Residents sue county to halt apartments near Parker

Developer proposes workforce housing

BY ELLIS ARNOLD EARNOLD@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

e ongoing battle in the Denver suburbs against new apartment complexes has reached the Parker area again, but this time, residents took the ght to court.

More than 100 area residents led a lawsuit against Douglas County’s elected leaders for allowing a development to move forward that would put about 200 housing units just south of the Town of Parker near state Highway 83.

Residents of e Pinery, an area that sits between Parker and Castle Rock’s northeast edge, brought the lawsuit, arguing the proposed development does not meet the county’s approval requirements and that it is “incompatible with the existing character” of the area. ey also cited concerns of increased tra c.

e Pinery, a relatively remote set of neighborhoods along a major state highway, consists of low-density, single-family homes, according to the lawsuit complaint. (“Density” is a term for how many people or housing units occupy an area.)

“Plainti s will experience actual, immediate, and irreparable harm from (the county’s) approval of the development,” the lawsuit complaint says.

e proposal highlights friction between the desires of suburban homeowners and the business community, whose need for workers can lead to support for new housing.

“Many of the major employers in Parker are struggling with person- nel due to the low inventory of workforce housing options in the town,” T.J. Sullivan, president of the Parker Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a letter to county sta in support of the development. e Douglas County commissioners voted 2-1 on Jan. 10 to allow the development to move forward. e lawsuit, led in February, asked a court to reverse the county’s decision and stop the development.

“( ousands of) individuals commute to Parker each day from outside the town — especially from the south Aurora area where there are more options,” Sullivan wrote.

‘Urban area’

Part of the county’s process for approving a development in the area south of Parker centers on e Pinery’s status as a “separated urban area,” a label that goes back decades. It relates to zoning, a local government’s rules for what can be built where.

Douglas County’s 1986 Master Plan recognized previously zoned, isolated, urban developments called separated urban areas. ose areas include Roxborough, Castle Pines Village and e Pinery.

“ ese developments … were previously zoned for urban development as early as the 1970s,” Douglas County’s newer comprehensive master plan says.

March last year voted in favor of including the site of the proposed development into e Pinery Separated Urban Area’s boundaries, a move that paved the way for the proposal to move forward. ( e land was previously located in what the county considered a non-urban e county’s comprehensive master plan states that expansion of a separated urban area — as the planning commission voted to OK — is only supported if a “compelling public bene t is provided that outweighs potential impacts,” according to a county sta report. e lawsuit complaint argues that the comprehensive plan “de nes a ‘compelling public bene t’ as including ‘supporting the scal health of special (government) districts and lowering overall indebtedness and tax rates for residents,’ as well as ‘enhancement of communityseparation bu ers or the elimination of inappropriate zoning.’ ”

But county sta described the “ ere is not a set formula or list for determining a compelling public bene t,” county sta wrote in a January 2022 sta report. “It requires (a developer) to consider what would be a bene t in the area for the County.”

“In this case, the (developer) is offering workforce housing to provide an a ordable option for residents living and working in the area,” sta wrote.

Sta also wrote: “In sta ’s assessment, the proposal for workforce housing is supported by goals and policies of the” comprehensive plan.

After voting to include the site of the proposed development into e Pinery’s boundaries, the planning commission expressed disapproval of the housing proposal, voting against rezoning the land — another step in the development process — by an 8-0 vote on Dec. 19.

“Ulysses (the developer) purchased the property the following day for approximately $3.6 million,” the lawsuit complaint says.

Looking at character

County commissioners voted 2-1 to let the proposal move forward in January, with Commissioner Abe Laydon voting no.

County sta had noted that a “rezoning application for urban uses and density” on the land “could be supported” under the comprehensive plan’s policies.