August 1, 2017
NEPCO
P.O. Box 714
Monument, CO 80132-0714
Kari Parsons
Development Services
2880 International Circle, Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
Reference: Retreat at Timber Ridge
NEPCO is providing the collective input from its membership that includes 8,000 homeowners, 42 HOAs and 18,000 registered voters within and around Monument. The purpose of NEPCO, a volunteer coalition of Homeowner Associations in northern El Paso County, is to promote a community environment in which a high quality of life can be sustained for constituent associations, their members, and families in northern El Paso County. We collectively address growth and land use issues with El Paso County Planners and the Town of Monument, as well as addressing HOA issues of common interest among the members. NEPCO achieves this by taking necessary steps to protect the property rights of the members, encouraging the beautification and planned development and maintenance of northern El Paso County.
NEPCO’s response to the Developer’s comments related to the Retreat @ TimberRidge
Issue # 1.
NEPCO has serious concerns about development of this size residing in “rural” El Paso County. Assuming a density of 1.6 homes per acre on 293 acres, and again assuming 4 persons per household, that yields a population of approximately 1,800. This development will reside just north of the Sterling Ranch Development that plans to have several thousand residents. The combination of these two developments will put incredible pressure on the infrastructure supporting this area including roads, water and sewer systems. The potential rezoning of these tracts of land will cause a planned 282 homes under RR-5 to explode into 5,720 residential units under PUD and/or RS-5000 zoning.
Ø Developer’s Comment: The NEPCO comments refer to both the Sterling Ranch development which has an approved Sketch Plan and is under construction, and to the application for The Retreat @TimberRidge currently under review.
· NEPCO’s Response: No, NEPCO’s comment does not refer to both developments, except for the last sentence which shows how the rezoning of both parcels of land devastate the planned balance of infrastructure, water, and transportation for this area.For Timber Ridge itself, an expected 59 homes turn into 482 homes.
Ø Developer’s Comment: No RS 5000 zoning is proposed. The request is for the PUD Zone.
NEPCO’s Response: The last sentence above applied to both Sterling Ranch and Timber Ridge, so RS-5000 zoning for Sterling Ranch was appropriate in our comment.For Timber Ridge itself, it is a request for a PUD development, but the smallest plot can to be a mere 7,200 sq. ft.
Ø Developer’s Comment: This development is a mix of urban and rural land use as is appropriate in an area designated as a transition area. Urban infrastructure, including roads, will be placed in urban areas. Rural land use will dictate rural standards.
· NEPCO’s Response: Who designated this area as a “transition area”? If the developer is relying upon the Black Forest Preservation Plan, circa 1987, that plan expects a transition from one DU per 5 acres to one DU per acre. The 7,200 sq. ft. lots, at .165 acres, do not come close.In addition, the current El Paso County zoning maps show this area, and most of the surrounding area, as RR-5.There is no urban development until the developerbrings it in.And if the developer is relying on Sterling Ranch’s zoning change, this is essentially transition area creep.
Issue # 2.
We are further concerned about a new Metropolitan District, effectively an administrative agency/pass through organization.
a. Sterling Ranch Metro District purchases water from Woodman Hills Metro District which has 15 wells in the Denver Basin Aquifers and 2 wells in the Upper Black Squirrel Alluvial (shallow) Aquifer. Metro Districts are a reality in rural developments but they are inherently inefficient and we are witnessing more of these “administrative” Districts that exist only as pass-through entities. Woodman Hills Metro District already has 7 Intergovernmental Agreements with other Districts. The new Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority Area 3 Engineering Report, just publicly released, sounds the alarm about relying on non-renewable water sources and yet we have another pair of developments stating that there is sufficient water for 10,000 plus new residents relying on the underlying aquifers. The El Paso County 300-year rule for sustainable water resources is all but ignored when these developments are planned.
b. According to the Neighborhood Meeting Summary, the water provided by the water district(s) “will come from the deep aquifers: Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox Hills.” Is this how the new Timber Ridge Metro District will mine its water, or are they relying on where Sterling Ranch Metro District gets theirs? Will there be a requirement that those development homes that are not connected to the water district mine their water from these deeper aquifers?
c. Even under the El Paso County Policy Plan, 10.2.3 and 10.2.4, the goal is to maximize water supply options and economies through the pooling of resources and to encourage the linking of systems among water providers to provide the highest assurance of available service.The Timber Ridge development creates a whole new district to do these things and then states that these policies are “met by the proposed IGA between Sterling Ranch Metropolitan District and the proposed Timber Ridge Metropolitan District.”
Ø Developer’s Comment: The formation of a Metropolitan District is a separate application.Water will be addressed at the plat stage.
· NEPCO’s Response: Unresponsive.The developer kicks the can down the road until he has sunk so much into the development that the Commissioners would think it “unfair” to deny the development at that stage.Please make the developer prove access to 300 years of sustainable water now.
d. The planting of pines on the berms is a laudable idea to shield the high density of this development in the south. Given the nature of pines in this area (they can be so small as to hide nothing and a sizeable number often die within a few years of planting), will there be a minimum height or girth of these pine trees and will they be replaced if they die before build-out?
Ø Developer’s Comment: No comment by the developer.
· NEPCO’s Response: Developer unresponsive
Issue # 3.
Who will be maintaining the trails in this development? On page 3 of the Letter of Intent, it states that the proposed major trails will be constructed by the developer, placed in an easement, and maintained by El Paso County.Page 8 states much the same.However, on page 1 of the Development Plan, under Tract Table, it makes no reference to El Paso County maintaining any trails.Also, according to the Maintenance Agreement, “El Paso County will own and maintain the multi-use trail easement, and will own and maintain the open space parks should dedication be accepted,” while the Metropolitan District will “own and maintain the open space, drainage and water quality facilities, common areas, trails, landscape areas and buffer tracts.”Which is correct?
Ø Developer’s Comment: There are two types of trail: County trails as shown on the County Master Plan, and trails that will be owned and maintained by a proposed Metropolitan District.The County will maintain trails under its jurisdiction and the Metropolitan District will own and maintain trails under its jurisdiction. All trails will be constructed by the developer.
· NEPCO’s Response: Good, responsive explanation.
Issue # 4.
Two letters from neighboring 35-acre parcel landowners reference the addition of fire hydrants at least in the periphery of this development. However, the Wildland Fire & Hazard Mitigation Plan states that “At present, there is no readily available water supply for ground suppression fire resources. The local fire protection districts will need to haul water into the site during a fire.The subdivision will be supplied with water by the Sterling Metropolitan District in the future.”We can find no references to, or guarantees of, future fire hydrants in other documents.
Ø Developer’s Comment: Fire protection in the form of a water system is not currently available to this property. A water system will only be available in conjunction with the proposed development of the property.
· NEPCO’s Response: What does “only be available in conjunction with” mean? Does it mean that the developer will, or will not, install a fire protecting water system in this development—especially if he believes that “urban infrastructure, including roads, will be placed in urban areas”? If not, who will install such system and who will pay for it?
Issue # 5.
The Detail Plans, Signs & Lighting makes no references to lighting at all. Will dark-sky compliant lighting be used/required in this development?
Ø Developer’s Comment: This applicant is not proposing street lighting.
· NEPCO’s Response: Partially responsive. Will the developer mandate dark-sky compliant lighting for all lighting purposes in the neighborhood? The rural character of the Black Forest community will be negatively impacted if no such restriction is in place as part of the Covenants.
Issue # 6.
Transportation/Access Concerns
1. The Traffic Impact Study is for this development only.EPC Planners should be looking at the big picture of all other traffic impacts in this area, especially Sterling Ranch and its 10,000 people (and number of commercial sites).
2. Currently the road system is inadequate to support the number of proposed new residents.
a. Stapleton Drive is listed as a future road. The Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority (PPRTA) currently lists the Stapleton Road extension as a “Corridor Study” only with $314K allocated in the current year for the study and no activity currently listed, i.e. it is years away.
b. Aspen Valley Parkway terminates in a dead-end.
c. Fox Covert Way terminates in a dead-end.
d. Bison Valley Trail terminates in a dead-end
e. Mount Jackson Drive terminates in a dead-end.
3. These roads rely on another development for connectivity-an event not under the control of this development. Volmer Road is the only route either into or out of this development.
Ø Developer’s Comments: The planned transportation system is consistent with both the County MTC and with good subdivision planning which requires connectivity to adjacent unplatted lands.
· NEPCO’s Response: Unresponsive. Requiring connectivity to unplatted lands says nothing about the current inadequacy of the road system to support the number of proposed new residents. Since the Traffic Impact Study purports to have assessed the cumulative impact of all developments in this area through 2040, it should be studied closely to see if all future developments, traffic additions, zoning changes, assumptions about road systems, and assumptions about road funding and priorities are correct. In addition, at a minimum, all proposed recommendations should be accomplished.The chart on page 19 of the updated traffic study should be instructive.However, please note that the chart’s row entitled “Southbound left-turn lanes on Vollmer Road approaching Burgess Road” and its column on Responsibility as an“Existing Deficiency – Others – This development will not add volume to this turning movement,” appears to be incorrect. See page 26 of the report which show a 6% short-term and 3% long-term directional distribution of site-generated traffic along Vollmer at the Burgess intersection, and pages 27-28 which show assignment of short-term and long-term site-generated traffic along Vollmer at Burgess which is more than “not adding volume” – especially at an intersection that is stop signed with only one lane in each direction.
Additional (NEW) Comments:
1. Wetlands Analysis Report:
a) This is new/updated and seems to indicate that much is still to be done (mostly coordination) regarding wetlands designation and construction practices. I note that the Army COE just issued a letter (posted to the website on 24 July) saying that a permit may be required since the developer plans to discharge dredged/fill material into jurisdictional waters.
2. The Soils and Geology Report:
a) Refers to a 237-acre development (page 5). What happened to the other 56 acres?
b) Groundwater found between 5 - 17.5 feet (page 11).Borings appear to be done in February/March, very dry months here.All construction and engineering design practices should be monitored carefully to ensure no groundwater leakages into homes.
A final comment related to the review process: It would be helpful if the applicants had to use tracked changes or some other convention that clearly annotated when they “update” documents so that we can see at a glance what has changed.It is a challenging to go through the whole development proposal once again and is fraught with missing minor changes.
//SIGNED// //SIGNED//
Thomas M. Vierzba Larry Oliver
Vice President, NEPCO President, NEPCO
Chairman,
NEPCO Transportation and Land Use Committee
5 | Page Northern El Paso County Coalition of Community Organizations
P.O. Box 714, Monument, CO 80132-0714