Ms. Rieck asked about a requirement in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, being considered for adoption as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but already adopted by the BOCC, that says the County will direct new development away from hazards, which include noise levels. Ms. Orkild-Larson noted the Comp Plan/Strasburg SubArea Plan was amended last year to add residential uses to this property. She indicated the applicant would address mitigation measures that could offset noise impacts. Todd Messenger, applicant s representative, explained the site was selected to provide an additional housing type in addition to some other uses. He noted the housing development would be 225 feet away from the railroad tracks. He also explained why the previously anticipated grocery store was no longer feasible for the site and how/where commercial services could be provided. Mr. Messenger noted these would be suitable starter homes and as finish homes (an older population) where little of this type of inventory existed. The presentation included a description of the processes involved with approval of the site, the general location of the property with respect to other landmarks, the difference in impact between Colfax and I- 70 in this rural town in comparison to these roads in the urban area, and then presented the concept for layout of uses in relation to each other. Mr. Messenger discussed retail/commercial, age-restricted townhomes, non-age-restricted multifamily development, and
Ms. Rieck opened the hearing for public comment. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. There were PC discussions related to the noise level as a result of the trains, safety, alternate locations, and much needed commercial services.
The builder explained his history of living and working in the community and within a mile of the railroad. He noted there had been several community meetings held to get public and agency input. He reported people supported the age-restricted townhomes and did not object to the multi-family. He reported some young families wanted to live near their parents and be closer to schools and couldn t afford to buy elsewhere within Strasburg. He noted the need for additional commercial space and the businesses that are staying fully leased out or looking for new and larger space in Strasburg. He reported the rental market for homes in Strasburg was high, and they were looking to buy back some homes to rent out that would also enable the current owners to move up to larger homes now available in the area. He noted Colfax was not a heavily traveled road in Strasburg; however, additional lanes and intersection improvements would be added to help with current needs even without this project, but with no way to fund them. He noted where you could hear the train depended on which way the wind was blowing, so people close by might not hear it when people farther away might hear it. He explained that being farther away did not ensure the train noise wouldn t be an impact or that the proposed location would make the sound more of an issue. He noted the outreach done to ensure that people had an opportunity to know about the project and provide input. He also addressed the eight-foot- high fence that would increase the safety and separation from the railroad tracks. There were continued discussions about age-restricted housing versus multi-family, the need for an adequate noise study, safety, proximity of the railroad to homes, need for affordable housing in the area, and overall housing demands in the area. It was moved by Ms. Latsis and duly seconded by Mr. Sall, in the case of Z17-001, Strasburg Station / Preliminary Development Plan Amendment, that the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, including all exhibits and attachments, and listened to the applicant s presentation and the public comment as presented at the public hearing and move to recommend approval of this application based on the findings in the staff report, subject to the following conditions:
Mr. Skinner introduced the application and provided context for the location of the property within the Central Park Shopping Center at Iliff and Quebec. He noted the shopping center had been in place for many years. He reported the pad had never been developed and was paved as part of the parking lot. Mr. Skinner provided an introduction for the application received and the general details of the development as outlined in the staff report. He reported the underlying Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) was approved under the 1985 Land Development Code. He stated the application
There were discussions about franchise standards and consistency and the variations of these things between jurisdictions. It was noted the area was in need of commercial services. Ms. Rieck opened the hearing for public comments. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Ms. Chaffin and duly seconded by Ms. Wollman, in the case of P17-003, Central Park Center 01 / Popeye s Louisiana Kitchen / Final Development Plan, that the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, including all exhibits and attachments and listened to the applicant s presentation and any public comment as presented at the hearing and move to recommend approval of this application based on the findings in the staff report, subject to the following conditions:
4. The County and applicable property owners should proactively attempt to stabilize waterways as the surrounding watershed continues to develop. Erosion and sediment transport should be monitored and mitigated during all construction activities. Existing waterways that exhibit signs of degradation or instability should be monitored and mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, preferably using stream restoration best practices that promote a healthy, natural waterway. 5. Discuss waterway crossings, in association with Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan. The Public Works and Development Department (PWD) and ESD recommend that the Board adopt the MDP so that is can be used as a reference and also recommends developing a Kiowa Creek Drainage Basin Fee as described herein. For larger developments adjacent to the Kiowa Creek floodplain, staff may make recommendations to improve channel stability pursuant to recommendations within the MDP. Background Kiowa Creek is a northward-flowing stream with source areas in the Platte River-Arkansas River divide area east of the Front Range. The MDP study area included Kiowa Creek and its tributaries north of the Arapahoe County/Elbert County borderline and south of the Arapahoe County/Adams County borderline. Kiowa Creek is the first drainageway studied by the County outside of Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) boundaries.
For Crossing Structures in this area, the County and CDOT have several key criteria: bridges on County roads require 3 feet of freeboard, and bridges on CDOT roads require 4 feet of freeboard. The capacity for culverts on local roads limits the maximum allowable headwater of 1.5 times the culvert diameter, and arterial roads limit the maximum allowable headwater to 1.2 times the culvert diameter. For culvert crossings that required additional capacity, it was assumed that existing structures would typically remain in place, and additional culverts of similar size would be added. For bridges that did not meet the respective design criteria, improvements were based on reconstructing the bridges to raise the bridge s low chord elevation rather than lengthening the bridge to provide additional capacity until the required freeboard was met. Raising rather than lengthening will better fit the geometry of the existing drainageways and should be more cost effective as well. The three bridges over the main stem of Kiowa Creek are proposed to be raised to meet the freeboard criteria for high-debris streams, which is 3 feet for Quincy Avenue and County Line Road which are County arterial roads (although this section of County Line Road is maintained by Elbert County) and 4 feet for I-70 which is a CDOT facility. Ten culverts are proposed to be upgraded where the roadways are overtopped or the County s headwater to diameter (HW/D) ratio criteria are not met. Existing culvert materials vary but primarily consist of corrugated metal pipes (CMP), reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), and concrete box culvert (CBC); however, the proposed improvements are limited to either RCP or CBC.
Fiscal Impact All construction costs were estimated through the UDFCD Cost Estimator for Master Planning, UD-COST Version 2.1. This master planning cost estimation tool was populated for crossing structure improvements, channel stabilization, and detention ponds. Crossing Structure-only capital costs are estimated to be 4,235,734.00. A total construction cost of the master planned improvements is 79,680,118 for the capital improvements or 86,514,008 when considering the maintenance costs over 50 years. These costs are summarized in the following Appendix A. Preliminary Kiowa Creek Basin Fees have been calculated as sub-basin fees, overall basin fees, and impervious acre versus total acre and are shown in Appendix B.
The BOCC approved the Iliff Avenue Townhomes Final Development Plan (FDP) and Final Plat (FP) on August 2, 2016, and they also approved the Highline Creek Estates FDP and FP on March 20, 2018. The property owner of these two developments felt that he needed to have a metropolitan district in order to help finance the infrastructure and services for these two developments.
Staff review of this application included a comparison of the project to policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, a review of pertinent State Statutes and zoning regulations, background activity, an analysis of referral comments, and other issues.
The County Land Development Code does not address service district issues, so staff evaluates such requests in accordance with provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The statutory requirements include a statement of introduction and general overview, the stated need for the service district or amendment, including the powers of the district, and a specific description of facilities and improvements. The State Code gives the BOCC significant power whether or not to recommend approval of the creation of a quasi-governmental jurisdiction within its boundaries. The applicant has provided the stipulated information. Subsection 32-1-203(2) of the C.R.S. requires that the Board of County Commissioners shall DISAPPROVE an application for a service district unless satisfactory evidence is provided to the Board in response to the following four criteria. The applicant s responses are incorporated as part of the enclosed service plans. Following are Staff responses based on analysis of application SD18-001:
be serviced by the District; In order to provide sufficient infrastructure and services for the Iliff Avenue Townhomes and Highline Creek Estates developments, the proposed district appears to be necessary. Therefore there is a need for the proposed improvements and services for the proposed developments.
The applicant has provided information that appears to show that the district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The County hired Ehlers, Inc. to review the financial aspects of the service plan and Jim Harrington with Ehlers said that the service plan addressed previous comments. Subsection 32-1-203(2.5) of the C.R.S. requires that the Board of County Commissioners may DISAPPROVE an application for service district unless satisfactory evidence is provided to the Board in response to the following five criteria. The applicant s responses are incorporated as part of the enclosed service plans. Following are Staff responses based on analysis of application SD18-001:
Adequate service is not or does not appear to be available through Arapahoe County, or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis, as proposed by the Iliff Avenue Metropolitan District. 2. The facility and service standards of the District are compatible with the facility and service standards of Arapahoe County and for each municipality in which the District is located and for each municipality which is an interested party under sub- section 32-1-204(1) of the C.R.S. The applicant has indicated that the facilities, infrastructure, and services will meet County standards.
Comments received as a result of the referral process are as follows: County Engineer - Engineering had several comments, which the applicant will address. County Mapping - Comments on the legal description, which the applicant will address. Cherry Creek Water and Sanitation District - No concerns. SEMSWA - SEMSWA had several comments about responsibility for stormwater improvements. The applicant will work with SEMSWA to adjust some of the service plan wording. Four Square Mile Area and Neighborhood Group - No responses.
Staff has reviewed the plans and supporting documentation and the referral comments in response to this application. Based upon review of applicable policies and goals in the Comprehensive Plan, the development ordinances, C.R.S. criteria, and analysis of referral comments, our findings include:
APPROVAL WITH CHANGES: In the case of SD18-001, Iliff Avenue Metropolitan District Service Plan, I have reviewed the staff report, including all exhibits and attachments and have listened to the applicant s presentation and any public comment as presented at the hearing and hereby move to recommend approval of this application based on the findings in the staff report, subject to the following amended conditions:
is generally based are reflective of current zoning for the property within the District, the cost estimates and Financing Plan are sufficiently flexible to enable the District to provide the necessary services and facilities without the need for amendments to the Service Plan. Modification of the proposed configuration of improvements, scheduling of construction of such improvements, and
other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The County and service districts listed in the Service Plan are not willing to extend services to this site. The Developer is required to install and
There is no other public entity willing and able to design, finance and construct the improvements needed for the project. The County does not consider it feasible or practicable to provide the services and facilities generally described herein. Formation of the District is
Traffic and safety protection facilities and services provided through traffic and safety controls and devices on streets including traffic signals and signage, striping, area identification signs, directional assistance, driver information signs, lighting, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements, and extensions of and improvements to such facilities.
Storm and sanitary sewer collection and transmission improvements, including storage facilities, collection mains and laterals, transmission lines, storm sewer, flood and surface drainage facilities and systems, and related landscaping and irrigation improvements, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, equipment, land and easements and extensions of and improvements to such facilities.
00577852.DOCX / 4 Resubmitted April 2, 2018 -7- Public park, open space and recreation facilities or services, including a pool and club house, parks, bike paths, pedestrian ways, signage, monumentation, playground areas,
et seq., C.R.S., other applicable statutes and this Service Plan, as any or all of the same may be amended from time to time. However, the District shall not be authorized to undertake any eminent domain actions, pursuant to 32-1-1004(4), C.R.S., without prior approval from the County.
facilities and improvements, as well as certain fees, as described in Exhibit D, the preliminary engineering and construction plans based on the construction standards of Arapahoe County, including the cost in current dollars of each improvement. Exhibit D is a preliminary list only and will be subject to modification and revision as
Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.