Powell leaders are hoping to incentivize the construction of new subdivisions and streets with a new measure — or, more accurately, a half-measure.

The city has long required developers to fully build out the streets within their subdivision, even if they only own one side of the street. However, a change made by the Powell City Council in May relaxed that rule, allowing developers to build temporary half-streets in a few limited circumstances.

Although they’re roughly half the width of a standard road, half-streets are still wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic.

One already exists in town, as the city allowed Park County School District 1 to build only half of Day Street when it constructed Southside Elementary School. The half-street — which might be mistaken for a school driveway — will have to be widened into a full-fledged street whenever the privately owned field to the east is developed.

Last spring, City Administrator Zack Thorington argued it was “bad business” to only offer the school the chance to build a half-street; he recommended amending the ordinance to give every developer the same chance, contending the requirements were “really deterring growth.”

During his decades with the city, Thorington said multiple developers have balked at having to install all the asphalt, curb and gutter when the opposite side of the street is owned by another individual or company. In those situations, the first person to develop can get stuck with all the street costs — and Thorington said that’s caused developers to either walk away from projects or circumvent the requirement by installing cul-de-sacs. That’s not a great outcome, he indicated, as Powell missed out on new housing or wound up with dead-end cul-de-sacs that “are not advantageous for growth.”

Thorington gave a couple of specific examples where the street requirement had been an issue — including a parcel of vacant land that sits just north of Northwest College.

A number of years ago, the then-owner sought to subdivide the 15.5-acre property and build new houses. However, he didn’t want the expense of constructing Division Street from its now-undeveloped intersection with 10th Street all the way to Lane 8. Instead, the owner proposed cul-de-sacs that would have effectively tacked the subdivision onto the existing development to the east. But that plan drew objections from neighbors, who were concerned about the surge in traffic the development would bring to Pat O’Hara and Bald Ridge drives. Ultimately, the proposal was scrapped and the property remains undeveloped.

New subdivision to use new rule

In his roughly 15 years on the city’s planning board, developer Shane Shoopman said he’d seen the street requirement stymie four big developments.

Shoopman will be the first to take advantage of the ordinance change, as he plans to install half of South Jones Street while building a new 30-lot subdivision.

The Shoopman 5 Subdivision, owned by Shoopman and his brother Scott, is located on the east side of the newly extended Jones Street while the property on the western side of the street, owned by Sheridan Construction, will remain undeveloped for the time being.

Without the ordinance change, the Shoopmans would have been on the hook for building out the infrastructure to serve both sides of the street — a cost that made Shoopman consider going with cul-de-sacs. In the end, however, he said he wanted to extend Jones Street.

Streets enable future growth, Shoopman said at a spring meeting, and “I would rather do it right.”

Limited circumstances

Under the city’s revised ordinance, half-streets are only allowed when the property being developed is adjacent to an undeveloped parcel that’s owned by someone else. And while developers will only have to build the street out to the centerline, they still must acquire the full right-of-way from the adjoining landowner to ensure the rest of the street is completed when the adjacent parcel is developed.

Though City Planning and Zoning board members had some questions about allowing half-streets, they all ultimately supported the change.

Revising the ordinance “would give us and the public leverage to encourage the developers to do it right,” member Ronn Smith reasoned at one meeting, “whereas without the ordinance, we don’t have an alternative when they say, ‘I can’t afford to build the street.’”

The council also gave its unanimous approval.