Commissioners approve Cimarron Peak subdivision for three 10‑acre homesites amid neighbor questions on boundaries and flood access

5966489 · September 30, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

The Board of County Commissioners approved a preliminary and final plat to subdivide a 30.562‑acre property southeast of the North Turkey Creek Road/High Drive intersection into three 10‑acre lots. Approval was 2-1 after public comment raised survey and floodplain concerns.

The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners approved the Cimarron Peak Subdivision preliminary and final plat (Case 23‑113738PF) on Sept. 30, voting 2-1 to allow a 30.562‑acre parcel southeast of North Turkey Creek Road and High Drive to be divided into three 10‑acre single‑family lots.

Planning staff presented the application and recommended approval subject to conditions. Laura Armstrong of Jefferson County Planning and Zoning told commissioners the proposed lots meet A‑2 (10‑acre minimum) zoning and that planned subdivision‑wide work includes extending an existing private access road across a floodplain, expanding an on‑site pond and providing water via on‑site wells under an approved water‑augmentation plan. Armstrong said the applicant requested relief from a 20‑foot landscape strip along North Turkey Creek Road; staff supported that relief because the floodplain and existing vegetation provide a buffer.

Applicant representative Damian Davis said the owners had worked with planning staff over multiple years and confirmed the intent to build three homes. Conifer Fire Rescue will provide fire protection and homes will require sprinklers, the staff presentation said.

One nearby property owner raised objections at the hearing, claiming survey and boundary discrepancies, concerns about culvert access for flood maintenance and questioning whether the applicant’s water‑augmentation approach met state rules. Planner Armstrong said staff had reviewed title records, the quiet‑title decree and assessor records and found no evidence of a boundary dispute; she noted that the state engineer had indicated the proposed on‑site wells were expected to be physically adequate. She reminded the board that floodplain improvements require a separate county floodplain permit and that detailed geotechnical borings and slope stability verification would be required at building‑permit stage.

After brief deliberation, the board voted to approve the plat, with Commissioners Kerr and Dahlkemper voting aye and Commissioner Zenzinger voting no. The approval is subject to the conditions listed in the county staff report and to standard requirements for floodplain permitting, well drilling verification and site‑level geotechnical work prior to building permits.

Ending: With approval, the applicant may record the plat once stipulated conditions and technical submittals are completed. Neighbors retain the right to pursue outstanding technical or legal questions via standard permitting and review channels if discrepancies appear during subsequent engineering or permitting steps.