HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050254.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant District Service Plan, East 1-25 Case Number 2004-XX
Sanitation District
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 Staff Comments X
Department of Planning Services Field Check Form X
Planning Commissioner Folsom Field Check Form
Letter to Applicant X
Affadavit of sign posting/Affidavit and Photograph of Sign Posting X
Legal Notifications
Board of County Commissioners Resolution for Acceptance of Filing of Service X
Plan and Referral to Weld County Planning Commission, dated November 22,
2004 (See Resolution 2004-3362)
2 Application X
Letter received from James P. Collins, of Collins Cockrel&Cole, applicant's X
representative dated November 8, 2004,with Service Plan
Letter received from James P. Collins, of Collins Cockrel&Cole, applicant's X
representative dated October 7, 2004, with Draft Service Plan
Maps
Deed/Easement Certificate
Surrounding Property/ Mineral Owners
Utilities
Surrounding Property Owners
Facsimile Letter received from James P. Collins,of Collins Cockrel &Cole, X
applicant's representative dated November 24, 2004
3 Referral List X
Referrals without comment
Referrals with comments
4 Weld County Department of Finance, referral received 12-6-2004 X
5 Weld County Attorney's Office, referral received 12-7-2004 X
6 St.Vrain Sanitation District, referral received 12-10-2004 X
7 Facsimile Referral form City of Longmont, received 12-10-2004 X
8 Town of Mead, referral received 12-14-2004 X
9 Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment, referral received 12-16- X
2004
EXHIBIT
/ 2005-0254
IMYA
10
11 PC Exhibits
•
12 :=2VrcLe(7er/ CF .,SyAi pas tad ; /d/,?//02c)-ey
13 d J/
14
15
I hereby certify that the 9 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the
scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing.
Kim Ogle ❖ PI ner
f \ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
918 Tenth Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
WI I D C. PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. 3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
COLORADO
December 21, 2004
James P. Collins.
Collins Cockrel & Cole
390 Union Boulevard, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80228-1556
Subject: District Service Plan, East 1-25 Sanitation District
Legal: Part of Section 31 and 32, T4N, R67W; all of Section 35 and 36, T4N, R68W; part of Section 5,
all of Section 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and part of Section 20, T3N, R67W; all of Section 1, 2, 11, 12,
13 ,14, 23 and 24, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado..
Dear Mr. Collins:
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed the request for comments in regard to the submitted
District Service Plan application. Please consider these comments as an unified response to the Special
District Provisions.
POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS
The criteria for review of this Service Plan are listed in Section 32-1-203(2) and Section 32-1-203(2.5),
C.R.S.
The Department of Planning Services' staff has received responses from the following agencies:
• Weld County Attorney's Office, referral received 12-7-2004
• Weld County Department of Finance, referral received 12-6-2004
• St. Vrain Sanitation District, referral received 12-10-2004
• City of Longmont, referral received 12-10-2004
• Town of Mead, referral received 12-14-2004
• Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment, referral received 12-16-2004
The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received responses from the following agencies:
• Weld County Department of Public Works
• Town of Firestone
East I-25 Sanitary Service Plan,page 1
The Department of Planning Services in conjunction with the Weld County Attorney's Office and Weld
County Finance Department recommend that the Planning Commission disapprove the attached District
Service Plan for the East 1-25 Sanitation District for the following reasons:
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has not shown compliance
with Section 32-1-203(2) and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. as follows:
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 proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary
for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain for sanitation services. The Town of Mead returned a referral
dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly opposes County approval or
endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and
development potential." The City of Longmont, in their referral dated December 15, 2004 states
"If this proposed district is brought before the Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
(NFRWQPA) Board, [of which the City is a member], the City plans to vote against its inclusion in
the NFRWQPA Water Quality Management Plan."
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and project needs.
The proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary
for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District. Further, there is no evidence presented
stating that the town of Mead does not have the capacity to serve future sanitation requirements
with improvements and expansion of their existing facility. The Town of Mead returned a referral
dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly opposes County approval or
endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and
development potential."
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
In the referral dated December 6, 2004, Don Warden, Director of Finance, states"the financial
portion of the service plan is adequate. Kirpatrick Pettis has prepared a pro-forma financial plan
that is realistic and feasible, assuming the build out of the district takes place as projected."
The Department of Planning Services suggests that the proposed service plan is premature given
that approximately 160 acres of the proposed 13000 acres are located within the Mixed Use
Development area. Lands within the Mixed Use Development area are able to apply for urban
scale development; presently one percent of all district's lands are within this area.
Section 22-1-50.D.3.d, Content of the [Comprehensive] Plan, states, "... Residential development
is classified in two (2)categories, urban scale development and non-urban scale development.
•
Urban scale development, as defined in Chapter 23 Zoning, and Chapter 27 PUD, should
be located inside urban growth boundary areas, or in areas where appropriate services
and facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
Non-urban scale development, as defined in Chapter 23 Zoning, and Chapter 27 PUD,
may be accommodated in other areas of the County; but the density and intensity of any
non-urban scale residential development will be thoroughly scrutinized to address the
issues of compatibility, availability and adequacy of infrastructure and services, impacts
East 1-25 Sanitary Service Plan, page 2
on the natural environment, fiscal impacts on the County, and other issues specific to
each proposal."
Section 27-2-140. Non-Urban Scale Development, states "Non-urban scale developments are
developments comprised of nine (9) or fewer residential lots, located in a non-urban area as
defined in Chapter 22 of this Code, not adjacent to other PUDs, subdivisions, municipal
boundaries or urban growth corridors."
Further, Section 27-2-190. Urban Scale Development, states"Urban scale developments are
developments exceeding nine (9) lots and/or located in close proximity to existing PUDs,
subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors and boundaries."
Lands associated with this proposed Sanitation District are outside of both an Urban Growth
Boundary Area and an Intergovernmental Agreement Area, thus staff will support nine lots or less.
Although urban scale services may be available, should an applicant propose greater than nine
develop-able lots, staff will recommend denial of all subdivision land use applications.
For urban scale development to be supported by the Department of Planning Services, an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 22-1-150.6.7) 1-25/ MUD boundary will be
required and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
(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.
In the referral dated December 6, 2004, Don Warden, Director of Finance, states "the financial
portion of the service plan is adequate. Kirpatrick Pettis has prepared a pro-forma financial plan
that is realistic and feasible, assuming the build out of the district takes place as projected." It is
suggested that the service plan does not propose timing of construction or the issuance of debt to
coincide with the resolution of these issues concerning urban scale development in a non-urban
area.
The Department of Planning Services suggests that the proposed service plan is premature given
that approximately 160 acres of the proposed 13,000 acres are located within the Mixed Use
Development area. Lands within the Mixed Use Development area are able to apply for urban
scale development, presently one percent of all district's lands are within this area.
Given that an amendment to Comprehensive Plan is required for expansion to the existing Mixed
Use Development area, thus allowing urban scale development to occur, it is the opinion of the
Department of Planning Services that the proposed service plan is premature given that urban
scale development is not a use allowed by right within the proposed district lands.
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 proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary
for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District. In a referral response from St. Vrain
Sanitation District, the District states"It has been made very clear to the proposed new district that
although St. Vrain Sanitation District strongly supports regionalization of sanitation services in the
area, we [St. Vrain Sanitation District] are not and will not go out and acquire territory from other
districts, nor will St. Vrain Sanitation District interfere with or impose on the designated 208
boundaries of another district or municipality." Further, the Town of Mead returned a referral
dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly opposes County approval or
East I-25 Sanitary Service Plan, page 3
endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and
development potential."
(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).
The proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary
for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District. The Town of Mead returned a referral
dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly opposes County approval or
endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and
development potential."
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Section 22-2-90.B states "An important factor of urban development is the efficient use of land as
a resource. Since the density of urban development accommodates more density on each acre,
the amount of land relative to the number of people who live on or use the land is an efficient ratio.
Locations where urban development can occur should be encouraged to develop as urban.
Jurisdictions that can accommodate urban development should employ policies and regulations
that facilitate urban development while managing the quality of this development. The County
should adopt policies and regulations that promote urban development in the areas where it is
appropriate resulting in the most efficient use of land and infrastructure." (Weld County Code
Ordinance 2002-6)
Section 22-2-100.A states"Urban growth boundaries and uses within these areas shall be
determined through coordination between the County, the participating municipality and the
individual landowner. Efficient development in the area surrounding municipalities requires this
type of coordination which is achieved by three (3) methods: the three-mile referral,
intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreements and the standard one-half-mile urban
growth boundary. When growth at the municipality/County level is not coordinated, problems can
occur with incompatible adjacent land uses as the most obvious." Further, Section 22-2-100.6
states "Efficient and orderly land development and the conservation of agricultural land suggest
that urban-type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipalities or where
adequate infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. Urban development
adjacent to municipalities is appropriate if urban services can be extended to serve the area."
Further, Section 22-2-100.E states "In the absence of an urban growth boundary agreement, the
County recognizes a standard urban growth boundary. This is a one-half-mile perimeter from the
existing public sanitary sewer facilities. The definition of facilities is limited to public sewer lines in
place on September 11, 1995, the time of adoption of Ordinance 147-G, as codified herein, as
amended by Ordinance 147-P, adopted on March 15, 1999, also codified herein. The perimeter
will be modified if it is apparent that physical boundaries prevent the extension of sewer service.
Inside the municipal service area boundary, urban-type uses and services are planned and
annexation is encouraged."
Section 22-2-110.B UGB.Goal 2. states"Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to
existing municipalities, an approved intergovernmental agreement, the 1-25 Mixed Use
Development area, urban growth boundary areas, urban development nodes, or where urban
infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. As previously stated, the applicant's
proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary for
the Town of Mead and St Vrain Sanitation District. Further, there is no evidence presented stating
that the town of Mead does not have the capacity to serve future sanitation requirements with
improvements and expansion of their existing facility. Finally, given that an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan is required for expansion to the existing Mixed Use Development area, thus
allowing urban scale development to occur, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning
East I-25 Sanitary Service Plan,page 4
Services that the proposed service plan is premature given that urban scale development is not a
use allowed by right within the proposed district lands.
(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 22-3-10.A states"The effective and efficient delivery of adequate public services is one
(1)of the primary purposes and benefits of effective land use planning. Public services are
government services such as police and fire protection, health services and welfare, and
educational services and programs. Public facilities are physical structures and infrastructure,
such as schools, libraries, roads, maintenance facilities, water distribution systems and sewage
treatment facilities. Municipal governments, county governments, special districts and private
companies are capable of providing such services and facilities."
Further, Section 22-3-10.E states "Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the provision of
adequate urban facilities and services under powers granted by state statutes and the
Constitution. The adopted urban growth boundary areas are the most logical areas for urban
development to occur. Municipalities are designed to accommodate concentrations of
development and are in a position to plan the expansion of existing facilities and services, as well
as to coordinate the development of new facilities and services."
Further, Section 22-3-10.F states "Alternative facilities and service systems (for example, special
districts) may be used for urban type development within the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area,
urban development nodes or urban growth boundary areas, with certain restrictions. The
alternative facility and service systems must comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 22,
Chapters 23 and 24 of this Code. Systems that are proposed to be located within a municipality's
urban growth boundary area may be required to develop in such a manner that they are
compatible with the standards of the municipality most likely to phase services into the area. They
also may be required to meet state regulations and standards."
Finally, Section 22-3-50.8.1 P.Policy 2.1 states "Development that requires urban services and
facilities should be encouraged to locate within a municipality, urban growth boundary area, 1-25
Mixed Use Development area or urban development nodes, or where adequate services are
currently available or reasonably obtainable."
As previously stated, the applicant's proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established
and existing District 208 Boundary for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District. Further,
there is no evidence presented stating that the town of Mead does not have the capacity to serve
future sanitation requirements with improvements and expansion of their existing facility. The
Town of Mead returned a referral dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board
strongly opposes County approval or endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the
Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and development potential." Finally, given that an amendment
to Comprehensive Plan is required for expansion to the existing Mixed Use Development area,
thus allowing urban scale development to occur, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning
Services that the proposed service plan is premature given that urban scale development is not a
use allowed by right within the proposed district lands.
The Department of Public Health and Environment notes, "...all of the property within the initial
proposed district lies within unincorporated Weld County. The proposed district boundaries
overlaps two existing (Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District) service area boundaries as
defined by the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (AWQMP). The AWQMP is
administered by the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association and must approve of
the service boundaries. The proposed district must also seek and receive approval from the
CDPHE and your agency(in accordance with the Colorado Regulations for the Site Application
Process 5 CCR 1002-222))."
East 1-25 Sanitary Service Plan,page 5
Further"the approval of this district will likely spur growth and development in an unincorporated
area of the County. To the knowledge [of Department of Public Health and Environment], the
applicant has not used County processes such as inclusion into the MUD, to address service and
other utility issues."
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
The proposed Service Plan boundaries overlap the established and existing District 208 Boundary
for the Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District. Further, there is no evidence presented
stating that the town of Mead does not have the capacity to serve future sanitation requirements
with improvements and expansion of their existing facility. The Town of Mead returned a referral
dated December 14, 2004 that states, "The Town Board strongly opposes County approval or
endorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the Towns'wastewater facilities, plans and
development potential."
In a referral response from St. Vrain Sanitation District, the District states "It has been made very
clear to the proposed new district that although St. Vrain Sanitation District strongly supports
regionalization of sanitation services in the area, we [St. Vrain Sanitation District] is not and will
not go out and acquire territory from other districts, nor will St. Vrain Sanitation District interfere
with or impose on the designated 208 boundaries of another district or municipality."
The proposed Service Plan and special district will not be in the best interests of the area
proposed to be served and is not in the interests of the County of Weld.
M:wprd\ogle\wpfiles\planning\Est 1-25\San District_0 wpd
East I-25 Sanitary Service Plan, page 6
FIELD CHECK inspection date: December 10, 2004
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT'S NAME: East 1-25 Sanitation District
REQUEST: Service Plan for Sanitation District.
LEGAL: Part of Section 31 and 32, T4N, R67W; all of Section 35 and 36, T4N, R68W;
part of Section 5, all of Section 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and part of Section 20, T3N,
R67W; all of Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 ,14, 23 and 24, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 66; west of CR 17; South of CR 40
Zonina Land Use
N A(Agricultural) N Agricultural / Residential
E A (Agricultural) E Agricultural / Residential
S A(Agricultural) S Agricultural / Commercial/ Residential
W A(Agricultural) W Agricultural/ 1-25 Rademacher Business Park
COMMENTS:
Lands associated with this proposed service plan are comprised of vacant agricultural lands,
Sekich Business Park, 1-25 Rademacher Business Park. Residential/ Commercial PUDs
presently under review include Meadow Ridge, east of County Road 9.5 and north of and
adjacent to State Highway 66.
With the exception of a portion of the Reynolds/ Woods land holding associated with the
Meadow Ridge PUD, all lands are outside of an Intergovernmental Agreement Area, an Urban
Growth Boundary Area or the half mile service area associated with existing sanitary services
for the town of Mead. The property does lie within the District 208 Service Boundary for the
town of Mead of Sanitary Services.
Kim O e, anner
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6103-610 0, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
918 10'" STREET
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
November 22,2004
James P Collins
Collins Cockrel &Cole
390 Union Blvd, Ste 400
Denver CO 80228-1556
Subject: 2004-XX- Request for a Service Plan for Sanitation Metropolitan District on a parcel of land described as
part of Section 31 and 32,T4N,R67W;all of Section 35 and 36,T4N,R68W;part of Section 5,all of Section
6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19 and part of Section 20,T3N, R67W; all of Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 ,14,23 and 24,T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Dear Applicant:
Your application and related materials for the request described above are being processed. I have scheduled a meeting
with the Weld County Planning Commission for December 21, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in the
Hearing Room, Weld County Planning Department,4201 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. It is recommended that you
and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members may have.
It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with state statutes regarding notice to mineral estate owners. Colorado
Revised Statute,C.R.S.24-65.5-103(adopted as part of H.B.01-1088)requires notification of all mineral estate owners
30 days prior to any public hearing. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Planning Department with written
certification indicating the above requirements have been met.
It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property
or if the property is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore,our office has
forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Firestone,Longmont and Mead Planning Commission for their review
and comments. Please call Firestone at(303)833-3291; Longmont at(303)651-8330 and Mead at(970)535-4477 for
further details regarding the date,time,and place of this meeting. It is recommended that you and/or a representative
be in attendance at the Firestone, Longmont and Mead Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the
Commission members may have with respect to your application.
A representative from the Department of Planning Services will be out to the property a minimum of ten days prior to the
hearing to post a sign adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way which identifies the hearing
time,date, and location. In the event the property is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, one sign
will be posted in the most prominent place on the property and a second sign posted at the point at which the driveway
(access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way.
The Department of Planning Services'staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County
Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four(24)hours before the scheduled hearing. It
is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services'office before the Planning Commission
hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
Respectfully,
Kim O. e
Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS DECEMBER 11, 2004 THE SIGN SHALL BE
POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW
IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST
PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT
WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS
POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR THE EAST 1-25 SANITATION DISTRICT IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
KIM OGLE
Name of Person Posting Sign
Signature rson Posting Sign
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this J day of fri�� , 2004.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
4E6(4 ;IS
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ZI/ /P
Hello