Less than seven weeks after El Paso County commissioners denied multi-family zoning at Highway 83 and Walker Road, the landowner has filed two new requests for the same 15 acres, now zoned for five-acre rural lots: multi-dwelling zoning allowing up to 12 dwelling units an acre on the northern half, and small-lot single-family and duplex zoning on the southern half.
The land is Tract A of the MA Subdivision, at the southeast corner of the intersection beside Monument Academy‘s east campus. El Paso County’s development-review portal, EDARP, lists Vertex Consulting Services as the applicant and MA Infrastructure LLC, which owns the land, as the owner. Both projects were created on the portal on Sept. 8. The application documents were uploaded and county file numbers assigned on Sept. 9, and the fees were recorded as paid on Sept. 10. Both files are listed as active, and county planner Kari Parsons is the project manager, as she was on the denied applications.
What the applications ask
P2612 would rezone the northern 7.79 acres, along Walker Road, from RR-5, the county’s rural residential district with a five-acre minimum lot, to RM-12, a residential multi-dwelling district. RM-12 allows up to 12 dwelling units an acre and is intended, in the county code’s words, for “moderate density single-family attached and detached and low-density multi-dwelling development”: detached houses and townhomes on lots as small as 3,500 square feet, plus multifamily buildings up to 40 feet in height. The county’s use table lists all of those as allowed uses in RM-12 where central water and sewer service is provided. (EDARP file · letter of intent · zoning map)
P2611 would rezone the southern 7.56 acres, between the access easement that crosses the tract and Pinehurst Circle, from RR-5 to RS-5000, a residential suburban district. RS-5000 is intended for “single-family and two-family residential development”: detached houses on lots of at least 5,000 square feet, about a ninth of an acre, and duplexes on lots of at least 7,000 square feet. The use table lists detached houses and duplexes as allowed uses in RS-5000, duplexes where central water and sewer service is provided, and does not permit multifamily dwellings there. Buildings may be up to 30 feet tall. (EDARP file · letter of intent · zoning map)
The county describes each as “an independent application from a concurrent rezoning request.”
The same two pieces of land were at issue in July. The denied applications asked for RM-30, a multi-dwelling district allowing up to 30 units an acre, on the northern 7.79 acres (P262) and RM-12 on the southern 7.56 acres (P261). The Board of County Commissioners denied both 3–2 on July 23, and the recorded resolutions, 26-235 and 26-236, were posted to those files on July 31. The new applications keep RM-12 but move it from the southern portion to the northern one, drop RM-30, and add RS-5000 on the southern portion.
County code does not allow a denied application to be resubmitted unless it is substantially different in a material way, or the conditions surrounding it have substantially changed (Land Development Code § 2.1.4). The applicant’s letters of intent, dated Sept. 9, rely on the first test. They describe the northern request as cutting the allowed density on that portion by more than half, and the southern request as reducing density there by at least 25 percent “while also removing the allowance for any multi-family dwellings.” They ask the county to find that the applications meet § 2.1.4 and to place them before the commissioners for a final decision.
Both denial resolutions carry the same notation on their second page: a denied petition “will not be accepted for a period of one (1) year if it pertains to the same parcel of land and is a petition for a change to the same zone that was previously denied,” unless evidence shows a substantial change in physical conditions or circumstances. The districts requested in September are not the ones denied on each portion in July: RM-12 has moved from the southern portion to the northern one, and RS-5000 was not previously requested. As of Sept. 12, each new file listed six applicant submittals and no county document responding to the § 2.1.4 request.
What approval would allow
A rezoning sets what may be built on the land; it does not approve a project. At 12 units an acre, RM-12 would allow about 93 units on the northern 7.79 acres, against about 233 under the RM-30 zoning denied in July. RS-5000 has no per-acre limit; its lot minimums would allow about 65 homes on the southern 7.56 acres if built entirely as detached houses, or about 94 units if built entirely as duplexes, before land for roads. On the southern portion, that duplex ceiling is about the same as the roughly 90 units the denied RM-12 request would have allowed there. Across the tract, the new requests would allow roughly 158 to 187 units, against about 323 for the denied requests. Today’s RR-5 zoning would yield roughly three five-acre lots across the whole tract.
| Portion of Tract A | Today: RR-5 potential five-acre lots |
Denied July 23 | Calculated units before site constraints | Filed September | Calculated units before site constraints |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North, along Walker Road 7.79 acres |
1 | RM-30 30 units an acre |
233 | RM-12 12 units an acre |
93 |
| South, to Pinehurst Circle 7.56 acres |
1 | RM-12 12 units an acre |
90 | RS-5000 5,000 sq ft lots; 7,000 for duplexes |
65–94 detached-house to duplex-unit scenario |
| Tract A total 15.35 acres |
3 | — | 323 | — | 158–187 |
The applicant’s updated traffic impact study, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants and dated Sept. 4, assumes 85 dwelling units on the northern portion (55 single-family attached and 30 low-rise multi-family) and 46 on the southern portion (23 detached houses and 23 attached units, which RS-5000 limits to two per building), for 131 on Tract A. It estimates those units would generate about 940 vehicle trips on an average weekday. Those figures are the study’s planning assumptions; a rezoning grants what the district allows.
The same study covers Tract B, the 19.9-acre parcel south of Pinehurst Circle, which it says will be proposed as a planned unit development with about 29 single-family homes. As of Sept. 12, no separate Tract B rezoning application appeared on EDARP.
Water and sewer service would come from the Walden Corporation. A commitment letter dated Aug. 11 and signed by Bill Dunston says the company “will provide water and sewer service to the Development in accordance with the Corporation’s Rules and Regulations” and that water rights “will be appropriately conveyed at the subsequent subdivision stage of development.” It adds that during that stage the corporation will review the subdivision documents, including construction drawings and easements, to confirm compliance with those rules. The letters of intent note that a water resources report is not required with a rezoning, and that a finding of water sufficiency would come at the subdivision stage.
What happens next
Neither file lists a hearing date as of Sept. 12. The denied applications went first to the El Paso County Planning Commission, which recommended denial 6–1 on June 18, and then to the commissioners for the final decision. Written comments can be submitted through the public-comment link on each EDARP file.
A more in-depth article, with additional analysis of the new applications, will follow.
Sources & further reading
The Independent’s own coverage: Rezoning at the Schoolhouse Gate (the original applications) · At Highway 83 and Walker Road, a Setback for Density (the Planning Commission’s 6–1 recommendation) · At Highway 83 and Walker Road, a Test of the County’s Own Rules (the July 23 hearing and denial) · After the Denial: What the County’s Vote Does — and Doesn’t — Settle (the resubmittal rule and the owner’s other options)
County record, new applications: P2611 EDARP file · P2611 letter of intent · P2611 zoning map · P2612 EDARP file · P2612 letter of intent · P2612 zoning map · Traffic impact study, LSC, Sept. 4, 2026 (17 MB; filed with both applications) · Walden Corporation commitment letter, Aug. 11, 2026 (filed with both applications)
County code: Land Development Code, Table 5-1, Principal Uses · Chapter 5, Use and Dimensional Standards (Table 5-4, Density and Dimensional Standards)
County record, denied applications: P261 EDARP file · P262 EDARP file · Recorded BOCC Resolution 26-235 (P261 denial) · Recorded BOCC Resolution 26-236 (P262 denial)
Entities: MA Infrastructure LLC, Colorado Secretary of State record · El Paso County Planning Commission · LSC Transportation Consultants · Board of County Commissioners · El Paso County Planning and Community Development · Vertex Consulting Services · Walden Corporation
Methodology
Dates come from the event logs on the four EDARP files, read on Sept. 10 and rechecked Sept. 12, 2026. Acreages and the north–south placement of each request come from the applications’ legal descriptions and zoning maps. District purposes come from the county code as reproduced in the letters of intent. The RM-12 density limit and the minimum lot sizes and height limits for RR-5, RS-5000 and RM-12 were read from Table 5-4, Density and Dimensional Standards for Agricultural, Residential and Special Purpose Zoning Districts, in the current online Land Development Code. The letters of intent cite those standards as Table 5-5, which in the current code covers commercial, industrial and obsolete districts. “Townhomes” and “low-rise apartment buildings” are plain-language terms for the code’s “single-family attached” and “low-density multi-dwelling” uses. The maximums in the table are ceilings set by zoning alone. For the RM districts, the units-per-acre limit is applied to the full acreage of each portion and rounded down. For RS-5000, which has no units-per-acre limit, the southern portion’s 329,314 square feet is divided by the minimum lot size: 5,000 square feet per detached house gives 65, and 7,000 square feet per two-family dwelling, which the code defines as a structure containing two dwelling units, gives 47 lots and 94 units. Duplexes count toward the ceiling because the county’s Table 5-1 of principal uses lists two-family dwellings as an allowed use in RS-5000, with central water and wastewater required, rather than a special use; that was read in the current version of the code on Municode (dated Aug. 22, 2024) and matches the same table in the county’s LDC comparison document. Those RS-5000 figures do not subtract land for roads, detention or setbacks, so actual lot counts would depend on the road, drainage and open-space requirements applied at subdivision. Earlier coverage gave the denied requests’ combined maximum as about 324, calculated on the whole tract before rounding; rounding each portion down gives 323. The two-unit limit on attached buildings in RS-5000 is Land Development Code § 5.2.23(A)(1). The RR-5 figures divide acreage by the five-acre minimum lot: neither portion alone can hold more than one lot, but the whole tract divides into three. Unit counts and trip estimates come from Tables 1 and 2 of the applicant’s traffic impact study and are its planning assumptions, not limits.
