Buena Vista trustees continue Amazon’s Project Valley annexation after hours of questions about traffic, water and housing

Mayor and trustees of the Town of Buena Vista continued a public hearing on April 14 over Amazon’s proposed “Project Valley” annexation and rezone request after staff and the applicant presented technical details and residents pressed for more information on traffic, water and housing impacts.

Planning director Marika Koff opened the hearing by summarizing the request: a partial annexation of 17.35 acres of a previously remediated sanitation site and a rezone to I‑1 (light industrial) to allow construction of a roughly 32,000‑square‑foot last‑mile delivery station. Koff said the parcel is identified for growth in the town’s comprehensive and three‑mile plans, but noted that annexation is discretionary and that the town must confirm the Municipal Annexation Act criteria and negotiate an annexation agreement to manage infrastructure and community impacts.

“An approval of annexation is not an approval of a development or site plan,” Koff told the board, noting staff’s requests for a traffic study that examines both a three‑year ramp and a high‑water 10‑year build‑out and for detailed water‑augmentation documentation.

Sam Bailey, Amazon’s senior manager for economic development policy, described the company’s proposal and operations. He said the facility would be a last‑mile delivery station intended to serve customers within roughly a 60‑minute drive. “We estimate the creation of 25 full and part‑time jobs at launch,” Bailey said, and added that Amazon associates at such sites are eligible for company benefits and an education program. The applicant’s materials projected an initial trafffic scenario of about 17 van trips and two semi trips at year three, with a higher “high‑water” build‑out scenario included in a later study.

Residents and local organizations filled the podium during the public‑comment period. John O’Brien, a local resident, urged town leaders to require a binding workforce‑housing commitment from Amazon before approving annexation, arguing the company’s proposed $175,000 stipend would be inadequate to meet projected housing demand. “Somebody is going to have to pay for workforce housing,” O’Brien said, urging the board not to approve annexation without a housing‑impact study and firm commitments.

Other speakers raised safety and traffic concerns at the Baylor/Highway 24/railroad intersection and at County Road 313/317, cited a county resolution that currently discourages heavy truck through‑traffic on 313, and asked for turning‑radius exhibits, 24‑hour traffic counts with seasonal variation, and a wear‑and‑tear analysis showing road‑maintenance needs and likely costs. Several commenters also asked for expanded noise and air‑quality analysis because of nearby residential neighborhoods, school traffic and the Arkansas River corridor.

Supporters at the meeting said the project would bring jobs with benefits and no public subsidies; the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation chair praised town staff for working with Amazon and urged trustees to continue technical review rather than reject the annexation outright.

During deliberations trustees and staff identified a list of outstanding materials they want before deciding: a revised traffic impact study with Baylor intersection turning exhibits and 24‑hour counts (with seasonal checks), a road wear‑and‑tear study based on core samples, a sound study and idling/air quality analysis, a clearer water‑augmentation plan and irrigation footprint, and wage/hiring breakdowns and comparisons from other Colorado sites using similar last‑mile facilities. Staff also suggested drafting potential annexation‑agreement provisions — including a workforce‑housing stipend, maximum‑growth/traffic ceilings or triggers that would require the applicant to return to the board, and enforceable idling and noise complaint response obligations.

Trustees voted to continue the public hearing to May 12 to allow staff and the applicant to provide the requested analyses and proposed agreement language. The continuance passed without recorded opposition.

If the parties can agree on an annexation agreement, trustees will consider an annexation ordinance and concurrent rezoning; if an agreement cannot be reached the board may decline the request. The hearing will return to the board on May 12 for additional review and possible action.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will provide the updated traffic and road‑impact studies, noise analysis, water‑augmentation documentation, examples of wages and hiring at comparable sites and sample annexation‑agreement language ahead of the May 12 meeting.