EDARP
Project Review Comments
- Project Name
- Watts Upfitting Site Development Plan
- Description
- Concurrent Variance of use to allow a commercial vehicle repair garage in the R-4 (Planned Development) Zoning District.
- Location
- Parcels
- 4304002047 4304002047 4304002189 4304002189
- Applicant
-
Vertex Consulting Services
Nina Ruiz ( nina.ruiz@vertexcos.com )
(719) 733-8606 x6606 Nina Ruiz ( nina.ruiz@vertexcos.com )
(719) 733-8606 x6606 - EA Number
- EA24110
- File Number
- PPR2511
- Project Manager
- Kari Parsons
- Status
- Active
- Created
- 12/19/2024 2:32:21 PM
View: Project Documents
| Agency | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/26/2025 7:13:32 PM |
Site Development Plan Comments. Please feel free to reach out to the reviewer directly if there are questions on the comments. | 3/26/2025 7:13:32 PM |
|
PCD Engineering Division
3/26/2025 5:36:08 PM |
Engineering Review 1. Engineering comments (in blue) on the following documents: - Letter of Intent - Site Development Plan Reviewed by: Joe Sandstrom, EI, Associate Engineer josephsandstrom@elpasoco.com (719) 520-6314 |
3/26/2025 5:36:08 PM | |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/26/2025 7:11:41 PM |
Letter of Intent Comments | 3/26/2025 7:11:41 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/26/2025 2:03:05 PM |
Alternative Landscape Plan Comments | 3/26/2025 2:03:05 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
3/26/2025 2:02:43 PM |
Application Form Comments | 3/26/2025 2:02:43 PM |
| View |
EPC Stormwater Review
3/26/2025 12:49:46 PM |
PBMP Applicability Form | 3/26/2025 12:49:46 PM |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
3/26/2025 12:48:40 PM |
Review 1: EPC DPW Stormwater comments have been provided (in orange text boxes) on the following uploaded document(s): - PBMP Applicability Form Note - The project will not disturb greater than 1 ac so the following documents are not needed: FAE, GEC Checklist, SWMP, SWMP Checklist Reviewed by: Mikayla Hartford Stormwater Engineer I 719.339.5053 MikaylaHartford@elpasoco.com |
3/26/2025 12:48:40 PM | |
|
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department
3/24/2025 2:50:36 PM |
Enumerations has no comment or objection to this development plan application. Brent Johnson Enumerations Plans Examiner Pikes Peak Regional Building Department O: 719-327-2888 E: brent@pprbd.org W: pprbd.org |
3/24/2025 2:50:36 PM | |
|
Falcon Fire Protection District
3/21/2025 8:12:15 AM |
After reviewing this project, Falcon Fire Protection District has no concerns or additional comments. Curtis L. Kauffman Fire Prevention Division Lieutenant/Fire Inspector |
3/21/2025 8:12:15 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/19/2025 3:12:38 PM |
Summary of discussion PC Hearing justifying requirement for Site Development Plan: Mr. Moraes states (recording 1:20 Time in hearing) -outdoor storage guidelines Chapter 5, solid fence /wall/ screening. NIna responded that more detail is part of site development Plan review not the variance of use. Nina indicated staff will review the site development plan for compliance with Code, including screening for outside storage. recording time-1:26 Ms Fuller asked for clarification that the Variance of Use plan is different than a site development plan. Mr. Buyers clarified for defined storage spaces to be depicted on site dev plan..Staff reiterated clarity is required and dimensions are required. Applicant did not object. Buyers referenced chaotic photographs staff reiterated parking spaces will be depicted. Mr. Moraes asked a question about front rear of the property (front= Cessna) outdoor storage area in rear is completely screened in... Variance of use permits the location of parking to the property line, no additional setbacks to be depicted on site dev plan. 7 feet is as tall as fence height and larger vehicles will be seen. Area to west, south and north should be fenced but not along taxiway. 2:32 Mr Moraes discusses review criteria has not been addressed regarding details and impacts on the variance of use site plan. He infers applicant states Site Dev Plan to be submitted later | 3/19/2025 3:12:38 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/24/2025 12:57:21 PM |
Checklist Items: SDP Summary table missing Total Gross Building SF; OS, landscape and impermeable surface; Plan checklist items: Septic locations not to be conceptual- Parking on septic system is not allowed which is why location is required. Traffic circulation is a checklist item, add arrows. Detail of sign (existing- Agreeable that if shrubs were to be added to the sign in lieu of picnic area for alternative plan). The areas that are depicted as white with no labels that are not part of the building, are they grass open space? Please add the missing labels and notes for the items above. Are some of the customer parking areas located over the wood retaining wall and open space? What size are these customer parking areas; Theses areas are different than what was depicted on the Variance of Use map. Add the missing relative checklist items from the landscape checklist also. |
3/24/2025 12:57:21 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/19/2025 2:18:15 PM |
Building square footage is not depicted on sheet 1 or 2 per the checklist. | 3/19/2025 2:18:15 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/24/2025 12:41:56 PM |
The parking for customer vehicles appears to be placed in the greenscape areas which would result in the removal of vegetation. At the PC hearing applicant stated a detail would be provided and depicted on the site development plan. Those details are not depicted, but a note stating these parking spots are conceptual is depicted. A plan must be depicted not a conceptual plan. The parking plan submitted with the site development plan is less detailed than the variance of use map. There is no detail for customer parking only employee parking based on the scale of the drawings. Where is the airplane parking; The applicant stated that the business does work on airplanes at the BOCC hearing, and a single aircraft was depicted on the variance of use map. | 3/24/2025 12:41:56 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/19/2025 2:13:45 PM |
NOTE: The documents and level (lack) of detail do NOT set a precedent for other projects in Meadowlake Airport or the through-the-fence area. In discussions with Justin Kilgore regarding the Alternative Landscape Plan; Please add 3 shrubs (minimum) to each landscape island and to the picnic area. Identify the existing and proposed shrub plant type as required by a landscape plan checklist. The fencing depicted is not typically allowed as opaque screening; however, the applicant has indicated that slat fencing exists. Please add a note that if fence is destroyed a solid fence material will replace the existing fence. The fence looks to be off the property - is there an easement or permission from the adjacent property owner for the fence to remain until it is reconstructed? What is that time line? |
3/19/2025 2:13:45 PM | |
|
911 Authority - El Paso/Teller County
3/13/2025 8:29:18 AM |
No action for E911 on this submittal. Thank you. Justin |
3/13/2025 8:29:18 AM |