The case
The questions the City has not answered
A developer wants to build 343 houses on the mesa above Surrey Ridge and McArthur Ranch. The file does not yet show that people can get out in a fire, that the wells below will keep their water, or that the hillside will hold. The neighbors who would live with the answers have no way to fix them later.
The problem
The file substitutes paperwork for answers
We have asked five questions. Can several hundred new households and the neighbors around them get out of a wind-driven fire? Is there water for 343 homes? Will the grading take water from the wells below? Will a road hold on ground where the hillside next door has already slid? What happens to the wildlife that moves through here?
For each one, the file offers a document in place of an answer.
What that looks like
State law says the City has to find the water supply adequate before it approves. In place of that finding the file has a will-serve letter from the water district. The letter is missing three of the six things the statute asks for, and the district’s own manager told the board it is not a promise or a guarantee.
Each gap may look small on its own. Together they leave the City without the findings it needs.
The record has to support the decision
The Council can decide only on what is in front of it. A vote to approve now would treat Hillcamp as safe without the studies that would show it. The ground studies are still marked preliminary, and the water, evacuation and wildlife studies are missing or incomplete.
Before you read on
Where this lands
Surrey Ridge and McArthur Ranch are outside the City limits
They sit in unincorporated Douglas County, a few hundred feet from the property. Surrey Ridge has no hydrants, no municipal water for firefighting, and no district that could pay to widen a road. Lone Tree residents who share these roads have spoken against the project, and Surrey Ridge stands with them.
Lone Tree can build that second way out inside its own city limits. The plan routes it onto our County roads instead.
Land use has its own vocabulary. The glossary defines unfamiliar terms in plain language.
The issues
Nine open questions
A short version of each, with links to the documents behind it.
1. People may not be able to get out
An independent evacuation model would show whether they can. The file does not contain one, and the City can require it before it votes.
In a fire, the new households and ours leave at the same time. One public road serves the whole subdivision. The backups are locked gates onto county roads, and the developer has written that one of them cannot carry a public road.
2. The water that reaches the wells below could change
Make the water finding before approving, and study what the new grading and drainage do to the wells below.
State law requires a written finding that the water supply is adequate, and the City’s own code asks for evidence of an adequate supply at preliminary plan. Neither is in the file. No study asks what the new grading and drainage capture on the way downhill, or what that does to the wet ground below.
3. The hillside could move, and the houses are below it
Finish the ground studies the State geologist asked for, and accept them, before approving the road.
The road climbs mapped landslide ground. In January the State geologist told the City the investigation would not support approval. After revisions, its August 20 letter no longer objects to the plat, but says the developer’s study “remains preliminary” and does not fully address how weakened, previously moved ground was modeled. Staff require a minimum safety factor of 1.5. The latest report says 1.3 is acceptable.
4. The roads out already fail before this is built
Redo the traffic study using the roads people would take, including on the days I-25 closes.
A turn at the I-25 ramp already fails in the evening rush on the developer’s own numbers. One of the underpasses we would evacuate through is missing from the study.
5. The wildlife survey is one visit from 2023
Require a new wildlife survey in the field before deciding.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife maps a big game pinch point here and recommends against surface development on one. The survey in the file is a single visit made on August 29, 2023, before the elk rut.
6. The plan that gets built may not be the one people commented on
Answer the open questions before the vote and keep them out of a later agreement.
City staff have already written that some lots may need to be removed. The rest is left to a development agreement that is not in the file and was being negotiated in closed session in June.
7. The backup exits run onto County roads in our neighborhood
Build it inside Lone Tree instead.
No district in Surrey Ridge can levy taxes or borrow for hydrants or a wider road. Hillcamp’s side of the line has nine, and one of them is building its infrastructure.
8. It has not been shown to match the City’s own plan
Show the work against the Comprehensive Plan, and talk to the neighbors that plan promised to consult.
Matching the Comprehensive Plan is a condition of approval, and the file does not contain an analysis of that match. The plan also carries Lone Tree’s own commitment to give adjoining communities outside its jurisdiction a chance to comment. We were not notified.
9. The developer paid for the studies the City would rely on
Hire independent experts and send the developer the bill. Lone Tree’s own code already allows it.
The traffic study, the geotechnical report, the wildfire plan and the wildlife survey were commissioned by the applicant. That is common practice, and it is why much of this site quotes the developer’s own consultants. The City has not hired its own experts on these questions.
Get told when a hearing is set
Agendas go up about a week before a meeting. We will email you when a date is posted. We do not use the list for anything else.
The City has not made these findings yet
The road and pump station go to City Council on November 17. Put your name in the record before it votes.
