Douglas planners clear way for homes south of Chatfield

April M. Washington

Monday, April 21, 2008

A hard-fought battle over a proposal to designate thousands of acres of rural land south of Chatfield Reservoir for urban development roared to an end Monday, with landowners winning the first of several battles sure to come.

The Douglas County Planning Commission voted 7-2 to update the county's 2030 Master Comprehensive Plan, clearing the way for future residential and retail development in the rural, scenic Chatfield Valley basin.

"There will be a series of long drawn events before one shovel is turned," said Commissioner Marvin Taxar. "But we have an opportunity to do something special with this area."

The move could add more than 11,000 homes to fast-growing Douglas County, which has a population of 280,000.

The planning board's vote caps off three weeks of heated debate that drew a standing-room- only crowd Monday of 300 to 400 people.

Homeowners and developers have squared off over a proposal by 18 landowners to designate 5,150 acres of land suitable for urban development.

Opponents argued Monday that clearing the way for high density development puts at risk the natural environment of Chatfield Valley and the rural lifestyle many now enjoy.

"I see people jumping in and creating a situation that is not good," said Commissioner Steve Wilson. "If there is part of the county that shouldn't be developed, this is one of them.

Taxar argued that the new urban designation won't necessarily lead to high-density development. The master plan puts a number of restraints on developers, including a requirement that they preserve open space and a sustainable source of water.

A majority of the land is owned by Sterling Ranch LLC.

Taxar and others contend the change to the master plan makes it possible to bring needed infrastructure to the area, including roads, schools and water to neighboring subdivisions where wells are in danger of running dry.

"There is no way we will increase water, road and schools and other needed services without a cost," said Roger Partridge, chairman of the planning board.

Harold Smethills, managing director of Sterling Ranch, estimates that it could cost $220 million to construct a water-treatment facility to serve the Chatfield Valley.

Commissioner Charlotte Mirabella, who voted against the plan, contends the proposed development comes at too high a cost.

"We're putting at risk a large area that is going to change drastically from what it is today," she said. "We'll lose the opportunity to preserve a lot of natural land here."

washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com

• April 22, 2008

  10:31 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  trepidation writes:

  How can I be excited about this? More homes, suburban sprawl, increased neighborhoods dependent on the automobile, loss of natural/open space area, increased urbanized runoff feeding into Denver's main water supply/reservoir (Chatfield), and lack of density in the development (as mentioned in the article).

  Are there options to short the stock of this development? Sign me up. There may be initial value, but what happens when gas hits $6/gal. Are we as a society ever going to learn from our mistakes? What about the fact that Highland's Ranch aquifer dependent water supply is limited and likely to be inadequate in 40 years? Will this development use river water, or tap into the already threatened groundwater?

  Seriously, how many more neighborhoods do we need to build before we realize that proximity, density and mixed-use are actually good things? Sterling Ranch, LLC, please hire a good planning firm to design mixed-use into your site plans...seriously, I know the big box crap pays for services thru metro districts and TIF, but integrated-neighborhood retail is really what this world needs.

• April 30, 2008

  9:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Chatfield writes:

  I will list my concerns.
  1.) There is clear evidence that the Kezziah Watkins study was skewed.
  2.) Residents were left out of the loop when it came to information that would affect our life style.
  3.) The information given concerning the percentage for urbanization is wrong.
  4.) There are well over 800 + residents, not including the Officials from Chatfield State Park who have sent letters of documented information that was not only ignored, but ridiculed by Commissioners Taxar and Price.
  I am truly dumfounded how any rational person who is acting in good faith and the best interests of the community could, armed with this information, conclude that he had the power and moral authority to make this decision. In fact , I am appalled that the clear evidence regarding the lack of community support or trust in this 2030 CMP was flagrantly ignored. Moreover, public statements that the Planning Commissioners was relying on the allegedly "positive" results of the Kazziah Watkins surveys to make its decision can only now be seen for what it was--a ruse to support, the non resident land owners, its cram-down decision knowing the Elected Commissioners had no real power to stop this atrocity.
  I, am tired of this patronizing rebuff from Commissioner Taxar and Price. All I heard from this Board (excluding Commissioners Mirabella and Wilson) was continued defensive posturing, minimization of issues, misdirection and an ever tightening grip on power that includes a clear abuse of their powers by targeting those who are the voice of dissent.
  Given that the 2030 CMP has clearly impacted the life style of several communities the short and long term impacts of this plan is simply audacious! This plan DOES NOT even meet with the "Values" as stated in the 2020 CMP.
  According to the State Land Use Commission office (Local Affairs) "unless there were special provisions made concerning the role of the Planning Commissioners, our County Commissioners have the authority to overturn anything the Planning Commissioners do"
  The 2030 CMP does not have the support of the vast majority of this community, and I recommend that the 2030 plan be disallowed until it can be ratified.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Mary Kay Mansfield For Public Record