Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of May 16, 2012

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, and Zitti were present.  Commissioner Cox presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Glick was absent.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Hart, Jensen, and Miller on a site visit to Eaton Conservation Development, Richard’s Lake Park and Trail Location and Extent, and Sawmill Junction Special Review.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 18, 2012 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Hart approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Vice-Chair Cox stated that Item #3 Eaton Conservation Development (#10-S2973) would be moved to a discussion item.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Hart to move Item #4 Amendments to the Larimer County Land – Neighborhood Meetings (12-CA0124) to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Zitti.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  RICHARD’S LAKE PARK AND TRAIL LOCATION AND EXTENT #12-Z1883:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a local park and trail adjacent to Richard’s Lake for the Home Owner’s Association, which would be located on the north side of Richard’s Lake.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Richard’s Lake Park & Trail Location and Extent, file #12-Z183, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Enter into an agreement with the developer of the Waters Edge phase regarding a developed and permanent access to the park area.

2.   Develop a monitoring plan to insure that sanitation facilities are provided when the need occurs. 

 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Vice-Chairman Cox voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #2  SAWMILL JUNCTION SPECIAL REVIEW #12-Z1882:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for mini warehouses on a site zoned Red Feather Lakes Business and located at 22340 County Road 74E which was the north side of County Road 74E, ½ mile west of Dowdy Lake Road.  Mr. Helmick mentioned that there were existing and approved businesses already on the site.

 

Commissioner Hart asked why there would not be a motion detector light installed.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that wildlife could trigger it.  It was also more economical to have a manual switch.

 

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 approval of Sawmill Junction Special Review, file #12-Z1882, 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 Sawmill Junction Special Review file #12-Z1882 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 Sawmill Junction Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.   The applicant shall pay the apportioned Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) for the uses approved under Special Review at the issuance of each building permit for that use.  The TCEF fees paid at time of permit shall be apportioned proportionally based on the square footage of the building permitted.

 

9.   All exterior lighting associated with this use shall be building mounted, down directed, sharp cut-off and manually switched fixtures. 

 

10.   The applicant shall develop a plan for dealing with solid and hazardous waste prior to final building permit approvals. The plan shall address diversion, collection management and disposal.

 

11.   The applicant shall provide an updated traffic report, if required by the Engineering  Department, to insure the traffic analysis is correct and an appropriate TCEF can be calculated. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Vice-Chairman Cox voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE –NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS #12-CA0124:   Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to make changes to the neighborhood meeting requirements and process described in Sections 12.2.3, 12.2.4, 12.3.1, 4.5.9, 4.6.5, 4.7.7, 5.1.4, 5.2.4, 5.3.4, and 5.13.4.

 

Commissioner Hart commended staff for their work and felt that it would make the process much better. 

 

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 approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code  - neighborhood meetings, file #12-CA0124, as follows:

 

1 .   Amend Section 12.2.3 (Sketch Plan Review) as follows:

B.  Upon receipt of a complete application, the planning department will refer the appropriate application materials to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal (neighbors), to the appropriate referral agencies (utilities, fire department, county health, county engineer, school district, etc.) and schedule the sketch plan review meeting. The staff person assigned to the case will compile the responses from neighbors and referral agencies and will review the application for compliance with all provisions of this Code. A written staff report will be presented at the meeting.

2.   Amend Section 12.2.4 (Neighborhood Meeting) as follows:

12.2.4 Neighbor Referral and Neighborhood Meeting

A. Neighbor Referral

1.  The Neighbor Referral shall provide information about a specific development application, the development review process, and process time frame.  The Neighbor Referral and comment process will serve three purposes:

a.     to provide information about a development application and an opportunity for property owners in the vicinity to comment on a land use application that requires County approval;

b.     to gather neighbor comments, concerns, and/or suggestions about the development application early in the review process and enable the applicant ample opportunity to address the comments, and

c.     to provide a written report to boards and commissions describing comments received and any modification(s) made in response to the comments.

2.  The Neighbor referral is required for all Minor Special Review, Special Review, Special Exception, Rezoning, Conservation Development, Subdivision, and Planned Land Division applications. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a project if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. The Director’s decision to require a meeting cannot be appealed. 

 

 

3.  Neighbor referral and comment process for Sketch Plan.

a.     Upon receipt of a sketch plan application, property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be mailed referral materials which will include information about the application and the development review process.

b.     The referral shall provide 14 days for property owners or neighbors in the vicinity to respond with any comments, questions, or concerns about the application. Comments shall be submitted to the planning department. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.

c.     At the Sketch Plan meeting the Planning Director will determine if a neighborhood meeting (see Section 12.2.4.B.) is required based on land use impact or comments received.

d.    Prior to the neighborhood meeting (if required) or public hearing application, the applicant shall respond to comments received during the neighbor referral. The applicant shall provide a written report detailing comments and the applicant’s response to those comments. The written report will be available for review and will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal.

4.  Neighbor referral and comment process for Public Hearing.

a.     Upon receipt of a development application, property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be mailed referral materials which will include information about the application and the development review process.

b.     The referral shall provide property owners or neighbors in the vicinity an opportunity to comment on the application. Comments shall be submitted to the planning department. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.

c.     Comments will be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal.

d.    Throughout the public hearing process, interested parties will have the opportunity to review application materials online or in person at the planning department.

 

B. Neighborhood Meeting

The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to allow the applicant to present the proposal to nearby residents and property owners who may be affected by the proposal. A neighborhood meeting is may be required for amendments to the official zoning map, special reviews, special exceptions, subdivisions, planned land divisions and conservation developments. (Note: A neighborhood meeting is also required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements. See section 5.8.5.C.6). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a variance if he/she determines the meeting would benefit the board of adjustment's review.

 

 

 

 

1.         When required, a The neighborhood meeting must be conducted after sketch plan review and before an application is submitted for any procedure requiring a public hearing. (Note: A neighborhood meeting is required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements. See section 5.8.5.C.6).Neighborhood meetings for variances, if required by the planning director, will be conducted before the board of adjustment hearing.

The neighborhood meeting will identify items issues needed to be addressed in the next submittal and allow the applicant to assess how those items issues will affect the proposal. The neighborhood meeting is intended to result in applications that are less likely to require changes as the result of input received from neighbors at public hearings.

2.         Neighborhood Meeting process.

a.   Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by a facilitator who is retained by the applicant or the applicants’ designee.

b.   The staff planner assigned to the project and the applicant will coordinate meeting time, place and notice to neighbors.

c.   Property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be notified of a neighborhood meeting by mailed notice at least 14 days in advance of the meeting date.

d.   The staff planner will attend the neighborhood meeting as a resource for process questions. Staff will not provide information about project specifics or facilitate the meeting.

e.   The applicant is responsible for all expenses of the neighborhood meeting, including but not limited to the facilitator's fee, facility costs and the cost of the meeting notice. The applicant will provide a meeting note taker.

f.    The applicant will prepare a written report of meeting comments. The report will become part of the case file. The applicant will document and respond to all comments provided at the neighborhood meeting and neighbor referral process for sketch plan. facilitator is responsible for encouraging a free exchange of information between the applicant and those potentially affected by the proposal. The facilitator will prepare a written report that will become a part of the case file. The written report will be available for review and it will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal. The applicant is responsible for providing notice to the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal and for presenting the proposal to those attending the neighborhood meeting.

 

3.         Amend Table 12.3.I (Public Hearing Notice Requirements) as follows:

 

Neighborhood Meeting (if required)

N/A

14 days

N/A

 

1.    Am

 

 

 

 

4.         Amend Section 4.5.9 (Special Review and Minor Special Review process) as follows:

All applications for special review require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, neighbor referral, neighborhood meeting, planning commission review and county commissioner review. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures).

 

All applications for minor special review require a pre-application conference, a neighborhood meeting neighbor referral, and county commissioner review. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures).The planning director may waive the neighborhood meeting, in writing, if he/she determines the meeting would not benefit the county commissioners' review of the application.

 

5.         Amend Section 4.6.5 (Zoning Variances process) as follows:

All applications for zoning variances require a pre-application conference and a public hearing before the board of adjustment. If the planning director determines a zoning variance may have a significant impact on a neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting is also required. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All board of adjustment decisions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.

 

6.         Amend Section 4.7.7 (Zoning Special Exceptions process) as follows:

All applications for special exception require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, a neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, planning commission review and county commissioner review. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All county commissioner decisions concerning special exceptions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.

 

7.         Amend Section 5.1.4 (Subdivision process) as follows:

A.     Any application for a subdivision requires a pre-application conference, sketch plan review,—see section 12.2 (development review procedures), neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) preliminary plat review, and final plat review (see section 5.13 (land division process)). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. All multiple-phase subdivisions also require a general development plan review. An applicant may choose to submit the application for general development plan review (see section 12.2) for a single-phase subdivision.

 

 

 

8.         Amend Section 5.2.4 (Planned Land Division process) as follows:

All applications for a planned land division require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, general development plan review (optional for single-phase developments) neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) preliminary plat review, and final plat review (see section 5.13 (land division process)). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial.

 

9.         Amend Section 5.3.4 (Conservation Development review criteria and process)as follows:

B.   All applications for conservation development require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) and a neighborhood meeting as described in section 12.2 and preliminary plat review and final plat review as described in section 5.13. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a project if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. All multiple-phase conservation developments also require a general development plan review. Single-phase conservation developments may be submitted for general development plan review at the choice of the applicant.

 

10.       Amend Section 5.13.4.A.3 as follows:

3. The planning department will not accept an application for preliminary plat review until concept review (or optional sketch plan review), a neighborhood meeting and a pre-application conference, and a neighborhood meeting (if required by the Planning Director) have been completed.  unless The planning director waives these processes in writing.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Vice-Chairman Cox voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #3  EATON CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #10-S2973 :   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a conservation development to subdivide 67.86 acres into five single-family residential lots and a residual lot with a building envelope located on the east side of County Road 3, north of Count Road 66, and east of I-25, northwest of Wellington. He explained that there was an access easement through the property; however, negotiations to combine accesses could not come to an agreement.  As a result, the existing driveway would stay, and a new access would be developed called Eaton Lane.  Residual Lot A would have a reservation of 60 feet running north and south on its eastern boundary so if in the future it was possible to join accesses then the western leg of Eaton Lane or the existing access easement could be eliminated to reduce the number of access easements on the County Road.  He noted that Residual Lot A would have a detention facility, the homeowner’s association would own Residual Lot B, and Residual Lot C would be owned by the home located in the building envelope.  Mr. Helmick stated that there were concerns from neighbors regarding additional development, fire protection, and water supply.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval with conditions.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about lighting restrictions. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the issue had not been discussed.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that there was no access to Residual Lot B for Lots 1, 2 and 5.  She suggested that an easement be granted between Lots 3 and 4 so there would be access to the residual lot.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked if the homeowner’s association would be responsible for the maintenance of Eaton Lane and the existing access easement.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the HOA would only be responsible for Eaton Lane. 

 

Commissioner Miller asked why the existing access was not combined with Eaton Lane.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that there were not reconcilable differences and based on advice from the county attorney it was felt that the issue could not be forced.

 

Will Eaton, property owner, stated that Residual Lot B would be accessible by the existing access easement.  He stated that he would be willing to discuss site lighting.

 

Matt Lafferty, stated that 8.15.6 Residential Lighting Design Guidelines for Individual Lots was a section in the Land Use Code that outlined guidelines that the applicant could incorporate.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked why Eaton Lane had to be created, and the existing right-of-way could not be used.

 

 

 

 

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, stated that at initial review it was determined the site distance at the proposed access would be better than the site distance at the existing access.  As a result, it was asked that the existing accesses easement turn up and into Eaton Lane; however, the landowner did not want to take a new route to the county road when they had the existing access easement to the county road.  Since that review, the Engineering Department had the access coordinator measure site distance at the site.   From those measurements it was determined that site distance was actually better at the existing access than it was at the proposed access on Eaton Lane. 

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that the access needed to be examined.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Elizabeth Kaufman, lot owner in Dickerson RLUP, voiced her concerns regarding lighting on the developed property.  She asked that the applicant make a commitment to preserve the rural character of the neighborhood.  She suggested putting a night light covenant in the homeowner’s documents. 

 

Marilyn Morris, objected to the proposal as they liked the rural atmosphere and did not believe that the area should be developed.  She was also concerned about increased traffic on County Road 3.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Tracy stated that there would not need to be any improvements to County Road 3.

 

Mr. Helmick proposed amending condition #6 to state; “The applicant shall pursue an alternate Eaton Lane location to connect with the existing easement between Residual Lot A and Lot 5 or in the alternative, the eastern 60 feet of Outlot A shall be dedicated as ROW for future roadway use, as described in the 3-23-12 memo from the Engineering Department.”  He also suggested adding a new condition #9 to state; “The applicant consider inclusion of lighting restrictions consistent with Section 8.15.6 of the Land Use Code in the covenants.”

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if there were other developments proposed within the area.

 

Mr. Helmick replied no

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if Eaton Lane had to be paved.

 

Mr. Helmick replied no.

 

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 Eaton Conservation Development, file #10-S2973, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and amended condition #6 and added condition #9 as stated above:

 

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Eaton Conservation Development file # 10-S2973 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 Eaton Conservation Development.

 

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

 

3.   Residential fire sprinkler systems will be required in all new residential structures.  .

 

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

 

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

 

6.   The applicant shall pursue an alternate Eaton Lane location to connect with the existing easement between Residual Lot A and Lot 5 or in the alternative, the eastern 60 feet of Outlot A shall be dedicated as ROW for future roadway use, as described in the 3-23-12 memo from the Engineering Department.

 

7.   The existing access to the property to the east shall be dedicated as future 60 foot ROW.

 

8.   The existing well on site, permit # 249209, shall be plugged and abandoned or be addressed prior to the recording of the Final Plat to the satisfaction of the State Engineers Office. 

 

9.   The applicant consider inclusion of lighting restrictions consistent with Section 8.15.6 of the Land Use Code in the covenants.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Vice-Chairman Cox voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:30 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Mina Cox, Vice-Chairman                                          Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

A tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 10 North, Range 73 west of the 6th P.M., described as follows:

 

Commencing at the Southeast comer of Section 28, township 10 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., thence South along the East line of said Section 33, 1258 feet,

thence North 82°18' West 1628 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,

 

thence North 82°18' West 103.26 feet,

thence North 71°53'35" West 126.96 feet to a tangent curve to the left,

thence on the arc of said curve a distance of 18.96 feet, having a radius of 1191.05 feet, a delta of 00°54'44" and a chord of 18.96 feet bearing North 72°20'48" West to the end of said curve,

thence North 24°58' West 610.86 feet;

thence South 82° 18' East 410 feet;

thence South 8°25'40" West 275.29 feet;

thence South 24°58' East 315 feet to the Point of Beginning

 

County of Larimer,

State of Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

A tract of land situate in the West 1/2 of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 as bearing N 00 ° 09'38"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on said West line which bears N00° 09'38"E 1700.00 feet from the Southwest Corner of said Section 24, and run thence along said West line, N00 ° 09'38"E 941.51 feet to the West 1/4 Corner of said Section 24; thence along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 24, N00° OO'39"E 678.73 feet; thence departing said West line, N89° 39'49"E 2566.72 feet to a point on the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said East line, S00° 04'01 "E 678.73 feet to the Center 1/4 Corner of said Section 24; thence along the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 24, S89° 39'49"W 1283.34 feet; thence departing said South line, S00° 10'08"W 948.50 feet; thence S89° 58'32"W 1284.12 feet to the point of beginning, containing 67.8595 acres more or less.

 

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