Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

The public will have an opportunity to provide testimony for each item during the public comment phase of the items on the agenda this evening. If you have a technical assistance or access to this meeting, please contact county staff in advance of the meeting. Audio enhancement devices are available at the back of the hearing room. Please return them after use. Thank you and would you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Could we please take a roll call vote? Or a roll call for who's here? Sorry.

Luke Neferatos.

Present.

Ed Kubli.

Here.

Jim Smallwood. Patrick Neville.

Here.

Mark Reier. Here. Michael McKesson. Here. Calvin Downs. Len Abruzzo.

Here.

Mark Hampton.

Here. And with that, we have eight commissioners tonight, and we have a quorum, so we're able to proceed. At this time, I'd ask the county attorney to please certify the agenda.

Good evening, Commissioners, Assistant County Attorney Ariel Dennis. There's one item on the agenda this evening. Sterling Ranch filing 6A, Second Amendment, Minor Development File SB2026-014, published August 20th, 2026, and posted August 29th, 2029. The agenda item was properly noticed and you have jurisdiction to hear it this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I'd ask if there's any disclosures or conflicts from the commissioners this evening. Seeing none. County attorney, I understand before we look to approve the meeting minutes from our prior meeting that there were some issues. Is there anything there you would like to elaborate on?

Yes, staff will review and correct the names for the votes and we will have it for next meeting for your approval.

Okay, commissioners, is there any issue with the review by the county? Nope, okay, thank you very much. Okay, our item tonight, Is land use hearing? Let's see if I got that one. Sterling Ranch filing number 6A, second amendment, minor development file SB2026-014. Brenton Thomas is the planning commissioner for the county. Brent, thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Brett Thomas representing community development. The application is Sterling Ranch filing 6A, second amendment, project number SB2026014. Sterling Ranch LLC is the owner, and SVAG Property Group is the applicant representative. The applicant requests approval of a minor development final plot for one non-residential lot and one super block lot for future development on 3.12 acres within the Sterling Ranch PD. The 1.25 acre non-residential lot is proposed to accommodate a daycare center. The intent of the minor development process is to provide a streamlined review process for non-residential and multifamily subdivisions. The minor development process begins with submittal of an application following a review period by referral agencies and the public. There are public hearings before the planning commission and board of county commissioners. Referral agency comments are outlined in the referral agency response report, as well as the referral response letters attached to the staff report. Adjacent landowners were mailed courtesy notices at the beginning of the referral period and no public correspondence was received. The Sterling Ranch PD, indicated by the red star, is generally located in the northwest portion of the county. Sterling Ranch PD is located in the Chatfield Urban Area as designated on the 2040 Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan. The site is located east of the intersection of Waterton Road and Eagle River Street. immediately south and east of the site are residential uses within filing 6A. To the north and west across Waterton Road are vacant superblock lots within filing 6A for future development, including residential and commercial uses. This is an aerial of the property. The application is a minor development for lots 229 and 230 of Sterling Ranch filing 6A. The lots were platted as superblocked lots with a note requiring additional subdivision approvals, including a determination of water supply adequacy and required transportation improvements prior to issuance of any building permit for occupiable structures within the lots. The minor development final plat also adjusts the common lot line and easements between lots 229 and 230 in order to accommodate a daycare center plan for proposed lot 229A. Water supply information has not been provided for proposed lot 230A. Therefore, lot 230A will require additional subdivision approvals prior to issuance of a building permit for occupiable structures. That's the property to the east. There are approval standards applicable to a minor development final plat, which are discussed in detail in the staff report. In addition, the water repeal approval standards apply to this application. A detailed assessment of the project's compliance with all standards is included in the staff report. Should the Planning Commission find that the approval standards for the minor development final plot are met, the following proposed conditions should be considered for inclusion in the recommendation to the board. Condition number one, prior to recordation of the final plot, technical corrections to the final plot exhibit shall be made to the satisfaction of Douglas County. Section 2-604A.6 sets forth the parameters for the Planning Commission's decision on minor development request, as noted on this slide. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm available to take questions on the staff report this time. Otherwise, the applicant's available to further discuss the request.

Does the applicant have a presentation as well?

They do not.

Okay, thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions at this time of staff? Does the applicant wish to come up and say anything at this point? There is no presentation. No? Okay, thank you. At this point, we'll open this up for public comment. If you have any comments, please come forward. Come on to the podium, please. State your name when you get there and where you live. Yep.

My name is . I am the owner of the house at 9179 Snake River Street. I'm going to leave right there where they're going to put that development. Also, I represent 20 families and homeowners who live on Snake Street and surrounding area. I also got a petition with all the signatures. of the residents against that development. And first of all, We all bought our houses knowing that that strip gonna be developed, but we had every reason to expect that development would be planned in a way that respect the existing residential neighborhood and the people who already live there. First of all, Sterling Range didn't really inform us about what gonna be there, and the only sign of future development was a sign which was put like two weeks ago in front of my house saying what's going to be there. Before that, they didn't work with us. They didn't tell us what's going to be. They didn't inform us absolutely zero information. What we see now is simply too large, too intensive, and too intrusive for this small site and immediate residential surrounding. Actually, it's going to be 20... steps from the front of my house to the fence where they're going to put 50 cars. And this is ridiculous. I mean, it's going to be there all day long. And I can see it. And I look at the plan. There is only one tree and two lower landscaping, very tiny little one. So they didn't divide it from us. It's going to be immediate impact into our neighborhood. So, like I said, first, the site is too small for the facility of this size and intensity. The scale of the proposal to the Academy does not fit comfortably with this narrow area next to our homes. Secondary, the facility will be extremely close to the residential properties, like I said, and it will affect the quality of life for families who live close to the project. Third, we are concerned about the significant increase in traffic and vehicle activity, safety, noise, everything, and it will create a heavy traffic for Snake River Street. And finally, there are property value concern. We already had one house sold two weeks ago.

Sir, your time is up.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Here is a petition from the

If you could please give it to the people over there. Thank you.

Thank you for listening at Go Broncos.

Definitely. Is there any other public comment at this time? Then we will close public comment. Is there any questions of the commissioners for the applicant or staff at this point?

Yes. Yes, okay. Commissioner Kubli here. I do have a couple of questions and First one was there was the non-responsive agencies, including Dominion Water and Sanitation District itself, the entity that's actually slated to serve this lot, never responded to the referral, nor did the Shirley and Ranch Cab. Is that? Is that correct? And let me clarify where I'm getting to here. Given that they're operative service providers, can they confirm that their silence reflects no substantive issue rather than unresolved item that just didn't make it under the record?

Yeah, the staff report includes the water packet, which includes well-served letters and other documentation from the cab and Dominion. It is pretty standard on applications that they do not provide referral responses even though they are provided referrals.

Understood given that they are the record and the providers as well. So it's just a clarification on why there wasn't a specific referral letter portion in there. On lot 230A, it still is gonna need its own water adequacy and transportation determination before any building permits would be issued. What's the anticipated timeline and process for that follow-on application, if there is one at this point? And would it come back to this commission or proceed administratively?

We have not seen a conceptual plan or application for lot 230A, which is the eastern lot. So not certain what would be planned there or what the timing would be for that. When that site does develop, it would go through this same process of having to have water supply determination of adequacy, also transportation improvements. So those would go to the Planning Commission and the Board as a minor development. The subsequent site improvement plan would be administrative, so the Planning Commission would not see that.

Okay, good for the clarification. All right, on the buffering in the adjacent residence that just came up here, staff report defers building orientation, which isn't really provided, parking, and again, landscaping buffering, details to the concurrent SIP rather than resolving them here. for a commercial daycare adjacent to this existing family homes on Snake River Street. Can the applicant speak to what kind of buffering is planned, specifically details on traffic drop-off procedures, parking in the area? Is there going to be significant street parking, or do you have enough within the 1.25 acres to handle that? Mostly I'm talking about the pickup and drop-off times, and I'm always concerned about we've got, a lot of young children running around in a relatively small area in a relatively dense neighborhood. And I just wanted to clear to have a better understanding of before the SIP is finally administratively and without further commission review, is that going to be anything more that we would see or have any ability to review?

The site improvement plan is administrative, so it would not go before the planning commissioner board. I will defer to the applicant on if they want to answer the rest of the questions. Okay, thank you.

Please state your name, spell it for us, and where you live.

Sure. Tiffany Watson, good evening, commissioners. Tiffany Watson, Point Consulting, 6756 West Rowland Ave, Littleton, Colorado. And so in terms of the, spell my name.

Watson, I got it.

Thank you. In terms of the landscape, we actually went through the DRC with Sterling Ranch. And they required us to kind of get that buffer a little bit beefier. And so there are trees along there. There are some taller shrubs in between the parking lot and the single family homes. And so that has been looked at and reviewed and approved through the DRC at this point and also through the county. In terms of pick up and drop off, it's a daycare facility. So it's staggered. You're not going to have all the students coming at one time or leaving at one time. And so we have a significant amount of parking on site. There are 42 spaces on site for the pick up and drop off. And then we do also have a parking plan that is for the north side of Snake River Drive. And there potentially could be some parking along that street, only on the north side. And that would really be when there are activities and events. On a typical day-to-day, you're not going to probably have parking on the street.

Is there a limit as to how many children can access or be in this daycare at a time?

Yes, I believe it's 200 children.

Okay, that's a lot of children. Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for staff or the applicant?

I do. Commissioner Luperatus, I had a question for, I guess, staff on, so you mentioned the water supply report. On page 13 of the water supply report from Dominion, I believe it says that there are no uncommitted water supplies. But then we have in the report that 2,457 is available, or excuse me, the 1699.8 is available from Dominion. And so I just wanted to clarify that that water is available. It's page 100 of your staff report. yeah and i'm sorry my staff report timed out oh no worries the water supply report i think is 400 pages yeah yes um what were those numbers again so on the staff report document i have it's page 100 but on the water supply report within the staff report it's page 13 and it says at the end of the second paragraph after kind of talking about the water supply it says that dominion has no uncommitted water supplies

And I'm just sorry I'm going from what I have in the staff report available to me the So the currently available firm water essentially what they can supply is two thousand four hundred and fifty seven acre feet a year What they essentially have demand for is currently one thousand six hundred ninety nine acre feet per year Okay

It's just saying that they don't, it's saying none of their water is uncommitted. In other words, it sounds like all their water is spoken for is what that, but I don't know if I'm misreading that. It says currently Dominion has 2,457 AF per year of service commitments and names for Sterling Ranch, Sedalia, The Range, Louviers, Thunderbird, and then it says and no uncommitted water supplies. Sorry.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I have enough information to answer that right now for you.

Okay, thank you.

But they do have enough water. They do, okay. For this application.

All right, okay, thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners?

Lynn? Commissioner Bruzo, this question for the applicant. I was just wondering, you talked about the communications with the DRC and the county on this project, but you didn't mention with the residents, and that's just as important. I just wondered if you could comment on what type of communications you did with the residents, if any.

We did not send out notices to the residents right there. That was something that the DRC meetings and the CAB meetings are open, and they're announced. So if they could have came to that, if they so wanted to see what was going on or hear what was going on, there was not a neighborhood meeting requirement.

Okay, and I take it no requirement for publishing anything in the local newspaper either, is that correct?

We published in the local newspaper for the public hearings.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Any other questions at this time? Okay, I'll turn it to the commissioners for further discussion and comments on this item before we entertain a motion. Any other comments or discussion at this point, commissioners?

This is Commissioner McKesson. I appreciate the dialogue and the public's comment on things too. I understand that the Sterling Ranch Design Review Committee is that public service to represent the people of that community, and I understand that they've approved this along with the county reviews. I also find that, in my opinion, all of the approval standards are met relative to 2-603A, and I'll be voting in favor of this this evening.

Thank you, Commissioner McKesson. Any other comments at this time?

Yes.

Commissioner Kubli?

Commissioner Kubli here, along with Commissioner McKesson. This application is straightforward implementation of the entitlements this commission and the board has already granted when filing 6A was approved. It doesn't create any new density, rezone, or anything or ask us to revisit the PD. Staff's review, again, shows all 10 statuary standards are met, which I've actually documented them here, but they've got them up on the board, so I'll just say that I agree that all 10 of the criteria approval standards have been met, and that the water supply has independently been verified by the entities and the state and everybody in it, responding agencies either support or have no objection. Facilitating a daycare center inside an already approved residential filing is exactly well, the kind of efficient market responsive infill, this process should be made easy. And I'm prepared to support the recommendation tonight contingent upon the technical correction. Oh, there was a small correction on the plat, but we're not gonna mention that here. So I'll be in support of this motion before the Planning Commission tonight.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Seniors, there's no further discussion. I would entertain a motion at this time.

This is Commissioner McKesson. I make a motion to recommend approval of the Sterling Ranch filing 6A, second amendment, minor development, file SB2026-014, subject to the one condition recommended by staff.

Second.

Okay, with that, Can you please read?

Motion to recommend approval of the Sterling Ranch filing 6A, Second Amendment, minor development, file SB2026-014, subject to the one condition recommended by staff. Patrick Neville.

Yes.

Luke Niferatos.

Yes.

Ed Kubli.

Yes.

Mark Reier. Yes. Yes. Lana Bruzo.

Yes.

Mike McKesson. Yes. Mark Hampton.

Yes. And with that, it is unanimous. The motion passes. Seeing that we have no other items on our docket for this evening, our meeting is adjourned.