Adams County commissioners approve Sherwood Village PUD amendment with transit and parking conditions

Adams County commissioners voted unanimously Feb. 17 to approve a major amendment to the Sherwood Village planned unit development that will change a 3.3-acre portion of the PUD at 8000 Pecos Street from 47 for-sale townhomes to 70 rental four-bedroom townhomes targeted to middle‑income households.

The developer, Del West, told the board the shift was necessary after rising interest rates made the previously approved for-sale model financially unworkable. "This project is what that promise looks like when it becomes real," said Joe Delzotto, owner of Del West, describing the housing as "family size" homes at 80% and 90% of area median income that the company designed to remain affordable for a 30-year (Del West committed to 40-year) affordability period tied to a state middle‑income tax credit.

Why it mattered: Commissioners balanced the county’s stated goals to add "missing‑middle" and attainable housing near transit and schools against neighbors’ concerns about parking, traffic and compatibility. Staff recommended approval, noting the amendment meets the county comprehensive plan and development standards when viewed across the full 10.4-acre PUD boundary.

Key details and conditions - Units: The amendment increases units on the 3.3-acre parcel from 47 to 70. The applicant said the overall Sherwood development averages about 11 dwelling units per acre; the 3.3-acre parcel itself equates to roughly 21.2 dwelling units per acre under the applicant’s calculations. - Affordability: Del West reported the CHFA middle‑income housing tax credit awarded 35 units at 80% AMI and 35 at 90% AMI. The CHFA award imposes program timing and completion requirements the developer said create urgency. - Unit size and mix: The project proposes five ADA-accessible units and four‑bedroom floorplans with an average unit size just over 1,400 square feet. - Parking and open space: The plan provides 136 parking spaces (about 1.94 spaces per unit as presented by staff) and one acre of open space on the northern 3.3‑acre portion, which staff said equals about 30% of that parcel.

Neighborhood concerns and public input Residents and the neighborhood association urged the board to deny the amendment, calling out traffic volumes on Pecos Street, limited street parking, potential overflow into surrounding streets, and questions about outreach. "Parking's not enough," said Pat Hall, a nearby resident, who cited earlier traffic studies and said neighbors had not received adequate notice of changes. Several commenters said they were not against more housing in principle but considered this amended plan too dense for the site.

Supporters, including residents who said they rent locally and a general contractor, argued the housing would serve working families priced out of the market. "These are the kinds of projects that we need in Adams County," said Cyrus Schoonover, a local builder who supported the proposal.

Board response and mitigation Commissioners pressed the applicant on details such as rent caps, income thresholds and parking-management practices. Commissioners sought assurances on renter screening and property management (applicant said leases will include parking tags and management-enforced parking) and asked staff and other county departments to pursue neighborhood supports.

To address concerns, staff and the applicant agreed to add a condition requiring a transportation demand management (TDM) plan. As read into the record by staff, the condition requires the applicant, prior to scheduling the final development plan hearing, to prepare a TDM plan that explores alternative modes and incentives for residents and includes at minimum: an additional RTD bus pass for each household if needed; bicycle parking; electric vehicle and electric bicycle charging availability; and efforts to work with the Regional Transportation District to improve the nearby bus stop and include a bus shelter. CED and Public Works staff must approve the TDM details and incorporate them into the final development plan as a condition of approval.

Vote and next steps Commissioner Pinter moved for approval with eight findings of fact, two conditions (including the TDM plan) and one note; Commissioner Baca seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The condition ties additional mitigation work to subsequent plan and plat hearings; final design, staffing and enforcement of parking or transit improvements will occur in those follow-up processes.

What remained open: Neighbors asked the county to expand parking-management enforcement in the surrounding area and to ensure Highland Hills park improvements and maintenance; commissioners committed to follow-up work but clarified such actions are separate county initiatives outside the PUD approval.

The board’s approval allows the applicant to proceed with the final development plan and plat process, subject to the TDM plan and other conditions that staff will implement in upcoming hearings.