1. Banning Lewis Ranch (BLR) 24,000 Acre Master Planned Community 2007 APA Colorado Annual Conference October 4, 2007

2. Banning Lewis Ranch oLarry Larsen, City of CS Senior Land Use Review Planner, Moderator oIra Joseph, City of CS Comprehensive Planning Manager oPaul Tice, City of CS Former Land Use Review Manager oJohn Cassiani, BLRMC Vice President of Project Operations oPat McNamara, BLRMC Engineering Manager

3. Presentation Topics oIntroduction o1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review & Approval Process o2004 / 2007 Settlement Agreement & Annexor Shared Obligations Program o2007 What’s Happening Now & What is the Future of BLR

4. Introduction oWhat is Banning Lewis Ranch? oWhere is Banning Lewis Ranch? oWhy is Banning Lewis Significant?

5. What is Banning Lewis Ranch? o24,000 acre Master Planned Community o21,000 acres under single ownership control – the Banning Lewis Ranch Management Company o14 miles long and 4 miles wide oMinimal existing development / Open prairie oAnnexed into Colorado Springs in 1988 oHard zoned at time of annexation oCity within a City

6. BLR Regional Context Map

7. Why is Banning Lewis Ranch Significant? oSize: 24,000 acres oMaster Planned Community: oResidential oSchools/Parks/Open Space oCommercial/Office/Industrial oPublic Facilities / Utilities oParkways, Streets and Trails oDesign Guidelines & Control oVacant / Undeveloped oBuild-Out Population: 180,000 residents / 75,000 homes oOwnership History & Configuration oAggressive / Controversial / Complex Annexation Agreement oHard Zoning oColorado Spring’s Final Frontier oDeveloper Approach / Village Concept / Connectivity

8. BLR Master Plan Map

9. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oBL Ranch culminated a decade of aggressive annexation that added 57,000 acres (89.2 square miles) to the city oFactors that contributed to this expansion of the city oCity Utilities capacity, particularly water supply oEl Paso County groundwater policies which required evidence of a 300 year supply to serve proposed development oNascent regional planning steering urban densities to municipalities oDesire by City Council to foreclose opportunity for development of competing “satellite” jurisdictions (the metro Denver scenario) oWillingness 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

10. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oUtilities oCity had capacity to serve proposed development oWater: 1988 Available supply: 122,300 Acre Feet (AF), with annual usage of 70,000 AF oElectric, Gas : excess generating capacity at the time and available supply oWastewater: Due to size and location of BLR, a new regional wastewater facility would be required, to be paid for primarily by BLR oEPC /regional policies o300 year groundwater requirement effectively precluded development not on a centralized supply system oUrban density defined as greater than 1 DU/2.5 acres, or anything that requires a centralized water/wastewater delivery/collection system

11. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oAvoid “satellite jurisdictions” oAs a regional employment and retail center, Colorado Springs garnered the lion’s share of retail sales tax revenue oIt was estimated at the time that only about 60% of sales tax revenues came from city residents oThis situation allowed city officials to argue that new growth does not adversely impact existing city tax payers oDeveloper willingness to accept significant costs for infrastructure through annexation process oDue to EPC policies, projects could not achieve desired urban densities without city water oAnnexation process is negotiated and not subject to proportionality and rational nexus parameters oCity used “marginal cost” of development in analyzing annexation requests

12. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oMajor Issues for City in Evaluation of Annexation oUtilities/Infrastructure/Services: oin certain instance, developing entirely new systems (e.g.,wastewater) oBuyout of significant portion of REA service territory oAssigning responsibility for regional infrastructure oApplicant’s desire for no phasing plan oPlanning for public safety without phasing oFinancial/Fiscal oSize of project and length of buildout made fiscal forecasting very difficult oLack of phasing required safeguards to protect city from scenario where service costs exceed revenue from development oPlanning oConsistency with city’s master plan process oApplicant’s desire for “hard zoning” concurrent with annexation

13. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oReview Process oAnnexation petitions and master plan submitted January 1987 oTwo major amended applications submitted in November 1987 and May 1988 oRefinement of submittal to meet code requirements, creating “stabilized land use plan” oAnalysis of infrastructure, utilities and service requirements oDetermination of adjacent and off-site regional infrastructure and utilities needs o Development of 142 zoning parcels and ordinances correlated to stabilized land use plan oFiscal analysis methodology to annually assess impact of development on city revenues and to mitigate potential shortfalls oAssignment of responsibilities for coordination of annexors’ obligations (master developer concept) o Annexations, Master Plan, 142 zoning districts approved by City Council in June 1988 oAnnexation Agreement recorded September 1988 oSavings & Loan Industry implosion, RTC bailout 1989-1992

14. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues oPlanning Outcomes oThree large activity centers with zoning conditions intended to foster mixed-use development through minimum FAR’s, requirements for mix of uses, specified residential densities oHard 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 oUse of simple impact fee formula (adjusted for politics) to allocate annexor’s financial obligations for adjacent and off-site roadways oActual 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 oHard zoning, financial safeguards in annexation agreement, and distance from existing development made activity infeasible until recently

15. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review: Contextual Issues: Original Master Plan Submittal

16. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review – Contextual Issues: Approved Master Plan

17. 1988 Annexation & Master Plan Review – Contextual Issues: BLR Zoning Map

18. 2004-2007 Settlement Agreement & Annexor Shared Obligations oDissolution of the BLR Planning Association oWho is the “Annexor” oIssue of “Joint & Several Liability” oIdentifying & Quantifying “Shared” Annexor Obligations oCreation of a “Shared” Fee System oIssues that had to be Overcome

19. 1988 BLR Annexation Agreement oSets forth various Annexor obligations for both infrastructure construction & dedication of public facility sites oRequires 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 oAgreement 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

21. 2004 Settlement Agreement oClarifies 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 oRequires the City to assume the BLR Planning Association’s role of equitably distributing the costs of the shared Annexor obligations among the various Annexors oRequires the City to establish and administer the Banning Lewis Ranch Improvement Fund

22. 2004 Settlement Agreement oDesignates the City with the responsibility to: oAllocate the development costs among all Annexors oImplement reimbursement and cost recovery program oCollect all service and impact fees oProperly disburse from the Banning Lewis Ranch Improvement Fund of all fees and charges collected from Annexors

23. Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Scope oCompleted by City Planning with support from Professional Consultants, Inc. (PCI) and Internal City Team oIdentifies all Annexation Agreement Obligations oCategorizes Annexor Obligations as either Reimbursable (shared) or Non-Reimbursable Obligations

24. oGroups reimbursable/shared obligations into two categories: oAnnexor Obligations which are eligible for existing reimbursement/cost- sharing mechanisms oAnnexor Obligations which require new reimbursement/cost-sharing mechanisms oExamples of existing reimbursement/cost-sharing mechanisms: oSchool/Park Land Dedications or Fees in Lieu Thereof oUtility Cost Recovery Agreements oDrainage Basin Fees Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Scope

25. Annexor Shared Obligation Study - Cost Estimates oTotal Shared Annexor Obligations o$891,842,467 oShared Annexor Obligations covered by existing reimbursement mechanisms o$701,572,891 oShared Annexor Obligations that require the use of new reimbursement mechanisms o$190,269,575 o$67,108,174 Banning Lewis Parkway Construction o$55,855,114 Banning Lewis Parkway ROW Dedication o$25,000,000 Banning Lewis Parkway Interchange o$42,306,287 General Annexor Obligations

26. What’s Happening in BLR Today oVillage One Status oCharter School oWelcome & Recreation Center oModel Homes under Construction oParks & Trails oVillage Two Status oUse of Metro Districts

27. What’s Happening in BLR Today - Infrastructure oWastewater Treatment Plant Status oWater Supply and Storage oBLR Parkway oAnnexation Agreement Obligations

28. What’s Happening in BLR Tomorrow oVillage Concept oDevelopment Plans oBuild-Out Projections oTiming

29. Ranch Aerial

30. Ranch Master Plan

31. Ranch Annexors Map

32. Village Planning

33. Inaugural Village, Northtree

34. Inaugural Village, Northtree - BLRA

35. Inaugural Village, Northtree – Ranch House

36. Inaugural Village, Northtree – Central Park Plan

37. Inaugural Village, Northtree – Pasillo Trail

38. Preliminary Village 2 Plan

39. Contacts oLarry Larsen, City of CS Senior Land Use Review Planner llarsen@springsgov.com (719) 385-5090llarsen@springsgov.com oIra Joseph, City of CS Comprehensive Planning Manager ijoseph@springsgov.comijoseph@springsgov.com (719) 385-5557 oPaul Tice, City of CS Former Land Use Review Manager prt@52256@hotmail.com oJohn Cassiani, BLRMC Vice President of Project Operations johnc@BanningLewisRanch.comjohnc@BanningLewisRanch.com (719) 955-7100 oPat McNamara, BLRMC Engineering Manager pattrickm@BanningLewisRanch.compattrickm@BanningLewisRanch.com (719) 955-7100

40. Questions?