Elbert planning panel recommends Colorado Plains Ranch plan with 21 conditions
County reviewers say submitted materials do not demonstrate water supply for all proposed uses and requested more analysis or a narrower use list, along with a certified traffic study.
Published at
Elbert County’s Planning Commission voted 6-2 to recommend approval of a 5,671.9-acre Colorado Plains Ranch development plan, with 21 conditions, the commission’s report says. The recommendation does not approve construction. County reviewers say the application still needs to address water supply for the proposed uses and traffic impacts.
The hearing began Nov. 4 and concluded Nov. 5, 2026. The conditions combine six proposed by staff and 15 added by commissioners. They include further review, water-supply documentation, fire-protection agreements and traffic studies.
The proposal would rezone the site from Agriculture to a planned unit development (PUD), a framework for future development rather than approval to build. It divides the property into areas for industrial agriculture; industrial, technology and energy uses; transportation; and uses along the State Highway 86 corridor. Examples in the application include data and technology operations, energy generation and storage, mining, feedlots and concrete batch plants. The application materials list 44 permitted uses, with additional review for higher-impact projects. Separately, the county’s water review refers to 83 uses in the Development Guide; those counts describe different lists, not equivalent measures. The application materials describe the proposed uses and review process.
In an Oct. 1 review, county staff said the water report quantified supply for only one Phase 1 use and did not establish that water could support all 83 uses in the Development Guide. Staff asked for analysis showing the proposed supply could support the uses, or for the list to be reduced to reflect available water. It also requested clarification of the water-permitting timeline and responses to state water-resource comments. The staff report caps annual water supply for the site at 184.7 acre-feet under the county’s 300-year rule. One commission-added condition would require the applicant to demonstrate final water rights or legally available supply before the first enhanced site plan, and would bar approval if cumulative demand exceeds the authorized supply or the PUD allocation, whichever is lower. The Oct. 1 county review details the water questions and requests.
The county review also said the submitted traffic memo provided no analysis. Staff requested a traffic study prepared and certified by a licensed professional engineer, covering trip estimates, roads and intersections, construction traffic, and access plans addressing State Highway 86 requirements. The staff report said preliminary traffic studies and a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit were not complete; a staff-proposed condition would require traffic studies and access permits before site-development-plan approval.
Higher-impact uses would require an enhanced site-plan review and public hearing; other uses would still require site-plan review. The applicant proposes a metropolitan district or another arrangement to provide water and wastewater service, which would need county approval before site-plan approval. The county staff report also says the proposed service arrangement must be approved before site-plan approval.
Earlier reviewers questioned whether proposed district boundaries and taxing authority could overlap and asked for support for property-value assumptions in financial models. Those comments do not establish that districts will overlap or that the assumptions are wrong. A draft Water and Sanitation District service plan lists a 55-mill maximum debt levy, subject to adjustment, while its numerical plan used a 7-mill base-debt-levy assumption; neither figure is an adopted tax rate. The reviewers’ comments raise the district-boundary and valuation questions, and the proposed service plan lists the maximum levy.
County Attorney Lance Ingalls asked that proposed service plans require at least two forms of notice to affected property owners before fee increases and that annual reports include available water-well-level data. Applicant’s counsel said both provisions would be added, but the correspondence does not establish whether they were incorporated or approved. The exchange documents the requests and response.
By Oct. 26, staff had received six written comments opposing the proposal, primarily citing water and environmental concerns, and reported no outstanding objections from referral agencies. The Board of County Commissioners hearing is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2026.