[1:58] Good morning and welcome to the Board of
County Commissioners Land Use meeting.
[2:02] Today is Thursday, September 24th.
[2:04] We do begin each of our meetings with an
invocation,
[2:07] and this morning that will be given by
Commissioner Williams.
[2:10] We invite you to stand and join us.
[2:15] Our Father in heaven, we're thankful for
this beautiful day.
[2:19] We're thankful for the rain we've had, and
we're thankful for the moisture.
[2:24] We are thankful for our free government,
[2:27] for the opportunity we have to meet here
and to consider the matters of our,
[2:32] of our county and to participate in our
government process.
[2:36] We ask thee to Please bless our law
enforcement officers and our military that
[2:42] enforcement officers and our military that
they
[2:42] may be safe. And this we say in the name
of Jesus Christ.
[2:48] Amen.
[2:48] Commissioner Wysong, if you lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
[3:12] Item 3.
[3:12] Item number 3 is staff emergency items,
[3:15] and I'm unaware of any staff emergency
items today.
[3:18] Item 4.
[3:19] Item number 4 is changes, postponements,
and notice of the next meeting.
[3:24] I'm unaware of any changes or
postponements to today's agenda,
[3:27] and the next meeting will be Tuesday,
September 29th at 9:00 AM.
[3:32] Item 5.
[3:33] Item number 5 is the land use consent
calendar, including item 5A.
[3:40] Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to
speak on an item on the
[3:46] consent calendar? Please come forward.
[3:50] You'll need to introduce yourself and, um,
[3:55] Make sure that you do sign in, and then
you'll have 3 minutes.
[4:01] Good morning. My name is
[4:07] Dean Couture. Um, I just
[4:12] want to make sure I'm—
[4:18] this is in reference to
[4:23] Needles Drive?
[4:27] No, sir, this is the consent calendar item
[4:31] 5A, so you can come back up in just a
[4:35] minute.
[4:35] Okay, sorry, sorry. Yeah, I'll wait.
[4:38] All right.
[4:39] Okay, okay.
[4:42] So, uh, just, uh, another quick ask if we
have anyone who wants to speak on an item
[4:49] on the consent calendar. That would be 5A.
[4:52] Okay, seeing none, I will bring that up
here for a motion from commissioners.
[4:58] Move to approve.
[4:59] Second.
[5:00] Okay, that's been moved and seconded.
[5:02] I'm going to call the roll beginning with
Commissioner Wysong.
[5:06] Aye.
[5:07] Vice Chair Nelson.
[5:08] Aye.
[5:08] Commissioner Williams.
[5:10] Aye.
[5:10] And the chair votes aye. That passes 4-0.
Item 6.
[5:14] Item number 6 is a map amendment rezoning,
Needles Highway 83 rezoning,
[5:20] RR-5 to RR-2.5. A request by North Ranch
LLC for approval of a rezoning map
[5:26] amendment of one property totaling 47.55
acres in size from RR-5 to RR-2.5.
[5:32] The property is located along the Colorado
State Highway 83 and is 0.7 miles south
[5:38] of the intersection of Colorado State
Highway 83 and Colorado State Highway 105.
[5:45] The item was heard as a regular item at
the September 3rd,
[5:50] 2026 Planning Commission meeting and was
recommended for approval with a split vote
[5:56] of 6-3. Planning Commissioners Brew,
Casagrande, and Wolf voted against the
[6:02] Casagrande, and Wolf voted against the
motion.
[6:03] Parcel number 6100000369, Commissioner
District Number 1, file P26008.
[6:09] Joseph Letke, planner, Planning and
Community Development. Good morning.
[6:14] Good morning, Madam Chair and Board of
County Commissioners.
[6:19] My name is Joseph Letke, and I'll be
presenting to you today the Project P-268,
[6:25] the Needles Highway 83 rezoning, R-5 to
R-2.5.
[6:28] Brett Dilts was the staff engineer who
reviewed this rezoning application.
[6:34] I'm going to begin my presentation just to
go over the hearing procedures.
[6:39] We begin with presentation from staff as
well as the applicant.
[6:44] We then turn it to the public comment
period,
[6:48] so citizens in favor or against can come
to the podium to speak,
[6:52] after which we turn to a rebuttal period
by the applicant,
[6:57] and then we close out with final questions
for staff,
[7:01] and then a decision is made by our elected
officials,
[7:05] the Board of County Commissioners, to vote
to approve or deny the application.
[7:11] So Planning Commission, they did vote to
recommend for approval, split with 6 to 3.
[7:17] There was some brief discussion regarding
the change in traffic.
[7:22] The 3 dissenting Planning Commission
members were silent on reasoning,
[7:27] so unfortunately I do not have too much
for you on the slide.
[7:32] It's to kind of explain themselves as what
their decision was made upon,
[7:37] but it was recommended for approval.
[7:40] And that request before you today is by
the North Ranch LLC for approval of a
[7:46] rezoning and map amendment, one property
totaling 47.55 acres,
[7:50] from the RR-5 to the RR-2.5 residential
rural zoning district.
[7:55] The property is located along State
Highway 83,
[7:58] and it is a little bit south of the
intersection of State Highway 83 and
[8:04] intersection of State Highway 83 and
Highway
[8:04] 105. This next slide is the criteria of
approval,
[8:08] and I do appreciate that this board is
very familiar with this slide and the
[8:14] criteria, but for anyone in the audience
today,
[8:17] I do ask you read through this section
briefly to understand how these
[8:23] briefly to understand how these
applications
[8:23] are reviewed by staff staff and how a
final determination is made by the Board
[8:29] final determination is made by the Board
of
[8:29] County Commissioners. Next is the
dimensional standards of the 2 zoning
[8:35] dimensional standards of the 2 zoning
districts.
[8:36] I made bold the ones that were changing.
[8:39] So we're seeing, of course, with the R-5,
there's a 5-acre lot size minimum,
[8:44] and then with the 2.5 reduces to the
smaller zoning requirement for—
[8:49] that would permit for additional lots on
the property that are 2.5 acres or
[8:55] the property that are 2.5 acres or
greater.
[8:56] As we move down, we see that side setback
is slightly different from the 25 feet,
[9:02] and then the smaller zoning district, 15
feet, as well as that max lot coverage.
[9:08] With the larger zoning district,
[9:10] it does have that 25% as opposed to We're
getting to that smaller zoning district.
[9:16] There's a none. We move on to a zoning
map, um,
[9:20] to give some context to general
development trend— trends in the area, um,
[9:26] when certain other subdivisions and
rezonings were approved,
[9:30] and to give context to this project.
[9:33] So I want to start from the north at the
top of the page and then go down south to
[9:39] the bottom. We see the Moss subdivision
that was denied recently in 2026.
[9:44] As we move to the east or to the right of
the page,
[9:48] we see the Walden subdivision as our 0.5
half-acre lots that was approved in 1968.
[9:54] As we move closer to the subject property,
[9:58] there are a mixture of R-5 planned unit
development and then R-2.5.
[10:03] So you see to the west the Cherry Creek
Crossing PUD that was approved in 1997.
[10:09] that does have a minimum lot size of 2.5
acres.
[10:12] And we move to the west or to the right,
Majestic Pines, R-2.5, and above that,
[10:18] that was the Walden subdivision, uh, R-5,
approved in 1965.
[10:23] Next, I, I provide my analysis of the
master plan and how this project fits and
[10:28] master plan and how this project fits and
is,
[10:29] um, striving for general conformance with
the large lot residential place type.
[10:35] That large lot residential place type
provides recommendation for lots that are
[10:41] provides recommendation for lots that are
2.5
[10:41] acres or larger, reflecting the area's
intent and existing low-density
[10:46] intent and existing low-density
residential
[10:47] character. So the application's request to
rezone the property is generally
[10:53] consistent with the master plan place
type,
[10:56] as the proposed R2.5 zoning district
continues to support large lot
[11:01] continues to support large lot
single-family
[11:02] residential development in conformance
with this place type.
[11:06] And for the record, the Board of County
Commissioners makes that final decision if
[11:12] the application is in general conformance.
[11:16] But as far as my analysis of how this
project fits with that 2.5 acres,
[11:21] that is what is recommended for this area
in this place type.
[11:26] The master plan area of change is
developed The master plan recommends that
[11:31] developed The master plan recommends that
if
[11:31] development is to occur in this area, that
the general character is maintained.
[11:37] My next bullet point discusses some other
relevant zoning districts that are 2.5 and
[11:44] have that lot size of— that we're seeing
here with this application.
[11:49] Key area of influence is the Tri-Lakes
area.
[11:52] This area, in my opinion,
[11:54] is a bit of a mixture between that
Tri-Lakes area to the west,
[11:59] where we see the towns of Monument, town
of Palmer Lake, and then Woodmore,
[12:04] the census-designated area within the
county.
[12:08] And then if we look down to the south,
[12:11] we see more of that traditional Black
Forest area of the county.
[12:15] And then And then if we go just a bit
east, we see Eastonville,
[12:20] a much more rural area. So it is kind of a
combination of those areas.
[12:25] However, the master plan defines this
property within that Tri-Lakes area.
[12:31] The proposed rezoning is generally
consistent with this key area and goal,
[12:37] as the surrounding area is characterized
again with that rural residential
[12:42] development.
[12:43] Thank you.
[12:47] Next, uh, handful of slides are regarding
traffic and engineering,
[12:51] so I'll turn it over to, um,
[12:53] your staff member to discuss those items.
[12:56] Good morning, Brett Diltz, El Paso County
Department of Public Works.
[13:01] A transportation impact study was
submitted with this rezone request.
[13:06] Uh, in that study, they anticipate this
development to generate about 127 daily
[13:12] trips. Those trips will be served by an
extension of existing Needles Drive that
[13:18] would turn to the north.
[13:19] An emergency access has been granted by
CDOT to access Highway 83.
[13:24] That will be on the north end of the
property.
[13:28] Road impact fees are applicable for this
project.
[13:31] There was a slight discretion— slight
issue with the traffic impact study.
[13:37] They had 125 trips identified versus 127.
[13:40] Okay.
[13:40] So it does show 200 trips versus 202
trips.
[13:43] 200 trips is our threshold for paving the
roadways.
[13:46] When we get this in for a final plat,
[13:48] we will have a chance to re-review the
traffic study submitted at that time.
[13:53] We will know their final number of lots
and their actual number of trips at that
[13:58] time. If paving is required, we will
determine it at the final plat stage.
[14:02] Any other questions for traffic for this
project? Yes.
[14:11] Drainage.
[14:12] The project is located in the West Cherry
Creek Drainage Basin.
[14:16] That basin is not part of the bridge fee
programs.
[14:19] There are no bridge or drainage basin fees
applicable.
[14:21] With the rezoning, we do not get a
drainage report or grading and erosion
[14:25] drainage report or grading and erosion
control.
[14:26] Those will be reviewed at the final plat
period.
[14:28] Any questions on drainage for this
project?
[14:41] My next slide is on the public input
portion of this project.
[14:45] Just for the record,
[14:46] I believe we received 24 public comments
of opposition located within EDARP.
[14:52] 2 of those came in in the last few days,
and they have been provided to the clerk.
[14:57] Some key phrases and items I recognized—
[15:00] some of those concerns over challenges
over the roads and traffic,
[15:05] increased density, removal of trees, fire
protection, water supply, light pollution,
[15:11] and the general location.
[15:12] Madam Chair, just for the record,
[15:15] I want to let you know that a handful of
these items,
[15:18] such as water supply and fire protection,
[15:21] are looked at more in depth during an
actual subdivision application.
[15:26] So that's not what's before you today.
Again, it's just the rezone.
[15:31] So those items will be reviewed to code
and reviewed more thoroughly by the
[15:36] and reviewed more thoroughly by the
Monument
[15:37] Fire Protection District at a later time.
[15:39] During the September 3rd Planning
Commission hearing,
[15:43] several citizens spoke in opposition to
the application.
[15:47] And then, um, small change with this last
bullet point.
[15:51] The subdivision application has been
received.
[15:54] It's currently pending payment of review,
um, which I would anticipate, um,
[15:59] would come further down if this
application is approved.
[16:03] Lastly, the hearing notification.
[16:06] On August 19th, 2026, the, um,
[16:08] Planning Community Development Department
mailed out hearing notices to 36
[16:13] neighboring property owners,
[16:15] and then the property was posted with
those notices of public hearing dates,
[16:20] as well as it was posted in the Gazette.
[16:23] Are there any questions for me before I
turn it over to the applicant
[16:28] turn it over to the applicant
presentation?
[16:29] Okay, no questions at this time, so we'll
bring up the applicant.
[17:05] Nina— sorry, Nina Dossi with Vertex
Consulting for the Needles Highway 83
[17:11] Consulting for the Needles Highway 83
rezone.
[17:12] Oh, my mouse doesn't work, but let me see
if the arrow works.
[17:17] Nope, that doesn't work either. Okay, now
it's working. Sorry about that.
[17:23] Okay, so Joe covered this.
[17:25] The item was heard at the Planning
Commission on September 3rd. The vote was
[17:32] Commission on September 3rd. The vote was
6 to 3.
[17:32] Those that voted no actually did not speak
at all during that hearing,
[17:38] so it has every appearance of being a
capricious decision on their part.
[17:45] When the chair asked them to speak and
explain their no votes,
[17:50] they had no words at that time either.
Thank you.
[17:54] As Joe identified, there were some public
comments.
[17:58] Those public comments were primarily based
on issues that will be discussed and
[18:05] analyzed during the subdivision stage,
[18:08] so they're not part of the rezoning
criteria or rezoning considerations today.
[18:15] The only one that was brought up that is
really a part of the rezone is traffic,
[18:22] and the traffic study has been approved
and accepted by El Paso County.
[18:28] So for the purposes of the rezone hearing,
that issue has been closed as well.
[18:35] So again, this is a request to rezone the
property to RR2.5 from the RR5 zone
[18:41] district. The property is 19.4 acres in
size.
[18:45] If you look at the surrounding zoning,
[18:48] you'll notice that it's surrounded by
2.5-acre lots within the PUD zone
[18:54] 2.5-acre lots within the PUD zone
district,
[18:55] to the west, and then to the east and
north is the RR-5 zone district,
[19:01] and then to the south is the RR-2.5 zone.
[19:05] If you look even further out,
[19:07] you'll notice that within Walden there are
1-acre lots,
[19:12] and then there's also even 5-acre lots
within the area.
[19:17] So a 2.5-acre lot size and overall density
is absolutely within character for this
[19:24] Area.
[19:24] Commissioner Williams.
[19:25] I'm sorry, is that one by Ray Kilmer, is
that a 0.5 or is that a point—
[19:31] It's 0.5, so that, um, so a half an acre.
[19:33] Yeah, so the— I don't know, it's— they,
they both look yellow on that screen
[19:38] they both look yellow on that screen
there,
[19:38] but the one that looks more yellow. All
right, thank you. Half-acre lots.
[19:43] Okay.
[19:49] So for the first criteria,
[19:51] I do want to read this just because
there's an or in there,
[19:55] and I saw in some of the letters from the
opposition there seems to be some
[20:01] confusion about this criteria. So just
give me a second here.
[20:05] So the application is in general
conformance with the El Paso County Master
[20:10] conformance with the El Paso County Master
Plan,
[20:11] including applicable small area plans,
[20:13] or there has been a substantial
Substantial change in the character of the
[20:19] neighborhood since the last— the land was
last zoned.
[20:22] So the or means that you don't necessarily
have to meet both of those,
[20:28] but only one of them is required.
[20:30] With that being said,
[20:31] I actually think that they do meet both of
these aspects of the criteria,
[20:37] and I'll explain why.
[20:38] So Joe already covered the master plan,
[20:41] so I'll very briefly go through unless
there are any questions.
[20:45] So as he identified, it's within the Tri
Lakes Key Area,
[20:49] which recognizes that there's a great need
for housing within this key area.
[20:55] It also just outlines that if there's
development,
[20:58] it should align with the existing
character.
[21:02] And as you can see on the map here,
[21:04] the existing character does include lot
sizes all the way from half an acre to 5
[21:10] acres. So 2.5 acres is definitely within
character.
[21:13] The area of change, minimal change
developed,
[21:17] and it identifies that isolated vacant
properties may develop at a higher
[21:22] properties may develop at a higher
intensity.
[21:23] That's actually not what's being proposed
here.
[21:26] So even though the master plan would allow
for a higher intensity,
[21:31] what's being proposed is an equivalent to
what's already within the area.
[21:36] On the map off to the left-hand side,
[21:39] you'll see that this is an underutilized
vacant piece of property.
[21:43] When you look at it compared to the
surrounding development,
[21:48] you'll see that it's much larger in size
than what's around it.
[21:52] There are a few vacant parcels within the
area, but this is,
[21:56] is one of the few that are within the
area.
[21:59] You'll see up along Highway 83 on both the
east and west side,
[22:04] there are some remaining vacant parcels.
[22:07] The place type is large lot residential,
[22:10] which specifically recommends lot sizes of
and a half acres,
[22:14] so they're in compliance there as well.
[22:17] So I want to go back to this slide here
just for that second criteria.
[22:22] So the second criteria, which is not a
requirement because it's an or,
[22:27] states that there hasn't been a
substantial change since the area was last
[22:32] substantial change since the area was last
zoned.
[22:32] So this piece of property was zoned in
1955 to the RR-5 zone district.
[22:37] You can see that all of these existing
developments, the Cherry Creek Crossing,
[22:43] Settlers, Dancing Wolf, and Walden, so
both the older Walden and the newer
[22:48] both the older Walden and the newer
Walden,
[22:49] were all developed after 1955.
[22:51] So there actually has been a change in
their character since it was last zoned in
[22:57] 1955. So even though it's not a
requirement that they meet both,
[23:01] in this instance they actually do. Oh, I
skipped over this.
[23:06] So it's also within the priority
development area,
[23:09] which specifically recommends 2.5 acres.
[23:12] Um, the priority development area is, uh,
[23:15] within the master plan because these are
areas that the county fully anticipates
[23:21] developing sooner rather than later.
[23:23] So the second criteria is regarding
statutory requirements.
[23:27] As you heard Joe state, all statutory
requirements have been satisfied.
[23:32] The third, the proposed land use or zoning
district is compatible with existing and
[23:38] permitted land uses and zone districts in
all directions.
[23:42] So if you look at the existing and
permitted land uses in all directions,
[23:48] you'll see that they include rural
residential development as well as
[23:53] residential development as well as
single-family
[23:54] residential development.
[23:55] And with our 2.5 zone district, it's going
to stay the same.
[24:00] So not only are they compatible, but in
this instance,
[24:03] they are actually exactly the same when
you look at the land uses.
[24:08] The only difference is the lot size.
[24:11] The site is suitable for the intended use,
[24:14] including the ability to meet the Chapter
5 requirements.
[24:18] So these will really be further analyzed
with the subdivision at the next stage.
[24:24] So at the next stage,
[24:25] staff will review to make sure that each
lot is 2.5 acres in size, each lot meets—
[24:31] not listed here, but there's a 200-foot
frontage requirement.
[24:35] And then even later on at the stage of
building permit,
[24:39] it'll be determined if the proposed
structures meet the setback and height
[24:44] requirements. But there's no reason to
believe that This proposed development
[24:50] believe that This proposed development
won't
[24:50] be able to meet the standards. Are there
any questions?
[24:54] Questions from commissioners at
[24:59] this time? Commissioner Wysong.
[25:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just kind of
an interesting point.
[25:10] I've got a few. Questions.
[25:12] Um, everything is labeled a RR whatever
except for what's to the
[25:17] immediate north and to the east, um, on
the map,
[25:22] which I just kind of felt that that was
interesting that that was, uh,
[25:28] overlooked.
[25:29] Commissioner, I actually did state that to
the north and to the east is RR 5.
[25:34] It stated, but it's not on the map. On any
of your maps.
[25:40] Okay, um, question, and this may or may
not be, um,
[25:45] it could be part of the, the, um,
transportation element,
[25:50] but there is the, um, easement, AT&T
easement,
[25:55] running all the way through, uh, the
property.
[25:59] How is that being, um, addressed?
[26:03] So that'll be addressed as part of the
subdivision.
[26:06] It's not a part of the criteria related to
the rezone, but during the subdivision,
[26:12] that easement would need to either remain
in place or be relocated.
[26:16] It's pretty unlikely that it'll be
relocated.
[26:19] AT&T is— has not historically been a fan
of moving all of their lines,
[26:24] and that's expensive to do.
[26:26] So most likely during the subdivision
stage, it'll be shown as an easement,
[26:31] which means it's no-build. But that's not
for the rezone, it's for the next stage.
[26:37] Okay, it, it just may have an impact is
why I was curious.
[26:43] Um, you make note in your packet that only
14 homes will be, um,
[26:49] added Or 14 lots, um, with an average of
3.17 acres.
[26:54] And then if you look at what was provided,
um,
[26:59] there's only one lot that even exceeds
that. Uh, the rest of them are smaller.
[27:07] Now that could be taken up because you've—
according to the, the site,
[27:14] you've got a retention pond.
[27:17] Um, but I just thought that was
interesting, that how that was written.
[27:24] It just made it seem like, okay, average
of over 3 acres, when in reality,
[27:31] based on the supplied plot plan, which may
or may not be permanent, that only—
[27:39] again, only one of those lots even
exceeded the 3.17. Um, next question.
[27:46] Commissioner, can I ask, um, we haven't
submitted a subdivision yet.
[27:52] So, um, what we're proposing is 14 lots,
[27:56] but this zoning action is not necessarily
tied to 14 lots.
[28:01] I understand.
[28:01] I want to be careful, um,
[28:03] careful to make sure that we're sticking
to the criteria for the rezone,
[28:08] which the specific number of, of lots
isn't a part of that.
[28:12] But maybe I'll look to the chair and see
if maybe I'm off there.
[28:18] No, I would just say,
[28:19] let's make sure we are sticking to the
criteria and please ask your questions.
[28:23] If you have comments, there will be time
for comments as we get through the
[28:27] for comments as we get through the
hearing.
[28:27] This is traffic study question.
[28:31] I've got kind of 2 key questions,
[28:35] so I'm going to assume that you're
familiar with the traffic
[28:42] study. On page 5, and again on page 4 is
what I was looking at,
[28:49] but on page 5 it talks that there's
nothing going to be done to
[28:56] Highway 83 until 2045, so approximately 20
years.
[29:02] And I, I just wanted to kind of get Your
opinion on, um,
[29:08] with the traffic study, uh,
[29:11] stating that it's not going to be really
looked at until 2045.
[29:18] Is that something that could ultimately
have an impact on the—
[29:26] basically the doubling of the density of
the proposed piece of
[29:33] property?
[29:34] Commissioner, I just pulled up the traffic
study because I don't know every single
[29:39] page. So let me just make sure that we're
talking about the same paragraph.
[29:44] You said page— what was it?
[29:46] You're on it.
[29:46] Okay. And then you mentioned 2045.
[29:50] I don't see 2045 on this bottom paragraph.
The very bottom.
[29:57] Okay, let me look. Okay, so that's a CDOT.
So that's CDOT's plan.
[30:04] So the traffic study, of course,
[30:08] has to take a look at CDOT's future plans.
[30:13] So CDOT's current configuration and their
future plans.
[30:19] This applicant and nobody in the county
has any control over the
[30:26] timing of CDOT's improvements.
[30:30] So just like in El Paso County,
[30:33] they have long-range plans that the county
hopes to get there.
[30:40] There's no guarantees in 2045 of if they
will have the widening
[30:48] completed. Is that what you're asking?
[30:52] It was just interesting that it's, you
know, You know,
[30:56] almost 20 years out before it's even on
the plan.
[30:59] And, and I understand the criteria, but—
[31:02] Yeah.
[31:03] It just— looking at the traffic
information provided,
[31:08] that it was just stuck out at me.
[31:11] And I was just curious if there was
anything else that potentially was to
[31:18] go along with that particular date.
Because it's 20 years out.
[31:24] It's the same as El Paso County's MTCP,
[31:27] where the MTCP outlines different roadway
widths depending on which year you're
[31:33] looking at. So the MTCP looks at, you
know, 2045 and beyond.
[31:37] And so you may have seen subdivisions come
before you,
[31:41] and I know we're getting outside of the
subdivision— or sorry, rezone criteria,
[31:47] but I'll just answer this really quickly.
[31:50] You may have seen subdivisions come before
you where there's right-of-way that's
[31:56] actually being dedicated, and then there's
preservation,
[32:00] and that preservation is for a future
state of widening.
[32:04] So CDOT does the same thing where they
look at, okay, in the future,
[32:09] what does this road need to look like?
[32:12] And they've identified that in 2045, they
think it needs to be widened,
[32:17] but it's the same same situation as El
Paso County has, where it may be widened,
[32:23] it may not be widened. It's a future plan.
[32:26] El Paso County and specific applicants
have no control over that timing,
[32:32] and individual subdivisions such as this
one would have no control over that and
[32:38] certainly wouldn't be obligated to do a
widening when it's Not required at this
[32:44] widening when it's Not required at this
time
[32:44] and may not even be required at a later
date.
[32:47] Okay, then on, um, I guess existing, if
you just—
[32:53] whether you need to or not, it doesn't
really—
[32:59] the next map kind of stops at Walden Way
and it
[33:05] doesn't go any further north.
[33:08] But did this take into account, um,
[33:13] the school as far as class schedules,
timing, etc.,
[33:19] etc.?
[33:19] The traffic study, the limits— and you can
ask,
[33:23] you can confirm with staff because I'm not
a traffic engineer, um,
[33:28] so I'll just give you my understanding.
[33:30] Uh, so the, the traffic study,
[33:32] there's specific criteria within El Paso
County's adopted codes That identifies how
[33:38] far out you need to study based upon the
anticipated traffic,
[33:43] and so for this particular study,
[33:45] it's determined that what you see here was
as far out as they needed to go based on
[33:51] the anticipated traffic that would be
generated.
[33:54] So just like you know,
[33:56] you wouldn't go all the way out to I-25
because then where do you stop?
[34:01] There's specific criteria in place.
[34:04] And so the county staff, when they
reviewed the traffic study,
[34:08] they reviewed the scope of it and they
reviewed to see if the traffic consultant
[34:14] reviewed to see if the traffic consultant
had
[34:14] gone far enough out.
[34:15] And so it's been approved because based on
the county-specific criteria,
[34:20] they have analyzed far enough out.
[34:23] Okay.
[34:24] Check with staff on that. I'm not a
traffic engineer.
[34:27] I just didn't know where actually to kind
of start on those questions.
[34:33] And I think we'll have another opportunity
to check in with staff.
[34:37] And I do think staff already did say that
they would take a closer look at traffic
[34:43] in a future stage. And so that's not as
specific to the criteria here today.
[34:48] So let's keep it within the criteria for—
[34:50] within the legal bounds of what we are
able to consider today, please. Okay.
[34:55] Do you have any additional questions from
commissioners for the applicant? Okay.
[35:01] Thank you.
[35:02] All right. So we will now move to the
public input portion of the hearing.
[35:08] And we will begin with those who are in
support.
[35:12] So if you are here to speak in support,
I'd ask you to come forward at this time.
[35:19] Okay. Seeing none, I will ask if there are
those that are here to speak in
[35:26] opposition to come forward at this time.
[35:30] And as, um, is typical here, we do need to
sign in.
[35:34] We need you to state your name for the
record, and you will have 3 minutes.
[35:41] My name is Dean Couture.
[35:43] My wife and I have lived at the end— in
the west end of Needles Drive for 33
[35:49] the west end of Needles Drive for 33
years,
[35:49] so we're probably one of the closest
neighbors to this subdivision.
[35:55] Um, I did want to clarify something
because it sounds like the traffic study
[36:01] because it sounds like the traffic study
has
[36:01] already been kind of accepted,
[36:04] and you're talking about later that it'll
be looked at further.
[36:09] In reference to what Bill was bringing up
about Highway 83, um,
[36:14] we'd have to go back and look at the
records, but I also subdivided Majestic
[36:20] records, but I also subdivided Majestic
Pines,
[36:21] which is a property to the south of this.
[36:24] Um, I was required to give an easement to
Highway 83.
[36:28] So that if and when they did widen it, it
was there.
[36:33] So maybe that same thing should be
happening here. Um, okay.
[36:38] Um, so like I said, my wife and I did
Majestic Pines,
[36:42] so we're familiar with the process.
[36:45] This new development is about 200 or 300
yards north of Majestic Pines.
[36:51] Majestic Pines was 21 2.5-acre lots.
[36:54] Um, I don't know if I can have Nia or
somebody put up a map,
[36:58] but I can probably just explain just as
well. Um, Needles Drive comes off of
[37:05] well. Um, Needles Drive comes off of
Walden.
[37:05] Blue Heron Springs, which is the
subdivision that we attached our road to—
[37:11] or actually the road that we attached to
Yeah, I don't—
[37:16] I'll probably just explain it easier.
[37:19] Um, so Walden Way and Timber Meadows are
basically the same street that has changed
[37:26] names. So that road goes north and south,
and Blue Heron Springs,
[37:31] which is Majestic Pines, goes straight
west and dead ends. So does Needles.
[37:37] There's a couple swigs and swags, but
otherwise they're identical.
[37:42] So So though it's been nice to live at the
end of a dead-end street with very little
[37:49] traffic for the last several years,
[37:52] I don't have anything against the
development except the amount of homes on
[37:58] development except the amount of homes on
the
[37:58] dead-end street that's going to be dirt.
[38:02] I also have an issue with the requirements
not the same.
[38:06] Please keep in mind that Needles Drive is
currently a dirt road.
[38:12] And I believe this new project would add
14 additional homes plus the 13 that are
[38:18] already there, totaling 27, all on a dirt
road.
[38:22] Also consider this proposal is asking for
2.5-acre lots.
[38:27] Like it was mentioned earlier, uh, the,
[38:30] the surrounding lots are 5-acre lots on 3
sides.
[38:34] And only Highway 83 is on the west side.
[38:37] To the north, east, and south are 5-acre
lots. So do with that what we will.
[38:43] But across Highway 83, it is 2.5-acre
lots. I understand that.
[38:48] When we did Majestic Pines—
[38:50] Thank you, sir. Your time has expired.
[38:58] That was 3 minutes?
[38:59] Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone else
who wishes to speak in opposition?
[39:06] Hi, I'm John Boydston.
[39:08] Um, I've lived in this area for
40-some-odd years and in Walden for almost
[39:14] 40-some-odd years and in Walden for almost
20.
[39:14] Since we moved in, the amount of traffic
and the reason I'm late here today on 83
[39:21] between Hodgdon and 105 is is crazy. The
amount of of increase of traffic.
[39:27] Worse, those two intersections have had
more accidents in the last five years than
[39:34] the whole time I've been here for almost a
half of. You know, a decade.
[39:40] Why are you guys allowing more congestion
in an area that's having so many problems?
[39:47] I mean, people are dying at those
intersections because you guys are just
[39:54] intersections because you guys are just
letting
[39:54] more and more and more houses in there.
[39:58] You know, they put that school in there
originally.
[40:02] The school wasn't even supposed to be
there because they were having so many
[40:08] problems with, like, congestion and the
fact 83 wasn't widened.
[40:14] When they put in Flying Horse,
[40:16] they made the developers widen it because
of problems with traffic,
[40:22] because of death. You know, we almost got
burned up with fire,
[40:27] and now you guys are allowing this to
happen.
[40:31] I'm disappointed because you guys are
elected officials and you're supposed to
[40:38] represent us.
[40:39] Bill Wysong.
[40:44] You're doing a good job. We appreciate
what you do.
[40:47] We really do.
[40:49] The rest of you guys, I wish you would
just kind of look at what's happening
[40:53] just kind of look at what's happening
here.
[40:53] You're, you're siding with developers and
people that are turning our neighborhood
[40:58] into something terrible. That's all I have
to say.
[41:00] Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak in opposition?
[41:04] I'm just going to ask, please direct your
comments to the criteria, please.
[41:08] That is what is helpful for us since
that's what we need to make our decision.
[41:12] Thank you. My name is Tom Tijerina.
[41:15] The conceptual site plan shows the 47
acres divided into every shape to maximize
[41:23] the number of 2.5-acre lots, 14.
[41:26] This approach is to maximize profits as
part of the real estate process.
[41:32] I think we can all agree upon that.
[41:36] As a result of the conceptual site plan,
[41:39] the first reason I'm opposed to this
rezoning is due to safety.
[41:45] First, the gravel road closely parallels
Highway 83 with no barriers.
[41:51] It's just a matter of time until an
accident on the gravel road and the yard
[41:58] accident on the gravel road and the yard
of
[41:58] lots 7 to 14 due to a vehicle from the
highway.
[42:03] Thank you.
[42:04] Second, the Needles gravel road extension
is not likely to be plowed during the
[42:10] winter months and therefore not receive
emergency services.
[42:14] Third, part of the Needles extension
appears to be in the detention pond.
[42:19] The second reason I'm opposed is because
the rezoning is not coordinated with the
[42:25] future expansion of Highway 83.
[42:27] For the BOCC to continue approving these
individual rezoning applications without
[42:33] coordination with public infrastructure is
irresponsible. Thank you.
[42:38] And if there's anyone else who would like
to speak,
[42:42] I'd ask you if you could move forward so
that we can just minimize transition time
[42:50] and maximize everyone's time here today.
[43:25] I oppose the Needles rezoning P-268.
[43:28] The applicant cites the master plan's
direction to use and extend existing
[43:33] infrastructure and strengthen established
neighborhoods.
[43:37] Those words should have consequences for
the decision before you.
[43:41] The limit for leaving Needles Drive
unpaved is 200 trips a day.
[43:46] That is exactly what the traffic memo
projects.
[43:49] But other figures in the same memo add up
to 202.
[43:53] Staff said corrected studies had been
requested,
[43:56] and this may have been addressed in the
staff report I could not hear,
[44:01] but nonetheless, that discrepancy must be
resolved before the board accepts the
[44:07] conclusions that paving is unnecessary.
[44:09] At Highway 83 and Walden Way,
[44:11] the memo says a southbound left turn lane
may be required because projected Turning
[44:17] traffic exceeds the threshold at sites,
[44:20] yet no public road improvements are
recommended.
[44:23] Planning Commissioner Eric Moraes raised a
broader concern even as he voted to
[44:29] recommend approval. When do repeated
reductions in lot size stop maintaining a
[44:34] neighborhood's character and begin
replacing it?
[44:38] Here, land zoned for 5-acre lots adjoins
the site to the north and east.
[44:43] Smaller lots would allow more homes
besides those neighbors.
[44:47] The applicant says the neighbors' letters
do not address the criteria.
[44:52] The letter of intent itself quotes the
code's definition of compatibility.
[44:57] It names noise and landscaping,
[44:59] and it ties compatibility to maintaining
the character of existing development.
[45:05] Neighbors wrote about highway noise and
the trees that buffer it.
[45:10] Those are compatibility concerns.
[45:12] The county can gradually replace a
neighborhood's character while claiming to
[45:17] preserve it. Each rezoning points to the
one before it as justification.
[45:22] The draft resolution is already written to
declare that this change serves the
[45:28] health, safety, and welfare of community
residents.
[45:31] The board must show how the evidence
supports that finding.
[45:36] Approving now would decide the density
before the road questions are answered.
[45:41] before the road questions are answered.
Mr.
[45:41] Moraes's question reaches beyond this one
application.
[45:45] I would have raised it in general public
comment,
[45:49] but today's meeting offers no time for
items not on the agenda,
[45:53] though some land use meetings do.
[45:55] Last week, the county's Constitution Day
post said We the People includes you and
[46:01] invites us and invites residents to learn
how they can participate.
[46:06] With the Land Development Code rewrite
under public review,
[46:10] please include that time at every land use
meeting. I ask you to deny P-268.
[46:15] You are not prepared to— and if you're not
prepared to deny it,
[46:20] please continue this hearing until those
concerns are addressed and the supporting
[46:26] evidence Is available for public review.
[46:30] Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak in opposition to this
[46:36] application today? Okay, seeing none, I
will— sorry about that.
[46:42] We will move on from the public input
portion,
[46:45] and we will proceed to the rebuttal
portion from the applicant.
[46:50] Nina Dossi with Vertex.
[46:52] So many of the comments provided were
again related to the subdivision and not
[46:59] again related to the subdivision and not
the
[46:59] rezone. So the specific layout, the need
for dedicating or preserving right-of-way.
[47:06] Fire-related concerns, things like that
will all be handled with the subdivision.
[47:13] That's not something that we can discuss
today because county staff hasn't reviewed
[47:20] it to see if I were to respond if we're in
compliance or not.
[47:25] That'll be at a later date.
[47:27] There were concerns regarding the
compatibility of 5-acre lots adjacent to
[47:33] compatibility of 5-acre lots adjacent to
2.5-acre
[47:34] lots. A 5-acre lot is absolutely
compatible with a 2.5-acre lot.
[47:39] If you look at the uses permitted within
the RR 2.5 zone district and the RR 5 zone
[47:46] district, they are essentially the same.
[47:50] So typically when you're looking at
compatibility,
[47:54] you look at the use to use and you look at
the potential impacts and the bulk and
[48:01] scale standards. And in this instance, the
only difference is the lot size,
[48:07] so 5 acres versus 2.5 acres, and then the
side setback of 25 feet versus 15 feet.
[48:14] Those are absolutely compatible.
[48:16] So the 2 zone districts are compatible
with one another.
[48:21] Not necessarily related to the criteria,
[48:24] but I do just feel the need to respond to
this.
[48:28] Somebody had identified that they were
disappointed in that you're not
[48:34] disappointed in that you're not
representing
[48:35] the county. I would just like to remind
everyone that there's specific criteria in
[48:42] place that you are obligated to follow and
to make all of your decisions based upon
[48:49] that specific criteria so that you're not
making arbitrary and capricious decisions,
[48:56] and so that everyone is judged based upon
the exact same criteria.
[49:01] And you know what you're going into.
[49:04] So I just— I know that's not related to
the criteria,
[49:09] but that's something that keeps on coming
up. So I just felt the need to say that.
[49:16] There were also comments regarding
maintenance of Needles and that it's not
[49:22] maintenance of Needles and that it's not
perhaps
[49:23] not being properly maintained. This is a
county roadway.
[49:27] So the county has accepted this road and
is maintaining this road.
[49:33] So the road is being maintained per El
Paso County standards.
[49:38] That shouldn't be a consideration for
today.
[49:41] Any future road for the subdivision would
be reviewed for design,
[49:47] and then it would be determined at that
time if it's going to be a public road or
[49:54] time if it's going to be a public road or
a
[49:54] private road through that review process.
[49:57] If it becomes a public road,
[50:00] then it would be maintained just like
Needles Drive under the same criteria that
[50:06] Needles Drive under the same criteria that
the
[50:06] county's outlined. I wanted to just— this
keeps on coming up,
[50:12] and it is somewhat related to the
criteria, so just bear with me.
[50:17] I'm just going to go into eDERP real
quick.
[50:21] Okay, so what you see here is the comment
response from our traffic engineer to the
[50:28] county. So this is publicly available.
It's already on eDERP.
[50:33] The issue keeps on coming up of having 202
trips versus 200 trips,
[50:38] and the traffic engineer actually did
address that in a comment response.
[50:44] So let me just get to the page. I'm sorry,
it's going so slow here.
[50:50] Oh, it was— let me see. These page numbers
are not the same. Oops. Here we go. Okay.
[50:57] There we go. Okay. So this is the comment
provided.
[51:01] We're still Staff has identified 127, and
what you see is 125.
[51:06] And the traffic engineer responded by
saying trip generation volumes are
[51:12] saying trip generation volumes are
estimates,
[51:13] therefore ADTs are rounded to the nearest
5.
[51:17] So you've heard many comments about 127
versus 125.
[51:21] The reason for that is it's an estimate.
[51:24] You'll notice that every single number on
this sheet is rounded to the nearest 5.
[51:31] So it's not in fact an error, it's the way
that this study has been drafted,
[51:38] and it would not have been approved by
county staff if it were an outstanding
[51:44] county staff if it were an outstanding
error.
[51:45] Again, on— this is page 23 of that, which
is publicly available.
[51:50] This is our comment response.
[51:52] The same comment you'll see here: 75 plus
127 equals 202.
[51:57] The traffic engineer has provided a
response,
[52:01] which again is identifying that there's
existing ADT 70 background because they
[52:07] always increase for anticipated background
73 and the actual trip generation for the
[52:14] proposed development 127, which equals
200. So there actually is not an error.
[52:21] There's no conflict either. The numbers
are consistent.
[52:26] Throughout the document,
[52:28] and it's it's general practice to provide
an estimate on this specific sheet.
[52:34] You'll look at many traffic studies and
see that they're rounding to the nearest
[52:41] five for this specific sheet, but in the
actual data of the traffic study,
[52:47] they provide more specific numbers. I
think I covered everything.
[52:52] Oh, there's one last thing here, which is
regarding replacing the character.
[52:59] There were comments.
[53:00] That the county may eventually be
replacing the character through each
[53:06] replacing the character through each
zoning
[53:07] action. Let me just go back to my
presentation. Okay.
[53:11] I'm going to just go to this sheet here.
So the master plan was adopted in 2021.
[53:18] And so that's what this application is
reviewed based upon.
[53:23] In 2021, All of the subdivisions that you
see there were already in place.
[53:29] So Cherry Creek Crossing already in place,
Walden Preserve already in place,
[53:35] the R-0.5 already in place.
[53:38] This is actually the first zoning action
in this particular area that the county
[53:44] in this particular area that the county
and
[53:44] board is reviewing since that master plan.
[53:48] So it's not the case of, sure,
[53:50] it's in character because the county has
changed things over and over and over
[53:57] again. This is the first one that's being
reviewed and potentially approved by the
[54:04] county with— under this new master plan.
[54:07] So I don't think that that's a fair
statement either. So are there any
[54:13] statement either. So are there any
questions?
[54:14] Did I miss anything?
[54:16] Any questions from commissioners? Okay,
thank you so much.
[54:21] I will now see if we have any additional
questions for staff.
[54:27] Okay, so if we can have staff come up to
answer traffic
[54:32] questions.
[54:33] Thank
[54:37] you,
[54:41] Madam
[54:45] Chair.
[54:50] Uh, just a couple of clarifying questions.
[54:54] On page 2 of the traffic, where it said
access comments 3, um, they said,
[55:00] please clarify these 3 access permits are
needed as the development is only
[55:06] proposing changing 1 existing access to
Highway 83.
[55:10] I didn't see any kind of an answer to that
statement, so I was just curious.
[55:16] So the access permits there are for CDOT.
[55:19] Uh, they did indicate in their response
letter, their comment letter,
[55:23] that 3 access permits will be required.
[55:25] Um, one of them will be for the emergency
access at the current driveway location.
[55:30] One of those will be to close an existing
field access, as they called it,
[55:34] which is just north of the existing
driveway.
[55:37] And then the 3rd access permit would be
for the access, I believe, at, um,
[55:41] Hodgdon and Highway 83 on the south side
of the project.
[55:44] Okay, I just didn't see a response, and so
that's why I was just curious.
[55:51] Because it was kind of open-ended.
[55:54] And then I guess back to the—
[55:57] I think it was page either 5 or 7 of the
traffic study.
[56:02] It listed the hours, AM, PM.
[56:04] And I— this is just, I guess, kind of a
general question that—
[56:10] Are traffic studies typically Um,
[56:13] incorporate when you have school in a
close proximity and look at the hours of
[56:20] close proximity and look at the hours of
the,
[56:20] the school when they, they, you know,
[56:23] students are supposed to be there and when
they get out.
[56:29] And is that something that we typically
look at?
[56:33] So, you know, we— this traffic study
stated started at 4 for the PM.
[56:39] Um, Um, when does the school get out?
[56:42] Because are you missing potentially
traffic that has a daily impact during
[56:49] traffic that has a daily impact during
school
[56:50] session?
[56:50] Sure, we do have a lot of projects that do
analyze at the school release,
[56:54] so they'll start analyzing at 3 to 5 or
from 2 to 4, something along those lines.
[56:59] This project did not do that with the
school not in immediate proximity.
[57:03] I do realize the school is to the north
some degree,
[57:05] but this is not directly adjacent to the
school site.
[57:08] So we do have some projects where they
will, and we ask them to,
[57:12] but it is not required by our criteria for
that.
[57:14] And when you ask, or it's further to the
north,
[57:19] what is your typical, uh, boundary? Um,
you go a quarter mile?
[57:24] Do you go that just one intersection up,
[57:28] not including that intersection?
[57:31] It's just kind of a curiosity question as
So part of our criteria does state that
[57:36] any pedestrian routes within 2 miles of a
school to be included.
[57:41] Overland route— I'm trying to see the
criteria.
[57:44] Morning,
[57:50] Commissioners.
[58:02] Dan Torres with Department of Public
Works. Chime in a little bit on the
[58:07] Works. Chime in a little bit on the
school.
[58:08] Primarily, we will look at when there's
direct impacts from the development to the
[58:13] school where they would add to that
traffic.
[58:16] A good example would be the previous
zoning application just north next to the
[58:21] Monument Academy School that came in where
their direct traffic would impact the
[58:26] school traffic.
[58:27] Okay.
[58:27] And that's where that traffic study would
analyze both the peak hour of the
[58:32] development and also the school traffic,
and they would include that.
[58:36] In this case, as Brett said, there's not
direct impacts to that,
[58:40] and also the peak hour traffic for these
single-family homes wouldn't align with
[58:45] that. So you would have less traffic
typically from the development that would
[58:50] impact during that time of day that the
school is coming out.
[58:54] Okay, what about coming into the
development though?
[59:00] From either in or out, that time period,
[59:03] you're going to have a different peak hour
for that development in
[59:07] comparison to the school's peak hour.
[59:09] Okay, um, that, that
[59:13] is all at this point.
[59:17] Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.
[59:21] Okay, any other questions for staff
before— okay,
[59:25] so we are going to close this public
hearing.
[59:28] We will bring it up here for
deliberations.
[59:32] I'll ask, um, for a motion or comments at
this time.
[59:36] Uh, you know, this is in my district. I do
have a few comments.
[59:41] Um, I do think it's important.
[59:43] I know 20 years down the line, um, I,
[59:46] I believe Highway 83 will have specific
access points,
[59:49] and I believe that CDOT will come down and
state that,
[59:53] much like Powers has specific access
points.
[59:56] I'm not even so sure that Needles, um, in
20 years from now,
[1:00:01] they'll probably just have a ride-in,
ride-out, would be my guess.
[1:00:05] Um, it's— it is a major road.
[1:00:08] It will be a major road, and I suspect
that Um, in the future,
[1:00:12] El Paso County will be having to work
closely with CDOT to determine what those
[1:00:18] access points are. But more importantly to
this application, um,
[1:00:22] my requirements in a quasi-judicial
manner—
[1:00:25] and I know that the opposition will
disagree with me here—
[1:00:29] is to consider that it meets the master
plan, it meets our land use code.
[1:00:35] It meets requirements. I'm sorry, I'm
reading my computer.
[1:00:39] It meets the requirements listed in the
resolution, and it meets—
[1:00:43] and that the conditions and the notations
are met. I believe that it does.
[1:00:49] I believe that with surrounding acreage
around the properties,
[1:00:53] I think that the 2.5-acre standard has
been in our master plan listed as a
[1:00:58] been in our master plan listed as a
standard
[1:00:59] that we will accept in this area.
[1:01:01] Um, as some of you may be aware,
[1:01:04] a couple weeks ago I was not happy with
the proposal that came in front of us.
[1:01:09] And, um, I try to come in with an open
mind, listen to both sides,
[1:01:14] but I truly do believe that this
application meets the criteria.
[1:01:19] And in my role as commissioner, I do
believe that when I see it meets the
[1:01:24] believe that when I see it meets the
criteria,
[1:01:24] I will vote yes. So, um,
[1:01:26] I didn't know if there were any other
comments before I make a motion.
[1:01:31] Commissioner, can anybody— can still make
comments if they want.
[1:01:35] If you'd like to make the motion, that's
fine. We can still have comments.
[1:01:39] We're not going to—
[1:01:40] someone gets comment.
[1:01:41] Yeah, did you want to make a motion then?
[1:01:44] Sure, I'll move approval of the
application including the, um,
[1:01:48] 2 conditions, and I believe there were 4
notations,
[1:01:51] but let me check.
[1:01:52] I, I don't think we have— I think it
automatically includes them,
[1:01:55] so I don't think we have—
[1:01:56] I'll move approv— approval of the Second.
[1:02:01] Okay, it's been moved and seconded. And
any additional comments?
[1:02:04] Commissioner Wysong.
[1:02:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. Could, could we
get that map back up that was showing?
[1:02:10] Maybe—
[1:02:20] do you—
[1:02:21] which specific map are you referring to?
[1:02:22] The one that was up before they put the
agenda back up.
[1:02:29] There we go. Thank you.
[1:02:32] In, in looking at the map, to be
consistent, um,
[1:02:39] with the criteria, we have to come back to
neighborhood, um,
[1:02:47] and I, I don't consider a substantial
change change in this
[1:02:55] particular neighborhood because if you
look at the subject
[1:03:02] property, it is zoned RR-5 surrounding.
[1:03:08] It's not there in the white box there.
[1:03:13] Walden subdivision RR-5 surrounds it.
[1:03:18] It's a triangle, so it only has 3 sides, 2
sides, which,
[1:03:25] you know, that really kind of creates a
neighborhood.
[1:03:32] And I find it, um, that it— in order to be
consistent,
[1:03:39] that that's part of the neighborhood.
[1:03:44] Crossing a major highway isn't part of the
neighborhood.
[1:03:52] And so I'm looking at this subject
property and the Walden
[1:03:59] subdivision as a neighborhood,
[1:04:03] and I don't see a substantial change.
[1:04:08] Um, and I think it should stay, uh, RR5,
um,
[1:04:14] and I'll be voting no on this, um,
amendment.
[1:04:20] Any other additional comments?
Commissioner Nelson?
[1:04:27] I find that all of the criteria have been
met.
[1:04:31] Uh, there's conformance with the El Paso
County Master Plan in stating that, um,
[1:04:38] 2.5 is expected to be developed in this
area.
[1:04:43] Um, there are plenty of 2.5-acre lots
surrounding this, um, request,
[1:04:49] this application, and not to mention even
up to 1, uh,
[1:04:54] 1.5 or half-acre lots within this, um,
community.
[1:04:58] Uh, the application is in compliance with
applicable statutory provisions.
[1:05:05] The land use and zone district is
compatible with, as I mentioned, the
[1:05:12] compatible with, as I mentioned, the
surrounding,
[1:05:13] um, acreage that we're seeing in this
community, and, um,
[1:05:18] the criteria within our land development
code have been met.
[1:05:24] So it's very clear to me that this should
be approved.
[1:05:29] I'll just make a few of my own comments as
well.
[1:05:32] I appreciate the comments of my colleagues
noting that this is very clearly in
[1:05:38] conformance, general conformance with the
master plan.
[1:05:42] I think the applicant did a good job of
pointing out it does not have to be both,
[1:05:49] that I do think it also meets both.
Compatibility does not mean the same.
[1:05:54] All of these things. Um. 2.5 acres and 5
acres.
[1:05:58] This is all very clear both in our master
plan and I think common sense that, uh,
[1:06:04] those are compatible with each other.
[1:06:07] And that, um, that it is clear that it—
[1:06:10] our master plan specifically says 2.5-acre
lots.
[1:06:13] Um, so it'd be very difficult for me to
say how we could say that's not in general
[1:06:20] conformance when it is very explicit in
our master plan.
[1:06:24] And it doesn't have to meet both.
[1:06:26] I think that some of the questions that
were brought up, and I do understand,
[1:06:32] you know, we all have concerns about
traffic.
[1:06:36] There is going to be growth, and that's
not a bad thing.
[1:06:40] But we do have to make sure that we are
appropriate looking at those things.
[1:06:46] We've heard from our traffic folks.
[1:06:48] Very specifically that they are meeting
these requirements and that some of the
[1:06:54] comments around the dirt road,
[1:06:57] that will be decided if it has met when we
get down the road on this.
[1:07:02] So it is our legal responsibility and
quite frankly an ethical responsibility to
[1:07:08] only apply the criteria that is in front
of us. That is what is fair.
[1:07:13] I understand It won't matter, but I'll say
it anyway.
[1:07:17] If any commissioner is here representing
anybody, they are not in legal compliance.
[1:07:24] The requirement for commissioners here is
to be neutral and not represent any party
[1:07:30] on this dais. That is our legal
responsibility and our ethical
[1:07:35] responsibility and our ethical
responsibility to be
[1:07:36] fair to a property owner.
[1:07:38] It is not the government's job to decide
what we like and what we do not like.
[1:07:44] It is our job to apply the rules as
written. That's what makes this process
[1:07:50] written. That's what makes this process
fair.
[1:07:50] That is why it is quasi-judicial, in the
same way that it would be wholly,
[1:07:56] wholly inappropriate for a judge across
the street to represent any party in front
[1:08:02] of them. And that is the difference.
[1:08:05] We wear many hats as commissioners when we
are dealing with legislative issues.
[1:08:11] We can have that hat on where we are
representing the people of our district in
[1:08:17] representing the people of our district in
the
[1:08:17] decision that we are making.
[1:08:19] But the law is very clear when it comes to
these quasi-judicial matters that that is
[1:08:26] not our role. And you may dislike that,
but it is the law.
[1:08:30] And so I find that this has met that.
[1:08:33] And I understand that there are
frustrations about what you want.
[1:08:38] And what you want to happen. But, but we
have to follow the law.
[1:08:43] It's incredibly important, and I think
it's very clear, with zero doubt to me,
[1:08:49] that this meets the criteria. So I will be
voting yes.
[1:08:53] With that, are there any other comments?
[1:08:56] Okay, we will begin the vote with
Commissioner Wysong.
[1:09:00] No.
[1:09:02] Vice Chair Nelson?
[1:09:03] Aye.
[1:09:03] Commissioner Williams?
[1:09:06] Aye.
[1:09:06] And the chair votes aye. That passes 3-1.
[1:09:11] Item 7. Item number 7 is department and
[1:09:17] committee reports, non-action items,
[1:09:22] and there are none.
[1:09:24] Item 8.
[1:09:26] Item number 8 is the addendum, and there
are no addendums.
[1:09:29] Item 9.
[1:09:31] Item number 9 is the executive session,
[1:09:33] and there is no requests for executive
session.
[1:09:35] Okay, with that, we've come to the end of
this agenda. This meeting is adjourned.