Good morning.

Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for September 10th, 2025 is now called to order.

The planning commission is comprised of nine members appointed by city council to review various development applications and proposals.

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

Each commissioner acts independently and carefully assesses the information evidence presented to make their decision.

The city planning staff facilitate the process for applications, and this commission reviews a variety of those applications governed by city code.

Some applications require the planning commission to be the final decision authority, and for others, the planning commission is a recommendation body to the city council.

Throughout the each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully.

Understand that others may have different views from your own.

Disrespectful words or actions, speaking out of order when not recognized by the chair, and the use of profanity will not be tolerated.

For items presented on today's agenda.

Public comment will be taken after these presentations, starting with public comments in support of the application, followed by public comments in opposition of the application.

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Please keep comments brief and focus on the issues at hand.

Please respect other attendees' right to both listen and be heard.

Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period of 10 minutes to respond and address any comments.

At the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dais for commissioner consideration.

Please conduct a roll call.

Commissioner Hansler here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Commissioner Robins.

Commissioner Sipilovich.

Here.

Here.

Commissioner Jujano.

Commissioner Rikett?

Here.

Commissioner Clemens.

Here.

Thank you.

We have seven members present.

Thank you.

Do we have any changes to the agenda or postponements?

Okay.

If not, let's move on to communications.

For myself, uh interviews for prospective candidates for planning commissioners and alternates are taking place on 19 September and 24 September.

Mr.

Walker.

Uh that was my communication.

So you need to take that back.

I don't I don't have anything further.

Thank you.

All right, I'll take that as a second.

Okay, moving on to approval of the minutes.

Any discussion on the on the minutes before we uh and I would ask the commissioners if you would use the uh tablet both to request to speak as well as make motions and seconds if you would click on the buttons on that uh prior to uh speaking.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the August 13th planning commission meeting.

I a second that motion passes unanimously.

Okay, moving on to the consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar will be acted on upon as a whole without further public comment unless a specific item is called up for discussion.

Any items called up the consent calendar will be heard immediately after the rest of the consent calendar is decided upon.

Uh please read the items in the consent calendar.

Item 5A, C O N E-25-0013, Fallon Gardens, so map amendment.

Item 5B, C U D P 25-0020, Colorado Springs Conservatory.

Item 5C ANEX dash 24-0014, Woodman Road edition number three, annexation.

Are there any commissioners that wish to uh pull anything off the consent calendar?

Is there any member of the audience that would like to pull an item off the consent calendar?

And can you check online to see if there's anybody there?

If there's anyone online that would like to pull any of the items of the consent calendar, please hit star six to unmute yourselves now.

There's no one online.

And is there anybody member of staff who wants to pull anything off the consent calendar?

Okay, with that, let's move on to new business.

Please read the first item into hold on.

We need to approve the consent calculus.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar is read into the record.

I'll second.

That motion passes unanimously.

All right, now we can move on to new business.

Can you read the first item into the uh record?

Thank you.

Item 8A, C U DP-25-0023.

A conditional use minor modification to remove a condition relating to frontier setbacks of approval from the approved conditional use, allowing single family detached residential in mixed use medium scale with airport overlay zone district consisting of 7.62 acres northwest of the future intersection of South Chelton and Hancock Expressway.

Your presenter east, Allison Stalker.

I had a feeling something was wrong.

Good morning.

Um Alison Stalker, senior planner with the land use review division.

So this morning we're gonna kick off with the Dakota Crossing Project, which is a minor amendment to an existing conditional use.

So this project is located northwest of the future intersection of Chelton Road and Hancock Expressway.

It is 7.62 acres of vacant land.

The current conditional use does allow for single family detached units, which is a conditional use in the mixed use medium zone district.

This approval did come with a condition of approval for the requirement of having all internal lots meet the R Flex medium uh dimensional standards.

So today's request is to remove that condition of approval from the prior um conditional use approval so that the project does not have to utilize those R Flex medium dimensional standards for the future um development plan.

So the image you'll see here on the screen, uh those highlighted parcels are the ones that we'll mostly be talking about today.

So a little uh reminder for folks who were on council uh commission before and uh up bring everyone up to speed for those of commissioners who are new.

Uh CUDP-24-20 was approved in December of 2024, and this is the original approval that allowed single family detached in the MXM.

This is also the same approval that established the condition of approval requiring the RFLE standards be applied to the internal law configuration.

At the time this was requested so that we could understand a little bit better how the internal law configuration was going to look, because staff knew at the time that the MXM setbacks would apply to the periphery of the site, but we didn't really have a good understanding of how the internal lots would look, you know, what the setbacks would be to each of those lots, um, and how these properties would be sized, things like that.

It was the suggestion of staff to use the RFlex medium because at the time it did appear to meet kind of the intent of the project.

It meant the intended density, and it met kind of the product type that was expected at the time.

Um since that time, the applicant did agree that that was um going to work for their product, and that condition was approved by city planning commission.

So bringing us to today, the development plan and plat have been in review by city planning for a number of months now, and they're basically nearly ready to be um approved, subject to today to today's approval.

Um the plan is still to have the MXM setbacks apply to the periphery, but that remove the R flex um from the internal lots so that way we can get around an issue with the front yard setbacks.

Um, all of the units that are shown in the development plan are garage fronting units.

So the garages are all facing the front yard facing the street, which does require a 20-foot front yard setback.

28 out of the 69 lots on the development plan do not meet that 20-foot requirement.

So today, the kind of the solution we've come to as an option to move this project forward is to remove that condition of approval with the understanding that the development plan and the plat are already found to meet all of the other application criteria.

They're meeting all of the other required code requirements from all of our different review agencies, and the fact that the RFLE was kind of an additional standard placed on the project, mostly with the intention of understanding what the site would look like for the sake of the original conditional use.

Now that we have reviewed the development plan, we know what the site is going to look like, and we already know that everything meets otherwise.

One issue that we are working to mitigate is parking in the driveways that would be less than 20 feet.

So those 28 lots would not be permitted to park in their driveways.

But they do both have garage units, so they have options for parking on in within their lot, just not in the driveway.

And there is an excess of uh communal parking already planned for in the development plan.

This application only needed the one review, because as I mentioned, the development plan and plat were already pretty far along at this point, so we all had a good idea of whether or not this was a good idea and would meet criteria.

Um stakeholder involvement.

Since writing this presentation, I did receive one comment, which should have been forward on to city planning commission, and that one comment pertained to design concerns related to denser development within single family detached communities.

Um our agency reviewers did not have any comments or concerns regarding the conditional use.

And because today's application is modification to an already approved application.

Um, we were actually looking at a different section of code, which is um for modifications of approved applications.

So the criteria here is not the usual conditional use criteria, um, but we do find that the application meets the criteria for modifications of approved applications.

And attached here, we've got our optional motions, and I can take any further questions.

I have a quick question on terminology.

So normally a decrease in building setbacks, a major modification, but you're calling this a minor modification.

Can you explain?

Apologies, my coffee is not set in yet today.

Uh, the reason we went with minor in this case was because the conditional use does not have those dimensional standards attached to those approvals.

So the approval that is being modified does not have those kind of major or minor that relate usually to the development plan.

So if this were a development plan, we would consider it a major modification, but because this is being reviewed under the conditional more under the conditional use uh criteria, it's a little bit different.

Okay, minor modifications are usually approved by the manager, though, are they not?

Um, in this case, um, we would have to have um commission approve or deny this because the original condition of approval was decided upon by this body.

Um, if it were um a different component of the conditional use that was not specifically decided on by the commission, there might be avenues for the manager to make a decision, but in this case, it was appropriate for this to be brought back to this body.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the dice?

Uh yeah, I've got one.

My apologies for not using the request to speak.

Um I just want to make sure the DP though is continuing under administrative approval.

So if this is approved by the body today, then that'll proceed as an administrative approval.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yes.

If today's decision goes through, there'd be one small minor little note change on the development plan, and both of those applications would be approved.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Planning Commission, Andrea Barlow, principal with NES representing the applicant.

I do have a presentation.

Wait for that to come up.

Okay.

I'm going to be providing a little bit more information for you and clarifying a few things.

So I think you're familiar with the site location.

Surrounding land uses, this is all information presented with the original conditional use.

We're not actually asking for a change of any of the uses and the surrounding zoning.

Getting to the heart of the matter, Ms.

Stocker did provide information on the site history.

So it was approved with as a conditional use with the condition of approval to utilize the R Flex medium development standards.

That was primarily to consider the uh building setbacks because the building setbacks, as was noted, because we were applying common development was going to the edge of the entire property.

So they wanted a surety that we would be meeting the setbacks of the building setbacks of the R Flex medium zone, which we do, and I'll go on to explain that.

We submitted the development plan.

I want to emphasize as we went through three rounds of review.

Every agency comment had been addressed when this one particular issue was brought up regarding the garage setback.

And I want to emphasize it is a garage setback, it is not a building setback that we're asking what that became the issue.

So we are meeting all the building setbacks.

I think that was uh the misrepresented or misrepresented in Miss Stocker's uh presentation and probably led to your question about building setbacks being a major modification.

Um and so now we're asking for that um original um condition of approval to be removed because of that garage setback issue, and I'll explain a little bit more.

So this is our development plan, and we've highlighted certain things just to provide some clarity.

There are 41 lots around the perimeter of this um proposed development, which all include a full-length 20-foot driveway that is intended to accommodate parking as a standard driveway would do.

28 lots are effectively with no driveway.

We call them an apron.

They are never intended to be a driveway, they are not intended for parking.

They're an apron at the front of the drive of the garage that is just intended to give enough distance so people can pull out of their garage safety with enough visibility.

They are common throughout the city.

Um in town home developments, in single family developments on smaller lot.

This is not an unusual concept.

Um we are also providing 24 guest parking spaces in the area in the center where the um uh aprons are provided, and there's no parking on driveways, so they have guest parking and it exceeds the guest parking that's required uh by code.

And then just to provide some indication of where the sidewalks are within the site, there are no sidewalks that are along the part of the street that fronts these drive um these garages with the aprons.

So there's gonna be no pedestrian conflict there.

And I'm just gonna highlight some of these points in a little bit more detail.

So these are the kind of um standard footprints of the buildings.

The green is the area that is provided for the full-length driveway so people can park on that.

And the seven and a half foot aprons are there simply to allow that pulling out distance.

They're usually between five and eight feet, and um they allow for, like I say, that visibility so people could have enough sight line when they're pulling out of our garages to see what's coming in both directions.

So um, as I noted that the conditional use minor modification we are asking for is primarily to remove the condition of approval that applies the RFEX standard because of this 20-foot garage setback.

Now you may ask why did we say okay to that uh condition in the first place?

Because I would say we were very much focused on it being part of the uh the reason for it being the building setbacks, which we meet, we meet all the other standards of the RFLE zone.

So the built the front building setback for the RFLEM zone is 10 feet.

So we can put the building to 10 feet from the front of the lot, but per this standard, depending on how you apply it, it would mean you have to put the garage 20 feet back.

To me, this standard makes no sense at all, period.

And the way we interpreted it is the way it's kind of set out in the rest of the code, which is if you're using a driveway for parking, it needs to be 20 feet.

Other parts of the code say you can go down to less than 12 feet with a driveway.

It used to be eight feet for that apron.

It got pushed to 12 feet because of CSU requirements for distances from the water stop.

I forgot what it's called, the curb stop.

That's it, um, for the water.

Um, but that's why it got pushed back to 12 feet.

So it is allowed per code to have these shorter driveways.

Um we are not um uh allowing parking on there.

There will be specific provisions for that, which I'll talk about.

And as I noted earlier, we are providing excess guest parking.

14 spaces are required.

We're providing 24.

So I think a question came up at informal planning commission about why why wouldn't we redesign?

We've worked through three renditions of this plan and uh to get to a point where it was ready to approve, and this issue was raised.

Uh to redesign it at this point would uh reduce reduce significantly the lots in that center portion, and it would make the project unviable.

It just it just is it's barely viable as it is, and it would make it unviable to kind of take that down significantly, which adding those full driveways would require.

And it's compatible.

The the design is compatible with the neighborhood.

It's very internalized development.

You're not driving through this um uh development to get anywhere else.

You come in and you go out.

Only people living here are going to be um experiencing that driveway scenario.

So it's it's not like it's having ramifications elsewhere in the neighborhood, and we are providing uh the required parking.

And compact lots of this nature are really important to meet a market demand for more affordable housing, entry-level housing, they're getting tighter and tighter.

And if we were provide if we were proposing this same layout, but the product were attached instead of detached, we wouldn't even be here in front of you, even for a conditional use.

So that's how kind of unrealistic um this standard is, in my opinion.

And we are we also note that um here that there are many other communities in the city that have this front loaded um apron situation.

There are there are many, many more townhome scenarios where it's a rear-loaded alley with an apron.

So it's not an unusual um scenario.

Like I say, if we were attached product, we wouldn't be here.

And in my mind, it takes all the flex out of the RFLEX zones.

It's going to push this product to be a PDZ every time, which is exactly what the RFLE zones was trying to was trying to avoid.

Visibility concerns, I think I've already addressed that.

The 7.5 apron is is well within the kind of general standard of 5 to 8, um, which provides sufficient visibility as you're pulling out of driveways, and the parking, um, I just want to emphasize that the roads will be marked on both sides as fire lanes, so there's no parking allowed.

That's enforceable by um the city.

Uh, in addition, the community will have an HOA which will uh control parking.

And this particular developer has in other similar developments posted signs saying parking violations will be enforced.

So um there is no tolerance for um trying to park on your driveway and hanging out into the road or or whatever, so that will be enforced, and again, excess parking is provided to allow people to have somewhere to park.

And I just wanted to go back briefly through these are the review criteria for conditional use, and really we're not changing anything from the original conditional use criteria evaluation.

If we had originally come forward without that condition of approval to apply the R flex medium, you would be considering the same uh um issues, and uh there wouldn't be any change to those considerations with this removal of that condition, if that makes sense.

And happy to answer any questions.

I don't see anybody having any questions at this time.

No, I'm sorry, Jen.

Hi, yes.

Um, you mentioned that you were that the plan is to have the developer enforce the no parking in this apron area.

Um that Farlane, you would rely on the city to enforce.

Will the HOA be having contracts with towing companies or anything?

Um that I don't know.

I'd have to to yes, I'm getting a nod on that, yes.

Um you also mentioned that this was entry-level affordable type housing.

What sort of AMI would it be affordable to?

Oh, I'm not sure on the actual AMI, but it's going to be um probably in the low 400s, which is unfortunately in today's climate in Colorado Springs is entry level.

Um in an area where the um average house price in a city where the average house price is around 600,000 now.

So I I'm not sure exactly what AMI that that is targeting because it's not a it's not a subsidized uh product, it is a market rate product, but it's it is aimed to um provide a single family detached home, which is what a lot of people actually would prefer as opposed to an attached town home and at a an affordable price point.

Knowing that a lot of the folks that are interested in entering the market in Colorado Springs are very outdoorsy, um, could you explain how the development has reached the conclusion not to have a not to have sidewalks?

So there are sidewalks throughout the development as as is noted on the plan.

It's just that there are stretch at the stretches of the road that are in front of the garages that don't have the full driveway, don't have sidewalk to avoid those conflicts.

But the dashed line that is shown on the plan here, it shows all the sidewalks through the community.

So they go through the open space and around the edge of the road where there are full-length driveways.

So there are sidewalks throughout.

It's just in those on those stretches in front of the yellow units, um, that yellow highlighted units, that there is no sidewalk.

And we are providing sidewalk along uh Chelton Road, um, which doesn't exist today.

We are installing sidewalk there.

So I just want to clarify.

I'm not saying there's no sidewalk at all in the development.

It's just in front of the units uh that have that are highlighted yellow, there is no sidewalk.

So you're not pulling out of your driveway, your garage and immediately confronting a sidewalk.

And are the given that are the units going to be accessible for folks who have issues walking or in wheelchairs then?

I don't think there's any specific accessibility requirements um for this size of development that usually triggers when you get above, I believe it's 80 units that the a certain proportion are required to be ADA accessible.

But I I'm sure if there's somebody who has those specific requirements, they can be accommodated.

The grade on this site is not significant, so there are uh the sidewalks all have to be um uh ADA compliant in that regard.

Thank you.

Um I I just want to say I believe that I was the one that pulled this.

Um, and I really appreciate the presentation because I think it helps greatly compared to what was in the staff report that just talked about setback, and I think explaining and um talking about the apron, and I can envision those types of homes, and I that has made a huge difference in my understanding, and I don't think that was clear as much as I needed um to keep it on consent, but I appreciate all of this and um will be supportive of the project.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Robinson.

I just have a concern.

I don't know if you uh if the developer has a plan B for a design, but it seems like trying to cram a lot of product into the area, hence the idea of getting away from R Flex and not having garages.

And uh if these are supposed to be uh more affordable homes, why is there an HOA when that counts against the mortgage that a buyer is trying to uh gain to to own a home?

I think that works against him.

So I'm kind of concerned about that, and you know, the lack of sidewalks was an issue as well.

So I don't know, but is there another option?

Maybe fewer units, but at this point, there is not another option for a viable project.

Um this has gone through multiple iterations.

It is a density that is consistent with the surrounding area.

There are single family of lower density to the uh north and west, but there are much higher proposed and existing multifamily developments surrounding this property.

So this is a good transitional use, bearing in mind that this project is on a site that is zoned MXM, previously PBC.

And this was a use that we felt was um more consistent with this adjacent neighborhood than either of those uses, and is less dense than those use would be would generate much less traffic than either those options.

And it is uh a project that um is is higher density for a single family residential, but that's what the market is dictating because of the need to keep products small and and to get the smaller product in there and the tighter lots to make them more affordable.

The density is also a key component.

And in terms of the HOA, that is necessary for this type of development with lots of common areas, they are private streets, so they have to be maintained by an entity.

Um and the HOA is the usual vehicle for that, including maintenance of the detention pond and so on.

So there is an ongoing maintenance uh obligation for this type of development.

Um, and that's why HOA is unneeded.

And even though the HOA fees um do add to costs, they are a cost that most people buying a property are welcome to accept because of the long-term maintenance and enforcement of standards and covenants, et cetera, that uh an HO HOA brings with it, so it brings value as well.

I still find that to be quite an issue with the HOA and someone qualifying, because I that's what I work with all day long.

And um, I still think that there's too much being crammed into the small area.

So we're fond of this whole project.

Well, it's it's the project itself is very um, it's it's no different to what was presented with the original conditional use.

I um I just want to make a general comment to my fellow commissioners that we've got several issues today that we really need to focus on what the issue is.

And while we may have comments on HOAs and density and so forth, this is not a development plan, this is a conditional use for the driveways setbacks only.

So I understand that might be important for us to understand, but we have to stay focused on this issue and some of the future ones of what is the question before us.

And the question before us is not the development plan or the density, it is in fact just the setback for the garages.

So I'm just gonna say that as a general statement and remind us what we're here for today and what we're not here for.

We did approve this development as MXM in the past.

I still don't um see why the HOA mic on.

Yeah, there it is.

Yeah, and I understand that, but we have to focus on what is the criteria that we're being asked to consider.

That's not it.

I'm putting in my two cents because I still don't think that's very good.

I deal with HOA people, people are really don't want an HOA if they're trying to obtain something.

So if you're gonna build a project uh that's supposed to be affordable, um yeah that takes that issue away.

Thank you.

Yeah, just uh sure Casey.

Uh my only comment on that uh I didn't understand uh Commissioner Hensler's uh comment, but uh you know you have common areas that have to be maintained.

Your choices are either a metro district, which is probably not an option for the smaller community, or it's an HOA to maintain the common areas.

So I think that's just the cost of living in the community.

If you want the amenities in the community, then you have to be able to be your fair share of that.

And I speak as a umember of a HOA board.

Thanks.

Okay, if there's no further questions from the dias, uh move on to public comment.

Uh, is there anybody signed up in support to speak in support?

Is there anybody online?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this item, please uh press star six to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online for support.

If there's somebody online to speak in opposition of this item, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

Please introduce yourself and you would have three minutes to speak.

Hello, this is Marie Eaton, and I live in the neighborhood where this project is being built.

And I just want to comment that I see communities where the driveway are too close to the street.

And when you're talking about a development where you're allowing parking for only the people who live there, you're reducing the quality of life for those people.

If they want to have company, what is the company park?

If they want to have um a uh gathering for thanksgiving, where do people park when you're reducing the parking um availability by reducing the the um width of the street and not allowing parking on the street, and only people can park in their garages?

You're reducing the quality of light for the people who choose to live there.

And um having no sidewalk also reduces the quality of light.

And um having no sidewalk also reduces the quality of life or kids riding bikes and scooters and people pushing shoulders, reducing sidewalk, uh not allowing sidewalk is unacceptable and continue to um approve type of building project, just reduces the quality of life for residents of Colorado Springs.

And that's unacceptable to me.

And that's a prime piece of real estate where a lot of community members are driving by there on a regular basis.

I have gone into community for Facebook Marketplace pickup, and there's no place to put my car to even do a pickup for Facebook marketplace, which takes like one minute.

And that's unacceptable.

And I don't know why Colorado Springs keep approving these projects for the developers to get more money and not improve the quality of life for anybody in the community.

So that's what I have to say about this, and the fact that the sign for this meeting was hidden in the weed.

Yes, I sent an email on this.

Today, the sign was hidden in the weed.

Most likely keep people from having comments on that.

I happened to up on it just a couple days ago.

Why was the side posted in the weed you have that whole lot to pay post the sign where it wouldn't be hidden in the weed?

For the speaker online.

I hope you don't approve this.

Ma'am, would you mind repeating your name for the record?

Larine Keaton.

Thank you.

Is there any anybody here to speak in opposition to this?

Nobody signed up.

There's nobody else in line.

Okay.

Um back up to the diason or any questions.

I don't see Marty.

Go ahead.

Um, I've got a couple questions.

One for staff, actually, maybe a couple for staff.

Um, I just want to confirm you said that you guys had looked at this and recommended that they move forward with MXM.

Is that correct?

MXM is the current zone district, so that has not changed throughout the length of this project.

But did you know at that point that they were gonna need that 10 foot setback?

Um, when the project was originally um came before planning commission, and we recommended establishing some kind of dimensional standards for the sake of our understanding of what the project would look like in approving the original conditional use.

Um, we did not know that the conflict with the 20-foot garage setback was going to be an issue.

Um staff recommended the R flux medium because we thought that would be appropriate based on what the applicant had told us the project would look like.

They agreed, and that's kind of how we ended up here.

Okay.

Um they and uh just for everybody's knowledge, at that point they could have gone with uh, let's see, that was 24, so that could have been a PDZ, and they would have been able to set their own setbacks based on their code within that little development.

They could have requested a PDZ rezone.

Um depending on how what the project would have looked like.

Um staff may or may not have been able to support a PDZ because PDZs under the UDC are only permitted when you have no other alternative for development.

Um so if they were able to use a different RFlex or a different hard zone, the PDZ may not have been an option.

Um these are all just different circumstances that weren't really worked through.

Um for me, I I get that 10 foot, 20 foot split.

It's interesting.

I I kind of agree.

I'm I'm not quite sure why why that's in there.

Um maybe something to look at in a future code revision.

Uh this continues to be an issue with the new housing, you know, market.

Uh we see a lot of these types of neighborhoods in Colorado Springs now.

500 square foot duplexes, things like that, no garages.

In this case, there's a garage.

Um they're not, I don't see them truly as affordable because they're running up in the you know, three, four or five hundred dollars a square foot.

Um, but that may be what it takes for an entry-level uh house, unfortunately, in the community.

I will be in support of this.

I don't see that there's any adverse issues to the surrounding area.

I appreciate the uh person that called in and gave comment.

I think there's enough sidewalk in this case um that it'll be fine for that neighborhood, so I'll be in support.

I don't see any further questions.

So we have if there's no further questions, does someone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use minor modification based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code section 7.5.516 point D point two.

I second this motion.

I'm being ignored.

Hello.

Ma'am, you've already had your time on the public comment.

Um the public comment is now closed.

I think I agree that I reclaim my time.

This is Chair Casey.

Now we moved on to voting.

Okay.

So I'm in the community, and so I am being ignored.

I live there.

I live in that area.

I live right across the street from that.

It seemed like I would have a more day than somebody sitting on the board that never goes down into that community.

Okay, we already had a public comment period, and you could have participated in at that time.

We've moved on to a motion, and now we're in the voting process.

But we thank you and we appreciate your uh your input.

This is in person.

The motion passes five to two.

Uh Chair Casey, for the record.

Um, I did want to state that my opposition to or my vote against this um is based on the fact that in my understanding of the code and interpretation.

I don't understand how we've gotten out of the requirements set forth in section 7.4.403 requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street.

I also um believe that the stated condition, this of record that was on the original conditional use that will no longer be in compliance with that, although I understand other commissioners feel that may be the intent.

Um for me, I feel like it is a deviation.

So for the record, that is the reason for my objection.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robbins, do you want to state your reason for objection as well for the record?

Yes.

Um I guess it comes back to the fact that I'm I'm not real fond of the idea of a very short apron for these garage scenarios.

And uh I think that is detrimental.

And again, I know it doesn't apply to the code, but we're trying to remain affordable.

Uh, I think there should be uh another option.

Uh take a look at the way of uh read structuring this whole project.

Um obviously a few less units if you have to, just to be able to get uh everything back to where I think you should have a full uh garage with a full driveway for your parking.

So that's where I'm at.

All right, thank you.

As the motion has passed, I'll go ahead and 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 zoning code where the action was adverse to that party within 10 days from final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, September 22, 2025.

The appellant must file notice of appeal and the hundred and seventy-six dollar fee with the city clerk.

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 specific matters set forth in the letter.

Uh commissioners want to take a short break before we move on to the next item.

Yeah, let's go ahead and take uh 10 minutes.

Administrative comment regarding the um if you signed in on the sign in roster and you do not want to speak.

If you would please let uh salon know if you raise your hand.

Let her know if you if you signed in but don't want to speak, please let her know.

Thank you.

Can we re uh read item 8B into the record item 8B Z O N E-24-0012, a zoning map amendment rezon consisting of 7.73 acres located northeast of Voyager Parkway and Spring Crest Road from agriculture with United State Air Force Academy Overlay to mixed use medium scale with United State Air Force Academy Overlay.

Oh, sorry, and item 8 C L UPL-24-0012.

Establishment of the Briar Gate Church Assembly of God land use plan for residential, commercial, and public institutional uses, consisting of 7.73 acres located northeast of Voyager Parkway and Spring Crest Road.

Your presenter is Austin Cooper.

Thank you.

Oh, hold on for a second.

Of course.

Hi.

I'm going to I need to reacuse myself because I am familiar with the owner of this project.

So I'm gonna have to step out while you guys have fun.

We'll do.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

My name is Austin Cooper, uh senior planner with the city planning department.

Uh today we'll be talking about the Briargate Church Assembly of God rezoning and land use plan applications.

Um this site, uh as previously mentioned is uh northeast of Springcrest and Voyager Parkway, uh also west of Otero Avenue.

The current zoning for the site is agriculture with uh USAFA Overlay, and the proposed zone is MXM or mixed use medium scale with the USAFA Overlay retained.

Um site acre at site area is 7.73 acres, and the proposed land use is uh residential slash commercial.

Uh I'll just give you some context to the site area.

So to the north we have um some county residential, some 2.5 minimum lot size uh uh parcels as well as uh five-acre minimum lot size uh parcels, and to the west we have B USAFA property.

Uh I believe that is the National Guard Readiness Center.

Uh to the south, we have undeveloped business park zoning zone property as well as the uh TCA central campus uh school, and to the east is another church.

Um so uh the MXM zone district facilitates most commercial and residential uses.

There is no specified end user being proposed at this point for the for the site.

Um as you can see on your screen, uh they're proposing three separate lots in addition to the existing church lot that is proposed to be expanded in a future development plan.

Um the three lots are around 1.2 acres, 1.3 acres.

Um they are proposing that they restrict the following uses from that MXM zone district, uh uses under the category of marijuana related services, uh uses under the category of industrial hemp uses, uh, adult entertainment, uh, hookah bar and detoxification center.

Time line of review, the initial submittal date for this application was June 18th, 2024.

Uh the land use plan has gone through six review cycles and the zoning map amendment application has gone through C three review cycles, and the uh item was ready for agenda on August 18th of 2025.

So we've had three opportunities for public notice up to this point.

Uh once during the next initial submittal, once during or prior to the neighborhood meeting, and then again prior to the planning commission hearing.

Um the postcard mail-in radius was a thousand feet standard for all projects.

Uh number of postcards mailed was 57 postcards.

Uh, the number of comments received uh prior to planning commission was 56.

Uh we received six more that I emailed over to you earlier this week, and additional uh one comment that's uh before you that we received last night.

Uh the concerns were centered around the intensity of the potential future development, the allowable uses within the MXM zone district, uh, traffic and safety concerns.

Um you'll be hearing more about this during our public comment period.

Similar concerns are raised at the September 7th neighborhood meeting.

Uh and that was September 7th, 2024, uh, which had about 70 attendees.

It was held at the church.

So this application was reviewed by uh all of our standard review agencies.

Traffic engineering was uh a big proponent of this.

Uh traffic engineering ultimately accepted the traffic impact study prepared by the applicant.

Um traffic engineering is here for is available for questions uh if you may have them.

Uh USAFA Overlay was another reviewer.

They reviewed the project and provided comments that will be addressed during the plating process.

Uh they have the plat under review currently, but it has not been approved.

Um school districts, another one.

Uh they are requesting fee in lieu of land dedication if there is any residential units proposed or or during the development plan process of this.

Staff feels that it could can comply with the unique places section, specifically strategy UP-4.c1 to support additional mixing and integration of land uses as zoning but use by right or administrative approval.

So here's the application review criteria.

And here's the second page of that zoning map amendment.

Statement of compliance, I'll get to on the on the next slide.

So land use plan review criteria there.

Both for the rezoning and the land use plan application.

Staff cannot confirm that the application meets the review criteria.

And I'll talk about that more on the next slide.

So staff felt that MXN might be a more appropriate use considering the county residential to the north and the business part to the south.

The purpose statement in the MXN talks about uh opportunities for a compact mix, um, low low intensity neighborhood serving commercial industrial and institution and maybe low-scale multifamily residential uses uh located generally at the edges or internal to a residential neighborhood at a street intersection with a collector and a arterial street, uh which this is um an example of with Voyager and Springcrest.

Whereas the MXM zone district is intended to can accommodate the development of new activity centers and emerging growth areas.

Um, and and we probably would consider that closer to the shops of Briar Gate, which is a little further south.

Uh there are your optional motions, uh, whether you would like to approve or deny, or add additional uh criteria as you see fit.

Uh and there's for the land use plan.

Um, and if you have any questions at this point, happy to answer them.

Uh if not, we can have the applicant come up for a presentation as well.

Oh, I believe Commissioner Hensler's um question.

Of course, yeah, for sure.

So if you go back two slides, you mentioned that mixed use neighborhood, but the application is for MXM.

Correct.

So can you tell me why we're seeing this and if this is a said, tell me about this?

Yeah, yeah, of course.

So the MXM was the proposed uh the use classification from the applicant.

Um staff had a comment early on in the application that they consider MXN because we felt that it was a better fit for the area.

Um the applicant chose to move forward with the MXM application, which is uh they're right.

And so um they they've decided to present the MXM application in front of you.

So that's good history and context of the process, but as it pertains to our decision making, we are only reviewing the MXM criteria today.

Correct.

I just want to be clear on that because now all of a sudden we see an MXN as a neighborhood that I hadn't seen before or have conversation about, I think.

So okay.

Uh yeah, I was just trying to kind of bring history to that comment.

Um, yeah.

Cool.

Thank you.

Chair Casey, the this is the same, I think, as uh last month, but we had one that uh we we thought might have been a different zoning, but it was you know, the city attorney took opined that it was, you know, we were only dealing with the application in hand.

Any other questions from the diocese before we move on to the applicant?

Thank you.

Uh my name is Keith Moore.

I'm with uh architect planner with KEM architecture and planning, and I'm here to represent the Vargate Church Assembly of God and their new zoning uh change application from AFO um to MX NAFO.

Um as Boston stated, uh we are looking to subdivide a 7.3 acre site.

Uh the church has determined that they don't need all of that property even for their expansion.

Uh we have done a master plan and done a uh development plan showing uh two potential uh improvements or expansions and the parking and everything fits.

So they wanted to sell off their property uh subdivided into four, they would keep approximately 3.9 acres.

And as Austin said, we would um sorry about that.

Um we would sell off proposed three acres uh up here, sorry.

Um as you can see on our plat that's been under review.

We have the uh large portion uh to the west that's church is on in our master plan.

Um right here that the existing church proposed phase one, proposed phase three of a future sanctuary, and the green area represents the three proposed lots that we would want to sell off.

Um you ask about the density and the MF MXN versus MXM.

Um explain a little bit of our philosophy behind that.

Uh a little chart here kind of shows you that.

I apologize, I don't know why it's pardon me, sir.

Your slideshow is on a video.

Do you want us to pause it?

Pause just let it go.

Okay, one moment.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Um so the thank you very much.

Um the comparison of the two MXN and the MXN zones.

Thank you.

Um I apologize.

I saved it as that.

Okay.

Um both uh allow residential use, both allow group living use, both allow civic land use, uh, public and institutional use with conditional uses in the MXN for daycare, public safety in schools.

And the residential, it um conditional use for multifamily manufactured homes and tiny homes.

Um they both prevent or they both allow office use.

The big change that we feel is what we think is current to our site is the retail sales is not allowed in the MXN zone, where it's allowed in the MXM zone.

So that was our main thrust to do the MXN versus the MXN to answer your question.

Um the setbacks on both are very similar.

Uh there is a minimum lot or minimum district size for an MXN zone, which we meet, and the setbacks on an MXN zone are more uh lenient uh and would allow for a much denser um development than the MXN zone because we have larger setbacks that we have to uh accommodate on that.

So um the traffic uh you'll hear a bunch of traffic from the neighborhoods was a big thing, and uh working with our traffic engineer and our consultant.

We have two um exhibits that were part of our TSI or TIS that would do uh improvements along Spring Crest as part of the future development plan some middles.

It's not a part or requirement of the um rezone, but it would be part of anything moving forward in the development plan.

So I do have our traffic uh engineer here if you have uh more questions for him uh in more detail and can answer that.

So thank you.

And take any questions.

Commissioner Hensler.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize my hand is still up.

Uh Commissioner Rickett.

Um, yeah, I'm just following trying to follow your logic.

So I want to make sure I understand it correctly.

So you had the opportunity for either MXN or MXM.

Right, and you went with the M because it's less restrictive and allows retail sales.

It's more restrictive in the setback requirements because we have larger setbacks, but it is less restrictive and it does allow retail sales.

There are numerous other uh nuances if you look through the code book.

That's why working with Boston, we would suggested that we would as part of the proposal of the MXN put a pro um a mandate on that site that there would be no hookah bars, um marijuana uses things like that.

So those are allowed in the MXN zone, but the church itself would not want those uses next to them either.

So okay, thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you.

I think we probably would like to hear from uh our traffic engineer before we go to public comment.

Okay.

Jeff, could you please our traffic engineer?

Okay.

You still have time in your presentation if you want.

We're gonna let our traffic engineer.

22 minutes.

So we'll see if he needs to rebuttal to anything that your traffic engineer needs to.

So we're good.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brisby.

There we go, green light.

I should know this by now, right?

Uh city uh Tut Frisby City Traffic Engineering with the public works uh public works department.

Uh the um uh traffic study as in the as traffic study was submitted, it was reviewed by traffic engineering.

Um, and we um uh accepted the study and its findings and um its analysis.

Um essentially the the findings of the study were no significant impacts to adjacent intersections and operations at um uh at uh nearby intersections.

They did recommend some improvements, uh longer left turn lane on um southbound left turn lane on Voyager, some striping changes to provide a left turn lane on Spring Crest uh for the access into the um uh into uh that church into the church property and some other striping changes.

Um I I can anticipate the one question that will probably be asked.

Well, there's a school uh on the south side of the of the um uh um uh south of the south of this development on the other side of Spring Crest is uh TCA, I think it's the K through six, I think.

Um and um uh like any school, I'll just sort of be pro you know proactive in my response here is that you might have questions about any school is queuing during the pickup and drop-offs.

Uh actually, this school, in our opinion, um, handles their pickup and drop-off better than most, they have a lot of on-site space to accommodate the queuing.

Um I did have staff go out there this week um and look at the site and watch queuing during the during the drop-off or during the pickup period.

Um, and he noticed there was some queuing on uh spring spring spring crest, uh, and it um uh by his watch, he it lasted for about eight minutes uh on that on that queuing on Spring Crest.

So um we we anticipate it'll get a little bit better because the first couple weeks every of every new school year is always a little little chaotic, and and then parents sort of figure it out.

School tweaks some things, so we we are in contact with their SRO and um and have offered some suggestions to maybe to sort of tighten up and reduce that queuing.

So, but in our you know, in our in our review, um uh we um uh and plus you know, this site if it does end up with retail or whatever might the land use might be, it's peaks, it peak is different, it's later than the school drop pickup peak um as well.

So there wouldn't be the overlapping sort of peak hours between the two between the two uses.

So, anyway, I'll take any questions.

I probably talked too long already.

Uh if there's anything else.

Of course, yes.

Um since you're up here, yes.

So some of the comments um that we received talked about the dead end of Mulligan Drive, also access to Voyager.

So can you speak from a city?

Um, and if you need more time and want to come back, that's fine too.

But are there any other besides mitigating traffic on Spring Crest during queuing or different things or left turn lanes, etc.

that were recommended in the traffic study.

Are there any other um major changes or improvements for this area that would create additional outlets?

Yeah, I mean, obviously, I mean, um uh spring crest um dead ends.

I it may be a different name, I can't remember the name.

Does it change the spring crest the name change?

It does, and then there's another road that comes off called Mulligan that dead ends onto S Briar under Chapel Hills.

Yeah, multi dead ends at uh Briar, sorry, Briar Gate.

Um Chapel Hills, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Sorry, you know, it's a it's a big city and lots of roads so you don't know every single street.

I don't, sorry, it's not top of my mind.

I'm sure you know most.

Uh Mulligan, so Mulligan does dead end at the street on the East End, right?

Yeah.

Uh and um I don't know the history, I don't know why it is, but it's it's there.

Um obviously, if that was opened, that would relieve some of the school and some of the pressure uh in on the intersection of uh Voyager uh and um springcrass during those during those peak hours, right?

So but there's also drawbacks to that's for traffic.

I'm sure the Mulligan neighbors may not like that either.

But at this point, traffic engineering is not exploring that option of of opening, reopening that connection to uh to reopen the mulligan connections.

Okay, and nor other, I mean, because then it turns into count.

And I'll and let me you talk about access, sorry.

Um so they are proposing this the this application has proposed um sort of these lots, right?

This used the zoning change on and they're adjacent to Voyager.

Traffic engineering, if if they came back with a development plan and asked for an access uh directly on the Voyager, we would probably approve at least a right-in-ride out uh somewhere on Voyager, which also could be somewhat of a traffic reliever, but that can be addressed during the that would be addressed, could be addressed during a development you know, during a plastic.

So I'll take my own advice and remind myself that we are only voting on the zoning.

Yes, right, uh, not the land use or development plan today.

Thank you.

Yes, and I think Mulligan at dead ends, but there's emergency access there with the chain across it, and it looks like a county road, there's no sidewalks up to the point, it's a very narrow road, so I don't think that's probably an option for any.

Yeah, it's not an option we're looking at.

And I if I recall the grade, there's not real prime, I think, for a ride in, right out either.

Yeah, so any other questions.

Thank you.

Okay, I do.

Uh Commissioner Hensler, are you said we're not voting on the land use plan today?

I'm sorry.

We are voting on you're right.

We are voting on the land use plan, not a develop, not a development plan.

Okay.

All right, this time we'll move on to public comment.

Uh public comment first in support.

Do we have anybody signed up to speak in support?

We have Scott Bottoms registered to speak on support.

Mr.

Bottoms.

Please introduce yourself and you would have three minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Scott Bottoms, I'm the pastor of the church that we're talking about.

And um the some of the comments and different things we've had over um over a year now to just kind of address some of those.

We um we are actually uh try, we do help the school with traffic.

We do help the school with parking.

We've actually presented uh an option to the school that they could use our property as kind of a roundabout, which would take probably 60, 70 cars out of that mix.

We're not the traffic problem.

We have 10 cars in our parking lot in the week.

Um, even if we put this in here and they're and the traffic study uh we believe shows this pretty strongly.

It'll be in and out off of Voyager, it's not going down this Molaca road.

It's I mean that's a dead end.

So um, so the traffic will be minimal from us, and we are and we do try to alleviate the traffic from that.

We also have very uh specific use.

This is why we're going with the MXM, is because we'd like to put some retails, maybe barbecue and a donuts if I get my choice.

But uh that's kind of what we're looking at as something really simple like that, uh, and then sell those three or one at a time or whatever it takes to help us continue to build um our church.

And so it's it's actually very minimal.

If you go to the property and you look at it and you look how close we are to Voyager, uh we're not we're not the traffic impact.

We will never be the traffic impact uh on that corner.

So and some of the things that were mentioned earlier, you know, the pot shops and stuff like that.

That's not in our wheelhouse.

That's not what we want on our property, so none of that even uh applies on anything there, too.

So questions, I guess.

Thank you.

Actually, while you're here.

That's part of public comment.

Never mind.

Uh, do we have anybody else signed up to speak in support?

Anyone else um in support?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this item, please press start six to unmute yourselves now.

There's nobody online.

Okay, do we have anybody uh present to speak in opposition?

Yes, we have several people to speak in opposition.

The first person is Ronald Povito.

And if anybody else is sitting time to Mr.

Povito, please um come to the microphone, introduce yourselves and say estate still.

Good morning.

My name is Ronald Pivotto.

This is my wife Pat.

She's seeding her time to me.

She needs to introduce herself and say that.

I'm Pat Pivateau, and I'm ceding my time to my husband, Ronald Pivotal.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you for having us here.

My address is 9620 Otero Avenue, directly north of the church property.

I've lived there since 2002.

My home sits a little on a little over three acres of land, currently with an unobstructed view of Pikes Peak and the beautiful Colorado Front Range.

When we first arrived in Colorado Springs, my wife and I leased the home on Otero Avenue, and we fell in love with this neighborhood.

We love the quiet open spaces, our neighbors' horses, luxury of taking long walks on a country road.

When 9620 Otero Avenue came available for sale, my wife and I were first to lock in the purchase of what we hoped would be our forever home.

When we moved in, focus on the family building on Briar Gate was less than 10 years old.

There were many, not many large buildings other than the TCA school and a couple of community churches across the street from each other on the corner of Springcrest and Otero.

Traffic on Voyager was light.

Over the past 23 years, saying the northern end of Colorado Springs has changed would be a significant understatement.

It's been said that change is inevitable.

Positive growth is optional.

This means that development and growth are up to the individual as products of their initiative and passion and ultimately their vision.

The idea also applies to individuals and neighborhoods.

The church at Briargate is a neighbor with initiative and passion and vision.

Their stated purpose is growth.

My family and many of the neighbors here today took initiative and brought passion to enhancing the neighborhood of Otero.

Over the past 23 years, this neighborhood has positively grown with the development and improvement of beautiful homes, spaces for wild animals, pets and hobbies, and peaceful walks with some of the best views of the landscape in the country.

No one is arguing here against change.

It's inevitable.

The point of this is how do we get to positively grow and ultimately as neighbors, what is our shared vision?

The Otero neighborhood is unique.

I'm sure you hear that term a lot in this forum.

But truly, the Otero neighborhood is one of the few remaining areas that truly retains its rural character and atmosphere despite being surrounded by the march of urban development.

The Church of Briargate wants to bring commercial development to the southern part of this residential neighborhood.

Supposedly a small development with limited disruption.

However, if this voting change is approved, no one can know exactly what will happen under the new zoning.

We can know the purpose of the zoning is pretty straightforward.

They want to sell rezoned property for maximum profit.

And the church will likely have little to no control over what's developed there ultimately.

This is where their vision and the rest of the neighborhood's vision diverge.

Some of my neighbors worry about increased traffic, according to this plan.

We just heard uh there may be, there may not be.

And we mentioned that TCA Elementary School is directly across the street from the church.

Some of my neighbors worry about some kinds of businesses that might be brought in.

Others worry about what effects the 24-hour commercial business might have on our current evening tranquility and safety.

With my family's immediate proximity to all this, these are reasonable concerns that I share.

But my main concern is more fundamental.

The church at Briargate wants a zoning change to serve their congregation.

As a like-minded follower of Christ, I'm all for growing church and helping churches to better serve their members.

However, they aren't making any more land in Colorado.

What sense does it make for a growing church to try to meet the challenge of growth by permanently downsizing their property that they own?

Remember, change is inevitable.

Positive growth is not.

In my 70 years, I've been part of several church building projects.

Not one ever started by selling off their growing church's property.

The pastor of the church has said they're raising money for growth, which is the sale, which will be by the sale of the rezoned property.

My questions are how far are my church neighbors willing to go and at what price is it for the rest of the neighbors?

They may have to only have to deal with the unintended problems mostly on Sunday, but the rest of the neighborhood has to deal with whatever these problems are the rest of the week.

Our neighborhood meeting, the questions and concerns I'm addressing were not straightforwardly answered.

I've lived here long enough to see the churches, other churches on the corner of Otero and Springcrest, come and go.

The Briargate Church selling their land to raise funds for the church growth, in my opinion, is a short-sighted solution with long-lasting repercussions.

This zoning change, once accomplished, is never going to go back to agriculture or rural neighborhood.

Once the church sells the rezoned land, it's gone forever.

The church could easily sell all of their rezoned property, including the land the current building sits on.

Take that money and leave the Otero neighborhood completely, making the promises of some sort of low impact development moot.

This brings up a question once again whether the church and their neighbors really have a shared vision for positive growth in this neighborhood.

I'd like to conclude by saying the change of zoning will drastically change the quality of the Otero neighborhood in multiple ways.

Whether this is a prelude to 236 more apartments is now proposed on the southern side of Spring Crest or a teenage hangout with 24-hour convenience store.

The zoning change will adversely affect traffic safety and ultimately the immeasurable quality of Otaro neighborhood life, as I and my good neighbors know it.

Change is inevitable.

Positive growth is not.

Positive growth takes long-term vision that benefits everyone, not just a few who are said I'll make immediate dollars.

I respectfully request that you share my vision and help maintain the long-lasting quality of my neighborhood.

Thank you for your time.

Please vote against this both in.

Yes, we have another group seating time.

The speaker will be Elizabeth Gilbert.

And the people sitting time, please introduce yourselves and state so.

Hi there.

I'm Paul Danielson.

I'm conceding my time to Elizabeth also.

Thank you.

So you'll have nine minutes.

I have it written out on my laptop.

So all right.

My name is Elizabeth Gilbert, and I'm a mom of three students at TCA, and I'm a renter in the Pinewoods neighborhood.

I oppose the rezoning proposal, and I'm going to dive right in to explain why.

First, traffic congestion.

During school drop-off and pickup, traffic on Spring Crest is very congested, and it can often back up onto Voyager.

I know he mentioned that Spring Crest, that happens at Springcrest, but often it curves back onto Voyager into the right turn line.

It becomes nearly gridlocked until the line of cars begins to move through the school.

And this congestion isn't a matter of convenience but safety because Springcrest is impassable at certain times of the day.

Residents of the nearby neighborhoods have diminished accessibility to emergency vehicles.

This has indeed caused a major delay in the arrival of an ambulance for at least one person in the past.

Changing the zone of this land would significantly contribute to these accessibility problems.

Now, a number of TCA families live in the adjacent neighborhoods and have children that walk or ride scooters or bikes to and from school, including me.

Should the other rezoning requests get approved.

Fire safety.

The Marshall Fire fire that occurred in Boulder in 2001 is an example of how quickly wildfires can destroy communities in our climate and landscape.

As Colorado Springs grows, we need to mitigate increases in density to ensure the safety of our established neighborhoods and structures.

As you know, TCA and the adjacent neighborhoods lie directly across the street from undeveloped land belonging to the Air Force Academy.

Should a fire threaten the school and neighborhoods off Spring Crest and Otero Road, the congestion during the evacuation would be made much worse by converting this property to medium density mixed use.

Hemming in the school and hundreds of residents who must use Spring Crest to exit.

For the Pinewoods neighborhood and the homes off Mulligan, Springcrest is the only ex outlet.

Now regarding the character of the neighborhood.

Here is something directly from the plan.

The goal of this neighborhood typology is to recognize, support, and enhance the existing character of these neighborhoods while supporting their ongoing investment and improved adaptation.

New development and our redevelopment should incorporate elements of the existing neighborhoods.

The city plan also states that in established suburban neighborhoods, these neighborhoods have a high value in maintaining the privacy of homes and safe streets for families.

Mixed use medium densities does not fit into this context and is not consistent at all with the current density and character of the area.

My last um little segment here is about the previous meeting.

I want to mention that at the previous meeting for this proposal, Scott Bottom said that he would sell the land under a covenant, which would supposedly give the church some control over how the land is developed after east after the sale.

He said to the community that he had a vision for what he wanted, but then he said, I was going to tell you, but I won't.

I encourage you to review the footage of that meeting.

So the church had the chance to share how they want to change our neighborhood and our school's neighborhood, but they chose not to.

Now we know it's for donuts and barbecue, but I did not know that until today.

We asked why they wanted to rezone to mixed use medium density instead of something more transitional, and it was pretty clear that they wanted to get the maximum amount of money from selling the land in order to fund the building of their new church facility.

So they are clearly prioritizing profit to fund their project over preserving character of the neighborhood.

Now, given that Scott Bottoms is running for governor of Colorado.

So I end with these questions.

Why did Scott Bottoms and the church reject all other options that didn't require rezoning and selling off the property?

And also, why were they unwilling to consider attempting to rezone the land as something that is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, such as MXN, a mixed use neighborhood density.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jacqueline Pivito.

Please introduce yourself and you would have three minutes to speak.

Hello, my name is Jacqueline Piviteau, and I also live at 9620 O Taro Avenue.

I'd like to add my deep concern to that of my family and neighbors and present additional points for your consideration.

For 23 years, my family has been neighbors to the church next door.

On many occasions, our backyard has been their backyard for Thunderbird watch parties, youth group games, even wedding photos.

And for these things, we've been happy to share this beautiful part of the springs.

We've tended the trees between us, throw back stray basketballs, and keep down the cactus as much as possible.

However, this proposal presents problematic implications as it seeks to bring commercial development into our rural area, changing the relationship we have with the property next door, and eliminating one of our natural neighborhood boundaries.

Five years ago, my neighbors and I opposed the annexation rezoning of residences on the north side of our neighborhood off Old Ranch Road.

This was long our northern boundary, providing a natural and common sense buffer between our unincorporated area and the city.

The decision to allow commercial development broke that boundary, allowing properties to be removed piecemeal from our neighborhood by annexation and rezoning for commercial use.

Rezoning at our neighborhood's southern boundary, Springcrest Road, will eliminate our other natural border.

Without clear borders, a neighborhood's identity and cohesiveness are severely damaged.

A key part of our identity is our rural space, an identity that will not be shared nor complemented by developments allowed under this zoning.

Our neighborhood has also been informed about a proposed development on the other side of Springcrest, which has been mentioned next to the TCA campus.

While that's not our focus today, please consider the drastic changes our rural neighborhood is facing.

The sudden intense interest, seemingly only interested in short-term profit for short-term solutions, can only feel like exploitation to those of us who have spent years investing and caring for this place we call home.

While church members and potential customers for developed properties can come and go, we are the ones who walk our dogs here, play with our kids here, and build our lives here.

I am dismayed by the lack of concern and foresight presented by this proposal, not only for the implications to our neighborhood, but also for what anyone should be able to expect their neighborhood to look like and be.

I am disheartened by the lack of care presented by our church neighbor who refused to make any changes to their proposal, even after hearing our concerns, and did not respond to any of my family's messages when we first learned about this intended change right next door.

No one from the church reached out.

The only reason we knew about the proposed rezoning was because a woman from an adjoining neighborhood was kind enough to share the postcard she had received.

We've done our best to be good neighbors, and we ask for your consideration to protect this special part of our town.

We are more than land for convenient business solutions, and we ask for a decision that will result in better outcomes for everyone, not just those who will benefit financially.

Please join our community to keep this part of the springs open, hospitable, and safe for families for generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ariane Pivito.

Please introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes to speak.

My name is Ariane Pivotot, and I also live at 9620 Otero Avenue.

I grew up there, and it's been a blessing and a privilege to turn that house into a home.

You should have seen the shag carpet in the living room, a color that could only be described as veggie lovers' pizza, or the flaming orange kitchen countertops etched with flowers.

Over the years, we've scraped wallpaper, replaced drywall, rebuilt the front stairs, the back deck, more, including the trees on the church's land bordering our property.

We've fertilized and protected these trees around our house from disease and invasive insects.

Many nights we've bundled up and trudged out into a blizzard to shake heavy snow from the branches before they snapped.

We've planted gardens and grass, amending the sandy dirt and coaxing zinnias and zucchini from it, and even built a pond for water lilies, which we now have a hard time keeping our dogs from jumping in every chance they get.

Every inch of our house tells a story, and at its heart, it's a story about long-term stewardship and investment.

My fellow Otaro neighbors could tell you a similar similar story by investing time and care and by now appealing to this assembly.

I'd like to briefly touch on two objections.

First, the precedent for the erosion of the neighborhood.

As was previously mentioned, the city council allowed a business to purchase houses on our north side and then annexed and rezone them for commercial use.

This set a terrible precedent.

Already, my family and my neighbors are being asked to sell our homes so they can be scraped off for large scale developments.

Residential zoning protects other Colorado Springs residents from aggressive developers coming to their door with an offer, as has happened to my family.

But our neighborhood zoning can seemingly change at any time.

If residents like my family living on the front lines, as it were, cave to this pressure, how long until the next homeowner is asked to sell.

Between this pressure and the deterioration of the character of the neighborhood, many would move away.

The precedent for rezoning has made commercial invasion a real possibility for developers, and we adamantly resist this rezoning, which would be an open invitation to tear apart our neighborhood.

And the second objection the lack of a buffer between mixed-use property and rural residential property.

Without a southern boundary for our neighborhood, Spring Crest Road, a buffer between properties with very different purposes is eliminated.

The church's expansion plans push a parking lot right up to our property boundary and almost certainly include chopping down the 50-year-old trees we've protected.

Due to the bottleneck access from Spring Crest, the church could become very busy as an alternate entrance for any development on the corner.

With only slight exaggeration, this means people could practically pick zucchini from my garden as they drove by.

That's how incongruous this proposed zone change is with the rest of the neighborhood.

I ask that you consider my position and that of my neighbors as those with the highest level of investment, concern, and care in this matter and deny this application for rezoning.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Steve Luna.

Please introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Steve Luna, and I live at 1975 Alamosa Drive near the Church of Briorgate.

My son attends the Classical Academy, which is across the street from the church.

After reviewing the applicant's materials, traffic study and the city's evaluation criteria, I believe this application fails to satisfy multiple of the necessary criteria.

The proposed zoning of MXM would allow a 50-foot building height, but all the adjoining neighborhood is either one or two-story buildings.

There are two churches, a school, and single-family homes, all of which are no more than two stories.

A 50-foot building would not be compatible with the surrounding development, but the application could be made compatible by adding an approval condition that limits the height of any new buildings to two stories or 30 feet.

In the applicant's purpose statement, it says the church does not want to propose development that may block their and or the adjoining properties of the views they enjoy.

The feeling is that if only R4 development is allowed, taller multi-story structures would be needed to optimize the land use.

But R4 only has a maximum height of 40 feet, whereas MXM has a higher maximum height of 50 feet.

It would be consistent with the applicant's stated goals to add an approval condition that limits the height of buildings to two stories.

The MXM zoning would allow for several uses that would be detrimental to the adjoining properties.

I commend the applicant on prohibiting several of these uses in the land use plan, but there are still a few others that are problematic.

All of the Spring Crest neighborhood is on well water, and the MXM zoning would allow for a gas station.

According to the EPA, gas stations have the potential to contaminate groundwater through spills or leaks in tanks, pumps, or pipes.

Allowing a use that can contaminate the water source of the existing neighborhood would be detrimental to the public health and safety.

I urge the planning commission to head off this potential problem by requiring that fuel dispensing stations be added as a prohibited use in the land use plan.

Similarly, I would urge automobile and light vehicle repair to be prohibited as well because of the potential for spills.

The traffic study shows that long term the Spring Crest Voyager intersection is expected to operate at LOSD capacity.

And Spring Crest Octero is already operating at LOSF gridlock.

The new sites will generate a 33% increase in traffic during the after school pickup and a similar increase during the morning school drop off.

Springcrest currently backs up over hundreds of feet because Springcrest does not have the capacity to serve the proposed development.

A more adequate ingress egress point should be chosen.

Voyager has the capacity, but the year for but the U.S.

Air Force Academy owns a strip of land between the applicant's property and Voyager.

Because the applicant does not own land directly bordering Voyager, the rezoning should be denied.

The land is not suitable as a commercial site because there is not an adequate ingress egress point.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Dave Wall.

Please introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes to speak.

Thank you.

My name is Dave Wall.

I do live on Spring Crest.

And my neighbors have spoke uh rightly on all the considerations and issues that we have.

Um we lived there 26 years and and likewise have seen uh beautiful um ability to have a quiet neighborhood.

And one of the things that uh is concerned beyond the traffic, again, the the reason to ask for denial of this proposal or at least the change is that um bringing in retail to a degree that we don't know and having to readdress this if it is uh rezoned um and somebody buys that property, can it be rezoned again?

As well as the uh we've said the property to the south is we understand is also being proposed for development of three apartment buildings, the four and five stories.

I know that's not part of this issue, but it is for us because we live there where it's going to be compounded with the traffic, the people, and the idea of uh how we can live on our quiet neighborhood again.

So I'd again just uh reiterate what my neighbors have said and ask for uh a denial of this uh proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeremy UNRWA.

Hello, my name is Jeremy Unruh.

I live um in the Pinewoods neighborhood.

That is right off Spring Crest at 1915 Spicewood.

Uh, we moved there because it's a beautiful neighborhood, a real gem in the middle of Colorado Springs.

We were unbelievably elated to have been able to purchase a house in this neighborhood and both of our boys go to school at TCA.

We see this as an encroachment of this beautiful character of this neighborhood, this gem in Colorado Springs.

And and I, like my neighbors want to urge you to not approve this land change.

Uh, mixed-use neighborhood would be an appropriate way to subdivide the land.

Retail creates a number of issues.

Obviously, you've heard about the traffic.

I think one thing that that maybe doesn't come up is the fact that everybody wants to turn left.

And that creates a backup during school.

It will create a backup during any kind of exiting situation because you have to turn left to get to I-25.

And so if you want to go to I-25, you got to turn left, and that that stoplight's a nightmare.

We all know it.

We live there, we see it.

It's beautiful on the weekends when it flows, and then during the weekday when they close it up on us, we all call it the eternal stoplight.

It's terrible.

Um so there are there are major improvements that would need to be done uh beyond what's being suggested here, as as far as what we see and what we experience in order to make it work.

But retail is a threat to what we have.

And we've all of us are homeowners who've purchased in this neighborhood purchased for a reason.

And we want to urge you, City Council, to protect this really special neighborhood that we have to protect our kids that are attending TCA, to protect other people's kids who are attending TCA from, you know, the encroachment of retail does does present increased traffic and increased traffic can cause more pedestrian accidents.

There's good data to support that.

And uh, you know, at the end of the day, what the church needs to do to further their project would be fine, except for there are issues with this particular zoning.

The mixed use medium, somebody already brought it up.

If they were to sell the church, does their covenant still stand?

How long does the covenant stand?

How many turnovers between different landowners is that covenant going to survive?

That's our concern because again, this is going to vastly change the character of our neighborhood.

And as it was mentioned, currently there is a southern border to the character of our neighborhood, and this is out of character to go to a mixed-use medium.

Um, I urge you, City Council, please not to allow this zoning change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jay Stoner.

Introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes.

Morning, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Jay Stoner.

Uh I am the president and owner of land developers incorporated.

I've been in the land development business in Colorado for over 50 years.

Um, so I have some experience with residential commercial development.

Um, I have some thoughts.

Uh I also, full disclosure, I'm building our own personal residence at 10215 Otero Avenue.

So I'm I'm personally uh impacted by this proposed project.

Uh and I am very intimately aware of the traffic that is already an issue, let alone what it's going to be.

Um I have three thoughts uh regarding this Briar Kate Church uh zoning.

Um, as far as first of all, um in land development, you as mentioned earlier new development next to an existing development should consider being contextural with the existing neighborhood.

Um the surrounding neighborhood, as you heard, uh, is a mix of homes on two and a half to five acre lots, uh, very rural.

It's very precious community in the heart of Colorado Springs now, grows north.

And we we as a neighborhood would like to uh protect that precious uh feel of the rural residential neighborhood.

Given the price that I understand the church wants to sell those three lots for, they're gonna need to somebody's gonna need to get a maximum use out of those three lots.

And I don't think it'll be a donut shop.

Um my guess would be you're gonna see 50 foot tall apartments and a lot of people, a lot of cars, and this I just cannot imagine the the current traffic situation at Springcrest in Otero is a mess twice a day every day.

And it's you can't imagine I can't imagine it getting as much more traffic as would be generated by uh three or four 50-foot tall apartment buildings.

Second suggestion uh or thought, I guess I should say, uh the corner of Springcrest Road and Otero Avenue is packed already without any additional development twice a day.

The roads leading to the classical academy school become a parking lot as parents try to drop off pick up their children Monday through Friday.

Otero Avenue uh becomes the escape route for people stuck in that uh situation, and uh due to the bottleneck Voyager and Spring Crest Road.

So Otero Avenue is bearing the brunt of this mess.

Otero Avenue is a narrow, very narrow two-lane country road with no shoulders, no sidewalks.

Um, and it's so you'll see it people walking on the road, kids riding their bikes on the road.

Is that three minutes?

Oh, that would be nice.

You can't do that in a rear zero, we can do that up front.

So if you could just wrap up.

I'll try to wrap up quick.

Uh that was quick.

Sorry.

Um, so anyway, Otero Avenue, adding more traffic to Otero Avenue is dangerous if not life-threatening.

Uh, to reduce traffic on Otero Avenue.

Um, I would suggest that Briar Great Church, if this gets approved, not allow traffic to exit their commercial project onto Otero Avenue.

Third suggestion, real quick.

Um, I would strongly have the city of Colorado Springs consider connecting Mulligan Drive to Chapel Hills Drive.

An east exit out of this mess would be a big relief for a lot of the problems that are currently existing.

Okay, thank you.

So in conclusion, I'd I'd I'd really recommend against approving this zoning, and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Naomi Nice.

Introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes to speak.

I'm Naomi Nice, and I live in the neighborhood.

I don't have anything prepared, so everything that everybody has already expounded on, I agree 100%.

We've lived there, I've lived there 25 years with my husband and his father and mother built the property that we're on in the 60s.

So it has been just a wonderful place to live.

Again, it's not safe with these rural roads to be a walker and a jogger anymore because there is so much traffic.

And so that's my concern because there's only one way in and one way out or two ways.

So that's my concern is that it is, and especially if we put in apartment buildings which are already going to be across from the church and on Old Ranch Road and Otero to the north.

We've already been notified that that's now being planned.

So it's like suffocating us for safety.

So that's my concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patty Krueger.

Hello, my name is Patty Krueger.

I live on Mulligan Drive in view of the church in question.

I've lived there for 33 years.

Obviously, the traffic impact that you've heard and received comments, I won't elaborate, but that's a big issue.

The potential to impact the view of the scenery in the mountains from the neighborhood.

This view is a key plus in living in Colorado Springs.

Third, most of the entities allowed by this requested zoning would be very negative for the neighborhood.

There's nothing to stop those owners from changing their planned development to something different that is allowed by that particular zoning.

And certainly once the church gets a rezoning, they could also uh sell their land to somebody else that's less desirable.

Um and as was mentioned by others, uh, allowing the church to go through with their invasive plans unquestionably opens the door for other developers to prey on this community and force unwanted commercial development down our throats, threatening our very area.

The domino effect of neighbors selling out so as not to be next to commercial development may be unavoidable.

Um so again, I oppose this.

Uh thank you for your time.

That was our last speaker in person.

Is there anyone online to speak?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please press star six to unmute yourself now.

There's no one online.

Okay, that concludes our public comments.

Um thank you, everybody who came to make uh comments today.

At this point, the uh uh applicant has uh 10 minutes for rebuttal.

At this point, the uh uh applicant has uh 10 minutes for rebuttal there.

We go can you hear me now?

Uh wanted to point out one thing uh that kept being raised.

The zoning allows 50 foot uh height in the building uh height, but the overlay for the Air Force Academy only allows 35 foot height.

So we're restricted to 35 foot in that development.

Thank you.

Okay, at this point, we'll uh bring it up to the dias for commissioner uh comments andor questions.

And I see uh Commissioner Rickett had a backward, sorry.

Uh comment if you will come up on the property east of the church, so the church across the street, is that in county or city?

That that's within the county.

Okay.

So this is really the corner of county and city property.

Very much so.

Uh it's it kind of um it's like a uh it not an enclave, but it's surrounded by three sides on county, and then the south is the city.

Okay.

Um and the reason I'm asking that the the residents uh the uh comments I think were very valid, and I appreciate uh everybody that came forward and the family that's next door.

You're basically the doorstep for additional uh annexation and and development, similar to what we saw on Powers Boulevard, where portions of a county enclave, five-acre lots, um turned into an annexation and and high density housing.

So unfortunately, you guys are the doorstep.

Um no matter what happens with this, that's something to keep in mind for the entire neighborhood.

I actually agree with the public comments in that, and quite honestly, the staff report, because if I read correctly, you guys recommended MXN as the appropriate uh zone district for this, and it was the church that wanted to move forward with MXM.

Is that correct?

Uh we we don't necessarily make recommendations, it was a suggestion to consider.

Okay.

And and I agree with this.

This is a transition zone.

I think M unfortunately bounces that transition and goes right to retail and and a lot of additional things that may not be conducive.

And so therefore, based on a couple of the criteria.

Um that the uh the location of lands in the zoning map being amended or appropriate for the purpose of the proposed district.

I don't think it is appropriate here, and then similar to the uh zoning will be detrimental to public interest, uh health safety, convenience, welfare.

So there's a couple criteria I don't think have been met by this, so I will not be in support.

Commissioner Cecil.

Hi, yes, thank you.

I had just I wanted to make sure a quick clarification around the uh standard for MXN that the district area minimum is 2.5 acres, and here we're talking about three lots, none of which is larger than 2.5 acres, but all of which are in aggregate, and I just wanted to make sure we had clarity, at least to the public on how this complies.

Of course, yes.

Uh it so the minimum lot uh acreage for the zone district has to be a minimum of 2.5 acres.

So somebody couldn't necessarily come in with a one-acre lot and and propose rezoning to MXM if it didn't touch other MXM properties.

Um so with the whole size of the site being over 2.5 acres, they are allowed to suggest the rezoning to MXM.

All right, and I had one other question that I'm not sure if it was for if it's best suited for you or maybe the law department regarding development plan CPC DP 18-0036 for the um addition to the church that was approved back at it looks like it was approved in 2019, finally.

Um is that considered an implemented plan?

Uh so if it is approved, it has six years to kind of move forward with their with their proposal.

Uh if they don't be kind of straddling that, right?

Yeah, they're getting close.

So um the reason that I ask is because of criteria number seven regarding if any approved concept plans um have been classified as implemented or have to be amended.

I wanted to get clarity on which path to go down.

Like, does that development plan count as a pending concept plan or an implemented one?

Trevor Glass.

Trevor Burrus, the uh state attorney's office.

Um so development plans and concept plans are generally two different things.

Concept plans more general, uh, such as the uh overarching spring is comprehensive plan.

Um the development plan would have to be looked at specifically with regards to terms, and we would have to do a closer review of that.

Yeah, so concept plans and master plans have kind of merged into what we now call the land use plan, which is what you see before you today.

Um, so if there was any existing concept plans, we would have to take that into consideration.

Um, an implemented concept plan is something that's already built out.

Um so if if the concept plan had multiple sites and they were all considered uh and they were all considered built on, um it would no longer be it would be considered implemented at that.

All right.

Then to me, it sounds like the provision number seven would not apply because it has not been built.

So that is helpful.

Of course.

Um so with that, I have a couple of general comments about um, you know, things we can and cannot consider, and I've definitely heard the public loves its views, and I love my views, but we can't own the views.

Um, and I wanted to raise that I do not feel the use restrictions that are proposed are appropriate uh in terms of commercial regulation, and I do try to um avoid any dealings with covenants just because of the civil end of that as a person, it becomes burdensome.

But I wanted to also point out that uh not including detox centers.

I I think toes a really careful line.

Um that makes me very uncomfortable because these may be considered accommodations for persons with addictions, which is classified as a disability.

So though that in particular I found troubling and um is part of my reason for not loving the zoning amendment to begin with.

But I find this is not consistent with criteria one of the zoning map amendment review criteria um with the multimodal principles or mixed use housing density that is supposed to be included in an MXM zone based on the purpose statement included in the UDC.

Um also to me, I would consider this a spot zone because it is not directly adjacent to another MXM property.

It leapprogs over uh BP and an agricultural to try to make that argument.

I also find it doesn't comply with criteria number three because there's insufficient information in the land use plan to determine whether or not this MXM zoning would comport with the uh adjacent purposes and height restrictions of the um adjacent zoning districts, which again are agricultural and business park.

I find it does not have the specificity to allow me to make a clear judgment on criteria number four, um, which would have an impact on whether or not it complies with the size, scale, height, and density of the adjacent area.

Additionally, I find criteria number six is not met as the land use plan does not comply.

Um, and I'll speak to this further, or at least in my opinion, it does not.

I'll speak to this further on the next comment and I believe this fails to comply with number uh criteria number 10 as well as the current land use plan information.

Um does not allow me to determine whether or not it complies with additional zoning standards that would be applicable.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Spilovich.

Commissioner Spilovich for the record.

Uh first off, I wanted to thank the community for coming out and taking the opportunity to participate in your civic duty and have your voices heard.

Um you guys definitely shine the light on um what's going on.

Um I I concur with uh Commissioner Fiesel and Commissioner Rickett um that there are several criteria that they have already listed that are not being met in this proposal as it currently sits.

So therefore I will not be in support of this.

Um Chair Casey, uh I also find an MXM to be an inappropriate zoning for this area.

Uh I do agree with the staff and the staff report center.

The applicant should uh consider rezoning to MXN mixed use neighborhood scale or a residential zone district to be more harmonious with the surrounding properties.

I would agree it does not meet the criteria number one about being consistent with the Colorado Springs comprehensive plan, as we've heard from some uh the public comments about its uh the character, it's inconsistent with the existing neighborhood.

I also find that it doesn't meet number two specifically, the the rezoning would be detrimental to public interest health safety convenience of general welfare.

So I will not be uh voting in support of it.

Any other commissioners have um any other comments before we move to emotions?

Could I offer a couple points of clarification I heard from the public comments?

Um first being that the uh height limitation of 33 33 feet was not officially requested by USAFA.

It is out of their um concerning area, so they did not officially request it wise, which is why it's not on the land use plan is 33 feet.

It says 50.

So if that is a uh a point of contention, then um that would have to be a condition of approval for the land use plan.

Um another point I would like to offer is any changes to the land use plan, whether it be alterations to the traffic flow.

Uh, I know we talked about access on the Voyager, uh, or or changes to the restricted uses.

Um, those would be those would fall under the major modification category of an amendment and require uh approval from the approving body who approved the plan, which would be ultimately city council in this case.

So if there were any proposed changes to that, this board would see them as well as council.

Sorry.

Awesome.

I'll make uh couple comments.

Um I I do appreciate the public comment and I appreciate the civic involvement that we see, and I think we're seeing more and more of that because our city is in a time of great change and growth, and that unfortunately is is gonna just continue.

That is the reality that we live in that our city continues to grow and change.

Um I will probably be in the minority, it appears.

I actually uh will be in favor of this application, um, despite some of the challenges that I see with it, because this is an area of great transition between county and city and different zonings, and I feel that the church has done um a decent job of trying to mitigate the uses, but looking at a parcel of land that is um their purview to do with what they choose, just as any one of us that owns land um can choose to do with it, um, what we may want to do uh within the allowable codes.

So um I think that it is an area that um again is it is a great area of change.

So I am going to uh probably be in favor of this, um, even though it may not go through.

And I appreciate that the process is going to play out in the way that process plays out, and that all of you will have a chance to revisit this in different ways.

Uh there was something else I was gonna say, and now it's lost my it's left my head.

So anyway, I will leave it there, but I appreciate the involvement and I appreciate the public um coming out and and really being in um a voice.

Thanks.

Uh Commissioner Clements, did you have any comments?

I'll open up to a motion.

I'll recommend denial to city council the zoning map amendment of 7.73 acres from AFO architectural with United States Academy Overlay to MXN AFO mixed use medium scale with United States Air Force Academy Overlay based upon the findings that the request does not comply with the criteria for a zone map amendment is set forth in city code section 7.5 point 704.

Commissioner Sapilovich for the record, um, I second this motion.

The motion passes.

Okay.

Sorry, the motion passes with five uh voters in favor, one um in opposition and one recused.

At this time we need a motion on the land use plan.

That the proposal does not comply with the review criteria for land use plans as set forth in City Code section seven point five point five one four.

Commissioner Spielovich, I second this motion.

One opposed Commissioner Hensler.

And one commissioner uh recuse, Commissioner Robinson.

Chair should we state our reason for voting to deny the land use plan based on criteria?

I was just saying the I think it's criteria too.

That notes that you know would have you would have to pass the zone to be able to meet the zone.

So we didn't pass a zone, therefore it doesn't meet the zone criteria.

Um just real quickly.

Uh just want to remind you that this item will proceed on to city council.

And I agree that the comments that were made uh in the motion regarding the zoning.

Um will probably cover for the land use plan as well.

But this will go with proceed.

There's no there's no appeal process, and it will go on to city council in due course.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and move on to item eight D, just in terms of time, what we're gonna do here.

Uh, we're gonna have we're first gonna hear from the staff, then we're gonna hear from the appellant, and we're gonna break for 45 minutes for lunch, and we'll hear the applicant and public comment uh after that time frame.

Go ahead, please go ahead and read a D into the record.

Idem eight D, APPL two five-zero zero zero six, an appeal of the administrative approval for the alt ranch starch fielding number one development plan consisting on four point sorry, four point seven acres located at the northeast corner of Alt Ranch Road and Rhinestone Drive.

Good morning, commissioners.

Tamara Baxter, planning supervisor for the record.

Um, before you is an appeal um of a development plan uh for a uh mini warehouse facility.

Located on the corner of Rhinestone and Old Ranch Road.

Um, you can see it highlighted or identified on the vicinity map.

Property is currently zone MXM.

Um it was previously zoned under Chapter 7 as PBC.

The property consists of 4.7 um acres.

Um, and the application was reviewed under Chapter 7.

Staff approved the application, the development plan application on July 9th, um, granting approval for a new mini warehouse facility.

Um site is a office and nine one-story storage buildings and access is off of Rhinestone Drive.

Um, just to give you a little history on the uh Briar Gate Master Plan.

Um, so in front of you is the 1980 master plan.

Subject property um was identified as commercial village center.

Um, and the Briar Gate Master Plan was approved in 1980.

In 1998, um that commercial village center was further uh broken out to include neighborhood commercial, community commercial, which is a subject property, and regional commercial.

The master plan, the Briar Gate Master Plan is considered an implemented master plan.

Thus amendments to the master plan were not necessary.

Um further on my presentation, but was not necessary for the residential to the east of this or west of the site.

Um also um for the concept plan.

Uh there was no uh requirement for it to be amended um for a commercial use to a commercial use uh for the subject property.

So the bison ridge at Kettle Creek uh concept plan was approved in uh two thousand and four.

Um as you can see identify there were two commercial properties, uh the subject property and the property to the west.

Those consisted of six uh sixteen point seven acres, and those were rezoned to PBC.

Uh and PBC allowed for uh mini warehouse as a permitted use.

Um kind of doing a round robin in this area.

The property to the north, which is the towns at Kettle Creek, is a townhome development that was approved also in 2023.

It consists of uh 82 units, and that was rezoned to R5, which is a multifamily residential.

There was an area identified in the concept plan that said proposed PUD zoning for future PUD zoning for single-family detached.

That was also rezoned in 2023 to PUD, and that consists of 94 lots, um referred to as the bison ridge at Cattle Creek filing one and two.

In 2020 uh 2014, the property, the commercial property to the uh west was rezoned from commercial to uh residential.

Um so it went from PBC uh to PUD, um and that allowed for 50 single family residential detached units, uh referred to as bison ridge at Kettle Creek filing number four.

Uh the subject property remained PBC and uh and also uh remained as a commercial parcel, and also access was not did not change, um and no access was going to be granted off of old ranch road.

Just a little history on the UDC adoption and zone district updates.

So, as you're aware, uh the uh chapter seven um kind of went away, um and we adopted the UDC, the new UDC, which was effective February 23.

Um, it did become effective in June of 23.

Um, with that, um, there was in April uh the former zone districts were rezoned to uh the zone districts we currently have.

So PUD became PDZ, PBC became MXM, R5 state R5, but with different criteria.

I did provide uh the per the purpose of each of those zone districts.

So back in 2023 when it was PBC, um, this zone district accommodated general commercial uses that were of moderate intensity, emphasis of zone zone is placed on individual sites with some cases being located near residential zoning, and also for the MXM.

The purpose of that is a mixed use kind of uh zone district to accommodate commercial, residential, office, multifamily, and civic uses.

The site plan was reviewed under as I indicated under chapter seven.

I did want to emphasize that I did a comparison between chapter seven and UDC.

Um, as you can see in the table, the use type went from a uh mini-warehouse currently under UDC, it's referred to as uh storage uh facility or storage self-storage architectural standards.

Um there weren't we didn't have a section of code under chapter seven for architectural standards like we do under UDC, um but the development plan that was submitted and reviewed actually does meet the those criteria or development building design in UDC.

Parking didn't change with regards to the proposed use.

The height did change in the UDC, but as I indicated, this was reviewed under Chapter 7.

With regard to photometric plans, they weren't necessarily required under Chapter 7.

Under UDC, they are required.

And this application or the development application did submit a photometric plan.

With regards to landscaping, those are pretty much similar to parking.

Um the project did meet the minimum landscape requirements under chapter 7 in UDC.

And with regards to site-specific standards, under chapter 7, um, the only real site-specific standards that um were applicable to mini warehouse was the minimum driveway width, and outdoor storage was specific to whatever zone district.

Um, under UDC, there is no out uh outside storage except for RV.

So in this case, with this application, there was no outdoor storage being proposed, and no hazardous materials as well.

With regards to time line review, um, so this application was submitted in 2022.

Um they did pay their invoice for review.

Um, as you can see, it did go through a number of rounds of review, six.

Um, there are periods of time where it looks like there was no activity occurring.

Staff had had um ongoing communication.

A lot of that had to do with a drainage report, um, and just addressing some of the um ongoing city staff comments.

Time limit of the appeal.

So the as I indicated, the project was submitted in August of 2022.

Um, the development plan was approved this year in June of uh June 9th.

Um, it did go through six rounds of review from when it was initially reviewed, and a complete applic appeal application was received on July 21st, and thus the appeal was scheduled in front of you.

With regards to stakeholder involvement, um, prior to this hearing, um, notification was sent out a thousand feet from the property boundary that consisted of 281 postcards.

Um, during that period, we did receive 20 comments.

Um during the initial review when the application was submitted in 2022, there were 160 comments that were received.

We did have a neighborhood meeting.

Um, unfortunately, it was after we um approved the project, but it was held on August 12th.

Approximately 61 members of the public were in attendance.

Um, the meeting was held after uh the neighborhood meeting.

Uh there was no neighborhood meeting um that occurred during the initial review, um, and it may have been awarded based on the public interest of this project.

Comments during the initial review of this project um relate or and currently are related to traffic compatibility of the use, lighting access, crime safety, inadequate infrastructure, and decrease of home values in the neighborhood.

With regards to agency reviews, I just wanted to caveat that we do have some members of our city staff here.

So I do have traffic engineering, stormwater is here, uh, code enforcement, and um Colorado Springs uh police department representatives are here too to address any questions that you may have.

Um, but to go back to the slide.

Um, so the project, the development plan was sent out to all review agencies.

Um the outstanding comments were addressed prior to approving the development plan.

With regards to plan COS, so this um project kind of um sits between two um areas, the established suburban neighborhood and newer development neighborhood.

Um, in reviewing plan COS, um this is a transitional area in regards to integrating uh land use types, so residential with commercial type uses.

Application review criteria for development plan, these are under chapter seven.

So this is what um when we reviewed the application, these are the criteria.

Um I had to spread them on two slides.

And more than happy to go through these if you would like.

And then the criteria for an appeal, um, which you'll hear from the appellant, um, are these.

And then these are our optional motions uh for the appeal of this application.

Sure.

All right, thank you.

Any questions?

Uh commissioner, have any questions before we hear from the appellant?

All right, thank you.

And please introduce yourself for the record.

Yes, sir.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present.

My name is Julie Price, and I'm representing the community in the area around the currently approved old ranch road self storage.

Next slide, please.

The four key items I would like to go over with you today are the background, the appeal basis, the application process, the and finally our appeal recommendation and some considerations.

Next slide, please.

Based on the comments that we heard today from A BNC, I'd like to note that the theme today seems to be community and neighborhoods.

From Plan COS, the vision is to form diverse and safe neighborhoods with active gathering areas, a mix of housing types, transportation choices, and a shared sense of pride.

Further, under importance of neighborhoods, it notes that the premise of Plan COS is that every person and place is a part of a neighborhood.

It notes that neighborhoods are fundamental to our city's identity and development.

Specifically, each of us deserves a great neighborhood.

As part of this, policy VN 1.b is called out to inform and engage with neighborhoods, neighborhood-based organizations, and individual residents during the development review process, capital improvement planning, and decisions on the city and county facilities and services.

Our community was robbed of everything policy BN-1.b calls out.

Additionally, due to when this application was filed in August of 22, the new Unified Development Code or UDC was codified and put into place.

The applicant was allowed to choose if they would be reviewed under the former Chapter 7 or the new UDC.

From what we've been told, this application was filed and reviewed under the old Chapter 7 code, as Ms.

Baxter stated earlier.

I'll get into this a little bit further in a moment.

Next slide, please.

The application itself was filed 15 August 2022.

On 16 September 2022, signage was posted denoting a comment period that ended 28 September 2022.

There were concerns with how this sign was placed on a corner facing opposite the flow of traffic.

This was foreshadowing for how this process was going to go for the community.

And in 8A from today, there was also a concern about how signage was placed.

So there seems to be a theme there as well.

So much so that 168 comments were provided during this period.

And contrary to what Mr.

Walker asserted when I met with him and Ms.

Baxter on 18 July 2025, they were not cut and paste and sent.

Each comment was thoughtfully done by a member of the neighborhood, the community, and provided to the city.

And our 168 community comments were not posted publicly in Excella until 18 July 2025, when I mentioned it to Mr.

Walker and Ms.

Baxter in my meeting with them.

Next slide, please.

One regarding the failures of city planning, and four that pertain to UDC.

Contrary to what I mentioned about plan COS and policy VN-1.b, there was nothing further provided to the community after being promised a required response to our 168 community comments.

And after being promised a required community meeting, well, not until 9 July when we were informed this application had been approved was our latest was our next uh communication.

Other failures by the city planning include not providing any substantive information regarding recent studies into the Preppels jumping mouse.

I understand this was noted in the staff package that you all received on 4 September 2025 with the informal planning commission meeting.

Other than Ms.

Baxter's mentioning that the existing homes likely have more impact to this habitat than the proposed use, there's nothing to substantiate this claim.

It is highly likely that where this facility is planned to be maybe where the Prebles jumping mouse moved to when the homes were built.

Additionally, our research notes that for mating purposes, the Prebles jumping mouse will travel to high ground and as far as 2,500 feet from their habitat.

In the staff package you received, Ms.

Baxter notes that this facility is planned for approximately 1900 feet from the Kettle Creek open space.

This is well within the 2500 feet they will travel for mating.

As I noted on a previous slide, the application was reviewed under one code, but due to lengthy delay in the application review, nearly three years.

Our appeal is being adjudicated under a different code.

As the staff package notes, this information was relayed to us.

And until this morning in Miss Baxter's presentation, there was no communication or understanding of what those differences were.

So for us, all we knew is we were having to follow a different code only due to timing.

This is like comparing apples to oranges and saying the orange is an apple.

And finally, I would like to note that when I met with Mr.

Walker and Miss Baxter and noted the communication failures and broken promises.

Mr.

Walker said something to the effect of, we made mistakes.

Let's just move on.

This has already been approved, and you've already filed your appeal.

This is not how a city official sits should be addressing the public who is very concerned and passionate about preserving our community and our neighborhood.

As noted on the last slide, despite the application being reviewed and approved under different code, I would like to move into the code for which our appeal falls under.

Section 7.5.603.b.1.

This is detriment to public interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.

This storage facility introduces an industrial scale commercial use in a high density residential area.

The neighborhood streets are not designed for this high volume and size and weight of trucks and trailers.

And despite the calculations NES showed us at the post-approval community meeting, our calculations using the same data sources and calculations demonstrate something different.

But most importantly, our knowledge of our community and our neighborhood provide truth and not calculated values.

Also, the volume and types of vehicles pose safety concerns to our children, the community and the neighborhood children.

Moving along, the fencing, specifically the metal rods and the use of buildings for barriers, and the lighting are incompatible with the character, standards, and expectations of the community.

These have been put in place by the various homeowners' associations within our community.

Further, they do not provide adequate buffing, privacy, and transition from the neighborhood to an industrial complex.

And maybe most importantly, the health, welfare, peace, safety, and security pose a significant risk and detriment to the community due to light pollution, noise, late night traffic, and most importantly, crime.

Recently in the news, it was shared that there's a facility that was found containing dead pets.

And also there have also been reports of people renting units to live in.

These port these points support that appeal basis.

Moving on to section 7.5.603.b.2 in consistency with the comprehensive plan.

The comp um next slide, please.

I'm sorry.

I forgot to do the slides.

I'm sorry.

I don't have the clicker.

The comprehensive plan exists for the protection of neighborhood character to ensure compatible infill and mitigate negative impacts on non-residential development.

Additionally, the premise of a comprehensive plan is to make a positive contribution to what makes a community and a neighborhood.

Finally, the comprehensive plan is to help establish a community-based need for developments within sensitive residential areas.

This project does none of these things for which the comprehensive plan exists.

As it pertains to the community-based need, I'd like to note a picture speaks a thousand words.

Within a five-mile radius, there are already 10 storage facilities.

And of the ones we contacted, they are not at full capacity.

For all of this, it is clear this project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Next slide, please.

Section 7.5.603.b.3.

In consistency with master plans.

As Ms.

Baxter mentioned, the master plan for this area was developed 40 years ago.

Through presentations from NES at the post-approval community meeting, it was made clear to us that the master plan, concept plan, and zoning per what Ms.

Baxter said just moments ago has been modified several times.

There has been no recent amendment or additional justification within the most recent master plan that demonstrates how this project supports the community.

Looking at this picture here, again, speaking a thousand words, the project is inconsistent with the most recent master plan.

As you can see, there are neighborhoods.

As you can see, there are neighborhoods, a community, if you will.

There's a golf course, there are two schools.

It isn't until you get to the top right corner of this picture that you see anything commercial down near Voyager Parkway.

The master plan changes have clearly evolved into a community and a neighborhood, not a commercial use area.

Next slide, please.

And finally, Section 7.5.603.b.4.

Location criteria for mixed use not applicable.

As we understand the intent of mixed-use zoning, it is supposed to offer transitional, transitional benefits from residential zoning to commercial zoning.

This is why multi-unit residences are included in this type of zoning.

This storage facility offers nothing in the way of a transition from a neighborhood to a purely commercial built up area.

Just looking at the plans, there is nothing about horizontal, corrugated metal panels and metal roofing that screams community or neighborhood.

And while this is the same picture from the previous slide, again, speaking a thousand words, I just want to demonstrate that there is no transition from neighborhood residences to commercial structures.

Next slide, please.

As noted in the basis of appeal section, there were many failures by city planning.

The emails here demonstrate that there were promises made, and yet those promises were not kept during the application process.

Mr.

Peter Lang was our point of contact during our comment period.

The first email that you see is dated to November 22, and it denotes that our comments could not be released to the applicant until their application fee was paid.

As I mentioned in an earlier slide, the application was filed on 15 August 22.

The fees were still not paid as of February 23rd.

And it's noted to the community that if the application is dormant for more than 180 days, it would be withdrawn or expired.

Mr.

Lang noted this day was close in his email on 1 February, the second item, so he would send a note to the applicant stating as such.

By the way, 180 days would be 11 February 2023.

And based on Miss Baxter's slide that she just showed the timeline, those fees were paid on the 28th of February 2023.

So that exceeded the 180 day duration.

Just want to note.

The first clearly stated that Mr.

Lang would be, quote, requiring that the applicant conduct a community meeting.

For Ms.

Baxter to assert multiple times that a community community meeting was optional between when we got the approval and our appeal, and the applicant was not required to provide one, demonstrates a promise made and a promise broken.

Well, I would like to note that community meeting was held.

It was held 12 August 2025, more than a month after the application was approved, and only because we filed an appeal.

This meeting was an empty gesture attempt made by both the city and the applicant.

Next slide, please.

After 15 March 23, there was no further communication with Mr.

Lang.

Emails were sent to him on 10, 11, and 14 July 2023.

They went unanswered.

Those emails went unanswered.

After March 15, 2023, it was not until 9 July 2025 when members of the community received any form of communication from the city planning.

It was an email that was sent to only a select few members in the community, not to the community at large, and not to all of the people who provided comments during the comment period.

Once we learned of the approval and finally how to access Excela to see the application file, you heard that right.

We were never told there was an Excela or that there was even still movement on this application.

We actually then through Excel I learned that the application had changed hands within city planning twice.

The first around June of 23, which explains why those emails in July went unanswered.

The second was February of 25.

I would like to note back on an earlier slide, I mentioned a policy from Plan COS regarding informing and engaging the neighborhood.

It's plainly obvious that informing and engaging with our neighborhood was not a priority.

Next slide, please.

This slide just contains the email that we received on 9 July.

The two things I want to note are in the bright yellow boxes.

The first box states this email is to notify you that the city staff has administratively approved the request for self-storage facility project and ancillary site improvements.

The second item notes that the decision begins the time frame for appeal under the code.

We acknowledge that Ms.

Baxter notes in the staff package that y'all received in the informal planning commission meeting that we were indeed informed of the code for which we were to proceed.

And again, until just today was not clear to us why the application was allowed to proceed under one set of code and we had to appeal the same project under a different set of code.

These are different standards.

Again, oranges and apples.

Next slide, please.

The purpose of this slide is to demonstrate the initial timelines for this application and delays during the duration.

As noted, the application was provided in August of 2022.

It was signed and dated April of 2022, which is interesting.

The comment period then proceeded through September of 2022.

The application fee was not paid until, as we learned today, 28 February.

It's not clear why all of the delays initially and then throughout.

Next slide, please.

Mr.

Lang noted to the community member on the 2nd of November, as I had shown previously, that the application fee had not been paid.

Additionally, shortly thereafter, on 28 November, Mr.

Lang indicated to that same community member that he, quote, tried reaching out to the developer again about a week ago, and I haven't heard back from them.

I will give them another week and call them by the end of the week to get an update on their application process.

Here's a demonstration that Mr.

Lang was waiting for the applicant while the applicant was not being responsive.

Furthering delays.

I would also like to note that in documentation for this application, Mr.

Jonathan Shearer, and I apologize if I say his name wrong, noted that there were delays in the resubmittal of the FDR.

It, quote, had not been resubmitted in over a year.

Second submittal comment were returned to the applicant for revision on 6.123, followed by, quote, note that given the length of time that has passed since the previous FDR submittal was received and reviewed, the next FDR submittal will be treated like a first submittal and new comments will be made if necessary.

Now I don't know what an FDR is.

That's not my job, but it sure sounds important in the application review process.

This was a significant delay in the application process.

However, looking at Excel A records, there was quite a push around 9 July 2025 to get this application approved.

It's not clear as to why that it was delay after delay after delay and then a mad dash to approval.

Next slide, please.

This slide further demonstrates the delays in the duration of the process.

The second city planner assigned, Ms.

Kyle Fenner, came on board after Mr.

Lang left in June of 2023.

Based on her note at the bottom, she was not too happy with the quote, extreme delay in moving this application forward.

She also notes that if the application, quote, is dormant for more than 180 days, the application will be deemed expired.

Again, the application fee was paid 28 February, 180 days from when the application was filed, would have been 11 February.

Looking at the Excel attachment submitted dates, which may or may not be 100% accurate for when items come into city planning.

I'm not sure how that process all works.

There are significant gaps in upload dates.

There are several that do exceed the 180 day mark, with at least a 14-day or greater exceedance.

Looking in Excel and the review route during Ms.

Fenner Fenner's tenure, there are two that exceeded 180 days as well, based on the due date and received dates.

There is potential based on these dates that the application was dormant for more than 180 days, multiple times, but it never became expired.

This is inconsistent with the code.

To wrap up this section on duration, I would like to note that when I look at the at online for the nominal and normal application timeline from city planning, which is 2025 application submittal title cycle, excuse me, it is in terms of months and not years.

Next slide, please.

Based on the information I have provided in this appeal presentation today, I would like to provide our the community's recommendation.

That is to approve our appeal and to deny the application for the old ranch self-storage.

All of the points noted on the slide have been demonstrated and proven in this presentation, along with the five basis elements noted in the appeal form.

But before I wrap up and hand this over to the applicant, I have a few last slides I would like to go over, please.

Next slide.

While none of these things on this slide do anything for the community, should you all choose to deny our appeal, as the slide states, we would respectfully request there be considerations to the community based on what's been presented here today.

Next slide, please.

The hours of operation have significantly changed over the course of this application.

Initially, it was to be a 24-7 facility.

After the approval, we learned that the 24 7 was no longer the intent.

At the post approval community meeting, we were told the hours would be nine to six.

We were well aware that the applicant is trying to sell this development.

After we were informed of a meeting with the buyer the week of 25 August 25, these hours were changed from Monday to Saturday, 6 to 10, and Sunday, 8 to 6.

These most recent hours do not account for the noise and disruption from trucks and trailers early in the morning and late in the evening.

And despite what NES told us at the post approval community meeting, these are no different than Amazon vans that drive through your community daily.

I beg to differ.

These hours do not account also for seasonal delays or excuse me, daylight and darkness.

The community has concerns of safety, security, and crime.

We all know and were probably told by our parents when we were younger, nothing good happens after dark.

For this consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city provides assurances and enforcements that the hours will be what was called out in the post-approval community meeting and will not be allowed to be changed without a new application process, allowing the community insight, input, and involvement, as Plan COS denotes.

And in this process, we would like to make sure that there is strict and stringent recourse if this is not adhered to.

Next slide, please.

The traffic flow is a critical concern to the community from both a safety and quality of life perspective.

There is no way currently into the facility heading eastbound without going through the neighborhood due to the median on Old Ranch Road.

The most recent approved plan notes forcing a left turn out of the facility to bypass the neighborhood.

There's no mention as to how this will be enforced.

There's also no way to go eastbound leaving the facility without going through the neighborhood.

Even with the forced left turn out, recently a no U turn sign was posted at Old Ranch Road and Chapel Ridge Drive.

So a forced left turn does nothing for going eastbound, and there is nowhere for a U-turn to happen for them to turn around.

The median on Old Ranch Road is plenty wide enough to allow for a left-turn lane to be put in place to access Rhinestone Drive heading eastbound.

Additionally, this would make an opening as well for access from Rhinestone Drive to head eastbound on Old Ranch Road.

This would be likely at the applicant's expense.

So for this consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city requires the applicant to put in where the median is now, a left turn lane on Old Ranch Road.

This allows for eastbound traffic on Old Ranch Road to turn left into Rhinestone Drive, and for southbound traffic on Rhinestone Drive to turn left onto Old Ranch Road, bypassing our neighborhood.

Next slide, please.

And the last consideration I'd like to present is landscaping, lighting, and aesthetics.

This is what makes an area look and feel like a community and a neighborhood.

As it pertains to landscaping, as currently approved, parts of the commuting community will have a bird's eye view into what would be a storage facility, significantly taking away the look and feel of a neighborhood and making it look like an industrial park.

With less mature plantings and seasonal changes, the intent and purpose of landscaping is negated.

As it pertains to lighting, the lighting that was approved, as noted from the information with the meeting with the buyer is slated to be reconsidered due to their proposed hours of application or operation, excuse me, which yet again intend to be changed.

As part of the rationale for changing lighting, security cameras are noted.

Modern security cameras do not need additional lighting beyond what has already been approved.

And as it pertains to aesthetics and exterior barriers, community standards for barriers on major roadways are greater than six feet and are made of precast concrete walls.

The metal fencing and building walls are not secure and do not conform to community standards.

And at one point, the approved plan ties into the barrier that was established by the townhomes to the north, which seems a bit ironic considering that we're here today.

Putting up the community standard barrier not only conforms to what is throughout the community, but also provides some deterrence from a security and safety perspective.

As it pertains to aesthetic, there's also signage.

And there's been no information provided regarding the signage.

This is a community and a neighborhood.

And signage conforming to what the rest of the community standard is, would provide a bit of transition, albeit small, from the neighborhood to the commercial building that is proposed or approved at this time, excuse me.

For this consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city requires one more mature landscaping that is not impacted by seasonal change to be placed on the north and west side of this facility.

Number two, leave the lighting as currently approved.

And number three, require the exterior barriers and signage to conform to the community standards by having no open fencing or building as part of the barrier around the perimeter of the facility and requiring the signage to be offset and compatible with other signage throughout the community.

Next slide, please.

I would like to thank you all for your time today.

As noted, we are a community and a neighborhood.

Please let us stay that way.

Again, thank you.

Thank you very much for your report or your uh appeal.

It was very detailed.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um, we're gonna go ahead and break again for 45 minutes.

We will be back at 1255.

You hear me okay?

Okay.

I was pointing out we have two minutes, I'm just doing two-minute warning.

Two-minute warning.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and reconvene.

Uh next up is the old ranch road self-storage.

I didn't make D.

Can you please read it into the record?

Oh, they did.

Okay, that's right.

We did it earlier.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um, so that's that's great.

So we'll be followed now by the applicant presentation.

I'll speak from this one this time.

I can see my presentation better.

Okay.

Um, Andrea Balder with NES.

Just a second, let me set the timer for you.

I'm sorry.

Is that going to be up on the screen?

It'll be for this.

All right.

I guess see it.

Okay, good.

Thanks.

Andrea Barlow with NES representing the applicant.

I do want to emphasize that NES was only brought into the picture on July 21st, 2025, when the appeal was submitted.

We have not been involved in this application process to date.

Location, just to refresh your memory, it is on the uh corner of Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone adjacent to Powers Boulevard.

The site is just under five acres.

Neighborhood concerns, we reviewed the neighborhood comments that were submitted initially together with those contained in the appeal statement.

Our summary of what some of the concerns were was inconsistency with master plans and neighborhood compatibility, particularly in regard to aesthetics, massing lighting, fencing, and noise pollution.

And I think you heard some of that with the appellants presentation.

Increased traffic in on local streets and concerns about site lines and gate placement.

Introduces industrial scale commercial use at the edge of a high density residential neighborhood.

I think you heard that multiple times.

We're going to address that.

I think you heard those.

Suggestions of alternative uses for the site were professional offices or small-scale retail.

And there were concerns expressed.

I don't think it was pretty minimal about the mouse habitat, but you did hear that today, and we'll address that.

And then a drainage issues, concerns about existing drainage issues.

And I think there was some acknowledgement that they may have improved slightly given the recent storms.

It's not not quite as bad, but there is somebody from SWENT to address those.

So the area history, Miss Baxter kind of uh went through this in some detail.

Um this is a plan that the most dated plan we could find for the Briargate Master Plan.

Uh, Miss Baxter presented one from 1980, but it has been commercial.

This site has been shown as commercial on the master plan since day one.

Since the conception of the Briargate Master Plan, this has always been a commercial site.

So we often get uh criticized for changing master plans, people's expectations when they move into an area.

The expectation for this site should have been that it's going to be commercial because it has always been commercial.

It was zoned commercial in to be consistent with that master plan in 2003.

Um the area to the north, similarly, was always shown as uh higher density residential, and that was zoned R5 in 2003.

There was a series of ordinances that all went through at the same time.

Um then uh the area, sorry, going back to this site that was zoned uh to BP PBC at the time, which had a 45-foot height maximum.

Um so the PDZs were based on the proposed residential uses, R5 at the time was 45 feet, and MXM is a 45 feet allowance.

Um this area that's shown on the map right now, it was it was originally zoned as part of the PBC zoning for the subject property, but then it was subsequently rezoned to uh PUD uh for residential in 2014 with a maximum height of 35 feet.

And again, just to the west here is the more recent um rezoning of um uh the in 2017 of the uh filing, I believe it's filing six of Bison Ridge, I think they call it Bison Ranch, and uh the the relevance of that is it will become prevalent when I talk about the mass habitat.

Um so this is just basically a summary of all the zones that have happened in this area, the majority of it rezoned in 2003 in accordance of with the master plan, and there have been some more recent zoning changes um in in the area uh since then.

Uh but the bottom line is this has been commercial forever.

It was commercial on the master plan and then it's zone commercial and it's been zone commercial.

So the expectation of the neighborhood should always have been that this would be a commercial site.

Um talking a little bit more about this specific site.

I mentioned the rezone, but there was also accompanying that rezone, a concept plan for this site, which identified on this particular part of the property 41,000 square feet of commercial use.

The concept plan was amended when that the adjacent parcel went to residential, but this part of the property always continued to show that 41,000 square feet of commercial use.

And then in June 2023, the UDC revised the PBC zoning to MXM.

That zone district is not applicable as this was approved or sorry, submitted well before the UDC was approved.

So there was some reference to there being a choice by the applicant.

That choice was between the approval adoption of the UDC and the implementation of the UDC.

So I think it was January, February 2023 to its implementation in June when people were making submittals at that point prior to the implement uh effective date of the UDC, you had a choice whether you wanted to do one or the other.

This was submitted well before that in September 2022.

So at that time, the only applicable code was chapter 7, the old chapter 7.

Um, so this is the concept plan.

You've already seen this, but it showed a commercial center across the two parcels.

Um, the 41,000 square feet I'm referencing is that building, the L slightly L-shaped building on the north side of the property, backing up to the town homes.

And then the adjacent property is the area that was subsequently rezoned to commercial and from commercial to residential.

And when that was done, um, this property still saved in the same configuration of 41,000 square feet of commercial.

So historic context, I just want to show you some photographs.

Um the area has developed around this site.

This site hasn't changed, it's always been a commercial site, but the area has uh developed, and at the time the zoning was approved, it was undeveloped property.

So the residences have come in around this property, this commercial property.

So as noted, um, this was submitted under the old chapter 7.

It is um the the allowed height at with that zoning is 45 feet.

Mini warehouses is a principal permitted use in the PBC zone.

So this use is an allowed use in the zone.

And I wanted to focus on the definition a little bit.

Buildings designed primarily for the storage of household items and inventory of small commercial businesses, where storage units are individually leased or rented, where access to storage units is infrequent, and I think that's the underlying point there, and where no utilities are provided except for a service manager's apartment and for lighting of individual storage units.

So the intent of mini warehouses, and I'll I'll come on to the UDC information.

That the definition of self-storage today is exactly the same.

It's where access is intended to be in frequent.

So if this were to change its makeup in any way, it would no longer be a self-storage or mini warehouse unit.

If it were suddenly to start doing something different than this definition allows, then it it would have to be enforceable, it would have to be a change to the development, a new development plan or whatever, but it has to meet this definition.

And the allowed act now is 50 feet.

So I'm going to talk a little bit more now about the project itself.

At this point, I actually want to say a lot of the appellants' presentation was about the process.

And it's unfortunate the process that this went through, I would say, from a neighbourhood involvement perspective.

Um, but the process in and of itself is not an appealable aspect.

It's not part of the appeal criteria.

The appeal criteria refer to the applicable criteria for a development plan.

So that needs to be the focus of this evaluation.

So as noted, the site is just under five acres.

The self-storage units, there's going to be about there's going to be 519 and just under 80,000 square feet with a 1400 square foot office.

Parking provided is only required for the office.

So circulation is required for the warehouse units, but only parking is required for the office, and those stalls are provided.

Building setbacks for this zone is 25 feet on all sides.

That has been provided.

The building height, as noted, is 45 feet, that's permitted.

This proposal proposes 17 feet and three inches.

It's a single story building, uh, office buildings and warehouse buildings.

So it's a single story facility.

We were asked about construction timing at the neighborhood meeting.

We added this in.

Assuming we we get our approvals, we would anticipate starting construction in spring next year and opening the following year.

Landscaping.

There were some comments regarding landscaping by the neighbours.

We have our certain requirements for landscaping buffers, and we are providing the required landscaping trees.

So the buffers are provided, the trees are provided, and we are exceeding significantly the shrub requirements throughout the development with a particular emphasis around the perimeter and along Old Ranch Road.

So all the landscaping requirements are met.

And I think from this plan, you can see that the landscaping proposed is fairly substantial.

There was reference about seasonal seasonality of landscaping.

We are required to have 50% evergreen trees in a buffer, and those are provided.

Hours of operation.

I do want to clarify something.

There is no time at the neighborhood meeting we held that I said the hours were going to be 9 till 5.

I indicated clearly at that meeting that we would meet with the proposed operator and get back with the proposed hours of operation.

And that is exactly what we did.

And Miss Baxter bugged us multiple times with email saying, Have you got that information for me yet?

And we were able to meet.

It took a little longer than I had hoped, but we went were able to meet, and these are the proposed hours of operation.

These are based on similar facilities in the area.

So this is fairly standard operating hours for a facility of this nature.

Access is gated and will be only access will only be available via an entry code, and there will be no access permitted to the facility outside of these hours.

So concerns about 24 act at 24 hour activity.

There was reference to 24 7 at the initial proposal suggested a 24-7 operation.

As I indicated, I wasn't involved initially, so I went back and read all the proposed, all the project statements, response to neighbours.

The only reference to 24-7 was 24-7 surveillance, not hours of operation.

So to clarify, the security, there will be a management company has already been engaged.

There will be on-site management and security during the normal business hours.

Operational security cameras will be 24-7, and all rental units will be subject to a contract.

I think you would expect that with any rental facility, and that will prohibit the use of the unit for housing.

So that specifically is addressed.

I think these instances that have been referenced by the neighbours are one-offs, occasional things that happen, it is not the norm, and this is going to be strictly controlled.

And this will be monitored by the on-site security.

So this is a typical elevations.

This is as noted, there will be an office elevation.

There will be an office, and this is the small office elevation, gated entry, secured perimeter, no outdoor storage is permitted as noted, and the material and colour palette is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood.

So there's nothing particularly industrial looking about these buildings.

A reference was made multiple times times to this being an industrial complex.

It's not industrially zoned, it's a low-key development in terms of the scale and height of the buildings.

It's going to be substantially landscaped, substantially screened with landscaping and walls and fences, and it is a low traffic generator, which I'll come on to.

So this is kind of the typical building elevation.

It shows it's got some stone accents, it's uh it's a storage facility, it's not going to ever going to be an exciting looking building, but I think considering the functionality of this type of use, they have made attempts to make it blend in with the neighbourhood in terms of colours and materials.

So we produce these perspective renderings to get a feel for how this would look in the neighbourhood.

So this is looking north on rhinestone, so you've got the existing neighbourhood to the west.

You can see there are a mixture of uh ranch and two-story buildings.

Um they have a wall, um, a sidewalk.

We will be installing sidewalk on this section of rhinestone that doesn't exist today.

We will be landscaping as shown here, and the buildings single story, you're not really going to see them.

Similarly, this is looking from uh Kettle Ridge Drive, which is the intersection opposite the proposed entrance to the storage facility, and it just shows how the gate is there.

There is a median separating the entrance, so if people kind of come in by mistake, they can loop around and get out, and then the wall along rhinestone is identified there.

And then this is looking in the other direction, south.

I would point out that there was reference to the town homes looking having a bird's eye view of this.

The town homes are actually elevated by about 10 feet above the grade of the road.

So whatever goes there, they're probably going to be looking down and have a bird's eye view of.

So the landscaping that's proposed in ours is going to actually improve that.

Now traffic generation.

This is one of the major concerns we heard at the neighborhood meeting.

The concerns were, as expressed, the fact that Old Ranch Road, the access of Rhinestone and to Old Ranch Road is right in, right out only.

There is a median across Old Ranch Road.

And so to do certain movements, if you want to go east, you would want to, you would probably go through the neighborhood.

I think the key factor here is mini warehouse is by far a long way the least traffic generating commercial use that is out there.

To the point where the traffic city traffic engineer doesn't require a traffic report.

And we did a comparison of the traffic and compared it to single family attached housing, which is the town similar to the town home, same density as the townhomes to the north.

A strip retail plaza, exactly the same as that has already been approved, the 41,000 square feet, and a general office building, because that was suggested as a preferred use, professional officers.

And we also looked at medical or dental offices because they would be considered professional officers as well.

And I think you can see from this that the total traffic generated by this development is significantly significantly less than any of those preferred alternatives, including residential.

The management company have even gone so far as to say, we don't think it's going to be anywhere near that based on our experience of any of other developments in the area and other projects, similar projects we're managing.

You probably are going to get about 15 total trips a day vehicles coming in and out.

15 doesn't really work, it's an odd number, but 16 going in and out, so eight trips a day.

People come in the morning and they leave in the evening.

The other thing I think that's significant, but we we are bound by the ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers criteria, and so we utilize those, even whether it's the right number or not, that's what we're using.

But still, it's significantly less.

So residential comes and goes during those AM peaks, people going to work, taking kids to school, strip retail tends to be a little bit more fluid.

Officers are by far the most intense traffic generators at peak hours.

And we have a graph here that kind of depicts this.

So you can see the mini warehouse is the blue, thick blue line across the bottom.

So that just reiterates very low traffic generation and pretty much steady during the day.

So it kind of starts picking up around 7 and then dies off around 6 pm.

So those are the time periods where the other uses are just a peaking.

So you can see the typical peaks from the blue of the dental, medical and dental office and the green of the general office are very much around that 7am, 5 pm.

So this is just a low traffic generating use.

It's not only low traffic generating, it's a small scale buildings, the height is low, and it is well landscaped.

Concerns were expressed about site visibility.

There's a little bit of crest.

So we we looked at the site visibility, and in terms of the access location, there were questions about could we move that access?

But this is the optimum location, and it is always better from a traffic standpoint to have access points, driveways opposite each other than staggered.

And the site visibility analysis was done at the request of traffic engineering, and they they have agreed with it.

There was also initially the gate was a little bit closer to Rhinestone.

There was a quest to move that back, which we did, and so that was to address initial city comets.

And the site itself internally has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

It has to, it has to be able to allow fire trucks to circulate.

But it's not it's not going to accommodate the tight turning, the turning that a semi-truck would generate.

It's just not designed for that.

But yes, is it could it have smaller box trucks and moving vans?

Yes, but they're going to come when somebody gets their rental unit, drop the stuff off, and then you know, I see here so many stories of people.

Oh, I probably should go and check on my rental unit.

I haven't been there for two years.

You know, it's not something that people go to on a daily basis.

Photometric plan, as noted, uh it wasn't a required, but one was included.

Uh, a total of 54 wall-mounted lights are proposed, obviously for security purposes, this needs to be lit.

But these are all building mounted, there are no freestanding light poles, so there's no big lights here, they are building mounted full cut-off lights.

Um, some lights will need to be kept on 24 7 for security, but um I spoke to the operator and they said they're going to keep that to a minimum necessary just to provide for security.

They're not going to keep the whole place lit up after hours.

And this is just gives an example of the lighting and how it's downward facing, and that kind of diagram in the bottom right corner shows how the lighting is limited really to a 10-foot by the time you get to 10 feet away from the light, it's dissipated to the point where you you won't have any impact.

So there's really going to be no impact to the surrounding area from the lighting.

The photopetric plan to go back shows with these little um dots around it have a measurement next to them, so they show that it's zero light emission at the boundaries.

And in terms of the concerns about the town homes looking down, all the lighting is going to be downward facing.

And I would say that if you have a commercial use, they will have light poles for parking lots and much more intense lighting requirements.

A lot of uh fuss has been made about the fencing.

We are proposing a screen fence along the boundary in the red line there, so a completely um opaque concrete wall.

And around the perimeter, the rest of the perimeter in the purple-ish colour, we are proposing a uh security fence, which is a rail fence.

And we are not proposing an additional fence on the north boundary adjacent to the town homes because there is an existing fence there, but we are connecting that to so the back of the buildings here effectively are the boundary of the development, and there are short sections of fencing to connect that and ensure that the boundary is completely connected, and it's the same on the old ranch side, so they are completely the back of the buildings is effectively the boundary wall.

Environmental concerns, mouse habitat.

This shows the plan of where the mouse habitat is, and you can see where the site is.

We're nowhere near the mouse habitat.

There were suggestions that the mouse move around.

They they do move, but they always need to be that the area that their habitat is focused on is the creek.

They need a water source, and once a water source is disrupted by development, which this has been, there is no longer mouse habitat beyond that.

And all the uh required permitting, um, what what have you was done with uh Kettle Creek File Byton Richard Kettle Creek filings five and six, there is a long case number on that with the US Fish and Wildlife, and there was also some uh authorised take of habitat with that development.

So this site is far removed from the mouse habitat, and that is not an issue.

So I just wanted to go through the development plan review criteria because this is what's relevant to the consideration here.

So, first of all, the site design, building location orientation, and exterior building materials are compatible with and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.

So I I put that in comments because it's not about the use.

The use has been established through the zoning.

We're not talking about use at this point.

We're talking about site design, building location orientation and exterior building materials.

And in from our presentation, we believe that they are consistent with the neighborhood.

And complies with all applicable city adopted plans.

At this point, once you have a master plan and a zoning, the uh plan COS requirements become less relevant.

But in terms of um neighborhoods and creating vibrant neighborhoods, this the fact that this has always been identified for a commercial use of some nature is part of that neighborhood.

It's always been part of that neighborhood.

Now it might not be the commercial that the neighbors would prefer, but it is a low impact commercial, given that the access is somewhat constrained with the right in right out only on old ranch road, it is an appropriate commercial use.

It meets the dimensional standards in the zoning code.

I think Miss Baxter went through that in some detail.

Complies with the drainage criteria manual.

I haven't really touched on this, but in that northeast uh west corner is a detention pond.

So any concerns about existing drainage issues that might be coming onto rhinestone will be addressed by that detention pond, and that's what the final FDR, the final drainage report addresses.

And it provides adequate parking per code, and everything else is all consistent with the standards.

And there are a bunch of other criteria, but they're all very much objective criteria.

There's very little subjectivity in a development plan review.

So that's all about does it comply with the landscape code?

Does it um address any sensitive or hazardous natural features?

I think mass habitat came up in that regard, it's not applicable.

Access, traffic criteria manual, does it comply?

Yes, it does.

To that point, no traffic uh impact assessment was necessary because the traffic generation is so low, and are all adequate utilities and any offside impacts addressed.

So, really, the only subjective subjective criteria in development plan review is number one, and that relates to the site design and building location, as I say, it doesn't apply to the use.

The use compatibility and in the context, I think what was referenced in uh the pellants uh presentation was public health, safety and welfare.

That is a zoning criteria, it is not a development plan criteria because once you've got if you've established the zoning, there is an assumption that the uses that are allowed that are allowed in that zone, which haven't changed materially for this particular type of use, are compatible with the neighborhood from a public safety, health and welfare perspective.

Um like I said before, a lot of emphasis has been put on the process and how the neighbors feel they were failed by the city.

I sympathize with them on that score.

However, if we were to start this process again today, we would be back here in front of you potentially with the same decision.

And we it wouldn't change anything.

Just because the process may have not been carried out to the neighbor's satisfaction, it wouldn't change the city's decision or the or the plan that's been proposed.

I would say that we had 61 people or thereabouts at the neighborhood meeting, several of them, and one person actually spoke up in the meeting saying it could be a lot worse.

We could have a 7-Eleven here, and several people came up afterwards.

And I think the fact that you don't have 61 people here today is indicative of partly, okay, the hearing is during the day, it's not convenient for a lot of people.

But I think there are several people who felt they had their concerns addressed, their uh their clarity on the fact that this has always been commercial.

We're not proposing something new, we're not changing a master plan, we're not changing its only.

So there were a considerable amount of um I would say acceptance by some of the neighbors, obviously not all of them, um, that this was probably the best use for this site, and we would maintain that it is in terms of neighborhood compatibility, uh, traffic generation and so on.

So I think with that, I'm happy to answer any questions or answer them later if you have any questions.

Um urgent questions or we could do public comment first.

Uh I don't know that it's urgent, but I think I'd like to ask it now.

So, Andrea, I um you did some traffic uh trip generation slides, but one of the uses that you did not include in those slides was multifamily, which is an allowable use in the MXM.

Did you analyze those?

It was we didn't, well, um yes and no, so I can I'll answer that in two ways.

So we analyzed single family attached housing, townhomes, which is a form of multifamily.

Right.

We we wanted to be realistic in uh not presenting, oh, it could be apartments here, this is going to be um uh traffic generation much higher, whatever, or or even a more aggressive retail use because we just based it on what had already been approved.

So we wanted to keep our comparisons within the realms of reasonableness.

I I appreciate that, and that makes sense.

It just seems like apartments are the word of the year in our community, and so it it wouldn't be surprising that it would be allowable to have a lot of it.

It's an it is an allowable.

It was under the PBC zone, it was a conditional use under the MXM zoning, it is an allowed use.

Yes, yeah.

So I just want to make I I want to bring that up one because I didn't see it here, and two, because I do think it's important to look at the differences between what could be and what maybe is being proposed.

Okay.

Yeah, I just had one question.

Um eastbound from powers on um old ranch road, is there room to have uh right now is it just scheduled where you still have your two lanes going west or yes, there are two lanes in both directions.

Uh uh I can't I don't really have anything to point with, but uh where rhinestone uh comes on to Old Ranch or between Old Ranch and uh Powers.

Yeah, you're going from say you're going from Powers toward uh the west on Old Ranch Road, and if you're gonna turn in on rhinestone, is there any kind of an apron for turn off to get into the neighborhood?

I believe there is a uh what we call a deceleration lane.

There is a deceleration and an acceleration lane to come at when you're coming out as well.

You can see this you can see that on the plan.

Um with that's uh the striping there on the aerial.

Yeah, somebody's got that there.

Thank you.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you okay.

With that, we'll move on to public comment.

Is that the end okay?

So first public comment in support of this uh appeal.

I guess in support of the no public comment in support of the advocate.

No one sign up for um comments in support.

Okay, anybody online?

If there's anybody online in support of this item, please uh press star seeks to unmute yourselves now.

There's no one online.

Okay, so we'll move to people that are in support of the appeal.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

The first person is Chris.

I'm sorry, Ray Kiff.

Please introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes to speak.

Hi, my name's Chris Ratcliffe, and I live about a hundred yards of where this is proposed to be.

And I know there's been a lot of commentation commentary about whether this is or whether this is not within the purview of the appeal.

The reason why we're here is because we got painted into this corner by the process.

The fact that we are told it's approved after years of dormancy, and the fact that nobody bothered to let us know when they had told us they would, is why I'm here.

As far as the use, them saying, Oh, it's always been since the dawn of time, it's commercial.

Where I live since the dawn of time, where my house is, was also commercial.

So to throw that out there and say, oh, it's always been that way, and that's always what it's going to be, isn't true because where I live was zone commercial.

So the other part that I have a problem with is the fact that the development is taking place in a very hush-hush behind doors appeal is the only recourse we have.

And that's why I'm here.

The fact that they say it's minimal traffic, that's probably true.

It's a lot more than what it is right now.

And the fact that my son walks by there every morning on the way to Pine Creek, because we don't get D20 buses because we're within the walk zone.

And he walks back home by there every day is also a problem.

I don't care if it's a hundred cars a day, I don't care if it's 10, it's more.

So you're telling me that yes, it's not as bad as it could be.

Is it ideal?

No.

And that's all I have.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Karen Knowles.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

I'd like to thank you for being here to hear us.

And we appreciate your taking time and your schedule for us.

Some of the concerns that I have personally is I live on Looking Glass Way.

My name is Karen Knowles.

And I'm one of the thoroughfare streets.

My grandchildren play on that street constantly.

And so when people are coming in, they're gonna come constantly through my property.

I mean through my street where my grandkids are, and the only there's only other way they're gonna be able to get in is from rhinestone to the left or up to the left.

The other street is um right perpendicular before us, and it really concerns me that we're gonna have people, trucks, all these things come in.

We already have Amazon, we have Prime, we have all these, all these trucks coming in now, and now we're talking about people that are gonna have their storage unit stuff.

They're coming in and the trucks are coming in.

That really concerns me.

The other thing that concerns me is I used to work at Pine Creek High School, and the bus comes down Rhinestone.

They say they're gonna be open at six.

The buses pick up the children around seven.

So what's that gonna have have to do with all these trucks that are gonna be there blocking our entrance and our exit for our kids to come?

How are the buses supposed to get around that?

It's really not a very big street, and that concerns me.

We have kids that ride um their bikes, kids that um ride scooters to school, we have after school programs, we have the football teams, we have all the teams that are gonna be going up and down, and they're gonna have to fight these trucks.

And um, the other thing I was with Chris when she said that um commercial, it's always been zone commercial.

We were promised a park when I moved there 20 years ago behind bison ridge, behind my house, we were promised a park.

It was donated to us, and it was just ignored.

So I don't want to hear that it's always been commercial.

I'd love to see a park up there.

We don't have a park.

Codera has tons of parks.

We have nothing for our children to play at.

Um, the other thing that I'm concerned about, I'm not sure.

I don't know a lot about the codes and everything for these properties.

So is the code gonna be turned off every day?

Um, it's open from 6 in the morning to 10 p.m.

So we're gonna have people coming in and out with their things with their trucks all week, and then on the weekends from 6 a.m.

in the morning to 5 p.m.

And that that concerns me.

Our our neighborhood is a neighborhood, and um, do we really want people coming to pick up their things?

Trucks coming to pick up their things that early in the morning.

10 o'clock at night, our kids go to bed.

We have little ones.

So I hope that you'll consider the things that we have to deal with as a neighborhood with our children and everyone, and I really appreciate it.

And um, thank you.

Thank you.

Johnny Lujan.

Next speaker, Lyndon Keen.

Um, my name is Lyndon Kincaid.

I just purchased my house on August 1st.

City moved forward with this when I had no option to get out of buying it.

I am now stuck next to a storage facility that we all we all know it's gonna go through.

It's just what happens.

Um, but there are major concerns with the fact that there's a moving truck parked in front of our sign, right adjacent to that property.

Trucks aren't gonna be able to drive in and out of there.

One moving truck on one side, because they're gonna have to unload out on our street.

If you have two moving trucks on either side, that turns our street into a one-way street.

Traffic trying to go in and out.

So you've got that situation.

Um, we've got who's taking care of the exterior landscaping that they're putting in outside their fencing.

Is it gonna be mature plantings in the beginning?

Because if it's not, then it's gonna be metal fence, and we're gonna see straight into it.

Nothing's gonna be blocked for another 20 years if they're not putting in mature trees.

And frankly, it should just be all evergreens.

Um very irritated.

Um, and again, goes going back, always zoned commercial.

Everything has changed in that whole area.

Why is this still zoned commercial when it's surrounded by neighborhoods?

A place that people love like the North Springs is turning into the South, and it's not good, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jim Loban.

I'm the vice president of the HOA Bison Ridge at Kettle Ridge.

Contrary to what was said before.

Most of our residents are very opposed to this, and I commend them on being um very reasonable and not getting overly excited or obnoxious.

You heard about the zoning history going back to 20 years, I believe.

Your predecessors, I think, made a big mistake when they changed that commercial to residential because now you've left a portion that's still commercial boxed in.

It's landlocked.

Two major arterial roads, powers and old ranch road border one side.

Community residential areas border the other two sides.

Granted, it is currently zoned MXM, which means we could have townhouses in there.

Now, there's been a lot of talk about traffic going in and out, and that's true.

Maybe a storage facility would have less traffic than if it were a townhouse unit.

But I would tell you if it were a townhouse unit, you'd have residents like nature in mind.

They would be more cognizant of the children going along that road, rhinestone out the out to Old Ranch Road and across Powers.

That's what we would like to see.

Um a storage facility.

There's a lot of them in town.

The crime rate is like around 1,200 plus for burglaries in Colorado Springs.

Now you've probably seen a lot of different storage areas.

Some of them are open, like the one that's currently approved.

Others are this tall stand-up ones which have locks and doors and barriers to get into them.

The storage facility that's proposed, I think would just be ripe for crime, just like other storage facilities of the same structure.

Those fences don't stop anybody.

Um, if you look at some of the crimes that have happened in Colorado Springs, there's been a homicide in one of these storage facilities.

People have rented them and live in them.

Some of the things I disagree on the traffic aspect of going in and out.

Would you really want somebody going in and out of your neighborhood at 10 o'clock at night?

That's that's ridiculous.

They should have taken into consideration that that would be landlocked and there would be no other access into there, other than going through a residential area.

If it's gonna go through residential area, let's make it a townhouse where we know that the people will be conscious and respectable, not small little storage units go into small little businesses where they're actually going out on a daily basis.

And the crime aspect, that's not acceptable.

I don't think you all would want something like that in your neighborhood with traffic going through.

Thank you.

Appreciate the comments.

Thank you.

Robert Stein.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes to speak.

Hi, I'm Robert Stein.

I live on uh Kettle Ridge Drive, which will be the main thoroughfare for all the trucks and all the extra traffic to get into this facility.

So that's just going to increase ridiculously.

I drive semi for a living and I deliver to these storage facilities.

And you know, she says you're not going to get uh commercial trucks.

You are.

I deliver coffee, all kinds of other goods where people have businesses and they store their stuff in there and they have their stuff delivered right to the storage facility.

So you're gonna have commercial vehicles, more than we ever see coming through there, plus you know, all the traffic, and not on not only that, but you know, when it rains, our street already floods.

So I don't know where all their their water is gonna go, but the way their driveway is it's gonna come right down our street.

And you know, we have two storm drains on that street, and that's it.

So I this is just totally wrong, and I agree with the whole uh, you know, so it's zone commercial, but it is boxed in.

So maybe if you brought them in off of Old Ranch, in and out off Old Ranch and left our neighborhood alone, okay.

I can't, I can't sleep with my windows open at night because of the highway noise from powers.

Now, this place is gonna be open till 10 p.m.

and you're gonna have semis going up and down there till 10 p.m.

I mean, this is a neighborhood.

You guys are supposed to be working for us.

So please work for the neighborhood, okay?

Put townhomes in there.

We need more families.

Not this.

Put it on the other side of powers.

You have all kind of commercial over there, and you already have a storage facility over there.

I think it's a ridiculous.

So work for us, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kimberly Stein.

Introduce yourself, please, and you will have three minutes to speak.

My name's Kim Stein.

Um, you just heard from my husband.

Um we moved into uh off of Kettle Ridge, or I should say, Bison Ridge uh neighborhood.

It'll be 10 years.

It was a lovely area developing all of that stuff when we moved in.

Now the homes are valued at three-quarters of a million dollars plus.

Um the storage unit, yes, it's it's the biggest problem that we're concerned about right now, mainly because of the traffic, as we've all talked about.

What I need to express really um is for do you y'all to understand Kettle Ridge Drive that we live off of?

That is going to be the main way to get into this storage unit if you're going from the west side.

That's the only way to get in there, unless you go on rhinestone, the next street over through the neighborhoods.

You can coming out of that, going from east to west, if people do take uh old ranch, great.

Chances are they're just gonna come right down the same way they went in.

She talked about traffic, um monitoring the traffic and all of that stuff.

She said specifically from old ranch.

How many?

How about the ones that are going to come through Kettle Ridge Drive?

That needs to be evaluated.

That's the problem.

Um, that and and we have children that play in this neighborhood.

They walk to and from the schools.

These are all dangerous things.

My husband, as you heard, drives a semi.

These trucks that come through these neighborhoods, they're not the small as the Amazon trucks.

They're bigger.

They're moving vans.

How would you like to have that be on your daily list from 6 a.m.

to 10 or until 5 on Sundays?

I just I'm really uh opposed to all this.

This is very aggravating.

I'm concerned, you know, it's going to devalue our home prices.

It just doesn't seem like a good investment.

Uh well, is a good investment for the storage people, but definitely not on our part.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dave Murphy.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes to speak.

Sorry, I'm fired up, so I wrote it down here.

My name's Dave Murphy.

I live in the towns at Kettle Creek, and I'm the person uh referenced in the slide presentation regarding the correspondence with Peter Lang.

Back in uh 22, when a sign was posted on the site about a proposed self-storage development, I was in communication with Peter.

I have over 20 emails with Peter, and I met with him a couple times.

He acknowledged that he received overwhelming opposition to this project, and he promised that our neighborhood input would be considered and involved during the planning review process.

On March 15, 2023, Peter emailed me and said, quote unquote, he would require that the applicant conduct a community meeting so the applicant team can present their project and us as a community can attend and express our concerns.

Peter wasn't sure when that community meeting would uh be scheduled, but he promised that we would all receive notices in the mail when the meeting would be scheduled in a venue selected.

This obviously never happened.

Instead, nothing was communicated to our community until Tamara sent an email notifying us that the project had been approved, and we had 10 days to appeal.

I am so frustrated and disturbed how this was handled by the city.

Our due process as a community was denied, and the city's fiduciary duty seems like it was 100% for the applicant.

That is not right or fair.

Instead, the applicant's response to our concerns was not available on Xella until July 9th, 2025.

Ironically, the same day the project was approved.

Imagine if you were in our shoes.

Would this frustrate you?

During a meeting, Kevin Walker and Tamara Baxter had with Julie Price in late July.

Kevin downplayed the neighbor's email dissents and said he didn't read them all because they all look like cut-and-paste generic complaints.

That is so unprofessional and infuriating to hear.

So I live in the Kell Creek townhomes on the north perimeter wall.

Every window looks down on this project, and we will be forced to stare at 500 units of metal roofs and roll-up doors.

I am concerned with the light and the noise pollution, declining property values, traffic potential crime, and hours of operation.

I mean, are you kidding me?

How is this good for a quiet neighborhood to be hearing moving trucks beep when in reverse and hearing loud roll-up doors at 6 a.m.

or late at night?

We do not live in an industrial area.

No one on this panel would like this if the shoes were reversed.

As our townhome is up against the property line.

I'm also concerned with a lack of strategic landscaping that will help buffer and shield from the unsightly view.

It would have been nice for the applicant to hear our concerns and work with the neighborhood.

A mini storage facility in the middle of homes need to have a larger landscaping budget to create the proper buffer.

The approved minimal landscaping plan might be to code, but are the trees mature and are they strategically placed?

The townhouse windows to create a proper shield.

Probably not.

Bottom line, our community did not receive due process or fair representation by the city, and I'm hoping the planning commission does the right thing and accept our appeal.

Thank you.

Jen Murphy.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

As she said, my name is Jen Murphy.

I actually sat this while I was writing in my seat.

I was not planning on speaking today.

I was letting my husband do that on behalf of us, but I just feel such frustration and disappointment by the way the city planners have handled this entire process, and I feel like it needs to be stated.

I am an owner in the townhouses.

I do live on the wall that sits right next to this property that I just found out today is going to have no fence because they're going to just use our fence as the fence.

I find that to be unfair and unsafe.

They have since graduated, and we loved it here so much we decided we're going to stay.

We sold our home in Arizona, and this all happened before we received the July 9th approval.

I'm up here because I just want to reiterate the level of disrespect that was done to the members of our community in this process.

When a sign was first posted in the summer of 22, it said comments could be sent to Peter Lang.

My husband Dave and I quickly reached out to him, asked for an in-person meeting, which he promptly replied to and met with us and was very kind.

After that, we spent many days walking the streets of our neighborhood, knocking on hundreds of doors and asking people if they knew that this was proposed for the um vacant land.

Almost everyone said, yes, I'm aware, and I plan to file a complaint with the city.

I think there were maybe five people that thought it was okay.

Fast forward, my husband continued to keep up emails with Peter, and he kept very open communication, which was displayed in the emails shown here.

Uh he he told he promised us.

This is this is where we're also frustrated.

This is why we're sitting here today.

He promised there would be a neighborhood meeting if this project moved forward.

My husband doesn't let things go, and he kept up the communication with Peter.

Peter kept replying.

I kept kept keeping him in the loop.

July 23, everything goes silent.

He keeps trying to get a hold of him.

He can't, so we decide, okay, this is probably not happening.

It's not moving forward.

Fast forward to July 9th this summer, 2025, and a small handful of us receive an email from Tamara Baxter saying it's been approved.

You have 10 days to file an appeal.

How do you think that left all of us feeling?

Very good.

No, not at all.

I do not understand how this went from Peter's promise to Tamara's approval with no community involvement.

I understand there were 168 plus complaints that were filed, and strangely, we never saw any of those until July 9th, the same day the approval was posted.

Why were those concerns not addressed in 2022 when they came in?

Shoot, I had a lot more to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Annan.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes to speak.

I live on Slumber Ridgeway, uh, right off of Kettle Ridge.

Um came in late, so I'm not sure what the format is here, but um, my biggest question is has there been a um any type of study done on the traffic?

Obviously, the biggest concern here is uh values of our homes.

Um this lot sits right in the middle of everybody's community.

It's commercial land in front, right in the middle of residential to get in and out of this resident or the storage unit complex, you're gonna have to go through um Kettle Ridge.

There's no option there.

Has there been any studies or can there at least be studies done on making some type of entrance, making a traffic change on research, not research, uh old ranch road.

There's plenty of media in there, it's 20 feet wide, there's plenty of area there.

I implore you to at least, you know, if if you go forward with this, at least have some type of study done before that's approved to be able to say, hey, let's put an entrance off of old ranch so it doesn't have to go through a neighborhood to where it's got kids, families, dogs, uh, high schoolers walking to and from school.

Um, it's a terrible place not to have an entrance and to put people through Kettle Ridge.

Um that's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alisa Downs.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

Hello, everyone.

I'm Alyssa Downs.

I live on Slumber Ridge.

I'm a Colorado Springs resident since 1987.

I am very invested in my community.

I used to go up and down Old Ranch Road when it was red dirt road and there was only the farm there.

Um, I used to really appreciate the antelope going up and down powers and through the whole neighborhood.

And um, I just want to paint that picture for you.

And here we are now, 2005, and my city's completely different than the way it was growing up, and it breaks my heart.

I miss open space.

I walk my dogs five days a week there.

I'm very concerned about the traffic coming through our main roads.

Um, I'm very concerned because I walk all the time.

And when I'm out there, there's at least five other people walking at the same time, no matter what time of day I'm walking.

So for me, the traffic is a big issue.

Safety is a big concern.

Um, I ultimately would love for the city to have some integrity and be like, hey, we used to be so great here.

Let's leave a little open space.

You know what?

It's just a little tiny lot.

I love watching the grass change all year round.

It makes my mind so happy, it calms me down.

I love it.

You're gonna take that away from me, and it's gonna make me cry.

So, what I ask is exactly what Chris Anon said.

Make it safe for us.

We there's plenty of room on that median.

We need to have it so that people aren't coming up and down our major roads, which already have massive potholes in them.

I have one right in front of my house, one right on Slumber Ridge, and uh Kettle Ridge, and there's two actually there.

So we already have major structural issues with the roads there.

So if we could direct some of that traffic, put that median with those turn lanes on old ranch so they don't come up and down our streets as readily as they are going to if you don't put that.

I asked for the traffic to be adjusted, and I really would beg you to increase the setback and put all the evergreens on the uh rhinestone.

We don't need evergreens going up and down old ranch.

We need the buffer in front of us and our neighborhood so that there's less visual impact, and there's more of a buffer so that we don't have to hear the trucks and the people in there, and also on the side where the townhomes are.

Those are the two things I beg and I plead.

I miss the open space here.

I miss the antelope.

You're all taking it all away from us.

It breaks my heart.

So I ask, please make it safe for us.

Put in that um intersection to the neighborhood, and please make it aesthetically pleasing.

Bring all evergreens in.

You can put the deciduous on the old ranch side.

We want we want you to protect our neighborhood.

You're supposed to work for us, we are the people, our neighborhood has a voice, and as you see, we will use our voice.

We aren't sitting back quietly, and we are going to be kind and with love.

Please help protect us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was our last speaker in person.

Do we have anyone online to speak?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak on this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves now.

If your number is ending in 5462, and you were wishing to speak, please unmute yourself now.

Hi there.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

I don't need three minutes.

My name is Will Donnie.

I live on looking glass.

I rewanted basically just mentioned that every neighbor here um has pretty much spoken and said exactly what I would want to have uh said.

So my my only word here are the NES representative has decidedly represented our community, which I disagree with.

They mentioned that they were who felt that they're uh you know that is uh highly inappropriate.

You're representing your community while the community is rebutting and effectively telling you that you don't want it.

It's highly inappropriate for you to actually represent.

I have looking block way.

I have to ask them to be extremely conscious of every single vehicle that they do across the street.

You're introducing something that is effectively a commercial building.

As far as customers who don't care about this community, they are not part of it.

They're not going to take the same amount of care that we do.

And that includes my kids.

So I'm extremely concerned about the lack of emotionality.

Everything is discussed in terms of code.

There's a community code here that is being here.

And I would implore the council.

Appreciate your uh attention.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, I believe we're gonna move now back to the appellants to rebut the uh uh applicant, and then I'll give the applicant equal time, 10 minutes to respond to public comment.

I'm gonna check it this time.

Last time I did not.

Again, my name is Julie Price.

I am speaking on behalf of our community.

And when I say that, I mean those 168 comments that came your way and those 61 people who attended the meeting.

So I want to say, first of all, it's a bit disingenuous to be saying that, well, there's not a whole lot of people here.

To live where we live, we work, we're doing our best.

And so I am honored and I am humbled to be here to be able to speak on behalf of our community.

And the folks that were here today, I commend them for being able to be here as well.

This is not a small voice, contrary to what NES said.

This is not a small voice.

And many of the folks that were at the meeting did not walk away satisfied.

A few walked away with a little better understanding of eh, well, it could be worse.

But what is worse?

What is worse?

And that is why I'm asking you to consider our appeal and to, I guess, approve our computer appeal, deny the application.

But I wanted to address a few things that were talked about in the NES presentation.

On slide two of the NES presentation, it showed homes and it showed a school.

It called out two schools, Mountain View Elementary and Challenger Middle.

My son is an eighth grader at Challenger Middle School.

He walks to and from school.

He doesn't necessarily have to go up and around that way, but he will be a ninth grader next year at Pine Creek, and he will.

So my concern for my son and every other son and daughter in our community has been echoed by the folks behind me and the gentleman on the phone today.

Additionally, in conjunction with that, on slide 16, there was the evolution of the property.

And yes, as I said, and as been said here, the master plan that was creating crafted 40 plus years ago, and as noted 1998 from NES, it evolved.

It was supposed to be commercial.

When you look at the pictures today in my presentation, in Miss Baxter's presentation and NES's presentation, you can see it has evolved into a community.

And why that little parcel of land remained commercial is beyond me.

I want to note though, under the new business item 8A that was briefed today, NES briefed at that presentation too.

And she briefed about the homes in the MXM and how those homes in 8A make a nice transition, which is what MXM is supposed to do, as I understand.

However, here we're talking about across the street having a storage facility.

There is no transition.

There is none at all.

Also, there was a clear point made that regardless of all of the changes, it's been commercial always.

Well, no, I live in a house there.

It's not been commercial always.

And as my neighbors have said, and that the expectation of the neighborhood was commercial.

I bought my home in 2017 when I moved here from Washington, DC.

Obviously, if I could buy a home there, it wasn't residential or it wasn't commercial, it was residential.

It was mentioned by Anne S that they didn't that the choice that I noted that there was a choice to use whatever code, and that she said this application was submitted well before UDC.

And she's not wrong.

It was submitted in August of 2022.

UDC was February of 2023.

And as noted on my slide from planning plan COS, anybody who filed an application before June 5th of 2023 could choose, basically, choose what they wanted to be under.

August 22 to June of 23.

That's a long time.

The delay was a long time.

And the delay for this application process was a long time.

Years.

Also noted the definition of a mini warehouse.

Access and use that's infrequent.

How is that going to be enforced?

How does she know that it's going to be infrequent?

I've personally gone and spoken with small foot storage facilities like this in the Colorado Springs area to gather data.

And one of the things that I was told at that facility was and note, their hours are seven to seven in the summer, and then basically their hours are dawn to dusk in the winter.

So they are working their hours consistent to the daylight.

And again, nothing good happens in the dark.

But I digress.

In talking with this other facility, they noted that the people that inhabit those storage facilities use them for boats because in HOAs can't have boats out there or small little vehicles or jet skis.

Some of them are realtors that keep their realtor signs in there.

Some of them even keep their barbecue grills in there.

And they he noted it's so hilarious in the summer watching people take their barbecue girls out and take them back in.

And he said, and even during football season, they're taking them to tailgates.

So I challenge the notion of access to use is infrequent.

They don't know who's going to be utilizing these facilities.

Also noted what was not part of the appeal process and not having the community involved.

I believe though that that's what plan COS is for.

I also want to note in my presentation, I noted four pieces of the UDC, in addition to the application process that failed miserably and did not include the community.

So I just want to go back and rebuff that statement that, well, yeah, I feel bad for them.

The process was bad.

Oh wow, whoa, wait, woe is me.

But that's not consistent with what plan COS was designed to do.

It was to involve the community and the neighbors.

And this did not over three years.

But the placement impacts the community, and that's vital.

And maybe instead of just doting on the fact that they've exceeded it, work with the community, talk to us.

Well, we don't want this, and we hope that our appeal is accepted here.

We understand that there's a propensity that this could be appealed to city council and ultimately approved.

Work with us as the community.

You're coming into our neighborhood.

You're coming into our community.

Be a good steward, be a good neighbor.

Also would just like to note what was said by NES.

Several folks here today were at that meeting.

And when we asked what the hours would be, the NES spokesperson said, nine to six, but I will check on that.

So saying that she doesn't remember saying nine to six is a bit of a fallacy.

There are people here that heard that.

If she wasn't at liberty to say any hours, she shouldn't have.

Because that then is an expectation that was provided to us because she is speaking to us on behalf of the applicant.

This is not a one-off for our community, and we are not a one-off.

As you heard earlier with 8 B and C, they're not a one-off either.

We are a community.

Colorado Springs is growing by leaps and bounds.

Why do people move here?

Because they don't want Denver.

Why are we making Colorado Springs Denver?

We're a heck of a lot prettier than Denver.

And people like that.

People want that.

People want those communities.

I I want to note a couple quotes as well.

There were other facilities, and this by far is the least traffic generating out there.

We live here.

We know what the traffic is.

We know what it is.

We see it.

It's not just the volume of traffic, it's the type of traffic that concerns us.

Office hours, those the problem with that is let's just say we put a medical facility there.

We know those are going to be business hours.

We can expect that at eight o'clock at night, nobody's gonna be there, making noise, clanking around, rolling up doors, those kinds of things.

So again, I implore you if this appeal is denied and you move forward, please consider the considerations that have been put before you.

Also wanted to note that uh it was mentioned that it's just gonna be smaller box trucks and moving vans can be accommodated.

But what was noted, fire trucks are big.

It can accommodate fire trucks.

So what's to say that you're not gonna have a 16 to 26 foot uh moving van in because the people there want to put their stuff in storage.

The the facility I went to and spoke with, they have actually a requirement that no trucks go into their facility that are 26 in feet or greater.

While I was there, there was a 16-foot moving truck that came in.

It was pretty dang big.

And when I think about that being potentially in our neighborhood and driving up our streets where our children are, that's pretty daunting.

Um, let's just let's see.

Also, with after hours lighting, when you look at the proposed hours, six to 10, that only gives you eight hours that the lights won't be on.

That's one third of a day.

One third of a day that they're talking about lights will be minimal in the evening, that such sort of thing.

So I just want to note that that stating that the lights will be out or less lights after a certain point in time.

That's not really a good thing in my book either.

Again, I want to thank you all for your time.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you for listening to my community members.

Thank you very much.

Now the applicant will have to respond.

Thank you.

Actually, I'm going to go to the other mic.

And if you could if you could uh pull up my presentation because I may need to reference the site plan.

Okay, that's perfect.

Thank you.

So there are a few different aspects to the neighborhood concerns.

And I think the overriding concern is traffic.

And they are absolutely correct in that because old ranch road access is right in, right out only for certain movements.

So coming into the property, it will require trips through the neighborhood, and exiting the property if anybody wants to go east, it will require going through the neighborhood.

So coming from the west or exiting to the east.

So while, yes, there will be trips through the neighborhood, and in terms of the type of vehicles, they are types of vehicles that are already in the neighborhood.

About based on the ITE standards, about 3% of the traffic at a mini warehouse is typically trucks.

In a residential neighborhood, the average is about three to five percent of trucks, and that's increased significantly over recent years with all the additional delivery trucks that have uh go through the neighborhood, which are also not neighbors, they are strangers to the area, and people coming in making deliveries quite often based on my Amazon deliveries at 10 o'clock at night or at 5 o'clock in the morning.

So there is truck activity, and this will be on a similar level to the existing truck activity.

It's not going to be suddenly introducing daily truck traffic at an level that will impact the neighbors that they will even notice.

There is a lot of concern about just that disruption of the residential area and the fact that this is now a residential community.

It is, it was always planned that way on the master plan.

The only area that changed is the area immediately west.

The whole area was uh defined as a residential neighborhood, a residential community with an element of commercial.

And regarding transitional uses, while it's not a transitional residential use, it is certainly probably the most transitional commercial use.

It is a low-key use, low traffic generator, low height.

Um, the landscaping, as you can see from this plan, is substantial.

Uh a question was asked about mature planting.

No, we don't plant mature trees, but they are usually a minimum of six feet for evergreen trees is required out of the gate and 10 to 12 feet for shade trees with ornamental trees being about eight feet.

So the fence, there is a solid fence proposed, a solid wall proposed along rhinestone, and the trees that will be planted in front of that will be additional screening.

So from the rhinestone side, I think based on the perspective renderings I presented, it is it is really going to visually screen the proposed buildings because they are only single story buildings.

Um we heard a lot of comments about all this traffic, all these trucks, um it's not going to be that much traffic, and I can't emphasize that enough.

That is why for the gentleman who came in late, traffic engineering does not require a traffic study.

We talked to traffic engineering after reading some of the comments about the option of having an access directly onto old ranch road instead of off of Ridestone, even though this site was always shown to be accessed off rhinestone on the uh approved concept plan.

It is far too close to the powers interchange, and it is within CDOT's A-line, they call it, where they have access limitations.

So the only place you could provide an access point would literally be right next to the rhinestone at um uh street access to avoid that limitation on access proximity.

So there is no option for an access off of old ranch road.

So this use and to um the the landowner of this property is the same landowner who developed this entire community, and it is known as the Venisia portion of Briagate.

So the only place you could provide an access point would literally be right next to the rhinestone at um uh street access to avoid that limitation on access proximity so there is no option for an access off of old ranch road so this use and to um the the landowner of this property is the same landowner who developed this entire community and it is known as the Venisia portion of Briagate they have been the landowners all the time and they have purposefully and I've discussed this with them purposefully looked at this type of use as being the most compatible commercial use with the neighborhood in terms of not product much traffic and being kind of a low key use there are lots of comments about crime well actually not lots of a couple of comments about crime you have your police representative here I I I'm not going to answer those questions but you have your police representative here you have traffic representatives you have drainage representatives we're meeting all the criteria all the recommended requirements and to the gentleman on the phone who said um there's no emotionality to my presentation that's not what I'm here to do I am actually here to do completely the opposite and remove the emotion from the discussion and I understand the emotionality of the neighbors it's their neighborhood they live there but we have criteria we have development plan review criteria which is what the city staff use and what which planning commission also implements and so there there should be no emotion attached with this decision it is a factual do we meet the criteria or do we not um there's reference to impact on home values a couple of times that is not a criteria um every property value um property interests has a right to their own value as the landowner does for their commercial value a commercial value which has been there since before any home was built in this location three minutes I'll pause a second to review my notes to check to see if I um have anything else I want to add uh fencing was referenced in terms of using the town home fence I actually would like to go back to the slide where I had the town fence um what fencing exhibit so there's only a short portion of uh the town home fence which will actually form the boundary fence of this property um putting another fence next to an existing fence just creates uh a maintenance issue behind it between the two and there are connecting fences to link to the back of the buildings and the back of the buildings to emphasize or effectively the security the boundary fence of the property um the the one thing we hear so consistently with projects which are proposing to develop sites which are undeveloped is we were promised a park it's our open space I walk my dog there um it's private property it is zone commercial it has never been proposed for a park and never even contemplated for a park it has always been a commercial property and with that my client has property rights and has expectations based on that historic zoning and master planning of this being approved for commercial use and like I say he very consciously chose a use and decided to move forward with the use that has a lower impact to the neighborhood and I might actually finish early so oh regard school children we are potentially improving that situation by providing a sidewalk along rhinestone that does not exist currently and that would be all my comments okay thank you I think at this point we'd like to hear from our traffic engineer I guess I can say it is afternoon good afternoon uh it's hard frisbee city traffic engineering uh representing the public works department so I understand the uh re the reasoning why we can't have a right hand turn on all ranch road into the facility uh how about coming out on rhinestone you're forced to take a right is there any possibility of uh the median about extending the road to across all ranch road across the median it's about uh at rhinestone having opening rhinestone and old ranch so in other words if I'm coming out of a facility I'm on rhinestone heading south I need to take I need a head eastbound on old ranch I can't do that I have to take a right on old ranch or I cut through kettle road or left allow a left yeah there's a median that crosses there so you have to you have to do something so uh again I think uh yes there is there is space to put that left turn lane in uh to put it a level uh put to put a left turn lane uh in uh and so that's yeah that is a feasibility that's a possibility is there enough traffic to is it like a methodology to figure out how to I mean how much traffic you would need that wouldn't be a you would need that um uh it is uh um usually what warn the number that warrants a left turn lane um at uh um

uh the median about extending the road to across old ranch road across the median it's about uh at rhinestone having opening rhinestone and old ranch so in other words if i'm coming out of the facility i'm on rhinestone heading south i need to take i need to head eastbound on old ranch i can't do that i have to take a right on old ranch or i cut through kettle ridge or allow a left allow a left yeah there's a median that crosses there so you have to you have to give some of the main so uh again I think uh yes there is there is space to put that left turn lane in uh to put a left uh put to put a left turn lane uh in uh and so that's you know that is a feasibility that's a possibility is there enough traffic to is there like a methodology to figure out how to I mean how much traffic you would need that would you know you would need that yeah um uh it is uh um usually what war the number that warrants a left turn lane um at the um on that road on old ranch road I'm trying to remember it's 25 vehicles in the peak hour 25 vehicles that's kind of our criteria for requiring a left turn lane uh that we uh that we use uh so no you know since you know we don't we don't we'd have to that would have to be estimated I don't we don't know what the traffic is at the um intersection with Chapel Ridge Road uh but certainly allowing a left in is feasible uh it is feasible it is possible to put that in there that's all the questions I had did anybody else have any questions on traffic yeah with that being I mean the lighted intersection at powers isn't very far away yeah it's uh it's not very far away it's about six hundred and fifty fifty feet uh personally I don't like unprotected left turns uh because you'd have a protected left turn just another 500 feet six hundred feet to the uh to the west and so I I we didn't recommend that left turn lane uh in there um because we didn't think it was needed um and we didn't um because again it's been said many times the traffic generation for a mini storage facility is one of the lower trip generations for commercial for for commercial uses uh and so we just didn't see the need because you had a you had that protected turn back at Chapel Ridge.

Thank you.

Yeah Todd I I know that this um type of use does not trigger a traffic study as Andrea indicated um are there what are the similar types of and maybe you don't know this maybe this first staff yeah uh what are similar types of uses that don't require a traffic study are there other comparable type things that we're it's based no there's not there's not um I mean if the if this was um you know 10,000 storage units yeah we would require a traffic study so it's not the use it's what potentially it will generate so what when we look at we did an application and generally our criteria if it generates more than a hundred trips in the peak hour then we typically require a traffic study and so this was well this site is well below that number so that's why based on the size of the law and the number of units equals a rough as Andrea showed in her slide and so that's acceptable for traffic engineering if it went larger if it was a different use that might trigger yes if it came back with the medical office or something like that we would likely require a traffic study.

And do you and this might be a better question for our CSPD representative but do you have any indication of um known issues with traffic around storage unit uh storage self-storage complexes specifically not specific to storage you know facilities and and and the traffic generated and and the traffic issues that they cause I'm not aware I've not received a complaint about storage specific spores you know meeting you know this type of facility generated sort of specific traffic issue I just have it thank you no other questions I think we're done thank you you're welcome I would like to ask our Colorado Springs police department representative to come speak good afternoon deputy chief mary rosinoff currently in charge of the patrol bureau I can answer your question a little bit about the traffic but it's not about around storage units it's about the area there okay so I do know looking at our premise history for traffic enforcement that old ranch road in Chapel Hills that road right there we do a lot of traffic enforcement and is mainly speed just pulling up a few calls for service uh 50 miles an hour and I think it's 35 there so and that's without a storage unit being there but I can't tell you about storage units I can only tell you whatever road couldn't you speak to crime at storage units in general that came up a few times here yes sir I can so roughly using the number of storage facilities that we have in Colorado Springs which is around 120 um the national average of the number of units is 500 um I used a very conservative of 50 so 50 times 120 would be 6,000 units um and a total number of calls for service at storage units from January 2024 through July 2025 total number of calls 2148 however if you're talking burglaries because that's the main thing that happens there um in

35 yeah so and that's without a storage unit being there but I can't tell you about storage units I can only tell you whatever road uh couldn't you speak to crime at storage units in general that came up a few times or yes sir I can so roughly using the number of storage facilities that we have in Colorado Springs which is around 120 um the national average of the number of units is 500 um I used a very conservative of 50 so 50 times 120 would be 6,000 units um a total number of calls for service at storage units from January 2024 through July 2025 total number of calls 2148 however if you're talking burglaries because that's the main thing that happens there um in 2024 from January all the way to December we had a total of 286 reported burglaries okay this year and overall just so that you know property crime is down in Colorado Springs burglaries are down eight percent um from last year to this year three year down trend is six percent and a five year downtrend is ten percent uh this year so far um so it would be from January to July because I want to use the the same numbers in 2024 we had 164 burglaries right now we have 152 and as of yesterday when it had the analyst check January 20 or excuse me August of 2024 we had 36 burglary calls for service and in August this year we had 10 and when you talk about burglary calls you're talking about in general across the city you're talking about specific to storage unit right just in the storage unit so that's why I started with using that conservative number we have 120 times 50 units which if you think that's that's pretty conservative in terms of facilities times 6,000 we had over 2100 calls for service last year we had a total of 286 people that said that their storage unit was burglarized and then the latest statistics last year right now we had we were sitting at 164 this year we're sitting at 152 and in August last year we had 36 and as of yesterday that and I want to clarify that because what if all the reports aren't in yet we had 10 and do you have any um clarification on if those are different types are they fenced or controlled or not fenced or not controlled or they're all they're all different because they're all our different facilities um you will hopefully in your packet you have seen that um there was no information from CSPD in there initially and I wondered why because it started in 2022 so I called our crime prevention officer up in Falcon he's a newer crime prevention officer we did have the one from Falcon Leaf but it asked him to do a SEPTED so you can see that he did add that information but all facilities are different and we do provide that um that procedure or that process if you would like to have an officer come and see what you should what you should have or what we think that isn't always followed um but they're all different in terms of and that's because um it's cost it's costly to to do security features and you spoke those numbers were citywide any uh the applicant or sorry the the appellant pointed out that there's like five or six different other storage facilities many warehouse facilities in this air general area do you have any idea on this particular area Briargate Northgate area any idea of the number of those calls for service that would have been no I'd have to because it's very it's it's computer aided dispatch so I would actually have to use the actual address and when I had the uh dispatch supervisor run the calls for service for storage units you have to realize that sometimes people don't know where they are but they'll say hey I'm in front of the U-Haul storage unit on such and such doesn't mean that it has to do with the storage unit it could be a traffic accident uh we do get domestic disturbances there people fighting over property not necessarily a burglary it just depends a missing person can be all different things uh any other questions from commissioners thank you very much you're welcome I know there were some questions on drainage do we have to I think we had someone here from Swinton sorry I forgot my notes uh my name is Richard Millet I'm the public works director for the city of Color Springs Swint is part of public works so I can answer those questions.

I'm the public works director for the City of Call of Springs.

Swint is part of public works, so I can answer those questions.

Yeah, there were some uh public comment about drainage and water coming down their streets in particular, but I do know there's a uh looks like a detention pond on the site.

Is there any unresolved uh detention issues or water issues that you see from the site?

Yeah, this is an interesting one because actually uh in the the final drainage report, if we look at it, there's some uh offsite flows that come south onto the street.

Those are pretty minimal in the existing condition.

Um they're about 2.3 CFS in the 100 year, so that's the kind of the flow rate coming off the pretty minimal.

A CFS is about the size of a basketball.

So think about that.

Very minimal flows.

Actually, in the post-development condition, that's reduced to 0.9.

So we're actually that size actually decreasing the flows or going directly into the street.

Um, I think the other question uh that I saw or comment was about the capacity of the existing storm sewer system in there.

So there's a 30-inch uh pipe that's gonna collect those flows coming out of a permanent water quality facility.

That site was planned, master planned.

Uh and in the master plan, that pipe has a capacity of uh 40 CFS, and that uh that uh the planning of that development was part of that capacity.

Um when you look at the post-development after it comes out of the water quality facility, that 100-year flow is 19.5.

So greatly decreased.

So I think to answer your question directly, the street flows themselves will be reduced as well as the underground conveyance flows in the 30-inch pipe.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions?

Thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

And with that, we'll go ahead and uh bring it up to the dias.

I have uh Commissioner Hensler first.

I think that's a holdover.

Okay, my thoughts in a moment.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Uh thank you.

Um I think this is likely a question for Ms.

Baxter.

Um could you point out to us or give us the point of reference on whether there was any provision in the prior zoning and subdivision ordinance that gave an expiration the way that the applications now expire uh in 7.5.403.

Uh Tamara Baxter for the record.

Um, so in regards to expiration, so under chapter seven and also in the UDC, there under the section of withdrawal of application, it does establish the 180 days.

Um, but it also identifies that the manager may extend response periods provided.

And in that case, what happens is that um when an application is submitted in staff reviews or provides comment, we issue the comment to the applicant.

There's outside um work that's being done by the applicant party.

So it may not be resubmitted for a couple months because they're either working with traffic or their own traffic or storm water.

Um so as long as they're communicating with staff um how they're working on the comments or um to be able to resubmit that 180 days, they're having that communication, which it doesn't end the application.

So it may not get submitted for 180 days, but they're still having that verbal communication with the city.

And what's the practice for recording or documenting that those communications are ongoing so that if someone wants to dispute that sort of thing later?

Um there's a record.

I'll have to defer that to uh Kevin or Dan.

But typically it's um it's an email communication, phone call communication.

Do we some it depends on the um case planner that's um assigned to the project and how they're managing that project?

Um understanding another issue that I believe is up to the discretion of the manager, and I know these are gonna be pretty short buildings.

Um the language from the Air Force overlay, which this is what then doesn't appear on the drawings, and was that also just waived by the manager for the Air Force Academy?

Yeah, it's according to Springsview and the AFO.

So the um they're within the overlay.

Um the application to get referred to uh the Air Force Academy.

Um that um requirement will be on the subdivision plat.

So whatever easement that USAFA requires will be included on the subdivision plat.

They have not submitted for a subdivision plat for this project yet.

It uh according to the code, it also says it should appear on the land use plan.

Just um, there's uh it might be on the concept plan for the bison ridge at Kettle Creek.

Um this is the development plan.

Right, all development plans and set fourth and section one, all development plans submitted in the AFO shall include all documentation required and shall then it goes down into the criteria unless waived and gives you the quote the about the noise that you put on there.

If I might add Commissioner Cecil, Dan Sexton planning manager for city planning.

I think what you're referring to in terms of the AFO overlay is under current UDC.

This application was reviewed in accordance with chapter seven.

The AFO did not exist under Chapter 7.

And as a procedural ask on behalf of the Airports Academy, we did encourage certain notation to be applied to development plans.

But as Tamara Baxter had mentioned, most prominently that can be found on the subdivision plat, which was has yet to be submitted.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that because I got lost at one point going back and forth between the old code and the new code.

Um I think my final conscious conscience clearing question here is probably for my good friend or advisor Trevor.

Um the notice of appeal language and the notice of appeal criteria all refer to this code, the UDC.

So to what extent are we allowed to factor in the criteria that um the representative from NES brought forward from the old code as the basis for the original decision?

Sure.

Uh Trevor Gloss of the Attorney's Office.

So when you have a recodification of code like we did from chapter seven to the UDC, what generally happens is chapter seven will continue to apply to specific standards.

For example, the warehouse standards that are specific here.

Uh, when you're looking at general um laws of general applicability, as we call them though, such as the appeal process, that will now conform to the new UDC instead of the old Chapter 7 standards.

So general rules change, whereas the specific standards under Chapter 7 would apply.

So you you use the current UDC appeal process, even though you're using the more specific standards in chapter seven.

So if I were to interpret the current UDC as somehow not allowing this, that would be completely irrelevant.

Is that correct?

Depending on how you're looking at the depending on the section and things like that, yes.

You you you're comparing the chapter seven development plan to the chapter seven requirements for uh these types of storage units okay.

That's a lot to take in.

Thank you for clearing that.

Commissioner Rickard.

Um there's a lot to unpack on this one.

What first I want to thank the appellant.

Uh you did a good presentation.

I want to thank the neighborhood for showing up and providing comment.

Uh, one I heard a few times was uh work for us.

Understand all of us work for you.

We work for the city, we work for the developers, we work for everybody.

Our purpose is to interpret code.

And unfortunately, but kind of along the way, we kind of pull that, try to pull feeling out as well.

We literally do our best to look at black and white based on the code, how we move forward.

Um, in the presentation, I think there was a lot of uh mixing of between zoning, uh different code references to zoning versus to development plans, and so our criteria today is based strictly on the development plan.

So understand that's how we will look at this, and we'll all make our interpretations along that line.

Um I understand your frustration as well as Commissioner Cecil just noted on the appeal process being under UDC development plan under chapter seven.

Walker responsible there were several other people involved in this prior he's just been around recently but in general and I brought this up to city council just so the community knows the process in the development process for the public to access information is difficult at best and I'm saying this just so city council can hear it again that needs to be improved it needs to be easier for the public to understand the comments that came in the public comments that came in the review comments that are being done by staff and how to access those um so I it's something I know Mr.

Walker I'm sure will be looking at improving down the road and hopefully along with city council um that being said I think we've looked at all the things we can and most of the objections from the public have been zone related and I am a firm believer in supporting development plans and for the public to use development plans and I've made most of my decisions in the last six years based on those development plans.

So if somebody in the public says well we didn't know that was going to be there it's been on the development plan for 30 or 40 years.

So in this case it is a commercial site it's been a commercial site and I get your understanding that the one right adjacent to it got changed to housing.

I live in Wolf Ranch I've seen that happen multiple times in Wolf Ranch mixed use gets changed to housing you can't use that as a basis of well this can change to housing that property owner has rules that they need to work by related to the city related to the development department to be able to develop that property and unfortunately that's within their you know in within the law that's within the code now the one thing I will say in this facility is the one piece of that development code that I don't believe this meets is C.

Now I need staff to confirm that C in chapter seven is the same as C and UDC which is the details of the site design building location orientation exterior building materials are compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods buildings and uses including not yet developed uses identified and approved development plans was that a criteria under chapter seven as well I didn't go look my apologies.

Normally I have that but it's been a while since we've played in chapter seven uh Dan Sexton planning manager without doing a complete comparison I'll just read off the first criteria under chapter seven for development plan uh decision making is the details of the use site design building location orientation and exterior building materials are compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood buildings and uses including not yet developed uses identified in approved development plans.

Very so as was noted by the uh representative for the applicant that's kind of the most subjective criteria uh in terms of the compatibility and compatibility and harmonious determination okay um I will not be in support of this application or of this I'll be in support of the appellant in this case because I don't believe it meets that criteria um I don't have an objection with the storage facility I don't have an objection with the use it follows the development plan it follows the code criteria but with the exception of that one and that is metal roof metal siding and your adjacent to natural materials all the way around you so in that case and that's the reason I will be voting in support of the appellant in this case commissioner Hensler I'm not going to speak for the applicant but I do recall seeing some stone in their renderings.

But otherwise, I echo a lot of what Marty said.

I appreciate the public input and having you all be here.

I think we um we uh make some mistakes sometimes with road signs or what have you, but you all have found the time and you've made the effort and you've been here during your days, and I appreciate that.

Um and I also appreciate that it's frustrating when a process goes awry, when it takes years and years.

I'm sure that's frustrating on the applicant side as well.

Um, and that when staff changes, and we all probably have dealt with staff changes and loss in our own organizations, and that can happen and balls can get dropped.

So I would also ask you to give grace to the staff that does work on these applications because it is an arduous process that obviously takes years, and they can't always fulfill the promises of someone that worked there two years ago who has left.

So I recognize that there's a lot of frustration and it can be really maddening, um, as well as just the change that that our entire I said this earlier today for those that of you that were here this morning.

The the change that our entire community is seeing, it can be disruptive.

Um, but I will, I mean, I agree with Marty and with um the comments that we've heard today that this has been zoned as commercial, um, now MXM, and sure the the parcel could be rezoned if someone came forth and said, I want this to be residential, like they did next door.

But instead, the applicant has said this is my property, and I want to use it as in a commercial way.

Um, and so personally, I believe that this is a low density.

It's one of you said it yourselves earlier.

Is it as bad as it could be?

No, but it's still bad.

I get that.

Um, but also I think that um it could be far worse.

And um I appreciate the passion for the community, and um I will be voting in favor of this because I do agree that what we've seen today shows me that the materials and the materiality is going to be harmonious um to the extent possible by not giving you a gas station or more houses on that commercial plot.

So those are my comments.

Commissioner Robinson.

Okay.

Um there's a I agree a lot with what has been said already.

Uh it has been zoned this way for quite some time, and I know you guys are tired of hearing that as well.

Seems to me that one of the biggest issues that you guys have uh or the community has up there, and I don't blame you at all, is uh traffic, the concerns for traffic and the safety.

Um, and then of course comes up uh you know being able to blend in with the neighborhood.

You know, um you'll have a lot more traffic if you have townhomes, uh any other kind of commercial facility in there.

And uh I appreciated the chart uh, by the way, that you brought up, because uh that really shows it gives you a good picture of what you can expect one way or the other, depending on what's built in that area.

And again, it is personal property, it belongs to somebody, they have the right to uh to sell it uh based on um you know the zoning that we have that that person currently has.

So I and I appreciate both sides.

Uh, you all have done incredible amount of work.

Um but it there's just and on the landscaping, um, I'm thinking that the uh the developer is going to work hard to make sure we try to uh screen as much as possible with the trees and the uh the landscaping the landscaping that they have.

So I think that's really important.

Something you guys everyone might want to use in the future for for looking things up is WWW my neighborhood update.com that gives you a lot of information in regards to uh crime throughout the city, the different levels of crime as well.

So you can always use that.

So it's just something to have.

But um, and as far as heavy traffic, getting back to that again, you know, when you have your Amazon trucks for FedEx trucks uh making deliveries throughout the neighborhood.

Uh that's probably you're probably gonna see a lot more of that than you are people coming and going with their pickup trucks and SUVs to load up these uh these units in the storage complex.

So that's just something to think about.

Um I appreciate everybody, and as far as the hours of of working, I'm glad it's not a 24-7 scenario.

Uh they have lowered that, and and maybe the the owner can look at narrowing some of that on the weekend.

I don't know, but then again, everyone on the weekend tries to get things done too.

So it's a uh 20, you know, darn if you do, darn if you don't.

So anyway, I am uh I'm not in favor of the appeal um at this point, so I will leave it at that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cecil.

So now that I've been straightened out on all the ins and outs of which versions of which code, um, I do want to thank especially uh Ms.

Price for an incredibly thorough and thoughtful and detailed presentation.

That was one of the best I've seen up here so far.

Um but I I was looking for I was looking hard for a place where I I didn't quite land where Marty did in terms of the place where I could say, yeah, this is definitely in conflict, because the three opportunities I've got on this are that it's contrary to the language in this UDC, and I can't do that even if I don't interpret it the way the law environment department instructed me to, because both the current UDC and the old one very clearly list many warehouses in the use table as an allowed use for the zoning that was in fact in that at that time.

I don't believe this decision is erroneous, nor is it contrary to law, although I do believe you've imported you've raised some operational issues that we as a commission are good to glad to be informed of and looking forward to discussing further.

Um but on a technical basis, I am not able to support the appeal.

I believe the decision should stand.

Commissioner Rickett Um just one additional comment.

Uh assuming this passes or assuming the uh appeal is not upheld, I would ask, because I don't see it on the front of the development plan that the hours of operation get noted in the development plan as part of the restriction for this property.

So I didn't see it, it may be in there, but I'm not seeing it.

Um so I would request that those hours be uh stated on that development plan.

And the reason being we don't want to get it to a 24-7 for the neighborhood, if you know we do want that restriction on there, and I believe we've had that restriction on other locations, car washes, things like that as well.

So I would ask if it does move forward in development, that at least that gets added to the development plan.

And then my request would be as well, based on the metal roof and metal siding, if those would go to natural materials, I wouldn't have an objection.

I think with the development plan already approved, though.

I don't know that can you amend that or is it uh thank you, uh Council Chair uh Casey uh and council member uh Ricket uh Dan Sexton for the record.

Um the without doing some some magic that our attorneys will probably not agree with at the end of the day, the action or decision before you is an appeal on an approved development plan.

So for our ability to go back and change that already approved development plan, uh that's very limited.

Um to be honest, from uh a land use regulatory perspective uh throughout the land use code, both chat old chapter seven and UDC, we do not typically get into an hours of operation discussion because it is largely an unenforceable uh requirement on uh on a use, um, because we're not out there as city staff 24 hours a day, and we we really rely on community members to bring to our attention issues of of enforcement or non-compliance.

Yeah, I agree.

It becomes before uh what is it, neighborhood enforcement or whatever.

Yeah, code enforcement.

Without without that restriction being stated, there's nothing that stops the developer from running this 24-7.

But that's kind of the case for most commercial developments.

Uh again, in our community, we don't dictate operational programming in that way.

We have we have with uh car washes, specifically since I've sit on this body, Mr.

Chair.

Can I this Kevin Walker planning director?

Uh I understand where Dan's coming from, but I also think that you all have a point of view.

Uh and if you uh want to make sure that that is mentioned in your um in your motion, then I think which I think is now in part of the minutes, I think this is likely to end up in another venue.

Um and between now and then we can probably try to figure out uh if there is some opportunity to address either of those.

Can I be and I'm sitting really very close to the attorney?

Can I be on BSU or what?

Can I do they have another opportunity to appeal to city council?

Yes, they do.

Okay.

So that would be the direction that you're implying, I'm assuming is that if they do appeal to city council, there'll be an opportunity to possibly amend this.

Thank you.

Commissioner Spilovich.

Commissioner Spilovich for the record.

Um want to do again thank the public coming out for taking the opportunity to participate in your civic duty.

Um to uh protect your community and and participate in the proceedings.

Um while I can appreciate not wanting a storage facility um in your neighborhood, and the zoning is not under our purview today.

Uh after further reviewing the development plan, um the only criteria I was questionable on was the materials to blend into the surroundings.

Um I have found that uh with the landscaping and with the the stone added to the facilities that it um is cohesive.

Um so I will be uh not in support of the appeal.

Thank you.

This is uh Chair Casey.

Uh I am also not in in support of the appeal.

Um I understand there are many the process was flawed uh over three years, multiple handoffs, it didn't go very well, not very good neighborhood uh interaction in there.

So I think those are things that uh the planning staff can address.

I do think though, if uh you know if a developer or property owner has a piece of land zoned a certain way, and the use that he wants is proposing to use it for is a permitted use, so use by right, then that landowner um, you know, as long as he responsibly turns into development plan, which I think is actually pretty pretty good.

Um we have a uh storage unit in my neighborhood flying horse that went in to uh went into right a back against residential property was the same kind of issues.

And speaking of crime, I know some posts have something like have a park in their neighborhood.

Well, we have more crime in our park than we do anywhere near a storage facility.

Um and so in light of that, I think you know the rule law um to support that.

Uh I will uh I think someone again should have a reasonable expectation that the property that they own is zoned a certain way has a permitted use, should be able to use that property that way as long as they have a responsible development plan, which I think they do here.

Let me I want to throw one more thing out there in my pick.

Commissioner Rickett.

I I go back to the metal roof and and I'll give you an example.

The Broadmoor actually made sure that the zoo in the metal roof on the elephant barn was colored so that it didn't reflect down to the Broadmoor.

And so when you've got a uh townhomes that are two or three stories right next door, the opportunity for that roof to reflect up on those townhomes does exist.

I don't know if they've done the engineering or or look at where that sun works.

Summer, winter, morning to fall.

So that's uh that's where I was going.

But thank you.

And as far as the um designating the hours in the motion, I don't think that's the appropriate venue for that.

I think the the uh the appellant has another uh as you mentioned has uh another appeal process, which I'll read uh at some point probably.

Um they'll be able to bring out that as a consideration.

And I don't see anybody else to speak.

Um so now we'll entertain a motion.

Melissa, my tablet seems to be frozen, so um just to let you know, we'll do a roll call.

I mean, I can make a motion.

I just can't uh I can't push I can't push the button.

Oh, you can.

Okay, all right.

All right, okay.

Uh I guess there's a couple of options here.

I want to make sure I get the right one.

You want that one?

Yeah.

So I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal of 8D APPL 25-0006 old ranch road self-storage, and affirm the administrative approval of the development plan application based on the provisions of the city code UDC that the appellant has not substantiated that the appeal satisfies the review criteria outlined in city code UDC, section 7.5.415.a point two.

Commissioner Sopilovich, I uh second this motion.

Commissioner Hansley, how do you vote?

I vote in favor of what I just read.

Thank you.

The motion passes five to two with Commissioner Clemens and Commissioner Rickett in opposition.

For the record, Commissioner Clement, do you want to go ahead and uh state your objection?

Uh voted against it because I felt with the owners, the landowners.

I didn't want to have that in my neighborhood either.

I have two in my neighborhood right now.

No.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Before we come off this item, I'd like to make a quick comment.

Yes.

Um, and I'm speaking to the neighborhood and to all of you.

This process that uh that led to this situation is not uh is not acceptable.

And we take full responsibility for uh not uh following uh best practices here, and I will make sure that we continue to improve on that as well as Mr.

Rickett's comments.

Um again, our internal system, our total handoff system did not perform adequately, and we will take responsibility for that and make it better.

Thank you for those comments.

I'll read the appeal and uh instructions in accordance with the 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 adverse to that party within 10 days from final action on the item being appealed, which is Monday, September 22nd, 2025.

The appellant must file notice of appeal and pay the 176 dollar fee with the city clerk.

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

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

And we're adjourned.