The Chaffee Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) moved briskly through their Tuesday, April 9 BoCC meeting, moving to conditionally approve the Celora North Planned Development Final Plat. They also approved Resolution 2024- 29 for requested amendments to enable the Cleora North development to accommodate modern building standards.
During the public hearing, project developer Jeff Post pointed out that questions regarding responsibility for the railroad crossing should not be carried by his development alone. He explained that just because his is the first development on the historic Cleora townsite that doesn’t mean that others won’t be developing surrounding parcels over the coming years and decades.
“If in 50 years another one of the parcels gets developed, or the road gets improved all the way to the hospital, the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) has been clear that they own the railroad crossing,” said Post. “I don’t think its fair to put all that on one developer; there will probably be more.”
Post and county officials are participating in two upcoming meetings with the PUC and the railroad engineer, on April 22 or May 8 that are expected to provide information “on exactly what improvements [to the crossing] need to be considered to make the road happen.”
Post addressed the final plat request saying that “at a high level, I don’t need to wordsmith this thing, but there are a couple other small things in it like it talks about the improvement of the water system and one of the signoffs on that is the county – but isn’t that the state and the water council?” He also questioned the 12 percent penalties if he doesn’t pay his fees on time, and noted that according to his attorney, the statue is eight percent.
Commissioner Greg Felt responded that the water system is the responsibility of: “It’s CDPHE and the HOA, not the county who will be looking after the water system.”
Cleora North Planned Development
Post noted that there are really two decision points, “This development now. and the second when or if the railroad runs again.”
One of the conditions of approval added by the Chaffee Planning Commission is that the developer is responsible for the new county road – CR3. But Post noted that railroad cross bucks (crossing guard rail systems) can cost $250,000, and according to the railroad it is usually responsible for around 80 percent of the cost, prompting the county to ask about who is responsible for the remaining costs.
“If CR 177 is improved to get to the hospital, I don’t think this should all be put on Cleora North,” said Post. ” There are several parcels around it that are privately owned and I would hope that this would transfer to the HOA … He asked if the word ‘proportionate’ could be inserted in the development agreement “to give future parties some fair share in this, not just on the Cleora project.”
There was only one comment during the public comment section, by Salida Planning Director Bill Almquist, who recommended that instead of the provision requiring five percent affordable housing, “I would suggest that you consider if it will be at that level, relatively close to the market rate — 180-200 percent [Area Median Income] AMI — don’t make it income restricted, but just restricted for the local workforce at whatever sales price the seller can get. We’ve found here in the city that homes in the 160 [percent] AMI range are challenging to sell because of the proximity to the other homes for sale.”
Post noted that “that makes a lot of sense. We’re having trouble on the deed-restricted units reselling [the concept] with the banks. So just restricting this to the local workforce – I’m a firm believer in supplying the demand from the market – it always helps pricing as well. ”
The BoCC discussion was overwhelmingly positive.
“I’m in support of that restriction for just local workforce housing … It’s time to get this going. I mean it was platted in the 1880s,” said Commissioner P.T. Wood.
“I agree, it’s platted, it’s there, it shouldn’t be super controversial. I want to reinforce eliminating ambiguity with that railroad crossing,” said Commissioner Keith Baker. “Sooner or later it’s going to have to be resolved … we have lots of these out there decided in the past under a shade tree and never written down.”
“The railroad is my last major concern,” said Felt. “I agree with [Post] this isn’t just one little intersection — this county has completely changed … this question will need to be resolved by the railroad if they ever do want to reinitiate the service here.”
It was agreed that the development department will work with Post to clean up the minor changes and that the approval will be put it on the consent agenda at the next meeting.
Felt made the motion for conditional approval with the minor changes and with the adoption of the Planning Commissioner’s findings and conditions. Baker seconded and it passed unanimously.
Next, the BoCC consider the Cleora North Planned Development plat amendment (to adjust the small, 1880s lots to modern development). Baker made the motion to approve Resolution 2024-29, Felt seconded and it passed unanimously.
After that public hearing, there were two small pieces of action. First, the BoCC approved a letter of support for the Upper Arkansas Council of Government’s USDA – Rural Development 523 grant application.
Then, meeting as the Board of Equalization, the commissioners considered a tax abatement, for a property located at 209 M Street, Salida, for the 2023 Tax Year.
The request is not following the normal process, which would normally be to appeal the county assessors’ valuation in May of the year. County Assessor Rick Roberts said, “We recommend denial – we feel we have the correct value established.” He added that this does not mean that the property owner is out of options; he could then file a regular appeal in May 2024.
The commissioners attempted to hear from the abatement applicant, who attended on Zoom, but he did not speak during either of the two times the commissioners attempted to hear from him. They then unanimously supported the county assessor’s recommendation.
Recent Comments