banning lewis ranch (blr) 24,000 acre master planned community 2007 apa colorado annual conference...
TRANSCRIPT
Banning Lewis Ranch (BLR) 24,000 Acre Master Planned Community
2007 APA Colorado Annual Conference
October 4, 2007
Banning Lewis Ranch
o Larry Larsen, City of CS Senior Land Use Review Planner, Moderator
o Ira Joseph, City of CS Comprehensive Planning Manager
o Paul Tice, City of CS Former Land Use Review Manager
o John Cassiani, BLRMC Vice President of Project Operations
o Pat McNamara, BLRMC Engineering Manager
Presentation Topics
o Introduction
o 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review & Approval Process
o 2004 / 2007 Settlement Agreement & Annexor Shared Obligations Program
o 2007 What’s Happening Now & What is the Future of BLR
Introduction
o What is Banning Lewis Ranch?
o Where is Banning Lewis Ranch?
o Why is Banning Lewis Significant?
What is Banning Lewis Ranch?
o 24,000 acre Master Planned Communityo 21,000 acres under single ownership control
– the Banning Lewis Ranch Management Company
o 14 miles long and 4 miles wideo Minimal existing development / Open prairieo Annexed into Colorado Springs in 1988o Hard zoned at time of annexationo City within a City
BLR Regional Context Map
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document
Why is Banning Lewis Ranch Significant?
o Size: 24,000 acreso Master Planned Community:
o Residentialo Schools/Parks/Open Spaceo Commercial/Office/Industrialo Public Facilities / Utilitieso Parkways, Streets and Trailso Design Guidelines & Control
o Vacant / Undevelopedo Build-Out Population: 180,000 residents / 75,000 homes o Ownership History & Configuration o Aggressive / Controversial / Complex Annexation Agreemento Hard Zoningo Colorado Spring’s Final Frontiero Developer Approach / Village Concept / Connectivity
BLR Master Plan Map
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o BL Ranch culminated a decade of aggressive annexation that added 57,000 acres (89.2 square miles) to the city
o Factors that contributed to this expansion of the cityo City Utilities capacity, particularly water supplyo El Paso County groundwater policies which required evidence
of a 300 year supply to serve proposed development o Nascent regional planning steering urban densities to
municipalitieso Desire by City Council to foreclose opportunity for
development of competing “satellite” jurisdictions (the metro Denver scenario)
o Willingness of land developers to absorb all initial capital infrastructure costs in order to gain access to city water, the key to higher densities envisioned by their plans
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o Utilitieso City had capacity to serve proposed development
o Water: 1988 Available supply: 122,300 Acre Feet (AF), with annual usage of 70,000 AF
o Electric, Gas : excess generating capacity at the time and available supply
o Wastewater: Due to size and location of BLR, a new regional wastewater facility would be required, to be paid for primarily by BLR
o EPC /regional policieso 300 year groundwater requirement effectively precluded
development not on a centralized supply systemo Urban density defined as greater than 1 DU/2.5 acres, or anything
that requires a centralized water/wastewater delivery/collection system
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o Avoid “satellite jurisdictions”o As a regional employment and retail center, Colorado Springs
garnered the lion’s share of retail sales tax revenueo It was estimated at the time that only about 60% of sales tax
revenues came from city residentso This situation allowed city officials to argue that new growth
does not adversely impact existing city tax payerso Developer willingness to accept significant costs for infrastructure
through annexation processo Due to EPC policies, projects could not achieve desired urban
densities without city watero Annexation process is negotiated and not subject to
proportionality and rational nexus parameterso City used “marginal cost” of development in analyzing
annexation requests
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o Major Issues for City in Evaluation of Annexationo Utilities/Infrastructure/Services:
o in certain instance, developing entirely new systems (e.g.,wastewater)o Buyout of significant portion of REA service territoryo Assigning responsibility for regional infrastructureo Applicant’s desire for no phasing plano Planning for public safety without phasing
o Financial/Fiscalo Size of project and length of buildout made fiscal forecasting very
difficulto Lack of phasing required safeguards to protect city from scenario where
service costs exceed revenue from development
o Planningo Consistency with city’s master plan processo Applicant’s desire for “hard zoning” concurrent with annexation
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o Review Processo Annexation petitions and master plan submitted January 1987o Two major amended applications submitted in November 1987 and May 1988o Refinement of submittal to meet code requirements, creating “stabilized land use
plan”o Analysis of infrastructure, utilities and service requirements o Determination of adjacent and off-site regional infrastructure and utilities needso Development of 142 zoning parcels and ordinances correlated to stabilized land
use plano Fiscal analysis methodology to annually assess impact of development on city
revenues and to mitigate potential shortfallso Assignment of responsibilities for coordination of annexors’ obligations (master
developer concept)o Annexations, Master Plan, 142 zoning districts approved by City Council in June
1988o Annexation Agreement recorded September 1988o Savings & Loan Industry implosion, RTC bailout 1989-1992
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues
o Planning Outcomeso Three large activity centers with zoning conditions intended to foster
mixed-use development through minimum FAR’s, requirements for mix of uses, specified residential densities
o Hard zoning precluded use of site plans to establish PUD, the desired residential zoning. Detailed zoning conditions attached to standard R-5 (high density residential) zoning characterized desired result
o Use of simple impact fee formula (adjusted for politics) to allocate annexor’s financial obligations for adjacent and off-site roadways
o Actual sequencing of development and infrastructure and application of design guidelines to be administered by “master Developer” through a planning association that would approve plans prior to submittal to city
o Hard zoning, financial safeguards in annexation agreement, and distance from existing development made activity infeasible until recently
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues: Original Master Plan Submittal
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review – Contextual Issues: Approved Master Plan
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document
1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review – Contextual Issues: BLR Zoning Map
Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document
2004-2007 Settlement Agreement & Annexor Shared Obligations
o Dissolution of the BLR Planning Association
o Who is the “Annexor”o Issue of “Joint & Several Liability”o Identifying & Quantifying “Shared”
Annexor Obligationso Creation of a “Shared” Fee Systemo Issues that had to be Overcome
1988 BLR Annexation Agreement
o Sets forth various Annexor obligations for both infrastructure construction & dedication of public facility sites
o Requires the creation of the Banning Lewis Ranch Improvement Fund to collect fees and make reimbursements among the various Annexors to cover the shared Annexor obligations
o Agreement envisions the creation of the Banning Lewis Planning Association as a non-profit corporation that would have the responsibility of equitably distributing the costs of the shared Annexor obligations among the various Annexors
2004 Settlement Agreement
o Clarifies that each Annexor should pay his or her equitable and proportional share of all Annexation Agreement obligations and eliminates the joint and several liability concept
o Requires the City to assume the BLR Planning Association’s role of equitably distributing the costs of the shared Annexor obligations among the various Annexors
o Requires the City to establish and administer the Banning Lewis Ranch Improvement Fund
2004 Settlement Agreement
o Designates the City with the responsibility to:o Allocate the development costs among all
Annexors
o Implement reimbursement and cost recovery program
o Collect all service and impact fees
o Properly disburse from the Banning Lewis Ranch Improvement Fund of all fees and charges collected from Annexors
Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Scope
o Completed by City Planning with support from Professional Consultants, Inc. (PCI) and Internal City Team
o Identifies all Annexation Agreement Obligations
o Categorizes Annexor Obligations as either Reimbursable (shared) or Non-Reimbursable Obligations
o Groups reimbursable/shared obligations into two categories:o Annexor Obligations which are eligible for
existing reimbursement/cost- sharing mechanisms
o Annexor Obligations which require new reimbursement/cost-sharing mechanisms
o Examples of existing reimbursement/cost-sharing mechanisms: o School/Park Land Dedications or Fees in Lieu
Thereofo Utility Cost Recovery Agreementso Drainage Basin Fees
Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Scope
Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Cost Estimates
o Total Shared Annexor Obligations o $891,842,467
o Shared Annexor Obligations covered by existing reimbursement mechanismso $701,572,891
o Shared Annexor Obligations that require the use of new reimbursement mechanismso $190,269,575
o $67,108,174 Banning Lewis Parkway Constructiono $55,855,114 Banning Lewis Parkway ROW Dedicationo $25,000,000 Banning Lewis Parkway Interchangeo $42,306,287 General Annexor Obligations
What’s Happening in BLR Today
o Village One Statuso Charter Schoolo Welcome & Recreation Centero Model Homes under Constructiono Parks & Trails
o Village Two Statuso Use of Metro Districts
What’s Happening in BLR Today - Infrastructure
o Wastewater Treatment Plant Statuso Water Supply and Storageo BLR Parkwayo Annexation Agreement Obligations
What’s Happening in BLR Tomorrow
o Village Concepto Development Planso Build-Out Projectionso Timing
RanchAerial
Ranch MasterPlan
Ranch Annexors Map
Village Planning
Inaugural Village, Northtree
Inaugural Village, Northtree - BLRA
Inaugural Village, Northtree – Ranch House
Inaugural Village, Northtree – Central Park Plan
Inaugural Village, Northtree – Pasillo Trail
Preliminary Village 2 Plan
Contacts
o Larry Larsen, City of CS Senior Land Use Review Planner [email protected] (719) 385-5090
o Ira Joseph, City of CS Comprehensive Planning [email protected] (719) 385-5557
o Paul Tice, City of CS Former Land Use Review Managerprt@[email protected]
o John Cassiani, BLRMC Vice President of Project [email protected] (719) 955-7100
o Pat McNamara, BLRMC Engineering [email protected] (719) 955-7100
Questions?