STERLING RANCH - Douglas County

From: dariadenver@comcast.net 

To: Steve Koster; 

Subject: Sterling Ranch concerns 

Date: Monday, June 22, 2009 6:59:17 AM 

Mr. Koster, 

We live in the Arrowhead Shores development, 9815 Falcon Lane, 

Littleton. We have numerous concerns re: the proposed Sterling 

Ranch (SR) Development. 

First, water. From what we have read, there is no indication of 

adequate water to support this community. 

Second, density. We moved to this area because of the open space, 

and relatively low population. SR proposes, for lack of a better term, 

to pack them in like sardines. 

Third, transportation. After packing them in like sardines, SR will not 

be making improvements to roads - at least not until the "Level of 

Service " is so bad that they have to. 

Fourth, schools. SR will provide only so much land for schools, even 

if population & density dictate more land/schools are needed. What a 

way for SR to save on their budget. 

Fifth, retail/soccer. There doesn't seem to be a lot of info about plans 

for the soccer complex as far a impact on traffic, lights, etc. Also, they 

will densely populate this area & have no retail support for it. 

Sixth, impact on the State Parks. I know this is a complicated issue, 

but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that adding more 

population to this area will impact Chatfield and Roxborough State 

Parks. 

We are not so naive to think the proposed area will never be 

developed. However, we don't think SR is the right development, for 

many reasons. SR wants to spend as little money and resources as 

possible to take, take, take and there is no giving back to the

community. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Daria and Adam Sanks 

9815 Falcon Lane, Littleton

From: Kathy 


Subject: Sterling Ranch 

Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:06:01 PM 

Hello, I live in Roxborough Park. After reading the July 16th article 

in the YourHub newspaper, I was about to form a negative impression of 

the proposed development for Sterling Ranch. Then, by total 

coincidence, I was talking with someone at Agriburbia, from the TSR 

Group owned by Quint Redmond, and mentioned that instead of the high 

density development portrayed in the paper, wouldn't it be nice if a 

concept like Agriburbia was used. To my surprise, the person at the 

TRS Group said they were involved in the concept for Sterling Ranch. 

I had to change my thinking completely. I love the carbon triangle 

model that Mr.Redmond uses to explain how a community can develop with 

transportation, food, and shelter as vital aspects of a sustainable 

community. I can't understand why the newspaper only represented the 

viewpoint of the Chatfield Community Association. Also, I don't 

understand how the CCA could be so against the development, if the 

Agriburbia concepts of Mr. Redmond are faithfully incorporated into 

the development. I think Douglas County has a unique opportunity, 

and quite frankly a responsibility, to encourage development that 

moves us into a carbon neutral, sustainable future. Douglas county 

could become the "green" county of Colorado, we could have incentives 

to retrofit existing neighborhoods, and definitely require new 

neighborhoods to to be built in a way that brings food, shelter, 

energy, water, and transportation needs together. I hope there will 

be better communication of the concept of Agriburbia, to me it is a 

great concept, and in the right direction for Douglas County. Thank 

you. Kathy Vandamme 7468 Hawks Nest Trail

January 17, 2010 

Mr. Steven Koster 

Douglas County CPSD 

100 Third St. 

Castle Rock, CO 80104 

Re: Sterling Ranch Request for Extension, ZR2009-004 

Dear Steve, 

Per the attached letter, the Sterling Ranch (SR) applicants have requested an extension on 

the rezoning application, which is due to expire on January 21, 2010. CCA understands 

that an applicant can be granted an extension, but the criteria for such is not well defined 

in the DCZR. It is our belief that the applicant has had adequate time to respond to 

referral letters, and has not done so. 

Based on the comments of Mr. Jack Hoagland, SR principal, at the January 14, 2010 

Roxborough One meeting, the applicant should have all referral comments addressed and 

completed by Spring, that being March 21, 2010. As such, should the County opt to 

grant an extension, which we would prefer not be granted, we recommend that the 

applicant live by their commitment, and the extension be no more than 2 months. 

Since the SR applicants Water Appeal referral period ends on January 23, 2010, we hope 

that the CPSD will have scheduled, and possibly completed the Planning Commission 

and Board of County Commissioners Hearings by March 21, 2010. 

Sincerely, 

Chatfield Community Association 

Dennis Larratt, Vice President 

10990 N. Sunshine Dr. 

Littleton, CO 80125 

phone 303-470-5770 

cell 720-530-9974 

fax 303-683-1790 

email larratt@mho.com

From: Dan Dertz 

To: Steve Koster; Joe Fowler 

Subject: FW: Sterling Ranch 

Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:21:29 PM 

FYI - Emails from residents in Roxborough opposed to Sterling Ranch. 

From: judymalexander@comcast.net [mailto:judymalexander@comcast.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:20 PM 

To: Dan Dertz 

Subject: Fwd: Sterling Ranch 

----- Forwarded Message ----- 

From: judymalexander@comcast.net 

To: ddertz@douglasco.us, "Lynne Devlin" 

Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:22:51 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain 

Subject: Fwd: Sterling Ranch 

Dear Mr Dertz, 

Please add my name to this letter. I am in total agreement with Lynne Devlin. Our 

concerns are the traffic, the water, the additional burden on the infrastructures in 

place- ie the roads, the schools, fire and police protection. All of these issues need to 

be addressed to the satisfaction of the residents of Douglas County. 

Judy Alexander 

Roxborouigh Park 


Dear Mr. Dertz, 

Please add my name to the list of those who are opposed to the current plans for the 

development of Sterling Ranch. 

My concerns and objections are as follows: 

While a development of some sort is inevitable, the current plans will result in a City, 

twice the density of Highlands Ranch, on fewer than three thousand acres. 

Despite the assurances of the developers to the contrary, I am convinced that a 

City of this size will have a negative impact on our natural resources, specifically 

the water.

Because the land is essentially flat, there will be no visual relief from the the multistory 

apartment buildings and the housing tracts all crammed together on 1100 acres. 

The light generated by the houses and apartments, the sports center and the 

shopping mall, will destroy our night sky. 

In order to accommodate approximately 40 thousand new residents, most of whom 

will commute to their jobs, Titan Road, Santa Fe and the bridge connecting them will 

all have to be re-built at the expense of the taxpayers. 

The walking trails, the riding trails and the open space promised by the developers 

already exist in our own neighborhoods and at Chatfield Lake and SharpTail 

Ridge and we do not have to stand in line with 40,000 new residents to enjoy them. 

This project will take 20 years to build. So for the next 20 years there will be 

continuous construction resulting in noise, mud, dust, and traffic delays in order to 

build something that many of us do not need or want. 

What I love about this area is the open space, the small ranches and horse corrals, 

and the care that has been taken to preserve the character of my neighborhood. 

When I turn off Santa Fe on my way home I marvel at the change. Suddenly the 

traffic is gone, the mountains are clearly visible and in a few minutes I will be home. I 

am nestled in among the red rocks with the deer, the bear and the mountain lions. I 

can stand outside in the evening and view the entire sky filled with stars. I do not 

want to give this up. 

Sincerely yours, 

Lynne Devlin 

Roxborough Park

From: Terence T. Quinn 

To: Steve Koster 

Subject: Fw: FW: Sterling Ranch 

Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:00:57 AM 

Attachments: 1a.pdf 

please 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Steven Boand 

To: Terence T. Quinn 

Cc: Doug Debord; Jill Repella; Jack Hilbert 

Sent: Mon Mar 22 08:59:24 2010 

Subject: FW: FW: Sterling Ranch 

Please add this to the public record for this project. 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Don Moore [mailto:dmconifer@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:34 AM 

To: Mark Weston; Jackie Sanderson; Toby Sprunk; Steven Boand; Ann Bonnell; Terence T. Quinn 

Subject: Fwd: FW: Sterling Ranch 

---------- Forwarded message ---------- 

From: ROISIN MC EWEN 

Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM 


To: Ann Bonnell , Barbara Chase Burke , 

bchase@organizationinabox.com, Betty Bliss , Bill Muller , 

Bo Inman , Celia Reed , Charissa Afshar 

, Christie VanBibber , Dan Dertz 

, Dave and Kris Vikse , Dave Villalovas 

, Debbie Shriver , Debbie Prysby 

, Deb Schovaneveldt , Dennis Page 

, Dennis Larratt , Don Moore , 

Doug Chestnutt , Ed Fox , Ed Yeats 

, Jan Dixon , Jeff and Donna Fleischer 

, Jeff Barnett , Jennifer Riefenberg , 

Jerry Stabrava , Joe and Whitney Rivera , Joe Rottman 

, John Afshar , Karen Carter 

, Kathy Hollifield , Kay McGuire 

, Kelly Boyle , Kelly Patton 

, Larry Kramer , Leslie Lilly , Lisa 

DeLong , Lisa McGee , Lynlee 

, Lynne Devlin , Mary Alice McManus 

, Martha and Jim Elder , Mary Kay Mansfield 

, Mary Denehy , Mike DellOrfano 

, Mike Spee , Pat Jenkins 

, Rick Stevenson , Ron Jaques , 

Sally Perisho , Sean Burke , Sue Golesh 

, Suzanne and Bill Muller , Teresa Hamilton 

, Terrence Quinn , Terry and Jeff Zelenak 

, Theresa Shark , Tina Heidel , 

Tom Pharo , Tracy Stabrava , Ward Rummel 

 

As you can see from this attachment, Littleton City Council is having a work session to review the

feasibility of annexing Sterling Ranch, which Sterling Ranch has been lobbying for while simultaneously 

working with Douglas County for the approval of both their planned development and water appeal. The 

Chatfield Community Association urges you to attend that meeting on March 23rd at 7pm in the Littleton 

Municipal Building to get a glimpse of how that possibility would impact you personally and Douglas 

County at large. At this stage there is no opportunity to comment, just observe. Thank you, Roisin 

McEwen, CCA President

To: James C. Woods, City Manager 

CC: Littleton City Council 

From: Christian Gibbons, Director Business/Industry Affairs 

Date: March 23, 2010 

Re: Sterling Ranch Fiscal Impact Review 

J:\Clerk\Agenda Packets\2010\03-23-10\1a att 1.docx 

MEMORANDUM 

Jim, at your request I reviewed the fiscal impact study provided by Sterling Ranch. Following are 

my comments. 

Background 

I initially met with Jim Yates and Patty Silverstein on January 29th to review the first draft of a 

fiscal impact study. At that meeting I expressed my approach to reviewing this study. In particular, 

I was interested in: 

• The big ticket items 

• The assumptions used in the multipliers 

• Threshold costs i.e. costs that occur suddenly when a threshold is crossed 

• Major capital items 

At that initial meeting I spent approximately two hours going through the results, asking questions 

and laying out an outline for additional information that I thought would be important to city 

council. I asked Mr. Yates and Ms. Silverstein to respond to those questions and comments. 

Mr. Yates followed up with a formal memo on February 8th. I reviewed that memo noting 

significant questions about multipliers and assumptions. I also met with members of the 

Development Review Committee to discuss capital items. I also assembled responses from other 

affected departments (library and police). 

I met again with Mr. Yates and Ms. Silverstein on March 9th to go over these responses as well as 

some remaining concerns that our staff expressed. Mr. Yates then resubmitted a final fiscal impact 

memo on March 19th addressing those concerns and making changes where suggested. 

Commentary 

Following are my observations and comments about the fiscal impact report: 

1. Both parties agreed that the fiscal impact analysis is a broad brush analysis at this point. Should 

the project proceed, we will need a second study at much finer granularity. 

2. The current analysis in my opinion fairly reflects the potential revenues and expenses associated 

with the proposed project. It uses standard data sources commonly accepted in the profession to 

generate estimates of revenues. In areas where multipliers were uncertain, both parties agreed that 

Highlands Ranch was a fair model to use.


MEMORANDUM 

3. The proposed project is larger than that approved by Douglas County. The square footage for 

retail, industrial and lodging are all more than the project submitted to Douglas County. According 

to Mr. Yates, this is due to additional acreage added to the original project and a re-calculation of 

supportable retail. 

4. Sewer tap revenue is not included in the analysis as these revenues will flow into the sewer 

enterprise fund, not the general fund. At the current rate of $5,000 per tap, the 12,050 dwelling 

units would produce approximately $67 million in revenue, not counting commercial and industrial 

taps. 

5. The major capital implications for the City of Littleton are a Police sub-station, a Public 

Services mini-service center and expansion of the main city hall building for support staff. Sterling 

Ranch is proposing to build a “civic center” space in their project which would include a police substation. 

Sterling Ranch is also proposing to provide the required number of acres (up to a maximum 

of 11 acres) and two existing buildings to serve as a Public Services mini-service center. Sterling 

Ranch is not proposing to provide an expansion of the existing city hall. 

6. The current city hall (not counting courts, museum, library, service center but counting police 

and fire) has 134 employees on site or about 1 employee per 310 residents. Adding another 31,700 

residents at this ratio would indicate another 102 employees. Assuming each employee needs 300 

gross s.f. of office space, city hall would have to be expanded 30,600 s.f. At a cost of $300/s.f., this 

would amount to $9,180,000. 

7. Sterling Ranch has indicated that it will provide the following through its own funding 

mechanisms: library service, fire protection, streets, water and sewer pipes, parks and recreation, 

schools. 

8. It is assumed there will be no Community Development functions moved to Sterling Ranch and 

that all plan review, building permits, inspectors, etc. will remain in the main city hall. 

9. Revenues are broadly classified as: 

• Property Tax $3 million (11%) 

• Other Revenue $5 million (18%) 

• Sales Tax $7 million (25%) 

• Special Mill Levy $13 million (46%) 

It should be noted that “normal” revenues of $15 million per year at build out are not enough to 

cover the estimated $22 million estimated operating expenses. It is the additional $13 million that 

comes from the special mill levy that covers this shortfall and provides a $6 million surplus. 

These are operating numbers and do not include capital costs. The mini-service center and police 

substation are proposed to be built by the developer. The expansion of city hall would be borne by 

the citizens of Littleton.


MEMORANDUM 

10. Staff is of the opinion that should council proceed with an annexation the City of Littleton will 

need consultants in the area of annexation agreements, land use engineering, a more detailed, and 

fiscal impact study as well as plan reviewers and building inspectors. Staff is suggesting Sterling 

Ranch pay for this. 

Risk Factors 

The unknown factors and risks that Council will assume in this project are: 

• The project could go under during an economic downturn. Sterling Ranch has indicated that 

all infrastructure costs are incremental and paid through impact fees. 

• The 800,000 square feet of retail space might not be totally built, thus reducing the estimated 

$7 million in annual revenue. 

• The expenses of the project in any given year could exceed the revenues and thus be a 

negative drag on the city’s budget. 

• Sewer rates might increase over the current $5,000 single family tap and slow down or stop 

the build out of the project. 

While not fiscal impacts, council will have to evaluate these additional considerations: 

• The 30,000 residents of the built out project will have approximately 3/7ths of the council 

seats. A significant portion of the political decision making will shift south of Chatfield 

Lake. 

• Statewide ballot initiatives could eliminate one or more current sources of revenue. 

A separate memo from the Police Department is attached. 

Sterling Ranch's fiscal impact memo is under separate cover.


Littleton Police Department 

Sterling Ranch Proposal 

Discussion Points 

MEMORANDUM 

The Littleton Police Department is vetting the questions and issues regarding the annexation of 

the Sterling Ranch Property on public safety and our ability to deliver services. The below items 

are the main topics for discussion but is not meant to be a comprehensive list. We will have a 

complete analysis for the Study Session. 

• The number of years and rate, at which the build out would occur both for commercial and 

residential. 

• How the build out would impact the demands for service and the type of services required. 

• Compare the build out to our experience with Trail mark; both by distance and types of calls 

for service. 

• Cost analysis of calls against equipment and personnel. 

• Driving times and distance: at what point would we need or use a substation. 

• Processing arrests in the subdivision and whether the arrestee will need to be processed there 

or at LPD, depending on ultimate trip to Castle Rock and Douglas County jail 

• 911 confusion regarding county and city services. If the residents live in Littleton, then their 

police services should be Littleton. 

• PSAP costs and reimbursement from the 911 authority. 

• Traffic issues and impact in the future; 2030. This should be addressed as the build out 

occurs and would not impact us for at least the next five years in our opinion. 

• The Sante Fe corridor would not be our responsibility as it won’t be in Littleton and we 

would not respond to traffic accidents. The impact would exist years later when the build out 

impacts the vehicles on the road per day using the Sante Fe corridor. 

• Sports Arena- we will need more information about the type, size, and purpose of the facility 

as well as the expectations for events and security needs. 

• Criminal Filings- both jurisdictions are in Douglas County so there would be no change in 

filing cases in the 18 th Judicial District, albeit may require the paperwork going to Douglas 

County office instead of the Potomac office. But this would not be a problem because we 

would be closer to the Douglas County office if called to a crime in Sterling Ranch. 

• Municipal Charges would remain in Littleton Courts. 

• When a substation is built, it could be a dual purpose building for police and fire. 

• Our current ratio is 1.6 officers per thousand. We did not increase our staff with the addition 

of Trail mark, Aspen Grove, Home Depot, Lowe’s, the build out completion of South Park or 

the addition of two light rail stations.


MEMORANDUM 

To: Christian Gibbons, Business Industry Affairs Director, City of Littleton 

From: James Yates, CFO, Sterling Ranch LLC 

Patty Silverstein, Development Research Partners 

Subject: Revised Economic Assumptions Summary 

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 

Acreage 

Residential 1,200 

Non-R esidential 506 

Open Space 1,236 

Infrastructure 464 

Total 3,406 

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT INFORMATION 

Residential Acres 

Low Density SFD 550 

Medium Density SFA 450 

Medium Density MF 150 

High Density MF 50 

Total 

Residential Units 

1,200 

Low Density SFD 5,700 

Medium Density SFA 2,150 

Medium Density MF 2,300 

High Density MF 1,900 

Total 12,050 

The purpose of this is to provide a brief summary of the 

economic impacts of the projected buildout of the Sterling 

Ranch Project (“Project”) to the City of Littleton under an 

annexation scenario. Sterling Ranch has submitted a PD 

zoning application to Douglas County that provides for 

approximately 3,406 acres of residential neighborhoods, 

offsite infrastructure, parks, trails and open space. The 

mixed use, commercial and retail space includes a 227-acre 

town center, 150 acres of educational uses and a 100-acre 

sports village. 

The total maximum housing units are limited to 12,050 

which equates to approximately 3.5 units per acre across the 

entire site. The homes will be a mix of high density multifamily, 

medium density attached and low density detached 

products. Based on maximum build-out and proposed 

product mix, the total residents within Sterling Ranch is 

31,700. 

Financial Summary 

The Sterling Ranch Financial Model at build-out (“SR Model”) is based on conservative assumptions for starting, 

developing and building out the project. Substantially all material assumptions are tied to the timing of home sales 

and related construction. This allows the cost of City service to be directly tied to the number of residents as they 

are actually moved into homes within 

Sterling Ranch and does not require upfront 

costs based on artificial thresholds. During 

the 20 year build-out, the revenue from 

one-time construction permit fees, 

property taxes and other revenues 

exceed the projected costs to service the 

residents in each individual year without 

a single deficit year. Additionally, the SR 

Model as presented relies on a balance of 

property tax revenue plus retail tax revenue 

that provides a more stable source of 

revenue which is tied directly to home 

values and not solely on resident spending 

habits. Although retail taxes are a very 

important component of the SR Model, the 

Littleton: 

Amount over 

20 Year 

Buildout 

200 Plaza Drive, Suite 160 Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129 303.232.6900 www.sterlingranchcolorado.com 

Annual 

Amount at 

Buildout 

Revenue sources to Littleton: 

Sales / Use Taxes 113,725,357 7,234,787 

Littleton Property Tax 27,196,587 2,983,872 

Other: taxes, fees, fines, permits, charges for services, intergo 45,685,169 4,888,064 

Mills Dedicated to Littleton from SR District 81,747,113 13,188,660 

Total 268,354,226 28,295,384 

Cost of Services - Total Littleton Budget: 

Determined by number of SR residents times 5 year avg 205,428,879 21,979,772 

Total 205,428,879 21,979,772 

Net Surplus (Deficit) $62,925,347 $6,315,612 

Per existing Littleton Resident (population of 40,000) $1,573 $158

higher combined mill levy allows conservative assumptions for retail spending patterns in both timing and quantity. 

The estimated total annual revenues exceed the estimated total annual costs by almost 29% of the estimated 

cost, allowing for deviances in the estimates and in timing of expenditures. 

Retail Revenue Assumptions 

During the months of February and March 2010, Patty Silverstein and Sterling Ranch met with Chris Gibbons to 

review the underlying assumptions related to the revenue generated by the Project during and subsequent to buildout 

as well as the cost of providing service to the new residents. Numerous retail sales tax assumptions within the 

Sterling Ranch Financial Model were discussed and generally agreed upon to be either conservative or reasonable. 

The following is a list of general assumptions, sources of data and discussion with Mr. Gibbons on key areas: 

� Retail space within the SR Model is calculated at 

25.2 square feet per capita, based on 800,000 total 

feet of retail space for approximately 31,700 

residents. The SR Model calculation was based on 

CoStar data from 2007 that shows Littleton with 65 

square feet per capita, the Denver Metro Average 

with 52 square feet per capita and Highlands Ranch 

with 27 square feet per capita. Based on the 

surrounding municipalities, the average of 25 square 

feet per capita is conservative and consistent with 

neighboring Highlands Ranch. 

� Retail leakage methodologies varied between the 

approach used by Development Research Partners 

and the typical methodology used by the City of 

Littleton. In comparing the two approaches, Sterling 

Ranch determined the total square footage by using 

the 25.2 square feet per capita average times the 

projected residents to arrive at a conservative 

800,000 square feet of retail required. SR then 

calculated the retail sales by multiplying the total 

square feet times the taxable sales and occupancy 

rates. This retail sales tax per square foot approach 

is a “top down” approach utilized prior to a detailed 

analysis of the commercial mix within a project. 

Retail Sales per Square Foot Methodology 

Total square footage 800,000 

Taxable sales 70.0% 

Occupancy Rate 96.0% 

Retail Sales per Square Foot $340 

Total Annual Retail Sales at build-out $182,784,000 

City of Littleton Tax Rate 3.0% 

Projected Sales Tax - Littleton $5,483,520 

Retail Sales Capture Methodology 

Total Number of Households 12,050 

Average Household Income $75,695 

Percent Taxable Sales 39.7% 

Capture (total less leakage) 50.0% 


Additional Retail Sales from Visitors $12,758,440 

Additional Retail Sales from Businesses $10,000,000 

Total Taxable Retail Sales $203,814,052 



The City of Littleton requested that Sterling Ranch also calculate the retail sales based on household income, 

taxable sales and local capture rates, a “bottom up” approach. Based on these factors, the SR Model 

utilized an average household income of $75,695, which is comparable to Littleton and lower than the 

Douglas County average of over $98,871. The percent of household income spent on taxable sales of 

39.7% is considered reasonable and consistent with Littleton. The SR Model used 50% as a conservative 

capture rate to show the likely outcome. Highlands Ranch currently has a very low capture rate of 43.6% 

through 2008, whereas Douglas County has a higher capture rate of 71.6%, with Littleton somewhere in 

between the two. Although Sterling Ranch is similar to Highlands Ranch in many ways, a 50% capture rate 

was used because the design of the Project will have pockets of higher density around open space that will 

be conducive to internal buying and the physical location is less convenient to local regional malls. 

If the Highlands Ranch capture rate of 43.6% is utilized in the calculation above, the projected sales tax in the 

Littleton model would decrease to $5.4 million or approximately $700,000, approximately equal to the SR 

Model. However, if the household income and capture rates are equal to the Douglas County Averages, the 

sales tax revenue increases to almost $8.5 million, approximately $3 million higher than the SR Model. 

� Hotels within the SR Model total 335,000 square feet, creating 500 rooms, supported by visitor traffic from 

the sports village, local residents at build-out and the potential business travelers from nearby employment 

200 Plaza Drive, Suite 160 Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129 303.232.6900 www.sterlingranchcolorado.com Page 2

sites. The assumptions related to the occupancy rates and hotel rates, including non hotel related spending 

was very conservative in the SR Model as the net sales tax revenue was less than $330,000 annually after 

build-out. This was determined to be a low risk variable as the total annual amount was not material to the 

Project as a whole. 

� The retail sales per square foot within the SR Model is $340 per foot and the floor to area ratio (FAR) is 

.245. 

� Current Office, Hospital, Sports Complex and 

Educational uses have not changed from the Douglas 

County model. Additional flex/light industrial 

space was added to the financial model due to the 

addition of 160 acres adjacent to Moore road. The 

retail/lodging was increased to reflect the increase 

in sports village acreage and the addition of the 

Village Center South and Village Center West, 

neighborhood retail centers within the Project. 

The change in retail square feet brought the square 

feet per capita to a level slightly below neighboring 

Highlands Ranch. 

Littleton DC Zoning 

Non-Residential SF Model Application 

Office 800,000 800,000 

Hospital 150,000 150,000 

Flex/Light Industrial 800,000 248,000 

Retail 800,000 400,000 

Lodging 335,000 200,000 

Sports Complex 230,000 230,000 

Educational Use 653,400 653,400 

Total 3,768,400 2,681,400 

Littleton Project Cost: 

Project costs were only discussed and evaluated at a very high level, identifying those costs that would be triggered 

by thresholds and would be material to the Project or the City of Littleton as a whole. Significant additional work 

will need to be completed in this area. Capital costs specific to the Project and the related source of revenue is 

discussed below. 

� Fire Services will be provided by the fire district that the Project is currently located in at the request of the 

City of Littleton for financial modeling purposes. Sterling Ranch had allocated approximately 10 mills 

for fire protection within the SR Model and will apply those funds to the appropriate fire district upon final 

decision. 

� Police Services will be provided by the City of Littleton. Upon preliminary assessment, a substation type 

facility with secure access will be required. The size and specifications to be determined. Sterling Ranch 

will provide sufficient space within the town center civic building. 

� Public Service has requested sufficient land dedication and appropriate zoning for outdoor storage of road 

surface materials, vehicle storage and potential maintenance facilities. 

� Water Service will be negotiated with Denver Water or other provider as may be required and will be a net 

zero economic impact to the City of Littleton for modeling purposes. 

� Wastewater Service will be provided by the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant at the 

current market rate for both taps and ongoing treatment at the time of use. 

Additional Financial Model Assumptions 

The SR Model assumes a combination of revenue sources compared to an average cost of service per capita based 

on the City of Littleton 2010 Budget General Fund. Adjustments were made to exclude library services and fire 

protection from both the revenue side (included in the additional mill dedication from Sterling Ranch to Littleton) 

and the cost side (removed the library and fire protection costs from the general budget). 

� Mill Levy will be dedicated to the City of Littleton in two increments: the first is the base mill levy that is 

currently paid by the residents of Littleton of 6.662 mills; and the second is an incremental mill levy that 

will be paid to the City of Littleton. 10 mills during the construction phase of the internal infrastructure of 

the Project (the first 10,000 residential units) and then increased to 25 mills thereafter. 


� Other taxes, fees, permits, charges for services and intergovernmental revenue is included in the 

preliminary analysis since the full cost of providing all general fund services (less fire and library) is 

included in the cost per capita calculation. Once a more detailed analysis of the actual cost is determined, 

the revenue will be adjusted accordingly. Sufficient surplus is provided within the budget to allow for 

adjustments. 

� Sewer tap fees were calculated on a single family equivalent (“SFE”) unit basis to provide for commercial 

units as well as residential. A total of 13,451 SFE’s was utilized in the SR Model and equates to $67.255 

million. This amount will change based on the cost of tap at the time of sale, the actual number of 

residential units, mix of units and commercial activity. 

� Retail development is projected to start the first 99,000 square feet after the first 2,250 homes are sold and 

built. The first 2,250 homes would add approximately 4,000 residents, assuming approximately 25 square 

feet per capita. It is anticipated that the initial phases will include convenience and sports related retail. 

� The commercial, flex space and light industrial opportunities will allow Littleton to grow its existing 

businesses within Sterling Ranch due to the available land while maintaining control of the land use, taxes 

generated and employment opportunities. 

� Emergency care services built in Sterling Ranch will provide much needed support to the Chatfield Valley 

area. 

� A school impact fee will be collected by the Douglas County School District on each lot which will be used 

to help pay for the cost to construct new schools within Sterling Ranch. The number of schools will be 

determined by the Douglas County School District. 

SR Capital Improvements – Project Cost 

The capital cost of offsite improvements for internal and external roads, 

water and wastewater distribution systems, wastewater connection to the 

Englewood / Littleton wastewater treatment plant, civic buildings and 

Douglas County school facilities totals approximately $195 million over 

the twenty year build-out. 

Based on an assumed market value of $25,000 to $30,000 per unit for 

fees to be paid by developers / builders, the Sterling Ranch Metro 

District will be at the lower end of the market at slightly over $24,000 

per unit. The impact fees provide a significant portion of the 

infrastructure cost and are a very reliable, stable source of revenue that is 

actually collected before the homes are built and services are needed for 

the respective residents. 

A total of 35 mills will be collected by the Sterling Ranch Metro District. 

Of the 35 mills, 10 will go to the City of Littleton for the first 10,000 

residential units and then will be increased to 25 mills thereafter. The SR 

Metro District will keep 25 mills for the first 10,000 units and then 

reduced to 10 mills thereafter. The combined total sources of revenue 

allocated to capital projects is approximately $234 million or 20% 

($39 million) greater than the projected cost noted above, allowing 

for cost overruns, interest on interim bonding and unforeseen capital 

requirements. 

SR Capital Improvements- Cost 

Estimated Cost: 

Sewer Connection 28,000,000 

Water distribution 47,820,000 

Wastewater distribution 11,462,000 

Traffic - Internal 36,293,108 

Traffic - External 39,000,000 

Civic 5,000,000 

School 27,264,600 

Total Estimated Cost: 194,839,708 

SR Capital Improvements - Revenue 

Estimated Revenue: 

Impact fees 161,904,000 

SR District - base mills (10) 39 ,23 1,94 2 

SR District - 15 mills 15 years 33,183,428 

Total Estimated Revenue: 234,319,370 

Traffic: 

� The internal roads and related roadway systems will be paid for by SR through builder fees and minimal 

metro district bonding as may be required for timing. 

� The direct impact to the external county roads that connect the SR property to the state highway systems 

(Wadsworth 121 and Santa Fe 85) caused by the addition of SR residents will be paid for by the SR metro 

district. 

� Sterling Ranch has established a discussion with Douglas County to define traffic impact fees as quantified 

above. The cost of road improvement to the “external” roads outside of the Project boundaries includes 

the impact from both Sterling Ranch residents and projected background traffic from the growth of other 


nearby areas based on the current DRCOG models. Sterling Ranch will continue to work with Douglas 

County to finalize an agreement to provide for the cost of impact on county roads caused by the growth of 

Sterling Ranch residents. 

� Sterling Ranch is also working with CDOT in conjunction with Douglas County to identify mechanisms 

that can support CDOT in the roadway improvements that may be required to the state highway systems as 

a result of future growth. 

� Sterling Ranch supports transit solutions between significant retail and business centers in Littleton and 

the Project, providing a greater capture of the Sterling Ranch resident leakage by Littleton businesses. 

Sports Village: 

Sterling Ranch is designing a regional destination sports venue for local teams, leagues and tournaments. The 

sports village is currently anchored by the Colorado Rush soccer organization and a local baseball organization, 

both in existence for over ten years. The Village will provide recreation and entertainment services for all ages. 

These recreation facilities will work in unison with the planned retail and lodging components in the adjacent Town 

Center as well as an integral component to the neighboring planned high school / middle school campus. 

Annual visitors were estimated by Norris Design to be approximately 550,000 for all sports programming. The 

existing soccer and baseball organizations alone are currently drawing 229,000 visitors. 

Impact of Sterling Ranch Growth on Littleton: 

Based on the current estimated population of the City of Littleton plus the projected growth of Sterling Ranch 

through maximum build-out, the total population will increase 75.6% over an assumed 20 year build-out, leaving 

the Sterling Ranch Population at 43% of the 

total estimated 73,737 combined residents at 

build-out. This represents an average 3% 

growth per year with the highest growth year 

being projected at 4.5%. 

The projected growth from Sterling Ranch in the 

first 5 years is only 9% of the existing Littleton 

population and increases to 32% of the current 

population over the next 10 years. The full 20 

year maximum growth projection shows an 

increase of over 75%, however when spread over 

time, the annual growth rate of 3% to 4% will 

allow the City of Littleton to manage the 

foreseeable impacts, provide much needed 

financial security with one-time fees collected in excess of $125 million from construction permits and sewer tap 

fees, and be able to integrate necessary governmental services, endow cultural resources within Littleton and 

strengthen common business interests. 


From: Jennifer Riefenberg 


Cc: BOCC; Terence T. Quinn; Doug Debord; "ROISIN MC EWEN"; "Dennis Larratt"; "Mary Mansfield" 

Subject: Littleton City Council Meeting 

Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:19:32 AM 


Steve, 

CCA requests that the attached document be added to the Sterling Ranch application file. Information 

contained within this document is highly relevant to the application as it contains financial estimations 

of the project and costs that help clarify: 

1) the applicant is committing NO money of their own to the project; 

2) at least $13 million in a special mill levy would be required to meet basic operation costs (see item 7 

below), without infrastructure. 

3) the Metro District (or districts) would require additional funding (mill levys and/or bonds and/or ??) in 

order to fully finance any costs of infrastructure (to the tune of over $234M). 

4) internal roads to be paid for via "builder fees" and metro district bonding. The applicant is admittedly, 

not a builder, thus there will be additional financial burden on the business undertaking work on the 

project. 

5) external roads (estimated cost $39 million) are to be borne by the metro district/bonding. 

6) The capital improvement costs (aka infrastructure) alone are estimated (by Sterling) to be $194 

million with a planned revenue from impact fees (interesting as no one else mentions impact fees), and 

mill levys of $234+ million. 

7) Sales tax revenues plus property tax revenues ($10M) do not cover even one-half the estimated 

($22M) operating costs. "Other" revenue ($5M is presumably from the sewer tap fees collected less 

costs of service). Even with this additional revenue source, the development is not close to selffunding. 

If the actual Highlands Ranch numbers for sales tax revenue numbers are used ($5.33M 

verses modeled $7M) then the cost to taxpayers is worse. 

8) And none of this mentions the costs of actual water, only water distribution portion - aka internal 

pipes (obviously, they are hoping to get Denver Water via Littleton; however, this water is not free even 

if it is available). 

Who will be left holding the roughly $250M in financial obligation (bonds/mill levys) to see the 

development through? 

As you can see from the start, this development is completely reliant on risky financing of mill levys and 

special districts funding -- having shown themselves to be disastrous to the County in our bond ratings 

being dropped due to underfinanced developments. 

Additionally, similar to the PD application, there are incorrect and mis-calculated numbers in this report 

as well; again, bringing into question the intentions of the information being presented as fact. For an 

obvious example, the applicant states in the attached memo that "Sterling Ranch has submitted a PD 

zoning application to Douglas County that provides for approximately 3,406 acres..." when we all know 

that the application is for less than 3000 acres (2984). The applicant does state that they have added 

160 acres to the PD, which would still only total to 3144 acres. There are other numbers that do not 

appear correct nor supportable with the information presented. It is difficult to trust any numbers 

presented when simple arithmetic errors are prevalent in all documents provided by the applicant. 

Thank you, 

Jennifer Riefenberg 

From: ROISIN MC EWEN [mailto:roisin@q.com] 

Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:53 PM


Here is a link that explains annexation by Littleton for your information: 

http://www.littletongov.org/comdev/annexation.asp RoisinMcEwen CCA President 

From: roisin@q.com 

To: Subject: FW: Sterling Ranch 

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:39:54 +0000 

As you can see from this attachment, Littleton City Council is having a work session to 

review the feasibility of annexing Sterling Ranch, which Sterling Ranch has been lobbying 

for while simultaneously working with Douglas County for the approval of both their 

planned development and water appeal. The Chatfield Community Association urges you 

to attend that meeting on March 23rd at 7pm in the Littleton Municipal Building to get a 

glimpse of how that possibility would impact you personally and Douglas County at large. 

At this stage there is no opportunity to comment, just observe. Thank you, Roisin 

McEwen, CCA President







MEMORANDUM 


my comments. 

Background 


















Commentary 









MEMORANDUM 








taps. 














schools. 















MEMORANDUM 





Risk Factors 













Lake. 








MEMORANDUM 






residential. 



for service. 

























MEMORANDUM 






Acreage 





Total 3,406 







Total 


1,200 





Total 12,050 

















31,700. 





















Littleton: 

Amount over 

20 Year 

Buildout 


Annual 

Amount at 

Buildout 






Total 268,354,226 28,295,384 



Total 205,428,879 21,979,772 













































































.245. 















Office 800,000 800,000 

Hospital 150,000 150,000 


Retail 800,000 400,000 

Lodging 335,000 200,000 



Total 3,768,400 2,681,400 









decision. 
























adjustments. 












area. 

























requirements. 








Civic 5,000,000 

School 27,264,600 








Traffic: 





district. 












































Subject: One tiny bit more info... 

Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:31:50 AM 

On other "minor" note: the sales tax figures presented in the Littleton City Council document assume a 

3% sales tax rate (City of Littleton) which is higher than the county sales tax rate of (I believe) 1%. 

The $5.33M and/or $7M number from sales tax drops further to $1.6M and $2.33M, respectively. 

Thanks, 

Jennifer Riefenberg

From: Doug Debord 


Subject: FW: 1 of 2 Sterling Ranch information 

Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 6:03:16 PM 

Attachments: 0A7A7A95D9664C369CC42F901A970D63.jpeg 

From: Mark Baisley [mailto:mark@baisley.org] 

Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 1:03 PM 

To: Doug Debord 

Subject: 1 of 2 Sterling Ranch information 

County Manager DeBord, 

Please include the following public email from the City of Littleton into the land use 

application related to Sterling Ranch, to be conveyed to the Commissioners and included in 

public hearings. 

Thank you, 

Mark Baisley 

Roxborough Park resident 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: "Mulvey F. J." 

Date: March 20, 2010 3:53:07 PM MDT 

To: "Matthews L) Steve" 

Subject: Fwd: Annexation of Sterling Ranch into the City of Littleton 

Everyone, 

Herewith please find materials given to Littleton City Council for their discussion with 

Sterling Ranch developers regarding annexation of Sterling Ranch into Littleton. If 

you don't have time to review all 4 memos may I suggest reading Chris Gibbons' 

memo on the financial impact as the most important to read. (The other three memos 

are from LPD, Sterling Ranch and City Manager Jim Woods) 

This meeting will be held next Tuesday, March 23 in Council Chambers. I urge you to 

attend to learn more.



Subject: FW: 2 of 2 Sterling Ranch information 


Attachments: A4D2E910A836496F971F7D01C2EB3D73.jpeg 

39280CDF83534056BE18E73FA2E84F7D.jpeg 

B7B11277488743A3853F38E88EA62E7C.jpeg 


Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 1:03 PM 


Subject: 2 of 2 Sterling Ranch information 


Please also include the following public email from the City of Littleton into the land use application related to Sterling Ranch, to 

be conveyed to the Commissioners and included in public hearings. 

Thank you, 

Mark Baisley 





To: "McElhaney L) Terry Terry L)" 

Subject: Fwd: Gibbons Memo on Annexation to City of Littleton

From: Tracy Stabrava 


Subject: Sterling Ranch Littleton Annexation Study 

Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:22:53 PM 


Can you comment on how the county process and the city process work and what this means. Sterling 

has a different proposal with different # in front of Littleton. Who takes precedence and who has to be 

approved first. also what has happened on the water appeal as I can't find updated information on the 

website. Thanks Steve.







MEMORANDUM 


my comments. 

Background 


















Commentary 









MEMORANDUM 








taps. 














schools. 















MEMORANDUM 





Risk Factors 













Lake. 








MEMORANDUM 






residential. 



for service. 

























MEMORANDUM 






Acreage 





Total 3,406 







Total 


1,200 





Total 12,050 

















31,700. 





















Littleton: 

Amount over 

20 Year 

Buildout 


Annual 

Amount at 

Buildout 






Total 268,354,226 28,295,384 



Total 205,428,879 21,979,772 













































































.245. 















Office 800,000 800,000 

Hospital 150,000 150,000 


Retail 800,000 400,000 

Lodging 335,000 200,000 



Total 3,768,400 2,681,400 









decision. 
























adjustments. 












area. 

























requirements. 








Civic 5,000,000 

School 27,264,600 








Traffic: 





district. 












































Cc: Terence T. Quinn 

Subject: FW: Littleton Annexation of Sterling Ranch 


Attachments: 0FBEFBAFA4FB4B049898451C4A5B5F03.jpeg 

Please add to the file. Thanks. 


Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:59 AM 


Subject: Fwd: Littleton Annexation of Sterling Ranch 


Please include the following public email from the City of Littleton into the land use application related to Sterling Ranch, to be conveyed to 

the Douglas County Commissioners and included in public hearings. 

Thank you, 

Mark Baisley 





To: "McIntosh L) George & Wilma Wilma L) George &" 

Subject: Fwd: Littleton Annexation of Sterling Ranch

From: Don Moore 

To: Steve Koster; Terence T. Quinn; Doug Debord; e4737; ROISIN MC EWEN; Steven Boand; Jim Woods 

Subject: Needed Information Concerning Steerling Ranch 

Date: Saturday, March 27, 2010 11:57:21 AM 

Steve, 

First of all, thank you for the update on the status of the Steering 

Ranch. I and some Douglas County residents were wondering if you may 

have answers for a few questions concerning the Sterling Ranch 

rezoning proposal, including: 

1. We do not see any enforceable commitments by the Steering Ranch 

applicants that they will directly contribute to pay for the 

construction of any of the developments public infrastructure such as 

roads , parks, water distribution lines etc.. In the applicants 

application they say that the applicants, a special district or some 

other entity will be responsible to pay for these improvements. The 

applicants never say that they will pay a specific amount of money to 

construct some portion of the development tired to a specific phase of 

the development. Is this correct or do you have any enforceable 

commitments by the applicants that they will contribute a documented 

amount of money to pay for some portion of development's 

improvements.? Without any enforceable commitment by the applicants 

to pay for improvements we would consider all cost to construct 

improvements being the responsibility of special district(s). 

2. In order to evaluate the financial risk to the public posed by 

this proposed development, we need information on the total cost to 

construct the roads, water lines, water storage facilities, parks and 

needed off-site improvements. With this information we can then 

analysis if the the amount of debt minis any funding the applicants 

commit to the development is a reasonable burden upon the public and 

if it is even sustainable. Unfortunately Douglas County has a bad 

history of allowing developers (land speculators) to create too much 

public debt through special districts only to have the districts fail 

and the County residents and Douglas County having to bail out the 

districts at a tremendous cost. Does the County have any information 

concerning the the cost to construct and maintain facilities that will 

ultimately be the responsibility of the public either through special 

districts or Douglas County? 

3. In order to complete any financial analysis of the proposed 

Steerling Ranch application, we need to include all off-site 

improvement costs. These improvements include but are not limited to 

highway, traffic, regional storm water detention and conveyance 

improvements. The City of Littleton staff have also expressed a need 

to know these cost. Does the County have an estimates of these costs? 

4. When considering the tax burden to be levied upon the residents, 

how much of a tax burden should be allowed above what is required for 

operations and maintenance of facilities? In years past, developers 

were generally responsible to construct all needed public 

infrastructure such as roads, parks, water and wastewater treatment 

plants while special districts were responsible for some selected 

operational and maintenance functions such as running water and 

wastewater treatment facilities. In more recent years developers have 

place an increasingly amount of financial risk and burden to pay for

the construction of infrastructure upon the future residents through 

the debt held by special districts Needless to say this is also a 

very expensive way to pay for these improvements when the public will 

likely be paying for these improvements through bonds issued for 

30-years (in some instances we actually see these debts extended 

beyond 30-years through the rolling over of these bonds before there 

scheduled maturity). 

At the Littleton City Council meeting with the Steerling Ranch 

applicants held this last Tuesday, the applicants stated that they 

thought they would match the highest mill levies currently in use to 

in Douglas County, 130 mills, to pay for development improvements. I 

find this a totally unreasonable tax burden upon County residents. It 

should be noted that the use of these very large mill levies were in 

part the result of or in some cases, responsible to creating the 

financial problems for a number of Douglas County developments. these 

major problems included either the bankruptcy of a special district, 

development or both. Should Douglas County or the City of Littleton 

consider approving the Steerling Ranch development, a decision will 

need to be made concerning what is a fair an equitable amount of tax. 

My own opinion is that a full service municipality such as Littleton 

should not create special districts and statutory counties should 

generally limit a mill Levy to funding operations and maintenance 

needs. When there is a true market for development, a developer will 

be able find the financing to pay for development improvements with 

out creating huge amounts of risky public debt. In the mean time the 

County should see the build out of areas already approved for 

development and retirement of existing debt. 

5. I do not know if the 130 mills that the applicant's discussed 

included the their totally developer controlled Dominion Water and 

Sanitation District or would this be a separate mill levey? 

6. What impact would additional special district debt have upon the 

Jefferson County or City of Littleton school districts. In the early 

1990's Moodys followed by the other major bond rating companies 

significantly lowered the Douglas County bond rating. This action by 

the bond rating agencies was directly the result of the tremendous 

amount of debt Douglas County special districts held collectively. 

This action resulted in the Douglas County school district to have to 

pay millions of dollars in additional cost to finance the construction 

of new schools. I am not aware that the Douglas County school 

district has ever been able to receive a higher rating with out the 

buying of additional insurance for the bonds. 

This issue may be more important now to the Littleton School District 

since they are a much small school district and the Steerling Ranch 

development would add approximately 75 percent more residents to their 

city with a current a population of 41,000. 

7. One of the biggest unknowns concerning the Steerling Ranch 

development proposal is the lack of water. In years past, an 

application was not considered complete and would not be considered 

without proof of deliverable wet water (not paper water rights) per 

the Douglas County Zoning Resolution so we would not be having this 

discussion today. The applicant said to the Littleton City Council on 

that they have some water rights to develop a first phase of the 

development. It is my understanding that the applicant does not 

actually own this limited amount of water but only has a lease for the 

water. Is this the case? Leased water has been a big problem for the

Roxborough development's whose water lease with the City Aurora is 

soon to expire and the Roxborough Water and Sanitation District has 

been unsuccessful to replace this water after a 10 year or more 

effort. Additional were experienced when it was discovered that some 

of the Castle Pines water rights that were thought to be owned by some 

of the developers of Castle Pines were in fact only leased water 

rights. 

8. Has the County determined what water would cost to serve the 

Sterling Ranch. I believe this task would be next to impossible to 

determine but if such numbers exist we would plug this information 

into the overall financial analysis to determine the financial 

feasibility of the development. I suspect someone could determine the 

cost of some very non-senior conditional water rights, secondary 

treated effluent return flows and the cost to construct water storage 

facilities to store off peek water flows to come up with some idea of 

what water would cost if the applicants could purchase it.

From: Connie Tucker 


Subject: Braley Acres Extended Lot 12 8510 W Mountain View Lane 

Date: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:06:07 AM 

Attachments: Survey 8510 Mountain View Lot 12.pdf 

Thank you for the notification of application in process dated 6/1/10 and making your email 

address available to us. 

I am very much concerned about what Sterling Ranch has planned for NW Douglas County and 

more concerned for the area directly next to the proposed addition (ARS/Snow 255.76 Acres). 

Our home is surrounded by ARS but is in the “Braley Acres Subdivision Extended”. 

Our history is our family was forced to move from Riverside Acres (Chatfield area) in 1968 to 

make room for the picnic and marina area in Chatfield Dam. The complete subdivision of 

Riverside Acres was condemned and every resident forced to move to make way for the “flood 

control of Chatfield Dam”. This lot was purchased and has been our family home since that 

time. This place has great meaning for me and our whole family as it was built by my 

parents. It is all we have of them and this property is very near and dear to us. It is our 

home and our heirs to come. I am the current caretaker and owner of record at until it is time 

to hand it off the next heir. Our entire family’s wish is to be able to live here in peace. 

Our family’s concerns are small in comparison to the complete project but they are kind of 

overwhelming to me now and are valid. They are: 

1. My biggest concern is will the new zoning and subsequent development at some 

point force our family out of this small parcel of land (our home) if it is more revenue 

producing as say a Walmart or King Soopers or perhaps a school. Can one or all of the 

Braley Acres subdivision homeowners be forced to leave and is it in the planning to 

force us to give this home up for “The betterment of Sterling Ranch” and the interests of 

the current owners of ARS? The owner of ARS has approached me many times 

including my mother’s funeral to buy this home that is why my RED FLAG is up. 

Because of past history I am very concerned about this. What is planned for this 255 

acre area?? Don’t know where to find it in the maze. 

Can you enlighten me on this concern? 

Also there has been quite a bit of animosity regarding this project and seemingly secretive way 

of the current owners (ARS) and the current residents in this area. I don’t have much reason to 

trust ARS owners at this point and would like to hear from you. 

2. My original survey dated December 19, 1968 indicated Mountain View Lane would 

be on the West side of my residence. This road on the west of our lot never happened. 

Mountain View Lane comes directly to the North and stops at one of the ARS gates. Is 

Mountain View Lane to the West of my property at some time going to become a road 

and if not who does it belong to? I am attaching a copy of my Survey.

3. Water is a huge concern. How do you conserve something that isn’t there. I have 

not deciphered what the long range plans are for water availability. 

I would like to see more open space and less development. It leaves a sick feeling every time 

I think about what little open space we have left on this planet and how it is being gobbled up 

at a rapid pace by developers. Douglas County is losing the “Country Atmosphere” the long 

time residents enjoyed and are losing at break neck speed. Please use your stewardship and 

influence for the betterment for ALL residents not just a few developers. Greed knows no 

boundaries and like a cancer is hard to control. As a long time Douglas County resident, I am 

loathe to see a way of life here forever gone because of another’s desire to get rich. I know 

change is going to happen, growth is inevitable, but it could be managed for the good of all. 

Think about it and please let me know about the above questions one and two or feel free 

pass this email to someone that could answer these questions and concerns. 

Because of time constraints I cannot always search the website to see every detail and 

change. I got lost for two hours trying to figure out what is planned for our direct area. 

Thank you for your time. 

Connie Tucker aka 

Constance L. Tucker 

8510 W. Mountain View Lane 


Work Phone 720-880-5014 

Home Phone 303-791-3629 

Email ctucker@redstonebankco.com 

______________________________________________________________________ 

“This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for 

the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received 

this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains 

confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not 

the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 

Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 

mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended 

recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in 

reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.” 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

______________________________________________________________________

From: Rocky Mountain Custom Design, Rick Stevenson 


Subject: Sterling Ranch Planned Development 

Date: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:29:52 AM 

Dear Steve, 

Thank you for your correspondence of June 1, 2010 concerning the application 

from Sterling Ranch to add additional land to their proposed project. I refer 

specifically to your file # ZR2009-004 / Sterling Ranch Planned Development 

"Addendum." 

I would like you to add my name to the growing list of citizens who have lived in 

this area for many, many years and are very displeased with the direction of the 

planning process for our area. As you know, this issue has been ongoing for 

many years. We, in the neighborhoods and with the Chatfield Community 

Association have never been opposed to development; just that we believe any 

development in our area should reflect the lifestyles and the very ground you 

see in this area. Sterling Ranch continues on their march to increase their size in 

order to completely change the topography and lifestyles we've come to enjoy 

over the years we've raised our families here. Now, it's proposed that they 

acquire the land currently owned by ARS. Part of that land is directly behind and 

is adjacent to our property in Braley Acres. I refer to the approximate sixty-six 

acres just to the south of Braley Acres. 

As a long-time citizen of Douglas County who has always responsibly followed 

the rules, paid my taxes and been involved helping my community I must tell 

you I strongly object to the overly zealous efforts that seem to be going on by 

Sterling Ranch. Their efforts to drastically change our neighborhood is in direct 

opposition to every reason we (and others like us) moved to this area so long 

ago. I appeal to you to disallow the efforts of Sterling Ranch to acquire more 

land in order to overtake our communities with the kind of development no one 

that lives here wants. If it's all about money, they may win. If it has anything 

to do with doing the right thing for the community, we hope that you will give 

our thoughts and suggestions (re. Chatfield Community Association) every 

consideration and stand up for our wants and desires. We're the citizens here. 

We only ask that you represent us as such. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Rick & Cody Stevenson 

rkymtn@q.com 

303-683-8152

From: Lisa Christofferson 



Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:02:11 AM 

Attachments: Letter to Steve Koster - 6-14-2010 - Sterling Ranch.docx 

Dear Mr. Koster, 

Attached please find a letter regarding our thoughts and concerns for 

the Sterling Ranch development. Please enter it into public record. 

Thanks for your time. 

Regards, 

Greg & Lisa Christofferson

06/14/2010 

TO: Steve Koster, Long Range Planning & Zoning Compliance Manager 

Douglas County Planning Services Division 

100 Third St 


FROM: Greg & Lisa Christofferson 

7964 W. Trail North Drive 


RE: File # 2R2009‐004/ Sterling Ranch Planned Development 

Mr. Koster, 

My name is Greg Christofferson, my wife and 2 sons are 19 year residents of Plum Valley Heights. A 

neighbor of Sterling Ranch with adjoining fence lines. As I have stated in previous communications with 

Douglas County we are opposed to any development in the Sterling Ranch area. My family has grown up 

exploring, hiking, walking and riding all the open space that has been available to us. 

I am a Littleton native and have seen all the growth in the Platte River Valley. Some good, some bad. I 

have seen the effects that Highlands Ranch has had on the area and the traffic snarls along with the 

water issues. Our concern with the proposed development of Sterling Ranch is of course the water 

issues. I feel any and all water supplies should be established before any development is approved. The 

other big issue to be resolved is the traffic, not only through Waterton Canyon but along the Santa Fe 

corridor and through Littleton. If you were to drive Santa Fe and 470 roads now you would ask yourself – 

How can the roads handle any additional traffic; let alone what Sterling Ranch is planning on adding? 

I also feel there needs to be provisions for the wildlife corridor to be protected which runs the east 

boundary of Sterling Ranch and the west boundary of Plum Valley Heights. 

Thanks for your consideration to our requests to preserve some of the natural access and beauty of 

northwestern Douglas County. Please don’t let every bit of this county be developed. 

Regards, 

Greg & Lisa Christofferson

From: Joe Rottman 


Subject: ZR2009-004 / Sterling Ranch Planned Development "Addendum." 

Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:31:48 PM 

Douglas County Planning, 

All three voting residence in this household do not want this additional land added 

to the Sterling Ranch development. 

We believe that the type of development planned is not in the best interest of the 

county or our neighborhood. 

Sterling Ranch is not a responsible development and their planned high density 

would lower our property values and over tax the area. 

Please do not allow this Addendum. 

Thanks You, 

Joseph Rottman, Andy Rottman and Torey de Rozario

From: JAN EDINGER 


Subject: development 

Date: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:34:53 PM 

Steve: 

Let me add my voice to our concern about the Sterling Ranch 

development west of Louviers. I know you have thought about wildlife 

corridors, water, roads and traffic patterns. I understand the county 

needs income which this will bring. The Master Plan states keeping the 

rural nature of our area. So there is conflict and no good solution. You 

are very aware of the historical setting of our village. Please give every 

consideration to what we will lose with the number of houses that could 

be built so close by. I'm alarmed by the proposals of three different 

roads, any of which that could destroy the peaceful atmosphere of our 

town. 

I appreciate the respect you will give this matter. 

Thank you, Jan Edinger 

Louviers resident for 26 years.

June 18, 2009 

Douglas County Planning Commission 

c/o Steve Koster 

Long Range Planning Manager, Douglas County 

100 Third Street, Suite 220 


Re: Sterling Ranch Water Conservation Practices 

Western Resource Advocates supports the Douglas County Planning Commission in granting a 

waiver to the Section 18A water supply zoning standards as requested by Sterling Ranch, LLC. 

The Sterling Ranch development incorporates water conservation practices into all aspects of the 

planning process, utilizes existing technologies to maximize water use efficiency, and has the 

potential to become a model of water-smart development in Colorado. 

Western Resource Advocates is a nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to protecting the 

Interior West’s land, air, and water. We promote river restoration and water conservation, 

advocate for a clean and sustainable energy future, and protect public lands for future 

generations. We meet our goals in collaboration with other environmental and community 

groups, and by developing solutions appropriate to the environmental, economic and cultural 

framework of this region. Our intent in this letter is to support the water conservation aspects of 

Sterling Ranch and should not be construed otherwise. 

Land-use policies in Douglas County have a direct and substantial impact on the ability of the 

County to meet its future water needs. The Sterling Ranch development will comply with many 

of the goals and policies established in Section 8 of the Douglas County 2030 Comprehensive 

Master Plan, such as: prolonging the life of groundwater resources by limiting the size of 

irrigated landscapes (Policy 8.1A-2); and maximizing the efficient use of water by using a 

conjunctive use system (Policy 8.1B-2). 

The Sterling Ranch annual single family residential water use target of 0.22 acre-feet per unit can 

be achieved with current technology and will not require future residents to change their 

behavior. This target is significantly lower than Douglas County’s current planning standard of 

0.75 acre-feet/year/residence. Sterling Ranch estimates that utilizing high efficiency fixtures and 

appliances can reduce per capita indoor consumption to 42 gallons per day, which is parallel to 

estimates performed by other water conservation specialists and has been achieved in other 

water-conserving developments. 1 Outdoor water use will be limited by the small landscaped 

1 Al Nichols Engineering. 2009. Energy and Water Use in Tucson January 2008 – December 2008. 

Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. WaterPlow Press. 

DeOreo et al. 2001. Retrofit Realities. Journal of the American Water Works Association. March.

areas of each parcel, use of efficient irrigation systems, and a separate irrigation meter for each 

residence. 

Additional water conservation practices are described in the Sterling Ranch Water Plan, and 

notably include a water budget-based rate structure and ongoing monitoring and reporting. Water 

budgets coupled to an inclining block rate structure are one of the most effective water 

conservation practices available to any water supplier, and provide a built-in enforcement 

mechanism. These budgets make a clear and direct connection to a customer that using excessive 

amounts of water will cost an excessive amount of money. Water budgets are also an equitable 

way to distribute water supply costs and lend easily to drought response measures. The ongoing 

monitoring and reporting described in the Water Plan will enable Sterling Ranch to document 

and track water conservation savings and adjust management as new technologies become 

available. 

Sterling Ranch’s residential water use target is achievable and will likely be exceeded due to 

rapidly improving technology and the conservative approach in which it was determined. We 

hope that future development in Douglas County will use the water conservation practices 

employed by Sterling Ranch as a norm, rather than the exception. 

Sincerely, 

Drew Beckwith 

Water Policy Analyst 

Western Resource Advocates 

dbeckwith@westernresources.org

Craig R. Miller 

Water Conservation Specialist 

Parker Water & Sanitation District 

QUALIFICATIONS 

International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist 

Colorado Department of Agriculture Licensed Pesticide Applicator – Qualified Supervisor. 

Certified in Industrial and Right-of-Way Weed Control, Turf and Ornamental Pest Control. 

Over 40 years experience in the Green Industry. 

Established Urban Forestry and Horticulture programs for the Town of Parker, Colorado including 

the creation of an Arboretum; created a noxious weed management program for town wide 

implementation. 

Author and presenter of educational programs pertaining to xeriscape, horticulture and 

arboriculture. 

Over 7 years experience reviewing commercial and residential land development proposals on a 

horticultural and arboricultural level. 

EXPERIENCE 

Parker Water & Sanitation District, Parker, CO. 4/07 to present 


Town of Parker, Parker, CO. 4/02 to 4/07 

Urban Forester/Town Horticulturist 

Swingle Tree Company, Denver, CO. 9/85 to 4/02 

Sales Representative, 1988 to 4/02 

Landscape and Irrigation Division Manager, 1985 to 1988. 

B. D. Wilhelm Company, Denver, CO 4/84 to 8/85 

Commercial Grounds Maintenance Division Manager 

Oakland University, Rochester, MI 9/80 to 3/84 

Supervisor, Oakland University athletic fields and the Detroit Lions training camp. 

EDUCATION 

Michigan State University, July 1977 

BS with Honors in Horticulture. 

Advanced course work in Forestry, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.

Parker Water & Sanitation District 

19801 E. Mainstreet 

Parker, CO 80138 

Sterling Ranch Water Plan Comments – Water Conservation Sections 

1. Agriburbia is noted as a landscaping option on page 1 and referred to as “an alternative lowwater 

use landscape option”. The Agriburbia website notes that there are “approximately 

3000+ acres being designed or developed”, but it appears there is no research data available 

supporting the claim of low water use. In truth, orchards, vineyards and vegetables can use as 

much water as traditional bluegrass landscapes. 

2. Page 5 notes that most of the water for the Sterling Ranch development will be renewable and 

therefore the use of high production wells will be limited. But the sentence after that seems to 

contradict that statement as it points out that “Dominion’s wells will be high capacity as that is 

the only way that water can be efficiently provided to its customers, both on the Sterling Ranch 

development and to its neighbors”. 

3. On page 7, why use the lower number of dwelling units in the Water Plan? (10,723 vs. 12,050). 

1327 dwelling units unaccounted for at 0.28 ac-ft/yr = 371.56 ac-ft/yr or 12.37% additional 

water required. 

4. The water conservation examples used starting on page 10 do not approach the proposed water 

use for this development (0.28 ac-ft/yr/unit). Throwing out the apples to oranges comparisons 

(hand watering of lawns in Brighton and the Civano neighborhood in Arizona, which uses an 

entirely different plant palette than we have here), even the best of these examples falls well 

short of the proposed water use. Colorado Springs, with the lowest water use of 0.30 acft/yr/unit, 

works out to 107.12 gpcd (based on census data of 2.5 persons per household), 

Centennial Water & Sanitation District, 103.7 gpcd and Castle Rock 117.9 gpcd, according to the 

figures provided in this document. Based on 0.28 ac-ft/unit/yr and 2.92 persons/household in 

Douglas County (2006 census data), Sterling Ranch is targeting 85.6 gpcd, 17.45% less than the 

lowest use community (Centennial). 

5. Sterling Ranch notes on page 12 that “…supporting calculations rely on published water use data 

associated with using proven efficient technology and well planned and maintained landscaping 

to generate water use savings”. This rarely if ever happens in the real world. In over 40 years in 

the Green Industry, it has been my observation that no matter how well the design and 

installation of a landscape, it all begins to fall apart on the maintenance side of things, as 

consumers are not willing to pay what is required to properly maintain a landscape. Then at the 

first sign of plant distress or browning in a lawn, the water is turned up. 

6. “Dual metering or another approach that allows comparable data collection (to measure indoor 

vs. outdoor use)…” (page 12). What other approach?

7. “Fescue” turf is being proposed in the Landscape Plan Samples on page 17, but it is not made 

clear what type of fescue. Per Colorado State University, tall fescue can have lower water 

requirements than bluegrass, but water use can be the same or higher depending on how it is 

cultured. During periods of extreme drought, where landscape water use must be curtailed, tall 

fescue will thin out extensively, and will not recover as quickly as bluegrass, resulting in a poor 

appearance and infestation with undesirable weeds. Tall fescue also has poor to fair 

recuperative potential, which is problematic in high use areas (recreation). Fine fescue lawns 

can use less water, but are not for high traffic areas. They also will go dormant under conditions 

of extended heat (1 to 2 weeks of 90 degrees +). Why not consider the use of buffalo grass or a 

Texas hybrid bluegrass instead? In addition, subsurface irrigation (such as Netafim) for 

bluegrass and fescue is often less than ideal due to the water hungry nature of these 

turfgrasses. Subsurface irrigation works extremely well for native grasses (buffalo grass and 

blue grama as an example), shrubs and perennials. 

8. Section 2.4 notes that if an inspection of a home is not completed by the Sterling Ranch District, 

the Builder will be required to sign an affidavit that outdoor specifications and approved 

irrigation system plans were followed for both front and back yards. Why not inspect every 

single home, period? Signing an affidavit leaves too much opportunity for things to fall through 

the cracks. 

9. Section 2.4, page 27 notes that one of the potential responses to a significant percentage of 

homes exceeding their water budgets is to develop more appropriate water budgets if 

customers are using water reasonably. This will certainly push the SFR Water Use Target above 

0.22 ac-ft/yr/unit 

10. Section 3.1.2.2, page 32 notes that Sterling Ranch will coordinate with a landscape maintenance 

contractor to apply the water conservation principals identified in section 2 and Appendix A. It 

has been my experience that there are very few maintenance contractors that are fully up to 

speed on how to maintain water-wise landscapes and irrigation systems, let alone install them. 

What will be the criteria for selecting contractors? What certifications and qualifications will be 

required? 

It appears that there is inadequate water to support this project to begin with, and the 0.28 ac-ft/yr/unit 

was chosen as the amount of water to develop the community around, as that is all the water they have 

available. When a serious drought hits the region, recreational and household turf areas will perform 

poorly, and residents will demand more water to keep things green. Where will the extra water come 

from and who will Sterling Ranch be turning to for a “bail-out”? 

Craig R. Miller 


303.841.2058 ext. 370 

cmiller@pwsd.org

June 28, 2009 

Mr. Steve Koster 

Douglas County 

Community Development and Planning Division 

100 Third Street 


RE: Sterling Ranch Planned Development #ZR09-004 

Dear Mr. Koster: 

The Chamber of Commerce of Highlands Ranch focuses on the development, growth 

and sustainability of businesses in the Highlands Ranch area including the surrounding 

areas of Roxburough, Littleton, Lone Tree and Centennial. 

The Highlands Ranch Chamber strongly supports the proposed rezoning of the Sterling 

Ranch property located just west of Highlands Ranch. Rezoning and development of 

Sterling Ranch will provide quality housing, improved infrastructure and commercial 

development in Douglas County. 

The Sterling Ranch development plan will utilize state of the art designing of land use, 

open space and traffic flow as well as water usage and landscaping. A tremendous 

amount of research has been done to insure wildlife preservation and conservative 

water usage. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 303-791-3500. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Dyer 

President 

Chamber of Commerce of Highlands Ranch



cc: "Dennis Larratt"; "ROISIN MC EWEN"; 

"Tmkmans"; 

Subject: Littleton DVD left at office,etc. 

Date: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:48:08 AM 

Hi Steve, 

I wanted to touch base on a couple of items. 

1. I left a DVD of the Littleton City Council meeting with Sterling Ranch and 

request that this be added to the public comments on the Sterling Ranch 

application and water appeal. There are at least three topics of great concern 

that this public meeting brought up and is highly relevant to the current 

application with Douglas County: water, wastewater, and financial impacts. 

2. What is the timeline for the Sterling Ranch rezoning application/water appeal 

hearing? Is the hearing to be scheduled 30-days after the referral period? 

Thanks and hope you are having a nice summer! 

Jennifer Riefenberg

From: BOCC 

To: Steven Boand; Jack Hilbert; Jill Repella; Doug Debord; Terence T. Quinn; Steve Koster 


Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:19:58 AM 

FYI 

From: Jim Miller [mailto:jim@jimmiller.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:07 PM 

To: BOCC 

Cc: 'Marilyn Williams-Miller' 


As a resident of Roxborough Park, I fully support the Sterling Ranch Project. I would welcome the 

additional shopping and other amenities that this project would offer. 

Jim Miller 

303-521-5337

From: Kati Rider 

To: Kati Rider; 

Subject: FW: Sterling Ranch - positive impact 

Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:18:06 PM 

From: Ken Turnbull [mailto:ken@kenturnbull.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:31 PM 

To: BOCC 

Subject: Sterling Ranch - positive impact 

Dear Commissioners; 

I wish to express my support for having more trees and more wildlife in 

Douglas County. 

Currently the proposed Sterling Ranch site is “high and dry prairie”. It is 

essentially non-productive land, even for cattle ranching. Perhaps “marginal” 

would be the best description. Currently it only supports a few prairie dogs, 

meadowlarks and voles. No doubt it also has grasshoppers and a few snakes. 

What a waste. 

With responsible development, people will be planting trees, scrubs, and 

xero-scapes. Some will put up fences that protect wildlife from severe winter 

blizzards. These plants and structures provide protection and nesting 

materials for many birds and mammals. I am a lover of wildlife. I would like 

to see this barren ground turned into an “oasis” for the support of wildlife. 

Therefore, I strongly support on-going development in Douglas County for 

projects like Sterling Ranch. 

Most respectfully. 

Ken Turnbull

7651 Carolyn Drive 


303-790-7070

From: ROISIN MC EWEN 


Subject: Sterling Ranch Hearing Public Comment Procell 

Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:46:34 PM 

Steve, Please send this request on to the Planning Commissioners 

It is our understanding that the public and referral organizations will be limited to 3 minutes ans 6 

minutes respectively. CCA believes that this does not provide due process for the public or referral 

organizations, especially in the case of two major issues being considered together. We request that 1) 

the public be allowed 6 minutes in order to address both issues and 2) CCA be alloted at least 30 

minutes with the condition that 4 members of the public will relinquish their 6 minutes. We also request 

and volunteer to speak very early on the first evening with a powerpoint with the intent of helping 

to prevent too much repetition in the presentations. We have tried to communicate to our membership 

to please keep comments short, relevant, and distinct. Of course we cannot control public speakers, but 

we are working to try to keep the testimony relevant for the Planning Commissioners. Thank you for 

considering our request, and we look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Thank you, 

Roisin McEwen 

President of Chatfield Community Association

From: BOCC 

To: Kati Rider; 


Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:51:21 PM 

From: BETSY HAYES [mailto:betsyhayes@msn.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:05 PM 

To: BOCC; Betsy Hayes 


Dear Commissioners 

I understand there are hearings before the Douglas County Planning Commission 

at 7 p.m. Oct. 25 and 26 regarding the Sterling Ranch development. While there 

are always positive and negatives about any change we feel the negative changes 

to the Acequia area are too overwhelming to support the development. We would 

like Douglas county to delay the Sterling Ranch development until the below issues 

are resolved. 

Water Conservation: Water Conservation is essentially anywhere in the west but 

planning a new community and not following the state/county guidelines for the 

amount of water required per household is irresponsible. The guidelines were 

established and determined by engineers who have studied the needs of 

households, especially those in tract house developments. The current water 

agreements only cover the 1st phase of the Sterling Ranch development. Sterling 

Ranch has stated that their water conservation plan will reduce the traditional .75 

acre feet of water per home to .22 (plus a .06 buffer) acre feet of water per home - 

over 60% savings! During the 2006 drought Denver Water used emergency 

conservation methods was was only able to reduce consumption by 22%. The 

average household uses 211 gallons of water a day, Sterling Ranch is planning for 

12,050 homes - does Sterling Ranch have plans to supply 2,542,550 gallons of 

water a day or 928,030,750 gallons of water annually. A conservation plan of 22% 

requires 816,667,060 gallons annually and Denver Water found 22% to be 

unsustainable. 60% conservation is unrealistic, even if the ground is left the barren 

and full of weeds the household use alone would surpass their estimates. 

Open Space: The establishment of the infrastructure and construction of Sterling 

Ranch will destroy

100% of 

the natural wildlife and beauty on 3400 acres. 63% will be residential, municipal 

or commercial and the remaining 37% will be "turned into" open space parks and 

trails. Having lived in the area we know that the current native rangeland grasses 

will not grow back quickly or without water. The Open space areas will need to be 

watered to become established and weeds will be a problem for years. What is 

the view of the Douglas County Extension Office? How much of the area has 

native grasses? What would it take to reestablish those native grasses in the open 

spaces - time, cost and water? 

Traffic/Transportation: Even with all of the road improvements over the past 10 

years the traffic on Santa Fe is already congested and carries many Commercial 

vehicles. Adding more residential drivers will exacerbate the current challenges. 

Sterling Ranch claims they will disperse traffic, by taking a quick look at a map it is 

clear that Wadsworth and Santa Fe are the only 2 roads leading north towards 

Denver. Unless roads and bridges are constructed through Chatfield State Park 

there is no other way to "disperse traffic. 

Water: Our well was replaced about 6 years ago and the new well is now drawing 

from the Arapahoe aquifer. Although that aquifer is thought to be sustainable 

once Sterling Ranch starts pumping from the deepest part of the Denver basin our 

wells will be impacted. Even with "City Water" from Sterling Ranch many of us will 

continue to use our Domestic wells for Horses. We would absolutely like to have 

our house hooked up to a sustainable water supply but the current Sterling Ranch 

water plan is not a realistic sustainable water supply. 

Regards, 

Betsy Hayes 

6913 W. Lakeside Drive 


303-988-2901

From: Heather Seashore 

To: BOCC 

Cc: Steve Koster 

Subject: No Sterling Ranch!! 

Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:41:24 AM 

Dear Sir, 

I am a resident of Roxborough Park and feel compelled to write to you in hopes that you are an 

advocate for the people, rather than someone who may be blinded by the falsehoods of Sterling 

Ranch. I don't know where you reside, but I'm sure if were faced with the potential for a Sterling 

Ranch in your backyard you would have some apprehension along with anger at the thought of it! 

Its 12,050 new residential units will be twice the density of the City of Littleton, nearly 3 times the 

density of Highlands Ranch, 4 times the density of Parker, and 5 times the density of Castle Rock. 

The developers have not obtained any water supply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and are attempting to bypass 

Douglas County requirements on providing safe, dependable water. 

It will lead to heavily congested local roads with no financial commitment to road improvements. 

Its residents will have a 5 times higher tax rate than the current City of Littleton; it will require at least 

$9 million to expand Littleton City Hall. 

School district costs will be substantially increased. 

Santa Fe Drive will have to be expanded to 6 lanes, for which no funds are available. 

Air quality in Roxborough Park and Douglas and Jefferson Counties will be reduced. 

Most of the open space and scenic resources between Roxborough Park and Santa Fe Drive will be 

destroyed. 

Its light pollution, construction noise and dust will seriously affect Roxborough Park. 

According to Colorado Division of Wildlife, the new city will significantly degrade local wildlife 

habitats, destroy wildlife travel corridors and impact sensitive wetlands. 

The developers plan to pass many of its costs on to taxpayers in the form of bonds, mill levies, 

special taxing districts, wastewater treatment and road construction. 

It will generate sewage 20 times the capacity of local treatment plants. 

I implore you to think about the impact this project has on the surrounding community and 

environment. I understand more people in Douglas County means more tax dollars... but if there is 

NO WATER to support these people, how can this project even be under consideration??!!!! Please 

put yourself in the shoes of a resident of Roxborough. People have moved there because they want to 

enjoy the scenery, the unique lifestyle and the quietness. If you haven't visited, I will be your personal 

tour guide to point out the quality of life and the overall greatness that our area exemplifies. Don't let 

the lure of Sterling Ranch and its developers put a cloak over your eyes to what they really want... 

money, money,money. What do they care, they'll be long gone before the impact of what they are 

going to do really comes to fruition. 

I appreciate your time. 

Sincerely, 

Heather Seashore



Subject: Please send to planning commissioners 

Date: Sunday, October 17, 2010 9:26:02 PM 

Attachments: QuestionsToCommissioners_JR.doc 

Hi Steve, 

 

Please forward this document to the Planning Commissioners regarding a number of questions that I 

have for them. 

Thanks, 

Jennifer Riefenberg

Planning Commissioners: 

I am enclosing a number of questions that will be asked at the upcoming hearings on the 

Sterling Ranch PD rezoning application/Sterling Ranch Water Appeal. I would 

appreciate your review of these questions so that you have adequate time to consider the 

information and fully understand the questions – prior to the barrage of questions that 

may come before you the night of the hearings. Each question is bolded for easier review 

and the narrative/background/references related to each question are included for further 

explanation on the origin of the questions. Thank you for your time and attention. 

If the documentation for evidence of water is delayed from the current 

County Regulation that requires such at the rezoning, as is requested by 

the applicant; at what SINGLE point in time would the County then 

make the assessment that the PD has an Adequate Water Supply 

through BUILDOUT of the Development per recently passed Colorado 

Law, HB2008-1141? The county is required to assess any new land use applications 

for evidence of an adequate water supply through BUILDOUT [not in phases, as 

requested] and the County has only a single opportunity to do so. The request for 

"phased" water documentation certainly violates HB1141 and the Counties current 

zoning regulations require that evidence of water be provided at these rezoning hearings. 

I believe that HB1141 should be required reading for anyone involved with land use 

planning. Does the County have a legal opinion that they are, in fact, in 

compliance with State Law if this application is approved, with or 

without conditions? 

Section 15 DCZR requires "Evidence of the physical and legal capability to provide 

sanitation." The appeal does not apply to the elimination of requirements in Section 15 

but only to those in Section 18A. The applicant and/or Dominion has claimed that there 

is an existing agreement to purchase the Roxborough Waste Water Treatment Plant 

(RWWTP) for its use. The RWWTP was decommissioned nearly 15 years ago and 

phosphorus credits for permitting sold. Additionally, Tri-County Health cited that the 

site does not encompass enough land in order to expand to the necessary capacity to serve 

the entire development, and questioned the ability to re-permit, especially without 

phosphorus allocations. As an aside, the public is becoming more and more aware of the 

presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supplies, especially downstream of waste-water 

treatment facilities. Current laws do not require treatment of water for such; however, in 

the next 20- to 30-years, I suggest that these laws will change. The potential costs of this 

treatment facility could be much greater than speculated. 

As required in Section 15 DCZR 1507.08, has the applicant provided a 

legal agreement between itself and a provider of sanitation services? 

Has the applicant provided evidence that permits can be obtained for 

such facilities? Has the applicant provided evidence that the potential 

site (RWWTP) is large enough for needed expansion to meet the 

Page 1 of 5

capacity needs of the development? Has the applicant provided evidence 

of the legal and physical capability to provide sanitation? 

The CMP (Goal 2-11, Policy 2-11A.5) specifies a central water and sanitation provision 

for the entire development. The applicant states (Dev Plan/Commitments (5-2.4) 

"Central water and wastewater facilities shall be provided by one or more new special 

districts to be created for the property." In Section DP/C 5-7.1.B are listed 5 or 6 

potential types of water supply districts, serving various new, retail water districts within 

the plan. This listing demonstrates that the application has no definitive plan for "central 

water and sanitation" and it cannot be assumed that there will not be multiple suppliers 

working, separately, with each new retail water district. This is in violation of CMP 

Goals and Policies. 

Per CMP Goals and Policy, will the ENTIRE development be served by 

one, single central water and sanitation district? If so, who exactly is 

that district, and has a legal agreement between the applicant and this 

district been provided? 

Which single water supplier type is the provider and who is it? 

Is there a signed agreement between the any water supplier and the 

applicant? 

The existing Roxborough Water Treatment Plant was built in 1958 [Rox Water & San 

District website FAQ]. Old technology …. and possibly not using the current 

technologies, is already serving at full capacity. 

What is the capacity of the Roxborough Water Treatment Plant? 

Has a legal, written agreement (will serve) letter been submitted that 

allows either SR or Dominion use of this plant? 

What is the expansion capacity of the WTP? 

This PD application cites significant open space, however, this application provides on a 

percentage basis roughly ½ of the open space provided by Highlands Ranch, which is 

within the PRIMARY urban area of Douglas County. The Primary urban areas are 

supposed to be those urban-type developments with the greatest intensity per the CMP. 

Further, we, the public at large, refute the applicants assertion that this project protects 

the unique characteristics of the Chatfield Basin. Was the intention of the 

Commission to create urban areas of greater intensity than primary 

urban areas? 

The application, Development Plan and Statement of Commitments are fraught with 

vague and non-committal language. Per zoning 1509.01.1 the "wording shall be 

verbatim" yet the applicant continues to add language such as "unless otherwise stated 

herein" and the like. This added language nullifies the required language of DCZR. Is 

not the County required to enforce the DCZR regarding section 15, 

Page 2 of 5

among others, and to not accept altered language in cases such as 

1509.01.1? 

In light of the average household cost in SR being stated at between $400K and $1M at 

the public Littleton City Council meeting, we question the true affordability of any 

housing where the mill levy's, without a water mil levy, were also stated to be upwards of 

150 Mills and only included internal roadways. With the addition of off-site 

infrastructure costs and water, the mill levy's could exceed 200 Mils – an unprecedented 

tax levy for development in Douglas County. The applicant has not committed any 

funding of their own to this project. As a matter of fact, the applicant testified at Littleton 

that they would never be more than $10M in debt – rather, all financing would come from 

bonds. Can the County afford to risk another Dawson Buttes: Overbonded, Failed PD 

that currently collects not even tax revenue on the land (formerly worth $10's of 

thousands of dollars per year) as it now has no "value." 

What would the impact be on the County's bond ratings if this 

development were to fail with $500M - $1B in potential bonding put 

upon it? 

What is the risk to the citizens and taxpayers of the County and of the 

State of Colorado if this project fails? 

The State Land Board would be party to the indebtedness of the entire project— 

especially since the entire project is planning on funding via bonds and; for internal 

transportation alone, around $200 Million (cited at Littleton), and likely double that for 

the external transportation; plus water which itself could easily run into the $4-$500M 

range. An article earlier in the year in the Denver Post discussed the State Land Board 

revisiting their strategy of chasing "bright and shiny objects" aka agreements with 

development projects. A similar project between the State Land Board and a proposed 

development at Lowry cost the taxpayers $4M – this project could by 100X that amount. 

Were the risks disclosed to the state taxpayers? 

With the suggested change in zoning regulation to the additional use by right of allowing 

a second occupied house ("accessory unit") (SR Commitments Sheet 5) on any singlefamily 

residential lot, in theory, this development could DOUBLE in density. The 

property could contain nothing but multi-family housing and duplexes. Since each 

residential unit, though actually having two homes, would count as a single residential 

unit, Would this leave each house on the residential unit sharing the 0.28 

acre-ft of water (or whatever amount is allowed) – cutting in half the 

water supply? I feel that this puts the citizens at severe risk with respect to adequate 

water, especially as the water supplies proposed are only "initial" amounts and can 

decline as time progresses. How, exactly, will these water use constraints will 

be disclosed to future buyers/renters? 

Page 3 of 5

There appears to be a credit for affordable housing units (AHU) whether or not actual 

"affordable" units are actually created. The development appears to be guaranteed a total 

of 360 credits for AHU's (see Dev Plan, Sheet 17 [5-7.13]). Further, the applicant then 

subjects the County to a "right of first refusal," allowing the applicant to apply for grants 

associated with AHU's? This seems inappropriate. Can independent, expert 

counsel be brought in to assess the AHU conditions presented in this 

application to ensure fairness for the taxpayers and to ensure 

compliance with Federal, State, and County policy and regulations? 

The applicant provides for their "own" lighting standards. These proposed standards 

(among many other policy/regulation/etc. change proposals) have not been subject to 

public process. 

Does including new policy/regulation/etc. at the developers choosing, 

without public process, violate County policy? 

The supposed difficulty of meeting zoning requirements, especially documentation 

standards, at the time of re-zoning application for this development is this applicants' own 

self-created hardship. It does not give just cause for changing the zoning regulations as 

the applicant has requested. The applicant knew and had every opportunity to understand 

the County Zoning Regulations when they started their development path and certainly 

before they applied for their re-zoning. Now, it seems that they don't want to play by the 

rules. Case law in Colorado concerning applicants request to change zoning to meet their 

needs has been struck down, 

" Landowner cannot create his own hardship and then require that zoning regulations be 

changed to meet that hardship. C.F. Lytle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1974)." 

Staff comments, in the letter from planning, are direct quotes from the application and do 

not necessarily represent the opinions of the County. Especially, the use of incorrect 

terms, errors that Staff would not have made, referring to a waiver of 18A, rather than an 

Appeal to 18A. There is a distinctive difference between the final staff letter and letters 

from staff regarding the original application and amendments. Apparently, this is a policy 

that has been utilized by planning for re-zoning applications. Since the impression that 

the comments are, in fact, those of the County; and the lack of disclosure of such an 

approach, creates a biased view of all applications. We question this policy, especially 

when the planning department has been provided documentation from both the pro- and 

con- side of the application that could have been included presenting a balanced, 

unbiased approach. Have the Planning Commissioners understood that this 

policy to use application language in place of actual staff comments, was 

in place? Can the Planning Commissioners be expected to utilize these 

biased quotes as anything but hearsay and marketing dialogue? 

The proposed conditions of approval for the Water Appeal only cite a commitment from 

Dominion to form an agreement with the "surrounding communities" and not with the 

applicant themselves. Why has Dominion provided no signed evidence that 

Page 4 of 5

they will or do actually have an agreement with the SR Applicants to 

provide the water supply for the development? Mssr's Hoagland and 

Smethills, principles in both SR and Dominion are (presumed) here at this meeting. Can 

not the applicants come into agreement with themselves; or, is there undisclosed intent? 

An undisclosed intent could explain the lack of documented legal and physical capacity 

to provide sanitation; could explain the lack of documented water supply or to not have to 

provide definitive provisions for a water supply; or could demonstrate that the applicant 

does not know for certain where they will get their water. 

The County is chartered to makes its decisions based on the evidence provided. State 

Law C.R.S. 30 includes a definition for what constitutes evidence: 

"Evidence" means any map, table, chart, contract, or other document or testimony, 

prepared or certified by a qualified person to attest to a specific claim or condition, which 

evidence shall be relevant and competent and shall support the position maintained by the 

subdivider." The position maintained by the applicant alone, does not constitute 

evidence. 

There are many, many more questions regarding the adequacy and non-adherence to 

County policy, however, I didn't want to completely inundate you. These seemed the 

most critical regarding the most significant aspects of zoning regulation and County 

policy and State Law. 

Thank you, 

Jennifer Riefenberg 

Page 5 of 5

STERLING RANCH - Douglas County

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?