HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042715.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,
August 12, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., in the Conference Room of the Weld County Planning Department at 918
108' Street, Greeley, Colorado.
Members Present: Doug Melby, Brent Shafranek, Jed Reed, Don Somer.
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Voneen Macklin, Don Carroll, Michelle Martin.
Don Carroll called the meeting to order.
CASE NUMBER: PF-594
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl & Eli Krebs
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B RE-2695; Pt W2 Section 29, T5N, R67W
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 54; approximately 1500 feet west of CR 15
V2. For a more precise location, see legal.
REQUEST: A PUD Final Plan for seven (7) lots with (E) Estate Uses and four(4) non
residential outlots
Sheri Lockman presented case PF-594. The utilities are provided by Little Thompson Water, Xcel Energy,
Poudre Valley REA and Qwest.
Tom Hahn, applicant, provided clarification with regards to the history of the project. The property has gone
through a couple of owners and in the mean time there was a home built on the property. The net result of
the home being built was the utility location which defined the issues of easements was established. The
gravel extraction continues on the north of the property. There may be some non family lots sold but the
majority will belong to family. The gravel extraction area will become common area open space for the
HOA. The parcel that contains the river will retain the pasture grass that is currently there. The required
space has been provided to the Oil & Gas Company. The required space for this has been designed to be
a part of the open space.
Don Carroll asked about Outlot C & D and if it is part of the Lakota Lakes? Mr. Hahn indicated it will be
either owned by the HOA or the original owners will retain the pasture. Mr. Carroll stated there was no
chance of building on Outlot C because it is a gravel operation or lake. Mr. Hahn stated it is surface water
but it is also within the flood plain so there will be no substantial building in the area. Mr. Hahn added it will
not be residential. Mr. Carroll added that the reason for the question on the outlots is typically a parameter
easement is requested. It will be up to the board to determine. Mr. Hahn stated that the owners are not in
opposition of the easement if it is felt to be necessary.
Sheri Lockman added that there can be nothing on Outlot C because of the amount of water. Outlot D and
Outlot B can have an agricultural structure that may have lights. Mr. Hahn indicated that electric service
can come from the road for Outlot B. Ms. Lockman added that if the board wanted a future easement up
the road it can be extended. Mr. Hahn stated it would be fine to have utility easements on both east and
west sides of the property. Mr. Carroll stated the outlots need accommodating in case there is ever
structures. Ms. Lockman indicated the access road has been included in outlot C.
Don Carroll asked about the 20' utility easement for Little Thompson, is this exclusive? Mr. Hahn indicated
he was not sure whether it was exclusive or not. It was put in place to allow the water line for the home that
was built. Mr. Carroll asked if there is a recording number that it be placed on the plat. Mr. Carroll
indicated there was a sign off block for the utility companies and requested that this be done. Ms.
Lockman indicated it will be done prior to recording.
Sheri Lockman added that lot 1 has a drainage easement but no utility easement on the west side and lot 7
is missing frontage utility easements on the internal sides of the lots and along the access road there is no
easements. Mr. Hahn clarified that on the western edge of lot 7 wrapping around the cul de sac going east
along outlot C and south along outlot C needs the easement of 15'for utility/drainage.
2004-2715
Don Carroll stated that at the bottom of outlot C the right of way could be used to accommodate access to
the lot. The river configuration to lot D for access will need to be different. Mr. Carroll suggests extension
of a 15' parameter easement across the top of outlot C and across outlot D. Mr. Hahn added that anything
south of the property, because of the river, will be accessed from the south so as not to cross the river.
Mr. Hahn asked for clarification regarding the exclusive agreement with Little Thompson and should it not
be a recorded easement there would be no need to obtain a book and page. Mr. Carroll indicated that if this
is not recorded it will be fine but if recorded please reference.
Don Somer moved to approve Case PF-594 along with the additions and corrections including revising the
plat to reflect additional utility and drainage easements. Doug Melby seconded. Motion carried.
Sheri Lockman summarized the requested modifications. They are as follows:
1. Lot 1 east side will be labeled 30'drainage and utility easement.
2. Lot 7 needs a 15'parameter easement around the cul de sac and on the east side along
the access road.
3. 15'utility easement on the east side of outlot C to access outlot D and a recording number
will be researched for the utility easement for Little Thompson Water District. If so it will be
placed on the plat. The signature block for utilities will be completed prior to recording.
4. Extension of the 15' utility and drainage easement across the top of outlot C & D for future
structures.
CASE NUMBER: RS-1063
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
APPLICANT: Beckles LLC, Martin, Gilchrist, Raben, Larson, Holman, Smith, McGurk,
Weaver
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 12-17 of the 1st Addition and Lots 11 & 18 of the 2nd Addition of
Johnson Subdivision; Pt NE4 Section 2, T5N, R66W
LOCATION: Adjacent to B Street and North of 42nd Ave. For a more precise location,
see legal.
REQUEST: Resubdivision for the Vacation of Road, Street or Alley Right of Way. The
Resubdivision will vacate a portion of"B"Street
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services presented Case RS-1063, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application. Additional information requested for utility sign off has been provided by the applicant. The
utilities affected were the City of Greeley for water, Xcel, Comcast, Greeley Gas and Qwest.
Don Carroll indicated that this case was reviewed at the July 8, 2004 hearing and the board requested the
applicant get a sign off from the affected utilities. The applicant has provided a sign off on the plat for those
utilities.
Gene Brantner, applicant, provided history on the vacation of B Street. A portion of B Street to the west of
40`h Avenue was vacated in 1996. The City of Greeley is doing a forced annexation and the property to the
east will be developed into multi-family units. The City of Greeley Planning Commission has agreed to
close the road to non-motorized vehicles but that does not mean they cannot open it at a future date. The
applicant is trying to vacate B Street from 40th Avenue east so this would help keep the road closed.
Don Carroll added that as the Utility Board they cannot vacate but they can deal with the utility portion. The
vacation would come through other boards.
Michelle Martin added that she has received nothing from the utility companies to indicate a concern.
Gene Brantner added that he was very thankful to Planning Department and Jerry Adams from Atmos
Energy for the guidance received.
Don Somer asked about the 20'water line exclusive easement by the City of Greeley and if any other utility
can locate in the same easement. Mr. Brantner indicated that the water, gas and Qwest are the only
utilities located in the street all others are located along the side or the rear of the lots.
r-. Don Somer moved to approve RS-1063. Doug Melby seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PF-1011
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Doug Tiefel/River Runs Through It, LLC-Pelican Shores
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 36, T3N, R68W
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 26 and west of and adjacent to CR 13. For a
more precise location, see legal.
REQUEST: PUD Final Plan for 40 lots with R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone Uses
along with 193 acres of open space consisting of a river corridor and tow
private recreational lakes
Sheri Lockman presented case PF-1011. There are two distinct sides to the development, the north and
the south. They should be viewed independently due to different service providers. Water is provided by
Central Weld Water District on the south side and Little Thompson Water District on the north side. Other
services providers are St. Vrain Sanitation District, Kinder-Morgan, United Power and Qwest. The south
side will be reviewed first.
Doug Tiefel, applicant, provided additional information regarding the easements on the project. The south
portion will be developed first. There is a 54 acre lake and 26 lots that will all contain frontage in the back
yard on the lake. The internal road will be private, paved with no curb and gutter. CR 26 will be paved with
curb and gutter. The easements are in the front adjacent to the roads and in the roads. The easements on
side and rear of the lots is not necessary due to all services being extended from the front. The rear of the
lots will contain walk down structures to access the lake, for example boat docks, landscaping and such.
Central Weld Water and St. Vrain will have the collection lines in the road. The 12' utility easement on
each lot would be sufficient to place all the utilities in. Kinder Morgan is working to extend their line to the
development and a proposal is being worked on. United Power will do the engineering for their distribution.
Don Carroll asked about the 12'foot on the utility easement. Mr. Tiefel stated there was a calculation and
this was the number determined to work. It was based on a 60' right of way and 12 foot easement adjacent.
The number could be 15'. The anticipation was to put electric, cable and phone in the same trench. Gas
would be in a separate trench while water and sewer are in the right of way. Mr. Carroll asked about the
internal road. Mr. Tiefel stated it would be paved and possibly gated. The parameter laterals are protected
with easements. Mr. Tiefel added the augmentation plan does not allow for the use of the water in the
laterals. Tract A is the open space and there is an area that is designated as a non exclusive utility
easement. Mr. Tiefel referenced a map of the area to describe the open space, tract a and the lake. The
locations were identified. Mr. Somer asked for clarification with regards to the identification being confusing
on where the utility easement is located on tract A, it does not affect the whole tract of land. Mr. Tiefel
indicated it would be identified better. Mr. Somer requested identifying the non exclusive utility easement
on tract A in all areas affected. Mr. Carroll asked about the 12'easement and it being front line. Ms.
Lockman added it is usually 15' and there is typically a 20'foot in back when the 15'front cannot be met. A
discussion ensued as to the minimum size of an easement that could be needed. Mr. Reed added that the
coordination of the utilities is the key, if it can be done the 12'is a possibility. Mr. Tiefel added that he
would be willing to place a conduit in the area if needed. Mr. Tiefel agrees to the 15'on the front. Mr.
Somer stated that 15'foot easement in the front. Mr. Tiefel added that a note will need to be placed
indicating the road can be used as a utility easement also.
Doug Melby asked where the fire hydrants will be located. Mr. Tiefel stated they are on the edge of the
asphalt at a common lot line and there are four of them. Mr. Tiefel added that sanitary sewer will be in the
street. St. Vrain Sanitation District will be redoing their main located in CR 26 and this proposal gravity
drains. The internal collection system will be under asphalt. Mr. Shafranek stated that St. Vrain is
exclusive and they would like an exclusive easement called out and platted. Mr. Shafranek added they
may need more room in the ditch on CR 26. Mr. Tiefel added there may not be enough room due to the
irrigation lateral. The south side of the road will be used because the line can be paralleled.
Don Carroll asked if all the utilities will be coming in on the main entrance so not cutting across any lot
lines. Mr. Tiefel stated that was correct.
i-.
Don Carroll asked for opinions on lot line easements and how everyone felt. Mr. Reed stated for ease of
access and maintenance a larger front would be better than rear lot easement. Mr. Tiefel stated that the
rear lot lines go down to the lake and all utilities are available from the front. Mr. Carroll stated that the
typical is parameter easements. This proposal is requesting front easement access only. Mr. Carroll
asked what the comfort level is for the front easement, 12'does not seem adequate. Mr. Reed asked if
there is a possibility of 20'in the front. Mr. Tiefel stated that when it is greater then 15'the amount of space
for trees on the frontage of the lots will be limited. The covenants are very tough and limited. The 15'would
be acceptable. Mr. Reed added that it is more beneficial to obtain the easement at the beginning of the
development therefor there is no need to return and ask for more. Mr. Somer asked about 10'on the back
lot line? Mr. Tiefel does not believe that to be necessary, the rear lot line will be the lake. The easement
could eventually be under water at times. Mr. Somer stated that if enough is not asked for at the beginning
it is very tough to get later on in the process. Mr. Tiefel stated that all six services are provided from the
front. Mr. Tiefel stated that the development will be placing the conduit in case the utilities are not ready to
install at the time needed.
Brent Shafranek stated that if they allow the 15'front easement the developer needs to put conduit in for the
possible future use. Mr. Reed stated at least place the conduit for the needed utilities.
Don Somer asked about the open space. Mr. Tiefel stated the covenants will state structures cannot be
located anywhere they inhibit the use of the open space Mr. Somer still wants to see a back lot line
easement. He would rather put more than needed and vacate what will not be used. Ms. Lockman
indicated staff has"will serve" letters but does not have the official signatures until prior to recording. Mr.
Somer added Qwest would do a front lot entrance.
Doug Tiefel stated the grading on the rear lot line is very steep. Mr. Reed asked if they only have front
easements will they have a pad for phone, cable and power. Mr. Tiefel stated the pads are located every
other lot at the common lot line. There should be plenty of room with the open space, the right of way then
the easement.
The north side will be reviewed now.
Don Somer asked about the 30'easement on the north side of the lots. Mr. Tiefel stated Little Thompson
wanted exclusive easement with the other utilities placed further away. The lots are long and narrow with
St. Vrain Sanitation on the bottom side. Mr. Tiefel stated Little Thompson wanted the easement wider so
there would be no conflict.
Brent Shafranek asked where the easement on the south side was. Ms. Lockman stated it was printed in
lot two. Mr. Shafranek asked if St. Vrain would be the only one coming from the rear of the lot while all
other utilities will come from the front. Mr. Tiefel stated that was correct. Mr. Shafranek asked about the
overlapping easements? Mr. Tiefel stated it was a non exclusive emergency access easement.
Doug Melby asked if there would be room on Lots 7 & 8 to build with the setbacks. Mr. Tiefel stated they
would, the design would need to be done around that.
Don Carroll pointed out there is no parameter easement or back lot line easement but the 30' is provided
and the 20'St Vrain Sanitation in the rear. Mr. Shafranek asked how much of the 30' Little Thompson will
be using. Mr. Tiefel was not sure but the section diagram was reviewed and it was accurate. Mr. Carroll
asked if the width Little Thompson needs should be noted on the plat? Mr. Tiefel stated they would use the
north side of the trench and will be worked out with all applicable utilities.
Sheri Lockman asked about the 30'that ends at the cul de sac? Mr. Shafranek stated it would need to be
continued. Mr. Tiefel stated the issue is when Carma bought the adjacent property they were unwilling to
finalize the previously agreed upon easements. Mr. Tiefel stated he has engineered everything they need
for the homes they are developing and Carma can figure out what they need to do when their time comes.
Mr. Reed added the value would be the connection being a convenience for future possibilities.
Brent Shafranek added that St. Vrain would like to have stub outs available even if the situation with the
neighbor is not amicable. Mr. Carroll added inner connectivity is important to Pubic Works.
Brent Shafranek moved to extend the 30'easement around the cul de sac and to the west to the property
line. Jed Reed seconded. Motion carried.
Don Carroll stated the big question is the back lot line around the parameter. Mr. Somer stated the back
lot line easements are on the north side but not on the south. Why the need for the north but not the south.
Mr. Tiefel stated the line was already constructed and at the bottom of the slope, it was granted four years
ago. Mr. Somer indicated he would leave it up to the board but there are other developments that have
back lot lines.
Don Somer moved to have 10'easement on the back lot lines around the south lots. There was no second.
Discussing the South Side:
Brent Shafranek indicated the concern for the 15'on the front and if it is enough. Mr. Reed stated the
installation is fine but maintenance is the question. The compromise would be the front be larger with no
rear lot lines. Mr. Tiefel stated that they would come off the center line 5'; then 5'for gas, 5'for electric and
phone, this would be the 15'. Mr. Carroll stated the 5'dimension needs to be reviewed, does this mean a 5'
separation between trenches. Mr. Tiefel stated that was correct. Mr. Tiefel stated the sole reason for not
wanting 20'was to get trees closer to the street. It is not a street tree when you are 40-45'away from the
street.
Jed Reed added that 15' is tight but since there is usable land in the area it would be fine. •
Jed Reed moved to have 15' in the front for easement. Doug Melby seconded. Motion carried with Don
Somer voting no.
Sheri Lockman summarized the recommended changes for PZ-1011 and they are as follows:
1. St. Vrain Sanitation must have an exclusive agreement on the south end across Lot A
adjacent to Pelican Shores drive.
2. A note that the water and sewer easement is in the roadway.
3. 15'front lot line easements on the south side.
4. A note stating Tract A is a utility easement on the south and east of Pelican Shore Drive
5. A 30' utility easement on the north side around the cul de sac and west to the property
line.
Brent Shafranek moved to approve with the conditions suggested. Jed Reed seconded. Motion carried with
Don Somer voting no.
R pectfully submitted,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
A--
O
Do
Columbine Land Resources, Inc.
August 24.2004
William R Fr
Chief of W Supply
Office o e State Engineer
Diu' ' of Water Resources
13 Sherman Street.Room 818
tz
• . .
ver,CO 80203
Re: Pelican Shores.PZ-1011
FA of Section 36,T3N,R68W,6th P.M.
Water Division 1,Water District 5
Dear Mr.Fronczak:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 6, 2004 to Sheri Lockman of the Weld County Planning Department. Thank you for responding
to Ms. Lockman's referral regarding our Pelican Shores subdivision. The final subdivision approval is pending final documents in order that
we may record the subdivision with Weld County. We need a positive response from your office at this time. I have discussed your letter
with Joanna Williams in your office. Below we have provided your requested information.
1. 1 have enclosed a completed Water Supply Information Stuumaty Form for the amount of water that the Central Weld County
Water District will be providing for the southerly 26 lots.
2. You have requested information regarding the party responsible for assuring that evaporation depletions from the site will be
replaced in the long term. I discussed this matter today on the telephone with Mr. Tom Cech of the Central Colorado Water
Conservancy District Mr. Cech indicated to me that we should inform you that the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
is the party responsible for assuring that evaporation depletions from the site will be replaced in the long term. Apparently, the
Augmentation Agreement with his District is one of the first of its kind that the Conservancy District originally signed. For your
information, the lakes will be owned by two separate homeowner's associations(one for the South lake and one for the North take)
and we will apprise each of them of the terms and conditions of the Augmentation Agreement that will be recorded with Weld
County. If the State of Colorado's requirements change in the future, rendering the necessity for the existing Augmentation
Agreement to be modified, the Pelican Shores Homeowner's Association will ultimately be responsible for meeting those
requirements.
Hopefully,all of this information is complete and acceptable. If you would please be so kind to provide a revised letter addressed to Sheri
Loctanan, with a copy to me, indicating that this information is satisfactory, we would be most appreciative. We are scheduled for final
recording of our documents early in September;consequently,we would ask that you respond quickly,as time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Doug Tiefel
cc w/enclosures: Sheri Lockman
Joanna Williams
Enclosures
P.O. Box 17130, Boulder,Colorado 80308-0130
Telephone: (303)665.9390
Telefax: (303)665-0165
E-mail: forest Ea rk a niesanetworks.n.et
WATER SUPPLY INFORMATION SUMMARY
Section 30-28-133,(d), C.R.S. requires that the applicant submit to the County,"Adequate evidence that a water supply that
is sufficient in terms of quantity, quality and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water.
1. NAME OF DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED 1J ' ` .Theea2ct1.4
2. LAND USE ACTION 5 \ 1.. si? oh" to,/64 - - 'W k-\a C ou'A'1t
3. NAME OF EXISTING XI PARCEL AS RECORDED tt.\.atta
SUBDIVISION ,1R.u0p14 S"FIILIN 14.1r3
BLOCK , LOT k . z4
4. TOTAL ACREAGE 2.440 5. NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED 2.4, PLAT MAP ENCLOSED;KYES
6. PARCEL HISTORY - Please attach copies of deeds, plats or other evidence or documentation.
A. Was parcel recorded with county prior to June 1, 1972? ❑ YES NO t,.�
B. Has the parcel ever been part of a division of land action since June 1, 1972? ❑ YES y1 NO
If yes, describe the previous action
7. LOCATION OF PARCEL - Include a map deliniatinp the project area and tie to a section corner.
Slit 44
h� 114 K St 1/4 SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 3 AN ❑ S RANGE tot ❑ E [.W
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN: '6TH ❑ N.M. ❑ UTE ❑ COSTILLA
^ PLAT - Location of all wells on property must be platted and permit numbers provided.—1 "t;- &t& v%4 W!1\$ lOCiti',+\
Surveyors plat X.Yes ElNo If not scaled hand drawn sketch ElYes ID No •..!
9. ESTIMATED WATER REQUIREMENTS - Gallons per Day or Acre Feet per Year 10. WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
❑ EXISTING ❑ DEVELOPED ❑ NEW WELLS -
r WELLS SPRING
HOUSEHOLD USE # .t of units 7,%0C GPO e 7 AF WELL PERMIT NUMBERS PROPOSED AAunAL°urEe (CHECK
' ME ARAPAHOE
❑UPPER OAWSU! 0 LOWER ARAPAHOE
COMMERCIAL USE ✓< of S.F. GPD AF ❑LOWER DAWSON 0 LARAMIE FOX HILLS
❑DWYER ❑DAKOTA
❑OTHER
IRRIGATION if of acres GPO AF
STOCK WATERING if of head GPD AF ❑ MUNICIPAL
❑ ASSOCIATION WATER COURT DECREE CASE NO.'S
OTHER - GPD AF ❑ COMPANY
DISTRICT
TOTAL GPD AF N ME (fteskitted. W
LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR
SERVICE ❑ YES ❑ NO
11. ENGINEER'S WATER SUPPLY REPORT ❑ YES ❑ NO IF YES, PLEASE FORWARD WITH THIS FORM. (This may be required before our review is completed.)
12. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
SEPTIC TANK/LEACH FIELD KCENTRAL SYSTEM - DISTRICT NAME S*. \)te&vt ≤1.144 Svs n. Qitt.
❑ LAGOON ❑ VAULT - LOCATION SEWAGE HAULED TO
LI ENGINEERED SYSTEM (Attache copy of engineering design! ❑ OTHER
Professional Engineers
�� Civil Engineering
July 12, 2004
Sherri Lockman
Planner
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Certificate of Utility Design—Forest Park P.U.D.
Weld County, Colorado
Dear Sherri:
The utility design for the Forest Park P.U.D. as depicted on the Utility Plans prepared by LB
Engineering Consultants, were completed by and under the direction of a licensed professional
Civil Engineer in the State of Colorado. The Utility plans were completed per the requirements
of the governing districts and in accordance with accepted engineering practice and standards.
Sincerely,
JLB Engin_ "- tants
i VO co
BLAF••. 9!!!
1736 ro) y
James L ,v1 •
Colorado Regts - e. Professional Engineer
No. 30736
9'., Eldorado i,cnl;e L uvvir f, i:.le_.,d 80027 L k 1634
Hello