HomeMy WebLinkAbout20233758.tiff MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,
December 14,2023,via Microsoft Teams Meeting. The meeting was called to order by Chair,Michael
Wailes,at 10:00 a.m.
Members Present:Mike McRoberts,Michael Wailes,Brady Craddock,Mark Alessi,Robert Fleck,and Amy
Mutchie.
Members Absent:Jared Rauch,Jeremy Young,Jerry Adams,Andrew Holder.
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services and Kris Ranslem, Secretary,Eric
Wernsman,Donovan Sharp,Applicants;Emily Fore,United Power;Bob Ramsey,Kari Rozsa and Ryan
Johnson,Century Link.
Case Number: RLDF23-0002
Applicant Sharp Trust
Planner: Diana Aungst
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Rural Land Division Final Plan for the
Creation of Three(3)Lots in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Description: Lot B of Lot Line Adjustment LLA23-0009,being part of the NE1/4 of Section 34,
Township 5 North,Range 65 West of the 6.P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
Location: South of and adjacent to County Road 52;west of and adjacent to County Road
45.
Diana Aungst,Planning Services,presented Case RLDF23-0002.She stated that the RLD is a request for
three(3)lots.There are currently three(3)residences,one on each newly proposed lot,the utilities exist
and provide services to all three(3)residences.To ensure that there is no confusion in the future concerning
the utilities that service these Lots,staff is recommending that easements be established per Section 24-
3-60 of the Weld County Code.
Article III, Chapter 24, Division 1 states that all subdivisions approved by the Board of County
Commissioners shall comply with the following general standards:
A. Fifteen(15)feet minimum drainage and utility easements are required adjacent to public road rights-
of-way,unless otherwise recommended by the Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee for technical
purposes.
B. Twenty(20)feet minimum drainage and utility easements are required along internal lot lines and shall
be apportioned equally on abutting properties,unless otherwise justified by the Utilities Coordinating
Advisory Committee for technical purposes.
C. Ten(10)feet minimum drainage and utility easements are required along exterior lot lines,unless
otherwise justified by the Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee for technical purposes.Corner
exterior lots requires fifteen(15)feet.
D. Proposed easements may be modified by the Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee.Public utility
installations shall be located to permit multiple installations within the easements to avoid cross
connections,minimize trenching and adequately separate incompatible systems.
In order to address the requirements of Section 24-3-60 of the Weld County Code staff is recommending
that the following easements be created with this RLD.
1. Create fifteen(15)foot drainage and utility easements along CR 52 for all lots.
2. Create twenty(20)foot drainage and utility easement along internal lot lines apportioned equally
on abutting properties for all lots.
3. Create ten(10)foot drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines for all lots.
4. Label all easements as drainage and utility easements.
1
C o MM u n;Co.-f-;o r)S 2023-3758
12/2o/23
Eric Wernsman,applicant's representative,stated that there are three(3)existing residences and the applicant is
proposing to add property lines around the existing residences.He added that all of the lots currently have utilities so
they are not proposing any additional utilities and said that all of the lots still have access to all of the utilities on County
Road 52.Mr.Wernsman said that they would like to ask that they would not have to place any additional utility
easements as they are not needed and they won't be prohibiting any access in the future.
Mike McRoberts,Development Review,said that in looking into the future there might be an interest in changing these
lots and asked what the harm is for providing the easement standards listed in the Weld County Code.Donovan Sharp,
applicant,said that they are not changing anything on these lots and added that it is pasture ground so he doesn't see
the headache in putting those utility easements around those properties. Mr.Wemsman said that there are some
existing livestock buildings that would be within those easements and that would create an issue.He understands that
it is always better to have a path for the future,but these lots will always have that as they are adjacent to County Road
52.Amy Mutchie,Public Works,stated that she agrees that it doesn't hurt to include the internal easements but feels
that they are protected along County Road 52 because there is full right-of-way there dedicated for utilities. Mark
Alessi,United Power,agreed with Ms.Mutchie. He asked to see a map where existing utilities are on site. Mr.
Wernsman said that they have not mapped that yet.He added that that it is difficult to develop south of these lots due
to the seepage ditch company.
Ms.Aungst said that there are some obstacles to creating easements in this area. One of them is the requirement
along the ditch that would require to move things up a little;however the north/south easements may work.
Mr.McRoberts asked the applicant how many structures would be impacted if following Ms.Aungst's recommendations.
Mr.Wernsman said that both sides of Lot A would be impacted by existing structures,there is a septic system on Lot
1 that might be within a proposed easement,and there is a lean-to shed on the west side of Lot 3.
Mr.Alessi asked if there are any setback requirements for buildings. Ms.Aungst said that there are setback
requirements,but these buildings have been there for a really long time so they are considered nonconforming.Mr.
Alessi said that he doesn't think all the internal easements need to be placed around every lot but agrees that the
north/south easements should be identified.
Mr.McRoberts proposed a 15-foot drainage and utility easement around the right-of-way and along the proposed cul-
de-sac and terminates at the ditch right-of-way. Mr.Wernsman said that they are going to ask the County
Commissioners to not require the internal road because all these lots have existing accesses and they are not changing
anything.He added that building that road is creating an issue with the ditch company to the south.
Ms.Aungst said if the County Commissioners approve the request to not install a road then it would be easy to keep
the 20 foot north/south easement between Lots 1 and 2.She added that they could also put a north/south easement
on the west side of Lot 3 then each lot would have a north/south easement. If the road is required then they would
have to look at putting a 10-foot easement on the west side of Lot 1 and move the road a little to the west so that a 10-
foot easement could be included on Lot 2.
Brady Craddock,Century Link,said that they have a cable in the County Road 52 right-of-way and asked if they needed
anything additional.Mr.Sharp said that they have all the utilities,including century link,that they need.
Brady Craddock left the meet at 10:25 a.m.
Mr.McRoberts said we need to keep in mind these are drainage and utility easements and water flows west to the
east.The reason for having the easements along the property lines,is because having that 20-foot-wide easement
you can provide a swale or something for that drainage.The intention of the code was to provide an opportunity to put
in utilities that maybe aren't foreseen right now but down the road you might need or to resolve drainage problems.
Motion:Approve the final plan for RLDF23-0002 along with Staff's recommendations and include the 15-
foot easement along the cul-de-sac,Moved by Mike McRoberts,Seconded by Robert Fleck.
Mr.Alessi said that the 10-foot easement around Lot A would go right through those buildings.He said that
he doesn't feel he can agree with that.Ms.Mutchie agreed with Mr.Alessi and said that we need to consider
that. She added that they have to review what is being proposed today and would agree that it doesn't
make sense to put easements through existing buildings. However,she is in support of some internal
easements regardless just for future.
Mr.McRoberts withdrew his motion.
Mr.Wernsman proposed leaving the existing easement between Lots 1 and 2 and provide an easement on
the far west property line on Lot 3 but would like to have language that existing structures within that
2
easement would have to be relocated at the utility owner's expense. Ms.Aungst said that the County
doesn't have the authority to make the utility company pay and added that usually it is an agreement
between the utility company and the property owner.
Mr.Sharp asked if for some reason a utility needs to come at the back of the lot in the future wouldn't the
utility company be able to write an easement for that ability. Mr.Alessi said that depending on the future
they could be going across someone else's property and could do private easements. He added when
someone pays for the development though it would be up to the applicants to share that burden so that is
why we do it on the plats as code specifies.Ms.Mutchie said that this has been presented to us because
of a change and because of that change this was brought forth with the requirements we have to follow. If
there was no change it would be a private easement.We can agree to make adjustments to it,but we have
to decide if we are to enforce the requirements in the code. She added that although it won't change
physically tomorrow,it is for future changes that might necessitate having those easements in there. Ms.
Mutchie continued expressing that all the existing buildings should be notated on the plat because anything
new would have setback requirements from those easements.
Mr.McRoberts said that what has been presented in the site plan includes an internal road with a 60-foot
dedicated right-of-way with cul-de-sac so he believes the required 15-foot easement should be in place.
He added that he doesn't think we don't need to be talking about the access easement between Lots 1 and
2 as if the internal road was going away because that is not what we are evaluating.
Mr.Alessi said that we could draw in the utility easement regardless if the road is there or not. Mr.
McRoberts agreed but if they get permission to remove the road they would have to amend the plat. Ms.
Aungst suggested that although it is unusual,perhaps it could be an either-or scenario. Ms.Mutchie said
that we could put conditions on it.
Motion: Ms.Mutchie made a motion that if the proposed internal cul-de-sac remains that the 15-foot
easement would be met;however if the road is removed then the 30-foot easement would remain.
Additionally,a 10-foot easement is required along the west property line on Lot 3 and the 15-foot easement
along County Road 52.Motion was seconded by Mark Alessi.
Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=5).
Yes:Amy Mutchie,Mark Alessi,Mike McRoberts,Michael Wailes,and Robert Fleck.
Motion:Approve the final plan for RLDF23-0002 along with the amendments as stated,Moved by Mark
Alessi,Seconded by Mike McRoberts.Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
3
Hello