Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer plat differs from approved plan, resident warns commission about Echo Canyon subdivision and water-rights uncertainty
Summary
A resident told the commission that a newly recorded Echo Canyon subdivision plat appears to differ from a previously approved development plan and that ongoing water-rights challenges could prevent homes from connecting to culinary water, raising floodplain and build-height concerns.
Resident Dave Plosper told the Grand County Commission on Sept. 2 that a recently recorded subdivision plat for what he called the Echo Canyon (formerly Cakery) project covers about 11 acres with 14 parcels, three of which have already been sold. Plosper said the plat places lots in a floodplain and that the developers’ water rights are being challenged in court; he said that if the developers lose those rights, culinary water and wastewater service may not be available to future homebuilders.
Plosper said the lieutenant governor’s office previously approved a development plan for Echo Canyon in June but that the newly recorded subdivision plat appears “entirely different” from the plan the lieutenant governor’s office approved. He told commissioners he contacted that office and was told there would be no ongoing pairing or oversight tying the recorded plat to the development plan, which, in Plosper’s account, could allow the developers to build outside the originally approved specifications.
Plosper also said the developer has set a maximum building height of 80 feet for Echo Canyon, which he said is 35 feet taller than the county’s 45-foot limit. He said these factors together — development in a floodplain, uncertainty about water rights, and a higher building-height limit in the developers’ documents — raised concerns about the project’s future buildout. Plosper characterized some parcels as already sold and questioned whether buyers were being sold lots where necessary utilities and services may never be delivered.
The presentation was made during citizens-to-be-heard; no county action or vote occurred during public comment. The commission did not make any immediate rulings on Plosper’s remarks at the meeting.
