Planning commission recommends approval of Jacobs conservation subdivision despite HOA objections

The Larimer County Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Jacobs conservation development, file 21Land4170, a preliminary plat to create one new residential lot and a residual lot from a 35-acre parcel north of the Larimer County landfill near Living Springs Lane.

The commission’s action on May 21 followed a staff presentation finding the proposal met review criteria and recommending approval, public testimony from neighboring property owners and an applicant presentation. County planner Justin Curry told the commission that staff supports the applicant’s appeal to Article 5.3.1(a) of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow Living Springs Lane to remain a private road and recommended approval “subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.”

The item matters because neighbors and the Hidden Springs homeowners association say the private easement and the HOA covenants control access and maintenance of Living Springs Lane and that the subdivision could set a precedent for similar splits of 35-acre parcels in the foothills. John Root, representing property owners Sandra Pedron and Steven Milton, asked the commission to “either deny this application or send it back to staff to have it submitted to the Hidden Springs HOA for comment and approval,” saying the HOA’s covenants require HOA approval for lot subdivisions and control road use and assessments.

During the public hearing, Bridal Cooper, who spoke for the HOA, said the association previously voted against subdivision, “it was a 15 to 2 vote against,” and raised concerns about traffic, emergency access and loss of the area’s open‑space character. Other neighbors and property owners, including Scott Griffin and Paul Ellis, cited road‑maintenance costs for Westridge Drive and Hidden Springs Road, wildfire and access risks following earlier washouts, and asked for either a full public dedication and paving of Hidden Springs Road or additional traffic and safety analysis.

Applicant Lonnie Jacobs said he previously sued the HOA, prevailed in district court and that the parcel owner has the right to pursue subdivision; he told the commission he had provided required traffic and road evaluations to county staff and that the county’s process was addressing outstanding technical requirements.

County engineering staff and the planning department said the engineering review focused on whether the existing private road can provide safe and adequate access under Larimer County rural area road standards. Engineering staff explained that the county supports allowing the long‑existing private road to stay private rather than accepting partial public‑right‑of‑way dedications that would create a patchwork of public and private segments and unclear maintenance responsibilities.

Commissioners raised questions about historical approvals, whether a traffic or paving‑threshold study was required and whether the county could or should enforce HOA covenants. County staff and the county attorney said HOA covenants and private court rulings are private matters not enforced by county planning; the commission’s review is limited to the land‑use code review criteria, supporting materials submitted by the applicant and engineering findings about safe access. County engineering staff said a paving‑threshold study is required only when an application creates two or more new lots under current road standards; this application creates one new lot and therefore did not trigger a paving threshold study, though the applicant provided an engineering evaluation of the private road’s condition.

After deliberation the commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the preliminary plat and the appeal to Article 5.3.1(a), subject to conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Connor Duffy moved the recommendation; the roll call recorded unanimous approval by commissioners present.

The commission’s recommendation sends the matter to the Board of County Commissioners, where the board will consider final approval and any outstanding legal or private‑covenant disputes between the HOA and property owners will remain matters for the parties and the courts rather than for county planning to resolve.