HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062379 07/19/2006 14:05 ST. URA IN SANITATION DISTRICT 4 872O6524211 NO.758 DO1
(Thew
Weld County Referral
July 11, 2006
hiDeJUL 17 ZUU6 D
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received a • • item for review:
Applicant Kiteley Farms LLLP Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25,2008 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for a Metropolitan District(Kiteley Ranch et Foster Lake).
Legal Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27,T3N. R68W of the 6th P.M..Weld
County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7.
Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 *1-140.4 acres
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. 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. tf you desire to examine or obtain this
additional information,please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing August 15,2006
O We have reviewed the request and find that It does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
EX-...See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature A/ /
Date 7/1f 4 _
Agency re0
*Weld County Planning Dept. *4209 CR 24.5,Longmont,CO.80604 0(120)662-4210 44.8730 0(720)6524211 fax
EXHIBIT
$y D _.....6
2006-2379
07/19/2006 14:05 ST. URRIN SANITATION DISTRICT i 87206524211 N0.758 D02
414
St Vrain
SANITATION
DISTRICT
July 1.9, 2006
Weld County Planning
c/o Kim Olge
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Re: Referral for Kiteley Farms located In the NW IA of Section 27,
T3N Range 68 W of Weld County Colorado.
Dear Mr. Ogle,
St. Vrain Sanitation District is in receipt of the referral for Kiteley
Farms LLLP Metro District. Sanitary sewer service is subject to the
following:
1. SVSD Legal Council must respond to overlapping Districts
2. Execution of a subdivision service agreement
3. Inclusion Into the district
4. Approval of onsite sanitary sewer construction drawings and
proof all property can be serviced by gravity as mentioned in a
previous will serve letter
5. Receipt of all applicable fees
Please contact me at 303-682-4681 with any questions you may have.
Service is subject to SVSD rules and regulations.
Sinc ,
Ro ert Fleck
District Engineering/Project Manager
St. Vrain Sanitation District
11307 Business Perk Circle Firestone, CO 80504
Phone(303)778.951D Fax:(303)435-19n
Weld County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
JUL 2 5 2006
Weld County Re -CV ED
111kJuly 11, 2006
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Kiteley Farms LLLP Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for a Metropolitan District(Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake).
Legal Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7.
Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 +1- 140.4 acres
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. 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.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing August 15, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
g. See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature ala,(2,4. Date e- 3
Agency ev d (lean t!Y Fe gitirl.( fi i77 rt./
❖Weld County Planning Dept. ❖4209 CR 24.5, Longmont,CO.80504 •(720)652-4210 ext.8730 ❖(720)6524211 fax
MEMORANDUM
a
a''" TO: Kim Ogle July 23, 2006
WIcFROM: Don Warden
COLORADO SUBJECT: Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District
I have reviewed the service plan for Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District. I have only
reviewed the plan from the perspective of whether their Financial Plan is feasible and
complies with Weld County Code Article XIV (Service Plans for Title 32 Special
Districts).
The Financial Plan prepared by George K. Baum & 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 Kiteley Ranch
Metropolitan District 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 Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District prepared by
George K. Baum & Company appears to be financially feasible. Therefore, I recommend
approval of the service plan.
Weld County Referral
July 11, 2006
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Kiteley Farms LLLP Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for a Metropolitan District(Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake).
Legal Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7.
Parcel Number 1207 27 000047 +/- 140.4 acres
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. 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.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing August 15, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
lc See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature ) Date f� c r`C 1_ A c 7 • flCp
Agency
❖Weld County Planning Dept. +4209 CR 24.5, Longmont,CO.80504 +(720)652-4210 ext.8730 •(720)652-4211 fax
.^emi
A —'
ald County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
JUL 2 6 2006
LONGS PEAK WATER DISTRICT RECEIVED
• 1
9875 Vermillion Road • Longmont, CO 80504 • (303) 776-3847 office • (303) 776-0198 fax
July 25, 2006
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Dept.
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Kitely Farms, LLLP
Dear Mr. Ogle;
The Longs Peak Water District has received the notice and referral regarding the
proposed formation of the Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District.
Under Colorado state statutes, a Title 32 special district can not be formed within the
boundaries of an existing Title 32 special district that provides the same services as the proposed
district without the express consent of the board of directors of the existing district.
It is the standard policy of the Longs Peak Water District that it not express objections to
the formation of overlapping metro districts that are intended to solely serve as financing
mechanisms for internal improvements.
Therefore, provided that the service plan remains unchanged in its current form, which
states that it will only exercise its water district powers for financing and constructing needed
infrastructure to service the development, and provided that the new district, once formed,
executes an intergovernmental agreement with Longs Peak Water District limiting the metro
district's water district powers to such financing and construction of the needed improvements,
the District would be willing to grant its consent by way of a resolution.
Specifically, as conditions of formation within its boundaries, Longs Peak Water District
will require that the new metro district agree in writing to:
1. Not engage in any of the traditional functions of a water district such as water rights
acquisition, storage, treatment, or supply of potable water or irrigation water to any
customer within the development, and that the metro district's functions be limited to the
financing and construction of only the facilities necessary to provide service to the
customers in the proposed development;
2. Insure that all design and construction of the required facilities must be in accordance
with the District's standards and specifically approved by Longs Peak;
3. Convey the constructed facilities to Longs Peak upon completion;
4. Dissolve upon the retirement of the metro district's bonds or other financing
mechanisms utilized to construct the needed facilities;
5. Not expand its boundaries into Longs Peak's service area without the advance written
consent of Longs Peak.
This letter should not be construed as an advanced consent of the Board of Directors of
the Longs Peak Water District which must specifically approve the formation by formal
resolution.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this response.
Sincerely,
Barry Dykes
General Mana4er _ _�
UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
-<, / / 1111 H STREET,P.O.BOX 758
GREELEY,CO 80632
�Cµy WEBSITE:WWW.CO.WELD.CO.US
i'. t� PHONE (970)304-6496,EXT.3758
'Y""7 FAX: (970)304-6497
r(/\'C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Ogle
Department of Planning Services
FROM: Perry Eisenach, P.E.
Engineering Division Manager
DATE: July 25, 2006
SUBJECT: Comments — Service Plan for Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan
District
Public Works has reviewed the proposed Service Plan for the Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District (Plan)
and offers the following comments:
1. The estimated costs of the road improvements are extremely generic and do not specify which
costs are for on-site improvements and which are for off-site improvements. A more detailed cost
breakout of each of these needs to be provided to ensure that the cost estimate provided for the
road improvements is reasonable. (Exhibit C)
2. The Plan indicates that the offsite roadway improvements will be dedicated to the County for
acceptance and maintenance. The report should clarify that some of these improvements may
be dedicated to the Town of Mead or CDOT, depending on the location of the improvements.
(page 13, paragraph 1d)
3. The Plan indicates that certain storm drainage infrastructure will be owned, operated, and
maintained by the County. Public Works does not agree with this statement and recommends
that all drainage facilities constructed within the development be operated and maintained by the
Metro District. (page 14, paragraph 2c)
4. The Plan mentions there will be parks, trails, and landscaping improvements (page 15).
However, there are no cost estimates provided for these improvements and they are not included
in the finance plan. These items should be addressed accordingly.
5. The Plan indicates that certain public trails may be dedicated to the County for ownership and
maintenance. Again, Public Works does not agree with this statement and recommends that any
such facility be maintained by the Metro District. (page 15, paragraph 5c)
6. The Plan provides an estimate that $50,000 to $65,000 will be required annually for the
administration and maintenance of the public improvements that will be maintained by the Metro
District. However, no detail of these maintenance activities is provided. Public Works
recommends that a summary of the primary maintenance activities and their associated costs be
established and included in the Plan. This maintenance plan should include enough detail to
ensure that all of the applicable public infrastructure will be maintained properly.
7. The financing plan only includes the funds necessary to pay for the capital expenditures required
for the project. Operation and maintenance costs should be included within the financing plan
and the estimated mill levy required to pay for the O&M should be provided.
Public Works recommends that the comments above be addressed before the proposed Plan is approved
by the BOCC.
Public Works appreciates the opportunity to review this proposal. Please contact me anytime if you have
any questions or if we can provide additional assistance.
Clear Day Page 1 of 3
Michelle Martin
From: Kim Ogle
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Michelle Martin; Jacqueline Hatch
Subject: FW: Review of Kiteley Ranch Metro District and Carma Metro District documents
From: David Bauer
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Kim Ogle
Subject: Review of Kiteley Ranch Metro District and Carma Metro District documents
Kim,
See below my comments that I forwarded on to Peter for the Kiteley and Carma Metro District
documents.
The jist is that they need to include drainage facilities specifically, and Operations and Maintenance
expenses into the future.
Let me know if you have questions,
David Bauer
Weld County Public Works
From: David Bauer
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:58 PM
To: Peter Schei
Cc: Perry Eisenach; Drew Scheltinga; Jesse Hein; Brian Varrella
Subject: RE :Review of Kiteley Ranch Metro District and Carma Metro District documents
Perry and Peter,
Given only one day to respond, this afternoon I reviewed the documents Peter had in the Metro
District files for both the Carma/St. Vrain Lakes case and for the Kiteley Ranch case.
These are generic documents focused mostly on the structure of the Metro District and the funding
mechanisms. Some 'preliminary' estimated costs are presented but, obviously are very preliminary
since the final plats and plans aren't even in evidence (hence the quantities of asphalt, cement that
might need future maintenance etc cannot be accurately predicted).
That said, the Metro District documents are lacking in mention of specific categories of items that will
07/26/2006
Clear Day Page 2 of 3
be the Metro Districts' responsibility to operate and maintain in the future. I recommend that the draft
documents should be amended to specifically call out the areas and items of Metro Districts'
responsibility. In particular:
1. Operations and Maintenance of all drainage facilities including detention ponds, drainage
swales, pipes, inlets, outfalls, water quality installations (these might be wetlands or
concrete vaults), erosion protection (rip-rap, swale vegetation, forebays, pond outlet
structures). A key item here is that these facilities will probably only be maintained AFTER
a high flow event when they overflow and everyone realizes that the maintenance should
have looked at plugged inlets or outlet pipes or loose rip-rap. The drainage facilities may be
located on private property in internal drainage easements (green areas) but may also be in
ROW. Regardless of location, the O&M of these should be specifically identified as the
responsibility of the Metro Districts. The County should, in review of Final drainage plans,
require an Operations and Maintenance manual that is conveyed to the Metro District and
provides the basis for County inspections.
2.Similarly, Operations and Maintenance of all streets, curb & gutter, bridges, embankments,
sidewalks, divider islands & medians, crosswalks, cross-pans, traffic signals and signage, ..
and other infrastructure. As above many of these will be in the ROW and the Metro District
document should specifically be identified as having Operations and Maintenance
responsibility including replacement of pavement, broken curb and gutter, striping and
painting, new traffic light bulbs, whatever.
3.Operations and maintenance of areas yet to be conveyed to other entities such as the lots for
schools, firehouses, police stations, water feature pump and storage buildings, and
manholes in green areas should be identified as the responsibility of the Metro District.
Some of these outlots may sit undeveloped for years on these large projects depending on
the other entities timetables.
4.Operations and maintenance should be defined, Replacement of deteriorated materials and
structures, as determined by County inspection, be included in the Metro district
responsibility. Obvious O & M such as mowing, seeding, dust control, painting, inlet and
pipe cleanouts should be identified.
5.The County may not have to specify every item, and perhaps shouldn't since if we forget one
then it would fall to the County. This should be discussed with the County attorney. A
suggestion is to use the phrase: "including but not limited to.."
6.The Kiteley document stated that the Metro District would design and install/construct various
facilities. Their document should be rejected unless it includes the Operations and
Maintenance as mentioned above. Their document also mentions a specific entity
(company) that would perform the design and install/construction — maybe that reference to
a specific builder should be deleted since that company may not exist or be involved in the
future if Kiteley flips the project to a different builder. At least that phrase should be
expanded to state "and successors or purchasers or developer of the property or part
thereof...."
Thank you for reading this far,
David Baucr
07/26/2006
Clear Day Page 3 of 3
Weld County Public Works
From: Peter Schei
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Drew Scheltinga; Donald Carroll; Jesse Hein; David Bauer; Brian Varrella; Perry Eisenach
Cc: Frank Hempen
Subject: Service Plan for Kiteley Ranch Metro District
Importance: High
Gentlemen,
We have a referral from Planning regarding the Kiteley metro district.
Please respond with comments that you would like to see in the referral ...
which is due tomorrow.
Should you like to review the document, it is on my desk.
Thank you, in-advance for any input, Peter.
P.S. Sorry for the last minute request, but we have been busy.
Peter SGHEI
Weld County-Public Works Department
1111 -H Street,Greeley,CO 80632
970.356.4000 x3750
pschei@co.weld.co.us
'Welcome Home-to Weld County"
07/26/2006
Bernard Lyons Gaddis E. Kahn
A Professional Corporation l Attorneys and CounsW4d'€ounty Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
July 27, 2006 JUL 2 8 2006
Mr. Kim Ogle RECEIVED
Weld County Planning Dept.
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District
Dear Mr. Ogle:
This firm represents the St. Vrain Sanitation District which is the sanitary sewer provider in the 1-25
corridor, generally stretching from Colorado Hwy. 66 south to beyond Colorado Hwy. 52, and
extending both east and west of I-25.
The Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan Districts' proposed boundaries are not currently within this District's
boundaries. Pursuant to Sec. 32-1-107, C.R.S., a metro district possessing the same sanitation
district powers as the St.Vrain Sanitation District can not be formed within the boundaries of S. Vrain
without a resolution of approval by this Districts Board of Directors. However, if it is formed outside
of this District's boundaries, but within its established service area, this District would not have any
objection to its formation provided that the new metro district adheres to the statement in the
submitted service plan that expressly limits the exercise of its statutory powers so as to not conflict
with this Districts exercise of its powers, service plan, and service area.
This District's Board of Directors would probably require, as a condition of service or as a condition of
inclusion of the territory into this District, an intergovernmental agreement between the metro
district and this District which would expressly define the limitations set forth in the service plan to
financing certain infrastructure needed to service the proposed development The District would
propose that such an agreement specify that:
1. The St. Vrain Sanitation District would be the sole provider of sanitation services within
the proposed metro district.
2. The metro district is precluded from selling taps.
3. The metro district would not construct, finance, or otherwise provide for any sanitation
treatment plant, nor enter into any contract with any other service provider, other than St.
Vrain,for such treatment facilities.
4. The metro district's powers would be further limited to the financing and construction of
all internal improvements, and the financing of external improvements needed to
connect the development's internal infrastructure to the District's lines.
5. All such improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with this
District's standards.
6. Upon completion, the metro district will convey the newly constructed lines/facilities to
this District.
515 Kimbark Street • Second Floor • P.O. Box 978 • Longmont, CO 80502-0978
Phone: 303-776-9900 • Fax: 303-413-1003 • www.blglaw.com
Bernard Lyons Gaddis S. Kahn
A Professional Corporation C Attorneys and Counselors
Mr. Kim Ogle
July 27, 2006
Page 2
7. The metro district would dissolve upon retirement of the debt incurred to construct the
improvements.
8. The metro district's' boundaries would not be expanded beyond those set forth in the
service plan without this District's advance consent.
9. Subsequent to formation, the metro district will not modify its service plans in any
manner that would affect or expand its sanitary sewer powers without the express
consent of St.Vrain Sanitation District
We suggest that any approval of the service plan include a condition imposed by the Weld County
Board of Commissioners that would require the metro district, within 30 days of formation, to enter
into an intergovernmental agreement with St. Vrain that would contain the nine issues listed above.
Noncompliance with this condition of approval would be treated as either a material modification or
noncompliance of the service plan, or both, each of which would be enforceable by either the County
or this District.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this issue. I believe that Mr. Rob Fleck has
previously responded to you regarding this District's ability to service the development contemplated
by the applicant.
Very truly yours,
BERNARD ONS,GADDIS& KAHN,
a ofessio al Corporation
By /
Richard N. Lyons, II
rlvons@blglaw.com
cc: St. Vrain Sanitation District
(att'n: Rob Fleck)
Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C.
F'.\CLIENTS\S\SAINT\METRO DISTRICTS\KITELEY RANCH 20080727 L-REFFRL WELD.DOC 07/27/06 11.28 AM
's L04r
-vea
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 40R J 4°
(303) 651-8330 / Fax # (303) 651-8696
E-mail: /onamontp/annincCa7c/.Iongmont.co.us
Web site: htto://www.ci.longmont.co.us
August 2, 2006
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 CR 24.54
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Service Plan for Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (St Vrain Lakes PUD)
Service Plan for a Metropolitan District (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake)
Dear Mr. Ogle,
Thank you for sending the referrals concerning the service plans for the metropolitan districts for
the St. Vrain Lakes PUD and Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD to the City of Longmont for
review. The City did not review the financial aspects of either service plan in great detail;
however, the City would like to offer some general comments for the County's consideration.
Both projects are proposing urban levels of development that will require a variety of urban
services. According to the materials provided to the City, the intention is to meet public
improvement and other service needs through the creation of metropolitan districts.
The City suggests that developments of this size and intensity would be better served by
municipalities. The creation of multiple metropolitan districts can create confusion and
redundancy in terms of service provision and delivery. The cost to maintain and operate
facilities within metro districts may place a burden on future residents. In addition, due to
potential limitations, metro districts may not be able to provide the complete array of services
one living in an urbanized area might expect. This has the potential to place a burden on
adjacent municipalities who may ultimately end up providing some of these services. The City of
Longmont would urge the County to carefully consider possible ramifications of the creation of
multiple, autonomous metro districts.
The City would request the Service Plan for the St. Vrain Lakes PUD be amended to include
limitations on the eminent domain powers of the districts. Specifically, the City suggests this
section of the plan be clarified to limit the district's power of eminent domain to the boundaries
of the districts. In addition, the City would request the service plan specifically exclude using
these powers for water storage purposes.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these referrals. Should you have any
questions, please contact me at (303) 651-8336 or erin.fosdicke,ci.longmont.co.us.
Sincerely,
Erin Fosdick
Planner
XC: St. Vrain Lakes PUD —Service Plan for Metro District(File#2051-35b1)
Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake—Service Plan for Metro District (File#2051-27c2)
Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Ken Huson, Senior Civil Engineer
EL•INTEEIMICZ RP.)
RECREATIONAL IRA .WInnUTURC RC'.
00 SEE BE7 D....7 R<E xaa..nOQs'.Ar ..x.... r ...11..
HIE AY NE. L
,„
CIVAIN•S cc..aE k i u n� L NE
FOS FEGMIA40 MESH OS
. 11/011131 AIM SOW.
ficapipiirrn
• r•aP� I ' • 1 o o l° DE"'"r
,.x I °ER.
�� . ' • • mr. TEAL AND I EP g �
KITELEV RANCH- II •`,.. ' , °••`` NT
METRO DISTRICT.. m-IP ,< g x
BOUNDARY I I i N ��% ' `I ••: • ,1 • �n °°° no"cawgr
BI I F
naERTrfGix71 � Maine PLAcef" l� »�'.� .a
SLBONIB@N laq I •iTai \' �. KRELEV RANCH
€ •
Y' '1 • l r METRO DISTRICT
� 8' E�rc.trarka7 E.-1,.. BOUNDARY
�fp
C
qSO IS
i
E ,
r
'anon Imo vu.f i 1 $ .fun E.wor Surf..
ynN — _d P II.ISOtnv.Ewc
u w n t C 7, e h
AS I
, I r \ $ J v
11�, f
P
NOTE.
CONCRETE DITCH PROVIDING IRRIGATOR WARERTO1HE ANDERSON FROFERTY
SHALL BE RELOCATED IN A PIPE IN THE 25 unury AcISNT BEING RESEREED
ALONG THE EAST SIDE C£wCRTASSHONN
REZONING PLAT PLAN OI�r7`T'D mPI�Bm
c.a NORTH
Hello