El Paso County hearing on Monument Ridge East leaves key questions about density, traffic and landscaping unresolved

El Paso County commissioners on Dec. 12 heard three related applications for the Monument Ridge East property east of I‑25 and south of County Line Road — two map‑amendment rezones (to RM‑12 and RS‑6000) and a 59.48‑acre preliminary plan proposing 37 single‑family lots and 21 multifamily lots — but did not take a final vote. The board spent several hours of testimony, staff presentations and public comment before recessing for the lunch break and asking staff to return with clarified conditions.

Planning staff told the board the three items are interdependent: the preliminary plan depends on the rezoning outcomes. At the Planning Commission, staff noted, RS‑6000 had been recommended 8–0; the RM‑12 rezoning produced a 4–4 tie (no recommendation); the preliminary plan carried a 5–3 recommendation. County planners said they had received public input raising traffic, density, compatibility and design questions and that some supporting technical reports lacked clarity on housing type. Staff recommended several conditions, including submittal of a full landscaping plan and a site development plan to accompany subsequent final plats, and noted that a water sufficiency review had been completed.

The applicant, Vertex Consulting Services, presented a conceptual layout showing single‑family attached (townhouse/rowhouse) units near I‑25 and lower‑intensity single‑family detached lots near existing RS‑20,000 lots. The applicant also proposed voluntary conditions intended to address neighbors’ concerns, including a self‑imposed minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for lots adjacent to the existing RS‑20,000 parcels and a draft condition limiting allowable residential uses in the RM‑12 area to single‑family detached, single‑family attached and two‑family dwellings (to exclude larger “multifamily” structures, the applicant said). Applicant representatives said a conceptual plan had been shown during outreach but in subsequent submittals some conceptual exhibits were removed; they asked that landscaping and specific design elements be finalized at the final‑plat stage.

County engineers and the applicant’s traffic consultant (LSC) reviewed a traffic impact study describing projected weekday daily trips of about 2,580 from the proposed development and identifying intersection improvements required as development triggers. Engineering testimony said existing intersections in the study area can operate within acceptable levels of service with mitigation; longer‑term measures include a future signal at County Line Road and Misty Acres Boulevard and turn‑lane and ramp improvements at the I‑25 interchange. The county’s transportation staff reiterated that the realignment of Monument Hill Road and its connection to Misty Acres reflect a past safety study recommendation and are intended to produce a safer, more geometric arterial alignment.

On drainage, staff said the site is in the Bald Mountain drainage basin and that the applicant’s preliminary drainage report proposes privately maintained extended detention basins; six were shown. The county said drainage and bridge fees will be assessed at final plat. Planning and county attorneys also confirmed the county has a draft water sufficiency finding supporting the proposal for a specific number of units (see clarifying details). The applicant accepted the water finding’s numbers during the hearing.

Public comment produced strong, divided views. Supporters urged the board to approve housing that meets market demand and to provide attainable housing choices near I‑25 and schools; some adjacent property owners said they had worked with the applicant on setbacks, tree transplants and a proposed trail connection. Opponents — including Monument town officials, residents of adjacent subdivisions and parents of local students — urged denial or delay. Concerns included traffic and safety at school peak times, evacuation and winter closure scenarios on I‑25, neighborhood compatibility, reliability of the traffic study (several speakers asked the board to study afternoon school peaks and congestion), and community trust in the applicant after a history of prior applications and outreach.

At the meeting’s end planning staff asked for time to refine and propose clear conditions, and the board recessed to allow staff and counsel to prepare specific language. Commissioners said the key outstanding issues were: how the county should define and enforce any prohibition on multifamily, whether detailed landscaping and site development plans should be required at the preliminary stage or final plat stage, and precise traffic mitigation and timing of off‑site improvements tied to county and CDOT requirements. The hearing will resume with staff’s recommended conditions before any final action by the board.