A public hearing that many would call contentious took nearly three hours of the Chaffee County Planning Commission (PC) regular meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 2, and ended with a five to one vote (one PC member was absent) to move forward on a sketch plan for the Timber Creek Cluster Subdivision — or Timber Creek Conservation Subdivision — the names got used interchangeably, although they represent two different sketch plans.
The Timber Creek project sketch plan came before the Chaffee County Planning Commissioner with two options (pictured the standard conservation subdivision plan, provided as a separate visual). The preferred cluster plan focused on the northeast portion of the property is contained within the proposal pdf in this article.
The sketch plan will go before the Chaffee Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 16.
It will arrive loaded with questions about how it fits the county’s new Comprehensive Plan and public irritation that the county’s outdated land-use-code is still more than a year away while developers appear to be rushing ahead with major subdivisions before the LUC matches the Comp Plan.
Timber Creek Cluster Development
The project sits on what was once 359.5 acre Case Ranch, within walking and biking distance with Salida. Both versions of the project would keep some portion of what is now a center pivot agricultural irrigation system, with the cluster plan hugging the northeastern end of the property along the border of the Longhorn Ranch subdivision.
The 121-acre major subdivision on rural agricultural land near the Salida city limits of Frantz Lake would not be annexed by the city of Salida, nor does the developer plan to connect to city water or sewer. Instead, the cluster version of the sketch plan calls for the average .8 acre lots to each be served by individual wells and septic systems.
The developer also owns a nearby 175-acre parcel of the same ranch (divided into five 35 acre sites now called the TCR Estates to the southwest). There is a Harrington Ditch water right, one of the oldest in the county. It is shared with other ditch owners, including the city of Salida and the Dept. of Resources fish hatchery, which needs pure water for rearing fish hatchlings.
The lengthy session was punctuated with comments by a frustrated public, and admonitions from the PC that in one case brought a member of the public to tears. It included what some perceived as a veiled threat by developer Walt Harder and his development lead Joe DeLuca that if the PC didn’t approve their plan for a cluster development of more than 60 homes on less than one-acre lots (possible due to lot size averaging), each allowed an ADU unit, with 40 ft. roadways, they would simply have the right to do the other plan.
That cluster plan sketch is contained in this proposal: https://arkvalleyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Timber-Creek-Ranch.pdf
“The two-acre subdivision is considerably more profitable. In fact, the conservation cluster development is 20 percent less profitable but we like it,” said Harder. “We’re excited about [principal planner] Greg Laudenslager’s enthusiasm to get this to work and want to do it for all the right reasons. We prefer the cluster, but in the absence of a smooth easy approval process, we will revert to the second option.”
That led at least two planning commissioners to ask for clarification on exactly what they were being asked to vote on. After some back and forth, it was determined that the PC was being asked to vote on the cluster subdivision.
“We are in this weird 18-month timeframe between the comp plan and the LUC…we don’t know exactly what it means. Issues of density and issues of open space, the city in the city and the country in the country were the driving changes behind the comp plan. We haven’t had chance to put this in the code,” said Planning Commission Chair Anderson Horne. “The truth is we don’t know exactly what it means in terms of rules. What we are faced with here is a large subdivision that will have a major impact on the entire county. A lot of problems we can solve, access, buffers, open space… we do a great job on conditions.” He went on to remind the audience that there are many steps in the process of approval, and the sketch plan is only the beginning of the long process.
“Here’s what I’m worried about – in this weird grey area, once approved, even at a sketch plan level it’s hard to have a lot of impact. I’m going to suggest something that we haven’t done before – we need to slow down. We table this. I’m not saying we don’t approve this, but I’d like input from the housing authority and the housing trust,” said Planning Commissioner Bill Baker. “The issue here isn’t just how to solve the issues on this, but it’s a huge deal for the county. We are allowed to use the system to benefit us in terms of what to do to serve the whole county … the staff report was … quite illuminating, but we still don’t know what we’re talking about here.”
It is an accepted fact that the county is in desperate need of, and is investing behind workforce housing. A member of the public pointed out during public comment that creating $150,000 lots on county land for $750,000 houses doesn’t match that goal. “When we’re talking about ROSIs or clusters, we need more time to get more clarification from the Chaffee Housing Trust and the Multijurisdictional Housing Authority,” said Baker, who made a motion, not to reject the sketch plan, but to table it until that information could be gained.
The motion died for lack of a second, but not before an extensive back-and-forth occurred, in which the planning commission admitted that the new Chaffee County Comprehensive Plan and the old Land Use Code don’t agree. From observing the meeting, it appears the situation may be leading to interpretation that may not represent the public’s wishes.
Public Objects to Density and other things
During public comment, several nearby residents voiced frustration that the development seems to fly in the face of the new comprehensive plan as well as portions that overlap the Salida Airport Overlay District. Others said they respect property rights, but are disturbed about what they view to be extreme density, at the edge of their fences in a rural area.
Others brought up water concerns and the traffic impacts on quiet county roads. Bobby Craig, who owns lot 7 of Longhorn Ranch said his concern was traffic on the edge of his property.
Still others such as Shae Whitney called the presentation “doublespeak” and the current situation “over-expansion”. She added, “water rights cannot be granted by neighborhood covenants – it’s not ironclad. This needs further investigation about the water rights – it’s for agriculture not for a subdivision park and this isn’t ag.”
She questions the developer’s comment that doing centralized water and septics would take too long – three years. “This should be on municipal sewer and water and they said that it wouldn’t be.”
The common thread across 16 letters that had been received from the public prior to the public hearing focused on inappropriate density for the area, concerns that workforce housing wasn’t being considered, and the drilling of wells so near access to municipal water.
Barb Simonson of Salida said, “I confirm the concerns about water rights. The aquifer isn’t replenished, the wells will go dry and what does this do to the quality of water the [fish] hatchery depends upon getting. I also want to know, “How many ADUs will be allowed in this subdivision?
Rural character, water availability, and sustainability were common threads raised by several nearby residents, all points within the county’s comprehensive plan. Some raised questions about aquifer drawdown tests and subsurface flows and were told that their points were good, but premature for the process.
“As a hydrologist, I point out these are small lots, and given the constraints on the wells and the size, there is no guarantee of water,” said Planning Commissioner Devin Castendyknear the conclusion of the hearing.
“He has a right to develop his property. And those rights for a standard subdivision are much clearer … cluster developments do a much better job of preserving open space,” said Horne. “We have to follow what the Land Use Code allows us to do … within that framework, we go to this first, then we look for ways to satisfy the aspirational goals of the comp plan … telling us what the potential options are is not a threat.”
Of course they approved it. Anybody who thinks that developers don’t run the county is kidding themselves.