HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030259.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 23, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning Department at
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Members Present:
Donald Carroll
Cody Wooldridge
Don Sourer
Dale Trowbridge
Also Present:, Sheri Lockman, Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
1. APPLICANT: Dennis Neal/Todd Hodges
CASE NUMBER: PF-553
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
REQUEST: Request for a PUD Final Plan (Mill Creek PUD)
LEGAL: Lot B of RE-2835; being part of the SW4 of Section 29, T4N, R68W of
the 6'h P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 40 '/z and East of and adjacent to WCR 3
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PF-553, entered the proposed service
providers into the record.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, presented information with regard to the internal roads. It is a
standard road layout with sixty feet of right of way. The cul-de-sac has sixty five feet of right of way and
is asphalt. There are two twelve foot lanes with two four foot shoulders. The development is adjacent to
CR 40 '/2 and sixty foot of right of way is being required.
Todd Hodges, applicant representative, provided some additional clarification with regard to the project.
There is a conservation easement that is located on lot 10. There is an emergency access located off
CR 3 that has been worked out with the Fire Department. Utilities are shown on the plat and utilized with
the typical requirements. The existing oil well, located in Lot 5, has been abandoned. A future potential
drill site has been established with the adequate access through existing roads. The agreements include
a proportionate share with Weld County to pave CR 40 '/. This is a positive development because
several shares of non potable water will be transferred to the homeowners for the five acre lots. Ken
Alles has designed an underground system from the above ground ditch system. It will be on a separate
system.
Don Carroll asked if it will be a lagoon storage or source that the water will be pumped out of. Mr.
Hodges stated that the non potable will be taken directly out of the ditch. The system will take the water
along an easement to the south side of the road then culvert under the lot that needs access.
Randall Ashby, Alless &Assoc., provided clarification with regard to the non potable water source for the
project. Mr. Carroll asked if the lines were located in the right of way or is there an easement proposed
through the lots. Mr. Ashby indicated that on lots 4-9 there is a non potable water easement. An
eighteen inch PVC line will be buried there. On CR 3 from the existing ditch into a reservoir and out into
the 15 inch line through the property then meet the ditch again at CR 40 %. The reservoir is a retaining
pond that the static water level is 33 feet square and tapers down to a 13 foot base. Mr. Carroll asked
about the location of the reservoir. Mr. Ashby indicated it will be adjacent to lot 1 in the open space.
Cody Wooldridge, Central Weld Water District, asked about utility allowance in the 30 foot of non
disruptive reserve area. Mr. Ashby indicated no utilities would be allowed. The development sits on the
CC/15P/I7' C ei/ok., 2003-0259
high point of the property. Mr. Wooldridge indicated his concern is 20 foot interior lot line easements and
a 15 foot perimeter lot line easement and these are not shown on the plat. The concern is for some
reason a utility needs to serve lot 10 there needs to be an easement noted to be able cross the lot. Lot 1
is the only one that seems to have the designation. Mr. Wooldridge added that there is not a 15 foot
exterior lot line easement located on the property below the ditch on the bottom portion. It needs to be
delineated in all directions. This will tie it in for utilities.
Ken Alles, engineer, provided clarification with regard to the easements. Lot 10 is a conservation
easement so it will not be disturbed. There would be no need for the easements. Mr. Wooldridge
indicated that it was earlier mentioned that lot 10 could be signed over to another developer. A replat
would need to be done. Mr. Hodges indicated that the ownership can be transferred but the granting of
the conservation easement transfers with the property. There is a note on the plat that indicates that lot
10 shall never be eligible for building permits.
Don Carroll indicated that a 15 foot perimeter easement at the back of lots 4-9. Mr. Wooldridge
indicated that would be the minimum with the interior lots lines being noted.
Dale Trowbridge asked what other uses are available on lot 10. Mr. Hodges indicated that currently it is
under irrigated agricultural use. The owner has the ability to use it as passive recreational, horseback or
walking. Under the guidelines of the conservation easement motorized vehicles cannot be used in the
area. The ditch company has their traditional access but it is not a major serving ditch. Mr. Trowbridge
indicated that the historical access needs to be stated on the plat somewhere. Mr. Hodges indicated that
there were no private ditch companies involved it was private owners. The same roads are used for
future oil and gas access.
Peter Schei, Public Works, questioned the need for utilities for the drilling sites. Mr. Hodges indicated
that based on the agreement with those companies they need to stay within their access easements. A
note would need to be added that indicated the access for oil and ditch company is permitted in those
locations.
Don Carroll asked why the fire department asked for the large number of fire hydrants on this
development. Mr. Hodges indicated that because of the size and acreage of the lots they were upholding
the strict 500 foot requirement. When large lots are done it is something that is needed.
Don Summer, Qwest, questioned the easement around Mill Creek road being a 10 foot or 15 foot
easement. A back lot easement is requested on lots 4-9. Mr. Schei indicated it was standard and the
county does agree. The side lot lines should be shown as 10 foot also.
Cody Wooldridge indicated that if a 15 foot easement is around lot B there needs to be the same
easement around lot A of RE-2835. Mr. Hodges indicated that if it were not in conflict with the
conservation easement it would be fine.
Don Carroll summarized what was being asked for from the Utility Board.
1. 10 foot on either side of any internal lot lines for a total of 20 feet.
2. 15 foot perimeter easement along south portion of lots 5-9.
3. 15 foot easement around lot A of RE-2835 for continuity.
4. Additional note to address access for Agricultural/ditch/oil and gas
5. 15 foot perimeter easement on the south and east property line.
Don Carroll moved to approve Case PF-553 with the above mentioned additions. Cody Wooldridge
seconded. Motion carried.
Donita May
Secretary
Hello