Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer pitches 772‑acre 'Railroad Ranch' resort and conservation trade‑offs during public comment
Summary
A local property owner outlined a proposal for a 772‑acre gated community with 152 small, energy‑efficient homes and a pledge to place roughly 217 acres under permanent conservation; he asked the county to apply mountain‑PUD standards (≈25% open space) rather than the current 75% open‑space requirement and offered donations to local amenities.
During public comment at the Nov. 25 meeting, a Fremont County resident who described himself as a long‑time local and property owner presented an informal, early‑stage proposal for a large development in the Buckskin Joe/8 Mile Hill area.
The presenter said he has owned roughly 805–772 acres (transcript references vary) and envisions a gated ‘Railroad Ranch Resort’ with 152 small homes (each under 1,300 square feet), clustered building footprints and approximately 80% open space across the property. He pledged to place an estimated 217 acres — roughly 28 percent of the parcel — into a permanent conservation easement with the Palmer Land Conservancy (the transcript also references "Palmer Land Trust" in places) and said he would donate land and funds to local amenities, including a proposed donation toward pool operations and a three‑acre lot for a local recreation group.
The speaker asked the county to consider mountain PUD zoning standards that would allow about 25 percent development (rather than the county’s stated 75 percent open‑space requirement for that map area) and requested staff coordination while acknowledging that a formal application and public hearings remain necessary. Planning staff and the chair cautioned that the meeting is not the forum to discuss application specifics while an active application is pending and that the formal Planning Commission and public‑hearing processes would be the appropriate venues for discrete land‑use decisions.
Why it matters: The proposal raises questions about future land use, conservation tools such as permanent easements, demands on water and septic systems, and whether county zoning and PUD standards accommodate this type of clustered, conservation‑oriented development. The developer signaled community benefits but must follow the formal review process.
What’s next: The speaker said paperwork is in process and that formal public hearings will be scheduled through Planning and Zoning; the board and staff did not take action on the concept during the meeting.
