HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 07.28.10July 28, 2O1O Planning Commission Exhibits
RESouth, RE North, RE East Service Plans
Carbondale lnvestments, LLC
Garfreld Resolution as amendedofUseLandnifiedUA
as amendedGarfreldve Plan of 2000B
RE South Service PlanC
RE North Service PlanD
RE East Service PlanE
StaffF
Staff PresentationG
H
2010 from Ford Directordated ResearchBBC2lI
Garfietd Assessor and Treasurer DataJ
Miller Rosenbluth PresentationK
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
\
Proprrsed Metrr> Districts
o oi 'k
H
I*
I
I
l-Egilflct
Gorlleld Counly ft;siartttfo e$rtt
srrdrrE Rrlch c},a,lrudts,l Esa?cc!
E'r,,
ilGhi/r--a
136 Ar llr.rh\.tlO'FD-l-iF CCllaat
vre$raltlr.:l?fiffi1't.,r.lo(.rErtoltIiErrai ry C,.ailaMEtl'tfi .u
EI
I
III E
trI
REQUEST
PROPERTY OWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
EXISTING ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2O1O
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Service Plan Review and Recommendation
Carbondale lnvestments LLC
Diane Miller- Miller Rosenbluth LLC
SouthoftheCityofGlenwoodSpringsonthewestsideof
HighwaY 82 at Cattle Creek
Suburban
Residential High DensitY
I. BACKGROUND
special districts are quasi-municipal corporations and political subdivisions that are organized to act for
a particular purpose. A metropolitan district is a special district that provides any two or more services
which may include fire protection, parks & recreation, safety protection, sanitation, solid waste, street
improvements or water, to name a few. A district has the ability to acquire bonds for the construction
of the improvements and to levy taxes, to the area within their boundaries, to repay those bonds' We
are familiar with the special district concept in Garfield county, particularly related to fire protection
districts and water andlor sanitation districts- Several metropolitan districB currently exist in the
County.
The formation of a special district entails a three-part proaess that requires obtainirg review and
approval from the locat governmentaljurisdiction, review by district couG and a special election' The
Garfield County Land Use Resotution of 2008, as amended does not contain specific provisions related to
the review of service planq therefore the process of submittal and review of the plans must be in
compliance with statutory requirements contained in Trtle 32 of the colorado Revised statutes- Those
statutory requirements inctude submittal of the seruice plans to the clerk for the board of county
commissioners, referral of the plans to the planning commission for review and recommendation to the
board within thirty (30) days of plan submitta!, and a public hearing with the board not more than thirty
(30) days after setting the public hearing date.
!!. GEIERAI TNFORMANOil AND SITE DESCRIPnON
The cterk and Recorder (Jean Albericol received petition for review of three (3) Rivers Edge service plans
on July L,zOtO and a public meeting was set with the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) on
July 12, 2O1O- At that meeting the Board discussed the review process for the plans and joined in on the
referral to the Commission for review and recommendation. The public hearing required for Board
review is to be scheduled at a public meeting to be held at least ten (10) days after receipt of the
planning commission recommendation. The public hearing must then occur within thirty (3o) days of
2
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
that meeting. The public meeting is scheduled on August 9, 2O1O with an anticipated public hearing
date on September 7,IOLO-
The three service plans are proposed to serve a, not-yet submitted, development plan which requires
County zoning and subdivision review and approval. An application for re-zoning has not been
submitted to the County. The service plans state that the "developmenf consists of approximately
23g.g4 acres, with up to 1,200 dwelting units, up to 5O000 square feet of commercial square feet,
12,000 sguare feet for an office/recreatircn/commerciat structure, a 150-room hotel, a school site, parks
and open space. The function of the districts will be to construct and maintain the public infrastructure
necessary to provide service to the development. The public infrastructure lnay include some or all of
the following:
Certain rcads/signage;
Public trail system;
Potable and non-potable water lines and associated facilities;
Wastewater collection lines and associated facilities;
Water tanks;
Administrative a nd office facilities;
Weed and pest control;
Fire protection facilities and service;
Fire hydrants;
Vegetation manipulation and management;
Drainage;
Transportation fucilities;
Public recreation improvements;
Other public improvements that may be necessary and appropriate.
The proposed boundaries encompass an area of
approximately t24Gacres that is divided into the three
districts; the East District (11.9-acres), the North District
(115.3l-acres), and the South District (112.7-acres).
Though each district will remain separate with individual
statutory power and authority, intergovernmental
agreements between the districts will designate the East
District to serve as the coordinating district. The East
District will be responsible for the review and approval of
construction plans for the public improvements as well as
the operation and maintenance of the public
infrastructure. lt is important to note that the service
plan state that the districts mav contract with other
entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities,
services and programs.
3
\
"t
[-^C6r-b Olrlde g{dn, U.P
RG 6od\ raq0L ad Ed
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
The estimated cost of the public improvements for the proposed development is tS60,000,(X)0 which
includes the acquisition of land, engineering services, legal services, administrative services, initial
proposed indebtedness, as well as other major expenses related to the facilities and improvements to
be constructed.
The proposed indebtedness of the districts will not exceed S4O,500,OOO, with repayment by revenue
generated by a proposed 45.00 mill lerrry (of which 35.0O mills will be for debt obligation and the
remainder for operating expenses). Additional property taxes will result for those properties within the
district bundaries and the future residents will also be subject to HOA dues; user fees for various
improvements including community facilities, internal transit, water/sanitation, and raw water; and a
facility fee of 1% of the home sale price.
I!I. ZONING ANDADJACENT USES
The Highway 82 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale contains several residential PUD'S,
lronbridge to the west and Aspen Glen to the south, as well as other residential subdivisions as shown
on the adjacent map. The cR 114 / CR 154 area to the north of the site contains commercial zoning with
retail uses such as the Thunder River Market area ard semi-industrial commercial uses such as Gallegos
stone yard, warehouses and fabrication activities and a mini storage facility- The high density H Lary F
Mobile Home Park is also located north of the service area boundary.
'[lt
E,* $nhgE
s|,riGlJrm
Ig@ :
Edge
Rirrers 'i
4
II
, .:r
!L
t,(D
&
i{
ll
.i
]:
!* r'.
:,
+J
,1r-'
'i i.
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2O10
The adjacent zoning map indicates that property
within the service area boundary is predominantly
zoned Residential-Suburban with a small (tl-acre)
area zoned Commercial General (the former site of
Sopris Restaurant). Commercial zoning, bth
limited and general, is located immediately to the
north and east of the site.
The ULUR contains general provisions of basic zone
districts in 53-101. Subsection l. states that the
"The Residential-Suburban zone district is
comprised of low-density suburban residential uses
developed to maintain a rural character-"
IV. HISTORY
This site, less the one acre commercial-zoned parcel, was zoned Sanders Ranch PUD by the Board in
2@1 and memorialized in Resolution 2OOL-27. This action rezoned the property from ARRD (Rura!) to
pUD to allow a site specific development ptan that included a golf course, 62 single-family units, and 168
multi-family units for an average denslty of .82 dwelling units per acre.
A preliminary plan compliant with the PUD was submitted under the name of Bair Chase and approved
by the Board in 2(X)4, memorialized in Resotution 20O4-98. A one-year extension for the Preliminary
plan was granted however that extension expired on September 13, 2005 rendering the Preliminary Plan
invalid.
The expiration of the Bair chase preliminary Plan, together with the fact that the development was not
in compliance with the approved Sanders Ranch PUD phasing plan, the entire PUD Plan was determined
to be invalid. The Board initiated action to revoke the PUD and rezone the site. Resolution 2m8-L1,2
memorializes both the revocation of the PUD and the rezoning of 228 acres of the property from PUD to
Residential-Suburban, but maintained the Sanders Ranch PUD conservation and open space zoning on
the 53-acre conservation easement held by Roaring Fork Conservancy. This 53 acres is part of the
property owned by Carbondale lnvestments, LLC and it is unclear to what extent this acreage is within
any of the proposed district boundaries.
A sketch plan apptication was submitted in 20O8 and revieured by the Planning Commission- That plan
proposed a high-density urban-style residential community comprised of a wide variety of residential
types totaling 979 uni6 a 25,OOO sq. ft. neighborhood commercia! center, 24,W sq- ft- of community
facilities, a school site, a 10,(m sq. fL firehouse and several community parks / fishing ponds.
ln October 20Og an application for Planned Unit Devetopment rezoning of the site was reviewed by
County staff however the application was withdrawn prior to any hearing on the request. That plan
5
commeQl
Publk
l'd
htrc
lld
PlI$c
rnd
I
\\
'+*
1
1
PUD
\
I
i,'
I
{
li
i)
ri
I
,iRl+l
Suburbrn -
\
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
proposed 1,0O6 dwelling units, 25,OOO square feet of commercial, a school site, 25,0(X) square foot
community center, recreation and opn space-
HISTORIC PROPOSA1S
Dwelling Units CommercialArea
Sanders Rsnch PUD
ln PUD denied,2d approved but
renoked
Soprh [levebpment GrouP
230
Uses accessory to golf
course, including
lodging, restaurant
and pro shop
Bair Chase (at Sanders Ranch PUDI
Prelirninarv Plan/PUD Amendment
-Approved, PP erpired, PUD
revoked as noted above
LinksVesVBair dtase, LLC
230 units
Uses accessory to golf
course, including
lodging, restaurant
and pro shop
Cattle Creek Crossins (sketch Planl
PC comments
Relatcd Westpac on behalf of RiYer
Bend Cobrado,llc
979 25,000 square feet
Cattle Creek Colorado (PUD
rezone) Withdrawn
Rehtcd WGctp* on behalf of
RiYer Berd Coloredo, LLC
1,0o6
25,000 commercial
uvith additional 25,000
square feet for
community center and
river club
Rivers Edee (service Plansl
Under Review
Carbondale lnvestments lIC 1,200
50,000 square
feet/12,OoO square
foot office
V. COMPREHENSIVE PI.AN
The property is located within Study
Area I which designates the area of
the property, outside of the
conservation easement, as "High
Density Residential" on the Proposed
Land Use Districts MaP which
proposes properties in this area
develop residentially at a density of 0
6
RES H (<2 AC/DU)
l7
RES M (6 TO <10 AC/DU)
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
to <2 acres per dwelling unit. The Suburban zoning complies with this designation
The density recommended in the Comprehensive Ptan for this are contains a very wide range - from 2
acres to 0 acres. The determining fuctor on the appropriate density would be compliance with the
goals, objectives and policies related to housing transportation, commerch! and industrial uses,
recreation and open space, water and sewer services, natural environment, and urban area of influence.
The proposed "development'' to be served by the districts may result in .2 acres per dwelling unit when
utitizing the whole property, however it is likely that the residential component will occur on less than
the whole property (due to the amount of commercial floor space proposed to occur) thereby reducing
the actual acres per dwelling unit.
Section ltl. Goals, Poticies and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include the following statements:
Goal: To ensure the provision of legal, odequote, dependable, cost-effective ond environmentally sound
sewer and woter seruicesfor new develapment.
OBJEGTIVES:
l.Z Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in
their central water/sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems.
POLIGIES:
7.2 Where logical, tegal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water andlor
sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within a reasonable
distance, to enter into the appropriate agreernents to receive service. The burden of proof regarding
logical, legaland economic constraints will be on the developr.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA& STANDARDS
Action on service olan - criteria 532-1-203
(U The board of county commissioners of each county which has territory included within the
proposed special district, other than a proposed special district which is contained entirelY within the
boundaries of a municipality, shall constatute the approving authority under this part 2 and shall review
any plan filed by the petitioners of any proposed special district. With reference to the review of any
service plan, the board of county commissioners has the following authority:
(a) To approve without condition or modification the service plan submitted;
(b) To disapprove the service plans submitted;
(c) To condit'pnally appncve the service plan subiect to the submission of additional information
relating to or the modification of the proposed service plan.
(2) The board of county commissbners shall disapprwe the service plan unhss evkl'errce
satisfactory to the board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the
proposed special district.
7
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs-
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its boundaries.
(d) The area to be included in the proposed specia! district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis'
(Z.Sy The board of cor.lnty commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactory to
the board of any of the folbwing at the discretion of the board, is not presented;
(a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, availabte to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipat corporations, including existing specia! districtt within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis.
(b) The fucility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and
service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each
municipality which is an interested party under 5 32-1-201 (1), C'R'S'
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 93G28-
106, C.R.S.
(d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area-
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interest of the proposed area to be
served.
(3) The board of county commissioners may conditionally approrre the service plan of a proposed
special district upon satisfactory evidence that it does not comply with one or more of the criteria
enumerated in subsectircn (2) of this section. Final approval shall be contingent upon modification of
the service plan to inctude such changes or additional information as shall be specifically stated in the
findings of the board of county commissioners.
(4) The findings of the board of county commissioners shatl be based solely upon the service plan
and evidence presented at the hearing by the petitioners, planning commission and any interested
party.
VII. STAFF CONCTRNSAND ISSUES
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL CRITERIA
932-1-202 (2), C.R.S. The service plan shall contain the following:
(a) A description of the proposed services;
Staff Comment: The plans provide o tist of potentiol services which moy - or may not - fu seruices thot
the districts provide. Metropoliton District is deftned by Stote Stotute os o sWciol district thot provides
ony two or more of o list of patentiol services. The following is excerpted Irom the Eost Distrid however
eoch of the plons includesthe some languoge:
8
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
The East District shall have authority to provide the fo g
facilities, which shall include the design, acquisition, installation' construction'
oPerationandmaintenanceofthesame.Inanyevent,eachoftheDistrictsmay
provide or be responsible for the provision of at least two (2) of the following
services pursuant to the stalutory requirements of a Metropolitan District as defined
in $ 321.103(10), C.R.S.: fire proteotion, mosquito control, parks and recreation,
safety prorecrion, sanitation, solid waste disposal facilities or collection and
transportation of solid waste, street improvementso television relay and translation;
on water,
This does not cleorly describe the proposed service, rother it is simply o list of oll the possible services
permitted by the statute.
(b) A financial plan showing how the proposed service are to be financed, including the proposed
operating revenue derived from property taxes for the first budget year of the district, which shall not
be materially exceeded except as authorized pursuant to section 32-t-2O7 or 29-L-3O2, C'R'S' All
proposed indebtedness fior the district shall be disptayed together with a schedule indicating the year
or years in which the debt is scheduled to be issued. The board of directors of the district shall notifo
the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality of any aheration or
revision of the proposed schedule of debt issuance set forth in the financial plan;
s f crmme'Ir BBC Reseorch hos fuen retained to review this aspect. o f the service plans on beholf oI
the County. Ford Frick, Monoging Director, hos responded thot
In our view, rhe Sen,ice Plars offer no rersonable demonstration of projected need fbr rhe services
provided b1'the districrs, u,hich is a requirement for district approv:rl' The projected service demands
and associated revenue projections are not reasonablv foreseeable and, in fact, cenuot be achieved
under current zoning. Tl're"f nancial projecrions reh, upon r developnrent quantitlr and schedule,
which hns no demonstrable -rracricalbasis. In our view. the district Plans fail to meet rhe minimunr
criteria necessarv for appror'el.
(c) A preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be
provided;
Staff comment The submitted ptons do contoin preliminory maps showing, in o very generol monner,
the lxation of severol proposed services/focilities-
(d) A map of the proposed special district boundaries and an estimate of the population and
valuation for assessment of the proposed special distric!
Staff Gomment: Mops of the proposed district boundories were provided os well os the voluotion for
ossessrnent. The estimote of the populotion is 3,72O percons'
9
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
(e) A general description of the facilities to be constructed and the standards of such construction,
including a statement of how the facility and service standards of the proposed special district are
compatible with facility and service standards of any county within which all or any portion of the
proposed special district is to be located, and of municipalities and special districts which are interested
parties pursuant to section 32-L-2C4r$f
Staff Comnenu The servie ptons for the three oreos includes conceptuol mops for the public focilities
ond improvements which moy be provided directly or by controct with Districts or other public and/or
private entities to undeftoke such functions or perform such responsibilities. The conceptuol plon
includes "estimotes only which ore subject to mdificotion os engineering, development plons,
economi5, ond applicoble requirements, ond construction scheduling moy require-"
pubtic lmprovements section of eoch of the plons, lll. C., provides o stotement, below, thot primory
improvemen* (seruices) thot they will provide ore streets, storm droinoge, pork ond recreotion ond
other:
I Public Improvements The primary improvements fo he operated
and rnainlained by the East District on an on-goirg basis include those
associated vith streets, storm dralnage, park and recreatiurr alrd othct scrvicis
as dcscribed hcrcin. Coortlino:ion betrveen the Districts and RFWSD regarding
potabte water an.d sewer facilitics and services malr be necessafy. other
asscciated improvements that will be Dperated and maintained by the Bast
Disuict ol by thc Ivtaslcr Association rrill be landsoapcd ctrtronces and other
common open Lreai (such as parks) p.nd recreation facilities, transportation
facilities. tike/recreation/pedestrian paths, rightot'-uay maintenance' sueet
lighting, street signs, safety protection facilitics, purkilg facilitics' and cthcr
irnprovcmcnts sct forth in this Service Plen. oniy public improvements rvill be
constntcterl hY the East District
The standords are discussed in lll B. of eoch of the plons:
B. General Desien Standards
Improrements within the East Distr:ct will be designed and installed by
the East District in general conformance with current standards adopted by the
East District and established through the Developmen; requirements or as may
be further required, if appropriate, in an applicable subdivision improtements
agreement or an lGA. All improvements to be dedicated to a qualified entity
shall comply with such entity's rules and regulations'
\he governing body of any existing municipality or speciat district...within a radius of three miles of the proposed
special district boundariet which governmental units shall be interested parties--.
10
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
The 'conceptuol' plan provides 'generol' information regording the focilities, such os parks ond
recreotion focitities, ond sofety protection focilities - however the plon des not discuss, os required,
how those focitities ond the service stondords moy be computible with other districts or municipolities.
(f) A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal
servies, administrafive service, initia! proposed indebtedness and estimated proposed maximum
interest rates and discounts, and other major expenses related to the orBanization and initia! operation
of the district.
Staff Comrrent: The plons provide estimoted costs for the construction of improvements os follows:
Preliminarv Eneineering Cost Estimates
Note: Costs are based on unit linear foot prices for road, trail, sidewalk and utilities and unit square
foot prices for recreation and landscaped areas as presented in plan exhibits-
North
TGill
$ttrt l
'fr{t
etd
!{ilnt
1
Lll}s
s
Glt t
tld.Gr
11
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY28, 2O1O
South
East
D0sttlct Cost Toarl oo.tt
-ffiqtffis
ffi€r
Wrtr|'
Iot l
DktridCost
rnd s[rucurcs s
s
t@w Wrlet
SStol.l
$wer tftrc$.nJ 3'
$
SrDtot l
Id.l
t2
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
The plons do not include the required estimoted cost of ocquiring lond, engineering services, legol
services, or odministrotive services.
(g) A description of any arrangement or proposed agreement with any potitical subdivision for the
performance of any services between the proposed special district and such other political subdivision'
and, if the form contract to be used is available, it shall be attached to the service plan;
staff comment The plans state thot they moy enter into ogreements with other districts, porticulorly
the Corbondole ond Rural Fire protection District ond the Raoring Fork Woter & Sonitotion Distrid,
however no orrongements or propBed ogreemenB were mode ovoiloble.
(h) lnformation, along with other evidence presented at the hearing, satisfactory to establish that each
of the crtteria set forth in section 32-1r-2O3, if applicable, is met;
Staff GommenU Section 32-7-203 contoins the criterio for oction on the plons- This section will fu used
to determine the findings and recommendotion tothe Boord'
(i) Such additional information as the board of county commissioners may require by resolution on
which to base its findings pursuant to section 32-L-2O3;
staff comment section g2-7-2o3 contains the criteria for oction on the plons. This section will be used
to determine the findings ond recommendotion tothe Boord'
PREMATURE NATURE OF REQUEST
Garfield County has several existing; functioning metropolitan districts including Mid-Valley
Metropolitan District, the Battlement Mesa Metropotitan District and the Consolidated Metropolitan
District (also Batttement Mesa). Non-functioning but existing districts include Rose Ranch Metro and
Landis creek Metro L &.2.1t appears that in a malority of instances that the service plans were reviewed
concurrent with the devekcpment review for the proposed proiect that the district was to sen'e'
The current review of the Rivers Edge service plans is different in that it is asking to serve a development
that not only is not approved, has not even been submitted for review, and does not currentf have the
zoning to complete. staff is concerned that the approval and creation of the districts by the county
would be an implicit agrc€ment of the proposed development plan. Further, the creation of a
governmental entity may relieve the County of some review components of the proposed and highly
speculative Project.
Staff has contacted numerous ptanners, attorneys, and other consuttants familiar with formation of
metropolitan districts and there was consensus that the petitioners would not be able to demonstrate a
need for the districts if development were not atready approved or being reviewed in conjunctbn with
the service plan review. Ejrhibit t, the report from BBC Research prwides that:
13
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
The submittal of metropoliran diEricr plans and request for rpprolalwithout ir corresponding and
preceding counrv revie*' ,rnd suhdMsion apprortl process is unusual and outside the bounds our
**p.ri*n.-". The rhree lv.Ierropolitan Districr Senice Plirns presented to (lart'ield Counq'anticipat'e'a
e-.ertlin level and scale of ,l*u*loprrl*nr, w'hich cirnnot be eccommodattd under current zoning' The
counry proftssion.rl srrfl, policl'makers irnd tlre public has h,rd no oPPomuniw to review irnd
conrnlenr on irlplied subdivision plans rlrrt underlie the districts' tinlncial profections. The district
Service Plans provide no substarr,ir,e ,uppo* for the pace, price. cost or scale o[ the anticipartd
developmettt :rnd infrastrucru re requiremetrts.
REDUNDANCY OF SERVICE
The Board and commission shoutd consider 532-L-Lo7l2l which provides that a district may be
organized wholly or partly within an existing special district, but shall not provide the same services as
an existing district. Overlapping districts may be authorized to provide the same services only if:
a) The Board approves inctusion of service as part of the service plan of an overlapping districU
b) tmprovements of fucilities to be financed, established, or operated by an overlapping special
district do not duplicate or interfere with existing or planned improvements or facilities to be
constructed within portions of existing districts that new districts will overlap; and
c) The board of directors of the overlapped district must consent.
See maps contained in Exhibit H for special district boundaries. Clearly the proposed metropolitan
district boundaries will overlap the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District as well as the service
area of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The ptans propose that they "maf contract with
these entities to provide service, but the petitioner has not provided consent from either the fire
protection district or the water and sanitation district. Section 31-1-107(3)(c) provides that nothing in
this section is to be construed to encourage unnecessry proliferation, duplication, overlapping or
fragmentation of a special or metropolitan districts-
REVTEWCRITERIA
32-t-2O3 C.RS. - (staff comments are provided after each section in itolia).
(2) The board of county commissioners gha[ disapprove the service plan unless eviderrce
satisfactory to the board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the
proposed special district.
Staff Comment Evidence hos not been provided regording the existing ond proiected need for ugonized
service for the oreo contoined within the service plons. Current entitlemenB for a maiority of the
property would ollow for the construction of one single-fomily home, while the +7-ocre porcel of
commerciol zoned land would be permitted commerciol development. tt is high,y unlikely that this oreo
hos on existing need, ond ony development on the porcel is highly speculotive given the current zoning,
ond economic climote. Therefore thefe k no evidence of o proieded need.
L4
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
Further, the service plons discuss the RE District provision of woter ond sonitotion service ond fire
protection seryice, however these facitities will, or moy, be dedicoted to, ond seruices witl be controcted
to, existing speciol districts. There is no evidence of existing or proiected need for orgonized services to
be prwided hy the RE Districts os some, if not olt, olthe proposed services ore olreody provided by other
distriAs.
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs,
Staff C.omment: Evidence has not been provided thot the existing seruice is inodequote for present ond
projected needs. As stoted obove, the existing districts--fire protection ond woter/sonitotion, ore
sufficient to serve the proposed oreo os the service plons stote thot they will controd with these two
entities for service. The proposed RE servie oreo is curcently entitled to t7 ocre of commerciol
development and one single fomily home.
(c) The proposed specia! district is capable for providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its boundaries.
Staff @mnrent The seruice plons hove not demonstroted thot they con provide economicol ond
sulficient service. potentiolfuture residents of the development will poy odditionol proWrty toxes, HoA
dues, user fees for the seruicx ond facilities, ond will be subied to o focilities fee in the omount of 1% of
the soles price af the unit. This is highly speculative given that the proposed development is not currently
opproved, and the future density of the development is unknotnn. The seruice plons hove not odequotely
demonstroted thot they ore copoble of providing economicol ond sufricient service to the areo-
(d) The area to be included in the proposed specia! district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Staff Comr nt Given the highly spculotive noture of the 'proposed" development it hos not been
demonstroted thot the proposed speciol districts will hove the finonciol obility to dischorge the proposed
indebtedness on a reosot oble bosis.
lZ.S1 The boaril of courfi commissionerc rnay disapprove the servke plan if widence satsftbry to
the board of any of the foltrcwing at the discretion of the board, is not Presented;
(a) Adequate service is not, or wilt not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipa! corporations, including existing specia! districts, within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis.
Staff Comnrent The opplicortt hos not provided sufficient evidence regarding this issue, porticulorly
since the current districts oppeor to be copobte of providing odequote service given thot there is no
,.development'' approvol for the site other thon t7 ocre of commerciol ond one single'fomily home. To
ossume any level of future development on the site is highly spculotive.
15
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission JulY 28, 2010
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and
service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each
municipality which is an interested party under 32-L-2OL l1l.
Staff Comment: The seruice plans do not discuss nor provide informotion sufficient to moke this
determinotion.
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 3G28-106,
c.R.s.
Staff Comnrent The Comprehensive Plan des indicote thot High Density Residentiol uses (O to less thon
2 ocres per dwelting unit) moy be appropriate in this areo (as indicated by the existing suburbon zoning
which complies with this designotian), howeverthe proposed density of .2 ocres pr dwelling unit is
speculative.
The 6jedive, policies ond gools of the Cunprehensive Plon
does not support the provision of redundont services.
(d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regionalor state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Staff C.omment This orea is not subied to o 2O8 Plon.
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interest of the proposed area to be
served.
Staff Comment: The oreo to be served is currently vocont lond with no humon inhobitonb, no
development opprovol. lnodequote informotion hos fuen submitted to demonstrote thot the creotion of
districts, to provide selice to o non-existent populotion, is the best interest of the oreo proposed to be
serued.
VIII. SIAFF RECOMMENDATION
Disapproval of the service plans is required if the Board is not provided satisfactory evidence on any one
of the following: that there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service; that existing
service is inadequate for present and projected needs; district is capable for providing economical and
sufficient service; the proposed special district has, or wil! have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed indebted ness.
Disapprovalof the service plans is discretionarv with regard to issues related to non-compliance with
the Crmprehensirre Plan; that adequate service is no! or will not be, available to the area through the
county other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporationg including existing special districts; that
the facility and service standards are compatible with the facilitbs and standards of the county and any
'interested par$ municipality; compliance with water quality plans; that the formation of the dlstricts is
in the best interest of the area to be served.
15
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission July 28, 2010
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends disapproval of the RE South Service Plan,
the RE North Service Plan and the RE East Service Plan as required by 32-L-2O3 (2) (a) and (b) and 32-1-
203 (2.5) (a), (b), (c), and (e) with specific findings below and the chart on page 18:
1. 32-L-2O3 (2) (alThere is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area
to be serviced by the proposed special district.
The petitioner has not demonstrated that that there is existing or projected need for any of
the listed proposed services. The proposed district boundaries have entitlements for +l-acre
of commercial use and the ability to construct one single-family home. The projected need,
the propsed development of 1,200 dwelling units and up to 70,0fr) square feet of
commercial area, cannot be determined prior to submittal of numerous development plans
for County raniew, plans which may or may not be approved.
2. 32-1-203 (2) (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is
inadequate for present and projected needs.
The service area for the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District, and the district boundaries of
the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District overlap the proposed metropolilan district
boundaries. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated the need for additional organized
service in the area. Approval of the service plans rlrould result in overlap of district boundaries
andlor redundancy of certain services.
3. 32-L-2O3 (2-5) (al Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the
county or other existing municipa! or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special
districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis.
The petitioner has not demonstrated that adequate service is not, or will not be, available within
a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The existing fire protection and water/sanitation
service is currently adequate to serve the area within their boundaries and service plan areas.
4. 32-!-203 (2.5) (b) The facility and service standards of the proposed specialdistrict are
compatible with the facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed
specialdistrict is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under 32-1-
zoLlLl.
The petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed facility and service standards are
compatible with other special districts, the County or interested party municipalities.
5. 32-L-2O3 (2.S) (c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted
pursuant to section 3G28-106, C.R.S.
The service plans do not include an analysis of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
therefore they have not demonstrated that the proposal is in substantial compliance.
t7
Rivers Edge Service Plans
Planning Commission July 28, 2010
6. 32-L-2O3 (2.5) (e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interest of the
proposed area to be served.
The proposed district boundary contains vacant land with no entitlements other than for one
single family home and approximately l-acre of commercial development. The County has not
review, nor even received, an application proposing the "development'' that the districts
propose to serve. That "development'' is speculative and therefore the County cannot
determine the need for the services at this time-
18
\
N
I
I
Proposed Metro District
0 o5
Gorfield Counly
Legend
E Proposed Metro Didrict
I sanders Ranch conseruation Easement
lf Dteadmr.nt
lOE tti ShclSuib,ffI2
Olenvaad Sprlaop, CO El 601
770.?S.tt77 xlSeg
L:UtapfrbsBuildingAndPlanningKathy Eastleruvk;troDMrbtlTll.md tuv/,sbn 3: 7'21-10
N
BLM
E
1
1
11
1
dis
6tl
ll
11
&
b@
1
a1
117
Proposed Metro Districtl 3 l}Iile Radirrs
o 0.5 1 2
ifrles
N Legend
If llo*ttmtnt
lfi Elt ShclSnlto{02
Oleanoad Spriag, CO El6Ol
c7O.i45,lS77 x1590
tlMapfilesBuildingAndPlanningwathy Ea leytMefioDi*bt1MileBufier17ll.md Reuuo/l 1: 7-21-10
Propoed Metro Distrbt
Sanders Ranch Conseruation Eaement
3 Mile Buffer
BLM
Gorfield Counly
EI
ET
117
l'
Proposed Metro District= Fire Districts
o o.5 1 2
-ttllos
Legend
N
Gorfield Counly
[qEr::f- -i.,rrr.:-.1 IE
Glenwood Spnhgs & Rural Fire Protedion Asfict
Carbmdale & RuralFire Prctedion Asfict
Proposed Metro District
lf (repadm.a,
lOE Eth Sfiotiulio{O2
Cr.awood sFrrtr9E, CO tldOI
e79,945.1S77x I5e0
I sanders Ranch &nselatiot't Easement
l:lllapfrbsBuildingAndPlanningWathy Eadlefit/letroDistrbtTa(Entiul-1711.nxd tuizlsion 1:7-22-10 ET 3 Mile Buffer
1
,l
127
1,17
1
64
11
113
bs
11
o 0.5 2
-Mll€s
Proposed Metro District= Other Taring Entities
Legend
m spring vatley sanitation Distid
[-flli; Roains ForkWater & Sanitation Didnd
ffi Landis creek Metro Districts 1 & 2
-
l-I ProPosed Metro District
I Sanders Ranch hnseruation Easment
EI, Mite Burrer
1
Gsrfield Counly
N
lf Depa,lmcnt
10t Elh Shelsuflc{12
Glczwood Sprinfl, CO El60l
970,945,t577 r15W
L:lttapfileslguildingAndPbnninglKary EadlcyltthfroDistrbtTaxtutity2-17ll.nxd tuvtsrbn 1: 7-22-10
lt5
10.F
1
t1
6'l
t!}a
b@
117
lROF
lFOF
I
'do
tl
1R.2N
1R4l
Proposed Metro District: fax Distriets
o o5 2
Mtles
Gorfield Counly
Legend
I-l Prooosed Metrc DistnctE
I sanders Ranch @nseruation Easement
-
!.Js Mite Burrer
N
If D.podm.ttt
10tElhShE SuDG4ir2
Glcnvood Sprlnep, CO E160l
?70,945..1377 xl59O
L:lM apfr b sB u N i n g And P la n n i ngKath y Eadle$MefioDisttbtTax ElstidslTl 1. mxd Rely/,sbn 1 : 7-22'1 o
'!
r&rsLc
10-NrSLC!
1
tsttc
RssEARc{ Ec
CoNzurrINc
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
103.121.2547 fax 303. 399'O448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bboesearch.com
July2l,2OlO
Ms. Kathy Easdey, AICP
Senior Planner
GarEeld County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 219
Glenwood Sprinp, CO 81601
Re: Rlvers Edge lletropolltan DlttdGt Sewlce Plans
Dear N{s. Easdey:
This letter reprt is in response to the Garfield County Commissioners' request for BBC Res€arch 6C
Consulting'siggCl review of the economic, market and financial elements of three related
Meuopo[Ln District Service Plans (Plans), which were submiced for county consideration relative
to a planned real estate Proiect near Carbondale, Colorado'
The following offers a brief revies, of the pertinent elements of the service Plans; an evJuadon of
zoning rlrd d*.lop^ent rights on the subject properr)r; a summarf of metropolitan disuict
formation requirementq and condu.ions regarding the appropriateness of the proposed districrs'
The Metropolltan Dtstdct Sewlce Plans
Three Metropolimn Disuicr Service Plans were filed with Garfield Cot"'t,'in association with a
planned, but not yet approved, residential and commercial development referred to in dre Plans as
'Nom
Edge.These three ProPosed districts would provide specified public services for approximately
240 acteat theiunction of-Cn 113 and SH 82 near C-arbondde, Colorado' The South and Nonh
disuicts anticipate essentially residential development. The East district' which encompasses slighdy
lsss than one acre, anticipates general commercial dwelopmenr
Dlstrlct powefj. The collective Plans would allow construction, management and maintenance of a
wide array of public infiestrucnrre, including utilities, fire protection, recreation, streets and
transporarion sy$ems. Each Plan is similar in form and they share common descriptive dements'
The purposa for forming multiple districts are documented in the service Plans' currendy' the
subje6 iroperry is larg.i racrni *irt .t . enception of the East district, which contains a small
amount of commercid uses.
Development profectlonl. In combination, the three disuics anticipate serving 1'200 units of
residential derrelopment, a 150-room hotel, roughly 50,000 square feet of comrnercial development' a
12,000 squ.are foot officdmulti-function buildilg, and a school district-owned elementary school'
The dwelopment plan underlying the district s.r"i.. Plan suggests residential con$rucdon will
commence in 2013 and will ,;.r"g. about 237 units per year during peak period development
(201&2018).
The Service Plans reference 'the dweloper' as the source for these projections'' The documents s*te
the "assumptions upon which this service Plan are gpnerally based are reflective of current zoning for
the properry withinthe dwelopmenu'Th. s"*io Plans anticipate future changes in property
;;;: Tir. finarrcing plans io, th. districts are based on revenues from ad vdorem ProPert)' *,xes'
specific ownership ,.Jp., and a facilities fee." The information in the financial plan (Chapter 5) is
characterized * "Or.lr;';;i,, n"*.."n Eogt*-g cou. estflates for roadwalts' utilities' trafu and
recreation "r. *rrr..d to local engineers and also qudry as preliminary in nature'
In addidon to o,r rwiew of these docrrmenrs, BBC representatives have discussed these applicadons
with representatives of the counry planning departrnent, the 1un-1l. attornds office as well as
representatives of the applicant to better understand the basis for disuict proiecdons' current
entitlements for the properrF, existing zoning and the county's Proc€ss for revien'ing meuopolitan
disuict applicadons.
Page2
For the purPos€s of this analPis,
district Service Plan:
arention hes been focused on the following sections ofea'*'
r Chapter II - Need for New Districts and General Powers
r Chapter IV - The Costs and Revenue Sources
r Chapter V - Financial Plan
r Exhibit D - Financing Plan
Ve have also reviewed pertinent Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS)'
The Subfect Property and Parcel Devel'opment nbhts
over the years, the subject ProPert)' has been the target of multiple dwelopment plans and
subdivision applications. li i. "* understanding that parcel number 2393-182-00-102' the 281-rcte
Iargety roia*,i4 parael, is enqrmbered by a5iaaeperpetual consenration easement and the
Roaring Fork Transit Authoriry maintains a rail corridor that bisects the northern half of the
properry- The 281-acre site is zoned Rcsida*ial subarban,which permits single unit dn'ellinp with
"..Lty buildingp on a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots'
' RE Sou.h Meuopolitan District Service Plan' pg'10'
'IB[D, pg.tt.
3IBID, pg.tt.
a IBID, pg.t8.
Page 3
fusuming that 20 pelc€nt of the parcel is wentually lost to roa&, public improvemens and park land
the maximum development ,rrd., **ot zoning would be roughly 400 unis (281 acres' net of
conservation dedications and public areas, dirid,i by 20,000 squiue foot minimum lots size)' Other
prop€rr,, constrainrs, including a notable heron rookery' sugBest that maximization of the current
iing'rn ybe difficult. A residential zoning allowance is not a use by righl Any intensive
-
development of this properry under current or future zoning be/ond the state allowances of one unit
per 35 acres, will require suMivision review and approval by Garfield C'ounry'
parcel number 2393472-00-001 is a rou$rly one-acre site, zond ammncizl Gcnaal (cG)' which
p..*i., dl commercial activity by righ., including lodging retail and professiond offic1 cG zoning
requires a minimum lot size otl',sodsquare feet- It is doubfirl that a l5Gbed hotel and 72'000
square feet of commercial activity and requisite pnrkinS as propmed in the Plans' could physically be
.o.rra*"t d on this site on just over one acre of land'
Market demand for both the commercial and residential dwelopment o<pectations under$ng the
financial elements of these plans is speculative'
Gountlr Dlstrlct Bevlew Requlrements
colorado Rwisd Statutes define the submittal requirements for metropolitan disuict service plans'
The Garfield counry Artorne/s office will comment on the completeness of these applications'
Colorado Rfvised Stanrtes Section 32-l'203 requires thar the board of county commissioners
disapprove a service ptan unless satisfactory o,id.rro is presented to the board regarding each of the
following criteria:
(a) There is sufficient uisting and projected ned for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed sPecial disuicc
(b) The aisting service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and Proiected needs.
(c) The proposed sp€cial district is capable of provifing economical and su-fficient service to the area
wifiin its ProPosed boundaries'
(d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, orwill have' the financid ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis'
Concluslons
'W'e oftr the following onclusions and observations:
The submittal of metropolitan disuict plans and request for approval without a corresponding and
preceding @unty review and suMivision approval Procfss is unusud and outside the bouods our
op.ri.ol. The three Metropolitan Distri;senice Plans Presented to Garfield Co'oty anticipate a
certain lenel and sele of dwelopment, which qrnnot be accommodated under cr[rent zoning' The
counr), professional saff, policy makers and the public has had no oPPoftuniry to rwion and
Page 4
commenr on implied subdivision plans that underlie the disuics' financial projections' The district
service Plans provide ,ro *brt*tir. supPort for the pace, price, cost or scale of the anticipated
development and infrastrucnrre requirements'
It is not uncommon for a metropoliun disuict application to provide very limited market data and
limited support for infrastrucnrre cost estimates, but generally market and infrasmrcnue cost issues
have been fullyvetted during the subdivision review pr*, whictr this applicant has not initiated'
The prospect of oboir,ing "pprorrd"
for the level of develoPment proposed in these district Plans is
highly speculadve.
In our view, the Service Plans offer no reasonable demonsrradon of projected need for the services
provided by the disuicts, which is a requirement for district approval- The projarcd service demands
and associated revenue proiections are not reasonably foreseeable and' in fact' cannot be achieved
under currenr zoning. the-finanaal projections rely upon a dwelopment quantity and schedule'
which has no demonstrable practical-basis. [n our view, the district Plans fail to meet the minimum
criteria n@essary for aPProval.
In d.iscussions with the applicanCs attorney, a point was made for consideration of these Service
plans, wen if rh.y are deemed more speculatire than uaditional Plan applications- It is rhe applicant's
opinion that the propert}, owner is unable to negotiate with dre Roaring Fork Traruit Authority
(RFTA) for necessary access qrsements across A. nffA right of way without an institution' zuch as a
metropolitan district, that might hold a prospective €asement' yxy for improvemens and generally
mke raponsibility for.*"ri"g tn **ft ti"n of any negotiated arran8emen6' BBc has made no
independent investigations into this situation. If the counry wishes to orpedite the final suMivision
of .hir long disputed properrF, Gaffield coooty might seek other means bywhich it could facilitate
o, .uppora ahose access discussions without accepdng the consequences of empowering new
-euopolit n districts prior to appropriate entidement approvals'
we very much appreciate dre oppomrnity m review and comment on drese applications' ve
anticipate rqrresenting tha. firrdinp at an upcoming Gafidd cooot)'Planning commission
meeflng.
Sincerely,
Ford C. Frick
Managing Director
Accotmt
Account R111349
h*tiqP
Percpt Number 2393- 1824& 102
SitlsAddrc$E2HWY
(xtyGlqtwoodSPrinP
ZipCodcEl60l
TuAra0ll- IRlttF-0ll
Lcal SunrcrY S€G:tion: 7 TurnSiP: 7
xffii$ pARiEL A: A TR oF IAIID IN
iffi +,cz,e t 9 AND IPT 3l oF sEc I'
rryN ZS frCB 89W LYING W OF THE
WLY ROW LINE FOR II$IY E A}'ID
r.VNtC E OT TIE ELY ROW LINE FOR
TTP OANCWNT- H(CEPT A TR DESC IN
sK r r+a PG %1 & BK r22E PG 600'
FenctL st ATR IN Lars l23,4,6J -
HSn S Of SEC lq LOTII 3,4J,8,A1'ID 9
OF SEC 7 T ? S R E8 W AI{D I.OTS
i-i-io.tt.tz,tt AI.ID 25 oF sEc l2' Lor
ii br suc I T 7 s R E9 w. PARCELG: A
rn nI LOr+ Or sEC 7 T 7 S RES W
ivnrowon wLY Row FoRIIwYE2&
E oi ruv row rt)R DRcwRR PARCEL
nt n rnOr UXP IN SEC 7 T 7 S R 88
w.
Iranc&rs
Sele Prico
(hncrNemcCARBONDALE
INVESTT}ffi}ITS,LI.,c
Owler Addrc*s 801 TLIRILE CREEK
BLVD.APT6E
DAITX.$TX7919
Actusl(2010) $11384530
PrimarYTerablc $3302'090
TerArcn: 0ll MitlLa'Y: 570?50
mg AGtrd Acr*cd Acrct
I^aDd $tlJS6J3O $,3(P-m ?81523
BookPegc
$0
s0
Solo Datc Doc TYPo
ffagegp _aLA
0u!91201! ill
l.'4D3,rW2 3I5
0guAoig NA'r
..Ingc .Iar-Hutq
IuYear Tare a
a
Photo
GJS
*2010
2W
$1E8,466.80
lrEt466.S
' Estimdsd
h@s://rct.garfield-cormty.com/@jsp?rycountNurn= I 1349 7lt4a0r0
oe*g.gls$..'-qltio+.. . . . .
A.qgqg=qfEnlo-u . ,.
1..-
Account
Accounfi R111280
Percel Numbcr 2393{72{0-00 I
Situs AddrGsc 00'/215 E2HWY
CtyGl€rs,oodS@gr
?JpCodcEl60t
ferArcr0ll - lR+dF-0ll
Leed Suumary Seciion: 7 TownshiP:
i frrsc, 88 TRIII LOT 2 CONT' 'E4
AC, ALSO, 3 TRS OF LAND CONT
A TOTAL OF 253 AC AS DESC IN
BK 1228PG605.
T."ag+H,E_
SolePrt G
$750,000
s9-85,000
Page I ofl
4ts9.$ilt"n!g!?l9.IY.P,y-negln|9;.1p..q.!i.on
Orncr NInoCARBONDALB
INVESIIMENTqLLC
tlms lOdtoro 5 I2I PARK I^AI'{B
DALI-AS,TX75220
Acruel (2010)
PrlmaryTaxaDtc
TrrArca:0ll Mitl Leny: 5?.0750
Lstd $464'210 $134,64) 4761f'000
Dpe .. $e{,4#4saE "!fl-p""t "-rt $25a9{[) fR'34O l'000
$717,1 l0
$2ffl860
Snhlfde
06/30/2010
06130/?0!a
0!/-0612006
0811.?120Q5
IDoc TYPe
432
N,5
WD
SA
BootrPage
B' 1364Pt20
B: 17"64--P:.-l-e-
TrrfIEtq$(
TrrYear
rp!-ge
a
aTexes Sketc-h
GIS*2010
N
$11,869.32
311,t69.32
* EstimaEd
htps://actgarfield-county.com/assessor/taxweb/acco,ntisp?acco,ntlrlun--Rl
l1280&doc= 7n4n0fi
Garfteld GountY
Stabrnent Of T
Treasurer
axes Due
Ptmcl 2393182001@
01,E84,6',t
$r88,'16.ql
SItpAd&r*
gAIilDLOf HKil{WAY82
ffiilils
lo-00
$9.136.40
Yltrot
100Ac&tP
IEAMYHAY{GRCLIRL
Td
A.cG#I*@b.r Rll l3+9
AssoscdTo
YE
20fi,
2009
Chrg.8
ffirEst
Tat
E hte
9r,884.67
SO4/33,{O
Fir*lWIIrcasot 07trltzul0
SeconO }laf Itua re of 07roil2010
Ts Eilbd * 2009 R& fcTu Are0t I - lR+lF - 0l
fo.00
$oo,rra07
Acfud AtsEsEed
$11,381,150 te.SO530
ullt) $5,3S0 tr,str)
811,386,5s $t.@.(B0
t
Afidlt,
GARFE.OCOTB'frY
GARFEI.D-RSD&BRIDGE
GARf, IE.D - IT'IHAN SEFI'IGES
.GARFE..D-CEP EXPEI{D
CARBOT€AIE EreGEN
BAETTWAIERCOITISER
3oo nnanwATERcot!.s, '
SCIIOOLOIST FFIGEN i
RE-t MILL I'EVY OVERRIT,L,
RE-I-BOND
CO{.ORADO MTI{ GOI-IEGE
GARRETDCOUNTY UBRARY
. CARBOiDA'-EARLRALFRE{S{
lalesHlhd2@9
'Crcdltl3vy
fSL6Y
7.C!80m
2381@o
05zlm00
228g1000
t91outro
O0a/t0ffi
0.lomlffi
21.ffi
2.8e30000
6.2S00m0
3.SS70000
1.mffnm
t3lfllm
fuP{d
126,1ssrs
9,474
ll,E8Efl'
37,55E-48
$19,51S36
$f/f5.4
3548.15
gr2z1o-11
$0,32r.80
$20,780.05
$14198.45
ss,30zm
t4,365.40
v'
57.075m00 $188'46610
ATI-TA)(uEN SALE Al'o'Sfiri ARE St ts'Egr TO CHAI'|GE tXE TO EltEORSErEift OF CIJRRENT TA)GS ['\T THE
LIEN,O-I)ER OR TO AEilEFIIHI{G AI[) DNSTRAI'|I wARR/AlIr FEES. CIIAI{GES ri{AY OCGT.|R AM} Tlf TREA,S'RENS
OFFICE UflT- iGED TO BE @NTA TED PRBIOREDIITTAT{CE AFTERfiEFOU-O'I,OC IIAIES: PERSOT'IA PROFERIY
AilD [mEItE tlOi,ES - SPTilER l' 2O1O'
BE PAID BY CASH ORCASHIERS CHECK'
GeIfi dd @r.Erty TI€asJr€t
P.O. Bol(1009
Glerusood Sprhgs, @ 81602-1069
(970)94ffi82
REALPROPERTY-OgTO8ffi I,a)lo-TA)(SA1E REDEttF-IlOsl AIIOUi{rS f'f,Er
trget Occcnffion
TTouttefff:
frEE ttl
rilt ITII on FIe
July 30, 20L0
As Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners l, Jean Alberico,
did receive five (5) copies of the Planning Commission
recommendation regarding the RE North, RE South, and RE East
Seruice plans, compliant with State Statute.
7/s"/7,
ame Date
W
SEAL