The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRepresentative Response to Road Impact FeeLAND W EST PLANNING I LANDSCAPE ARCHITEClURE I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 26,20L9 Sheryl Bower, Community Development Director Garfield County 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Email: sbower@garfield-countv.com RE: Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD - Road lmpact Fees Dear Ms. Bower, On behalf of Aspen Polo Partners, LLP, I am wr¡ting in response to Road lmpact Fees which were recently charged and collected by the County for the first new building within the Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD (the Foster barn). This first building is a mixed-use structure containing horse stables on the first floor and a residential unit on the second floor. The County charged and collected Road lmpact Fees totaling 527,577.97, of which 525,589.97 was attributed to a "commercial" use. We believe that the County incorrectly categor¡zed the commercial use of the first floor of this building, as evidenced by a) the PUD approval, b) the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), and c) the County's Road lmpact Fee Administrative Procedures Policy. Specific detail ¡s provided on each of these items under bullet #1 below. We have also provided a detailed evaluation of the estimated Road lmpact Fee revenue that could be collected by Garfield County upon full build out of the project. We believe this amount, calculated based on current impact fees, to be sufficient to offset any road impacts created by this project. This evaluation is provided under bullet #2 below. 1. The Project's Barns Are Classified As Agricultural, Not Commercial. a. Approved PUD Land Uses (PUD Guide Table 4.2) The recent PUD Amendment review and approval process provides clarity on the various land uses within the PUD, from both written and oralstatements. The approved PUD Guide provides a Land Use Schedule and specific definitions that detail the approved land uses and their classifications. 34s COLORADO AVE. SUIrE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.47s5 Page 1 of 5 Perthe aoproved PUD Land Use Schedule: The 1st floor of the barn is classified as: Agricultural and Animal-Related Uses > Equestrian Facility The 2nd floor of the barn is classified as: Residential Uses > Dwelling, Mixed Use Additionally, the PUD Amendment application states (Sect¡on 5.5.1. on page 21): 'The agriculturol facilities of Zone District 7 will include five horse barns, providing stalls for approximately 20-30 horses per barn. The horse barns will serve as the primory focilities for occommodating, breeding, and training horses. As identified in the PIJD Guide (AppendÍx N), the barns may also include dwelling units. At the time of this writing, it is envisioned thot each barn will include one 2-bedroom dwelling unit, which would be occupied by horse trainers or other employees. Each barn will olso include ancillary facilities such as outdoor paddocks ond odequate truck/trailer parking and turnorounds." The barns as shown on the approved site plan will each be owned by an individual partner of the ownership group. The barns were never intended nor represented to be commercial or public facilities. ln fact, this topic was addressed several times during a public hearing on January 1O, 2018 (Pla n n ing Commission audio file: http://ea rfie ld- cguntv.sranicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view ld=3&clip id=L279). Those transcriptions are as follows: 7:52:57 Greg McKennis (Planning Commissioner) - 'This is a private facility that for events they'll allow the public to come on?" Jon Fredericks (Land Planner) - "Yes, absolutely. lt's privately owned." 2:06:18 Gary Wright (Project Attorney) - "The Partners would like to ¡ndividually own barns." 2:08:29 Jon Fredericks - "The Partners in this project may each elect to own their own barn." Based on the approved PUD Amendment and PUD Guide, the first floor of the barns are agricultural Since the County does not have a Road lmpact Fee for Agricultural and Animal-Related Uses, then the only fee that should apply for these particular buildings is the residential portion. 345 COLORADO AVE. SUrTE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 970.379.4t55 Page 2 of 5 b. Garfield County Land Use & Development Code The LUDC provides specific clarity on commercial land uses. Article 3-403 Use Table of the LUDC lists the following Use Categories as "Commercial Uses": o Office (i.e. broadcasting studio, professional office) r Retail/Wholesale (i.e. bakery, convenience store) o Recreation and Entertainment (i.e. golf course/driving range, indoor theatre) o Services (i.e. crematorium, eating or drinking establishment) o Vehicles and Equipment (i.e. car wash, parking lot or parking garage) o Visitor Accommodation (i.e. campground/RV park, lodging facilities) The project's barns do not include any Commercial uses as defined in the Use Table of the LUDC, and therefore should not be classified as Commercial for the purposes of collecting Road lmpact Fees. c. Garfield County Road lmpact Fee - Administrative Procedures Policy The County's Admin¡strative Policy on Road lmpact Fees provides the following definition for Commercialuses: Commercial. Commercial includes retail development ønd eating and drinking establishments, otong with entertoinment uses often located in a shopping center' Based on this County definition, we believe that ¡t is not possible to make the interpretation that the barns are a Commercial use for the purpose of collecting Road lmpact Fees. 345 COLORADO AVE. SUIrE 106 | CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.4155 Page 3 of 5 2. The Estimated Road lmpact Fees Are Sufficient To Offset Project lmpacts. The project has been approved with various residential and agricultural uses and densities. We have provided an objective evaluation which calculates the estimated total Road lmpact Fees that could be generated by the project based on the PUD approval. Those calculations are based on the current Road lmpact Fees per LUDC Table 7-405, and are shown in the table below. Aspen Valley Polo Club PUD: Road lmpact Fee Estimate Zons 1 Residential ADU's in private horse barns 5 1,400 to 1,900 S 1,988 s 9,940 Residential Affordable units in maintenance barn 3 901 to 1,400 5 L,474 5 4,422 Residential Cabins 4 901 to 1,400 s 7,474 s s,8s6 Commercial Clubhouse 7 4800 S 1tøa¡ 1000 sf s t8,o77 Agricultural Private horse barns + maintenance barn 6 approx. 4000-8000 ea N/A s Subtotal Zone 1 s 38,335 Zonø2 (estlmøted resldentlal development bosed on PIJD approvafi Residential Single Family 2t 1,901 to 2,400 s 2,38s s so,o8s Residential Single Family 27 2,401 and greater 5 2,703 S s6,763 Commercial HOA Community Center 7 1450 S 3,76611000sf s s,461 Subtotal Zone 2 S u2,309 Total Road lmpact Fee Estimate $ 150,644 1 r),¡1-Ji,1,¡1i¡:¡11i: 'r ii'¡rt. ' ¡ tt' ','It l. J ll i'¡ l;,1 ¡1 {n}; l r1,,1 r¡ 1i i i,,,i i 1 1,, l;i, r, r .tryr,t;¡L f,Í!) l,r / ir [r);r 345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 cARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 | 970.379.415s Page 4 of 5 Based on our evaluation of the project approval and County codes and policies, we believe that the barns within the project are not subject to a Commercial designation for the collection of Road lmpact Fees. Additionally, we believe that the anticipated Road lmpact Fee revenue is sufficient to offset the project,s traffic impacts, and meets the ¡ntent of our discussion on the matter with the Board of County Commissioners during the project's public review hearing on February 20,2078. Further, approval Condition #30 for the PUD Amendment states Offsite lmprovements: At the time of subdivision, the Applicont's engineer shall provide a traffic study thøt oddresses the need for improvements on the south side of the intersection of County Roød 700 ond Highway 82 inctuding the medion and right turn lane, ond based on traffic counts from the proposed subdivision. The taffic study shall include on analysis of the dìfference between the cost of improvements ond the onticipated revenue from the proiect's traffic impact Íees Íor consideration dt the time of subdivision. This condition requires further evaluation of traffic impacts and fee revenues at the time of subdivision. We believe that m¡s-categorizing land uses to front-load impact fees is incons¡stent with the Board's intent in formulating this condition. ln consideration of the information presented in this letter, we believe the applicant for the Foster barn is due a refund from Garfield County in the amount of 525,589 .97 for overpayment of Road lmpact Fees' We sincerely appreciate the County's attent¡on to this matter, and we are available to meet with you to discuss as needed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LANDWEST Jon Fredericks Principal Cc Peter J. Rizzo, Aspen Polo Partners, LLP Gary A. Wright, Wright Law AsPen, LLP Max Filiss, Divide Creek Builders 345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 970.379.4155 Page 5 of 5