COMMISSIONERS: DARRYL GLENN (PRESIDENT) MARK WALLER (PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE) STAN VANDERWERF LONGINOS GONZALEZ PEGGY LITTLETON PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRAIG DOSSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Planning Commission (PC) Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 El Paso County Planning and Community Development Department 2880 International Circle, Hearing Room Colorado Springs, Colorado 80910 PRESENT AND VOTING: JIM EGBERT, ALLAN CREELY, TONY GIOIA, KEVIN CURRY, JOAN LUCIA-TREESE, KEVIN MASTIN, AND JANE DILLON PRESENT AND NOT VOTING: SHARON FRIEDMAN ABSENT: BRIAN RISLEY, MITCHELL SMITH, AND LAWRENCE WOOD STAFF PRESENT: MIKE HREBENAR, NINA RUIZ, RAIMERE FITZPATRICK, JEFF RICE, AND EL PASO COUNTY ATTORNEY COLE EMMONS OTHERS PRESENT: DANNY MIENTKA, RUSS DYKSTRA, KATHY OLSON, AND RYAN FARR 1. Report Items A. Planning and Community Development Department Mr. Mike Hrebenar gave an update of the Planning Commission agenda items for today s meeting. He also gave the department update on building permits and ongoing and archived projects. 2. Consent Items A. Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair Mr. Curry expressed interest in being the Vice Chair Mr. Risley also expressed interest in being the Vice Chair via email before the meeting. LUCIA TREESE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS; GIOIA SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL GAVE CONSENSUS TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. VOTES FOR MR. CURRY: GIOIA, CURRY, MASTIN, LUCIA-TREESE, CREELY; VOTES FOR MR. RISLEY: DILLON, EGBERT MOTION PASSED FOR MR. CURRY 5-2. 2880 INTERNATIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 110 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910-3127 PHONE: (719) 520-6300 FAX: (719) 520-6695 WWW.ELPASOCO.COM
B. Approval of the Minutes November 21, 2017 The minutes were approved as presented. (7-0) C. VA-17-005 RUIZ VARIANCE OF USE WOODMEN HILLS TOWER A request by Centerline Solutions for approval of a variance of use for a 93 foot tall freestanding commercial mobile radio service facility (CMRS). The property is zoned RR-0.5 (Residential Rural) and is located east of North Meridian Road and south of Woodmen Hills Drive. (Parcel No. 43061-02-001) PC ACTION: GIOIA MOVED/LUCIA-TREESE SECONDED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM NO. 2C, VA-17-005 FOR A VARIANCE OF USE FOR WOODMEN HILLS TOWER UTILIZING RESOLUTION PAGES 51 (MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED ON PAGE 17-052) WITH SIX (6) CONDITIONS AND THREE (3) NOTATIONS AND THAT THIS ITEM BE FORWARDED TO THE EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED (7-0). D. VA-17-006 RUIZ VARIANCE OF USE FALCON SCHOOL TOWER A request by Centerline Solutions for approval of a variance of use for a 100 foot tall freestanding commercial mobile radio service facility (CMRS). The property is zoned RR-5 (Residential Rural) and is located east of Towner Avenue and north of Stapleton Drive. (Parcel No. 52253-00-002) PC ACTION: GIOIA MOVED/LUCIA-TREESE SECONDED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM NO. 2D, VA-17-006 FOR A VARIANCE OF USE FOR FALCON SCHOOL TOWER UTILIZING RESOLUTION PAGES 51 (MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED ON PAGE 17-053) WITH SIX (6) CONDITIONS AND THREE (3) NOTATIONS AND THAT THIS ITEM BE FORWARDED TO THE EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED (7-0). 2
Regular Items: 3. ID-17-003 FITZPATRICK SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN ROCK CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT A request by The Equity Group, LLC, for approval of a Colorado Revised Statutes Title 32 Special District service plan for the Rock Creek Metropolitan District. The proposed 30 acre district service area is located on the west side of State Highway 115 across from the intersection of State Highway 115 and Titus Boulevard and is within Section 30, Township 15 South, Range 66 West of the 6 th P.M. The purposes of the district include the provision of the following services to property within the proposed service area boundaries: 1) design, construction, and financing of water and wastewater lines; 2) design, construction, and financing of street improvements and safety protection; and 3) design, construction, and financing of drainage facilities; 4) park and recreation service; 5) mosquito control; 6) television relay and translation; 7) covenant enforcement and design review; 8) security services; and 9) ongoing operation and maintenance of District facilities and services. The single district service plan proposes the following: a maximum debt authorization of $8 million and a maximum combined mill levy of 65 mills, which represents a maximum of 50 mills assessed to residential property and 35 mills assessed to commercial property for debt service, a maximum of 10 mills for operations and maintenance, and a maximum special purpose mill levy of 5 mills for covenant enforcement and design review. The proposed District is not included within the boundaries of a small area master plan. (Parcel Nos. 65000-00-135, 65303-07-001, 65303-07-002, 65303-07- 003, 65303-07-004, 65303-07-005, 65303-07-008, 65303-07-009, 65303-07-019, 65303-08-007, 65303-08-008, 65303-08-009, 65303-08-010, 65303-08-011, 65303-08-012, 65303-08-013, 65303-08-014, 65303-08-015, 65303-08-016, 65303-09-015, and 65304-00-009) (ID-17-003) (Commissioner District No. 3) Mr. Raimere Fitzpatrick gave a brief overview and introduced the applicant Mr. Danny Mientka to give his presentation. Mr. Mientka gave his presentation to the Planning Commission and answered questions. Mr. Mastin Are there any additional requirements to add trails and/or fire hydrants within the State Park? Answer We agreed to add more around the area but not within the park. Mr. Gioia Is there an anticipation of bringing down the mill levy for the homeowners once that construction has been completed and debt has been paid? Answer There would be no reason to continue at that levy once the debt is paid and obligations have been satisfied. 3
Ms. Lucia-Treese I have a question concerning the mobile home park. Would this development have an impact on that existing mobile home park? -- Answer -- We have no interest in affecting the viability of the park, but we do have an interest in the waste water treatment for that area. The mobile home park would continue to operate as usual. Mr. Curry I think we are required to get land use approvals prior to approving the Metropolitan District Service Plan. I read where it needed to get done early in order to meet the election datelines. Now there is a year to election, so why is it coming first? Answer Initially, we anticipated financing approval for the improvement development portion with the financing approval being a HUD241 D4, which is a HUD insured multifamily insured loan with a very small window of approval which required the Service Plan to be in place. The temporary easement states that I have to install utilities between October and March. The State Park is concerned about certain wildlife habitat species, and they have given us this very small window to work within. To come to the Planning Commission with a land use plan not knowing if we had the financing would not be responsible. The utility mains need to be run to the area and infrastructure and associated costs will drive the land use plan. The densities may change considerably depending on the infrastructure costs. Mr. Curry I know we need to determine the ability to discharge the financial debt. There is uncertainty relative to buildout, costs, dry utilities, and densities. Can you better address the district s ability to discharge the financial debt? Answer We can decide the discharge of indebtedness once we have more details figured out. For example, if the water district had interest in this reliable water supply, that would change the economic status considerably. But, we can t have those conversations with the water district until we know that we have the ability to deliver the water. Incrementally, we want to provide that certainty throughout the process. There s a finite amount of money, and we need you to help us to create certainty through the Service Plan approval which allows us to answer some of those questions. Mr. Curry County Policy 14.1.3 requires conservative phasing of infrastructure construction during the initial phases of the development. When I look at the construction plan, I am particularly concerned about water and building 222 units which doesn t seem conservative to me. Answer I think it s 132 as opposed to the 222. HUD asked us to phase it, so we proposed 132 and then 108 in the second phase. Nothing can be developed until the utility mains come through the state park. Our intent is to bring the mains through the state park to the development site and develop that project. The second phase would happen immediately on the coattails of the first phase subject to occupancy levels, which we are comfortable we will achieve. Then during that process, we would be meeting with the water district and other property owners on the mesa to understand the economic potential of making those connections up the hill. The task of extending these services is daunting, and we are doing this as conservatively as possible. Mr. Curry The service plan envisions creating a separate non-profit corporation for the purposes of providing design, financing, and construction of municipal infrastructure. 4
The letter of intent says The Rock Creek District shall develop and finance its own property. I m trying to understand the distinction. Can you discuss what might cause the District to create the non-profit and will it cause additional fees? Answer from Mr. Russ Dykstra That language regarding the non-profit entity formation is a carryover from the County s template for a service plan. The basis for the non-profit is that the district cannot be the direct recipient of PIF (public improvement fee) revenues. So in response to that, provisions were made that a non-profit entity could accept the PIF revenues and then transfer them to the District. I can say with most certainty that we will not be utilizing a non-profit entity. Mr. Curry There s a little bit of confusion for me relative to the district s configuration. Page 114 in the package, section 11 says the proposed service plan does not propose a multiple district configuration. The staff report, on page 137 states the covenant enforcement and design review powers will be coordinated through District No. 1 on behalf of all of the Districts. It sounds like a sub-district is being considered. Can you explain that inconsistency? Answer We don t have plans for additional districts at this point. There is a bit of a move on HOA or covenant enforcement to have the District engage a third party to oversee and enforce HOA equivalent policies and rules. That inconsistency is a carryover of the model service plan. We are happy to revise that statement. Mr. Egbert I have a bigger perspective question. You are going to get water and wastewater from Colorado Springs Utilities. Do you get those services wholesale and then retail those services to the residents through the metro district? Do they get a CSU bill or a metro district bill? And regarding sewer, will you provide that service as well? Answer The utility mains that come through the State park become property of CSU. Once they reach our site, there is a meter. Everything to the north will be tariffed CSU s regular rates. Any water that is provided to the mesa or beyond our development is outside CSU s boundary. The standard fees apply inside the district boundaries and for those outside the CSU boundaries, the 1 1/2 time fee applies as per CSU standard. The District won t be in the business of marking up the water for profit. Regarding the sewer, CSU wants the sewer to get credits for the effluent discharge, but they will charge the District to process the waste. Mr. Fitzpatrick The Rock Creek Water District does have representation here today. They will be speaking later in the presentation. Mr. Emmons I typically don t like to interject, but I have a question on water. CSU is only going to be providing water to the improvements on the property that is within the City of Colorado Springs boundaries. Is that correct? And as you develop the rest of the development, will the water come from the wells or from CSU. Answer from Mr. Mientka I will be a customer of CSU. They have asked us to upsize the lines to be able to provide the water inside the City of Colorado Springs. The development water will be from CSU not from the wells. 5
Ms. Lucia-Treese Can you give me some idea of the prices you re expecting for singlefamily homes? Answer it s premature to give an exact amount, but it s likely to be in the affordable range. Mr. Fitzpatrick gave his full presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Egbert We have two different mill levy rates, one for residential and one for commercial. Can you explain that? Answer from Mr. Fitzpatrick The multi-family units will be in the commercial area. Mr. Ryan Farr and Ms. Kathy Olson spoke on behalf of Rock Creek Metro Water District. The John May wells provide the physical supply of water and legal supply is completed through augmentation plans. They use a ditch system as a diversion system through Rock Creek; it s stored until need; piped through distribution system lines and treated. Trucking of water was needed in 2013, but for the most part the wells and reservoirs are a sufficient supply of water. Rock Creek Mesa Water cannot increase its water capacity. We wanted to make sure that no overlapping of coverage was occurring and that we could work with this Metro District. Rock Creek water is entitled to ¾ of the John May wells water production. The proposed coverage area is all outside Rock Creek Mesa Water District, with the exception of one property. We have no objection to the creation of the Metro District. Mr. Dykstra We do feel it s appropriate to take that parcel out of the legal description before we go before the Board of County Commissioners. IN FAVOR: None IN OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION: Mr. Gioia Is there anything that needs included in the motion such as water sufficiency? Answer from Mr. Emmons Water sufficiency does not need to be included in the motion. Water sufficiency is tied to subdivision. Mr. Curry All of my concerns have been satisfied except one. The one concern regarding is the ability of the District to discharge its indebtedness. There are simply too many uncertainties. Ms. Lucia-Treese I concur with Mr. Curry s comments. Mr. Gioia I appreciate my colleague s comments and the concern is real. I don t have the same concern however. The applicant needs to secure the financing. The lender takes the risk. We know the numbers of maximum debt that can be financed. We know what the property owners will be responsible to carry. 6
Mr. Egbert The risk issue is that we want to protect the County of getting a failed district. I don t think it s my job to protect the developer from their investment. It s never a sure thing, but if we don t have people willing to do that, we don t get housing and commercial opportunities to our people. The County doesn t develop, people do. We need our private investors. I don t want to clip their wings, but we do need to make sure they are reasonable Ms. Dillon I agree with Mr. Egbert. The financial liability is not the responsibility of the County. PC ACTION: GIOIA MOVED/CREELY SECONDED TO APPROVE REGULAR ITEM NO. 3, ID-17-003 FOR A SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN UTILIZING RESOLUTION PAGES 37 (MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED ON PAGE 17-054) WITH ELEVEN (11) CONDITIONS AND TWO (2) NOTATIONS AND THAT THIS ITEM BE FORWARDED TO THE EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED (5-2). MR. CURRY AND MS. LUCIA-TREESE VOTED NAY. NOTE: For information regarding the Agenda item the Planning Commission is considering, call the Planning and Community Development Department for information (719-520-6300). Visit our Web site at www.elpasoco.com to view the agenda and other information about El Paso County. Results of the action taken by the Planning Commission will be published following the meeting. (The name to the right of the title indicates the Project Manager/ Planner processing the request.) If the meeting goes beyond noon, the Planning Commission may take a lunch break. Minutes were approved as presented at the December 19, 2017 meeting. 7