HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062408 Kitrt;ss,
Weld County Referral
' Weld County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
C. July 11, 2006
JUL 2 5 2006
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant St Vrain Lakes PUD Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (St Vrain Lakes PUD).
Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25 Frontage Road;
south of and adjacent to SH 66; west of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and
adjacent to St. Vrain River.
Parcel Number Multiple parcels
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.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) 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.
See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature �( C� , "�'Date 772. 3/o4
Agency l.tl e l rom.1/21 Ty Pt Oil4�v /i I i t-
:•Weld County Planning Dept. ❖4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, CO.80504 ❖(720)652-4210 ext.8730 ❖(720)652-4211 fax
2006-2408
MEMORANDUM
G
} TO: Kim Ogle July 23, 2006
'Hive FROM: Don Warden
COLORADO SUBJECT: St. Vrain Lakes Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4
I have reviewed the service plan for St. Vrain Lakes Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I have only reviewed the plans from the perspective of whether their Financial Plans are
feasible and comply with Weld County Code Article XIV (Service Plans for Title 32
Special Districts).
The four districts use the multiple district structures with District#1 being the service
district, and Districts 2, 3, and 4 being the financing districts. This structure is commonly
used and allowed under Weld County Code Section 2-14-40 (Multiple District
Structures). I see no problems with this structure for this development.
The Financial Plan prepared by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc., and reviewed by
D.A. Davidson & 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 St. Vrain Lakes
Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 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. hi addition, the Financial Plan for the St. Vrain Lakes
Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 prepared by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. and
reviewed by D.A. Davidson & Company appears to be financially feasible. Therefore, I
recommend approval of the service plan.
4ol Lakes
E.,
r
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 LOB
(303) ��
(303) 651-8330 / Fax # (303) 651-8696
E-mail: /onomontp/anninq()aci.Ionomont.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.fosdick(@,ci.lonqmont.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
07/19/2006 13:49 ST. VRRIN SANITATION DISTRICT + 87206524211 NO.755 P01
Weld County Referral
July 11, 2006 III (af2 O lYtf2 Us IS VJ IS
COLORADO JUL 17 2006
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item f py -La'
Applicant St Vrain Lakes PUD Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for Metropolitan Districts 1, 2,3,and 4 (St Vrain Lakes POD).
Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36,T3N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado,
Location Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25 Frontage Road;
south of and adjacent to SH 66:west of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and
adjacent to St.Vrain River.
Parcel Number Multiple parcels
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.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(if applicable) August 15,2006
O We have reviewed the request end find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
QC See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date Taft pG
Agency S(a P
*Weld County Planning Dept 04209 CR 24.5,Longmont,CO.80504 0(720)6522-4210 ext.8730 0(720)8524211 lax
07/19/2006 13:49 ST. VRRIN SANITATION DISTRICT 4 87206524211 NO.755 D02
AO
- St. Vramn
MANI TATI ON
DISTRICT
July 19, 2006
Weld County Planning
c/o Kim Olge
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Re: Referral for St. Vrain Lakes development, parts of Sections
25,35,36, T3N Range 68 W of Weld County Colorado.
Dear Mr. Ogle,
St. Vrain Sanitation District is in receipt of the referral for St. Vrain
lakes. 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. Approval of onsite sanitary sewer construction drawings
4. Receipt of all applicable fees
5. Easement dedication for parallel north line
6. Sewer masterplan by Carroll and Lang lacks SVSD approval and
definition of sewer service to properties north of Hwy 66.
Please contact me at 303-682-4681 with any questions you may have.
Service is subject to SVSD rules and regulations.
Slncerel
Robert Fleck
District Engineering/Project Manager
St. Vrain Sanitation District
11307 Business Park Circle Firestone, Co 80504
Phone(303)776-9570 Fax. (303)486-1968
a
Weld County Referral
111
Weld County Planning Department
1 SOUTHWEST BUILDING
C
July 11, Zoos JUL 2 0 2006
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant St Vrain Lakes PUD Case Number 2006-XX
Please Reply By July 25, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for Metropolitan Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (St Vrain Lakes PUD).
Legal Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to the 1-25 Frontage Road;
south of and adjacent to SH 66; west of and adjacent to CR 13; and north of and
adjacent to St. Vrain River.
Parcel Number Multiple parcels
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.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) August 15, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
lr2 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
-',c=, 0 R o c c zj e p C ctn c 3-rc _\QV SI
NO-1. v ' .t t \)C1 Cv 1 c, c-,r \ e
Signature Date . n
Agency \ _ c: c")o e..e o a__t) .� c e�
❖Weld County Planning Dept. +4209 CR 24.5,Longmont, CO.80504 ❖(720)652-4210 ext.8730 +(720)652-4211 fax
Clear Day Page 1 of 3
Jacqueline Hatch
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
07/25/2006
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 Bauer
07/25/2006
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 SCHEI,PS.,ACS.P.E.
'— 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"
07/25/2006
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
' " 1111 H STREET,P.O.BOX 758
GREELEY,CO 80632
WEBSITE:WWW.CO.WELD.CO.US
PHONE (970)304-6496,EXT.3758
FAX: (970)304-6497
as
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 St. Vrain Lakes Metropolitan
District Nos. 1 —4
Public Works has reviewed the proposed Service Plan for the St. Vrain Lakes Metropolitan District (Plan)
and offers the following comments:
1. The estimated costs of all the infrastructure improvements is over $99 million and is provided in
only a one page summary. Public Works is requesting that more detailed backup material be
provided for review to ensure that this estimate is reasonable.
2. The Plan needs to be much more specific regarding which infrastructure will be maintained by the
Metro District— i.e. all internal roadways and drainage facilities shall be maintained by the Metro
District.
3. The Plan does not provide any estimates for the annual administration and maintenance costs of
the public improvements that will be maintained by the Metro District. 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.
4. 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.
5. A map showing the master transportation plan is not included within the exhibits and should be
added.
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.
Bernard Lyons Gaddis S. Kahn
A Professional Corporation C : Attorneys and Coun eons. my Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
VVia
July 21, 2OO6 JUL 2 4 2006
Mr. Kim Ogle RECEIVED
Weld County Planning Dept.
42O9 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 8O5O4
Re: St. Vrain Lakes PUD
Metro. Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4
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 1-25.
Most if not all of the proposed districts' boundaries would fall within this District's boundaries.
Pursuant to Sec. 32-1-1O7, 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 District's Board of Directors.
This District is willing to grant such a resolution of consent provided that the new metro districts
agree to either an amendment of the submitted service plan or the execution of an IGA that
expressly limits the exercise of their statutory powers so as to not conflict with this District's exercise
of its powers,service plan, and service area.
As it is currently written, this District would object to the broad language within the proposed service
plan which would grant the new metro districts all of the powers of a sanitation district, including the
construction, maintenance, and operation of treatment plants, trunk lines, and collector systems,
and including the sale of individual taps.
However, this District's Board of Directors would consider granting its consent to the formation of the
new metro districts within St. Vrain's boundaries if the metro districts' powers were expressly limited
to financing certain infrastructure needed to service the proposed development The District would
consider granting its consent if the service plan were revised to specify that:
1. The St. Vrain Sanitation District would be the sole provider of sanitation services within
the proposed metro districts.
2. The metro districts were precluded from selling taps.
3. The metro districts 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 districts' 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.
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 & Kahn
A Professional Corporation Attorneys and Counselors
Mr. Kim Ogle
July 21, 2006
Page 2
5. All such improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with St. Vrain's
standards.
6. Upon completion, the metro districts will convey the newly constructed lines/facilities to
St. Vrain.
7. The metro districts would dissolve upon retirement of the debt incurred to construct the
improvements.
8. The metro districts' boundaries would not be expanded beyond those set forth in the
service plan without St. Vrain's advance consent.
9. Subsequent to formation, the metro districts will not modify their service plans in any
manner that would affect or expand their sanitary sewer powers without the express
consent of St.Vrain Sanitation.
In lieu of service plan amendment to reflect these provisions, this District's Board of Directors would
accept a conditional approval by the Weld County Board of Commissioners that would require the
metro districts, 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 NS, GADDIS& KAHN,
a -ofession I Co -ration
By
Richard N. o s, II
rlyons@b1 .com
cc: St.Vrain Sanitation District
F.\CLIENTS\S\SAINT\OVERLAP METRO DIST\ST VRAIN LAKES\20060721 L-REFFRL WELD.DOC 07/21/06 1 57 PM
Hello