Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Valentine Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County hears concept brief for 58-acre ‘Valentine’ planned unit development
Summary
Developers presented a concept plan for the Valentine PUD near Highway 86, describing phased commercial and residential areas, drainage and floodplain constraints, wastewater and water-rights considerations, and a request that the county seek CDOT removal of an access restriction.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Valentine Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Byron McDaniel, chair of the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners, convened a concept-briefing on the Valentine planned unit development that would cover just over 58 acres near Colorado Highway 86, about 1.5 miles east of the town boundary of Elizabeth.
The applicant, Cindy Pedrioli of Farnsworth Group, told commissioners the site is bisected by a drainage corridor designated FEMA Zone A (special flood hazard area) and that most development is being sited outside that corridor. She said the project team plans water-quality and detention basins uphill of the corridor and anticipates county public-works review using the Mile High Flood District criteria and FEMA maps.
Pedrioli said the site currently carries agricultural zoning with an EDZ overlay on the northern portion but that the owners prefer to pursue a PUD to customize allowed uses. The preliminary concept shows commercial lots on the northwest corner of the site, residential and mixed-use parcels on the southeast, and an anticipated first phase that includes primary access from Highway 86 and commercial lots plus an RV-storage area. The presentation notes the RV-storage area would include a potable water fill station; the developer indicated a fee would likely be charged but that the business model is not finalized.
Nut graf: The meeting focused on how topography, floodplain mapping, water rights and wastewater options will constrain what can be built and where. Commissioners pressed the developer on access to Highway 86, water availability, septic versus centralized sewer options, and neighborhood impacts; no formal county vote or approval was taken at the briefing.
Key project details and constraints presented by the applicant included: the parcel contains the full right-of-way for County Road 25 along its eastern boundary; a drainage that is often dry but shows significant erosion runs diagonally through the site; and the Mile High Flood District and FEMA FIRM maps will guide detailed floodplain design. Pedrioli said CDOT has an “A-line” access restriction along much of the Highway 86 frontage that limits where access points may be established and that CDOT indicated it would support removal of the A-line and relocation of access to align with Columbine Drive if the county formally requests the change.
Pedrioli described utility plans as preliminary: the development team is planning a centralized potable well as initial water service with additional wells phased as needed and is evaluating wastewater options that could include individual septic systems per parcel or a consolidated sewer system on the south side of the site. She said water-rights availability and fire-access standards will affect phasing and the siting of roadways and infrastructure. The applicant also described design intentions to limit high-impact commercial uses (for example, uses with substantial odor, noise, or heavy traffic) and to use native, low-water landscaping along the Highway 86 frontage. The concept brief shows a 75-foot setback along the east property line to increase separation from adjacent homes.
Commissioners and staff asked several questions. Commissioner Dallas Schroeder disclosed familiarity with the local roads and cautioned the developer about a corner near County Road 25 where vehicles and mail access currently create congestion; Schroeder recommended mitigation and noted he would make disclosures at future hearings but expects to be able to decide impartially. Commissioners asked about water availability and conservation; Pedrioli said the applicant’s engineers have evaluated on-site water rights and are coordinating with water engineers but have not completed broader regional studies. Neighborhood outreach was conducted in mid-November and was attended by about 40–50 residents; Pedrioli said primary neighborhood concerns were appearance from Highway 86 and access to places for youth.
The applicant requested that the county submit a formal letter to Colorado Department of Transportation supporting removal of the A-line and exploring realignment of access to line up with Columbine Drive; Pedrioli said the developer cannot make that request directly and that the CDOT process typically takes about one to two years after a jurisdictional request.
No formal motions or votes were taken during the concept briefing. Commissioners gave feedback, asked for additional technical detail on water and wastewater options, and said they would expect further information at subsequent hearings. The developer said the team will return with more detailed design work and answers to outstanding questions.
The board closed the briefing with no action taken.
