360 Ranch fears denial

Developers withdraw application from Board of Commissioners


— Fearing denial from the Routt County Board of Commissioners, the developers of a controversial rural subdivision west of Steamboat Springs withdrew their application from consideration Tuesday.

The project, known as 360 Ranch, narrowly escaped the Routt County Planning Commission last month with a 5-4 vote recommending approval. That vote followed a failed motion to deny the project. In Tuesday's public hearing, Brian Bavosi of Vertical Arts announced the withdrawal of the application but proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation of plans for the land, which Virginian Hank Wilton purchased in February for $6.74 million.

Bavosi said he felt he followed the direction of county staff - Routt County Planning Director Chad Phillips recommended the project for approval - and expressed frustration that the project is being met with mixed feelings. Bavosi said he withdrew the application due to county regulations that would have prevented the development, if denied, from returning for reconsideration within the next year.

Developers proposed an 11-lot "land preservation subdivision," or LPS, on 320 acres. The developers are entitled to nine lots under state law. Using LPS regulations, they could be awarded two bonus lots in exchange for clustering the home sites on one portion of the property, thus preserving traditional agricultural activities on dedicated open space.

Plans also included two "remainder parcels" just west of Steamboat Springs city limits and within the future urban growth boundary described in the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan. Most of the contention regarding the 360 Ranch proposal concerned these remainder parcels, and developers' request for an exception that would allow denser housing on the parcels if they are someday annexed into the city.

A 40-year question

Phillips said Tuesday that Planning Commissioners who voted against the project felt the developers were "double dipping" by seeking the LPS bonus lots while at the same time anticipating future development on the remainder parcels.

County Attorney John Merrill said the application was not consistent with county regulations, which say remainder parcels can only be considered for development after 40 years. Merrill said that when county regulations clash with provisions in a master plan document - such as the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan - the regulations should prevail.

Bavosi thought his plan would be allowed under language in the area plan that discusses "hold zones" that can be considered for future dense development, but acknowledged Tuesday that others might disagree.

"This might be trying to fit a round peg in a square hole," Bavosi said. "Right now, from what we're hearing, everyone might not be comfortable with this. : Hopefully I can get some direction soon."

County Commissioner Nancy Stahoviak said commissioners had no idea the application would be withdrawn. She took issue with Bavosi's implication that the application would be denied and said all three commissioners came to the hearing with an open mind.

"We did not tell our planning staff we were not going to approve the project," Stahoviak said.

Stahoviak agreed with Merrill's assessment that the provisions in the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan do not exempt projects from county regulations, specifically the 40-year wait before additional residential density can be considered.

Stahoviak said the developers now have an opportunity to make a fresh start.

"The bottom line is, moving forward, they have the opportunity to come back with something of a conceptual nature for input," Stahoviak said.


AmebaTost 9 years, 4 months ago

Like two lots are going to hurt anyone, give me a break. This town government just wants to play god!


Scott Wedel 9 years, 4 months ago

Instead of trying to use an LPS to get extra lots and then say two of those lots could be annexed into Steamboat, they should subdivide the parcel into annexable parcel and an LPS parcel. And then present a LPS plan for the LPS parcel.

It was an attempt to game the system to count the entire acreage for the LPS and then divide out two parcels for future annexation.


steamboatsconscience 9 years, 4 months ago

Scott that would be the correct way to do it. looks like another real estate agent sold property at an inflated price promising " don't worry we have the city in our pocket"


techno_babble 9 years, 4 months ago

all - this has NOTHING to do with the city. Its a county job all the way.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.