OCN

Volunteers reporting on community issues in Monument, Palmer Lake, and the surrounding Tri-Lakes area

OCN > 2308 > Monument Town Council, July 17 – Annexation of Monument Ridge fails

Monument Town Council, July 17 – Annexation of Monument Ridge fails

By Chris Jeub

One Monument Town Council meeting was held in July, but it was as long as two as heated exchanges among developers, councilmembers, and neighbors lasted late into the night. The debate surrounded two subdivisions known as Monument Ridge West and East, 161 acres at the southwest and southeast corners of I-25 and County Line Road. This was their final step in their application for annexation into the town of Monument. Though their application was previously approved by the Planning Commission (see article on page < 4 >) and supported by town staff, the Town Council overruled both and voted against annexation with a 2-5 vote. The developer withdrew its plans, and the future of Monument Ridge West and East now goes to El Paso County.

Background

Planning Director Shelia Booth presented the first resolution for annexation from El Paso County into Monument, known as Monument Ridge No. 1 West. The proposed annexation concerns a 90-acre area on the west side of I-25 south of County Line Road. While the town’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Mixed Use, the applicant seeks to rezone it to Residential. Town staff supports this change, as the current housing density alongside the dedicated open space in Douglas County north of County Line Road does not warrant multi-use zoning.

The annexation agreement includes provisions for residential attached units but prohibits higher densities and multi-family housing. Despite initially facing a close vote of 3-4 against the proposal in the Planning Commission, it passed with a 4-3 vote when certain conditions were set. The zoning proposal was later approved by the Planning Commission with a vote of 6-1, and town staff recommended approval, emphasizing that annexation would allow the town to oversee the development and ensure alignment with the community vision of Monument’s Comprehensive Plan.

Booth continued her presentation for the second resolution for annexation, known as Monument Ridge No. 2 East. This annexation was contingent upon the successful annexation of Monument Ridge No. 1 West. The proposed annexation area covers 71 acres and is intended for Residential zoning, accommodating about 383 dwelling units. Additionally, the annexation proposal includes plans for a business campus south of the residential area, featuring office, research and development, and educational facilities (excluding manufacturing). As with the first resolution, the applicant’s choice to propose residential zoning is due to the lack of sufficient resident numbers to support Mixed Use zoning. The Planning Commission approved the proposal with a 6-1 vote, and town staff recommended approval.

Developer presentation

Development Manager Ray O’Sullivan presented the applicant’s case for annexation. O’Sullivan began by explaining that the property owner was encouraged by the county to develop with Monument due to water availability. Initially the applicant considered simply paying for water service, but they were asked to explore annexation as an alternative. Working with the previous town staff, they devised a development plan that aligned with the town’s preferences. However, when they presented this plan to the Planning Commission, they encountered significant community opposition, which left them “feeling unwelcome.” O’Sullivan emphasized that the property was already zoned for their proposed development in the county, but their goal was to create a more pleasant community that residents would desire, rather than an eyesore. They were seeking RA zoning, but the commission recommended 2.5-acre lots, a suggestion O’Sullivan found unprecedented in his career. He expressed concern that without annexation, they would be left with no choice but to develop under county regulations.

Following O’Sullivan’s presentation, project consultant David Whitehead of Whitehead Engineering delved into the technical aspects of the proposal. He highlighted the collaborative work they had undertaken with the town staff. However, Councilmember Steve King raised a significant concern about Slide 26 of the presentation, which indicated $5.4 million in infrastructure fees. King doubted the ability for this to happen with unknowns surrounding future water developments (like the Loop system) still under review. Councilmember Marco Fiorito disagreed, viewing the $5.4 million as a potential benefit, as it would provide the town with an influx of funds to purchase renewable water. He argued that even without annexation, the town would still need renewable water and that this presented a potential windfall. King remained cautious, emphasizing the uncertainty around the possibility of acquiring the necessary pipes to bring water into Monument. Fiorito stressed that without the funds from annexation, the town’s water plans would remain stagnant.

King also expressed concern about the trees on the property and questioned the possibility of using or relocating them. In response, Whitehead explained that some trees needed to be removed for the health and safety of the community, a decision supported by the Fire Department. Whitehead presented slides detailing the trees, trails, and open spaces planned for the development, but King still had reservations about the number of trees and how the “majority of trees” would be determined.

King then questioned why the proposed densities in the development were higher than those allowed by the county, to which Booth responded that it didn’t make economic sense to keep them lower. King suggested that the property might undergo a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process if annexation didn’t happen, which could be a better option. He stated that, while it might not be what the applicant wanted to hear, he believed that the proposal was not in the best interests of the town.

Councilmember Kenneth Kimple and Mayor Mitch LaKind both inquired about the possibility of reducing the number of dwellings, but Whitehead stated that they were not willing to do so at the moment. Whitehead emphasized their commitment to open spaces and mentioned that the plan included funding for the town’s parks. “I don’t want your money,” LaKind snapped, adding that he preferred to see parks included in the development rather than receiving money for them.

Throughout the exchange, King reiterated his primary concern about the trees on the property, indicating that it was a crucial issue for him. The discussion highlighted various points of contention, including the proposed densities, park inclusion, and the fate of the existing trees on the property.

Community input mixed

Several individuals expressed their opposition to the proposed development during the meeting. The owner of Colorado Heights Camping Resort, which neighbors the proposed development, worried about the potential closure of Monument Hill Road and the impact on his business, expressing fears of RVs navigating through the new neighborhood. Michael Barber, an architect and neighbor, criticized the insensitivity of the plans toward the existing trees and views and recommended against approval. Other opponents cited issues with the proposed housing density overwhelming the current infrastructure, difficulties in transplanting trees as the developer suggested, and apprehensions about crime associated with multi-family housing.

On the other hand, some individuals spoke in favor of the proposed development. Theresa Sidebotham, the owner of Telios Law also neighboring the development, highlighted the importance of annexation to maintain tax revenues for the town and advocated for the proposal’s low-density approach. Another property owner adjacent to the site praised the proposal for preserving a gateway to Monument and endorsed apartments in the area as recommended by developers. Chris Fox, a resident in the vicinity, expressed preference for having a say in the development through annexation rather than leaving it to the county, indicating support for town oversight. Other supporters emphasized the developer’s responsiveness to community concerns, the potential benefits of more apartments for housing affordability, and the belief that the town should move forward with the development to maintain some control over the process.

Whitehead assured the council that Monument Hill Road would not be eliminated by their development and that sound barriers would be installed along the highway to mitigate noise impact. Whitehead defended the annexation as not unusual and stated that plans were in place for constructing sanitary sewer systems, backed by a letter of approval from the district for water supply. Whitehead did not directly address concerns toward views or the apprehensions about high-density housing and potential impacts on neighboring properties. Instead, he emphasized that the presented zoning was preliminary, acknowledging that much work remained ahead in the development process, and clarified that the project did not include any apartments, which had been a point of contention raised by some citizens.

Proposal fails and applicant withdraws

Following the citizens’ comments and the developer’s response, the debate among the council members centered on several key issues. King expressed his belief that the property should be handled as a PUD and criticized the proposed RA zoning, emphasizing concerns about clear-cutting and the lack of tree preservation. Councilmembers Jim Romanello and Fiorito supported keeping the development within Monument, expressing distrust in the county’s handling of the project and the need to find a compromise. LaKind voiced his major concern about the density, hoping for a resolution through compromise. Councilmember Laura Kronick asked if an agreement could be reached, leading to a recess for private discussions. However, no compromise was achieved.

The council then voted on two resolutions related to the annexation. Resolution No. 51-2023, which outlined findings of fact regarding the proposed annexation, passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote. However, Resolution No. 52-2023, which would have approved the annexation agreement with the developer, failed with a vote of 2-5 against. Councilmembers King, Kimple, Kronick, Sana Abbott, and Mayor LaKind voted against, while Romanello and Fiorito voted in favor. LaKind wished the developers luck with the county, and King warned citizens that the proposal would now be subject to county jurisdiction.

**********

The Monument Council usually meets at 6:30 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of each month at Monument Town Hall, 645 Beacon Lite Road. The next two regular meetings are scheduled for Monday, Aug. 7 and Monday, Aug. 21. Call 719-884-8014 or see www.townofmonument.org for information. To see upcoming agendas and complete board packets or to download audio recordings of past meetings, see http://monumenttownco.minutesondemand.com and click on Town Council.

Chris Jeub can be reached at chrisjeub@ocn.me.

Other Monument Town Council articles