AWARD-WINNING, INTERACTIVE CHILDREN’S MUSIC

e county’s comprehensive master plan lays out a broad vision for how and where property development should occur. It’s a focal point of the lawsuit, which argues that the proposed development at e Pinery fails to provide a “compelling public bene t” as required by the plan.

Before the proposal reached the county’s elected leaders in January, it rst faced votes from the county Planning Commission, a body of citizens who are appointed to provide recommendations on property development decisions.

e planning commission in e lawsuit complaint asked the Douglas County District Court to reverse the county commissioners’ decision that approved the rezoning. e complaint argues that the county’s zoning rules required the county commissioners to assess “whether there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood, since the land was last zoned.”

(Comprehensive plans and landuse standards can sometimes be di cult to pin down: e county comprehensive plan’s introductory section, the section on urban areas and the glossary all do not appear to include a de nition of the term

“character.” The county zoning rules section that lists definitions also does not define “character.”)

The lawsuit zeroed in on the type of homes in the area.

The Pinery’s “character is defined as comprised … of low-density, single-family homes. There is no other multi-family or high-density housing within The Pinery SUA. The Development would stand in stark contrast to the character of The Pinery SUA in violation” of county zoning rules, the lawsuit complaint says.

A letter to the county from The Pinery Homeowners’ Association says: “The multi-family housing existing within The Pinery, consist of 88 privately owned town homes. The remaining 3,000 plus dwelling units throughout The Pinery SUA are single family units and compatible with the character of the original Pinery.”

County staff wrote that the character of the neighborhood has changed since the property in question was last zoned in 1955.

“The Pinery Planned Development, generally north and south of the site and directly across SH 83 to the east … was zoned in 1972.

The Pinery PD allows for commercial, office, residential, and open space uses,” a Dec. 29 county staff report says. “The Stone Creek Ranch PD to the immediate south was approved by the County in 2014 for 329 single-family residential units, most of which have been constructed.”

A couple of emails to the county from nearby residents noted that no commercial areas sit in the immediate area.

‘Unquestionable impact’

Though an RTD park-and-ride bus stop sits at Highway 83 and North Pinery Parkway — about a half mile from the proposed development — adding so many housing units is sure to increase traffic to some degree in the area. The development would sit along the edge of The Pinery.

It is anticipated that the developer will be responsible for a “fair share contribution” to road improvements, county staff wrote. The development has committed to contributing to changes, including:

• A “pro-rata” share of the required traffic signal improvements to the intersection of Scott Avenue and state Highway 83, and 50% of the traffic signal cost for the intersection of Pinery Center Boulevard and Scott Avenue to be secured by the county via an improvements agreement.

• Design and construction of the full width extension of Pinery Center Boulevard to Scott Avenue.

As far as height of the apartment complex, a letter from the developer’s team to county staff says: “Because the property is located below the elevation of (state Highway 83) and surrounding properties, multistory structures developed on the property will be no higher or more visible than surrounding singlefamily developments.”

The lawsuit alleges that the de - veloper’s representatives stated the buildings would be only three stories high yet requested buildings be built 45 feet tall, which would amount to a four-story building, the lawsuit says.

“As proposed, the development has only a 1,000-foot setback from the Stone Creek Ranch neighborhood and will unquestionably impact the value of the neighborhood and the views of the residents of the neighborhood,” the lawsuit complaint says.

‘The county’s needs’

The proposal documents label the apartment complex as “workforce housing units,” a term that can vary depending on who is using it.

Given the location in Douglas County, it’s unclear whether the apartments would be considered cheap relative to the Denver metro-area market as a whole.

Units would only be available to individuals and families making no greater than 60% of the area’s median income, as that figure is calculated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to a Sept. 16 letter from the developer’s team to county staff.

As of April 2022, local households making no greater than 60% of the AMI, and thus eligible for a unit, typically earn between $40,000 to $80,000 per year, the letter says.

“Households with incomes in this range may include employees of Douglas County government, Douglas County School District, local businesses, including The

Shops at Castle Rock and other local retailers and restaurants, and critical services, including the Parker Adventist Hospital system and other emergency and essential service organizations,” the letter says.

The letter adds: “Understanding the county’s acute need for workforce housing, Ulysses intends to institute a marketing strategy and leasing preference plan offering leasing priority to current employees of Douglas County government and businesses, existing County residents, and veterans, in order to directly serve the County’s needs.”

The lawsuit complaint, referring to apartments in Parker, Castle Rock and Castle Pines, claimed that “many (are available) at the same or lower rental rates as those proposed by Ulysses for the Development.”

A leader at Parker Adventist Hospital wrote in support of the proposal, noting that “housing continues to be one of the top issues for our associates.”

“The care we provide our communities is incumbent upon our ability to attract and retain our workforce,” Michael Goebel, CEO of Parker Adventist Hospital, wrote in a letter. “Thus, ensuring there are attainable housing options in the area is paramount and we feel this project will be a step in the right direction.”

The land for the proposed development sits in an unincorporated area, meaning it’s not within a city or town. Douglas County government generally oversees property development rules for unincorporated areas.