The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20020827.tiff AGENDA WELD COUNTY UTILITY BOARD MEETING Thursday, March 14, 2002 Please contact Donita May at 353-6100 Ext. 3528, if you are unable to attend the meeting. 10:00 a.m. - Public Meeting of the Weld County Utility Board Meeting, Weld County Planning Department Conference Room 210, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. 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 Y mile west of WCR 5. 2. 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: NW4NE4 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6'" P.M., Weld County, Colorado 3. APPLICANT: 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 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of 20th Street and west of Cherry Avenue r 2002-0827 r 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 Department 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'A 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 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of 201h 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 6`" P.M., Weld County, Colorado and located South of 20`" 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 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. r 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, Donita May Secretary SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITY BOARD ,.... Thursday, October 26, 2000 Page 2 Monica Daniels-Mika asked if Public Works would be in agreement with the utilities under the roadway. Don Carroll noted that this is not uncommon, as long as the manholes and water valves are up to the asphalt grade. Cody Wooldridge noted that Central Weld water would not be comfortable with the easements as they are noted, but as Left Hand is providing service and has signed off on the plan, he could not argue with the provisions. Monica Daniels-Mika noted that a past subdivision, Longview, has deviated from the established utility size standards, but further noted that this subdivision only slightly deviated from the established standards and that Longview is zoned R-5 vs. the R-1 zoning of Idaho Creek. Cody Wooldridge noted that he is wary of approving the drastic changes, as this may be seen as a precedent for future subdivisions. Monica noted that if the '.atility providers would only need 5' of utility easement, why has the request been for 10 feet? Doug Dalton noted that if the Utility Board decided to deviate from the regulations for the zone, they should note the reasons on the signature block. Cody Wocldridge noted that this does go against the requirements, but that if all the providers were to sign off on the asst their agreement with the utility easement dimensions,they could approve with that condition. Don Carroll moved to approve provided the following conditions are placed on the plat to be recorded: 1. The typical utility design shall be eliminated from the final plat. 2. The Rural Ditch shall be delineated with a 30' foot easement and identified on the Utility Plan. 3. Tract noted as defined on page one of the revised utility plan(dated 10-16-00)shall be noted on the pia:.. 4. A. ! defined utility easement shall be delineated on the plat around the perimeter of the entire site, Tract N, Block 14, Lot 1, Tract L 5. All space within tracts A-K and M shall be identified as utility corridors. 6. The open space adjacent to WCR 7.5 and Lot 26-9 of Block 2 shall be identified as a tract and be used as a utility corridor. 7. To approve the utility easements of 7' backyard, 5' side yards, and 10' front yard with the condition that all utility providers providing service to this site shall approved the above referenced deviation from Section 10.6 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. Cody Wooldridge seconded the motion. The vote was four in favor, one in opposition. Don Carroll noted that he voted against this proposal as it does not follow the requirements of the county. CASE NUMBER: S-578 PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson APPLICANT: Donald LaFaver • • REQUEST: Lighthouse Cove Final Plat for 8 Residential Lots LEGAL: Lot B of RE-2330, located in part of the N2 NE4 of Section 16, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: One mile south of SH 119 and west of and adjacent to WCR 7 Anne Best Johnson, Planner, presented Case S-578 and noted that Gary Sandau had noted a concern with only one easement between the lots, noted that the .'sual requirement is for 10' on eacn side of the lot line Chuck Miles, Representative of the applicant. stated that this application is Phase two of this subdivisio noting that:7e first phase was ten lots on the north side of the lake. INIT- D �•I�O1� UNITED POWER, INC. P.O.Box 929, Brighton, CO 80601 • Telephone:303-659-0551 • 1-800-468-8809 Fax:303-659-2172 • http://www.unitedpower.com MEMORANDUM March 12, 2002 To: WELD COUNTY UTILITY BOARD, c/o Monica Daniels-Mika, Planner From: Al Trujillo, Senior Right Of Way Specialist REFERRAL NOTICE(S) 1111111 III 11111111111111 PLANNER CASE NO. PROJECT ti J II I I III 11111111111111 MONICA DANIELS-MIKA AMSF-554 IDAHO CREEK 1111111 I I J - I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 RESPONSE/RECOMMENDATIONS 11111111111111111111 J 1 I 1 I 1 LOOKS GREAT FROM A RIGHT OF WAY PERSPECTIVE. I appreciate receiving preliminary plats from your agency. Enclosed is a map which identifies our service territory. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance on this matter and thank you for your help. I can be reached at 303-637-1241. A Touchstone Energy" Partner 7cx i( I ■tiiUL1tiii0IIIIMP tiii/./uiiiuiulSUii a. . ' UNITED N inn. � I . ENIIIM. .■I�s■tI..e.■■ qa . Nl KITE tII _:I•I rall�I:III:I!!■"!!Est IISIII :a UNITED rVm , Nc. 3 nun atriarr■.S1$ ' oNtam asuua■�nu®■..■ Ana ; . P.O. BOX 929 BRIGHTON, CO 80601 N •ISIPUI AMIIItS©nRisi Itttui®iuiii!-Uiioui .da • N • upr int Ifiaiitiariasa Ilatsisttisiitiasivssi .a. 18551 East 160th Avenue __ ri'ts* - su tiiiittsw nttmtnonnu nommo S :A. Brighton, CO 80601 • ri a_al =BUMP alts I.i MEMIII iuiil�iiiaii! :aa 303-659-0551 1-800-468-8809 i s 1 L1�il -- W!itnumn t1-tauttaii"tttstit! as i 1 RLztl ]USiiaUDSnuntS,iC,, m_t�t�t_tttsttt� ifta- .�>! : N ..■®■■R.i i l a rgrgran',i aOrl ■�� M■II,I PPI N :11.111 wtiiiGrhi Jai►:Iii ilitaiiti wee ei a. . i/�iIUL NishIMAii ' 'r'i[ ' '!ai.�i�t�ii/MtS�fei(�i . .- . ... • 103W • H73W 171W . nrii - ./ irSain-itati M ,_iaSalr ikain�'' .r�ll■il■�■■l ,an i` VIESE 2tiiiuG.W�isi)lsh;iiirI SSLadRSIiiUfl 40 1 iiiiil r i ll isiiiaisi►.liuistsi/iiiuUiil�!iS a. T N .lturOf MlMiiiitstuIMiitiflPwllllillVIM .a. N 1111111 ildlallille2ran giiIIIIIMI: siusinhIty Ez r r owis innunr e e rr' '1•-..__ r1 • - e■ a '��+aitla sa.. %:/ f Y' sir alMIS.afir:�3il imti ,, 1�tii ! "'ZOtJi1an� ii�L+rkitfi :ff ll� IlttIIMULIty . �:.R . pi •Ir. P!! I i11��t1Il"=711�!h w►II�IIIIMI1! II��Ilii�II�lIl� `.�` _ s_. -,�rllIEi!! • 7211111 ialiiissa�iiiII B,,8. f►lTAr' � nnummin Mtiiit■ :- s • .i..e..a n ,_ /.•4_ i.. 'ltiiiiisi�itl ri m i'iStirrir'''""roliz."fi�i�isiiti �..R riiii�iittittlIE2ar 'VS!_�■l/M�. �i+�ia�3EE 4F~ �Il.*RR®U■Sf l*I ® • v..," •. . .. . '�SItttitttIMIN �R��►��isi ntsa tiv?lttt�i►�d g ou v sa. mia'ta thin� iti :' - !tttittililt!lis:= itismiliPm i=s* asiiiuiti t t`' 1`'arreaI �.r ias ?iiiii■ a� a . _lietiIittiallin is Iisiir1�,ri■i......1�i«J�s 1 an: tt •rn � tlstai. �ti:za=-+=z' itminti :�a z ,•:oiii itiilirai�i ISSURSIE`►i.` rdiM ._ � : B. TE u..Itiit # g IUitiii .��. g liiiiII/IIMPlec in=i IiiiC7 SMOUNIS RESAM � ETEEFFIFAIR MIN-53p= t3 i�i5Sit a- • - IMI• *1*/r>i�l►1 Isaiiaui4 w� w�trs A aA Sggtalliisiti ,raa ' ■■ _ iisi l■iiiIIi ::I Ccatt gfl'�a SW ,litimi inURSsivi ..... . a Nat I$%liltiai®ss�iti 3n a e J ► iSIlg` IRISUlIDSIUii Fir. • 7 liat!�AlliisnmEMtiiPrek a , ₹ � 4� E i ltiM:' As::ic • ; .r Iii llumot�i�!Aiper►�i a r 'anti' `;z ERLt m IUSiiiii g. . ....�........e • Sa{i Iaain {.,3..- e___ - 3 1 1 i lI - I I s '; 3 3 ! 15 I I I 3 I 3 I T s . g 3 EEE Y ■ ay 1 ;3 S Raw 171w 173W itnw 171W • row 1a9W •Uaw - 1 i6741 WWI. WV" - R64W ' Hello