LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of November 18, 2015

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Gerrard, Glick, and Wallace were present.  Commissioners’ Dougherty and Miller were absent.  Commissioner Jensen presided as Chairman.  Also present were Terry Gilbert, Community Development Division Director, Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Savanah Benedick, Planner II, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Animal House Special Review, Children’s House Special Review, and Norton Amended Rezoning.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

Eric Sutherland, spoke regarding the failure of the Boxelder Stormwater Authority to go through the Location and Extent process.  He stated that he filed a motion to intervene to overturn the condemnation of the property.  He noted that the Location and Extent Statute was replicated in the Land Use Code and remarked that it was a meaningful process.  The County was responsible for upholding the Code and should uphold what was within it.  There was failure of Due Process and violation of law.  There was a significant problem with administration in the County. 

 

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

None.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 21, 2015 MEETING:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Joe Stiren , lived behind the property of Item #2 Norton Amended Rezoning.  He remarked that he would like to see the site brought up to code.  It was not a storage facility, it was a commercial business.  There were also people living in the storage units and causing problems in the area.  He would like to see proper fencing, sound barriers, etc., and he did not want to see a bigger problem arise and be allowed on the property.

 

Matt Lafferty, stated the request was to rezone.  A complaint could be filed with the Larimer County Code Compliance Department to address those issues brought up

 

MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to move Item #2 Norton Amended Rezoning to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  CHILDREN’S HOUSE SPECIAL REVIEW  #15-Z1982:  Ms. Benedick provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a private Montessori School for primary and elementary age children with a farm component, located at 6664 N County Road 13, Loveland, which is at the southeast intersection of County Road 13 and County Road 30.  The proposed improvements to the property primarily include a new 3750 sq. ft. primary school building, a new 2250 sq. ft. elementary/administrative school building, and a new parking area containing 22 parking spaces.  It appears, based on the site plan, that the elementary school is proposed to replace a few small outbuildings.   The single-family home is proposed to remain and will continue to be used as a single family home.  The project description proposed 3 classrooms with 10 employees and a maximum of 72 total children.  The request also included an appeal to allow on-site septic in the Loveland Growth Management Area.

 

Commissioner Wallace remarked that the school septic system could not go over 22,000 gallons per day.  She wondered how it was determined whether that number/amount could go over. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that they worked with the consultant and were satisfied that the system could be designed to meet the standards and fit within that restriction.  He noted that an on-site sewer permit would need to be obtained by the Health Department

 

Commissioner Cox asked how the number of parking spaces was determined.

 

Ms. Benedick stated that it was based on the number of classrooms. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if there was room to expand the septic system if it would not be adequate.

 

Mr. Ryan replied that there was room to expand.  If it did go over 22,000 gallons a day, it would trip different requirements and different standards would be applied.

 

Commissioner Ryan asked where the closest sanitation district was.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the sanitation districts found that it was not feasible to provide sewer service at the current time.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval the Children’s House Special Review, file #15-Z1982, for the property described on “Exhibit A” 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 Children’s House Special Review, File #15-Z1982 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 Children’s House 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 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.

 

5.      The proposed Appeal to allow an on-site septic system must be approved in order for this approval to be valid.

 

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

 

7.      County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

8.      The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval the Children’s House Special Review Appeal to allow on-site septic, file #15-Z1982, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following condition:

 

·         The applicant shall apply for a permit to install the sewer system at the time of Building Permit application.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #2  NORTON AMENDED REZONING  #15-Z1987:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to amend the Norton Rezoning, file # 7-78, which restricted the use to only indoor storage.  The proposal was to allow the full range of C-Commercial uses at the property located at 707 N Highway 287, Fort Collins. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Norton Amended Special Review, file #15-Z1987, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following condition:

 

1.      Any changes in use or addition of uses shall require a Site Plan Review. 

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #3  ANIMAL HOUSE SPECIAL REVIEW  #15-Z1977:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Public Hearing Review of a Pet Animal Facility at the property located at 200 N Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins.  The proposal was to develop the subject site as a 30+ dog adoption facility and grooming facility.  The applicant proposed to utilize the previous clinic building structure for the shelter and adoption uses as well as the accessory grooming use.  The other pole barn would be used for quarantine and major veterinary work, and the existing house would be used for an office, adoption, grooming and/or a resident caretaker.  The applicant estimates 10 employees and approximately 40-50 client visits per day to the site.  The proposal was to operate the business 7am-9pm and have public hours of 11am -5:30 pm Monday –Friday, 11am -5pm Saturday and Sunday with the grooming use to be by appointment on Monday –Saturday 8am -4pm.  All the animals would be monitored and outside use would only occur during the day.  There would be no outside nighttime use.  There could be up to 10 dogs outdoors at a time based on compatibility and rotations.  Mr. Helmick noted that a neighborhood meeting was held, and the general concern from neighbors was noise, and the introduction of a new use that generated noise.  The applicant had provided a noise mitigation plan as well as completed a noise study, which showed they could be in compliance of the noise ordinance.  A traffic study was completed, which revealed no issues would be created.  He stated that the request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1, Larimer County Land Use Code, Construction Standards Paving of parking and access drives.  He pointed out that the business currently operated at a different location with an unpaved drive.  He stated that at a minimum, the eastern most parking lot on the proposed site should be paved.  He informed that commission that the proposal was heard by the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee who recommended approval with a split vote regarding the paving appeal. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked what kind of practice was previously on the site.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it was generally a large animal practice.  He noted that there were two other veterinarian clinics close to the site.

 

Commissioner Glick asked how a road maintenance agreement would be handled as there was an impact to the other neighbors.

 

Mr. Helmick remarked that paving the access was recommended due to that concern.  He noted that if the appeal was approved, he would recommend that a condition be added to have a road maintenance agreement.

 

Commissioner Christman asked about the access easement.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that Animal House did have an easement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ali Ecclesten-Wenzlaff , Animal House, stated it was an animal shelter and stated that they had been in their current location for 8 years, and the new site would increase efficiency.  She explained that the former residence would house the grooming facility and administration offices.  One other outbuilding would house the dogs and would also have the outdoor areas.  The third outbuilding would house the veterinarian services and would be for staff only.  She stated that should the process move forward, there would be an acoustic design developed for the buildings.  She noted that noise mitigation was important to them not only to be good neighbors but for the dogs in the facility.  She noted that there was a horse pasture to the north that could be possibly be used in the future. 

 

Frank Vaught, Vaught, Frye, & Larson Architects and Animal House Board Member, stated that his firm would be the architect for the buildings.  The closest property line was 150 feet to the north, 280 feet to the east, 240 feet to the west, and to the south was Martin Marietta site.  The traffic study revealed that the traffic impact was virtually non-impactful.  He stated that they were willing to review the access.  The abandoned existing drive would be abandoned, and they would use the shared access.  He agreed about looking into a road maintenance agreement.  An acoustic engineer had examined the site, and the impact would be minimal but noise mitigation improvements would be made.  Currently there were tall poles with lighting, which they wanted to remove and just have all building lighting.  He explained that the paving appeal was based on the existing condition and the rural area.  He understood that there needed to be some improvements and were working with the fire department to meet their standards.  The biggest factor was that paving would created stormwater runoff and therefore a detention area would be needed.  He pointed out that improvements were being made to the site, which would also improve the neighborhood.  He stressed that they wanted to be good neighbors.  He stated that they were currently in good terms with their neighbors at their current site.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if there used to be a pond on the site and wondered if that could be used as a detention pond.

 

 

Mr. Vaught stated that there was no release so it would be a retention pond, which was not allowed.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if a cost estimate had been completed in regards to paving.

 

Mr. Vaught stated that they did not have a total cost to complete the paving.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the dog runs were fenced.

 

Ms. Ecclesten-Wenzlaff   stated that they were required to have fencing and a minimum of one staff member per 5 dogs.

 

Chairman Jensen pointed out that neighbors would be farther away then at the current site.  She asked about any noise issues that had arose.

 

 

 

 

Ms. Ecclesten-Wenzlaff stated that she had requested a report from the Humane Society regarding barking dog complaints; however, she had not received that report yet.  She explained that currently they would receive calls in the spring, usually when a transport had taken place as their current intake area was in a poor location with a poor design.   She remarked that they would always follow up with the neighbors to make sure their concerns were taken care of.  She also provided their personal cell phone number so the neighbors had access to call whenever.  She showed where the proposed intake area at the new site would be located and explained what occurred during that process. 

 

Chairman Jensen asked how the design of the buildings would address the sound and noise.

 

Mr. Vaught explained how they would redesign the areas to help with sound barriers, etc.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

John Tillett, 1201 Ramona Drive, Unit A, stated that he had been a volunteer but stated that he lived right across from the current location of Animal House.  He stated that he had not heard anything in the last few months when he would have his windows open in his home.  He stated that staff had great respect and that it was in everyone’s best interest to keep the noise at a minimum.

 

John Gaffney, 1209 Sycamore Street, lived near the facility.  He stated that Animal House went to great lengths to mitigate noise and be good neighbors.  They were great at communicating with the neighbors.

 

Cordelia Stone, new volunteer at Animal House.  She was impressed with how they handled the noise.  She stated that most dogs were walked one on one by volunteers. 

 

Jennifer  Petrich, 3343 Oak Street, remarked that the project was important.  She pointed out that a noise mitigation plan was in place to address any concerns. The gravel surface proposed was preferable in regards to drainage.  If it was a tracking problem, then the apron could be paved to help with that issue.  All of the aspects could be mitigated, and the applicant was willing to work to address all concerns. 

 

Tracy Keegan, stated that she lived 3 doors down from the proposed location.  She stated that she had lived in the home since 1976.  She stated that the proposal was different than having a veterinarian clinic on the site.  She believed that the applicants cared but she was unsure that the noise could be mitigated.  She understood that they might be able to be within the limits of the noise ordinance; however, they still wanted to enjoy their way of live on their property.  She remarked that an appraiser had stated that property values would go down with a proposal like this.

 

Steve Coleman, adjacent property to the north, stated his property was about 200 feet from the site and pointed out that a veterinarian clinic was much different than an animal shelter.  He pointed out that it would be a business on the site and not a residence.  He did not feel like it fit with the neighborhood.

 

Mike Keegan, stated that it was quiet in the area.  He stated that they would be able to hear the noise and the mitigation would not work.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if they could hear noise from the KOA campground.

 

Mr. Keegan replied once in a while.

 

Bill Seaworth, owned property to the west, east and north, and stated that having 40 dogs would create noise.  He pointed out that there was hunting that occurred in the area that could scare the dogs.

 

Commissioner Glick pointed out that hunting created noise.

 

Mr. Seaworth remarked that hunting had occurred on the site since 1943 and pointed out that it was an existing use that had occurred, and he was not moving in creating the new noise.  He stated that the proposed access would be used by Martin Marietta in the future. 

 

Lisa Butler, 120 N Roosevelt, lived near the current facility.  She stated that they had done a great job with the noise impact at the facility and stated that she supported the project.

 

Willy Seaworth, 2305 N. Taft Hill Road, remarked that the dogs at the CSU research facility could be heard.

 

Ms. Ecclesten-Wenzlaff stated that there would be noise mitigation and acoustic engineer designing the site.  She agreed that they could not be compared to a veterinarian clinic or research site.  She stated that they were currently in a highly saturated residential area with no acoustic measures on site. 

 

Chairman Jensen asked they proposed to mitigate for sensitive animals within the facility.

 

Ms. Ecclesten-Wenzlaff replied that those types of animals would be placed in foster care.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about alternative pavement options like at Cathy Fromme Prairie Open Space.

 

Clint Jones, Engineering Department, stated that it could be an option but pointed out cost and maintenance of those alternatives. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that there were two residences to the east and asked if they had expressed any concerns regarding the road and whether it should be paved.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that they had general support from the neighbor to the east but no comments had been made from the property owner farther to the east.  He pointed out that those neighbors did receive information about the proposal.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how many vehicles would come in and out of the access road and parking lot.

 

Mr. Jones replied 108 average dialing trips.

 

Commissioner Wallace noted a comment from Craig Sisco from the KOA. 

 

Mr. Helmick replied that Mr. Sisco was at the neighborhood meeting.

 

Commissioner Cox noted the concern for detention if the access road was paved.  She asked if it would be difficult to create a detention area on the site.

 

Mr. Jones stated that he was unsure.  He stated that retention was a last resort option.  He pointed out that an all weather gravel surface could require detention. 

 

Mr. Helmick pointed out that the ability to convey water across N. Taft Hill Road was difficult.  A commercial access compared to a residential access was different in terms of cost and maintenance.

 

Commissioner Glick asked what the existing right-of-way of N. Taft Hill Road was.

 

Mr. Jones was unsure of the existing but the required would be 120 foot.

 

Commissioner Glick asked why there was not a borrow ditch on the side of the road.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that a borrow ditch was to support the roadway facilities and not drainage from a private development.

 

Commissioner Glick asked how much space would be needed to release the drainage water.

 

Mr. Jones stated that an engineering analysis would need to be completed.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if there was a paving standard that would be required.

 

Mr. Jones stated that there was a county requirement but also an engineered analysis would need to be completed.

 

Commissioner Glick pointed out that Martin Marietta could use that road, and the paving that might be completed by the applicants could be damaged by Martin Marietta’s use.

 

Chairman Jensen wondered if requiring paving could cause detention problems.  He stated that if a gravel access and parking lot were allowed, it would eliminate the problem of a non-porous surface.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that gravel could still required detention requirements.

 

Chairman Jensen wondered what would occur if they kept their current access.

 

Mr. Jones stated that there would still be requirements associated with that access and a parking lot. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace stated that due to the noise studies completed the noise could be manageable.  She felt that compatibility would not be a major issue but felt that the parking area and road should be paved. 

 

Commissioner Cox concurred.  The applicants were aware of the noise that already occurred in the area. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard felt that the applicants were trying their best.  He did not like to force people to pave but understood the numbers of people that would be coming to the site.  He thought that the parking area should be paved but not the access.

 

Commissioner Christman felt that the access should be paved but was unsure if the parking lot should be.

 

Commissioner Glick pointed out that acoustics would not be an issue.  He stated that he would vote to deny the appeal. 

 

Chairman Jensen stated that the major compatibility issue was noise.  There was overwhelming support from the neighbors to the current location and he supported the proposal.  He stated that he would not support the appeal. 

 

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 approval of the Animal House Special Review, file #15-Z1977, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions,  amended Condition #8 and added Condition #11 that a road maintenance agreement be put in place:

 

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 Animal House Special Review file # 15-Z1977, 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 Animal House Special Review file # 15-Z1977

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.      County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

7.      The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

8.      There shall be no more than 40 dogs, adoption candidates, on site at any time.  This limit may be expanded to up to 60 animals including puppies for no more than 36 hours in any 30 day period for time.  This expanded limit is intended to accommodate intake, foster transfer, and group surgery events.  Client dogs and grooming clients on site as clients or visitors shall not count towards this maximum limitation. 

 

9.      Operations as shall be as described in the project description dated, September 8, 2015.

 

10.  Animal House shall implement noise mitigation measures prior to the use of the site.

 

11.  If practical and legal, a road maintenance agreement be put into place for the proposed access road.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Glick made a Friendly Amendment to added Condition #11 to only allow the road maintenance agreement if it was practical and legal.

 

Commission Cox accepted the Friendly Amendment.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Animal House Special Review Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #15-Z1977.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:00 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 Jensen, Chairman                                                 Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

That portion of the NW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of

Larimer, State of Colorado, described as follows:

Considering the west line of said NW 1/4 as bearing North and South and with all bearings contained

herein relative thereto:

Beginning at the W 1/4 corner of said Section 30;

Thence along the south line of said NW 1/4, N89'44'48"E, 219.91 feet;

Thence along an existing fence line the following (7) courses and distances:

1) N02°03'12"W, 424.47 feet;

2) N50'42'50"E, 12.43 feet;

3) N07"07'31"E, 214.45 feet;

4) N07"32'11"E, 116.58 feet;

5) N18'49'20"E, 54.27 feet;

6) N33'55'23"E, 23.19 feet;

7) N89'09'48"E, 193.79 feet;

Thence North 556.62 feet to the centerline of County Road #30;

Thence along said centerline, S79'43'39"W, 488.26 feet to the west line of said NW 1/4;

Thence along said west line, South 1304.39 feet, to the point of beginning. County of Larimer, State of

Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

TR IN NW 1/4 35-8-69 WH BEG AT PT WH BEARS S 57 38' W 854.84 FT FROM N 1/4 COR, S 29 51' 00" W 163.93 FT; TH N 89 23' 00" W 120.4 FT; TH N 00 37' 00" E 492.8 FT TO PT ON SWRLY ROW HWY 287; TH S 69 09' 00" E 32 FT; TH S 00 37' 00" W 217.94 FT; TH S 73 01' 00" E 213.09 FT; TH S 29 51' 00" W 69.57 FT TPOB (CONT 1.1663 AC M/L) (NC32N892300W); LESS 20130083185 TO ROW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

A tract of land situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 34 as bearing North and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of the right of way for North Taft Hill Road which bears South 89 degrees 49' East 40.00 feet from the West 1/4 corner of said Section 34; thence South 89 degrees 49' West 604.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 04' East 332.91 feet; thence North 89 degrees 49' West 604.33 feet to a point on the Easterly right of way line South 332.91 feet to the point of beginning.

County of Larimer, State of Colorado

*See Book 1732, Page 614 for correct language regarding subject property. It is Book 1732, Page 614 that was utilized to conduct this ALTA Land Title Survey.