HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042244.tiff JUL-13-2004 TUE 01 :43 PM FAX NO. P. 02
St. Vraa.n Valley
School District
Weld County,CO
Weld County Planning Offices
1555 N. 17'"Ave.
Greeley,CO 80631
RE; Voluntary Capital Mitigation for Adler Estates.
Dear Monica,
Pending approval of the above application by Weld County,this will confirm that the St.Vrain Valley School
District has reached an agreement with D.R. Horton,Time Melody Series,evidenced by the signatures below,in
regard to the donation of mitigation funds to address the lack of school capacity for the Adler Estates subdivision.
D.R.Horton,The Melody Series has valuntanly offered to mitigate the impacts on the capacity of the Longmont and
Mead feeder schools with a 52006.08 per unit payment on all units,per the attached chart.As part of this mitigation,
D.R.Horton,The Melody Series also agrees not to obtain Building Permits for any residential units within Adler
Estates until five months prior to the opening of Middle School 7 in September 2005. This mitigation essentially
solves the issue of exceeding the school benchmark by providing the funding necessary to add classroom space or
help construct new schools to accommodate the expected student yield from this project. In reliance upon the
District's receipt of a phasing plan,which will of 4 to 5 phases of 100 to 200 units per phasc,and the receipt of
mitigation funds at the onset of each phase,the School District will not recommend denial of the project at this time.
The cash-in-lieu of land dedication fee of 5645 per unit shall also be provided in conformance with the IGA between
the County and the School District regarding Fair Contributions for Public School Sites.Cash-in-lieu funds shall
also be provided at the onset of each phase.
As indicated above,the mitigation payments shall be provided for all units in each phase of the Adler Estates
subdivision prior to the release by the County of any construction permits for the corresponding phase. This phasing
plan shall be provided to the School District prior to the submission of a Final Plat application to the County and will
detail the number of lots and location of each phase.Any future changes or vanations requested by the developer on
the standard mitigation calculation and payment schedule would need to be considered by the School District Staff
and/or the Board of Education, This could include evaluating the possibility,but with no obligation,of the District
deferring future payments by the developer if the necessary additional school capacity is completed pnor to
construction of the first unit in this project. Any changes,determined to be acceptable by the District,would be
communicated to the County Commissioners and Staff in writing.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Any further questions can be directed to the contacts and phone numbers
below.
Sincerely,
School District Developer D.R.Ho , y S a
S ott Toillion,AICP By: Linda Sweetman-King
Director of Planning Entitlement Director
St.Vrain Valley School District
303-682-7229
Fax 303-682-7344 EXHIBIT
I
a
t4A •
512C05/- c. 3/5/
ST VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AN]N ECT DEPARTMENT
.
05 SSOUTH
P RATT P 8 PARKWAY,
LONGMONT.CO 80501.SCOTT
V I N
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS - COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE •
Adler Estates SINGLE-FAMILY
COST OF CLASSROOM
STANDARD CLASSROOM SIZE- SQ. F 1000 (Includes classroom area and assnriated hallways)
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQ. FT.I _ S 129.00
TOTAL COST OF CLASSROOM S 129,000.00
STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY 30 _
MIDDLE SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 22
STUDENTS @ 125% OF CAPACITY 27.5
HIGH SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24.5
STUDENTS @ 125% OF CAPACITY 30.625
COST PER STUDENT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $ 4,300.00 _
MIDDLE SCHOOL $ 4,690.91
HIGH SCHOOL $ 4,212.24
STUDENT YIELD PER DWELLING UNIT
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.3
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.16
HIGH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.17
COST PER UNIT FOR CLASSROOM SPACE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL S 1,290.00 _
MIDDLE SCHOOL Under 125% benchmark in Fall 2005 _
HIGH SCHOOL $ 716.08
$ 2,006.08
"Classroom sq. ft. cost estimated for a 5 classroom addition with architectural fees and construction costs
Page 1 of 2
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:06 PM
To: Carol Harding
Cc: Lee Morrison; Bruce Barker
Subject: amendment to MUD district c
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
July 19, 2004
cq
Subject: Adler-Melody MUD amendment
Case: 2004-XX; applicant: Melody Homes/D R Horton
Dear County Commissioners:
Please consider the following comments in your deliberations relating to the subject case:
1] Section 26-1-30 of the Weld County Code states: "Individuals may submit a proposal to amend the
MUD Structural Plan in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 22-1-150 of this Code."
Section 22-1-150B3 states that "...the proposed amendment must be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services no later than February 1" in order to be considered "...with the public hearing process
beginning in March" [section 22-1-150B1]. The amendment application was dated February 26th.
Therefore, this case should not be heard before the September hearing period. Alleged conversations
between the applicant and Department of Planning Services staff before February 1st do not constitute
an application submittal. Nowhere in the Code does it give Planning Services staff the power to interpret
or apply the Code other than how it is clearly stated.
2] Section 22-1-150B4b states: "Describe how the proposed amendment will address the impacts on
existing or planned service capabilities. This statement shall include how emergency services will be
provided".
The Sheriffs Dept. referral response states: "To effectively respond to the needs of this or any
other community, the Sheriffs Office will need the resources recommended in the multi-year plan
provided to the board of count Commissioners or resources that will be needed as indicated by growth
not considered at the time the plan was developed." This statement indicates that the Sheriffs Office
considers that it would not be able to provide adequate emergency services to a development made
possible by this amendment to the MUD plan, and therefore, the application has failed to include an
explanation of how public safety emergency services will be effectively be provided.
3] The requirements of Section 26-1-60C2b, "Public safety facilities shall be provided to meet required
standards of response times and public safety..." also fail to be met based on the response from the
Sheriffs Department.
4] Section 26-1-60C1c MUD goals and policies: "Development that requires urban services and
facilities shall be encouraged to locate within a municipality...." As far as I can determine, County
personnel has not encouraged the applicant to locate in a municipality.
5] The application does not address the requirements of Section 26-1-60C3c to "Mir , -*T,-
7/19/2004 `� '
Page 2 of 2
land acquisitions and capital construction for essential community facilities..." such as libraries, social
services, regional parks, museums and recreation centers.
6] The application does not address the requirements of Section 26-1-60C4a "to provide a mechanism
for public facilities ..." with respect to item 5 above.
7] The application does not address the requirements of Section 26-1-60C4b to demonstrate that
development will not result in excessive public costs while producing insufficient public revenues. A
Fiscal Impact Report was not submitted by the applicant.
8] With regard to section 22-2-230 Mud goals and policies, it would appear that the applicant has not
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of MUD goal 4, MUD goal 5, Mud policy 5.2,
9], Section 22-1-150B5a states: "The Dept. of Planning Services shall: "Ensure that all application
submittal requirements are met prior to initiating any official action." Since the application requirements
of 1 through 8 above have apparently not been met, official action by the Department of Planning
Services should not have been taken.
A question arises whether the IGA with Mead was still in effect when the amendment was submitted. As
best I can ascertain, even though the IRA expired before the subject application was submitted, the
Board of County Commissioners did not officially declare it void until after the submission. Therefore,
the IGA may be considered to be in force at the time of application, and the applicant should have been
referred to the Town of Mead for annexation and development processing in the town.
With regard to section 22-1-150B11 [considerations by the BCC], a] the existing Comprehensive
Plan is NOT in need of revision as proposed. There are many square miles of undeveloped land already
in the MUD district that have not been developed. To add more land to the MUD district would only
aggravate the urban sprawl that development within the MUD district has already caused. There several
municipalities willing and able to annex lands within the MUD district and these should be given
priority for conducting development as suggested in the Municipal Annexation Act, all criteria for good
land use planning and even section 26-1-60C1c of the Weld County Code; and b] the proposed
amendment will NOT be consistent with existing and future goals, policies and needs of the County as
stated above.
For the reasons stated, it is to be hoped that the Board of County Commissioners will be
persuaded that their approval of the subject application as it stands would be in violation of the
requirements of the Weld County Code and not in the best interests of the citizens of Weld County.
John Folsom
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
7/19/2004
Hello