Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of November 21, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, November 21, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Hart, Morgan, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Commissioners Karabensh, Oppenheimer, and Chairman Boulter were absent.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

The site visits were cancelled for the day. 

 

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 OCTOBER 17, 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

REMOVAL OF ITEM:

Mr. Helmick stated that the amendment to the Land Use Code regarding Section 10.7.A.3 – Noncommercial Signs was originally advertised for the hearing; however, it was decided to not  bring about the amendment at the current time.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

Commissioner Wallace disclosed that she was a neighbor of Carol Robinson but did not represent her in any way with respect to the proposal of North Star Subdivision.  She stated that she had not read anything about the development or formed any position prior to reading the information.

 

ITEM #1  NORTH STAR SUBDIVISION #07-S2694:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for approval of a three lot subdivision on a 50-acre parcel located on the south side of W. County Road 66, east of County Road 17 in the south Waverly area.  The request also included two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code: Section 5.3 to allow a Subdivision in lieu of a Conservation Development, and Section 8.14.2.H relating to lot depth-to-width ratios. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Preliminary and Final Plats for the North Star Subdivision and appeal to Section 5.3 and Section 8.14.2.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-S2694, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plans and information contained in the North Star Subdivision File (#07-S2694) 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 North Star Subdivision.

 

2.   The Final Plat must show the required irrigation system and utility easements, which must be reviewed by the North Poudre Irrigation Company and the Northern Colorado Water Association prior to recording of the Final Plat.

 

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

 

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

 

5.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 School District fee, the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee, and the Larimer County Regional Park Fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

6.   Fire Requirements – All new residential uses shall be equipped with fire sprinkler systems.

 

7.   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.

 

 

 

 

8.   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.

 

9.   Engineered septic systems are required for the new lots.  Septic system components shall be placed at least 100 feet from all irrigation ditches.

 

10. The following conditions from the Northern Colorado Water Association shall apply:

 

         -Developer shall apply for membership in the Water Association and be approved by       the NCWA Board of Directors within 1 year of recording of the Final Plat.

 

         -Developer shall provide for payment to upgrade the existing water line.  Construction plans are subject to review and approval by the Water Association and the County Engineering Department, prior to the commencement of construction activities at the site.

 

         -Developer shall provide for the payment of tap fees and hardware fees and any other associated fees in accordance with NCWA's requirements at the time of tap purchase.

 

         -Developer shall install taps within 12 month of receiving final approval, or the NCWA     approval will be withdrawn

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-0

 

ITEM #2  KECHTER CROSSING PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #06-S2583:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone the subject property from FA-1 - Farming to PD - Planned Development and divide a 28.86 acre property into 76 lots situated on the south side of Kechter Road, approximately ¼ mile east of Timberline Road.  The development would also include 6.5 acres of open space distributed within six common area lots.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Kechter Crossing Planned Development be rezoned from FA-1 – Farming to PD – Planned Development, file #06-S2583, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   Approval of the rezoning from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:

 

1.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat of Kechter Crossing Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The zoning designation for the Kechter Crossing PD and PLD shall be PD (Planned Development), which zoning classification will be subject to the development standards and requirements of Subsection I.f. (Mixed Use Neighborhood Area Regulations) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for in the Supplemental Regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.9.2.A.1, or as amended.

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Kechter Crossing Planned Land Division, file #06-S2583, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Kechter Crossing Planned Land Division (File #06-S2583), 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 Kechter Crossing Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community and Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

c.   Per the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Service subsurface construction (basements) shall include sump pits and perimeter drains as part of the foundation design and construction.

 

d.   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.

 

e.   The applicant shall be responsible for all the improvements and requirements as outlined in the submittal materials, including those found in the referral comments from the following referral agencies:

 

 

·  Larimer County Engineering Department referral comments from Matt Johnson, dated October 2, 2007,

·  Larimer County Health and Environment referral comments from Doug Ryan, dated August 8, 2007,

·  City of Fort Collins referral comments from Shelby Sommer, dated October 5, 2007,

·  Poudre Fire Authority referral comments from Carie Dann, dated August 10, 2007,

·  Colorado Geological Survey referral comments from Sean P. Gaffney, dated July 31, 2007

·  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District referral comments from Terry W. Farrill, P.E., dated August 3. 2007, and

·  Xcel Energy referral comments from Len Hiderbrand, dated July 30, 2007.

 

f.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for the off-site storm water system.

 

g.   The final plat shall depict the drainage swales along the western boundary of the property as being located within an outlot or common lot, not on individual single family residential lots.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0078:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to amend several sections of the Land Use Code.  He provided the Commissioners with a revised proposal to amend Section 8.12.4.  At the worksession a concern arose regarding the wording not being specific enough about who required water quality permits.  He explained that the permits that were required during construction were a federal mandate that came to the County through the State, and the County was expected to enforce the water quality during construction.  He stated that the wording that would be added would be under Section 8.12.4.B and would state that “the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment determines the minimum acreage amounts of disturbed soil where stormwater management plans, stormwater discharge permits, and stormwater management permits are required.”  He stated that the same wording would be added to the other paragraphs that spoke to each of the different reports. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the manufactured homes as extended family dwellings would be determined on a case by case basis. 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Kadera stated that one circumstance could be use-by-right where the people met the requirements and would have to sign an agreement that would be recorded that laid out the timetable and specifics for that certain use.  If all the requirements could not be met then it could be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-CA0078, be adopted as follows:

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 18.2.1.B.1, as follows:

 

Section 18.2..1.B.1 The manufactured home and any additions to it must be permanently anchored to a permanent foundation, except those units which are approved as an extended family dwelling pursuant to Section 4.3.10.G may be installed using any method approved by the State of Colorado Manufactured Home Installation Program.

 

            2.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 18.2.1.C, as follows:

 

Section 18.2.1.C Manufactured homes may be used to provide dwellings for farm, ranch or dairy help as part of a farmstead (see Section 4.3.10.A) or as an extended family dwelling (see Section 4.3.10.G).

 

3.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.18, by adding “Outdoor Storage (R/MS)” in the C-Commercial zoning district under the heading “Industrial Uses.”

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.7.H.1, to read:

 

“Outdoor storage as a principal use must be effectively screened from adjacent properties located outside the area that is zoned C-Commercial or I or I-1 Industrial.  See Section 8.5, landscaping.”

 

5.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1, by adding “R/MS” to the Outdoor storage row in the C column of the zoning table.

 

6.    Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 8.12.4.B and 8.12.4.C, as follows:

 

8.12.4. Water quality during construction.

 

 

 

 

 

Water quality impacts during the construction phase of a project may include erosion and sedimentation; deposition of wind-blown debris; and release of hazardous materials such as fuels or other chemicals used in the construction process.

 

Applicants for developments must submit the following documents regarding control of water quality impacts during construction (the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment determines the minimum acreage amounts of disturbed soil where stormwater management plans, stormwater discharge permits and stormwater management reports are required):

 

A. Preliminary and final drainage reports as specified in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards are required. The county engineer must review and approve the drainage reports.

 

B. If the construction project will disturb five or more acresan area in excess of the minimum acreage amount specified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a stormwater management plan prepared in accordance with the current "Construction Guidance Document: Preparing a Stormwater Management Plan" from the Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, is required. The purpose of a stormwater management plan is to identify potential pollution sources, select appropriate best management practices and design implementation strategies. Guidelines regarding best management practices are included in the "Construction Guidance Document." The county department of public health and environment must review and approve construction stormwater management plans.

 

C. If the construction project will disturb five or more acresan area in excess of the minimum acreage amount specified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a Colorado Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit is required prior to starting construction.

 

D. If the construction project will disturb fewer than five acresless that the minimum acreage amount specified by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a stormwater management report is required that contains the following information:

1. A description and map outlining proposed construction activities.

2. Identification of potential pollution sources, including sediment and chemical sources.

3. A description of appropriate best management practices to be implemented before and during construction activities to prevent or minimize release of pollutants. Guidelines regarding best management practices can be obtained from the county planning department.

4. A discussion of how the best management practices will be implemented.

 

E. The county engineering and health and environment departments will review construction stormwater management reports and recommend they be accepted or rejected prior to the public hearing process.

 

7.    Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new Section 18.2.2.E as follows:

 

Section 18.2.2.E   Manufactured homes are designed, constructed and intended to be single family dwellings and must bear either the HUD or Colorado Housing Authority seal.  Manufactured homes cannot be used for any purpose other than single family dwellings.  Factory-built non-residential structures must bear the “Commercial Modular Identification” seal issued by the Colorado Housing Authority to be used as offices or other commercial purposes

 

8.         Amend the Land Use Code by amending the definition of manufactured home as follows:

 

Definition of “Manufactured Home”-A factory-built, single family dwelling structure that complies with the National Manufactured Housing and Construction Standards Act of 1974, 42 U. S. C. 5401 et seq., as amended and bears the seal issued by either the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Colorado Housing Authority which certifies that the structure is approved to be a dwelling.

 

9.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.2.1, as follows:

 

I.  Storage buildings and garages on vacant lots.  Prior to the construction of a single family dwelling each lot may include a storage building or garage for the purpose of storing personal property of the lot owner.  All storage must be inside the storage building or garage.  No residential, business or commercial activities are permitted in these buildings unless approved by the County Commissioners through the special exception, special review or minor special review processes.  On lots of less than two acres (net area) these buildings may not exceed 800 square feet.  On lots of two to five acres (net area) these buildings may not exceed 2,400 square feet.  On lots over five acres (net area) there is no limit to the size of these buildings.  In no event shall the total square footage of detached storage buildings and garages exceed ten percent of the net area of any lot.  Only those buildings that are designed, constructed and approved by the Larimer County Building Department as storage buildings or garages may be used for this purpose.  Manufactured homes, including pre-1974 mobile homes, cannot be used as storage buildings or garages.

 

10.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.D, as follows:

 

D.    Storage buildings and garages.  Each lot may include detached storage buildings and garages for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building or principal use on that lot.  The total ground floor area of all storage buildings and garages on a lot can not exceed ten percent of the lot’s net area.  Semitrailers with attached running gear (i.e. axels, wheels) can not be used as storage buildings or garages.  Only those buildings that are designed, constructed and approved by the Larimer County Building Department as storage buildings or garages may be used for this purpose.  Manufactured homes, including pre-1974 mobile homes, cannot be used as storage buildings, barns or garages.

 

11.       Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.I, as follows: 

 

4.3.10.I  Accessory outdoor commercial storage.  The storage of materials, equipment, products and any other goods that are clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal business, commercial or industrial use of the property.  Parking of employee and customer vehicles is not accessory outdoor commercial storage.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas that cannot meet all the following requirements require review and approval through the Minor Special Review process.

1.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas must be effectively screened from any adjacent property zoned to allow residential uses (See Section 8.5, Landscaping).

2.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas cannot cover an area larger than the principal building on the site or 50% of the total area of the site, whichever is greater. 


3.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas must be maintained in a orderly manner with no junk, trash or debris. 

4.  Adequate emergency access lanes must be maintained around and through the storage area.

5.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage must be outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way and/or landscaping area that serves the site.

6.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage must be outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway as determined by the Urban Area Street Standards or the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

7.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage is permitted only in the C-Commercial, I-Industrial and I-1 Industrial zoning districts or in conjunction with any use that is approved through the Minor Special Review, Special Review or Special Exception processes when the accessory outdoor storage is specifically approved as part of the application or when the expansion of a nonconforming business, commercial or industrial use is approved pursuant to Section 4.8.10 and the approval specifically includes accessory outdoor storage.

 

12.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.J, as follows:

4.3.10.J  Accessory Outdoor Display and Sales.   The outdoor display of merchandise for sale and which outdoor display is clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property.

 

1.  The accessory outdoor display area must be outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way and/or landscaping area that serves the site.


2.  The accessory outdoor display area must be outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway as determined by the Urban Area Street Standards or the Rural Area Road Standards.

3.  The accessory outdoor display area cannot be any larger than the square footage of the principal building on the lot.

4.  Accessory outdoor display areas must be effectively screened from any adjacent property zoned to allow residential uses (See Section 8.5, Landscaping).

5.  Accessory outdoor display and sales items are displayed outdoors only when the principal use is open for business.

 

6.  Accessory outdoor display and sales is permitted only in the T-Tourist, B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial and RFLB Red Feather Lakes Business zoning districts or in conjunction with any use that is approved through the Minor Special Review, Special Review or Special Exception processes when the display and sales is specifically approved as part of the application or where the display and sales is specifically approved as part of the expansion of a nonconforming retail use pursuant to Section 4.8.10.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-0

 

ITEM #4  RESTHAVEN MEMORIAL GARDENS AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #07-Z1655:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on amending the existing Special Review approval.  The amendment would allow the installation at the site and use of cremation facilities located on the northeast corner of County Road 30 and Highway 287.  The specific proposal was to relocate the two cremation retorts from the former Allnutt facility on Riverside Drive in Fort Collins to the Resthaven Memorial Gardens site.  The proposal is to utilize the existing storage/machine shed building located to the rear of the site for the two retorts.  He stated that in 1997 a request was denied indicating that cremation facilities were specifically not allowed because of concerns about compatibility and environmental issues.  He also gave a history of the cemetery and noted that in 1998 the Board of County Commissioners granted approval to place a funeral home, offices, and other facilities on site but noted that the approval did not include any facility for cremation.  He noted the opposition from the neighborhood surrounding the area.  The Development Services Team found that addition of cremation services at the site could meet the criteria of the Land Use Code with certain conditions and was an accessory use to the funeral home and cemetery site. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that Condition of Approval #3 indicated that the operation of the cremation facilities at the site had to be conducted in a consistent manner with the recommendations of the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment.  The Department made recommendations in two categories:  1) smoke and odors, and 2) mercury.  The recommendation for category one was to use automated control panels for each unit, provide a dedicated natural gas meter, provide operator training by the manufacturers representatives, and design the exhaust stacks to be at least two feet above the roof line or any surrounding obstructions.  He noted that the applicant was in full agreement of those conditions.  The second category concerning mercury related to the mercury content in dental fillings.  The Departments’ recommendations were that the applicant reduce mercury and stack emissions by one of two methods, which were to either install stack emission control like a dry scrubber or practice the pollution prevention method, which would prevent mercury from entering the crematorium and would involve removing the teeth before the cremation process.  The Department felt that the recommendations were appropriate to protect public health and address the compatibility issue which was a standard for Special Reviews.  He stated that Allnutt did have State issued air emission permits for both of the crematoriums that were currently in operation at their facility on Riverside Drive.  It was the Department’s view that the State standards were not protective enough in the context of the County’s Special Review requirements.  He explained that mercury was contained in dental fillings and during the cremation process the mercury content of those fillings were vaporized and released in the atmosphere in the form of elemental mercury.  He explained that the process in the public health profession to determine if a health hazard existed was called the Risk Assessment Process, which he explained and stated that there were both short and long term health impacts with mercury exposure.  The Health Department asked the applicant to prepare an Air Dispersion Model, which was a computer model to estimate the release and dispersion in the community of mercury in the surrounding area.   He acknowledged Allnutt for working with the State Health Department and fund the application of the model and the staff at the mercury program particularly Mark McMillan.  He stated that in review of the study the State concluded that the model was accurately run and that the results were useful for making risk assessment decisions.  The results from the initial run of the computer model that showed maximum operating conditions allowed by the State indicated that the closest residences could exceed the short term mercury exposure value.  He stated that the model was also run again with other operating conditions such as increasing in the stack height or changing the number or time of cremations that could potentially be done per day.  The resultant one hour mercury emissions at the closest residential receptors were about 60-80% of the toxicity reference value, and for the annual or long term exposure they were significantly below the toxicity reference value. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Griffith, Chief Financial Officer for Allnutt Funeral Service, explained that Allnutt was a family owned business that had been in operation in Northern Colorado for 122 years.  He noted that they recently purchased Resthaven Funeral Home and Memory Garden.  It was Allnutt’s plan to relocate to consolidate its facilities and relocate its current crematorium from Riverside Funeral Chapel to Resthaven.  In July, a neighborhood meeting was held and some neighbors expressed concerns about mercury.  He stated that much research was done and studies were conducted and noted that mercury was only released when someone had a silver, amalgam dental filing.  He explained how the mercury level report was prepared.  He stated that the results were based on the number of cremations that could be done per year according to the State permits which was 1,280, which was almost three times the number of cremations Allnutt performed per year.  He spoke to the history of studies performed on the number of grams of mercury per cremation.  In 2006, Mark McMillan with the State put together a group to study mercury in cremations in Colorado.  The analysis concluded that approximately 3.2 grams of mercury were being cremated per occasion.  It also concluded that the value was conservative, and they only assumed the cremation of people over 60 years old.  That together with the fact that Northern Colorado had fluoridated water since the 1960’s resulted in 30% fewer fillings, which should result in less mercury in the future.  He stated that to be conservative the model used the number of 8.6 grams.  The result of the dispersion model showed that the closest resident on the eastern side of the maximum one hour exposure in micrograms per cubic meter was 33% lower then the California acute exposure limit of 1.8 micrograms, and the further away from the crematorium the readings dropped off significantly.  The exposure level for the annual level was a fraction of the .09 micrograms per cubic meter set by the California EPA.  He noted that after the study was completed Mark McMillan and the State’s toxicologist reviewed the results, which indicated that even while using the inflated input number the exposure rate was at its highest level of only 60-70% suggested by the California EPA.  If the input number was decreased from 8.6 grams to a more reasonable but still conservative 3.2 grams per cremation then all of the exposure levels were decreased to well within the hazard quotient that the State’s toxicologist referred to.  He stated that Mr. Ryan based his report on the assumption that Allnutt would cremate 1,280 with each having 17 amalgam fillings in their mouth which was unrealistic.  Currently, they performed approximately 450 cremations with an average of six filings or less.  He stated that Allnutt complied with Mr. Ryan’s recommendations.  He noted that the scrubbers recommended by the Health Department were very expensive and no other crematorium in the United States was required to have a scrubber.   He stated that the other solution to pull the teeth from the body before cremation was not an option.

 

Martha Thayer, consultant for the End of Life Insights, LLC, remarked that the State claimed that 110 pounds of mercury were released per year from all of the Colorado crematoriums combined.  In a 2003 report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency the amount of mercury emitted by all known crematoriums in the US was 330 pounds per year, which would mean that the State of Colorado emitted 1/3 of all of the mercury emissions in all of the United States and Canada.  She stated that it was not an easy task to remove teeth after death, and it would hinder and disregard the family and deceased.  It would also be an issue to the safety of the crematorium operator as well because the risk of the mercury that the neighbors were worried about would start with that operator.  She noted that one broken tooth would emit mercury and between the logistics of removing the teeth and of safety concerns for the funeral home employees and people within the immediate area, pulling the teeth was not a realistic situation.

 

 

 

Rick Allnutt, President of Allnutt Funeral Service and Resthaven Funeral Home and Memory Gardens, reiterated that they were a family run business for five generations.  They had 122 years in the business and would have never gotten that far if they did not have the highest respect for their community or environment and agreed that public safety was a concern.  He stated that he had already implemented many of the recommendations suggested regarding the operation of the crematory but disagreed with the recommendations regarding mercury mitigation especially because they were based on numbers that were not in line with reality.  The true range of mercury per person was between one and three grams not 8.6 grams.  The study used almost three times the number of actual cremations that they performed, and the risk to people and property was well below reasonable limits.  He stated that if there was any concern at all about their part in mercury emissions they would never relocate their staff to that facility.  He stated that they had demonstrated that the public health was not at risk and believed that it was the appropriate land use and location for their crematory.  There was minimal noise, smoke, and odor, and they had complied with all the air emission permits and inspections.  Therefore, since they would comply with all of the other County air quality requirements they respectfully requested that the Special Review be approved and Condition of Approval #3 be removed and the stack controls and pollution prevention not be required.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the applicant was willing to limit the number of cremations per year?

 

Mr. Allnutt stated that he was not sure that they could because it would limit their potential business.  He stated that they had been at the same number for quite some time and did not foresee it increasing that drastically.  He stated that permits would limit the number to 1,280.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Dennis Lynch, 316 E. County Road 30, stated that he had lived in the area since 1980.  He stated that the community surrounding Resthaven circulated petitions opposing the application and over 300 people had signed it.  There was a community meeting on November 16, 2007 with 80 people in attendance.  The consensus of that meeting was to ask for denial of the application for several significant reasons.    

 

Larry Marchinkewicz, 8510 Bruns Drive, stated that he had lived there for 20 years.  He pointed out several items from the two previous Special Review hearings of August 25, 1997 and June 1 1998.  In the 1997 hearing it was stated that the real problems were the crematorium, which told him that the issue raised a red flag to the commissioners from the start.  In 1998, it was decided that as a condition of approval for the mortuary that the final overall site plan had to state that it did not include a crematorium.  The request was then approved with that condition in place.  He stated that the neighborhood believed that any owner was legally bound by that decision. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob Bruns, 300 E. County Road 30, had lived on the site since 1951.  He stated that he was 340 feet from the facility and the closest resident.  Based upon the current Land Use Code the mortuary at the site technically fell under the nonconforming use category.  On June 1, 1988 in a split vote the board approved the site.  The minutes stated that “the board concurred that use was inappropriate in the zone and the current regulations were ambiguous and contradictory and that was why the county was writing a new land use code.”  Eighteen months later the new Land Use Code was approved, in which it narrowly defined a cemetery as “A land parcel set aside for interring four or more bodies, including columbariums and mausoleums when operated in conjunction with and located on the same premises as the cemetery.”  He noted that there was no reference in the Code regarding mortuaries or crematoriums, and the only possible definition in the Code for a mortuary would be General Commercial which was “A facility for any commercial activity that is not of an assembly, manufacturing or industrial nature.”  Under the current code General commercial was not allowed in the FA-1 – Farming zoning district but could be approved under Special Review.  Therefore, it put it in a nonconforming use category regulated under Section 4.8 of the Land Use Code.  He remarked that in Section 4.8.10.D and 4.8.11 of the Land Use Code it did not allow the current type of request of adding a crematory to the nonconforming use.  He also remarked that accessory use was defined in the Land Use Code as “A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with the principal use.”  He wondered how bringing in hundreds of bodies a year to the site be “incidental and subordinate to the principle use of the land or building and located on the same lot with the principal use.”  He stated that a mortuary or crematorium would generate far more revenue than a cemetery and also wondered how that was incidental and subordinate.  He stated that the only logical zoning for a crematorium under the Code was Industrial.  A crematorium operation handled hazardous materials and the Code definition of hazardous materials storage, and/or processing was “A facility for the storage, treatment, disposal or otherwise handling any substance or material that, by reason of its toxic, corrosive, caustic, abrasive or otherwise injurious properties that may be detrimental or deleterious to the health of anyone coming into contact with such material or substance.”  He asked why it would be considered to move an industrial application out of its current industrial zoning into an FA-1-Farming district.  To conclude, he stated that the current mortuary use of the site was nonconforming and therefore triggered a review that it could not pass because the proposal could not be considered an accessory use, and the only logical zoning under the Code was be General industrial. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linda Kaiser, 223 Underwood Drive, stated that any airborne particulate matter could be and was detrimental to individuals.  The cremation of human remains released many potentially harmful substances, which she listed.  The Center for Disease Control ranked toxic metals as the number one environmental health threat to children.  According to an EPA assessment the toxic metals mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium were all ranked the top seven toxins having the most adverse health effects on the public based on toxicity and current exposure levels in the Untied States.  She stated that the emission factor calculated for the state of Colorado was 3.2 grams of mercury per adult body being cremated.  The number of cremations proposed at the site was 400 to 450 per year.  That would release between 1.28 and 1.44 kilograms, which was equal to 2.8-3.2 pounds of mercury in the air.  If the crematorium operated at its peak capacity of 1,000 or more per year the resultant release of mercury would be 3.2 kilograms or 7 pounds.  She spoke to the number of children that attended the Cottonwood Plains Elementary School which was located 740 yards from the building in which the crematoriums would be installed.  She noted that there was also a church that had children and was located by where the crematorium was proposed. 

 

Mr. Lynch spoke to a summary of mercury references done in 2007 by John Ryndell.  In the summary it stated that, “Crematoria represent a significant source of mercury emissions to the environment.  While estimates of the quantities vary significantly it appears that each cremation releases between 2-4 grams with the maximum seen by this reviewer at 8.6 grams in the individual cremation in Switzerland.”  He stated that the stacks at their present level would create concentrations through downwash around the crematorium building, which would be hazardous to Allnutt personnel.  By raising the stacks the concentration would be distributed over the community rather than at the site.  He noted that the air dispersion model was just a model and was not reality.  For example the weather data used was not from the site.  Further, the mathematics in the model required that weather conditions stayed constant for one hour, which did not occur in nature.  He stated that winds were constantly changing at the site.  In addition, the model was only run for mercury and not all the other particulates, toxins, dioxins, and heavy metals that were omitted from crematoriums.  It only attempted to predict inhalation amounts not what fell on the skin or in a garden.  The graphs and numbers presented ignored the existing ambient level of mercury in the air, and the background levels of mercury were high enough that warnings had been issued for mercury contamination of Horsetooth Reservoir, Boyd Lake, and Carter Lake.  Allnutt intended to add to that level of existing mercury in the air, and it was quite probable that the addition plus the ambient level could exceed the California standards and the model ignored that.  He stated that the model did not say what forms or phases of mercury would be as it was lifted into the air.  He explained that using the numbers given by Allnutt of 1,280 cremations per year and the deposition at 3.2 grams per cremation would be 4,096 grams deposited somewhere.  At 8.6 grams the deposition would be 11,008 grams.  He also remarked that there was no data presented on long term accumulation and wondered what the levels of mercury would be in the soil, vegetation, or children in 5, 10, or 20 years.  The model also did not take into consideration rain or snow.  Therefore, the information presented was incomplete.  He asked the Commission to recommend denial of the application. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mickie Roth, 8106 Bruns Drive, stated that she was a realtor.  She remarked that having a crematorium in the close vicinity of a residential area would adversely affect property values.  An area could become undesirable because of the health and safety issues, and the prices of the homes would have to drop drastically in order to find a buyer.  It would cause a detrimental financial effect to the area residents.  She stated that the cemetery had been a good neighbor but a crematorium did not fit.

 

Sherry Baker, 8244 Benson Court, stated that she had worked in the real estate field for over 30 years.  She stated that petitions had been signed by approximately 300 people that did not want to live in a neighborhood with a crematorium.  A prospective home buyer would not feel any differently.  The economic good fortune of the applicant by moving the crematorium would come at the expense of the homeowners seeing their equity decrease as the property values declined.  The psychological impact of a crematorium in view of so many homes was also enormous, and the quality of life would be affected by something so controversial and sensitive right out side of their windows.  She asked that the application be denied. 

 

Dave Sweetser, 8135 Turman Court, stated that he lived approximately 400 yards from the proposed crematorium.  He summarized the four key points of the neighborhood concerns, which were 1) In 1999, the SCI Corporation was allowed to build a funeral home with the condition that a crematorium could not be built and that condition be clearly stated on the final site plan; 2) A crematorium should be located within an Industrial zone; 3) Significant health hazards were associated with crematoriums; and 4) Property values would decline.  It was the wrong location for a crematorium at the Resthaven site. 

 

Ashton Delahoussaye, 339 Turman Drive, pointed out that there was a raptor park immediately north of the cemetery. 

 

Katherine Pratte, 241 Underwood Drive, pointed out that there was an irrigation ditch that ran along side the shed that the crematorium would be based in.  The concern was that the mercury would pollute the water ways increasing the mercury pollution to Boyd Lake and the other reservoirs that it would feed in to.  She noted that Allnutt stated that they could cremate up to six bodies a day which would then exceed 2,000 bodies a year. 

 

David Dusdal, 7844 Midland Court, pointed out that to the west side of the site there was an agricultural area that was preserved and would never be developed and stated that depending on which way the wind was blowing the substances that got in to the air could be deposited in the agricultural area, to the raptor area, to the neighborhood, to the school, or to the water.  If it did go towards the agricultural area and the field was plowed the substances would go airborne again. 

 

Rita Gordon, 3503 Greenspring Drive, stated that the recommendation from the Health Department to install the scrubbers was not required any where else in the United States.  The second recommendation of the pollution prevention method, which would be removal of teeth before cremation would be unacceptable to families.  She pointed out that in Japan most bodies were cremated and if cremation was that hazardous how could it be that the Japanese had the longest life expectancy in the world.

 

 

 

Teresa Morford, 8120 Turman Court, stated that there was farm land near to the site that raised livestock.  She also wondered if the large amount of metal from knee and hip replacements, etc. had been considered.  She remarked that the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District along with other areas were no longer putting fluoride in their water which may increase the amount of cavities. 

 

Mr. Allnutt stated that the neighborhood had changed with new retail, storage units, and an industrial park all in the vicinity.  He remarked that crematoriums were not just in industrial areas as there was one located in downtown Fort Collins.  He pointed out that the traffic counts in the area had increased producing more carbon monoxide.  He acknowledged that mercury was toxic but he did not want to be the only one in North America that was required to put a scrubber on his crematory or the only funeral home in the world to extract teeth.  He pointed out that dentist were exposed more to mercury then anyone else and a study showed that dentists lived two more years then the average person.  He understood the concerns regarding property values but believed that the neighborhood would stay nice.  In the long term he truly believed that there would be less mercury because studies showed that less amalgam fillings were being used and other types of materials were being used. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was any disadvantage to having the crematorium somewhere other than the Resthaven site?

 

Mr. Allnutt stated that he could locate the crematorium across the highway in the industrial park in order to be closer to their operation at Resthaven.  He stated that convenience plus the cost of real estate was the reasoning for the location. 

 

Mr. Griffith stated that some of the reason for the location was due to finances.  He remarked that there was a study done on a crematorium that had been operating for 40 years where they took soil samples both up wind and down wind from the area and none of the soil samples showed any increase in mercury levels. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Cox stated that she struggled with an industrial type use being in a residential neighborhood along with the use being accessory. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the Development Services Team did not find it contradictory to allowing a crematorium accessory to a funeral home irrespectable of the industrial character of that use.  The FA-Farming zoning district allowed hospitals and mining, both of which had industrial components to that use. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what zoning district would allow a crematorium?

 

Mr. Helmick replied Industrial.

 

Commissioner Cox asked what the historical significance was of the previous approvals?

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there was no concrete proposal in those instances.  No substantial information was presented in respect to permits, frequency, etc.  The Development Services Team did not believe it meant to exclude the current property owner from requesting a crematory again.

 

Chairman Morgan asked if the Health Department’s recommendation would be not to support the application if they did not comply with Condition of Approval #3?

 

Mr. Ryan replied yes. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that when examining a Special Review he felt that the situation should be a hardship to the applicant.  The applicant already had a crematorium that was functioning and the neighborhood was against it; therefore, he stated that he did not support the request.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that Allnutt had provided a useful service in a caring way for a long time for people in Larimer County.  However, it was a land use issue and the review criteria needed to be met, which the proposal could not do.  He stated that he also could not support the proposal.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she could support the proposal if Allnutt was willing to comply with the Health Department recommendation but if Allnutt would not meet the condition then she could not support it. 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she saw it as an issue of compatibility and saw more of an industrial nature to the business and still did not see it as an accessory use. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that he looked at the Master Plan and the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland Open Space document approved in 1995.  One of the Master Plan themes was to “support logical settlement patterns that reflect the character of the open west and protecting existing neighborhoods.”  Theme #7 made specific references that stated, “Buffers shall be provided between cities and towns to maintain community separations.”  His sense was that the proposed expansion had met the threshold and the neighborhood protection outweighed the economics of the business.  The Master Plan performance standards “shall be used to protect existing uses from adverse impacts to ensure that new uses are good neighbors.”  The neighborhood did not want the expansion, and he stated that he could not support the additional expansion.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he also supported business and supported the Allnutt’s business.  The business was able to continue, maybe not the way they wanted, and operate from where it was already located.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review, file #07-Z1655, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-0

 

ITEM #6  OWL CANYON STORAGE SPECIAL EXCEPTION #07-Z1628:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to construct and operate an enclosed mini-storage and outdoor RV and boat storage facility on the subject property located between County Road 68 and 66 on the west side of County Road 7 north of Wellington.  The property was located in the O-Open zoning district, which did not allow the uses.  The Development Services Team was recommending denial. 

 

Jill and Beck Becksted, 3428 N. County Road 68, stated that in the last ten years Wellington had changed and there had been a lot of growth.  For that reason they wanted to helpe the Wellington community by adding storage units.  She stated that she did a market analysis on the existing storage units and facilities in Wellington.  The two storage facilities were full and were located in the middle of town with no room for expansion.  If people in the town had RV’s, boats, trailers, or household items they would have to go to Fort Collins to store their items.  The type of storage that they were proposing could accommodate the large type of storage such as RV’s or boats, which was not currently available in Wellington.  She stated that their property was within Wellington’s Growth Management Area and was within half of a mile from the city limits of Wellington.  The property was also very close to I-25 and along the I-25 corridor plan which had a visualization that commercial uses would be within a mile along I-25.  For that reason, it specifically distinguished them for a Special Exception.  The Town of Wellington also stated that according to their plan the area would become commercial/industrial when the town expanded.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Reginal Kemp, 3460 Revere Court West, stated that he had previously serviced on the board for the Town of Wellington and the Planning Commission.  He felt that the County did not recognize the Wellington Growth Management Area because there was no Intergovernmental Agreement.  The proposed site was well within Wellington’s plan for growth and within their Growth Management Area.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the applicant was caught between a political issue between Larimer County and the Town of Wellington. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that given the current policy framework and the lay of the land Staff’s perspective for the use to get approval the best course of action for the applicants as to solicit annexation to the Town of Wellington.  The Town of Wellington had drawn a map of its Growth Management Area that went significantly north of the subject property.  However, there have only been discussions about having an Intergovernmental Agreement. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo stated that he was raised about ¼ mile from the property.  Next to the property was a junkyard, which was a nonconforming use that went with the land not the owner.  A storage unit next to a junkyard seemed to fit and not out of place.  He encouraged the applicants to do a landscape plan if they did get approved.  He saw a vital need for the community of Wellington as the town was growing and the storage units were full.  There was a paved road and it was close to town.  It was the applicant’s only avenue, and he felt that the proposed use fit with the area.  He stated that he supported the Special Exception. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the use was not consistent with existing and allowed land uses in the area.  She stated that she could not recommend approval. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that the request did not comply with the Master Plan.  He was sympathetic to the need of the use.  Larimer County would like to see the Town of Wellington proceed with an Intergovernmental Agreement and Growth Management Area so that from a planning point of view the long term could be examined.  He encouraged the applicant to work with the Town of Wellington. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that people used their land to make money, and the applicant’s were caught in the middle.  He believed that a storage unit could be landscaped appropriately that would not interfere or hurt the community. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Owl Canyon Storage Special Exception., file #07-Z1628, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-1

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

 

A parcel of land located in the North Quarter of Section 26,

Township 9 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,

County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as

follow:

 

Considering the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 as

bearing S 89°49'02" E with all bearings contained herein relative thereto.

 

Beginning at the NW comer of the NE1/4 of Section 26, Township 9 North,

Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., thence South 920.60 feet, thence South

79°45' East 355.4 feet, thence South 19°56' East 370.6 feet, thence South

18°17' East 638.9 feet, thence North 87°49' East 191.1 feet, thence North

6°30' West 297.7 feet, thence North 82° East 722.45 feet, thence North

1525.6 feet to the North line of said -NE1/4, thence North 89°38' West

1549.8 feet to the Point of Beginning,

County of Larimer,

State of Colorado.

 

Containing 5 1.48 acres, more or less,

and being subject to all easements and rights of way of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

KECHTER CROSSING

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

LOT ONE (1) AND TWO (2), FELDMAN M.R.D. #97-EX1094, COUNTY OF LARIMER,

STATE OF COLORADO AS RECORDED ON AUGUST 21, 1998 AT RECEPTION NO.

98071796 IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER

(LCCR), COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

A tract of land In the Southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, State of Colorado, described as follows:

Considering the Southerly line of the Southwest quarter of Section 24 as bearing S 89°49’30’’ as shown on the plats of Bruns P.U.D. Subdivision, Manor Ridge Estates P.UD., 3rd Filing, and multiple adjoining deeds.

From the Southwest corner of Section 24; thence S 89°49’30”E, along the Southerly line of the Southwest quarter, 50.00 feet to a point on the Easterly right of way of US. Highway 287, the Point of Beginning; thence, along said right of way, the following two courses and distances:

1) N 00°05’48’’ W 962.90 feet, to a #4 rebar and cap, PLS 25619;

2) N 00°09’54’’E,  639.77 feet to a #4 rebar as the Southwest corner of Manor Ridge Estates P,U.D., 3rd Filing; thence S 89°59’11” W along the Southerly line of said Filing, 700.41 feet to a #4 rebar and cap, LS 16415; thence N 00°00’30”E, along an Easterly line of said Filing, 395.63 feet to a #4 rebar and cap, PLS 25619; thence S 89°35’00”E along a Southerly line of said Filing, 256.48 feet to the Northwest corner of the Bruns P.U.D. Subdivision, monumented by a #4 rebar and cap, LS 14630; thence S 00°00’30’’W, along the Westerly line of said Subdivision, 1390.89 feet to the Southeast corner of that certain parcel described In Book 1922 at page 790 and a point on the Northerly line of that certain parcel described in Reception Number 85023888, rnonumented by a #4 rebar and cap, PLS 25619; thence N 89°49’30”W along said Northerly line, 257.13 feet to the Northwest corner thereof, monumented by a 1

1/8” pipe; thence S 00°00’54”W, along the Westerly line of said Reception Number, 608.30 feet to a point on the Southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24; thence N 89°49’30”W, along said line, 700.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

A tract of land situated in the East one-half of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 68 West of the 6" P.M., which considering the East line of the said Section 21 as bearing due South and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the East Quarter comer of said Section 21 and run; thence South 890.20 feet along said East line; thence North 79°54'30" West 723.79 feet; thence North 04°15' East 12 feet; thence North 76°29' West 203.52 feet; thence North 23°04’; West 262.20 feet; thence North 81°09' West 8.13

feet to a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of the Colorado and Southern Railroad; thence along said Easterly right-of-way line, North 06°06' East 87.68 feet and again North 05°13'30" East 669.50 feet to a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said 21; thence North 88°32' East 859.35 feet to the Northeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21; thence South 1310.40 feet to the POINT OF

BEGINNING.

 

EXCEPT the East 50 feet thereof for Colorado Highway No. 1 right-of-way set forth in Deed recorded September 11, 1936 in Book 654 at Page 576,

County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.