Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Adams County approves Todd Creek 'Seltzer Farms' rezoning, PDP amendment and preliminary plat with conditions

Adams County Board of County Commissioners · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Adams County commissioners approved a rezoning, a major amendment to the Todd Creek preliminary development plan and a preliminary plat for the "Seltzer Farms" neighborhood on Feb. 4, authorizing up to roughly 2,008 housing units and about 240 acres of parks and open space, contingent on 21 findings and seven conditions.

The Adams County Board of County Commissioners approved a suite of land‑use actions on Feb. 4 to allow a large new neighborhood within the Todd Creek Village PUD, commonly referred to in the hearing as the Seltzer Farms proposal. The package — two rezonings into the Todd Creek planned unit development, a major amendment to the preliminary development plan and a preliminary subdivision plat — passed 5‑0 with 21 findings of fact, seven conditions and eight administrative notes.

What the project proposes: The applicant described three sub‑neighborhoods totaling roughly 555 acres and an overall proposal of about 2,008 dwelling units (a mix of detached single‑family, attached/townhouse units, multifamily and senior living), approximately 240 acres of parks and open space (43% of the project) and more than 8 miles of on‑site trails plus proposed off‑site trail connections. The applicant said densities average about 3.6 dwelling units per acre across the amended area and that a central 14‑acre neighborhood park would be provided.

Agency and public concerns: Referral agencies and dozens of public commenters raised issues about traffic congestion, school capacity, water supply and cost, emergency‑service capacity and compatibility with nearby one‑acre neighborhoods. The city of Brighton submitted a letter objecting to the proposal in part on service and roadway grounds and did not change that position in follow‑up exchanges. Planning commission recommended approval by a 4‑3 vote after public comment.

Oil and gas and conditions: Because the site contains oil‑and‑gas infrastructure, the board and staff revised draft conditions during the hearing. Staff amended condition language and split the requirements into three parts: (1) active wells that will remain active must have all associated pipelines, equipment and setbacks shown on the final plat and the status confirmed by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC); (2) active wells that will be plugged and abandoned must have associated equipment and flow lines removed, with removal confirmed by ECMC reports; and (3) for already plugged and abandoned wells, any in‑place abandoned flow lines must be removed, with removal confirmed by ECMC.

Utilities and infrastructure: Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District representatives and the applicant said potable water and wastewater plans exist and that the district has a signed connector agreement with Metro Water Recovery for wastewater conveyance; Todd Creek representatives said their water supply plan demonstrates capacity for the proposed units and that the district is designing transmission and treatment infrastructure. Staff added conditions requiring final verification of utility designs and approvals prior to scheduling final plat hearings, and a requirement to plug and abandon a named well per the Division of Water Resources letter.

Traffic and public safety: The applicant provided traffic studies and committed to roadway improvements including half‑section arterial construction of 160th Avenue, modifications to Yosemite Street into a four‑lane collector along the project frontage and intersection improvements at Highway 7 and other junctions as coordinated with CDOT and neighboring jurisdictions. Staff noted that additional mitigation would likely be required at final plat stage.

Public comment: More than 90 written referrals and public comments were submitted including 84 opposed. Dozens of residents spoke in person citing traffic, emergency‑response times, lack of nearby services and incompatibility with existing one‑acre lots. The board said it heard those concerns and directed staff and applicant to continue pre‑final review coordination with stakeholders.

The motion: A motion to approve the rezoning, PDP amendment and preliminary subdivision plat as conditioned passed 5‑0. The approval includes the amended oil‑and‑gas conditions and multiple conditions requiring verification of water and sewer design and service, plugging of a named well and confirmation of utility approvals prior to scheduling final plat hearings.

Ending: Commissioners emphasized that approval at this stage is preliminary and that final plats and final development plan submittals will return to the county for further review and conditions, including traffic mitigation and utility permitting.