Uh-Oh! Problems with Utility Easements!

As background, it might be worthwhile to consider that the 777 S Yarrow proposal appears to include a re-plat in connection with the lot line adjustment and that the party proposing the re-plat is therefore the developer of 777 S Yarrow Street who may have to comply with various Colorado state statues.

(9) “Subdivider” or “developer” means any person, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, or corporation participating as owner, promoter, developer, or sales agent in the planning, platting, development, promotion, sale, or lease of a subdivision. CO Rev Stat § 30-28-101 (2023)

Therefore, Kairoi Properties LLC and Belmar Owner LLC are the subdivider because they are undertaking a lot line adjustment which requires a re-plat of 777 S Yarrow Street.

It is a Colorado requirement that the subdivider submit proof to the Planning Commission that subdivision utility easements have been approved by the respective utility providers as noted below per CO Rev Stat § 31-23-214 (2023:

(3) Subdivision regulations adopted under provisions of this section shall require that a subdivider, as defined in section 30-28-101 (9), C.R.S., submit to the (planning) commission evidence that provision has been made for facility sites, easements, and rights of access for electrical and natural gas utility service sufficient to ensure reliable and adequate electric or, if applicable, natural gas service for any proposed subdivision. Submission of a letter of agreement between the subdivider and utility serving the site shall be deemed sufficient to establish that adequate provision for electric or, if applicable, natural gas service to a proposed subdivision has been made.

The lot line adjustment does not qualify including because it creates a new tract labeled ‘A’. It is actually a subdivision re-plat disguised as a lot line adjustment.

As per the statute cited above, the subdivision re-plat should not be approved until acceptable utility easements have been delineated and approved by utility providers and proper public notification has been given.

Let’s talk about the water hook-up provided by Bancroft-Clover Water and Sanitation District to 777 S Yarrow Street.

The requirements are stated in a letter from Merrick and Company dated May 17, 2022 from Design Engineer Luke Lovato to Lakewood Planner Matt Post.

There are 18 requirements listed in the letter. We will quote a few of them below:

Bancroft-Clover Water Line Easement Requirements:

6. No permanent structures are allowed in District Easements.

Problem: Most of the planned water line easement is under a concrete sidewalk. At least 600 feet of concrete sidewalk encroach the District water line easement. Maybe more.

7. Other easements such as Pedestrian Easements are not allowed within a District Easement.

Problem: The concrete sidewalk is a pedestrian easement within the District water line easement.

Problem: The Xcel gas line easement is also within the District water line easement.

11. The District only allows one sewer service line per building. Please revise plans accordingly.

Problem: 777 S Yarrow Street plans at least THREE sewer service lines and only ONE line is allowed.

Let’s move on to the Xcel natural gas line easement. This requirement is called out in a letter dated May 31, 2022 from Donna George of Xcel Energy to Matt Post.

Xcel Energy Natural Gas Line Easement Requirements:

“Public Service Company of Colorado’s (PSCo) Right of Way & Permits Referral Desk has determined there is a conflict with Belmar Park Multifamily. It is unclear where the natural gas and electric distribution facilities are proposed to be located within this project. Please note that it is typical that 10-foot-wide dry utility easements are dedicated around the perimeter of these types of lots, but given certain proposed wet utility facilities this does not seem feasible.”

Problem: Xcel notes that it is unclear where natural gas and electrical hook-ups would be located. The current site plan proposal ‘does not seem feasible’.

As you can see from the engineering plan below, the Xcel natural gas line is improperly located only a few feet from the main 12 inch water line which is marked with dots and dashes. Having that water line a a few feet away does not qualify as a 10-foot wide ‘dry’ easement. The drawing below was included in the developer’s 4th site plan submittal.

Perhaps, in a future MSP submittal, the developer will eventually resolve the various utility easement problems by increasing the building setback(s) from their property line so that easements can provide the widths necessary to satisfy requirements.