Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.01 Service Plan Presentation 7-28-10Planning Commission Public Meeting July 28, 2010 Vicinity Map Photos Photos ±282-Acre Site CATTLE CREEK H Lazy F Mobile Home Park Roaring Fork River Ironbridge Entitlements The area conta ined in the service plans cons i st of two pro pe rti es owned by Carbondalle lnvestln e nts 1 LLC _ A 281-acre si1te a nd a 4 7 ~'6 11 sq u are foot paroet The current zc0 rnin g1 on th 28 #1-a c re is Residenti a l Suburban )wh 1ile (Commercial General zoning )occurs on th e ±1-acre arce L Resi d enti a l(Suburban kon in g perm1i1ts th e foillowincl uses by ri gh t:) Accessory Bu ild i ng/Structure Sing le-unit Dwe lli ng Foster Hom e Neighborhood Substati on Oil/Gas drill i ng & production Pa r k T e m p Housing Faci lit y -small T e lecomm facility no ncommercial Trai l, T ra i lhea d, Road til ity Distribution Fa ci l ity Th Con1m erc ial General on ing a lllows( all comn1ercial activ ity incl udi ng lodging, retail , J nd rofe ssional office s uses by riight ±281 acres The property owner could divide the parcel into 35-acre parcels utilizing Senate Bill 35, without benefit of County review. The result would be 8 35-acre sites. Entitlements 47,611 sq.ft. RE South District Boundary The South District consists of approximately 112. 7 acres anticipa ted to incl ude 4 13 residential units planned foot m ixe d office, E • I trict Boundary The North District consists of approximately 115.31 acres anticipated to include 787 residential units planned for a portion of the residential component of the Development including affordable housing units and an elementary school on a 12. l acres site. • • • ·,-~ )"'~·JJ.i ~ t'JJ'!jj~ L ' i"!I ··-! ~~ 4-f ......... 'illl.1'461'Jf( .. : \ ..,·J.~ • .:-. ·~ 'l . ~ -..., "I ... (' ~. ·. RE East District Boundary The East District consists of approximate:ly 11.9 acre.s anticipated to inc lude a hotel consisting of approximately 150 rooms and 30,000-50 .000 square feet of Applicant:Carbondale Investments LLC Representative:Dianne Miller –Miller Rosenbluth, LLC Request:Review of Service Plans to create three metropolitan districts Property Size:282 acres Conservation Easement:54 acres District size:240 acres Zone District:Residential Suburban Comprehensive Plan:Residential High Density BBC Research & Consulting BBC Research and Consulting •One of the oldest privately held economic, financial, statistical, market and policy research firms in the Rocky Mountain West. •Staff includes market analysts, urban and land planners, policy analysts, management consultants and statisticians. Ford Frick is the Managing Director of BBC and has over 25 years of experience in public and private development economics, market analysis and fiscal impact studies. Garfield County has contracted with BBC for special review of the service plans. BBC has worked on several projects for the County, including the Battlement Mesa Incorporation Feasibility Analysis, 2010; the Comprehensive Plan Update(sub- consultant), and the Garfield County Land Values and Solutions Study, June 2006 §32-1-203(2), C.R.S. The Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the service plans unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented: (a)There is sufficient exiting and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. (b)The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. (c) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. (d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. §32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plans unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented: (a)Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special district, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. (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 32-1-201 (1). (c)The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-106, 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. Mandatory Criteria 1.The Petitioner has failed to present evidence that there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area proposed as required by §32-1-203(2)(a)C.R.S.,and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The proposed development is speculative and has not been reviewed or approved by the County; b)The area proposed to be served by the districts is currently zoned Residential Suburban and Commercial General which zone districts do not permit the proposed residential or commercial density contained within the service plans; c)The petitioners have failed to present an inventory of the services that are currently available to the area from existing special districts or other municipalities; d)“The three Metropolitan District Service Plans presented to Garfield County anticipate a certain level and scale of development,which cannot be accommodated under current zoning.”See report,Exhibit I by Ford Frick, Managing Director of BBC Research and Consulting,incorporated by this reference. Mandatory Criteria 2.The Petitioner has failed to present evidence that existing service is inadequate for present and projected needs as required by §32-1-203(2)(b) C.R.S., and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a.That the land within the proposed district boundaries is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District which provides adequate service to the area; b.That the land within the proposed district boundaries is within the service area of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District and no evidence was presented to indicate that it cannot adequately provide water and sanitation service within the area; c.That the current entitlements for the land within the proposed district boundaries allow one single-family home on the 282-acre parcel described as 2393-182-00-102, and commercial use on the 1-acre parcel described as 2393-072-00-001; d.No evidence was presented of existing services and the projected need for the specific public infrastructure in the plans nor the specific services listed in the plans. Mandatory Criteria 3.The Petitioner has failed to present evidence that the proposed special districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service; as required by §32-1-203(2)(c) C.R.S., and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will receive approval by the County Commissioners; b)No evidence was presented that the levy of up to 50 mills will be economical for the proposed residents located within the boundaries of the special districts; c)The Petitioner has not provided information, such as surveys or engineering standards, necessary to support the cost estimates of the proposed improvements and therefore it has not been adequately demonstrate that the services to be provided will be sufficient; d)The Petitioner has not included any information on the nature or cost of the following proposed services or infrastructure: Mandatory Criteria 4.The Petitioner has failed to present evidence that the area to be included has or will have the financial ability to discharge proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis as required by §32- 1-203(2)(d) C.R.S., and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)That the use of the 2009 assessed valuation to project valuation for the proposed site is inappropriate given the state of the economy and the market for real estate in Garfield County; b)“The District Service Plans provide no substantive support for the pace, price, cost or scale of the anticipated development and infrastructure requirements.” See report, Exhibit I by Ford Frick, Managing Director of BBC Research and Consulting, incorporated by this reference; c)See charts. Discretionary Criteria 1.§32-1-203(2.5)(a), the Petitioner has failed to produce evidence that adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing municipal or quasi- municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis as required, and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The Petitioner has not provided information regarding the services currently provided by existing municipal or special districts in the area. Discretionary Criteria 2.§32-1-203(2.5)(b), the Petitioner has failed to produce evidence that the facility and service standards of the proposed special districts 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 §32-1-204(1), and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The facility and service standards were not provided in the service plans. Discretionary Criteria 3. §32-1-203(2.5)(c), the Petitioner has failed to produce evidence that the proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to §30-28-106, C.R.S. and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The service plans did not contain an analysis of plan compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; b)The provision of redundant services is discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan; c)The current zone district, Residential Suburban, is in compliance with the High Density Residential designation which recommends a density of 0 to less than 2 acres per dwelling unit. The speculative development plan proposes.2 acres per dwelling unit which has not been determined appropriate during the development review process. Discretionary Criteria 4. §32-1-203(2.5)(d), the Petitioner has failed to produce evidence that the proposal is in compliance with a duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality management plan for the area, and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The service plans do not address water quality or discuss any applicable water quality management plans. Discretionary Criteria 5. §32-1-203(2.5)(e), the Petitioner has failed to produce evidence that the creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served, and the Planning Commission specifically finds: a)The proposed district boundaries contain vacant land with no development approvals; b)Creation of the special districts would not be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served because of the speculative nature of the development proposal. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of disapproval of the three service plans to the Board of County Commissioners, incorporating the staff findings and; •Authorization for the Chairman to sign the Resolution; •Authorization for the Staff to act on behalf of the Commission in presenting the Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners.