Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting - public_hearing

Everybody, if we could please come to order. Please welcome to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners Land Use and Public Hearing. It is Tuesday, April '27. We are running a bit late today. It's about ten till four. If you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. All.

Alright. Turning to the county attorney for certification of the agenda.

Yes, sir. The county attorney's officer reviewed all items on the agenda. You have appropriate jurisdiction over these matters and appropriate posting and notification has been provided where necessary.

Thank you, Councillor. Commissioners, any disclosures for items on this agenda?

I have none, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

No, sir.

Nor do I. This is the portion of our land use and public hearing where we will with where we will deal with land use meeting agenda items. We have no land use meeting agenda items today. So we'll proceed to the public hearing. Our first item is Bloom preliminary plan project files SB2025-seventeen. Mike Paseca, principal planner for staff.

Thank you, commissioners. Mike Paseca representing community development. And the request before you this afternoon is the balloon preliminary plan, project number SB2025Dash017. And this afternoon, we have Kate Bader and Paul Schuchus to represent the application. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plan to subdivide 81.85 acres into 32 single family residential lots and six tracks. All lots are proposed for single family uses. The gross density is one lot per 2.53 acres. Tracks A through E are for open space drainage and utilities. Track F is for internal private roads. Additional right of way will be dedicated for Bayou Gulch Road at the time of final plat.

And the director of community development approved the applicant's request to defer the submittal requirement for evidence of inclusion of the property into the Parker Water and Sanitation District to avoid delays in the development process on the condition that such evidence must be submitted prior to consideration of the first final plat associated with the Bloom preliminary plan by the Board of County Commissioners. The intent of the preliminary plan process is shown on this slide. The preliminary plan process begins with the submittal of an application. Following a review period by referral agencies and the public, public hearings are held before the planning commission and board of county commissioners. Several public comments were received and are attached to your staff report.

Comments centered around impacts to wildlife, traffic, proposed density, and how the plan does not meet the existing rural character of the area. And we did receive one additional public comment and that is included in your handout this afternoon. All referral agency comments are outlined in the referral agency response report as well as the referral response letters attached to the staff report. The planning commission heard the proposal at a public hearing on 04/06/2026 and unanimously recommended approval by a vote of five to zero. No one from the public spoke at the hearing.

The planning commission asked questions about a possible emergency vehicular access extending to the West. Planning commission added one condition that prior to final plat approval, the applicant reconfirmed with the fire department that access and safety is sufficient and work with the office of emergency management to reevaluate safety at a single point of access. The bloom preliminary plan project area identified by the red star on this map is located in the Northeast portion of Douglas County and designated as part of the Northeast sub area in the county's comprehensive master plan. The project site is outlined in red on this slide and is zoned as state residential. The town of Parker forms the northern project boundary.

There's planned development zoning to the south and east along with a small area of rural residential and agricultural one zoning to the West. As seen on the aerial, the project site again is outlined in red. BioGulf Road borders the property to the east and there are no structures on the property, only a scattering of bushes and trees. Take a look at some background. The property was initially zoned agricultural with the inception of zoning in Douglas County in 1955.

In 2016, the property was rezoned to a state residential. The state residential zone district allows for a maximum gross density of one unit per two and a half acres, and central water is required. This exhibit shows the full extent of the preliminary plan area, including the various lots and tracks being created. Track b, shown in red, which will be for open space drainage and utilities, provides a buffer between the proposed lots and existing adjacent lots. Lot sizes range from 1.01 acres to 1.66 acres.

The subdivision will be served by Parker Water and Sanitation District upon inclusion. Take a couple look look at a couple pictures here. This is a view to the west along the north property line. To the right are the homes in the town of Parker. And this is a view looking to the west along the south property line.

And this is I'm standing or not standing on Bayou Galt Road, but this is from Bayou Galt Road. The approval standards for for a preliminary plan request are set forth in section four zero three of the subdivision resolution and are listed on this slide. Staff has evaluated the preliminary plan in accordance with article four of the Douglas County subdivision resolution. Should the board find that the application compliance with all of the approval standards, staff proposes the following conditions for inclusion in the motion. Condition number one, prior to the board's consideration of the final plat, the applicant shall provide evidence of inclusion of the property into the Parker Water and Sanitation District.

Condition number two, prior to recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall file a well abandonment report with the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Condition number three, prior to recordation of the final plat, cash in lieu of parkland and school land dedication shall be paid in accordance with article 10 of the subdivision resolution. Condition number four, prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall reconfirm with the fire department that access and safety is sufficient and work with the office of emergency management to reevaluate safety at a single point of access. This is the condition I spoke about earlier that arose out of the planning commission's discussion discussion of that possible secondary emergency access for the development. Condition five: During construction activity within the development, the applicant, successors and assigned shall take all reasonable care to watch for historic resources, paleontological resources, and other cultural history resources and shall immediately notify Douglas County and complete the appropriate Colorado office of archaeology and historic data preservation forms in the event of such discovery.

Condition number six, technical corrections to the record copy of the preliminary plan exhibit shall be made to the satisfaction of Douglas County. And condition number seven, all commitments and promises made by the applicant or the applicant's representative during the public hearing and or agreed to in writing and included in the public record have been relied upon by the board accounting commissioners in approving the application. Therefore, such approval is conditioned upon the applicant's full satisfaction of such commitments and promises. Section 405.08 of the subdivision resolution sets forth the parameters for the board's decision for preliminary plan requests as noted on this slide. And this concludes staff's presentation.

I can take questions now. Otherwise, the applicant does have a presentation this afternoon.

Alright. Questions for staff?

I'll reserve my questions following the applicant's presentation.

Alright. On to the application excuse me. On to the applicant for presentation, please.

Good afternoon, chair, commissioners. Eric Carlson, land use attorney for the project. Foster Graham, Milstein, Callisher, 360 South Garfield Street. That's Denver 80209. Pleasure to be with you this afternoon. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Before I get started, a thank you to your staff, Mike and the rest of the planning staff, staff, everyone have been fantastic on this matter as always. So just always, always want you to know that. Thanks to your staff. I am joined today with our entire consultant and applicant team.

Here at PCS, Paul Schuchis, will do the vast majority of this presentation. I kind of serve as a little bit of the emcee here, intro. We'll turn it over to Paul. You'll hear from me again. We have Kate Bader, he's the President and CEO of Affinity Holdings. He's the applicant of record. We have Atwell Engineering here with us today. We have our traffic consultants from LSC. We have our community engagement consultants with Walt Kane and our wildlife specialists. So full team here today.

We'll be happy to answer all of your questions as we proceed through the presentation and at the end as well. So just as a quick start here, Kate Bader with Affinity Holdings has been in the homebuilding and land development business for many years, has quite a decorated history and resume there in that field. So very pleased to present this project to you. This is of course a preliminary plan request with 32 lots, 32 single family detached residential lots on approximately 81 acres. So I'll turn it over to Paul now to give you a little bit more detail on our request, and I'll talk to you again soon. Thanks.

Hi, commissioners. My name is Paul Shukas. My address is 200 Kalimuth Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm just going to provide a little bit of history about the project. The property was rezoned from agricultural or 35 acre lots to state residential back in 2016.

So the land use and the underlying zoning for the property have already been established to a state residential development and our application is really just the next step in implementing that entitlement through a preliminary plan. And the proposed site plan that we are going to show you in the next slides follows that ER zoning requirement. So this slide shows you a broader context around the site. Our sites in yellow in the middle were 32 units and it's located just adjacent to Bayou Gulch Road there. The property has existing development on three of its four sides.

It's framed by Pradera to the South That's entitled for 825 units. Trails at Crowfoot to the North which has 890 units and Allison Ranch there to the East which has 343 units. So basically we're an infill site. It's not isolated or introducing any fundamental land use pattern. We feel like it's really just filling a remaining piece with an evolving residential context and it's still maintaining that lower density of a state residential required by the zoning and the comp plan.

Before you move on from that slide, what is the zoning in the adjacent parcels?

Mike Paseke for staff. The zoning to the south and east is planned development. To the north is the town of Parker. I'm not exactly sure what that zone district is. And then to the west is agricultural one.

Okay. Thanks.

Please continue, sir. Certainly.

So our preliminary plan is within the Northeast sub area. It's been designed around that ER zone district and it follows those dimensional standards. It allows one unit for every two and a half acres along with 35 foot maximum building heights and 25 foot front and rear setbacks. So neighborhood outreach was important. We held two formal neighborhood meetings, one with Perdera and the other ones with Trails at Crowfoot.

There have been many under individual neighborhood in person meetings and calls, follow ups and all of this has really just given us an opportunity to hear directly from surrounding residents and better understand their priorities and refine the plan accordingly. Much of the discussion revolved around zoning, traffic, wildlife, preservation of open space. And some of those topics help shape the revised site plan I'm going to show you this evening. So this was our first pass before speaking to a lot of the residents. The initial concept proposed 32 units and it had larger private lot areas and smaller open space networks.

We are showing this because it kind of helps illustrate how the plan has evolved through some of the feedback we have received. The design has progressed towards a stronger open space framework with slightly smaller lot sizes. This is the revised site plan before you this evening. The plan is called Bloom because it introduces a landscape concept built around distinct flowering groves of trees distributed throughout the site creating seasonal interest over the course of the year. The overall lot count remains at 32 units which is consistent with the underlying zoning.

What's changed is the balance between the lots and the open space across the site. We increased the open space to approximately 27 acres or about 33% of the property and consolidated the lots and reduced the lot sizes. Now generally, the lots range from 1.1 to 1.6 acres. The entry is located at the northeast corner of the property across from Presidio Parkway on Bayou Gulch Road and has a gated entrance with monumentation. We feel like the revised site plan does a better job of preserving the site's character.

It creates stronger buffers. It supports wildlife movement opportunities and establishes a neighborhood rather than just simply a collection of larger lots. This highlights some of the open space and circulation network. Currently, we're showing about 1.75 miles of walkable trail in these little open space corridors and this begins to organize the development around usable open space and creates internal connectivity and preserves a portion of the site. The trail system creates opportunities for passive recreation and reinforces that estate character that's intended for the area.

So one of the elements we're continuing to explore is the entry sequence into and out of the community. The current plan meets Douglas County standards but Planning Commission encouraged us to revisit ingress and egress from the site in the event of an emergency. So we've reached out back out to emergency services and the fire department to get additional feedback and we're committed to improving the entrance so that residents have better traffic flow during emergency situations than what was originally proposed. So right now, we're evaluating options such as a roundabout or a split median which could create two points of access in and out of the site in case of an emergency situation. We also heard a lot of concerns as it related to wildlife, particularly big game in the area.

And this shows the county's wildlife resource mapping from the comp plan and our site is identified as low habitat value within that mapping context. Now it doesn't mean that wildlife considerations are being ignored nor does it mean that big game doesn't roll through here from time to time but what it does mean is that the site is not located within one of the county's higher sensitive wildlife resource areas. Or is it being used as a real movement corridor? But even so, the plan has been designed with open space corridors and open rail fencing to maintain movement opportunities across the property which is consistent with the county's wildlife related policies. So in addition to the comp plan, Affinity Homes commissioned a project specific wildlife analysis that was prepared by ERO.

And that study helped the team understand the broader wildlife context around the property. The preliminary plan response to that analysis by clustering the development and creating open space corridors as to proposing the biggest lots possible to maximize the site area and make sure we don't interfere with wildlife movement in a negative way. So the homes proposed within Bloom are intended to be custom homes. They're generally ranging between 2,506 square feet. Values will start around $2,000,000 All homes will be subject to internal homeowners association guidelines.

The vision here is for a high quality community with cohesive architecture, sustainable landscape and homes that fit within the character of the surrounding area. So these next slides are perspectives that help illustrate the character of the community. This view shows the entrance off of Bayou Gulch Road with faux guardhouse gates entering the community. The entrance is intended to create a clear sense of arrival with refined but understated design. This shows swaths of the open space provided throughout the site along with the trail network that moves through the community.

The open space, native landscape character and trail system are all central to the identity of the project. They also support some of this the county's comp plan goals, maintain visual openness, minimize natural disturbance, preserve drainage corridors, and create community that's lower intensity and more integrated with surrounding landscape. Here you can see some of the flowering groves and orchards that help give meaning to the name blu with different tree species providing seasonal color and interest throughout the year. This is another view of the trail network and the open space corridors within the site. It also shows the use of open rail fencing which helps maintain permeability across the different corridors while still defining private lots and open space tracks.

This is an aerial rendering that you'd probably never see but you can see how the lot pattern, the roadway alignment, and the open space system and corridors all work together. It reinforces that this is a low density neighborhood organized around open space and internal connectivity rather than maximizing the size of individual lots. So with that, I'm gonna bring Eric to have some closing remarks and we're here to answer any questions you might have.

So to wrap up our presentation, of course the approval criteria in Section four zero three, the first one is the consistency with your comprehensive master plan. So we've highlighted there of course several goals, policies that this application does in fact meet, highlighted a few of them up here. Importantly in the non urban land use area, we have a density allocation here. We're right at that, right within that range that we look for in the comprehensive plan for density on these sites. We're of course focused on the cluster side of it as Paul discussed, how can we maximize open space and a feel of the community there while clustering the home sites.

Our community resources and transportation goals are met, our water supply, environmental quality and wildlife. This site has been thoughtfully designed and to account for all of these goals and policies and make the best project here on this property. The your your section four zero three are on the are on the slide. These standards are all met with this application. Of course, have to go in more detail.

Mike's staff report does a great job identifying these things. We talked about we talked about the first one as well as it relates to 403.02. I wanted to also put up the design elements that are applicable here in this zone district are here because of course, your 4.0302 unlocks kind of all of your design standards here. So we've thoughtfully designed this project pursuant to the design elements that are in fact applicable to this zone district. So I will leave our presentation at that.

We respectfully request your approval of this preliminary plan. As I mentioned at the beginning, we have our entire team here of consultants. So whatever your question may be, we're here to answer it. So thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you, sir. Mike, go ahead and switch us back over. Let's get the conditions back up on the board, please. Alright. Conditions one through three. Let me know when you're ready to review the next. Next. Next, please, Mike. Alright. Next. And

And, yes, the applicant is prepared to accept these conditions.

Excellent. Thank you, sir. All right. That was my first question for the applicant. Turning it to the Board for questions for applicant and or staff.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. And

I want

to make

sure my microphone is on here. I just want to say thank you. Great presentation. And for counsel, just a couple of things. I read through the packet. Obviously, a wonderful development, the aesthetics, certainly meeting all the legal criteria based upon my review. A couple of the referral letters that we got had some comments for you. It sounds like you've addressed most of them. So the correspondence from 07/14/2025 from South Metro Fire Rescue, All of those issues related to fire hydrants you have addressed, I trust. Okay. And access points, ingress, egress associated with that. Okay. It looks like there's also

a comment from engineering services on July 29. It looks like they had some comments on proposed access points, turning lanes in Bayou Gulch Road and then minor corrections to the submitted traffic study. Have those been updated accordingly?

Yes. Those have all been updated since July.

Okay. And then did you did we

have a what was the final vote from the Planning Commission? Five-zero. Five-zero. Okay. Thank you very much. No further questions.

Commissioner Van Winkle, any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've reviewed the packet in great detail, paid close attention to the Planning Commission. No question for me. I will say there are portions like, I think, Ohioans Ranch Backcountry that did do that one way in, one way out road with the the plants, and you've road showed a rendering there that looked quite nice. It it's I've seen it look very nice elsewhere, and it seems like it has great potential for this neighborhood as well. So Thank

you for that.

Thanks for being open and thoughtful to that.

Really, the only thing I'm still unclear about tell me about the where you guys are with inclusion with Parker Water. I get it. We can hold that off until the final plat, but I'd like can I just get a get a feel for where where we at with Parker Water and a will serve letter?

Parker Water and Sanitation is on board. They have written a will serve letter. I think they haven't solidified it because there's a nonrefundable million and a half dollar charge. And because it's nonrefundable given where we are in the process that was a difficult amount of dollars to swallow. So what is happening is we've deferred that to the final plat.

Okay. Well, that's understandable. But let's say the board does grant you the plan today and give you approval. You are prepared to make that commitment by the final plat, right?

Correct. And also cap and abandon that well. That was the other reason why that condition was on there was because agricultural reasons versus what's going to be getting approved. So correct.

Okay. No, I get it. I mean, guys have invested funds in order to get to this point. So that's understandable as a business decision. Thank you. That answers my questions. Mike, I don't think I had any questions for staff. Back to the board. Any further questions? All right. Let's go ahead and go to public comment. I did not receive any sign ups on public comment. Is there anyone who'd like to make public comment on this matter at this time? And seeing none. Okay. Let's bring it back to the Board for consideration. Board, we do have a preliminary plan in front of us. How would we like to dispose of this?

It seems, Mr. Chair, thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Thanks for you. I know that work goes back many, many months. For the listening audience, we were asking questions about water and the motion I'll make will be with seven conditions as present. Now conditions one is they must provide evidence of inclusion to Parker water and sanitation. Condition number two is also shall file with the Colorado Division of Water Resources a well abandonment report. So that's number one and two. But of course, water and water resources is very high priority for this board, that's why we're asking that.

With that, Mr. Chair, like I said, very large packet, been through it all. I sure appreciate the presentation, the hard work from our staff. And I moved to approve Bloom preliminary plan because it does meet all the approved criteria with seven conditions as presented. This is project file SB twenty twenty five-seventeen.

And I'll second that motion.

All right. There's a motion and a second discussion. Hey, listen, this is an infill plan. I think I would use the vernacular of most residents of Douglas County. Infill plans suck.

But I you know, we have seen applications that would try to treat this outside of the zoning that's granted. You've obviously done some actually, I think, some good work to stay within the estate residential planning framework that the county has put forward up until now. I mean, I think it's a good plan. I'm sure we will have residents to the North and to the South and to the East who are probably not going to be perfectly happy. But again, that's why info plans suck.

As the representatives of the property owner, and this is an exercise of property rights in this hearing, actually I think this is a good plan. This is I think this is going to be a good addition to that area. So I speak in favor of the motion. Any further discussion? There is a motion and a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. And the preliminary plan is approved. Our next item is vacation of a portion of Cottonwood Avenue Road vacation.

Project file is SB2026Dash004. Eric Pavlunik, principal planner for staff. Thank you, sir. And, Jeanette, you do not look like Eric.

Yeah. Jeanette Bear representing community development. We do have a couple planners out this week for training, so I am here for the road vacation.

Well, we always appreciate seeing you and hearing from you.

The item before you is a road vacation request. Project file number SB2026Dash004. John and Jamie Coffin are here this evening and they are one of the landowners that has requested vacation of this right of way. Oh, that was really wrong. Just do that.

So the request is for approval to vacate the eastern more well, eastern most portion of Cottonwood Road, Cottonwood Avenue, and Grand View Estates. It's approximately point four five acres of unused right of way, meaning it's never been, improved or used as a road. The abutting owners would like to acquire this right of way and split it equally between the two of them. And they can describe a little more what they intend to do with the right of way if vacated. This slide shows the road vacation intent statement from the subdivision resolution.

This covers a wide variety of public road vacation requests. The process starts with this middle of an application. There's a review period. There's courtesy notices, referral agency review, and finally, there's public notice for a planning commission and a board of county commissioners hearing. In this case, through the process, we did not hear from any members of the the public, and the Grand View Estates HOA did not take a position on the road vacation.

So, there was a hearing at the Planning Commission and this slide represents kind of the discussion and outcome of that. The Planning Commission did unanimously recommend approval of the road vacation. There was one member of the publicans who spoke in opposition to the vacation, stating that the community had used this as open space and that it continue to be open space. He also felt that the property owners should pay to receive the land if it were gonna be vacated. The Planning Commission asked various questions which are kind of noted here on the slide.

Staff talked about the previous road vacations in Grandview including one at Birch Avenue which is located to the south very similar that occurred in 2020. It was explained that the water reads rights beneath all the rights when Grand View Estates had already been quick claimed to the Grand View Water Conservation District. So, there would be no transfer of water rights involved with the road vacation and then there was discussion about the adjacent property to which this right of way abuts which is owned by Stonegate Metro District. It was confirmed that that was privately owned and then the issue of compensation for the road vacation, the Planning Commission chose to leave that discussion for you at this hearing. The Grand View Estates subdivision and this right away proposed to be vacated is located in the Northeast portion of the county, specifically in the Northeast sub area of the comprehensive master plan, which calls for non urban levels of density for new development.

This shows kind of the grid for Grand View Estates. The yellow arrow is pointing to the little right of way vacation that's being discussed here today. And then this green outline, this is the metro district owned track that I think is the subject of discussion to and what should access or can there be any access to that parcel. And then finally, this is an aerial view. You can see the yellow area.

That's the eastern most most portion of Cottonwood Avenue to be vacated and you can see that it tees into Tract B which is part of Stonegate Village Metro District ownership. That tract is actually located south of the Chambers Reservoir which is owned and operated by Aqua. And as part of the review of our previous road vacation, Birch Avenue that I mentioned to you, the Metro District did confirm that this tract is just for drainage and utilities and is not intended for public access. So Cottonwood Avenue was established by Platt long ago. In '96, that track b that I was referencing was plotted as part of one of the plats in Stonegate Village.

It was included in the location extent for the Chambers Reservoir. And then in 2020, that Birch Avenue right of way was vacated. And I do have some good maps and photos to show you and give you kind of context on this so that you'll know what I'm talking about. This is just the very simple right of way vacation exhibit where the right of way identified with the hashing is gonna be vacated and if vacated was split between the lot owner to the north and the lot owner to the south. There's a home on that southern lot, and then the the other lot is vacant with the applicant having intentions to develop that soon with a home.

So this is standing on 6th Street looking east to Cottonwood Road Cottonwood Avenue. Sorry. And what I'm gonna do is kinda give you a virtual tour because I think a photo photos are worth a lot when you're trying to see what the context is. So we're gonna head down this right of way, and you can see what it looks like. So here again, this is the the right of way.

Currently, it's blocked off for vehicular traffic. And I was out yesterday, so these are a little bit dark. But here is, you know, as you're kind of heading down, I think the property owner to the south had done some ground disturbance in this area, and engineering is making them restore that through sort of a grading erosion control effort. We keep walking. You can see we're getting close to the end of that right of way.

You can see this is Track B in the distance, and I think it's difficult to see from this photo the amount of topography that's on that on there, but it there is a lot of drainage, improved facilities. And then when you get to the end, you do see the sign. This is posted by the Stonegate Village Metro District that says that this is private property and no trespassing allowed and violators will be prosecuted. So that sign is up there. And I think that's that's a result of the Birch Avenue Road vacation because there was confusion about whether people could be on that property because I think there has been some, you know, public entering that property.

So I wanted to show you kind of the connections that exist in Grand View and particularly looking at the connections along 6th Street as they kind of feed into that reservoir reservoir and that metro district tract. This kind of shows all the connections in Grand View and you can see some of these you discussed, I think, a couple weeks ago that go up to the property to the north. But if you look here, coming north on 6th, this is Birch Avenue. This is what was vacated in 2020, and this is the point in time where the Metro District confirmed that this was for utilities and drainage not intended for public access, but that was actually vacated in 2020. Currently, then the the current request is for try to get my mouse to work.

Cottonwood Avenue, which is here. Again, it's directly adjacent to Track B. But then as you go north, this northern parcel is the Chambers Reservoir that is owned and maintained by Aqua. And there are two public connections into that reservoir site, and there actually is a trail around there. And there is an access over to the high school.

It occurs over on the other side of Chambers. There's actually a flashing signal and a crosswalk, and kids can travel back and forth between the high school property and Grand View Estates by entering the trail and going around the the reservoir. So Chambers Reservoir does have public access, Track B does not. And those two connections remain in place. And I'll show you some photos of those.

So this is just an aerial that kind of shows you, again, that setup I was describing. Cottonwood Avenue, the vacation is down in this area. This is the unused right of way proposed to be vacated. Dogwood is actually the connection, the most significant connection into the reservoir site. It connects into the trail, and then you're able to go over go around and actually cross Chambers At Hestley, which is in Stonegate.

I'll show you some photos of that. So this is Dogwood Avenue. There actually is pavement up to the end of the right of way. And then you can see here there's an opportunity to get in and get on this trail and go around the southern edge of the Chambers Chambers Reservoir. And then this is looking up towards Elm Avenue.

Elm is also open. It and you can access a trail there as well. It's more of a dirt trail here that feeds into the concrete, but there's also access there, and that will be maintained for Grand View Estates residents as well. And then this is the Chaparral High School connection. This is the crossing crossing of of Chambers that you can see.

This is from the the eastern side of Chambers, and there's a flashing signal. You just push a button that flashes, and all the kids are able to cross and then get over to the reservoir site and able to go around. There's a fenced area. They're able to go around and get over to Grand View via Dogwood. And then this is just from the other side.

This is from the the East Side of Chambers, kind of from where some of the school district property looking back. And you can see that Yellow Arrow is kind of the vicinity in Cottonwood Avenue is that we're discussing here today. And again, the slide doesn't really do justice to the kind of topography and the major drainage facility and improvements that are in there. So let me grab my notes again real quick. So these are the road vacation approval standards applicable to vacation request, and these are described and assessed in the staff report.

And I will say for road vacation requests, the board has discretion to consider these standards when making a determination. I've heard from the county attorney in the past that it's not a situation. If all of these are met, you have to approve it. It's like land disposals. You do have the ability to make a decision one way or the other, but these are the the guiding criteria when you're considering a road vacation request.

If the board does find that they wish to approve the road vacation, the following proposed condition should be considered for inclusion in its motion prior to recordation of the road vacation resolution, which goes with that exhibit. All minor technical corrections shall be made to the satisfaction of Douglas County. And then the second standard condition, all commitments and promises made by the applicant or the applicant's representative during the public hearing and or agreed to in writing and included in the public record have been relied upon by the Board of County Commissioners in approving application. Therefore, such approval is conditioned upon the applicant's full satisfaction of all such commitments and promises. The Board's determination on road vacations is set forth in the subdivision resolution and reflected on this slide.

And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions. Otherwise, John and Jamie Kaufman are here. They don't have a formal presentation, but they will come up and kind of speak to their request and answer any questions you might have.

All right. Thanks, Jeanette. Questions for from the board for Jeanette and staff.

I don't have any questions.

Okay. Jeanette, if you could, can you go back to the slide that showed kind of the various access points between Chaparral High School and the neighborhood? I can. It was just prior to the Dogwood Avenue kind of pictures and description.

He's talking about that one. Do you think he's talking about that one? Oh, okay. I can

I had various arrows and

Okay?

Yeah. Is that the one? Is there a different

Well, there's

That yeah. That's the one Okay. So in Chaparral High School, it actually lies just to the south. Well It's it's basically in this It lies kinda down to the right.

Yeah. Right.

So if you're a student that lives in the neighborhood, you're probably not gonna walk up to Dogwood. It seems like maybe that so what I'm trying to get at is there's clearly a path that has been made on this very property. There was like, it showed the picture of the sign that says, not this is private property. Do not, trespass. And it was, like, next to a walking path, that looks like it's man made here. So is that kinda what is happening here? Is that there's lots of students, you know, walking to school and they walk they choose Cottonwood versus the further North Dogwood that goes in and around the water?

I don't know how many students are using that. There there certainly has been some sort of social trail and use of that metro district tract. But I think the the there are no sidewalks on that West Side of Chambers. There's none. And Chambers itself is, you know, pretty fast moving, pretty dangerous road.

So there could be students crossing, but that's certainly not what the school district are kind of, I think, the sheriff or others would support. That's why they did provide this access at at Hesselie and actually have, you know, the flashing lights where the student is able to push the flashing light and immediately cross. So this is this is clearly the safe crossing and there is allowed public access on this reservoir property. So that is the, I guess, the approved legal safe access. Do people, you know, use Track B as a means to to walk across or through?

They could. The district is saying, they don't believe that activity is something they want to occur on the site. And

To that point, is it is the metro the metro district area is not fenced off. It's just wide open between Cottonwood and Chambers. Correct?

Or is it

fenced off? Barbed wire fence along the

Oh, there is barbed

wire fence. I don't know if it's continuous. I honestly didn't walk that whole way. I think there's private fencing along the maybe the Grand View lots. I don't know if the applicant can speak to that. Okay. But they have confirmed that primarily that is for drainage and utility purposes. There's a large drainage associated with the reservoir, and they do not encourage public use of that. Okay. So that's all I know. I do do people do people and students use it? Perhaps they do.

Yeah. Kids find a way. I've spoken to someone who walked walked to school myself. So Dogwood is the option that goes kind of into the Right. The water and goes around it. And then you can enter Chaparral High School very safely

Right.

From the North. Then this the next closest option, if you're south, is that's not Lincoln Avenue because that's quite

a ways away. Right? Or is it Lincoln?

Yeah. It would be Lincoln. The connection at Birch was vacated. So if we go

I think they're there.

So the one at Birch where I have the x, that was vacated in 2020, kind of for similar reasons based on what the district had said. But otherwise, yeah, they would they would need to go down to to Lincoln and I don't know if there's sidewalks along Lincoln there. I'm not sure.

Probably for Lincoln Avenue.

There might be. Chambers that's actually That's

a way make up, but there's also, you know, further north, you can get in at Elm as well. But right right. If you're living in the Southern half of Grandview, I guess your options are somewhat

limited Okay. To get across there.

And I lay out these questions for when applicant does come forward because I'm trying to get to the motivation. I'm curious if Grand View Estates are trying to just limit more access between Chaparral High School and the neighborhood given the the exits there that was closed previously. Now this is being closed. So kind of pushing neighborhood traffic either to the far north or the far south is what it appears to be the case. But we'll hear like to hear from the applicants on Okay. To kind

of Yeah. And and Birch

was similar. It was the adjacent lot owners that asked for the vacation.

Yeah. And that's where I was like, is it because they don't like kids walking so close to their home and property with, you know, which could present an issue of itself.

Yeah. It's it's not really improved, so I think the issue of kids and others using that and yet property owners are kind of maintaining it because it's not an improved right away. People, I think, have requested and feel they have a better use for that property and and could ultimately maybe, you know, keep keep the foot traffic and the e bikes and whatever else off of that. So but we can we can call the applicant up to talk about that.

Okay.

For sure.

Thank you.

Okay. Hang on. Just any other questions for staff? Alright. We'd love to hear from the applicant, please.

Guys. Thank you. Please give

us your name. Tell us where you're from.

John Kaufman, Parker, Colorado. Please continue. So we are us and our neighbor are hoping to be able to use this as a driveway to the backside of our lots where we're planning we're we have a permit now to build a home and we're gonna build a shop as well. And so that's our intended use for it. There was a question about kids walking on that and we haven't really noticed it much, but it's been mostly like the e e motorcycles.

There's kids that ride in that that space, in that lot behind it. I know that sheriffs have been out there a lot chasing them. It doesn't seem like they've had a lot of success in catching them but they're out there quite a bit.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Further questions for the applicant?

Well, thank you, mister chair. That was my question. So and you kinda answered it as in not a ton of traffic between the neighborhood and the school, know, I could see. My my thing was at 7AM and then 3PM, there's, you know, a line of it's regular for a kid to walk to school through there, but it sounds like that's not necessarily the case.

I've mostly seen the the students on the paved sidewalk that's goes goes by the reservoir. Okay. Like I said, the the topography, I think the pictures don't do it justice, but it's there's a lot of undulation, so it's not it's not super walkable. And it seems like the e motorcycle guys have built some trails and jumps and things like that. So it's it seems like it's become more of that.

Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Okay.

I have no questions for the applicant. Do we have an adjacent the other adjacent property owner present?

He couldn't be here today. He had some work obligations.

Okay. Alright. Both go ahead, commissioner.

Oh, thank you. So in I think it gets I think you answered my question perfectly, which I wasn't sure if the motivation was to, you know, stop that foot traffic, stop those kids, or if it was, something, to expand the use of your private property. And it sounds like that's the case. So maybe just one more time. You're planning to build a a house and maybe a a garage or something back there that that you could use the the space for.

Yes. That that's our plan, and our neighbor, mister Harmon, to the south of us is that is his plan as well to access the backside of his property because he's he's the way that his house is set, he doesn't have a way to get to the backside unless he really tore up landscaping and trees.

Yeah. I saw a lot of trees on that property.

Yeah. A lot of nice trees on his. We don't have much on ours yet, but we have planted some. Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Alright. Hey. Thanks, sir. Appreciate it. You can have a seat if you'd like. Let's go ahead and if there are no further questions for staff or the applicant, let's go ahead and transition to public comment. I do have one person signed up for public comment. Maisie Masten? Did I just total it Marie Masten? Yeah. Well, please come forward, ma'am. And Yeah.

I I think I'm accidentally

Oh. Oh. So you are

That that is okay. That's okay. There is nobody forced at gunpoint to speak here. So sir, would you like to speak on public comment? Please come forward to the podium. Please do give us your name and tell us where you're from. You will be given two minutes, sir.

My name is Kenneth Ramsey. I live in Grandview, Estates. I've lived there since nineteen eighties and before that I lived in Elbert County. Grandview is a great place to live. I love it.

In about 1975, my first visit to what is now Parker, there was one stop sign, a firehouse and lots of wildlife friendly open space. I love wildlife friendly open space. It's been known for many years that additional exits and entrance to Grand View might be needed. When traffic gets backed up on Lincoln, sometimes you have to wait quite a while to get out, get in. This Cottonwood Avenue is the last doable location for another entrance or exit.

The reservoir, when it was built, it blocked Dog Winter Elm so they're not doable. Dog walking, horseback riding, fireworks watching, hiking and more have been done there for many years off and on. The opportunity to continue using it would be to sell it or give Grandview an opportunity to buy it or it would be a great gift to Grandview to do something with it. The vacation process is difficult to understand. With eminent domain, the losing party gets paid.

With adverse possession, the losing party gets paid. With vacation, the losing party gets nothing. I just that's I oppose this vacation. If you have to get rid of it, put it up for sale. That's what I think. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Very much appreciate your comments. Is there anybody else who'd like to make public comment on this matter? Seeing none, let's bring it back to the board for action. Board, how would we like to dispose of this request for vacation?

Well, Mr. Chair, I think it might benefit from some additional discussion among the board. As for one commissioner, I'm interested to hear what you both have to say and where you're at. My brain is tending to go where Commissioner Van Winkle's is around what is the motivation for this. Why is this happening? What's going on? And I don't want to put words in the mouths of the applicants, and I know one of them is not here. I get it. I think it sounds like two property owners want to create some different opportunities for their two parcels. But I think what's challenging is there's also a compelling public interest to have access into and out of the neighborhood.

And what's also difficult about this particular neighborhood, and we've seen this in the past, is there are there's not consensus among the neighbors as to the use of these thoroughfares and access points. I get the sense that some would like this to be a gated community. Others would like to have those access points opened up. So it's really challenging in my role to say to choose pick winners and losers and decide that some group of neighbors are more entitled to benefit from county decisions than others. In my mind, it seems like should the neighborhood so desire, there is a process to become a gated community and to have a more formal HOA.

But I even saw in the referral comments that the HOA was neutral on this. So I'm struggling a little bit in terms of trying to render the best decision for the entire neighborhood and then not render a decision that simply benefits two of those neighbors. So like I said, I'm curious to hear what my colleagues think about this.

Commissioner. Thank you, mister chair. And mister chairman, if it if it pleases you as a chair, of course, you control the agenda and everything, but perhaps we could hear from the applicants one more time in response to the public testimony we received.

Yeah, considering, I mean, there's obviously a desire for deliberation. I think it pleases the board actually to hear from the applicant one more time. Sir, if you could please come back up. I think we might have just a couple more questions for you.

Well, thank you for coming back up. I guess my question is do you have a response to the testimony in opposition to allowing this to go forward? And then it was mentioned the neighborhood will go there for, you know, fireworks or a potential and this might actually be more a staff question, potential future access. Given the topography potential future access through that Metro District property seems difficult. But what about just, you know, families going out to on fourth of July and watching fireworks from back there or what have you?

I mean, ironically, we watched fourth of July fireworks from our property. It was it was great. But there was nobody else out there but there was some talk of horseback riding and things like that and I don't think that that Track B is open for that. I I haven't seen anybody ever riding horses back there and and honestly, haven't really seen anybody walking back there. Like I said earlier, it was mainly just the e motorcycles that are back there.

So again, I'm not one of those people. We're not going to have a gate on it. And I wouldn't be opposed to somebody walking down the driveway that goes to the back shop if they wanted to access it from from my side of things. It's definitely not trying to stop somebody from accessing it. But seeing that that it the that track bee is not really open space. I think sometimes it gets sort of treated that way. But like I said, it seems like there's been some misuse of it, especially with the e motorcycles on it and things like that. And we do see the sheriffs out there chasing kids, I assume, here and there. Okay.

Well, thank you. To our staff, there was a photo taken from the street level directly at the point of access that would be closed in question. Could you present print present that one more time? I think I saw a large county sign displayed there

there

saying this land is up for a hearing.

It's just no

vague Probably public notification for this hearing.

Yeah. It is. Yes. It's the public notification. It's giant too. I didn't

Yeah.

Didn't realize it was gonna be that big.

This is the this sign says

No. Not that one.

No. This is this is the public hearing sign. The public notice.

How long has that been up Not

very long because we've only allowed I don't think it's

been up for very long. Posted it.

I think it was fourteen days.

Before the, yeah, the planning commission meeting.

Which was two weeks ago. So it was about a month that sign's been up there? Yeah. About a month. What does the sign not word for word, but generally, what does it say?

It says this property is being considered for a road vacation, and then it provides the date and time for the public hearings before the planning commission and board and a contact number for people to reach the planning department if they have questions.

Well, I don't have the best eyesight, but even I can see that there's a phone number on there. So I have had a lot of questions and internal deliberations, especially with the high school across Chambers Road there. But at the same time, I do see that sign has been posted there for a month with a big announcement, and we haven't heard a whole lot of massive opposition or scared neighbors or anything like that. So just a casual observation, but it's good to see that anyone that might use this would have to literally walk underneath that sign that says that there's an upcoming hearing.

So here's my view. This is a road to nowhere. I mean, the and it's a road to nowhere because in due respect to the to the resident who spoke on the matter, it it's not going anywhere. The Metro District Crossway didn't plan for it. There is a road there. It's Chambers. And there is not a cross street coming into this. So it's a road to nowhere. And so I'm inclined to go with the vacation. I mean, the adjacent property owners, you know, own that road.

Just like you own that road, I own that road, we own that road. But the adjacent property owners are saying, can we have exclusive use of it? And it's a road to nowhere. I'm not hearing compelling requests coming from the neighborhood to turn it into a trail. And then I'm not seeing a plan to take it to be anything other than a trail to nowhere. So I don't know. I'm I'm inclined to go with the vacation and go with the adjacent property owners. I mean, I know my my colleague will will correct me. You know, possession is not nine tenths of the law right here, but listen. They're right there.

And we hear how they could make use of it their own benefit as their own property. Anybody who's been in here knows, I keep saying over and over again, I believe in property owners having the right to capitalize on their property. We're hearing a plan for it. And as the people of Douglas County, that's not a road. It's not going anywhere.

Now, you know, if, again, if we heard a compelling request, make it a trail, I could go with that. And we don't give you and your neighbor an exact split of the road, and we plan a trail down the middle of it. But then I'd like to see something with the Metro District to do something on the other side, and we're not hearing from the Metro District for it. We are seeing how the Metro District property, Jeanette, you had a very clear sign that said no trespassing. So I kids are still kids, and they go through those no trespassing signs with with bikes that seem to be electronically powered nowadays to do what kids do.

I I have no burning desire to go out and start shooting kids for being kids. So I don't know. I'm inclined. I'm inclined to go for it. This really is not a viable option. Again, in respect to the resident who spoke, this is not a viable option for another access point because the metro district on the other side planned roads, and this isn't one of them. So it's a road to nowhere. We got two residents who would like to incorporate it into their own property. I am not hearing a unified response, and we we did not get a response from the neighborhood to petition us to take it from a road to a trail. So I don't know.

I'm going with the landowners on this one to grant the the vacation. Mhmm. Because me, as a Douglas County resident forget commissioner. Me, the guy that lives in Castle Rock, going to see a friend in Grandview Estates, that's not a

road. Mhmm.

That's a bunch of pavement going to nowhere. We have two residents residents who who want to make it a place going somewhere that will have value for them. Mhmm. That's okay by me.

Yeah. I think that's compelling. That's a persuasive argument. I I guess I'm struggling with my eyes as well to read what that signage is,

who who

erected it, and what exactly is it saying? No. It's us. That's that's the We put that sign on?

It's the notice sign.

That's the notice for this hearing?

For this hearing. For the planning commission.

Okay. What about the signage behind it? The red and white striping?

That's just been up. I think public works engineering has had that up for a long time. And it I think the sign says no no motor vehicles is what it says. Oh, interesting. So the the county has had it signed that way for a long, long time.

Okay.

Because the road's never been improved.

Road's never been improved. Yeah. And so on the other side of that red and white striping, the grassy area, that is a metro district?

Well Is

that what you're saying?

Well, if you keep let me run through this one more time. So if we walk down, we're gonna walk down. This is all county right of way. So this is the county right of way they wanna vacate. And my understanding, there's some reseating going on here, and I think it's because the neighbor to the south had gone and done some disturbance. So engineering them reseated. But it's never been paved. I mean, it's never been a road. So this is our county right away, and it continues all the way down to that sign. And that sign is where the Metro District property begins. That's that Tract b.

Uh-huh. And

that's the time that says no trespass. So

So how how and maybe this is a question for council. A Metro District is a public entity that's not a private community. What right does a Metro District have to exclude people from access to their property? What's that? I don't think your microphone's on.

They can set limits on, property that they own. I don't know enough about the property to know why that sign would be there. I think

there's some pretty significant drainage improvements in there because there's, like, a floodplain and everything associated with the reservoir. 's a well site in there. Mhmm. Some other things in the topography, I think they just believe it's not really safe, and they don't want people wandering around messing with some of their drainage improvements and stuff. I have a feeling. That's that's they've said it's for drainage and utility purposes and not for public access.

That's interesting. I we shouldn't opine on on feelings. My feeling is this looks like a lot of fun open space for kids to ride bikes and have fun and hang out. And my feeling is that there's probably a lot of neighbors that don't like seeing kids going back and forth through this very fun open area. But I don't know. I'm not going to opine on my feelings, but I do have some concern about ad hoc one off calls to the county and then signs go up because I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not sure what articulated legal authority they have to do this to begin with. So I'm I'm guessing

They have the right to own property, and they have the right to to limit the use of their property Uh-huh. Because they're not a government. Indeed, they don't they're not they can own that for whatever reason they like. If there's a reason that it's used for flood control or if there's a previous well there, there's a lot of reasons why they could limit the use of it. They have the right to limit the reuse of it. I don't know why this land is being limited.

Yeah. I mean, Highlands Ranch is a metro district. I'm not sure that they would put up signs saying people don't have access to certain areas, but they do in some cases. I think that makes sense, but very different from a private neighborhood. A metro district is a special district under Title 32 that is public by nature.

Highlands Ranch is a good example of that. I know that they have some access or land near roadways that are limited and things like that, where there's safety concerns, if there's other reasons why you wouldn't want the public to be in the area owned by them.

Yeah. So how I mean, for the applicant, how often are there people in this area? What what does day to day usage look like?

I mean, I've never actually seen anybody on that section of Cottonwood. I've Yeah. Just seen people and again, like I said, it's mostly the e motorcycles.

SPEAKER Yeah.

I don't know where they're accessing it from.

SPEAKER Okay.

SPEAKER But I've seen them out there.

SPEAKER How often?

SPEAKER Fairly often because we haven't started building yet. We've just done our erosion control. And so we're out there more often now, but enough that I've seen them several times.

Like daily, weekly?

Monthly. I would say probably at least once a week I've seen kids

Once a week. On the motorcycle back there. Well, I want to hear more from my colleagues. I guess what I'm trying to balance are the needs of the citizens in this community and the public interest. And I'm not totally persuaded. I think Commissioner Till, you make a very good point. What I am questioning is whether it's is it a road to nowhere or is it a road that's being used by people to get to somewhere or have some purpose?

Well, it is a road to nowhere. Question is, is it a trail to somewhere Mhmm. That's not a trail

legally? I think that's a good way to put it. It is a road to nowhere, but it's maybe used as a trail.

Which is where it's trending on.

Yeah. And so, I mean, I mean, if if if if our concern is is that we're, you know, this is very similar in a way to the discussion that we had just two weeks ago.

It is.

And so where we wanted to preserve trail access where there was trail access that had been limited. And so so, you know, I keep going back. We're asking to do a road vacation. It's not a road. It's it's a road to nowhere. It it's not a road. It's not a road that has value to you and me as an automobile VOA. Okay? Mhmm. Question is, should it be a trail into this area?

Oh, miss.

That's kind of a different discussion. Right?

It is. And I, you know, I analogize to the work that we did years ago with Sweetwater. And Sweetwater Park is in a neighborhood in Acres Green that it's probably a little bit below median income in terms of the housing portfolio out there. And for a lot of those families, they're not going to Denver International Airport and flying to Milan every couple of months. I mean their recreational opportunities are right there.

It's their the middle of their neighborhood, walking their dog, going out at night and just looking at the stars and enjoying what Colorado is, but they may not leave that neighborhood a ton. I don't know exactly where a lot of these neighbors in Grand View Estates would be, but I hate to block off or limit public amenities unless there's a really clear reason to do so. And I don't like over regulating and signs going up if there's not a very clearly articulated purpose, public county purpose for doing so. So I don't know that I've heard a compelling county purpose for limiting access. But I also I think the larger systemic issue from a public policy standpoint is e bikes.

I mean, that's what keeps coming up. I mean, I think now we're getting outside of the purview of this hearing, but limitations on speed, noise, light pollution, dust, all that, they come from e bikes. That's another conversation I think we should have with citizens. But if a family wants to walk their dog through an open area that's generally public, you know, you hate to cordon that off. But I don't know enough about the area.

I got to tell you, the word right now is e bikes. Back in 1984, there was those kids on the BMX I mean, so let's I get it. Everybody's throwing e bikes around, but to me, that just sounds like kids being kids. And, oh, by the way, we can make our kids not kids. And then that's great in a generation we don't have Americans anymore. So the bottom line is Okay, well, Kevin, let's hear from you. Abe and I have kind of dominated conversation for a second here.

No, and I appreciate you allowing me to dominate the question and answer portion earlier because my mind came in when I first saw this was, Oh, it's an unofficial path between the high school and the neighborhood. And the community is not gonna be happy about this, or the high school or the kids aren't gonna be happy about this. But throughout the course of the hearing in the packet that was presented to us, quite the opposite actually, and I think my mind has come evolved or or changed on my original thinking of why would we close an unofficial even if it's not even if it's an ad hoc, just citizen made path. Like, we have these places all over that. They're it's owned by the school district, for example.

And those citizens, no school ever got put there. This is an alternative, a walkway for their dogs and stuff. And I don't wanna stop those citizens from doing that. And I typically come down on leaving everything as open as possible. One of the things that I find somewhat compelling is that there's the Grand Rio State's Homeowners Association. No. They didn't say they're for it, but they did submit a letter. And the letter reads, I apologize for the late response, but I wanted all newly elected HOA members to weigh in. They did weigh in. It's signed by all seven members of the HOA board for Grand View Estates.

It does essentially say, you know, we're fine with the closing. We don't have a strong opinion one way or another, nor are we have we heard from much public. We did hear one moment of opposition, which I do appreciate because his mind is largely where my mind has, pondered from time to time throughout the hearing. But it does seem upon further review that it's probably not a safe place for and it's probably and it doesn't seem to be used in a pedestrian manner. I was thinking at first, if I lived in that neighborhood, that's how I'd probably get to high school as a freshman or sophomore or of any any, just going over there to play baseball or something.

That's how I'd get there. But upon further review and the testimony we heard today, it sounds like that's not really the case, that it is largely a plot of open space that's not really used often at all, and even on fourth of July, not often used by the neighborhood. I think I've come around somewhat at least to being much more open to the idea of vacating this this plot of land.

Okay.

Let me and I that's persuasive. I am glad we're having the deliberation. I know it's long in the day and we've gone several hours. Are there alternative ways to access this area? I mean, I'm seeing the other streets just north and south there that are not vacated. Or am I wrong about that?

From the pictures we saw from Jeanette, it looks like once you get on that trail to the south end of the reservoir, I didn't see any barrier material preventing entry into Track B from that trail.

Yeah. Like so There

we go. It's actually the

So Elm, Dogwood, Cottonwood all seem to have through. Like

It certainly looks like you could access Track B.

Because you notice we've got because we've got because

there's there's something

going on. Because as soon as you swing south

You know, here.

It does look like we've got an you know, unplanned trails.

Mhmm. I think that might be the well site. I'm not sure. Yeah. That's a well site. So I think Okay. Clearly, there are people that are getting into Track B from up here.

Here. Dogwood Path? Dogwood.

Yeah. Dogwood.

Yeah. Dogwood and Cottonwood. Right?

Again, I just

I don't know. Okay.

Yeah. It's it's a road to nowhere.

I agree. Why? I do think it's a road to nowhere. I also think it's a trail to somewhere. I guess I would be supportive of the applicant and their application to to vacate this road, it looks like if other neighbors wanted to access this portion of quote unquote open space that's not open space, they probably could still do so if they wanted to from two other access points. I don't know. I'm just so I'm not a fan of overregulation unless there's a real reason to do so.

Well, hang on. Wait. You can't say that. You just contradicted yourself because this is a form of regulation on two adjacent landowners by having a road to nowhere there because that is your property, my property, your property, everybody else who's a resident here, their property. We got two homeowners two landowners here who just wanna say, it's not really a road. Can we have it? We did hear from a resident who's saying, no. Make them buy it. And, you know, it's it's not a bad idea. Mhmm.

So so we can deny this and then go back to the applicant and say, hey. Come up with another idea. We can but then but then I feel like we have a responsibility. If we're gonna tell him and his neighbor, no. We want it as a trail. Well, then we gotta plan a trail. And the people on the other side of the trail say, no. That's that's utility and and drainage. That's not a trail. So it's gonna be a trail to nowhere.

And I the more I look at this, the more that I am persuaded by your comment even though you're not. I do think I mean, the high school's right there.

Yeah. But you have an intervening landowner, and and the metro district is a landowner. The metro district can say, we plan this as drainage, as overflow for this very real reservoir full of water. Mhmm. That's not safe. And and Abe, there are places all over this county that have that. I mean, I've got Mhmm. I've got a spot at the end of my street Yeah. That is just kinda steep ground that Castle Rock Police Department will enforce no trespassing on because, you know, a fat guy like me would fall down and roll into the water and drown.

But we have heard today, which was perceived to me, the testimony that kids don't use I I was under the assumption that, hey. I bet kids use this every morning before school and every morning afternoon after school. And what we heard today is it's not the case at all. I do ponder. I'm like, if a private citizen's gonna take land, that currently is Douglas County land, there ought to be a price for that, but that's not under consideration today. There's vacation processes, what it is. And, if we wanna change that, then that's something I maybe we take up another day, but we really can't be doing that today. Well, tell

you what, so that makes me want to ask a question of County Attorney. So Jeff, if the County vacates this land, this land is no longer planned as a road, but it is still retained property of Douglas County until that property is disposed off.

They would have to go to the land disposal Yes.

Okay. So all we're saying at the moment, we're not this hearing won't automatically give the applicant half that land, the other half to his neighbor to the south. All all this does is say it's not a road anymore.

Well, so that that's an interesting question. So by vacating the land, yes, we would give that away. But, however, if you want to go through the process of asking them for money for this, you would need to go through the land disposal process.

K. K. Jeanette, it looks like you were gonna say something.

Through the vacation process, the resolution does it does transfer the land. And the and the once it's recorded, the assessor changes the ownership of the property.

And that alone is enough for me to say no. I think the testimony from one of the citizens, I mean, that's literally conferring a special benefit to a specific set of citizens with no compensation.

But that's not a violation of our regulations. The the regulation is to the benefit of one. It's not. It's to the benefit of two. Again, this maybe maybe I'm being anal retentive here with my criticisms of some of the work that has been done by our predecessors. But, you know, let's let's not let's not you know, put words in the mouth of our predecessors just to make it convenient for a decision for us. I don't know. I'm still okay with it. Even if I'm still okay with it because we got two residents. We've heard their use.

Their use is not against the public good that I can tell. It it's a very natural request. And quite frankly, why don't we this for me, this is a question of why are we why don't we just get out of way as the government and let two residents do what will be good for them?

Because property is valuable. So if you had two of your neighbors in Crystal Valley get together and say, hey. This little county road here, we like it. We want it. County, give it to us. Would we say, sure.

But maybe maybe that's the right answer, though. And, you know, listen, people stop walking on I have a trail right up against the east boundary of my home, and people stop walking on it. They stop using it. Yeah. There might be come a day that I'm gonna go across to Gary on the other side and say, hey, man. Let's divide this up, and let's vacate this trail. Of course, then we deal with our HOA, and the HOA would absolutely say

no. Yeah. And I think historically, the the long standing precedent is if you want property to not be used, you buy it. You know? It's either the county buys it or citizens get together and they buy it. And I fully support that.

But Yeah.

But I can't just give it

to This is a road to nowhere. You're not using this road. I'm not using this road. Kevin isn't gonna use this road. We do have a resident who has an idea about how to use this road. Mhmm. And it won't be a road. It'll be a driveway. Mhmm. But, you know, I I guess, you know, I guess I didn't pay to pave this road because we could see how it's closed.

It was probably put in long before I moved here when I was still an army officer, maybe when I was enlisted in the army. Again, I'm not just like, it's a road to nowhere. It's not benefiting any of us as a road. The value is to the adjacent property owners who wanna be able to drive to the backside of their property.

So what if something happens with that parcel that we're talking about in between Grand View Estates and the high school? Probably not a developer because the topography doesn't allow for that, but could be Douglas County open space. And it could be ten years from now when you're not here and you're not here and they say, hey, we wanna build a trail and we've vacated the road. I to me, I'm looking at it. It just doesn't make I I can't support. I there's not enough information for me to support it today. I don't think it I don't think it's wise.

Alright. Sounds like, commissioner, you you all respect, brother. You you're thinking through this. I get it. I worked with you for six years. I understand where you're coming from, man. It's okay. Commissioner, you've stated your views. I think I've stated my views. Gentlemen, I'd like to call the question, is there a motion?

Well, Mr. Chair, if it pleases the Board, I will make a motion to deny vacation of a portion of Cottonwood Avenue because I don't think it meets all of the approval criteria with the two conditions as presented.

Okay. That motion is heard. Is there a second? The chair will provide a second. Okay. Discussion?

Oh, mister chair, and interestingly enough, commissioner Leiden's statements is where I was when I was reading the packet and thinking this through originally. What is persuasive to me is that the neighborhood, the seven members of the HOA board, all the citizens that come to HOA board meetings, don't have a problem with this whatsoever. That what we heard today that what actually is really persuasive to me. It's not even the HOA board, although I'm I'm glad that they responded and and discussed it in their HOA meeting. It's the fact that we heard today that kids aren't using this.

It's not being used by the neighbors. It's not being used as a walkway to get to school. And in fact, if it makes sense that it's not, not necessarily because the land in between is owned by the metro district, which I'm sure if you're in ninth grade, you don't really care if it's owned by a metro district or not. It feels like open space. But the kids aren't using it.

Largely, it must not be very usable for them or else a kid would find a way to walk to school there every day if they could, if it was shorter. Crossing over Chambers Road on foot there, you still would have to end up at one of those safe crossing points, because you can't just run across Chambers Road at 7AM. That would be incredibly dangerous. So, it doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like kids are using the proper way, which is around the the waterway.

And so I'm inclined to support this after originally coming to the hearing, being in an unsupported manner, largely because the neighborhood's not using it, the kids at Chaparral High School aren't using it. It sounds like occasionally once every few days an e bike or motorcycle comes through there. And that's not enough to warrant a path being put in permanently, which actually is something I almost always support.

Yeah. And I would love to just acknowledge my colleagues. I think this is good commissioner work. And to the Chair's point, it's good for us to deliberate. Hey, I'm like 50 one-forty nine on this. I'm real close. So if this motion fails and you guys go the other direction, it's no heartburn on my end.

Okay. Well, gentlemen, we do have a motion to deny the request for vacation. I will speak against the motion. I do think this great for us to discuss. We do have a very interested party and several. We do have other interested parties. So sausage being made, everybody. But no, I'm going to speak against the motion. Again, I just this a road to nowhere. It's of no use to me, to you, to you, to hardly anybody in this room except for an applicant and his neighbor.

That has value for them. So I speak against the motion. Further deliberation or shall we do have a motion and a second to deny. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. No. And I'm a nay as well. Motion fails. Is there a motion to approve the request for vacation?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve the vacation of a portion of Cottonwood Avenue because it does meet all the approved criteria with the two conditions as presented. Project file SB twenty twenty six-four.

And I will second that motion as a professional courtesy. Thank you, Commissioner. Discussion.

Mr. Chair, I think we've discussed it enough. I've let my views be heard on it. Again, first coming into the scene, the the high school on one side of Chambers, this path on the other, I was very inclined to to not support it. It does sound like it is of very little use to any student at Chaparral High School or any member of, Grand View Estates community.

It seems like who it is useful for are these two neighbors, that want to use it to access the backside of their properties where there doesn't seem to be, another way of getting to that backside of their property. That said, I think between now and the time the next vacation, application comes forth, I think, we, the board, ought to have, a greater discussion on the vacation process here in Douglas County.

Well, I'll speak in favor of the motion. I agree with you, Commissioner. Mean, maybe next time, maybe we could take a pre application brief or during application in order to kind of shape the application if there is a desire that, you know, we do have a resident here who says, 'Hey, great. Vacate the land, but get something for it.' You know, make and Commissioner, you expressed land is valuable. I see the value here with the applicants.

So I am in favor of the vacation and there's a joke there because I'm always in favor of a vacation. So we do have a motion to approve vacation of a portion of Cottonwood Avenue. Is there any more discussion?

Just a little bit. I do respect my colleague's analysis here. I think looking at all of the facts, my view is that if we do approve this, we're illegally conferring a benefit on particular citizens and not receiving any compensation for that. So I don't think it's legal. I also I think based upon the testimony, if there I mean, the fact that the signs are up tells me that people are using the property.

So I don't find it entirely truthful that nobody's using this stretch of land. Otherwise, why put up the sign saying don't trespass here. So I suspect that's probably what's going on here is that people are starting to use this and maybe use it more. I also think in the future, this might be a valuable access point between the high school and this neighborhood. So I'm also thinking about future boards and future decision making. So I will remain a no.

Just for clarity of the record, Commissioner, the sign you're referring to isn't the large sign notifying the public of this hearing and the vacation proceeding. You're talking about that no trespassing sign posted by the Metro District.

I am. And it's also the candy striping, the red and white, know, don't go through here area, which wouldn't be necessitated if there weren't people going through, I don't think.

Well, hang on, Commissioner. Again, for the clarity of the record, in that case, you're talking about the road closure sign that was probably established when that road was not built through to the lands to the east, perhaps in nineteen eighty something. So you feel like the road closure sign, which is a common element of US code when a road ends, you feel like that's an indicator, too, that people shouldn't be going through it, just for clarity of the record.

Yeah. And I thank you for that. I think based upon what Jeanette shared with us, in addition to the signage in the middle of this area, I'm looking at all. All signage is a totality of the circumstances.

Okay. Well, very good. Okay. Further discussion?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think if we could get clarification from our county attorney before we pass this motion or don't pass this motion, is it something that we should worry about the legality of the motion or its outcome? Should we delay this hearing today to find further legal clarification?

No. And so this was a unique it's a different one than I've seen before in my my three years that I've been here with the I first started thinking about it when staff talked about adding cost to this coming out of the planning commission. The planning commission left that to the board because that's an unusual condition and not one that, we typically see in a land vacation. So then you start thinking about are you selling land, are you disposing land, things like that. And myself and I I reached out to Chris Pratt, our land use, attorney here while we were, discussing this.

And while that could be a condition that is permitted and is permitted under the resolution that we could ask for incentivization of this, that that is not, something that looks like we're doing in this moment. So we would just treat it as a regular, land vacation. So under forty three two three zero three, it gives the, the, board of county commissioners the authority to do that and to to set regulations regarding that. Our regulations are not requirements. They're factors that require that the board look at these, and a special, privilege for a single member is not one that would be dispositive of this. So I do believe that this is completely legal to do.

Well, I'll ask a question about that. I mean, as long as I've been here, we've been very clearly advised by counsel that we cannot confer a special benefit to citizens.

Bring up the the factors again. It will show the factors for the land vacation, and these are strictly factors. So the factors that in the land vacation that they can be considered, But the the fact that an individual might use this land more than others in the the county would not be one. I there there's probably people in this room who've never seen this piece of land and would never get use out of it where there might be only these two individuals who ever get to use this land. Land.

Mhmm. Do you have the citation around conferring special benefits? I mean, outside of the approval standards here?

Not not for land vacation because it's not a it's it's not a standard. So the citation for governing this would be called a revised statutes forty three three or 42 to three zero three, which grant you the authority to do that.

Okay. And you don't think there's any law outside of that statute or that provision that would prohibit us?

No, I don't believe so.

Okay.

I do believe this would be a legal transaction. Okay.

I'm also somewhat persuaded by the fact that we put a giant sign up that you actually have to walk underneath. If you wanted to use this as a walkway saying, essentially this land is about to be closed. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, dial this number or go to the planning commissioner or come to this meeting today. And nobody nobody did it. We had one member of the public, which makes very valid points, which is something I'd like to discuss at a future meeting on the vacation process, frankly.

But the fact that that sign's been up for a month and nobody called or showed up today and said, hey. I walked to school that I use that, as a walkway every day. Right? Go out there for fourth of July and watch fireworks. Like, we just haven't heard any of that. So I'm inclined to believe that the the only two people that could make use of the land is the landowners on either side that want to get to the back of their property.

I got to tell you, the layout of Greenwood, the estates is just like the part of Greeley I grew up in, in that grid that we saw there. Here's the deal. It kept going. It kept going for for several miles on the West End Of Greeley. And it's just not how land developed around around this area. I mean, just didn't work out like that. Gentlemen, we do have a motion to approve the vacation. Is there further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I'm opposed.

Okay. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner. The vacation is approved. All right. Applicant, congratulations. You very much, sir.

You guys.

Our next item is the zoning resolution waiver for 5970 North US Highway 85, Sixth Amendment used by special review amendment for the Sedalia Recycling Center and Depository. Project file is US2020 five-one, Brett Thomas, Chief Planner for Staff. Once again, Jeanette, you do not look like your colleague, Brett.

Yep. They're enjoying some training. So so, yes, this is a zoning resolution waiver request for the Sedalia landfill as it's commonly known. Project file US twenty twenty five dash 001. The request is for a waiver of the provision of section twenty one zero seven point three, which requires the applicant to receive a recommendation of approval for a certificate of designation from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment prior to applying for a USR.

The applicant indicates that the detailed nature of the submittals required by CDPHE are more appropriate to be provided towards the end of the USR application having been submitted. So the application as submitted is for use by special review to actually expand the existing landfill. It was approved in 2004 and it's approximately a 124 acres currently and the ask is to expand it to a 166 acres. But before the board and the planning commission consider the merits of the USR to do that expansion, the applicant is requesting the waiver so that they can retime the review and approval by CDPHE to deal more with the realities of how the engineering gets looked at for this type of a project. So today we are only considering the waiver request.

So the Planning Commission did consider the waiver request at its April 6 hearing. The Planning Commission asked some clarifying questions and understood that the USR would not be considered in the merits of the USR itself would not be considered till a later time. And they recommend approved I recommended approval by a vote of five to zero. And there were no members of the public that came to that hearing. And I do wanna remind myself that I did receive one public comment before today's hearing and I wanna provide that to you. Maybe I could hand that out now.

Yeah. Please bring it on up.

Thanks.

The Sedalia Landfill is located sort of in the northern central portion of the of the county near Sedalia. It's part of the Sedalia rural community as designated on the 2040 comp plan. The project area is located approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Highway 85 and Delta Way near Sedalia. The project site is bordered by Cherokee Ranch and Castle Foundation along its entire north and east property lines, along the majority of the South property line, and a portion of the West property line. So it is pretty well surrounded by the Cherokee property.

Beyond Cherokee Ranch And Castle, property to the south is owned by CORE Electric Cooperative, and then it actually is their offices, their central office campus to the south there. To the west of the site is some additional land owned by Cherokee, but then Sedalia, the applicant, Sedalia Lane Company owns four residential pars parcels, and then there are two additional residential parcels that are under separate ownership to the West. Pursuant to section one twenty two of the Douglas County zoning resolution, the waiver may be approved only upon the finding based on the evidence presented that the following criteria are met, and these are the criteria that were discussed and assessed in the staff report. Should the board find that the approval standards for the waiver request are met, the following proposed conditions should be considered for inclusion in its motion. Number one, all other applicable requirements and approval standards associated with the use by special review application, US twenty twenty five-one, currently in process, shall be met prior to final approval of the use by special review.

The recommendation of approval on the certificate of designation from CDPHE shall be received, and the certificate of designation shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to final approval record copy of the use by special review plan exhibit. And then three, the standard condition, all commitments and promises made by the applicant or the applicant's representative during the public hearing and or agreed to in writing and included in the public record have been relied upon by the Board of County Commissioners in approving the application. Therefore, approval is conditioned upon the applicant's full satisfaction of all such commitments and promises. So that's a very pre presentation. Sedalia Land Company, Waste Connections does have a presentation, which I will try to pull up now because I did not get it pulled up.

Alright. Well, Jeanette is pulling that up. Let's make her double multitask and any questions from the board for staff?

I have none, mister chair. Thank you.

Alright, Jeanette. You won't have to multitask. I got no questions either.

I think it's close enough.

Is there?

I have to scroll scroll for for you. You.

Okay. Well, that that works.

I could just do that. Yeah. I

is there is there a laser by chance on there?

Alright. If the applicant will please introduce yourself and give your credentials. Of

course. Thank you, commissioners. Dalton Ellis, region engineer for the landfill. We're located off of Highway 85 in Sedalia. I wanna to thank Jeanette for making my job really easy. It's a pretty short presentation and she really already hit the high points. And so we'll run through this here and then would love to answer any questions that you have. So as far as the actual waiver request, it is, as Jeanette said, request to pretty much just change the process here where we would go through the local permitting process with yourselves to try to get approval before we would go do the technical and engineering review with the state of Colorado. As it's written now, we would go through that review with the State and then come back to the County. So we would like to change the order just I think the maybe let's see.

Next slide here. Oh, perfect. There we go. So what we'd like to do is essentially go to this flowchart that we're showing you here. So essentially today we're on that first box, we'd get this waiver request.

We would then come back in the coming months, run through the USR revision and everything that's included with it. And then we would move on to the next box to go through our technical review with the state. And then, of course, once we have a fully approved EDOP, that's your engineering design and operating plan from the state, we would come back for that final CD approval. The reason that we think that makes sense is it's quite a bit of an effort and time finances, however you want to look at it with the state. It usually takes, you know, six months to a year to get through with them.

And so we would just want to make sure that we have a really good plan that County feels good about as well as the landfill before going through that multi month process with the state. What could happen otherwise is we would run something by the state, get it approved, find out that the county would rather us change a few details and then have to go back to the state and essentially kind of add another layer here. And so we found this might work a little bit cleaner. Let's see here. Looks like we can do part of it at a time.

So the summary of the request is we're just going to, like we said, try to revise the timetable. This, as Jeanette pointed out, doesn't actually change anything, the landfill at the time. It just allows us to adapt to the USR process. And then the county will, of course, still have the ultimate authority to review and approve the project. As Jeanette mentioned, it's, you know, a landfill redevelopment so that's the greater project that we would come back for to discuss with you.

Alright. Moving on here just to give you a little bit of background on the overall project. This is the overall project location. The landfill itself is pretty easy to spot. As Jeanette mentioned, we're pretty good sized neighbors with the castle and then Core is probably our other primary neighbor along with some of the other residents. It's just located right off the highway. This next one here, we'll just look at the top portion. That's the so this shows you our current USR boundaries. So the USR boundary is the colored dashed line that runs alongside the outside. And then this kind of amoeba looking shape would be if the, what the landfill would look like when it's fully built out.

So, you know, essentially filled up. We're not there, of course, yet. And what we're proposing is to go down to this next section where essentially what we would do is we would expand the landfill up into the General Shale Property or it used to be the General Shale property, we've actually purchased it. And then what we would also like to do is move our scale house, so essentially where you weigh in and out where the office is, down to what used to be known as the Delva parcel. And so we also own that.

And so what that would allow us to do would be to make the landfill a little bit bigger horizontally and just provide a longer service life for us. And so with that, like I said, we're just trying to get this first box here today and then we'll come back here in the coming months to run through the USR with everyone and hopefully after that we'll move on to the state and then of course the final CD process. And that's that's it on on our end. Thank you.

Alright. Questions from board for the applicant?

Figured you guys needed an easy one. So

It sounds like that might be an easy one. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate I'll your go ahead and open up for public comment at this time. I have one person signed up at this time, Mr. Steve Blom. Come on up, sir. Okay. For everybody who didn't hear that, that might be joining us online, the gentleman just said he got his questions answered. So thank you sir for your cooperation.

Is there anybody else who would like to give public comment on this matter? I am seeing none. So let's bring back to the board for action. Gentlemen, how we would like to consider this zoning resolution waiver?

Mr. Chair, I do

think this one is fairly straightforward. And if it does please the Board, I'll make a

motion to approve a zoning resolution waiver for 5970 North U. S. Highway 85 6th amendment used by special review amendment for the Sedalia recycling center and depository because it does meet all of the approval criteria with is it three? Okay. Three conditions as presented project file U. S. Twenty twenty five dash zero zero one. I'll second the motion. I agree that it meets all the approval criteria for today and just wish you luck. It's a long road ahead and involves the state and CDPHE and not easy, but a task worth doing. So good luck.

Alright. That's a motion in a second, but I need one more question to be asked of the applicant. Sir, if you could please approach. Do you accept the three conditions? Do you need to see them displayed again? We do. Okay. Thank you.

Wait. You do need them displayed or

You do accept them or you do need them displayed?

We do

accept them.

Thank you.

That's kind of what I thought he meant. Thank you, Commissioner, for the clarity. Was appreciated. All right. We do have a motion and a second to approve. Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. The zoning resolution waiver is approved.

Thank you. All

right. Our last one is a motion resolution supplementing the 2026 adopted budget for the County Of Douglas, Colorado to recognize new revenues received since the annual budget adoption appropriation appropriately restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances in the amount of $55,159,453 And board, we do have a request to be continued to May 12. Is there a motion to continue this resolution?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to continue this resolution supplementing the 2026 adopted budget to May 12 at 02:30PM. Then I'll second that motion.

Very good. There is a motion and a second. Discussion? Martha, we might let you off here. Sounds like we're ready to roll.

Thank you.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Resolution is continued to 05/12/2026. But thank you, Director Marshall, for being prepared. This concludes our work today. The next land use meeting public hearing will be held on June Tuesday, May twelve, twenty twenty six at 02:30 p. M. And we are adjourned, gentlemen.