All right, good evening. I call the March 5th, 2026 Special Planning Commission meeting to order at 5.31 p.m. Clerk Duffy, will you please call the roll? Chair Ains? Here. Chair Pro Tem Wiley? Here. Commissioner DeOrtone? Here. Here. Commissioner Green? Here. Commissioner Kent? Here. Commissioner McCabe? Here. And Commissioner Robles, absent and excused. Chair Raines, you have the form. All right. Thank you, Court Duffy. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for me. Moving on to the agenda, if there are no objections, commissioners, the agenda will be approved. Okay, hearing none, the agenda is approved as presented. Moving on to public comments. Next on our agenda is public comment. Public comment is designed for you to share your thoughts and opinions with the Planning Commission. This is a formal business meeting of the Planning Commission, and as such, we follow a standard protocol, which means public comment is not an interactive discussion. It is a one-way forum. If you would like to give general public comment and you are joining us electronically, please use the chat feature to write in your name and address. We ask that the chat feature only be used to sign up for public comment. If you are joining us in person, please sign up on the clipboard located at the back of the room. If you would like to give public comment regarding the Crow's Nest Plan Development zoning, it needs to be given during the public hearing, which will be continued. Due to its quasi-judicial nature, no public comment for Crow's Nest Plan Development zoning can be given outside of the hearing and is not permitted tonight. When the clerk recognizes you, Please start with your name and address for the record. Please note that there's a three minute time limit. If you have called into tonight's meeting, the clerk will recognize you based on the last four digits of your phone number. We will now pause to give individuals a chance to sign up. Clerk Duffy, has anyone signed up to give a public comment? We have no one signed up this evening. Thank you. Item number six on our agenda tonight is the plan commission action items. Item 6A on the agenda is the public hearing for the Crow's Nest plan development zoning. I will open the public hearing at 5.34 p.m. I move to continue the public hearing for the Crow's Nest Plan Development Zoning to the Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. Is there a second? Is there a second? I'll second. Clerk Duffy, we have a motion and a second. Would you please call the vote? Commissioner Kent. Yes. Commissioner McCabe. Yes. Commissioner De Marteau. Yes. Commissioner Green. Yes. Chair Rance. Yes. And as this item is quasi-judicial, our meeting, electronic meeting policy prohibits Commissioner Wiley from voting. but the motion passes. All right, thank you. Number seven tonight, planning commission discussion items. Our final item in tonight's special meeting is the study session, which is the continuation of three-mile plan update, which will be presented by the community development director, Donna Ferguson. Good evening, Chair Rantz and planning commissioners. We are continuing our study session on the three-mile plan. I wanted to let you know that I have added additional maps for your review and for some background information. The first set of maps that I'd like to talk about, Chair Rance, I gave you maps with equipment. Yes. Clipped information, just letting you know, you will find the land uses for Lone Tree, Barker, Castle Rock, as well as the land uses for the canyons. However, these land uses, I just want to give you the full land use maps, but these land uses have also been incorporated into a new map that looks like, like this colored map. That's a single colored map. Yes. So to the north, you'll see if the land uses, existing land uses for lone tree. Before this map didn't just show nothing there, like grayed out, but we wanted to make sure you had some backgrounds and context there. This map also shows on the east side of the City of Castle Pines the Town of Parker's land uses and on the south side the Town of Castle Rock's land uses. The land uses for these three municipalities are indicated on the legends that are on the right side of the page. For the properties that are not in a municipality and are within the Douglas County territory, those are also shown on this map too. And the legend for the Douglas County zoning is on the left side. So what this map is intended to do is to give you a full picture of what is happening within our three mile plan boundary. And again, to help conform the proposed land uses for this area, for the three mile plan area that we're working on. You know what, before I get started, does anybody have any questions about the homework that I did send out before we, okay. I don't know if I, what was it? Yes, so the packet of information that we provided last Thursday, and then the new packet of information, which was the draft plan. Okay. Okay, so this is a new map, and as I said before, this map just incorporates the land uses of Lone Tree, Parker, and Castle Rock, all comprehensively in one one map. And then I also gave you, just so you had a reference, a big, big map. This is a Douglas County zoning map. And this just gives you an idea of where the city is, as well as Lone Tree, Parker, and Castle Rock within the greater Douglas County, how we all connect and correlate. And then the last map that I gave you is the proposed land use map for the Three Mile Road. And this was in your packet last Thursday. But I thought it was important to kind of take a look at the two. So look at what the existing zoning is within the three-mile plan and look at the proposed zoning in the same area. So we talked last week, the three-mile plan proposes seven different sub-areas. And I have reviewed all of the seven areas, and I do want to point some things out to you for your review and your discussion. So if everybody can reference the three-mile plan. Dorothy, I could give you one, I believe. And Bobby, you should have one too. So first page of this three-mile plan is the proposed future land use map for this three-mile plan area. I do want to point out that there's a little piece of Castle Pines territory that is missing where Castle Pines Parkway meets Havana. So we'll be making just that little adjustment there to show that that piece is indeed in the city, in case anybody else noticed it. I know Sid will get that fixed. If we can flip to subarea one, that's on page eight. So subarea one does coincide with Lone Tree. So if you look at your map, that shows lone trees zoning. And what we're proposing for the land use. So right now the property is zoned A1 Douglas County. But our three mile plan proposes that should an annexation be presented, Appropriate land uses would be mixed use along Havana. A spot of open space. Another strip of mixed use. Followed by open space for the remainder of the sub area. And this is appropriate because you can see that the city of Lone Tree is has a PD up there, they're developing. It's just kind of sandwiched between the city of Lone Tree and the city of Castle Pines. And we're maintaining the dedicated open space, as you can see marked OS. I do have a question. Yes. Just on... clarity of the term. So in the sub-area one description, in many of the sub-area descriptions, we talk about areas of exclusion. What, for the purpose of the rest of this meeting, what are we including as the definition of areas of exclusion? Thank you for the question. So on page six, we do define areas of exclusion as well as areas of inclusion. Areas of exclusion consist of incorporated municipalities and other lands that are not eligible for annexation. So for instance, we would not propose to annex or zone any property that's in another jurisdiction like Lone Tree or Barker. Okay. Yeah, I think this is an important inclusion matter. I just want to make sure that I fully understood the intent of that theorem. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So all the yellow that's in the west of I-25 in that area one, the residential area right now is unincorporated? That is correct. And is there a reasoning behind that open space that's in between? Is that like a park or just currently some kind of... Open space? It is an open space with a conservation easement. Got it. So would that mean we wouldn't be able to annex that? Would it be an exclusion? So we would be able to annex it, but we could not change the zoning. Is that open space? I guess just a question about the three mile plan. Is there... reason we don't have like another I guess land use that would just be um open space that's further that's currently like designated us because it can't be developed correct and so this is meant to give you like a it certainly could be more refined open space zoning right but this is just meant to give you the global look and feel of appropriate land uses And then can you speak to the areas that's south of the intended mixed use that's in Castle Pines? Is that also currently mixed use in the Castle Pines zone? So along Havana? So no. So this piece in Area 1 is currently Douglas County Agriculture. When you go south and you... go into Castle Pines. Oh, into our territory? Yes. Okay, so we would be up against a grant excuse. Correct. Any other questions about some area? Yes. Can you walk me through the thought on the area that's remaining as open space on the north side of Hesse? versus having that be designated residential? So it is very topographically challenged, and it is an area that is not very well linked right now. And it didn't seem like it was appropriate to remain in space. And then you can see how the three-mile plan does go over all of the existing conditions for this. For each sub area, it describes the existing character, what the utility conditions are, who are any water or wastewater providers, as well as electrical. gas providers and also there's discussions about what type of network, transportation networks are in the sub area and all of these things have gone into informing the future values. Are there any more questions on sub area one or should I just pause for you guys to take a look? Okay. Well, let us move to subarea two and reference the existing zoning. You can see that there are portions in subarea two that are county. They're either in the county zoned agricultural. or they're in the county, for instance, on the east side of Pro Fit Valley Road that are zoned Residential PD, right? For this sub area, we are proposing primarily residential in most of the area other than the area along Crowfoot Valley Road on the northern piece. You'll see that's indicated as blue as an area for mixed use, land uses opportunities there. You'll also see a big green area. That is the current McCanter Regional Park. No land use changes are proposed for that area. You will also see land use changes proposed on the southern end, and this I would like your feedback on. So at the very tip where Crowfoot Valley Road intersects with the... city boundary, there's like a triangle piece of commercial area. And then across the street, an area of mixed use. I think the idea was that this was an intersection that could handle these types of uses. And part of that thought process was it was being next to the canyons plan development. and the can-use plan development at the tip. And you'll see in that, that's a small map that Chair Rantz has, has a commercial area, a red commercial area in it. So the thought was that it could be a conglomeration of a kind of a commercial district, but this may or may not be appropriate. And so I want to ask your thoughts about it. Just a quick question. Yes. to be designated commercial when it almost excludes mixed use, right? Correct. So what's the incentive for being more limiting at this point? If we were to designate it mixed use, does that prevent it from being commercial? No. So what's the benefit to us of the city of being more limiting at this point? I guess it would be clear direction that we would want commercial there and nothing else. That's what I'm going to do. A designation of mixed use would be more open-ended and allow more different uses. Is there something specifically there that we would really only want it to be commercial? No. Right now it's just residential. But the canyons PD, that... adjoining property is purely commercial. Yes. There's that square of commercial. So it's really more about do we want a continuous merchant district or the flexibility that you're talking about? I mean, I agree that it should be commercial. I feel like there's a lot of residential. Oh, sorry. I'm okay with that staying commercial. I think there's a lot of residential in surrounding areas, and we need pockets of those to support the residential. And there really isn't a whole lot of pockets that's being identified, especially with the amount of residential that's being zoned in. that you're putting in this area too. Because with mixed use, you provide it as residential as well. And I would say most developers, if they could probably be in residential, they probably would. So I'm okay with that staying commercial designation. further discussion well i think i'm with commissioner kane on that i think just the potentiality for a little bit more of a continuous commercial makes a little more sense i'm fully understanding what commissioner green is saying there i just say knowing that the king has already defined his commercial that makes it make a lot more sense that it's the one that goes the area. So I think that makes it bigger. That commercial's identified already. You can get in that. Yeah. Long-term, it lends itself to be a little bit more of a cohesive, larger opportunity that would attract a developer. Okay. Shall we move on? Okay. All right, let's take a look at sub area three. So located south of the canyons and east of Interstate 25. Currently in this area, it is Douglas County and it is zoned as residential and agricultural. Typically what we see in this area are large lot residential or residential on agricultural land and a little bit of agricultural activity happening in this area. So for instance, there's a horse farm in here. We are proposing a commercial area at the on the east side of I-25 where it intersects with Happy Canyon Road. And this is because we are currently planning an intersection improvement here. So it will really open up this area. It will continue to connect west, and it will open up a connection east into the canyons. This, while it's residential now, this would be an area that commercial opportunity could happen. And therefore, the red area, the commercial, is proposed for that nook and everything else is proposed as residential. Donna, can I speak up here? Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Okay. So I get the logic on the commercial kind of portion here. There's certainly going to be commercial likely on the other side of I-25. From our community and previous... Outreach from that area, I would say that's not consistent with the direction of where I think the community should be. I personally believe that it should also be residential and not have a corner for commercial in that specific corner. We've got it on the other side of I-25. We'll have it on the north side and potentially all three sides. But I would propose not to have it. in this area in that upper corner. Thanks, Commissioner Riley. We'll take a pause to consider that. Donna, what is the portion just to the east of that that's part of Castle Pines right now where it notches down? Yes, that's part of Castle Pines. What is that zoned? It is zoned community benefit zone. What is that? So this is a zone district that permits a variety of community uses, ranging from a sheriff's substation to a major employer. to a high-end recreation facility, almost any development that would like to come to the city and demonstrate, hey, this is going to be great community benefit for you. It's very wide open. What about directly north of that commercial little portion, just north on Happy Camp? That continues to be community benefits. That's all. Yes. I mean, I understand where Commissioner Riley is coming from, but I also, I think what you guys did here doesn't make sense because it's a corner at the intersection of the highway exit. Right now, looking at Google Maps, it looks like there's one or two homes that probably own, it's a larger lot, right? So from a development standpoint, I don't think it's the highest and best use of that lot in particular as residential, maybe mixed use, right, if you want to continue the residential to that corner. But I think what will likely happen is probably, you know, it makes more sense being a highway exit, especially with what you said with the other areas just adjacent to the north and specifically to the east being possible community benefit areas that are all going to be non-residential. I'd be open if we want to make it maybe mixed use so that it kind of continues the residential and eases into, but I'm okay with it being commercial, personally. I agree. I think that likely if the use is going to change or if there is any annexation into our city, it would likely be a business unit versus the estate. I would be interested in developing it. One other question I did have, Donna, is you mentioned that some of that existing agriculture currently has horse ranch or barn. Obviously, residential does not allow for that, right? I mean, I know, like, my property that backs to Surry Ridge, they have – they allow – horse barns on their property. So I don't know if that's a sub-zone of residential that we may look at for those almost existing, or is it just more of a ranch that you think someone will develop? So to the properties to the east in the sub-area? Yeah, that's currently zoned A1, right? Yes, single-family homes and agricultural activities such as that horse barn. So at this point, we are just proposing residential. It is just kind of like a little pocket of ag, you know, right now. It's not existing homes with barns that have horses. Right. Like I have a barn with donkeys that my yard bats do, you know. So, I mean, it's kind of cool. Certainly there could, like, you could have a residential zone district that permits barns or certain animals, less intense, like maybe not 20 horses. Right. I just wanted to, yeah, if it was already existing, I just wanted to make sure that we're being mindful of that. But if it's not and it seems like it's just maybe one branch, then that's fine. Thank you. You're welcome. Just another question. For the park that is already within the Castle Pines area, how is that zone? The little notch that you see? Well, just above the intersection there. Are we continuing a commercial district by this recommendation? So, no. So, to the north and to the east. So, it is a community benefit zone. Thank you. It should bring out more of those, I'm sorry. So on the west side of the highway, it's mixed use, right? Commercial, right. I think here it's, are you reading it right? Yes, it's mixed use on the northwest side. Yeah, so directly north of it, it's mixed use. And then to the east of the highway, it's community benefit. Yes. Okay. So it would be... a little bit different that we would be going north to south. It's mixed use going into the commercial district and literally it's just crossing a street. So the question is, should we make north of that street also be commercial to have, to actually really define that area as this is gonna be a commercial area? Because currently it looks like if you're north of the road, you're mixed use, then if you're south of the road, you'd be commercial. Okay, so I want to make sure I understand the location. I know, but I was saying, like, if this area, right? So north of that, you go across the road, it becomes commercial. Oh, correct, yeah. Yep, that's what you're saying. I think the argument would be, if it's mixed use on one side of the road, why isn't mixed use on the other side of the road? I think that we were talking about this little area, though. Yes. I was asking you about this area. Like directly above here, this seems to be the most attached space. Why would you call that commercial? But just across the street, it's mixed use. It is. And it's in the city limits already and zoned already mixed use, which could go commercial or residential. So the question is, are you thinking it should be mixed used? I don't have a strong opinion of one way or the other. Do we want a house there? Yeah. I mean, is it a, I guess. That would be, my personal opinion would be no. But again, I'm usually trying to think about what's the framework that we're making this decision in. Gotcha. And then let's figure out that framework. And then if it fits the framework as being commercial, then it's an easy decision. Gotcha. Right. So I'm less worried about that specific space. I'm more specific about how are we going to make that decision? And does it fit that criteria? My gut feeling is it feels... makes a whole lot of sense to be commercial, but I want to, for me, I'd love to understand what is the criteria that we're making that choice on, because then I can apply that to every time we have that discussion again. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And so really the, it is that it is an intersection or is that a major interchange? I-25 and one of two of the crossings that we have over I-25. And you will also see that subarea four is proposed as commercial on that west side, still again, south of Happy Canyon. So the idea is that that is, a lot of commercial businesses want to go in those very easily accessible, visible areas. I have a quick question. And just maybe, go off of what Glenn was getting at as well from like a continuity perspective, looking at north of that commercial zoning, is there a process to look at rezoning those other areas from a continuity perspective? Or is that, I know we're talking about the three mile plan and surrounding, but from what has already been zoned on, I guess what's already incorporated. So there definitely is an opportunity to, think out into the future and think, well, you know what, mixed use, like for instance, in that corner that Commissioner Green is talking about is mixed use, but there is room to say, maybe that was right 10 years ago, but maybe that's not going to be, if it hasn't developed, maybe it's not correct 20 years ahead of us. So like there is opportunity to say, hey, this area is zoned this way, It's been undeveloped for 25 years. Is this the wrong zoning? Let's think about what it should be. So there is opportunity for that. Did I answer your question? It does. Okay. And then what is that opportunity? So that opportunity would first start with updating your future land use map. Have a reason for the land uses that you would be proposing. typically a developer would come in and scope out that area and be like, ooh, I want to put only commercial there. Well, he could because it's mixed use. Or at any time, a developer would come in, maybe want to make a change to the zoning, look at the three-mile plan, say, oh, I'm in line with the three-mile plan. They were thinking ahead. They would move forward with the zoning. This plan would support their zoning and so on so that they could change the zoning and develop as they wished. But this doesn't change zoning. This just kind of gives you an idea of we're looking at our land uses. We're looking in the future. Are these land uses still appropriate for our time and for the place? I think the commercial makes a lot of sense. there is the opportunity at some point for the city to annex these areas and have future growth, then they're going to need amenities like a gas station or whatever that looks like that will provide that growth center. And so I think it makes sense along the highway to have that location designated. Dawn, I have a quick question. Yes. property we are discussing in that north corner, is it vacant or are there current homes on those plots of land? Commissioner Wiley, I just want to make sure we're talking about the same location. Are we talking about the piece on the east side of I-25 or on the west and north? On the east right above where it says North Strawberry Lane. So that commercial section, is that broken? Because it looks like it's divided out right now that there's either lots of land or there are homes on those currently. Is it currently residential? Yes. Yes to both. Are there there's homes on there? So, yes. So we're an indicated future commercial. There's a home. It's it's overlapping two lots. And on each lot, there is a home. OK. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. I know just to provide a little history, I don't know how many years ago, but we did kind of have a discussion on that north inside on on zoning. above that commercial square. And so I, I at least just wanted to communicate what that history was. And, um, you know, the, the developers, um, definitely being able to have their, um, you know, a great area on I-25, um, and happy Canyon, um, for the opportunity for, for development there. Um, there also was a lot of, residential, the existing homes to the south of there who spoke up and were very vocal about just that entryway to their neighborhood. So we obviously had not talked about this specific section, the commercial section we had talked about outside of this map to the north of Happy Canyon, but just wanted to share that additional, I guess, background and history of that meeting. That was it. Thank you, Commissioner Wiley. And I can also add to some of that background. So the Happy Canyon neighborhood is the neighborhood that's directly south of the red area that you see. And they are a very local community. They are located in Douglas County. They haven't really liked any of the development occurring in the canyons. So we are very cognizant of them, and we would, of course, want to be good neighbors. But keep in mind that this very well may be bought up, these two homes, as There's developments occurring around them. And if it does, what would be a good land use for this area? Is it residential? Is it commercial? Is it mixed use? Is it community benefit? Maybe you just pull it down. I just wanted to comment. I mean, as the development continues, that road is going to turn into a major thoroughfare. whether you like it or not. So whether the two property owners want to remain a resident there, if they do, we're talking about 200, looks approximately like 200 feet of space between the off-ramp and that first home. I mean, I don't see, I have a hard time seeing that ever be desirable residential. And to be frank, you know, this is going to turn into a four-lane road somewhere in the next 40 years. So I have a hard time believing that those two residential properties are going to want to stay there for long. And they may actually be the ones that would want the sales commercial to get out of that space. Because like I said, you're not going to stop that development coming off that highway. And I think more and more, it makes more and more sense that if we were starting from scratch and we didn't have to worry about people that were living there, you would just call that a commercial district anyways, right? And that's kind of the front. I'm always looking at... What's the framework? And that is an area that will be high traffic no matter what you do. And that just screams, I'd rather have the commercial district squeezed next to the highway and what is going to be a major roadway than let it creep somewhere else in the community. I think for me, that's the framework that I land on. Because fundamentally, in 10 years or so, once the canyons is mostly built out, that vehicle traffic is going to be pretty heavy. particularly after the interchange is redeveloped with the converging diamonds and all the other stuff that are planned for about two years out. I also think that we want to be intentional about providing commercial in the area. Otherwise, we're just going to create all of our traffic into this part of Castle Vines with all of the users that are down there and disperse it. So it's an opportunity they're going to direct or develop it if it were to become. Castle Heights. And should it just, and should it be more than just this little lot, this little red dot area that's just over two lots? Should it be on everything kind of going down? Would you be able to pull up a map to share? I think the balance is good right now. Yeah, I agree. I mean, it kind of, ends at the beginning of the Happy Canyons, you know, development. So it doesn't make sense to pull it down. I think I would, I agree with the commercial use. I think just to kind of go back to Michelle's point, you know, it's more about being intentional of what we want. to develop and how that aligns with our plan right so um practically the commercial that's going to go in there would be a gas station is that what we want right is that what we're trying to direct um same on the other side on the west side so do we want to have some more you know what what do we want to look more at from excuse to have more of a continuity into residential or you know, some sort. So that's a question because obviously these gas stations, car washes, those are the ones that are going to come right in those corners because it just makes the most sense. But realistically, especially with all the existing residential that's already in, also on the west side going into the village, right, like what would make the most sense that would provide some commercial but still be beneficial to the community and still tie into our overall plan. Is the three mile plan an annual plan? So we're revisiting this every year, right? Yes. And in between that year, is there a process to amend it? Yes. However, we wouldn't amend it unless somebody, within the period, you know, the one year amendment period, we wouldn't amend it earlier unless somebody came to us and was like, hey, we've got a different idea for land use. Can you consider a planning commission? That's a good question. I'm going back to what you said there, Glenn, with the mixed use. Within a short window of time, five to ten years is going to be pretty undesirable to live next to you. No one's going to live there. It's going to be such a high-traffic area. And Happy Canyon is planned to be open in two years, 2020. Donna, didn't we at some point, wasn't there a little bit of an uproar about someone wanting to annex into the city to put commercial there? Yes. Okay. I thought I remembered that. And honestly, somebody just approached us, hey, we're thinking about annexing. Would you be okay with this particular land use? And we said, well, We had to think about that more, but it wasn't a no. But again, it's all time and place related, right? Like that was the right time. It'd be the right place, but not the right time. Donna, who determines what community benefit goes into those adjacent lots? City Council. And then that's funded by? The developer. Okay, so we would need a developer to come up with some kind of idea to present to city council to say, I want to put, what would be one of those? Yes, unless it's something simple, like a sheriff's sub station, a fire station, typical community benefit things, those go in there with your approval. Anything that's a little bit different, a little bit more intense? That would go – you would make a recommendation, city council would do the final approval. So what would be some of those just, you know, ideally, if you were to say, I would love to see a developer come in and put A, B, and C there? It could be an arena, like a sports arena. It could be a – Big ice cream, like big, yes, or big recreation facility. It could be an employer that brings in a lot of jobs, like a hospital or, like, industrial compound, you know, like something to put that ice in. So those are, like, commercial. Yes. It would still essentially be commercial. So it could be a hospital or something. It could be a hospital. Yes, correct. Okay. So down on this map, is it an accurate articulation to say the area that doesn't have the trees is that 11-acre piece of this subarea that is the commercial proposal? Yes. So this lot here and this lot here is where we're showing the red. And this is just a proposal, future mapping to provide advice to developers. Yes. I don't know that there's a harm in putting it as commercial because you're not actually requiring someone to be commercial. It's just directing the intent of the area. If someone were to come in and want to use mixed use or maybe it's apartments on top and tenant space on the bottom or something, they would still be able to request that annexation and zoning use. So if we market red as commercial, mixed use would not be in alignment with commercial. But can they request a different zoning? Oh, yes. It's not a permanent zoning because we don't know. Correct. They can come back to the commission and say, hey, what do you think of this idea? And then we could say we want to revise the map. Yes, and then they'd have to go through the land development application for the entire process. So I guess in that sense, I don't know that – there's a huge risk in putting it as commercial because if there was someone that intentionally had a plan for that area and wanted to annex in the city, we would all have an opportunity to provide feedback on that plan. That is correct. And it has to be annexed into the city before we could change the nature of it at all, right? Except if you were thinking that we don't want a gas station there, right? Or like a car wash or some kind because I have a feeling if it was labeled commercial, that's probably one of the first things that, because it makes sense. But again, going back to, you know, what's, what residential is already existing there on both sides. Does that make sense? It makes sense for an interchange, but does it make sense for existing, the existing zoning and residents? And just because you mark a commercial right now, this year, doesn't mean that a gas station necessarily can get approval. I mean, this is just a guiding document. A lot of other things go into deciding to annex and to zone. But this is just big picture what makes sense from a land development pattern standpoint, right? From the pattern standpoint, I think the contiguous nature was the business district that's in subarea four, but on the eastern side, that commercial, that makes the most sense. I'm going to send it to Jason. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, Michelle. No, I didn't mean to interrupt. Sorry, I thought you were done. Yeah. It's a good, I think it's a complimentary adjacent use with the community benefit across the street. Go ahead, Michelle. Okay. Chair, I fully agree with you. I do think the consistency is important. I would say yes if there was more development there. I'm just saying, I think for right now, me personally, until the development gets built out, then we don't have to make that decision. I think it can stay residential this year and then reassess next year because we will be doing this every year, it sounds like. So for now, I would just, again, my opinion would be to keep it residential until it gets built out and reassess as the years come next year. If more development comes, it gets closer, then absolutely, I agree with you. I think there will be a time where it will then kind of blend in and be cohesive. I think you can say it next time. I'm always trying to figure out what's the incentive and the motivation. I think if we indicated in our three-year plan or three-mile plan that we wanted to stay residential, it'd be a motivator for that community to request to annex. If we didn't do anything, I have a feeling there'll probably be a gas station put there before anybody annexes it because someone's going to come in by the land and say, it's county, I'm going to drop it here, it's easy. So I'm just trying to think about what's... What are the behaviors that are going to happen if we go one way versus the other? I think if you don't tag it commercial, it'll end up that way before it ever gets annexed and it'll just be part of the county. If you do mark it as residential, maybe there's an incentive for the residential area to request to be annexed sooner than later and lock it in as resident. But I think what we're saying is I think we collectively feel like it should be a commercial area. So if you leave it as residential, you may back yourself into a position that you don't want to be in, like it or not. I think there's a lot of argument. At a minimum, it's got to be mixed use. Probably should be tagged commercial because that's what you think fits the overall vision for that space. And there's going to be unhappy people no matter what we do. But I think trying to ignore the people part, just looking at it from a city part, it makes a whole lot of sense to make this commercial. and just see what lands there. Is there an overlap with Castle Rock's three mile plan into this area specifically that we're talking about with commercial? Does it stretch to- No, it doesn't. Castle Rock's three mile plan does not come up this far. So should we... Yeah, do we have to make a vote on this or just... Do we make a straw poll? You can't really vote on anything because we're in a study session right now, but you could give general consensus. So what you guys think? This doesn't have therapy. Yeah, I mean, I personally, I think it... keeping the area currently shown as commercial either as commercial or mixed-use . Thank you. Yeah, from a contiguous continuity perspective, I'm keeping it as commercial. Can we reevaluate it next year? I'm in the same boat. totally cognizant of where Commissioner Wiley's coming from, and I think it has a lot of value in there. But for the test that we have of envisioning that, it's to me a little bit more compatible with the other uses when we're looking at what the city has owned, what the subarea four piece looks like, looking at it from a little more macro level, I think leaving that portion and then making a note for us to have a conversation next year on this one. There because I'm thinking more about the previous inquiries that we've had with that and some feedback that we've heard from heavy candy residents there too. But there's some change coming with that interchange being redeveloped. And in two years, we might look at it a little bit differently with that whole thing built up. It's not getting less developed. Is the commercial land use designation good? Yeah. Okay. Okay. We'll keep it as commercial. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to sub-area four, please. Okay, so subarea four, you know, we want to talk about. So in, it's an odd-shaped area, but in the most easterly corner, you'll see a designation of commercial. This is, again, just west of the commercial area that we've been speaking about. So this is in the corner of Happy Canyon Road and Interstate I-25. Yep. And for very similar reasons, as was designated for commercial on the other side, it's in an interchange area with access to the highway and, you know, our overpass. And therefore, it was thought that a commercial designation here would be appropriate. How far down does the commercial scratch on this map? The red line? Yeah. Would it stop at the kennels there? I'm sorry, will you repeat that question? I missed it. How far down does the commercial zoning go on that map? Would it stop at where the kennels are, or how far down does it actually go? Something like that, I think, will make it easier to see. Donna, while you're doing that, the key says Castle Pines. I'm assuming that's supposed to be residential or do I have the wrong map on sub area four? One moment. Sub area four. Future land use. Are we on page 21? Are you looking at the? Yeah. No, I was on page 25. Sorry. I think it's supposed to be residential. Based on what I can see, I just wanted to make sure I had the right map. Okay, so Commissioner Wiley, so we are on page 21. And is there a misrepresentation going on with the maps? Yeah, there's a typo in the key legend. It should just say residential instead of classifieds. In the key map. The key legend. Back to the top left corner. Oh, thank you, Krishna Wiley. I did not catch that. Okay. Here we go. So that area designated in red includes this lot, this area, and just double check that. Oh, maybe it does. Or it might not even follow one of these parcel lines. I think it follows that line. You think it follows this line? Yeah. OK. Because it seems to follow the little roundabout and then continue diagonally. So I think that's actually the line. So this and above. Yep. Oh, I did look at this today. There's this really huge, yes. Surprise or commercial. Yeah, how do we handle that? Knowing that that's residential. We don't need to carve out. It's not a problem. I guess as a commercial developer, are you going to develop next to a residential estate when we're defining the area? Or would you be interested in just developing a residential because you're next to adjacent residential? As a developer, if you're trying to develop next to that giant lot and into the entry to the village, you're going to have a lot of problems. A lot of moves to jump through. I guess then, though, should we not designate it commercial? That's my point. Should it be residential? What about an excuse? I mean, I don't... Our designation... You know, there's two parts, right? There's a part of, especially when there's already existing, it's harder because then that requires whoever owns the existing lot to sell. And if they've already built a multi-million dollar home on it, they're less likely to sell. But for Donna's point earlier, if we're looking at this from a land use perspective of highest and best use, you know, commercial, And that's why my comment about mixed use is that as a transition into that very commercial neighborhood, maybe mixed use does make a little more sense. But as a highway interchange exit, especially Happy Canyon being, I mean, right now, you know, from Castle Plains Parkway, if you don't count Happy Canyon, because there's nothing there, you are going quite a ways to the next services. So from a highest and best use perspective, yes, commercial makes the most sense. From what is most likely to be welcomed, mixed use is an easier way to slip in there to try to get some kind of commercial activity with a mixed residential that goes in. Not to say that that won't be, if someone wanted to come in, that won't be met with opposition. I mean, honestly, I think everything will be met with opposition at that point, but, you know. Yeah, I would say that's a safe assumption. You know, and aside from the fact that I don't know that the villages would ever apply to annex in, I mean, the thought process that makes the most sense to me is thinking unconstrained and the highest and best use for those properties that are adjacent that we are trying to forecast future land uses for, and sticking with that methodology is a little bit better of a way to go. I'll just add this to my earlier kind of question. Like, directly north of that, it's already been tagged as kind of commercial anyways. It is. I don't know if you have a lot of problems. You're definitely going to have a lot of complaints. If anybody does anything in that area. But that's inevitable. But again, kind of separating the people from the placement, it's hard to argue why you wouldn't make that commercial. Correct. And again, it's just going to get busier and busier through that space. Yeah, because that's all part of my neighborhood. So if we tag it commercials, we'll reveal that house is a vinyl tent. And then it'll never be a vinyl tent. Sure. Yeah, that's my prediction. Oh, nice one. One of the things that we don't refactor into this is it's the white food that's re-analyzed. Yeah, it's just a plant. Oh, there it is. There it is. Any more discussion? No. I want to look at the further south where you have industrial. Sure. Maybe discuss that a little bit. Sure. So we'll keep the commercial designation? Okay. Yes. And then let's move on to our next area of discussion. I want to make sure, so we're looking at 85 and the Happy Canyon area. Yeah, Donna, if you can just provide a little more insight on the industrial venues destination, that would be great. Yes, so a couple things went into this thought process. Number one, currently the city does not have any industrial zoned property. This area is along the railroad lines. This area does have some existing industrial in this area as well. But it is a strange mix because it's industrial and like single family and ag. So our idea was, well, it's very common to have industrial areas. along railroads. It is a mix that the area is already accustomed to. It's already in this flux. And so that was the reason that we chose industrial for this area. And is that little triangle curve up already industrial? county looks like are you talking about the red triangle on the west side right in the real property in montreal this right here that's a water treatment plant yes so this right here also also industrial both in but within castle rock So it's proposed that we continue some industrial land uses in that area. But do try and keep, you know, don't bring them all the way adjacent to the residential or the ag. So leave some buffer. I mean, is there a current industrial there? Like there's... Yes. So over here, can you see? Yeah. Well, that's not even part of Area 5, right? No. So that's in the city of the town of Castle Rock that helped inform. Okay. So the area that we have colored purple currently does not have actual industrial businesses operating in there. Correct. But it has the water treatment, which is industrial. Yes. And the rail lines. Yes, they are in that area. So a few things. I think based on where you see the, I don't know if it's, maybe zoom out a little bit, but where you see on the east side, like southeast, where Castrol is residential, It seems to be, is that a road? What is that road? Timber Parkway. Is this one? No, that one right there. It parallels the one just. Yeah, it does say Timber Parkway. So it seems like we've designated industrial further, and I feel like it makes sense for that. I'm just going to be on point. So just scroll up a little bit. Yeah. So you see how this is all residential? Yes. And we've currently designated this as industrial? Yes. I feel like this should follow. I would argue that this should stay residential to continue because this is already residential. This should be the cutoff line if you are to put any industrial. instead of down here. But my other comment is, right, like 85, another one of those that's going to grow. So the great corridor for commercial, if you want growth, how likely are you really going to have, I mean, yes, the rail line is there, but like how likely, like unless maybe you have like a big store that's, like a Murdoch's or something that's a little there. I could serve both. But I don't know any for highest, in my opinion, for highest and best use of that location for the benefit of City of Castle Pines, it would be great to see more commercial along that corridor. But that's my personal opinion. I think my only concern with that is just accessibility of that commercial. I guess you're not going to be able to easily access it from Santa Fe because of the rail line. So the rail line is between the industrial designated area and Santa Fe. Or am I looking at it incorrectly? Is it over by there? I think it's on this side. I think the river line is. I think it's right next to the road, yeah. Because when you go to the water treatment plant, you have to cross the railroad. So I think it's unlikely that we would have a commercial property where we'd be having people in public crossing the railway to access the commercial property just from a safe to safe. The exception could be, like, what if you had an access road built there? Or you'd come off of Santa Fe and then be a strip of potentially shops or targets or whatever would go in there. Like over the railroad? Yeah, you'd have that. Yeah, and then there's a road just south of it that we were just looking at, you know, that separates the residential, what's that called? Timber? Timber Mile. Oh, Timber Mile. Okay, I'm like... I mean, I just, like, what industrial is going to, I don't know. I don't see industrial there, and I don't envisioning, I'm not envisioning more industrial. I get the rail lines there, but how likely and how welcoming or how much do we want to welcome industrial? I mean, our neighborhood, everything is so residential. Even on the other side that's not part of this area, besides the water treatment plant, is there any industrial actually along that side? No, other than the water plant, no. But as you move northwest along the Highway 85 corridor, there are pockets of industrial. I do like Commissioner Kent's idea of the contiguous residential south of, what's the name of that road? Timber. Timber Mile. Timber Mile. Timber Mill. Yeah. Right. And it looks like it would probably add 20 or 30 acres to the residential and using that road so everything north of the road between timber mile and 85 staying industrial and then the two little triangle in the little square portion converted to residential would it be easier for me to show you on that kind of the map there done anything She was not with us. All right. You're the one. You're the one. This is the village. Yes. OK. Residential, residential. OK. So on the south side of the building, residential on the south of that. Because it keeps the residential continuous. Oh, I see. With this line. Right. Oh, OK. OK. I got you. I like it. I want to share that with your . The more we're talking about this, the more I'm leaning towards multi-use over virtual. So if I think about all the communities south of this specific place, keep thinking about access coming up from 85, but coming from the south and north. that would actually be a great area for things like grocery stores, corner markets, gas stations for the communities that are on the south side of 85. Personally, I think it would probably be more desirable if you're going to squeeze some sort of business between residential areas that mixed use is more desirable than industrial. And when you look at the existing land use document, the one that incorporates Douglas County, Castle Rock, you can see Castle Rock in that area, it's green and red. So perhaps a mixed use in light industrial? I mean, there are options. Does it have to be one or the other? It could create a whole new category. Yeah, I guess, I mean, we could keep it industrial for now and then see how that, you know, see how it goes development-wise if people are interested. Would you like to move the line, commissioners? I would like to move the line and what I talked about, you being the south of what? Timber. Timber. Residential. Okay. I agree. I agree as well. Do you have any thoughts on that? We're marking up maps in person here, so I can text you a photo. Or I'm sure it's the camera. Oh, here. Yeah, if you want to text me that. Are you able to see this? Could you? You can take a picture of that, Glenn. I don't have a number. I don't have a number. I have a question while they're doing that. Just to enable me, what is the benefit of having this section industrial versus commercial? What type of services would we be expecting to... Potentially one day, right? Yeah, so one key benefit would be to establish an area where some type of an industrial use could go in. I don't think we're talking heavy industrial, but we would be like talking light industrial. It could be an area where light manufacturing goes on. It could be an area of tenants where people, small businesses do like car detailing, or any of those types of uses that we all need that are all tucked in the back. So that is what it could, that's how it could benefit the city, is right now there's no areas where this type of a use could go. When you think about going north on 85, assuming that's kind of industrial, that looks like just an unmanaged junkyard. How do we not let that happen? Well, I'll tell you, light industrial in the county is different than light industrial in any city. So we could control what that light industrial looks like. Whereas if it goes in now in the county... That would be mine for others is, again, mixed use or maybe a light industrial classification. Yeah, we need a place for those things, but I definitely don't want it to turn into North Santa Fe. I think that's, especially when it's squeezed between these two residential areas, that's a thing to learn and protect against. So we're in agreement about the line, changing the line. And should there be a new land use designated? designation created for light industrial mixed use? Or do you want to just go one or the other? What is light industrial mixed use? Well, create it. I don't know if you can put industrial and mixed use together, honestly. I mean, when I think industrial, especially if you're trying to take advantage of the rail line, you know, I'm thinking lumber yards, anything that has shipping along, which... is a lot of things in a yard. You can't really get away from that. So it could be a screened yard or a fenced yard, but it's still industrial. If you're talking about car detailing and some of those things, I mean, to me, that falls under commercial. I don't know. I don't think we need to create something I would be against creating another designation purely for this. I would be OK leaving it as industrial, but I mean, I think probably next year or the year after for it to revisit, I would think it probably makes more sense as commercial or mixed use in the future. But I get that we don't have any industrial. I think it makes sense for industrial right now. If we were wanting to bring a business into Castle Pines and provide an opportunity for business to exist, additional type of business to exist here. I also think that this is like a very heavy rail. It's one of the biggest rails in Colorado with very long trains that last for 15 minutes at a time. So I think there's, if you access it from the South side, I think there's opportunity there, but I don't know that it's like the prime place for mixed use. So I think as the surrounding area is built up today, if that changes them, maybe there's more opportunity in the future. There are two major rail lines. It's Burlington Northern, Santa Fe, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Both of them run parallel, and these are rail corridors that contain high train traffic and are projected to remain a major freight corridor. I think to Commissioner Ken's point, I would agree with her on not creating a new designation and just leaving it industrial because it's broad enough for us to, at a future point, narrow down what that means, right? Whether it's light industrial or whatever, doesn't pre-limit the use. Any more discussion? Am I? Okay. So am I understanding we're changing the line? We're going to keep the land designation as is with the understanding that we will and we can revisit. Correct. Okay. And with the line change, the one-tenth of a mile to residential? Yes, we will do that. We're all in agreement. Okay, and then the very last area that we want to just touch on is on the far west side in this little tip. In this area, it's designated, is that blue? Yes. Okay. I think that makes sense with the city of Sedalia, Jason. I do too. So maintain the land use as the nation, okay. Let's go ahead and move on to sub area five. This is also an interesting sub area with the, kind of corners that are different than the general area. So let's start with looking on the right side. There are two areas proposed for residential. These are current residential areas. So the one in the top right-hand corner, this is a home. It's existing. We're not proposing that we change it. You know, at this time, although I guess it could be in the future. Open space, like just wrap it up into open space. Same with the corner on the southeast side. This is a residential subdivision. It is only half built out. It is on water and septic. At this point, we're not proposing any. land use designation changes, just keep it as residential as it is. Okay with that? Okay. And then moving on to the west side of this sub area, we have a lot of, we were talking a lot about this. This is where core electric is. So there's this little red dot, that's core. And right behind CORE is the Sedalia Landfill. I knew it was back there, but you can't really see it from I-20, from 85. You got to, like, drive back there. So I thought, oh, wow. I don't think, I mean, this should remain ag. We don't, you know, this should not be single family. Just keep it, like, keep it as it is. And a question on the... zoning map that has all the adjacent city settings? Yes. It looks like there's a light industrial in that area that we're not picking up on just west, northwest of the corridor. Yes, it shows us a little blue, like a little mixed use, I believe. Oh, no, no, it isn't. It is not picked up. Oh, I know what you're talking about. Okay. And this is what we talked about last time. OK, so commercial. And actually, the commercial's not showing up. The little red? Yes, red is core. And then that blue. Yeah, I guess I would suggest just keeping that, like showing that on our plan to match the listing. But I don't know what everyone else thinks. And I think with the fading, it's not showing up. So believe it as is? I would add the red dot and the blue. And the blue, just so you can see. Okay, so we'll keep that. That's outside of the three-mile marker. That's what it's looking. So the red dot looks like it's within Area 5. Where are you looking at the red dot? And that's core? That's core. That, if you go on Google Maps, though, that's not where CORE is. Because the red dot is right where that road intersects. But when you look at the maps, CORE is on the corner way further. Yep. And the dot is. So is CORE the industrial, light industrial area? I mean, the dot is showing here. The red dot is showing right here. And our mile marker, our mile limit, literally ends, like, right there. I think that area where you see core, like on this map, is shown as light industrial, and on our map we're just showing it as agriculture. But I agree with you on the red dot. No, what I'm saying is outside of our green mile. I know, I'm disagreeing. That's not what's inside our green mile. Yeah, that's not. Okay, so I don't think I'm following them. So... I think what we're saying already, core is actually where Santa Fe bends north. And that red dot is south of that bend. So this is core. We agree right here on this map? Yes. OK. Yes. Well. I think we're saying that that's probably aligned with the light industrial. Partial. Part of it is. And then maybe the red is just if you were doing a future commercial across the street from the Sedalia exit, I guess. Yeah, so where is 67? This is 67? Oh, I think that's right. So this is 67. And on the map, you know, it's just, I think that is core. I think red is core. Blue. But when you zoom in, I think if you follow, I think 67 is that. Yeah, if you follow 67 to where it hit Santa Fe, there's absolutely nothing there. Correct. But this little red dot is almost on the left, like west of the intersection. I think it's just a scale. So I guess my question is, is this red dot supposed to be on here? Yes. It is? Yes. Because where it looks like Cora's at on this map is the blue and red and white. And not this red dot, like the red dot just shouldn't even be there. The red dot's showing as business. And it's not on any of our other maps either. So it's like, was that maybe, was the red dot on this maybe a typo or actually falls outside of the three mile limit? Well, I think the red dot on this document is Douglas County's zoning. So they likely have commercial across the street from the Sedalia exit. It's the four-way stop. So they may have commercial designation in case someone wanted to build a gas station on the other side of the highway. And these shape files, they are taken directly from the county, right? And then displayed and overlapped with other mapping information. I really do think that is core, I guess the question is, if it's core, should it remain commercial? Yeah, I guess my, is there a reason why it's mixed use and not commercial? Like every, right, that is a good question, right, because right now, I think we have it as blue, right, and on future land use, right, and we had talked about this last time, oh, I think we're, Pardon me, Commissioner Rahn. You were not at the last meeting, but this came up and we're like, red. We couldn't figure it out, but yes, maybe it shouldn't be mixed use. Maybe it should just continue to be commercial. I had that note written down that we talked about just leaving it in commercial last time. Because it makes sense with that intersection for I forget the name of the saloon that's there. It's directly across the street from here. It's that property. And that kind of makes sense for commercial. Particularly because it's a split highway and it's a little bit harder to get to the gas station and stuff on the south side of 85. So if you're going northbound on 85, having commercial there makes a little more sense. There's your messy industrial I agree. And I think on the map with Douglas County's mapping that red is business, which makes sense for core. So then we would just change it to on our map, but just commercial contract. Yeah. I think. Yes. And leave all the other shaded areas blue, the mixed use. I think it should all be red. I mean. I don't think any of that should be mixed use. In the town of Sedalia? I think in the town of Sedalia, I mean, I know we're just supposed to do future use, but I think there is a mixture of, like, housing currently with the town. Like, a mix of someone's house next to a business, next to a house. Next to a railroad. Where they, yeah. Where they've colored it orange, right? Where it's RR. But where we're showing blue currently. Yeah, where we're showing blue currently generally falls under their highway commercial, which is purple, their business, which is red, their general industrial, which is dark purple, and then what's the white? Does white count as anything? Oh. I agree with you. Yes. That's a good call. So red, not blue. Yeah, everything we have on our map that's blue should be red. Okay. But then also red on the other side of the highway, right? Yeah. So Area 5 should also have the red north of 85. Area 4 and Area 5 should be red. The red dot on Area 5 and then the red, yeah, like pie shape on Area 5, right? Okay. Any other discussion on that? Just to throw a wrench in it, why wouldn't we make a broader commercial area on the north side of 85? You're squeezed in between core and a landfill. It's tagged as an open space, but I would think that would be a natural extension on the other side of 85 for or development that, frankly, if you want to, I doubt you're going to want to put your house next to a landfill and you don't want to, you're not going to put anything much next to it anymore. And it's not really an open space that anyone's ever going to use, but it might make sense to put a narrow band of sort of commercial there. So just expand the red into this whole area? Almost like just pick up. um pick up clothing and fill and just call that some sort of business area that you could put something there no one's going to use it for open space no one's going to build a house there but it can make sense to have a some sort of industry or some sort of business on the other side of the highway to service the people that live in that area can i let you discuss while i take a bio I know. I like your thought process there. It's almost like it could be being shaped with red from there to that little red dot in the blue section so it's all coached. Yeah, basically you kind of turn what is that today? You turn it until you kind of mirror as much on the north side of 85 as you do on the south side for development there. Is landfall considered commercial or would that be? That's true. I'm not sure. I don't know if it has a designation. But I doubt they'd want to annex. Or if it's going anywhere. So maybe it doesn't matter. I think we're doing interesting things. I don't know off the top of my head. I got it. Simpsondalia is a municipality. We can Google it. No, we were not a municipality. 10 years ago, so maybe they're unincorporated. I'm not sure. I mean, we just don't have the municipality boundaries identified, so I'm not quite sure, because we also don't draw boundaries around Highlands Ranch versus the Metro District. I mean, I frankly don't really expect anything to happen in the near future, but it's like pretty. So according to Google, Sedalia is a small, historic, and rural, unincorporated town in Douglas County, Colorado. All right. So we don't have to include the statement about areas of exclusion. No independent municipal government. Cassifines West. Interesting. Are we changed? Are we done? We started over. Back to area one. We've decided to annex the area. Increase the three mile plan boundaries. Three and a half miles. Yeah. the discussion, though. We changed everything. It was light. It was light discussion. I think we, like, thought that on the north side, just create a further commercial area that mirrors the current town layout on the south side. Okay. Just need to... Okay. Okay. Got it. Is that full? And I do think that would work for a commercial area there because they could have access to the Sedalia Water and Sanitation District. So that's a good call. All right. So that will be commercial. Okay. And then to follow up, also, as Commissioner Kent said, the south area for the Sedalia area should be commercial, right? Yeah. Yes. Yes, that is up in area four, right? That pie shape? Yes. Great. Let's move on to area... So this is a lot of mountainous terrain. It's currently zoned either A1 at one, or it is a, it's owned PD and Highlands Ranch and it's their open space. So we are proposing no changes to the existing land use to keep it as open space. 100%, you okay with that? What do you mean? It's planned development, but it's open space? Yes. It's an open space planning area. Got it. Okay. So let's go ahead and move on to seven. Okay. Area seven consists primarily of the urban development of Highlands Ranch. It's a planned development, includes a mix of residential, parks, and commercial. You'll see they do have one rural residential subdivision. This subdivision is known as MacArthur Ranch. They are on septic. for sanitation and wells for water. You will also see a green area that's above this MacArthur Ranch, that's the Bluffs Regional Park. Our proposed land uses are to remain consistent with what they already are. You will also notice that area seven is the only sub area that does not abut the city boundary. this so you know in order to get seven we'd have to get something in in sub area six um with its current development it's not likely to come into the to the city but if it did you know we we wouldn't propose changing any of the land uses i have one question on the um Douglas County Zoning District, that bluff area is zoned a state residential. We're showing it open space. Is that just because it is open space even though it's zoned a state residential? Correct. And currently Area 7 is connected to the city via Monarch Boulevard. And then both the west and east side of Monarch Boulevard is, you know, open space owned by metro districts. Any questions about Area 7? I actually, I do have a small question. I think I know the answer too, because we were... discussing whether or not today was incorporated. But Highlands Ranch being unincorporated, we don't have to show their media statement. Correct, it's unincorporated. So no area exclusion statements required for that one either. Great. I had a question about one of the language points in here, and I don't know if it's a city council thing to comment on. Sure. On page five. So Castle Heights has developed an annexation petition to follow all these requirements. And the first one is annexation of the city will not create any additional cost or burden. Is that, should it be like undue burden? Because I don't know how we'd annex a city and not have some burden, whether it's a resource on the water line or resource on the power grid or using the school system when we're bringing them into the city. So they're going to be using all of our, Like, that's the incentive to come into a city is to use the city utilities. So how would they overcome that bar to become annexed into the city? So is it in your purview to make that suggestion or to consider that change? Well, Dawn, is that language directly out of the Colorado-advised statute or – Oh, pardon me. You know what? Yes, I think that is the exact language now that you say that. It's a big statue, but I will confirm. And, well, let's, so if it is third, and that may be what? It's the cost on existing residents. So it would make them have to, for residents, have to pay... for the new residents, but I don't know that that would be their issue. They'd have their own taxes. Yes, but I'm going to check the state statute language. Yeah, the only reason I was thinking about it is, for example, if we, knowing that the Crow's Nest discussions didn't happen, we're not making the decision, the city council is, but if that was determined to be part of the city, And for example, they took like sewer capacity. That was remaining. And then another developer came into the city of Castle Plains in city proper or owned land and wanted to put development on their land. And then we were at capacity, then they would have to build the infrastructure, but they would be put in that position because of an annexed property potentially. So it would be like an undue burden versus just burden, just a question on utilities. Because we're looking at a lot of, If the Crow's Nest one were to be approved, then there's a lot of land between Crow's Nest and Castle Pines that could potentially be developed, and that would be a lot of resources in our time. So it would be a policy question, right, for Council to consider. So if you want to discuss that, putting that forward to Council, We certainly can. And meanwhile, I'm going to look up the statute. This is where we need our attorney here to help with that language. He would be looking at the statue just like that. Josh doesn't have those memorized. 31 on my office. No, I've got it here. I'm going to tell Josh he's been replaced by Chad. We've been using that so much. It's very bad. Thank you. Did you want a break? I feel like it is undue value. That almost created a threshold you could never cross, right? That was my concern. I was like, no one's ever going to be able to annex anything in the city if they can't have it in that home city. Unless they fully fund it. Right. So they're putting this to the city's done. We are not the provider of water or the school district or any of those services, so it wouldn't be a city burden because we don't own any of that infrastructure or the school board or the South Metro or the two water providers in the city are not city-owned. We don't have any utilities. Scenario-wise, did the burden come from... a potential tax ballot measure or mill levy increase related to the infrastructure for an annex property? Would that be the source of the burden? Do you think? Wouldn't the burdens, even if it's not a city municipality, it's talking about if the resident in the city is burdened. So even if the metro district was at capacity and it impacted the resident. So I don't think the metro district or any water provider would give a will serve letter if they couldn't provide the water for it. I don't know if Donna has thoughts on this, but I think that... So I can't find that in the statute. Okay, so then we can just add that word undue burden. And... Ask Josh for his input. Good catch there, Elise. Any additional costs or burden on existing residents? Okay. I mean, that is pretty standard language when it comes to any annexations that I have seen in other cities, like Parker or Castle Rock. to have that reference, to have that policy. But I feel like it would be a good step to say undue burden to, again, not restrict our annexation possibilities. And I will tell you that though, whenever a city goes through an annexation, they're always talking about