The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on June 23 approved the Jacobs Conservation Development (file 21Land4170) and granted the applicant’s appeal to a Land Use Code requirement that would have required a portion of the private road to be dedicated as public right of way. The board voted 3–0 to approve the preliminary plat to divide a 35‑acre parcel into one residential lot and one residual lot (the conservation portion), subject to the conditions recommended by staff and an added, explicit condition clarifying the intended residential density.

Justin Curry, county planner, presented the application and explained the conservation development rules that apply to parcels 30 acres and larger outside a growth area. Because the property is zoned RR2 and served by public water and sewer districts, the land‑division rules require a 50/50 residual‑to‑developable land ratio; that yields a minimum of about 17.5 acres to remain as residual (conserved or agricultural) and up to 17.5 acres available for development. The existing single‑family home sits inside a 2‑acre building envelope within the residual lot; the proposal creates a single new residential lot on the developable acreage and keeps the residual acreage intact in perpetuity subject to the county’s plat conditions. The applicant, Lonnie Jacobs, said the subdivision application meets county criteria and requested approval.

County staff supported the applicant’s appeal to Article 5.31.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow Living Springs Lane to remain a private easement through the subdivision rather than converting that segment to public right of way. Staff reasoned the code requires public right of way only for the portion of the road within a proposed subdivision and said converting only part of a private road to public ownership could create confusion about ownership and maintenance responsibilities.

Multiple residents from the nearby Westridge Estates and Hidden Springs subdivisions opposed the proposal or urged additional review. Speakers told commissioners they had not received direct notice in every case and stressed three recurring concerns: inadequate water pressure at higher elevations (speakers reported summer pressures below typical service ranges), the condition and maintenance cost of Hidden Springs Lane and connecting private roads (residents said their subdivision maintains a private road and bears maintenance costs through a public improvement district), and wildfire and emergency‑egress risk on narrow private roads with limited access. West Ridge Estates HOA members and residents said construction traffic and any added residential traffic could increase maintenance costs for their private roads and that several private road sections are unpaved and in poor condition.

Residents also cited a history of litigation and access disputes in the area, questioned cumulative impacts if other nearby 35‑acre parcels were later subdivided, and asked for a traffic study and additional county analysis. County staff and the applicant explained that the current application creates a single additional residential lot; any future further subdivisions would require separate applications and full county review under the land use code, including the appropriate referral and studies at that time. County referral agencies provided comments: Fort Collins Loveland Water District indicated willingness to serve the proposed lot under conditions in their comment letter; Poudre Fire Authority noted fire‑protection standards (including flow and hydrant requirements) and said building permit review would address water pressure and fire suppression needs, requiring sprinklers where watersupply or pressures are insufficient.

Commissioners discussed the technical concerns raised by neighbors and emphasized that the board’s action applies only to the specific preliminary plat before them (one additional lot). Commissioner David Follis (made the motion) and other commissioners asked staff to include clear language in the findings and resolution that the approval authorizes the division as proposed — creation of one additional residential lot and retention of the residual lot — and that any future changes or additional density would require separate review and approvals. The board approved the request 3–0 and directed staff to incorporate the condition clarifying the permitted density into the final findings and resolution and to carry out standard final‑plat processing steps.