Archive for Thursday, November 15, 2007
Subdivision with a twist
Land preservation proposal goes before Planning Commission
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — The Routt County Planning Commission will hear a proposal tonight for a rural subdivision on Routt County Road 42 that could foreshadow the future of the rolling farmland west of Steamboat Springs.
Wilton Development's 360 Ranch would create 11 homesites of roughly 5 acres each on a 355-acre tract formerly farmed by Frank and Dot Hussey. Wilton Development purchased the property, known as the L Lazy H Subdivision, for $6.74 million in February.
The developers are submitting their plans under Routt County's Land Preservation Subdivision ordinance, which would award them two bonus lots above the nine they are entitled to by state law. The bonus lots are awarded in exchange for clustering the homesites on one portion of the property.
The site is immediately west and on the opposite side of a mesa from the Steamboat II and Silver Spur subdivisions.
What makes the 360 Ranch proposal unusual is that the western boundary lines of two "remainder parcels" described in the permit application were carefully drawn to conform to the urban boundary delineated in the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan. The plan governs how the city could grow beyond its current limits.
Tony Connell, a partner in the project, confirmed that those lines were drawn so that in the event that the remainder parcels are annexed into the city in the future, they could be considered for more dense housing.
"The land was chosen specifically with that in mind," Connell said.
He credited another partner, Randall Hannaway, a Realtor with Colorado Group Realty, for recognizing the potential of the property. Connell added that Hank Wilton, a resident of Virginia, is the general partner of Wilton Development. The company has offices in the 800 block of Lincoln Avenue.
Connell served on the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission in the late 1990s when the provisions of the original West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan were hammered out. Subsequently, he was the developer of the West End Village residential neighborhood where market-rate homes helped to subsidize affordable housing within the subdivision.
Connell is convinced that someday, the large homes that would be built on the lots at 360 Ranch could subsidize a denser community housing project closer to Steamboat II.
"It's really exciting to me," Connell said. "I think this one offers the same possibility. In fact, I know it does."
County planner Mitchell Harvey said the 360 Ranch proposal is on the consent portion of tonight's Planning Commission agenda, meaning it could be approved with little discussion. However, any commission member could call it up for a full discussion of its merits.
Harvey said the proposal actually entails two components. In addition to a "Land Preservation Subdivision Exemption" that would allow the two bonus lots, the developers are seeking a conditional use permit in the ag/forestry zone district.
The permit would allow them to build indoor and outdoor hot pools with a building resembling a grain silo. There also would be a cluster of buildings at the entrance to the ranch on C.R. 42. They would include a caretaker's residence, office and storage buildings.
Connell said no matter what transpires, the 360 Ranch LPS would always offer a large tract of open space that would remain in agriculture. He said the developers are consulting with representatives of the Colorado Division of Wildlife about planting a grain crop that would benefit wildlife such as cranes and grouse.
Connell said that when the Husseys sold the property to Wilton Development, they retained their home on 35 acres.
Comments
stirrinuptrouble (anonymous) says...
I'm curious as to how designating land as a "remainder" with full intention to develop later qualifies a developer for extra lots now?
In all of the proposed land development West of Steamboat there is not one plan for recreational fields.....no ball parks....no soccer fields....no tennis courts.
All the folks moving into these planned houses will have to travel across the City for athletic facilities.
Everyone knows this but no "official" is doing anything about it.
I would suggest "remainder 3" of Ranch 360 be purchased by The City for future recreational development.
November 15, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jean (anonymous) says...
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find
that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian Prophecy
November 15, 2007 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...
those Cree were not that smart Jean............
November 15, 2007 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jean (anonymous) says...
Hey Guy..
The above is true. No?
November 15, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...
if we are running out of trees, it's beetle kill, and trees are being replaced everyday, there is an abundance of trees, we haven't lost many rivers, many have been reclaimed, and there are plenty of fish, dispite all the bantering, we have all the fish we want, these streams are stocked every year, the Cree were primitive, and emotional, the only thing they ran out of was each other............
November 15, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StbtWatchmen (anonymous) says...
I guess the "big" question should be: whos going to supply water and sewer services? The Stbt II Metro district? Will or did the city of Steamboat ok the sewer taps for this? Is the developer going to be required to develope open spaces for recreation in the plan or will that be left up to the Stbt II Metro District? What will this do for I-40 traffic as we know it now? No trees to chop in this plot of land, just hillside. It will require more water for the area. Steamboat II is now excelled in size to that of Hayden. They can now incorperate and develope their own tax and buisness district and call themselves Steamboat West. Amazing what 15 years in that area has developed. Thats all we need is some new little funky row house developer to build another cramped city style housing project here like West End Village and then call it affordable at $500,00.00 each! Lol!
November 15, 2007 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp (anonymous) says...
I once bought a house in Steamboat II for less than $120k which resold for 3-times that much in the last year or two.
This is like watching lemmings jump off the cliffs into the sea, except they are stopping on the edge and throwing in all their money instead.
I cannot wait until people living in these tiny houses try to make the tax and utility payments on their social security checks. Some of them will be there 20 years after buying the house, and trying to do just that.
November 15, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stirrinuptrouble (anonymous) says...
The County Planning Commission voted 5 to 4 (close) to accept the proposal. This sets precedence, regardless of any cautionary wording to the contrary.
Our Planning Commission agreed to use land "set aside for preservation, actually set aside to remain open for the recreational pleasures of the land holders" in the calculations necessary to approve 11 5 acre clustered lots.....up until this point pretty typical "Land Preservation (LPS) agreements.
However this time they allowed the developer to maintain development rights for high density housing on the land that was supposed to be preserved so that they could get more 5 acre lots should the City decide to annex this land.
My questions at the meeting as to "why" was this necessary. If the City decided they wanted to annex in the future why couldn't they come back to the County at that time were politely ignored. What was driving the future development rights approval now? Why would the Commission vote now to remove themselves from all future right to weigh in?
Basically, our County Planning Commission seems to have given away some legal control/direction rights for very little if anything in return.
In my opinion they shirked their responsibilities crossing a bridge before it was time.
What was achieved is that the future Ranch 360 land holders will maintain a very valuable, for certain, legal right to develop that land into high density housing only having to discuss with the City.....not the County. This makes the value of the 11 lots much greater in that in the future, purchasers of the Ranch 360 lots can develop and sell off 200 of the 355 acres.
All this was approved because it fell into the "Urban Boundary Growth" drawing of the City's future planning documents.
There was not a City representative there to confirm or deny future City "plans". However the published "plans" seemed to drive the vote.
Bottom line is this 200 acres will remain available to the wildlife and private open space pleasures only until the City annexes.
Growth is inevitable....things change.....but why can't the County Planning Commssion deal with those issues when the time is closer and more unknowns are then known.
In fact, the developer representative said "they would proceed" even if the Planning Commission wanted a standard 40 year LPS agreement.
A motion to table the vote until lawyers were provided time to review legal precedent failed 4 to 5.
Their vote was not logical to me and therefore raises some questions as to something going on that was not discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting. 5 members asked few questions and appeared to have made up their minds entirely prior to the meeting.
November 15, 2007 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte (anonymous) says...
Find out how many of the 5 affirmative voters were at the site visit that day too...I understand only 2 of them showed, while all 4 of the nay voters did show up for the site visit. How can you vote on something when you don't even put forth the effort to find out what it's all about? Hope the Commissioners catch this one!!
November 17, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.