Developers outline 221-home ‘Coyote Ridge’ plan; residents press on water, traffic and wildlife

Elbert County planners and the project team presented the Coyote Ridge preliminary final plat at a community meeting, describing a 112-acre subdivision proposed for 221 single-family lots and a mix of 70×110, 60×110 and 50×110 parcels. Julie Gamick, a planner with TA Associates, said the parcel was rezoned to a PUD that allows the proposed density and includes design standards, no-build areas and other requirements.

Gamick said the proposal includes a roughly 4-acre park and about 41 acres of open space "to help protect the existing flood planes and provide some wildlife corridors." She said roads within the development would be private and maintained by a metro district the developers are forming, while County Road 13 and County Road 178 would be extended and built to county standards and remain the county’s responsibility.

Addressing a common concern, the applicant said water supply has been reviewed with county engineers and state water representatives. "We are dedicating all of our water rights to the Spring Valley Metro District," Gamick said, and the team stated the property holds long-standing water rights and that the water demand analysis indicated compliance with the 300‑year supply requirement using multiple aquifers including the Dawson and Denver‑Arapahoe aquifers (other aquifers mentioned were not fully specified in the meeting).

On traffic, Gamick cited a traffic study completed during rezoning and said it will be updated as the project advances; she summarized the study’s estimate that peak‑hour trip generation would be "less than four vehicle trips per minute at the busiest times" and that the County Road 13/178 intersections are forecast to operate as stop‑sign controlled through 2045 under the study's assumptions. The team noted the project will pay county impact fees that the county allocates across public needs, including police enforcement, but the county’s specific use of those funds was not specified at the meeting.

Residents raised other concerns. One asked whether the project would include commercial uses; Gamick responded the 112‑acre proposal does not provide commercial space and limits uses to single‑family and minimal in‑home businesses: "We are not proposing any sort of commercial. So, no gas station, no strip mall," she said. Another asked how the project would affect wildlife; Gamick said the team has worked with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to revise layout and provide improved corridors and trail siting to reduce impacts.

A resident asked about proximity to oil operations; the applicant said there is a roughly 35‑acre parcel separating Coyote Ridge from the nearest oil property and estimated the oil facility to be about a quarter mile from the project’s northern boundary. The applicant stated there is no oil development proposed as part of Coyote Ridge.

The county planner emphasized that this meeting was an early community meeting, that no decisions were being made, and outlined next steps: the project will go through public hearings before the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners for the preliminary plat, and a final plat would follow if the preliminary plat is approved. Project contact information was left on a slide for written comments and questions.

The meeting provided attendees the opportunity to ask technical and process questions but produced no formal action; the county and applicants noted further studies and hearings will refine traffic and water analyses and that allocations such as impact‑fee spending are determined by the county.