Coyote Ridge PUD hearing continued to Aug. 19 after applicant presentation and resident objections on traffic and packet completeness

The Planning Commission continued the Coyote Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD 20240258) public hearing to Aug. 19 after receiving a presentation from the applicant, public comment expressing traffic and environmental concerns, and a commission request for missing or clarified application materials.

Project summary: applicants described a proposed PUD for approximately 112 acres at the northeast corner of County Road 13 and County Road 178. The development exhibit proposes up to 237 dwelling units, a mix of single‑family detached and attached units (labeled as single‑family attached/paired homes), roughly 43% open space (about 48 acres), a four‑acre private park, detention basins and private internal roads to be built to county standards. The project team described six planning areas that would govern densities and allowable uses within the PUD exhibit; the exhibit itself would become the recorded zoning document if the BOCC approves the PUD.

Infrastructure and services: the applicant said water and wastewater service would be provided by the Spring Valley Metro District; the applicant and staff confirmed there would be no on‑site wells. Staff reviewed a traffic impact study and said county engineering and external consultants found it acceptable for this review stage but that final engineering and roadway improvements would be reviewed during the platting and design process. The Metro District and Douglas County School District reviewed the proposal; the school district requested that a cash‑in‑lieu payment be memorialized and paid at the time of final plat, staff said.

Public comment and concerns: a resident, Siobhan Rotercox, said she has lived nearby 29 years and urged denial, citing a traffic‑study estimate she read that predicted roughly 2,432 additional weekday vehicle trips and questioning the compatibility of a new PUD with surrounding agricultural and agricultural‑residential land. Other speakers, including neighbors, expressed worries about increased speeding, intersection safety at County Roads 13 and 178, wildlife impacts, and loss of undeveloped landscape.

Applicant responses: property owner principals said they purchased the land 23 years ago and intend to remain locally engaged; they described buffer areas of 35‑acre parcels to the north and south and said they are retaining those 35‑acre parcels. The applicant explained proposed boundary adjustments on five parcels so the 112‑acre rezoned parcel would be contiguous and the four northern 35‑acre parcels would retain access via the perimeter road or recorded easements. Traffic engineer Kirsten Farren of LSC said the firm analyzed short‑ and long‑term scenarios and recommended intersection improvements, including left‑turn lanes on County Road 178 approaching County Road 13, that in the short term would maintain acceptable intersection operations and in some cases improve existing conditions.

Design and timing: the development guide in the PUD includes setbacks, lot sizes and architectural ‘‘toolbox’’ elements; consultants said builders would be required to use multiple styles and toolbox items so massing and appearance would vary rather than produce a single uniform product. The applicants said they did not yet have a builder or firm construction timeline; they estimated development might occur within a multi‑year timeframe but provided no firm start date.

Commission concerns and procedural issues: several commissioners raised two recurring concerns. First, they asked for more documentation and for staff to compile missing materials identified in the planning regulations’ application checklist; commissioners emphasized they needed a complete record to perform the quasi‑judicial review. Second, commissioners probed the environmental and traffic analyses, asking whether wildlife corridors were adequately protected and whether the open‑space acreage included areas unsuitable for recreation (seasonal/regulated floodplain). Staff noted some legal and parcel adjustments were in process (deeds and assessor coordination) and that staff would work with the applicant to correct minor exhibit drafting issues.

Motion and outcome: the commission voted to continue the hearing to Aug. 19 to allow staff and the applicant to provide outstanding documents and to permit further coordination with county counsel and referral agencies. The planning commission recorded that the continuance carried (five ayes, four nays); staff will return the item to the commission with a complete application packet on the rescheduled date.

Next steps: the applicant will finalize parcel deeds and coordinate with the assessor; staff will compile the outstanding application materials identified by the commission and circulate them in advance of the Aug. 19 hearing. If the commission then makes a recommendation, the item would move to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. The commission’s action at this meeting was to continue consideration pending a complete record.

Quoted from the hearing: resident Siobhan Rotercox said, "I read in the traffic impact study that it could lead to an additional 2,432 vehicle trips on the average weekday, which is astounding to me." Traffic consultant Kirsten Farren said the firm "analyzed two different scenarios" and concluded short‑term intersection improvements could maintain acceptable levels of service.

The commission closed public comment, continued the hearing and scheduled the next appearance of the item for Aug. 19 at 7 p.m.