Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Ashlin Park phasing change after contentious debate over Muller Parkway drainage and cost sharing
Summary
The board approved a modification to the Ashlin Park phasing schedule but removed two staff conditions that would have required the developer to pay certain Muller Parkway/drainage improvements and to file a new FEMA CLOMR; the action followed extensive technical testimony and legal argument about prior development agreements and flood studies.
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners approved a requested amendment to the Ashlin Park tentative‑map phasing schedule on June 18 after a technical and legal hearing that addressed drainage, FEMA conditional map revisions and cost allocation for road improvements.
Community Development and County Engineering staff presented the proposed phasing changes, moving completion dates for phases 1–5 out several years and noting the project's complex interaction with Muller Parkway and the FEMA conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) process. The applicant's engineer, Rob Anderson of Wilson Engineers, said delays were driven in part by the length of FEMA review and ongoing litigation and asked the board to approve only the schedule amendment.
County Engineer Jeremy Hutchkins and others noted that earlier designs for Muller Parkway had included large culverts and a channel whose construction or absence can affect flood flows for parcels in Ashlin Park and adjacent neighborhoods. Hutchkins said if parcels are filled to remove them from the floodplain, a CLOMR update or flood‑impact study would be required and additional mitigation could be needed.
Applicant counsel and the county's deputy district attorney argued over new staff conditions in the recommended motion: one (2B) would have required the developer to construct Muller Parkway improvements "at the sole cost of the developer" in phase one, including turn lanes, sidewalks and drainage tie‑ins; another (3) would have required an updated CLOMR to reflect constructed county roadway improvements. The applicant said those requirements conflicted with a prior development agreement that called for cost sharing and that the conditions were punitive or premature while litigation remained unresolved.
After discussion, and on the recommendation of the DA's office, the board removed conditions 2B and 3 from the approval while noting the underlying obligations in prior agreements and approvals were not being vacated by the action. The motion to approve the phasing change with those exceptions passed 4–0 with one commissioner absent.
What the board recorded: the phasing dates for phases 1–5 were amended as requested. Staff will continue to require any necessary CLOMR updates and flood‑impact analyses as phases are engineered and final maps are prepared; if mitigation would adversely affect neighboring properties the county can withhold final mapping for affected phases.
Speakers quoted (selection): "The improvements within Muller Parkway required to serve the subdivision shall be constructed with phase one at the sole cost of the developer" (language proposed by staff; applicant objected). "If these parcels are filled, that would be a different CLOMR application ' or at least a revision. The developer's engineer will have to perform a flood impact analysis." ' Jeremy Hutchkins, County Engineer.
Ending: The approval moves the schedule forward and clarifies that final grading and flood‑impact work will be addressed in engineering reviews and, where appropriate, in FEMA processes before final maps are recorded.
