HomeMy WebLinkAbout20072573.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Paul Branham that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX
APPLICANT: HF Holdings, LLC; do Grimshaw& Harring, P.C.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 of Section 27, T3N, R68W; N2 NW4, E2 SW4, and E2 of Section 34,
T3N, R68W and NW4 NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
LOCATION: 0.5 mile south of SH 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 32-1-
203(2) and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. as follows:
1. Section 32-1-203(2) states the Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the Service Plan
unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be
serviced by the proposed special district.
The proposal identifies that the District will plan, design, construct, acquire, install,
finance, receive reimbursement for, own, operate, maintain, relocate and/or redevelop the
public improvements and services throughout the Waterfront at Foster Lake
Development, unless transferred to the County or another agency, and to generate
property tax and revenue sufficient to pay on-going expenses and debt service costs
incurred by the District for the life of the bond.
The proposed public improvements proposed to be financed, acquired, installed and
constructed by the District to serve the Waterfront at Foster Lake Development are as
follows: Street System and Traffic Safety, Storm Water Drainage, Sanitary Sewer System,
Potable and Irrigation Water System, Reservoir and Ditch, Parks and Open Space.
The Waterfront at Foster Lake Development at Foster Lake PUD, Case Number PZ-
1126, is for 1355 single-family detached homes, 425 multi-family residences, 100,000 SF
of commercial development with 204.1 acres of parks and open space is currently under
review by Planning Staff and is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission in
Autumn 2007.
(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 Waterfront at Foster Lake Development.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District Notice of Court Order of Inclusion, received May 22,
2007, for real property identified as the Anderson/Waterfront at Foster Lakes properties,
effectively includes the real property described in the Order located within Weld County,
Colorado into the St. Vrain Sanitation District boundaries.
EXHIBIT
2007-2573
3r3O/33.
Resolution 20007-XX
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
.- Page 2
Further, the referral dated July 5, 2007, from the St. Vrain Sanitation District states". . .
pursuant to Section 32-1-107, C.R.S., the Districts Board of Directors must adopt a formal
resolution of consent to the overlapping district."
The Longs Peak Water District has a Draft Subdivision Service Agreement between the
District and Midwest Heritage, the applicant for the Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD.
"We, [Longs Peak Water District] will be working on an Intergovernmental Agreement
between Longs Peak and Waterfront to accommodate their request. Once that IGA has
been approved by Waterfront, District staff and legal council, it will be placed on the
agenda for consideration of the Longs Peak Water District Board of Directors at their next
available business meeting. Upon approval, the IGA will be recorded with the County
Clerk and Recorder."
Further, the referral dated July 13, 2007, from the Longs Peak Water District states"[t]he
Service Plan limits the potable water powers of the proposed district to financing and
construction of necessary lines, and therefore the Longs Peak Water District will probably
have no objections to the formation of this metro district. Nevertheless, pursuant to
Sec.32-1-107, C.R.S., this District's Board of Directors must adopt a formal resolution of
consent to the overlapping district."
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to
the area within its proposed boundaries.
The referral dated June 8, 2007 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of
Finance, Mr. Warden states, "The Financial Plan prepared by Piper Jaffray& Company
appears to be financially feasible and prepared in accordance with Weld County Code
Section 2-14-20 (I). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills with 50 mills maximum for debt
service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance is consistent and in compliance
with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20 (H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition
term is consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
(d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
The referral dated June 8, 2007 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of
Finance, Mr. Warden states, "The Financial Plan prepared by Piper Jaffray& Company
appears to be financially feasible and prepared in accordance with Weld County Code
Section 2-14-20 (I). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills with 50 mills maximum for debt
service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance is consistent and in compliance
with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20 (H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition
term is consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
"In conclusion, in review of the financial aspects of the service plan for Waterfront at
Foster Lake Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, and 3, I find the plan to be consistent and in
compliance with all sections of the Weld County Code Article XIV relating to financing of
metropolitan districts. In addition, the Financial Plan for the Waterfront at Foster Lake
Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, and 3, prepared by Piper Jaffray& Company appears to be
financially feasible. Therefore, I recommend approval of the service plan."
2. Section 32-1-203(2.5) states "the Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service
plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is
Resolution 20007-XX
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
Page 3
not permitted:"
(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 financing, design, and completion of the public improvements needed to
serve the Waterfront at Foster Lake Development.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District Notice of Court Order of Inclusion, received May 22,
2007, for real property identified as the Anderson/Waterfront at Foster Lakes properties,
effectively includes the real property described in the Order located within Weld County,
Colorado into the St. Vrain Sanitation District boundaries.
Further, the referral dated July 5, 2007, from the St. Vrain Sanitation District states ". . .
pursuant to Section 32-1-107, C.R.S., the Districts Board of Directors must adopt a formal
resolution of consent to the overlapping district."
Longs Peak Water District did not return a referral expressing objections to the formation
of overlapping metro districts that are intended to solely serve as financing mechanisms
for internal improvements. The District does have a Draft Subdivision Service
Agreement between the Longs Peak Water District and Midwest Heritage, the applicant
for the Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD.
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the
facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is
to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-
204(1).
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though
exact levels of service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated
documentation.
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section
30-28-106, C.R.S.
The proposed Service Plan is in conformance with Chapter 22, Article XIV of the Weld
County Code.
(d) The proposal is in substantial compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state
long range water quality management plan for the area.
Section 22-4-20.C and Section 22-4-20.D of the Weld County Code respectively states
"The Water Quality Control Commission, a citizen board appointed by the Governor,
subject to confirmation by the State Senate, defines water quality regulation and policies
in Colorado. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment administers the
Water Quality Program throughout the State." Further, "as part of the Larimer-Weld
Region, Area-wide Water Quality Management Plan, the County has been identified as
the responsible management agency for all areas in the County outside the urban service
areas. As a management agency, the County has a responsibility to exercise land use
authority based on water quality considerations. This responsibility is partly fulfilled by
WcterFrovut (At Foster L.GIk2e. MCWopoLitGiw ni,strLct, pace 3
Resolution 20007-XX
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
Page 4
evaluating water quality considerations associated with land use proposals in accordance
with the standards set forth in this Chapter and Chapters 23 and 24 of this Code." (Weld
County Code Ordinance 2002-6).
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area
proposed to be served.
Section 22-2-20.6 of the Weld County Code states"The provision of infrastructure, such
as transportation systems, sewage disposal or water systems, are important aspects to
consider during the planning stages of development. The capacity of planned and future
infrastructure shall be evaluated on a site-specific basis."
The Department of Pubic Works in their referral dated July 9, 2007 states "The quantities
and cost estimates shown in the service plan represent a reasonable approximation of the
on-site and off-site public improvements planned for the project. The quantities and
opinion of cost are subject to change based on review and approval of final construction
plans. Additionally, final construction costs subject to change orders, obviously, will have
a direct impact on the costs of public improvements."
The Public Works Department generally approves of the formation of the Waterfront at
Foster Lake Metro Districts Consolidated Service Plan.
Further, Section 22-3-50.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. Consolidation
of public facilities or services and coordination between providers should be encouraged
to avoid duplication of costs and promote efficiency; and Section 22-4-30.E WA.Goal 5.
states"Development will occur in areas where adequate water quantity and quality is
currently available or reasonably obtainable, and Section 22-4-30.E.1 WA.Policy 5.1.
states "Policy applications for proposed development will assess currently available or
reasonably obtainable water quantity and quality." (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-6)
The proposed Service Plan and special district will be in the best interests of the area
proposed to be served and are in the interest of Weld County.
3. Section 2-14-10 of the Weld County Codes states"The County establishes the following as its
policy for the review and approval or disapproval of Service Plans, including any amendment
thereof, for Metropolitan Districts and other Title 32 Special Districts."
(a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the
formation of a district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local
development and will result in benefits to existing or future residents of the County and
the District. (Section 2-14-10.B)
As indicated above, there is a demonstrated need to provide services, because the
proposed Service Area consists of land that is within the Mixed Use Development area
and is currently under review for urban-level development, PZ-1126.
(b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the
district. Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which
are not clearly needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Section 2-14-20.C)
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services has been adequately
Resolution 20007-XX
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
Page 5
demonstrated.
(c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of
the District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in
the Service Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that
execution of intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the
Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County
pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Section 2-14-20.D)
The proposed Service Plan explains that the District may be enter into an IGA with the
Water District, Sanitation District, other governmental entities, developers, the owners
association and other services providers to furnish or discharge any facility or service
responsibility of the District set forth in the Service Plan or to provide funding, therefore
details about the nature and ability of the one or more intergovernmental agreements
(IGAs)are not described in the Service Plan. Longs Peak Water District and St. Vrain
Sanitation District will request intergovernmental agreements with the Metropolitan
District.
The proposed Plan does state that any other intergovernmental agreements not
mentioned in the Services Plan shall require the approval of the County in compliance
with Section 2-14-20.D of the Weld County Code, with 45 days Notice.
(d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion
of property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions
or executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
''-- 207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Section 2-14-20. E)
The proposed Plan states written notice will be provided to the County pursuant to Section
32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S of any action or activity which the District believes is permitted by
the Service plan but which may be unclear or with may result in a material change of the
Primary Infrastructure Plan (PIP) pursuant to Section 2-14-20.E of the Weld County Code.
(e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The
Service Plan shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that
are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written
notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Section 2-14-20.F)
The Plan as proposed does not intend to furnish services or facilities outside of its
boundaries, except as authorized in the service plan or by intergovernmental agreement
in compliance with Section 2-14-20.F of the Weld County Code. The District's failure to
comply with Section 2-14-20.F of the Weld County Code prior to providing any exterritorial
services shall be considered a material modification of the service plan.
(f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the
District, of its power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting
the use of the District's power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential
functions and services as well to implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"
as defined in the Model Service Plan described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent
domain will be undertaken strictly in compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall
provide that use of eminent domain or change in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the
District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and
written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Section 2-14-
Resolution 20007-XX
Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3
Page 6
20.G)
The proposed Plan states that the District's exercise of the statutory power of eminent
domain shall constitute a material modification of the Service Plan and shall require the
Approval of the County in accordance with Section 2-14-20.G of the Weld County Code.
(g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills
(the "Debt Service Mill Levy Cap"). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total
aggregate mill levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to
sixty-five (65) mill(the `Aggregate Mill Levy Cap). (Section 2-14-20.H)
The proposed Plan identifies a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, with 50 mills
maximum for debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance costs.
(h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot
questions for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to
Weld County for filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot
questions not in compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's
Service Plan pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Section 2-14-20.J)
The Service Plan states that, "All ballot questions authorizing indebtedness will be filed
with the County no later than 30 days before any election held therefore in accordance
with Section 2-14-20.J of the Weld County Code."
(0 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)
As currently proposed, the Service District boundaries are coterminous with the
boundaries of the Waterfront at Foster Lake Development. The District will contain all of
the land within the Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD Development.
Q) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts
and financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its
operations and maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going
operations and maintenance will not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan
must provide that in the event said obligations are someday undertaken by another party,
or are otherwise no longer the responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve.
(Section 2-14-50)
The Service Plan states the following, "After all Debt has been issued by the Districts and
adequate provision has been made for payment of all Debt of all Districts, the electorates
of District Nos. 1 and 2 into a single entity, or the dissolution of a District in accordance
with State law." The Districts will not be dissolved as long as it is providing services and
facilities and discharging its obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Service
Plan.
If all public improvements are transferred to the County or other governmental agencies
or a homeowners association for operation and maintenance, and all bonds or other
obligations of the District are discharged or payment is provided for the District will be
dissolved pursuant to the Act. The District will not be dissolved, however, without first
complying with the provisions of Section 2-14-50 of the Weld County Code.
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Chad Auer—Chair
Doug Ochsner — Vice
Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on July 17, 2007.
Dated the 171h of July, 2007.
Donita '7fl9///J
y
Secretary
r
-.2(142.
The Planning Commission broke for a short recess. For the record, the Chair said that Commissioners
Ochsner and Fitzgerald had left the hearing.
Tom Honn, Director of Planning Services,took a few minutes to recognize Chad Auer and Bruce Fitzgerald for
the service they have given to the Planning Commission, since their terms were ending today. He said all of
you that have put in the time understand this is a pretty serious commitment and there are very serious issues
heard here that go on to the BOCC. Mr. Honn said that he honored their time commitment, expressed his
appreciation for their service and ended by saying how much we have enjoyed having them here.
The Chair read the case into the record.
` CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX
APPLICANT: HF Holdings, LLC; c/o Grimshaw& Harring, P.C.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 of Section 27, T3N, R68W; N2 NW4, E2 SW4, and E2 of Section 34,
T3N, R68W and NW4 NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
LOCATION: 0.5 mile south of SH 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, said Marcus McAskin of Grimshaw & Harring, P.C., representing
Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD do Linda Sweetman King have applied for a request for Service plan for the
proposed Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD
The submitted Service Plan and supporting Financing Plan are proposed to provide a part or all of the Public
Improvements necessary and appropriate for the development identified as Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD.
Three Districts are proposed, District 1 and District 2 include residential development and District 3 includes
commercial development. The Districts will jointly or individually finance the public improvements for the
project.
Water and Sanitary Sewer improvements will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District and Longs Peak
Water District will provide potable water.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District Notice of Court Order of Inclusion, received May 22, 2007, for real property
identified as the Anderson/Waterfront at Foster Lakes properties, effectively includes the real property
described in the Order located within Weld County,Colorado into the St.Vrain Sanitation District boundaries.
Further, the referral dated July 5, 2007, from the St. Vrain Sanitation District states ". . . pursuant to Section
32-1-107, C.R.S.,the District's Board of Directors must adopt a formal resolution of consent to the overlapping
district."
The referral dated July 13, 2007, from the Longs Peak Water District states "t]he Service Plan limits the
potable water powers of the proposed district to financing and construction of necessary lines, and therefore
the Longs Peak Water District will probably have no objections to the formation of this metro district.
Nevertheless, pursuant to Sec.32-1-107, C.R.S., this District's Board of Directors must adopt a formal
resolution of consent to the overlapping district."
Planning Services has accepted the Change of Zone application for a PUD [PZ-1126] with Residential and
Commercial uses and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay
District. The subdivision is sited on approximately 587 acres with 1355 single-family detached homes,425
multi-family residences, 100,000 SF of commercial development with 204.1 acres of park and open space as
outlined in the Metro District Consolidated Service Plan.
The applicant has indicated in their application that the financing plan and the content of the service plan
describe the overall development plans for the project. The estimated cost of the public improvements, t
including engineering and contingency,to be financed,acquired,constructed, installed and completed by the ttil
District is expected to exceed 28,000,000.00, in 2007 dollars,with all improvements completed by December Z O
12
anoa.
�lllllr
2039.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance with
Section 32-1-203(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.
The referral dated June 8, 2007 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Warden
states, "The Financial Plan prepared by Piper Jaffray & Company appears to be financially feasible and
prepared in accordance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20 (I). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills with
50 mills maximum for debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance is consistent and in
compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20 (H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition term is
consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case,nine responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No written comments have been
received from:
• Weld County Attorney's Office
• Town of Firestone
• Town of Frederick
• Town of Mead
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of the Service Plan and supporting Financing
Plan as submitted. Marcus McAskin of Grimshaw& Harring P.C.,the applicant's representative,along with
representatives from Piper Jaffray&Company,Tetra-Tech RMC and others are present to answer questions
of the Board.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the Service Plan and supporting Financing
Plan as submitted. The Applicants and their representatives are present.
For the record, the Chair noted that Bruce Barker, County Attorney left the hearing.
Marcus McAskin, applicant's representative, said they are proposing the formation of three districts, two of
which will support residential development and one for commercial development. In accordance with article
fourteen, Chapter two of the Weld County Code, multiple district formats are authorized if there are multiple
land uses projected for the project as well as the seizing of the public improvements that will be installed and
will occur over a multiple year process. He introduced their project team and then asked the Planning
Commission if they had specific questions.
Commissioner Branham asked for a simple explanation of exhibit G and how 55 million dollars becomes 28
million dollars. Mr. McAskin replied that there are 55 million dollars worth of public improvements associated
with the project. The district at build out, according to the Piper Jaffray financing plan,will only support up to
28 million dollars. There is only so much a project can finance. The 55 million dollars was just to give an idea
of the total public improvements associated with the project,knowing that only 28 million dollars will actually be
financed by the district. The developer will finance the difference.
Commissioner Holton said they had not received referrals from Firestone,Frederick or Mead and asked if they
had talked to any of those entities, especially about annexation into Mead.
Linda Sweetman King,4 Inverness Ct,Terra Visions,said they had many meetings with Mead but this project
has been totally inside the MUD so they elected to apply through the County rather than Mead.
Commissioner Spitzer asked for clarification on the districts providing water and sewer. Ms.Sweetman King
said water and sewer will be provided by St Vrain and Longs Peak, who will review and approve all of their
construction plans. Once the developer has completed those infrastructures they get deeded over to St Vrain
and Longs Peak for long term maintenance. Commissioner Spitzer then asked about street maintenance.
13
Ms. Sweetman King said that as they know, the County no longer maintains streets in urban level areas so
^ that is a part of the reason they requested the metro district so there is a body that can maintain those streets
long term.
Commissioner Auer asked about annexation to Mead when appropriate, and how would plan and build out
make annexation feasible. Ms. Sweetman King said since they were processing with the County,annexation
was not likely with Mead because they do not want to provide basic services. Mead will be approving their
construction drawings for CR 7. If annexation occurs in fifteen or twenty years, you will have all of those
homeowners who have to agree to the annexation.
Bruce Barker,County Attorney,said the creation of a metro district does not prohibit annexation at a later date.
Typically you need consent of the landowners unless you have an enclave situation.
Tom Honn Director of Planning, addressed Commissioner Auer and said the County urban standards for
drainage etc.are not inconsistent with most urban areas standards, so from that standpoint you would have
compatibility. Because you have a special district servicing water and sewer, is also not uncommon that a
municipality may annex a piece or property and there are many instances of special districts serving the water
and sewer and not necessarily the municipality, so those things can happen.
Ms. Sweetman King said they were meeting all of the design standards of the County, which are pretty
standard for the municipalities.
Commissioner Holton asked if this were approved,would they see it again. Kim Ogle replied they would not.
Mr. McAskin said Mr.Barker was correct that there is nothing in these districts that would prohibit annexation
down the road if that became an option. Under Title 32 if annexation did occur,the districts would petition the
Town of Mead, as an example, to become the approving authority for the districts so that Mead would then
process any future service plan amendments or district related issues. So there is that mechanism
contemplated in Title 32 that allows the districts to continue to function in the event of annexation.
Commissioner Branham asked if that were to happen,would there be any financial burdens to residents of the
area. Mr. McAskin responded that if the future residents petitioned to annex into Mead, then they would be
subject to whatever municipal responsibilities Mead had,but that would occur prior to the annexation process.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr.
McAskin said that he did.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2007-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, Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ita May
Secretary
14
Hello