HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062374 RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Doug Ochsner 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: 2006-03 - Kiteley Farms LLLP.
APPLICANT: Collins Cockrel & Cole
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for a Metropolitan District (Kiteley Ranch at
Foster Lake).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent
to CR 7.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Section 32-1-203(2) states the Board of County Commissioners shall approve
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 finance, acquire, construct, equip,
complete, manage, operate, provide, and maintain public improvements and
services throughout the Kiteley Ranch 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.
The proposed public improvements to be financed, acquired, installed and
constructed by the district to serve the Kiteley Ranch Development are as
follows: Street System and Traffic Safety, Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewer
System, Water System, and Park and Recreation.
The Kiteley Ranch Development at Foster Lake PUD Change of Zone, PZ #1082
is for 427 single-family detached homes with 31.11 acres of parks and open
space and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 26,
2006.
(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 Kiteley Ranch Development.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District in their referral dated 7/27/06 states, "the Kiteley
Ranch Metropolitan Districts' proposed boundaries are not currently within the
this District's boundaries."
Longs Peak Water District indicated in their referral dated 7/25/06 that they do a
not express objections to the formation of overlapping metro districts that are
intended to solely served as financing mechanisms for internal improvements.
2006-2374
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 2
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient
service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
The referral dated 7/23/06 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of
Finance, Mr. Warden states, "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."
(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 7/23/06 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of
Finance, Mr. Warden States, "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."
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 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 Kiteley Ranch Development.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District in their referral dated 7/27/06 states, "the Kiteley
Ranch Metropolitan Districts' proposed boundaries are not currently within the
this District's boundaries."
Longs Peak Water District indicated in their referral dated 7/25/06 that they do
not express objections to the formation of an overlapping metro districts that are
intended to solely served as financing mechanisms for internal improvements.
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 3
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.
3) 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 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
state "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 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.B 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."
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)
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 4
The proposed Service Plan and special district will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served and is 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."
1) 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 zoned for urban-level
development.
2) 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
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 entered into 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 fourth in the Service Plan or to
provide funding therefor. Details about the nature and ability of this Agreement
are not described in the Service Plan. In the referrals from Longs Peak Water
District dated 7/25/06 and St. Vrain Sanitation District dated 7/27/06 and 7/19/06
they are requesting intergovernmental agreements with the Metro District.
The proposed Plan does state 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.
(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)
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 5
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 2-14-20.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)
•
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 6
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 therefor in
accordance with Section 2-14-20.J of the Weld County Code."
1. 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 Kiteley Ranch Development. The District will contain all of the
land within the Kiteley Ranch Development.
10. 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, "The District 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.
Prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
(a) The applicant shall amend the Metropolitan District Service Plan to address the
concerns of the Weld County Department of Public Works as stated in their
memos dated 7/24/06 & 7/25/06. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services.
b. On page 10 pargraph 9.a of the Service Plan the applicant shall change Section
2-14-20.G to reflect Section 2-14-20.E of the Weld County Code.
Prior to Proceeding to District Court:
(a) The applicant shall address the requirements/concerns of the St. Vrain
Sanitation District as stated in their referrals dated 7/19/06 & 7/27/06. Evidence
of such shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(b) The applicant shall address the requirements/concerns of the Longs Peak Water
District as stated in their referrals dated 7/25/06. Evidence of such shall be
submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
Resolution 2006-03 Kiteley Farms LLC
Collins Cockrel & Cole
Page 7
Motion seconded by Paul Branham.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
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 August 15, 2006.
Dated the 15th of August, 2006.
Donita May
Secretary
! It
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1568, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner 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; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch,
yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair reminded the applicants and audience there would be another opportunity to present their
information at the upcoming Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
CASE NUMBER: 2006-03 - Kiteley Farms LLLP.
APPLICANT: Collins Cockrel & Cole
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843; part NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for a Metropolitan District (Kiteley Ranch at
Foster Lake).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and east of and
adjacent to CR 7.
Kim Ogle for Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said the submitted Service Plan and
supporting Financing Plan were proposed to provide urban services within an area of Weld County that was
zoned PUD with (E) Estate and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development
Overlay District. The subdivision was identified as Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD
on approximately 140 acres with 427 residential Lots.
The applicant had indicated in their application that the financing plan and the content of the service plan
described the overall development plans for the project. The estimated cost of the public improvements,
including engineering and contingency,to be financed, acquired,constructed, installed and completed by the
District was expected to exceed 8,200,000.00, in 2006 dollars,with all improvements completed by December
2009. (18 million total, 8.2 million by District only)
It was the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant had 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 July 23, 2006 addressed the concerns of Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Warden
stated, the Financial Plan prepared by George K. Baum & Company appeared to be financially feasible and
prepared in accordance with the Weld County Code Section 2-14-300). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills
with 50 mills maximum for debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance was consistent and
in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20(H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition term was
consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and six responded
favorably or included conditions that had been addressed through development standards and conditions of
approval. No written comments had been received from: the Weld County Attorney's Office;the Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission;the Town of Berthoud;the Town of Firestone;the Town of Frederick;or the Town
of Mead.
Prior to staff comments, staff provided amended language prepared by Collins, Cockrell and Cole for the
Service Plan addressing concerns of staff at the direction of Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Additionally the
supplemental packet provided correspondence to the St. Vrain Sanitation District and the Little Thompson
Water District. The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of the Service Plan and
supporting Financing Plan as submitted. `
Paul Cockrel, Collins Cockrel & Cole PC, 390 Union Blvd., Ste. 400, Denver, CO 80228, applicant':
representative presented a copy of their service plan to Mr. Barker, County Attorney, and said this was a
neighborhood not a town and the scope of this service plan would be much smaller in nature than the one
considered earlier in the hearing;the service plan was drafted to comply with provisions of the special district
code;comments from Longs Peak Water and St Vrain Sanitation had been addressed;the districts would not
be dissolved upon retirement of bonds;they would build facilities and turn them over to Longs Peak Water and
St Vrain Sanitation even though the property was not within those district's boundaries but would be at some
point in time and would enter into an IGA with them then;Public Works'operations and maintenance concerns
had been addressed;they were comfortable with the County conditions; and asked to exclude approximately
three acres of the Kiteley homestead from the plan.
Tom Holton asked if they were planning major improvements every five years. Mr. Cockrel said yes, to the
sealcoat. Mr. Holton then asked if the supplemental service plan had been examined by the County Attorney
and Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Barker responded that he had looked at the supplemental plan and
it was the same except for inclusion of the ownership and maintenance plan which the County had asked for,
and that Mr. Warden had not reviewed it. Mr. Barker said the plan dealt with items more specific to
Department of Public Works requirements regarding ownership and maintenance of the streets and roads.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton said if this was similar to the last application he would approve it.
Paul Branham said the applicants had done their job and he would support the application.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2006-03, Kiteley Farms LLC, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Paul Branham 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; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch,yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1084
APPLICANT: The Hauck Preserve at Idaho Creek LLC do Bob Perletz
w/Winston &Associates Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-3107, part Section 29, T2N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to
PUD for twenty-one (21)residential lots on 82.99 acres
with Estate Zone District uses except for the inclusion of
the use of auxiliary type second homes on lots 1 - 18 and
21. Lots 19 and 20 include a second home as outlined in
the covenants.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5; north of and adjacent to
CR 16.5.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the sign announcing the Planning Commission
hearing was posted July 28, 2006 by Planning Staff
The proposed site was currently influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Frederick.
The Town of Frederick requested on the Notice of Inquiry that the application be processed through the
County. The site was also located within the three mile referral areas for the Towns of Erie, Dacono and
Firestone and Boulder County.
The City of Frederick in their referral dated July 6,2006 requested the following: that County Road 5 have 100
feet of right-of-way and County Road 16.5 have 70 feet of right-of-way; a neighborhood trail be incorporated
along County Roads 5 and 16.5 and the St.Vrain Legacy Trail be accommodated along the creek corridor all
9
Hello