HomeMy WebLinkAbout962161.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on October 24,
1996,at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado.
Tape 31
MEMBERS PRESENT
Don Carroll Weld County Engineering
Sue Skaley U.S. West Communications ? I
Cody Woolridge Central Weld County Water District '
Lee Lawson St. Vrain Sanitation District - .
Gary Sandau LaSalle Fire District
CASE NUMBER: S-407
CURRENT PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: Darrel Bearson
REQUEST: Resubdivision - Replat of Lots 1-8 of Lupton Meadows (Redesign)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1-8 of Lupton Meadows Subdivision
LOCATION: North and adjacent to Weld County Road 18; east and adjacent to Weld County Road 25.
Todd A. Hodges explained that this application is for a Resubdivision in the Lupton Meadows subdivision.
This proposal is for the re-adjustment of the lot lines. This property was purchased and sold in a different
delineation than what the lots were actually platted as. Mr. Hodges explained that to bring these properties
into compliance the applicant had to apply for a Resubdivision under the redesign section. The Department
of Planning Services' staff has no conflicts with this application.
Mr. Hodges explained that attached with this application was an amended recorded exemption and gave an
overview to the Advisory Board on how the applicant would be allowed this amended exemption if this
Resubdivision was approved.
Sue Skaley asked if all the utilities were on this site. Mr. Hodges explained that he had spoke with the
property owner and that all the utilities should be existing and that they did not feel there would be a need for
anymore utilities.
Cody Woolridge asked if they would need to bring this application up to todays standards. Mr. Hodges
explained that this would be to the Advisory Board's discretion for this Resubdivision. Mr. Hodges stated that
some of these lots have the same property owners and could have a residence placed on these lots. Mr.
Hodges explained that these lots are approximately forty acres in size.
Mr. Woolridge had concerns on lots three and four if they were subdivided. Mr. Hodges explained that the
property owners would need to go through the same process to subdivide. Access and utilities would be
reviewed at that time, or that it would be the Utility Board discretion to address all easements at this time. Mr.
Hodges felt that subdividing these lots would not be supported in the zoning standards due to the acreage
basis of these lots. The property owners would have to acquire municipal water through a water district, but
would still be allowed to put in a septic system.
The Utility Advisory Board agreed that they would be acceptable with the following Conditions of Approval:
I. A fifteen (15) foot front easement shall be required on the on the north, south and west lot lines of
this development.
(7-c( in 962161
�I//') i/C/
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 24, 1996
Page 2
2. The interior lot lines shall require the standard twenty (20) foot easement apportioned equally on
abutting properties.
Cody Woolridge moved to approve the utility easements with the Conditions of Approval to the Board of
County Commissioners. Sue Skaley seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: S-408
CURRENT PLANNER: Chris Goranson
APPLICANT: Horizon Investments, LLC.
- REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for a 38 lot subdivision for I-1 and C-3 uses.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion located in the S2 of Section 5, T2N, R68W, and a portion located
in the N2 of Section 8, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 119; west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 5.
Chris Goranson explained that this application has been through the zoning procedures and is currently zoned
I-1 and C-3. This application is being reviewed to look at the overall structure of this development and not the
use. Mr. Goranson explained that In this 38 lot subdivision, each lot would have to go through a site plan
review permit prior to anything be allowed. This development does consist of three accesses on to county
roads. Mr. Goranson explained that he had landscaping plans for this site showing where trees would be
placed.
Lee Lawson asked if the roads on the plat were dedicated or private roads. Tony Evans, with Pickett
Engineering, stated they were dedicated roads.
Chris Goranson stated that the City of Longmont had concerns with the dedication on Weld County Road 5,
and that the Weld County Public Works had not accepted this dedication.
Don Carroll asked if Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney had been contacted on the status of Weld
County Road 5. Mr. Goranson explained that he had just received the referral from the City of Longmont
today and had not contacted Mr. Morrison presently. Mr. Carroll stated if this was a public maintained road
the applicants would have rights to use it.
Cody Woolridge had concerns that there were no interior easements on the back lots placed on the plat. Mr.
Evans explained that utilities will not go any further south of this property and that south of this property is a
Longmont landfill.
Sue Skaley had concerns on how long this landfill would remain open. Mr. Evans stated that the landfill was
closed and to his knowledge nothing would be developed in this area due to the composting settling.
Todd Hodges explained that the property to the south could eventually be reclaimed and used as a potential
recreational open space area. It was in staffs opinion the Advisory Board place a Condition of Approval that
the property owner would allow a utility easement if required for future use. Mr. Carroll was in agreement with
the Condition of Approval being placed for future use.
Mr. Carroll asked if the Advisory Board was looking at both phases of this development. Mr. Goranson stated
that the Advisory Board was looking at Phase One. Mr. Hodges explained that the Advisory Board would be
looking at the full site of this facility for this application and that the phases would be dealt through the
improvements agreement.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 24, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Evans asked if fifteen (15)foot easements were on the perimeter of the property boundary lines or of the
right-of-way lines. Mr. Woolridge explained that is would be the fifteen (15) foot easement for the property
boundary lines.
Mr. Evans expressed concerns on the north property line next to Highway 119 that there was a one hundred
(100) foot buffer between county road right-of-way and the property line and an additional five (5) foot
easement from the property line and buffer. Mr. Carroll explained that Highway 119 was a State road and they
have a the one hundred (100)foot right-of-way. Mr. Evans explained that the applicants have this buffer was
between the property and the one hundred (100) foot State Highway right-of-way.
Mr. Woolridge explained that as long as the applicant designated a fifteen (15)foot easement within the buffer
area for utility easements there would be no problems.
Don Carroll had concerns with the south lot line easement. Mr. Woolridge explained that If the applicant's
submitted a letter explaining a (15) foot utility easement could be obtained at a later time from the utility
companies that this would be acceptable.
Mr. Evans asked if in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) could the applicants adjust the setback
requirements on side lot easements. Kerri Keithley explained that setbacks are from a road right-of-way, but
that you do have flexibility with the off-sets of the property lines.
Don Caroll moved to approve the utility easements with the Conditions of Approval to the Board of County
Commissioners.
1. A fifteen(15)foot perimeter utility easement shall be placed on the plat with the exception to the south
section that runs parallel to the landfill.
2. A fifteen(15)foot utility easement shall be placed on the plat on the west portion of the south property
line.
3. The applicant shall have the option of a ten (10)foot utility easement to be placed on the plat of outlot
areas showing a five(5) utility easement or a fifteen (15)foot utility easement shall be placed on the
plat within the outlot areas.
•
4. A fifteen (15) foot utility easement shall be placed on the plat on both sides of the internal road
systems.
5. The applicant shall have the option on the north property line of an additional ten (10) foot utility
easement to be placed on the property line or a fifteen(15)foot utility easement shall be placed within
the greenbelt area.
Cody Woolridge seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 24, 1996
Page 4
CASE NUMBER: S-406
CURRENT PLANNER: Kerri D. Keithley
APPLICANT: Al Alexander
REQUEST: Resubdivision for the purpose of the addition of one new lot in Block 2 of Kahn Subdivision.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 2, Kahn Subdivision located in part of the SW4 of Section 2,2N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24, east and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road.
Kerri Keithley explained that this is a Resubdivision for an additional lot in Block 2 of Kahn Subdivision. This
block was originally one lot and extended to the property lines. A portion of this lot has been acquired from
the Colorado Department of Transportation for the expansion of the new 1-25 interchange and corners.
Lee Lawson explained that St. Vrain Sanitation District has a twenty (20) foot private easement on the west
side of this property and Central Weld County Water District had an additional ten (10)foot private easement
on the west side of this property.
Ms. Keithley submitted a preliminary site plan for this proposed application. Dean Sparoco, representative
for Al Alexander, gave a brief overview of the preliminary site plan.
Discussion followed between Advisory Board members, Dean Sparoco and staff on the preliminary site plan
taking into consideration landscaping and design suggestions. It was in the Advisory Board opinion that the
applicant would not require an utility easement between the proposed lots 1 &2 of Block 2.
The Utility Advisory Board agreed that the proposal would be acceptable with the following Conditions of
Approval.
1. A fifteen (15) foot utility easement shall be placed along the south and west property lines with the
exclusion of trees along the fifteen (15) foot utility easements.
2. A ten (10) foot utility easement shall be placed on the north property line.
Cody Woolridge moved to approve the utility easements with the Conditions of Approval to the Board of
County Commissioners. Sue Skaley seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
9AILDLetc„:„.$0,..._
Jill Boshinski
Secretary
Hello