HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031501.tiff A,
L01�r�,
c.) pa
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION C0LOR pS)O
Civic Center Complex/Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 651-8330/Fax# (303) 651-8696 Weld County Planning Department
E-mail: lon2mont.planning(2F,ci.longmont.co.us CREELEY OFFICE
Web site: http://www.ci.longmont.co.us
JUN 6 2002
June 5, 2002 RECEIVED
Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX, Amendment to the MUD Plan
Dear Robert,
Thank you for sending the Amendment to the MUD Plan to the City of Longmont for our
review and comment. This application proposes to add approximately 387 acres to the MUD area
for residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses.
The subject area lies within the St. Vrain Valley Planning Area of the Longmont Area
Comprehensive Plan(LACP). The LACP designates a considerable portion of this property as
part of the western buffer around Union Reservoir. Primary greenway is designated along Spring
Gulch. Weld County Road#1 (WCR#1) is designated as an arterial.
This area is of particular interest to the City because of its location between the existing
municipal boundary and Union Reservoir. The City believes that for this area to be compatible to
surrounding land uses, existing and proposed development must be accommodated to create a
functional system of land uses for the entire area. For reasons discussed below, the City does not
feel that the application adequately addresses pertinent issues. Moreover, the City questions the
County's decision to process this application given the pending Weld County Cooperative
Agreement (CPA) that would allow the City an opportunity to annex the subject properties prior
to any development approval from Weld County. The CPA was approved by the Longmont City
Council on February 12, 2002. The City understands that the CPA will be scheduled for
consideration by the Weld Board of County Commissioners sometime in the near future.
The City believes that this area would best be developed within the City's jurisdiction. For this
reason as well as the City's concerns with the application, the City opposes this application and
respectfully requests an opportunity to entertain an annexation petition for the subject properties
before Weld County proceeds with this application.
EXHIefT
2003-1501 /,,f
•te .a .o
The City's concerns regarding this application include Union Reservoir and its future expansion,
water and wastewater service,parks, open space and trail linkages, transportation and contiguity
to the existing MUD area.
Union Reservoir and Future Expansion
The City has a conditional decree and an agreement with the Union Reservoir Company to
enlarge Union Reservoir within the next 10 to 15 years. The enlargement of Union Reservoir will
result in construction of an embankment along the eastern side of the proposed MUD expansion
area. This embankment will vary in height, but will generally be from 10 to 20 feet tall. Any
future residential development in this area should clearly note this fact, and the property owner
should notify purchasers of these lots of this fact.
Over the course of a number of years, the City of Longmont has been discussing acquisition
options with the owners of some of the properties included in this application to acquire property
in conjunction with the City's enlargement plans for the reservoir. Development of the eastern
portion of this area as shown on the site plan is not compatible with the enlargement of the
reservoir as planned. If Weld County proceeds with this application, the City asks the County to
work with the City and property owners to collaborate on a development plan that would satisfy
the reasonable development of these properties and the enlargement of the reservoir.
Longmont is a majority shareholder in the Union Reservoir Company, and as such needs to
protect the interest of the citizens of Longmont in this resource. Development of this area may
impact the operations of the reservoir company. The Union Reservoir Company should have the
opportunity to address development issues with the Weld County Planning Department as part of
this process. Weld County should provide a copy of this referral to the Union Reservoir
Company(c/o Donna Coble, Secretary, P.O. Box 445, Greeley, Colorado, 80632) so that you
may incorporate their comments into your initial review of this application.
Water and Wastewater
The City's Water/Wastewater Department recently met with three of the property owners (Mr.
Adrian, the Bogotts and the Willises) to discuss annexation to the City and the availability of
City water and sewer service to their properties. Due to the location of existing City of
Longmont water and sanitary sewer lines in the area, it appears that adding additional service
providers (Longs Peak Water District and St. Vrain Sanitation District) may duplicate existing
infrastructure. The City encourages the applicants to pursue this route for developing their
properties and would be willing to meet with the applicants to further discuss annexation.
The application currently proposes receiving sanitation services from the St. Vrain Sanitation
District (SVSD). However, the 2001 update of the Area-wide Water Quality Management Plan
prepared by the Northern Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA) shows
that less than half of this property is in the SVSD service area. The remainder has not been
assigned to any specific service provider. Due to the proximity of City sewer systems and the
fact that the City's service area lies immediately west and south of this area with available
service capacity, the City believes that it should be the sewer service provider. Unless there is a
compelling reason for keeping multiple service providers in the area, the City believes that City
sewer service to this area would best meet water quality planning objectives. The City
recommends meeting with the applicants to discuss service to the property and amending the
Water Quality Management Plan to show the City as the service provider.
The City would also like the County to consider the fact that the City of Longmont has had
conversations with the property owner of the proposed Seewald Farms Estates to purchase 28
acres of this 53.57 acre property for reservoir expansion. The City invites the County to consider
whether it is prudent to extend urban services to properties designated for reservoir expansion.
Parks, Open Space and Trail Linkages
The City has recently approved an Open Space and Trails Master Plan. Weld County
representatives participated in this process. To date, a moderate to high desire for open space
preservation has been expressed for this area. This area includes prime agriculture lands, surface
water, wildlife, plant ecology areas,urban shaping buffers and view corridors—nearly all the
criteria associated with Longmont's open space ordinance. The ordinance allows the expenditure
of the City's open space sales tax. The City encourages recognition of these important attributes
and preservation to the fullest extent possible.
The subject properties are within the City's eastern buffer as shown on the LACP. Recognition
of these open space and trail plans are not reflected on this plan. The applicant is encouraged to
link the development to off-site trail systems. Buffering of the development from WCR#1 and
along the Union Reservoir shoreline is encouraged as well. Shoreline buffering reduces run-off
impacts to water quality.
The application is somewhat unclear on what, if anything, is being designated as public park,
open space and greenway. The text of the application indicates that 108 acres of parks and open
space are included in the expansion area while the map reflects there are none. With a
community that the applicant projects will include up to 539 dwelling units, a designated public
park, open space, and a greenway along Spring Gulch may be some of the facilities that Weld
County might want to consider as designated land uses on the MUD map.
Transportation
The proposed MUD expansion area includes a number of parcels which are not currently
connected by an internal road system. The City respectfully requests that this area include an
internal collector street system that will provide access between properties and to WCR#1 in
such a way to meet the City's intersection spacing and that recognizes existing and proposed
access points on the west side of WCR#1. A design of WCR#1 is starting in the near future.
Please know that the study will work to reduce points of access along this arterial roadway to
enhance the operation of the road.
WCR#1 is designated as an arterial roadway on the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan and
Weld County Roadway Improvement Plan. The City requests that City arterial street standards
and cross sections be used for WCR#1. Arterial roadways require 120 feet of right-of-way, 60
feet of which would been to be dedicated at time of subdivision. In addition, arterial roadways
require 1/2 mile spacing between signalized intersections, and of 660 feet between intersections
with no potential for signalization, which includes driveways. Exceptions are granted if the only
access point from a property must be located on an arterial roadway and the 660-foot spacing
cannot be met within the constraints of a property boundary.
Please be aware that East 17th Avenue around the Jim Hamm Nature Area has been realigned and
that the intersection of East 17`h and County Line Road will be relocated as a result. This
realignment should be reflected on the maps provided with this application.
The traffic study for this area appears to show the majority of trips traveling to I-25 or points east
of Longmont. In other recent traffic studies of areas on the eastern edge of the Longmont
Planning Area, the City is typically the primary service area for these properties proximate to the
City. The City's transportation staff believe that the majority of trips from this area will be
attracted to the amenities within the City of Longmont and the trip distribution should be
adjusted. Traffic impact on two of Longmont's arterial street(9`h and 17`h Avenues) should be
shown in the traffic study as well.
Contiguity
The City understands that one of the County's requirements for an expansion of the MUD area is
that the area be contiguous to the existing MUD area. Please be aware that the property shown on
the maps owned by"Clover Industrial LLC" is an error. This narrow strip of land is owned fee
simple by the Union Reservoir Company. This property is not included as part of the application.
Thus, the portion of the area to the north of this property is not contiguous to the rest of the
MUD area.
Without contiguity, it may be difficult to implement an internal road system and trail
connections, and it may cause constraints in any planning for public facilities such as parks and
open space.
If you have any questions, you may call me at 303-774-4619 or one of the following other staff:
Ken Huson Union Reservoir expansion 303-651-8340
Senior Civil Engineer
Barb McGrane Water and wastewater lines 303-651-8358
Distribution/Collection
Engineering Manager
Phil Greenwald Transportation 303-651-8335
Transportation Planner
Paula Fitzgerald Parks and trails 303-651-8448
Project Coordinator
Dan Wolford Open space and trails 303-774-4691
Superintendent of
Open Space
Joe Olson Transportation 303-651-8304
Transportation
Engineer
Cal Youngberg Water quality 303-651-8399
Water Quality Director
You can also contact each of these people vial e-mail by using
firstname.lastnamena,ci.longmont.co.us. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
referral. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns in your review process.
Sincerely, r�
nivfrec,Aleiri
/1a;
Andrea Mimnaugh
Senior Planner
xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director
Brad Schol, Planning Director
Froda Greenberg, Principal Planner
Phil Greenwald, Transportation Planner
Richard White, Civil Engineer
Ken Huson, Civil Engineer
Joe Olson, Transportation Engineer
Barb McGrane, W/WW Distribution/Collection Engineering Manager
Paula Fitzgerald, Parks/Recreation Projects Coordinator
Dan Wolford, Open Space and Trails Superintendent
File#2049-8a
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION t 1111%!-..%.79A
t'E ;�
Meeting Date: June 4,2002 Item Number: SS-7 0l+®R b"
Subject: Amendment to the Weld County I-25 MUI)Plan(File#2049-8a)
Type of Item: Study session Time for Presentation: 2 minutes
Presented By: Andrea Mimnaugh,Senior Planner,303-651-8336 M'°'
andrea.mimnaugh@c:i.longmont.Co.us /j a
Suggested Action: Provide direction if Council wants to modify staff comments
Weld County has sent an Amendment to the MUD Plan to the City of Longmont for our review and comment.
The applicant,WCR#1 Coalition,proposes to add approximately 387 acres to the MUD between County Line
Road#1 and Union Reservoir,north of McLane Western(see attached map).Proposed land uses include single
family and multi family residential,commercial,industrial,and open spars'.The application indicates that there
may be up to 539 dwelling units within the development.
This area is of particular interest to the City because of its location between the existing municipal boundary
and Union Reservoir. The City believes that for this area to be compatible to surrounding land uses,existing
and proposed development must be accommodated to create a functional system of land uses for the entire
area. However, the City does not feel that the application adequately addresses the pertinent issues. These
include the expansion of Union Reservoir,water and wastewater service,parks,open space and trail linkages,
transportation and contiguity to the existing MUD area. The City believes that this area would best be
developed within the City's jurisdiction. For these reasons, the City is opposing this application and
respectfully requests an opportunity to entertain an annexation petition for the subject properties before Weld
County proceeds with this application. This approach would be consistent with the intergovernmental
agreement,referred to as the Weld County Cooperative Agreement(CPA),approved by the Council and being
reviewed by the Weld County Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 4,2002.
xc: File#2049-8a
{ title a'ha,L atkla ;�$,lnlaVtSitrar n.%2 �,cx.s Y 3 cN-. v t:c.,.
s Y^ a=v�L�il3�[�lTta�utv�C}f�srf:��_,."'ra�'d77���1fi �� t x..::a�6id.i43� 5 _�'a.avl
Planning Division Reference Map
NORTH
WELD COUNTY REFERRAL
NOT TO SCALE
1 I
`.may\\ / 1
di. �I
S UI 01
X30 29 ?I 28 FasYci-
27
Sant Reseiek
WCR-25 .- -- -.._.- ___
UN/ON 3"l. \ f
MUD I In o
r 3kESERVO/Fi 33 34 (V
ExpansionI r4
I Area '
o
orbo G
6 5 .. ( 2,----)
3o�-,s-,
4. _
. � / s 1 11� ' -
I n j I QJ
Li: I
O 1.----I - �,___ 8 0
9 ( 10
O
fr
-
W - -- - - -{- - - _ '- - -
- - - .say
: .
18 JWCR = a . \ ; t� 15
.-L I I \I
•
- - I )a ! i T
is/KATHY/area-weldco.dgn 05/15/2002 11:35:42 AM
M F M O RA N D v MWeld County Planning Department
GREEL 0FFICE
MAY 3 1 2002
TO: Robert Anderson, Planning DATE:
R CEIVED
FROM: Drew Scheltinga, P. E., Engineering Manager
IDlO SUBJECT: County Code CC-2002-XX, MUD Inclusion
Weld County Road 1 Coalition
COLORADO
The Public Works Department has reviewed the application materials for the inclusion of the
Weld County Road 1 Coalition properties into the Mixed Use Development Area, and have the
following comments:
In a letter dated April 29, 2002, Eugene G. Cappola, P.E., made preliminary estimates of the
traffic that will be generated from the proposed development of the properties to be included
into the MUD. Based on the proposed land uses, the total daily trips are estimated to be 12,587.
Mr. Cappola's preliminary traffic studies do not provide information on the impact to the
roadway systems that serve the area.
The increased traffic will have significant impact. Weld County Road (WCR) 1 is identified as
an arterial roadway and will require significant improvements. In an effort to plan for future
needs, Weld County and The City of Longmont has hired a consulting engineer to perform
preliminary designs for a five lane arterial on WCR 1. State Highways 119 and 66 will be
impacted. The levels of service at intersections with the State Highways and WCR 1 will be
reduced unless there are major modifications. Also, local roadways, such as WCR 24, and
Longmont's 9th and 17'Ave. will be impacted. Improvements to these roadways may include
additional lanes, turning lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutters, medians and
traffic signals. Construction of these improvements will require the relocation of utilities and the
acquisition of easements and rights-of-way.
In the application materials, under the section titled Roads, the second to last sentence reads,
"Impact fees will be assessed by the County to provide adequate funding to design and construct
the necessary roadway improvements." We wish to make it clear that impact fees were created
strictly for capacity improvements to the overall roadway system. Any improvements necessary
to facilitate access to a development are the responsibility of that development. At the time a
site is developed, detailed traffic studies will be required identifying traffic impacts of that
development and the roadway improvements needed to facilitate access to the development.
The Public Works Department has no objections to including these properties into the Mixed
Use Development Area.
M:W PFILES\DREW\Planning\mud-CC2002-XX.wpd
h`
Weld County Planning OFFICEDepartment ELEY St. Vram Valley
MAY 2 8 2002
School District RECEIVED
May 23,2002
Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Recommendation to oppose the WCR#1 Coalition Petition for Inclusion into the Weld County MUD
{Situate in the W%of Section 31,T3N, R68W and the NW Y of Section 6,T2N, R68W)
Dear Robert:
Thank you for referring the Coalition Petition for Inclusion into the Weld County MUD to the School District.
The District has reviewed the development proposal in terms of future student impacts and available school
capacity and has the following RECOMMENDATION: the District is OPPOSED to the approval of this
application due to this development's impact on already overcrowded school facilities.
The Board of Education has established a District-wide policy of opposing new developments that add to the
student enrollment of schools projected to be at or above 125% of their capacity. This particular application,
which is currently located in the Mead Elementary, Mead Middle School and Skyline High School Feeder, will
add approximately 359 new single-family dwelling units and 180 new multi-family dwelling units with a potential
impact of 282 additional student in this feeder.The District opposes this development because, as indicated in
the chart below, Mead Elementary, Mead Middle and Skyline High schools will all exceed 125% of their
capacity with the addition of students from this development. Since the District currently has no assured funds
to alleviate overcrowding in this region, a mitigation policy is currently under review by the School Board,
which, if approved, may provide a method for the District to reconsider its opposition to this development.
Currently,the mitigation proposal involves a voluntary per unit cash contribution (in addition to the Cash in-lieu
payment listed below)to assist with providing schools that serve new developments in this region.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY BENCHMARK
Building Oct 01 Stdnts. Enrollrrentw, New Proi.Stdnt w/proposed Capacity
Capacity Enrollrrent Intact Develoorrent Capacity 216 development 2006
Elerentary 504 426 153 579 115% 498 651 129%
Middle 342 454 64 518 582 606 670 199%
High School 1323 1442 65 1507 114% 1695 1760 133%
Total 2]69 282 2799 3E1
The recommendation of the District noted above applies to the attendance boundaries current as of the date of
this letter. Residential growth and new school facilities could affect the project's attendance area in the future.
As of this time, there are no anticipated boundary changes or facility expansions that would warrant a change
in the current attendance areas.
Should the County decide to recommend approval of this development proposal, the School District's cash-in-
lieu and/or land dedication requirements would still need to be satisfied. This requirement involves the
dedication of land with the adjacent infrastructure or payment of an equivalent cash-in-lieu fee based on the
student yield of the development. It should be noted that cash-in-lieu fees do not go toward providing for the
construction of new schools, and only assist in the purchase of land. Since these specific properties are not a
likely future school site, the fee would be assessed per the attached chart. Please let me know of any further
questions.
Since
-Glen Segrue,AICP
Planning Specialist
ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,
CO 80501.SCOTT TOILLION,MANAGER.PHONE 303-682-7229.FAX 303-682-7344.
School Planning WCR#1 Coalition
Standards And MUD Inclusion
Calculation of Weld County
In Lieu Fees
Single Family
School Planning Standards
Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed
Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu
Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution
Elementary 359 0.35 525 10 2.39 $35,000
125.65
Middle Level 359 0.14 750 25 1.68 $35,000
50.26
High School 359 0.17 1200 50 2.54 $35,000
61.03
Total 236.94 6.61 $35,000 $231,405
Single Family Student Yield is .66 $645
Per Unit
May 14, 2002 Planning Department
School Planning WCR#1 Coalition
Standards And MUD Inclusion
Calculation of Weld County
In Lieu Fees
Multi-Family
School Planning Standards
Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed
Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu
Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution
Elementary 180 0.15 525 10 0.51 $35,000
27 Number of Students =No. of Units *Student Yield
Equation: (Number of Students/Elem.Student Facility Size) *Elem. Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution
Middle Level 180 0.08 750 25 0.48 $35,000
14.4 Number of Students=No. of Units *Student Yield
Equation: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution
High School 180 0.02 1200 50 0.15 $35,000
3.6 Number of Students=No. of Units *Student Yield
Equation: (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution
$35,000 $40,050
Total 180 45 1.14
Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage= Total Ac $223
Per Unit
Multi-Family Student Yield is .25
May 14, 2002 Planning Department
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
MAY 1 3 2002
(iirt RECEIVED
et-
Weld County Referral
May 2, 2002
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant WCR#1 Coalition Case Number CC2002•XX
Please Reply By May 23, 2002 Planner Robert Anderson
Project Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated Weld
County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use
Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1 to include 387+/-acres into the MUD
area).
Legal Part of the W2 of Section 31,T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of Section 6,T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
Location South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26;west and adjacent to WCR
1.
Parcel Number 1207 31 000062, 63, 58, 66, 02, 04, 61, 60, 50, 55,07, 06; 1207 31 200064, 68; and
1313 06 000054
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 regePngipeapplication,
please call the Planner associated with the request. .•. -,.. r
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) June 18,2002''" ' "'”-
0 We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ W�have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature �� J ci d1 Date 5 - 9 - oa,
Agency •t\'E . U •n� `T'l`.r�. LS C
•:Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO.80631 4-(970)353-6100 ext.3540 :•(970)304-6498 fax
O0uNTA/4, MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
a Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
+ e (303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702
We*
May 9, 2002
Mr. Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the WCR #1Coalition petition for inclusion
into the Weld County Mixed Use Development Area - Map Number: 2.1 (Case Number:
CC2002-XX). The Fire District has no objection to the proposed inclusion.
When development occurs,plans for such development must be submitted to the Fire District for
review and approval; and, all applicable codes as they pertain to water supply, fire hydrant
locations, fire department access, street designs and building construction must be met.
We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please
contact me at(303) 772-0710.
Sincerely,
cs-c
LuAnn Penfold
Fire Marshal
LMP/lp
cc: project file
file
1p05.04.02
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
9119 Cnty Line Rd. 10971 WCR 13 P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run P.O.Box 666 P.O.Box 40
Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette.CO 600 Briggs 100 So.Forest St.
80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 80026 Erie,CO 80516 Dacono,CO 80514
JUN-17-02 MON 14:41 WILLI,Elt1 H SOUTHARD, ATTY FAX NO. 970 34:3 7504 P. 01
WILLIAM H. SOUTHARD
ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.BOX 445
WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING GREELEY,CO 80632
1025 NINTH AVENUE,SUITE 309 (970)353-1292
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 FM(970)353-7504
TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE: June 17, 2002 FAX NO.: 304-6498
TO: Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
FROM: Donna Coble
FILE NAME: Union Reservoir Company
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 2
DESCRIPTION: WCR #1 Coalition referral
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This entire facsimile transmission may contain confidential information belonging to the
sender which is protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone at (970) 353-1292, and return the original message to us at the
address above via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.
•***************************************************************************************************
IF ALL INDICATED PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL (970) 353-1292
THIS INFORMATION IS XX( IS NOT _ BEING MAILED
COMMENTS:
JUN-17-02 MON 14:41 WILLIAM H SOUTHARD, ATTY FAX NO. 970.253 7504 P. 02
Union Reservoir Company
P.O. Box 445
Greeley, CO 80632
June 17, 2002
Mr. Robert Anderson
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: WCR #1 Coalition
CC2002-XX
Dear Mr. Anderson
Union Reservoir Company will be submitting comments on the above
referral dated May 29, 2002, as soon as possible. Your mailing was delayed in
reaching us due to an incorrect address. Please change your files to reflect our
correct address as: P.O. Box 445, Greeley, CO 80632.
Yours very truly,
Donna L. Coble
Secretary
>>> Robert R. Anderson 6/11/02 3:28 PM >>>
Lee, New information has come to light regarding a parcel of land owned by the Union Reservoir (see attached map)
which breaks contiguity of the WCR#1 coalitions (Parcels East of Union Reservoir to the County Line (except the City
of Longmont's parcels), South of WCR28, North of WCR 26) request for Inclusion into the MUD. The applicant's
representative Don Leffler wants to use WCR#1 to establish Contiguity which DPS has advised cannot be used. Is there
a process to appeal the contiguity requirement? Thanks Robert
>>> LEE Morrison 06/11/02 04:58PM >>>
Do you mean 22-1-50 B 7 a ?Are you saying they cannot proceed or that you cannot give a positive recommendation.?
>>> Robert R. Anderson 6/12/02 6:57 AM >>>
Yes 22-1-50.B.7.a, 22-1-50.a and 22-1-50 B.3.a. After discussing this with Staff and Monica. . .the question is . . .Can
they proceed if they are not adjacent and contiguous to the MUD?Were they even eligible to apply?Can they use WCR
1 to establish contiguity? We have told them that Staff has determined that they are not eligible because they are not
adjacent or contiguous with the existing MUD.
>>> LEE Morrison 06/12/02 09:09AM >>>
The application needs to show adjacent and contiguous. they claim it does and staff says it does not so I think the
"appeal" is to carry it forward to the planning commission and Board. My recollection is that adjacent and contiguous
was used to distinguish it from the interpretation applied to the annexation statute which allows a road to be used as a
flagpole to create a 'contiguous ' situation but the annexation statute does not use the term adjacent. My recollection
is far less relevant than the Board 's intent so a review of the record of the current Comp plan may be needed to see
if the Board had intent to distinguish from the annexation criteria
>>> Robert R. Anderson 6/12/02 12:04 PM >>>
Lee, I am really confused. The WCR#1's application shows (in error) that their proposal is adjacent and contiguous. It
was during the referral/investigation period that the misrepresentation was discovered that the application is split by a
parcel owned fee simple by the Union Reservoir Company who is not a party to the application. DPS maintains that the
application does not meet Section 23-1-90 Definitions Section regarding"Adjacent."nor can WCR1 be used to establish
contiguity precisely because the MUD application specifically requires"adjacent-ness" As packages have gone out to
the PC with a memo requesting continuance rather than the documentation for the full case, DPS will amend its request
from an indefinite continuance request to a date specific continuance.This will allow additional time to address this issue
of contiguity and the definition of adjacent? I will also get complete packages out to the PC but will recommend that it be
continued so that proper notice to interested parties(specifically the City of Longmont)can be made.What is the County
Attorneys' Office stance? Is the application Contiguous and/or Adjacent? Can they use WCR1 to establish contiguity?
Hasn't this issue been tested in the County? I seem to recall something about USR's breaching Road R-O-W ?and is
it applicable to this situation? Could you please send me a referral so that I can include it in my recommendation? If I
understand your reply you are saying, at this point, its up to the PC and BCC to determine contiguity and"adjacent-ness"
>>> LEE Morrison 06/12/02 12:29PM >>>
I agree that they should be given some time to address the discrepancy in the application. You cannot block an
application if it"demonstrates"adjacent and contiguous. If they make a good faith argument then they get to go forward
and present it even though staff disagrees with the interpretation. This applies in a lot of situation where the staff needs
to be careful not substitute their judgement on what is a complete application for the Boards discretionary authority to
decide the substantive merits of the application.
This office acts as counsel to the Board and Planning Commission but we will not tell them what their decision has to be.
My comment is that I do not read the comp plan to allow using a road to create adjacent AND contiguous. You can further
this argument by looking to see if there was any discussion before the Board when they adopted this provision and what
the Boards understanding was at the time of adoption.
The issues regarding USRs have to do with the zoning ordinance and not this language of the comp plan. Also a USR
does not create a parcel - it only makes the use of the parcel legal
>>> Robert R. Anderson 6/12/02 2:42 PM >>>
OK, Still don't get it, but. . . . won't waste anymore of your time. Barring receipt of an official referral, I will include this
chain of emails in the PC packet for their consideration.
Design Development Consultants
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE NORTHERN COLORADO COMMUNITY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 2002
TO: Rob Anderson
FROM: Donald Leffler
RE: St. Vrain Sanitation District
Rob,attached is the documentation on what has been submitted for inclusion for the MUD approval.
Please forward to planning commission members,and we'll go from there.
Thank you.
2627 Redwing Road Suite 350 Fort Collins, Colorado (970) 266-0585
o^ r
REQUEST FOR INCLUSION
IN SERVICE BOUNDARY
JUNE 12, 2002
SUBMITTED TO:
St. Vrain Sanitation District
PREPARED FOR:
Weld County Road One Coalition
ec1rc
ENGINEERING DESIGN &
RESEARCH CORPORATION
FROM : EDRC FAX NO. : 3038736604 Jun. 28 2002 03:00PM P2
I'.NI INI,I',aIN(. I)I'.111 N&
RPS,I,AII(.II(...UNI'141A I Il R.1
1001
Dave Dubois
NFRWQPA
525 North Cleveland
Loveland. CO 80537
Subject: Weld County One Coalition - Request for Inclusion in St. Vraitt San. District
Letter of'1'ransmittal
Dear Mr. Dubois:
Please find attached the subject document for your review. The Weld County One Coalition
(Coalition) is a group of landowners along the portion of the county road that is proposed for
inclusion within Longmont's amended 208 plan.
The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association member representatives need to
recognize that the Coalition does not support the 208 amendment being proposed by Longmont.
Furthermore, it needs to be understood that the effected landowners within the area that
Longmont proposes for inclusion is outside the city limits.
The Coalition members do not plan w annex their individual or collective properties to
Longmont. Therefore,the Coalition believes their needs would best he served by the Si. Vrain
Sanitation District.
In the near future,the NPR WQPA will be presented a copy of the St. Wain Sanitation District
proposed 208 amendment. At this post the Coalition is requesting three items:
1) 'the Coalition have an opportunity to make a presentation to the your board;
2) That the board not support the proposed Longmont 208 amendment, and;
3) The board support the position of the Weld County landowners to direct their own destiny
and their decision to be served by the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
After your review of the attached document please call so we may discuss a date for the
Coalition's presentation to your board and the next steps to take to gain NFRWQPA support for
being served by Si. Vrain Sanitation District.
Sincerely,
FDRC
C' at.' 1lou eshelh P.E.
resident
303-873-6603 • Fax —303-873-6504
2280 South Xanadu Way • Suite 350 • Aurora, Colorado 80014
ecirc
ENGINEERING DESIGN&
RESEARCH CORPORATION
June 12, 2002
Mr Steve Beck, Assistant District Mgr.
St. Vrain Sanitation District
435 Coffman Street, Suite 2000
Longmont, CO 80501
RE: Letter of Transmittal - Request for Inclusion in Service Boundary
Dear Mr. Beck:
Attached for your review is a preliminary application for services boundary inclusion. Generally, the
requested annexation to your existing service boundary is between Weld County Road One and Weld
County Road Three.
Our client, the "Weld County Road One Coalition", has an application filed with Weld County for
inclusion within the I-25 MUD. The Weld County Road One Coalition is a group of Weld County
Landowners that believe their needs are best served by the sanitation district and Weld County. The
Coalition believes they are best served by the sanitation district for two reasons:
1) Coalition members are not planning to annex their individual or collective properties to
— Longmont at this time, and;
2) Coalition members have been told that Longmont cannot provide services with out a
Longmont annexation.
The Coalition has requested we submit the attached information to begin the formal discussions about
inclusion within the sanitation district's service boundary. Future submittals will include: a) Preliminary
design of interceptor sewer servicing the proposed parcels; b) Section 208 documents and application.
Speaking on behalf of the Coalition, we are making three requests:
1) That the Coalition be given the opportunity to make a presentation to the Sanitation District
Board at your July 10"' meeting;
2) That your staff engineer or consultant please call EDRC to set a meeting to discuss specific
design criteria and engineering data to be used in preparing the final application and amended
208 study; and,
3) That the Board support the Coalition's request for inclusion within the Sanitation District service
boundary.
Please call after your review so an appointment can be set to discuss the steps leading to the final
submittal.
Sinc ely
4geshell,
P.E.
President
303-873-6603 • Fax—303-873-6604
2280 South Xanadu Way • Suite 350 • Aurora, Colorado 80014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
INCLUSION AREA 1
DISTRICT FEES AND CHARGES 1
FLOW REQUIREMENTS 3
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 3
ESTIMATED COST OF PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
TABLES AND EXHIBITS
Summary of Fees and Charges 2
Summary of Annual Service Charges 3
Estimated Cost of Planned Improvements 4
Requested Area for Inclusion into District Exhibit One
_ Proposed Amendment to I-25 MUD Exhibit Two
APPENDIX
Property Owners and Land Use
INTRODUCTION
The Weld County Road One Coalition (Coalition) is requesting inclusion with in the St. Vrain
Sanitation District service boundary. Presently, the land for which the request is being made is
not currently in the District's service area or the City of Longmont service area(please see
Exhibit One).
The Coalition is currently in the Weld County administrative process for amending the I-25
MUD. Individual landowners (members of the Coalition) are not planning to annex to the City
of Longmont. Additionally, it is understood that Longmont is (legally) incapable of providing
services to non-annexed land(s), particularly for the potentially large number of homes and
businesses that could be constructed on the subject land.
Information, herein, is presented to lay a foundation for further discussions regarding additional
information the District needs to make an affirmative decision for including the request. Future
information we will be providing the District includes a preliminary (schematic) design for a
feasible way to service the area and "Section 208" documents.
INCLUSION AREA
Exhibit One highlights the requested area for inclusion. Generally, the area is in the northwest
quarter section of section 6 and the western half of section 31. A sizable portion of the western
half of section 31 is already included in the District's services boundary.
The area requested for inclusion is approximately 240 acres. Contiguity with the existing service
boundary will be achieved along the eastern edge and the northeastern edge of the requested area.
Exhibit Two shows the proposed land use as submitted to Weld County for amending the I-25
MUD. The proposed sanitary sewer improvements will service an estimated 539 single family
homes, 15 acres of commercial development on about 366 acres (please see the "Property
Owners and Land Use Table", in the appendix).
DISTRICT FEES
Development of the single family dwellings and commercial uses will provide the district with a
large revenue stream. The revenue stream is broken-down into to parts: a) "front-end"
development fees and charges; and, b) recurring revenue from monthly service charges. The fees
and charges as outlined in the District's Rules and Regulations,November 2001, were used as a
basis for developing the following summary tables. Please note that the 15 acre commercial
development was converted to single family equivalents for compiling the figures presented.
Also, is assumed that each commercial property will pay a monthly charge equivalent to the
SFEs times the residential monthly charge because it is not known if commercial taps pay a
higher rate.
1
SUMMARY OF ONE-TIME FEES AND CHARGES
(2002 DOLLARS)
ITEM FEE OR CHARGE NUMBER OF FEE OR CHARGE
per ACRE, SFE or ACRES, SFE's or EXTENSION
PROJECT* PROJECTS
Plant Investment Fee $5,000 per SFE 743*** $3,715,000
Inspection Fee $60 per SFE 743 $44,580
Line Extension Fee $500 per SFE 743 $371,500
Inclusion Fee $100** per Acre 240 $24,000
Engineering Fee $350 per Project 13 $4,550
Mapping Fee $150 per Project 13 $1,950
Administration Fee $300 per Project 13 $3,900
Legal Fee $200 per Project 13 $2,600
ESTIMATED
TOTAL OF ONE $4,168,080
TIME FEES AND
CHARGES
* SFE= Single Family Equivalent
Project means this cost is incurred for each project for review. It this exercise there are 13 property owners
that will have a high likelihood of each proposing a project. Thus, an engineering fee will be paid 13 times
for the entire inclusion area, for example.
** Acre means acres already served by the district. The actual number of acres is not know. For this example
5500 acres is assumed.
*** The number of SFE's=539(residential)+204 (commercial)
The commercial figure assumes that 1/4 of the proposed 15 acre commercial land use is actually under
roof. Also, please see the appendix for additional information.
2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGES
(2002 DOLLARS)
ITEM FEE per SFE NUMBER of SFE's ESTIMATE of
ANNUAL REVENUE
Monthly Charge $22 743 $196,152
FLOW REQUIREMENTS
The proposed 539 residential SFE's and Additional 15 acre commercial development (204
SFE's) have an estimated Average Daily Flow of 200,600 gpd (or 140 gpm). The Peak Hour
Flow is 800,000 gpd (or 33,450 gph or 560 gpm). The stated figures use the District's flow
figures as stated in the "Definitions" of the "Rules and Regulations". It is assumed that the
District's 270 gpd and 1,080 gpd figures include an infiltration and illegal connection volume.
— PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
_ A new interceptor sewer from 12" to 8" will connect to the existing collection system at the
intersection of County Road One and Highway 119. The interceptor will go north on County
Road 3 and turn west along County Road 26 within the road right-of-way. Several options for
crossing the Union Reservoir outfall ditch are being considered, including: a) an aerial crossing
(either stand alone or hanging on the bridge); b) an inverted siphon; a straight gravity pipeline.
The chosen option will be shown in the forthcoming preliminary design drawing.
The interceptor termination point will be within the requested land for inclusion. The interceptor
sewer line will be feed by a local 8" collection system.
A small lift station may be needed to carry flow from the southern portion of the requested area
to the interceptor. The lift station will be owned, operated and maintained by a Homeowners or
Business owners Association, as needed. A preliminary design will be submitted in the near
future. However, please see Exhibit Three for a schematic, plan view of the location of proposed
improvements.
The proposed interceptor will service an area greater than the requested inclusion area.
— Therefore, it should be noted that:
1) The fee and charges figures presented earlier in this document are only for the requested
inclusion area, not the area services by the proposed interceptor. The fees and charges
collected by the District would be much greater if a more comprehensive evaluation of
one-time revenue and annual charges were evaluated.
3
-
2) The Coalition is requesting that when the interceptor project moves forward that
negotiations take place to discuss how the construction and engineering costs will be
shared with the District and other tributary landowners.
Concerns
A letter from the St. Vrain Sanitation District to the Weld County Planning Department staff
discussed a capacity issue. Presently, it is not know what is meant by this comment. After
meeting with the District Staff and developing an understanding of the concern, a solution will be
_ presented in the preliminary design. The Coalition understands the concern and is willing to
contribute to a feasible solution.
A second point is that the Coalition has been told that Longmont will not allow their interceptor
line to be crossed with District collection system lines. The Coalition's view is that this is a
strong stance taken by Longmont. Two potential solutions are the relocation of Longmont's
interceptor or addressing the issue in a legal agreement that their line may only be crossed at a
specific location(s).
ESTIMATED COST OF PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
A reconnaissance level estimate of construction costs is presented below for the planned
improvements. A more formal cost estimate will be prepared and presented with the preliminary
design report.
Estimated Costs of Planned Improvements
1) Sewer Interceptor from Intersection of County Road 3 and
Highway 119 to requested inclusion area (8000 feet @ $50 per foot) $400,000
2) Utility Crossings $50,000
3) Local 8" collection system ($1200 per acre) $439,000
4) Private Lift Station (45 gpm) $60,000
5) Permitting Fees $50,000
6) Land Acquisition $30,000
7) Legal Fees, Engineering and Surveying $150,000
8) SUBTOTAL $1,179,000
9) Contingency @ 15% $118,000
10) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,297,000
4
•
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Weld County Road One Coalition requests that the District, Board of Directors include the
subject property in the service area. Also, the Coalition is requesting an opportunity to make a
presentation on the July 10`° meeting.
If the proposed inclusion property is provided service by the District then the District will benefit
from an estimated $4.2 Million in onetime fees and charges. The estimated annual revenue, to
the district after complete build out will be an estimated $200K.
Reconnaissance level estimate shows $1.2 Million in planned sewer improvements.
The figures presented in this report do not include fees, charges, or annual revenue for tributary
land that will be "opened-up" along the proposed interceptor route.
5
EXHIBITS
/
9l ..
\ 59,
- so„ '- - - l - s _ 41.5)
Area of St. Vrain
j p Sanitation District
• ;
` I
_
•
CA.LKINS LAKE
— • .. (UNION RESERVOI' - )
Requested Area for °s
Inclusion into District
I.
i ►�
w/
1) I 1�.. \,1 .}
"' — J 995 i it • Fw
i tip, -.,
DOC
_/WESTERN ` F
— r �.
q�,Le :r
C) 4
� \ •
' Mid/--
•e_ //1j = —`9- pper.:__ ,„ y — .
1,-_- -� LegendBogart Garden Estates-- Seewald Farms Estates
17 ___7
l:-- Estates at Adrian Heights
_,
IL �r
a,a9r9 .- ...
Scale=1 :24 000 ." .,--AN,
— ..1 a ` ‘444 .yQ
1 ,„
Design Development Consultants
2627 Redwing Road, Suite 350 C X }-n i --
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Phone: 970-266-0585
_ ..
3-0 29
/
WCR 28
Slelnke � � ', 4 WCR#1 Coalition
Inclusion into the
ZaNba rL MUD CC2002-XX
Van Zuil r tjLA �i 4 2
Wen
11W r
Braesch
Miller A �— Pir /r ° . : <'' Union Reservoir"IbY 7 SA , �� Union WCR 26
Reservoir •
Clover �"• • ,.
Industrial �
LLC .40.
//
Mel Irak
44
I r CTY OF LONGMONT
O 1 , /% /
_ U
tY Fizzjl Inclusion Area / jj Existing Sewer District
LE
0
J
O
m Residential Employment Center-High Intensity
—
Regional Park Regional Commercial-Medium Intensity
— U.Existing in M. D. /
_ Proposed Amendment to M.U.D. z i:, 1 _;L,`,
1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan
APPENDIX
J.
- Design Development Consultants
_ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE COLORADO COMMUNITY
JProperty Owners and Land Use Table:
JProperty Owner Total Ac. Proposed Land Use Density %Ac.
Chris Adrian 194 acres Single Family 220 DU's 53.4%
J Multi Family 180 DU's 6.0%
Commercial/Retail 15.50 Ac. 8.0%
_ Light Industrial 15.70 Ac. 8.0%
Parks/Open Space 34.65 Ac. 17.9%mil Roads,ROW 12.98 Ac. 6.7%
100%
I
J David&Linda Miller 1.48 acres Single Family 1 DU.
Phil&Marsha Willis 53.6 acres Single Family 36 DU's 48.8%
J Parks/Open Space 16.4 Ac. 30.6%
Roads,ROW 11.0 Ac. 20.6%
_ 100%
JGary&Tina Bogott 84.5 acres Single Family 93 DU's 50.8%
Parks/Open Space 25.5 Ac. 30.2%
Roads,ROW 16.0 Ac. 19.0%
100%
Linda Kolby 1.0 acre Single Family 1 DU
JTerry&Kathy Braesch 5.56 acres Single Family 1 DU
Berman&Lois Iden 1.0 acre Single Family 1 DU
Pat Eckel 2.96 acres Single Family 1 DU
I
Ruth Van Zuiden 1.0 acre Single Family 1 DU
r
Tom&Diane Seaman 4.71 acres Single Family 1 DU
jRonald Zaruba/Nicolette 3.26 acres Single Family 1 DU
I Joe Kelliher 11.21 acres Single Family 1 DU
e Roger Steinke 2.3 acres Single Family 1 DU
I TOTALS 366.28 acres 539 DU's
a
r Density: 1.47 DU's/acre
"d 2627 Redwing Road Suite 350 Fort Collins,Colorado 80525 (970)266-0585 Fax(970)282-7123
.02/15/01 15:05 FAX 970 3 7.498 WELD PLANNING O010
j
harry
CCU
St. Vrain ~'
SANITATION �3pt
DISTRICT REre
�•"I
December 27. 2G0: �
Engineers Review
JTo Weld County P:ann:ng Department.
Ell The following items need to be completed regarding the PLD case number 5-619.
1. The area EAST of WCR I is in the Districts service area but does not border WCR 1 North to
South the entire distance. One half(1/2)mite East of WCR 1,North of WCR 24 to WCR 28 is not
entirely in the District. (Please see attached drawing for clarification). The location part of the
Weld County memo describes the area as follows'North of WCR 26 and WEST of and adjacent
to WCR I". St. Vrain Sanitation District provides no sewer service to the WEST of WCR I. Is
this an error? Should it read East of WCR 1?
2. An inclusion agreement needs to be filled out and accepted by the Board of Directors. No
inclusion agreement has been submitted yet.
3. There is no sewer system to the area, a plan of how the area will be served needs to be developed
and accepted by St. Vrain Sanitation District.
4. Please review the St. Vrain Sanitation District Statement of Purpose.
1. Current line capacity is a concern.
Sincerely,
Robert Fleck
District Engineer
lat
43o Coffman Street Suites 203 IS: 204 P.O. Box 908 Longmont.CO 80502-0908
Phone:(303;776-9579 I-ac:(303)174-2749 Email: narktdtstsan.com
Hello