HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020880.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE • •
•
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,
March 14, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning-Departmegt at, ,
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Members Present:
Doug Dalton Xcel/Public Service
Cody Wooldridge Central Weld County Water District
Don Carroll Weld County Public Works
Paul Gregg Qwest
Doug Melby Evans FPD
Also Present: Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Monica Mika, Director of Planning; Robert Anderson,
Planner; Voneen Macklin, Planning Technician; Donita May, Secretary.
1. APPLICANT: Dave Hoskins
CASE NUMBER: S-625
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 5-Lot Planned Unit Development- Dove Haven PUD
LEGAL: Lot B of RE-2954; being a part of the W2 NE4 of Section 29, T4N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 40.5; approximately 1/2 mile west of WCR 5.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented case S-625, an application for a Final Plat for a 5-Lot Planned Unit
Development, called Dove Haven PUD. The applicant, Mr. Dave Hoskins, was not present. The Planning
Department is recommending approval.
Mr.Anderson stated that Weld County Department of Planning Services was recommending approval and
would be happy to answer any questions the Utility Advisory Committee might have at this time. Doug
Dalton asked if everyone has had a chance to review this case and if there were any questions. No one
expressed concerns. Cody Wooldridge, Central Weld Water District made a motion to approve, as all
easements appear to be intact and in compliance with Weld County's regulations. Paul Gregg, Qwest,
seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Doug Dalton called for the next case to be presented, case AmSF-554, Idaho Creek. Monica Mika,
Planner, was detained so Bruce Barker, County Attorney, suggested skipping over the Idaho Creek case
and coming back to it after hearing case S-612.
2. APPLICANT: Weld County Commissioners/Glen Vaad
CASE NUMBER: S-612
PLANNER: Voneen Macklin
REQUEST: Minor Re-subdivision, Vacation of Roads, Street, and Alleys
LEGAL: Part of the NE4 of Section 16, T5N, R65W of the 6`h P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of 20th Street and west of Cherry Avenue
Voneen Macklin, Planning Department presented case, S-612, an application for Etherton Minor Re-
subdivision, a request for the Vacation of Roads, Streets, and Alleys; being a part of the NE4 of Section
16, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado and located South of 20th Street and west of
Cherry Avenue.
Ms. Macklin stated that a new plat was submitted, therefore the need for the new review. It was brought
before the Utility Advisory Committee November 28, 2001, and approved. The only addition to the plat are
notes 10 and 11, which are the addition of the 30 foot water and sewer easement for the existing line as
well as an emergency vehicle access easement.
Doug Dalton asked for comments. Don Carroll, Department of Public Works asked where number 11 is?
Ms. Macklin replied that it is at the top of Lot 1; they are doing a hammerhead turn. Don Carroll identified
.f_ e g 2002-0880
it as the 30' x 30' x 20' area; said the 15 foot perimeter all around looks good and that he had no problems
with the applicant's request.
Doug Dalton asked for a motion. Paul Gregg, Qwest, made a motion that the applicant's request for a re-
plat be approved. Cody Wooldridge seconded. Motion passed.
3. APPLICANT: Idaho Creek
CASE NUMBER: AmSF-554
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Amendment to a Final Plat in Accordance with Section 27-4-40 A. of the Weld
County Code
LEGAL: NW4 NE4 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: Approximately 1/8 mile east of WCR 7 and 1/8 mile south if State Highway 119.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented case AmSF-554, Idaho Creek. The applicant
requested an amendment to the final plat in accordance with Section 27-4-40 A. of the Weld County
Code. The original final plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in May of 2001.
Ms. Mika stated the current proposal is to modify the setback to ensure that all structures, including the
eaves, with the exceptions, as detailed by the applicant, of some ancillary building structures such as air
conditioners, would be allowed to intrude into the setback. Everything else will remain consistent with SF-
554, at the time of final platting, October 26, 2000. Modifications were made to change the normally
accepted standards for utility easements to be approved at 7 feet for back yards, side yards at 5 feet, and
front yards at 10 feet. The current proposal is to further reduce the setback areas by a foot respectively.
Referrals were received from various agencies in regard to this application. The referral from Jeff Reif,
Building Inspection, was consistent with the previous requirements, particularly addressing adherence to
the Uniform Building Code in relationship to Table 5A for maximum building height and openings. The
Fire District review had no comments in opposition. The City of Longmont had no comments. St. Vrain
Sanitation had no comments. United Power commented that this case " looks great from a right-of-way
perspective." The Town of Frederick had no comments.
Bob Caravona, the applicant, was present and asked the Advisory Committee to favorably recommend
this change. The Department of Planning Services expressed concerns, particularly in administering
these changes. The average lot sizes in this subdivision are 2800 square feet. The applicant is also
asking that the bulk requirements be modified from 50% to 60 %. The PUD has certain percentages of
the lot that can be built upon. The R-1 zone district in the MUD suggests Blue Area Ratio to 50 percent.
Some of the initial questions Planning staff has, regards whether or not a structure will actually fit on the
lot. By changing the defined setbacks, will the vehicles intrude into the sidewalk area?
Mr. Caravona provided a copy of line drawings, and was willing to demonstrate how everything would fit
onto the site. Mr. Caravona stated that not all of the proposed structures present problems in meeting
the setbacks.
Ms. Mika noted that Planning staff is most concerned about re-plating for the Nantucket model, which is
the most popular, and largest of the models.
Mr. Caravona also suggested the need for patios. Ms. Mika noted that patio structures will intrude into
the utility easement and in some cases that intrusion is quite substantial. Mr. Caravona is suggesting
the use of landscaping materials to function as patios. Ms. Mika noted that the addition of patios is
something the Advisory Committee needs to address along with the modification to the defined setback.
Mr. Caravona addressed the setbacks and bulk requirement issues. Setback to the property line is
located behind the sidewalk; the 17 feet referenced to is to the top of the eaves. Mr. Caravona stated
that it is important to note that during the review process, the initial submission for setbacks and review
of that, was a foundation plan and listed that setback measured to the foundation. During the
preliminary plating process, Weld County asked for an additional bulk study which also showed
setbacks, and it was unclear to him whether it was for the foundation or eaves. Setbacks were intended
to be measured to the eaves, and hence the subdivision was designed based on those setbacks. Once
• KB Homes applied for a building permit, it was discovered that the eaves, in some cases, intrude upon
the setback.
Mr. Caravona presented a sample of rock for the patios to make sure it meets Weld County's intent ,
maintains the building coverage ratio, and the pervious nature of the lot. Mr. Caravona added that KB
Homes is now moving away from offering patios.
Mr. Caravona stated that as for the bulk requirement request from 50 to 60 percent increase, KB Homes
can live with 50 percent and it will not harm the subdivision. He also provided elevations of models for
the board to view and reiterated that driveway is not affected, parking spaces are maintained, and
setbacks are measured to one foot overhang in front.
Don Carroll expressed concern about optional garages and tight parking in the subdivision, though this
is not really an Utility Advisory Committee issue.
Paul Gregg, Qwest, expressed a safety/accessibility concern with the air conditioner units located on the
side of the house rather than in the back yard and asked if lots will be fenced? Mr. Caravona replied that
they would.
Cody Wooldridge, Central Weld Water, asked if all of the utility companies have signed off and are
agreeable to the narrow lot lines? Ms. Mika replied that they have not.
Doug Dalton stated he did not feel the Advisory Committee had jurisdiction over building envelope
decisions, but that utility easement access is of course their concern, and asked for a motion.
Cody Wooldridge moved to approve the applicant's request with the following conditions:
1. The air conditioner units will be located in the back yards rather than the side yards for ease
of accessibility and safety.
2. The homeowner will be responsible for replacement of fencing and landscaping materials
should they need to be removed for utility access.
3. Utility sign-offs will be required on the final plat.
Paul Gregg seconded the motion. Doug Dalton, Paul Gregg, Cody Wooldridge, and Doug Melby voted
for; Don Carroll voted against. Motion passed with a 4-1 margin.
Ms. Mika also asked that the record show her concern over line drawings presented by the applicant.
She expressed concern about the "typical"vehicle size, and the accessibility of emergency vehicles on
the arterial if there are cars parked on both sides of the street. Ms. Mika also asked if there is any
indication whether all of the models have been included in the line drawings?
Mr. Caravona said the largest models have been included and that he considered a mid-size vehicle
"typical."
Don Carroll, Public Works, asked for a correction to the minutes of the October 26, 2000 meeting. He
was opposed to the approval of Case S-554 at that time because he didn't feel it met the County
standards for setbacks. He would not have made a motion for approval, as stated in the minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
kAnti
Donita May
Secretary
Hello