View: Project Documents
| Agency | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| View |
County Attorney - Water
4/13/2022 10:01:53 AM |
See the attached Water Supply Review and Recommendations from the Office of the County Attorney. | 4/13/2022 10:01:53 AM |
|
PCD Project Manager
4/11/2022 8:26:38 AM |
Item is scheduled for May 5th PC and May 17th BOCC. Please email Power Point to Planner 2 days before the PC hearing. Item is regular. Please focus on approval criteria. | 4/11/2022 8:26:38 AM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
3/28/2022 10:54:10 AM |
Per our March 8 comment, please revise the WSIS, Water Resources Report, and water commitment letter to ensure that the types of uses and their respective water demands are consistent across all documents. Thanks! | 3/28/2022 10:54:10 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/24/2022 11:28:04 AM |
Staff has received permission to do back to back hearings as to not delay the applicants BOCC hearing date. Planning Commission dates of May 5, and hearing for the BoCC on May 17. Item still needs water finding from CAO. Please note. Please resubmit the two items before April 7 to make that schedule. |
3/24/2022 11:28:04 AM | |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/24/2022 11:24:13 AM |
Letter of Intent Comment | 3/24/2022 11:24:13 AM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/24/2022 11:17:10 AM |
Minimal PUDSP Plan comments attached. | 3/24/2022 11:17:10 AM |
| View |
Colorado Division of Water Resources
3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
This office previously provided comments regarding this development on October 26, 2021. Those previous comments are still applicable and have been attached. | 3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
PCD Engineering Division
3/21/2022 4:08:43 PM |
Review #3: comments are resolved. - Upload the Preliminary Drainage Report with engineer's PE Stamp/Signature and developer signature for final approval once stormwater team's comments are resolved. reviewed by: Gilbert LaForce gilbertlaforce@elpasoco.com |
3/21/2022 4:08:43 PM | |
|
Colorado Geological Survey
3/21/2022 9:24:09 AM |
The applicant has addressed our previous comments and added the geologic hazards/constraints and recommendations for retaining wall design to the PUD plan. CGS recommends Entech be retained to review the project plans and specifications for conformance with the recommendations provided in their report. Provided Entech’s recommendations are adhered to, CGS has no objection to approval. Submitted 3/21/2022 by Amy Crandall, Engineering Geologist, Colorado Geological Survey (303-384-2632 or acrandall@mines.edu) |
3/21/2022 9:24:09 AM | |
| View |
Widefield SD 3
3/14/2022 12:35:22 PM |
3/14/2022 12:35:22 PM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
3/8/2022 2:29:13 PM |
The various water documents call out the following uses: residential, commercial (leasing office/clubhouse), and irrigation. Please correct the documents to ensure that all 3 types of use are accurately described and the estimated water demand for each called out separately. Thank you! | 3/8/2022 2:29:13 PM | |
|
Fountain
2/17/2022 7:45:18 AM |
Constructions plans for the extension of Landover Lane must be submitted to the City of Fountain for review and approval and applicable review fees for the construction plans. | 2/17/2022 7:45:18 AM | |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:31:25 PM |
PUD Development Plan set includes landscape plan comments 2 | 2/14/2022 5:31:25 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:30:47 PM |
Traffic Report comment 2 | 2/14/2022 5:30:47 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:29:44 PM |
Water State Form comment | 2/14/2022 5:29:44 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:29:22 PM |
Letter of Intent Comments 2 | 2/14/2022 5:29:22 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:28:53 PM |
Grading Plan Comments V2 | 2/14/2022 5:28:53 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
2/14/2022 5:27:49 PM |
Drainage report 2 comments | 2/14/2022 5:27:49 PM |
|
PCD Engineering Division
2/14/2022 1:59:58 PM |
Review 2 comments on the following documents will be uploaded by the project manager: -Traffic Study: minor comment -Drainage Report -PUD Development Plan -Preliminary Grading Plan No additional comments on the following documents: -Soils and Geology reviewed by: Daniel Torres danieltorres@elpasoco.com |
2/14/2022 1:59:58 PM | |
| View |
Widefield SD 3
2/9/2022 8:07:46 AM |
2/9/2022 8:07:46 AM | |
|
Colorado Geological Survey
2/7/2022 10:11:14 AM |
I understand the planned unit development and preliminary plan referral consists of 122 single-family (for rent) dwelling units, sales/amenity center, and open space on approximately 10.218 acres located at Mesa Ridge Parkway and S. Powers Boulevard. With this resubmittal, CGS received a request to provide Review Comments (Email dated January 20, 2022); Letter of Intent (HR Green, January 17, 2022); Grading Plan (HR Green, January 17, 2022); Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan (HR Green, January 18, 2022); Soil, Geology, and Geologic Hazard study (Entech Engineering, Inc., December 22, 2021); and other documents. The site does not contain any unusual geologic hazards or geotechnical constraints that preclude the proposed 122-lot residential subdivision. As noted on page 8 of Entech’s report, “Constraints/Hazards include artificial fill, collapsible soils, expansive soils, potential seasonal shallow groundwater, shallow bedrock, and flowing water.” CGS agrees with Entech on page 11 that “The hazards on site may be satisfactorily mitigated through proper engineering design and construction practices.” For example, CGS agrees with Entech’s recommendation of “Overexcavation depths of 4 to 5 feet” to mitigate expansive soils and their recommendation to remove uncontrolled fill during site grading. Entech’s characterization of the geologic hazards and constraints associated with the site is valid. Provided Entech’s recommendations are adhered to, CGS has no objection to approval. We offer the following comments and recommendations. 1. Shallow bedrock was encountered in some of Entech’s test borings at relatively shallow depths (as shallow as 1 foot below grade). Shallow bedrock can result in excavation difficulties and will require heavy-duty excavation equipment. As noted on page 11 of Entech’s geologic hazard report, “Excavation of claystone and shale may be difficult and require track-mounted equipment.” Potential earthwork contractors should be made aware of these difficulties and plan accordingly. 2. General note 3 of the PUD/Preliminary Plan should include all hazards and constraints to development including shallow bedrock. 3. According to the grading plans, retaining walls are planned within the development. CGS recommends the county require a local and global stability analysis as part of the overall retaining wall design for walls greater than 4 feet in height. This analysis should be performed to evaluate requirements for achieving and maintaining long-term slope stability with a FOS of at least 1.5. The slope stability analysis must use site-specific soil density, shear strength values, and higher-than-observed water levels to reflect reasonable post-rainfall levels. 4. CGS recommends Entech be retained to review the project plans and specifications for conformance with the recommendations provided in their report. Submitted 2/7/2022 by Amy Crandall, Engineering Geologist, Colorado Geological Survey (303-384-2632 or acrandall@mines.edu) |
2/7/2022 10:11:14 AM | |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
2/10/2022 5:19:48 PM |
Review 2: EPC Stormwater comments have been provided (in orange text boxes) on the following uploaded documents: - Preliminary Drainage Report (to be uploaded by PM with PCD comments) Reviewed by: Christina Prete, P.E. Stormwater Engineer III christinaprete@elpasoco.com |
2/10/2022 5:19:48 PM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
1/31/2022 4:20:50 PM |
There is a discrepancy between the Water Supply Information Summary and the Water Demand Report stating 43.05 acre-feet/year, whereas the State Engineer’s Office and District letter states there will also be one acre of landscape irrigation, which will require an additional 3.0 acre-feet/year for a total of 46.05. If the total is 46.05, the WSIS and Water Resources Report should be corrected and uploaded. Thanks! |
1/31/2022 4:20:50 PM | |
|
911 Authority - El Paso/Teller County
1/21/2022 8:52:51 AM |
Streetnames previously approved. No action for E911 on this submittal. Thank you. Justin |
1/21/2022 8:52:51 AM | |
| View |
EPC Health Department
12/6/2021 8:44:34 PM |
12/6/2021 8:44:34 PM | |
| View |
Colorado Department of Transportation - Pueblo Office
11/19/2021 10:35:38 AM |
11/19/2021 10:35:38 AM | |
|
Colorado Department of Transportation - Pueblo Office
11/16/2021 11:51:21 AM |
Comments will be forthcoming. - Arthur Gonzales, Access Manager | 11/16/2021 11:51:21 AM | |
| View |
Colorado Division of Water Resources
10/26/2021 11:07:39 AM |
10/26/2021 11:07:39 AM | |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
10/21/2021 1:16:21 PM |
Grading Plan Preliminary | 10/21/2021 1:16:21 PM |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
10/21/2021 1:15:06 PM |
Drainage Report redlines | 10/21/2021 1:15:06 PM |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
10/21/2021 1:14:00 PM |
Traffic Study redlines | 10/21/2021 1:14:00 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 1:13:35 PM |
PUD Preliminary Plan Redlines.... | 10/21/2021 1:13:35 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 1:07:32 PM |
Letter of Intent (LOI) Redlines | 10/21/2021 1:07:32 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 1:06:27 PM |
Geology Soils Report Comments-Please see Section 8.4.9 of the Code and ECM Appendix C.2.2.E for report requirements; the applicant is requesting approval of installation of utilities now. | 10/21/2021 1:06:27 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 12:37:35 PM |
Landscape plan redlines | 10/21/2021 12:37:35 PM |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 12:17:18 PM |
Please see checklist for PUD and prelim and add missing info. Emailed to you. | 10/21/2021 12:17:18 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 12:11:22 PM |
Landscape plan Checklist: Location and dimension of the all property lines, rights-of-way, and all existing and proposed easements Location and classification of all existing and proposed internal and adjacent roadway(s). The outlines of all structures, parking areas, outside storage areas, loading areas, and refuse collection area(s) in relation to the landscaping. The existing zoning of the subject property and the existing zoning of surrounding properties. Location and species of all plantings and the location and design of any proposed irrigation infrastructure for proposed landscaping in the rights-of-way, if pre-approved. (license agreement required) The location of all utilities, walls, fences, exterior parking and loading areas, pedestrian walks or paths, pedestrian-oriented areas, vehicular drives, storm water detention areas, and other manmade elements. Detail drawings of all required structures used for screening purposes (Example: refuse areas, equipment screening, and/or gates). Sight distance triangles and any plantings, signs, walls, structures, or other visual obstructions within the triangles where applicable. The location, type, size, and quantity of major existing plant materials meeting the plant type requirements, including all vegitated groundcover areas, shrubs, and trees, with information as to which materials are poposed to be removed and which shall be retained or relocated. All proposed ground cover areas shall be identified, including the types and amounts of living plant materials to be used and the size and depth of non-living materials. The manner in which any lawn areas are to be established (for example, by sodding or seeding) shall be indicated. The landscape treatment of all adjacent right-of-way areas, as well as the owner/ developer's property, shall be identified. Phasing, if applicable, shall be noted on the landscape plan or provided as supplemental information. All future development phases within a site shall have all disturbed soil surfaces reseeded to prevent erosion. All requests for phasing of landscaping shall be espressly approved by the PCD Director prior to submittal of the associated application. If the application includes a request for approval of an alternative landscape plan, the landscape plan shall include a statement requesting approval of the alternative design and justification for the request unless otherwise provided for in the letter of intent. Landscape planting summary table to include a summary of required and proposed landscaping based upon adjacent or internal roadways, adjacent land use(s), parking area(s), buffer and screen area(s), and compliance with all internal landscaping requirements. "Legend with plant species, quantity, maturity height, ball and burlap size, caliper, symbol and name " |
10/21/2021 12:11:22 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 11:32:13 AM |
Please contact any review agency directly to address their comments or timing of their comments. | 10/21/2021 11:32:13 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 11:31:11 AM |
Staff is consulting with CDOT regarding the noise study. Planning Staff was surprised that a noise wall or setback is not needed along Powers, as they have been needed along Constitution, and Marksheffel Road for multiple projects.. The comparison or statement describing the analysis of the outcome of the study to the Federal guidelines regarding the decibel allowance for residential development adj to a highway, was not done. Post CDOT comments, provide a letter making that comparison. I believe the Federal regulation are differ from the Land Dev Code. Comments will be posted after CDOT Environmental reviews. Staff spoke with Valerie Vigil today regarding their comments and they should be forthcoming.. If it is deemed that additional construction practices, setbacks or sound wall are required please provide notes and detail on PUDSP plan. | 10/21/2021 11:31:11 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/20/2021 3:39:59 PM |
A comment review meeting is required to go over redlines and processing. Please contact staff for a meeting time. | 10/20/2021 3:39:59 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 11:06:52 AM |
Provide the details for the residential club house w/ pool on a sheet; this is in-lieu of a site dev plan. Verify all dimensions and SF is depicted on detail and any parking, ADA ramps sidewalks , patio areas etc... | 10/21/2021 11:06:52 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 11:06:32 AM |
Based on the actual submittal documents, the process will be simplified. The applicant will process a PUDSP (combined PUD prelim plan) and water sufficiency will be obtained at this stage. The PUDSP goes to PC and BOCC. One administrative final plat will be approved-no hearings. Then No site development plan will be needed. The applicant will submit individual residential site plans with the BESQCP and Driveway permit, when pulling each 2-family dwelling building permit through regional building just like a typical single family residential development would. This will save 3 months likely, if not more. | 10/21/2021 11:06:32 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/19/2021 2:33:55 PM |
FMIC approval letter from Board meeting for access shall be provided. | 10/19/2021 2:33:55 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/21/2021 10:58:14 AM |
The fire protection district information provided an email stating they will approve a variance for the secondary emergency access location. There was not an official commitment letter stating they commit to serve the development and were ok with the "driveway" (2-family dwelling, not single-family attached) serving the 122 units nor the irregular hammer head dead end road at the northern point of the development. Add the private road (Drive) names to the plans so fire can call them out in their letter. | 10/21/2021 10:58:14 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
10/20/2021 3:15:56 PM |
Water sufficiency is pending the State and CAO. | 10/20/2021 3:15:56 PM | |
| View |
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
10/19/2021 2:03:52 PM |
10/19/2021 2:03:52 PM | |
|
PCD Engineering Division
10/21/2021 11:53:12 AM |
Review 1 comments on the following documents will be uploaded: -Traffic Study -Drainage Report -PUD development plan -Grading Plan preliminary -Soils & Geology Report reviewed by: Daniel Torres danieltorres@elpasoco.com |
10/21/2021 11:53:12 AM | |
| View |
Parks Advisory Board
10/14/2021 11:11:51 AM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks Final Comments - Please See Attached Documents (PAB Endorsed 10/13/2021) | 10/14/2021 11:11:51 AM |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
10/14/2021 2:23:53 PM |
Review 1: EPC Stormwater comments have been provided (in orange text boxes) on the following uploaded documents: - Preliminary Drainage Report (to be uploaded by PM with PCD comments) Reviewed by: Christina Prete, P.E. Stormwater Engineer III christinaprete@elpasoco.com |
10/14/2021 2:23:53 PM | |
| View |
Fountain
10/7/2021 9:38:58 AM |
Please see attached comments. | 10/7/2021 9:38:58 AM |
| View |
Fountain
10/7/2021 9:38:20 AM |
Please see attached documents for comments from the City of Fountain Electric and Public Works Departments. | 10/7/2021 9:38:20 AM |
| View |
EPC Parks Department
10/6/2021 2:41:53 PM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks Preliminary Comments - Please See Attached Documents (To be presented to the PAB for endorsement on 10/13/2021) | 10/6/2021 2:41:53 PM |
|
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department
10/5/2021 1:34:41 PM |
1. Each modular duplex will receive a single address with two unit numbers. Please, when submitting plans, show proper unit numbering, not Unit A/Unit B. 2. Add unit numbers to the homes on the site plan, unit numbering is 101&102 and 101&201. Please check all unit numbers and make sure they are increasing going east and going south. 3. It appears at least three street names are needed, provide a list of proposed street names to Justin Annan jannan@elpasoteller911.org, and Glenn West gwest@elpasoteller911.org with El Paso/Teller County 911 Authority. An email from E-911 showing street names is required for Enumeration approval. Once street names are approved, add to the development plan. 4. An amenity center was referenced in the letter of intent. Is this a structure? If this is a building, show location on approved development plan for addressing. 5. Southwest is misspelled in the legal title block on the PUD plans. 6. When providing a site plan for addressing, please be sure to include all structures needing an address (i.e. carports, garages, trash enclosures over 7’ etc.) 7. Garages will require separate addresses and permits. 8. Trash enclosures over 7’ in height will require a separate addresses and permits. Standard Development Plan Comments: 1. For assignment of addressing for lots and tracts, place addressing marker (xxx) where they are intended to be utilized. Addressing marker for lots should be front door. 2. Provide a 100 scale copy or larger of the entire APPROVED development plan (d.p.) to this department so that addressing can be assigned. Once received, the development plan will be placed on a list to be addressed. Development plans that are not yet approved may be addressed, however additional plan review fees will accrue if changes are made to the D.P. after initial addressing. Becky Allen Enumerations Plans Examiner Pikes Peak Regional Building Department O: 719-799-2707 W: pprbd.org E: beckya@pprbd.org |
10/5/2021 1:34:41 PM | |
| View |
EPC Environmental Services
10/5/2021 8:48:15 AM |
10/5/2021 8:48:15 AM | |
|
Colorado Geological Survey
10/4/2021 3:09:37 PM |
I understand this planned unit development and preliminary plan referral consists of 122 single-family (for rent) dwelling units, sales/amenity center, and open space on approximately 10.218 acres located at Mesa Ridge Parkway and S. Powers Boulevard. With this referral, CGS received a request to provide Review Comments (Email dated September 14, 2021); Letter of Intent (HR Green, September 9, 2021); Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan (Goodwin Knight, September 10, 2021); Subsurface Soil Investigation (Entech Engineering, August 18, 2021); and other documents. Per Appendix C of the El Paso County Engineering Criteria Manual and Section 8.4.9 of the El Paso County Land Development Code, a geologic hazard study should also be performed. The submitted subsurface soil investigation does not discuss the site geology nor directly discusses the potential geologic hazards associated with the site. Even so, the site does not contain steep slopes or flood hazards, nor is it exposed to any geologic hazards that preclude development. Entech’s geotechnical recommendations appear appropriate to address the potential geologic constraints identified at this site, including expansive soils. If a geologic hazard report was performed earlier in the review process, we would appreciate a copy for our records. Entech has identified man-placed fill and expansive clay and claystone materials that impose geotechnical constraints on this site. Entech recommends on page 7, “Due to expansive clays and claystone, overexcavation of the soils is required if shallow foundations are used. A 4-foot overexcavation is recommended for the structures….The overexcavation depth is from the bottom of footings.” Also, as noted on page 11, “Compacted, non-expansive granular soil….is recommended for structural fill beneath foundation components and floor slabs.” Entech’s recommendations regarding subgrade preparation, overexcavation of expansive clay and claystone materials with non-expansive, granular structural fill beneath foundations and floor slabs, grading and surface drainage, and construction observations are valid. CGS agrees with Entech (page 6) that the soils (potentially man-placed fills) in the areas with deeper bedrock should be further evaluated with test pits. Provided Entech’s recommendations are strictly adhered to, CGS has no objection to the PUD/preliminary plan approval. CGS recommends Entech be retained to review the project plans and specifications for conformance with the recommendations provided in their subsurface soil investigation. Submitted 10/4/2021 by Amy Crandall, Engineering Geologist, Colorado Geological Survey (303-384-2632 or acrandall@mines.edu) |
10/4/2021 3:09:37 PM | |
|
Mountain View Electric Association, Inc.
10/4/2021 10:50:40 AM |
This project is not in MVEA's territory | 10/4/2021 10:50:40 AM | |
|
Colorado Springs Utilities, Dev, Svc.(includes water resources)
10/1/2021 6:59:36 AM |
I have no review comments for the above name project Al | 10/1/2021 6:59:36 AM | |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
9/29/2021 12:19:21 PM |
Correct Adj prop owners please. Several are missing. An email was sent to you. | 9/29/2021 12:19:21 PM |
| View |
Widefield SD 3
9/28/2021 3:29:03 PM |
9/28/2021 3:29:03 PM | |
|
911 Authority - El Paso/Teller County
9/23/2021 10:56:38 AM |
Roads depicted in the drawings are currently lacking names. No road names have been requested at this time. No action for E911 until road names have been requested. Thank you. Justin |
9/23/2021 10:56:38 AM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
9/16/2021 1:41:10 PM |
County Attorney's Office will review for water sufficiency following receipt of findings from Colorado Division of Water Resources. Thank you. | 9/16/2021 1:41:10 PM | |
|
Fountain Mutual Irrigation Company
9/16/2021 10:07:29 AM |
FMIC has reviewed the proposed Preliminary Plan/PUD for the Cottages @ Mesa Ridge and in particular the request to utilize the existing FMIC canal right-of-way (ROW) as an emergency secondary access for fire protection for this project. This request was presented to the FMIC Board at their August Board meeting and received conditional approval pending the following conditions. First, the proposed emergency access roadway located within the FMIC ROW must be maintained on a permanent basis by either the applicant or a Metro District to be formed with this project. Secondly, the applicant must submit design plans for the proposed enclosure of the canal to FMIC for their review (including submittal of the application fee which is in process). Thirdly, all construction work within the FMIC canal must be coordinated with FMIC personnel to not impact water flows within the canal throughout the summer months. The FMIC Board will review this project and make final comments when the final submittal is made by the applicant. FMIC takes no further exception to the proposed Preliminary Plan/PUD at this time. | 9/16/2021 10:07:29 AM | |
|
RBD Floodplain
9/14/2021 11:12:07 AM |
this site is not within or near the SFHA no comment | 9/14/2021 11:12:07 AM |
EDARP