Owners propose 221-home Coyote Ridge development in Elbert County; residents press questions on water, traffic and wildlife

Developers presented a 112-acre plan for the Coyote Ridge Preliminary Final Plat in Elbert County that would create 221 detached single-family lots and leave roughly 41 acres as open space, and residents used a community meeting to press the applicants on water, traffic, wildlife corridors and nearby oil operations.

Julie Gammill, a planner with T Associates, said the site sits on the northeast corner of County Road 13 and County Road 178 and is currently zoned as a planned unit development (PUD) that was rezoned and recorded with Elbert County. "We are proposing three lot sizes...for a total of 221 units on the 112 acres," Gammill said, outlining 70-by-110, 60-by-110 and 50-by-110 lots, a conceptual 4-acre park and roughly 41 acres of open space intended to protect floodplains and provide wildlife corridors.

The project team said utilities and emergency service providers have been identified: water and sanitary service will be provided through Spring Valley Metro District; electric by CORE Electric; natural gas by Xcel; and fire protection by Rattlesnake Fire Protection District. Gammill said the team prepared a traffic study during the rezoning process (completed December 2025) and that the study will be updated as design details change. "The peak hour trip generation is less than four vehicle trips per minute at the busiest times," she said, and the existing County Road 13/178 intersection is projected to operate as a stop-sign controlled intersection through 2045 traffic projections.

Water supply was the most persistent concern raised by residents. When asked whether homes would rely on wells, the applicants said the property owners hold water rights they said are sufficient to meet the county's 300-year water-supply requirement and that demand figures were reviewed with county engineers and state water representatives. Ownership representative Dave Quattrochi stated, "We're dedicating all of our water rights to the Spring Valley Metro District," and the team said they will join Spring Valley for water and sanitary service. The applicants also said they are forming a metro district that will combine with Spring Valley.

Residents pressed about commercial zoning and services; the applicants said the proposal is residential only and does not include commercial space such as a gas station or strip mall, though they noted that housing growth can eventually attract retail. On safety and enforcement, a resident asked whether additional police monitoring was planned for speeding; Gammill said the project will pay county impact fees, and the county allocates those fees across categories that include police services, but she could not specify how the county would deploy those funds.

Wildlife concerns prompted the applicants to say they are coordinating with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to revise project layout and widen wildlife corridors where appropriate and to site trails in less impactful locations. On questions about proximity to oil operations, the applicant estimated roughly a quarter-mile to existing oil infrastructure north of the site and said no new oil or well development is proposed as part of the project; a project representative noted a nearby GMT oil pumping station occupies a 5-acre parcel.

County staff closed by emphasizing this was a community meeting for the preliminary plat and that no decisions were made. The planning process continues: the application will go to the planning commission and then to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision, and the applicants said they welcome written comments for the public record. A county planner who opened the meeting said they expect to be assigned to the file and provided contact availability for follow-up questions.