Monument Planning Commission, June 28 – Town Planning Commission recommends approval of Monument Ridge 1 and 2 despite community concerns

By Leslie Hanks

The June 28 Monument Planning Commission hearing on Monument Ridge 1 and 2 was standing room only, with many people forced to stand in the hallway and listen to the hearing over the internet on their phones.

Chairperson Martin Trujillo, Vice Chairperson Danny Ours and Commissioners Nicholson, Greg Collins, Sean Zernickow, and Ray Egley were in attendance. Alternates Joe Kneedler and Chad Smith were sworn in as regular members for the meeting. Commissioner Cathy Green was in attendance online as a non-voting member.

The proposed annexation and zoning proposal had previously been heard and tabled Nov. 22, 2022.

Planning staff reviewed and recommended the annexing and rezoning of Monument Ridge 1, 90.98 acres on the southwest corner of County Line Road and I-25. The assertion was made that the property is contiguous to Monument, as required by state statute. However, it was later discussed that it was a “flagpole zoning,” which involves annexing narrow parcels of land to reach another parcel under annexation consideration. Staff member Sheila Booth explained that the developer was asked to resubmit the proposal so that Monument could have control of the project rather than El Paso County. Apparently, the project would be phased in until the missing 16 acre-feet of water required at the proposed density is acquired.

The staff recommended annexation and Residential Attached (RA) zoning.

There was discussion of boarding house and multifamily use being removed as possible uses.

The staff noted there were no letters of support received but there were letters of opposition.

The staff then presented plans for Monument Ridge 2 at the southeast corner of County Line Road and I-25, which is a 71.01-acre parcel. Annexation was recommended with RA 358 patio homes/condos. They stated the contiguity requirement was met. Woodmoor Water and Sanitation (WWSD) would provide the water and there would be a metro district. Both proposals are within the town’s recently adopted Three Mile Plan.

The developer proposed creating roads, and there was discussion of upgrading Beacon Lite Road and creating a roundabout at Misty Acres and County Line Road.

The staff recommended approval.

The staff stated that public notice was given and that the proposal complies with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and meets Colorado Revised Statutes.

The developer’s representative, David Whitehead, explained that the Town of Monument invited him to re-apply. He explained that the roundabout was determined by a traffic study that included the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Douglas County and that the roundabout can’t encroach into Douglas County. CDOT supports the transportation proposal.

There were many public comments, including:

“Why did the applicant withdraw and re-apply? What initiated the re-application?”
“What is proposed to accommodate the children, which will be part of this huge proposal?”
“Why were the citizens of Woodmoor not interacted with on a proposal of this magnitude when they will be most directly impacted?”
“A proposal of this magnitude will obviously impact crime. Why isn’t there a transition between Large Lot Residential and Residential Attached proposal?” Isn’t this completely out of character with the current 2-acre lots adjacent?”
“What are the children going to do, since the proposal is isolated and there is nothing in the plan to address the need?”
“What are the names of those who asked this developer to re-apply?”
“What will the impact to the police budget be?”
“Is this part of the ‘affordable housing’ push by Governor Polis?”
“Never ceases to amaze that developers ignore the Comprehensive Plan and the voice of the citizens. I worked on the 2017 Comp Plan, and this proposal is not in compliance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan.”
“What about the wetlands in the area? How will the developer mitigate?”
“We don’t have enough water!”
“Do we want Jackson Creek-type densities on Monument Hill?”
“Why would we do a radical change from the current country feel?”
“The Monument grocery store isn’t adequate for this high-density proposal.”
“How can staff recommend going with this plan when it is short 16 acre-feet of water?” Denver, Dawson, and Arapahoe Sands aquifers are nearly dry.”
“You came back with basically the same proposal as last November; you can’t be surprised that we care about our community and that’s what you’re seeing.”
“The developer is not looking at this from the perspective of the people most affected.”
“The Planning Commission should approve annexation but deny the density.”

After the public comment period, Booth was asked to address the questions raised. She noted that Colorado Revised Statutes requires annexation and zoning be voted on simultaneously. She also explained that the school district was notified and was invited to submit comments. Booth stated that WWSD says they have enough water for the project. The question of adequate police coverage brought the reply that there are the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and local police, “and property tax will cover the costs.”

A question raised about a wetland on the property sparked a discussion about whether it is a “regulatory wetland” and whether there is a requirement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address.

The staff noted that public notification was done properly and that the school district can ask for land dedication or “fees in lieu” but that ultimately the district will decide. In response to the question about how property values will be impacted, the staff remarked that that question has no easy answer.

During the staff discussion about water concerns, it was explained that the west side of I-25 proposal will be served by Monument Water and Sanitation and asserted that concern about the water shortage doesn’t take into consideration “Water Wise” programs or low-flow toilets.

In a closing remark, the developer said that from an economic standpoint, any lower density would make it impossible to justify the necessary infrastructure.

Finally, the staff recommended that concerned citizens should be sure to attend the July Town Council meeting to express their concerns.

Votes on the proposals:

Commissioner Ours’ motion to approve annexation on proposal 1, minus boarding houses, manufactured housing, and multifamily, failed 4-3.

Non-voting Commissioner Green (a city planner for 30 years) voiced a concern about giving too much away. “This is the time to require more from the developer.”

Ours responded to the question of “How can staff recommend (the proposal)” with his opinion that staff does an excellent job. He’s “hoping we can work things out here to be able to give Town Council guidance.” He stated, “We’re interested in the community too,” and that “We’re trying to do the right thing.”

Ours also noted that, “The developer spends millions putting a proposal together and if we vote to deny, we might face a lawsuit.”

Green made additional comments about the disparity between the Comprehensive Plan and these proposals and raised concerns about putting this conceptual plan in an annexation agreement and then the developer would be free to do whatever it wants.

More discussion centered on whether Monument can work with the developer to create a proposal the community can live with, or whether the developer might go back to El Paso County to get what it wants and will likely be granted permission for.

Commissioner Egley raised concerns about the economic impact to Monument.

The developer responded with, “You won’t get sales tax or property tax if we go back to the county.” Egley continued, stating that he is uncomfortable that the flag-pole annexation will leave 1,200 people isolated with no connection to the town and no open space or yards for kids.

The Planning Commission voted to annex both parcels and change the density from RA (Residential Attached) to LLR (Large Lot Residential)—9,000-square-foot lots.

The votes all passed 6-1, with Commissioner Egley voting no on all motions.

The project is recommended to the Monument Town Council for approval.

See the Town Council article on page < 1 >.

**********

The next meeting will be at 6 p.m. Aug. 9. See http://townofmonument.org or call 719-481-2954 for more information.

Leslie Hanks can be contacted at lesliehanks@ocn.me.

Votes on the proposals:

Other Monument Planning Commission articles