Planning commission rejects variance for Watts Upfitting at Meadowlake Airport

The El Paso County Planning Commission on Jan. 16 voted against a variance of use requested by Watts Upfitting to allow a commercial vehicle repair/upfitting operation and outdoor storage at Meadowlake Airport.

The variance request — filed as VA247 — would have allowed vehicle repair and storage tied to government contracts on a 2.25-acre parcel within the airport overlay. Carrie Parsons, senior planner with El Paso County Planning and Community Development, summarized the proposal and staff analysis before the hearing.

The commission’s vote followed more than three hours of presentation, questions and public comment. Opponents, including Meadowlake Airport Association President Dave Elliott Dunn, raised concerns about airport compatibility, Federal Aviation Administration grant assurances and impacts to taxiways and hangar availability. Dunn told the commission the airport’s growth and grant-funded infrastructure give the county a responsibility to limit non‑aeronautical uses on and near the runway complex.

Supporters, including nearby commercial property owners and residents who own hangars, said Watts Upfitting is a locally based, government‑contract business that has operated at the site since 2018 and in its current ownership since 2021. John Watts, owner of Watts Upfitting, said the company “serves the entire military installations here” and builds and outfits emergency vehicles under government contracts. Anne Rees of Vertex Consulting, representing the applicant, said the business provides equipment and safety upgrades used by airport and public‑safety fleets.

Planning staff described the property as lying in an R-4 Planned Development zoning district within the General Aviation Overlay (GAO) for Meadowlake Airport. Parsons noted the GAO permits many airport‑supporting commercial uses but that the Land Development Code is silent on some specifics — for example, “aircraft repair” is not explicitly defined in the code. County engineering review found no traffic or drainage studies were required given the applicant’s statement that no new site disturbance was planned; Public Works engineer Joseph Sandstrom said projected daily trips would remain below the threshold that triggers a traffic impact study.

Several commissioners pressed for clarity on parking and outdoor storage. The applicant sought permission to store up to 60 non‑employee customer vehicles on the 2.25‑acre site and identified an adjacent leased parcel for employee parking. Parsons said the applicant’s site plan and staff resolution tie any approval to a specific site layout and to a written lease for off‑site employee parking; she also said a site development plan would be required within 45 days if the variance were approved.

Opponents faulted the proposed outdoor storage layout and the likelihood that large recreational vehicles or trucks could exceed seven‑foot fence heights and be visible from taxiways and aircraft operations. Meadowlake commenters and several commissioners said the airport’s federal and state grant history, and the GAO, create an obligation to limit non‑aeronautical uses that could affect airport operations or grant assurances.

Commissioners were split over whether the application met variance criteria in the Land Development Code, including whether strict application of the code would create an exceptional hardship and whether the proposed use was compatible with surrounding airport operations. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the business but concluded the proposal, as presented, failed to meet the code’s approval criteria.

The motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners — with four conditions and two notations and with revised site‑plan language limiting repair and storage to government‑contract vehicles — was seconded and voted on. The commission recorded a 4‑in‑favor, 5‑opposed tally on the motion, and the item failed.

Because the variance is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, the commission’s vote will be included in the public record forwarded to that board for final action if the applicant pursues it further. The applicant and several public commenters said they would consider next steps, including possible relocation or refinements to the application.

Votes and next steps: the motion failed by a 5–4 vote; the commission’s written minutes and the staff packet contain the motion language, the site plan with the added government‑vehicle limitation, the lease uploaded to the county record, and the planning commission resolution that would have accompanied a favorable recommendation.

Context: Meadowlake Airport includes a mix of private hangars, residential lots with aircraft access and airport‑related businesses. Speakers at the hearing pointed to the airport’s FAA grant history and a 1970 General Aviation Overlay as factors that require careful review of non‑aeronautical uses near active taxiways and runways.

The county’s Planning and Community Development department and Public Works staff will retain the application materials on file; if the applicant modifies the proposal it would need to return through the county review process.