HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110307.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Mark Lawley, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren
Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 4, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 2010-XX
APPLICANT: St. Vrain Sanitation District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: First Amendment to St. Vrain Sanitation District Service Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TN3N, R68W, Sections - E1/2 of 19, 20, 21 (excluding East of the ditch),
24 (portions of the South and East half), 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (portions of
the East half), 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.
TN3N, R67W, Sections - 19, 20, 21, 25 (West of the South Platte River),
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 (West of the South Platte River).
TN2N, R68W, Sections— 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion of the East half), 7
(portions of the south half), 8 (portion of entire Section), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 (the East half and
NW quarter), 29 (the North Half), 30 (the North Half), 33 (East half), 34, 35,
36.
TN2N, R67W, Sections— 1(West of the South Platte River), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12(West of the South Platte River), 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
TN2N, R66W, Sections— 18 and 19 (West of the South Platte River).
TN1N, R68W, Sections— 1, 2, 3, 10 (Portion of the East and South Half),
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (Portion of the East Half), 21 (portion of the NE
quarter), 22 (portion of the north half), 24.
TN1N, R67W, Sections—3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
(portion of the West and North Half), 21 and 22 (North half's of each).
1
OThru.W,,, /- -3OO 2011-0307
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North boundary CR 40; West boundary CR 1; East boundary generally CR
25; and South boundary CR 6.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that St.Vrain Sanitation District has submitted a service plan amendment
to allow for the expansion of its treatment facilities to meet the projected development of both municipal and
county development trends.
Thirty-six referral agencies review the proposed amended service plan with seven agencies providing
comment that has been incorporated into this recommendation.
The criteria for review of this service plan amendment of an existing district are listed in Section 32-1-202(2)
and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S and Section 2-14-20 through Section 2-14-70 of the Weld County Code. It
is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' Staff that the applicant has shown compliance with
each section as follows:
Specific to Section 32-1-202(2):
(A) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the
proposed special district.
The amended service plan allows for the expansion of the existing treatment facilities to meet the growing
needs resulting from the inclusion of territories that formerly were within the now dissolved Weld County Tri-
Area Sanitation District and the Dacono Sanitation District, as well as to meet the projected development
within Firestone, Frederick and Dacono Planning Area. The expansion of the proposed service area reflects
municipal and county development trends.
Weld County Finance and Administration has reviewed the service plan amendment from a financial
perspective only. The Finance Department has no objections to the approval of the plan as stated in their
referral dated December 14, 2010. The plan appears to be financially viable as presented. Based on the
information presented, the District will have the financial ability to discharge the debt on a reasonable basis
and not require excessive new rates and/or fees. The District is financially capable of providing economical
and sufficient services to the area within the existing and proposed boundaries.
The proposed public improvements to be financed, acquired, installed and constructed to serve the St.Vrain
Sanitation District are as follows: storm drainage and sanitary sewage systems. St.Vrain is a growing district
and has reached new capacity limits that trigger the State Health Department mandated need to begin
planning for additional capacity; and begin building additional capacity. With the consolidations and growing
customer base, these enhancements are critical to the long term needs of the District.
The original service plan for St.Vrain Sanitation District was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on October 16, 1985.
(B) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present
and project needs.
The applicant has indicated in their application that there are no other governmental agencies in existence
within the area which have the legal and financial ability to undertake the financing, design, and completion of
the public improvements needed to serve the service area boundary.
Central Weld County Water District, Little Thompson Water District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District,
and Longs Peak Water District did not express objections to the service plan amendment.
The City of Longmont indicates in their referral, dated December 29, 2010, that St. Vrain Sanitation District
has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Longmont. This IGA defines service area
2
boundaries between the St. Vrain Sanitation District and Longmont; specifically for the areas around Union
Reservoir. The IGA was executed in October 2002.
There is a small overlap of service area boundary with the Town of Platteville. The applicant indicates that the
service to this area will be who is first able to provide service, St. Vrain Sanitation or the Town of Platteville.
Specific to Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S
(A) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts,within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis.
The applicant has indicated in their application that there are no other governmental agencies in existence
within the area which have the legal and financial ability to undertake the expanded service area as amended
and approved by North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association.
The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association referral dated December 29, 2010, indicates that
the existing 208 Service Area for the District has been approved by the Association and was included as part
of the District's approved Utility Plan and the 2007 Update to the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan
(The 208 Plan).
The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated January 6, 2011
indicated that the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association approved the site application for the
expanded treatment facility on August 26, 2010.
Weld County in a referral to North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association approved the expansion
on August 17, 2010.
(E) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Per the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Section 22-3-40.A, P.Goal 1. States"Promote efficient and cost-
effective delivery of public facilities and services." Section 22-3-50.A.1 States "P.Policy 1.1 Encourage
consolidation of public facilities or services and coordination between providers should be encouraged to avoid
duplication of costs and promote efficiency; the existing special district and proposed amended service plan
will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served and is in the interest of Weld County."
The applicant states that the Sanitation District has been at the forefront of regional partnerships as exhibited
by the consolidation of the former Tri-Area Sanitation District, The Dacono Sanitation District and the current
agreements with the East I-25 Sanitation District to provide service assistance to their new district serving
areas north of Highway 66 and east of 1-25. On-going assistance with the Town of Mead for providing service
to a portion of their community as well as the Town of Erie, both in the area of the 1-25 Corridor.
(I) It is the intent of Weld County that"Citizen/Resident"control of districts be encouraged to occur as early
as possible. (Section 2-14-40.A)
Article 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes provides guidance related to inclusion of a customer into a service
area or 208 boundaries. A landowner must petition to be included in the St.Vrain Sanitation District and, after
proper application and notice, a public hearing is held during a regularly scheduled Board of Director meeting
for the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
Inclusion in itself does not automatically result in service to a resident(s). However, inclusion results in
eligibility for service. For many individual property owners inclusion is sought when a septic system fails and
infrastructure is within four hundred (400) feet of the property.
As previously indicated, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services Staff that the applicant has
shown compliance with the Colorado Revised Statutes; therefore staff recommends approval of the
3
application as submitted.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, said that they do not have any objections to the expansion; however they would
like to be notified of their construction schedule when they know it so that staff can work with them on any
traffic concerns for the possible hauls routes for construction. County Road 26 actually has been annexed by
the Town of Firestone;therefore the access is not under jurisdiction of Weld County but haul routes along the
way could be.
The most current floodplain mapping does show part of the facilities in the floodplain; therefore any
construction in the floodplain would require a Flood Hazard Development Permit.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that there are no concerns with this request.
Richard Lyons,for Lyons, Caddis, Kahn&Hall, PC, representing St.Vrain Sanitation District, stated that there
are two issues that need to be addressed. The first is a request for a service plan amendment for the
treatment plant increase in capacity. The plant's capacity will be expanded; however the footprint of the plant
will remain as is on the District property. It is a newer technology where it will be an oxidation ditch process
which means digging down rather than building lagoons. The plant expansion is needed because of the
inclusion of the both the Dacono Sanitation District and the Tri-Area Sanitation District.
The second aspect of the service plan amendment is the boundary adjustment. There are three different
boundaries that we are talking about. The first boundary is the actual legal boundaries of the District. If you
compared it to a municipality it would be the municipal limits. Properties that are developed that want service
from the District petition for inclusion just like a developer petitions for annexation into a municipality. If the
petition is granted then those boundaries are expanded.
The second boundary is the service area boundary. The service area boundary is what was originally
approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1986 with respect to a Planning Area, where you think
development might occur that would benefit from the service that was being provided in the formation of the
Sanitation District.
The third boundary, referred to in the Staff Comments regarding approval by the Health Department and the
North Front Range Water Quality Association, is the Section 208 Boundary which is the Cleanwater Act
Boundaries which the jurisdictional referral agency monitors to make sure that they don't have sewer
treatment plants popping up on every stream.
In the mid 1990's,the 208 boundaries expanded beyond the original service area boundaries approved by the
Weld County Commissioners. The legal boundaries had expanded as well.
Mr. Lyons stated that they are requesting not only to get approval of the service plan amendment for the
treatment plant capacity but they are also requesting approval of the service area to be identical to the 208
boundaries; therefore there will only be two boundaries to deal with, the legal boundaries and the 208
Boundary administered under the Cleanwater Act by the North Front Range Water Quality Commission.
In regard to the Town of Erie's comments, this service plan amendment has nothing to do with them. They
are in the southwest corner of the District and we are talking about adding area to the northeast boundaries of
the District. He added that they are requesting the District to give up some of the existing 208 Boundary in
their area because they are planning to expand in the southwest corner of the District. That dialogue has been
on-going.
Mr. Lyons referred to Ft. Lupton's concerns and commented that when the 208 Boundary toward the Ft.
Lupton area was moved over with the Front Range approval there was a concern by Ft. Lupton regarding the
Todd Creek Subdivision; however Ft. Lupton withdrew that objection to the 208 expansion in that area on the
condition that there would be continuing dialogue between Ft. Lupton and St. Vrain Sanitation District.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
4
Todd Hodges, Ft. Lupton, 130 S McKinley Ave, stated that they are concerned that the general delineation of
the notice did not have a map with it and it included a large area that would have overlapped their 208
Boundary. After hearing the information today, it appears that it is consistent with the 208 Boundaries and that
the general description in the legal notice is not what we need to go off of. Mr. Hodges provided the
Commission with Ft. Lupton's 208 Boundary maps. He added that they would like to keep the dialogue open
as Todd Creek is an active applicant in Weld County and they do have an existing service agreement with
Todd Creek.
Commission Lawley asked the applicant if they will continue the dialogue with Ft. Lupton regarding the Todd
Creek subdivision. Mr. Lyons replied that they will continue conversations with Ft. Lupton and added that it is
a reasonable request.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case 2010-XX, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes;
Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand recommended that St.Vrain Sanitation District continue good faith discussions with both
the Town of Erie and the Town of Ft. Lupton.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 1:58 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
5
Hello