A Yes Vote with a Warning: The Needles Rezoning Goes to Commissioners

The El Paso County Planning Commission voted 6–3 on Sept. 3 to recommend rezoning 47.55 acres off Highway 83 south of Highway 105 from five-acre to two-and-a-half-acre lots. One of the six members who voted for it, Eric Moraes, also warned that approving such rezonings one at a time could, over time, change the character of the area they are supposed to preserve. The Board of County Commissioners takes up the request on Thursday, Sept. 24.

Eric Moraes voted yes. Before he did, according to the minutes of the Sept. 3 hearing, he raised “a broader concern regarding how the County evaluates maintaining existing character within Large-Lot Residential Priority Development Areas.” Individual rezoning requests, he noted, “may appear consistent when reviewed independently,” but “the cumulative effect of repeatedly rezoning properties from RR-5 to RR-2.5 could gradually change the established character of an area.” He “questioned at what point continued increases in density would move beyond maintaining the existing character contemplated by the Master Plan and instead create a new character over time,” and asked the commission, county staff, applicants and neighbors to weigh that cumulative effect when judging future applications.

He then voted with the majority. The motion by Sarah Brittain Jack, seconded by Thomas Bailey, carried 6–3. Bailey, Brittain Jack, Moraes, Bryce Schuettpelz, Tim Trowbridge and Christopher Whitney voted in favor. Blaine Brew, Suzanne Casagrande and Jason Wulf voted against. The minutes record no remarks from the three who voted no. The commission’s recommendation is advisory. The decision belongs to the five county commissioners, who hear the file, P268, at 9 a.m. on Thursday at Centennial Hall.

What is being asked

The property is a single 47.55-acre parcel at 17675 State Highway 83, east of the highway and about 0.7 miles south of its intersection with Highway 105, in Commissioner District 1. It holds a house, an accessory living quarters and a barn, and has been zoned RR-5, the county’s five-acre rural residential district, since Jan. 3, 1955, according to the staff report. The request is to rezone it to RR-2.5, which halves the minimum lot size.

A rezoning does not approve houses. It sets the rules a later subdivision must follow. The applicant’s letter of intent says the anticipated subdivision would create 15 lots averaging 3.17 acres, with the existing buildings kept. The traffic study, prepared by SM Rocha, LLC, models 14 new single-family homes. Each would have its own well and septic system. Access would come from Needles Drive, a county-maintained gravel road extended north into the property. According to the study, that would lengthen the road from 2,800 feet to 6,675 feet, measured from Walden Way, which requires a deviation from the county’s road standards. The Colorado Department of Transportation would not allow a new permanent connection to Highway 83, so the existing driveway there would become emergency-only access, closed at all times behind a Knox Box. The applicant’s representative, Nina Dossey of Vertex Consulting Services, told the commission that a direct connection “would be preferable but is not permitted by CDOT,” in the minutes’ account.

The county sets no density cap for either district; the staff report lists maximum density as “N.A” for both, so lot size is the limit. By the Independent’s calculation, the current five-acre zoning would allow at most nine lots on 47.55 acres, and the proposed zoning at most 19. The road takes some of that land. Extending Needles Drive about 3,875 feet at the 70-foot right-of-way the county’s road manual sets for a gravel local road would use roughly six acres, and the traffic study itself describes the project as the subdivision of “approximately 40 acres.” On 40 acres the ceilings fall to eight lots under the current zoning and 16 under the proposed one. The existing house would occupy one lot either way. The applicant’s 15 lots sit near the top of what the new zoning would allow; its 3.17-acre average is the full 47.55 acres, road included, divided by 15. Measured against the roughly 40 acres left for lots, the average is closer to 2.7 acres.

The plan says both sizes fit

Moraes’s question goes to how the county reads its own master plan. Your El Paso County Master Plan places this land in the Large-Lot Residential placetype, defined as single-family homes “occupying lots of 2.5 acres or more.” A five-acre district and a two-and-a-half-acre district both fall inside that description. Staff found the request “generally consistent” with the plan on that basis.

The plan also designates the area “Minimal Change: Developed” — land that has “an established character.” Staff’s report reads that designation as a recommendation “that if development is to occur in this area, that the general character is maintained.” It then defines the character by the neighbors: the parcel adjoins the Majestic Pines RR-2.5 subdivision to the south and the Cherry Creek Crossing planned development, with its 2.5-acre minimum, to the west. Walden, which the letter of intent places to the north and east and the county’s map labels as RR-5 subdivisions approved in 1965 and 1968, is where many of the objectors say they live.

The county’s own zoning map for this file shows the pattern Moraes described. Its labels mark Majestic Pines as RR-2.5, approved in 2014; Jackson Ranch to the west as RR-2.5, approved in 2018; and Rollin Ridge Estates to the south as RR-2.5, approved in 2019. Each new RR-2.5 approval becomes part of the surrounding character that the next request is measured against.

Moraes was not the only member of the commission to raise it. Whitney asked how cumulative impacts are weighed when a single project generates few trips but adds to others. County planner Joe Letke answered that cumulative growth “is considered through the Master Plan,” that the property sits in a priority development area where lots of about 2.5 acres are anticipated, and that for the broader area staff relies on whether an application is in general conformance with the plan. Dossey added that the county’s traffic-study requirements account for surrounding parcels that may develop, and that the county’s road impact fee funds improvements that cumulative growth makes necessary.

Twenty-two comments, all opposed

Three people spoke at the hearing and all three opposed the request. Dean Couture, a 35-year resident of Needles Drive, described it as a dead-end road serving about 13 homes and asked whether it would be paved. According to the minutes, he is the man who developed Majestic Pines, the RR-2.5 subdivision the staff report cites next door, and he recounted the fire-protection improvements he had been required to make there. He asked why the property could not be developed in five-acre lots like its neighbors. Kim Westfall, whose family bought nearby about 30 years ago, raised wells, wildlife, wildfire evacuation and the character of Walden. Rene Trudel, of the Woodmoor and Trail Lakes area, said he had no objection to 2.5-acre lots at first but changed his mind after reading his neighbors’ comments.

The county’s comment portal lists 22 written comments on the file, every one marked “oppose” and none in support; the last was filed on Sept. 2. No homeowners’ association or neighborhood group is among them. Two entries carry the same unsigned letter. Those that say where the writer lives point to Walden and the streets around it, and several come from people who describe buying there for the five-acre lots. Heidi Arbury wrote that her family bought 35 years ago “under protection of RR5 zoning.” Holly Millard wrote that her parents bought in the mid-1960s, on what “was originally a ranch that was divided up and sold into mostly 5 acre lots.”

Several make Moraes’s argument in their own words. Marti Zehr-Breedlove, a Walden resident, filed the longest letter in the file, nine pages built almost entirely from the applicant’s own traffic study. “The central issue,” she wrote, “is not whether 14 homes, standing alone, create an unacceptable traffic problem. The issue is what happens when one development after another is approved in a rural area without corresponding investment in the roads that serve them.” When one rezoning is approved, she argued, its traffic “becomes part of the baseline against which the next development is evaluated.” She pointed out that the study assumes no regional road improvements, that the widening of Highway 83 it cites is not expected until about 2045, and that the study itself says a southbound left-turn lane at Walden Way may be required. “Level of Service is not the same thing as safety,” she wrote, and she asked the commissioners to pull the Sheriff’s Office crash reports for the area. Mark and Julie Flansberg of Pinehurst Circle wrote: “If RR-5 parcels are repeatedly rezoned to allow greater density, the cumulative result will eventually bear little resemblance to the rural community that exists today.” They also pointed to Walden’s wastewater plant, which they wrote serves about 381 homes plus Kilmer Elementary and Monument Academy’s east campus and is now being replaced, as a reason to establish that existing infrastructure is sustainable before adding more.

The rest are closer to the ground. Ray L., who wrote that his property adjoins the parcel for more than 800 feet, described Needles Drive as a half-mile “rural, unpaved dead-end road” whose residents all rely on wells. A reader signing as Tom T. questioned whether the county would plow the longer gravel road, and so whether the new lots would have emergency access in snow. John Godsey, west of the parcel, questioned building on its southern end at all, “considering how narrow it is and how closely it parallels Hwy 83,” and the mature pines that screen the highway’s noise. The unsigned letter, from owners on Walden Way who wrote that they had bought “a year ago,” said their lot sits at a low point that takes drainage from the 47 acres. Holly Millard described turning onto Walden Way from Highway 83 as “a ‘take your chances kind of prospect.'” Catherine Oakley wrote that traffic out of the north end of Walden “is already difficult during peak school traffic hours.” Seven of the comments, filed within about 40 minutes of each other on the night of Aug. 26, are a line or a word long.

A gravel road at exactly 200

The traffic study projects that Needles Drive, which carried 70 vehicles a day when it was counted on April 28, will carry 75 by 2028 without the project and 200 with it, of which 125 would come from the new homes. Across the whole development, the study estimates 127 daily trips.

Two hundred is the number the county’s road rules turn on. The El Paso County Engineering Criteria Manual sets the design capacity of a rural gravel local road at 200 vehicles a day. Its paving policy says existing gravel roads “shall be paved” where “any development causes an existing gravel road to exceed a projected ADT of 200,” and that new gravel roads must be paved where “the road is projected to have an ADT of 200 or more.” The study applies the rule for existing roads: “since this threshold is not being exceeded, no roadway paving improvements are warranted.” It adds that paving will be re-evaluated at later stages. According to its own introduction, the August revision was prepared to answer county review comments asking for “additional discussion on the daily volume threshold of gravel roadways.”

At the hearing, Moraes asked why the figures showed both 200 and 127 trips. The minutes record the county’s senior engineer, Jalal Saleh, explaining “that a corrected traffic study has been requested,” and that 200 is the correct total. In rebuttal, Dossey “noted that the traffic study has been approved by El Paso County,” and said whether Needles Drive stays gravel or is paved would be decided at the subdivision stage. Both statements fit the record: the copy in the county’s file carries a stamp reading “Accepted for File,” dated Aug. 14, 2026. As of Sept. 20, the county’s online project file lists no later traffic study.

Water, in two sentences

The staff report’s discussion of water, in full: “A finding of water sufficiency is not required with a Map Amendment. Water is currently provided by individual wells.” That is accurate to the code, which leaves the question of water supply to the subdivision stage. The applicant’s letter of intent cites the 2018 El Paso County Water Master Plan, which projects a surplus for the planning region that includes the property through full build-out in 2060. Nearly every neighbor who wrote in raised wells.

The two conditions staff recommends are the standard ones: the developer must comply with other agencies’ requirements, and future development must follow the RR-2.5 standards. Neither mentions the traffic study, paving or the Highway 83 right-of-way. Elisa Rusonis, a Walden resident, asked in her letter that any approval be conditioned on reserving room for the four-lane widening of Highway 83 that the state’s access-control plan envisions. The draft resolution before the commissioners also misstates the date of the Planning Commission hearing as Sept. 2; the signed commission resolution and the summary memo both give Sept. 3.

Who is asking

The applicant is North Ranch LLC, of 944 Cheyenne Blvd. in Colorado Springs. Its articles of organization, filed with the Colorado Secretary of State on March 24, 2026, name Robert L. Myers, at the same address, as the person forming the company, which is run by managers and does not list its members. Colorado does not require it to. The name was reserved on Feb. 27 by Timothy F. Brewer, who is also the company’s registered agent. Rob Myers of The North Ranch, LLC is the name printed under the developer’s statement in the traffic study.

According to the county assessor’s records, the company bought the land on April 30 for $2.9 million from the Herbertson family trust, whose members had owned it since 1994. The county’s project file for the rezoning was opened on Feb. 9, before either the purchase or the company’s formation.

Thursday

The commissioners vote on the rezoning, not the subdivision. Roads, wells and lot lines come later. What they decide on Thursday is whether this parcel joins the neighbors staff used to define the area’s character. That is the step Moraes asked about, even as he voted for it: at what point such additions stop maintaining an area’s character and start creating a new one.

—

Sources & further reading

The Independent’s own coverage: Denied in July, Walker Road Rezoning Returns as RM-12 and RS-5000, on the same Highway 83 corridor, at Walker Road · At Highway 83 and Walker Road, a Test of the County’s Own Rules, the July 23 denial, in which District 1 Commissioner Holly Williams voted with the majority · Vertex Consulting Files Its Rezonings With the Department It Came From, on the applicant’s representative, which also represents this file.

County record (P268): EDARP project page · Board of County Commissioners report packet, including the Sept. 3 minutes, staff report, letter of intent, maps, public comment and draft resolution · Transportation memorandum, SM Rocha, LLC, accepted for file Aug. 14, 2026

Rules: El Paso County Engineering Criteria Manual, Chapter 2, §2.2.7 and Table 2-5

Ownership: Colorado Secretary of State record, The North Ranch LLC (20261252135) · El Paso County Assessor, parcel 6100000369

Methodology

This article is drawn entirely from public records. Hearing statements come from the minutes in the commissioners’ packet, which summarize the discussion in the third person rather than transcribe it. Quotations attributed to commissioners, staff and the applicant’s representative are the minutes’ wording, not a verbatim record of what was said. The Independent reviewed the county’s video of the Sept. 3 hearing, and the minutes’ account of Moraes’s remarks matches the recording. The comment count is the county portal’s own tally of 22, checked on Sept. 20 against the public-comment section of the commissioners’ packet (pages 45–82), which reproduces the same entries. Traffic figures are from the transportation memorandum accepted for file on Aug. 14, 2026, the latest traffic study on the county’s project page as of Sept. 20. Approval years for nearby subdivisions are as labeled on the county’s zoning map for this file; the Independent did not independently confirm what each of those approvals was. Ownership and sale details come from the Secretary of State’s filings and the county assessor’s property record. Lot counts under each zoning are the Independent’s calculation, not a county figure: gross acreage divided by each district’s minimum lot size, rounded down, and repeated on about 40 acres after subtracting the Needles Drive extension (6,675 feet less the existing 2,800, at the 70-foot right-of-way in Table 2-5 of the county’s road manual). They are ceilings. The districts’ 200-foot minimum lot width and the parcel’s narrow southern end would likely reduce either figure, and no subdivision layout is on file to test them against. The Independent did not contact the applicant, its representative or county staff for this article.