Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

So here's to that place. And all the people who come together every day.

from someone, and Arielle said you could use it in the house, yes. Oh, okay.

That's related to the CMP amendment.

Did this come from Stan?

Yeah. Okay. It's related to the CMP amendment.

Well, so we have two tonight. Yeah. I just want to make sure it's part of the record.

Samantha just handed it to us. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

Good evening, this is Commissioner Downs. Welcome to the July 20th, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. We have a couple of items to note as we get started. The public will have an opportunity to provide testimony for each item during the public comment phase for the item on the agenda. If you need technical assistance to access the meeting, please contact county staff. And audio enhancement devices are available at the back of the hearing room if you need them, but please return them after use. And with that, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, the chair will now ask the clerk to take the roll call.

Ed Kubli.

Present.

Jim Smallwood.

Present.

Patrick Neville.

Here.

Mark Hampton.

Here.

Mark Reier. Here. Here. Michael McKesson.

Here.

Len Abruzzo. Here. Calvin Downs.

Present. With that, we have a roll call with eight commissioners present. So we do have a quorum to proceed. With that, I'd like to ask the county attorney to certify the agenda.

Good evening, commissioners. Ariel Dennis with the county attorney's office. There are three items on the agenda this evening. The first does not require notice. It's rampart delivery system expansion, location, and extent project file LE2026-008. The second item is Crown's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan Land Use Map Amendment Project File DR2026-003. This item had publication accomplished on June 25, 2026. It was posted July 6, 2026 and mailed July 6, 2026. The third item is the Douglas County zoning resolution amendment to section 27 site improvement plan project file DR2026-002. This item had publication accomplished on June 25th, 2026. These agenda items have been properly noticed and you have jurisdiction to hear them this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, do any of my fellow commissioners have any disclosures or conflicts to report? Commissioner Coogley.

Yes, I do, Commissioner Downs. Thank you. Yeah, I'll be abstaining and recusing from the second item on the agenda tonight for the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan Amendment Review, as I am associated with and work for the underlying applicant.

Okay.

Commissioner Downs.

Commissioner Hampton.

I've had some statements said about me, and I'd like to read a short statement here. And then, Ariel, I think you're going to have some questions for me. I've carefully considered whether I can evaluate this application. I believe I can. My decision is based solely on the evidence presented tonight and the approval criteria in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Master Plan.

So you're talking about the second item on the agenda as well? Correct. Okay. Does the county attorney have any questions for Commissioner Hampton?

Commissioner Hampton, do you or your family stand to personally gain in any way from the outcome of this decision?

No.

Based on what is in the record, you will consider this matter fairly?

Yes.

And if the application meets all approval criteria, will you vote to recommend approval?

Yes.

Thank you for making those statements on the record.

Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. All right, so before we consider the agenda items, of course we'll have the minister cover in a moment as well, but is there a motion to continue the third item on the agenda tonight? It's over to the next meeting.

Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McKesson. I move to continue the Douglas County zoning resolution amendment to section 27, site improvement plan project file DR2026002 until a time that can be coordinated with staff on our future agenda. And that's largely because we wanna focus on the amount of public testimony that I think we're prepared to hear this evening.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Hampton, I second. Okay.

Were you?

I think we were, the thought was that we would continue to the next Planning Commission hearing on August 3rd at 6 o'clock p.m.

Yes, could you revise that? I would amend my motion as so.

Okay, so we have a first and a second. Would the clerk please take the roll call vote on this item?

Ed Kubli. Oh, my apologies. Motion to continue to... Motion to continue Douglas County Zoning Resolution Amendment to Section 27, Site Improvement Plan, Project File DR-2026-002. Ed Kubli. Yes.

Jim Sponwood.

Yes. Patrick McNeil, or McNeville rather?

Yes.

Mark Hampton?

Yes.

Mark Reier? Yes. Michael McKesson?

Yes.

Lana Bruzo?

Yes.

Calvin Downs?

Yes. With that, we have a unanimous vote to carry this, or to continue this item over to the August 3rd hearing. Okay, so may I have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting minutes of the July 6th, 2026 hearing?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I move to approve the minutes of July 6th as drafted.

Commissioner Smallwood, second.

Okay. So all in favor say aye.

I'm sorry, we need to abstain. I wasn't here on the July 6th meeting, so I have to abstain.

All right. I was not here at that meeting either, so I will not be a part of the voice vote, but all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay. Okay, the motion carries. The meeting minutes are approved. So now we'll move on to the land use hearing items. The first item on the agenda is the Rampart Delivery System Expansion Location and Extent Project File, LE2026-008, with Eric Pavlenik, Principal Planner, presenting for staff.

Good evening, Commissioners. Eric Pavlenek representing Community Development. Before you is the City of Aurora location extent for the rampart delivery system expansion project. Project number is LE2026-008. The City of Aurora is requesting L&E approval for installation of approximately 6.5 miles of raw water pipeline and related appearances. Construction of a new valve building is included with this first phase of improvements. The intent of the only process as set forth in section 32, the zoning resolution is to provide procedures for the timely review of the location extent of public facilities or uses provided by section 30 dash 28 dash one 10 of the Colorado revised statutes. Per state statute, the only process established for public applicants who are proposing public uses, facilities, or other improvements on land within the county. The submittal requirements, timeframe, and overall scope of the county's review are dictated by statute. The Planning Commission has 30 days after the date of official submission to reach a decision or the applications deemed approved. Any improvements indicated by the red star will be located on property owned by the City of Aurora at the Aurora Rampart Reservoir, which is located southeast of the intersection of North Rampart Range and Roxville Park Road, which is north of the Roxville State Park. The new pipeline will traverse northeast from this location. The project area includes property zoned Agriculture 1, planned development, open space, rural residential, general industrial, and state residential. This is an aerial view of the 9.7 acre parcel which is northeast of the reservoir which will include the new valve building. The next two aerial maps show different locations of the pipeline segment from this starting point. There's one going northeast through Ag property and then into Storing Ranch near Palm Valley Heights and then north on Moore Road eventually crossing Titan Road And then the segment would go northeast, crossing 85, and eventually connecting to infrastructure in Highlands Ranch. This L&E exhibit shows the location of the pipeline from the reservoir site. The exhibit is rotated so the north is to the right on the slide. Along the pipeline, there will be buried structures, including blow-off drain valve vaults, access manways, air valve vaults, isolation valve vaults, and vent pipes. This is the site plan layout of the new valve building, which is replacing an existing building on that same site. Elevation view showing the approximate 1,800 square foot building, which is about 27 feet tall, constructed of CMU with a metal roof. In addition to the L&E approval, other permits and approvals are listed on the slide. Staff has evaluated the application in accordance with Section 32 of the zoning resolution. The applicant has indicated that the proposed improvements will increase system capacity to meet the increasing demands. Should the Planning Commission approve the only request, the applicant will be required to receive final approval of all engineering plans and permits prior to commencement of the project. Proof that necessary easements, license agreements, permits, and other approvals from other entities and property owners have been obtained is also required for the project. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions at this time. Otherwise, the City of Aurora has a presentation for you.

Okay, we will now hear from the applicant for this item. As you approach the podium, please state your name and address for the record. I think your mic's not on. I'm not sure what happened to it.

How do I turn that on? It's on. I think it's on now. Yep.

There you go. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Okay. Good evening. Keith Buschdecker with HDR Engineering. I am the, we are the consultants to the city of Aurora for this project. We're in part delivery system expansion phase 1A. Project representatives, I'm not sure if Dean Bedford is here, he's principal engineer with Aurora Water. Amy Drucker is project manager with Aurora Water, who's here tonight. Elizabeth LaFabe is public information officer with Aurora Water. She's not here tonight, but she's generally be the ones communicating with property owners along the project route. And myself, Keith Buschdecker, project manager for design for HDR Engineering. Sorry, going the wrong way. Just a quick agenda. I'm gonna provide a project overview, a little more detail than what Eric provided, talk a little bit about the easements, environmental and permitting issues, and then open it up for questions. So general overview, the project RDS 1A is what we call it, adds capacity and redundancy to Aurora's existing delivery system pipelines that run from the Rampart Reservoir and Dam through a valve house. The existing system includes a 60-inch and 54-inch pipeline, one pipeline that changes size. and a 42 inch and 40 inch pipeline. Those are existing pipelines that have been built over the years since the 50s. The new project, as I said, replaces, well, expands capacity for the city to develop their existing water supplies, replaces and updates the existing valve house to add the third pipeline, which requires a bigger building. The pipeline, as mentioned, is a 76 inch steel pipeline. There's interconnections with the existing Aurora pipelines along the route. Right now, at the end of this phase, we will connect with the other pipelines to improve the capacity until the next phase is built. There's an interconnection with Denver Waters Water Treatment Plant, Foothills Water Treatment Plant. That is for exchange of water between the two systems for redundancy and backup. There's also connections to the Roxborough Water Treatment Plant and Pump Station. Aurora does supply some water to the Roxborough Water and Sewer District. And then there's a couple of trenchless crossings at major roads, railroads, and at Plum Creek to minimize disruptions. Here is a overview, similar to what Eric showed. Down the lower left is the Rampart Reservoir, where the project starts, and the inset picture is a picture of the valve house that was shown earlier as well. As mentioned, increases the size to accommodate the additional pipeline and provide additional valving potential. or operation and safety. Pipeline runs, I'll just follow along the pipeline from bottom to top. Near the Rampart Reservoir is the connection to the Denver Water System that I mentioned. Continuing up and to the north through some private properties in undeveloped areas, crosses Willow Creek, then approaches Waterton Road, runs along the south side of Waterton Road and the current Sterling Ranch development. then heads to the east across the south edge of the existing Sterling Ranch development and the north edge of the Plum Valley Heights development. To Moore Road and heads up Moore Road along and within Moore Road. You'll see towards the north end of Moore Road there is the green dash section. The county is getting ready to improve Moore Road there. We've been working with county staff to coordinate our designs so that they can complement each other work together, minimize work disruptions and cost for both of us. Then cross Titan Road. Right now it's proposed as a tunnel. Cut through the Stockton Stables and a tunnel across Plum Creek to avoid working in the creek and the environmental disruptions there in the wetlands. continue to the northeast crossing the Union Pacific Railroad, then crossing the BNSF Railroad and Highway 85 in an existing casing that was installed about 20 years ago in anticipation of this project when Highway 85 was last widened in that area, and then continuing to the northeast end at what we call Intertie One where we connect the new pipeline to the two existing Aurora pipelines. Just a little discussion on the valve house, what we call the outlet works. The valve house at the foot of the Rampart Reservoir Dam connects the reservoir, the water from Rampart Reservoir to the Aurora Pipelines and the valving allows control of water into the different pipelines individually or all together. There will be improvements to the site, grading and drainage to accommodate the new structure. And the structure size as shown is about 38 by 74 by about 24 feet high up out of the ground. The tentative construction schedule, as I've shown, plan to start the outlet works probably January of next year, the first of the year, and that will run for 12 to 18 months, so end in the spring of 2028. Pipeline will start with the first section in the Northern Moore Road area that I mentioned earlier, plan to start in December of this year and run, for as much as two and a half years for final completion and restoration of all the surfaces and vegetation. The early out section, as I mentioned, the Northmore Road area, plan to start December of this year and run through May to turn the road back over to the county to complete the road widening and improvements project. And that's about 4,100 feet of pipe. Easements, the city has existing easements and has added some additional permanent easements along the corridor, which for the most part encompasses all three pipelines, the two existing pipelines and a new third pipeline. There's an area where it diverges, where the new pipeline runs around the south side of Sterling Ranch because there wasn't enough corridor through Sterling Ranch. There will be additional temporary construction easement to accommodate the work progress, so the total working corridor generally would be 140 feet wide, narrower in some areas because there just isn't space because of other constraints. And that... The working corridor does overlay the existing pipeline easements and area, so it's not an additional 140 feet. Just a display to show kind of the access points and staging and tunneling areas along the route. This again, similar image, but north is to the right on this page, and the Rampart Reservoir is up to the upper, shown in the upper left. You can see the blue areas or blue locations noted. That's access points that we've identified so far. And there are some what we call secure sites along the way noted in red, including the Denver Waters plant, also property along Roxborough Park Road. The Comcast property, just on the west side of Highway 85. Centennial RV storage, which is south of Titan Road. We're talking to them about access through their property to get to an area between the two railroad tracks, which is currently difficult to access. And then the railroads themselves, as well as Highway 85, are fenced and obviously can't be working across those, so we'll be tunneling underneath. A little bit on the environmental and utility permits required as listed here. There's several from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. All those and additional regulations from federal government we will comply with and obtain before construction. CDOT will need permits for crossing of Highway 5, even though we're not cutting across it, we're going through an existing casing, still require permits. Douglas County has several permits for work in the floodplain, general erosion and sediment control permitting, location extent permit, which is why we're here tonight. Also, oversized and overweight loads on the roads. Right-of-way use permit and temporary access permit, those last three generally be acquired by the contractor. And then Highlands Ranch Metro District, at the end of this phase, will be entering into the Highlands Ranch Metro District area, so we need temporary access permit from them. And with that, open it up to any questions.

Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant? And thank you, Mr. Bushdecker, Bushdecker, yes. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Abruzzo.

Yes, Commissioner Abruzzo, I was just wondering on your phasing of this, I understand there is five separate phases, so the initial one will be phase one alpha?

Yes.

What does one Bravo do that wasn't included in one alpha? Does that just extend everything a little bit more?

Yep. I can't seem to go back. So as shown where we end at the end of phase 1A. I'm not sure what I've done at this point. Are you taking over, Eric? So ultimately, this pipeline will extend all the way to Aurora's water treatment plants in Aurora and their reservoirs, Quincy Reservoir. This phase gets to the interconnections with the other pipelines. So by doing that, it increases the capacity to what OROC sees they need now, plus it keeps it within the budget constraints they have now. The next phase would continue on that northeasterly alignment, paralleling the existing pipelines through existing easements. Phase 1B would be right now is planned to end at just north of County Line Road. There's another intertie there. So these segments have been staged for those interties because it adds capacity. Third phase goes through the Denver Tech Center area. And I'm not sure about the fourth and fifth phase, but ultimately ends up in Aurora at their treatment plants.

Okay, and I understand that phase one alpha, that increases the capacity to about 81 MGD. Yes, that's correct. And that, at completion of the rampart delivery system, that'll be up to 125?

MGD, that's correct, yes.

Okay, my last question is, it states in here that phases two, three, and four depend on funding, so is there any doubt on the funding on this, or what might be a problem?

Honestly, not being with the city, I can't answer that. I don't know if Amy, if you know much about funding, but my understanding of ORS funding for this sort of thing is coming from customer water service costs. And ultimately, as the city grows, the demands grow, the funding would increase with that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Anyone else? Okay. All right, with that, we will now open for public comment. As you approach the podium, thank you, Mr. Bushdecker. We may need you a little bit later, but as you approach the podium, 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. and at the conclusion of public comments, the Commission may ask the applicant and staff to respond to these comments and questions. If you are an officer representing an HOA or any other government entity, you will have six minutes to speak, so please let us know if that's the case as you approach the podium. Do we have anyone wanting to or wishing to give public comment, okay? With that, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commissioners for any questions or comments you may have for the applicant or staff.

Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McKesson. I'll have a couple of questions for the applicant, if I could, sir. Please have you come back to the podium. Thank you for... Your governance-wise planning for the future, this is quite a project. Can I ask how many millions of dollars it is? It's being funded in some fashion, so this phase of it's got to be enormous.

Yes. We haven't gotten construction costs yet. A contractor has been brought on board recently, but the initial engineering estimate for this phase was $105 million.

Excellent. Thank you. And so it's quite an undertaking. I look forward to supporting it. I just have a couple of questions here for you. So thank you for pointing out and utilizing what was planned for the trenchless crossings. That'll make those crossings at Plum Creek and the railroad crossing and the highway much easier. I appreciate that. But I also wanted to make sure that you've planned for that. You described 140 foot wide swath. Is that fair in most of these areas?

Total width for construction corridor.

Okay, which is larger than this room in terms of width. And I've seen that run through Sterling Ranch and next to a new school and a number of homes, and it just sounds enormous. And I want to make sure there's been sufficient public outreach for those folks to know what's happening over the next three years.

Yeah, we have had a lot of contact with Sterling Ranch. They're fully aware of what's going on. And long before I was involved on the design point of view, Aurora was coordinating with Sterling Ranch to develop the alignment. And that's where they settled on the alignment around the south end. So Sterling Ranch has been very involved. We're working with them on easements as well as some work that will help them out. We're going to generate excess dirt that Sterling Ranch is interested in for their projects and also sharing some space that they haven't developed yet and the contractor may want to use for storage or staging of their work. That is a big corridor, and there are some areas where There isn't that room, so the contractor will have to work in less room. That width was arrived at in discussions with the contractor. That's what they feel they need for do their work most efficiently, which keeps the construction costs down. They can work in a narrower corridor. It just slows down their work. So we will have to do that in some areas.

And I appreciate that. I guess I just want to make sure, and it sounds like you've worked with Sterling Ranch, but you've got a new school. I see it in the file that's opening up, and there's no proposition to, it's going all around the school. Is that correct? It's not going to close down?

I forgot to mention that the John Adams Academy, we have been in contact with them and their engineers. They're aware of the projects coming up. We were hoping to get the pipeline installed this summer before the school opened, but that wasn't possible where we were with the design and construction phase. So they are aware of it. I believe they're holding off on their final landscaping so that we don't just tear it right out. But we have agreed with them that the work will be done during next summer's break so that there's not construction activities and safety concerns with the students around.

And I appreciate that. It sounds like you have most of my questions answered, but I'm just imagining a six-and-a-half-mile swath, 140 feet wide, with a 72-inch pipe is quite enormous. And you've got plans in place to not shut anybody down or prevent them from accessing their homes in Chatfield Estates and that sort of thing that goes through? Is that—

Fair. We will work through all those. And that is the plan to not shut off anybody from access. Where we're crossing roads, the plan is to go across half the road at a time. Some roads, we can't shut down one lane. We would have to keep two lanes open. So either the road's already wide enough that we can accommodate that. Instead of being four lanes wide, it might be two lanes. For example, at Waterton Road, the improved Waterton Road, just east of Moore Road. At Chet Field Estates, same sort of thing. There's not a lot of traffic there, so we feel we can get across half the road with flaggers and allow traffic to get through and then flip over to the other side of the road. It may also require some what we call shoe flies to widen the road around the trench across the road.

Thank you for committing to manage that. You are the city of Aurora water, and you mentioned your contractor. Your contractor would work for you, and that direction would come from you to them to make sure these access points are maintained as best as practical?

Yes, and the county's got to permit that to use their right-of-way, so that's going to be, whether the contractor wants to or not, he's going to have to do that, and they realize that this isn't their first.

project like this thank you and where this this phase of the project terminates is at the east west trail in the highlands ranch metropolitan district correct yes and then when it terminates what does it look like where it terminates it'll be graded until the next phase is funded and proposed or is there a big hole or how does that no it'll it'll be uh

The surface will be restored to the existing elevation ground surface. We are putting in some valving and interconnections, which will generally be buried. You'll see excess manways at the surface, and there's already some out there anyway from Aurora's existing pipelines, and also Denver Water has pipeline in that area that runs parallel. Ultimately, the surface will be essentially what it is now, and it'll be revegetated to similar vegetation that's out there now, the natural vegetation.

So the East-West Trail will be able to be used? Yes. In that area?

You make a good point. That's something I know that's used a lot, so we would, I wouldn't say encourage, we'll probably require the contractor to make sure that he maintains access for people using those trails.

We appreciate that. It does get used a lot. It's a great outdoor resource for folks.

Except on a day like today.

Thank you. That's all the questions I have.

All right.

Anyone else? Commissioner Bruzo.

Yes, I just wanted to throw out a couple compliments to your organization. The first one being the communications. I've always felt that the communications part of a project is one of the most important and I understand that right from the onset of the project you've been communicating with any affected neighbors and you continue doing it all the way till the end. So that's a big part for me. And the other one is the fact that this project will reduce a dependency on the non-renewable water source from the Denver Basin. So that's the other great thing about this project. Just for your information, two kudos.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? I do have a question for you. You mentioned John Adams Academy, you mentioned Sterling Ranch. Has there been any outreach at all with Plum Valley Heights? I understand there was a question raised by Julie Heinrich, I believe it was, who is I think their board president, their HOA president now, about where exactly that is gonna run through between the north side of Plum Valley Heights in that buffer area with Sterling Ranch that separates those two entities? Have you talked to them at all about it?

Good question. Our design team has not talked to them. I'm not sure if the city has been in contact with them. and the reason would be because we're not actually on their property, but you make a good point. They're affected by it. It's outside their back door. The easement does run on the Sterling Ranch side of the property line, and we provide in our responses what the distance from the Plum Valley Heights property line to our pipeline is, and it ranges a off the top of my head, a minimum of 26 feet in one area to as much as 60 or 80 feet for most of the alignment.

So it doesn't affect their bridle paths at all?

No, no, no, encroaching on their equestrian trail through there.

All right, thank you much for that. All right, with that, is there any further discussion amongst the commissioners or comments on this item before we entertain a motion? Okay, with that, I will entertain a motion.

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Abruzzo, I would like to...

Okay, thank you.

I would like to set forth a motion to approve of the Rampart Delivery System Expansion Location and Extent Project File LE2026-008.

Thank you, Commissioner Abruzzo. Is there a second?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I second.

And we have a first and a second. Would the clerk read back the motion and take the roll call vote, please?

Motion to approve of the Rampart Delivery System Expansion Location and Extent Project File LE2026-008. Ed Kubli. Yes. Jim Smallwood. Yes. Patrick Neville.

Yes.

Mark Hampton.

Yes.

Mark Reier. Yes. Len Abruzzo. Yes. Mike McKesson.

Yes.

Calvin Downs.

Yes, and with that, the motion carries unanimously with an eight to zero vote.

Thank you.

All right, with... With that, I'm guessing that the next item agenda is why you all are here. Commissioner Kubli, you may be dismissed as you requested earlier. Thank you, sir. The next item on the agenda is the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan Land Use, I'm sorry, Comprehensive Master Plan Land Use Map Amendment Project File DR2026-003 with Mike Pazica, I'm not sure I pronounced your name correctly, but principal planner presenting for staff.

Thank you, Chairman Downs, members of the Planning Commission, Mike Pasica representing Community Development. And the request before you is a comprehensive master plan land use map amendment, project number DR2026-003. And Dan Williams with Ventana Capital is here tonight representing the application. The request is a CMP land use map amendment to change approximately 745 acres of land from non-urban to urban located in the high plateau sub area and northeast non-urban sub area. The request would amend CMP map 1.1 land use, map 3.1 non-urban sub areas, map 3.5 high plateau sub area, and map 3.6 northeast sub area. CMP Section 10-1A allows for a publicly initiated major amendment to the CMP land use map. The process begins with the submittal of an application. Following a review period by referral agencies and the public, notice is given for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Referral comments were received from the Padero HOA and they expressed concerns regarding the non-urban character and rural nature of the adjacent neighborhoods, that it proposes too much density that is not compatible with adjacent properties and that does not provide a public benefit. The Pioneer HOA responded to the referral request expressing that there is a growing concern that we are gradually weakening and undermining the comprehensive master plan. Are we going to continue slowly chipping away at our open spaces And the Pioneer West HOA responded that they are against another project that potentially creates high density dwellings and high commercial or personal vehicle traffic within this proposed area. Changing this area to urban will continue to add vehicle traffic, displace wildlife, and stress all infrastructure around the existing and already approved developments surrounding this area. Let it be an island of non-developed high density land. We also received a response from the town of Parker and they raised concerns that included but were not limited to consistency with the non-urban and urban objectives and policies of the CMP, compatibility of densities, sufficiency of open space, preservation of steep slopes and natural bluffs, traffic, water, and sewer impacts, and what it sees as a lack of a public benefit or compelling reason to change the CMP map. The town of Cass Rock also responded after the end of the referral period and stated that they have concerns with an increase in traffic and impacts to the regional transportation network. The development should be supported by reliable non-renewable water resources and centralized wastewater infrastructure, and there could be potential impacts to wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and natural features associated with Lemon Gulch and surrounding lands. The county engineering services reviewed the application and requested submittal of a traffic analysis, which was provided by the applicant. Engineering reviewed the analysis and stated that for the most part, it aligns with the roadway sections identified within the Douglas County 2050 Transportation Master Plan, except for the portion of Crowfoot Valley Road that would need to be constructed as a six-lane section. Should the property be included in the urban area, Should the property be included in the urban area, engineering will work with any applicant on all future land use applications.

Mr. Bozeka, could we please not have interruptions to the testimony of staff or the applicant until the time comes for public testimony? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Should the property be included in the urban area, engineering will work with any applicant on all future land use applications for these properties to continue to refine the traffic impacts through additional traffic studies. All referral agency comments that were received were included as an attachment to your staff report. The county received multiple letters from neighbors which are attached to the staff report with additional correspondence provided in the Friday packet and handed out prior to tonight's hearing. This is the CMP vicinity map. It shows the approximate location of the project area highlighted with the red star in the northeast part of the county. The site is located in the high plateau and northeast non-urban sub areas of the 2040 CMP. This is zoning of the site. The project site is outlined in red, and it's zoned Agricultural 1 and Large Rural Residential. To the north is the town of Parker. To the south is A1 and planned development zoning. To the east is the state residential zoning and the town of Parker. And to the west is A1 zoning. The Castle Park Ranch development, which consists of 35 acre parcels, is located directly to the west. And then to the west of Castle Park Ranch is the city of Castle Pines. The Looking Glass and trails at Crow Fruit Developments, both are located in the town of Parker. are to the north and east respectively, and their development is to the south, and it is zone plan development. This aerial map shows the project site outlined in red. The Lemon Gulch 100-year floodplain crosses the central portion of the site. There are stands of scrub oak covering the site, with the rest consisting of grasses and smaller shrubs. There are a few older single-family residences, barns, and accessory structures on the project site. The map on the left shows the full extent of the high plateau sub area. And the map on the right is zoomed into the 722 acre portion that lies in the high plateau sub area. And the map on the left shows the full extent of the northeast sub area. And the map on the right is zoomed into the 23 acres of the project area located in the northeast sub area. This is an aerial pictometry view of the project site outlined in yellow. North is up on the slide. The municipal areas of the town of Parker and the city of Castle Pines are shaded in red, and Lemma Gulch generally traverses the center of the property. All of the following criteria in section 10-2A shall be considered by the Planning Commission when reviewing CMP amendment requests. Staff's assessment of the approval criteria is discussed in detail within pages three through eight of the staff report. Section 10-2B-2A.2A7 sets forth the following actions for the Planning Commission's decision on a CMP amendment request. The Planning Commission shall evaluate the application, referral comments, staff report, and public testimony, and approve the request, approve the request with conditions, table for further study, continue the request to a time and date certain in order to obtain more information and to take additional public testimony, deny the request. A decision of approval means the approximately 745 acres in question will be designated as urban. If approved, the chair and secretary must sign and attest a resolution with an exhibit of the land area to be included to memorialize the decision. This concludes my presentation. I am open for questions. Otherwise, the applicant does have a presentation this evening.

Are there any questions for staff at this point? Commissioner Hampton.

Yeah, Mike, I got just a question. As you called us, this is a major amendment to the CPM. And our 2040 CPM is countywide. It encompasses everything within Douglas County. But yet only the notices went out to the immediate area that we're in. But we're asking to change something that the whole county took part in at one point. Is there, why do we only do it to that and not get comment from everybody in Douglas County since they're the ones who put these maps together and our plan?

Well, per the publicly initiated amendment process for a CMP land use map amendment, it's specific to this area. The noticing requirements only require notice to individuals that are above the project area. It doesn't require notice to the entire county.

Even though that the CMP affects the entire county?

That's correct, but this specific request is just for this part of Douglas County.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Commissioner McKesson.

This is Commissioner McKesson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for staff. I just want to make sure that we're all clear because amending the comprehensive plan is different than rezoning a project. That's a much further process. So we're not considering a rezone. It would be an amendment to the comprehensive master plan, which could then potentially allow or, I guess, support more for a rezone. Do I have that correct?

That is correct, Commissioner McKesson.

Thank you, I just wanted to add that clarity to tonight's proceeding. Thank you.

All right. With that, we will now hear from the applicant for this item. Please state your name and address for the record as you approach the podium. Thank you.

8678 Concord Center Drive, Centennial, Colorado. Good evening, commissioners. I'd like to thank you for your time and considering this application. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, which is VT Crowfoot Valley Land Co. LLC. And behind it are the nine property owners who are entitled to their own private property rights and who own this property and engaged in public process. I'd like to introduce some members of my team. We've got Terrence Quinn here, who will be doing a presentation on the criteria. We also have Mr. Brian Horan from Galloway Engineering. He's our traffic consultant. We also have Ms. Courtney Marne from ERO, our environmental expert. Jonah Weiss, Jennifer Carpenter, who are part of our land planning team. And then David Foster, who is our land use attorney. I would also like to give a big thanks to staff. They've been amazing to work with. Always professional, responsive. My thanks can't go out enough. So I grew up in Colorado. I went to middle school, high school, CU for undergrad, CU for law. I office here in Douglas County. Prior to becoming a developer, I was a trial attorney. I actually did developer to developer litigation, so I know that there could be some bad developers out there and that they earn the reputation that they get. But I bring this up because I see these hearings as a bit of a trial. You all sit as the finders of fact, not opinion. The evidence is the record. The criteria are the law. And your ask tonight is to weigh the evidence and let the record and not hyperbole or opinion decide on that issue at heart. When I started doing land entitlements, I cut my teeth in Boulder, in Boulder County, and Boulder proper. So I've sat through a few rough rooms. What strikes me about this project is that the opposition sounds and feels like it's infill opposition. neighbors, traffic, character, the view from the back fence, and it should sound like that because what this is is infill. You don't have these concerns when a property sits far outside the bounds or out on the off the beaten path. You have these concerns typically when a property is in an area that's already developed. And some of these concerns you hear tonight will be from neighbors. because this property has neighbors and density on nearly every side. Respectfully, this isn't an argument against this amendment. It's evidence for it. But back to the property that we're here to discuss. A CMP amendment requires a change in circumstances. This property has been a cattle ranch since the 1920s. The fact is that after a century of grazing, the site has low habitat value. And furthermore, an agrarian future is not feasible for this land. Beyond a century of grazing, what else has changed? Well, two major things. One, the area has become urbanized and developed. The site straddles a planned four-lane arterial. It's nestled between master plan communities, and it's surrounded by utilities and service providers. This is the first time, and this is the second circumstance of change, But this is the first time in over the years that all nine property owners have come together. And as you commissioners know, it's hard for nine groups of anything to agree on anything. Over the years, various groups have tried to entitle this property, individually and separately. This is the first time that all nine property owners have come together under a cohesive single plan. This is what creates the real public benefit. A cohesive plan that preserves approximately 100 contiguous acres of Lemon Gulch within a thoughtful development. The alternative to this is an open space. It's piecemeal development that carves Lemon Gulch into disconnected parcels and leaves no one with any open space. This would go against the grain of the comp plan. Now let me talk about the path that got us here. Back in April of last year, I began working with the property owners. The first thing I did was I met with Parker Water and Sanitation District. After some discussions, the district provided a commitment letter and later a follow-up letter was issued clarifying that the property would have to go through the inclusion process. The fact is, you cannot include unless you have an understanding of permissive density. This is the correct order of operations. Density, inclusion. And this is evidenced by the fact that there is inclusion fee for Parker Water and Sand based on a per unit basis. It's important to note that this property carries approximately 100, or sorry, 1,000 acre feet of groundwater that would be dedicated to Parker Water and Sanitation upon inclusion. In August of 2025, after meeting with Parker Water and Sanitation and for the Castle Pines annexation petition, a pre-application was held with Douglas County Planning to discuss this very comp plan amendment. In the following months, as reports are being conducted, a fiscal study found that bringing the development to Castle Pines would result in a significant financial benefit to the city. And so we began working with the city. And as a result, the annexation petitions were filed. As part of that, four zoning submittals were made to Castle Pines. Each were responsive to feedback and conversations with city and staff. The initial request was for attainable options, which, as you all know, means density. After further conversations with the city, our final submittal reduced the overall unit count and removed multifamily departments entirely. These changes were responsive in the types of changes required for responsible development. This spring, the annexation petition was withdrawn and Castle Pines paused annexations to develop their own internal annexation policy. I only provide this as background and to clear the air. I'd like to point out that this is the first time the applicant has had a chance to present publicly. What is before you today is not the Castle Pines application. What's before you today is a comp plan amendment. and one simple question. The question before you is a narrow one. Should this property nestled between five master plan communities, Trails of Crowfoot, Perdara, Mekansa, Looking Glass and Canyons, straddling a future four lane arterial remain designated rural or urban? That's it, that's the question. This amendment approves no homes, it sets no density. It only asks rural or urban. Now with respect to water, without wandering too far outside of the criteria, this property is multiple parcels across multiple owners. If left rural, the result is residences on individual Denver Basin exempt wells. No central system, no conservation standards, no district or regulatory oversight, no dedication of the 1,000 acre feet to anyone. and no connection to a provider actively converting to a renewable water supply. Urban designation is the only path that puts this land under a water district. That's a water conservation argument, not a development argument. The criteria asks whether the land can be served, a path forward. This application is not required to prove here and now what will be required at preliminary plat. A yes vote tonight doesn't turn on any tap. Nobody builds anything unless there's a district saying in writing that it can serve it. That is a separate application, a separate hearing, and a separate notice. With respect to entitlements and land, I have an adage. I see land as a block of marble. Each project I take on is an opportunity, and every step of the process takes a pass at it. The comp plan, policies, code, zoning, community input, planning input, topography, soils, drainage, environmental considerations, site constraints, market conditions, compatibility. Each one whittles down that block. Until what remains is a master plan community shaped by every one of those hands. I joke that nine out of 10 planners given the same piece of property will end up with nearly the same plan at the end of the process. And that's the process working. A lot has been circulated about this project, and I want to be clear about what this project is, what this land is, and what tonight's decision is, or sorry, what it is not. This land is not protected land. It's private land. It's not open space. There's no eagle's nest, there's not a designated or defined animal migration corridor, and it's not high priority habitat. This application is not zoning. It sets no density, it approves no homes, no apartments, there's no metro district decision, it contains no land plan. This is the first step in a long process and the fact is, an alternative to a yes is piecemeal development with no public open space, no dedication of Lemon Gulch, no public access, no public trails, no cohesive plan. Ultimately, this is one step and every step carries its own public process. and it gives its own pass at the block of Marble. I'll thank you all for your time. I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Terrence Quinn, who will be presenting on the criteria.

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Terrence Quinn, 8678 Concord Center Drive, Centennial, Colorado, 80112. I'm here today to take you through the criteria from the Comprehensive Master Plan. The intent of the amendment is to take the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan seeks to establish urban designation for more than 740 acres within the Douglas County High Plateau sub area. Why the CMP supports the urban amendment? Well, it provides opportunities to expand recreational opportunities and amenities. Significant changes in zoning and urban development patterns have occurred. Access to urban services including roads, water, sewer, utilities, and resources. Minimal impacts on high value natural resources and also avoids natural hazards. It is responsive to the vision and values of the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan, will help absorb projected county population growth over the next ten years that will require 2,600 acres of urban land. A logical and economic and beneficial extension of the existing urban area rather than growth being extended into the high value non-urban areas. By way of maybe some orientation around the site, you have Looking Glass. You can see Looking Glass adjacent. We're about a half mile from the intersection of Crowfoot Valley Road and South Chambers Road, which is just a little bit off the corner there. You can see we're less than two miles to South Parker Road and Stroh Road. We're south of Ruder Hess Reservoir. And we also are west of Cherry Creek Regional Trail and the creek itself. And we're adjacent to the Looking Glass subdivision, as I pointed out, which is at that top dot just at 12 o'clock from us. One thing I wanted to talk about was the three mile plan. Colorado revised statutes require municipalities to establish a three mile plan that identifies areas for future annexation. The three mile plan area is the maximum distance a municipality can annex per year. It's used to identify future commercial residential and parkland uses. It identifies areas where the extension of infrastructure and service provision is economical and efficient. It ensures orderly growth and it is a prerequisite for annexation and development. Development is inherently urban within the three mile plan areas. And I think this is interesting to bring up. As we look at this, it seems Crows Nest is destined for urbanization because it's within three mile plans of Castle Pines, Castle Rock, and Parker. These neighboring jurisdictions, not just the county, have recently been urbanizing the corridor. So criteria number one is consistency with the spirit, intent, goals, and objectives and policies of the CMP. Right away in the introduction center of the comprehensive master plan, there are ten community values that are listed out. And they are the basis for goals, objectives, and policies that shape and guide future growth in the county. Number one is access and transportation. This ensures transportation network and services effectively serve urban population. The natural environment, balanced development with high value natural resources while avoiding natural hazards. Three, the planning process. The CMP provides guidance for development at every step of the way through the development process. And acknowledges it works best with public participation. Four, property rights and property values. The CMP acknowledges the need to balance plan goals with landowner property rights. Protection of the quiet, peaceful, and privacy that non-urban nature. Rural areas are peaceful and quiet because they are protected from high levels of population growth and urban services. To continue with criteria one and the remainder of the community values, six is recreation. Parks and trails and open space recreation amenities are highly valued by residents. As a matter of fact, in 2024, over 94% of the population in a community survey responded positively about parks, trails, and open spaces. Number seven, the rural and unique area of the county. We want to make sure that we identify large tracts of land to preserve western heritage and agrarian lifestyle. Eight, the safe environment. The CMP urges development to avoid hazards and risks and to preserve life and property. Nine, the sense of community. The CMP recognizes sense of community is based on public spaces, recreation, cultural amenities, all centered at the center of the community. And number ten, water supply. The CMP works to diversify and protect water supply and ensure its quality. Continuing with criteria number one, the amendment is consistent with the CMP by avoiding expansion into rural areas through the logical extension of the Crowfoot Valley Road urban corridor. The Crow's Nest site supports connected communities by integrating neighborhood, parks, trails, and open space by preserving the lemon gulch to promote a future sense of community and recreation amenity. It will also connect local street networks with its neighbors. Crow's Nest site will also create shorter daily trips. Homes located near schools, parks, and services help achieve shorter daily trips. It increases opportunities for walking, biking, and local mobility. It's a reduced dependence on longer regional trips, which in turn lowers emissions. The Crow's Nest site uses existing infrastructure efficiently. Growth is directed to an established urban corridor. It leverages existing transportation and service investments, reduces pressure to expand development further into rural areas. Also, the Crow's Nest site protects the natural environment. It avoids high value wildlife habitat, avoids natural resources, does not impact protected lands, avoids critical view sheds, and respects riparian waterways. The Douglas County CMP, and this is a quote from the Section 1 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, guides and shapes new growth to ensure development is well served and that resources and amenities are preserved. The CMP evolves over time and through its regular updates responds to changing economy, anticipated growth, changing needs, and the values of county residents. Continuing with criteria number one, Crow's Nest being a logical and responsive urban growth area. Crow's Nest is located in an urban corridor that has recently been transitioning away from rural and agricultural lifestyles. Designating this island as urban reduces pressure to extend new development further into non-urban landscapes where high value western heritage resources remain. And you can see all the urbanization around the site and the map to the right. Criteria one continued, protection of Western heritage, agriculture, and the rural lifestyle. Non-urban policies seek to protect Western heritage by placing urban development where urban services already exist. Western heritage in the CMP refers to historical ranching, agricultural operations, rural lifestyle, preserving open space, and supporting the legacy of private land conservation and stewardship. Agricultural lifestyles at Crow's Nest are not economically feasible due to parcel size, arid climates, and marginal soils. They will not produce high crop yields or grazing opportunities. The ability to maintain rural character that supports the CMP policies has been steadily diminished by urban development over the past several years. Criteria one continued, consistency with the CMP land use and sub area maps. CMP land use map 1.1 identifies the Crows Nest site as a logical extension of the urban pattern of the high plateau. Crows Nest continues urbanization of the corridor. It supports contiguous responsible urban growth and it accommodates new urban designation without conflicts. Criteria one, high plateau sub area. This map, this high plateau is and has been urbanizing. The CMP acknowledges the county is urbanizing and facing significant population growth by 2040. As a result, urbanization of the corridor is a logical and expected next step. The Crowfoot corridor has urban levels of service, infrastructure, and resources to support CMP goals for logical and responsible urban growth. Criteria one continued. The Northeast sub area, as Mike pointed out, we have a little triangle there at the Northeast sub area. And they have some unique policies about adjacency. It requires proposed development to have 50% adjacency with zoned or existing land uses. And it does. It also says it has urban to urban exists at more than 50% adjacency, and it is. Policies encourage provision of urban services like water, sewer, and roads, which are also available in the corridor. So Northeast sub area policies are met.

There we go.

Continuing with criteria one. Proximity reduces VMT, and I'm speaking to the green box on the right. Research consistently demonstrates that proximity between homes, jobs, retail, and recreation reduces vehicle miles traveled and shortens daily trip lengths. Urban is a more efficient development pattern than extending growth further into rural portions of the county where trips are longer and infrastructure costs are higher. So if we look at an efficient urban kind of connected community pattern which we're proposing, you have very short distances between schools, grocery, and parks. And in a sprawl pattern, you have to drive a lot further to parks, groceries, and schools. Moving to criteria number two, compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning. Compatible land uses show that Crow's Nest is near several urban communities that are either under construction or built. So you see our site in the middle of the brightly colored urban communities that surround it. The CMP environmental conditions class three hazards map shows that it has no class three hazards that would preclude development. The existing site conditions are generally gentle rolling terrain and localized slope failure areas that are identified on the east side have been successfully engineered and effectively managed, especially with some of the development from Parker. Criteria number three, compatibility with existing natural and environmental conditions of the site and preservation of important natural features and scenic view sheds, riparian corridors, wildlife habitat, and movement corridors, and historic resources. Crow's Nest site does not interfere with natural features or resources, scenic views, or wildlife habitat. It includes Lemon Gulch Riparian Corridor, which provides an organized community framework for future development and potential amenities. It is predominantly low to moderate habitat values, has no mapped wildlife movement corridors, no overland connections or conservation areas. It has inactive raptor nests and inactive prairie dog colonies and no preserved view corridors. Land cover analysis map shows predominantly herbaceous range of grasses and plants and also short grass prairie. Lemon Gulch is attractive portion of this as you can see in the inset map because it has mixed pine and some interesting riparian oriented vegetation which are worth preserving. Continuing with criteria number three, Crow's Nest site does not include any protected lands. In set you can see there are none of those protected lands in this area. Continuing with criteria number three, CMP Wildlife Resources Map. The crow's nest site is valued as low to moderate habitat. This habitat has been affected by fragmentation in human activity. It does not function as high value wildlife conservation area or movement corridors. And you can see the inset there. You see some of the moderate stuff at the top, but mostly low value. Douglas County historic and cultural resources map as we continue with criteria number three. Douglas County historic mapping and recent field studies have identified no historic resources on the site and have stated there is no need for additional cultural surveys. And there is nothing in the site in the inset map. Criteria number four, adequate water supply, water and sewer treatment facilities, transportation networks, access fire protection, school facilities, and parks and trails for development. Water supply and sanitary sewer district, the criteria ask whether the property can be served, not whether service is secured today at this point. Per Douglas County Zoning Code 18A, water supply documentation is required at preliminary plat. Service commitments are not required at a plan amendment. So we have a ways to go in our development processes before we get to securing water. Parker Water and Sanitation District has a renewable supply, has centralized sewer, and has agreed to analyze the property for inclusion. Inclusion is demand driven and often follows zoning, as Dan pointed out. The property carries 1,000 acre feet of adjudicated groundwater to be dedicated to the district upon inclusion. This property adds supply to the Parker portfolio. The site adjoins Parker Water and Sanitation District service area and contract service area and is bounded by four established districts, central metered service rather than individual wells. Continuing with criteria number four, I'll turn it over to my colleague here, Brian.

Thank you commissioners. My name is Brian Horan. I am the traffic consultant and engineer on this project. Address that 5500 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Greenwood Village. As you can, we've talked about the site is located within the Crowfoot Valley urban corridor. and has direct access as it straddles that arterial. Generally speaking, it's located between three urban centers. So from a transportation standpoint, sort of infill to this network, it's plus or minus 15 minutes from downtown Parker, Castle Pines, and Castle Rock. Why that's important is that the future residents would have access to job shopping schools, recreation and services without requiring long regional trips as was mentioned before. Uh, as staff mentioned, a transportation assessment was complete. Um, this is different from a traffic impact study, which would happen at rezoning or a site plan stage. This is a corridor level assessment as we don't have specific site development plans, networks and things of that nature. So. Primarily, we are comparing sort of a conservative estimate of trip generation to the 2050 transportation plan. The process that was undertaken was we scoped this study with county staff. And what they asked for us to provide was a conservative estimate of trip generation, both the residential as well as an assumed commercial density. If you've ever reviewed a traffic impact study, the commercial density tends to drive improvements. And so we went through the process of getting traffic counts and assessing the existing conditions. Putting on a background growth, which includes just regional growth year over year over year as well as those known area developments, putting our site traffic on top of that, and then identifying any discrepancies with the 2050 transportation plan. What it doesn't include are detailed intersection operations, signal timings, lane geometries, access spacing, specific mitigation measures. It just provides a planning opportunity to see where those thresholds might be met. That 2050 plan I've put here in the slide so that you can reference it directly. On the right is the larger map of projects that are contemplated within the 2050 plan. And then on the left is our site within that area. Of particular note is project number 36 and project 90. So, 36 is Crowfoot Valley Road to the south of and 90 is to the north. Those are the Crowfoot Valley Road widening projects. So in the 2050 plan, to the south, the project horizon is slated for 2026 to 2030, and to the north, 2031 and 2040. I've also included Project 148, which is the intersection safety improvements. Again, these are contemplated by the 2050 plan, but are typically evaluated during site plan rezoning applications. So these were the improvements that we were looking to test the site against. What we found is that future growth can be accommodated and served within this planned four-lane network. THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS THAT FUTURE GROWTH OCCURS, AS AREA GROWTH OCCURS AND AS, SAY, PLAN AND REZONINGS COME THROUGH. As was mentioned in the staff report, um, uh, we. Identified a, uh, potential need for in a long range. 2050 scenario that Krofa Valley, uh, would maybe need to go to 6 lanes. And that would need to be evaluated with all area and county growth. the specific site plans, area connections that might come up. So it's a finding the upper end of what could be accommodated within the context of the plan. One last note from sort of the transportation side. Obviously, I'm here for questions and follow up as as we go through the hearing as you may be aware of link on demand and Douglas County was recently approved in Castle Rock. It is a free micro transit service for anyone who is within the service area. This is a indicator of areas that. are urban in terms of transportation impact. This service helps reduce single occupancy vehicles and keeps the county more connected.

Thanks, Brian. Terrence Quinn, back with you. Mr. Chair, 8678 Concord Center Drive in Centennial. Continuing with criteria number four, special districts, capacity and impacts on fire, metro, and some of the other special districts that are out there. The project is in an area where multiple metro and service districts are already planned, operating, which makes it an efficient extension of existing service territories rather than serving isolated areas. Existing libraries and fire facilities serve this urban corridor. There is the fire facility number 46 located two miles north of Crows Nest. Continuing with criteria number four, public facilities schools. Existing schools in Parker, Castle Rock, and Castle Pines already serve this urban corridor. CMP Parks Trails and Plan Map, Northern Tier, opportunities for Crow's Nest to function as a park and trail hub with future recreational assets. There's trails to Link, Cherry Creek, Hungry Horse, Open Space, Reuter Hess Reservoir, McAntar Regional Park are possible. Recreational opportunities are strong community values. overwhelmingly supported by county residents. As you can see, some of the trail and connection to some of those cool spots on the inset map. Criteria number five, how existing and planned capabilities of the special districts can adequately handle service demand. Metro districts in Douglas County, there's plenty of them, as you can see. The surrounding urban developments are served by established metro districts. The proposed urban area will follow the same well established service delivery model. Metro districts finance, construct, operate, and maintain eligible public infrastructure and services. This is a reliable long term funding mechanism that ensures infrastructure keeps pace with development. Water and sewer will be assessed and planned through inclusion into Parker Water Sanitation District. Water sufficiency is verified at zoning. Final water and sewer commitments are secured at preliminary plat. These are further steps in the development process. Criteria number six, how social, economic, or land use conditions of the county have changed or are in the process of changing in such a manner to support the proposed amendments to the CMP. Over the past 10 to 20 years, the Crowfoot Valley Corridor has rapidly transitioned into urban, making the site increasingly suited for new urban uses rather than trying to maintain its prior non-urban designation. Per the CMP's 2010 and 2040, approximately 12,000 acres near the Crow's Nest site transitioned from agricultural land to master-planned urban communities. Urban services and infrastructure are already planned or constructed in the area. Crow's Nest represents one of the last large unincorporated agricultural holes within this urbanizing area. The original non-urban designation and agricultural zoning no longer reflects the CMP definition of an agricultural lifestyle due to extensive urban service and infrastructure being developed that removes the peaceful and quiet rural agricultural lifestyle qualities as called out in the non-urban section of the comprehensive master plan. The presence of and continued expansion of urban services and infrastructure reinforce urban growth trends in this area. So we've moved from non-urban to an urban growth corridor. Criteria six continued, 2010 versus 2040 comprehensive plan growth estimates. The area has been urbanizing. By 2040, the CMP estimates 50,000 new households at 2.64 people per household equals 132,000 more residents. The CMP anticipates and prefers that 90% of the new households or 45,000 homes will be developed in the urban areas. The CMP projects that almost an even split of urban housing for unincorporated and incorporated areas, And in an average density of eight units per acre, this equals 20,000 unincorporated urban households requiring 2,600 acres of unincorporated urban land. Crow's Nest, if approved, could work to absorb a significant portion of the required households and urban area. Criterion number seven, how land proposed for urban development is a logical expansion of the primary urban area, separated urban area, or Chatfield urban area. Urban expansion is logical because Crow's Nest will take advantage of existing urban conditions. It's connecting communities and placing development near commercial retail jobs, residential areas, schools, and parks. It results in shorter daily vehicular trips, provides opportunities to walk, bike, and use on demand transit. It preserves the county's western heritage in the county's southern tier. And on the edges of the urban development, it guides growth north to the well served areas of the county. Opportunities to connect regional open space and trail amenities exist. It's economically and efficiently using and building on existing urban infrastructure. And it's providing access to existing urban community resources. Criteria number eight. How the expansion of the PUA, SUA, or Chatfield urban area results in a compelling public benefit as applicable? It's a significant public benefit in how it guides growth in support of the location of growth in the comprehensive master plan urban and non-urban sections. Urbanization of Crow's Nest helps protect high value non-urban lands from future sprawl. There's an economical benefit to use and link Existing roads, utilities, and public services instead of creating costly new infrastructure in non-urban areas. Provides connected development, improves access to regional community amenities and services, which is very sought after by our residents. Urban development would be located where urban resources, services, and infrastructure exist. Last, we wanted to talk a little bit about Lemon Gulch. Throughout our analysis, we realized that Lemon Gulch is truly a special place. And we would like to preserve it as a riparian corridor, but also maybe add some trails on either side. The assembly of six or more of these separate landowners parcels provide access and create 100 plus acre park and trail system along Lemon Gulch. Crow's Nest provides opportunities for trail connectivity and recreational amenities throughout the community and into adjacent communities. This amendment supports the community's priority and value system for parks, trails, and open space. So in conclusion, the Crow's Nest CMP amendment is consistent with the direction of the CMP, focus urban growth in a well-served northern tier area, provides an economical, logical, and efficient extension of the urban area along Crowfoot Valley Road, accommodates future growth while supporting the goals of the comprehensive master plan. Crow's Nest has more CMP-identified urban characteristics and qualities than that of CMP non-urban characteristic and quality areas. So it kind of wants to be urban. Request for approval. I'm leaving the criteria up and at this point I'd like to call on David Foster for his remarks.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name's David Foster, Land Use Counsel for the applicant 360 South Garfield. I appreciate the attention and time that you've already spent tonight. Frankly, this is an important process and it's important to hear from the applicant as you have. It's important to hear from the community, as you will, and as you've seen in documents that have already been provided. In fact, it's the integrity of the process that is so important. And that's why I wanted to address one outstanding issue that I hoped wasn't going to be an issue that was raised at the beginning and that was, as it relates to Commissioner Hampton, I have a couple of documents I'm going to ask the Clerk to circulate.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I just would it be appropriate to have these documents reviewed by county attorney's office first before they're circulated or I don't know the process. She has seen them. County attorney's office have seen these. Oh, yeah.

Is the county attorney here to verify that?

Good evening, Ariel Dennis for County Attorney's Office. We have received these papers, thank you.

And not knowing, obviously, the contents of these papers at this point, are they an appropriate, is where this is going appropriate in terms of mentioning and focusing on one particular commissioner?

the applicant's able to provide the information for the record along with the rest of their presentation.

Let me explain why I think it's important, Mr. Chair.

Well, just one second. Can you explain a little more as to the appropriateness of this from our perspective as the county attorney? In other words, I guess what I'm saying is I don't want a commissioner smeared at all in front of this hearing. If that's indeed the case.

So for the public records, they're allowed to provide this information.

Okay, all right. Let us look at it then.

The import is because you've all taken your time tonight My clients have invested their time and energy in this project, the underlying landowners as well, and frankly, the hundred or so people who are here also deserve to know that tonight's hearing is a fair hearing. That's a fundamental goal that you provide to your residents here in Douglas County. The reason I raise that is because there are two documents in front of you. One is a posting from, I don't know if it's Facebook or some other kind of online format, called People Against Annexing Crow's Nest. And Mark Hampton, spelled the same as this gentleman, states, I would highly recommend that you bring as many people as possible to the meeting on 720. I can't tell you how important that your voices are heard. 100 to 200 people should do it. Now that suggests to us an issue not of a conflict of interest because frankly, I think Mr. Hampton was honest in his answer. He doesn't have a conflict of interest but in a quasi-judicial process, there are two standards. It's a conflict of interest or a bias or a risk of bias. And in this particular instance, I think that that independently proves either a bias or at the very least a risk of bias. And then from February 24th, 26, Mr. Hampton spoke at the Castle Pines City Council at the annexation hearing and questioned and in fact undermined the question of whether or not my client had water, which is a fundamental question that you're discussing and analyzing tonight. And he had already made that determination on the public record and finished his statement by saying the 794 acres have permanently changed the eastern edge of Castle Pines. And so it's my hope that Mr. Hampton would recuse himself and ensure that this is a fair process for my clients and for the community. That is the desire that we have and there are a number of Supreme Court, both US Supreme Court and Colorado Supreme Court cases that deal with this question of bias. And so I wanted to ensure that you had that information. And of course, that wasn't exactly what I wanted to be doing here tonight. You can well imagine, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, the last thing I want to do is have to have this conversation. Obviously, somebody has already recused himself tonight. At the end of the day, We're asking for you to approve this comprehensive plan amendment. It is quasi-judicial. It relates to a property, a applicant, a public process, facts associated with conditions. It's not legislative, and in fact, the first question that Mr. Hampton already asked tonight spoke to the question of whether or not there should have been notice to the entire county, and this is quasi-judicial, so the answer is no. It's only for this project, and that's what makes this quasi-judicial. We urge you to please follow the criteria, please listen to the facts, please listen to your community as well, and we hope at the end of the day you will find that this meets the criteria and your approval. Thank you.

Now thank you Mr. Quinn, Mr. Horan, and Mr. Foster for your portions of the presentations. I guess I would mention, I mean I had not seen this of course before, but I would mention that Commissioner Hampton has addressed this question earlier when we talked about disclosures. And he has said that he can adjudicate this matter tonight fairly. And so I'm gonna take him at his word on that. and we're gonna go forward, all right? So with that, are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant?

Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McKesson, and I thank you for that commentary. I will say that those of us serving up here, we are not predisposed to a decision. We must hear you all this evening. We cannot make a decision until we hear the public testimony this evening. So I, for one, am in line with that. I look forward to hearing the public testimony both for and against so that I can make a quasi-judicial decision. Statement I would also like to note that we've been handed a document labeled groundwater sustainability and management Prior to the meeting and I don't know if the county attorney's office has seen this is it also admissible? Into this record. I just want to make that statement of fact Whether we're supposed to be considering this and who might have submitted it visit the applicant. I don't know I

Good evening, Ariel Dennis on behalf of the county attorney's office. Someone from the public provided that to us and we disseminated accordingly.

Okay, thank you for that.

It's labeled on the copy I have as exhibit one, so I'm not sure what it is actually in exhibit two. So, okay, well.

There is no exhibit two at this time.

No, that's not what I'm asking.

Oh, an exhibit for the public meeting.

Okay, all right. Very good. Are there any...

If I may, just one other statement. And we certainly appreciate all of the public testimony. I'd like to remind everyone that this is the comp plan. This is the paper version of the Comprehensive Master Plan of 2040. The most updated version is online. And the vision statement of this, to me, is important. So if you would please. The Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan acknowledges and balances the common values, rights, and needs of all county residents and landowners and honors and protects its unique, diverse communities and resources. This intent is most effectively realized through citizen understanding of and participating in.

land use review processes and public forums so thank you for being here to let us hear your position on this application this evening any other questions or comments from the commissioner i do i'll ask a couple questions real quick i'm not sure who to direct this to if this will be uh mr quinn or mr williams um mr williams in your opening statement basically you said for tonight's um meeting, it's pretty simple. Rural or urban, I think you meant non-urban versus urban, that's it. And that's what you made in your opening statement. Mr. Quinn, you had said the development is inherently urban within the three mile plan, which according to the records there, it is. My question is for either one of you gentlemen, the demonstrated community need. So is there a documented regional need for the land use enabled by this map change? And why can the need not be absorbed by areas already designated for use elsewhere in the county? Or can this be, why not developed under non-urban? That's my question. So there's two parts to that.

Well, I am unaware of the total acreage of non-urban that exists or urban that exists in the in the county but at the rate we're going the growth needs to be absorbed and so i we propose that this urban area is the right location for urban development uh in the long run now could you help me with the second part of your question

Yeah, it was simply, why can't it be developed under non-urban, under the conditions that it's already associated with the CMP map?

Yeah, it could be, but the property owners would like to develop it as urban.

Okay, I mean, that's a fair answer.

Yeah. Anyone else? Okay, so... I love it that we have so many people here to testify tonight. I think it's really important that we as citizens of Douglas County come together and participate in our governmental processes. We're all volunteers up here. You've all volunteered your time to come here tonight and hopefully tonight our gathering together will help promote the interests of the county and what's important for Douglas County as well as to be fair to to everyone concerned, including the applicant. So that means we need to also do this in a very orderly manner. And so I request that we be polite and orderly tonight. And I'm gonna start with, as we open this now for public comment, I want to start with this list I have of roughly 40 people that have already signed up to speak. So by my quick math at three minutes a person, assuming there's no six minutes here going on, this is going to be 120 minutes of discussion. Testimony at least right so two hours worth. We're here. I think we're all up for it ready for it and eager to hear from all of you, so With that as we open for public comment. I'm going to call you forward one by one first of all those who have signed up to Testify that doesn't mean those who haven't signed up won't be able to testify it just means I want to start with those who already made it known that they wanted to testify. But as you approach, please state your name and general location of where you live for the record. Please spell your last name for us and you will have three minutes to speak. As I said earlier, if you're representing an HOA as an officer or some other government entity or quasi-government entity, please make that known to us and then we can determine whether you would need that six minutes and if you do hit your time limit I'm gonna let you know because we got to keep moving on for everybody else to have a chance to speak and so with that I'm going to open it up and call first of all Margo Knutson to the podium

Chair, before anyone speaks, I'd like to make a comment, please. Just to emphasize for your safety and security, please, you're welcome to mention a location, but preference is that you don't give your home address. Thank you.

Thank you, attorney.

Good evening. My name is Margo Knutson, and I am a resident of Parker. specifically unincorporated Douglas County, was also a resident of Franktown for almost 20 years. I'm going to be brief because I've already written you two letters. It is my understanding that the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan is supposed to serve as a guide for growth and land use in our county. I believe the intent of the Comprehensive Master Plan is clear. to preserve the rural character of our communities through balanced low density growth, not high density development that will further undermine the rural quality of life we all value. If you approve this application, I believe you will be going directly against the master plan. Managed growth means adhering to low density standards Most residents in this county do not support the level of growth. We already see and further growth is wholly unacceptable in my opinion. It strains our roads, our schools, our water, fire and police services. It adds more travel time. You get the point. As elected officials appointed here, you serve us, the people. I respectfully urge you to do the right thing and to deny this application for this amendment. Our interests for the people need to be prioritized. Our rural heritage needs to be protected and preserved. We're already way out of hand as it is. And just one final recommendation. I do not think that we should allow any developers to serve on our planning commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Knutson. Let me remind you that clapping is really out of order, okay? We're here to hear the testimony, okay? We're not here, we're not a cheering section, all right? So I'd like to invite Amber, I'm not sure, because I can't read the spelling of this exactly, but is it Deklis or? Ditas, okay, sorry, thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Amber Ditas. I live in the Pinery. As a member of the Planning Commission, when we adopted the CMP in 2019, I am asking that you deny DR 2026-003, and I'm gonna go into the criteria a little bit, because that's why we're here. The applicant has to prove this meets all eight criteria. They haven't, the whole case is that this is just, I quote, a map change. The traffic, water density, and buffers all get decided later. The code doesn't work that way. Criteria two, three, four, and five require adequacy and compatibility be shown now, today. and their own traffic study already models about 3,400 homes and 225,000 square feet of retail, they can't call the scale unknown for compatibility than fixed for traffic. On consistency with density. In the High Plains Plateau non-urban sub area, the CMP says densities above one home per 35 acres are generally not supported here. This plan is many times that. On compatibility, surrounding densities run from about .03 to 2.2 homes per acre. Perdera right to the south is half a home per acre. There's no demonstrated compatibility, only a promise to design it later. on infrastructure. The key point, the applicant's own traffic study concludes Crowfoot Valley Road would need six lanes. The county's 2050 plan calls for only four. County engineering said on July 16th that the applicant's no new corridors needed claim, quote, only partially true and contradicts their own study. They've proven the planned road network is not adequate. That alone fails criteria number four. Water, this land is in no water or sanitation district. There is no service commitment, only an agreement to analyze it. The elementary schools are already at 117% capacity. Staff itself says this is not an expansion of the PUA, SUA, or Chatfield urban area. So criterion seven alone isn't even met on its own terms. And the town of Parker has found no compelling public benefit. I also, we are not alone, and I am not alone, this room points to that in opposing this application to amend the CMP. The town of Parker has formally opposed this amendment. The Pinery, the Pinery West, and Perdara Homeowners Associations have all objected. And this is the same project that was withdrawn from the city of Castle Pines earlier this year amid community opposition. This is the last large piece of non-urban land in the corridor once it's gone and I'm at time. Yes, you are. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ditas. Appreciate you cutting yourself off. All right, the next person I want to call is Jim McGannon.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Jim McGannon. I live near Pinery West. Is the sale of this land contingent upon this change in request? No, you don't have to answer that, but I think that's a critical question. Maybe I missed that, but let's say it's not. The comprehensive management plan states that this is agricultural, non-urban. What's wrong with leaving it the way it is? Not just because I think it should be, but There's nothing wrong with having agricultural land within the middle of all of our urban developments. And I'm encouraging you, for the people, to leave it as such. Do not change the designation. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Carrie Grammer.

Hello, Carrie Grammersdorf. I have lived in Parker since.

Could you please spell your name for the record? Oh yeah, sorry.

G-R-A-M-M-E-R-S-T-O-R-F as in Frank. Okay. I've lived in Douglas County since 2007, Parker since 2015, Trails at Crowfoot since 2021, and my home backs to Crowfoot Valley. So this is very important to me. The fact that It was stated there's no prairie dog community. I look at it every day. There's elk migration that happens there. There are bald eagles that fly over the house and that property across the street. There are birds of prey, there are owls, there are a lot of wildlife there. We are in water restrictions. And there are 2,500 homes being built in Looking Glass, 900 in Trails of Crowfoot, 250 at Meadowlark, that's 3650 homes in this small area. And Crowfoot is already backed up with traffic, especially when I-25 is closed. So I encourage you to not approve this plan without understanding all the impacts and what the actual plan is versus urban. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gremersdorf. I'm sorry, I missed the last syllable of your last name. I apologize. Joe Goldhammer, am I getting that right? Again, make sure you spell your last name for the record.

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Joe Goldhammer, G-O-L-D-H-A-M-M-E-R. I've been a resident of Parker for over 20 years. I'm a certified residential appraiser and owner of RJM Appraisals. I've lived in practice here in Douglas County for over 20 years. My profession requires me to evaluate land use, neighborhoods, and development patterns objectively based on evidence. not just on a motion. I decided to speak tonight because I simply believe the comprehensive plan amendment represents good common sense long range planning. One thing I've learned after evaluating hundreds of properties throughout our county is that our communities are strongest when growth is anticipated and directed, not simply reacted to. These properties all sit within an area that, like it or not, has already transitioned towards an urban corridor. It's surrounded on all sides by expanding neighborhoods, existing infrastructure, transportation investments, and municipal planning areas. From a land use perspective, it simply no longer functions as an isolated non-urban area. To me, that's the central issue before us tonight. Comprehensive plans do not exist to stop growth. They exist to determine where growth belongs. Changing the existing plan to acknowledge the current reality makes sense. A vote to approve the amendment will only ensure that any future residential development is done responsibly, which protects everyone's interest. Strategic growth in this area will help provide funds and resources for future water needs, despite the hyperbole you're gonna hear tonight. That's exactly, more rooftops is exactly how districts like Parker Water grow and provide the services that our communities need. Changing the existing plan to acknowledge the current realities makes sense. As someone whose career depends on evaluating how communities evolve over time, I believe directing growth into areas already connected to existing infrastructure and services is a more responsible approach than encouraging scattered development farther into truly rural parts of the country. Conversely, confusion and indecision around growth that is likely inevitable is not good for home values or long-term marketability. For those reasons, I respectfully encourage you to approve this comprehensive plan amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Goldhammer. Dan Longo.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and thank you for your service. My name is Dan Longo, and I live in the Predara neighborhood with my wife, Marty. I have four points to raise this evening and primarily I want to address part of the approval criteria and speaking in opposition to the application. I do want to say that just because a law firm can put a nice fancy PowerPoint up doesn't mean that the things included in the PowerPoint are true. One of the speakers already talked about the prairie dogs. I gotta tell you, I drive by the prairie dog colonies every day, and that's just one simple example of the misstatements, misrepresentations that were included in the PowerPoint. I'm not asking you to make an important decision based on a prairie dog population. However, the most important point here is that you folks are the appointees of elected officials. People here in the audience elected the folks that appointed you to the Planning Commission. And I urge you to listen to the people that are here today. I doubt you've ever had an appearance like this in one of your Planning Commission meetings in forever, right? So that shows you how important this is to the community. The next issue is water. We are all under water restrictions. All of our homes, our vegetation, our lawns are all suffering. The last thing we need up on the Mesa is another 2,600 or 2,400 homes. We just do not have the water. Lack of infrastructure. You can't drive around this area. If there's ever an accident on I-25 or Parker Road, we all know what the impact is on just trying to get around downtown Castle Rock, trying to get around Parker. The impact of the traffic in this neighborhood already is tremendous. Adding another 2,600 homes is just going to exacerbate that problem. And we just heard tonight, we're talking about a six-lane highway where Crawford Road is right now. does anybody think that's in the best interest of the community the answer is no finally we moved to this community because of its semi-rural nature we didn't want to live in downtown denver we wanted to live in a place like we do and this change will impact the last small area that we have up on the Mesa that isn't developed, and let's leave it non-urban, and let's leave it agricultural, and let's let it provide a little bit of respite from what goes on with the rest of the development. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Longo. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing this name correctly, but hopefully it'll come across as correct, at least reasonably correct for the person who it is for, Eowyn Teabold? All right. You can correct my pronunciation if you would, but I.

That was actually a really good effort. It's something I've had to live with my entire life, so. Actually, it's Ian Theobald, I'm a resident homeowner on Raintree and Circle in Perdera. My one and a half acre property backs onto the proposed development. I'm firmly against this amendment to the CMP. This development breaches most, if not all, eight of the criteria that the CMP lays out for an amendment to our long range plan. In the supplied public commentary, the letters from City of Parker and Castle Rock are firmly against the amendment. The letter from Parker in particular makes clear cogent arguments as to why the application for amendment should be rejected. From lack of consistency with CMP goals, objectives, and policies, lack of consistency with non-urban and urban area goals, to lack of compatibility with surrounding land use and zoning, no solution on transportation, six lanes is ridiculous, or water issues. The Crow's Nest proposal would be a haphazard amendment to a thoughtful CMP in an area where thousands of homes are yet to be built in areas already designated for urban zoning. I see no public benefit to approving an off-cycle amendment for this. The whole point of the CMP designation for this land as non-urban is to protect us against this very sort of proposal. As residents and investors in our neighborhood, we rely on the CMP as purchasers of homes to protect us. To go from agricultural land to high density urban is not fair to those of us that relied on this CMP. It is detrimental to the rural heritage that we are trying to protect here in Douglas County. Further, I find the application from Ventana very disingenuous in a multitude of ways, but one that I would highlight. To call this large area of 740 acres an urban infill? An enclosed island? Have you guys driven down this road? This is a massive swath of land. This is not a two acre plot we're talking about. That's infill, not 745 acres. The size of this massive amendment ask will alter the landscape and completely affect the character of our community. Again, exactly the very type of amendment that the CMP is designed to protect us against. I have no idea why this would be accepted. I don't get it. The commissioner group here today has the power to protect us. the folks that reside near this land, pay taxes here, and rely on this CMP to invest in this great county. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next is Clayton Boer. I hope I'm saying that correctly for the last name. Thank you, sir.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Clayton Bohr, B-O-H-R. I live in Lookingglass, so I'm also adjacent to the property of the Crow Nest. I'm asking you to deny this comprehensive plan amendment for four reasons. First, the applicant's own traffic study admits a problem your staff caught. Your development review supervisor wrote just four days ago that the applicant's claim of no new regional transportation corridors needed contradicts the study's own findings that Crowfoot Valley Road will need six lanes by 2045, beyond what your 2050 transportation plan even plans for. That review only happened this week, days before this hearing. Second, the applicant says no density is set, but their own study assumes over 3,300 homes, tripling daily traffic on a road that is currently only two lanes. Third, water isn't secured. Parker Water and Sanitation District has a pending resolution capping water credits available to any single development at a level far below what a project this side would need without a board variance. Fourth, there's an environmental question. I personally photographed two bald eagles perched in a tree on this property last September, protected under federal law. Public comment letters to Colorado Parks and Wildlife also flagged potential habitat for the federally threatened Preble's Meadow jumping mouse. No wildlife survey or environmental assessment has been provided for this application. I'm asking you not to designate the land behind my house urban. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Board. Robert Crane.

Thank you to the Commission for allowing us to speak. My name is Robert Crane. I live in unincorporated Douglas County. I found the presentation thus far, you know, the first presenter said you should base your decision based on facts. So we went through a nice pretty PowerPoint presentation and all I heard was opinions, old adages, hyperbole, generalizations, assumptions that were stated as true, and the omission of many facts like, well, it's 1,000 acre feet of water, but there was no comment about how many acre feet of water this development would take. So lots of things get positioned incorrectly because people omit things. The first presenter also said, there's only one question to answer, rural or urban? I agree with half his statement. There is only one question to answer. That's not the question. The question is, what would have to be true for this decision to be a good thing for Douglas County? What would have to be true? Well, the safety and security of the current residents would not get worse. The roads would not get more crowded with six, 8,000 cars, and what I found out tonight, six more lanes of roadway. that the water supply is just endless. We don't control that, the heavens control that. That the evacuation routes would not become more crowded and would remain safe for those of us who live here. God forbid if we add this development and have our own Marshall Fire along Crowfoot Valley Road, the loss would be unimaginable and it would be squarely on your shoulders if you approve this. This is probably the most important thing that has to be true, that people that live here 10, 20, or 30 years from now would say the Planning Commission did the right thing by not allowing high density housing and unneeded commercial development on this beautiful agricultural land. I think the county should actually pursue a different set of courses of action versus the one that's before you. I think you ought to think bigger, think strategic. Why don't we buy the land as a county from the landowners? Do they have a right to sell their land? I'm not against that at all. Turn it into the second Philip S. Miller Park, like the one in Castle Rock, where the entire county could enjoy it, a place where people, nature, and animals could peacefully coexist. That's what a strategic decision could possibly be. And I want to have something that is good for our county long-term. I moved from Sarasota, Florida. I lived there 13 years, and the county commission did the exact same thing that you're being asked to approve tonight, and it's turned Sarasota into a hellhole. We don't need that in Douglas County. Thank you for your consideration. I hope you make the right decision.

Thank you, Mr. Crean. Jocelyn Ahnen. Please, as always, correct me if I'm wrong in how I pronounce your name.

You got it. Thank you. My name is Jocelyn Ahnen. That's A-H-N-E-N. I live in Perdara. Excuse my nerves. I don't do much public speaking. Tonight I'm here instead of attending my children's swim team and board banquet. Some may consider that to be bad parenting, but I believe it's my opportunity to be a better citizen. My list of concerns matches that of my neighbors, water, traffic, schools, but tonight I'd like to talk about those who don't have a voice. I'm concerned that the applicant has not provided sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that this proposal is consistent with Douglas County's comprehensive master plan goal of balancing growth with preservation of wildlife habitat and open space. As you've heard, this property is known by nearby residents to support wildlife, including elk, which I've seen with my own two eyes, mule deer in my backyard, raptors, and yes, there are bald eagles. I have not seen, and maybe I missed it somewhere along the way, a comprehensive public analysis identifying habitat areas, movement corridors, seasonal use patterns, or the impact that urban scale development could have on those resources. As you know, this proposal would convert 745 acres from non-urban to an urban designation, making future development possible, but the wildlife impacts remain unclear. This project would reduce the remaining non-urban separation between neighboring communities, raising concerns about habitat fragmentation and loss of open land. References to parks, trails, and open spaces do not automatically equate to wildlife protection. Roads, lighting, increased human activity, and recreational use will significantly diminish habitat value. Before approving this amendment, which I hope does not happen, and altering the land use designation, I would hope that we should require clear transparent evidence showing how wildlife habitat and movement corridors will be protected and how the proposal complies with the county's wildlife preservation policies. This analysis should not be an afterthought. Paving paradise, putting up parking lots, and not protecting the wildlife habitats cannot be reversed once it's done. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ahnen. Hopefully you can, well, thank you for your sacrifice. I'll just put it that way. I was gonna say, hopefully you can explain it to your kids. But anyway, Joseph Lugo.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Joe Lugo. I live in Trails at Crowfoot. Tonight, I've been speaking for the residents who've been watching this process and don't like what they see. This isn't a minor line adjustment on a map. This is nearly 800 acres flipping from agricultural to urban, the single biggest jump on the zoning ladder that this county has. And here's the question nobody wants to answer. There's four zoning levels between agriculture and urban. All four are used across Parker today. So why is this developer skipping every one of them? Why jump straight to the most intensive zoning available? You know why? Because urban zoning means more rooftops per acre. It means a difference between a developer building two homes on a piece of land and cramming in 10. That's not a planning decision, that's a profit decision dressed up as one. And why is there only one developer in the room? Why has Ventana Capital been handed the pen while everybody else waits outside? Before the county hands over that kind of change, its own comprehensive master plan requires the applicant to clear all eight approval criteria in section 10.2.a, not six, not the convenient ones, all eight. The developer just gave a glowing presentation about how it complies with all eight criteria. These residents are walking you through all the issues with this project that do not comply with this approval criteria. This isn't neighbors venting. This is a group of folks who have done their homework and know that their required boxes are not checked. The gentleman earlier stated the property is within the three wild plans of Castle Rock, Parker, and Castle Plains, yet all three towns have voiced their disapproval of this project, including a seven-page letter from Parker that picked apart nearly every section of this development plan. I want to close with something that's been on my mind. Ed Colby, one of the commissioners on this panel, is vice president at the developer behind this application. He's recused himself from tonight's vote, and I want to thank him for that. I'm a local realtor, but I'm also a certified public accountant. 20 years of practice in accounting taught me one thing about independence. It's not a spectrum. You either have it or you don't. There's no mostly independent. But independence isn't just about one vote. It's about the whole relationship. And Ed Colby works alongside the rest of you on every other matter, month after month. That's not an accusation against anyone's character. It's just a structural reality. And it's worth naming out loud because it puts every one of you up here in a tough spot. And that's why it matters to me. On the wall in this room, a line from Lincoln, government of the people, by the people, for the people. That's not a declaration. It's the standard that this commission and our government is held to. This commission's job is to represent the people who actually live here, the residents who drive these roads and rely on water long after tonight. That's not a knock on the developers trying to do their job or landowners trying to sell their land. It's a reminder of whose interests this process is supposed to center on. Tonight, that means making sure the people who actually live with these decisions are the ones being hurt, not just the ones with the most polished application. I've been working closely with many of the residents who speak tonight. They have done real homework pulling directly from the county's own record on traffic, water, and schools comparing what has been submitted to what needs to be done to this plan. The result is simple. We have already and will continue to clearly demonstrate the plan is flawed in so many ways. I appreciate your time tonight. That's the end of my speech. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

All right. Jim Maloney, and I do have a clarifying question for our attorney. He represents, he's the town attorney for the office of Parker. Would that make him eligible for six minutes?

Ariel Dennis on behalf of the county attorney's office. An attorney is not working as a referral agency, so they would receive three minutes.

OK. Thank you very much for that. If I could counter, I am representing the referral agency as their legal counsel.

Which one is that?

I'm sorry?

What is the referral agency?

The town of Parker. I'm with the town attorney's office for the town of Parker. It is a referral agency. It's been addressed by members of your public here this evening, and my expectation was, reading your rules, that I would be entitled to a full six minutes to make the presentation.

You're welcome to the six minutes, thank you.

I was gonna say, yeah, I would agree with that, that he represents municipal government. So you may proceed, Mr. Maloney.

Thank you Chairman Downs and members of the Planning Commission. As I indicated, my name is Jim Maloney. I work for the Parker Town Attorney's Office. With me in the audience is Tom Williams. He is the Director of Public Works and he has been involved in at least preparing the referral document, which is the subject of part of the application. I wanted to start with I hadn't intended to start with this, but there's a lot made about this being the first step in many steps of a process. If you say no to this application, there are no more steps, it's done. And I'm saying that not just because Parker opposes it, but because what I've heard tonight and the astute observations by your public have identified what I think are the failure of the applicant to meet the criteria contained in the comprehensive plan. So the town submitted a referral response on May 21st, which focused on the criteria contained in section 10.2a, I'm not going to address everything that was in our referral response, but I want to focus on a few things, some of which the public has already identified, and that's really the adequacy and the compatibility questions. Adequacy of water and sewer, transportation networks, which is a particular interest to the town of Parker because we're the most impacted by this particular development. When you hear about this six-lane road, that's in Parker. And I wanna talk about the compatibility, and I think it's been discussed in great length, but if I have time, I'd like to go into that in more detail. I'd like to point out that the applicant responded to the town's referral comments by essentially stating that the time to address these referral comments is when Douglas County considers the zoning and subdivision of this property. That's not what section 10.2 says. They need to do it now. And they didn't do it now. And I think that's been exposed by members of the public. Now, I wanna talk about something that's near and dear to Parker in terms of adequacy. Parker prepared its transportation plan and roadway financial capital plan in reliance upon the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. And you've heard about some reliance earlier from the public, including the designation of the subject property as non-urban. The subject property is not accounted for either in the 2050 transportation plan recently completed by Douglas County. This is another plan that the town will rely upon in preparing its own transportation network system. The town of Parker, the city of Castle Rock, the city of Lone Tree, we have to be able to rely upon your plans in making decisions locally. In this case, we did. The traffic assessment that you've heard about tonight, this was prepared by Galloway and Company, and this was part of the application. It assumes that the subject property will contain 3,396 single family detached units and 225 square feet of retail. The level of urban development that was also the subject, this is the level of urban development that was also the subject of two applications. officially submitted to the City of Castle Pines and informally discussed with the Town of Parker which level of urban development was not accepted by either municipality. The traffic assessment indicates that the vehicles per day on Crowfoot Valley Road generated from this development at full build-out will essentially double within the Town of Parker. The traffic impacts associated with this level of urban development will extend well beyond the capacity of that portion of Crowfoot Valley Road adjacent to the subject property and will negatively affect the broader regional transportation network, including infrastructure within the town of Parker and unincorporated Douglas County. For example, the traffic volumes described in the traffic assessment require a six-lane section for the entire segment of Crowfoot Valley within the town of Parker between North Pinery Parkway and Stroh Road using town standards. Parker's and County's transportation master transportation plan only contemplated a four-lane section. This will also create significant impacts to Stroh Road, Hess Road, Main Street, Ridgegate Parkway, and the Chambers Road if this urban development is allowed. I can safely say that there is no adequate transportation networks in the town of Parker that can handle a designation of urban. as a part of an amendment of this comprehensive plan. And it's for these reasons that the town opposes this application. I think that the public has done a great job in addressing the adequacy of schools. Right now, the schools that will serve this development are over capacity. Parker Water and Sanitation District has indicated, and I think the public was very clear about this, the adequacy of water and sewer, particularly the plan to go ahead and limit the number of taps that will be allowed by development. Again, I thank you for your time and would request that you deny the application that is before you this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Maloney. The next person I'd like to call just has a three-letter name, Anu, so... Maybe you could tell us your last name and spell it for us for the record.

Thank you. Thank you, council members. My last name is Aria, A-R-I-A. Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time. I am here to speak on one thing here, urban or non-urban. So let me start with the thing which we cannot ignore. Colorado is in a housing crisis. Colorado is short of 100,000 housing units. To keep up from the growing, roughly we need 34,000 new homes need to be built every single year for the next decade to catch up. Families of young people, seniors, working people, they're being priced out of the communities they grow in. And here is the land under this current designation. Right now, the crossness properties are private lands. I repeat, it's a private land. No public benefit is there. By making it as urbanization and in future, rezoning it to like a master plan community, it will create a public benefit of more than 100 acres of a parks and recreation space. And now let's talk about the logic and cost. So if you want to develop any kind of community in Parker or in any way in the county which needs utilities, if the property is adjacent by all the utilities, which means it's less of a cost, less of a cost on the county, on taxes, on public. And this currently, Crossness property, three sites of the property has more than a well-connected network of all the water and sewer systems. And let's be honest about the opposition. With respect to much of the resistance of this project coming from the residents who are already living in a larger acreage of lots, if you see in the communities, if we have a larger acreage, the average cost of the home is 1.5 million. I don't know how many people can afford the 1.5 million home. And it's not about that we need more people. We need a dream of everybody should own a home. And tonight, let's say if we say no, we are closing a door for a young couple who wants to move here, who wants to raise their kids, like all the low-income people who cannot afford a 1.5 million home. So I would urge and request you guys, please approve these kind of properties we need, and not just only Crow's Nest. We need more than like 10 times of Crow's Nest properties to support a growing population in Colorado. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Arya. Alan Main.

M-A-I-N. I live in Padera. The... Applicants' land abuts the Pioneer SUA, which is Perdura. The SUA is a separated urban area. Separated, in your words, requires a community separation. It reads, primary development issues relate to land surrounding and adjacent to the Pinery. Approval of any additional dwelling units on adjacent lands must consider the goal of maintaining community separation surrounding the Pinery. That's in this CMP. The CMP also says separated urban areas are not supported for expansion. But you put an urban area next to a separated urban area, that would be expansion. It also, unless there's a compelling benefit, and then it goes on to clarify. The compelling benefit would be a fiscal need for the urban area. That's not true in Predera. Or a county benefit by enhancing the community separation buffers. Now, I'll give you a little history. I was here over 10 years ago when the land that's now the Bloom development was rezoned to state residential. Perfect. One dwelling for two and a half acres, exactly where I live. One dwelling for two and a half acres. That's what it should be. And when you did the comprehensive master plan in 2019, you put it non-urban. Guess what? It supports one dwelling for two and a half acres. So you sit back and say, I don't have to come see you guys. Because then just a few years ago, somebody tried to have bloom development 1.0, which included all the lands between Bayou Gulch and Crowfoot. A developer came in here and he had more than double that density being proposed. But the commission at that time basically said, we have a moratorium of doing an amendment to the comprehensive plan which would be required because your density exceeds non-urban. And so you punted, I guess. Now we have bloom 2.0. So the landowners in Florida got tired of waiting for the last of the guys west of them and they went ahead and they have bloom development 2.0 One dwelling for two and a half acres, it can be done. It's exactly what Mark Reiner said, stuff like that. They can develop the land right now under non-urban at one dwelling for two and a half acres. It's also allowed for some limited commercial if they so want it, even though I can't figure out why they'd want that. So that's what I have to say. This is like a no-brainer. Say no.

Thank you, Mr. Main. Matthew Najera or Najera, I'm not sure. You can correct my J sound if it's an H sound.

Good afternoon, Commissioner. Good afternoon, Board. I'm here on behalf of my family. They're longtime residents of... Could you spell your last name for us? It's N-A-J-E-R-A.

Okay, thank you.

I'd just like to read something they sent out me to read, please. It says one home per two and a half acre does not answer this crisis. It deepens it. Amending the comp plan is what makes it possible to use this land the way the surrounding area is already used. Efficiently with real housing next to infrastructure that already exists and with more than 130 acres of open space, parks, and trails preserved for the public. Crow's Nest supports every aspect of what good planning asks for. growth in the right place, infrastructure already in the ground, real public open space, and homes that families can actually buy and afford. Today's amendment is simply the first honest step toward all of it. I respectfully ask you to approve the comp plan amendment. Thank you. And that's on behalf of my family that couldn't be here. So I appreciate you guys for hearing me out. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Ryan Goldhammer. Another Goldhammer. We had Joe before. Ryan Goldhammer. Ryan Goldhammer. I respectfully ask you to spell your last name anyway, for the record.

No worries, it's Ryan Goldhammer, G-O-L-D-H-A-M-M-E-R. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Ryan. I was born and raised here in Parker. I went to school in this town and now I am choosing to raise my own family here. For the last five years, I have called Crowfoot Road my home. I'm here today to speak in favor of this development because I believe growth is not something to fear, it is something to manage responsibly. And this project is a perfect example of responsible infill. I've watched the social media backlash against this project, and I have to be honest, the loudest voices seem to be coming from the people who recently moved here. They are living in subdivisions that were once empty fields themselves, and it is hypocritical to pull the ladder up after you've already climbed it. We need to talk about the reality of this land. Right now it is not a farm, it is not a ranch, it is an empty field of dry weeds that does not support our community. That doesn't help our tax base, our schools, or our future. This project does. There has been a lot of talk about water and wildlife, and let me give you some perspective. 25 years ago, Parker Water was a small run operation out of the local library. It had no money and no infrastructure. Today, it is one of the strongest, most respected water providers of the Front Range. They achieved that by growing. They added homes, added commercial space, and added fees. That growth pays for our infrastructure that allows us to turn our taps on today. We have to stop hiding behind the scare tactics of eagles and wildlife to block what is simply the next logical step for our town. This is an infill project. We are building within our existing footprint, not sprawling into the unknown. This development brings parks, amenities, and commercial space that'll keep families like mine in Parker for the next generation. I ask that you approve this project. Let's stop pretending that we can freeze Parker in time. This property is now urban and in no way rural or non-urban anymore. Let's build a community of the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Goldhammer. Shawna Forsyth. Okay. Eva Abadja.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Eva Buha, and I am a landowner, homeowner in Castle Pines.

Please spell your last name for the record.

For the record, A-L-B-U-J-A.

Thank you.

I oppose the Crow's Nest project. The applicant has submitted a traffic document for the Crow's Nest proposal, but their own licensed engineer, Brian Horan, states on page four that this is not a real traffic impact study. It is only a corridor level evaluation. That matches that your staff report also stated recently in July 9th through the 13th that this is not a valid TIS report, okay? This is a foundational document and process that is required and is missing from your file currently. First, there is a zero intersection level analysis. They're proposing their new full movement signal intersections on Crowfoot Valley Road, yet the report contains no level of service analysis, no queuing analysis, and no turn lane warrant analysis. This is not standard for this type of report. There's many reports that you have that are missing items, they're not specific, You have to look at these reports thoroughly and make sure all facts are in the reports and not stating to be determined or in the near future. You need to do these reports properly. We homeowners purchase our properties based on the CMP report. We came about buying these homes with analysis saying that this is gonna be non-urban and now you wanna change it. when we made all these investments up front. This is not fair for us. Secondly, I would like to state that in the freeway, the last time we had an accident, they closed the I-25. It took my husband over an hour to drive from the outlets up back to Hess Road. Imagine if there was a fire during that time. Everybody would have had to abandon their vehicles and run and they would have died. The traffic right now is horrendous and you need to take this seriously now and not approve more homes or approve this change and amendment on the land. Please help us. We are all very upset with this and we need this not to be approved. Appreciate your time, thank you, bye.

Thank you so much. Next is Christopher Latimer.

Hey, good evening, Commissioners, citizens of Douglas County. Latimer, L-A-T-I-M-E-R. I live in Perdera. Everybody's already said essentially what I'm going to say, so what I would just ask the developers of the board, is there a waiting list to get into McAnta, Trails of Crowfoot, Looking Glass, some of these homes where these $2,000, $2,500 homes, sorry, 2,500 division homes have gone in? Because if they're then I don't think your development's really that necessary. Second, the water. I'm on watering restrictions, everyone else is. It's not raining, it's not snowing. Where's this water gonna come from? Somebody mentioned earlier about the 1,000 foot acre, but they didn't say how deep it was. What they don't mention in their picture is there's this 1,000 foot acre, there's these really nice homes there, et cetera, but in their PowerPoint, they show a development like Looking Glass with homes jammed in. So that's where that water is going to go. Those homes that they put in there, that thousand foot acre, regardless of how deep it is, that's gone. Anyway, thanks for your time. I wanted to be brief.

Thank you, sir. Sarah Hurst.

Good evening, it's Hart, H-A-R-T. Sorry. I'm also not a good public speaker, so I'm gonna try to be as brief as possible. I submit a formal opposition referencing the developer's incomplete application containing the CMP change request. I do not want to keep repeating what others say, but I do agree with the points of opposition. I will take the time to point out that density and details are to be determined later violating CMP section 10 and zoning resolution 25. Water is only under evaluation by Parker Water, failing CMP criteria four. Traffic relies on unbuilt roads. Their wildlife assessment ignores documented elk corridors and bald eagles, triggering the Endangered Species Act. And contradicting CMP Section 9, this twists anti-sprawl policy and risks irreversible loss of habitat. Similar projects have been denied for these reasons. Lastly, the conflict of interest with the planning commissioner, who is the VP of the developer's company. So I request denial since full studies and verified capacity are not identified. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hart. I apologize, I did read your letters in the submittal to us and just forgot your last name. Sorry about that. Yeah, thank you. Diana Love.

I'm the president of the Franktown Citizens Coalition, so I would request the six minutes.

Does that apply, county attorney?

I'm sorry, can't hear you, what?

I'm asking the county attorney to make sure this applies as to a government agency.

Yes, Chair, that's fine.

Okay, thank you. All right, so you may proceed with your six minutes. Please reset it to six minutes.

First of all, thank you very, very much for your volunteer work. The Franktown Citizens Coalition does all volunteers, so I know how much work it is and we appreciate it. Douglas County has done quite a bit of good in purchasing open spaces, moving towards protecting the foundation and basis for the CMP. This would go against the foundation and basis of the CMP, would go against the forward progress that Douglas County has made. Now most of the work, most of the talk I'm going to do tonight is going to deal with water. I'm the one that gave you the exhibit on that study and I will get to that in a minute. Now, as you know, I think everybody knows, that for the last 22 years, this was in the Colorado sun, we have the worst drought in the last 1,200 years. That's what we're dealing with now. And the thing about it is, The Denver Basin Aquifer, I don't know how many know about this, the five aquifers that are underneath the Denver. Douglas County is the center. That is where all of our water comes from. It goes up to Greeley in the north and to the northern El Paso, north of the top of El Paso County, the north. Now, that is where we get all of our water. So, what shape are we in? What shape is our aquifer in right now? Well, let's talk about this exhibit. This exhibit was done by the United States Geological Survey in 2011, and I'll read it to you. The Denver Basin Aquifer System is administrated as non-renewable. How many people know that no more water goes into our aquifer? When our water's gone, it's gone. and it's non-sustainable because aquifers are primarily confined and that's why water doesn't go in. And they receive very little precipitation usage. At the present level of pumping in 2011, They said, the USGS said, in 50 years, it's done. Our aquifer will start to be uncontained. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean there'll be no water at all? No, but what it means is they're saying that at the use of level at 2011, the entire system will have begun to collapse within 50 years. The level of use has gone up how much by then? How much development since 2011 has occurred? Well guess what? It's gonna collapse if this keeps up, if somebody doesn't say enough is enough. Because our system is non-renewable, non-sustainable, if you approve this, you, the decision you make, will be moving Douglas County and a large portion of Colorado towards collapse. And I don't care how many homes you make or you approve, I don't care if you change this, which I do, I'm opposed to it, but if you change this, what you're saying is it doesn't matter. How many people go down? How much the aquifer collapses? And when it's done, Colorado's done. And when these start to collapse, it's your fault. It's the commissioner's fault. It's any political person. Thank you to City of Parker, Castle Pines for saying enough. When it collapses, we're done. And all these people can say, and bless their hearts, I understand it, that we need affordable homes, that people need a place to live. I absolutely agree. But what difference is it gonna make if you build those homes and there's no water to support them? And guess what? There's a metro district up in the north that they're building. Lamar Homes are building homes and they have no water for them yet. None. Zero. So if you say that they're meeting the comprehensive master plan water issue, they're not telling you the truth. And we all know, you know, everybody here knows when they're saying, oh, this is just an amendment. We know exactly what it is. They want to build houses, they want to make money. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people not looking at the fact. that this is a non-renewable aquifer. The Denver Basin Aquifer is non-renewable. That isn't said enough. A lot of people don't know that. When it's done, it's done. And I don't care, they're talking about all these wonderful new, you know, like Pinery Water. Of course they should be doing that. They should be doing as much renewable as they can do. But it doesn't matter. If there's no water, there's no water. You can't even do renewable with sewer water because there won't even be water for the sewers. So one of you asked, I think it was you, and I apologize if I'm wrong, can you develop rural? Yes, you can. Franktown, but it's how you develop it. Franktown is developed. Frankton is a minimum five acres or more per residence. It's beautiful, it's rural, it is not urban. I mean the definition of urban is high density, high commercial, and if you have a rural area that this comprehensive master plan for how long has tried to protect, yes you can develop it. but you have to develop it so it still looks rural, so you're not sucking all the water up in high developments. That's why I thought it was very important to bring you this. It's page 175 of the Effects of Development on Groundwater Sustainability in the Denver Basin Aquifer System. It was done by the USGS. It was done in 2011. I gave you page 175, so you know how in-depth this study was. Please, enough. Don't change the Comprehensive Master Plan. Stick with the path forward Douglas County has been doing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Love. Appreciate it.

Thank you, everybody, for coming.

Magdalena Reynolds, or, yeah, Reynolds.

Good night everyone. I am not a person, a public speaker or nothing like that. My last name is Reynolds and is R-E-Y-N-O-L-D-S. I live in unincorporated Douglas County for 26 years. My daughters went to Legend, Cimarron. We have seen how everything has developed and even when the schools were accounted and people thought that we have enough schools, Legend, Cimarron has already portals, Legend has portals, so when the developer is saying that they have already access to schools and all that, they don't. I don't doubt that when they go to the next steps, you will make sure that all that is accounted. It is a fact that yes, the development is in the middle of everything else that has turned around. But at the same time, I disagree with one person said about that we are in shortage of houses. I am a realtor too. I can find you houses for $300,000 if you have to. My daughter bought five acres in Deerfield. Yes, you need to drive, but you can't find houses with land or with no land. You don't need to buy condos or town homes either. I find you something. And I'm not trying to promote me, sorry. But what I'm trying to say here is this. I have seen a few developments in the corner of Parker Road and close to 225. Too many months ago, I saw somebody, a developer come and say, and they approve. That corner, they have wanking supers and it's still ugly and terrible. Here in Parker, We have too many little commercial properties owners that they come with a dream of serving and sadly they close doors because there is not enough people to give them business. So we have Looking Glass, they say that, right? Looking Glass is offering. Taylor Morrison called me yesterday telling me that they offered me 4% commission if I bring buyers, and they have a lot of houses, not only here, in different areas of Colorado. So I heard enough of everybody who did their homework, and thank you so much for your homework, but I just have something to say. Let's be, I'm not against the developer, I'm just trying to say we need accountability, and it was not done.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. Andrew Thierry? With a T, Thierry?

Tritely, Andrew Tritely, T-R-I-E-T-L-E-Y. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I own a home in Sapphire Point neighborhood just off Crowfoot Valley Road south and west of the proposed CMP amendment. I've lived in Douglas County for 23 years and I support this amendment. I spent several years as an employee at Douglas County School District coaching a sports team at Ponderosa High School where my children recently graduated. I've spent a lot of time traveling the triangle between Castle Rock, Parker, and the Denver Tech Center. I support smart growth and this change at the CMP. I enjoy the expansion of public parks and trails. I enjoy critical public infrastructure projects like the widening of Crowfoot at Founders, additional traffic lights on Crowfoot, the extension of Chambers Road, all the way up to Centennial Airport. I like our school enrollment filled to the brim with families. We need more households in the county with school-aged children. I also take advantage of the high quality retail, restaurants, and entertainment in the area. None of that would be possible without growth. Many times, smart growth requires an adjustment to planning documents. I've lived through the changes of the Canyons and Mecanta, just two examples. When I moved into Sapphire Point, the Canyons was expected to be a few hundred homes, and Mecanta was going to be a private golf course with a small number of custom homes. Both are much different today, and I welcome the urban changes, that were brought to those communities. My neighborhood is wonderful and was previously a large ranch owned by the Maher family. I guarantee a room full of people like tonight fought that development too. And I'm glad the stewards of the time supported smart growth instead. I know it isn't easy for you as commissioners or for existing residents, but we should say yes to smart growth. I want my adult children to be able to live in the community that raised them. and for the teachers, nurses, and first responders who cared for them and protected them to also be able to own a home in the community that they serve. It is time to stop talking about the missing middle housing and affordability and do something about it. The Planning Commission has an opportunity tonight to do something about it. And last, I have full faith in the ability of the skilled professionals in the planning and engineering offices of Douglas County to work on behalf of the residents to ensure that this project is in fact smart growth. Quick example, I live adjacent to Lemon Gulch, the same riparian corridor that cuts through Castle Park Ranch and Crow's Nest. And I had deer eating my shrubs in the backyard and I watched a fox get chased off by a deer. Lemon Gulch can be protected and functioning and beautiful. It is in my neighborhood. It will be in this one as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Treatley. Appreciate it. Gail McDonald.

Thank you, McDonnell, M-C-D-O-N-N-E-L-L. I'm going to address the water issue. I'm against this development, sort of. I feel that the nine homeowners, or landowners, they have the right to sell. But we should use the property as rural and maybe develop it into like the Littleton historical farm. where they have animals, a working farm, and the county could buy the land and then develop it into, use that old farm, the buildings, renovate them, keep the trees, keep the old equipment, make it like Littleton Farm. Now in 2019, I've lived in Douglas County for over 30 years. I used to live in Parker. My well went dry. It's scary in 2019. My well was 326 feet. I had to drill down, get an emergency permission thing to drill into the lower Dawson. which you can't drill any further than 600 feet. We got water at 582, went on down to 590, because you have to have that to lower the pump. And it was quite expensive, very, very expensive. I don't want Parker Water to come in, get that 1,000 acre, water from the aquifer and drain it. How many wells, how many of you are on wells that would go dry? It's expensive. So I do believe that if we develop that little farm the houses, the buildings, make it into a Littleton historical, maybe go to the Colorado Historical Society, have them come out, look at it, make it like founders, a foundering, how we grew up here in Colorado when it was first farmland and use it that way. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Barbara Cino, C-I-N-O, I think. Just be aware that if I'm having a hard time, some of this is, well, you wrote your names on here. So, okay. Dotson. Skaggs, thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Megan Hawk.

Hello, my name is Megan Hawks, H-A-W-K-S. I am a resident of the Canyons in Castle Pines. I am here to voice support for this comprehensive plan amendment. To me, this development is a logical expansion of this corridor. We have seen so much development. They've mentioned the five master plans that are either immediately adjacent or really close nearby to this large parcel. And this really is an undeveloped, they say island, of the county. We wanna make sure that we're doing what we can to minimize sprawl and to utilize existing infrastructure and also improve upon existing infrastructure rather than forcing development to be further away from the urban centers that we already have in place. This development is very thoughtful. It has proposed substantial open space along Lemon Gulch and will provide significant public benefit. And it does not threaten any existing habitats for endangered species as mentioned. there are some people who think the opposite. It's been mentioned, and I believe the same, that I'm sure that my neighbors opposed the canyon's development when it came to planning commission. And I, on a personal note, just, Began to grow my own family. I have a five month old baby at home and I think regularly about what the county will look like when he is an adult and he can make the choice of whether or not he can stay in Douglas County. We need more housing and in particular we need density. Density is undeniably tied to attainable price points and so for more young families like myself, that's something that I value substantially. There will be continued growth in Douglas County and resisting the growth is not the solution. I would ask that you approve this comprehensive plan amendment and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Hawks. This next name, I don't really even know how to begin to pronounce. It starts with an S, first name and last name is A-R, I'm sorry, R-A-J-A, I think. I'm not sure who that is. I apologize. All right.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for helping me out, please.

Yeah, this is Sri, S-R-E-E, Sri Rayala is my last name, R-A-Y-A-L-L-A. I'm a resident of Douglas County. When I move in here like 2013, I was like, you know, calling like plumbers, calling electricians, calling like all sort of trades. Everybody is like charging more money. That's been wild here right now also, that is going that way. So the simple reason behind that is like all these people all these trades, they can't afford in Douglas County. They live like Deerfield. They live in Elizabeth. They have to drive and work here, so who is paying that cost? That's us. Why? Because there is no affordability in this county. If you look at teachers, The Douglas County schools are not able to fill the jobs with teachers because they can't afford here. They go like rather go to Cherry Creek, they get like more paid and also they have a lot of options there for this housing affordability. reasons like that and also like if you look at the population growth in Colorado 2014-2015 there are a lot of companies moving from California to here because it was affordable here Now, look at companies, nobody is moving here. People, nobody is moving here because the affordability is so much. The simple question when developers are denied these development growths, They cannot build homes, they have to build homes far away, and the cost will be more to bring that infrastructure far away. And everybody is spending a lot of time on the roads. And I definitely support this growth. This is a logical growth. And also, look at this property right now, this 800-acre property. Nobody can go inside this property right now. But if it is amended, if it is approved tonight, a lot of people in this area right now, like they're driving by, feeling that, you know, the property, but they can experience this property by accessing the trails, accessing the public access and all that stuff. That is definitely a yes thing to do, a right thing to do. I definitely support this effort and thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Victor Miriala.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Victor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk in front of you. So my strong belief is to support this development. Things are changing. while he's changing we need changes amendment is not something return on the tablets it has to change in some of the people i strongly support the change amendment and approved the approved the request and also The beauty of that Crawford Valley has gone long back. Now there are thousands of homes surrounding this piece of land, and their traffic, water issues, everything is already there. All the traffic surrounding areas is already there. This is not going to cause much impact. It is the change that we should welcome. We should approve the development there. Let affordability come there. We will let changes come there. We need those changes for the county. and for the people. We need those changes. And also, this is not a magic wand that is going to solve all the problems of the county. This piece of land is not going to solve all the water problems, all the future problems, all the economic problems, everything. This land is not going to solve that. It is a private land. We should respect that one. We should approve, we should look for the future, and we should, as a team, you all need to have a better, Better engineering team to support the development, but I strongly request you to approve this one. Thank you Thank you, sir CJ Cox

CJ Cox, COX. I live in Cobblestone Ranch, which, to Mr. Goldhammer's point, obviously was a ranch not too long ago. I'm a little torn on this issue, but I think the commission either plotted or whatever, planned and approved that long before I got here. I lived there for eight years. I lived in Parker for 12 years before that. Before that, I came from D.C., Washington, D.C. area. I lived in several different neighborhoods for 20 years in Washington, D.C. I got to see what the endpoint is for how we're developing. Denver's growing exactly the way Washington, D.C. did. Dulles Airport, the Beltway was all rural around the edges, all farms. It all filled in. When you had to go somewhere on the weekend, you were in stop-and-go traffic on Saturdays. So I've kind of seen where the endpoint is. If you think I'm a carpetbagger, I'm not. I grew up here in Evergreen, went to Evergreen High School, Class of 81. Go Cougars. As far as the developer story, I'd quote a line from Ferris Bueller, it's a lovely story and you tell it so well. The 100-acre park is particularly appealing. I didn't like the lack of detail that I heard in the plan I admit I'm getting educated here. I didn't understand the jump from urban to non-urban, and it's great to hear my fellow citizens fill in some of the details on there's four categories between that. I'll continue to get more educated. I'm not sure of the details, so I heard 3,400 homes. 745 minus 100 divided by 3,400 is .189 acre per home then, if that's the actual math. But as I said, the details aren't in there, which seems very odd to me. It kind of leads to sort of a slippery slope argument. We're not making the decisions here. We'll make them down the line. Didn't 1,000 acre feet of water, I don't have any context for that, so I didn't know if that was a lot or anything. I'm kind of pointing out some of the issues and questions. I trust you folks on the commissioning board will be able to fill in some of the questions here, because I defer to you on making a decision in this complex. It says this is just a small island of land, but I noticed there was another piece of land undeveloped that made it quite a substantial and nice buffer. I think in Boulder, they had a green zone around the city at one point. I thought that was a good planning thing. I don't think you should fill in every square acre. I think that's what a lot of us have seen and react to. We see every possible nook and cranny being filled in, and the roads are filled up. I don't think that the presentation one I've heard here gives a compelling interest. I think that's the key thing. I don't see the compelling interest. I really value this process. Thank you to my fellow citizens. Thank you to the folks who gave the presentation and you commissioners. You're doing a heck of a job and I don't envy it. It seems pretty tough. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cox. The next name is another one I'm struggling with. It looks like it starts the first name with C-O-N-G. if you have a name that starts with C-O-N-G. All right. Move on to Chris Connolly.

So I am the Predera HOA president.

That makes you eligible for six minutes.

Right. Last name is Connelly, C-O-N-N-E-L-L-Y. I've lived in Predera for 20 years. I can't, I never found a place that was more lovely than that and all of my neighbors are just incredible. I know we need to go and build more homes. I know we can't do anything about the water. I know that there's a lot of promises made in the presentation that I took umbrage with. But overall, we do need to build more homes. But we don't need to build 3,000. That's a bit crazy, I think, in that spot of land. So now you've taken, you've devalued a lot of the land and homes around that spot. Even the newer ones, people have paid more for. And by putting in that many homes, we're going to just devalue just by proximity. So, I don't know, I don't think that we, I don't think that we have the complete picture yet of how that should go in. And that being, and I did indeed, along with my metro district manager, build a letter that was sent in earlier. And so I think that, what I'm trying to say is I don't think we should approve this at present time because it's not complete. Thanks for the time, thanks for what you're doing, and have a great evening.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Didn't even take two minutes.

Nope. An awful lot's been said already that it's not worth repeating it over and over and over.

Appreciate that. Michelle Lopez. Alright, Tom Orban. Megan Christian. Alright.

I just thought I was signing a form. Hi, my name is Megan Christian. I live in Charles, oh, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. So I live in the homes across the street from the planned development. I understand that the prior application by Castle Pines has been revoked, but the developers and people involved with the project still want to push development through. Looking Glass is still in development. Trails and Coldfoot is still in development. Makanta, you guessed it, is still in development. Lone Tree, still in development. Oh my gosh, how many more are there? Where is the data and research proving that we need more homes? I'm not seeing it. You didn't provide it in your presentation. My family moved to Parker because of the value of open space that Parker has. Please keep those values in mind. Daily, I see so much wildlife. I hear the owls hoo at night. My son loves it, he's three. We always say, can you listen? I see the elk and deer migrate safely and drink from the small pond. I see the eagles flying around looking for prey, especially those prairie dogs. Reducing the open space land to 13% is not conducive to the environment for the people or the wildlife. We have enough homes, we don't have enough water, infrastructure like grocery stores, emergency services, and resources to support a large development of homes. When I-25 is closed, traffic is rerouted through Crowfoot Valley recently on July 17th, this past weekend. I have a picture of it, I have a poster. I'm not gonna show it because it says no signs. but I do have a picture of it. I also have a picture from May 15th of this year where traffic was rerouted and I have more of them but I could only fit so many on my sign. Adding more homes where people with cars will live will not help the situation. Even if you add more lanes, those lanes cannot continue up to Strill Road or Chambers. Once you pass those streets, they go down to two on each side and sometimes one lane nearing Hess when you first enter Chambers or from Crowfoot Valley Road. People have proved time and time again that zippering is a really difficult task. So, you know, narrowing those lanes down is not gonna be a great thing. The people who are for this project have not been properly educated or do not live in the immediate area, especially the people who are owners of the land currently.

They don't live in the area. They live in Aurora.

You don't care about the people who live in this area or the wildlife that are in it. You're simply not listening. I don't feel bad for you that you made a poor investment. It's not my problem. My problem is today to encourage you to vote against this and like this guy said, make it into a beautiful land where people can enjoy it. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Christian. Melissa Ward. This next one I'm really not sure of. It looks like possibly Marcos. Trevi or something like that. Okay. Raventh, R-A-V-E-N-T-H. And I can't read your last name, sorry.

My apologies. It's spelled as Tachnini, T-A-T-I-N-I-N-I. So I didn't prepare for this meeting, but yeah, a few days back, right on July 6th, there was a fire accident on I-25 next to Castle Pines. And I live in Canyon's neighborhood. I moved in three years back. It was a very nice neighborhood. I enjoyed it. My house is back to open. In three years, my insurance rates went four times actually, home insurance. Previously, I lived in Arora. for 10 years, my insurance rate didn't go up. And the reason was, like the insurance company says, was you are back to open and there is a risk that there is a fire accident can happen. And I have seen that on July 6th when there is a fire accident, whole my community, people were like, they were so terrified actually. And I am supporting this one because you cannot leave a 600 or 700 piece of land with no eye on it, actually. If it is a planned development, there will be so much of infrastructure there which can control these kind of accidents not to happen. So that's my reason to support. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

This next one, Lakshme, L-A-K-S-H-M-E. Ah, good. Hopefully you can spell your last name for us.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lakshmi Arla, A-L-L-A. I used to live in Parker and then recently moved to Castle Pines, so pretty much in Douglas County lived for 20 years. So I'm here to support this amendment, primarily for three reasons, actually. Wait a minute. So, I'm extending support to this clonist attachment. This property sits right next to Pradera, looking glass and the trails at the crowfoot, and I support it for three straightforward reasons. First, the public benefit. Preserving the lemon gulch and roughly 130 acres of open space, parks and trails is enormous. This land is and entirely private today, approve this and we gain that open space and real, I mean, trail connectivity across the area. And second, Fiscal responsibility. Smart planning means focusing housing where land is already developed and infrastructure already exists. So Cronus is the last large undeveloped piece in an area otherwise surrounded by master plan communities. This is efficient growth, not costing leapfrog development. Third, the infrastructure is Genuinely here, this is ample, there is ample road and water capacity to solve this development, including established, I mean, provided in like Parker Water, Cronus is consistent. with everything Douglas County stands smart, thoughtful, so I respectfully, I mean, request you to approve this. And then also, I mean, people addressed about the wildlife. So, I mean, I definitely respect the environment conservation, but not at the, Expensive public safety, but we already see a lot of some in our dear encounters in the nighttime and the bear encounters in the community So we how to address the wildlife in a timely manner. Otherwise it is going to dangerous for the public safety So you how to strike the balance so that is why I'm supporting this Amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Allah Amy wins you

Hi, good evening, and thank you guys on the planning commissioner for being so patient this evening. I wasn't planning to speak this evening, but as I was listening, a lot of things ran through my mind. I don't want to repeat some stuff that's already been said, so I'll try to be brief. neighboring towns castle rock castle pines parker have weighed in their town councils have either said no or you know this project needs further review i think that's important the cmp as i understand it will impact douglas county as a whole i think residents should have a say on it that's as a whole third If these 3,000 plus homes are to be built on 600 acres, that is about 0.2 acres per house. And these kids, because eventually families are going to need to be educated, that means the Douglas County School District's probably going to need to build a school. Has DCSD weighed in on this? I think that'd be great, because if we need to build more schools, that also means more taxes.

Third of all, I don't know what step I'm on.

Okay. I heard a talk this evening about the importance of affordable housing and how building these homes will be affordable. I don't know if that's true. Maybe the developer can tell us this evening how building these homes will be affordable. Let's define affordable housing. What's affordable to one person isn't affordable to another. Also, in communities that surround this area, some of those homes are worth one plus million dollars. What's their value going to be after this development? Will those owners that already have development on lodge lots be compensated? I think that's something to think about, because when they bought, this was rural, and now they're going to change it to urban? Who told them that when they bought their house? Did the realtor say this was gonna stay rural? And lastly, one last thing. I don't think it's really proper for real estate developers to intimidate anybody, including a person's wife who sits on the council. I just thought I'd say that. So thank you and have a good evening.

Thank you, Ms. Winshew. Kathy, Cassie, Casey, not sure if I'm pronouncing that right, but. K-A-S-S-Y, yeah, okay. Could you repeat that in the microphone?

Hi, my name's Kathy Casey. I'm a long time Douglas County resident and I am a Colorado native. I've been here long enough, I'm getting old to know. Can you say your last name? K-A-S-S-Y. Okay, thank you. Sorry. to have seen this area changed. And one thing I want to point out, because everybody else did their homework and I'm not a public speaker, is that a gift has been given to you tonight. That's the gift of time. Everybody, including the other jurisdictions and the people who said where the developer did not meet the requirements for this amendment have given you the gift of time to say no tonight. If the developers want to go on as is and develop within the current requirements, they can. But if you say no tonight, that keeps the genie in the bottle because they haven't provided all the facts. And my phone just closed. and they haven't met the needs. Right now, you have the opportunity also to leave all or part of this as an oasis. The surrounding jurisdictions can come together and leave all, like I said, or part of this as a ginormous park. It's mentioned that they are leaving 100 acres as a park. Well, that's because it's along a gulch. They really can't develop right through there. It's not out of the goodness of their heart. It's just out of what the land is. It's probably a floodplain. I'm not a geologist or anything like that, but if they could, they would. Now, let's consider the government surroundings that have already rejected it. Do you think they're going to reject more taxes if possible? We've already seen what Parker has done recently, adding stuff, Castle Pines too. If it was a good idea, they would have already said, yes, give us the money, but they haven't. That's with a great deal of consideration and forethought and responsibility to their residents as well. I don't speak in public very often, but I'm very passionate about this because people have called this an island. It's not an island. It's an oasis. We've watched all around us. Everything has disappeared. This is one of the few last remaining large tracts in the area where our children will get and our grandchildren will get a chance to know open land. It's gone. It's gone everywhere. And that's all I have to say. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Casey. Brigitte or Brigitte Land something. I'm sure you'll spell your last name for us so I can. Get that right at the end.

Hi, my name is Bridgetta Fody Landstrom. Hi, there wasn't enough space for all the letters. F-O-D-Y-L-A-N-D-S-T-R-O-M. I am here to just not repeat. So there was a lawyer who stood up here with a lot to gain from this. This is on trial, just look at the facts. The facts have been laid out. They do not meet approval criteria. The 10 individuals who actually are for this, I wonder how many of them would benefit from this. The ones who are opposing it, we have no benefit except of where we live. And again, the lawyer who stood up here said I'm gonna treat this like a trial. You have to listen to the facts. They don't meet approval criteria. That is the fact. It has been laid out again and again and again why. So listen to the facts. They don't meet approval criteria. That's all that we need to decide on tonight. The answer is no. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. So that concludes all that are on the list. Is there anyone else that would like to give testimony? Okay, I recognize this lady here first, okay?

Hi, my name is Michelle Lopez. Good evening, commissioners and staff. I'm a Douglas County resident.

Would you spell your last name, please?

L-O-P-E-Z.

Thank you.

and I want to express my full support for the Crown Nest Amendment. I follow this property closely and I want to point something out. Not long ago, there was a pushback about Crown Nest being an exit into the town of Castle Pine. The people raising concerns said clearly they weren't against the property being developed. They were against the annexation itself. Well, the property owners listened and they heard that feedback. They've kept this line in the county exactly as the public asked. This amendment is the path forward. It's the first step in a long process and it's the step the community itself pointed to. and responded to public input. We should meet them there. This part of the county is no longer, my sorry, I'm sorry. It's surrounded by communities like trails at Crown Foot and Looking Glass. Redesigning this land makes all the sense of the world. Please approve of it, thank you. One last thing. Everyone doesn't have the opportunity to buy a home for 100 million, especially with Colorado's pay rate. With people's concerns about traffic, well, that's always going to be an issue. Regardless of if this project is approved or not, please give them an opportunity to make this project happen. Thank you.

I think we have a couple more. We'll go with this gentleman first and then you, sir.

How are you doing? You may have called my name, and I probably scribbled in there, so I apologize for that. My name is Dorian Conquest, and I scribbled it in there as Conquest and Dorian.

Okay, gotcha. Okay, all right.

Yes. So I apologize for that.

Please spell your last name for us.

Yeah, it says C-O-N-Q-U-E-S-T.

Okay.

All right. I want to be very clear about what is and isn't in front of you tonight. Tonight is strictly about the Comprehensive Master Plan Amendment. We are not approving a site plan for it. or a final density or single house tonight. This is just one step deciding whether the comp plan designation for this land should reflect the reality of what has already been built around it. And here is that reality today. Under the current designation, the land is essentially locked at one home per 2.5 acres. In the middle of the worst housing shortage this state has ever seen, and surrounded by neighborhoods like Looking Glass, Trails, Crowfoot, Perdara, the current plan dictates that this property remain large lot estate ground, one house for every two and a half acres that is not a plan for community, that is a plan that basically keeps people out. Meanwhile, Colorado is short more than 100,000 homes. We need to build roughly 34,000 new homes every single year just to keep that gap from growing, and we are falling far short of that mark. Families, young people, seniors, and the essential workers who keep this county running are being priced out of the places that they call home. One home per 2.5 acres does not answer the crisis, it deepens it. Amending the comp plan allows us to utilize this land the way the surrounding area is already being used efficiently with real housing tied to infrastructure that already exists. while still preserving more than 180 acres, I'm sorry, 130 acres of open space, parks and trails for the public. Crow's Nest represents exactly what good planning demands, growth in the right places, utilizing infrastructure already in the ground, providing real public open space and building homes that families can actually buy. Tonight's amendment is simply the first honest step towards making that a reality. And I also want to quickly address the traffic concerns based on the 2045 projections. Without this development, we'll be waiting 20 years for a four-lane road by moving forward with this project. We secure that four-lane upgrade in just four to five years. And looking ahead to 2045, the only real difference. Sir, you are out of time. Sorry about that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

I respectfully ask that you approve this plan. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I think we have two more people. Sorry. Okay, yeah, you may come to the podium, and then would you please be ready to come right up then? Okay, thank you.

It'll be really quick here, because everybody's got to get home. Commissioners, thank you for what you do. I've done volunteer work, so I know what it's like, and you want to get home here. I oppose of the Crow's Nest. Did you give us your name? Oh, I'm sorry, Todd Carnes. I live in Pradera. Spell your last name, please. C-A-R-N-E-S. Thank you. Thanks. So I oppose the non-urban to urban amendment. You know, I've heard some people talk here, and right now it's all in the plan to be, was it one home for every two and a half acres? It's there, so you can build. And, you know, this isn't going to solve a housing shortage. There's other things out there it can do. So we've listened to a lot of people. But one thing I will say, that it has already started to develop as non-urban. There is a home north of Perdera, that is probably larger than 95% or 98% of the people's homes here, that sits on 40 acres, that's exactly how it should be, and it is already there. So I think you stay with what you decided on, one home for two and a half acres, and reject this amendment, oppose it, what they're trying to do here. Because if you look and if you need me to tell you More about that, there is already a home there in the state with the pool and ground pool on 40 acres. Within that 745 acres, they want to change from non-urban to urban. So anyway.

Thank you, Mr. Carnes. All right, is there anyone else beyond this lady here? Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Hello, good evening. My name is Abby Sharla, S-C-H-A-L-L-E-R. I'm gonna also just reiterate what everybody has said and oppose this because I've been educated by a lot of you this evening regarding the Comprehensive Master Plan. And my concerns really, I just moved to Makanta like two months ago, so I know I shouldn't be saying anything, but I hate the traffic. I-25 is crazy and I have to drive to work downtown. I know that affordable housing is necessary and honestly, I don't think they're going to even be affordable, number one. As Commissioner Raja, I hope I said that right, has mentioned there are other uses for that land, even if, as long as it's not high density. I don't see how adding 3,000 more homes or how many more is gonna benefit the people that live in these neighborhoods already. Our quality of life, my quality of life, honestly, is going downhill with that traffic. So I'm opposed and regarding water, again, as I just moved, I haven't done my landscaping yet because myself and my husband are racking our brains thinking of how to have a landscape plan that doesn't need water. So since that lady had shared that groundwater aquifers are dying or whatever, let's just, I guess, stick with the comprehensive master plan. I'm not against the, property owners desire to sell the land or do whatever. But since there's a plan already, we should come up with a way to use that parcel of land that doesn't, I guess, frustrate the people that live in the neighborhood already. So thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Okay, at this time we will now close public testimony. Would the applicant or staff like to respond at all to the public comments?

Okay.

Mr. Williams.

Dan Williams on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner McKesson, I believe you hit the nail on the head when you asked whether this is a zoning application. So this is a comprehensive master plan application. We're not setting density units or site plans tonight. Again, those come at zoning. We went through this process and we put together four separate submittals for plan development in a separate municipality, but we're here before you today with a comp plan amendment. I think one of the gentlemen brought up why urban and not one of Parker's four zonings. I think that's also inherent with this process here. But I want to be specific and clear and precise and correct something that's been misstated several times here. There are only two designations. urban and non-urban, and I did use the term rural, but here's the reason why. The plan zone definition defines non-urban as farming, ranching, large lot residential, parks and open space. As I stated repeatedly, this is private property and not open space. I understand people, as Terrance has pointed out, our parks and open space, trails, recreation is an important part of the Douglas County heritage, and that's something that we're trying to preserve with the Lemongulch Corridor. The correction I wanted to make, This land currently is one unit per 35 acres across it. I've heard a lot of people throw out various different densities, but right now that is what is allowed, one unit per 35 acres. Commissioner Rayer, you asked why here were not designated urban areas. Terrance gave the honest answer, because landowners want to. And he's not wrong, but let me sharpen that statement just a little bit. Every development or application starts with a landowner seeking to find the best use for their property. The real choice isn't this land versus that land. It's whether the ground gets a coordinated plan that puts forward a desirable community. Again, this is the first step and we hope to bring you a better version. Again, many comments oppose density in apartments. We are already willing, we made those changes in prior PD submittals in another jurisdiction. We're open to working with the community, with commissioners, with staff, with the Board of County Commissioners to put together a plan that suits this area. With the traffic study, there's been a lot of discussion regarding that. Traffic study isn't required as part of a plan amendment. Because again, this stage doesn't set density. It's the same reason for Parker Water and Sand Inclusion can't happen at this point. The staff requested a study that Brian Horan provided, and we provided it as a courtesy. This is because other developments such as Sterling Ranch had provided them in the past and set the precedent, so we wanted to obviously comply. This is where that 3300 unit number comes from. And that's because we don't have a density to put before you, but we needed to put something in that study which was a conservative outside estimate. It was based around 3,391 units, Brian can speak to the traffic here shortly, and 22 acres of commercial as a conservative estimate that was just to govern the traffic by. And I'll let Brian speak more educated on the traffic report itself. Someone noted that neighboring developments are still under construction and still in development, and that's no reason to wait. Development takes years by design. As I mentioned, I had the pre-application with Douglas County staff in August of last year. It is now July. Obviously, we went through another municipal process, but this process does take time, as I'm sure you planning commissioners are aware. This is exactly why it's important to plan ahead and look forward and take the opportunity to create a master plan community on properties like this. The concern about the Denver aquifer, I actually think is the best argument for and not against what we're proposing here. She's right that it's finite and non-renewable. Multiple Denver-based and exempt aquifer is drawing from the same system with no conservation standards, no oversight, no dedication of water to anyone, are exactly what results in wells running dry. Parker Water and Sanitation is actively converting to renewable supply. Again, this is not a developer argument, this is a conservation argument. By the process of inclusion, there is, again, a per unit fee that is paid to Parker Water and Sand that covers acquisition of renewable water in excess of what's being dedicated. Someone asked 1,000 acre feet, how much is that? I know it's somewhat vague to the general public, but it's about 326 million gallons a year. And to equate that to units, depending on yield, things like convertible waterscaping, landscaping, it generally serves about 1,400 to 2,000 units. And I've also discussed this with Parker Water and Sand. And they have their own numbers and determination, which will be provided in a further application. I heard a gentleman say that the Lemming Gulch is a park, the details aren't there. You know, I, Again, every one of our plans that was put together preserved Lemon Gulch in 100 acres. And let me be clear about what the size of 100 acres is and put that in perspective. That's 75 football fields, not scattered throughout a community. That's 75 football fields lined up next to next, next, next, next, next. That's 100 acres. And that's the continuous corridor that we're hoping to provide. Again, someone said that the Lemon Gulch will be developed over if it could. Well, that's what would happen if this isn't approved. It's one home per 35 acres. Anyone can do what they want on that 35 acres, including the parcels that overlap Lemon Gulch. On the criteria, I'll let Terrance address that. I know someone said a fancy loss firm put together the presentation. I actually wanted to give Terrance credit. He was a, oh no, but he was a public servant for decades. He was the planning director for Douglas County for 20 years and he's been a wealth of knowledge and a great person to work with. And if I come back to where I started, responsible development, it's not just a slogan. This really is a genuine opportunity where nine people have come together with a large piece of land that can be developed thoughtfully. We hope to be back before you with a PD that incorporates what everyone said here in the room, staff's comments, everything that we've learned through the annexation of Castle Pines. You know, it's why we're here instead of trying to just build one home on 2.5 acres that cost $3 million. We're looking to build a community. The last thing I wanna say is I wanna thank everyone for giving up their evening to be here. This is your community and showing up is exactly how this works. As I said earlier, each hand shapes a development like this and this is just the first pass. I'm gonna hand it over to Mr. Horan who will discuss specifics regarding the traffic report.

Thanks, Dan, and I appreciate the opportunity to address just a few points about traffic. There was a couple statements made about how this project might add travel time. We mentioned VMT, and it's a traffic engineering term, vehicle miles traveled. The goal here is to locate development within existing corridors. If a development like this is located elsewhere, a new regional corridor might have to be built. Now, that might not be Douglas County's problem or a neighboring jurisdiction's problem, but what we're trying to establish is that if the density is located within existing infrastructure, you lower the vehicle miles traveled. Galloway is headquartered in the Denver Tech Center and I'm a principal with the company and a lot of my staff live in Douglas County. They live in Castle Rock. They live in Parker. It's getting increasingly difficult to hire staff. They're looking at Elizabeth and they're commute is always a big reason to leave a job or locate a job. And so the goal here is to locate development where this infrastructure already exists so that we're not paving more roads or increasing that vehicle miles traveled, making large commute patterns. There was a member of the community here who said, yes, I can find you a house, but yes, you need to drive. That's kind of the point here is that if we can keep them within sort of these urban areas, we lower vehicle miles traveled, and obviously there's an emissions thing and a delay thing and a commute thing, but really we want to locate it towards existing infrastructure. I do want to clarify the six lane sort of conversation. I think Parker's attorney sort of called it out exactly right. This study identifies one segment that in long range with these conservative estimates would trigger six lanes. That was intentional, and I'll talk a little bit in a second about how we're assuming a density. We are assuming the upper level of this density. We're assuming conservative numbers, and that trigger into six lanes was exactly what we were sort of looking for. because we don't know the densities and we don't have site plans and we're just making assumptions right now this tells me that yes that is the upper level of the density now when we go into site development plans and zoning applications We'll do future traffic studies with exact densities and exact square footages. For example, if I take out the commercial assumption, everything stays at four lanes for the long range scenario. That might be how this site develops. A member of the audience said like, I don't know why we would want to develop commercial here. But in that scenario, we don't ever trigger that six lane. We weren't trying to hide anything in the study. We were just trying to show what the upper levels. You can build six lanes out there. You can make the pipe big enough to fit those vehicles. There's enough right of way and things like that. So the statement that we've included in the traffic study is that you can accommodate this conservative estimate that may never happen, would likely never happen, and do not have to build new regional connectors. I don't need more roads out there, in some cases I need wider roads, but I don't have to pave more of the county to accommodate these assumptions. And again, they're just assumptions. Dan mentioned it, it got brought up. I can't forecast trips unless I have a unit count. It's not trip generation. I'm sure you've heard other traffic engineers maybe talk about it. Unless you want a traffic 101, I need to assume a certain number of houses and a certain square footage to assign to the network. So when site plans happen, when rezonings happen, we get new counts. more of the area development is built out, so we capture that in the new counts, we assume this growth, and that's also when we figure out, do we have enough lanes? Do the intersections in Parker and do the intersections in Castle Rock need improvements? So I do want to just, you know, it's not just a, we recognize that it's just not a Douglas County issue. When these site plans come in, we study the neighboring jurisdictions, They're a referral, so they also get to say like, hey, we want these intersections studied, we want these corridor studies. So this isn't the end all be all, we're just trying to show the upper limit of what can be accommodated with what was included in the 2050 plan. I'm gonna pass this off to Courtney.

Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Courtney Marne, M-A-R-N-E. Thank you for tonight. Yeah, I'll speak to the wildlife habitat and surveys. So the applicant has commissioned wildlife surveys. These were conducted in 2025. Speaking first, to big games such as elk and mule deer while it is known that they forage and migrate through the site there is no colorado parks and wildlife mapped high priority habitat or migration corridors additionally there's no habitat for any species protected under the endangered species act that does include the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Majority of the site is within the Denver Block Clearance Zone for which Preble's is deemed absent. And then the remainder of the site is outside of the Douglas County Riparian Conservation Zone for which the converse is true where Preble's habitat is considered present. It's outside of any known habitat as well as it doesn't support habitat for that endangered species or threatened species. Additionally, there is no, eagles are not federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. There is the Bald Eagle Protection Act though. There are no eagles. eagle nests or designated roost areas on the site, nor within a half mile buffer, which is the Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommended buffer. The closest site is over a mile and about 1.4 miles from the site with I-25 in between. There were no active raptor nests observed on site. However, if nests do become present, the applicant would follow federal and state regulations and consult with the appropriate agencies. Furthermore, prairie dogs are not protected also under the Endangered Species Act, and the applicant would follow, once again, Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommendations. If removal becomes necessary, then they would follow recommendations for conducting burrowing owl surveys, which is a Colorado threatened species. The largest or the best quality wildlife habitat on site is a long lemon gulch in that riparian corridor, which would be preserved. The rest of the site has been highly degraded and impacted by the long-term grazing and therefore is lower quality. So, overall, the applicant would comply, once again, with federal, state, and local regulations and implement avoidance minimization and mitigation processes.

Thank you, Ms. Barn.

Okay. We'll take it from here, sir. Terrance Quinn, once again. Hey, Mike, can we start the PowerPoint over again?

Can I just ask yet how much more time is needed to respond to the public comments?

I will take 10 minutes, and I believe David Foster has closing.

You need 10 minutes to respond to public comments?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

There's quite a few of them. I'll start with water and when you have to prove water. In the Colorado or the Douglas County zoning resolution 180602.2, water and sewer must be included at the time of preliminary plat. So that's a couple steps away from where we are right now. Right now, all that's asked for in 18A is that there is the opportunity to acquire water, which is what Parker Water and Sanitation District is doing right now by analyzing. We go down to protection of Western heritage. This property is owned agriculture and so is considered part of the western heritage. Unfortunately, there are tons of urban services and urban activities and urban developments surrounding it, which strips it from its historical ranching agricultural operation. And this is consistency with the CMP maps. This comes from the CMP. It is a fact that there is a lot of urban right next to the site. It is also from the Douglas County Master Plan. This site is located within a few miles of all these urban uses, urban activities, community resources. And it is desirable because we can extend those services in a cost-effective manner. That is reality right there. This proximity reduces VMT. We've already talked a little bit about that. This is the compatible land uses that surround the site. They are urban. They are all there. There they are. That is a fact. We talked about hazards, natural features. We use the comprehensive master plan maps to discuss these various aspects of wildlife and natural resources. There is poor land cover for agricultural activity. Lemon Gulch does provide that opportunity for preservation. It is a fact that there is no protected lands in this site based on the comprehensive master plan. There are low habitat value and very small amount of moderate habitat value based on the CMP's wildlife resources map. Douglas County Historic and Cultural Resources Map, that's Douglas County's map, has no resources on the site and no need for additional cultural surveys. We looked at the numbers too provided in the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan that showed the need for 50,000 new households. by the year 2040. So there is the projections from the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan that we have to use as criteria for approval that show there will be 132,000 more residents by 2040. That's in 14 years. And that's 90% of those, or 45,000 of them, will be in urban areas. So that's 21,000 unincorporated urban households And that requires 2,600 acres of unincorporated area. That is what is in the comp plan and that is what we're using to tell you that we need more urban area. And then this is a compelling public benefit because we've got six or seven different landowners willing to come together and make Lemon Gulch a regional park. I think The last thing I wanted to say was we have no intention of skipping buffers, wildlife corridors, or right of way, or schools, any of those things. All of that will come if we just get a chance to make a plan for this area, an urban plan for this area. And we think that we can do that with the community and with this comprehensive master plan in mind. and I think that would be something we would actually look forward to. So, saying that, I will, I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, and have David Foster, no, no, no, no, we are completed, sir.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Quinn, and thank you to the applicant. So, at this time, then, do the commissioners have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Neville.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I guess being a newbie here, I'm trying to focus in. I'm looking at everything, and I keep focusing in and kind of narrowing in on criteria number four. I think I've had some questions I've written down, but I think they've been answered as far as water goes. I think it was stated earlier tonight that I feel comfortable with it, that nothing tonight will get approved or moved forward without an agreement from a district. I think that was said. One of the things that that I'm still stuck on is just regarding traffic that I think was in one of the slides earlier that stated capacity exists or can be expanded to. How does that expansion happen? Is that something that you guys will be doing as the development? If you could just expand on that for me, please.

Yeah, that's correct. So during rezoning and site plan processes, when we have a density that we want to present, that more in-depth traffic study that talks about turn lanes and number of lanes and signal design and things like that gets incorporated. And so the site plan or rezoning doesn't get approved without those improvements. So those studies... identify deficiencies in the network at the time that the zoning goes in with the updated traffic counts and the area developments and things like that. And so the burden goes to that zoning effort. Okay, you need to provide these extra lanes. You need to provide these signal improvements and things like that so that we are not just throwing traffic on a constrained road. The roads and infrastructure grow with those approvals.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Neville. Anyone else have any questions? Yeah. Commissioner McKesson.

Mr. Chair, I was wanting to see if anyone else wanted to take the mic for a moment, but I wanted to say I appreciate, again, we appreciate the public testimony of everyone tonight. It makes our job much more difficult to hear a broad spectrum of testimony, both in favor of and against this application in its current form. I got to tell you, I've been here six years plus, and it's easier when there's It's very skewed in one fashion or another. So I need to take a moment to let you all understand how I'm thinking. And I'm thinking for the written word of the comp plan, which Mr. Quinn was the director of planning services in 2019 when I voted in favor of it. And you've heard testimony of past Commissioner Ditas who voted in favor of this plan too. The competing values of the plan must be balanced through the public review process to achieve the larger vision of the community. That stands out to me on page 19. What also stands out to me is some of the testimony relative to the Comprehensive Master Plan and we've heard for the general public so that we all understand. This plan is a guiding document. I'm reading verbatim from page 19. As a guiding document, the CMP uses language different than found in regulatory documents such as zoning resolution and subdivision resolution. Words like encourage, support, promote, and ensure provide flexibility in prioritizing the competing values in the CMP and remind us that the document is not a checklist. It goes on to the conclusion. The CMP evolves over time and through its regular updates responds to a changing economy, anticipated growth, and changing needs and values of county residents. What I would like Residents I am a resident all of us to understand is that CMP at the time this this was approved in 2019 was Contemplated to be a greater law and it was decided not to be Because it's a guiding document It's the first step as you've heard and we have all these other more legal steps to go through that said I Believe in the plan relative to that that's written here and it says all applications must demonstrate these approval criteria i appreciate the applicants presentation this evening, but I can't get past a number of these approval criteria. And I can't because in form, they're not there yet. It's a little bit of a chicken or the egg scenario where I'm not advocating that an applicant go through the full zoning process, but I cannot get past approval criteria number one. It's a maybe. I can get into more detail, but as well as number two is another. Maybe it could be, I think, with proper honing and public outreach and coordination with our staff. Some of these could be obtained relative to number four. I don't see adequate water supply in place. We had a discussion on this dais on another application recently on as to whether or not a will serve letter from Parker water and sand is sufficient. I believe a will serve is. I don't believe I've seen one here and I look forward to an applicant maybe presenting one. Same with water and sewer. The transportation network needs improvement or at least somewhat so relative to the testimony from our engineering staff. It seems as though you have fire protection largely, and I would say schools and facilities, you have their support conditionally in some fashion, which is good. Parks and trails state they'd like to know more, as does the public. I go on to number five. It's not known how existing and planned capabilities of the affected special districts can adequately handle the service demand. I can't say that I know that after tonight's testimony. I believe number six is true. The social, economic, and land use conditions of the county have changed. I believe that to be the case. And number seven is another maybe it depends on how things are owned and number eight is also a maybe so I share that perspective with everyone as to where I'm at in my judgment of this application thus far this evening.

Okay, so we have veered into discussion here amongst the... Well, I offer that, Mr.

Chair, so that we can have a discussion not just amongst ourselves, but while the applicant can reply. Because, quite honestly, we have five choices this evening. as I see it, within the comp plan. There are five choices, and it's not just an approval or a denial. The applicant may want us to consider one of the other, which is approve with conditions, which I don't know that I favor. We've been advised to not promote table for further study, but they could approve a continuance. So we have other choices than an approval or a denial tonight that we might want to consider.

So are there any other questions for the applicant? And thank you, Commissioner McKesson, for that perspective, for kind of putting it into that perspective. Okay. So seeing no other questions for the applicant, is there any further discussion amongst ourselves? And if not, we can proceed to a motion. And that motion can be different than what, I mean, there are different options that we have if you so choose to make any other motions.

Commissioner Abruzzo, I see a good amount of positive aspects to this project, but as Commissioner McKesson stated, there are a few shortfalls on this. I would like to see additional information on the The water and the traffic are the main ones, but all in all, I think the plan has some good possibilities with the connections to the surrounding regional systems and the idea of absorbing 10 years of growth for Douglas County by having this project. And let's face it, it's really not open space. It is private property. And there's already the five master plan communities there. So I think this is a doable project, but we do need some additional information on it. So I'm leaning towards the continuance. I don't think we're ready for a thumbs up or thumbs down vote today. It would be more information needed

And I would say that, yeah, I mean, I'm pretty conflicted about some of this as well because I totally appreciate all the public comment tonight, 40-plus members of our community and some opposed, some for. and one of the principles of the CMP is to accommodate that immense growth we still expect and still anticipate as a county, and how best to do that, and I am not quite, I'm not quite ready to agree at this point as well myself that all these criteria have been met, so I'm not quite sure how I wanna proceed either at this moment, so. Yes, Commissioner Hampton.

I wasn't sure if I was going to speak this evening because of the contentiousness of this hearing or our meeting. But I've made more notes tonight than I think I've made since I started here. I've been in Colorado since 82. I moved from California. Southern California, because of what was brought up tonight, many cases, I couldn't afford a home with my wife. So I moved out of state. It's an option. I've been Douglas County now for 42 years. A lot of good things have been said tonight. We've heard a lot about a lot of different things. But as he said, we have to stick with the facts. And I, like Commissioner McKesson, am a little on the fence. This document is just not our document. It's a document of the citizens, citizens of Douglas County. And they've put forth a lot of effort and came up with the maps that we're being asked to amend today. 69% of the people that spoke this evening, if I got all my math right, were to deny and 31% were to approve. So in our country, 50% plus one would say we would deny. But I believe that there's some extra things that we need to find out here. The staff report acknowledges that changing the property from non-urban to urban will reduce non-urban separation between the neighboring communities. which goes in conflict with the CMP. The staff report also reminds us that policy 3-1D.1 states the land use must not, which do not maintain community separators are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. So with that, we have some conflicts with the comprehensive master plan that you're asking us to change. All the towns, Parker, Castle Rock, everybody came out against it. So there's a great weight that you need to move here for support. I'm in defense right now, like Mike or Commissioner McKesson, as I've heard everything this evening. That's it.

I would say this, it is not quite a democracy in this gathering. Because while 40 is a great number, a large number to speak here tonight, we are required to make our judgments based on the criteria. We also know that this ultimately goes beyond us to the elected representatives of the people. but we still need a motion to do something tonight.

Mr. Chairman, it's been a fair practice in the past to engage the applicant as to this discussion and dialogue to see if they want to favor us making a decision to accept or deny or to consider a continuous. So would the applicant like to weigh in on that? from that perspective.

Thank you, Commissioner. That is a kind request. So many of the issues that you're having conflict with are creation a little bit of the way in which the criteria are drafted and what really the county requires of an applicant for this process. So for instance, the issue of water. Well, you've got in your referral packet the response from Parker Water and Sand that says we need to make an application. That likely satisfies the criteria because Parker Water and Sanitation would be the water provider and if they didn't have the water, they could say, don't bother, we're not gonna provide the water. But in this particular instance, their referral says X. But here's the point to your question. We don't even know what our density is and you've heard conversations 1.35 acres 1 for 2 and a half acres. We don't even know what the density is. And even the transportation study was a reflection of something super conservative. So that we weren't later trying to. kind of go up as opposed to going down. All of that being said, this kind of comprehensive plan amendment suggests to me that it probably needs to be accommodated along with our zoning, our PD. So that as you're contemplating the comprehensive plan, you have a better sense of what we're trying to develop. So there isn't this uncertainty. Now, that's probably not going to reduce the number of people in the room, but at least they'll have more certainty about what the project would look like. So if there is a motion that you are contemplating, we would hope that maybe a motion to continue so that we can work on our zoning application to come back and do that concurrent.

I appreciate that perspective and that's why I comment. This is Commissioner McKesson. There's a bit of a circular reference where we have to meet these criteria and you're not there yet and that's why I reference it's not a zoning application yet. That's a burden, it absolutely is. I hope you can appreciate our burden which is that if we voted if we, it's an if, and it did vote in favor, the commitments aren't in place yet. And if you were not to perform with those, we would find ourselves where the CMP was amended and commitments weren't upheld, both to the setbacks with Pradera, all the public testimony that was heard. So that's my circular reference that i'm having a conflict with which makes our job harder so absolutely that's why i look for i like to see an applicant work through some of these challenges a little bit more to prove to us the planning commission that there are commitments in place that that that the public outreach is quite frankly in a better position than where you are today

I totally agree, for me it's like making a decision about taking 750 acres out of non-urban and changing it to urban in a major amendment to our comprehensive master plan is, that's a challenge for me right now, quite frankly. Because once we've done it, it's done, right? Without a whole lot of definition as to whether whatever's coming down the pike will actually meet the criteria.

And frankly, it doesn't work great for a developer because we're going to want to have more certainty around our zoning document when we're coming back with an amended comprehensive plan. So that, you know, again, in many jurisdictions, You do see comprehensive plans running concurrent with the rezoning. They don't have to. So we're not trying to skirt around an issue. And frankly, many of the conversations that we heard tonight would be, hopefully more of them would be resolved by the time we were here for a rezoning. Otherwise, I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say, this isn't what we anticipated when we approved the comprehensive plan amendment. And so the answer's no. So I think for our level of certainty and moving forward, we'd like to ask that you continue so that we can put together that zoning document and bring them both back so that there is more certainty.

Thank you. Thank you for that. For the Planning Commission, I hear the applicant saying that they favor a continuance.

I totally, I hear that too.

And I support that for whatever that's worth, a discussion, if you will.

So then I need a motion.

This is Commissioner McKesson. I move to continue. We have to have a date certain as I understand it, right staff? Does the applicant have a date certain? We have to have a date certain.

So you only need a date certain if you don't plan on reposting. And in this particular instance, we would be also coming back with a PD. So I would ask that, again, you've got your own attorney, but I think you can make a motion to continue to a date uncertain because we're gonna have to go through the entire public notification process again. I'll leave that for staff.

to answer. Mike Basique with the Community Development. Instead, in lieu of the continuing to a date uncertain, would more likely be a table it, and that would require re-noticing. Yeah, concurrent with the PD.

Okay, you're hearing staff's perspective, a table for further study. I'm just wanting you to contemplate a date known that's however many months down the road or weeks or whatever that you might want to consider. to get this more tuned up and prepared.

Yeah, I mean, again, if you're contemplating tabling it, I don't think that requires a date certain because we'd have, am I right? That's correct. Okay, so that would be a different offer.

Continuance would be just fine as well. Pardon? So continuous would be just fine as well, wouldn't it?

I think we're playing around with words, frankly. Table is the correct word.

It's the proper word. Curt White for staff here. Really the continuance is not till, the continuance, you need a date that you're continuing it to. With the tabling, you're just continuing it for further study. It gives the applicant enough time, but they have to be willing to re-notice the hearing for the CMP. In this case, they would come forward also with a PD amendment at that time, which could be, we don't know how long that will take to get through some sort of, pardon me, a PD zoning. or whatever they decide to do.

So we're gonna make a motion then to table it?

Mr. McKesson, I'll make a motion to table for further study the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan use of map amendment project file DR 2026-003. Is there a second?

Also, we ask that you provide the direction on the tabling so the applicant knows the reason for the tabling. So in this case, you're asking them to start

Examining the zoning and density at this time the direction would be as per the testimony heard the last several hours Direct that I think that's well my testimony was relative to the approval standards those things which I can't get past Many of the commissioners had some of the same comments. I think that was heard. I don't know how to put that in a motion each commissioners comment on the approval standards

Well, then it should be to address the comments of the Planning Commission that we heard tonight regarding the approval criteria. I believe you stated several of them.

That's fine with me, Mr. Chair. Yeah, that's good.

Is that clear enough for the applicant?

It is, okay. Thank you, Mr. Quinn. All right. My pleasure. So refine that a little bit so that when our clerk reads it back, he has something to read back.

Make a motion to table for further study of the comments made by the Planning Commission at this evening's hearing of the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan Land Use Map Amendment Project File DR 2026-003.

Commissioner small with seconds again. Okay. There's a first and a second clerk. Would you please read back that motion?

Please feel free to correct me if I get this wrong motion to table a motion table for further study on the approval criteria for Douglas County's own resolution, or my apologies, of the Crow's Nest Comprehensive Master Plan Land Use Map Amendment, project file DR2026-003. I can repeat that if you'd like.

I didn't really hear anything in there about the... supplying commissions. Supplying the commission's comments relative to the approval criteria. Just think of where you're going with that. Commissioner McKesson.

Yes. Motion to table for further study on the criteria based on the Planning Commission's recommendations.

Planning Commission's testimony, heard this evening. Testimony, heard this evening.

Okay. With that, would the clerk take a roll call vote?

Jim Smallwood. Yes. Patrick Neville. Yes. Mark Hampton. Mark Reier? Yes. Lennard Bruzo?

Yes.

Mike McKesson? Yes. Calvin Downs?

Yes, and with that the motion carries seven to zero. And with no other items on the agenda, this hearing is adjourned.