Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arapahoe County planners outline Strasburg sub‑area plan update, stress intercounty coordination
Summary
Arapahoe County staff presented an update to the Strasburg sub‑area plan (2050 horizon), describing boundary changes, new land‑use categories, an implementation matrix, and outreach. Staff emphasized coordination with Adams County, CDOT and regional partners; commissioners probed funding, workload and the plan’s aspirational vs. binding status.
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arapahoe County planners on Wednesday presented an update to the Strasburg sub‑area plan, a two‑county effort led by Adams County that updates a roughly 20‑year‑old plan and sets a 2050 planning horizon.
Planner Gretchen Royceau told the Board the update revised the future land‑use map, added goals and policies, and—importantly—created an implementation matrix assigning responsibilities, timing and potential funding sources. The county portion of the plan extended the boundary eastward to include the Schmidt Subdivision and added a new "recreation commercial" land‑use category that maps to local attractions such as a KOA park and a private property with a model train feature.
Royceau said staff estimated roughly 4,300 residents in the planning area in 2020 and forecast a 2050 population of about 6,800–7,700. Commissioners and staff discussed why earlier (2002) forecasts — which projected 10,000 residents by 2020 — did not occur. Staff pointed to broader regional shifts of growth toward the I‑25 corridor, lower in‑migration, and updated demographer assumptions.
Water and infrastructure constraints on the Arapahoe side were a recurring theme. Jason Reynolds noted the Comanche Crossing project as an example where extending water and sewer across I‑70 proved economically infeasible, forcing a rezoning to 2.5‑acre lots served by wells and septic. That, staff said, illustrates physical limits on where denser growth is feasible.
Commissioners pressed staff about the plan’s legal status and departmental workload. The county attorney explained that sub‑area and master plans are aspirational guidance unless the board adopts provisions as binding code; they inform development review and consistency determinations but do not by themselves create enforceable development standards.
Staff emphasized outreach: a steering committee of residents, property owners and business owners; public open houses and online surveys; and a multi‑week comment period on the draft. Adoption hearings will be coordinated with Adams County, staff said, with the formal adoption process expected to begin in spring 2026. The study session generated detailed questions about departmental capacity, where implementation tasks will land, and how to expand partner lists (I‑70 REAP, chambers, community groups) to share responsibilities.
Next procedural steps: staff asked commissioners to submit comments by the date listed in the packet and said a revised adoption draft will be returned for public hearings and formal action later in the adoption schedule.
