Submit Public Comment

Project

File Number: PUDSP252
Project Name: Flying Horse North PUD/SP Amendment (Major/Filings 6-8)
Applicant: HR Green Inc.
Project Manager: Ryan Howser
Status: Active

Public Comments that Oppose (3)
**Disclaimer: El Paso County cannot verify that any comments or documents were received from a trusted source. Use caution when reviewing comments and documents and do not open any suspicious links.**

Add Comment | View All
Link	Comment by	Comment
	OPPOSE Name: Robert & Karen Hilborn Date: 3/3/2026 3:47:00 PM	We strongly oppose the extension of Holmes Road into Filing 8 until its connection to Sandbagger Drive is complete. Until that time the 50 lots in Filing 6 and 8 would only have one way out of the development. Holmes Rd between the development and Vessey Rd is very narrow with only 19 feet of pavement width and in no way conforms to the Typical Rural Collector shown in the Preliminary Plan. During the Black Forest Fire, it took us over an hour to get to Black Forest Road via Vessey which is barely a mile. Also, in the 354-page traffic assessment, I can find no determination of the additional traffic down Holmes Rd due to 50 more homes in addition to already increased Cathedral Pines traffic.
	OPPOSE Name: Thomas Dale Date: 3/3/2026 10:43:22 AM	The ‘notice of public hearing’ sent to residents depicts the SITE as including both the Palmer Divide Subdivision and Country Estates for file no PUDSP252. As a resident of Connaught neighborhood, I strongly oppose the city board's proposal to change our community designation from a Planned Development and RR5 community to a Planned Development only. The current RR5 designation allows for a balance of residential and open spaces, which is essential for maintaining the character of our neighborhood. Removing this designation risks overcrowding and diminishes the unique qualities that make Connaught a desirable place to live. The proposed change may lead to increased density without considering the specific needs of our community. Thank you
	OPPOSE Name: Cindy Pirtle Date: 3/2/2026 2:34:42 PM	The development plan is very vague. What is the existing size of these parcels,? and what size are you trying to re-zone them too ? Why is this being re-visited ? I was under the impresssion after the last battle 2.5 acres was the minimum ?