Home

Steamboat Springs — In arguing for the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary for Steamboat 700 ("Expand UGB for 700," Sunday, July 20) the Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board confuses readers and maybe even misleads them. The primary confusion lies in the editorial's assertion that Steamboat 700 stands apart from other proposals to amend the UGB because its intentions were known earlier, it had submitted its master conceptual plan for development earlier, and that the 2007 election campaigns "debated and vetted 700's future."

Before we examine each assertion, we should understand the UGB-annexation-development process and the fundamental role of the UGB to serve as a tool to manage growth.

It is essential that readers know that the Steamboat Springs development process is supposed to proceed along three steps. To take the first step, developers with projects in mind need to make sure their project falls within the UGB; if it doesn't, they must propose to amend the UGB. Second, the developer who owns the land negotiates a pre-annexation agreement with the City Council that flows into a petition to annex, and then the City Council passes an annexation ordinance. Third, the developer submits a development plan for review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council.

A second essential point is this: The UGB is a tool to manage growth. The original intent was to allow its expansion only when dwelling units had been built upon the developable land - now about 1,100 acres - within the current UGB. That land still is undeveloped and it can accommodate growth for an estimated 15 to 25 years.

Now let's look into the Editorial Board's assertions. The Steamboat 700 LLC campaign reversed the order of the three step process when it first unveiled its master conceptual plan for the 540 acre parcel it owns within the UGB and the remaining acres that lie outside the UGB and are under contract, then started its negotiations with the city, and lastly sought an expansion of the UGB.

The Emerald Mountain and River Haus proposals actually followed the intended sequence by seeking to expand the UGB first.

Like Steamboat 700, 360 Village incorporated the within-UGB parcel and the outside-UGB parcel into one conceptual plan because it needs to develop both in order to balance the lower profit margins on the affordable housing elements in more dense neighborhoods in the within-UGB portion with higher profits from the sale of properties with more acres in the outside-UGB parcel.

Thus, while the Steamboat 700 master conceptual plan was well known to the city's planning commissioners and they relied on the conceptual plan in their assessment and subsequent 4-3 approval of the Steamboat 700 proposal to amend the UGB, the plan existed as part of the longer-term strategy to pitch the total project, not to get the UGB amended.

Inadvertently, by not pitching a fully developed master conceptual plan before seeking to amend the UGB, the Emerald Mountain and River Haus proposals operated under a disadvantage.

Finally, the 2007 campaigns did not "debate and vet" Steamboat 700. I attended all the public forums, read the advertisements and listened intently to the question-and-answer sessions. I wanted to hear an actual debate on growth. I desperately wanted to hear campaign pitches properly "appraised, verified or checked for accuracy, authenticity and validity." That's what "vetted" means. Debates on growth (the UGB-annexation-development plans to increase housing and commercial square footage) never happened. No one vetted anything. The public was not well served.

As the editorial states, our city and community does need an ongoing conversation about growth. We gotta talk. Between 7 and 9 p.m. tonight at the Community Center, the Community Alliance of Yampa Valley begins that conversation in earnest. Ellen Hoj, a Routt County planner, and John Eastman, a city planner, will engage the public on exactly these issues. Join the conversation.

Steve Aigner

Steamboat Springs