That's the question.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Welcome to the Colorado Springs City Planning Commission Commission hearing for August 13th, 2025.

The Planning Commission is comprised of nine members appointed by City Council to review various development applications and proposals.

Planning Commission members are community volunteers with expertise across a wide variety of disciplines.

Each member acts independently, carefully assessing all the evidence presented to make their decisions.

City planning staff facilitates a process for applications where this body reviews a variety of them as governed by city code.

Some applications require Planning Commission to be the final decision maker, and for others, Planning Commission is a recommending body to City Council.

Ground rules and procedures.

Throughout this hearing, we will require that everyone show respect for each individual here.

Understanding that others may have differing opinions than yours.

Unkind actions, speaking out of turns, and profanity will not be tolerated.

For items presented on today's agenda, staff will give a short presentation on the application, followed by the applicant, who will be given 30 minutes to present the details of the project.

For any items heard on appeal, the appellant and applicant will be given equal time.

Any public comment will be taken after these presentations, and each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Please keep comments brief to the point and prepare arguments accordingly.

Please respect others' rights to listen and be heard.

Okay.

And we can do roll call, please.

Salange.

Commissioner Hensler.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Chair Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robins.

Here.

Commissioner Sipilovich?

Here.

Commissioner Casey?

Here.

Commissioner Rickett?

Here.

Commissioner Jujano?

Here.

Commissioner Clements.

We have nine prison.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda or postponements that we know?

See none.

Communications.

Does that there's open seats for planning commission?

I think we're in the process now of reviewing those from our council liaisons.

So more to come on that, perhaps next month.

Mr.

Walker, anything from you?

Sure.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Kevin Walker City Planning Director.

Yeah, so I would confirm that there is movement at the council for the replacements.

And so whether they will get to the finish line before our next meeting.

As soon as I've got the chance to read it and make sure I think it's correct.

And then we will begin the process of uh briefing you and asking potentially for adoption.

Um we still have those kinds of questions yet to answer.

But our council member is on board and we are working our way through that process.

You may see it as soon as next month.

Um, but sometime in the fall, most likely.

We have uh some progress also being made on annex COS.

Um as you know, there's been a little bit of a data point that occurred in June, and we have been working uh towards uh modifying our plan to reflect that new information in the vote in June and talking to city leadership and and trying to uh navigate our way through that.

But we will be coming forward with something in the fall, should be in the next 30 to 60 days.

Uh and then we will bring that to you at some point in the future also.

We are also working on uh the school dedication and um uh fees in lieu of uh issues that our chair is uh uh so graciously put in front of us for several months here.

Uh we have a contract with a uh consultant and working with the county and I've already started meetings with them, so we will hopefully get some progress on that shortly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Walker.

Uh approval of the minutes.

Can we get a motion to approve the minutes from July 9th, 2025?

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

Uh talk with staff.

There is one adjustment that needs to be made on names uh that'll be done in the background before it's published.

Uh based on that, I'll uh make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 9th, 2025.

Second.

Please vote, and I'll be upstairing Solange since I was not there.

I do not seem to have a voting option on my tablet.

How do you vote, please?

I vote in favor.

Thank you.

Do you want me to sign out and try signing back in?

Okay.

That motion passes eight to one abstained.

Thank you.

I cannot see him to sign out or do anything.

So you may need to just restart me.

Item five A N V A R 25-0003.

3121, Illinois Avenue Duplex.

Item 5B, C U D P two Five Dash 0011, Liberty Self Starge, Conditional Use.

Item 5C, C O D E 25004, Kennel's Ordnance.

Item 5D A N E X-25-0001, North Gate Boulevard, Edition Number 10.

Item 5E, Z O N E 25 Dash 0014, Bethel Menonite Church, Child Care.

Item 5 F P D Z D25 Dash 0020 Dash Bethel Mennonite Church Child Care.

Item 5G, Z O N E 25 Dash 0007 Dash Sorry, 24029.

I'm sorry, 2402 North Nevada rezoning.

Thank you.

Is there any member of staff who'd like to pull an item from the consent calendar?

See none, is there um any member of the commission who'd like to pull an item from consent?

And is there any member of the public who'd like to pull an item from the consent calendar?

Sir.

Mike.

Mike, can you come up to the podium and speak into on the record?

Thank you.

I think your mic is off, sir.

Got it.

Okay.

There we go.

Thank you.

My name is Mike Anderson.

I'm with the old North End neighborhood.

Uh we're here today to request that item 5G regarding the 2402 North Nevada rezoning be pulled up for discussion.

Um we do have some comments that we'd like to make.

Of course.

Thank you, sir.

So we'll have a full hearing on this.

Um Chair Sottery.

Yeah.

So we had one member of the public that signed up to to speak on behalf of uh item 5A.

We don't know if that's just the applicant or a member of the public that wants to have the item pulled, so if we can just get that clarification.

Sure.

Um who is what is the name on 5A sign up?

Do you want to pull it from the consent agenda and have a full hearing on that?

Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

Are you the applicant?

Right.

Sir.

Your resident of that neighborhood.

Okay.

Um, so can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar with the removal of items 5A and 5G?

I'll make that motion.

Commissioner Casey seconds.

Please vote.

Commissioner Hansler, how do you vote?

I vote in favor.

Thank you.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Since some of these items um we are final action, I'll read the appeal instructions.

In accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code.

An affected party may appeal to city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code or the action was adversed to that party.

The notice of appeal and 176 dollar fee shall be filed with the city clerk no later than 10 days after the action from which the appeal was taken.

In this case is Monday, August 25th, 2025.

The appeal letter should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the city planning commission.

City Council may elect to limit discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matters had forth in the appeal letter.

Thank you.

So we will hear uh $3121 Illinois duplex.

Carrie Shaw is presenting.

Item 5A.

Have Silent Read the item into the record.

Do you need yeah, you can read it again, please.

Item 5A and V A R 25-0003.

Unknown use variance to City Code Section 7.2.207 to allow for a seven-foot corner lot, side streets at back where 15 feet is usually required.

Located at 3121 Ely North Avenue.

Hello?

Okay.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Carrie Shot, planner two for city planning land use review.

Um so bear with me.

I say next slide or like oh, never mind.

Okay.

So what you have before you is a non-use variance for a property located on the corner of Illinois Avenue and Third Street.

The address is 3121 Illinois Avenue.

We are west of Union and north of Fontanero.

The lot is zoned R5, so multifamily high residential, and the lot size is 4800 square feet.

A little quick background history.

Um this lot and the two lots directly to the north have a previously approved development plan that was approved in 2022 for a 12-unit multifamily apartment building.

Um this apartment was never developed, and so the lots are currently vacant.

Uh the property owner is now coming um through with proposed duplex on each of those three lots, but this non-use variance application for the setback is only for the corner lot.

Um the property is a fully platted lot, and it was platted this size um back in 1901 and later annexed into the city in 1970.

Um these are just a couple aerial or I guess images and an aerial image to kind of give you a visual of the existing conditions of the site, and also to show you that the corner property line along third street is actually offset about five feet from the back of sidewalk along third.

Um so with that seven-foot uh request, they're still maintaining about 18 and a half feet from the back of curb.

So stakeholder involvement.

We did public notice of 248 postcards for the initial review, and then also prior to this commission hearing.

We only received one public comment with the initial review.

And that neighbor concern was in regards to corner visibility, traffic increase, damaging appearance of values of the surrounding properties.

City traffic did review the application and confirm the structure is not in the 20-foot site visibility triangle, and that all traffic requirements are met.

The applicant is also keeping the structure at 34 feet in height, where 50 feet is allowed in the R5 zone district.

And they're also proposing juniper plantings along third street to help lessen any visual impacts.

All city agencies did review the application, and they had no issues with the proposed.

So staff finds that the non-use variance request does meet all the review criteria as defined in UDC section 7.5.526E.

Um a few just key points.

Um all that was outlined in your staff report that was provided to you, but a few key points is the property is a lot of record.

Um a duplex is permitted use in the R5 zone district.

The lot was historically platted in 1901 with this 40-foot width and 4,800 square foot size.

At time of platting, the corner side setbacks were not a consideration.

Umy surrounding structures were built in the early 1900s, right up to the property lines.

So the proposed is cohesive with the neighborhood.

Um the platted width and lot size contribute to a limited buildable area, and with today's setback requirements would only allow for about a 22-foot wide structure.

And again, even with the seven-foot corner setback requests, the structure still maintains about 18 and a half feet from the street along third.

Um, due to that five foot offset of the property line from the sidewalk.

Um the proposed does comply with the applicable visions and strategies of plan COS.

Um, some of that includes um supporting infill investment and aids in the housing diversity for adaptable market values and housing needs.

So with that, um commission and there are your optional motions are to either approve the non-use variance based on the finding that the request complies with the review criteria, or to deny.

Um, if you don't have any questions for me, I believe the applicant is here and has a presentation for you guys as well.

Thank you.

I see no burning questions.

Um like to hear from the applicant, please.

Good morning.

My name is Drew Geyser with Blue Truck Capital.

We're the property owner and developer for this site.

I think I said in a PowerPoint.

So originally we did have this platted as a 12-unit apartment building.

Uh Caddy cornered to us to the northeast.

There is, you know, a 1960s apartment and several other multifamily uses within you know a two-block radius of our site directly across the street.

There's a three-unit um that was put on a double lot not too long ago.

Uh, what we're trying to do is provide some of that missing middle housing everyone's talking about with the multiple different types of housing in the same area based on the zoning code as it stands today.

So with the R5 zoning, we felt a duplex was a moderate density increase on this area and would be configured in a way with the over-under to allow us to keep the cost down to be able to rent it out in a more affordable manner.

So, as Carrie mentioned, this is a historical lot originally platted in the 1900s.

Part of the problem with the infill development from the small business point of view is with the current zoning code, it's it's based more on the square lots that are designed today with the tighter streets where this is a more 30 by 120 foot rectangle.

And then back in the day, the city did keep a larger right-of-way because they were allowed to build up to the property line, where now we have our setback as well as the right-of-way in the city, which incurs just a little bit of hardship on the engineering and the design of the infill as we go into it.

So, what we tried to do to overcome that was create an over-under duplex, kind of taking a lesson from history on how they used to do it, where you could have a wider living space for a more livable unit for the for the people that are living there and kind of that one floor living, and as well as trying to maximize the buildable area in that lot.

As was mentioned with the seven-foot setback, we're 18.6 from the street and another 11-8 from the inside of the uh sidewalk.

So again, it's a larger setback than most of its neighbors.

There's ones that are right on the property line, either rear or front, directly east of us, is both on the rear and the front and the side setback.

So it does kind of fall in line with the character of the neighborhood.

There's an example of the three lots.

They're listed right there, lot one, two, and three of the old Pape Town filing, and it just shows you the way the historic lots were laid out compared to the more regular ones today on the grid system.

So one of the challenges as an infill developer in these in these neighborhoods is how you how you can build a livable and usable area within those those kind of confinements, especially on the corner lots.

So there is an alley behind it.

You can see all the parking will be off street for the unit.

They're going to be tandem so they can fit two cars, one in front of each other for each unit, and we'll help minimize the parking impact of having that in increased density in the neighborhood.

This is just an example to show you where the property line is in comparison to the city sidewalk as well as the right-of-way that is included in that to create the 12 feet and the 18 feet.

As well as you can see the White House in the top picture on the right going all the way back.

That's our neighbor to the east that's on the rear and the side property property line, just to show you the kind of the character of the neighborhood.

This is just a short drive around the neighborhood.

Here you have an interior hallway multifamily right down the street.

The bottom left is the triplex that's right across the street.

Um you have multiple duplexes built along Illinois as well, and then single family and some new infill.

As you can tell from the pictures of these, we've also tried to match the architecture to that of the neighborhood with the peaked roof, not going more modern, making sure that we're using siding to have it blend into the neighborhood and be respectful of the community.

Here is a great view of how we've tried to mitigate the visual impact of it, obviously decreasing from our 12 unit, which I believe is at 45 feet tall, down to you know a two-story unit, and then being far enough back that we're outside that visual, and then working with the city to make sure that we had the right plantings for the visual impact along Illinois as well.

And then just a little bit on missing middle housing.

This is obviously a big buzzword.

Um it's really hard to do because it's the one housing that has no financial incentives anywhere.

Everyone wants to talk about it, everyone wants to house the teachers and the firemen and create that housing, but it's really hard to do.

It's really easy to do lower income where you have multiple programs, both federally and state and county, and it's easy to do luxury where you have people that are willing to pay for whatever they have.

We're trying to find that niche, and we're trying to do it by kind of lessons of the past where we look back at what was a what was a doable, how did you know in the last housing boom in the 60s and 70s?

How did they create housing?

And they did it through efficiency and they did it through uh repeatability, and that's kind of what we're trying to do to bring a solution to this.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr.

Geyser.

Any questions for Mr.

Geyser before we open to public comment?

Okay.

I think we have at least one gentleman in the audience to speak as let's open it up first, though.

Is there anybody here who is um signed up or would like to speak in favor of this application?

See none.

Is there a member of the audience who would like to speak in opposition to this application?

Sir We could do we could do neutral, but what usually we have the two uh sides.

Sir, did you want to come speak on this?

Please just introduce yourself for the record.

Hey, good morning, everybody.

Uh, my name's Matt Jones.

I'm with the Papeton neighborhood uh organization.

We're just really here to get more information.

Um I've spoken with Kevin before at a district meeting with the mayor.

Um basically, there's only about 200 some postcards that went out.

So just information is pretty limited in terms of when people get that information, how they can respond in accordance.

Uh, we're here just to get more information because the neighborhood is currently just suffering from a lot of lack of infrastructure.

Uh stormwater is like a major issue with flooding.

If you go a further block down on this street, the street actually isn't fully paved.

Um there's sidewalks on some blocks, sidewalks on no blocks.

So what we're just looking for is when developers are coming in, maybe there's a conversation about repairing alleyways that are flooded with potholes.

Many of residents, including myself, and every neighbor on our block, basically, in order to access the driveways, you can notice from these blueprints or from an alleyway, those alleyways are not maintained.

Um so I'm not really here to oppose approve.

It's really more like think more constructively, like as we've addressed, this is a historic neighborhood.

Um it was actually founded by union coal miners who are mining the Austin Bluffs um area.

So just wanted to provide a little bit of history.

And when it was mentioned it was annexed, it's because it's actually its own town until 1970.

Um so it was community run, community-owned.

Um so there is a lot of history to it.

Um it's nice to hear that the development's trying to address the missing middle.

Um that's a cool term, I guess.

Um that's basically our whole neighborhood.

Um many of these homes are owned multi-generationally.

Um, but right now the neighborhood's suffering from an issue where the next generation can't afford uh to take over what their family has had.

So the reason I'm here today is just to get more information um to provide some feedback just in terms of how the process can be more inclusive and collaborative with the neighborhood, and also to address any new developments to address any existing issues already facing the neighborhood with like I'm just saying in terms of walkability, stormwater, basic kind of like infrastructure needs.

So if that's possible in future planning, because we feel like that's probably coming down the road for our neighborhood, um, as we do know there are some empty lots um and homes that might be up for sale.

Um that's really all we have to say is just speaking on behalf of the neighborhood.

But thank you for your time.

Yeah, thank you, sir.

Um so I'll try to address some of that.

I think for the um potholes and things like that.

We could advise there's uh a forum online, I think, for public works, right?

That would be the the proper avenue for that.

Um as far as infill development, uh stormwater systems, it would be the um at the expense and responsibility of the developer to bring any new lots developed up to code with sidewalks, etc.

Um, and handling their own stormwater, I think over an acre if when over an acre is disturbed.

Uh so all of those will be brought up to current code.

I don't think that there is a mandate uh or process to bring all of the other non-conforming lots.

Maybe Mr.

Sexton could elaborate more on potential avenues or solutions that this neighborhood could pursue.

I can make a quick comment.

Sure.

I'd suggest that uh that um we give a call to uh the council member there, who I know is very interested in um you know these kinds of issues and these kinds of concerns is very adept at uh helping some of those things be addressed.

I'd also like to let you know that we are working at the planning department on a uh a pilot program for ideas and uh issues just like this in these uh downtown surrounding uh neighborhoods where we've got some interest, some vacant lots, some interest in building this kind of housing, and how do we help expedite that and and make it work for the neighborhoods?

So uh more to come on that.

We'll be working on on that over this the rest of this year and into next year.

So thank you.

I hope that's helpful.

Thanks for coming and participating in the public process.

I hope that was useful information that you can take forward.

Um I have to ask, is there anybody else in the audience who is here to speak on item 5A?

And then can we check online, please?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak um in support of item 5A, please heat star six to unmute yourselves now.

There's nobody online.

Okay, thank you.

Um back to the dias.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

No, I'd just like to make a comment before the vote.

Um, and that is I know this neighborhood, and they're very correct in that they're built right up to property lines.

In fact, the lot right behind this one basically the structures align.

It's uh it's a pretty cool little neighborhood that's eclectic.

I think this fits in well uh just in case this happens to get appealed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Rickett.

I guess we can open it up to a motion then I'll make a motion to approve the non-use variants based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 7.5.526 point E.

I've seconded that.

And I just echo Marty's comments.

I think that the development is appropriate, and I appreciate the neighborhood involvement.

And I think the more you all work together, maybe we'll see more solutions in that neighborhood.

So please vote.

That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

I'll read the appeal instructions.

So, in accordance with the requirements of section 7.4.7.5.415 of the city unified development code.

An affected party may appeal to the city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party.

The notice of appeal and 176 dollar fee shall be filed with the city clerk no later than 10 days after the action from which the appeal is taken, which is Monday, August 25th, 2025.

The appeal letter should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the City Planning Commission.

And City Council may elect to limit the discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matter set forth in the appeal letter.

Thank you.

Uh on to item 5G.

Could we read that into the record, please?

5G Z-O-N-E-25-0007, a zone map amendment consisting of 7,000 square feet located at 2402 North Nevada Avenue from R2 to MXN.

Your presenter is William Gray.

Good morning, Planning Commission.

Uh Bill Gray, uh senior planner with the Urban Planning Division.

Uh and as introduced, this is a zone change application for 2402 North Nevada Avenue.

Yes.

This one.

Okay.

Setup.

All right.

All right.

So we know where it's located, 2402 North Nevada Avenue.

The property is currently zoned uh R2.

It is 7,000 square feet in area.

The existing building is a residential uh commercial building.

Uh the proposed use um of proposed future use for the property would be a small uh neighborhood uh commercial uh use.

Um this property was um originally developed in the late 1950s.

Um the building was designed with uh kind of commercial and residential character.

The original owner was a chiropractor.

Um and so the interior of this building um here um feels like an office, but it also feels like a home.

You could also say the character the characteristics of the building itself um have both commercial and um residential characteristics.

If you look at the front from Nevada, you think you're walking into the office.

If you go in from the south, you might think you're walking into your to your home.

Um so this property does have it has a history um of being used um commercially, mainly I think as a home occupation.

Um so somebody lived there and somebody had their chiropractic office, or in the later 90s, it was uh wellness or uh uh massage.

Um in between that time period, it was used as a photography studio.

Um and somewhere in the early 90s, a an owner did try to open a retail store in the building, and it was denied by planning commission at that time.

Um so this rezoning um is proposed to go from R2 to MXM, so mixed use uh neighborhood scale.

That zone district does allow for all the residential zone or residential uses, but it also adds into the mix office uses, which are permitted.

But it also allows for small personal and business service uses and retail uses to be considered, but all those uses are conditional.

The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the future use of a small scale commercial use by the current owner.

Uses that are being considered would be massage, fitness, wellness, salon, or small, uh small spa spa.

All uses that would fit into a small personal and business service use uh category in city staff's review of this application.

We think that it fits in terms of the uses as proposed, the scale and density that exists in the neighborhood and also potential future uses adjacent to and surrounding the property.

Um the neighborhood in this area is a variety of land uses.

Um as you can see, it is directly north of Penrose Hospital, but it is also surrounded by single family and two family dwellings.

We do have commercial centers both west and east of this.

So there's the old Lincoln School to the west.

There is the Bond Shopping Center to the east.

So it is a neighborhood that has a variety of uses.

Um with the plan with plan uh with plan COS and to the North and Neighborhood Plan.

Staff finds that both uh this application is compatible with both of those uh community plans.

I would note the one interesting thing about the North End neighborhood plan is it did call out neighborhood um commercial uses and kind of inferred that those should be continued because it was kind of a a it wasn't a widespread characteristic of the North End, but there were small lots with commercial uses that had existed um for long periods of time.

Um this is one of those particular lots that was called out in the North End neighborhood plan that um that was identified as a uh an existing small scale neighborhood um use.

So I think one of the ways to maintain those kinds of uses is if you want them to be neighborhood scale commercial, the existing zoning doesn't really kind of perpetuate that or sustain that, and so you have to look at some of our mixed-use zone districts, and in this case the mixed MXN zone was selected by the applicant, um, and we do think that um it is a good fit for um the neighborhood and also um any future use um would would require development plan or conditional use to ensure that standards that would be appropriate for that type of use um are addressed prior to the use being implemented.

So this property was uh submitted for review on Feb in February of 2025, and the item was ready for uh hearing on July 14th.

Um I gotta go back.

There we go.

All right, stakeholder involvement was the standard notification process.

So we mailed postcards and the property uh was posted.

Um we did um that's a there's a uh an error in the stakeholder involvement.

We did not notify the West Side neighbors, but we did notify as part of this the old North End and also the Bonneville neighborhood.

Um in all of that public uh notice we did not receive any public comment.

Uh we did receive one inquiry asking for more information on the application.

We did provide that to the um to the person that asked, and uh there was no response after that email was uh sent.

Um the application for uh this rezoning was uh reviewed against the criteria for a rezoning in 75704 the UDC.

Um the first seven criteria are listed on this screen.

Uh the last three criteria are for you there.

So um after staff's review of this uh application, we did find that the approval criteria for the zone map amendment are met.

And on the final screen here are the two optional motions for planning commission, and that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I would say the applicant is here.

Cheers ladder.

Wonderful.

Any questions for Mr.

Gray before we hear from the applicant?

Okay.

We'd like to hear from him or her.

Yeah, please introduce yourself.

Thank you.

My name is Nish Haridin.

Pleasure to meet you.

I have been a resident in the Old North End for the past 20 years.

As it's important in the historic district.

As Bill shared, the property is right next door to the hospital.

So it has been, you know, it's kind of in a situation where it is seen as more of a business.

And upon residing there, I am a massage therapist and a health trainer.

And so have through the home occupation permit been able to provide services.

So most of the people that I have connected with are also residents of the Old North End.

And it has felt like a community and to be a part of the Old Order Old North End has been great.

So nothing to infringe upon visibility since having purchased the property.

That is great for kind of utilizing more as a community setting, potentially for health classes and things such as that.

But uh but just would love to continue to grow that and keep it as a boutique boutique business for the neighborhood and um hope that um uh you know appeals to most of the the neighborhood.

And that's all I have.

Any questions?

Um the I was just gonna add one other thing that I know um uh with the the current zoning for that property that it could become uh like an apartment duplex, but um I kind of feel like that would be less of an appealing thing than creating more of a boutique business there.

So I just wanted to share share that.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh does anyone on the commission then have a question for the applicant before we open to public comments?

I just wanted to verify there would be absolutely no retail sales going on in this facility.

Is that correct?

No, no retail sales, more of just uh personal services.

Great, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I think we're uh ready to open to public comment.

Actually, in response to that question that the commissioner just asked, I did want to point out that the permitted uses, well, the smaller business uses that are conditional under here, like the massage type things or the therapy therapeutic massage use that you mentioned specifically are conditional that in fact um dwelling units that are live work units are permitted outright at this location, as are several types of group homes, clubs, lodges, service organizations, funeral services, hospice, restaurants, medical offices, vocational skills training, and accessory outdoor dining.

Um so while not retail would be permitted as a use outright here, the uses I just listed are permitted in an MXN zone district.

Thank you, Commissioner Cecil.

Okay, um, let's open to public comment.

Is anybody here to speak in favor of the 2402 North Mata rezone?

Okay.

Is any uh Mr.

Anderson?

I think we'll kick off with you uh for opposition or questions.

That'll be fine.

Mr.

Schultz, welcome back.

You have to introduce yourself for the record still, sir.

Good morning.

I'm Dutch Schultz, president of the Old North End Neighborhood Board.

It is not unexpected that none of the neighbors responded negatively to the proposal to rezone 2402 North Nevada because the applicant desires to continue the identical use that has been in place in violation, by the way, of the present R2 zoning for years.

The Old North End board does not object to that either.

The medical office type use is very compatible as a transition buffer to the surrounding residential streets that Nevada Avenue is.

However, the Owen Board strongly objects to rezoning from R2 to MXN, mixed use neighborhood.

The important shift in zoning is not that it will allow the continued use in the same manner, which hasn't created problems for anyone in all the years that it's been used, but to the other uses that will be allowed under the MXN zoning for a new owner in the future.

That is the entire issue for this zoning here, and what owner objects to so strenuously.

If green postcards had been sent out stating that the proposed new use is one of the following restaurant with a bar or bar conditional, hotel, motel conditional, detox center conditional, retail, automotive sales, et cetera.

The list that is allowed that is incompatible with the zoning is extensive.

Remember, conditional use is an authorized use.

It only requires a public review, which is exactly what we're doing at present.

After we finish this testimony, if you vote to recommend approval of this zoning change to MXN, mixed use neighborhood.

The applicant has referred to multi-comments, multi-commercial uses in the surrounding area, which are not relevant to this site.

North Nevada is a residential street, not a commercial strip center.

The reasoning needs to be the rezoning needs to be compatible with those residents who live next to it.

We have to consider not what the applicant desires, but what this zoning change will allow for other uses.

The applicant for zoning to MXN refers to the owner and master plan as compatible with the change to MXN.

How can this possibly be?

That zoning term did not exist at the time the master plan was approved.

In fact, when retool COS was under consideration and MXN was being added, we objected strongly extenuously and repeatedly that N was too broad.

Mike Anderson, who's on the Old North End board, will now present a solution to this problem.

Thank you.

And he listed those, but I wanted to re-emphasize a bar, hotel motel, restaurants with which will have a bar, retail sales store, auto sales, auto rental office, auto leasing, self-storage, a detox center, and even mining and mineral extraction.

Yes, the UDC Lau's mining and uh and oil drilling in the MXN um zoning category.

The problem again is that the rezoning to MXN in the neighborhood, uh the neighborhood becomes very vulnerable to all those uh additional uses.

Uh again, to reiterate Dutch's point that we're not opposed to the proposed uses uh of the applicant in terms of uh it being used for what we understand is a medical office uh personal health uses type of uh use, which is the the use that it's had in the past.

It's it's just the fact that there's this broad range of additional uses that exposes this property and we believe exposes the entire neighborhood moving forward.

We have two solutions.

The first option would be to rezone the property, uh simply to rezone it to office residential or OR rather than MXN.

The OR zoning district through the retool process was a was a very contentious zoning district.

The city tried to remove it.

Our uh our organization, the historic neighborhoods partnership, uh, and various other uh neighborhood organizations argued to retain OR and after after debate and considerable consideration, city council, they left it in.

And the reason they left it in is because it is really what is the zoning category that's intended to address this kind of kind of issue.

And just to read section 7.2.301 uh description for office residential.

OR zone districts are intended to generally be located at the edges or internal to a residential neighborhood or a local street intersection with the collector or arterial street.

OR zone districts are intended to accommodate a limited, uh a limit mix of uh of of non-residential uses that will leave minimal impact on nearby residential neighborhoods and have safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access.

It's important to note that office residential, uh all those onerous descriptions I was I was uh or uses I was describing, they're not allowed in office residential, with the exception of a detox center, which would be a conditional use, and I think any neighborhood would have concerns with that.

Um and then in addition to that, the mining uses still are are allowed.

But that would be conditional as well.

So we think as an alternative, uh if this simply move forward as an as an office residential uh rezoning, we would be very much in favor.

We would support the applicant um uh from that perspective.

That's option number one.

We have a second option.

I know I'm running out of time here, but we have a second option, and that would be to use uh a use variance, uh, which is allowed under the UDC, a use variance that would maintain the current R2 use uh and would uh have a variance that would allow them to uh have the medical office and uh and personal health services.

We know there are some uh there's there's some language in in uh in the code regarding that in terms of uh how uh how often or when you can um apply for one, but we think if the applicant were to withdraw their uh application today um and then uh come back with use variants, it would work.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson and Mr.

Schultz.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else signed up to speak on item 5G?

Can we check the phone lines, please?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak in support of the item, please heed star six to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody in favor.

If there's somebody to would like to speak in opposition of this item, please heed uh star seeks to unmute yourself.

There's no one online.

Thank you.

I have one question for Mr.

Gray before we um get a rebuttal from the applicant.

By definition, I just want to clarify that the chiropractic services proposed um at this residence would be considered personal business services, small or large.

Is that is that the area?

Yes.

Um the future use of the property would be massage, wellness, salon spa.

All of those would fall under the definition of personal and business service small.

Okay.

A conditional use um in the middle of the case.

Would be yes, yep.

So I just wanted to clarify that point.

Um Thank you.

Are there any other questions before we get a rebuttal from the applicant?

Ma'am, you've got five minutes if you want to take them or or reply to the public comments we heard.

Thank you for more comments.

Um my understanding is that if it is zoned to OR, that personal use services would not be under that allowance.

So I guess it seems that wouldn't allow what to continue with the personal services.

Um I don't know how the city planning could eliminate or limit you know, auto automotive.

I wouldn't want automotive there either.

And it it wouldn't make sense to do something that is too grandiose that you know wouldn't uh um keep the appeal of that part of the neighborhood.

I mean we are right on that edge where the hospital is so um we're almost like to that film or side where it's becomes even more commercial um that I just you know want it to be able to have that opportunity to provide those personal services.

Thank you ma'am.

Okay.

Is there any comments for the app questions for the applicant from the DIES now.

Go ahead Marty.

Yep.

If staff can come up with an alternative that meets your need and works with the neighborhood's need, is that an option for you?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh sorry my question is whether you were and this might be for Bill as well whether you were able to explore the potential for a use variance for those personal services instead of going for a full zoning change and what the reasoning was to not do that.

And I'm not uh familiar as with the details between the two um can support I think Bill's gonna help answer that question.

When we looked at this I think a use variance was looked at.

I think one of the reasons that we did not go down that direction is that we do not really feel that this application could meet the criteria what's exceptional about this that's different this property that's different than any of the other properties to grant a um a use variance.

So we started to focus on well the history of this building what are our comprehensive plans telling us or informing us about what should be happening.

So including looking at the the neighborhood plan and we felt that going down the rezoning process was a much better way than trying to explain in some you know I think in some way that really didn't fit with the criteria as to why we would would want a a use variance.

So anyhow we did discuss it and we felt that the more appropriate method that the code provides is zoning the property so it can allow for those mixtures mixed mix of uses which is one kind of the history of this building and also did meet the intent on why the applicant filed the application or came to the city to discuss what are my options.

Thank you Mr.

Gray I think Commissioner Robbins has a comment.

Yes I just want verification so you have reviewed that the office residential is not going to work or is not applicable as well as the uh use variance scenario and this is your best choice out of the so yeah if someone uh wants to open up a massage business um on this property and the zoning was OR, the OR zone district does not permit personal or business services small.

However, you know it does allow for an office it does allow for medical office um you know so if you kind of looked at whole massage compared to medical or general office it's like gosh those are almost very comparable but the only avenue for someone to pursue that massage business is to then look at the next level of zoning which was the mixed use neighborhood scale and you know the one thing I think we all might want to consider here is that just because a zoning table lists a use that's allowed there are still standards or other procedures that those uses may have to go through and this property is 7,000 square feet the applicant hasn't indicated to us that they're proposing you know to pop the top and increase you know an increase the size you know but if you know somebody wanted to do a restaurant or a baro sales I mean all those end up being conditional use it would notify the entire um you know neighborhood and I think if you looked around you know you might say to yourself it's like auto sales really is not a compatible in terms of you know its intensity or scale but if you looked around the neighborhood and you said office or you said medical office or personal services you'd have a I think you may have a different different answer.

And I think if you looked around, you know, you might say to yourself, it's like auto sales really is not a compatible in terms of you know its intensity or scale.

But if you looked around the neighborhood and you said office or you said medical office or personal services, you'd have a I think you may have a different different answer.

So I do know the applicant is willing to work with city staff and address the um the opposition's concerns.

Uh I might just add that we might not want to do it standing here.

We may ask you that if that's the direction that the planning commission desires us to go, we'd rather do that offline and come back at a at a later date with a uh a more formal and presentable option that the planning commission can be.

Thank you, Mr.

Gray.

I've got to can you stay, please?

I've got a possible option here.

Um I'll throw on the table so that we can conclude this today and move it on to City Council.

That would be to keep it as proposed to zoning change, but to put a conditional use for personal services, limiting the other opportunities within that zone district to stay with what your intent is today.

We've seen these on several you know projects that have come back before us, and we want to take those off, which is an opportunity in the future.

But it would move this forward today if that's a acceptable option.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wreckett.

I guess I would as I'm looking at the use table here, and first I want to commend uh Mr.

Anderson and Mr.

Schultz for their uh immense knowledge of of our code in and out.

And I think the public process is working, and and that's what's brought you here today.

As I look at the allowable use table between OR and MXN, single family home attached is not allowed.

Um in the OR, no tiny homes, no club or lodge, no hospital, no alcohol production, no bar, no motel, hotel, no restaurant.

Um can't read my handwriting, range, something, self-storage.

Um retail sales, all automotive.

In fact, the only allowable use is an accessory for outdoor seating that is permitted within the MXN versus the OR.

And back to the matter at hand of personal and business services, that is not allowed in the OR.

And that is is the use that's historic.

That's the use that I believe the rezone is tending is intending to umor and bring forth the the master plan from the old north end, right?

I think that was the intent of the code and the rezone is to um codify what the master plan for the area had asked for.

And I think that for those services, the MXN is the appropriate zone.

If any of those items were to come forward, such as in the 90s when someone proposed retail, there is a public process.

I don't think there needs to be additional conditions because they already exist in the code.

So for those reasons, I would be in favor of the rezone.

And if there are no other comments from the dais, we can open it up to a motion.

Uh Commissioner Casey, just briefly I looked at the use table itself, and I mean, a number of uses I would agree with everything you said, but I mean some things like mineral and mineral extraction is a conditional use in OR as well as MXN.

So there's some things that are, you know, they're there's they're they're allowed in those zone districts, but this lot size is so small that I don't feel it's in ever be practical to you know to utilize the lot for those reasons.

And and for those reasons I'm in favor of the uh zoning to MXN.

Okay, what open it up for a motion.

Uh I will say I concur with your comments, Andrea, and I appreciate the research in the table and I appreciate appreciate the conversation.

We were gonna have this on consent, uh, and I'm glad that we brought it forth for a robust discussion, but I'm still in favor.

And with that, I will make a motion to approve.

I'll second the motion.

I I will read the whole thing.

Recommend to city council.

Excuse me.

Sorry, we have a second verbal, but then we have is it Robins or Casey that would like to make the second?

Commissioner Robins spoke verbally, but I pushed the button before.

So I I second it as well.

Thank you, sir, for that clarification.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to city council the zone map amendment rezoning from R2 to family to MXN mixed use neighborhood scale, consisting of 7,000 square feet located at 2402 North Nevada Avenue, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a zone map amendment rezoning as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

That motion passes 8 to 1.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gigiano, did you want to articulate on your no vote for council's sake since this will automatically go to city council?

Um yes, Commissioner Giugiano.

Um I just um also think that the MXN is broad and I worry about the future uses.

Thank you.

Turn on my mic.

So this item will go to council.

Do why don't we take 10 minutes before we begin new business?

So we let's reconvene at about 1025 or so.

Okay, I think we're uh ready to get going again.

Melissa, salon, shall we technology up here?

Okay, welcome back from break.

Uh let's read item 88 and 8AB and C into the record, please.

Item AANEX-24-0016, Miller Downside Wyoming Lane, edition number one, annexation consisting of 21.37 acres located at 720 Wyoming Lane.

Item A B L U P Live-0006 Establishment of the Miller Downs Land Use Plan for proposed residential use consisting of 21.37 acres located at 7020 Wyoming Lane.

Item 8C ZONE-25-0015 establishment of R Flex Medium with Streamside and over sorry and airport overlay sound district in association with the Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane edition number one annexation consisting of 21.37 acres located at 7020 Wyoming Lane.

Your presenter is Tamara Baxter.

Thank you, Tamara.

Good morning.

For the record, Tamara Baxter, planning supervisor.

So before you is the Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane, um and addition number one annexation along with the land use plan and zone establishment.

Um here's a little uh bit of uh quick facts on the properties.

So as you can see on the site plan, the property is located at 7720 Wyoming Lane.

Um it is currently in the county.

It is part of an enclave.

Um the current zoning on the property is R5.

R R5 with uh commercial airport overlay.

What is being proposed with the zone establishment is an R Flex medium zone district.

Uh the property itself is 21 acres.

And the proposed use will be single family detached and attached residential uh uses.

Uh as you can see on the um land use plan, uh the red circles are uh proposed access points.

Uh the primary access for this uh development will be off the west through the Quailbrush Creek subdivision.

The access point um indicated um on the east side of the property will be for the existing single family residence that will be retained on the property and ultimately um when this is brought into the city, they will be subdividing that off into a roughly 2.5-acre piece of property.

To the south of the property or run that's running to the south of the property is saying creek.

Um so there is some streamside overlay and some limitations um along that area.

For the zone establishment zone establishment, I mentioned that they are proposing an RFEX medium zone district.

I pulled out an excerpt from the city code from the UDC, and for RFLEM, it does accommodate a mix of detached and attached low and medium density housing up to a maximum residential density of five to sixteen dwelling units per acre.

What's being proposed density wise is 5.2 dwelling units per acre, which equates to roughly about 11 homes in this development.

During the review of this project, it uh there is a 30-foot remnant piece of property along uh Wyoming Lane.

Um this uh strip of land needs to be the ownership of this strip of land needs to be resolved.

Um that will need to be addressed at the time of final plat.

Um I have crafted a uh general note or conditions of approval which are not represented in the staff report, uh, but I'll show that at the end with the motions.

With regard to the timeline of review, uh petition for annexation was uh accepted by city council on May 13th of this year.

Uh the initial application um post annexation petition was submitted May 20th of this year.

Uh we did go uh before council um for a check checkpoint work session at work session on June 23rd.

The application has gone through three reviews.

Um, comments were uh just pushed out, uh, some remaining comments which are also reflected with the motions.

And the item was ready for uh being heard before you on July 21st.

With regards to stakeholder involvement, uh we did uh do posters and postcards with the initial submittal.

Uh there was a neighborhood meeting on July 20, uh July 31st.

Um, and that was also noticed uh notification was done for that, and then for planning commission.

Uh notification was sent out a thousand feet from the property boundary.

Uh that equated to 327 postcards.

Um since this presentation was put together, I've received about 25 to 30 comments both in favor and uh and opposition.

You did receive some in your packet, and I think additional comments were emailed out yesterday.

Uh concerns with the individuals that are opposing the project are related to traffic, um, access, safety, and adequate infrastructure, evacuation density, wildlife habitat, um, impact of wildlife habitat, and increased noise.

With regards to agencies review, um, we do have some city agencies here to address comments.

Uh traffic engineering um did review the uh traffic impacts uh study.

Uh they are here to uh answer any questions that you may have.

Uh CSU is also here.

They do have a presentation if you'd like to hear their presentation.

Um Stormwater uh requested that there be a modification to general note number 10 on the land use plan that is included as part of uh one of the motions.

Um then city engineering.

There was a comment in regards to uh CGS needing to provide comments.

They did re uh city engineering did receive comments prior to this meeting, so that's been resolved.

And CGS did agree with the findings of that report.

Uh County Planning and Engineering did provide comments on this application.

They did not have any concerns uh with the annexation is um because it's not impacting their network, transportation network, or and it's will be accessing city owned and maintained or city-owned and maintained roadways.

Um they do not want to see construction vehicle um and traffic on Wyoming Lane.

Um, I think that's something that the applicant had originally proposed.

Um, so that is still being discussed with the annexation agreement.

With regards to plan COS, um, this fits with chapter 8 of plan COS with regards to um annexation of enclaves.

Um staff did evaluate uh the proposed annexation to determine its eligibility in accordance to state law to be acceptable.

These are the criteria for reviewing an annexation after evaluating staff's recon uh recognizes that the proposed Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane number one annexation meets the eligibility requirements, set forth in Colorado State statutes.

These are the criteria for a rezone or re uh zone establishment.

After evaluating the request for the zone map amendment or zone establishment, the applicant application meets a criteria.

Here are the criteria for a land use plan for approval.

And after evaluating the Miller Downs land use plan, the application does meet the review criteria.

Sorry, I'm on pause.

There we go.

Motif for approval.

These are the motions for approval.

Whoops, for annexation.

I think we went a little bit too fast.

We did modify the motion to approve uh the annexation.

Um that was uh that's been included with the uh land use plan.

So I'll move forward to that one.

It was removing um identifying the uh 30-foot strip of land prior to um city council.

Um these are the motions for the zone change.

And then these are the proposed motions.

Uh conditions of approval and technical modifications have been included uh that address the revision of general note number 10 um at the request to sweat stormwater.

Um also we are requesting that the applicant um have a third-party specialist to determine the wetland areas in the north uh west corner of the property.

Uh they're proposing access through that, and I know the applicant will be addressing that.

Also, the labeling of that 30-foot strip of land along Wyoming Lane needs to be consistent with the annexation plat.

And this last one is a general note that needs to be added on the cover sheet of the land use plan.

Um it will be a condition of approval and it will be addressed in the annexation agreement.

And that is all I have.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um I know the applicant has a presentation.

And like I said, we do have city agencies here, so if you have any specific questions for fire police and traffic, they are here to answer any questions.

Thanks, Tamara.

Do we are we gonna hear from CSU next then?

Yeah, would you like to hear from them?

Often that's I think that's what we had been doing for annexations.

Before she leaves, I've got a question.

If you can go back to that last slide, actually.

The 30-foot strip of land.

And I know it's I was looking at the comment on the ingress egress right away along Wyoming.

Nope.

Oh, do you want the motion?

Yeah.

Um, is that stopping the exiting onto Wyoming in case of an emergency?

There will be no um emergency access off of Wyoming Lane for the bulk of the project.

So the currently the existing home takes access off of Wyoming Lane, and that will be maintained.

They just we need to identify, we would the city would like that 30 strip, the ownership determined um and then brought into the city um if it's owned by the same ownership.

So that would probably come in as a an ad uh another addition.

So it'll be like addition number two.

Got it.

Um but I go back to that ingress egress on Wyoming.

The image.

Is that sorry?

I want to understand that correctly.

Right here.

This one, this image?

Uh no, the one with the roads on it, the one before.

This one?

Right.

We don't show access from the neighborhood to Wyoming.

Is there access from the neighborhood to Wyoming?

To the proposed development.

Yes.

There is not.

So primary access for the hundred and roughly 110 lots will be from the west through Coilbrush subdivision.

And I'm sorry, this isn't um very detailed.

I know there is a land use plan in your packet, but the access point on the east side is just going to be solely for the existing resident.

Okay.

I'm just trying to, if there was an opportunity for an emergency egress into Wyoming, it would kind of make sense.

So currently, and I can um Steve Smith probably could talk to that, but currently those roads are private and um are not maintained or county roads.

My understanding from county engineering is they are not equipped to handle um large vehicles at this time.

And that um that whole Wyoming Lane, uh California Drive, that whole area, they're not they're dirt.

Yeah, privately owned.

Yeah.

I know the area.

Yeah.

So there's no proposed access, uh uh, no emergency access proposed for the bulk of that development off of Wyoming Lane.

Right.

Where I'm going is if you said they're private, is that true?

That's a private road, not a county road.

They're privately owned county roads.

They're in the county.

Okay.

But they're privately owned.

Privately owned, not county owned.

Correct.

Okay.

That makes more sense.

Yeah, the county doesn't go in and maintain them or everything.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tamara.

Okay.

Uh, Chair Slattery Planning Commissioners, my name is Brian English, Development Projects Manager with Colorado Springs Utilities.

Here to provide a utilities overview, uh, specifically the conditions and requirements per city code specific to utilities that are within the planning commission's purview.

Uh, we will start with quick vicinity map just to reorient ourselves, located southeast of Black Forest Road and East Woodman.

The first city code item we'll cover is also known as the water extension ordinance or 12.4.305.

Uh, this does require city council approval to extend water services to any properties located outside the city limits, including proposed annexations.

Any approval must include a substantiated and written record demonstrating one of the following that either city's available water supply is sufficient to meet 128% of existing water usage plus the reject projected water demand.

A unique and extraordinary event that serves a critical interest of the city.

The area is an enclave owned or leased by the city, or would have a de minimis impact on the city's water supply.

A quick overview of our current water supply and usage, our reliably met demand or the amount of water that we can currently deliver to the existing city limits and utilities water customers is 95,000 acre feet a year.

That's known as our reliably met demand.

Our current existing usage, which is a five-year weather normalized rolling average for the period of 2019 through 2023, is 70,325 acre feet a year.

Uh when we apply the 128% buffer required by city code, the minimum water supply requirement is just a little over 90,000 acre feet a year.

So we have just under 5,000 acre feet a year uh to use when considering extensions outside the city.

Uh for the minimus, we use 1% of our minimum water supply requirement.

So that would be uh, or I'm sorry, our average, I'm sorry, available water resource, that would be 58, 50 acre feet of year uh is our de minimis impact.

Uh applying this to the uh scenario here, uh it does meet the enclave exception per city code.

We have noted the projected water demand based on the land use proposed as 38 acre feet a year, so it would also meet the de minimis impact to the existing uh water supply.

For informational purposes, all petitioned annexations, that means active, including Miller Downs, uh, the aggregate water projected water demand for those is 160 acre feet a year.

The uh since the water extension ordinance was approved in 2023, there have been 19 approved annexations with a total projected aggregate water demand of sixteen hundred and twenty-six acre feet a year.

That's important to note.

Uh through our integrated water resource plan, we recognize that to uh ensure water service availability to the city through build-out in the 50-year planning horizon, we have to develop an additional 34,000 acre feet of water.

Uh so for every annexation that does increase the the water supply that needs to be developed to meet the city's needs in the future.

Requirements of annexation.

Uh the owner is required to deed all groundwater rights appertent to the property uh to the city, as well as any other water rights that have been hor historically used or benefited the property based on the information provided by the applicant, there is an existing well, uh residential well that serves an existing single family residence.

Based on the information provided by the applicant, there is an existing well, a residential well that serves an existing single family residence.

It's our understanding that they intend to keep the existing single family residence that would be annexed as part of the scope of the application.

City code does allow for continued use of wells, provided it serves the property in the same manner as connecting to Springs Utilities distribution system would provide.

We don't actively identify those and require them to connect.

Rather, they as long as the septic system is serviceable, they can continue to use that until such time that they have to apply for a permit to repair, replace, or modify the septic system through El Paso County Health, at which time, if they are within 400 feet per city code, they would be required to extend and connect at that time rather than repairing their system or expanding their system.

Rights of way and easements, the owners responsible for acquiring or dedicating all land or easements necessary for public utility infrastructure and facilities.

We do have an instance of service area overlap.

The property is presently located in Mountain View Electric Association service territory.

Under Colorado revised statutes, they are entitled to just compensation for the service territory invasion if it's ultimately incorporated into Springs Utilities Service Territory.

That just can just compensation costs would be the responsibility of the owner or developer.

And as far as natural gas goes, the property is presently located within Springs Utilities natural gas service territory, and we would serve the property without respect to annexation or incorporation.

The next next exhibit.

What's going on here?

The next exhibit does show the exist or the extent of our existing electric service territory, MVA service territory, and the red line represents the boundary, and that happens to overlap with the existing city limits.

Conditions for annexation.

That proposed and existing utility facilities are sufficient for the foreseeable future, that utility extensions can be designed and constructed now or at some point in the future to successfully serve the property, and that whether utility revenues are expected to be sufficient to offset the cost of any capital improvements or projects required by utilities to serve the property.

From a water infrastructure standpoint, being in an enclave, as you can see, especially on the west side, it's immediately adjacent to existing water distribution mains.

At the owner developer's expense, they would be required to design and construct distribution mains and facilities within the property to provide adequate redundancy for both domestic and fire protection.

From a wastewater perspective, very similarly situated, we do have existing collection lines located in the subdivision to the west.

And based on initial review, that shows the proposed tie-in point and the collection line configuration within the development.

Again, that's completely an owner-developer expense.

From a gas perspective, we're seeing a theme here being in an enclave that the existing subdivision and its adjacency does provide those existing distribution mains on the doorstep, allowing extension into the property.

Those would be designed and constructed by utilities at the owner-developer's expense.

And electric and fiber infrastructure, I just want to clarify that the fiber is part of Colorado Springs Utilities Fiber Network.

We do want to provide that connectivity throughout our four service utility services.

It does aid in monitoring the condition, the operational status of transformers, other equipment.

It links to meters and can provide real-time information that helps us provide the best service that we can to our customers.

From an electric perspective, we are looking at about a mile's worth of off-site 200 amp 12V, 125 KV feeders.

Uh we do show the to the northeast of the property where that would tie in, and then to the west, uh, the west of the existing subdivision, and then uh your your typical hundred amp feeders, likely joint trenched with electric or I'm sorry, natural gas within the subdivision.

From a springs utilities capital cost perspective, uh this covers the items that utilities are responsible for across all four services, including meters, electric generation, water and wastewater treatment capacity, vehicles, and fiber infrastructure.

Uh on the low end, we estimate our cost to be 2.3 million dollars, adding a 50% contingency on the high end.

We're looking at about 3.5 million dollars.

It is important to note that with the city council approving our five-year capital budget and rate plan.

Any approved annexations are not accounted for uh for the period of 2025 through 29 in our budget.

So if this is ultimately approved, we would have to work with our planning and finance division to identify uh appropriate methods of funding this this capital infrastructure if developed during during this time frame.

So with that, um I will uh I'm happy to answer any questions that uh planning commission has a.

Do we have TSU questions already?

Okay, Mr.

Casey.

Uh Commissioner Casey, just a quick question on the on the uh fiber.

You're just doing the conduit part of it.

Another provider would then run the Yeah, well, we we actually have our own fiber that we run for our network, but but we have the agreement with with King to run their own fiber and and certainly in the fiber industry, the telecom industry, it's not uncommon to lease dark fiber uh to other providers as a revenue source if we have available capacity.

So you'd run two sets of fiber, or you they were we we have separate for us and them.

Okay, thanks.

The 1600 acre feet for the annexed uh locations in the last couple of years.

Does that include the rail annexation we did down by it it does?

Yeah, it that that's a large percentage of it.

Um I know we had a conversation when that was presented because the the depending on the use, you could see uh a broad range of low-end or high-end water demands or consumptions based on the information that the applicant had applied at the time and what we presented to planning commission.

We estimated the the projected water demand to be 1281 acre feet a year.

So it's about 75% of what's been approved since the extension ordinance came in, came into effect in 23.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

English.

I think we'll stay on tack.

I imagine we'll have some questions for you as it comes out.

I'll be around.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and then is the applicant here and prepare to make a presentation.

Good morning, commissioners.

Um, my name is Noel Brahmer for the record.

I'm a civil engineer with Kimley Horn and Associates uh here representing the the applicant.

Um joined here with the the rest of the design team.

Um we've got planning, traffic, um, legal counsel.

So if there's questions along the way, please feel free to ask them.

I'll pull in uh partners as needed.

Um tomorrow, thank you for the presentation.

Um I I think a lot of ours will have some overlap, but we'll try to tie in how we've addressed um stakeholder input over the last 10 months.

We've we've worked really diligently with the city staff, um, county engineering, neighbors, um, really a lot of stakeholders to make changes to this development and make sure it's uh uh harmonious and cohesive project that that uh fits in with where we're proposing it and is a benefit to all.

So um that we go.

So on the map here, you can see the proposed project location.

You've seen something like this several times.

Here, one thing we want to point out is um the adjacent zoning is PDZ, but uh more importantly, the adjacent densities um are in the 5.1 to 5.2 dwelling units per acre density range, um, which directly aligns with with the density that we're proposing on site.

Um top of that, as a few folks have mentioned, the the property is located within an enclave on the south side of that enclave.

Working through that presents its own challenges with access and and planning for future development.

Um and so we've we've taken our time over the last six months and and tried to make sure all of our Ts are crossed and our eyes are dotted.

So here's the slide again just illustrating the the contiguous uh percentage as required for an annexation.

All right.

And then what you can see here is is the uh list of project goals, really the the themes we've tried to follow through through this development and what's driven us uh with each decision over the past eight to ten months.

Um one thing I want to note is that these goals have really driven every decision we've made, and uh what I'll say about this development team is that they really have shown a true commitment and genuine care for um the neighbors' thoughts and opinions about the project and the direction they wanted to see it go.

Uh and we've made a lot of changes based on that.

So one big goal that we've had is uh maintenance and preservation of the natural beauty of the site.

Um there the sand creek corridor traverses the site along the south side, and then we have a large teardrop-shaped wetland on the north side of the site.

We've tried to keep that as much as possible.

Uh we have required creek improvements and we've tried to implement engineering solutions that maintain um the vegetation and the habitat created by those wetlands.

Um then uh another big piece is we've wanted to promote a sense of community and not not be a drive-through uh development, be a drive-to and and try to incorporate into the neighborhood.

We've done that with um added pocket parks, open space throughout the site.

Um we've imenetized the the wetlands and added trails, benches, um, seating areas that'll be uh open to public use and and really should um promote a sense of community uh for for the greater area.

Um cohesion with the surrounding neighborhoods.

This really boils down to density and coming up with a product that seems to fit with the neighborhood.

Um not going with anything too dense or a product type that seems out of place.

Um and so we've worked through a lot of brainstorming sessions through meetings with stakeholders, and we've made uh tangible changes to the proposed site plan, um namely uh reduction of over 30 units to make sure that we're in that density range that seems to fit.

Um, and then our proposed site layout will look and feel really similar to the surrounding neighborhoods, which is something we've heard consistently over the last year.

Um safety of residents, we'll dive into in quite a bit more detail.

Uh this one really connects to traffic um and the neighbors to the west in Quail Brush Creek subdivision um have a lot of concerns about speeding, traffic congestion, uh, kids at play in their parks, and we've we tried to listen to that, and as a part of that, the you know, we identified that traffic concerns were were made worse with a higher density development.

And so part of the unit reduction, what what that does for us is brings us within um traffic criteria, thresholds, um, and um furthermore, we're we're working with city traffic to propose speed mitigation throughout the adjacent development to the west uh through um speed humps um and we'll do the same on site uh as as seen fit by by city traffic.

And then another piece of this is we wanted to honor the property's history.

Um for a long time, these 20 something acres have been used for um equestrian use, and uh as I mentioned, the this development team really seems to care about that history.

They named the the project Miller Downs as a a nod to the historical use.

Um and I I just think that's a cool thing.

I've it's not something that I see out every day with developers.

So I'll pause there.

Any questions before I keep going?

Nothing.

Okay.

So I've alluded to a few of these things.

I won't I won't hammer them home for too long, but um we did have we've had multiple informal and formal meetings with neighbors.

Um one was in December of 2024.

We held a neighborhood meeting uh just to open dialogue, uh have an open dialogue and understand the concerns of of all the stakeholders, all the all the neighbors.

And as I mentioned, a lot of change came out of that.

So the traffic reduction in unit counts, adding speed humps, were all things that came directly out of that December meeting.

That we've we've made real changes and tried to listen to concerns to be good neighbors.

So another big item that we've been hearing about is wildlife impact.

We added a pollinator park along the wetlands on the north side, and then we preserved the Sand Creek corridor and a realignment of our roadway on the south side of the property.

Was a recommendation by one of the neighbors in the December meeting.

There viewshed was a big piece we've heard about.

And in the past, I think there have been proposed uses that would have three stories.

We're committed to a two-story product that's going to look and feel a lot like the neighbors.

Speeding mentioned that looking to add speed humps within our development potentially and within the quail brush development.

And neighborhood cohesion ties to our density.

Okay.

But we've we've kept a lens on what this development really looks like in the future.

We have one development plan submitted that's been reviewed by the city that's not this application, but we wanted to have an understanding of how this site would lay out and make sure that we incorporated any necessary changes into the land use plan and annexation accordingly.

So what you'll see here is we have all two-story for sale homes.

Detached homes surround the exterior of the property, and we have some single family attached homes through that center block.

Our densities, as mentioned, are about 5.2 dwelling units per acre.

And then we've got the the existing quail brush creek development to the west, county single family homes to the north and the east, and sand creek to the south with another single family development south of that.

One other thing to mention here is our open spaces that are going to be publicly used.

Open use to the public will be maintained long term by the metro by a proposed metro district.

And then we've something that's a little bit harder to see here is we do have a substantial amount of trails along the south side of the site near Sand Creek on the north side of the site around the wetlands and connectivity to the west for those those homeowners.

So our environmental impacts really this ties to uh stormwater.

We are um proposing to really we're we're a part of the program set forth by the drainage basin planning study to improve the the channels um as a part of this project.

So we've worked closely with city staff with SWENT to uh propose uh an engineering solution that doesn't remove all the existing uh vegetation.

We're gonna propose the use of concrete cutoff walls that are only a foot wide or check structures that'll maintain the the vegetation through those through the Sand Creek corridor and the wetlands to the north.

Um everything we're proposing is in line with the city and the state's requirements, and we'll have a full spectrum on site detention pond that'll have water quality treatment and will detain the 100-year uh storm event.

So here you can see our proposed access points.

Um we have an access on the northwest side of the site as well as the the west southwest side of the site.

Uh tomorrow I'd mention this that this is our our only access point, only two access points for vehicular trips come from the west.

We did explore the use of Wyoming Lane at length with county engineering with city staff, fire police.

So the county was going to require that road to be upgraded to county road standards, and there really wasn't a great way to do that given the the shared private ownership by several different parties.

So the traffic counts here were performed in the spring while school was in session.

The traffic counts identified that roughly two-thirds or 60% of the traffic travels to the south and about 40% to the north.

Really with the previous density we were proposing.

The density of the development brought us within all traffic thresholds, all traffic criteria.

As mentioned, it's within an enclave and was identified as a priority annexation area.

What we're proposing is consistent with the city's annexation criteria, plan COS, and really everything that's reflected within the El Paso County Master Plan.

Since this is an enclave, we've we've worked hard to try to balance the approach of meeting all parties' goals and feel that we've uh proposed a development that adheres to all the criteria set forth by by these plans.

So we have some benefits that aren't just financial benefits to the city that we've identified.

One being adding single family uh housing opportunities for a growing area of the city.

Um one institution we've identified is the St.

Francis uh Hospital.

We feel that this would be a good fit for um folks at work there.

Um and then you know we've we're implementing new new parks, open spaces, trails that'll serve new residents, existing residents to the to the west, uh or any any public members that that want to use it.

Um and all of that will be maintained by a metro district.

Um in hopes that we're able to keep it nice for a long time.

Um as Brian mentioned, Colorado Springs utilities um has shown sufficient capacity for for the development.

We've worked closely with Brian and the rest of his team for months now to make sure that's the case.

Um they've been enormously helpful, and we we feel confident that we're we're in a spot that um Calder Springs utilities will be able to support the development.

One last one here.

Uh we did have a fiscal impact analysis performed as uh part of this application.

Um was a positive cumulative cash flow modeled over the next 10 years.

Um we've identified a water surplus as mentioned, our CSU has and we've been we have applied for inclusion um into the southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Um to summarize, we we feel that this annexation meets eligible eligibility requirements set forth by city, county, um, and and really all applicable review agencies.

Um really appreciate your guys' time hearing us here today.

Um, and I'm I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Mr.

Raymer.

Any questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we want to hear from fire police traffic before opening to public comment?

Mr.

Frisbee is in the audience.

Could you please come up to the to the podium?

Marty, you want to go first on him or or Commissioner Hansler?

Sure.

How are you doing, Mr.

Frisbee?

There was a lot of public comment on traffic.

That's the reason I'm bringing it up.

Um if you can just kind of walk through how you guys reviewed the documents and how you uh see this affecting uh the surrounding area.

Okay.

Thank you for the question, Mr.

Rookett.

Uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering uh Public Works Department.

Uh yes, the traffic study was submitted and reviewed by Traffic Engineering.

Uh our primarily focused, as you know, info info projects are um uh they can they are challenging.

Uh and so especially when your access is going through an existing uh neighborhood.

So in those situations, what we're really looking at um, because these are accessing what I would call in our classification, sort of resident local streets.

So everything in the quail brush area is a local street.

And our criteria and for a local street is that we like the local streets to have no more than 1,500 vehicles per day on a street.

So that's uh in a local street is some you know in our current code is uh defined as homes at front, you know, they have driveways.

So uh so that was our primary review criteria in looking at this.

It's like what is the impact to adjacent what what are the impact to the quail street uh neighborhoods?

And so we um uh we use the data, um use the existing count data, um, some other uh uh what we call street light data to kind of get a uh sense of what's on those roads today, and then you just do it, you know.

You know, the project will generate a certain number of trips and you assign those trips per what was discussed, and um from that analysis we found that the that on the most impacted streets that um from this development that the that the expected volumes are less than that 1500 uh threshold value.

So from our perspective, it met our criteria in terms of uh uh daily volumes on local streets, and so that's why we um uh recommended you know, approved the traffic study.

The other thing that we did talk about with the uh and was mentioned by the applicant um is um uh the possibility of traffic calming um on some of the existing streets.

Um, you know, there's different ways to do that, but the most some of the most effective ways are speed humps or raised crosswalks or things like that.

Sounds like the applicant is willing and to consider those options.

We'd work with them um through their development process to find um sort of the best space, you know, what's the best way to sort of try to quote calm traffic uh in the existing neighborhood.

So that was really how we looked at it from our perspective um um in terms of analysis.

Um overall, if you look at the existing intersections around, you know, also look at levels of service and term movements and stuff like that.

The overall project doesn't generate a ton of traffic to really impact operations at ex existing intersections.

So we really like I said, really focused on what was the impact on existing streets uh for the residents of the of the Quail Brush area.

So does that help?

That's kind of our approach.

Yeah, it does.

Okay.

Appreciate that.

Just I I like to do this just to inform the public and understand that you guys do take a serious look at this.

So thank you.

Yes, we did.

Any other questions?

Uh Commissioner Casey, you have a quick question.

So there was a public comment uh reference the where the uh two roads are gonna be extended, they're extending on um between houses.

And there was a comment about whether it was wide enough to accommodate sidewalks between the walking through that area or not.

Can you speak to that at all?

Uh well, yeah, uh uh by our code, right?

Uh those roads would be if they're not I'm not upgraded, they'd be upgraded to city standards.

It would include sidewalks.

Uh it would include sidewalks on those little you're talking about the little stubs that come out.

No, right now there's like there's gaps between houses and there's just a rock area that's there.

So they would have to extend the road for the code.

Oh yeah, they have to extend or they have to meet city, we have to meet city standards.

So the road would include sidewalks, curb and gutter, uh, and be built to our city standard.

Thanks.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Frisbee.

I'll be in the back.

Okay.

If you need me.

Okay, thank you.

Bye-bye.

Any other um city officials we want to hear from before public comment?

Okay.

Is there a list of folks signed up to speak?

Uh we'll open it up first to folks who signed up uh to speak in favor of Miller Downs.

We have two people in support, Monica and Kirby.

Monica, please, if you would come out.

Oh, thank you.

Kirby.

Please introduce introduce yourself in the new.

Morning.

My name is Kirby Thompson.

My wife and I reside at 7075 Wyoming Lane, which is contiguous to the east and directly across Wyoming Lane.

We also own 7145, which is to the north of that parcel.

So we have about 10 total acres there.

So we are third generation owners of a business that is operated on the land called Britain Nursery, named after her family, the Britain family, which I will add has a long-standing decades-long relationship with the current owners, the Miller family.

And actually over the years, I've desired to purchase this particular parcel several times.

Have entered into negotiations with Mr.

Miller, and the reality that my wife and I came to is that we are not developers.

We are flower farmers.

And 21 acres is something that is just too big of a scope for us to try to buy and make into a motorcycle track for my sons and for them to play Frisbean baseball.

It just didn't make sense.

So over the years, as you may know, um not all developers are the same.

And there have been other developers that have desired to purchase and develop this parcel that we were staunchly opposed to because we felt that they were not sensitive at all to the existing parcels to the east, which are as you can see, rural residential.

And they were not sympathetic to buffers and making transitions from the encroaching suburbia, if you will, that is coming and surrounding us.

You've heard the word enclave multiple times.

I would call it my personal Eden.

I live there.

We grow flowers for a living.

And so it is something where we see that we're in the wake of the encroaching development that is coming from the city.

Our desire is to continue to do our family business on that parcel.

I do have two sons that have sworn that they're going to come help us run the family farm.

So we would love to continue doing what we're doing in perpetuity.

When I did meet the applicant, uh these particular developers, I was honestly blown away with not only their sensitivity to our lifestyle, but also their being sympathetic to what we were asking for with creating buffers and making it a good transition from the city, which is in the quail brush.

The city's right over there.

We can see them and wave at them, but the Miller property is right next door.

And so they've been very sensitive to all of our neighbors uh that live in the county outside the city limits and have been uh very willing to work with their design to implement something that is not only consistent with the quail brush, but also sensitive to what we're doing over on our side.

I would like to add that I do believe that my wife and I uh the holding company that we have called Windwalker Ventures LLC, which is the prop we own the properties under that name.

I do believe we are in ownership of that 30-foot strip that is directly on Wyoming Lane.

So I'm not sure that's a that's a new dispute that that came up, but I do believe that all of that Wyoming Lane is owned by Windwalker Ventures.

So we are in support of this because we feel that it is the highest and best use for that property, and uh we feel that they're doing a good thing for the city.

Thank you, Mr.

Thompson.

And there was uh Monica Thompson, I think is uh did you want to speak, ma'am?

She didn't want to speak.

Okay.

I thought you said second.

Okay.

Decline.

Thank you.

Uh can we go to online and see if there's anybody online who wanted to speak in favor?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak in support of this item, please heat star six to admit yourselves.

There's no one online.

Thank you.

Uh please go to the opposition list.

We have three people registered to speak in opposition.

The first one is Jack.

Hi, my name is Jack Casey.

Uh we live uh just uh east of the new uh projected uh development.

Um we're uh a little concerned because we feel that uh they're trying to pack too many houses into that area.

I think their study where they show uh the density of the area that we're in, um it most I'd say probably about 70% of it are bigger homes, larger homes, especially along that Sand Creek uh border that overlook the uh uh Sand Creek there.

Uh those are very nice homes, very um probably $800,000 homes, I would guess.

And uh I would think any building in that area would probably propose a negative impact.

Um I'm not saying that they they can't build at all because that's kind of unrealistic, but to keep it to a smaller uh uh density or where they're bigger lots and so forth, I think that's extremely important.

If they're looking at that 5.2, that's not so bad to be zoned into an area where it's 16 uh possibly.

I think that's a little crazy.

We've seen some uh homes pop up uh north of us that basically look like trailer homes.

And uh, you know, when you walk along those trails and stuff, it's it's actually quite beautiful.

I mean, it's not garden of the gods, but it you know, you got a nice view of Pike's Peak, and uh you gotta it's almost like a natural habitat.

You got birds and butterflies and little animals running around in there, ducks and stuff so forth.

And so I am concerned about that.

Um another thing is the traffic.

Um I would have to disagree with their study, and I wish I was an expert on it, but you know, friends of our kids have gotten their cars total trying to pull out onto Dublin.

All that traffic for our neighborhood empties out on Dublin.

All everything from Mark Shuffle, I mean uh Mark Shuffle North, uh Banning Lewis area, that that's probably the major exit is going down Dublin.

Also, everybody's going to the the elementary school and Vista Ridge High School.

And if you try to get out of there during a school time, you're gonna have to wait a while because you gotta wait till the light turns red.

You're here, the lights the light turns red, you gotta wait for everybody to stop, and hopefully someone's nice enough to wave you so you could turn right.

If you want to turn left, forget about it.

You got a really good chance of getting taken out.

So I think the traffic is super important.

Um maybe maybe they're gonna deal with that, but definitely lights or something like that have to be built or put in or something like that.

And uh other than that, um, I mean, if I'm not totally against it, but uh it makes me very nervous, and I do feel like it's gonna negatively impact the property values of the people that have spent a lot of money to have that beautiful view and so forth.

And that's pretty much what I have to say.

So thank you.

Sherry's up next.

You would have three minutes and introduce yourselves, please.

I'm Shari Casey, and I don't really have a lot to add to that other than just the concern that it it does not go any lower than that five or any higher than that 5.2 density.

Um that's liveable, not terrific, but going higher than that, just like with the traffic and everything, it just seems like it would be a negative.

Up next, it's Mike.

Please introduce yourself and you would have three minutes.

Mike Muire.

Okay, so Mr.

McGuire's not here.

Uh, can we go to the is there anybody else here in the audience to speak on this item?

Cena, could we go online, please?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please heat start six to unmute yourself.

There's no one online.

Thank you.

Um the applicant like to robot public comment.

Again, Noel Bramer for the record.

Um we appreciate the comments, and that's uh in line with what we've heard um uh uh at both uh neighborhood meetings we've we've held.

Um and really it was what triggered the the change and the decrease in density.

You know, there is a line where we have we have to find a balance of feasibility for the project.

And we feel that we found it in this roughly 5.2 DUs per acre.

We feel that it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood and further um, you know, to the concerns about the the density getting up to the higher ends of what zoning would allow, which is up to 16 dwelling units per acre.

I think that's going to be bottlenecked by what the local roads um adjacent to the site can handle uh to to go denser, we would have to find some some sort of relief valve um for alternative uh connection to to allow for that level of density, that number of units to be in the area.

And and um as a part of this development, that's that's just not what we're going after.

So um I we're gonna stay in that 5.2 dwelling units per acre range.

Um and then as far as the uh Sand Creek corridor goes, we we wanted to maintain that as well.

Um I I think the the point was made that some of those homes are um high value homes, bigger lots.

Um our approach was to maintain a view corridor for the for this development's residents, and therefore we didn't add any homes on the south end of the of our site directly abutting the the Sand Creek corridor, other than two corner houses.

Uh we feel that that preserves that corridor, preserves the the habitat, the view shed, um, and gives it as big of a buffer as we really can feasibly provide for residents on the other side of the creek.

So for me.

Oh, I think you should probably stay.

I have a few questions, but I'm sure others do maybe as well.

Kick us off, Commissioner Hansar.

All right.

Um so so going back to the dwelling units per acre, can you talk a little bit more about that?

Because I feel like in looking at the context, um, and I'll start off by saying as well, I've usually been a fan of annexations and of if in filling enclaves.

That's just my um you know opinion from the dais.

But I am struggling a bit with this because of the adjacencies around.

And so did you consider um or is there a feasibility of fewer units per acre and larger acreages, which could be a nice transition from what is existing at the 5.2 and then what's um to the west and then what's existing with the larger, whether they be commercial or residential um county properties to the east and to the north.

I know this is an economics decision for you guys too, but it just seems like they're um that 5.2 into the point of our um citizens, right, is maybe the the highest we would like to see, but is there an opportunity for a lower density?

Yeah, I I think to your point about that is an economic decision, and I I am a civil engineer, but I'll I'll put on my hat for it as best as I can.

Um we did explore it.

Uh, and I think this is the line that we found that made the project feasible.

Um, and you know the applicant could probably speak to this a bit better than the developer, but I I'd say we found ourselves as in as low of a density as possible for this development to work.

Um there's a lot of factors to weigh in there between neighbors input um and and making the project economically viable.

Um and that's you know, we we've spent a long time trying to figure out what that line is.

And so the the solution proposed is that we we have an external ring of how homes that are very similar in size, in fact, a little bit bigger than the adjacent homes to the to the west.

Uh but the the truth of it is is there's there's a lot of environmental impacts on the site between the the wetlands to the north and sand creek to the south that um make it so there's not as much developable area where we can spread it out um and have some bigger homes.

So that's where the that internal corridor of uh attached single family homes came from.

Sure.

And I and I can get that from an economic and planning standpoint.

I would say it it looked a little uninspired and it seemed like maybe a little bit more diversity of larger homes and smaller could maybe bring the dwelling units down, but I'm not here to design your project.

Uh, but I just certainly had some questions, and I think the neighbors um points are taken because it does seem like there's a lot of internal roads to Todd's comments earlier, internal um local streets to get back to this.

So can you tell me as well?

Did you guys consider um bridging over Sand Creek from Durango Kid Drive?

And is there any access from the south that would be available?

It looks like there is a you know, kind of a stub out there, which I realize bridges are expensive, but it again, I'm just concerned about you know some of the things that we're hearing and want your opinion.

Yeah, yeah.

Um it you're right, bridges are are very expensive, but we did look into it in quite a bit of detail.

Uh got some pricing for it.

Uh the issue that the bottleneck that we ran into was that there wasn't sufficient space for a 50-foot wide uh public right-of-way to sneak through there.

Um, and it's a mix of uses and um feels that we we've we felt that it for the price um uh and and the way we were constrained spatially, it it there was just no viable way of making that work.

Okay, fair enough.

Final question for me.

I promise I'll pass the mic.

Um we heard from Mr.

Britton, which I think was really helpful, and um, and it's great to hear when those those relationships and conversations go well.

But there's obviously a few other neighbors along the way.

Have you had favorable interactions there and how do you see that impacting the development?

Yeah, I I think the the neighborhood meetings that we've held have had um uh a really positive impact on on this development and and hopefully on the neighbors' um outlook of the project.

Um Kirby's point what was that um this developer came in with a genuine care for the neighbors and didn't want to propose something that was was completely out of line uh with with what they wanted.

And so we've had really positive conversations.

You know, a lot of them come through in copy-paste um uh uh emails for for input, and we addressed those uh as best as we could through um uh substantial outreach with them, um, responses and and multiple meetings to make sure they were heard and we we made changes accordingly.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Oh sorry.

Uh sure, I've got two.

Hopefully they're quick.

Um first one is in order to potentially better suit uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Casey's comments about density, but also accommodate the density that you all have described.

Um just over five uh dwelling units per acre.

Uh did you consider R Flex low?

And if not, why not?

If that was considered, why was it decided against the Yeah, yeah.

So we we did consider R Flex low.

Um, and I I think regardless of what the zoning is, it's the this density is what what worked.

Um it gets into the economics of of the purchase and sale.

Um because the the zoning designation doesn't change the the sale price of the property.

So this this is the density that worked for for that, um, as far as I understand that if we got into R Flex low, uh we would have been over the the threshold, I believe.

No?

No, it's uh is that it's five to six dwelling uh units per acre.

Oh, okay.

Um so we we were in R Flex medium because as I mentioned, we had another 30 plus units that pushed us over that threshold.

And it was just over the the past few months that we came down in that total number of dwelling units to um be in that very low end of the five to sixteen.

So there are no plans for us to increase it.

And as I mentioned, I don't think the the local infrastructure, roadway infrastructure can support a higher density.

So it was looked at early, but um based on the timing of of when that density was reduced, uh we didn't switch to a new zoning designation at that point.

Okay, and um I was wondering if you could respond to I read in the public comments um that Mark Shuffle was under construction at the time of the traffic study and it caused a lot of detours, whether or not that may have impacted the accuracy of the traffic study.

I'll of our our traffic engineer answer that second question.

Good morning, um commissioners.

Um I'm Curtis Rowe with Kimley Horn associates traffic engineer, prepared the traffic study for this project.

Um we actually did multiple iterations of counts over the last uh couple of years.

The most recent were the ones that were conducted in April of 2025.

Um and so that was while school was in session prior to the construction of Dublin.

Uh we evaluate historical counts in addition to those counts that are done.

And so those are representative of the volumes that we expect once all the construction is complete.

So we make those adjustments, yes.

Over to Commissioner Casey, back back to our applicant.

Again, my question had to do with R flex low too, so I appreciate uh Commissioner Cecil bringing that up.

Um the height.

You said you're committed to two stories because the R flex medium is 45 feet versus 30 feet.

So can you talk to that?

Yeah.

So the density um was a range that we we worked through and and as I mentioned, it it came down um near the end of our application process.

Um the the building height uh with what we're currently showing uh and all of the communications with potential builders um is is in line with a two-story single family home, very similar to what we're seeing to the west.

In fact, we've proposed uh lots that are a thousand square feet larger than those homes, and we're trying to spread our density so that on their shared property line to the east of the existing development, they look back and they see a comparable um home to what we have proposed as far as the difference between R Flex Low and R Flex Medium.

Um I understand the concern um uh and it's just not something we we looked to change late in the game.

Uh we felt that what we're what we're providing uh was uh was a good balance of of based on all the conversations, all the the neighborhood impact we were at.

Um we're we're happy with with where the balance is and and don't see it going any higher, don't see uh two stories being exceeded.

So my concern is if the annexation is approved, the zoning is approved, and subsequent to that you decide not to go forward this project, and somebody else you sell the land to somebody else, they wouldn't you know they they basically inherit a land, you know, our flex medium uh they could increase the density, they wouldn't be bound by your land use plan.

So I guess my question for you is how committed are uh are you to this project and when did you anticipate the building starting?

What's the timeline for started in the construction?

Yeah.

Jim, anything to add to that.

I'll give Noah a little break here.

My name's Jim Howcom with also with Kimley Horn, uh land planning uh side of the plan.

Planning exercise.

Um couple of questions I I think I got out of there was timing, right?

Right, timing and commitment to doing this and not you know dispensing with it and selling the land after it's rezoned.

I think one of the exercises that we've gone through with this project too is we've really stepped ahead of ourselves a bit in the development plan process, really just to test everything out.

I mean, there was a lot of a lot of edges to this property in a sense to the creek, the drainages uh access and all that.

So our our exercise was to step forward a little bit, test the drug test drive it with with city staff before we made any final decisions.

And I think what we're doing was we're baking all of those decisions and that density into our annexation agreement.

That's our goal.

Uh so we're I guess we're confirm confirming that we want to work at this density.

Uh as Noah mentioned in part of the exercise too, was how do we how do we make those transitions?

Again, our neighbors are at 5,000 square foot lots.

We've we bumped ours up to 6,000 square foot lot to give ourselves a little more double room in there.

Um as far as timing goes, I think the goal here is within, you know, within a year, we're got the horizontal work done, and and within two years we're selling houses.

So that's pretty broad in a sense, but again, I'm not the real estate guy, I'm just the planner.

Great, thank you.

But any other questions or I think uh Ms.

Baxter.

Tomorrow, yeah.

There's right, there's a lot of concern of density dwelling units.

Where um within which application would it be the annexation plan?

Where would the density be codified as a part of this potential annexation land use statement?

Where where would those where would those go um be associated with this annexation?

The density and the height limitations.

For the record, Tomara Baxter, planning supervisor.

So to answer your question, um those.

be codified um as a part of this potential annexation land use statement where where would those where would those go um be associated with this annexation the density and um the height limitations so that uh tomorrow back uh for the record tomorrow baxter planning supervisor so to answer your question um those so if you look on the land use plan for density um it is limited to the five point five point two dwelling units per acre um and it's also uh will be identified if I'm not mistaken identified on the um ordinance for the uh zone establishment as well oh no actually I'm sorry we're not doing PDZ I I had to rethink um so it is part of the land use plan and it is identified as 5.2 on the dwelling units per acre I do see the land use plan the maximum building height is uh set at 45.

So the building height um so that is going to be tied with the the that specific zone district to just a straight zone um so with uh to let me step back on this so they originally came forward with a density of I think it was 6.3 dwelling it's dwelling units per acre and during the review of this project with uh the review of the traffic impact study um they did reduce the density to 5.2 dwelling units per acre we did not look at changing the the proposed zoning from our flex medium to our low um but they will be limited to the 5.2 dwelling units per acre because it's identified on the land use plan if they do want to change that they will be back in front of you with any kind of increases to that density understood and then the maximum building height is currently associated with the zone it is so there could be potentially a condition of record placed by this body on the land use plan to not exceed a different height density if that was deemed appropriate and would the applicant be opposed to that would that be detrimental to the current plans Noah Bramer for the record um I do think that that we would be open open to that it doesn't change you know there's no secret plan to to come in at 45 feet after so um yeah the the two story product is is what we're looking for so if that's if that makes this more acceptable then we'd certainly be open to that.

I mean it sounds like from opinions of the dias that that is a concern uh it's not our purview to tell you what zone to rezone into I mean we could postpone I would imagine that would be uh probably more of a nuisance uh my question I guess process here because I agree with all of this conversation and so what's what's the easier mechanism is it just adjusting to our flex low or is it putting different conditions and um constraints within the land use plan I I don't know what's easier from a um whatever administrative process but I think we're trying to get to the same place.

So what's the most direct route to say we want you to stay at the lowest dwelling units and the lowest height.

Well I I currently with the applications today we could put a condition of record on height.

Right.

We already have the dwelling units established we cannot approve an application for an R flex low because that's not before us today we could we could disapprove or postpone right and see another application at another time.

But if those are the criteria with which uh compatibility's been a concern that is the mechanism to to get to a vote today on something.

Yeah.

Correct me if I'm wrong tomorrow.

If tomorrow had comments on how yeah tomorrow Baxter planning supervisor for the record um to answer your question I don't think there's really a I mean maybe the city attorney is I may have a suggestion but I don't think there's really a clear either or works I mean you could do the R flex low uh recommend that or do a condition of approval that the limits the height to 35 feet.

Sure.

I suppose since I mean we would be voting to recommend a city council and then they could I guess choose between between then and now to to have a different zone.

Correct so I don't know if if our esteemed attorney and in the backer side has has an opinion on that but just hearing hearing voices on the dyes today.

Good morning Caitlin Mullen RC attorney's office um what you said earlier Chair Slattery was correct.

The zone that's in front of you is not the R Flex low I might have said the wrong one sorry.

So you're considering the zone that's in front of you so you need to approve or deny the zone in front of you.

Thank you.

Any um questions comments more from the DIES Commissioner Cecil?

Also for Ms.

Baxter um I just wanted to confirm that uh land use plan definitely would come back through planning commission to change the density it would not just go through a managerial or administrative review.

It would not just go through a managerial or administrative review.

There's a provision in the UDC that if a decision is made by a board so such as yourselves or council, it does go back through any changes to that will go back through uh that process, that's similar process.

So if they come back with a request to modify the density, we will require them to come before you to make that change.

Thank you.

Is that uh is there a 15% um I guess administrative leeway within that density restriction?

Some sometimes we see that on height or limitations.

Is there a 15% not for density?

Because that's going to be established with uh the land use plan and the the zone.

Understood.

Yeah.

Good question.

Um other questions, comments.

Yes, please.

Commissioner Rickett.

Um this may be very bizarre coming from me, but I uh I live in a active construction community that has density from 3.5 dwelling units per acre up to 25 dwelling units per acre.

The diversity actually is a positive, not a negative.

Um and we knew that we'd have this diversity in our neighborhood before we moved into it.

I get those that live outside, you know, that this property didn't exist when you bought your houses.

I understand that.

Um and I think they've handled that well in the land use plan, noting that the gross density is 5.2 dwelling units per acre.

So I think that's fairly clear.

I also understand from the dias from the zoning standpoint.

Once it's zoned, if they sell the property, that zoning still exists on the property.

The land use plan does limit it.

So there's a little conflict there that we can deal with.

Me personally, I'm I'm quite good with all three annexation, land use plan, and the zoning.

Um because I see a positive all the way around, quite honestly.

Um, but I understand the residents and their concern.

And so uh I think with the restriction in the land use plan that works today.

Um and then if it does get sold, it you know it's gotta go through development again anyway.

So anyway, that that's my opinion.

Thank you.

Thanks, Marty.

I guess um hearing your opinion on the building height as well.

That's associated with the land use plan and the R flex medium.

If I understood what you were saying, you're okay with that because the density of housing and the gross units across keeping that in place may lead to greater diversity within the build out.

I'm okay with that.

Okay.

Putting the restriction on the land use plan, because that's where the restriction is for the uh dwelling use.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, I guess I'll um I'll open it up to a motion and then probably hear a couple more comments here, perhaps.

No?

Open up to a motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval to city council the annexation of 21.37 acres as the Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane at addition number one annexation based upon the findings that the annexation complies with the conditions of annexation is set forth in city code section 7.5.701.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Can we get a motion on the land use plan and potential condition of record to associate with that?

I just have a quick question on that.

Then are we looking to add a note then to the motion um to approve about the height limit or not?

Uh so that would be a condition of record to include with the proposed motion by the motion maker.

So you whoever was making the motion would have the option to add a recommendation of approval with a condition of record for building height limitation.

Not to exceed 35, which would be compatible with the R flux low, which was kind of the debating factor here.

I think it's 30.

Okay.

Open for a motion.

Thank you.

Looks like Marty.

Uh recommend approval to City Council, the Miller Downs land use plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies with review criteria for land use plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514 with the following conditions of approval and the technical modifications, which shall be addressed prior to city council public meeting.

But I am gonna add a an additional one, which would be to limit building height to 35 feet.

Commissioner Casey seconds.

That motion passes unanimously.

Yep.

Do we need to revote then?

Yes.

I just want all the conditions read on the record.

Sure.

Commissioner Regan.

You have this.

Sure.

The novel will now begin.

Okay.

Uh revise general note 10 on the cover sheet to reflect the modifications requested by SWINT prior to development plan approval.

The applicant shall have a third-party specialist determine if it's wetland area in the northwest corner of the property consists of jurisdictional wetland and what mitigation efforts will be needed for wetland impacts under Section 404 of the or for the Clean Water Act.

The labeling of the 30-foot ingress egress right away along Wyoming Lane shall be consistent with the annexation plat.

Add the following notes to the general notes prior to final plat approval, the ownership and annexation of 30 feet uh remnant east of Miller Donn's edition number one annexation along Wyoming Lane shall be determined as follows within 30 days of recordation of Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane, edition number one annexation plat and annexation agreement, ownership of remnant shall be determined in both the city and county will need to be satisfied with the filings.

If the partitioner for Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane edition number one is determined to own the 30 feet remnant, a petition for annexation shall be applied for within 30 days of recommend of recordation of Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane edition number one, annexation plat and annexation agreement, and any associated annexation with the remnant shall be complete within one year.

This is where we'll add in a restriction on the land use plan of the building height of 35 feet.

Thank you.

Um a motion on item 8C with zone change.

Recommend approval to city council to zone establishment of 21.37 acres as R flex medium, streamside overlay, airport overlay, R flex medium, streamside and airport overlay, zone district based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for zoning establishment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5 point seven zero four.

Zone district based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for zoning established as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

Second.

That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

We'll take about a 30-minute recess.

No?

No.

Go.

What's that?

We'll take a 30-minute recess.

Okay.

Thank you.

They must have lunch.

Could we please read item 8D into the record?

Item 8D, WCFE-25-0016.

A conditional use to allow an existing existing 50-foot tall sale service tower to increase height to 80 feet tall in the MXM APO SSO zone consisting of 2.13 acres located at 575 Airport Creek Point.

Your percent there, East Drew Fox.

Morning, Commissioners.

Okay.

Today we're talking about the Airport Creek Wireless Cellular Facility.

It's a request to increase the height of an existing cell tower located at the southwest corner of Airport Road and South Powers Boulevard.

Site is approximately 2.13 acres in size.

Oh sorry.

2.13 acres in size with a lease area for the tower of 1,190 square feet.

The applicable zone district is MXM, mixed use medium with streamside and airport overlays.

A portion of the Airport Creek Apartments development has also been approved on the subject lot just to the north of the lease area and uh will be brought up again later in this presentation.

Uh further north on the uh the the northern adjacent parcels uh is existing commercial development, including a hotel, fast food, restaurant, gas station.

As stated, this facility is located on a 1,190 square foot lease area on the southern portion of the subject lot at 575 Airport Creek Point.

The facility includes a 50-foot tower with a ground compound that is screened by a six-foot fence.

The request today is to approve the proposed modification to the existing tower to extend the height from 50 feet to 80 feet.

The increase in height is requested to improve and maintain wireless communication services in the area, as well as provide opportunities for co-location of other service providers.

Because this application is solely requested to modify the height, only the proposed increase in height has been evaluated throughout the review process.

The existing tower was approved for development on the lot by the city planning commission on August 18th, 2019 at 50 feet in height.

The existing tower was built in 2024.

The proposed height extension will add an additional 30 feet in height to the tower, resulting in a total height of 80 feet.

The physical height will be 85 feet due to the architectural components of the tower structure.

However, according to federal regulation, the architectural components uh shall not be included in the total height measurement.

On your screen is the elevations, you have the existing at 50 feet and then the proposed at 85 feet, including the architectural appurtenance.

So you have the existing east elevation and the proposed east elevation.

Here you have the south elevation.

This is existing proposed elevations for south, west, and north.

We're not provided with the application, but here you have the existing.

So this is the north elevation and the west elevation.

In quotations, you can see future apartments.

This is the direction that those future apartments will be developed eventually, and that it also includes the north elevation.

So the additional height modifications requested to accommodate additional service providers and to maintain maintain cellular services in the area due to the future development of these air creek airport creek apartments just north of the site.

According to the applicant, the future apartment building will block the ability to provide services, and therefore the existing tower must be modified to a greater height.

The Airport Creek apartments were approved for development by City Planning Commission on March 17th, 2022.

Two apartment buildings are to be established as part of the as part of this development to include one apartment building on the vacant lot directly west of the subject lot and one apartment directly north of the lease area on the same lot at 49 feet in height.

There's gonna be a lot to say about this slide.

Um this is the zoning code requirements and determining the application type for a CM1 conditional use.

The zone district allowable use table 7.3.2-A as you can see here does not determine the allowance for a wireless cell facility, and rather table or I'm sorry, 732-A is not included here.

Table 555A is included, which determines the applicable application for well wireless cellular facilities.

The proposed modification is being evaluated as a new facility because the modification is defined as substantial change, whereas some modifications go through an administrative process known as an eligible facility request.

When substantial change is applicable, a facility cannot be evaluated as an eligible facility request.

Um, and so you're well error is so you're aware eligible facility requests do not come before planning commission, they are handled administratively.

Uh to define substantial change and as shown on the site on this slide, uh it is defined in the UDC for towers as an increase in height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater.

So either 10% or 20 feet.

The applicability of substantial changes, therefore, gives cause to evaluate the modified portion of the tower under the application type as directed in this table 755A.

Um per the reference table, the appropriate application is a CM1 due to the applicable mixed-use zone district and the requested height of 80 feet, whereas the zone district maximum is 50 feet.

It should be noted that the reference table only calls a facility stealth if it is equal to or less than the maximum height of the zone district, or if it is located within a utility substation.

Per footnote three of the table, a CM1 application shall be subject to planning commission review as a conditional use in accordance with section 75601 conditional use.

Uh review criteria.

In addition to this apple application table requiring a CM1 conditional use application, the criteria for setbacks and separation set forth in 7303H of the UDC also requires that a CM1 application be required.

In the event that a proposed tower cannot meet the separation requirement from adjacent residential zoning.

Authorized exceptions to height requirements.

Wireless communication facilities are subject to the criteria found in 7303 H1.

And it is apparent in this criteria that the height is controlled by other factors within the use standards criteria, but it is not as straightforward as restricting the height to that of the maximum associated maximum height associated with the applicable zone district.

So the applicable zone districts 50 feet.

But because of the height exemptions and encroachment section of code, we deferred 7303 and the use and the use table here for controlling factors.

Going into criteria.

So for stealth design techniques, which isn't exactly criteria, it is more just uh calling out stealth design techniques and concealment elements to look for when you're doing stealth design towers.

The existing tower in the proposed modification is designed to appear as a pine tree and therefore utilizes stealth design techniques.

Because the tower utilizes stealth design techniques, the specific design requirements for an alternative tower structure have been applied as part of the review criteria for this application.

While the structure is designed to appear as a pine tree, the height of the cell facility creates difficulty for meeting compatibility standards with the surrounding environment.

Therefore, city staff has also implemented the specific design requirements for a standard non-stealth tower as part of the review criteria.

It should be noted that determining this tower as an alternative tower structure versus standard tower determines the applicable design standard requirements as part of the review criteria for this conditional use application, underlining the importance of understanding why stealth design techniques as shown here are considered when evaluating proposed alternative tower structures.

So now going into criteria for specific design requirements on alternative tower structures, not in the right-of-way.

They have been evaluated and are currently presented here on the screen.

As previously stated, the structure has been designed to appear as an 80-foot pine tree.

However, the area consists primarily of deciduous trees, ranging in size from 15 to 30 feet in height.

According to the applicant, the proposed modification is the shortest, is the shortest extension that it can be to maintain the ability to accommodate additional carriers and provide adequate services.

The nearest residential structures and residential zone districts are currently 110 feet to the south across Sand Creek.

The future Airport Creek apartments approved to the north are about 100 feet away, as shown on your screen.

Considering topography, the area is flat.

The existing tower is located in the middle of a field.

While the future apartment building to the north will involve additional landscaping near the leased area, the tower will continue to visually stand out from the surrounding future landscaping and structures.

The future apartments will be about 49 feet in height, and the proposed modification of the tower will be about 31 feet higher than those apartments, not including the architectural protrusion at the top of the tower.

Finally, no ingress or egress into the area will be impacted.

City staff finds that the specific design requirements for an alternative tower structure have not been met, and therefore the specific design requirements for a non-stealth tower have been applied.

So moving forward to the specific design requirements for towers or non-stealth towers.

Since it has been found that specific design requirements for alternative tower structures have not been met with the proposed modification, the specific design requirements for towers has been taken into consideration.

The tower has not been built with reflective materials, and the proposed modification does not contain reflective materials.

While an attempt has been made to establish this tower as a stealth pine tree, there is no opportunity to use existing landforms, vegetation, and structures to aid in screening the facility from view as is located again in the middle of a field with trees that are of a shorter height.

This was likely intentional for the purpose of providing communication services, but I'll allow the applicant to speak to that.

Uh as you uh saw on the photometrics that were provided.

The tower is considered a monopole structure and does taper from the base to the tip.

Finally, the tower does include a ground compound area that is enclosed by a six-foot wood fence and landscaping along the southern perimeter.

City planning staff finds that the specific design requirements for a tower have been met.

Going back to the reference setback and separation requirements.

Setback and separation is a criteria again set forth in 7303 of the UDC, which is relevant to the conditional use criteria.

Three types of separation are set forth in the UDC for wireless cell towers and the greater of the three shall apply.

Those three have been provided here.

The setback requirement for a principal building in the MXM zone district is 15 feet, and 25% of the tower is 20 feet.

Therefore, five times the tower height, including antennas when adjacent to residential zoning is the applicable separation due to the adjacent planned residential.

Sorry, let me start there.

Therefore, five times the tower height, including antennas when adjacent to residential zoning is the applicable separation due to the adjacent planned development zone directly to the south of the lot, requiring a separation of 400 feet with a proposed 80 foot tower.

The planned development zone of the south is considered residentially zoned because it consists of single family attached use types.

Considering the tower's current location, only 110 feet of separation has been provided where 400 feet is required.

City planning staff finds that the criteria for setbacks and separation are not met.

And moving on to the last uh applicable criteria that was applied to this for co-location.

Um, one final piece of criteria that has been evaluated are the efforts for providing and utilizing locations for co-location.

Essentially, co-location is the mounting or installation of additional service providers on a given facility.

Um the opportunity for co-locating shall be provided for every facility unless evidence can be provided explaining why an opportunity for co-location is not possible.

Per the design standards in the use specific and the use specific standards of the UDC for wireless communication facilities, at least two wireless service providers shall be accommodated for co-location on the same facility to the extent technologically feasible.

Co-location is encouraged for every communication provider wanting to establish a new facility.

They are encouraged to utilize existing facilities if and if unable, justification is requested by the city planning department.

The applicant has stated that part of the purpose for this proposed height extension is to provide opportunity for additional two wireless service providers in addition to the already existing carrier.

Without the height extension, the already built facility will essentially become unusable, and the UDC does encourage the use of existing facilities.

For these reasons, staff finds that the criteria in 7303 for co-location has been met.

Moving forward to stakeholder involvement.

Went through three submittal cycles, uh, three review cycles, and the item was prepared for this hearing on July 18, 2025.

Uh, there is a note here that preliminary discussions with city planning staff have been occurring since May of 2023.

Uh discussion with the applicant had been occurring since May of 2020 originally because it there was a request to increase the height under the provision of an eligible facility request, which was mentioned earlier.

The applicant was told that an eligible facilities request could not occur unless the tower was built.

So at the time they had met with us, the tower had not been built yet.

Once the tower was built, the applicant returned with a request in 2024 to increase the height by 30 feet, uh, therefore triggering the substantial change definition that was mentioned.

As for agency review, since the review of this application only involves an increase in height to an existing structure, the streamside overlay review criteria has not been taken into consideration, and there was no impacts to that review criteria.

Colorado Springs Airport, however, has required a 7460-1 FAA form to be submitted and approved prior to construction.

This form has been submitted by the applicant and will be considered uh at time of building permit.

As for plan COS compliance, our city's comprehensive plan, uh the location of this facility is located in an established suburban neighborhood and adjacent to an inner city corridor.

The neighborhood typology sets out to recognize, support, and enhance the existing character of these neighborhoods while supporting ongoing investment and adaptation.

This height extension is supportive of ongoing investment and adaptation due to the continued development in the immediate area that gives cause for greater support of wireless communication services.

However, this proposal is not supportive of recognizing, supporting, or enhancing the existing character of these neighborhoods as described in this presentation for its design compatibility.

As for the adjacent inner city corridor being Powers Boulevard, it is expected that additional infill and development will occur along this corridor.

This will drive up the necessity for greater network coverage in the area.

And this project may be a necessary step in preparing for such infill.

Finally, this height extension is supportive of policy 2e-2.d of the thriving economy framework, which looks to provide high quality infrastructure and technology citywide.

A strategy of this framework calls for, and I quote, collaboration with providers to expand internet capacity and speed throughout the city, including targeted development ready sites.

This tower site achieves the strategy.

While the wireless cellular facility application table requires CM1 conditional use application due to the height encroachment of the zone district, a CM1 conditional use application is also required due to the inability to meet separation requirements from residential zoning.

The reference cell facility application table declares the facility as a non-stealth freestanding facility because the proposed modification modification cannot meet the maximum height of the zone district.

Additionally, as been determined by city planning staff that the specific design standards for an alternative tower structure and the stealth design technique techniques as specified in the UDC have not been met.

However, the tower does meet the applicable design standards criteria for a tower or again a non-stealth tower.

For that reason, staff believes that the matter of determining stealth versus non-stealth is not as important for evaluating this proposal, especially since the tower was approved with the same stealth design in 2019 under a conditional use application by this governing body.

However, due to the proximity to residential zoning and future residential uses, the evaluation of the tower design is still very much relevant and should factor into the determination by this commission, especially considering the increase in height.

The inability of the tower to meet the separation requirements from residential zoning is a criteria that is not nearly as close to being accomplished as stealth design is.

Um I I think that code would be the level of restriction that I'm applying to this additional 30 feet.

You know, my my level of evaluation on that using the criteria that was available to me.

Um the criteria that would have been available to me if this was a new tower going in.

Um I feel that the restriction is just the same when we're talking about separation to residential.

I mean, I can't do anything about the already approved 50 feet, but when I'm thinking about 80 feet, I'm certainly applying the separation requirement to that residential zone in the same way I would have applied it to the 50 feet coming in.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the Commission?

I'm sure we'll have some.

We can bring the applicant up.

Thank you.

Can you bring up the PowerPoint, please?

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission.

I'm Bev Francis.

I'm outside wireless counsel for Capital Telecom, which is a national developer of critical infrastructure for telecommunication providers.

With me today is Tom Muneski.

Tom is the senior vice president for site acquisition for Capital Telecom, and Tom has been involved in this as I have since our initial discussions, as Drew indicated, starting in May of 2023 to get to this positive point so that this modification will provide the critical infrastructure necessary in order to provide the vehicle, if you would, infrastructure for three major carriers who already have agreements in place because of the time lapse to co-locate on the extended tower, ATT, T Mobile, and Dish.

So everything has been on pause as we work through with staff to find a vehicle, a pathway in order to accomplish this.

What Tom and I would like to do is briefly go through and discuss you through three key aspects of the application.

First will be a discussion very briefly, Drew, an excellent point with the pages from the submittal highlighting the different aspects of the compound in the existing tower.

So just a very brief overview, touching on a couple of points that uh were not mentioned.

The second, the key issue is there is an issue, the issue as I mentioned, that is preventing the 50-foot built tower to serve as infrastructure necessary for three major carriers to provide the critical voice and data service that your community needs.

And then third, Tom will come up and present to you the creative solution that we have spent the last two years working through with the planned department.

Oops.

What did I do?

There we go.

First of all, just very quick overview.

As Drew mentioned, Tom and I came before this commission in 2019 and presented the application for the existing stealth monopine tower.

It was a vibrant discussion.

There was community discussion.

Staff made a recommendation, and as a result, we received the approval and the existing Monopine Stealth Tower has been constructed and received all the necessary uh final inspections.

I just wanted to point out to you the letter that I received from Rachel Tixtera, who was the planner at that point, excuse me, confirming that.

Sorry, all conditions for the approval had been complied with, and the uh application and request for the conditional use development for the 50-foot monopine tower was approved.

I just want to highlight a couple of critical points.

I think Drew's graphic was excellent showing the existing tower at 50 feet.

And what I wanted to point out is you see that it was designed to accommodate two carriers.

And you'll see the points why it's so critical as we'll discuss.

The top is we called RAT Center.

A RAD center is the point on the tower that a carrier must place their antenna array, the antennas, in order to accomplish their coverage goals.

So you see that we had submitted to them the required two RAD centers, carrier one at 45 to 47 feet, carrier two at 35 to 37 feet.

Those height numbers are critical because the issue, as Drew pointed out, following our approval in March of 2022, this commission approved the Airport Greek conditional use development plan for a hundred and thirty-four unit multifamily apartment.

As Drew pointed out, and we'll go in a little bit greater detail.

Building two is going to be constructed at a height from ground level to parapet 49 feet.

Again, recall the top red of the approved tower is at 47 feet.

Therefore, there'll be blockage of not only top red and then also the second rad carrier of their signals.

So that's the issue.

Just pointing this out as Drew indicated, you got the C down at the lower part as part of the development plan for the airport create apartments, clearly called out the existence of the 50-foot monopine existing 50-foot monopine cell tower.

The planning commission approved this on 2020 and 2022, and just wanted to reaffirm for you the location of building two, which will only be about 100 feet away to the north.

Drew had the this and appreciated and point it out, but I again want to reiterate the point I just made.

The height from ground level to the height, top part of the parapet is 49 feet.

You see the mass of the building, and there'll be, as Drew pointed out, planned at a second building to the west.

Again, with the height and the mass.

Therefore, you can understand why there's an inability for those wireless signals to be productive.

And you'll see from the radio frequency maps, a critical requirement for ATT example and T Mobile, you'll see, is to be able to serve the residential areas to the west.

These towers, these buildings will prohibit those uh signals without the ability to raise the rad centers.

Now, Tom is going to come up and present you with the solution that we worked with for the last two years with staff.

And we believe it's an exciting opportunity after we go through for you all the benefits that uh the height modification will accomplish.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tom Vineski.

As mentioned, I'm from Capital Telecom.

I handle site acquisition and zoning for Capital Telecom nationwide.

We build for all major carriers nationwide.

And in this particular case, when we had um first come in, it was for T Mobile.

T Mobile was our anchor tenant.

They were located at the 45-foot level.

We also had dish wireless, which goes under the trade name of Boost for their uh uh coverage and uh for their marketing.

And since that time, we also received and have signed a lease with ATT wireless as well.

So each of those three carriers have signed agreements with us.

This is not as I believe it was mentioned during the prior thing, it's not just a proactive trying to accommodate future carriers that may or may not come.

In this case, they actually have come and they have wanted to locate on this particular tower, mainly because it is approved uh for that 50-foot height.

So what we had here was once the site was approved, and after we found out that the um the apartments had been approved at that 49 foot, we were not actually given notice of that time of that approval.

We are a ground lesser, we're not a property owner, so we weren't given uh notice at that time.

But since we found out, we started working on a um how to solve that problem.

We tried to work with T Mobile to see if they had if that would work with them as long with Dish at that time to see what else we could do.

Would that height work?

Would we be able to accommodate it?

What's the timeline of when that building is going to be built?

Is this something that we can work with for a few years and then try to figure out a solution in the future?

And as time went on, and we tried to work with staff to see if there was a modification we could do at that time.

Did we have to build the tower?

Did we not have to build the tower?

There was many things that were going happening during that period of time.

So what we ultimately came up with is that the additional 30 feet provides the minimum height necessary to accommodate all three carriers above that 49-foot roof line that's going to be installed, not only to the north, but also the additional building to the west.

So with that, it's a modification of the existing structure itself.

The compound is not changing.

I'm going to go through the plan shortly there.

We're not modifying anything on the ground that exists today.

Um, the only thing that would change is the tower itself.

There's no increased traffic other than the um uh vans that would come to maintain the equipment.

That's on every six to eight week basis where they actually come to the site.

And with the addition of that, it allows for all three carriers to be on that modified tower, and then it allows us to go with the process of co-location rather than a new tower somewhere else.

If ATT is not able to be accommodated on this tower, they're going to have to find develop and build and come back before this board for another tower somewhere else to fill that gap in coverage.

And we're going to show you the coverage maps as we're further along in the application so you'll understand what they're trying to accomplish here.

Again, this has been mentioned many times, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.

But just to reiterate, as we all know from the plans, any red bubbles or changes, nothing changed on the ground plans here, including the setbacks.

The setbacks exist to what was previously approved on this location.

The compound stays the same.

It's the same wood fence, it's the same area, it's the same access points coming in.

What does change as mentioned was the addition of the height.

And this addition of the height is accomplished through there's a flange on top of the tower that allows an extra modification of the extension to be built on top.

And then to allow it to maintain more of a tree shape, we added the five foot of additional branches on top.

So it doesn't have the current flat top that you're going to see in the photosims right now.

That flat top does not have the same tapered top that the future would have.

One thing that was mentioned, it usually comes up with fall zones.

And can this is this tower going to fall on an adjoining property?

If there was ever a catastrophic event, where's this tower going to end up?

The tower is actually designed to bend at that flange point.

This is a signed and sealed engineering letter from Saber Industries who manufactured the pole and is manufacturing the extension to the pole.

And that gives us a 30-foot fall zone.

What happens is it bends like a straw, it doesn't fall over like a tree.

That means that extension will stay within the compound and certainly within the property.

Doesn't cross any other area, does not come close to the apartment building, which is over 100 feet away.

So even if it was a one-to-one failure, it still would not be in that area.

It was mentioned during the public comment as well as other issues, and you can clearly see on the maps the uh the Air Force base is nearby.

FAA is very important here to get we have a determination at the 85-foot level.

So that incorporates the branches that there is no hazard to this tower.

But more importantly, there's no lights on this.

Usually, if you're near an airport, depending on the height, it will have to be lit, or if it's over 200 feet, it would have to be lit.

That is not the case here.

There will not be any flashing light within the branches of the tree.

I think that would be certainly would be uh visible, but not something that we are doing in this situation.

So with this height modification, again, we've already kind of touched on what we're doing here.

And what we're doing is there was discussion of stealth versus non-stealth.

We're preferring to look at this as a modification of going with what is currently there.

It is already designed as a tree.

It makes sense to make the extension continue those design elements for the same branch count towards the top of the tree.

If we were doing this as a new pole without any branches on it, obviously that would look out of place.

We believe it needs to continue those design elements, including the taper on top, to give it the natural tapered look of a tree in that area.

This is the minimum height necessary.

As we stated before, T Mobile's height was 45 feet.

That is below the roof line.

Dish's height was 35 feet.

Both of that worked for them before those buildings were approved to be built.

Now they need to be higher.

And what I meant to touch on when we were back on the adjoining plan is that ATT is currently going to take the top position at the 75-foot level.

T Mobile would take 65 feet because that's the minimum height necessary for their antennas to work.

And dish would be under them at the 55-foot level.

So again, this is still providing the same moving everybody up, but over the roof line of the of the buildings that are going to be built in that area.

Lastly, it's it's a modification rather than a new tower.

We understand that if this was a new tower, it would be subject to additional changes, additional modifications.

We'd be discussing the compound a lot more.

None of that is changing.

Everything is there that currently exists.

And this is what exists.

This is an existing shot off of Route 24 of what's currently there.

As you can see on the right corner of the picture is the existing hotel.

What it's not showing is the proposed apartment building, which is going right to the right of the tower in the grass area that's there.

And that existing roof line will be the height of the tower that's currently there.

Looking in that direction.

So while this does mention this is an open field and open area, it's not going to remain that way.

It also does not show the building to the west, which is also going to be behind it, also at that 49 foot level.

So both of those are going to fill in.

So we need to extend it.

We need to extend it by 30 feet to get over that roof line.

Again, these are existing shots being done showing the 30-foot.

They're scaled, these are accurate representations of the look.

This is a slightly different viewpoint through, again from highway 24, but a little bit more on the bridge.

Looking back, again, this is the existing view.

You can see the hotel over to the right, and then the extension on top would add the additional 30 feet, and that also includes the taper on top.

Why are we here?

That's the main thing.

This is, as we mentioned, this was originally for T Mobile.

I'm going to show the T Mobile map separate.

But in the meantime, after the site was approved, we had ATT conduits as well.

And ATT has been around a lot longer than T Mobile has.

Their coverage is a little bit more robust.

This is a little bit hard to see because they tend to use green and shades of green for each of their coverage.

But what you can see through the lighter areas on the current coverage map is that they have a gap in coverage to the west of the existing site, which is the prime residential area over to the west.

And by the 75 foot antenna mounting area, they would be able to fill that gap.

So it's it shows existing coverage.

Again, there is a gap in coverage.

I think this is going to become more obvious on the T mobile map, which tends to highlight that a little better.

And the T mobile maps show this is today.

And what's more is this was 2019.

This is 2019 when we first got approved, and they had a lack of coverage in the area.

So from that period of time, they looked in other solutions.

They said that there was anything else they could do during that meantime, and this site at the 65 foot would fill that gap.

It'd fill that gap running along Highway 24, along Airport Road, it would cover the airport area, but mostly it would cover the residential area as well.

And this would eliminate any need for a tower in that residential area, especially to the west.

There's simply no place to put it over there, which is part of it.

There's no commercial areas such as we are on right here.

I'm just going to turn back to Bev as we finalize the presentation regarding the demand for wireless, particularly in your area.

Mainly what's happened over the last period of time is that the need has increased.

The need has increased substantially since 2020.

And these gaps in coverage are continuing to increase as there's extra capacity demands, particularly in developed neighborhoods or neighborhoods that are being more developed over time.

What we'd like to close with is just to kind of remind ourselves of where we are today and our dependency on the wireless devices.

This is just a simple graph.

I'm kind of a visual person, but you can see the explosion of the number of smartphones that we are experiencing now.

Going way back to 2009, who ever thought that we'd have 364 million smartphones projected in 2040.

Now drilling down to this neighborhood and your residents, your constituents, the average Colorado Springs household has a minimum of five wireless devices.

I believe now with the demographic of your city and where I'm from, you're looking at possibly seven wireless devices.

If you start looking at your own household, how many smart devices do you have?

How many you have ring bell doorbell systems, iPads, you have cardio in my age group that's important, EKG, and you also have glucose monitoring.

So all of this is critical, and your residents are demanding that.

They have to have their connectivity.

Now, critically, all of that is overshadowed by the point that over 85% of E911 calls are now placed by wireless devices.

And more importantly, or equally important, are the reverse E911 alerts.

We received one at home a couple years ago saying not that a tornado warning, that it was on the ground.

We you know to cover.

We wouldn't have received that or easily have received it without the wireless connectivity.

Also, what's really important is your city is cutting edge on alerting its citizens to get connected.

Your website says we're ready.

Sign up for peak alerts.

The city is asking you all and your residents, sign up, you and you see the apps, use a cell phone and let us stay in connection with you.

Also, about three-quarters of a mile away, as you're aware of Sand Creek International School.

They also are encouraging parents to do what we just are talking about today.

Get connected to us.

You have to be able to be accessed and alerted in the event of a situation that requires your attention.

Also, I always like to point this out and close with this.

Maybe before Hurricane Harvey that hit the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Everybody depended on 911 to reach the municipalities and government for help.

However, the residents were not able to connect, not because of the system failed.

There was a massive overload.

So what did they do?

They started connecting with the cities and the counties through Facebook, giving them addresses we need help.

So count more and more cities like yours are relying on their social media as the connectivity with the residents, not only just to say, you know, here's what's going on in the city, but to be there in the event there's an emergency situation.

And also, this is your Facebook page.

You have over 10% of your residents signed up, so you're reaching out and relying on that.

Before I close, I would like to reiterate what Drew said at the end.

Well, really appreciate the attention and the work over the last three years trying to develop this pathway forward.

They've been terrific to work with, very thorough, and there is a solution in order to resolve this, as Tom pointed out, the need for critical infrastructure to support the three carriers to provide what I just explained to you that is needed by you, your residents.

And he pointed out how important the two plans are that he ended with in the staff report, pointing out the importance of wireless connectivity for the community.

So we're respectfully requesting your approval of the application of modify the high of the tower so that we can proceed on and get building permits and then get the co-location of those three carriers that have been hanging in there for gosh, T Mobile since 2020, to get to this point where they can solve that gap.

So thank you.

Thank you for uh and we look attention and we look forward to questions and a vibrant discussion.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Um there any questions for the applicant before we open public meeting?

Public comment.

I said before.

I am there, I understand.

Um do we have folks signed up?

I think there's at least one person in the audience.

There's one person in opposition, Diane.

Ma'am, could pull the mic down.

We might need to help you turn it on.

Some taller guys were out there before you.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Wish I was taller.

Okay.

Um, Commissioners.

Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak right now.

Um I want to just introduce you myself.

My name is Diane Pelleteer.

I'm a homeowner.

I'm the little guy, literally.

Um I live at 647 Haley Glenview in the community of town homes that is near the Sand Creek Trail, the Sand Creek, and the very uh subject of my being here, the tower, the 50-foot tower.

Want to bring to your attention my email.

I took a long time to write this last week, sent it to Mr.

Fox, and um hoping that you have the opportunity to read it.

What I'd like to say is that I strongly oppose this project.

Let me tell you why.

I believe in laws, codes, rules, regulations, restrictions.

I'm a law-abiding citizen.

And what I've heard today was very eye-opening.

What I've heard from these gentlemen, and also from Mr.

Fox, is that some years ago, this commission, or whoever was in place, made the decision to go against something.

The encroachment, the height, with disregard to an entire community of townhomes.

And I'm not sure.

Someone told me there's 102.

Perhaps you know the exact number.

That's a lot of homeowners.

I'm just one person, by the way, they have day jobs.

They're not here.

Okay, but I've spoken to my next door neighbor.

He had not even read his mail.

He didn't even know about this.

I read my mail, I know about it.

I'm here, and I'm here to tell you that it's wrong.

And let me tell you why it's wrong.

Because it affects property values in a negative negative way.

There's no one here who's a property owner that is saying to the realtor, you know what, I want to buy a house in a neighborhood with a 50 or 80 foot tall cell phone tower.

It's an absolute plus for my homeownership, for my ability to enjoy the community for my property value.

Please find me that cell tower in that neighborhood.

No one here is going to say that.

I want to tell you I've got skin in this game.

I'm not going to tell you how much I pay for my home my home, but you can find that out, I suppose, from public record.

I paid too much for it.

Too much.

But I was in one big hurry to leave where I was living and found a place to live.

Okay.

So I settled.

I only had so much money to spend in this economy in this market, and I settled.

Okay, I have to live with it.

But what was done to allow this to happen was wrong, and in my opinion, respectfully.

As my mother would say, when I was a young child fighting with my two older brothers, two wrongs don't make a right.

It was true then, it's true now.

I'm asking you, please consider the codes, the rules, the laws, the regulations, the restrictions.

Please use the power of your positions to make the right decision.

I'm asking you to put me first, and I'm one of like a hundred and two homeowners.

Please put me first.

I cannot afford, I cannot afford to pick up my house and move it.

I cannot afford to sell and move.

That tower, it's a big one.

Another 30 feet would make it a monstrosity.

Please, it is viewable not only from my homes, but other homes.

And there's a sand creek trail that goes right behind.

I have my backyard.

I have the Sand Creek Trail.

I have the Sand Creek, an open shield in that.

So I'm asking, please enforce the laws.

Please don't do this.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Yes.

Can we check online to see if there's other folks who would like to comment today?

If there is anyone online that would like to speak on this item, please heat star six to unmute yourselves.

There's no one online.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Fox.

Oh, yeah, I guess we we do have rebuttal.

We could do that.

Well, I'll reserve my question for after rebuttal.

Would the applicant like to rebut?

You can have up to five minutes.

But I don't think you need that much, right?

No, I don't.

And I'm we are sensitive to this, and I am not a real estate appraisal uh person, but as mentioned, everything is public record.

So in fact, there was uh House uh 660 um Haley Glenn, which just sold 15 days ago on that street for 338,000.

So that tower's been up.

The notice has been up during that closing period of time as well.

I understand people still have perceptions about what they do, and I again not here as a property appraisal, but I do want to state that that tower has been approved for a long period of time, and we are very conscious of the view from that neighborhood.

I think Mr.

Fox's view of the shot of the tower from the neighborhood show the existing hotel behind, but it didn't show the existing apartments that are being built.

And that view right now from the San Creek Trail will have those apartments, both in behind us as well as to the west of us.

So it does impact that.

We are 30 feet above that rooftop.

We are quite aware of that.

But unfortunately, that's what's needed to cover the area.

Thank you, Ms.

Ransky.

Okay, Mr.

Fox.

I was curious about an item too and had a note that spellotere brought up.

We we heard about a 19 approval, and maybe there was one person.

I there was I think there was one person on this body that that overlapped during that tenure.

Um were there conditions of record with that approval and or was the residential separation uh a component of that approval?

Was there a conditional use for a separation?

What was approved in 19?

Um there was there was uh no conditional there was no condition set in that approval.

No, I looked at the approval letter, I did not see any conditions on that approval letter.

Um and as for the criteria at that time, um I will just say that the criteria hasn't changed since then.

Separation criteria.

The separation criteria has not changed, and it was just approved with the residential zoning, and that predates 2019, I imagine.

Correct.

Okay.

Um understood, I think.

So uh so yeah.

Marty, why don't you chime in?

Do you remember this one from from way back?

The irony is yes, I do.

But sadly, I don't remember which way I voted.

Um but what I do recall is that uh there was a lot of discussion.

Uh neighbors to the South were involved in that as well.

Uh there was public opinion, and and I honestly don't remember if it was objection or not, but there was public a lot of public opinion from the neighbors to the south.

Um as I recall, the same map that they brought up that showed no uh connectivity in that area uh may have been one of the compelling reasons why it was approved at the time.

Uh but that's the best I can give you at the moment.

Thank you.

Um right, and and so I mean I'm looking at um I guess there's a is there more questions first before I questions or comments from other commissioners.

Is this gonna be prior to vote or are we gonna have another opportunity?

I would think this would be prior to vote.

So I mean I get it your questions and comments out now, and then we can go to a motion.

Perfect.

Um I agree with staff.

I don't see that this meets code.

I won't be supporting it.

If if I could just make uh a couple additional comments that I didn't make during my presentation, um the I I think it's pertinent that the commission knows uh about you know, regarding the process of an eligible facility request.

Um again, these are administratively handled.

Um as far as the heightening of a tower, it's my understanding that you know you the that that uh facilities can do at least one or at most one eligible facility request to increase the height of a tower.

I'm not exactly 100% certain on all the uh specifics around that federal regulation.

Um, but you know, the uh uh approval today would still allow for a later eligible facility request.

Um so I I think that is fairly important to take into consideration.

Um additionally, you know, as for the previous approval it happened and we're here now.

We have the code in front of us and we have the proposal in front of us, so I think it's important to just kind of stay in line with you know what's being proposed today.

Um then uh the CU for the apartments expires next year.

I don't know what the intentions are for building that.

There was no uh schedule for development on the development plan cover sheet for that project.

Uh so I I'm not certain as to what the uh the owner of the property intends on doing and and speaking to the uh about the owner of the property.

Public notice only goes out to owners, as I'm sure you all know at this point.

Um so leasees or LLCs do not get notified uh of development projects, property owners do.

Um the property owner is involved with the development of the apartments as well as involved with the lease for the grounds of this tower.

So conflictions there probably should have been brought forward by the owner to his leasee um or to his uh whoever he's working with on the apartments.

Um so I just thought I'd mention those few things.

You did bring up one point which I believe was discussed during that meeting, and I believe a couple more since it, and that's the federal law.

Uh and I think that was uh front and center, if I recall during that meeting and a couple cents, which may have also influenced how that vote went.

Uh wasn't brought up today.

So we're the way I see it, we're looking at what's been presented before us today.

So thank you.

Commissioner Cecilia, uh I concur pretty strongly with Mr.

Fox's and the staff's assessment regarding this not being compatible with the height or density, it clearly exceeds what's permissible within our code, and I will be um opposing an increase in height.

I'd also like to thank some of the residents.

Uh Ms.

Plateer, um also uh Stella Lawrence, who submitted some really thoughtful comments with a great deal of research behind them regarding how this doesn't fit in with what's already in the area.

Do you have any comments?

Um I concur with um uh Commissioner Rickett and commiss Commissioner Cecil's comments.

Um it just doesn't fit the area.

Um while better cell service would be great, it again doesn't fit what is there and and within that purview of our vote.

I have a couple of questions, if I can get questions before we do more comments.

Please.

Okay.

So for the um so for the applicant, you talked about the straw, um, if something were to happen to the extension from the 50 feet to the 80 feet, and that that would kind of fall over.

But I think we're kind of going back a little bit and looking at this original structure that's existing.

So what happens if um, regardless if there's a 50 30 foot extension on it or not, what happens to and I feel like that's part of the question and concern that I'm hearing is that we're not quite within the fall zone, or we're not uh we're too close in the fall zone of the existing tower, let alone the addition.

So can you talk a little bit about that?

Sure.

The the existing tower um is designed for the wind speed in that area, ice and wind in that area, but there was no fall zone built into that 50-foot zone.

So any extension would have that fall zone built into it.

It was not a requirement at that time, nor did we do it at that time.

Um if there is something catastrophic and we say we approve this and it's 85 feet with the the branches, and that part kind of falls to the side, and then the whole thing falls, is it gonna hit Miss Pellateer's house?

Uh certainly not.

It would have to jump and skip across the the creek bed to actually get there.

But um even with that, again, the top part bends on itself.

And even after all of that, the base itself is reinforced as part of this process.

It's not simply that we add a top with a weak point.

That base is reinforced, the foundation is reinforced.

The tower, when we started this facility of building it, we actually did design it to be extendable.

Okay.

So it does already have that capability.

The foundation has been designed for that, the flange on top has been designed right now, and that's then reinforced and added through this.

Through this.

Okay.

I mean, I think right, the challenge that we're facing uh is the what's the best for public good.

And part of that is connectivity, and part of that is safety within their existing homes and aesthetic.

Um and I think I would be far less inclined to improve this if it was brand new and going 85 feet, but I can see where it's a logical extension.

But I am struggling with the fact that the apartments are um we've talked a lot about the apartments, but we don't know that they're actually gonna happen.

So I don't know if you have any additional information on that time line.

It is our understanding that um they are moving forward.

I think the interest rates over the last couple of years have been uh maybe the factor in why they're not built today.

Um but I I do want to also just address going back to the administrative approval that is possible under this.

Unfortunately, from what it sounds like if we are going to be denied, we're still gonna be adding a 20-foot extension to it.

We're allowed to do that under federal code, and it's administrative, it will not come back in front of this board and it will not have the conditions that we're willing to place on that with the fall zone or anything else.

This is something and the reason why, rather than simply just go that route and put the 20-foot extension through an administrative process was that we had the additional carrier.

We don't want, I don't think anybody else wants another tower for ATT being placed somewhere near there.

So this is again an accommodation.

Unfortunately, that tower is going to be extended one way or the other.

We're hoping to do this through the process, but unfortunately, if it comes down to it, we're still going to be adding the 20 feet to it.

Sure.

I think that's really important to hear.

And I appreciate that.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Question for Drew.

So we've talked about the setback distances and my understanding setback distances are twofold.

One is the fall thing that we talked about, but the other part has to do with RF radiation exposure from cell towers.

Is that part of the city code?

Does um I mean is um is that factored into the setbacks that are required?

Do you know the basis for the setbacks?

I guess I'm asking.

No, the city code doesn't elaborate on the purpose for those setback requirements.

Um I know is that five times the distance is the greater of the three, and that's the applicable setback requirement.

I'm sure that if you read into the the federal regulations around those uh that separation requirements, um you would you would get more details like that.

But um I would think that fall had something to do with it.

Uh I don't know why else they would, you know, that would be uh uh a requirement.

Okay, thanks.

Unlike some of my commissioners, I do have uh mixed emotions about this project.

Uh one, it's you know, we're we are to go with the rules and I the staff uh I appreciate what you guys have done with this as well.

On the other hand, um I see as it is a um a safety issue in a lot of regards.

Um when there is no um communication ability, um it's irritating as heck to everybody.

The problem I see though is the effect ability for communicating interferes with someone's safety, medical help, uh emergency help in any way, shape, or form, and they're not able to access that.

Um I think that's a real challenge.

And sometimes I wonder if you know the rules that we all set uh and are working hard to go by uh sometimes are not applicable or need to be changed, need to be reviewed again.

So I just want to say I'm uh kind of on the fence on this one.

Um I can see the need and the reason to have the extension, and I can also understand um the people here that would like to have uh a little more protection for the value of their properties as well.

So I'm not quite sure which way I want to go on this one just yet until you guys can come up with uh a good answer other than you're gonna move forward one way, shape, or form.

Um that part I didn't like.

Anyway, thank you.

Okay.

Well, I guess I have a couple of comments before we wrap up.

Um, you know, in in light of the 19 approval, uh, you know, most of us weren't a part of that.

It was, you know, approved um to aid communications.

You know, as we look at the communications map and coverage map, um, you know, we we see colors and we see towers, and what I see is buildings that you know don't surround this 360.

So accurate representation that everything that was worked uh to add coverage from 2019 that will be removed.

I just I um can't agree with that logic train, right?

Two is that these proposed apartments have one more year before uh their conditional use expire.

So we don't know if they will or will not get built.

We don't know that an equal height will eliminate all coverage that you already currently have.

Um whether it's your purview under federal law to build above.

I mean, that's federal law that supersedes Colorado Springs Planning Commission jurisdiction.

Um but I do see it as a problem with adjacencies to residential neighborhoods, and I'm gonna have to follow the code on this.

So it seems like there's no more comments from the diaspora opening up to uh motion.

I'll make a motion to deny the conditional use based upon the findings so that the request complies with the criteria set forth in city unified development code section 7.5.601.

If I could just make one comment on it, there's a typo in there, it should say does not comply.

Does not, I agree.

So does not comply.

So it should say deny the conditional use based upon a find that the request does not comply with the criteria set forth in city unified development code section 7.5.601.

It does uh correctly represent that in the motions on Legislatar, so it will be recorded correctly.

Commissioner Casey seconds.

That motion passes seven to two.

I will read the appeal instructions in accordance with requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code.

An affected party may appeal to the city council.

Any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adversed to that party.

The notice of appeal and 176 fee shall be filed with city clerk no later than 10 days after the action from which the appeal is taken.

That is Monday, August 25th.

The appeal letter should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the City Planning Commission, and City Council may elect to limit discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matter set forth in the appeal letter.

Thank you.

On to item 10A.

Can you read that into the record, please?

CPC 2721, appointment of planning commission chair, and CPC 2722, appointment of planning commission vice chair.

Thank you.

Um appointment of chair.

There was a little bit of discussion about this in our informal meeting.

Um, but I would like to propose nomination of Commissioner Ken Casey as the chair of the planning commission.

I'll second that.

I I I just propose.

I don't I don't think I can make a motion on Robert Rolls here.

That sounds like a motion.

Uh would would there like to be any discussion or a motion on that matter?

Let's do a motion.

Do it out.

I uh propose a motion to appoint uh Ken Casey as the chair of the planning commission.

I'll second that.

Please vote.

That motion passes unanimously.

Yes.

Uh item 10B, could that be read into the record?

Item 10 B, CPC 2722, appointment of planning commission, vice chair.

I um oh yeah.

I would like to propose a motion um to appoint Nadine Commissioner Nadine Hinsler as the vice chair of the planning commission.

I'll second that motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Hensler.

New chair and appreciate everybody's support.

Yeah, thanks.

New chairs will be effective for the September meeting.

And what else do I need to say on that matter?

You don't need to say anything, but I would like to say something.

First of all, thank you for your time as our chair, and appreciate that, as well as uh um also a thank you to Colby uh uh uh while he is um in absentia.

And also that is the those are the two items that constitute the annual meeting uh per our procedures.

And so I just wanted to make a note of that for the record that we did complete the uh annual meeting this year.

Well, look at us.

And maybe yeah.

Uh maybe in case this is Marty's last meeting, which we're not sure.

It could or could not be.

It may or may not be.

If it's your last meeting, thank you for everything.

I've learned so much sitting with you.

And if it's not, I'll thank you again next month.

But I appreciate that.

You absolutely have.

Thank you, Marty.

Okay.

Meeting adjourned,