Council rejects Falcon Commerce Center Phase 2 PUD amendment after Air Force compatibility concerns

Town officials declined to approve Ordinance 15-2026 on Monday, rejecting a major amendment to the Falcon Commerce Center Phase 2 PUD that would allow a residential plan on the southern 43 acres. The motion to approve the amendment failed in a 6–1 vote after council members repeatedly raised questions about the project’s proximity to U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) training airspace and the potential for drone‑related safety incidents.

Planning staff summarized prior council deliberations and read a written statement on behalf of USAFA raising operational and safety concerns, including the risk of civilian drones triggering counter‑SUAS responses and stormwater impacts to training lands. As Director of Planning Dan Uner read the Academy’s statement into the record he emphasized the Academy’s training tempo increase and asked the council to "take these impacts into consideration as you approach your decision on the use of this land." The applicant team described mitigation steps they say were taken, including enhanced stormwater controls, perimeter fencing and proposed covenant language to inform homebuyers about training activities.

During deliberations, multiple council members said they supported the development’s reduced density compared with earlier approvals, but questioned whether the town could reasonably protect USAFA mission compatibility after the project is built. One council member described concerns about nighttime training and the potential influx of complaints that could burden town staff. The applicant’s representative, Tom Blancc, said the team had engaged the Academy and maintained that the project meets local stormwater and setback requirements, but council members pointed to unresolved issues and scheduling limits on meaningful USAFA participation in joint planning. The council’s denial leaves the door open to future submittals but stops short of approval for this version of the PUD.

The decision follows a continued review that began July 6; the council had asked staff to convene the developer, Academy and council members to discuss mission compatibility before final action. With that meeting not achieved on a satisfactory timeframe, council members asked staff to pursue longer‑term coordination with land trusts and the Academy on adjacent conservation options, but they were unwilling to approve the current amendment without clearer assurances of mission protection and safety mitigation.