Commission votes 2-1 to delay Fields development plan

BY ELLIS ARNOLD EARNOLD@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

A plan to turn a piece of longtime agricultural land near Parker into a residential neighborhood met resistance from two of Douglas County’s elected leaders.

“Based on what you’re proposing, it just does not seem to be congruent” with nearby neighborhoods, said County Commissioner Abe Laydon at an April 25 meeting.

e pushback comes on the heels of the Douglas County Planning Commission’s April 17 meeting, where more than a dozen other speakers criticized the proposal in front of a crowd that applauded several other commenters. After hearing the feedback, the planning commission locked in a 3-3 tie vote, unable to send a recommendation to the county’s board of three commissioners — Laydon, Lora omas and George Teal — who ultimately make the nal call on development decisions in areas outside of municipalities.

At that earlier hearing, the plan was referred to as “high-density housing,” and residents in the rural area lamented what they said would be an encroachment on country living.

at meeting heard concerns about streetlights ruining the view of stars, a lack of quiet and the potential for more tra c — including congestion on Hilltop, which is a two-lane road in that area.

Many commenters at the April 25 meeting in front of the county commissioners spoke against the proposed development. e commissioners voted to postpone their decision on the proposal until May 23, hoping the developer would tweak the plan in that time.

‘Respect for property rights’ e proposed Fields development would sit on land along Hilltop Road, southeast of Parker and close to the Elbert County border. Flintwood Road runs along the proposed development’s eastern boundary, in an area where rural life is not far from suburban neighborhoods. e plan could place public park space, open space and 247 single-family homes on smaller lots on land otherwise dominated by eight home properties that are 35 or more acres in size, in keeping with the rural setting.

Sharon Wallden, a member of the family that has long owned the land, is pushing for the proposal.

“Our parents bought this land from our grandfather over 75 years ago. ey worked hard to pay for it and build a farming operation,” Wallden told the audience at the April 17 meeting.

But “farming as we know it is no longer an option,” Wallden said at the April 25 meeting. Water has “always been a concern” in an area that has seen many residential developments spring up over the years, Wallden has said.

Even though nearby development has a ected her family’s farming activity, she believes in the right of property owners to build on their land, she said.

“We did not object to the properties around us. We ask for the same respect for our property rights,” Wallden said.

Debating density

County o cials rezoned the property from agricultural to “estate residential” status in March ough the land is vast, most of the homes would be grouped close together in a neighborhood that would appear to have homes somewhat similar in property size to homes in e Pinery area — and similar to properties in some, but not all, other parts of the area. e size of the smaller home lots has been a major sticking point for the residents in the area, who object to the density.

Many properties in the immediate area, especially to the east, are larger than the closergrouped lots would be.

“We understand that development is going to happen in this area,” but residents are asking the commissioners to “decline the high density,” said Audra Labak, one of the residents who opposes the proposal.

Commissioner omas noted the density matches what the proposal is allowed to have under county rules.

Possible change

Laydon argued the density does not re ect the “outcomes and desires of the comprehensive master plan based upon the current location of adjacent communities and their current characteristics.” e county’s comprehensive master plan lays out a broad vision for how and where property development should occur. e concept of “character” also arose as a point of contention in the earlier meeting of the county Planning Commission.

Comprehensive plans and land-use standards can sometimes be di cult to pin down: e county comprehensive plan’s introductory sec-

SATURDAY, MAY 13TH 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM SATURDAY, MAY 13TH 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM