Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Big Springs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission rejects proposal to rezone 39 acres at Big Springs Road, citing spot‑zoning concerns
Summary
The commission voted 5–2 Aug. 7 to deny recommending a rezoning of 39.2 acres from A‑35 to RR‑5 for the Big Springs Estates proposal, with several commissioners and at least one nearby resident arguing the proposal is an isolated ‘leapfrog’ change inconsistent with the master plan.
The El Paso County Planning Commission on Aug. 7 voted 5–2 not to recommend approval of a rezoning request that would change a 39.2‑acre property off Big Springs Road from A‑35 agricultural to RR‑5 residential rural zoning.
Staff presented the application (P‑256), submitted by ANL Investments, and noted that notices were mailed to seven surrounding property owners on July 7, 2025; staff also recorded a corrected notice and a corrected public‑hearing poster that was posted Aug. 1. The applicant’s representative said the intend to subdivide into about seven lots of roughly 5 to 5.5 acres at the future final plat stage and that any interior access would be via a privately owned and maintained road built to county standards.
Commission debate focused on whether the proposed rezoning is contiguous and compatible with surrounding patterns of development. Several commissioners said the site is surrounded predominantly by A‑35 zoning and is not contiguous with existing RR‑5 development, making the proposal appear as leapfrog or spot zoning rather than an extension of nearby residential development. Commissioner Morais (identified in the record as raising compatibility concerns) said the master plan discourages leapfrog development and favors rezoning contiguous to existing development. Commissioner Fuller expressed similar concerns and suggested the proposal does not meet the approval criteria.
A nearby resident, James Saltwiddell, called in during the hearing and told the commission he opposed the rezoning on aesthetic and personal‑use grounds: “I like my open space, and that’s why I live where I live,” Saltwiddell said, adding that he had chosen the Yoder area specifically because parcels were A‑35.
Commissioner Trubridge moved to recommend approval with two conditions and two notations; Commissioner Whitney seconded. The motion failed on the roll call: Commissioners Mraize, Fuller, Whitney, Byers and Chair Jay Carlson voted no; Commissioners Trowbridge (Trubridge) and Jack voted yes. The item therefore did not carry and will not be forwarded with a positive recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Staff noted the BOCC hearing date initially given in some materials had been corrected to Sept. 11, 2025. Because the commission did not recommend approval, the applicant may still pursue BOCC action directly or revise the proposal and return to planning staff for another review.
