Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

Good evening, this is Calvin Downs. Commissioner Calvin Downs, I should say. Welcome to the June 15th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Couple of items to note. As we get started, the public will have an opportunity to provide testimony for each of the land use items on the agenda during the public comment phase for that item. If you need any technical assistance to access the meetings, please contact county staff. and audio enhancement devices are available at the back of the hearing room. Please return them after use. Thank you and please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'd like to ask the clerk now to take the roll call.

Commissioner Ed Kubli?

Present.

Commissioner Jim Smallwood?

Present.

Commissioner Mark Hampton?

Present.

Commissioner Mark Breyer?

Here on video.

Commissioner Mark Wachowicz?

Here.

Commissioner Mike McKesson?

Here.

Commissioner Atlanta-Brusso?

Here.

Commissioner Cobb and Downs?

Here. We have eight commissioners in attendance, including one online, and we have a quorum to proceed. At this time, I'd like to ask the county attorney to certify the agenda.

Good evening, Commissioners. Ariel Dennis on behalf of the County Attorney's Office. There's one item on the agenda this evening, Bloom Metropolitan District New Service Plan Project File SV2026-001, and there were no notice requirements for this. You have jurisdiction to hear the item this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it. Are there any disclosures from my fellow commissioners on tonight's meeting agenda? Okay, seeing none, may I have a motion, excuse me, may I have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting minutes of the June 1st Planning Commission meeting?

Mr. Chair, I move to approve the meeting minutes for June 1st.

Thank you, Commissioner Smallwood. Is there a second?

Yes, I'll second. Commissioner Wachowicz, I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Wachowicz. Could we take the roll call? Okay. All right. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All in favor, no. Okay. The ayes have it. The next item on the agenda is the only item on our agenda tonight for land use. It is the Blum Metropolitan District New Service Plan Project File SV2026-001 with DJ Beckwith, Principal Planner, presenting for staff.

Good evening, Commissioners.

The project before you is a new service plan application for Bloom Metropolitan District. Project number is SV2026-001. I'm DJ Beckwith representing community development. The applicant representative is Megan Murphy. The application is a request for approval of service plan application for Bloom Metropolitan District. The proposed district would increase the powers to provide the services listed on both this slide and in your staff report. The Board of County Commissioners created and adopted guidelines for the processing and reviewing special district service plan applications. The procedures also provide that the Planning Commission review the service plan to determine its compliance with specific criteria set forth in the Control Act. The process begins with the submittal of an application. The request is prepared by staff and forwarded to referral agencies for comment. Staff further analyzes the request and compiles any comments received received and provides them to the applicant. The applicant has the opportunity to address any issues identified through the referral period. The request is reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public meeting. Following public notice, the request is heard before the Board of County Commissioners. The district is located adjacent to Crowfoot Valley Road, north of Perdera Parkway, and south of Stroh Road in Douglas County, Colorado. The district is within the non-urban area of the CMP, specifically

northeast sub area and marked by the star on this slide.

The district is zoned state residential and is outlined in red on this slide. The property is anticipated to include 32 residential lots. The population of the district at build out is expected to be 96 residents. The projected Average home value is $3 million based on information in the service plan. The project was sent out on referral from March 16 to the 31st. Most responses for referral had no comment on the proposed service plan. The plan was sent to the county's financial consultants who had no significant comments. Douglas County planning staff requested technical revisions to the service plan. These revisions included formatting, language, and other changes. The applicant submitted a revised service plan to address those comments. Douglas County Engineering Services requested clarifying language to be added and requested additional information to be included in the service plan exhibits. The applicant updated the language and added the requested information. Engineering had no further comments. Parker Water and Sanitation District commented that the service plan states that Parker Water will be the water and sanitary sewer service provider. But the project is not in Parker Water service area. Parker Water will not provide service until the district is included into the service area. Inclusion into Parker Water is subject to the Parker Water's board approval and its rules and regulations. Parker Water does not object to Douglas County's approval of the proposed district prior to Parker Water inclusion of the district into its service area. The Colorado revised statutes specify criteria for approval of special district service plans. The Planning Commission must consider the following seven criteria in evaluating the service plan. In response to number one, the area encompassed by the district boundaries is currently zoned as state residential, and there is a projected need for the services to be provided by the district. Number two, the existing public service infrastructure within the proposed district's boundaries are lacking. Therefore, existing services are inadequate for the projected needs of the service area. Number three, in addition to the county, the other municipal and special district entity providing services within the district's boundaries area is South Metro Fire Rescue Fire Protection District. These entities are not able or unwilling to provide all the services desired within a reasonable time or on a comparable basis. Number four, all facilities will be constructed in accordance with the standards of the county and any other applicable local, state, or federal rules and regulations. In response number five, the service area of the district falls within the non-urban area of the CMP. The CMP outlines goals for the northeast sub area that ensures compatibility with the natural and rural characteristics of the area and utilize existing services where possible. The development and services of the district supports these concepts with the dedication of open space, wildlife fencing, and an approximate density of 2.5 dwelling units within the development. The previous approved preliminary plan describes the overall projected density and layout of the lots and open space tracks are consistent with the adjacent land use patterns. Goal 5-3 of the 2040 Comprehensive Master Plan promotes the sustainability of special districts, including ensuring that special districts are financially sound through the independent evaluation of all financing plans. The county works closely with third party consultants to evaluate the financial feasibility of all special districts and special district amendments. Number six, based on the information provided by the applicant, the district would be in compliance with the Colorado Water Quality Management Plan. In response number seven, based upon the level of services proposed for the area and lack of service provision from existing service providers, in the area, the district appears to be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served. Should the Planning Commission find that the application complies with the 2040 Comprehensive Master Plan and the criteria found in Colorado Revised Statute Title 32, the Planning Commission may recommend for approval. This concludes my presentation. I will be here for questions. The applicant representative, Megan Murphy, is also here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Beckwith. Is there any member of the commission that has any questions for staff? Okay. We'll now hear from the applicant for this item. As you come forward, I know we've already heard your name, but please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Megan Murphy. My address is 2154 East Commons Avenue, Suite 2000, Centennial, Colorado, 801 West. Good evening, commissioners. We do not have a presentation prepared because your staff does such a wonderful job, but we're ready to answer questions. We have a representative from Piper Sandler if you have any financial questions, and the applicant, Mr. Bader, is also here if you have any questions about the development.

Thank you, Ms. Murphy. Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Brousseau.

Yes, Commissioner Brewster, I'm just wondering, in the paperwork I read at one point that the Parker Water and Sanitation District will serve letter that was dated 2-5-25 was out of date and needed to be updated. Do you know if that has been done up to this point?

DJ Beck with the staff. Commissioner, that letter that was dated then, the Parker Water comment was speaking to a letter that was dated previously from 2021. That letter was the updated letter that was included into the packet there. So they were responding to the referral comment which included the old service letter from 2021.

Okay, thank you on that. One more question. I had read that the district may request an amendment to the service plan to eliminate the mill levy caps when the debt to assess value ratio falls below 50%. So when it says eliminate the caps, that means there is no top of the cap or am I reading that incorrectly?

Thank you for that question. There would be no cap on the debt service mill levy, as you read accurately, when debt to AV drops below 50%. What most likely happens in that scenario is values are so high that you don't need a mill levy at 50, so you can drop below that. And it's also advantageous from a financing perspective to not have a mill levy cap once you get to that debt to AV ratio. And that's in conformance with your model service plan.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any other questions? Commissioner Wachowicz.

Commissioner Cabbage speaking here. Ms. Murphy, I appreciate your time here today. And I'm not sure if this is a question for you or for staff, but the model service plan was redlined to specifically add the Parker Water approval. And we don't have one right now. So I guess what I'm just trying to understand is like the logistics here, why was that specifically added to the model service plan, do you know?

That's been our practice across many model service plans in Douglas County. So Range Metropolitan Districts 1 through 3, Cielo Metropolitan District, Scott-Golts Metropolitan District come to mind. Our language specifying the water service provider has been either added by general counsel or requested by staff and then added by general counsel.

excellent exactly so what i'm trying to understand is that this and i'm all for the the metropolitan districts and i'm all for you know approval but i'm trying to understand how we approve something that's not ready to be approved yet because you don't have the approval which is you know part of the document So I'm struggling with this a little bit to understand why you're bringing this to us now when we don't have the approval, which is a criteria within the document.

Oh, yes, if I may, Commissioner Wachowicz, the document says the district boundaries are or will be located within the boundaries of Parker Water and Sand, and we're at the will be part of that sentence.

Yeah, I understand that, but you have an exhibit that says that you have the approval. Isn't that Exhibit E or something like that that's part of it? Isn't that what the... if I remember right, one of the exhibits is the approval, and that's where I'm just a little confused as far as how this actually functions. I believe it was exhibit H. H, sorry, H. Sorry, I was close.

Okay.

Yeah, so if you have an exhibit that's an approved document, I'm struggling with how we approve the service plan when you don't have that exhibit.

Just going to exhibit H in the service plan here. I apologize, commissioners. Give me just one moment.

Yeah.

So Exhibit H is the compliance with the water supply and we have the will serve letter dated February 5th, 2025 saying Parker Water Sand will serve the project, which is similar to what we've provided on other service plans approved by Douglas County. Were you anticipating an inclusion order or some other document?

Yeah, that's what I assumed was gonna go inside there. And again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the intent. So I guess why do we even need that exhibit? Because if you have the mayor will, it seems like you may be in it, so why do you need the exhibit that says that you are in it? It's just confusing to me.

Yes, Commissioner, I understand and I'm in the pleasant spot of being an applicant trying to fill out a form document, and I mean no offense whatsoever. We believe we have complied with the form document as requested by your staff. And we don't have an order for inclusion into Parker and WaterSan, as you know and as you've seen in the materials. The applicant will include into Parker Water and Sand, will receive services from Parker and WaterSan. So tonight, I'm prepared to take out that red line changes in the service plan if that would help this process move forward. But I can't speak generally to why your model makes me do what I must do to be here.

Okay, you answered my question and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to make it more confusing. It's just, it is confusing, but thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Murphy. Any other questions?

Yes. I believe this one might go straight to the applicant. Reading here. notes from two Douglas County planning staff was number five, it says, on the Bloom overall street exhibit, it is not clear if the service plan intends to include the construction of the west half of Bayou Gulch Road across the east frontage of this lot. It's the county's responsibility to cause these improvements at Bayou Gulch to occur. I just didn't know if that ended up being included or not? And that's a more of an engineering type question than a. I'll pull it up right now. That on the service plan? It's in the service plan.

Yep.

It's on page 163, the very last line condition, number five.

I think you might have a slightly different packet than us, so apologize.

Megan, this is Lauren Pulver with staff. It's the letter from our engineering department, their review letter.

Oh, got it. Thank you. I apologize for fumbling around here.

Hi, commissioners. Thank you for your question. Thank you for allowing me to be here tonight. Cade Bader of 8251 Transit Way, Broomfield, Colorado. It's my understanding that engineering has determined that that actually is the responsibility of the county for those improvements for that side of the road. But I haven't read the actual document there, so I just need to review that real quick.

But that's my understanding. Okay, yeah, it'd be nice to get that cleared up. Could be a significant cost to the county if it is and we wanna get it cleared up, right?

Yeah, that was part of the original, my understanding is that was part of the original BioCoach Road improvement and that's been included in those improvements through the county.

All right, thank you for responding.

And I'll just add, if I may, Commissioner Coogley, that that was cleared up in a subsequent exhibit that was resubmitted as part of the service plan showing the correct location of the streets.

MIKE PATTERSONSEN. Yep. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that it was there. I couldn't find it and didn't know what it looked like because it was very kind of unclear. So I wanted to catch that clarification. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? Commissioner?

Mr. Chair, I'll have some comments, but after public comment, so.

Okay, all right. Commissioner? Okay, all right. Okay, with that, we are now open for public comment. Is there anyone in the room that would love to approach the podium? Okay, seeing none, we will close public comment and bring it back to the commissioners for any questions that you might have for applicant or staff or comments. Commissioner Hampton.

I have a couple questions for the applicant. Couple questions for the applicant. Come on up back up to the podium. There you go. Not to beat on this one, but the Parker Water and Sanitation District letter. So I just heard a date of 2025, you have a letter from 25. What I had was 2021, but you've gotten a revised one in 2025?

Yes, Commissioner, it's dated February 5th, 2025.

Okay, so a lot has happened in the Parker Water. We're currently under mandatory water restrictions. They may not grant that. There is a possibility of that not to give you a tap while we're under mandatory water restrictions for the rest of their service area. So we kind of get back around to how can we approve this without knowing if you're going to get the water.

If I may, Commissioner, what you're approving tonight is just a service plan to allow creation of a metro district. You'll approve so many things for this project, things I have no knowledge about. But that will include the final plat. And the final plat can't be approved until the Parker Water and Sand District issue is resolved. So if you approve this service plan, and as you said, many things have happened since 2025, which is maybe an understatement. Many things have happened. so many things just this year. We'll see what comes from the water issues, but tonight the request is to approve a service plan to allow a financing mechanism. If no plot's ever approved, there'll be nothing to tax, so there'll be no one that pays taxes for water they don't get. So.

Well, it comes back around to what needs to be included in the plan, so again, I'm still unclear if we have all the appropriate documents to move forward.

I mean, the applicant certainly believes you have all the appropriate documents to move forward. This is not the first service plan that I've personally been a part of that only had a will serve letter that received both a recommendation of approval from this board as well as approval by the BOCC. We feel we've met the statutory requirements, which don't include inclusion in a water district in the text of the statute. And I believe staff's report also confirms that position.

Okay, that's an opinion.

It's a lawyer.

We might ask a question to follow up on that then. So then hypothetically, if this approval was not granted tonight, what harm would come to Bloom at this point in time?

So if you voted to deny recommending approval, we'd still proceed to the BOCC hearing, and who knows what happens there. But let's just assume it doesn't go our way. Then there's a moratorium on reapplying for a metro district for a period of six months. That means the applicant would miss the November 2026 TABOR election opportunity, which could be very detrimental to the financing position for the district. Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does.

Commissioner Wachowicz.

Ms. Murphy, thank you. So really the goal here is to get to the election in November, if I'm understanding you correctly, which I understand, and that is a reasonable goal.

Yes, of course. And while we are perhaps running things simultaneously, I think that happens a lot, right? So the plat's running, the same as the inclusion into Parker Water and Sand, same as the service plan, to get all these things to bring this community to life as quickly as possible to match the goals both of the county to have this area developed and services provided, as well as the applicant.

Thank you.

All right, is there any further discussion amongst the commissioners?

I've got a comment.

Okay.

I just wanted to, the way I have read what way this has been going, especially with the water, the Parker water sanitation will serve and is conditional upon the inclusion That's the way I understand it. So you may not have it right now. Conditional upon inclusion, you'll have it. And you'll have to have it in place by the time we get to Platte and other milestones down the road. So it's like I said, conditional upon inclusion. So that's the way I understand it. That's the way you understand it.

Yes, Commissioner, very much, and similar to other projects that receive a will serve letter to check that box and then later are included into the boundaries of Parker Water and Sand and receive service.

That's the way I understand it. Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Chair. Commissioner McKesson. This is Commissioner McKesson, and thank you. I would agree with that context. That's how I understand it, too. And as has been typical in my experience from this dais is that it's a will serve. It's conditional in a sense, whether we... make a recommendation in approval of or a denial, recommend denial, it's still conditional at some point for this district to not be formed until those conditions have been met, thus inclusion and likely some other things relative to the plan. My question is, in a general district creation. We're contemplating making a recommendation on the creation of a district which I am also in favor of and support. I've served for decades on district boards for various reasons and they serve an absolutely necessary means to finance a development like this. That said, I've been an advocate of allowing these districts to be able to manage themselves in the future for, quite frankly, residents that obviously don't live here yet. And they could be my kids or our kids or new kids. We had a great presentation today from a state demographer about the migration into Douglas County. And so I would encourage the Board of County Commissioners to look at our form document and continue to create that, not necessarily in this case, but in a form that can be managed in the best way of the future residents of our county. With that said, I know that you're proposing a 50 mil up to 60 mil levy on these homes. What would that make the total levy for the homes in this community with the other mill levies that are in place? Do you have that available? You got South Metro Fire, at least. Are there any other districts already?

I don't have that right at my fingertips, but I can tell you as counsel to Trails at Crowfoot, which is 10 feet north of this project in the town of Parker, their total metro district mill levy is 75 mills adjusted. So the 60 mills adjusted will be less than their neighbors to the north. And it will match exactly these folks' neighbors to the east at a project called Allison Ranch, also known as Cielo Metro District, which has the same 50 and 10, and a project further to the east called Scott Gulch, which has the same 50 and 10, and a project to the south, Stone Creek Ranch, which has the same 50 and 10.

Thank you, I appreciate that. The reason I bring it up is in the context of some of these larger, or these developments with much larger levies in the 100-plus mil range that seem to be unbearable for the new residents, and unfortunately, they find it so down the road. We've had some fail in the past.

Yes, and I'll be sure to provide that exact calculation to staff to pass along for you. I'm sorry, I don't have that right now.

No problem. So I also see the advanced... reimbursement development interest charges, a 20 bond GO plus 4%. I'm not as savvy in the finance side of things. What does that translate to today in a more simple interest perspective? Is that eight, 10? Can you help me with what that is?

Here comes the banker.

Okay.

Jonathan Heru with Piper Sandler in Denver. The language there references the 20-year bond buyer GEO index. GEO stands for general obligation. Bond buyer is a industry index that comes out each day, and basically what it's saying is, whatever that rate is at the time of signing that agreement, plus 400 basis points. So if it was at three, obviously it would get to seven. If it was four, it would be eight, and on and on.

So I appreciate that. Can you help me with the context of what it might be today then? Are we looking at a 10% interest charge on the advanced developer reimbursement?

No, today... The market moved downward given some of the world news that came out today. The 20-year GEO index today closed at roughly a 3.85, so 7.85 with the 400 basis points added.

I appreciate that and recognize it as a rough order of magnitude. I'm not looking, I just wanted to, I guess, verify that we weren't looking at reviewing something that had a 10% interest rate to the community for the advanced developer fees. In that same regard, I see and I appreciate the detail that there's $18 million expected to be advanced by the developer that's not reimbursed and 20 million that could be. Is that how I interpret that correctly?

Yes, that's accurate. So the general, and those are estimates, of course, is that to bring the whole project to life will cost $38 million. Of that, $20 million in change is public improvements, and that's the debt limit. So that leaves you a delta of $18 million that's not financed. Now you know with your service on this board and other boards, That's a really big number that you hope to get, but it's probably not realistic based on market conditions. So that $18 million is likely too low of an estimate based on the market value and the mill levy for these homes.

Well, it actually says, and it goes on, it says developer contributions which will not be repaid by the district. So the way I read that is you won't be seeking reimbursement for the $18 million.

Correct, but I'm saying we also probably won't get to the 20 million so that delta gets even bigger.

Sure, but you're at this stage that what we're reviewing is up to 20 million as a max.

As a maximum, yeah.

As a maximum. Thank you for that. So I appreciate that context. And I thought I had another question, but it escapes me, so thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I will entertain a motion.

This is, is there any further discussion or I'll make a motion? Comments. Comments?

Yeah, I'm gonna be a no vote tonight. Your will serve letter is from February of 25. And as I said, we're on mandatory restrictions at this point. So you need to get an updated we'll serve because they may have changed their mind. They may not give that tap. There may be outcry from the existing residents to say we're under water restrictions and we don't want you, Parker Water, to give out any more water. Not until these restrictions are lifted. So just to be clear, I'm gonna be a no vote just because of that tonight.

Commissioner Wachowicz.

Yeah, Commissioner McKevitch here. First off, I wanna say that I do understand the need for service plans in districts. I think they're an absolute necessity. I do strongly support this form of financing. I am gonna be voting yes tonight, and I just wanna explain the why, because I did bring this water thing up to my colleagues up here. I do understand that there are other criterias where this water approval will stop them if they ultimately don't get it. They can't get a plat, and if they don't get a plat, they're not gonna be able to move forward. I do think that our template service plan needs some help as it relates to how it's worded, and that's something that I do wanna bring up with staff separately, but that shouldn't be a penalty against the applicant here who is trying to put a project together, and I do understand when you put a project together, you run in parallel paths, There are unfortunately by state statute, certain election periods that they have to fall within, there's notices within them and I get it's complicated and I am appreciative of that. But I do think that there are some things that we need to work on as a county and I appreciate you guys helping us identify them. But with all that said, I will be a yes vote tonight.

And I would agree with Commissioner Wachowicz, and I certainly take Commissioner Hampton's comments to heart. However, those issues will have to be resolved anyway if the Metro District is gonna go forward, right? So I will be a yes vote. Anyone else? All right, is there a motion?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I make a motion to recommend approval of the Bloom Metropolitan District Service Plan project file SV2026-001.

Thank you, Commissioner McKesson. Is there a second?

Yes, Commissioner Rakevich, and I will second that.

Thank you, Commissioner Rakevich. There is a motion, and that has been seconded. The clerk will read back the motion and take the roll call vote.

Motion to recommend approval of the Bloom Metropolitan District Service Plan, project file SB2026-001. Commissioner Ed Kubli?

Yes.

Commissioner Jim Smallwood? Yes. Commissioner Mark Hampton?

No.

Commissioner Mark Reier?

Yes.

Commissioner Leonard Russo?

Yes.

Commissioner Mike McKesson?

Yes.

Commissioner Mark Wachowicz? Yes. Commissioner Calvin Downs? Yes.

Yes, and with that, the motion carries to approve a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners by a vote of seven to one. And with that, since this concludes the items on the agenda and there are no further items, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you for your attendance tonight.