HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080264.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,
January 10, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning Department at 918
10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
Members Present: Alan Overton, Doug Melby, Robert Fleck, Rodney Gies, Don Somer, and Dave Snyder
Members Absent: Lyle Sheeder, Don Magnuson and Al Trujillo.
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Roger Caruso, Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Fleck moved to approve the April 12, 2007 and December 13, 2007 minutes, seconded by Dave
Snyder. Motion carried.
1. CASE NUMBER: RS-1064
APPLICANT: Jason&Julie Roth
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6&7 JB Acres; Pt S2SW4 of Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6`" P.M.,Weld
County,Colorado.
REQUEST: Redesign of JB Acres.
LOCATION: Approximately Y mile north of C Street and approximately Y mile west of CR 59.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, stated that Jason and Julie Roth are asking for a re-
consideration of their utility easement within their approved re-subdivision for a lot line adjustment in JB
Acres Subdivision.
The lot line revisions include Lot 6 and 7 of JB Acres, located approximately Y: mile north of C Street and
approximately''/ mile west of County Road 31. The lot line revision is to change the acreages between
the existing Lot 6 and Lot 7 while also including a parcel of land located to the north of Lot 7. Lot 6 is
currently approximately 2.36 acres and will be increased to be a total of approximately 3.68 acres. Lot 7 is
currently approximately 3.19 acres and will decrease to be a total of approximately 1.79 acres.
Currently the utility easement for Lot 6 dissects the property on the northern edge. The applicant is
requesting that the utility easement follow the property line. Ms. Hatch commented that typically we show
a 20 foot easement around the perimeter of the property. If you look at the aerial photo, his neighbor has
built a barn in the far back of the triangle area and the applicant would like to back his barn up to that so
that they are backed up next to each other. She added that therefore he would like to not have a 20' utility
easement there, but rather have a 10' or smaller easement on that one side so that he could get his barn
in that area.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that a corrected plat would need to be submitted
delineating the new utility line easements. Ms. Hatch indicated that staff has no issue granting a 20 foot
easement around the perimeter and then a 10' easement on the far west side.
Ms. Hatch mentioned that where the line runs across right now, it is at the top of a ridge and then it drops
off. She added that right after that ridge where the existing utility line is, it does a severe drop down to the
river.
Robert Fleck asked if the standard is 15 feet around the property edges. Ms. Hatch replied that the
standard is 20 feet.
Robert Fleck asked about the drainage easement. Ms. Hatch replied that there currently is not one there.
She added that the lot to the west of Lot 7 does not have a utility easement on it because it is not part of a
subdivision.
Ms. Hatch wanted to clarify that when it comes to setbacks of a building, in the Agricultural Zoned District
it is 1 foot for every 3 feet of building height. Therefore the height of his building will determine how close
he can get to that line. Ms. Hatch added that if we put a utility easement of 10', 15', or 20', he is not going
to be able to uild in that spot.
('6'711411.G CGt- GcL-71,,v
/_ &/- ,46Cc' 2008-0264
Alan asked if this lot is zoned Agricultural. Ms. Hatch stated that it is zoned Agricultural.
Rodney asked if the City of Greeley has reviewed this and if they had any comment. Ms. Hatch replied
that they have not because this is not an application that came through. Mr. & Mrs. Roth came through
with this application in 2004 for the redesign of these two lots and at that time the City of Greeley reviewed
it and had no concerns. The only reason that it is before the Utility Board again is to request to move the
utility easement, therefore we are not holding a full hearing and sending out referrals, etc.
Alan asked if there were any drainage plans to the north and wanted to make sure that the City of Greeley
didn't have any concerns with changing it.
Mr. Roth commented that right now it runs east/west across the back of the property and there is no way
for this easement to access north of us. He added that by doing this it would tie into that existing road.
Mr. Roth would rather not have it run through the middle of his property so that he can place a building
there.
Alan commented that going around would make sense, however he is concerned with the variance of the
20 feet on the edge when there is no additional easement to the west. Robert agreed.
Robert moved to grant the change of easement but keep the 20 foot easement on the west side since
there is no room on the other side of the property, seconded by Alan. Motion carried.
2. CASE NUMBER: PF-1050
APPLICANT: P&A Turkey Farms, Inc.
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 36,T5N, R65W of the 6`" P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Final Plat for nine(9)lots with(E)Estate Uses
(126.19 acres)and one(1)common open space outlot(6.71 acres)and two(2)
agricultural outlots(101.11 acres).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 52 and West of and adjacent to CR 49.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, presented Case PF-1050. Mr. Caruso stated that the
PUD will be hereinafter referred to as Ridgeview Estates.
Mr. Caruso stated that a detention pond is located in an area designated as open space. He added that
two(2)fire hydrants will be installed, one at Lot 1 Block 2 and another one located near Lot 3 Block 2.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by:
Central Weld County Water District
Individual Septic Disposal Systems
Gas =Atmos Energy
Electric= Poudre Valley REA
Phone = Qwest
The Department of Planning Services is recommending that the applicant provides utility easement in
compliance with Section 24-7-60 and 27-9-40 of the Weld County Code.
Todd Hodges introduced himself and Mimi Somermeyer. Mr. Hodges mentioned that the utility
easements are a little different on this case. He stated that they did not do an overall 20 foot utility
easement on the entire boundary because of the perpetuity conservation easement and thought that could
be dealt with at a later date, if necessary. He added that the rest of the property has been put into a
conservation easement which is never to be developed. The internal lot lines do not have the standard 10
feet on each side; however that is something that can be added. The 20 foot utility easement is included
on the internal perimeter except for one location that could also be bumped up which is on the west side of
Ridgeview Lane on Lot 1 and is at 10 feet at this point.
Mr. Hodges commented that it predominantly meets the criteria unless the board desires to add the other
easements. He added that this case has been sleeping for 3 years and now it is back on the books.
Dave asked how the ditch access road is taken care of in outlot A. Mr. Hodges replied that it will remain
because it is part of the agreement with the ditch company and further added that it is his understanding
that that road is not being impacted.
Dave mentioned that he visited the site yesterday and it appeared that it was farmed all the way up to the
fence line of the ditch. Mr. Hodges said that it has historically been with a pivot. He added that they are
going to preserve that and indicated that it is an existing access for the Ag which they want to maintain as
well.
Dave asked if it was possible to put an access easement across there for the ditch. Mr. Hodges replied
that he could show that on the plat.
Alan asked about the Ditch Company's easement on the other property. Mr. Hodges replied that the true
maintained road is on the other side of the ditch. The through road that they use is off of this property.
Alan asked which way the property is sloping. Mr. Hodges indicated that it is sloping toward the ditch.
Robert asked where the Ditch Company does their maintenance. Mr. Hodges replied that it is on the other
side. He added that with this property the way to get to the other side of the ditch is through a crossing
agreement with the Ditch Company.
Mr. Caruso added that in regard to putting the 20 foot easement on there, FRICO responded with their
referral that they need more information; therefore if we put 20 feet on there it may not be accurate. He
added that it can be addressed through the final plat. Mr. Hodges said that they will work with the
Department of Planning on that and recalled that in one of their last letters they stated a minimum of 20
feet, however they can address that at final plat.
Robert stated that he doesn't know if he's ready to give up the board's policy of requiring the 10 foot
easement on the internal lot lines. Alan agreed.
Dave asked if there is any need for a blanket drainage easement for the pond. Mr. Hodges replied that on
the perimeters they have both drainage and utility easements and that is something that they can follow up
on through the Department of Public Works. Mr. Hodges indicated that he isn't aware of any blanket
easement. After referring to the map, Mr. Hodges commented that it appears to have delineated a
blanket easement.
Alan referred to the fire hydrant along County Road 52 and asked if there is a reason why it's located
where it is. Ms. Somermeyer replied that it is at the end of the water line. Alan said that he understood,
but asked why the end of the water line is at that location in the CIG easement. Mr. Hodges commented
that he would need to talk to Mary Wohnrade as she is the one who negotiated that. Mr. Overton
commented that without knowing where the gas line location is and you get a water line that stubs up to it,
you could have future problems with that. He suggested stopping short of the CIG easement or not have
the hydrant in the CIG easement. Mr. Hodges stated that they have been working with the engineers from
CIG to make sure that those lines are coordinated. Mr. Hodges said that they can check on that.
Alan referred to the water ties on County Road 49 and asked if the water line is on the edge of the road as
it is indicated on his map. Mr. Somermeyer replied that she had contacted Central Weld County Water
and that is how she got the location. Alan commented that if it is on the edge of the road then he isn't sure
if they are going to be able to do a bore and a wet tap which would then mean that County Road 49 would
have to be opened up. He added that with County Road 49 being a very busy road, it would have to be
addressed with the Department of Public Works. Mr. Hodges commented that the Water District now
wants to put in an 18 inch water line in along County Road 49. Alan asked if that is going to go in the
easement then. Mr. Hodges replied that it is to be determined by the Water District.
Mr. Caruso commented that staff would recommend that this case be continued so that these questions
could be answered.
Mr. Hodges summarized what items they need to have answered: 1)water line connection, 2) hydrant
location within the CIG, and 3) if there is potential for drainage easement on the entire open space.
Rodney asked Mr. Hodges if he had addressed the new easement around the new road. Mr. Hodges
stated that on the plat there is a 15 foot perimeter. Rodney asked to include that on the map and also the
10 foot internal lot line easements. Mr. Hodges asked if they wish to keep it open for discussion on the 20
foot easement perimeter for the rest of the property. Robert commented that he would like to see
everything included, the board agreed. Mr. Hodges stated that they would submit a revised plat for the
board to review prior to the next Utility Board meeting on February 14, 2008.
Meeting adjourned at 10:31 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello