Planning Commission recommends Bella Mesa North 525-home plan to Town Council after geology and traffic concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 5–2 Sept. 25 to recommend approval of the Bella Mesa North site development plan — a proposal for 525 single-family homes on 293.21 acres — after staff and the applicant described buffering, open space and traffic studies and residents raised concerns about rockfall, blasting, wildlife and school/traffic impacts.
The Town of Castle Rock Planning Commission on Sept. 25 recommended that Town Council approve the Bella Mesa North site development plan, a proposal to build 525 single‑family homes on a 293.21‑acre site northeast of Mitchell Street and Mickelson Boulevard. The commission’s recommendation passed by roll call vote, 5–2, and the item is scheduled for Town Council review on Oct. 7.
Staff planner Brianna Grande told the commission the site — largely annexed with Founders Village and rezoned in 2014 — conforms to the Bella Mesa plan and municipal code. Grande said the plan proposes 174 acres of open space and a 3.99‑acre central park and that staff is recommending the commission forward a recommendation of approval to council. “Staff is recommending that planning commission recommend approval of the Bella Mesa north site development plan to town council,” Grande said (transcript SEG 181–183, SEG 186).
Cardell Homes division president Sarah Deringer and the project team described measures the applicant took after neighborhood meetings: moving trails away from the mesa edge, preserving conifer fringe areas, creating enhanced buffers and removing seven lots along the southern boundary to increase lot sizes adjacent to Castlewood Ranch. “We did end up taking out seven lots in total from this boundary,” the applicant team stated (transcript SEG 321–323, SEG 325–326).
Residents voiced a string of concerns during the public comment period, chiefly geological safety, blasting, wildlife impacts and traffic and school capacity. Nancy Mitchell, who reported living below the rim adjacent to the proposed mesa edge, warned of previously observed rockfall and asked whether a rockfall study had been completed. “They are going to have to blast through it to provide the services that you all require,” she said, adding she feared dust, rock, and noise impacts (transcript SEG 676–681, SEG 686–692).
The project’s civil engineer, Mike Peachman of Redland, said a CTL Thompson geotechnical report prepared for the applicant addresses blasting and rockfall. He told the commission the consultant recommended avoiding blasting within roughly 100 feet of the cliff edge and using vibration monitoring during any blasting; he also noted contractors will be required to meet the town’s monitoring requirements during construction. “CTL Thompson prepared a report ... they discuss blasting should be avoided within about 100 ft of the cliff edge,” Peachman said (transcript SEG 1122–1133).
Commissioners also questioned traffic and emergency access. Traffic consultant Scott Kilgore explained that counts used in the study were taken in March 2025 and the traffic model projects conditions to 2045 to capture long‑range growth; the study examined peak AM and PM intersection operations and included school drop‑off/pick‑up counts. Kilgore said the study assumed conservative trip generation and that roughly 90% of project traffic would use North Mitchell as the primary access (transcript SEG 491–499, SEG 551–553, SEG 1179–1182).
Several commissioners emphasized safety around schools and urged the developer and town to ensure sufficient traffic mitigation for school drop‑off and emergency access. After discussion, a motion to recommend approval passed by roll call: Commissioners Martinez — Aye; Samuelson — Aye; Salinas — Nay; Stanley — Aye; Sawin — Nay; Vice Chair McHugh — Aye; Chair Warnke — Aye. The commission recorded the motion as approved 5–2 (transcript SEG 1290–1305).
Next steps: the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the project record (including the CTL Thompson geotechnical report and the traffic study finalized in June 2025) will go to Town Council for consideration at its Oct. 7 meeting. The staff report and the applicant’s technical studies are part of the official record and were offered into the record at the hearing.
Sources: Planning Commission public hearing transcript, Sept. 25, 2025 (staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comment, engineering responses, and roll‑call vote).
