The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-07-2010 - Service Plans MINUTESSeptember 7, 2010 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO • Consider the RE North Service Plan, the RE South Service Plan, and the RE East Service Plan for the proposed formation of three (3) metropolitan districts to serve a proposed development on property located midway between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale. Applicant is Carbondale Investments, LLC – Kathy Eastley Kathy Eastley, Carolyn Dahlgren, and Diane Miller legal counsel with Miller Rosenbluth LLC; Rockwood Shephard of Carbondale Investments, LLC., Bruce O’Donnell from George K. Baum financial advisory to the proposed districts and Sam Otero of 8940 Partners, LLC – engineer were present. Jean – made the required notice to DOLA and Carolyn reviewed the noticing requirements for the public hearing and determined they were timely and accurate. She advised the Board they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Planner Kathy Eastley submitted exhibits: Exhibit A –N and Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A – N into the record. This is a 282-acre site for the proposed districts including 54 acres of conservation. The one-acre site zoned for commercial is the former Sopris Restaurant site. Kathy explained the general authority of the Board with reference to the review of any service plan the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to approve without condition or modification the service plan(s) submitted; to disapprove the service plan(s) submitted; or to conditionally approve the service plan subject to the submission of additional information relating to or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory the following is presented if there is a) sufficient existing 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 proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its boundaries; or 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. Applicant: Diane Miller presented the Power Point and went into detail regarding the proposal and reasons for the request. Bruce O’Donnell with George K. Baum and Company in Denver presented additional factors in the request and his submittals for bonding. Rocky Shepherd presented a potential scenario for future development and why the districts were necessary explaining the letter from CDOT expressing support for the plan and our access. Public Testimony David McConnahey 0515 CR 167 Glenwood Springs expressed his opposition. Rick Neiley – 5157 CR 154 about ½ mile from the property and expressed his opposition. Applicant Response: Diane – Responded to the public testimony further explaining the necessity for the special districts prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Plan submittal to the Planning Commission. Bruce O’Donnell addressed the purpose for the formation of the districts in relation to obtaining a PUC and RFTA crossing access. Motion and Discussion Commissioner Samson made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Houpt - Second. In favor: Houpt – aye Martin – aye Samson – aye Chairman Martin – It is up to us to approve with findings or disapprove it with findings. Commissioner Samson – Well you guys talked and talked and I didn’t say much, so it is my turn. Whenever anything comes before this Board and it is unanimously by the Planning Commission and I assume the staff also, they feel strongly about it that was presented by Ms. Eastley, I have to take those findings into very serious consideration and because of that and looking under the mandatory criteria which they feel that they have not satisfied, I think there are several points that they bring out that I would have to agree with so with that being said I am, unless I’m hearing different from you two that can convince me elsewhere I would say that we would disapprove the three service plans. We are just discussing this and not making a motion. This is where I am coming from. Commissioner Houpt – Well I too am in agreement with staff and Planning Commission, I agree at some point there is going to have be a special district or more put in place to accomplish certain things for a development but we do not know what that is and there’s no use on the ground, there is no way to prove existing need when there is not a plan in place and I think the Planning Commission outlined their reasons for recommending disapproval pretty clearly and nothing in our conversation today has changed that position for me. Chairman Martin – Well, actually I find the application interesting and bordering of kind of ingenious. We have not seen this approach before. It is an attempt to break a deadlock based upon again political views and development views between two cities and urban growth boundaries trying to live within the Comp Plan and trying to overcome so many obstacles that haven’t been overcome in the past. I have to applaud you for attempting a new approach. Did it make it, well that is up to the decision of this Board and again I don’t think that you are trying to back door anyone, I think you are trying to break a catch 22 situation. Somebody else in the room that is an attorney and had thought of that and brought it forward I think we would have had this conversation a long time ago but again it is unique, maybe it was driven by the RDT in Denver, RFTA is definitely an issue that you have to deal with and always has been on this piece of property. It was very apparent that RFTA said that corridor is going to be a land use regulation that they are going to evoke from time to time. I think they are doing that on this piece of property as well. So with all of that put together, rules, regulations, review process, statutes, new court hearings and findings all the way to Boulder County to Garfield County I find special districts are in a quandary. They have to try something to exist and to get infrastructure built and to do the development and to take steps to make it happen. Let’s see what a motion will do. Commissioner Houpt – I would make a motion to support the Planning Commission recommendation and make a recommendation that we disapprove the development or the approval of RE- South Service Plan, RE – North Service Plan and the RE- East Service Plan as required by the 32-1-203(2)(a) (b)(32-102- 203(2.5)(a), (b), (c), and (e) with specific findings as listed below in our staff report pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Samson - Second. Chairman Martin – You are still having the same findings even though new evidence has been presented, a change of statement in reference to non-development approval process being implied. Commissioner Houpt – There is still the request to have the districts cover the entire piece of property and I have to agree with them on their findings if you want me to explain that more fully, I can read the entire page. Chairman Martin – I am not asking you do that, I am still saying you still have the same findings after the information and statements made by the applicant to make those changes in language. Commissioner Houpt – Yes. Chairman Martin – Commissioner Samson - Do you find that is acceptable to the second still. Commissioner Samson – Yes. Well, I agree with much of what you said Chairman about I think these people are very sincere in what they are trying to do, I think there is somewhat between a rock and a hard place because of the bureaucracy and so on and so forth and I have sympathy for what they are trying to do. I wouldn’t not necessarily say they are trying to come in the in back door and trying to be shady in their dealings, I think you are very honest in what you are trying to do here but I don’t feel good about it and at this time seeing what I’ve seen and seeing the recommendations from our staff and our Planning Commissioner, I am not sure this is the best way to do this. I don’t think this is the best thing for the County at this time and that is why I will be voting for the motion. Commissioner Houpt – And I will also say that I don’t think this type of vote questions the integrity of people or the intent but I do think that it is important that there be recognition of process and it is really very important of us not to speculate on this type of decision and there is nothing in place at this time and you know I think that this is very compelling so…. Chairman Martin – As far as I see the process they are following state statutes to allow them to go forward, it is the discretionary of the opinion of this Board if it has met those obligations or not and I think that is where we need keep it. Commissioner Houpt – Well that is true and I think that is a big part of the requirements the statutory and the discretionary they have laid out. Carolyn – I understand the motion that you are accepting the entire recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Houpt – That is correct. Chairman Martin – That is what the motion was and that is why I wanted to clarify that even with the new evidence that they did not see. Commissioner Houpt – That is correct. In favor: Houpt – aye Samson – aye Martin – aye I will have to say aye also. I think that it has met it yet but I think it a great attempt to go ahead and break a deadlock, I think one or two steps needs to done and some more information presented in reference to the proposal, what it is to be used for and how we are going to get there. I still think it is a good start. Rocky – Can we submit an application without setting precedence? Chairman Martin – Well you can submit that and include what you have proposed as part of your application and contingent upon all of that is like a permit process, it’s in the process like a court hearing or water court hearing, etc. based upon the findings, based upon the conclusion of that case, that could influence the approval or disapproval. It’s a tough call, I know, it’s still a catch 22 and you haven’t resolved the crossing issue with RFTA. All you can do is go for a private revocable license in reference to the access, you do have one historical that was allowed, utility crossing are all underground as I understand and you just need a pedestrian underpass and that maybe research to see if they own under the or just surface occupation. Rocky - We have under passes. Chairman Martin – I know but does RFTA control that or does just PUC. That is one of your research questions that your attorney can do.