Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is commissioner Downs. Welcome to the 05/18/2026 planning commission meeting and hearing. Couple of items, from a housekeeping perspective. The public will have an opportunity to provide testimony for each item during the public comment phase for for the item on the agenda.

If you need technical assistance to access the meetings, please contact county staff, preferably in advance of the meeting. And then audio enhancement devices are available at the back of the hearing room. If you need them, please return them after use this evening. So thank you and please 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.

Like to ask the clerk to take the roll call.

Commissioner Ed Coubley. Commissioner Jim Smallwood. Present. Commissioner Mark Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Mark Reyer?

Present.

Commissioner Mark Wiekevich? Commissioner Mike McKesson? Commissioner Linda Russo?

Here.

Commissioner Calvin Downs?

Here. We have five commissioners here tonight and have a quorum to proceed proceed. The county attorney will now certify the agenda as necessary.

Evening, commissioners. Chris Pratt with the county attorney's office. Two items on your hearing agenda this evening. The 8500 Seymour Road, Helletech facility location and extent project file LE2026Dash006. This item, because it was a location and extent, required no specialized notice but was posted twenty four hours prior to this hearing.

And then the Pinery Meadows Planned Development First Amendment Major Planned Development Amendment, project file ZR twenty twenty six-three. This item had published notice accomplished April 16, posted notice accomplished April 15, and mailed notice accomplished April 17. This item was originally scheduled to be heard at the last meeting but that meeting was cancelled so it has been rescheduled for this hearing tonight. All of these items have been properly noticed, and you have jurisdiction to hear them this evening.

Thank you, sir. Are do any of my commissioners have any disclosures this evening? Okay. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting minutes of our last meeting which was April 20.

Commissioner Buzzo, I'd like to motion for approval of the minutes from 04/20/2026.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Smallwood second. We have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion has passed. The next item on the agenda then is our first land use hearing item and it is the eight eight thousand five hundred Seymour Road helitack facility L and E project file LE2026Dash006. It is a county application and Trevor bed Bedford is presenting for staff.

Good evening, commissioners. Trevor Bedford representing community development. Douglas County Facilities, Fleet, And Emergency Support Services is requesting approval of a location and extent for the construction of a helitack facility at the existing Evoque site. The project number is LE2026Dash006. Tim Hallmark is the applicant's representative.

The request is for approval of a helicopter landing area, a 9,500 square foot hangar, and associated infrastructure at the existing EVOX site. The applicant indicated that this is necessary to relocate the helicopter landing area to property owned by Douglas County and to provide year round storage for the helitack helicopter. This location also will also allow areas for construction of future facilities to support emergency response and search and rescue operations. The request initially included the relocation of a canine training facility. However, that portion of the request has been removed to evaluate and address comments received from South Metro Fire Rescue.

The intent of the L and E process is set forth in section 32 of the zoning resolution is to provide procedures for the timely review of the location and extent of public facilities or uses provided by section thirty twenty eight one ten of the Colorado revised statutes. Per state statute, the L and E process is established for public applicants who are proposing public uses, facilities, or other improvements on land within the county. The submittal requirements, time frame, and overall scope of the county's review are dictated by stat ute. The planning commission has thirty days after the date of official submission to reach a decision or the application is deemed approved. The L and E process includes a fourteen day referral period once the application is submitted and deemed complete.

Courtesy notices of an application in process were sent to adjacent property owners as required by the l and e process. No comments were received by abutting property owners or other members of the public. Referral comments related to the helicopter landing area were standard in nature with information regarding future requirements and applicable permitting with South Metro Fire Building Services Engineering and Utilities. And the applicant's responses to referral comments were included in the updates on Friday. The project site is in Northwest Douglas County within the Chatfield urban area as shown on this vicinity map.

More specifically, the project is approximately 500 feet east of Moore Road across from the Plum Valley Heights subdivision. The project is generally bordered by the Sterling Ranch PD and Agricultural One properties. This aerial map shows some additional context. This exhibit shows an overview of the existing EVOX site along with some of the future proposed improvements. The helicopter landing area and hangar will be part of the regional Joint Public Safety Training Complex as identified in the southwest portion of the EBUC site near the top of this map.

The canine training facility will not be relocated at this time. Additional buildings for the regional Joint Public Safety Training Complex and any future relocation of the canine facility will be reviewed as part of future L and E applications. This exhibit shows more context specifically for the helicopter area outlined in red and how it will tie into the EVOX site along with its access to Moore Road. This also shows a detention pond and water and sewer lines that will be extended to the site to serve the hangar and future training complex. Water and sewer lines along the northern edge of the EVOC site were approved as part of a previous L and E application and this proposes to extend those lines south to serve this project.

This slide shows more detail on the specific request. A 9,500 square foot hangar is proposed along with a landing area and an 18 space parking lot. This will be surrounded by a four foot chain link fence approved by the FAA. During construction, there is potential for intermittent traffic control needs on Moore Road. However, access to properties on Moore Road will not be affected and no significant traffic impacts are expected post construction.

This slide shows some elevation drawings for the hangar building. In addition to the L and E approval, the application will be required to obtain any necessary approvals from Douglas County Engineering, Douglas County Building, South Metro Fire, and Dominion Water Sanitation District. Staff has evaluated the application in accordance with section 32 of the Douglas County zoning resolution. Should the planning commission approve the L and E request, the applicant will be required to receive approval of all necessary permits prior to construction. I'm available to take any questions on the staff report. This concludes my presentation and the applicant is available for any questions as well.

Thank you, mister Bedford. Are there any questions at this moment from from us can us commissioners? Okay. Mister Bedford, you said hear from the applicant. Well, you are representing the applicant. Correct?

This Tim Hallmark is also here. Okay. He's the applicant.

Okay. Yes. Alright. Well, then, we will now hear from the applicant for this item. Please state your name and address for the record.

Tim Hallmark. 2029 Turner Court, Castle Rock, Colorado. Appreciate your consideration tonight for this l and e. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the site or the project in general.

So you had no additional testimony to provide?

I can give you a little bit more update on the removal of the canine. I think that's probably a little bit of a topic of interest. Definitely.

Thank you.

So based off the some very valid comments that we received from South Metro Fire and Rescue over that new proposed location with concerns of the grade of the road and then also some of the adjoining properties perhaps being a little bit of a hazard for the area, we're going to completely reevaluate. Not only is that a good location but also look at other locations to be brought back to the board for future consideration. I think at this point there's a really, really good chance we're going to see that canine area be housed in a different location within the actual confines of the current EVOC But we'll make sure and bring that back for your approval at a future date.

Alright. Sounds great. Any other questions for Mr. Hallmark? Thank you Mr. Hallmark for your testimony and for being available for questions. At this time we will now open the hearing for public comment. Please state your name and general location of where you live for the record, and please spell your last name. You will have three minutes to speak at the conclusion of public comments. The commission may ask the applicant staff to respond to these comments and questions.

If you are here representing another body like a homeowners association or or a government body, then you would have sick six minutes to speak. Is there anyone here for public comment? Alright. Seeing none, we will now close public testimony. And do the commissioners have any other questions for the applicant or staff?

I do.

Thank you. Commissioner Brouzil? Yes, so

you were talking a little bit about the project, but what I was not really concerned about, but just a clarification I need on the fencing, the chain link fencing. The first question is on the chain link fencing will that have any slats and that I know the part of the fencing that was supposed to be for the canine unit that was going to have slats but this other one didn't mention it.

And we don't anticipate putting any slats in it currently as we go through completing the design and award of the contract that may be an option that may be considered. A vast majority of the fencing only being four foot tall even if we slide it doesn't really provide any type of privacy or blocking. It's not something that we're against but currently is not planned. No, sir.

Okay. And the other questions related to the four foot fencing. You mentioned that it's FAA approved And I've been in the airline industry for thirty five years and dealt with some of the projects they had that concerned fencing. And unless things have changed over the past five years, the minimum height on FAA approved fencing was six feet. Six to eight feet, but they recommend 10 feet just depending on what the application is.

So, correct. So we went through the kind of that same process trying to figure out exactly what that is. For the actual helicopter landing pad, they go with the lower height because they don't want the fence to be a possible hazard for the helicopter coming in for a landing. And our fence seems fairly close to the actual landing pad versus being on a more external security fence, which would be that higher to your point, sir. Yes. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions? Okay. With that, we'll bring it back to the commissioners for any final comments or discussion before we vote.

Okay. Seeing none, will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reyer, I'd like

to make a motion to approve the 8500 Seymour Road, Halitak facility location and extent project file LE2026Dash006.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Smallwood second. The motion has been seconded. Clerk will read back the motion and take a roll call vote.

Motion to approve the 8500 Seymour Road Helitac facility. Location and extent project file LE2026Dash006. Commissioner Jim Smallwood?

Yes.

Commissioner Mark Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Mark Reyer?

Yes.

Commissioner Linda Russo? Yes. Commissioner Calvin Downs?

Yes. With that the motion carries and is unanimous. We will now move on to the next item on the agenda which is the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development First Amendment, Major Planned Development Amendment Project File ZR twenty twenty six-three with Eric Pavlik presenting for staff.

Commissioners, Eric Pavlik representing community development. The request is a major plan development amendment for the Piney Meadows plan development. Product number is z r twenty twenty six dash zero zero three. The applicant is Integrity Land Ventures. The applicant requests approval of a major amendment to the Pioneer Meadows PD to establish setbacks specific to single family detached cluster lots.

These development standards apply to 68 lots within the primary metal subdivision. The intent of a major PD amendment is noted on the slide. Major PDMM process begins with the submittal of an application following a review period by referral agencies and public. Notice is given for public hearings before the planning commission and board of county commissioners. No comments have been received from residents through the review process for this application.

As background, the Pioneer Meadows PD was approved by the board in February 2023. This is the first amendment to the original PD document. The subdivision was approved by the board in February of this year for a total of a 136 residential lots, 11 tracks, and associate public and private roads. This subdivision provides a variety of housing types, including 40 single family attached duplex lots, 28 single family detached, and 68 single family detached cluster lots. The Pottery Meadows PD indicated by the red star is generally located in the in the Northeast portion of the county.

The PD outlined in red is generally located approximately 850 feet northwest of the intersection of State Highway 83 and Scott Avenue. The 68 cluster lots are shown in blue. This is an aerial view showing the lotting pattern tracks and road network of these subdivisions. This slide depicts the proposed red lines to sheet two of the PD document. The amendment proposes setback specific to the 68 clustered lots.

The setbacks for these lots is proposed to be five feet for both lot lines. The amendment will also modify setbacks for single family attached lots, so the duplex product and replace the term private alley with private road, which will be consistent with the roads as shown on the approved final plat. The request will also add language within the PD document to allow encroachments into utility easements with an encroachment agreement from a utility provider. This slide depicts a lot standard table for the three housing types for this development. The highlighted areas show the proposed changes.

Before you are the approval standards applicable to a major PD amendment which is described within the staff report. Staff has evaluated the major PD amendment request in accordance with section 15 of the zoning resolution. Should the planning commission find that the approval criteria have been met, staff proposes the the following condition to be included in the motion. Condition number one, prior to recordation, all technical corrections will be made to the PD document to the satisfaction of Douglas County. Section fifteen twenty two point o six sets forth the parameters for the planning commission's recommendation of a major PD amendment.

This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions at the time. Otherwise, the applicant does have a presentation for you.

Do any of us have any questions for the for staff? Okay. With that, I I will ask applicant to come forward to speak and present. And please state your your name, spell your last name, and where you live if you live in the county.

My name is Carl Runge. I am with Norris Design 1101 Bannock Street in Denver, Colorado. We're here this evening asking for the first major amendment to the Pinery Meadows PD. As Eric stated, the PD was originally approved in 2023. We've been working with a homebuilder for this property.

And through conversations with them, we realized that there were some standards that needed to be incorporated into the PD to make one of their products that they intend to build buildable on on these lots. And so this PD request is strictly to incorporate those standards for that specific product. So the site is located Northwest of Scott Avenue and South Parker Road. We're just South of the Pinery Village master PD. We're seeking approval for a major amendment to incorporate the standards for those cluster single family detached products.

So this is the site plan for their overall site. The lots that are specifically being addressed with this PD amendment are outlined in red. They're only the cluster products, single family detached, all of the other products and lots as established in the PD and in the final plat that's been approved are untouched by this amendment. And the reason for this amendment is these cluster products, they're one of the key goals that we're trying to achieve with this development is providing a variety of housing types. And one that we've seen a lot of traction for in recent years is this cluster detached product.

So it's smaller lots. They share a driveway and motor court. And because of the configuration, they don't have true fronts. They don't have true backs. They a lot of the outdoor living happens on the side of the houses.

And so the typical setbacks of front, side, rear didn't feel practical and applicable to these lots. And so what we are proposing is a blanket five foot setback for all sides of the lots. In addition to that, there is a tract that is owned by the Metro District that is located between these clusters of four and the adjacent right of way. That tract is at least five feet in width at its narrowest. And so there is still an effective set front setback of at least 10 feet from the right of way, which was envisioned in the original PD.

So while we are requesting setback standards to be reduced to five feet across the board, effectively there is still setbacks that align with the front setbacks for the other products throughout the development. On this page we have highlighted the section of development standards that we have inserted in with this PD amendment. So as you can see we added a column for the cluster products specifically the other products lot typicals and standards were not affected. So we're asking for that five foot setback across the board. And then we had some back and forth with staff.

We all looked at this as an opportunity to while we're going through the process of doing a major amendment, there were some things that they had asked us to clean up. For example, on the duplex slots, originally, the side setback was five feet, which doesn't work for a shared for a shared wall. And so it was requested that we insert language of zero feet for shared lot line. And as Eric had mentioned on the the lot typical graphics, they wanted us to update some of the terminology, replace alleys with the word road because that's how it's reflected on the final plat. And so we took this opportunity while we're making this request to go ahead and make some additional text changes that had been requested to us by county staff while we while we have this opportunity.

And that little language note insert on note four, that was another thing that we discussed with the county. That note is not meant to take away any power that any of the utility service providers have. It explicitly states that an executed encroachment agreement must be provided prior to approval through the county when we're at the time of building permit and everything. But when we were talking with county staff, they had mentioned that sometimes they run into when they're at the building permit level. A builder might have worked with a utility provider.

They've reached an agreement that says, you know, you can encroach in these certain little ways, but the PD or the underlying zoning did not allow for it. And so even though everybody was in agreement that it was acceptable for that condition, the zoning didn't allow for it. And so it just created a lot of headaches at that time. And so they it was kind of it was requested by us to insert this note into here to give that flexibility. But again, we're not intending to remove any power or any oversight or jurisdiction that any of the utility providers have.

There still has to be an executed agreement that is in place. And so it's not just that, you know, homebuilder developer can go in and encroach as they want to. There all the powers and and interest that those utility providers have still stand and are are untouched. So just a brief timeline of kind of where we've been. Like Eric said, the PD was originally approved in February 2023. We picked up the project in 2025. Preliminary plan was approved in September of last year. Our final plat was approved a couple months ago. We have our SIP application. It is sitting with the county ready for approval, pending approval of this PD amendment, and then construction is anticipated to begin in the next month or so.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Bruso.

Yes. Commissioner Bruso, just a quick question for you. When you mentioned about making these changes to make a product more buildable for the builder, were you referring to the cluster? Yes, the cluster specifically. Okay. And that's that's the only one that is affected by this, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, commissioner. Anyone else?

Commissioner Hampton. So, as I understand it, the amount of homes are not changing at

all with the setback, correct?

No, sir. We are not affect we are not changing density. We're not affecting anything that was approved in the original PD or their preliminary plan or the final plat that's been approved. It's it's strictly just these development standards for these lots that have already been defined with that final plat.

Okay.

Alright. With that, we will now open for public comment. Please state your name and general location of where you live for the record. Please spell your last name. You will have three minutes to speak. At the conclusion of public comments the Commission may ask the applicant and staff to respond to these comments and questions. Is there any public testimony this evening? Alright. Seeing none, we will now close public testimony. Are there any other questions the commissioners may have?

I have one more. Okay. Good. Commissioner Hampton. Yeah. Commissioner Hampton here. If we didn't approve this, would this development still go on and still be built just the way it is with the current setbacks?

It the development would move forward. It becomes a little more restrictive for the the building envelopes that are possible with these smaller lot types or lot sizes.

But it still can be built the way it was submitted with the setbacks that are originally done?

No. When we were at the time of preliminary plan and final plat and everything, we didn't have building envelopes or anything. We were kind of still in an earlier stage. So we were just defining kind of the sandbox, if you will. And now since the preliminary plan and those other documents have been approved, we're now gaining traction with interested homebuilders. And so this is in response to some of the conversations that we've had with them.

Okay. So my question again, but if it wasn't approved, you would still go ahead. You still can build these with the setbacks that you have today.

Jerry Richmond, 7200 South Alton Way. I'm the owner of Integrity Land Ventures. These lots would be undevelopable. They would not be able to have a house on them other than maybe might be 800 square feet. The setbacks are such that the product that's been proposed by the builder that we've selected is very unique.

And it will be able to be something that's closer to 1,600 square feet for family and or for single couples that don't have any children at this time. So we couldn't build the product under the existing the product. We couldn't build the product. The other 100 or of the other, what is it, 70 units, those would be the only ones that could be built.

So the original plan that we approved in February was not correct?

We didn't have a builder at that time to really understand what that product was going to be. So there was no way to know at that time. I think what Carl said is we didn't have any building footprints or envelopes at that time to be able to understand what the setbacks were at that time.

Okay. Thank you.

I would like to ask a question about a little bit more about CORE Electric, what their objections were to the project and how those have been addressed from your perspective?

We have worked exclusively with CORE and went through all of these easements and their questions for numerous months. Brooks Kaufman and KCR Designer both approved this. Okay.

Are there any other questions for staff or for the applicant? Alright seeing none let's bring it back for any discussion that we might need to have amongst the commissioners. Alright. With no further discussion forthcoming, do we have a motion regarding this item?

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Commissioner Smallwood moves to recommend approval of the Piney Meadows plan development First Amendment major plan development amendment project files ER twenty twenty six dash zero zero three subject to the one condition recommended by staff.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Commissioner Roberta, I'd like to second the motion.

Motion to recommend approval of the Pioneer Meadows planned development first amendment major planned development amendment project files ZR2026Dash003 subject to the one condition recommended by staff. Commissioner Jim Smallwood?

Yes.

Commissioner Mark Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Mark Briar?

Yes.

Commissioner Lana Brusso?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvin Downs?

Yes. And with that, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project by a vote of five to zero. Which you're welcome. Thank you, sir. With that, do we have a motion end the meeting?

I can just do that. Alright. I can do it. Alright. With that, commissioner this meeting of the commissioners is adjourned. Thank you.