HomeMy WebLinkAbout20172910.tiffMINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee was held on Thursday,
August 10, 2017 at 10:05 a.m., in the Hearing Room of the Weld County Planning Department at 1555 N 17th
Ave, Greeley, Colorado.
Members Present: Evan Pinkham, Hayley Balzano, Jeremy Young
Members Absent: Jerry Adams, LeAnn Koons, Lucas McConnell, Carsen Ortega, Marisa Dale, Michael
Wailes and Robert Fleck.
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
P U DF 17-0002
WAYNE HOWARD & SHARYN FRAZER
DIANA AUNGST
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN FOR 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH
ESTATE ZONE DISTRICT USES
LOT B AMD REC EXEMPT AMRE-3702; BEING PART OF THE SE4SW4
SECTION 30, T5N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 52.25 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.3 MILES
EAST OF CR 13.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are proposing to subdivide Lot B of Amended
Recorded Exemption AmRE-3702 into three (3) lots that vary in size from 2.95 acres to 9.3 acres. The
applicants rezoned this property to PUD with Estate Zone uses under case number PUDZ16-0005.
Section 24-7-60 which states, that when a new subdivision is created in the County, the following criteria are
required to be followed:
A. Easements shall follow rear and side lot lines whenever practical and shall have a minimum total
width of twenty (20) feet apportioned equally on abutting properties.
B. Where front line easements are required, a minimum of fifteen (15) feet shall be allocated as a utility
easement.
C. Easements shall be designed to provide efficient installation of utilities. Special guying easements at
corners may be required. 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 24-7-60, staff is recommending that the following easements
be created with this PUD.
1. Create a front line 15 -foot drainage and utility easement along CR 52 %.
2. Create a 10 -foot drainage and utility easement along the internal property lines for Lot 3 in
accordance with Section 24-7-60.
3. Label the easement along the east property line of Lots 2 and 3 as: 40 foot drainage and utility
easement.
Wayne Howard referred to the 10 foot easement and recalled that it was only recommended for Lot 3, which is
the southern lot. He inquired if the 10 foot easement is necessary. He provided a 3D image of the property
that provides a visual of the land layout. He pointed out that Lot 3 is severed from the adjacent properties by a
canal that winds its way through the property. He added that by putting a 10 foot drainage and utility easement
along that doesn't make much sense because there is no way to get utilities to it as it is cut off by other private
properties. Therefore, it would just be an easement in the middle of nowhere that would never be utilized for
anything.
Mr. Howard said that all the utilities are fed from the County Road and then go perpendicular from the county
roads into the lots. He added that by having the easements he identified on the plat are the only ones that
have any utilities that can physically be placed to feed Lots 2 and 3. He said that Lot 1 already has all the
utilities.
Mr. Howard requested to waive the Section of the County Code as this isn't a standard PUD environment with
Of/Awn° n cox.-t,or\s 1
30((�
2017-2910
urban utilities running through it. He added that it is a very rural PUD and the only utilities that exist out there
are power and water and he has identified sufficient access and utility easements for those utilities to supply
Lots 2 and 3 on the map.
Mr. Howard referred to the drainage easement on County Road 52.25. He said that there is a 15 foot utility
easement and doesn't see any need for a drainage easement along that same line on the south side of
County Road 52.25 as there is no water that is draining through there. He understands that this requirement is
part of the County Code; however, he is asking for a waiver to not identify a drainage easement along there
because it is not going to be used for drainage. He added that the county road side ditch is at the peak of a
hill there and it catches the water from the road. He said that the water from the road does not comes onto
the properties.
Mr. Howard said that he has a 40 foot utility and access easement and doesn't see a need for a drainage
easement along that north/south access easement, which is on the east side of Lot 2. He said that everything
sheet flows out there and the last thing he would want to do is take a nice pasture sheet flow and put it into a
channel way which would create some erosion issues because of the slopes of the property.
Hayley Balzono expressed concern of the easement on the southern boundary of Lots 1 and 2 and asked if it
will be used for any of the lots if for some reason a utility wasn't able to come into Lots 1 and 2 as indicated off
of County Road 52.25. Mr. Howard said that not likely, because you have to cross the canal and the canal
companies don't allow a lot of crossings any more. He added that there is no water or telephone on County
Road 52.25 and added that there is only a power line on County Road 52.25. Therefore, Lot 3 will be fed from
that easement. Lot 2 will be fed from County Road 52.25, as it has water and power. Ms. Balzano stated that
her concern is that if Lots 2 and 3 were limited to only this east easement and asked if there is any possibility
that they wouldn't be able to travel west, north of the wetland area and cross wherever. Mr. Howard said that
he intends to build his house on Lot 3 and said that the water line will have to bored under the wetlands and
canal. He said that he plans to bore under the wetlands so he doesn't have to have a crossing agreement
from the canal company. He is proposing to bring the water line down the 20 foot utility easement that is
between Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Balzano agreed that an easement isn't necessary for Lot 3 on Lot 3.
Motion: Approve the PUDF17-0002 Final Plan, as presented by the applicant, Moved by Jeremy Young,
Seconded by Evan Pinkham. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
2
Hello