Commission delays Fields development plan

Douglas County subdivision would be near Elbert border

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 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 singlefamily 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

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 2022.

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.

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

e size of the smaller home lots has been a major sticking point for the residents in the area, who object to the density.

“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.” use standards can sometimes be di cult to pin down: e county comprehensive plan’s introductory section, the section on urban areas, the section on nonurban areas and the glossary all do not appear to include a de nition of the term “character.” e county zoning rules section that lists de nitions also does not de ne “character.”

Teal, another commissioner, also felt the density went too far.

Jill Repella, with the development team, eventually said the proposal could be changed to increase the home lot sizes “a bit.” e development team is “making the commitment that we can increase half the lot sizes,” said Repella, who is a former Douglas County commissioner. omas praised the proposal’s planning as it relates to water resources.

Laydon said he appreciated the concession.

Repella said some nearby residents want the proposed lot size to expand to 1- to 1 1/2-acre lots.

“We’re not going to get to that, but we’re going to” work on a change, she said.

“What it appears to me is that this developer has chosen to ( gure out) how many homes they can put on this parcel (and) cluster them together so they can get a central water and wastewater system, which is gold,” omas said, adding that it “gives the neighborhood a better opportunity to maintain those wells that Ms. Repella talked about.”

Avoiding having new homes “sucking wells out of the aquifer” is a part of the plan that “saves your wells,” omas said.

“I thought that is the genius in this,” she said.