P&Z OKs Crown Ranch final phase
By MEGAN THOMAS
Express Staff Writer
The SV P&Z approved Phase 5 of Crown Ranch that calls for 11 townhouse units. Photo courtesy of Crown Point Development.
|
|
With a pending lawsuit and past heated debate, the final phase of Crown Ranch subdivision in Elkhorn found approval by the Sun Valley Planning and Zoning Commission with little noise.
After a visit to the site and formal discussions on Tuesday, Sept. 28, the Sun Valley Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the design review application and to recommend approval of subdivision application for Phase 5 of the Crown Ranch development. The commission reconsidered the proposal following the request by the Sun Valley City Council.
?What we need to do is move forward,? P&Z chairman Phil Usher said.
The final phase of Crown Ranch by Crown Point Development calls for the creation of 11 lots and the construction of 11 townhouses on 3.29 acres. The developers scaled the project down from the original proposal that called for 13 units, which was submitted in April 2003.
According to the developer Lane Monroe, the 11-unit development matches the developer?s application for 11-units previously submitted in August 2003.
The plan allocates more land between units and incorporates design elements to lessen the volume of the structure. The plan also provides for a section of property to be given to the Crown Ranch homeowner?s association, upon the association?s acceptance of the property. The P&Z set forth that no future development is permitted on the parcel.
Approval of the subdivision application hinges on the condition that the developer dismiss the pending lawsuit against the city. The lawsuit concerns the previous application for 13-units on the property.
The condition put forth by the P&Z provides that each party, being the developer and the city, shall pay their respective legal fees in conjunction with a pending lawsuit.
The commission groaned while Ken Herich included the condition that the city assumes the costs of the lawsuit in his motion for approval. Commissioner Joan Lamb questioned whether the city and its taxpayers should assume the burden. City Attorney Rand Peebles advised it was the most equitable solution for the parties.
Commissioner Nils Ribi opposed the approval, stating that he did not believe the near by ridgeline received adequate protection.
