HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101471.tiff •
Memorandum
TO: Brad Mueller, W.C. Planning
DATE: September 25, 2009
FROM: Lauren Light, W.C. Department of
COLORADO
Public Health and Environment
CASE NO.: 2009-XX NAME: Dry Creek
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Weld County Environmental Health Department has reviewed this proposal to amend
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD) is
the applicant for this request which encompasses 2,095 acres. The property is located in
southwest Weld County, 5 miles southwest of Fort Lupton, 3 miles northwest of the City of
Brighton and 6 miles southeast of the Town of Dacono. The amendment would change the
property from Agricultural to Residential, Mixed Use and a limited amount of Commercial.
TCVMD addresses the Comprehensive Plan, Article IV, Environmental Resources in the
following ways:
• • The development addresses both potable and irrigation water as outlined in Section
22-4-20 of the Weld County Code. TCMVD will provide water from the South Platte
River for potable water. The existing TCMVD reverse osmosis water treatment plant
has a capacity of 1200 single family equivalents. An additional treatment plant as well
as reservoir expansion will be required to accommodate future build out.
• An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was executed between TCMVD and Fort
Lupton to provide wastewater service. The IGA indicates that Fort Lupton will accept
sewage for up to 14,000 Single Family Equivalents (SFE) and one million square feet
of commercial space. The existing wastewater treatment plant for Fort Lupton can
currently serve 2,900 SFE. The plant will need to be expanded to handle the
additional flows as development occurs.
• Sections 22-4-130 and 22-4-140 of the Weld County Code refer to mineral resource
exploration and production waste. TCMVD indicates that proper mitigation measures,
such as screening, setbacks and buffering, will be employed to address potential
conflicts between existing and future oil and gas facilities and future development.
Mitigation of oil and gas equipment will be accomplished through color, profile and the
use of low profile tanks.
• Section 22-4-190 addresses agricultural waste. TCMVD indicates development will
• work cooperatively with existing agricultural facilities to mitigate noise, air and visual
nuisances. The "Right to Farm" will be adhered to and new development will be made
aware of the continuation of agricultural activities on adjacent properties. EXHIBIT
2010-1471 1 t4
ORA toio-1
• Sections 22-4-40 and 22-4-60 refer to air and noise standards. As the majority of the
• proposed development (907 acres) will be Suburban Residential there should not be
excessive impacts to air or noise quality. Nuisance emissions of odor and dust will be
addressed during the development stage. Noise will be required to adhere to County
as well as Federal and State regulations.
• TCVMD will create a sense of place by providing mixed use neighborhoods which are
pedestrian oriented and will have detached sidewalks and bicycle paths. Pedestrian
interconnectivity will be obtained to adjacent properties as they are developed. A
diverse type of parks will be included in the development. Pocket parks,
neighborhood parks and community parks will provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for the development. A network of trails will be provided to include,
neighborhood, local and regional trails.
• Environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, ponds, riparian corridors and
stream corridors will be included in the Limiting Site Factors designation.
Development in these areas will be discouraged. Open space will be interconnected if
feasible.
The Environmental Health Department encourages the development of communities that
encourage active lifestyles. Physical inactivity has contributed to the obesity epidemic in
America. Obesity is a risk factor in high blood pressure, heart disease, some types of
cancer, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, stroke, osteoarthritis, high cholesterol, and
• other chronic ailments. Designing parks, bicycling and pedestrian trails into a community
promotes healthy lifestyles and reduces health care costs by providing opportunities for
regular exercise.
Community designs that provide travel choices such as bicycling and walking reduce vehicle
air pollutants that can degrade air quality. Respiratory and cardiopulmonary problems,
headaches, reduced learning ability, and premature mortality are some of the health effects
of vehicle emissions. Reducing auto emissions in turn limits the incidence and severity of
these diseases and ailments.
The mixed use neighborhoods included in TCVMD will support the commercial and retail
needs of the community. Banks, day care facilities, restaurants, offices, recreational
centers, places of worship, public gathering areas, etc. should be designed with the livability
of the residents in mind, and avoid development patterns that are 'destination' oriented. With
these varied uses included in neighborhoods, people will find it easier to walk and bike rather
than drive to their destinations.
The Environmental Health Department encourages TCVMD to incorporate the following
types of design elements:
• To develop a recreation district that allows all residents the opportunity to participate
in and support the cost of the recreational centers, ball fields, etc. TCVMD will
• probably be developed in multiple smaller subdivisions, each potentially offering
amenities (i.e. fitness centers, pool facilities, baseball/soccer fields, tennis/basketball
courts, etc.) that are exclusive to the subdivision. This exclusivity could leave
segments of the population without access to organized recreational opportunities.
• • To include design elements that provide for a safe (i.e., visible, well-lit), attractive
trail/sidewalk system that connects neighborhoods to school properties as directly as
possible so that children can use it easily and safely.
• To consider a carpool/park and ride area for residents commuting outside TCVMD.
The total vehicle trips are projected to be 50,756 at full build-out, and there is no
foreseeable future inclusion of Weld County into the Regional Transportation District
(RTD) planning area.
•
•
04 .-j!
• avoid county
Sohn B. Cooke, Sheriff
October 14, 2009
7o: Brad3/luelrer
Subject: RE: Referral comments for Dry CreekV)14
'The Sheriffs Office encourages Law Enforcement Authorities to provide additionalfunding for law
enforcement requirements in the future.
'The Sheriffs Office racks the ability to absorb any additional-service demand without the resources
recommended in the multi year plan provided to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners or
as indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed I have no other comments
on this proposal
Sincerely,
•
Kenneth E. rPoncelrw, Commander
Administration
• 1950 OStreet gredey,Cotaredo,80631
Kik
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services DATE: September 24, 2009
FROM: Heidi Hansen, P.E., Public Works NA
COLORADO Janet Carter, E.I., Public Works or
Clay Kimmi, P.E., C.F.M., Public Works 0./PC
SUBJECT: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Public Works Department has reviewed the above referenced comprehensive plan amendment and offer the following
comments. Comments made during the comp plan amendment process may not be all-inclusive. Other issues may arise
during the subsequent submittal phases that may supersede comments provided herein.
• Public Works Reviewed the Following Document: Dry Creek RUA Application (dated: August l', 2009)
Applicant: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District(TCVMD)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Please provide a map showing the limiting factors on the site including surface water bodies, wetland habitat, riparian
corridors, tloodplains, transmission lines, significant regional oil and gas lines, and significant oil and gas processing and
distribution facilities (Section 4.0, Comp Plan Amendment, 4.6.7).
•In Section 4.0 (Comp Plan Amendment), 4.6.4 Mixed Use Neighborhood, the commercial uses are called out as Weld
County C-1 and seem to fall under the"convenience services"category in the TCVMD IGA Study Area Report
(Appendix C, Section 2.4.6). With a maximum number of 19,000 residents possible in the RUA boundary, the
"neighborhood services"category would seem to be a more likely level of commercial activity. From a transportation
standpoint,the volume of traffic entering and exiting the RUA would be much less if"neighborhood services" such as
supermarkets and drug stores were available within the development.
TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS:
The preliminary study presented in this submittal recommends that WCR 17 be identified as a future six-lane arterial,
WCR 6 be identified as a four-lane principal arterial, and WCR 19, WCR 21 and WCR 2 be identified as two-lane minor
arterial roadways. The study also suggests 12 intersections be controlled with traffic lights or roundabouts and that WCR
17, WCR 23.5, and WCR 19 be realigned to fix the offset intersections at WCR 2. The applicant should be aware that all
of these road improvements(including the off-site portions) must be funded fully by the metro-district.
When the applicant submits a Change of Zone application, the County will provide specific milestones for when the
proposed platting of development within the Dry Creek RUA will trigger the need for construction of off-site
improvements. Funding for those improvements shall be secured and guaranteed by the developers or districts of the
proposed Dry Creek RUA, their successors and assigns. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, right-
of-way acquisition, roadway improvements, bridge improvements, and intersection improvements.
On all drawings, please show the adopted alignments included within the Weld/Adams County Line Crossroads
Alignment Study for County Roads 15 (Holly), 17 (Quebec), 19 (Yosemite), and 23.5 (Tucson).
•
Page I of 4 M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\Todd Creek Comp Plan Amendment\TCVMDCompPlanComments 9-24-09.docx
Many of the county roads impacted by the proposed development are not currently built out. Please show the adopted
minimum right-of-way widths for the following County Roads within the proposed Dry Creek RUA:
WCR 15 (Holly) ROW 120 feet
WCR 17 (Quebec) ROW 150 feet
WCR 19 (Yosemite) ROW 120 feet
WCR 23.5 (Tucson) ROW 60 feet
WCR 2 (168th) ROW 140 feet
WCR 6 ROW 140 feet
WCR 4 ROW 80 feet
For any proposed plats, Public Works will finalize access points for the proposed development with the applicant. Please
include the following access control criteria for the development:
• No private residential accesses shall be allowed onto roadways classified as arterial.
• Access points to arterial roads are limited to half-mile intervals. Access points to collector roads are limited to
quarter-mile intervals.
• The internal roads shall enter onto Weld County roads at a 90° angle, for a minimum of one vehicle length to
provide adequate sight distance in both directions.
• Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrances will be required. All landscaping within the
triangles must be less than 31/2 feet in height at maturity, and noted on the final roadway plans.
The submitted materials suggest that numerous county roadways will be widened to a four-lane arterial roadway cross
section with the traffic from the proposed development. These statements are incorrect. The county's approach to road
improvements has been one in which we prioritize the highest need and construct a two-lane facility. Any widening
beyond this two-lane configuration will be designed, funded, and constructed by development.
Improvements to Weld County roadways will be required at the onset of the development. These will likely include
shoulder widening, auxiliary lanes and potential signalization. A more thorough, comprehensive investigation of the
*shoulder
impacts will need to be performed.
Public Works will require that all off-site road improvements, needed due to the development, will be paid for 100% by
the development and not a proportional share as mentioned in the Section 4.0—Comp Plan Amendment.
The applicant should anticipate contributions toward improvements at the intersection of US 85 and WCR 6.
Maintenance of highways, roads, drainage facilities or other infrastructure improvements associated with this
development will be the responsibility of the Dry Creek RUA Metro-District.
A trip distribution for the proposed development was not included in the submittal materials. A trip distribution for the
proposed development must be included in the traffic impact analysis study submitted with the sketch plan.
Public Works will require TCVMD to provide a"master transportation plan"that shows the hierarchy of roads to be
constructed,traffic capacities and timing of construction tied to the development phasing plan. The transportation master
plan must also show how connections to existing county roads will be made and their respective impacts.
At the time of sketch plan, a traffic impact analysis will be required to determine the developments' impacts on the Weld
County roadway network and the proposed mitigation efforts by the developer to alleviate those impacts.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)has jurisdiction over all state highways. Please contact Gloria Hice-
Idler at the Greeley office(970-350-2148 or 970-350-2163)to verify any additional requirements that may be needed due
to the proposed development.
•
Page 2 of 4 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEVNTodd Creek Comp Plan Amendment\TCVMDCompPlanComments 9-24-09.docx
DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
•The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)delineated floodplain for Big Dry Creek traverses Dry Creek RUA
properties. Federal Regulations will require the developer to map the extents of the floodplain through a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Flood Hazard Area Determinations (FHAD)which will be required prior to the Change of Zone
application being accepted. Per County Code, no development is allowed in the floodway and any development in the
floodplain would require a Weld County Flood Hazard Development Permit. Development should be highly discouraged
from encroaching into the flood-fringe and floodplain. FEMA standards will be the standard measure.
Any bridges that are to be built or upgraded in a FEMA delineated floodplain such as Big Dry Creek or the South Platte
River will require a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA prior to construction and a letter of map revision from
FEMA after the bridge is completed.
Segment I (the main stem) of Big Dry Creek is listed on the 2008 303(d) List for Colorado for non-attainment of stream
standards for E. coli and selenium. In its current condition,this impaired creek may be imcompatible with uses proposed
by the Dry Creek RUA plan. To improve water quality and achieve natural resource goals the key activities needed in
urbanized areas include streambank stabilization, characterization and reduction of bacterial pollution sources, and
education related to stormwater pollution prevention. Sources for solutions to these issues include the Big Dry Creek
Watershed Association (BDCWA). BDCWA is a voluntary association of individuals and entities who dedicate time and
resources to developing a sound scientific understanding of water quality,flow, aquatic life and habitat conditions in the
Big Dry Creek watershed and act to improve these conditions. Please address these issues in coordination with their
ongoing efforts. [See www.bigdrycreek.org]
Specific Drainage Report Comments:
• 2.1.2 Irrigation Ditches—Explain how it was determined that "In smaller more frequent storm events the
[Bratner] ditch significantly influences the drainage patterns of the drainage basins by potentially blocking surface
•
runoff, resulting in absorption of the first quarter to half inch of rainfall and localized depressional storage or
surface flow diversion." Any drainage alterations involving irrigation ditches should conform to the Weld County
Drainage Criteria Addendum Section 5. 5
• 2.2 FEMA Floodplain Maps and Studies—Updated detailed floodplain modeling for Big Dry Creek is required by
FEMA for large scale developments such as this.
• 2.2.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation—Weld County is updating its hazard mitigation plan; however, it does not contain
any flood mitigation projects for this area.
• 2.2.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation, Regional Detention—The embankments described will have to be certified by
FEMA. The County will not accept responsibility for maintaining them.
• 2.2.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation, Irrigation Inundation Management—Development is required to obtain written
permission from local irrigation ditches to release stormwater into the ditch. Stonnwater release rates must be at
the 5-year historic rate or less.
• 3.1.1 Rainfall--Given the proximity of the RUA to the Tri-Town area it is acceptable to use the rainfall amounts
for the Tri-Town area. These can be found in the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
• 3.1.3 Release Rate—Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Section 4.5 (Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual Volume 1) states that: "It is Weld County policy to require detention of runoff from the 100-year
storm falling on the developed site and release of the detained water at the rate of the runoff of the 5-year storm
falling on the undeveloped site. Detention releases based on soil types are not approved for Weld County." Weld
County does not accept detention sizing based on release rates calculated as cfs/acre. That method might suffice
for general project scoping for this preliminary document but that method will not be accepted for individual
development plans.
• 3.1.4 Detention Storage—FEMA will not accept CUHP for areas outside of UDFCD unless you can prove that the
• parameters of the study area are similar to UDFCD.
• 3.3 Water Quality— Weld County strongly discourages retention basins. Retention ponds will only be approved
in specific cases and only if certain criteria are met.
Page 3 of 4 M'.\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\Todd Creek Comp Plan Amendment\TCVMDCompPlanComments 9-24-09.docx
Public Works will require a multi-basin wide drainage master-planning effort. This effort should include a watershed
approach to stormwater management component. Fully developed condition flows for the 100-yr major storm event as
well as the 10-year minor storm event should be used to determine levels of protection and provide for water quality
•analyses.
All master planning, stormwater and water quality design must follow Urban Storm Drainage Criteria, latest version with
adjustments per the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals
(Weld County Code Chapter 8, Article XI).
RECCOMENDATION:
The Public Works Department is not providing a formal recommendation of acceptance or denial of the comprehensive
plan amendment. However, we have provided these comments for applicant and inter-departmental use.
•
•
Page 4 of 4 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\Todd Creek Comp Plan Amendment\TCVMDCompPlanComments 9-24-09.docx
Weld County Plann& "raiment
GREELEY U.
• ACT 02i
rs Q DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
RECEIVL'; P.OBOX A
GREELEY, CO. 80632 80632
Website: www.co.weld.co.us
Administration and Public Assistance(970)352-1551
Child Support(970)352-6933
111k
COLORADO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Mueller Date:�� September 28, 2009
FR: Gloria Romansik J `—'
Child Welfare Administrator
RE: Dry Creek RUA Application
• The application was reviewed by the Division Heads and several Managers at the
Department of Human Services. There were no significant impacts identified by the
other Divisions but potential impact of the area comes in the form of child welfare
services for the additional residents. It is proposed that three new K-8 schools and a high
school will be needed to serve the additional students coming to the area which could
necessitate additional child welfare staff to be hired and housed in the south part of the
county. The increase in population would also more than likely require out child welfare
partners to expand their capacity to provide visitation and therapy services to our clients
in the south part of the county. If these partners were not able to expand their services
adequately, our clients would need to travel to Greeley or other towns for these services.
Also, in regards to capacity, it is expected that additional foster and group homes would
be desired in this section of the county and the proper zoning required for such
establishments would need to be considered.
•
t
•
47.141 ( Weld County Referral
August 25,"Flaunty Planning Department
wilp Cs SEPL28?0M
EY OFFICE
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Please Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUA") consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4 &6 and CR 17 &
21.
• Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1469 27 300016, 1469 34 000012, 1469 35 200026,
1469 35 200007, 1469 21 000014, 1469 26 000008, 1469 27 100017,
1469 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1469 28 400024, 1469 28 400025,
1469 26 200015, 1469 26 200014, 1469 26 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1469 26 100002, 1469 26 100003, 1469 26 000009, 1469 35 200010,
1469 35 200008, 1469 35 200009, 1469 35 200011, 1469 35 200012,
1469 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
U We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
• /
Signature l f �l%Z x Date V/ /(j
/d
Agency W8 (� ([ v7 i t7u�c'P1 L ' //lcl7/S+r /r
+Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10"'Street, Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
MEMORANDUM
• � � TO: Brad Mueller, Planner September 19, 200
FROM: Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
"ANC SUBJECT: Review of Dry Creek RUA Proposal
COLORADO
In accordance with your request of August 25, 2009, I have reviewed the Dry Creek RUA
application. I have only reviewed the application from the perspective of the development's fiscal
impact on Weld County.
The "per capita" methodology used for determining the fiscal impacts for a development of this
type is appropriate for this level of development proposed by the Dry Creek RUA application.
They have quantified current revenues and expenditures for each major public service provider
within the Dry Creek RUA. The analysis estimated each public service provider's revenues and
expenditures when the residential neighborhoods within the development are fully built. The
analysis assumes public service providers continue to assess taxes and collect revenues at the
same level and by the same means in the future as they do currently. It also assumes public
service providers' per capita expenditures are constant and proportional to their future revenues.
Each public service provider's funding needs are estimated from property tax and are compared
to estimated new property tax revenue based upon 4,500 new homes. When disparities are
identified, financing mechanisms are identified to backfill revenue gaps. The mechanisms are
metropolitan districts, homeowners' associations, land and facility dedications, impact fees, and
developer and builder contribution are proposed to construct and maintain infrastructure and
amenities.
• Although the methodology used is probably the best approach available there is some debate
among fiscal impact analysts on whether or not, since the development will be in the
unincorporated areas of the county, will there be a disproportional impact on costs of county
services rather than doing as they appear to have done and simply took a weighted per capita
cost of all services for the total Weld County population.
Based upon the above methodologies it will be critical that as the development is approved that
there are conditions of approval attached to the project that insure the funding mechanisms are
required to fill the revenue gaps identified. Specifically, to insure county revenue gaps are
backfilled the following should be required of the development
• A development of this type will require a law enforcement authority for Sheriffs patrol
services. Typically a seven mill levy is required to support this function.
• The design and construction of paved streets, collectors, state highway improvement,
signalization, water, sewer, storm drainage, recreation facilities and other required
infrastructure improvements should all be paid for by the developer, builder, or
metropolitan district in total. The long term maintenance of the streets and other
infrastructure should fall within the purview of the metropolitan district.
• Park and recreation amenities should all be built and operated by a homeowners'
association or metropolitan district.
• Other service providers, such as the fire district, and schools, should be required to
identify the infrastructure needs and maintenance that they will require.
• Review of future proposed metropolitan district service plans and their financial feasibility
• will be critical for this development success.
.
• There is an absence of discussion of the potential fiscal impact of this project on all the
nearby municipalities. There could be service demands placed upon the nearby
municipalities by the citizens of this development.
• No build out or marketing feasibility data was provided. This type of information should
be required to insure the development is truly financially feasible and realistic to avoid
problems such as those encountered with the Beebe Draw development. This data
should definitely be required of any proposed metropolitan district proposed to support
this development.
It should be noted that Weld County has a Home Rule Charter 5% property tax limitation
allowing the total property tax to increase only 5% over the previous year, unless the County
Council authorizes an override to exceed the 5% or the voters authorize it. The result without
the override in their analysis is that in years where the total county assessed value exceeds 5%
the property tax revenue appreciation from total new growth from a project like this is not totally
realized by the county. This is just a factor that complicates any analysis of growth in Weld
County.
Finally, from a fiscal analysis perspective a project of this type is better suited to be in a
municipality rather than in the unincorporated area of the county. By being located in the county
the development that eventually will have 4,500 homes and a population of nearly 13,000
residents will miss the opportunity to capture sales tax to support essential services. Sales tax
revenues in Colorado are significant resources to support municipal services that will be required
• eventually in a development of this type. Absence the sales tax revenues property taxes may
become a bigger burden and there will not be a good revenue balance of property taxes and
sales taxes to support the service levels that may be required by a development of this type that
has all the appearances of being a municipality. Highlands Ranch is Douglas County is an
exception, but one only has to look to Lakewood in Jefferson County or Centennial in Arapahoe
County to see examples of large unincorporated areas that eventually had to be incorporate as
municipalities to meet the service demands that the counties could not provide. For these
reasons from a long term governmental financial perspective this project is not
recommended to be developed in the unincorporated part of Weld County.The applicant
should be encouraged to pursue the development in one of the nearby municipalities.
As you go through the review if you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-
356-4000 Extension 4218.
Dry Creek URA Review
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Mueller, Planner December 21, 2009
WIFROM: Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
COLORADO SUBJECT: Review of Dry Creek RUA Proposal
In response to your December 17, 2009 referral request, I have reviewed the additional
information submitted in conjunction with the Dry Creek RUA application. I have only
reviewed the information from the perspective of the development's fiscal impact on
Weld County. The additional information reviewed was (1) Dry Creek RUA Financial
Analysis dated December 15, 2009 by Nanci Kerr, (2) Dry Creek RUA Response to
Referral Comments dated December 17, 2009 by EDAW, (3) Market Study, and (4)
Additional Water Discussion.
DRY CREEK RUA FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
The Dry Creek RUA Financial Analysis takes the position that since annexation of the
• entire area by a municipality is not available to the Dry Creek RUA because the area is a
hole in the municipal government donut created by Ft. Lupton, Brighton, and Thornton.
As result of the inability to enter into an annexation agreement with a neighboring
municipality the Dry Creek RUA Financial Analysis argues that the creation of a metro
district is the best tool to assure the revenue gaps that may exist between the services the
county provides and the services residents' of the area may desire. The study goes on to
cite how Highlands Ranch is a successful metro district that provides the desired services
to the residents without being an incorporated municipality and without a sales tax. The
study also cites that the cities of Lakewood and Centennial were large unincorporated
developed areas that ultimately incorporated as municipalities for the reason of avoiding
hostile annexations by adjacent cities. The study then recites reasons that the author does
not think a sales tax is necessary for this rural development area and the demand for
services can be supported by mill levies, homeowners' associations, impact fees, and
developer dedications.
DRY CREEK RUA REFERRAL LETTER:
The referral letter responses to each of the comments submitted on September 19, 2009,
by the Finance and Administration. The responses primarily try to justify why the area
does not need to be incorporated as a municipality in order to have sales tax as a revenue
source to support the service desires of the residents.
•
1
• MARKET STUDY:
The marketing study provides building and marketing feasibility data that was previously
requested. The data provided seems reasonable based upon the assumption provided.
There is little ability of county staff to challenge or dispute the findings. The study does
not address the impact of all the hundreds of vacant residential buildable parcels that
already exist in Weld County. The forecasts are predicated on the prediction of the
housing market rebounding. One can debate the timing of the rebound, but it is all
speculation at this time. Therefore, no issues are taken with the market study.
WATER DISCUSSION:
This discussion has little relevance to the fiscal impact on the county, so no comments are
being made by Finance and Administration.
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS:
Weld County Finance and Administration still differs on the recommendation of the
developer concerning annexation and the need for a sales tax source to support the
service desires of the rural development area. In the Dry Creek RUA Financial Analysis
done December 15, 2009 by Nanci Ken, and Dry Creek RUA Response to Referral
Comments dated December 17, 2009 by EDAW Finance and Administration disagrees,
takes issue, or has additional data to offer that supports Finance and Administration's
•
original recommendation that from a long term fiscal impact perspective a project of this
type is better suited to be in a municipality rather than in the unincorporated area of the
county in order to offer the residents the opportunity to capture sales tax to support
essential services like most municipalities in Colorado.
• The developer information cites the reason that the dry Creek RUA can not
annex into a municipality is because the area is a hole in the municipal
government donut created by Ft. Lupton, Brighton, and Thornton. As result of
the inability to enter into an annexation agreement with a neighboring
municipality the Dry Creek RUA Financial Analysis argues that the creation of
a metro district is the best tool to assure the revenue gaps that may exist
between the services the county provides and the services residents' of the area
may desire. The very fact that the area is in a government donut of neighboring
municipality's raises the public policy issue of whether the project as proposed
by the developer is really good land use planning and financially responsible
long term? For this reason Finance and Administration again recommends that
the developers for this project seek an annexation agreement from one of the
neighboring municipalities since long term being part of a municipality is a
better financing option than use of a metro district.
• The financial analysis study cited Highlands Range as a successful metro
district and homeowners' association financing mechanism providing services
without being in a municipality or having a sales tax. The analysis fails to point
• out that Douglas County dedicates a large portion of Douglas County's road and
2
• bridge sales tax to the Highland Ranch area for road and bridge improvements
each year. So, even Highlands Ranch is indirectly supported by sales tax. Such
an arrangement would not be possible in Weld County, since Weld County has
no sales tax.
• The financial analysis study cited that Centennial and Lakewood incorporated
as municipalities to avoid hostile incorporations by neighboring municipalities.
Although this is true, the other major motivation according to Jefferson County
and Arapahoe County staff was to provide both areas the option of sales tax
revenues. Currently Lakewood has a 3.0% sales tax and Centennial has a 2.5%
sales tax to support their service requirement.
• The financial analysis study on page 5 under"What Can We Learn?" discusses
Highland Ranch's preference to share Highway User Trust Funds with Douglas
County. The study states: "After considerable discussion, HRMD would prefer to
share Highway User Trust Fund(HUTF) monies with the County. Simply stated,
HUTF is the redistribution of federal gas tax back to Counties based on a
calculation of vehicle lane miles. Douglas County treats HRMD differently than
municipalities in the County. Douglas County shams 50% of each cities allocation
of HUTF monies, but not with HRMD. HRMD estimates a loss of 1M revenue
annually from HUTF. HRMD continues to seek a more fare distribution of the
federal gas tax within Douglas County. " This comment goes to the creditability
of report's understanding of local government financing relations in Colorado.
The statement is in error in that the HUTF funds are state fuel tax funds, not
federal, and the county's portion is not shared back 50% with municipalities in
• Colorado. The county share back of 50% with municipalities in Colorado is the
property tax portion collected from county's road and bridge mil levy within the
incorporated municipal boundaries.
• The developer's referral response letter argues that the Dry Creek RUA can best
be financed via a metro district mechanism and does not need to be annexed
into a municipality in order to have the opportunity to have sales tax as funding
mechanism. The following comment from Finance and Administration and the
response from the developer via EDAW raise serious questions of whether
EDAW and the developer have a good understanding how municipal services in
Colorado are typically financed. From the following quote they are under the
impression that the Dry Creek RUA can function well without a sales tax. The
quote on page 9 of the report indicates that because they think that 30 of the 32
Weld County municipalities function WITHOUT a sales tax, the Dry Creek
RUA can function in the same manner. The fact is 30 out of 32 of the
municipalities in Weld County function WITH a sales tax. The only two Weld
County municipalities without a sales tax are Grover and New Raymer, both
very small towns.
• "Comment: Review of future proposed metropolitan district service
plans and their financial feasibility will be critical for this development
success. Being located in the County the development that will
eventually have a population of nearly 13,000 people will miss the
opportunity to capture the sales tax to support essential services.
Absent the sales tax revenues, property taxes may become a bigger
• burden and there will not be a good revenue balance of property taxes
and sales taxes to support the service levels that may be required by a
3
• development of this type that has all the appearances of being a
municipality.
• Response: The Dry Creek RUA will function like other developed
areas. or the 30 incorporated towns in the County without a sales tax.
Near 75% build out of the community, there may be enough demand to
support 125,000 square feet of neighborhood and convenience retail.
This site is missing necessary elements for sizable retail or commercial
to be viable. Regardless of the Dry Creek study area's jurisdictional
affiliation, the site will support a modest amount of retail.
• The data provided indicates that the development will be primarily residential properties
with approximately 125,000 square feet of neighborhood and convenience retail several
years (18 years per the report) out in the development. This will mean that there will not
be a good mix of residential, commercial, and industrial property for the assessed values.
This lack of assessed value mix could be problematic for a metro district to be able to get
bond financing long term, especially in the current credit market.
In conclusion the financial analysis and other data provided attempts to demonstrate that the
metro district funding mechanism with a high mill levy is the best option to finance the
development. The study tries to demonstrate it may be feasible under certain assumptions.
However, Finance and Administration still takes the position that it is not the optimum
financial mechanism long term for a project of this type. Finance and Administration is still of
the opinion that the best option is that the project should seek an annexation agreement with
a neighboring municipality, so the project can be in a municipality with a sales tax to help
support the service desires of the residents. Without an annexation agreement it is
recommended that the creation of the Dry Creek RUA be denied.
• CC: Monica Mika
Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board
•
4
Brad Mueller
•From: Dave Bressler
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:04 AM AM so GG SakV f c s
To: Brad Mueller
Subject: RE: Referral comments for Dry Creek RUN?
Attachments: dbressler@co.weld.co.us.vcf
Brad:
I do not, but I will check with my Operations Manager as well. Thanks for thinking of us.
Thank you,
Dave Bressler, Director
Weld County Paramedic Services
This message and all attachments are considered confidential to Weld County Paramedic Services and disclosure,use,or distribution to anyone other than the
designated recipient without prior written permission of Weld County Paramedic Services is prohibited.If you think you have received this message in error,please
notify the sender via the reply feature and delete this message without disclosure.
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Dave Bressler
•Subject: Referral comments for Dry Creek RUA?
Dave,thought I'd just check with you to see whether you'd be having any comments on the proposed Dry Creek RUA.
I'm working to summarize comments for that, but wanted to be sure you had a chance to comment. If none, that's fine
—thanks. Brad
•
1
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
4 OF Oj\� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
• �e o DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE �- ���®
�cL. F. * Bill Ritter,Jr.
1$']6 Governor
Harris D.Sherman
August 28, 2009 Executive Director
Dick Wolfe,P.E.
Director/State Engineer
Brad Mueller
Weld County Planning Department
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Todd Creek Metropolitan District-Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a
new Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA")
Case No: 2009-XX
Water Division 1, Water District 2
Dear Mr. Mueller:
This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section 30-28-
101(10)(a), C.R.S. Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county
planning directors, this office will only perform a cursory review of the referral information and provide
• comments. The comments do not address the adequacy of the water supply plan for this project or the
ability of the water supply plan to satisfy any County regulations or requirements. In addition, the
comments provided herein cannot be used to guarantee a viable water supply plan or
infrastructure, the issuance of a well permit, or the physical availability of water.
According to the information submitted the proposal is to amend the Weld County Comprehensive
plan establishing a Regional Urbanization Area ("RUA") designation for 2,095 acres of land within the
defined boundaries of the proposed Dry Creek RUA. The Dry Creek RUA is within the Todd Creek Village
Metro District ("District"). Water for the development is proposed to be supplied by the District. Based on the
information provided, it is unknown if the District currently has the water supply available to supply this
development. Thus, the State Engineer's Office cannot comment on the proposed water supply.
However, as assistance to your office, if you have any specific questions regarding the water
supply or wells, please contact loana Comaniciu of this office.
Sincerely, L iic)daJoan a Williams, P.E.
r Resource Engineer
JMW/idc
CC: Jim Hall, Division 1 Office
Water Supply Branch
Subdivision File
•
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street,Suite 818• Denver,CO 80203• Phone:303-866-3581• Fax:303-866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
Brad Mueller
From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [Gloria.Hice-Idler@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:44 AM
o: Brad Mueller
Subject: Dry Creek
Gloria Hice-Idler
Permit Supervisor
CDOT Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley CO 80631
(970) 350-2148
Brad,
I'm sorry for not responding about Dry Creek sooner. CDOT would obviously be concerned about traffic impacts. The US
85 A ccess Control Plan indicates that an interchange is planned for CR 6. We would encourage the County to help
ilacilitate the study and eventual funding of that interchange. Per the US 85 ACP, the connection of WCR 4 to US 85 will
omeday go away, and the east leg cul-de-saced.
The traffic study didn't really address the impacts of the development on US 85. I'm not sure if that's something that
needs to be done now, but will need to done at some point.
Let me know if you need anything else
Gloria Hice-Idler
Permit Supervisor
CDOT Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley CO 80631
(970) 350-2148
4111
1
CITY of Community Development
@R1Q1't C3N 22 South 4nh Avenue
�AlPIll�glt�wAw�aI111AAAAA�
Brighton, Colorado 80601
303-655-2069 (Phone and Fac iniilc)
September 24, 2009
Brad Mueller, Long Range Planner
Department of Planning Services
Weld County
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
VIA EMAIL
Re: 2009-XX Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Dry Creek RUA
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the referenced comprehensive plan amendment referral.
While this property is not located within the city of Brighton's Planning Influence Area, the Planning
department has a few concerns regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
According to Section 1.9, which is titled, "Why the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Needs to be
Revised," the Applicant asserts that they have "thoroughly studied regional opportunities and
constraints and determined that social and economic conditions and existing and changing land use
• patterns require RUA adjustment for sustainable future growth." I question how amending the
county's comprehensive plan to allow for the potential development of up to 6,600 dwelling units with
19,700 persons (with suburban and urban level densities) with a ten-minute drive from employment,
shopping and services can be considered sustainable?
I find it interesting how the applicant asserts that the area is prime for this type of development and
lists statistics related to the growth of the region and the surrounding municipalities (pages 12-14), yet
states on page 17 under Section 1.15.5 that "Despite its close proximity to U.S. 85 and other major
arterials, the area has grown slowly compared with the rest of the region." Perhaps this is due to the
fact that the growth is occurring within municipal boundaries where adequate services can be provided
in a truly sustainable manner? Suburban and urban uses and densities should develop in a consistent
and well-thought pattern; more importantly, they should develop in areas where employment and
service opportunities exist, instead of in outlying areas, which end up placing undue burden on
surrounding municipalities.
A truly sustainable community should not require its residents to commute (without the possibility of
mass-transit, no less) to employment cores for jobs. As noted in the document, the only employment
possibilities within the community are "located in neighborhood mixed-use centers" and would
generate, "Along with school employment, approximately 211-609 new jobs." Naturally, as the future
residents will have to leave their community for employment and the majority of their shopping and
service opportunities, Brighton is concerned that these residents will be traveling into our community,
which places a significant burden on our transportation systems in terms of traffic and maintenance
• issues, and can affect our ability to provide fire and police protection to our residents.
Administration• Building Division•Engineering Division+ Planning Division
Our Mission...Integrity+ Piston +Stewardship=A Progressive Community
Dry Creek RUA - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Overall, the City of Brighton believes that a Comprehensive Plan amendment of this magnitude should
• be made in an area truly ready for suburban and urban uses and densities. The applicant's justification
that the area has the capability for the provision of services, should not negate the fact that this area is
vacant, agricultural land and that development should be taking place in a more appropriate area.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
(303) 655-2022 (or via e-mail at hprather@brightonco.gov), should you require additional or more
detailed information concerning this response.
Sincerely,
Holly Prather, AICP
Planning Manager
cc: File
•
•
Page 2 of 2
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
SEP 247f104
• Weld County RBI WED
August 25, 2009
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Please Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUN) consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4 &6 and CR 17 &
21.
. Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1469 27 300016, 1469 34 000012, 1469 35 200026,
1469 35 200007, 1469 21 000014, 1469 26 000008, 1469 27 100017,
1469 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1469 28 400024, 1469 28 400025,
1469 26 200015, 1469 26 200014, 1469 26 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1469 26 100002, 1469 26 100003, 1469 26 000009, 1469 35 200010,
1469 35 200008, 1469 35 200009, 1469 35 200011, 1469 35 200012,
1469 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
U We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
XSee attached letter.
Comments:
• Q
Signature Date \— —Q
Agency ate 1 0V !YtOnO
@Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10th Street,Greeley,CO.80631 6(970)353-6100 ext.3540 6(970)304-6498 fax
Of DAe
,,, O,fr September 24, 2009
4f
OLAwli► `q
DED -
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Attn.: Mr. Brad Mueller
918 10`h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
Case Number 2009-XX
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan
District RUA application, case number 2009-XX. Pursuant to the adoption of the Dacono
Comprehensive Plan in January 2005, the City of Dacono planning area encompasses a 22 square
miles (14,080 acres), bounded by State Highway 52 on the north; Weld County Road (WCR 21) on
the east; WCR 6 on the south and Interstate 25 on the west. The planning area represents the area
of potential annexation and growth of the City.
• A portion of the proposed RUA extends into the Dacono Planning Area at the intersection of WCR 19
and WCR 6. As a result, the City of Dacono is providing the following summary of future land use,
transportation, and parks, trails and outdoor recreation plans. The City's hope is that if the RUA is
created as envisioned, the future plans and developments standards adopted by the City of Dacono
will be taken into consideration when analyzing land use plans.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The future land use designation for this area is largely open space and low density residential. This
district is intended to include permanent open space, but also allows for limited development such as
gravel extraction, golf courses, livestock grazing, and recreational public facilities. This land use
designation was given to the area based on its environmentally sensitive nature such as wetlands-
most notably around the Big Dry Creek. The City promotes preservation and protection of these areas
and advocates for sound conservation practices.
The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan promotes a gradual transition of residential densities
("feathering densities") from moderately high-densities around the city center to relatively low
densities are out the eastern portion of the planning area. This low density and very low density is
intended for large-lot, single-family development in more rural areas on the outskirts of the Planning
area. Furthermore, the areas designated as estate or ultra low density are intended to provide a
transition from highly agricultural uses to low-density residential. The concept of the low density
residential is to encourage land use of 1 residence per acre and residential estate of 1 residence per 5
acres.
Transportation Plan
The City has an adopted Transportation Master Plan for the entire planning area. The city has a
• network of arterial roadways primarily located along section lines. WCR 8 is identified as a Class A
arterial. This four lane major arterial can be accommodated in a 120-foot right-of-way. Planned Class
A arterials are controlled access facilities, where development and implementation of an access
512 Cherry Street, Dacono, Colorado 80514 • (303)833-2317(303)833-5562 fax • www.ci.dacono.co.us
control plan is encouraged. WCR 6 is designated as a Class B arterial pursuant to the June 2003
plan. Class B arterials provide connectivity throughout the Dacono planning area. The City of
Dacono requests that future road development be in conformance with the adopted Transportation
• Plan.
Parks, Trails, and Outdoor Recreation Plan
The Dacono planning area includes numerous ditch and irrigation canal systems, Little Dry Cree,
drainage and abandoned railroad right-of-way. The City has developed a comprehensive trail system
to capitalize on these natural assets as part of the Parks, Trails and Outdoor Recreation Master Plan
adopted in March 2008. The Dacono Loop is a trail loop around Dacono. The Cora section of the
Dacono Loop will interconnect the southeastern portion of the city with the Daisy section, Nora section
and the Dry Creek Trail. See attached map.
School Sites
The City's comprehensive plan identifies a Weld RE-8 school site just north of WCR 8 and to the west
of WCR 19. School locations have been sited to comply with criteria outlined by the Weld RE-8
school district. The City requires land dedication or fee-in-lieu of dedication for addressing the
impacts of development on the school district and its facilities.
Please contact me should you have any additional questions or required further information at 303-
833-2317 x127.
Sincerely,
ennifer Krieger
• Planning Coordinator
cc: City of Dacono Planning & Zoning Commission
•
512 Cherry Street, Dacono, Colorado 80514 ♦ (303)833-2317(303)833-5562 fax • www.ci.dacono.co.us
•
Weld County Referral
August 24, 2009
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Please Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area("RUA")consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4&6 and CR 17 &
21.
• Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1469 27 300016, 1469 34 000012, 1469 35 200026,
1469 35 200007, 1469 21 000014, 1469 26 000008, 1469 27 100017,
1469 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1469 28 400024, 1469 28 400025,
1469 26 200015, 1469 26 200014, 1469 26 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1469 26 100002, 1469 26 100003, 1469 26 000009, 1469 35 200010,
1469 35 200008, 1469 35 200009, 1469 35 200011, 1469 35 200012,
1469 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
ul See attached letter.
Comments:
• Signature V,a/MADate S 5134.1 coq
Agency 69 1 ( litattfi . e • Da VISIT
• Weld County Referral
' August 24, 2009
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
OCT 16 2009
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Please Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUA")consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with adjacency
to the Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4&6 and CR 17 & 21.
Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1469 27 300016, 1469 34 000012, 1469 35 200026,
• 1469 35 200007, 1469 21 000014, 1469 26 000008, 1469 27 100017,
1469 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1469 28 400024, 1469 28 400025,
1469 26 200015, 1469 26 200014, 1469 26 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1469 26 100002, 1469 26 100003, 1469 26 000009, 1469 35 200010,
1469 35 200008, 1469 35 200009, 1469 35 200011, 1469 35 200012,
1469 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that
new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you
desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning
Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
n_ ave reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
Vf See attached letter.
Comments:
• Signature Date x//3-470,
Agency
Weld County Planning Dept. 918 10p'Street,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)3046498 fax
F°" lotCity of Fort Lupton
• t, x Planning and Building
SOLO On Department
Performance,Integrity,Teamwork,
Accountability and Service
(303)857-6694 x 125
Tom Parko,Planning Director Fax(303)857-0351
130 S.McKinley Avenue Email:tparko@forllupton.org
Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 http://www.fortlupton.org
October 13, 2009
Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Brad Mueller, Long Range Planner
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Dry Creek RUA Referral Comments
Dear Mr. Mueller:
• Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Dry Creek RUA development and
subsequent amendment to the County's comprehensive plan. On September 22, 2009 Fort
Lupton Planning and Zoning Commission met with representatives of the Dry Creek RUA
development, Equinox Group. Following a productive discussion the Planning and Zoning
Commission requested that the County grant an extension to the referral comment deadline due
to the amount of information contained in the referral.
A formal request was made to extend the deadline by Fort Lupton's Planning Director and
the request was granted with the condition that the City submit comments immediately following
the Planning and Zoning Commission's next regular scheduled meeting. On October 13, 2009
the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the referral and is prepared to submit the
following comments.
• Equinox Group submitted plans to the City showcasing municipal land use master plans
in relation to the proposed development. The City of Fort Lupton's 2007 Land Use
Master Plan extends south to WCR 6 and west to WCR 21. It appears that a portion of the
RUA boundary extends north of WCR 6 which captures Fort Lupton's future land use
area and the City respectfully requests that Equinox amend their maps and reference our
plan.
• In 2006, the City of Fort Lupton entered into an IGA with Equinox Group to handle Dry
Creek's waste water. The IGA was extraterritorial in the sense that Fort Lupton's
incorporated municipal boundary does not include the proposed Dry Creek RUA. A
• condition in the IGA stipulated that the City would amend their 208 boundary (AKA
• waste water boundary) with North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
(NFRWQPA). In 2007 the City's 208 boundary was officially changed to incorporate not
just the Dry Creek RUA boundary but all of Todd Creek Village North Metropolitan
District. The current maps submitted by Equinox do not reflect Fort Lupton's 208
boundary and need to be modified. The City is not providing domestic water to the
development and cannot do so unless the development is annexed and/or included within
the district and sub-district of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD)boundaries.
• The City is under the impression that the developer has yet to seek approvals of the
formation of Title 32 District's. Will the County entertain the Dry Creek RUA Service
Plans during the comp plan amendment or at time of final plat? Permitting Title 32
District's this close to municipal boundaries and planning influence areas could have
serious repercussions, i.e. the creation of an urban scale unincorporated community that
can compete directly with existing Weld County incorporated municipalities. Is it the
intent of Weld County to begin approving large-scale urban developments on the fringes
of bonafide communities that have the ability to service such developments and disregard
smart planning principals? The City respectfully requests that it be notified and given
copies of the proposed Title 32 Service Plans prior to County approval.
• A portion of the Dry Creek RUA is located within Fort Lupton's municipal referral area
which is described in the Fort Lupton Coordinated Planning Agreement (IGA) with Weld
• County that went into effect on November 14, 2000. In that agreement it states...
"...to the extent legally possible, the COUNTY will disapprove
proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL
Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing
proposals for Non-Urban Development in such areas, the
COUNTY will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoning and
subdivision ordinances and, where appropriate, the MUD Plan".
It appears that the Dry Creek RUA and the Todd Creek Village North Metropolitan
District are "urban" in scale. The City of Fort Lupton recommends that the County
entertain holding staff level discussions regarding this provision. If Dry Creek is
considered "urban" it would make sense that Fort Lupton entertains possible annexation.
Weld County and the City of Fort Lupton have agreed in principal to negotiate pre-
annexation agreements with developers that allow development to seek initial
entitlements through the County and later be annexed into Fort Lupton. The City entered
into a pre-annexation agreement with Lafarge that was consummated in 2006 on a
development known as"Riverbend".
Thank you again for allowing the City of Fort Lupton to comment on this proposal.
Should you have any questions concering this response or have general questions pertaining to
other issues please feel free to contact Tom Parko, Planning Director at 303-857-6694, or at
tparko(a,fortlupton.org.
•
• Shnceerrely,
Bruce Davis
Chairman, Fort Lupton Planning and Zoning Commission
Enc: Coordinated Planning Agreement Map and IGA.
Cc: Tom Parko, Planning Director
Mike Konefal, City Administrator
Mayor and City Council
•
•
kI
�• . .,1E.ew'•`4-r `ais :�� _I • — •
AI ‘,I - ' t'
, .
�'- �. �_ - . 1►.. •e.. y t. a o ram
ii,
cua, ___i ____ ',Li.CU
�.p :1,,,, . bt., ,, 41
e `'?�< - idi ,
_ .
.its.At i4
cit /E .4 [ 'Mgr AI t I V '1 lel -9 kr .
� Ir..1 - .i kraI . ! cc; m ' ' 74-ir -1,-,... .,..ria,---r.,.,01kk ii....ims"iri T •1.11
..
I F ` R . .1 ;tD. �s rr ,\
lii it
NQI -0 -1 '+ - - — Y'r t! 'e'er r r ‘ht ii _' . 1
P14
�, :AAttT
1 T Ni:Ns :,‘N,ZS ,. _, L _rt"
%-- "I • - in I..P. I Am Wtses---„iNtif-ificitm Al . . . "a.., I
\ ' .* \iN.Vit" \ . .
Ikti. ,_ • . 4%."Wrk/414 .• I
- D .Os
� 9 mink' its. -
.mot, _flitet 1
1J �� 41 • N sk
•v • Vi. I.1114:44.‘"..44 . .N N, ,-- ;
. ,ktsh..1\4,.. •4.•j .eller.;
,tea .� h. . :904,4h.1 , A T► ,% III": ke b.
NI silks 4-1 �r . * 1/444:::14
'‘.- .4 . , , , i kh
kitriN414\466. . — "IP
'- -1 :---t J.s," ' . - L k .
,..) z G., ,.„,,,, . .. .. , , ,, y , 1 . -,. kik. \\ks L .
- litkis. - 1m. .
et `41'4 ; ,--es •i. . - liv:74„77"(4 -4".7%1L , kw.4.%:i.b.04.
P0 —.4 claeg � � , , m.
�+
h� V/1 \ I hit
t.rl. ..\_a�r�a • il;ST1 'a ..1 .1 I& . -1 - :�•.i♦ -a •• Tffl�• Y •112'; , I lk: .4,11 Eat.
-� I
CZ s
+` rA y'I
�+ . N* •\:.\\\*\:'\,:k\k.
` r IN
\1/24.• X NN:\:% \i. ':-• "' \ ' ''' \ .
\\:\ \ \ .
ilkii \," N1/4. \N N. : 4 ' NrkNit:' ' % * ...\ '\\Zt\:, N,,
I lib‘ ••.
. ' "III?' IL j‘ )\-k.. ..,. ‘ • 'St\ \,,,, dk , - - ,--.; , ... ; -
, ,„ ,.\\s: .\\„„:4,, -_)„, ,..., \\,,, ..\. ...
. , .....,
Fit il . _Aa , „,,,-,,,, • .4 .
ii ,.... i 1 ` �`� \'‘. V •
. `
k to ill i. IN
� ' �, 't `� I `� \I �� y �. � 1,
. - \\, y \A \
. "Datil:. ; 4 k::- ,M;-.-- N, \ :, ..\:,, 46:. No. _,...
, .1/4Ks.
tar
_ . L. 1 i ' I el tali; ::' slirivtelpiir ''
., . t_
Al - '� I 1111P
, iii6
„isv' r f ��, ,-.: . 'z, 4 lit '9,11 -
Prir , d _:AKA V v ivy! _..mot . ,
£6Z - , NI
.._ ,
__ .
IX illi
Ib lill -i
..erg MI .; , - 11 t- i ==limPli;
r.1 -
r ' ...darts.
Is•0111 l. YI � '?rl' I ' • imiteilir• ti., .
. . . , err rir.”, pit
•
AI
italbgssai i nit- - ..C.1.::".tn &Ill rr .. kr, talb.
- - i ----'---4ttlittia 4 till 'III ifilliti*J - 6.64111,'Illigirl,,I11,116- el ' - - --
_tJr
'rill i11 I1'I�r F 1 liElla i ink. i IF-. I, ; i -. 01..1 ----, �� 1
^ � . 1,1 - r SIIIIrat1 'jiving Ma %
UAM-2006-0I 8
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON AND
TODD CREEK FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
The Parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") are the CITY OF FORT
LUPTON, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, including
its Utility Enterprise (together with its successors and assigns, "Fort Lupton or City"), and
TODD CREEK FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1, a quasi-municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (together with its successors and assigns, the
"District"). Individually, Fort Lupton and the District are referred to herein as a "Party" and
collectively the"Parties."
RECITALS AND PURPOSE
A. WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statute §§ 29-1-203 and 29-20-105 authorize and
enable governments of the State of Colorado (the "State") to enter into cooperative agreements
or contracts, regarding public infrastructure matters, including funding the design and
construction of public infrastructure such as sanitary sewer collection systems, conveyance and
treatment facilities that may be necessary or desirable to support development, together with
mutually binding and enforceable comprehensive development plans regarding planning, zoning,
subdivision, building, and related regulations within areas under their mutual jurisdiction;
• B. TCVN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("TCVN") together with
others own and/or are the contract purchasers of certain real property situated in the
unincorporated territory of Weld County, Colorado(the "County"), and generally located within
an approximately 5,000 acre area bounded on the South by Weld County Road 2, on the North
by Weld County Road 6, on the East by the Platte River, and on the West by Weld County Road
15 (Holly Avenue)as depicted in Exhibit A (the"Growth Area");
C. TCVN and the other landowners in the Growth Area will require certain land use
and development approvals, and will require certain infrastructure and services including potable
water, irrigation water, sanitary sewer, streets and other municipal services to develop the
Growth Area;
D. TCVN anticipates that the Growth Area will be conceptually planned as a mixed-
use community consisting of approximately 14,000 residential dwelling units and approximately
1,000,000 square feet of retail and commercial development("Todd Creek Village North");
E. Fort Lupton is located in the County, and has both unused sewer treatment
capacity and the legal and technical ability to seek expansion to its existing treatment facilities to
provide additional treatment capacity that could be used to provide extra-territorial sewer
treatment services to the Growth Area;
F. The District does not have the facilities to provide sewer treatment services within
the Growth Area, but supports regional sewer treatment services in the Growth Area being
• provided by Fort Lupton;
G. The Parties have determined that it is in their mutual interest to cooperate in the
funding, design and construction of certain backbone sanitary sewer collection and conveyance
facilities (the District Main)to connect to Fort Lupton's existing treatment facilities. The District
Main is conceptually depicted and described in Exhibit B. The Parties also have agreed to
provide for the funding of current operations and future expansions ("Treatment Expansion")
and operations of Fort Lupton's Existing Treatment Facilities in order to support development
within Fort Lupton and the Growth Area consistent with the Parties' assumptions for growth
within those areas;
H. The District Main will consist of a properly engineered and sized main sewer line,
together with any necessary lift station(s) and associated force main(s), as necessary to service
the sewer collection system to be developed within the Growth Area;
1. The District will incur substantial debt and will undertake substantial obligations
with respect to funding the design and construction of the District Main and the Treatment
Expansion to serve the Growth Area;
J. The District's ability to fund and to perform its obligations hereunder is
substantially dependant on achieving and sustaining certain sources of revenue for the District
from within the Growth Area through, among other means, development of property within the
Growth Area consistent with the conceptual development plan for Todd Creek Village North;
and
• K. In exchange for the public benefits associated with the orderly and well-planned
development of the Growth Area, the Parties desire to enter into this IGA to establish a basis for
financing the design and construction of the District Main, the Treatment Expansion and related
public infrastructure; and to allow for the creation of additional Article I, Title 32 metropolitan
districts (each a "Related Districts") within the Growth Area to participate through
intergovernmental agreements with the District in the financing and construction of public
improvements necessary to support development within the Growth Area, such that fees
generated from such growth will be sufficient to finance the District Main and the District's
share of the Treatment Expansion as contemplated by this IGA.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants set forth
in this IGA and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
I. TERM,DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATION
A. Term
This IGA will expire on the fortieth (40`x') anniversary of its effective date, unless
extended by the Parties as evidenced by a written agreement executed by all Parties.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this IGA, Fort Lupton's and the District's
obligation to maintain sewer collection and treatment facilities to the Growth Area is perpetual.
2
• Furthermore, none of the rights or obligations set forth in this IGA will be effective, unless and
until the District enters into an intergovernmental agreement with the County, and the owners of
property within the Growth Area secure vested development rights from the County, which
ensures Todd Creek Village North will be developed in substantial conformity with the density
set forth herein, such that construction of the Treatment Expansion and District Main can be
supported. Finally, Fort Lupton agrees with the execution of the IGA to request modification of
their existing 208 Plan with the State to include Todd Creek Village North in their service area.
Modification of the 208 Plan is a requirement of the County to facilitate the approval of land use
and development plans for Todd Creek Village North.
B. Definitions
1. District Bonds means tax exempt bonds marketed by the District to finance the
design and construction of the District Main and the District's share of the
Treatment Expansion.
2. District Main means a properly engineered and sized gravity interceptor main
sewer line, together with any necessary lift station(s) and associated force
main(s), as necessary to service the sewer collection system to be developed
within the Growth Area as conceptually depicted and described in Exhibit B.
3. District Sewer Fees means fees collected by the District comprised of two
components: tap fees and sewer treatment fees. The tap fees will contain three
• component parts as follows:
a. Sewer Treatment Development Fee: A fee paid to Fort Lupton to connect
District customers to the Existing Treatment Plant and to fund into the
Expansion Fund the District's share of the Treatment Expansion,
b. Sewer Collection Development Fee: A fee paid to the District to fund the
District's infrastructure, and
c. Debt Service Fee: A fee paid to the District to fund debt service payments
on the District Bonds, as defined in 1. above.
The sewer treatment fees are fees paid by the customers of the District for providing sewer
treatment for the growth area. Existing Treatment Plant means the Fort Lupton sewer treatment
facility as it exists on the effective date of this IGA.
4. Fort Lupton Sewer Fees means fees collected by Fort Lupton comprised of two
components: tap fees and sewer usage fees. The tap fees will contain two
component parts as follows: (1) Sewer Collection Plant Investment Fee - A fee
paid to Fort Lupton to fund Fort Lupton's infrastructure, including its share of the
Treatment Expansion, and (2) Debt Service Fee - A fee paid to Fort Lupton to
fund debt service payments on Fort Lupton Bonds.
5. Growth Area means an approximately 5,000 acre area generally located and
• bounded on the South by Weld County Road 2, on the North by Weld County
3
111 Road 6,on the East by the Platte River,and on the West by Weld County Road 15
(Holly Avenue) as depicted in Exhibit A; which shall not be changed without the
consent of the City.
6. Phasing Plan means the timeline for implementing the Treatment Expansion as
set forth in Exhibit C, to be updated on a semi-annual basis to incorporate
additional tasks, revise timelines and add additional details as they become
available, subject to the approval of both Parties.
7. Related Districts means additional Article I, Title 32, C.R.S. metropolitan
districts within the Growth Area, which, together with the District through
intergovernmental agreements, will finance and construct the public
improvements necessary to support development within the Growth Area.
8. Sewer Usage Fees means the monthly fee paid by users for the treatment,
disinfection and proper discharge of wastewater flows from the Fort Lupton's
Existing Treatment Facilities and Treatment Expansion. Extra-territorial rates
will be based on a combination of volume and solids loading and subject to
annual review and change by the City of Fort Lupton. Absent extenuating
circumstances, fees may not exceed 200% of the rates charged City residents for
similar services. (See Exhibit E for rate calculation details.)
9. Todd Creek Villaze North means a mixed-use community in the Growth Area
• consisting of approximately 14,000 residential dwelling units and approximately
1,000,000 square feet of retail and commercial development.
10. Treatment Expansion means any future expansion(s) of Fort Lupton's Existing
Treatment Facilities and their operations to support development within
Fort Lupton and the District Growth Area consistent with the development
assumptions for Todd Creek Village North and Fort Lupton's urban growth
projections. Expansions may be joint ventures of the City and the District or
separate events by either the City or the District as necessary to support growth in
the respective areas.
11. Treatment Plant means the Fort Lupton sewage treatment plant as it may be
expanded in the future by the Treatment Expansion or otherwise.
C. Interpretation.
1. Successors. Whenever herein Fort Lupton or the District is named or referred to,
such provision is deemed to include the successors of Fort Lupton or the District,
respectively, whether expressed or not. All of the covenants, stipulations,
obligations, agreements and other provisions, by or on behalf of or for the benefit
of Fort Lupton or the District bind and inure to the benefit of each Party's
successors and bind and inure to the benefit of any officer, board, district,
commission, authority, agent, or instrumentality to whom or to which they are
transferred by or in accordance with any law, right, power, or duty of Fort Lupton
• or the District,respectively.
4
• 2. Parties Interested Herein. Nothing herein expressed or implied is intended or
shall be construed to confer upon or to give any person or corporation, other than
Fort Lupton or the District, any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason hereof
or any covenant, condition, or stipulation hereof. All the covenants, stipulations,
promises, and agreements herein contained by and on behalf of Fort Lupton and
the District are for the sole and exclusive benefit of Fort Lupton, the District, and
any such trustee, and any holder of any such note, bonds, other securities, and the
coupons thereunto appertaining, if any.
II. DESIGN AND FINANCING
A. The District Main.
1. Design. The District will, with all practicable speed, prepare and complete
construction plans for the District Main. Before undertaking construction of any
substantial part of the District Main, the District will submit the construction
plans and specifications first to Fort Lupton for review and approval, at District
expense, and then to any other entities with competent jurisdiction for approval
concerning the sufficiency of design and compliance with applicable standards.
The District will obtain any required permits or other approvals for such
construction. Fort Lupton will fully cooperate with the District in processing the
construction plans and obtaining the approvals and permits required for
construction. Once the construction plans are approved, the District will, with all
• practicable speed, complete the District Main and put the same into operation.
2. Financing. The District will market the District Bonds and utilize a portion of
the proceeds thereof to initially finance the design and construction of the District
Main, including the acquisition of any required right-of-way by eminent domain
or otherwise. The District will impose and collect the District Sewer Fees from
all development within the Growth Area that utilizes the District Main, the rates
of which will be established by the District in its sole discretion, but which will at
a minimum be sufficient in the aggregate to enable the District to satisfy its
obligations under this IGA. Additionally, Fort Lupton will impose and collect
Fort Lupton Sewer Fees from all development within its municipal boundaries or
receiving extra-territorial service from Fort Lupton, which benefit from the
District Main, the rates of which will be established by Fort Lupton in its sole
discretion, but which will at a minimum be sufficient in the aggregate to enable
Fort Lupton to satisfy its obligations under the IGA. In addition, the District will
provide, at its expense, a payment bond sufficient to insure that any obligation of
Fort Lupton to repay expansion loans can be met by bond coverage, in addition to
the fees generated by connection and usage.
3. Operation. The District will operate and maintain the District Main, receiving
and transporting to the Treatment Plant all sewage that may be generated in the
Growth Area. The District Main will remain the sole and separate property of the
District, with the obligation to operate and maintain the entire length and
• component parts thereof. The District assumes all liability for any claims of third
5
• parties related thereto, and will indemnify and hold Fort Lupton harmless
therefrom. Nothing herein waives, or affects the legal status or protection of
governmental immunity for either the District or Fort Lupton.
B. The Treatment Expansion.
1. Design. Fort Lupton will, in coordination with the District, prepare complete
plans for the Treatment Expansion in compliance with the Phasing Plan. Before
undertaking construction of any substantial part of the Treatment Expansion,
Fort Lupton will submit the construction plans and specifications first to the
District for review, and then to the State Board of Health of Colorado for approval
concerning the design and compliance with the standards for sewage treatment
plants, and will attempt to obtain a permit or other approval from the State Board
of Health to proceed with construction. If the construction plans are approved,
Fort Lupton will, with all practical speed, complete the Treatment Expansion in
compliance with the Phasing Plan and put the same into operation.
The District further agrees that if the City is required by State statute to start the
planning process for a Treatment Expansion and subsequent construction, that the
District will fully participate in the design and construction even though the
timing may be premature to the District's wastewater treatment needs.
2. Financing. The District will pledge and deposit a portion of the District Sewer
• Fees into the Expansion Fund to finance its pro rata share of the design and
construction of the Treatment Expansion. Fort Lupton will pledge and deposit a
portion of the Fort Lupton Sewer Fees into the Expansion Fund to finance its pro
rata share of the design and construction of the Treatment Expansion.
Fort Lupton will have management responsibility for the Expansion Fund.
Fort Lupton's and the District's pro rata share of the design and construction costs
of the Treatment Expansion will be determined by that portion of the Treatment
Expansion required to serve Fort Lupton's and the Growth Area's residents,
respectively. To fund initial start-up costs for the IGA and designs for the
planned Treatment Expansion, the District will pay Fort Lupton $200,000 with
the execution of the IGA by both Parties. Any costs incurred in excess of this
amount will be reimbursed from the Expansion Fund when sufficient deposits are
collected.
3. Capital Expenditures. In addition to costs associated with Treatment
Expansion, capital expenditures for the Treatment Plant will be shared pro-rata by
the District and Fort Lupton for any expenditure that extends the useful life of the
Treatment Plant or is a State mandated change or improvement.
4. Operation. Fort Lupton will operate and maintain the Treatment Plant and will
receive, treat, and dispose of all sewage delivered to the Treatment Plant from the
Growth Area.
•
6
C. Extensions and Alterations. Fort Lupton and the District may at any time enlarge or
modify the Treatment Plant and the District Main, respectively, or renew or replace any
part thereof and may construct or otherwise acquire any extension or alteration, as may
be feasible and permitted by law, so long as such enlargement, alteration, or replacement
does not otherwise prevent either Fort Lupton or the District from meeting its obligations
as set forth in this IGA. At least thirty (30) days prior to commencing any design or
construction activities for the enlargement or modification to the Treatment Plant or
District Main, the Party undertaking the enlargement or modification shall notify the
other Party in writing indicating the nature of such enlargement or modification and the
proposed schedule for commencing such activities.
D. Performing Duties. Fort Lupton and the District will faithfully and punctually perform
their duties as set forth herein and as otherwise required by the laws of the State and the
resolutions and ordinances of Fort Lupton and the District, including but not limited to
the making and collecting of reasonable and sufficient rates and charges for services
rendered or furnished, and the proper segregation of the revenues and their application to
the respective funds provided for in this IGA.
E. Further Assurances. At all times Fort Lupton and the District will each, so far as it may
be authorized by law (including without limitation executing the power of eminent
domain), pass, make, do, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and every such further
resolution or ordinance, approval, acts, deeds, conveyances, assignments, transfers, and
assurances as may be necessary or desirable for the better assuring, conveying, granting,
• assigning, and confirming all rights, revenues and other obligations set forth herein, or
which Fort Lupton or the District may heretofore or hereafter become bound to pledge or
to assign, or as may be reasonable and required to carry out the purposes stated herein.
Fort Lupton will fulfill the obligations contracted herein by reasonable and appropriate
governmental action. Fort Lupton will at all times, to the extent permitted by law,
defend, preserve, and protect the pledge of revenues derived from the Fort Lupton Sewer
Fees and any other funds pledged to service the Expansion Fund and all the rights of
every holder of any note, bond, and any other security of the City against all claims and
demands of all persons whomsoever. The District will at all times,to the extent permitted
by law, defend, preserve, and protect the pledge of revenues derived from the District
Sewer Fees and any other funds pledged to service the District Bonds and fund the
Expansion Fund and all the rights of every holder of any note, bond, and any other
security of the District against all claims and demands of all persons whomsoever.
F. Operation and Maintenance. Fort Lupton and the District will at all times operate the
Treatment Plant and the District Main, respectively, properly and in a sound and
economical manner and will maintain, preserve, and keep the same proper or cause the
same to be so maintained, preserved, and kept, with the appurtenances and every part and
parcel in good repair, order, and condition, and will from time to time make or cause to
be made all necessary and proper repairs, replacements, and renewals so that at all times
the operation of the Treatment Plant and the District Main may be properly and
advantageously conducted. The Treatment Plant and Treatment Expansions will remain
the sole and separate property of Fort Lupton with the obligation to operate and maintain
• them. Fort Lupton assumes all liability for any claims of third parties related thereto. The
7
• District Main will remain the sole and separate property of the District with the obligation
to operate and maintain it. The District assumes all liability for any claims of third
parties related thereto. Nothing herein waives, or affects the legal status or protection of
governmental immunity for either the District or Fort Lupton.
G. Rules, Regulations, and Other Details. The District and Fort Lupton will establish and
enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing the operation, use, and services of the
District Main and the Treatment Plant, respectively. Fort Lupton and the District will
observe and comply with all valid acts, rules, regulations, orders, and directions of any
legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial body applicable to Fort Lupton or the
District.
H. Payment of Lawful Governmental Charges. The District and Fort Lupton will pay all
taxes and assessments or other municipal or governmental charges, if any, lawfully levied
or assessed upon or in respect to the District Main or the Treatment Plant, respectively,
upon any part thereof or upon any revenue therefrom,when it becomes due, and will duly
observe and comply with all valid requirements of any municipal or governmental
authority relative to any part of the District Main and the Treatment Plant and will not
create or suffer to be created any lien or charge upon the District Main or Treatment
Plant, respectively,or any part thereof or upon the revenues therefrom, except the pledge
created by any resolution for the payment of the principal and redemption price of and
the interest on the District Bonds and funding the Expansion Fund, or as otherwise set
forth herein. With regard to the Treatment Plant for Fort Lupton and the District Main
for the District, Fort Lupton and the District will pay or cause to be discharged or will
make adequate provision to satisfy and to discharge,within sixty(60) days after the same
shall become payable, all lawful claims and demands for labor, materials, supplies, or
other object which if unpaid might by law become a lien upon the Treatment Plant and
the District Main or any part thereof or the revenues therefrom; provided, however, that
nothing in this Section shall require payment or discharge so long as the validity thereof
is contested in good faith and by appropriate legal proceedings.
Insurance and Reconstruction. Fort Lupton and the District will at all times maintain
with responsible insurers all such insurance reasonably required and obtainable within
limits and at costs deemed reasonable by Fort Lupton and the District as is customarily
maintained with respect to waste water treatment systems of like character against loss of
or damage to the Treatment Plant and District Main, respectively, against loss of
revenues, and against public and other liability to the extent at least reasonably necessary
to protect the interests of Fort Lupton and the District, and each holder of any bond or
other security of Fort Lupton or the District. Liability coverage for Fort Lupton with
CIRSA shall be included in the definition of insurers and insurance. Any liability
incurred by Fort Lupton as a result of the operation of the Treatment Plant shall be its
sole liability, and any liability incurred by the District as a result of the operation of the
District Main shall be its sole liability with the District liable for input into the District
Main and Treatment Plant, subject to any agreement to the contrary now existing or
hereafter made.
•
8
• J. Alienating System. No part of the District Main or the District's portion of a Treatment
Expansion shall be sold, leased, mortgaged, pledged, encumbered, or otherwise disposed
of or otherwise alienated, until all the District Bonds have been paid in full, both
principal and interest, or unless provision has been made therefor, or until the District
Bonds or other securities have otherwise been redeemed, including but not necessarily
limited to the termination of the pledge herein authorized.
K. Records, Accounts, and Audits. Fort Lupton and the District shall keep proper books of
record and account (separate from all other records and accounts), in which complete and
correct entries shall be made of its transactions relating to the Treatment Plant and the
District Main, respectively, or any part thereof and which, together with all other books
and papers of Fort Lupton and the District, shall at all reasonable times be subject to
inspection. Fort Lupton and the District will cause its books and accounts to be audited
annually by an independent accountant. Each such audit, in addition to the matters
hereinabove designated and to whatever matters may be thought proper by the
independent accountant to be included therein, shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. Income and Expenditures. A statement in detail of the income and expenditures
related to the Treatment Plant or District Main for the Fiscal Year, including but
not necessarily limited to a classified statement of gross revenue received, of the
net revenues, and also of the amount of any capital expenditures appertaining to
the Treatment Plant or District Main for the Fiscal Year, and a statement of the
• profit or loss for the Fiscal Year.
2. Balance Sheet. A balance sheet as of the end of the Fiscal Year, including the
amount on hand,both cash and investments,in each of the accounts created by the
various resolutions of Fort Lupton and the District and in other proceedings
authorizing the issuance of outstanding bonds and other obligations payable from
the revenues from the Fort Lupton Sewer Fees or the District Sewer Fees.
3. Independent Accountant's Comment. The independent accountant's comment
regarding Fort Lupton's or the District's methods of operation and accounting
practices and the manner in which Fort Lupton or the District has carried out the
requirements of each resolution and any other proceedings authorizing the
issuance of outstanding bonds or other obligations.
4. Listing Insurance. A list of the insurance policies in force at the end of the
Fiscal Year, setting out as to each policy the amount of the policy, the risks
covered,the name of the insurer, and the expiration date of the policy.
5. Recapitulation of Funds and Accounts. A recapitulation of each fund or
account created by the various resolutions and by the other proceedings
authorizing the issuance of outstanding bonds and other obligations payable from
the revenues from the Fort Lupton Sewer Fees or the District Sewer Fees, into
each of which accounts are put moneys derived from the operation of the
Treatment Plant or District Main or derived from the sale of the securities, such
•
9
• analysis to show the balance in such account at the beginning of the Fiscal Year,
the deposits and withdrawals during said Fiscal Year, and the balance at the end
of said Fiscal Year.
III. CONNECTION
A. Connection to Treatment Plant. Connection to the Treatment Plant shall be made only
at the connection point set forth on Exhibit B, or as approved by Fort Lupton. The
District Main's connection to the Treatment Plant shall be metered at one location.
Flows will be monitored and measured for volume, strength for BOD, Nitrogen, PO4,
TDS and solids loading, both average and peak flows and loads, by the City of Fort
Lupton at the point where the District Main enters the Treatment Plant. The
measurements taken at this point are the ones to be utilized in the calculation of Sewer
Usage Fees.
B. Connection to District Main. Connection to the District Main will be at points specified
by the District in its sole discretion. Fort Lupton and the District will require as a
condition to issuing a building permit from within the Growth Area or within an area
receiving extra-territorial service from Fort Lupton and which utilizes the District Main
or the Treatment Expansion, either that it connect to the District Main or the Treatment
Plant and pay the applicable District Sewer Fees and/or Fort Lupton Sewer Fees. The
District will make provisions for measuring the quantity of discharged waste being
• delivered to the Treatment Plant, as well as the quality of the discharge. All monitoring
costs will be the District's responsibility. The District Main shall receive no storm water
directly or indirectly from surface drains, ditches or streams, storm or combined sewers,
roofs, areaways, or foundation drains, or from any other means, except the minimum
practicable infiltration of groundwater as specified in Exhibit D.
C. Service Rendered by Fort Lupton and the District. The District will intercept, receive
and transport sewage in the District Main from the Growth Area to the Treatment Plant.
Fort Lupton will treat sewage in the Treatment Plant and discharge treated water
therefrom. The District will maintain ownership of its effluent discharged from the
Treatment Plant. The District will provide a monthly summary of water sources of
sewage received for treatment and cover any cost of water accounting. Fort Lupton and
the District will retain full power and authority to provide sewer service to the inhabitants
of the Growth Area, including the acquisition, improvement, operation, and maintenance
of facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage generated from the Growth Area.
D. Construction of Other Sewage Disposal Systems Prohibited. Fort Lupton and the
District will exclusively operate the sewage disposal system for treatment and disposal of
sewerage derived from the Growth Area. No sewage disposal system or other facilities
for the collection, treatment, or disposal for sewage generated from the Growth Area will
be constructed to serve the Growth Area,unless Fort Lupton and the District both consent
in writing thereto and approve the plans and specifications therefor.
•
10
• IV. DELETERIOUS WASTE
A. Compliance with Requirements. The District will cause all sewage at any time
discharged directly or indirectly into the District Main and thereby into the Treatment
Plant to comply with all requirements and standards placed on the District and Ft Lupton
as specified or permitted by law. In all cases where the application or the enforcement of
said requirements involve technical or scientific analyses or determinations; Fort Lupton
shall have final authority as to the methods, standards, criteria, significance, evaluation,
and interpretation of such analyses and determinations. The District will permit no new
or existing connections, which allow the entrance or discharge of sewage into the District
Main or the Treatment Plant that does not comply with said requirements of the District
or Fort Lupton. Fort Lupton will have the right to inspect and monitor the District Main
and collect confirmatory samples for compliance with its regulations.
B. Modification of Deleterious Wastes Requirements. The District and Fort Lupton may
from time to time make any amendments to their requirements concerning deleterious
wastes, which may be reasonably necessary to prohibit or to regulate properly the
delivery or the discharge into the District Main or Treatment Plant of any substances
which alone or in combination with other substances delivered and discharged are or may
be or may reasonably be expected to be substantially injurious or deleterious to the
District Main or the Treatment Plant or to its efficient operation.
C. Determination of Quantity, Quality, and Characteristics of Sewage. The District will
• use meters for determining the quantity and will make tests and will use other means for
determining the quality and other characteristics of all sewage which shall be delivered
and discharged into the District Main and therefore into the Treatment Plant in
accordance with sound engineering practices and environmental standards. A copy of
each such determination made by the District with respect to each Fiscal Year will be
mailed to Fort Lupton. From and after the placing of the District Main into operation, the
District will make and will keep permanent records of the quantity, quality, and other
characteristics of sewage delivered and discharged into the District Main. See Exhibit D.
D. Storm Waters. The District will not make or permit any connection to the District Main,
which is designed to permit entrance directly or indirectly into the Treatment Plant of
storm water drainage from ground surface,roof leaders, catch basins, or any other source.
E. Prohibited Sewage and Wastes.
1. General Discharge Prohibitions. None of the sewage, water, substances,
materials or wastes described in Exhibit D shall be discharged into the District
Main.
2. Specific Discharge Limitations. The District will establish in its Rules and
Regulations, and may from time to time amend, specific limitations governing the
discharge of pollutants into the District Main, provided such amendment is
approved in writing by Fort Lupton prior to its taking effect.
411
3. Industrial Commercial Users,
11
• The District will control, though permit, contract or similar means, industrial
waste discharges from each significant industrial user within the Growth Area as
described in Exhibit D.
F. Remedies.
1. Emergency Remedies. Where a discharge into the District Main reasonably
appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons,
or presents or may present an endangerment to the environment, or threatens to
interfere with the operation of the Treatment Plant, the District in concert with
Fort Lupton shall immediately initiate investigative procedures to identify the
source of the discharge, and take any steps necessary to halt or prevent the
discharge. If necessary, the District shall seek injunctive relief against the
violating user together with any user contributing significantly to the emergency
condition.
2. Penalties. In the event any damages are incurred to the District Main, the
Treatment Plant, the environment, or the health and welfare of any persons as a
result of any polluting or deleterious sewage being discharged into the District
Main, the District will be responsible for paying any claims. To the extent
Fort Lupton incurs any damages or additional costs resulting from said discharge,
the District shall make reimbursement, and said claim shall be considered
contractual and governmental immunity shall not be a bar or restriction on such
• claim.
3. Remedies. If the District or Fort Lupton determines that a user is not in
compliance with District standards, the District will issue a notice setting forth the
requirements and standards not being complied with and directing the user to
attain conformance to these requirements and standards within a period of ten(I 0)
days. The District, in coordination with Fort Lupton, will establish appropriate
fines or penalties for any violations of the District standards.
V. BUDGET, FEES AND THEIR ESTABLISHMENT AND COLLECTION
A. Annual Budget.
1. Preparation of Annual Budget. Fort Lupton and the District will jointly prepare
annually a budget, including therein operating revenues, and expenses, debt
service payments, and any provisions for capital expenditures for the ensuing
Fiscal Year. Every budget will set forth a statement of the sources of funds to be
available to defray such expenditures, including without limitation the
Fort Lupton Sewer Fees and the District Sewer Fees to be paid by users of the
District Main and Treatment Plant.
2. District Levy. Collection and Calculation of Annual Charges. With respect to
all sewage delivered into the District Main, the District shall make, impose, and
collect the District Sewer Fees in accordance with this IGA, as the same may be
amended or otherwise supplemented from time to time.
12
a. To pay at all times all operation and maintenance expenses and at the end
of each fiscal year to maintain therefor reserve requirements;
b. To provide in each fiscal year a sum equal to its portion of the debt service
on the District Bonds for the bond year commencing in such fiscal year
computed as of the beginning of such bond year;
c. To provide for funding the Expansion Fund in a sum equal to the amount
required to fund it's pro rata share of the Treatment Expansion on the
schedule set forth in the Phasing Plan;
d. To pay the fee to Fort Lupton for providing treatment and discharge
services for sewage collected by the District Main;
e. To provide at all times for any deficits of the District resulting from failure
to receive any fees or any sums payable to the District for any cause; and
f. To comply at all times in all respects with the terms and the provisions of
this IGA and to pay and to discharge all other charges or liens payable out
of the income of the District when due and enforceable.
3. Fort Lupton Levy. Collection and Calculation of Annual Charges. With
respect to all sewage delivered into the Treatment Plant from the District Main,
Fort Lupton will make, impose, and collect the Fort Lupton Sewer Fees from the
• District(which collects all fees from its users) in accordance with this IGA, as the
same may be amended or otherwise supplemented from time to time.
a. To pay at all times all operation and maintenance expenses and at the end
of each fiscal year to maintain therefor reserve requirements;
b. To provide in each fiscal year a sum equal to its portion of the debt service
on Fort Lupton Bonds for Treatment Expansion for the bond year
commencing in such fiscal year computed as of the beginning of such
bond year;
c. To provide for funding the Expansion Fund in a sum equal to the amount
required to fund it's pro rata share of the Treatment Expansion on the
schedule set forth in the Phasing Plan;
d. To provide at all times for any deficits of Fort Lupton resulting from
failure to receive any fees or any sums payable to Fort Lupton for the
provision of sewer service; and
e. To comply at all times in all respects with the terms and the provisions of
this IGA and to pay and to discharge all other charges or liens associated
with the Treatment Plant and payable out of the income of Fort Lupton
when due and enforceable.
•
13
. 4. Compliance with Service Contract and Enforcement of Annual Charges.
Fort Lupton and the District will plan, schedule, and prosecute all construction on
or about the Treatment Plant and the District Main in accordance with the Phasing
Plan and operate and maintain the Treatment Plant and District Main in a manner
that enables Fort Lupton and the District, at the earliest practicable time, to make,
impose, and collect the District Sewer Fees and the Fort Lupton Sewer Fees
pursuant to this IGA.
5. Charges Limited to Connecting Municipalities. The District will be liable for
the payment of Sewer Usage Fees to Fort Lupton, for receiving sewage from the
District Main operating the Treatment Plant, and discharging the District's
effluent. The Sewer Usage Fees will be set by Fort Lupton prior to
commencement of construction of the District Main. Once the District Main is
operational and District Sewer Fees are collected, the District will make the
Sewer Treatment Development Fee payment to Fort Lupton on a monthly basis.
The Sewer Usage Fees rate may be adjusted by Fort Lupton on an annual basis.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as preventing Fort Lupton or the
District from fixing and collecting by contract or otherwise rates, tolls, and other
fees appertaining to the Treatment Plant and the District Main, respectively.
6. Enforcement. If any payment or any part thereof due to Fort Lupton from the
District shall remain unpaid following its due date, the District shall be charged
with and will pay Fort Lupton interest on the amount unpaid from its due date
1111 until paid at a prime rate plus one percent (Prime +1 %) per month (or fraction
thereof). The Parties agree to establish a prime rate index for purposes of
enforcing the provisions of this paragraph with the establishment of the initial
Sewer Usage Fees.
VI. INCLUSION
A. Applicability of IGA. This IGA applies to all land that is currently contained or may
later be included within the boundaries of the Growth Area or Todd Creek Village North
through mutual consent. The boundaries as outlined above may not be changed without
the express consent of the City.
B. Conditions of Inclusion. Any area in reasonable proximity to the Growth Area may be
included into the Growth Area, such that Fort Lupton and the District may provide sewer
service to it, upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually determined by the
Parties and upon determination that such area may feasibly be served by the District Main
and/or the Treatment Plant.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Conformance with Laws. Each Party hereto agrees to abide by and to conform to all
applicable laws of the Federal Government, the State, and any other body corporate or
political having any jurisdiction in the premises. Nothing in this Section contained,
however, shall require any Party hereto to comply with any law the validity or
11111
14
applicability of which shall be contested in good faith and, if necessary or desirable, by
appropriate legal proceedings.
B. Acts of God. No Party hereto shall be responsible or liable in any way for Acts of God
or any other act or acts or omissions beyond the control of such Party, which may in any
way cause an interruption or a discontinuance of service appertaining to provision of
sewer services.
C. Nonassignability. No Party to this Agreement may assign any interest therein to any
Person or entity without the consent of all the other Parties hereto at that time, and the
terms of this IGA shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective
representatives and successors of each Party hereto. Notwithstanding anything contained
herein to the contrary, the District may assign its obligation herein to a Related District
without the prior written consent of the other Parties. Nothing herein contained,
however, shall be construed as preventing the reorganization of any Party hereto nor as
preventing any other body corporate or political succeeding to the rights, privileges,
powers, immunities, liabilities, disabilities, and duties of a Party hereto, as may be
authorized by law, in the absence of any prejudicial impairment of any obligation of
contract hereby imposed.
D. Amendments. Subject to the rights and privileges of the holder or holders of any bonds
or other securities of the District, this IGA may be amended from time to time by written
agreement.
• E. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase, or other provision of
this IGA shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such section, subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase, or other provision
shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this IGA.
F. Execution of Documents. This IGA may be executed in counterparts, any of which shall
be regarded for all purposes as one original.
G. Waiver. No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this IGA shall be deemed
or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a waiver of any breach
be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or of a
different provision of this IGA.
H. Remedies. In addition to the remedies provided by law, this Agreement shall be
specifically enforceable by any Party hereto.
Entirety. This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations,
and agreements between the Parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and
constitutes the entire contract between the Parties concerning the disposal of sewage
within the Growth Area.
[Signatures to follow on a separate page.]
•
15
UAM-2006-018
• CITY OF FORT LUPTON
2/20a-'
By:
Name: Shannon Crespin
Its: Mayor
TODD CREEK FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT NO. 1
By: .,Jz---
Name: G-t e. vS 6a i."-
•
•
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
�`� City of NOV 02?nnq
A r Thornton RECEIVED
• City Hall City Manager's Office
9500 Civic Center Drive 303-538-7200
Thornton, Colorado 80229-4326 FAX 303-538-7562
www cityofthornton.net
October 30, 2009
Brad Mueller
Weld County Planning Department
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Dry Creek Rural
Urbanization Area Application, August 1, 2009
Dear Mr. Mueller:
City of Thornton staff completed a review of the proposed Dry Creek Rural
Urbanization Area (RUA) application submitted to Weld County by the Todd Creek
Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD) on August 1, 2009. With respect to the City
of Thornton's future growth area, and in consideration of existing regional planning
documents and intergovernmental agreements (IGA) that govern Thornton's future
expansion, the following concerns have been identified regarding TCVMD's
• proposed amendment to Weld County's Comprehensive Plan:
1. Thornton's Three Mile Plan-in-Place
The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 requires that cities have in place a plan
showing a planned growth area which is referred to as a "Plan in Place" or "105
Plan" after its abbreviated statutory reference. This "Plan in Place" generally
describes the land use, infrastructure, and public spaces for areas that a
jurisdiction proposes to annex.
Since adopting Ordinance 2074 (C.D. No. 91-092) in 1991, the City of Thornton
has been declaring it's intent to grow into southwestern Weld County by
annexation. The City of Thornton annually reaffrims this position by resolution,
currently employing the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Future
Land Use Map adopted September 11, 2007, as its "Plan in Place."
Approval of the proposed Dry Creek RUA in Weld County will create a conflict
with the City of Thornton's existing 105 Plan, as the westernmost one and one-
half sections of the proposed RUA are within Thornton's Future Growth Area
as it appears on the City's Future Land Use Map. Current plans outlined in the
August 1, 2009 RUA to develop in excess of 2,000 acres include the
development of Weld County Section 28 in its entirety, which falls within
Thornton's approved 105 Plan growth area. If pursued, future expansion
through the August 1, 2009 RUA process could also affect approximately half
• of Weld County Section 33, which also falls within Thornton's growth area.
Brad Mueller
October 30, 2009
• Page 2
2. Compatibility with Existing Thornton IGAs
Existing IGA C.D. No. 2003-143 has been revised and restated among the City
of Thornton, the Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, and Todd
Creek Village LLC. In the IGA Covenants and Agreements, Section 2.2 states:
"With respect to territory located within the City's Development Area, the
District will not expand the District Service Area to include any area within
the City's Development Area, and the District will not provide utility service
to users that are outside the District Service Area but within the City's
Development Area without written notice to and approval by the City."
Receipt by the City of Thornton of the Dry Creek RUA application does provide
written notice of proposed expansion activities of the District Service Area;
however, in no way does this application exonerate the District from its
responsibility to avoid expansion into the City's Development Area.
Furthermore, although the parties noted in the above IGA are not the same
named entities as the RUA applicant, Section 6.B. of C.D. No. 2003-143,
• entitled Successors and Assigns, states:
"This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
District and City and their successors, assigns, and legal representatives."
To insure that the Dry Creek RUA applicant, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan
District (TCVMD), is a materially different entity and not a "successor or assign"
of Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, please define how the service
operations of the two entities are separate.
3. Prescribed Densities
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) currently plans to build the North
Metro Corridor's end-of-line transit station in the City of Thornton at 162nd
Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, just south of the Weld County border, less
than three miles from the proposed RUA. The City is supportive of proposed
densities within a 200+ acre transit-oriented development at this site, with
residential densities no lower than 14 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and as
high as 80 du/ac. There is the potential for internal support of even higher
densities if they are warranted, based on transit ridership.
Along with the build-out of the FasTracks Program, the Rocky Mountain Rail
Authority (RMRA) is presently completing a feasibility analysis to support a
request for federal funding of the nation's 11th high speed rail corridor through
Colorado. This very high speed rail system (recommended technology speeds
•
in excess of 200 mph) would connect many large Colorado population centers
Brad Mueller
October 30, 2009
• Page 3
with each other and the neighboring states of Wyoming and New Mexico. The
feasibility study has defined the need for, and supports, a major suburban
station in the northern area. The optimal location for this high speed rail facility
is at the proposed RTD end of line station at 162nd Avenue and Colorado
Boulevard, as ridership on both rail systems and the success of the proposed
transit-oriented development will benefit from co-location.
Considering the anticipated residential growth of southwest Weld County
without transit improvements and the future development pressures exerted by
the two proposed rail transit systems noted above, the prescribed residential
densities noted in the Dry Creek RUA seem to underestimate future market
demand in the area being considered for development.
If you wish to discuss these concerns, feel free to contact Jeff Coder, Deputy City
Manager of City Development at Jeff.Coder@cityofthornton.net or at 303-538-
7606.
I
•
Jack Ethred
City Manag
cc: Jeff Coder, Deputy City Manager of City Development
Chris Molison, Development Director
Glenda Lainis, Policy Planning Manager
•
Future Land Use Map
T
P
-- 0
'o
ft
:i
• 1,1.ttit
168th AVE p■1 , Rca..,: Weld County
'- to I..1 L— Friarrnt Co ante toccF - Y La • J w I--
CO •
JO m 2
CillUJ
160th AVE' -- O } '' - -- -._.+T ' . ii
a no------' 11, Labesommt1/41.111PPMJ O. 1 -<11:11 /
All ii.
ir ........... 4
,_., co! ,..„,,,,,,,Z ! kt . 52h . AVE, ,.. / K61' '
z. 0 r D CC 4 e.it
� itit),
2, ...•
I . _• , . -_ _„.-•,_,,T, .
it
144th AVE ,k g
ri ! , ......
. ,
,,,,,, '7 y
136th AVE IF . ,„,,iiiiiil
.. _ ,,,,, .,
._ ,
••
.\
, e. ki, _ tab 128th AVE . .... .. \
..• .AS tmir -.t_ -_
i : . /
. 1 ll . /
c
is n
1,i
ill120th AVE •
MI -------
VS .4.,:i
'•'fir — 11:4,44
"
_ 9
112th AVE _ , •eir A ., . !
7
4441 Illi • _.. ]
to 7
14he .. '
p I t I �� Residential Estate
J ® li ^' ` �� Residential Low
m 10Qth A- a�
Q ` Residential Medium
CC ' - Residential High
CD `� � • •
Lr ridimig Urban Village
u_ sLU �,
92nd AVE r : - --�' a `/J/ Mixed Use
•
_ Gateway/Mixed Use
88th AVE 1. I aim I
_-� ~ t2421—
// Commercial
�,' lir , - Regional Commercial
I 71
84th_.. VE_ I. • atln ""4 . . - Employment Center
I ii -{ 1 � Industrial*
4 /
" - Institutional
• --- % -\ t . //
Parks and Open Space
��' 6 4 Urban Reserve
• None Currently Mapped
CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO N Future Growth Boundary — Existing Regional Trails * Proposed Transit Stops
Y-ag UhC C ENtER CArvk
iMGRN11w COLORADO 810220.4321 u F. City Boundary Proposed Regional Trails Middle and High Schools
ngnsm.nes
Adapted Searerh«t+.nor �� -�--.� Railroad South Platte River '
Ttooddren Updated a et Me en l xto% ti Elementary Schools
DISCLAIMER The dry 04 Thotnton O15 tin made every,no,tthh,'ff00 I.' �1 Flood lain l''��
n nen prtl geograpt$ cs
cdata es accurate)/a.possible,end/ umn no Way 0 0.5 1 • Proposed Roads f,�."_ p I I RTD park-n-Ride
associated wilt the use o mYwe ot e In pcodteds Infonnehon cnmaee home
a tot mptesentmonel pil mono,only and it not Intended lo he stnMhhnnt In - Miles Proposed Interchanges V1�iter Storage and Gravel Pits
accurate boundary Weevils legal or prolesMnte opMnna
O ( Le
lilt Weld County Referral
WillIC Weld County Planning Department August 25, 2009
GREELEY OFFICE
sFP 18 n109
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Please Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area ("RUA") consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with
adjacency to the Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4 &6 and CR 17 &
21.
• Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1469 27 300016, 1469 34 000012, 1469 35 200026,
1469 35 200007, 1469 21 000014, 1469 26 000008, 1469 27 100017,
1469 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1469 28 400024, 1469 28 400025,
1469 26 200015, 1469 26 200014, 1469 26 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1469 26 100002, 1469 26 100003, 1469 26 000009, 1469 35 200010,
1469 35 200008, 1469 35 200009, 1469 35 200011, 1469 35 200012,
1469 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
1. See attached letter.
/Comments:
• Signature Date /97/2-227
Agency fr
+Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 10th Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
•
'ea`:i�« arm Administration Office www.ftlupton.k12.co.us
We� 301 Reynolds Street Ph: 303-857-3200
• Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Fax: 303-857-3219
fort lupton,Colorado
September 17, 2009
Dear Weld County Department of Planning Services,
We have reviewed the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area consisting of 2,095 acres. We find no major problems with this plan except as noted
below:
• No tax incentives/rebates be given in the form of any type of Urban Renewal Authority
considerations including the formation of a Urban Renewal District by any of the city parties
mentioned in the Application.The school district IS NOT IN ANY AGREEMENT with the
formation of an Urban Renewal District within this RUA and as such would actively protest
against the formation of the same.
• We have not had an opportunity to visit the actual physical school sites mentioned within the
RUA application. Our concerns are many in the form of access for transportation (school bus) as
well as access to utilities(water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone) in terms of actual
school construction. While it may be some time before actual school construction begins, we
would like a physical review of the property with the applicant prior to the approval of this
• case.
In addition, we would like to have clarified the actual dates of this project.When is the projected start of
the project, and what is the anticipated build-out time frame?
Thank you for your consideration to this matter, and we hope our concerns are addressed prior to the
approval of this case.
Sincerely, / 7F
ark A. Payler
Superintendent of Schools
•
A community united for student success...college ready!
Una comunidad unida pars el exito de sus estudiantes...
iListos pars la universidad!
scdishool .F4' Administration Office www.ftlupton.k12.co.us
e •
301 Reynolds Street Ph: 303-857-3200
• fort lupton,Colorado Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Fax: 303-857-3219
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
SIP 237q
September 22, 2009 RECEIVED
Dear Weld County Department of Planning Services,
In further review of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area we do have the following comment to add to our previous letter dated September 17,
2009:
• We want to make sure that the applicant understands their obligations and we are concerned
about the fiscal impact on the school district and that this proposed development and land use
change will "will pay its own way"when it comes to school construction as to not increase the
tax burden on our constituents.
• Please add this to our previous concerns and questions.
Sincerely,
i r"
77
,-Mark A. Payler
Superintendent of Schools
•
A community united for student success...college ready!
Una comunidad unida pars el exito de sus estudiantes...
iListos para la universidad!
school As Administration Office www.ftlupton.k12.co.us
We� 301 Reynolds Street Ph: 303-857-3200
• Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Fax: 303-857-3219
fort lupton,colorado
Weld County Planning Department Weld County Planning Department
918 10th Street GREELEY OFFICE
Greeley, CO 80631 ;Inv 2 37Iri9
RECEIVED
RE: Dry Creek RUA Application
November 20, 2009
Dear Weld County Department of Planning Services,
Additional review of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area warrants the following additional comment on our behalf:
• We would STRONGLY ADVOCATE that the developer provide a voluntary contribution toward
the construction of any new school(s) within the Urbanization Area; and
• The applicant needs to understand their obligations and the proposed development and land
use change MUST PAY ITS WAY in terms of school construction and must not increase the tax
• burden on the constituents of the district or county as such.
These comments are in addition to our comments dates September 17, 2009 and September 22, 2009.
Sincerely,
ark A. Payler
Superintendent of Schools
•
A community united for student success...college ready!
Una comunidad unida para el exito de sus estudiantes...
iListos para la universidad!
Sep 23 2009 3: 48PM MFRWQPR 970-962-2913 page 2
A6
l , Weld County Referral
• August 24, 2009
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Todd Creek Village Case Number 2009-XX
Metropolitan District
Reese Reply By September 24, 2009 Planner Brad Mueller
Project Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional
Urbanization Area CRUX"consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
Legal Portions of Sections 21,26, 27, 28,34 and 35, TIN, R87W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton,and Dacono,with
adjacency to the Adams Countyline. Majority Iles between CR 4 &8 and CR 17&
21.
Parcel Number 1469 26 100035, 1489 27 300018, 1489 34 000012, 1489 35 200028,
1469 35 200007, 1489 21 000014, 1469 28 000008, 1469 27 100017,
• 1489 28 000020, 1469 28 400026, 1489 28 400024, 1489 28 400025,
1489 28 200015, 1489 28 200014, 1469 28 100001, 1469 26 100036,
1489 28 100002, 1489 28 100003, 1489 28 000009, 1489 35 200010,
1489 35 200008, 1489 35 200009, 1489 35 200011, 1489 35 200012,
1489 35 300027, 1469 35 300024
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional intonation, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Ran
because
We have reviewed the request and end no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Commem'&
Signature _ w Date
9-a3-O9
• Agency Ajordtn rib-44-Vale Lt (e,ni Ifoci41?t a rn n9 rkcc"ia-j r
Brad Mueller
From: Connie O'Neill [connie@nfrwqpa.org]
'Vent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:30 PM
o: Brad Mueller
Subject: Todd Creek referral
Hi Brad,
I was just getting ready to fax over the referral form on the Todd Creek proposal. I don't see any concerns from our
perspective given that the area is all within the 208 service area of Ft. Lupton. Should Ft. Lupton need to expand their
treatment capabilities to provide service to Todd Creek (such as expanding the plant or installing an interceptor or lift
station) the city would then be going through a utility plan and site application review process with us. We would be able
to address any concerns we may have with the city's plan at that time.
Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Connie O'Neill
Manager
North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
500 East Third
Loveland, Colorado 80537
phone: 970-962-2785
fax: 970-962-2913
•
•
1
TODD CREEK VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
10450 E 149th Ct. Brighton, CO 80602
Tel: (303) 637-0344 www.toddcreekvillage.org Fax: (303) 637-0423
October 2, 2009
Weld County Planning
918 10th Street
Greeley CO 80631
Attn: Brad Mueller sent via email: bmuelleraa,co.weld.co.us
Re: Dry Creek RUA— referral
Dear Brad,
As you know, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD) is functioning as the
general applicant for the Dry Creek RUA for the underlying land owner applicants. As
such we understand the purpose of the application and have no concerns with the RUA
as presented.
To recap some of the history and current status of TCVMD's involvement please be
advised as follows:
• TCVMD entered into an IGA with Ft. Lupton in 2007 in order to create the ability for
water and sewer service within the larger 6000 acre area that the RUA is included within.
Ft. Lupton obtained 208 approval and TCVMD expanded its service area as appropriate.
The IGA calls for specific actions to occur at specific events in order for service to be
delivered. This IGA is what gave TCVMD the ability to enter into will serve letters with
property owners to deliver future water and sewer services which then allows for the
RUA process.
As property owners desire to move forward with entitlements beyond the RUA they will
be required to work with TCVMD to enter into"tap purchase and service agreements".
These agreements will specify what actions need to be taken in order for the property
owner to obtain the necessary will serve agreements for them to process their property
for complete entitlements and development.
To date only one property owner has approached TCVMD for a formal tap purchase
agreement in order to more their property forward through entitlements and platting.
Other property owners in the RUA will be required to enter into agreements before they
move forward past the RUA.
Thank you,
Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
•
• Secretary
es Greater Brighton Fire Protection District
425 South Main Street•Brighton,Colorado 80601
• Telephone: (303)659-4101 •Fax: (303)659-4103•Website: www.gbfpd.org.
Weld County planning Department
September 25, 2009 Page 1/2
GREELEY OFFICE
SEP ?9?t>n4
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Attn: Brad Mueller RECEIVED
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case # 2009-XXX, Todd Creek RUA
Dear Mr. Mueller,
The Greater Brighton Fire Protection District (District)has reviewed the application and associated
documents submitted with the application packet for Case #2009-XXX, Todd Creek Regional
Urbanization Area (RUA) and hereby submit the following comments relative thereto:
1. Approved fire department access roads shall be provided to within 150 feet of any point on
the exterior wall of the first story of every structure erected, constructed or move into the
• District. Fire department access roads shall: have a minimum unobstructed (e.g. by parked
vehicles) width of 20 feet; have an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches; be
constructed of an all weather surface capable of supporting District apparatus; have a
maximum inside turn radius of 30 feet and minimum outside turn radius of 50 feet; and,
where the length of dead end fire access roads exceed 150 feet in length, be provided with an
approved turn-around.
2. A minimum of two (2) approved means of fire department access shall be provided to the site
during all phases of construction, and thereafter.
3. Approved fire hydrants, capable of supplying the minimum required fire flow stipulated in
accordance with Table B105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code, shall be provided
throughout the project. Hydrant locations shall be approved by the District.
4. Approved fire hydrants shall be in service prior to the commencement of combustible
construction of any structures.
5. Where approved fire hydrants are not provided, or the hydrants are incapable of supplying
the minimum required fire flow in accordance with Table B105.1, structures shall be
equipped with approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in accordance with NFPA 13,
NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R, as appropriate.
6. Due to the size and location of the project, and the projected impact on demands for service
arising from the associated growth/development, the District will need approximately 2 'h
acres for a new fire station to service the project area. This new station will be necessary to
maintain the District's current service level and consequent Insurance Services Office (ISO)
Public Protection Classification rating, which impacts the insurance policy premiums of all
property owners within the District's service area. The location of the land for the new
•
r. ri. C.Rt.,%t%.r .is C%tir.,rr U t.4%. Oar Dirtri.t
Greater Brighton Fire Protection District
425 South Main Street•Brighton,Colorado 80601
• Telephone: (303)659-4101 •Fax: (303)659-4103•Website: www.gbfpd.org.
r
September 25, 2009 Page 2/2
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Attn: Brad Mueller
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case # 2009-XXX, Todd Creek RUA
station shall be determined during the Overall Development Plan and/or Platting phases of
the project. The District feels that the land for this new station should be donated to the
District by the developer/applicant.
Should there be any questions regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
• Respectfully,
Kris Krengel
Fire Marshal/Division Chief
Cc: File—Todd Creek RUA
•
Csuwitt.! is no C.....iti., A.! Citi,.,e Vital( D./ Di.t,•i.t
WEt.z eAuNTY 11-ANN'QS
C•MM13iION •---
FIELD CHECK
• COMMIS* 1 otr1LCT
CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX DATE OF INSPECTION:
g/, 9?
APPLICANT'S NAME: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
REQUEST: Weld County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a new Regional Urbanization
Area ("RUA")consisting of approximately 2,095 acres.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 34, and 35, Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately equidistance from Brighton, Fort Lupton, and Dacono, with adjacency to the
Adams Countyline. Majority lies between CR 4 &6 and CR 17 &21.
LAND USE: FAAjy“
E Et /Midi
S f=IbUZUvs f Q c /603 rat, 1,W
Fcteth -
• ZONING: N A(Agricultural)
E A(Agricultural)
S A(Agricultural)
W A(Agricultural)
COMMENTS: 1 J _ d ��� t?�
l (��1/5 S ley
�� /J
A � . fr.9p3-1/4A-y O L1_,/ ( d� a/ y
2/
C. Member
7Z O24
•
Hello