing easements and/or rights-of ways now existing or of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

SE 16-4-69; LESS 1816-289, 87017785, 87023405