HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030757.tiff LFc3fi
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,Tvlarch 13;'
2003, at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning Department at 1555 N. 17th Avenue,
Greeley,Colorado. r• i U
Members Present: Doug Melby, Don Carroll, Jerry Adams
Also Present: Peter Schei, Department of Public Works; Sheri Lockman and Robert Anderson,PMnners appliear
Steve Klen and his representative Jeff Couch; Donita May, Secretary.
1. APPLICANT: Ric Hansen
CASE NUMBER: MF-589
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan for four(4)residential lots
LEGAL: Lot A of RE-3212; being part SW4 Section 31,T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 86; 3/4 mile west of WCR 29
Don Carroll, Weld County Department of Public Works called the meeting to order.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, presented Case MF-589. Griffith subdivision is a four lot minor subdivision. They have
requested utilities from Poudre Valley REA and Qwest. Each lot will have their own septic system, and they will have
North Weld Water. They did not include any easements on their plat.
Peter Scheir, Department of Public Works, reviewed the location and said that the four lot development will front
onto a gravel road with an internal road and a cul-de-sac. What needs addressed are the easements for the four
lots which are not currently shown on the plat. What needs to be in place is a 15 foot frontage, 20 feet proportioned
10 feet equally on each side of interior lot lines, and 20 feet on the back of each lot.
Don Carroll asked Jerry Adams,Atmos Energy, if the standard is a 15 or 20 foot perimeter easement? Mr.Adams
replied that he believed it was a 15 foot perimeter.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning, said she had information from the Weld County Code sketch plan section
stating that a 20 foot perimeter easement is the standard.
Mr. Carroll said that they need a 10 foot easement on each side of the lot lines for a total of twenty feet, and that
information needs to be placed on the plat. Mr. Carroll also inquired about the water and why there is not a hydrant
on the plat.
Ms. Lockman said the fire district in this case had a referral that the Board accepted from the change of zone
hearing,that the fire district will truck water in so there is no fire hydrant and there was no requirement.
Mr.Adams pointed out a mistake in the section number. It should be Section 32, not Section 31 as stated in the
referral.
Mr. Carroll asked the applicants if they had any input. They were not present.
Mr.Adams made a motion to approve Case MF-589 with the addition of a 15 foot frontage, 20 feet proportioned 10
feet equally on each side of interior lot lines,and 20 feet on the back of each lot.
Doug Melby, Evans Fire Department, seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.
2. APPLICANT: Steve Klen&Lori Guttenstein
CASE NUMBER: MF-609
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
REQUEST: Final Plat for a Six(6)Lot Minor Subdivision (Moorea Manor)
LEGAL: Lot A of RE-2912; being part of the W2 Section 2,T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 21 1/2 and North and adjacent to WCR 24 1/2
Robert Anderson presented case MF-609. The applicants have been in contact with and worked extensively with
the utility providers. If they don't have an agreement in place,they have the utilities in place.The Department of
Planning Services is recommending approval of this application. The applicant and his representative are in
attendance.
Don Carroll inquired about the fire hydrant and response from the fire department?
CG \.(b)tt N I C t 0/. e 2003-0757
Jeff Couch, applicant's representative from Team Engineering,said the fire department requested one hydrant but
that the applicant put in two hydrants, one at the end of the cul-de-sac because it was longer than originally
intended,and the other at the throat of Harpenton Lane right at WCR 21 '/:on the south side. The hydrants have
been flowed and are fully functioning.
Mr.Anderson said that at the Planning Commission hearing this will be annotated as a condition of approval and
placed on the plat.
Mr. Carroll asked Peter Schei for his input. Mr. Schei mentioned the flagpole lot for Lot 6 and inquired about the 45
foot easement on Lot 6 to the west and whether it should be 15 feet because 30 feet is a portion of Lot 6? That 30
feet needs to be dimensioned on the plat because it is important for access to Lot 6.
Mr. Carroll said that Mr.Schei is correct. What they should have is a 30 foot access easement on the flagpole lot.
Mr. Couch said there is a 30 foot easement and a 15 foot easement because it allowed easier access to the flagpole
lot. This was done because as they talked to the utilities, they all wanted to be on the south side and this made
access easier for them.
Mr. Schei asked Mr. Couch about responsibility for road repair if the utilities do need access. Mr.Couch said there is
no utility presently located under the drive way therefore this should not be a problem in the future, but road repair
would be the homeowner's responsibility as the road is private property.
Mr. Carroll asked if Lot 5 has an existing 20 foot utility easement in place, and is that why we are seeing the double
easement?
Mr. Couch responded that this a product line from the wells. Encana Oil asked for a 20 foot easement for their
product line.
Mr. Carroll suggested to Mr. Couch that this product line should be labeled on the plat for future reference.
Mr. Carroll asked about the oil/gas well indicated in the 60 foot right-of-way on the plat. Mr. Couch indicated that
there is additional right-of-way provided for by the applicant to get around the oil/gas well at that point, and that there
will be additional landscaping to camouflage the well head. The applicant has provided more room than the county
requires for typical road way requirements to get heavy equipment in there if/when needed.
Doug Melby, Evans Fire Protection District, asked if the state requires gas and oil well heads to be 75 feet from the
roadway?
Mr.Anderson said the County does not have any such requirements for private property and this is considered a
private drive. He was not sure what the Oil and Gas Commission recommends, but will follow up.
Mr. Carroll said this is a public right-of-way but is privately maintained because it is a minor subdivision.
As there was no attorney present to give guidance, maybe the County attorney can render an opinion, if asked.
Mr. Melby motioned to approve case MF-609,with the condition that the applicant identify the 25 foot easement on
Lot 5. To review,the applicant indicated that he has addressed the 30 foot flagpole dimension, just north of Lot 5 to
access to Lot 6;that there are two hydrants on site; and that requirements of oil and gas wells within the public right-
of-way will be followed up by staff.
Mr.Adams moved to second. Motion approved unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
12(16_173)
Donita
May
Secretary
Hello