Department of Community Development
Reference: Adams Crossing Disconnection (De-Annexation)
To: Mayor Gregory Mills and Members of City Council
Through: Michael P. Martinez, City Manager
Prepared By: Nick Di Mario, AICP, Senior Planner
Date Prepared: February 23, 2023
INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE
The disconnection (de-annexation) application before the Council is for an approximately 23.7-acre parcel, including adjacent CDOT right-of-way, located at the northwest corner of 120th Avenue and Chambers Road (the “Property”). Landmark Development (the “Project Contact”) is acting on behalf of the landowner, Adams Crossing LLC (the “Applicant”) in the facilitation of this de-annexation application.
The purpose of this application is to review and consider the disconnection of the Property from the city limits of the City of Brighton.
PROCESS
Disconnection is the process by which a given parcel within the current municipal boundary is ‘disconnected’ from the respective City’s jurisdiction. Per the requirements of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), disconnection requires a minimum 30-day notice to the Board of County Commissioners and to the Board of Directors for each affected special district. After such period, the request may be taken to City Council for consideration via ordinance.
CRITERIA BY WHICH COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER THE ITEM
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.11 (E):
The City Council must determine whether the disconnection complies with the disconnection procedures set forth in LUDC Section 2.11(E). The primary point for consideration is whether the proposed disconnection is in the best interests of the City of Brighton.
BACKGROUND
Adams Crossing, LLC submitted an application for disconnection of a triangular property that is bordered on the northwest by I-76 and the BNSF railroad tracks and to the south and east by Commerce City. The Property is separated into two parcels by the O’Brian Canal. This is the only property along 120th Avenue lying east of I-76 and The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks that is annexed into Brighton. When annexed in 1987, the Property was part of a larger area under single ownership that was simultaneously annexed in four pieces. The Property was known as Sable Annexation No. 2. At the time of the passage of the annexation ordinance (#1264) in 1987, Sable Associates, LTD, a Colorado limited partnership, owned all of the annexed land with the exception of public rights-of-way.
Shortly after annexation was approved in 1987, the Property was zoned as part of the Sable PUD. The Sable PUD includes a mix of commercial, office, light industrial, and park/wildlife habitat uses. The property was designated as park/wildlife habitat north of the O’Brian Canal and mixed-use light industrial south of the O’Brian Canal. While the portion of the Property north of the O’Brian Canal is not located within a designated flood hazard area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service includes 9.85 acres of this parcel as a freshwater forested/shrub wetland in the National Wetlands Inventory. The land area south of the O’Brian Canal is not considered a wetland area and is approximately 11.67 acres in size exclusive of right-of-way. This portion of the site is the most likely to develop.
The service plan for the Adams Crossing Metropolitan District Nos. 1-8 was approved by the City Council on September 19, 2006. A revised service plan for the districts was approved by the City Council on May 17, 2011. The 2011 service plan showed an inclusion area map with the Property within the inclusion area. On October 4, 2018, the Adams County District Court approved an order for inclusion that included the Property within the boundaries of Adams Crossing Metropolitan District No. 2.
This disconnection was anticipated during negotiations for the latest Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Annexation Boundary and Planning Cooperation with Commerce City. The IGA, which was executed in 2019, addressed annexation boundaries and planning coordination between Brighton and Commerce City. The Property is specifically mentioned as a property that could be disconnected from Brighton and annexed into Commerce City with the landowner’s consent.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The Comprehensive Plan includes the Property as Parks & Open Space north of the O’Brian Canal and Mixed Use Residential south of the O’Brian Canal.
COST ANALYSIS:
In order to develop in the City of Brighton, a development must connect to City utilities. The Applicant conducted a utility and cost analysis for three (3) different situations. The first two options include the cost to connect to City of Brighton utilities if the Property were to develop within city limits. Option 3 includes the cost to connect to South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (“SACWSD”) utilities if the Property were to be disconnected from city limits.
Option 1 is to ‘jack and bore’ across the Burlington Ditch, O’Brian Ditch, the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad, and Interstate-76. According to the Applicant, this would come at an approximate cost of $4,285,716.00.
Option 2 would require the same as Option 1; however, it would need to take a longer route and require a lift station. This would come at an approximate cost of $5,664,798.00.
Option 3 is to connect to SACWSD utilities. The Applicant has identified that this is much more feasible and would cost approximately $30,202.00.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE:
The Development Review Committee (the “DRC”) reviewed this project and is recommending approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND INQUIRY:
As required in the LUDC, the applicant sent notice and a copy of the application to the Adams County Board of County Commissioners and the boards of directors of each special district that provides service to the Property. The special districts include: Adams Crossing Metropolitan District No. 2, Rangeview Library District (Anythink), Greater Brighton Fire District, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Mile High Flood District, Regional Transportation District, and School District 27J. With the notice, each entity was instructed that it had thirty (30) days to request a meeting with the applicant and the City if there were concerns they wished to discuss. No meetings were requested. As of the date of this memorandum, four responses were received with each indicating either no comment or no concerns with the proposed disconnection.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff finds that the inclusion of the Property in Brighton’s territory presents a unique challenge to development for the landowner. The Property is the only piece of real estate on 120th Avenue east of I-76 that is annexed into Brighton and the only property that would be served by city utilities in this area. City utilities to serve this Property would need to be extended from Sable Boulevard near the Adams County Government Center, then under the Burlington Ditch, under Interstate 76, under the BNSF railroad tracks, and under the O’Brian Canal. If only the eastern parcel is suitable for development, the extension and looping of utilities would serve only 11.68 acres of land. If both parcels are suitable for development, a maximum of 21.53 acres would be served by the extension of utilities.
The DRC recognizes that the zoning and future land use designations of the Property provide for future development that may benefit the City; however, the location of the Property presents several challenges to both a future developer and the City. Upon completion of the utility infrastructure, the City will assume the ownership and maintenance responsibility of said infrastructure, meaning City will take on the long-term maintenance, and any associated cost with such maintenance of the infrastructure in perpetuity. Furthermore, utility infrastructure underneath interstates, railroads, and ditches is susceptible to accidental damage. Any routine maintenance and/or emergency repairs occurring beneath the aforementioned areas would require coordination between multiple jurisdictions and agencies. As mentioned earlier in this memo, one of the options to connect to City utilities includes the use of a sanitary lift station. While sanitary lift stations do assist municipalities in conveying waste to its ultimate location in the absence of a sufficient gravity system, they can fail from time to time. In the event of a power grid outage, a lift station would cease to work and convey waste. This would be another maintenance and repair responsibility of the City. In summary, it is the opinion of the DRC that the potential cost of maintaining the required utility infrastructure, as well as the potential risks, exceeds any potential benefit that future development could provide.
The Property was included in the service area for the Adams Crossing Metropolitan District #2 in 2018 and is shown on the inclusion area map for Adams Crossing Metropolitan District Nos. 1-8. As the districts were approved by the City with the understanding that all property within the boundaries of the districts was within the boundaries of the City, staff is recommending that the Property be excluded from the boundaries of the District and excluded from the inclusion area map in the district service plan prior to second reading of the disconnection. Excluding the Property from the district boundaries and inclusion area for the other Adams Crossing Metropolitan Districts will allow the jurisdiction with land use control to determine whether a special district should be created to serve this Property and to approve any associated service plan.
In terms of how this disconnection would impact City boundaries and service to other properties, all other land on the east side of I-76 and the BNSF railroad is annexed into Commerce City. Disconnection of this Property would not create an enclave or impede another annexed property from obtaining utility service from Brighton. If the Property is not disconnected, there are no other properties with which to share the infrastructure cost. The disconnection of this Property was anticipated in 2019 when City Council executed an Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Annexation Boundary and Planning Cooperation with the City of Commerce City that stated the possibility of disconnecting this Property from the City of Brighton and annexing to the City of Commerce City if the landowner consented to such an action.
The current zoning of PUD allows mixed-use light industrial uses but is inconsistent with the future land use designation of mixed-use residential. Any proposed development would need to be consistent with the Be Brighton Comprehensive Plan and be mixed-use residential in nature. Staff finds that the best interests of the City will not be prejudiced by disconnection. The attached draft ordinance, which approves the disconnection of the Property, meets the requirements for a disconnection as outlined in Section 2.11 of the LUDC. However, staff also recommends requiring the Property to be excluded from the Adams Crossing Metropolitan District No. 2 and from the service plan of Adams Crossing Metropolitan District Nos. 1-8 prior to scheduling the disconnection for a second reading of the ordinance.
If this disconnection application is approved, the Applicant intends to annex the Property into Commerce City, which has nearby utilities that could serve the site without coordinating the extension of utilities with the Burlington Ditch, Colorado Department of Transportation, Burlington Northern Railroad, and the O’Brian Canal.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council has three options when reviewing this disconnection application.
• The City Council may approve the Ordinance.
• The City Council may deny the Ordinance.
• The City Council may continue the item to a date certain if more information is needed.
*Note that if approved, a second reading of the Ordinance will be required.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Ordinance
• De-Annexation Map
• Vicinity Map
• Notices to Board of County Commissioners and Special Districts
• IGA Regarding Annexation Boundary and Planning Cooperation
• Draft City Staff Presentation