Oh, that's all right.

Good morning.

Colorado Springs Planning Commission public hearing for October 8th, 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 all the information and evidence presented to make their decision.

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

Throughout the 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 were not recognized by the chair, and the use of profanity will not be tolerated.

For items presented on today's calendar, the city planning staff will give a presentation on the application, followed by the applicant who will have 30 minutes to present the details of the application.

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Um second we do have at the next city council meeting there will be um a recommendation to city council to fill uh two positions one on the planning commission right now that's vacant and one as an alternate um the actual um proposal won't be published until either late today or early tomorrow so I'm gonna leave the names off for now just to make sure I've got that correct um but you should have a full compliment next month uh according to an appointment next next week and the rules and uh procedures uh have been or getting very close to the finish line uh it seems like every time somebody reads it there's another sort of tweak to it so I'm not exactly sure who tweaked it last but uh uh we will get that in your hands as soon as we think it's in final form get your final comments and then we'll get that to planning or to city council for their approval and uh I will let you know that in September uh uh in our uh uh develop in our uh submittal cycle we had one of the lowest uh numbers ever submitted in the last five years and yesterday uh we had one of the highest we've ever had so if anybody can figure out the trend for uh planning commission and our planning numbers for next year please let me know thank you mr walker does that take into account both the development reviews and the formal items that come before us yes that's it that's all items uh anything that uh that we have to write up uh some kind of position on so it would be all the other boards the development review board and historic preservation um and those kinds of things all of our district matters etc so all right thank you uh moving on to the approval of the minutes for September 10th 2025 any discussion no I'll make a motion to accept the minutes I'll second I'll abstain I wasn't present I also will abstain for not being present I was not present I abstain we need the motion passes with four members in favor that thought so Sarah Brown City Attorney's Office a quorum for your body as five and so since we have two members that are absent that were here last month should we postpone should we table the minutes until next month and review I recommend tabling it if you don't have a quorum to approve them today.

Okay then do we need a motion to table them I'm looking to staff Sarah Brown City Attorney's Office yes you will need a motion motion to November it would be November so if a commissioner would like to make a motion to table the minutes to date certain of next month um and then we will fix that on the back end after the meeting if it's okay with city attorney's office sure so I'll change my motion I'll make a motion to table our approval of minute minutes until the November meeting November 12th meeting 20 I'm gonna do that cleanly I'd like to make a motion to table approval of the September minutes to the November 12th 2025 meeting I'll second that commissioner Robbins how do you vote?

I'm in favor thank you.

All right the motion passes unanimously okay now we'll move 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 please read the items into the record item 5A Z O N E das 25 dash 0012 35 East Ramona rezoning item 5B C U D P 25 dash 0015 conditional use for a retail marijuana products manufacturer item 5 C Z O N E dash 25 dash 0019 BLR 50A part rezone.

Item 5C Z O N E 25-0019 BLR 50A park rezone.

Item 5D Z O N E dash 25-0016-excuse me 980 doubling rezone.

Are there any members of staff that want to call an item off the consent calendar?

Or there any members of the public that would like to call an item off the consent calendar?

And if you could check online too, please.

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

There's nobody online.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve the consent calendar as written read into the record.

All second.

Commissioner Cecil, how do you vote?

Thank you.

Commissioner Robins, how do you vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you.

Now moving on to new business.

Um Woodman East commercial filing number one.

Could you read that into the record, please?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Okay, for the consent um appeal instructions for the anything on the consent calendar.

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

An affected party may appeal this to city council.

Any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party.

Within day 10 days from the final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, October 20th, 2025.

The appellant may file notice of appeal and the 176 dollar fee with the city clerk.

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

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

Now we'll move on to new business with Woodman East commercial filing.

Item 8A, C U D P 22-0008, a conditional use development plan to allow a 362 unit residential multifamily dwelling development and anciliary side improvements in the mixed use medium scale with airport overlay stone district consisting of 14.11 acres located at the southeast corner of East Woodman Road and Mohawk Road.

Your percenter is Tamara Baxter.

Good morning, commissioners.

Tamara Baxter, uh Planning Supervisor for the record.

Um before you is an application for Woodman East commercial multifamily.

So as you can see on the vicinity map, the property is located southeast of Mohawk Road and uh east of Wood East Woodman Road intersection.

Um the current zoning on the property is MXM with airport overlay.

Um the prior zoning of this property was PBC with airport overlay as well.

Uh the site consists of 16.09 acres, and what is being proposed is a multifamily residential.

Um just so you were aware, this project was reviewed under the previous chapter seven.

It's not working.

Um the site plan that this is the um from the concept plan.

Um, the Woodman East uh commercial uh concept plan.

As you can see on the site plan, there were seven parcels um part of the concept plan.

Six of them were identified for commercial use, and one was identified for future multifamily.

Um, as you can see in the site plan, I did kind of um draw out the information that you can't see that it shows that the proposed use is multifamily with a proposed density of 25 dwelling units per acre.

So under chapter seven, um, and with the PBZ zone district, um, multifamily was considered a conditional use.

And under chapter seven, multifamily or conditional use also um was reviewed with a development plan, um, which is different than what we do currently with the UDC.

I did provide you uh site data from the concept plan, which also identifies that the proposed use of this site was intended to be multifamily conditional.

As you can see on the site plan, um there are four access points for this project.

Two of them are on a cul de sac called straightway to the north, and one is off Mohawk Road to the west.

Uh the 16.9 acres consists of lot seven.

It also consists of three different tracks.

Uh one uh track B is for uh detention area, uh track C, which is south of Jubilee, um, Golden Jubilee, which will run when constructed uh west to east or east to west.

And then tract A, which runs along Mohawk Road.

Uh Mohawk Road does not um punch through to banning Lewis to the south.

It will dead end uh at Jubilee uh Golden Jubilee.

Uh here is a copy of the uh some images of the elevations, uh proposed elevations that are shown in the development plan in your packet.

Um proposed height for the structures will be 45 feet.

Um just so you're aware, the maximum um building height in the MXM zoned currently is 50 feet.

Uh parking requirements for this project have been met with surface parking, and there will be some tucked-in garages.

And if you can go back to the previous slide with regards to the 300 foot separation, so from um not the parking area, but where the buildings are, the southern building are there is a 300-foot separation between those buildings and the single family um uh residence to the south, and that has to do with utility utility easement that goes through there.

With regards to time of review, this application was submitted in uh 2022.

Um it did go through one review in our old LDRS system, and then it was pivoted to a salah in May of 22.

Um, it did go through nine or 10 reviews.

It was ready for uh planning commission agenda on August 18th.

Um I know the applicant is gonna touch base on their timing of this project.

Um, but since uh they submitted in 22, there was an option whether they wanted to pivot to the UDC, they remained, they chose to remain under being considered for review under Chapter 7.

Um just so just to be clear with that, any future amendments may come back to you on this project if they are considered major, and that's identified in the UDC.

Stakeholder involvement um uh posters and postcards were sent out in 2022, and then prior to planning commission um at a radius of a thousand feet from the property boundary.

206 postcards were mailed out.

There were only two comments received.

One comment was received during the initial review of the project, and then recently one comment was received during um the time frame prior to planning commission, and you should have both of those comments.

There was no neighborhood meeting um held either uh by the previous planner or um there was no need to have one during this review, this final review.

Uh, with regards to agency review, um traffic engineering did review a traffic compliance letter, um, and it was accepted by traffic engineering with regards to SWENT Engineering Colorado Springs utilities, all comments were addressed during the review of the project.

Uh no comments were received from District 49.

Um, however, school fees will be required at building permit, and then PLDO fees will also be required at building permit.

Plan COS.

This project is in compliance with plan COS.

It does integrate uses and activities that support each other.

So as you had seen in the concept plan, there are is commercial, and this is the residential component of that development.

Review criteria.

So these are the review criteria in previous chapter seven for a conditional use.

Staff did determine that this project did comply with those uh criteria.

And then the next two slides are the criteria for development plan.

Um and so staff also felt that in review of the development plan that they met the criteria for the development plan.

And the last slide is your proposed motion.

So you will be making a motion for both a conditional use and development plan combined.

And that's it.

Anybody have any questions before we move on to the applicant?

We'll hear from the applicant.

Over.

Okay.

Hi, good morning.

Uh my name is Ted Featherstone.

I'm the representative for the applicant, Saris Regis Group.

Um I'm a Denver native.

Sarah's Regis group has been active in Colorado for over 20 years, but this will actually be our first project in the springs.

So please forgive me if I'm a little less fluent than I'd like to be in the local planning uh lingo and uh operations.

But we've had great help from our project team, including KTGY, our architect who's here with me today, and uh a special shout out to our civil engineer Kimley Horn, who's been a huge help for us on this project.

So we have been working on this site since 2021.

Uh and this piece of land was actually last in front of this body in 2022 when, as part of the larger Woodman East 31-acre master development proposal, it was here and received approval for annexation and a concept plan.

Uh our site was identified as part of that as lot seven for 16.35 acres as future uh multifamily residential out of maximum density of 25 units to the acre, which is uh a maximum capacity of about 408 units.

We are here today to present our proposal for about 362.

Okay, good.

So as staff laid out, this piece of land is identified in Plan COS as a newer developing neighborhood and along a smart corridor.

In the vibrant neighborhood section of Plan COS, a goal is to help support, quote, a diversity of housing types, unquote, with an accompanying strategy of supporting land use decisions that help, quote, meet the needs of residents and families through various life stages and income levels.

We believe our proposal helps accomplish this, and to uh demonstrate that I think it's worth pointing out what's around us.

To our south is Banning Lewis Ranch, and to our immediate east is Percheron, which together are thousands of acres of thousands of single-family homes with thousands more to come over the next few decades.

So we believe our multifamily project is a much needed complement of housing types and housing sizes to what's being built and will be built as part of banning Lewis.

Because at the same time uh that all of this is being built in Colorado Springs, the two age demographics that I've actually have grown most quickly over the past 10 years have been the age 25 to 34 and the age 65 plus categories, both of which are much more likely to rent multifamily apartments than that middle 35 to 64-year-old age range.

So we've uh believe our proposal is a complement to the housing that exists and will be built within Banning Lewis Ranch.

And we'll be housing maybe a young couple or family looking to buy a home in the future within Banning Lewis.

But as we all know, affording that these days is much harder than it used to be, or potentially a move-down senior or retiree who wants to move to or stay within the neighborhood, but in a smaller and more affordable floor plan.

On top of that, we believe our proposal functions as something else plan COS calls for, which is as a buffer or transition zone between the single family homes in Banning Lewis and busy Woodman Road and the commercial lots that surround that.

And a big part of how we do that is as staff pointed out that there is over 300 feet of physical separation between the northernmost property lines of the single family homes within Banning Lewis and the southernmost building face in our project, 300 feet.

And that's comprised of first parking area, second stormwater detention, third, there'll be new right-of-way golden jubilee, fourth will be vacant land under the power uh transmission lines, and then finally, there's an east-west pedestrian trail within Banning Lewis, all before you get to the property lines of the single family homes to our south.

Okay, good.

Yeah, I just making sure.

Sorry.

So within our project, we are proposing seven residential buildings and two amenity buildings.

And as I hope people could see from the slides we presented so far, what we are aiming to build is something that's maybe a notch or two higher in quality than what's been built along East Woodman to this point.

And a big way that we hope to accomplish this is uh 70% of our homes will be in elevator service buildings, which are actually pretty rare along this corridor.

And we'll also have a much higher percentage of internalized covered parking uh than has been typical in this neighborhood.

Also, we will have units that are a little bit larger uh than is average in this area, and that's both in terms of our percentage of two and three bedroom units, but also our individual floor plan designs are a little bit bigger than what's been typical.

And we think again that that's good complement to the housing in banning Lewis and what we think will be some of the derivative demand that that comes off of that.

It's worth noting that we exceed the zoning minimums under PBC uh for both off-street parking and on-site open space, and that the new roads and intersection infrastructure being built as part of the master development around us.

We're actually sized for up to 450 units on our site, and we're coming in at 362.

So there is uh you know ample sufficient some margin of error in terms of vehicle capacity.

So, how we got here?

Um, one thing that I know that has been a question, maybe puzzling, is that why this is being reviewed under old chapter seven instead of the new UDC.

Um, as staff pointed out, we did submit uh initially for this project back in 2022.

We'd actually been working on this site since 2021.

Um we received our first comments in May of 2022, which is over a year before the new UDC came into effect.

We actually on our sixth submission by the time retool came into effect, and we had had a number of check-ins with staff along the way that we were okay to continue to proceed under Chapter 7, because that's what we had been designing towards to that point and receiving feedback from staff on incorporating those comments.

So that was in 2023, and at that point we did not expect that it would take us until 2025 to get here today.

Uh, the biggest reason for that is even though our plan has really not changed since 2023, and staff could speak to that, like our plan has not changed, but we nonetheless needed to show a most of all a final drainage report that is in conformance with the approved final drainage report for the master development, the full 31 acres.

And that process, for reasons kind of beyond our control and that we don't necessarily need to get into today, did not finish until late last year.

So we could not finalize our final drainage report until master developer was able to get theirs finalized and approved.

Uh, in addition to that, we needed to have our development plan conform with the final approved plat for the 31-acre master development.

And to get that done, we had to work with CSU to vacate an easement that was initially recorded as part of the final plat for a utility line that was in conflict with our development plan.

That process did not finish until this past summer.

So I can assure you that in 2023, we did not expect it to take two more years to have our development plan finally come into conformance with approved master development civil uh approvals, but we are glad to finally be here today.

So on these next two slides, I have project information that can show that we're in conformance with plan COS with our concept plan with the PBC zoning.

Uh a lot of that would be duplicative to what's in the staff report or um what staff just presented.

So I think it's just worth pointing out again that we are in full compliance with PBC, and we actually substantially over uh provide for both off-site off-street on-site parking and on-site open space, substantially uh exceed the zoning minimums there.

And then in this final slide, just reiterate again that the roadway infrastructure being built around us as part of the master development plan was sized for 450 units, and we're delivering 362.

So there should be ample uh roadway capacity being built as part of this project.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any additional questions that commission might have.

Uh any commissioners have uh questions at this time before we move to public comment.

Is there anybody signed up for public comment?

No.

In either either way, and there's nobody online.

Okay.

If there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak in about this item.

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

There's nobody online.

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

There's nobody online.

I'm not I have a couple questions, I don't see anybody else that uh uh just real quick on the road.

So Mohawk, who's improving that you this you or the whole it's being approved by the master developer for the whole thing?

That's master developer.

Okay, and so there are um and are there any improvements do you know um I saw Mohawk and Woodman interchange?

They talked about some turn lanes being added there, but is there any changes to the light or anything to do with the rest of the intersection there?

Um I believe there's one more turn lane being put in at the intersection.

Um not as familiar with that detail.

Okay, we've got my civil engineer here in case he has any idea.

Okay, um, and then one more um Mohawk looks like it connects to Golden Jubilee now, but uh staff presented that that would not in the future that would be blocked by the drainage um area.

Is that is that is it gonna connect to the connects in and then it sort of dead end terminates for a left hand will be a left hand turn or an east facing turn and golden jubilee will then go east-west.

So Mohawk doesn't extend into banning Lewis, okay.

Sort of goes straight and then turns to the left.

But it'll dead end there at Golden Jubilee then.

Well, go Golden Jubilee, I think will eventually extend through Percheron, um, being developed by Norwood next to us.

Okay.

I don't know exactly what the status is on um the construction of the further expansion of Golden Jubilee past our site.

Tamara Baxter um for the record.

So Golden Jubilee will be um constructed um further east uh through Percheron.

Um and then um to the west when future development occur occurs.

So we're Woodman where Woodman is Mohawk will just go down to Golden Jubilee and dead end.

It will not punch through to banning Lewis to the south.

Okay, and uh timing for the project, when do you expect if you're approved today to turn dirt since it's been a few years?

Yeah, so we have to finish our construction drawings, which will be a couple month process and then you know apply for building permit and whatever that looks like.

So a couple more months there.

Um all of this is market dependent.

I mean, we're in a kind of weird transition phase in the market right now.

I think we'd like to be able to start sort of this time next year, but that depends on you know us being able to pull together all the resources needed to build this.

Thank you.

Commissioner Slattery.

Thanks.

Yeah, I would my only questions were about uh that Mohawk a little bit about the same things that you were thinking the traffic.

So we're anticipating a turn lane at Mohawk, or that this in the development to the north was triggering the commercial development.

Are we anticipating one more time?

Sorry, I'm kind of looking at tomorrow here.

Okay.

Um, I was wondering about the the Mohawk intersection and then Golden Jubilee, then we'll tie into banning Lewis Parkway, so there'll be a loop through and Mohawk will not be um the only path out.

I'm seeing a nod from Sexton and Ms.

Baxter.

Okay.

Tomorrow Baxter for the record, correct.

Okay.

Um thank you both.

So with those questions answered, um, I'm seeing that this use and project um is beating the criteria and seems like a natural transition from the commercial to the single family.

It's already been um established as the use of multifamily in the master plan and master development when it was brought into the city.

Uh so I won't have a problem um voting in favor of this application.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Thank you.

And I agree with Commissioner Slattery about the appropriateness of the transition and scale.

Um, but I was just curious, I applaud the accessibility of the units.

Do any of them happen to be planned to be affordable?

Uh not statutory affordable, you know, capped at AMI level.

Okay.

Thank you.

From my perspective, I think it meet the plan meets the criteria for the conditional use and uh for the development meets the development plan criteria as well.

I mean I can concur with everything that's been said all along.

I also just want to say um thanks for sticking with it.

Obviously, there's a lot of process and development, and I think that sometimes um things get abandoned because of those challenges, and I think that we need housing at all levels and of all types.

So I commend you for sticking with it, and um, hopefully we'll see this come forward.

So I will be in support of your project.

There's no other commissioner comments.

Yes, does David have something online there?

David, do you have a question?

Yeah, I just wanted to uh I concur, and I think this was a good project for the area, and it helps out with a good mix uh for those who are not able to pick up a single family home at the time frame.

And I think it really supports a lot of the growth that's going on out there.

So I'm in I'm in support.

Thank you very much for this.

For item eight A.

Uh I will make a motion to approve the conditional use development plan based upon the findings that the condition complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Chapter 7, Section 7.5.405 conditional use and section 7.5.502E of the development plan.

I'll second that message.

Never mind, Dave got me.

Commissioner Robbins, how do you vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, we're now move on to appeal 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 the final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, October 20th, 2025.

The appellant must file notice of appeal and the 176 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 the specific matters set forth in the appeal letter.

And with that, we'll move on to the next item.

Uh item AB, please read it in the record.

Item 8B, NVAR dash 25-00010, unknown use variance to city coast section 7.2.610 point D point one point D.

To allow a 15-foot retaining wall within the heel site overlay where a maximum of four feet is usually required located at 1210 Eagle Rub Road.

Your percenter is Drew Fox.

Today we're discussing a non-experience application for an existing retaining wall located at 1210 Eagle Rock Road.

Uh the property zoned residential estate with hillside overlay and wildland urban interface overlay.

The lot rests against a hillside that is has considerable slope and shares a driveway with the lot to the South 1220 Eagle Rock Road.

The two associated lots, 1210 and 1220 Eagle Rock Road were previously one lot.

The associated hillside development plan was approved in 1999 and established as a subdivision in April of 1999 under the Riley Subdivision Plat.

Single family residence at 1210 Eagle Rock Road was permitted shortly after in 1999.

The single family residence at 1220 was permitted in 2019.

Both units have since been built.

A shock creet structure, uh retaining wall structure was installed along the east side of the primary structure at 1210 Eagle Rock Road in 2003.

This non-use variance application is a request to allow for this existing shock creet retaining wall up to 15 feet in height, where only four feet is permitted in the hillside overlay.

The wall begins at about four feet in height on the north section and increases in height to about 15 feet in on the south uh southern section near the shared property line.

Um you can see the uh shock creet structure highlighted in blue on the screen.

The purpose for keeping the shock creet wall and the request for this non-use variance is to one respond to a code enforcement complaint placed by the adjacent neighbor to the south at 1220 Eagle Rock Road for violation of the permitted retaining wall height on the original development plan and uh failure to acquire a building permit at time of build-out.

Uh it's also to control erosion, stormwater drainage that results from the steeper slopes to the east of the uh property.

Preserve the hillside and avoid installing retaining walls further upslope and avoid the financial implications for removal.

Uh no modifications are proposed with this non-use variance request.

And to confirm a non-use variance and building permit were both required prior to installation of this wall at the time in 2003.

On your screen is the original hillside development plan approved in 1998 or 1999 submitted in 1998.

Uh required that two four-foot retaining walls be installed further upslope from the current shock creet structure.

Um therefore, if approved, an amendment to this plan would be required to reflect the current 15-foot shock creet wall.

Uh, both the non-use variants and building permit would have been required at that time, both of which were not acquired.

And you can see here um the 1210 residence on the left.

Uh, the lines in red are the retaining walls that were approved on that original hillside development plan, and then on the right of the screen are the building envelopes for the two lots associated with that development plan with the preservation area uh to the east of those building envelopes.

On this slide are images of the existing shock creet structure.

Uh top left is the face of the wall looking east towards the upslope preservation area.

Uh top right is looking south towards 1220 1220 Eagle Rock Road.

Uh, according to the applicant, removal of this wall would require that the structural overhang and patio area you can see in this image and the bottom left image would need to be removed.

Um bottom right on the screen is looking south over the top of the retaining wall.

Um, and for purposes of criteria, uh, which we'll get into shortly.

You can see the um I just want to bring this up now while we have the images up that the uh visual impact um is fairly soft um and compatible with the hillside of the shock creep material with that the shock creep material provides.

Um when we get into the criteria, I'll be going over the what it looks like.

Uh, this application was submitted for review on July 1st, 2025.

Uh, underwent two reviews and was prepared for this commission on September 15th of this year.

Public notice did go out.

Uh, the property owner to the south, located at 1220 Eagle Rock Road, uh, expressed expressed opposition to the proposed retaining wall with the following concerns.

Uh, failure to follow the approved development plan and code regulations, provide adequate drainage and erosion control, uh, the creation of a safety have hazard in the event uh the retaining wall fails.

The validity of the hired engineer and consultant uh and inconsistency with allowable retaining wall height in the instance that this non-use variance is approved.

This application was reviewed by all relevant internal and external agencies with the most relevant agencies shown here on the screen.

Uh, all agency comments have been addressed with no further comment.

At this time, I'd like to make it clear to the commission that a geohazard report was submitted and approved by the city engineering department.

Additionally, a letter from NTEC Engineering was provided on February 11th of this year with no concerns over uh or recommend recommendations for a removal of the existing shock creet structure.

It was suggested by NTEC to divert any root stormwater runoff away from the structures and add soil to the top and bottom to maintain positive drainage, continued positive drainage.

The project complies with the city's comprehensive plan, plan COS, and that it supports the city strategy for vibrant neighborhoods to encourage uses that positively affect neighborhoods.

This request generally supports this effort in that it not only continues to maintain the erosion and drainage control that could potentially be otherwise impactful to other residential uh lots in the area or down slope, but it also continues to maintain the character of the hillside subdivision with its soft visual impacts and compatible design with the surrounding hillside landscape.

The non-use variance criteria for approval has been evaluated by planning staff.

Uh the use specific standards of the unified development code does not include standards for retaining wall, and therefore the application complies with 733, which is criteria number one for the non-use variance application.

Regarding the extraordinary and exceptional physical conditions, the property is located within the hillside overlay and within a geological hazard area.

Uh the lot is also subject to a preservation area that further restricts development on the lot.

The primary dwelling unit on the property is in close proximity to steep grade that requires a retaining wall system to maintain slope stability and erosion and drainage control.

According to the applicant, the required two-tiered four-foot wall system required on the original 1998 development plan would impact the hillside and preservation area.

The only known alternative according to the project statement and as approved by the original hillside development plan is to place multiple retaining walls upslope from the home in the preservation area or just adjacent to it.

Removal of the wall would have heightened financial implications and would require removal of structures that are attached to the home.

However, uh financial implications are not uh part of the criteria.

It can be expected that the proposed retaining wall shall not have a any physical adverse impact on the surrounding properties due to observations conducted and reported in the approved geological hazard report, stating that the wall is performing as intended.

Additionally, a building permit will need to be acquired from and inspected for compliance by Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, further ensuring that no adverse impact should occur on surrounding properties.

Shock Creek retaining wall has been in place since 2003 and to date has had no known structural issues.

The location and design of the shock creet retaining wall is compatible with the surrounding environment as it resembles the natural sandstone outcroppings and softens the structural massing of the wall, resulting in little to no visual impacts.

The hillside criteria is the primary purpose that this non-use variance application has been submitted and has been evaluated by planning staff.

The southern portion of the proposed retaining wall located within the required 10-foot side yard setback is 15 feet in height, where only seven feet is permitted within a building setback.

However, city planning staff finds that the more restrictive requirement applicable to the shock creet retaining wall is found in the hillside development plan criteria 72610 D1D, where retaining walls located within the hillside overlay are to be limited to four feet in height, with no more than two separated uh two tiers separated by four to six feet.

While the proposed wall complies with the majority of the uh hillside development plan review criteria, given the wall's height, it directly conflicts with the hillside criteria, limiting the height of a single wall to four feet.

It should be mentioned that the retaining wall has reduced removal of vegetation and limited terrain impacts further upslope in closer proximity to the preservation area and has utilized shock creep material that minimizes the visual impact to a great degree.

City planning staff does not find the application to be meeting all the hillside development plan review criteria due to the inability to meet the restricted height.

City planning staff does find the application to be meeting all the non-use variance review criteria.

If this non-use variance application were to be approved, staff recommends the following conditions of approval.

Up on your screen, you can see those conditions.

An amendment to the applicable hillside overlay development plan shall be processed prior to approval of a building permit.

And a building permit must be obtained by the property owner for the Shock Creek Wall with Pikes Peak Regional Building Department.

These conditions have been included and are displayed up on the screen in the optional motion to approve or deny this application.

And please let me know if you have any questions.

Hello.

That criteria has been in place for many years prior to me uh joining with this department.

Um if there's another staff member they can answer that question.

Dan Sexton Planning Manager uh for city planning.

Uh I would say it's probably uh a multitude of factors in as the baseline for why that was there, as uh Mr.

Fox had noted.

Those criteria or requirements have been in place since the late 80s.

Um so really we're looking at minimizing the amount of disturbance and impact within the hillside uh overlay or properties that are with encumbered by the hillside overlay.

Um, and then you know, from a safety drainage perspective, you know, it's always easier to accommodate uh certain types of infrastructure in those instances if we're looking at a tiered scenario versus one large monolithic wall.

Thank you.

Can I have a quick comment on that?

Uh whenever we talk about historical things, I was usually around for that.

Um and so I we were I was here when that uh hillside code was written first, and I'd concur with Dan, it was not anything specific, it was just kind of a general criteria that they were trying to deal with both engineering and aesthetic issues.

So thank you.

Um but that will move on to hear from the applicant.

Members of the planning commission, my name is Dave Hostetler.

I'm with land development consultants.

We've been working on this property since 1998.

We originally did work for the Rileys who own this property, and they wish to uh subdivide the property into two lots for personal and or investment purposes.

They uh stuck with the hillside criteria at that time and tried to preserve as much of the area of the lots as possible, uh determining where the buildable areas would be.

Um, we did get that preliminary hillside plot plan approved, which was for purposes of creating the two-lot subdivision.

Subsequent to that, we uh did the uh residence uh hillside plot plan, which was also approved and um shown and designed on paper that it would work during construction.

Um an unforeseen event happened where when they uh excavated for the house and to create the backyard, which we had proposed to have a 25-foot normal backyard, we ran into a rock embankment, which only allowed us to have 10 or 12 feet from the house to this rock embankment.

And uh the general contractor did everything he could dig into that rock embankment, but it was just uh too cost prohibitive.

So those uh two four-foot walls higher up the slope uh were not going to be needed because we couldn't get back into that area.

So uh the rock embankment uh was a surprise to everybody concerned.

Um our work uh relative to the surveying and planning aspect was done by land development consultants in conjunction with work uh by our civil engineer, which was associated design professionals.

Uh they are no longer in business because this was clear back in 2000, and they've uh disbanded.

The original owners of the subdivision, like I said, were uh the Rileys and the Round Trees, uh Catherine is their daughter.

So she and her husband decided to build the house on lot one, and um, this is when all the construction took place.

They uh built the house in 2000.

Uh they did get a building permit for that, and it was occupied in 2000.

Um in 2003, the shot creet covering was uh installed on the rock outcropping just for uh visual aesthetics, and also uh to prevent erosion of the sandstone material.

Uh the contractor Chanel Construction who put this in uh was well known with various city agencies.

No apparent permit was required for this particular private work, and the method method for slope control sheath covering of rock formations was utilized in various hillside sites across the city and the county.

Um let's see.

Let's go to those uh shot creed samples, it's probably uh four or five down.

We have pictures of the the site plans and such if we ever need to answer any questions on that.

So if we could continue uh so this is the uh shot creet wall uh looking north on the left, and if you go go back one slide, please, and then to the right, that was the shot creet wall uh during time of construction with the property to the south.

Okay, if you can continue.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Next one.

Okay, and then this is um shot creet that was done by Chanel Construction for the City in within City Rideaway for public streets.

This is in Rock Rimen, Manitou, and the Broadmoor areas.

This was supposed to be a forever home for the round trees, and they had peaceful existence on that property until 2019.

No complaints from the surrounding neighborhood were ever received by them.

At time of sale of the adjoining lot by the personal representative of the Riley Estate, the new owners, Fernandez in 2016, accepted the lot by on-site inspection and signed off on contract documentation as is.

Once it was found that it was encroaching and the Fernandezes wanted to expand their driveway, they required uh removal of the shot creed in the within their lot, and it couldn't go to trial.

We had to set or the uh round trees had to settle, and um the uh shot creet was removed.

Okay, if we could just go to um the picture with the retaining wall up right here.

So here's on the left picture is where the shot crete was removed on the right picture.

That is a retaining wall.

Our shot creed covering was on the sandstone rock embankment without the option of reasonable allowance for the private on-site shot creet erosion control sheath covering of the existing rock formation to remain in its current condition, extensive rock formation removal, numerous tiered retaining walls and disturbance will under the slots preservation area will be required to take place.

It was the goal of the Rileys to preserve as much as they could in accordance with the hillside criteria, and that's what they did up front.

Um the owner of this lot or future owners will accept all responsibility of any failure of this wall and absolve the city of any responsibilities with the approval of this non-use variants.

Um these complaints from one neighbor to the south are distractions to place issues and emphasis on a lot that is downstream from them with improvement drainage issues that do not affect them to avert city review of their seemingly unjustifiable on lot improvements.

Pardon me, sir.

Would you mind standing in front of the mic and speaking into the mic?

Thank you.

Sorry, do I need to repeat that?

Please do.

Uh these complaints from one neighbor to the south are distractions to place issues, emphasis on a lot that is downstream from them with improvement drainage issues that do not affect them to avert city review or their seemingly unjustifiable on lot improvements to the south.

There are no extraordinary, there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions affecting this property.

There are no neighborhood standards contrary to this existing use, and we feel the owner is not causing any adverse impact detrimental to public health safety and welfare or injur to the surrounding properties.

Overland flow from rainwater snowmelt was effectively dispersed by the use of this private on-site shot creet erosion control sheath covering of an existing rock formation since 2003.

Uh when a building permit requirement was issued by the city uh during this review, the owners went down to regional building and told them about this situation, and they were told that regional building would not issue a building permit on something that was over 20 years old, let alone 10 years old.

This request should not weaken the general purpose of code enforcement or its regulations if allowed in its private condition.

There were apparently no known complaints received from other adjoining property owners within this area regarding the situation, other than the neighbor to the south.

We respectfully request approval of the non-use variants.

We do have the civil engineer available to answer questions and the soils engineer as needed, and I'll be happy to entertain any questions of my statements.

Commissioner Slatery.

Thank you, Chair.

Um questions for you, sir.

The retaining wall, um, that looks like it's the border of 1210 and 1220.

When was that constructed?

The retaining wall was just uh last year of the, I believe.

Uh or this year.

When this the big concrete wall, yeah.

Yeah, just last year or this year.

Do you have an maybe you could find that date?

Uh let's see.

I think Drew could address that a little bit better because he's been involved in uh reviewing that property.

Commissioner Slattery, we're just pulling up through regional building system to understand exactly what date that uh retaining wall on the property the south was permitted.

So just bear with us.

Okay, so that retaining wall, that was kind of my other question.

So it was permitted the regional building and it got a hillside overlay variance, or how is that constructed in excess of four feet?

So the property to the south uh was did seek uh a non-use variance from this body last year.

Uh ultimately that application was denied.

That was November of 24.

Uh and through coordination and work with staff, they modified the design of the project to step it back from the property line, uh, reduce the height of the true wall, and then atop the wall constructed an extension, uh concrete extension that functioned as a fence uh barrier.

So ultimately, in its current design, as you see on the screen, that was permitted in accordance with the hillside overlay uh design specifications.

Through the planning department and then permitted through PBRBD.

Correct.

So that was probably post-November 24.

Yes.

Okay.

That was that was questioned.

So then as a part of that application, and it sounds like potentially a lawsuit from the Fernandez group that um there was a lawsuit to remove the chakrate that extended over the property boundary.

That's correct.

So they could expand their driveway driveway.

I remember that.

Um, yes.

Okay.

So when was the I can probably look back at the document I have when to remind me when the code violation was filed on the currently existing shotcrete wall.

Just one moment, uh, Commissioner Slidery.

I'm pulling up the code enforcement documents.

October 28th, 2024 was when the code enforcement complaint was filed.

Okay, so during okay.

Thank you.

Um the other I go I'll just roll through them all that I wrote down here.

So we talked about um if this application was to be approved, there would need to be an amendment to the development plan.

Would that be an administrative approval or would that come before this body again?

Because it was a uh kind of a retro, the two things that would happen after would be the amendment to the development plan and then the the building permit of the wall.

So how would that process take place after if this was to be approved?

Yeah, the modification to the original development plan would be administrative.

And as far as the building permit application, um if the applicant has gone to Pikes Peak Regional Building Department and found out that they are relaying information to them that they cannot process a building and permit application for them for a wall at that age.

Um I would have to.

So potentially the motion would need to be modified to not include that as a requirement after.

Is that I'm sorry, Dan Sexton was talking to me about the building permit.

Well, you guys figure it out, you can answer that.

They would just need to start a new building permit application as if it's a new wall.

So they would still need to go through the PPRBD process and PPRBD would have a method for them to do so.

Correct.

And then um in one of the correspondents, Jay from PBRBD stated that over a two to one would need uh two to one ratio would need a permit and a retaining wall, and that I mean, I guess if it's 15 and 15, it's considered a one-to-one.

Am I calculating that correctly?

What would this be considered in terms of a slope ratio?

I'll defer to the applicant for that slope ratio.

I'm not aware of that information.

Okay.

Oh, I'll have to defer to the civil engineer in regards to that.

Is the civil engineer present?

Yes.

And the soils engineer if needed.

Come on up, sir.

Please say your name for the record.

Dave Gorman, MVE Inc.

Civil Engineers.

That is correct.

The uh there is there's a there's a spot on that wall.

It does vary in height, but there is a spot that's 15 foot high.

And and it's and it's about uh it's it's about 15 feet in in horizontal width, so that's that's one to one.

And so it would it would not meet that two to one criteria.

Um and of course, I uh uh we're the civil engineers that uh that prepared this uh the revised hillside plan in support of this variance, and so we had opportunity to look at the grades uh of the of the existing site where the existing house is, the grade of the existing house.

And um, so uh we would have to we would you know we would have to seek a uh where you know our variance is to allow the existing wall as is to remain in place for the um for the reason that uh the the previously shown tiered two tier four foot tiers that were uh that were on the plan uh not only span a part of the round trees lot but also extend south into lot two.

So that uh that was what was originally contemplated in the uh on the original 1999 hillside plan.

Uh those two four-foot walls uh would not get from the existing grade to the east of the house down to the to the floor elevation of the existing house.

Um there would uh in the place that was noted uh you know uh 15 foot is gonna require four four foot high walls, um, which is likely not to fit within the within the available uh building envelope without encroaching into the um without encroaching into the preservation area uh with that with that two to one criteria uh applied.

So the and and there's other places along the wall where the you know the walls 12 foot, that'll be that'd be about three, four-foot walls.

And so the the exist the 1999 approved hillside plan at this point with the existing residences in place, uh could not be applied to you know to the site as it exists for one thing, it it would have to be extended.

It would have it would affect uh the the southern property as well.

There's there's not a way to just cut those walls off at four foot high at the property line.

And that's because of the um the sandstone condition.

It's just it's uh just a matter of what space is available.

This the and then the sandstone condition does make the construction very difficult.

Sure.

Uh and and it would uh potentially more invasive that would be more invasive, disturb more property to the east of the house.

Uh um there are uh scrub oak and and and the and the natural terrain that's there would all have to be disturbed.

Um tell me, sir, then right.

So the original site plan in 99 uh was constructed, I'm sure before the house was built for foundation design and development.

Um would borings have been um done prior to construction of the residential house, and then how far would they extend to you know find that ribbon of soil um with the landscape?

Is that traditional to do borings and soil testing uh within the landscape area, or was this a pivot um for discovered conditions during construction?

Uh and um NTEC engineers is here to to talk about the geotechnical and the geological conditions, but uh uh what I can say is uh you know if they're doing a foundation design, if that's what they're there to do, they would they would they would investigate and drill at where the house is gonna be, not necessarily in other places.

Thank you, sir.

Um uh if NTEC wants to come up and kind of answer that same question, I can repeat it if that's helpful.

Hi, yes.

This is Logan with intake engineering.

Um the original excavation observation is included in the geohouse report that was provided.

Um it noted sandstone at the surface of the excavation.

There's also some density testing that was taken on bill that was placed.

Um typically when we complete borings for houses, it's typically within the house footprint, unless we are specifically drilling for other structures such as retaining walls.

Getting a drill rig up to this location where those proposed retaining walls are located is not actually feasible.

Um you repeat any other question.

Yeah, could you go ahead and provide your full name for the record?

Uh Logan Langford.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think that makes sense, I guess.

Right, because we're saying that the construction of this house or the code complaint is saying that the construction of the home was not following the development plan.

Um so I'm trying to understand and articulate here with your expertise, the process from which that development plan was drawn, um, and then conditions which were discovered after the construction period began, which is um, you know, probably fairly common where things that are um on paper don't exist in the in the physical reality is uh especially if soil testing was not done um to the I guess at the west, northwest of that um footprint, right, where the the Seditanian wall was to be built.

Um if I don't know who would be best to speak.

So the other historical um kind of discovery here was the house was built in 2000, smaller backyard than was previously anticipated because of the soil conditions, and then how did we get to determining that the shot creek wall for um I hear aesthetics and erosion prevention?

Um how did we get to the point where that was determined to be the best solution or a viable solution um to mitigate those issues in 2023?

2020, sorry, 2003.

David Hosteller with land development consultants.

Um at the at the time that we prepared the hillside plot plans, um, we did get approval from the city.

It worked on paper.

We then turn it over to the general contractor and the civil engineer if any questions are needed by the general contractor.

LDC was never contacted again after we prepared that plot plan and they got their building permit.

And subsequent to that, there was no requirement by anyone that we had to revise our plan and amend the plan.

And um they've occupied the house since 2000.

In 2003, um, I think the sandstone uh rock embankment would have sufficed as is, but there's a chance of erosion uh possibilities with rainwater and such.

And the round trees got recommended to Chanel Construction, who has done work all across the city to do this exact thing for that rock embankment.

And it did uh prevent erosion control.

I mean, it did provide erosion control uh in its present condition and all the way since 2003.

So there's been no issues with that uh shot creed wall.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Cecil, and then we'll move on to public comment.

Um I just had one point of clarification from the applicant's presentation.

Um if you wouldn't mind expounding on or explaining what you meant when you said that granting a non-use variance would make future owners aware that the city is not liable for potential shot creek failure in the future.

Um how did you get to that conclusion?

That's one of the notes on the land on our non use variants that was required by uh SWINT.

So we agreed to that.

So it'll be the learner to know where to look.

There was a lot to read.

Yeah, it's the owner's responsibility or future owners' responsibility of a lot to to absolve the city of any uh potential liability upon failure if it fails.

All right.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Okay, we'll move on to public comment.

Is there anybody signed up for public comment in support of the project?

Either here or online.

We don't have any speakers in support here.

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

We don't have anybody online.

And I understand we have one person to speak in opposition, and one person is going to cede time to them for a total of six minutes.

Correct.

Um Jamie Fernandez will be seating time.

Please come to the mic and state so.

You'll see the 1999 1210 Eagle Rock plot plan stamped by LDC and approved by Colorado Springs Regional and the City, which documents an adherence to those hillside overlay retaining wall requirements.

Also in exhibit two, the portion highlighted red identifies the two four-foot retain walls, which were approved for construction to meet gradient erosion control, hillside development plan, and hillside overlay requirements, and be constructed within the building envelope and not in the preservation area.

So the soils test that was accomplished would be within that building overlay commission slattery to understand the construction of those walls.

However, these approved four-foot walls were never constructed per the approved plot plan.

Instead, a 15-foot structure was installed without any city or Pikes Peak Regional Permit review or approval in violation of the city code.

If a rock embankment was encountered during construction, it's reasonable that a splice or modification to the hillside plan as well as the overall construction for the certificate of occupancy would have been needed and required for approval.

Today this non-use variance request presented by LDC, the very same engineer who stamped the approved 1999 1210 EROP POP plan for the two code compliant four-foot retaining walls within the building envelope.

LDC has been rehired by the round trees to get the code violating 15-foot structure approved.

LCD appears to be contradicting their own professional assessments and stating that the code violating 15-foot structure is the only code compliant solution, and that the four-foot code compliant walls are not a viable solution.

Rather, has only provided evidence as in exhibit two that it can be achieved.

Again, if construction faced issues, a revised plot plan needed to be submitted.

Point number two, a 2024 non-use variance request for the adjacent property.

The NVAR-24-007 requested variants for a nine-foot engineered and fully permitted wall against the same geohazard conditions and hillside overlay code.

This request for our property at 1220 Eagle Rock Road was denied.

Excuse me, overlay code is feasible.

The final outcome of that uh denial of the non-use variants was a permit permit 68792 was redesigned to meet Hillside Overlay Code and Pikes Peak Regional Building Department approved it and is currently active, setting the precedence that the code compliant is achievable.

Number three, improper drainage, erosion, water ponding at the shot creep base remains unaddressed with code and engineering recommendations contradicted.

Per the NTEC Geohazard Report, quote, proper control of drainage at both the surface and in the subsurface is extremely important to slope stability.

Saturation of the slope could result in weakening of the materials and slope failure.

Water should never be allowed to pond anywhere on site, but should be intercepted by either drains or swells and carried off site in a non-erosive manner.

Quote, exterior soil grades at the top and base of the shock creek stabilization should be installed and upcat for positive drainage away from the shock creek stabilization and adjacent structures.

This may have to be coordinated with adjacent landowners to ensure that surface drainage is discharged away from the structure.

Again, quote, maintaining proper drainage and grading is critical to foundation and slab performance.

It is clear from intext assessment and from the pictures at exhibit three that the shock create structure number one does cost ponding.

Number two does not discharge surface away from shock creek and adjacent structures, and number three is a hazard to foundation and slab performance.

Further note coordination was conducted with the neighboring 1220 Eagle Rock residents to mitigate future slope or drainage risk.

Despite NTEC's recommendation that it be coordinated with adjacent landowners.

Finally, the non-use variance application requests the shot street structure to be classified and approved as a 15-foot retaining wall.

However, the NTEC site observation report intentionally refers to the shock crete as slope stabilization and never uses the term retaining wall to classify or describe the shock crete.

City code requires any retaining slope greater than two to one to be retained.

As such, this variance request, which is asking to approve a four-foot slope stabilization as a valid retaining wall, is fundamentally flawed because the shock crete slope stabilization does not meet the criteria for retaining wall.

It's important because slope stabilization does not equal drainage control.

This is why the rest of NTEC's report goes on to address all the drainage management issues and risks, and that would be addressed by a retaining wall.

Any questions for myself.

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

I have a question, sir.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

That's right.

Sorry.

Never mind.

Can't ask it.

I can just comment later.

Nobody else.

Okay.

Uh at this time the uh applicant uh has a chance to rebut.

And once we do the applicant rebuttal, we'll take a short break and then come back and do any further uh questions at the time.

Okay, I just have a couple of points.

This is uh again, Dave with LDC.

Um LDC does not stamp any of our drawings.

Uh all we were were the uh surveyor and the planning consultant.

The civil engineer stamps the drawings.

The civil engineer showed the dual retaining walls crossing both our lot one and lot two.

When we built the house, I mean when the house was built in 2000 and occupied the building permit was closed out, and inspection around the house would see that rock wall embankment uh bare.

I mean, with the just the claw marks from construction.

Uh at no time was LDC asked to revise their plan.

Uh, and the building permit was closed out in 2003.

Chanel construction did that covering, and no permit was required, and they did it.

And drainage uh was distributed across the entire backside of the property and flowed as sheet flow over that entire structure.

And there was no erosion problems at that time.

If you look at some of the pictures that we have now with that new retaining wall and where they cut that off, uh the adjoining to the south hasn't done anything to mitigate any problems associated with with channelized flow coming between those items, the new retaining wall and the existing shot creek wall.

Um, likewise, the engineer for the adjoiner to the south did not build those two four-foot walls.

And their engineer never came to LDC or ADP to uh discuss why those weren't installed and why they didn't install them.

So you know, at time of preparation of the original Riley subdivision hillside development plan for both lots, the sophistication of the hillside review is not as extensive as it is today.

So we respectfully request uh approval of our request.

And I'll let uh the civil engineer and soils engineer respond.

Dave Gorman, MVE, Inc.

The um uh the the condition of the drainage was mentioned.

So uh the the existing uh the existing wall has a brow on the up on the uphill side and it and it directs uh the directs uh most of the smaller flows around the the top of the wall to and around the house.

Um and in uh in very significant rainstorms, we will see some some water flow over the wall.

However, when it gets to the bottom of the wall, uh there is a there's a swale along the east side of the house that directs flows around around the house and to the north.

Um in the past, there there uh uh there may have been uh uh because of you know erosion, there may have been times where there was water ponding.

However, uh those those issues have been addressed.

So at current uh when when when the rainstorms storms occur, there their water does flow around the house along the base of the wall and away.

There's no uh long standing water.

There is flow because there's a swale, but but it it quickly uh is dispersed.

So we I have no concerns about about the condition of the drainage either for the house or for the wall.

Uh the the drainage uh uh on the lot is is functioning properly, and uh and the drainage does not affect any adjacent properties uh uh as we are downhill from you know, especially from the one from the south.

Um and uh uh also just to mention that uh um the the two walls uh that uh were discussed, um those two walls could not be constructed as is uh as shown on the plan um without some with without the extension of those walls to the south as shown on the 1999 plan.

Uh a couple questions for you.

You mentioned that um that lip or that edge on the top of the wall.

Is that something that's maintained on a regular basis or has been or needed any maintenance or repair over the years, or has it continued to perform well without any without any failure?

It's it's formed into the shot creet and also the adjacent uh uh soil to to the east of it.

And and there has been uh uh additional rocks placed up there to to stabilize uh stabilize this the soil part, but the the shot creek part is is formed in a way and and and that it doesn't require maintenance, but the earth next to it uh has has is being looked after uh by the owner.

Okay.

And then you kind of answered my other question, which was about um drainage onto adjacent properties and the um the property to the south, which is where the uh complaint came from is not seeing water drainage from this or do you have any evidence for that?

Flow from lot two to the south actually flows on to the round trees property.

Most of it uh uh comes down to their driveway and flows down the driveway.

So there's no physical way for the water from from the lot one to go into a pinch.

Uh there's there's there's no uh water doesn't flow uphill.

Right.

Okay.

It's a very important civil engineering distinction.

One more question for you, sir.

Um this Mr.

Fernandez's exhibit one, which we see in other places in the packet, um shows clearly here in red.

So if those two four-foot retaining walls were to be constructed, they would literally go into the building envelope of his current home.

Yes.

Um, the slopes along that side.

It would not it would not be manageable.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and take about ten minutes break until uh ten forty six, and then we'll come back for further questions from the commissioners.

Okay, we're going to get started here again with uh questions from commissioners.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Um, hi there, I just had a quick question uh either for the applicant's representative or their engineer.

Um noting that the shock creek is over sand zone, um, do you have any additional details that you may want to share regarding whether it's fiber reinforced or uh steel rebar underneath or if it is maintained in a sealed state to prevent breakdown.

Yes.

Um this is Logan within tech again.

First and last name Langford.

Logan Linkbird.

And closer to the mic if you could, it's hard to hear you.

Uh Logan Langford with in tech.

Yes, the shock crate wall is constructed with a mix of wire mesh and rebar that's dialed into the sandstone and then tied together, then shot crate applied.

Then um they do require periodic maintenance.

It's just general upkeep that's required.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'll move on to anyone else who has additional questions.

Sorry, but Commissioner Hansler asked me to elaborate.

Mr.

Fernandez uh explained that he was concerned about precedent having been established by the denial by this body of a retaining wall on his property that exceeded the height requirements.

I know we discussed it earlier, but is it feasible that we could re leave this in there as a building permit must be obtained by the property owner, but Mike Speak regional building development wouldn't issue a permit or would require changes to the wall?

Can you speak to that at all?

Yeah, Drew Fox, uh planner two City of Colorado Springs for the record.

Uh the building permit requirement, uh, while the applicant stated that regional had told them that they will not provide a wall for a 20-year-old structure.

Uh we have clarified that a new building permit will require will be required as if it is a new structure.

Um then it would have to meet would it have to meet then the current code, the two to one and all the other pieces of it?

So the the two and one, I believe is only the trigger for a building permit.

Um and yeah, so the the wall would have to uh comply with the various building permit uh code regulations.

Okay, thank you.

Drew, while you're there, I just want to better understand is the violation that was um that was made, the violation notification that was made because of just the height of the wall or any issues from the existing shot creet wall that are affecting adjacent properties.

What was the impetus, if you will, from your perspective on the reason for that?

On the reason for the code complaint.

I think there's a long line of various nuanced reasons that I will not be aware of or ever will be aware of for the reasoning of the code enforcement complaint, but what was written in the record was uh not following the approved development plan, uh concerns over erosion, grading control, bonding, all of which we've discussed today.

I did not read any.

All those are happening on the subject property.

I did not read anything in any report uh regarding negative impacts, physical impacts to the property to the south.

Or the north or the west.

And we haven't heard any testimony of that either.

Yeah, I just want to understand and make sure that I'm seeing and reading and not missing something that maybe you would have seen.

Yeah, there um there's no recorded complaints in the past from other property owners in the area.

Um, so I'm not aware of any adverse impacts from this on other properties.

Okay, thank you.

If you'd stay there real quick, so I that's a good point because criteria number four is that the granting of the non-use variants will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

So, from what you've seen uh from your staff report, I'm I'm reading that you don't see any adverse issues on surrounding properties.

Yeah, adverse issues can be a number of things, including visual impact of which is why I brought forward the uh my comments on the visual appeal of the wall.

Um from my perspective and observations of what the wall looks like, I think the compatibility with the area is fine.

Uh the only concern is the height and the reasoning for the variance.

And the encroachment issues been remedied, I understand.

No longer encroaches on this uh neighboring property.

Yeah, the encroachment, uh that that piece of shot creet that was encroaching over the property line to my understanding has been cut off and replaced with the owner of 1220's uh mission to install a new uh concrete slab wall.

And does that um I don't know if I could see it in here?

Does that new wall from the southern property encroach onto the subject property or is it right on the property line?

And I know I'm misconstruing a couple of issues because we saw this last year and I thought that there was something like a two-inch or two-foot margin, if you will.

So do you have any knowledge of if there's encroachment of any sort either direction now with either of these wall structures?

Yeah, no, I I'm not aware of any encroachment occurring with either wall structure.

Uh and I believe what you're referring to from last November was uh Commissioner Rickett's comment and concerns over the tie-in to the shot creep wall with the proposed concrete slab wall.

Um I believe that was well and previously the shot creet encroached onto the southern property, but now the wall is the dividing, the new wall is the dividing line, is on the property line.

Correct.

With a setback.

There's a slight, yeah, there's a slight setback.

I can't recall what the numerical value of that setback is with the wall, but it's not encroaching.

Okay.

Um, sorry, Chair had asked about uh visual um an adverse impact, and you had said visual is sometimes.

Is there any visual um issue with the wall?

I mean, we talked a little bit about drainage not being an issue to adjacent neighbors.

Is there any visual impact to adjacent properties that would violate criteria four?

Yeah, uh I think that's a very important thing.

I would agree, but um so incorporating you know visual impact into the criteria number four.

Uh I I'd likely leave it up to the commission to make uh but that's not any of the um information that you have received or has been part of the code violation that there's been a visual impact.

I don't recall reading anything about a visual impact.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Hensler, just for the record, Dan Sexton planning manager.

I just want to clarify because I know through the dialogue there with uh city planner Drew Fox regarding the summation of what the enforcement case was.

The complete description of the code enforcement citation was included in your packet as attention uh attachment for.

Yes, I'm re I have it in front of me, I'm reading it.

I also like interpretation.

So thank you.

Any further questions?

Any further questions or any further comments um comment wise, I um I do find that per 7.5.526 point E, that there are unique situations on this property, um, particularly meeting criteria one and two, that the sandstone appears to be an extraordinary physical condition encountered during the original construction.

Um I feel that criteria three for non-use variants is met because there would be a substantial imposition and reasonable use would be impeded of both this property and the adjacent property should the original plans be forced into compliance and the non-use variance is a far more appropriate solution retaining the reasonable use of both properties.

And as discussed uh a moment ago, the uh criteria four appears to be met in that there does not appear to be as substantial impact to the use or enjoyment of the surrounding properties.

Um I do also outside of those criteria would like to simply state the opinion that causing a revision to a uh to construction that occurred more than two decades ago at this point, seems itself and to be unreasonable in a way that would kind of nullify the concept of a certificate of occupancy on construction as a whole, but that's not a criteria, so I'll conclude my comments here.

Commissioner Slatery.

Thank you.

Jen, you articulated well, I too was looking at um the criteria for non-use variants.

Um definitely seeing that there is extraordinary physical circumstance that was uncovered during construction with the sandstone condition.

Um, and especially criteria number three that the property with out use of this relief um would not be reasonably used.

So additionally, in terms of the intention of the code of the hillside overlay to conserve the unique natural features and aesthetics of the hillside overlay.

Um the demolition and construction of a new condition would um be far more detrimental to preserving the existing conditions than allowing the 22-year-old use to stay.

So I will be voting um in favor of the non-use variants.

This is uh Chair Casey for the record.

Uh I concur with Commissioner Cecil and Commissioner Slatterly that the uh non-use variance request meets the four criteria outlined in city code, and I'll be voting in support of the non-use variants.

Commissioner Robinson, I uh I'm inclined to also agree with you guys uh in regards to that.

Um I don't think we need those changes.

Um I don't think we need those changes, so the non-use variants would uh be a good way to go.

And I have to uh agree.

I'll I'll be voting in your favor.

Thank you.

If there are no further comments, it'll open up for a motion.

I'll second and and I'll say I concur with comments that have been made.

I don't think that this non-use variance will have an adverse impact on surrounding properties, and I think holding the precedent of the last 20 years of construction uh definitely makes sense, and I don't see that the violations are really pertinent at this point in time or that code violation complaint.

So I will second that.

Sorry for those of you in the audience.

I hit the motion button before I said I motioned out loud.

So motioning, thank you, Commissioner Hensler.

I'd uh like to read in a motion to approve the non-use variance to city code section 7.2 point six one zero point D point one point D allowing a 15-foot retaining wall in the hillside overlay upon the findings that this request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code section 7.5.526 point E with the following conditions.

A an amendment to the applicable hillside overlay development plan city file number ARDP 98-727 shall be processed prior to approval of a building permit.

And B, a building permit must be attained by the property owner for the Shock Creek Wall with Pikes Peak Regional Building Department.

Before we vote further discussion, do we want to continue with those and are those required?

Because I think we just had some discussion around permitting and if per embedding would be available, and we're saying not put putting undue um adverse impact.

So is do we need to keep those um conditions or do we have the opportunity to discuss those uh commissioner Hensler?

Um Dan Sexton, planning manager uh with city planning.

Uh I would say that those are recommended uh conditions of the the proposed motion to approve.

So it is the prerogative of planning commission to choose to potentially amend those or modify those as part of the overall motion.

Um granted there may be still a potential conflict with the applicable building code as it relates to that wall uh since it was not officially permitted.

Right.

And I think the testimony in the conversation we had a moment ago is will they be able to get a permit?

So if we were to approve this and they go to get a permit and they can't get a permit, and they have to tear down the structure and rebuild it to get a permit.

Is that a possibility?

I am not uh the building official for Pikes Peak Regional Building Department.

So call Roger up, right?

So I think that's really a question for regional building, and the owners will have to work through that process if it is determined by Pikes Peak Regional Building that they will not issue a permit.

Um receiving notification from the applicant in regionable regional building attesting to that decision uh from a planning department's perspective would be deemed satisfactory.

Uh go ahead.

Along that line, so the um condition A of the development plan amendment, would that be required by city planning?

Or would that as a record?

So again, that is a recommendation from staff on a motion to approve uh that by having a modification to the approved hillside development plan that trues up that documentation and entitlement for the property.

Uh so it is our recommendation or suggestion, I should say, to this body that uh a subsequent modification occurred.

I guess I'd like to pose the conversation to my fellow commissioners that um I can understand amendment to the applicable hillside overlay.

Um, but given the duration that this structure has been in place, and what I see is potentially the difficulty in getting a building permit, that maybe it's an existing non-conforming, and we don't require a permit.

Um, because I do think that would be an undue challenge to potentially get and may cause this whole thing to get recycled back to two four-foot walls.

But so you're asking you one of your motion to remove item B.

To remove item B and just put an amendment to the hillside overlay that would that would describe the existing conditions which led to the non-use variance, but remove the requirement for a permit.

Okay, and I think um city attorney does Jen have uh Commissioner Cecil have to then with withdraw her motion before we do a new motion.

Sarah Brown City Attorney's Office.

Yes, you would either need to vote on the motion or withdraw it in order to uh bring a new motion.

Okay.

And I mean, I I say again that I'm open to discussion by others if uh if you're not amenable to that change.

I just feel like it's an undue burden that doesn't follow the spirit of the non-use experience.

Yeah, I uh the planning department concurs with that.

There's no issue with removing item B.

In which case I shall withdraw my motion.

Okay, so we're looking for an amended motion now to be read.

I think we'll just remove item uh B, but do you want to read that again?

Do you want to do Jim?

Okay.

Why sure?

I will also move to I will now move to um approve the non-use variance to City Code section 7.2.610 point D.1.

D, allowing a 15-foot retaining wall in the hillside overlay upon the findings that this request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 7.5.526E with the following condition.

A an amendment to the applicable hillside overlay development plan, city file number ARD 98-727 shall be processed prior to approval of a building permit.

I'm thinking that we can strike prior to approval of the building permit and just end at shall be processed.

Thank you.

Commissioner Roberts, you're muted.

How do you vote on this item?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, appeal instructions.

In accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.4 and 5 of the city unified development code.

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

Within 10 days from final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, October 20th, 2025.

The appellant must file notice and the hundred 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 matters specific matters set forth in the appeal letter.

And now we'll move on to presentations for Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan.

Good morning.

And as a reminder, you have 20 minutes for your presentation.

Yes, thank you.

I will keep it quick.

I've been told to also do that.

Thank you.

Um I know that you're as excited as I am to uh talk about the Southeast because it has so much potential.

Yes.

Can you please speak into the mic and introduce yourself one more time?

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um so after that excitement, let me introduce myself.

Uh Paige Salisbury with the comprehensive planning division at the planning department with the city of Colorado Springs.

Um again, enthusiasm around economic development.

The Southeast is situated um in uh sorry, how do I use this?

Okay.

You want to do it that way?

Yes, so here we are, the map.

We can see that the neighborhoods here are older and have been here for a while, but their proximity to the airport is significant, and the South Academy Boulevard is a significant corridor.

The last time we were here last week, we talked about the introduction to the plan, the plan's partners, which are our foundations, how to use the plan and community engagement.

Next slide.

Today we'll be talking and focusing on the neighborhood plan.

That's more of our economic development chapters, our transportation chapters, our safety chapters, the planned partners again, our critical city and private development map is pretty important here.

And the structure will be coming back to this body for some more information in the next coming months.

Next slide.

Next slide.

So the plan structure here is based around the big ideas.

Those are our chapters.

We have priority goals, we have goals, and we have strategies.

This is the development goal.

This is one of the focuses for the next slide, but don't go to the next slide yet, please.

This area will support those communities.

So upgrading these areas is critical.

We also are looking at community hubs.

We're looking at incremental density, transit-oriented development, and walkability.

Our mixed use zones will support that.

We're looking at major areas and corridors along Hancock Expressway, Circle Drive, South Academy.

And this really requires a lot of collaboration.

Next slide.

A lot of capital improvement has gone on in those areas.

And again, this area will support that with housing and commercial retail.

So we have commercial investment, we have reinvestment areas and the darker blue.

And our mobile home communities in need of some reinvestment.

And then we have some of the newly planned areas.

That's where we're seeing a lot of growth for both residential and commercial.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Next slide.

The plan has a lot of action words.

Next slide.

Here are the big ideas, the chapters that we'll be looking at today.

Next slide.

And in the plan, you'll see areas that are highlighted in gray.

Those are the community has been surveyed, and those are the priority goals.

So when we go through this slide set, you'll see these priority goals.

Again, one of the biggest economic development and the community is interested in is uh creating a thriving business ecosystem in this area, and then also leveraging the unique cultural identity through business.

So here are you lots of our partners.

There's a marketing and identity building partnership campaign that's proposed through the city economic development department to support all of this.

Next slide.

Priority goal here is uh really about streetscapes and efficient and manageable streetscapes to create a more livable space for our either people visiting or are the residents there.

It is a regional hub, and in many cases.

Um of those uh pilot projects can be focused there along transit corridors and in public spaces.

Next slide.

Here, just to remind us all of the zoning.

Um, there is a lot of single family zoning in this area.

Um there are there's new construction in Spring Creek, there's new construction in pockets of all of these neighborhoods.

Um there's a significant amount of industrial, both light and heavy, um, and then our major corridors, our commercial mixed use.

Uh next slide.

Um so here we are in our economic development chapter, um, continuing on here where we have site maintenance is still a concern.

Um, so we are looking at through our economic development department, a southeast small business alliance to continue to find funding to improve landscaping and those public spaces.

Um we also have um you Colorado Springs Utilities is very invested in the area.

We have these mechanisms to help guide looking for funding, but these are also capital improvement projects that are existing, and we can talk about how much money has been invested into the area by the city, by the private activities and by development.

Next slide.

Um attract new retailers.

Uh this is a goal within our departments and with the community.

Um there are enterprise zones, there are opportunity zones in this area, there are vacant spaces, so um pop-up workshops or co-working is encouraged.

Um the family success success center.

If you have not gone to the family success center, I encourage you to do so.

It's inspiring.

There's a lot of incubator and well-known uh businesses there that have their offices there.

Next slide.

Um develop initiatives uh that are culturally significant.

Um, and then another goal would be preserve and create new opportunities for the regional economy.

Um, here uh again, we have quite a bit of manufacturing that is either within the area or nearby.

That would be a lot of jobs and new job creation is coming forward, as well as the need to support those with residential those jobs.

So there's the um connection there.

Um special improvement districts, BIDs, and metro districts could be one of those mechanisms.

So partnerships with our schools and major employers for career opportunities.

We are supporting again the Family Success Center, but moreover, vocational training and apprenticeships are coming out of Pikes Peak State College, District 2 education programs, and the Pikes Peak Business and Education Alliance.

Really great things are happening there.

It's you know, providing that workforce that's trending, trending towards more trade programs.

Next slide.

So housing and economic development, there's that correlation.

And housing, we need to preserve, that's why these plans are important.

Is uh you know, we want to also preserve existing housing and not have displacement either at the residential level or at the commercial level.

So preservation, economic development is really working on that in our housing department, but also existing and future housing for our residents because we are seeing quite a bit of development in the area.

And so a complete comprehensive plan is needed to support that growth.

Um now we're into another chapter.

Um, I'm sorry, no.

Did we jump?

Okay, thank you.

Um, so still housing here.

Um, diverse housing options are needed along transit corridors, our community hubs, um, and then uh supporting those essential services.

Um there are mechanisms and tools here that support that in their strategies.

Um we have nonprofits working in the area, accessibility upgrades, um, affordable housing with a capital A tool that um is really useful and is working in this community and throughout our city.

Next slide.

Um here we're moving into our next chapter.

So the uh hatched uh buffer area are around more walkable, more frequent transit lines.

Um so these could be areas to focus on for some development or to be promoting development as sort of a catalyst, um, walkable areas.

There are a lot in our single family areas and then along our major corridors.

Next slide.

Um here.

So here's our more uh mobility chapter.

Um enhance public transit.

Um public works and mountain metro transit is focused on enhancing uh transit transit in the area, increasing uh frequency to better serve the community at large.

Um, bus rapid uh transit is being studied along South Academy, um, all the way up north for that connectivity.

Um, and then we have uh more priority goals here.

Um promote at the first and last mile.

These are all you know, planning principles that we know are important, but they're also very important to the community.

Um bike share and scooter programs, um, extending those into the community.

Um it's it's been talked about, it's feasible, and it would really support the community.

Uh next slide.

Um, so here these priorities and goals are related.

So uh bicycle, pedestrian and safety um goals because we need to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicyclist uh crash incidents, um studies are continuing, and we need to implement uh safer roads.

Um we do that by coordination uh with our public works and um CDOT in uh some cases in this area, especially along powers, because there's some need to extend access across powers with pedestrian and bicyclists and motor vehicles as well.

There's um areas that are definitely identified as risky lighting, crosswalks, roundabouts, um public works is looking into all of these.

Next slide.

So we also want to slow vehicles.

This is a conversation we've all had near schools, very important healthcare centers, libraries, commercial areas, parks and recreational centers, integrating with district two, and traffic calming measures are being identified and uh in the capital improvement project list.

So controlled uh pedestrian crossings, um the uh new traffic uh signal hot crossing signals, um activated signals are being implemented, and there are more plans to do so that we have a safe place for our residents uh to be um traveling by either you know scooter too if we implement any of those projects.

And then so what's really interesting too is on South Academy that new construction uh revitalization has uh provided a 10-foot sidewalk, and so that um will also be looked at on fountain, so that would be a multimodal sidewalk.

Next slide.

Um we're looking at you know, also some good read for you if you haven't yet.

The 2050 Regional Transit Plan and Specialized Transportation Plan has a lot of great um strategies there.

Next slide.

Um here just gives a little bit of a picture of how extensive our trail network is because we're looking at health of our uh these these communities and surrounding communities, um, and and there are some issues in the southeast related to life expectancy in certain pockets, and mobility is one of those solutions.

Um the red are future plan trails and connectivity, and then the green are existing.

Um so connecting to downtown, connecting to Corral Bluffs, um, even Palmer Park, Sand Creek Trail, there's flat tire bike rides that happen through the trail and activating these spaces.

Um next slide.

Uh so again, live longer, live better.

This is our focus.

This a lot of this information came out of the Southeast health assessment and identifying uh priority areas.

So focusing on walkable healthy um communities and these community hubs that will come in my next presentation at another date, uh just to show you the geographically where we've identified those.

The community has really identified a lot of this.

It's just um you know, putting it on a map.

Um so um curb appeal again, still a big issue.

Um has a lot of potential.

We saw so much uh really successful um activation at Panorama Park, and it's uh regionally very you know uh popular park.

So Van Dieste is another um area to continue that upgrade.

Um next slide.

Um so we've talked about the urban forest improvement grant.

Um there could be some expansion into landscaping uh our parks with some trees and vegetation and in our medians.

Um this plan will help promote that.

We're we're hoping.

Um next slide.

So food access.

This is becoming a big deal, uh, always has been, but uh probably even more so now than ever before.

Um so these public-private partnerships are very important, um, incentivizing grocery stores in and around the area since we've had some volatility with our grocery stores, as you've heard in the news.

Um, and then uh you know, in using our tools uh to help support that economic development is active identifying this.

I'm almost done.

Thank you.

Uh mental health.

Just three more slides.

So yeah.

Appreciate your indulgence.

Right.

And then I really welcome any questions and conversation.

Um addressing mental health is also an interest and a goal.

Next slide.

Um, so ADA upgrades, that's uh something that is um required, and uh we're actively working on that in this community.

And we're actively working on that in this community.

Next slide.

And support our safety.

So safety is also a major concern in the area.

There's a lot of community-driven resources out there, but public infrastructure is also needed to support the area's safety concerns.

Next slide.

And ways that we do that.

It would include also lighting standards and parking lots and trail safety.

Does provide a sense of pride and uh does deter crime.

Next slide.

All right.

Well, there you go.

Um stakeholder engagement is ongoing.

And then we hope to come back to this body in the next couple of months, go through city council, and then implementation will be discussed at our next meeting.

Do we have any questions?

Could you go back to the map?

I think you're at the beginning that just showed the development.

The development map or just general.

Just general.

Okay.

I just wonder where this is.

Where this is in relation to the Fountain Creek development.

They're talking about this is south of there, I believe.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, you know, I is important to talk about some of the city investment.

Um, 300 since in 809, 110 and 809 uh 16.

Um, so really council district four, um, since uh 2017.

Um, and these are estimations because there's more than this, but 350 million dollars of direct known city investment, you know, that includes the Family Success Center, community development block grants, um, private activity bonds.

There are the regional um uh um sports facilities around the area, panorama park.

Um Mr.

Casey.

Were you asking about the Creek COS?

Is that the project you were referencing?

I think it's around America the Beautiful Park.

We have the paper recently about it.

It extends down to um to the confluence with the mon with Monument Creek, which is at um America the Beautiful Park.

Okay, that's and that's north that would be north of here.

That's right.

Okay, thank you.

If you could go to that parks map, that might help a little bit.

Um that's the one with the regional trails.

Um, and you know, I have a huge list of projects that are in the area.

I'll save that for another time.

Um, but those would be our planning projects.

Um and uh really uh in it's really exciting to see so much happen since the development of this uh plan process.

Um and so uh it's it's just very timely that we're getting to this point because um the area is redeveloping.

So um let me let me give you a quick overview of kind of where we want to go.

This is these two presentations that you've gotten to give you a quick overview.

We've given you a copy of the document.

Um we are working with our council, our new council member there to how they want to go forward with this at City Council.

So once we get a determination from that, um, we will bring this more formally to you for your approval uh andor formal comments or amendments.

If in the meantime, though, if you read this, if you have some comments, have some concerns, please let Paige or Sheila or I know.

Um, and we will continue to work on that.

This is uh still a work in progress.

We just wanted to give you kind of a an opportunity to get ahead of the curve a little bit.

So thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Uh any other questions from commissioners?

Um I've just got a couple of comments.

Um appreciate your genuine enthusiasm and passion for this project.

Um it's obviously that you put a lot of work in into this, um, have engaged in the community and are doing exactly um what we would hope uh to bring to this process.

Um, I guess I also wanted to highlight um success stories that were mentioned with like the circle circle um boulevard or whatever the bridge.

And I was involved in that project maybe five years ago through community engagement and the art and bringing Harrison students and involvement and right.

So don't forget to highlight the successes that you know probably concurrent with the beginning of this project are already being implemented.

So just kudos on that.

And you know, it um having a playbook hopefully um makes it more desirable and achievable and efficient for um some of these plans and opportunities to get put into play.

So um great job and great effort on this massive project.

Massive project, but I also want to acknowledge all of the other departments and community members and leadership in the Southeast who have worked on this too.

Yeah, and other staff.

Many that also makes it harder.

The more people the harder sometimes.

Yes, it is a great process.

Evolving, yeah, to this point.

Yeah.

Mr.

Cecil.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Um I had just a couple of really quick clarifying questions.

Um you recommended PPRTA route uh rehab.

Are these areas already on approved lists for PPRTA?

They are, yeah, that's good news.

Yeah, and I think that that would be an important thing to bring back to this body next time.

It's just a quick snap map of the capital improvement projects and then the development projects in the area might give you a good picture.

And and I look forward to hearing back from council, especially around, I know hub can have an ambiguous meaning, uh, what a community hub is.

It could be the coffee shop on the corner, it could be a formal community center, but given current budget constraints, I do hope we prioritize however the community sees fit to have those hubs there because they really are important to cohesion and mental health as well as you know, walkability.

And I wanted to throw out that it's exciting to hear there are anti-displacement concerns percolating throughout the city, and maybe that the housing and affordability department is working on a larger strategy.

So I hope they have planned future community engagement around that, because I know many of my neighbors have thoughts and feelings on the issue.

Absolutely, absolutely.

And there is work being done, and we could update you on that too.

Yeah, I would I would suggest that the housing needs assessment is on the verge of being released, and there will be a lot of opportunity for discussion around that.

Um and that should be coming here in the next 30 days.

Any further questions or comments, commissioners?

Commissioner Robbins has uh his hand up.

Yep.

Hi, yes.

Uh just I know I'm jumping a gun here a little bit, but is there any uh kind of a timeline that has been established for this?

Um that was one thing I had.

The other one was obviously is it going to involve any personal property uh changes for people in that community when you make uh all these changes for trails and roadways and uh trying to make things you know parks.

Um that was another one I had in there.

And of course, costs of all this.

I appreciate the enthusiasm and I really like what your plans are.

I'm just thinking about all these other issues that come along with it.

Again, I may be jumping a gun, but uh just thought I'd check with you and see what your thoughts are on those issues.

Right, go ahead.

Commissioner Robbins this process has been going on almost five years, so it's hard to jump the gun uh with some of those concerns.

So those are appropriate questions.

Um are you talking about the timeline for implementation of the plan, or are you talking about the timeline for the approval of the plan?

Well, actually, you would have to get it approved and then implement that.

And uh obviously it takes a long time to get all this done, but I was just kind of curious because uh the future growth of our our city depends a lot on what uh what you guys do.

Yeah, we appreciate that.

I I mean the approval process will take the next few months.

Um of course I said that about a year ago.

So it's not always the easiest thing to figure out how to get from here to there.

Uh, in terms of implementation, it will be a forever project, and we'll update this constantly.

We're obviously dealing with a large section of the community and um uh it's more complicated than just writing a plan and implementing it.

So yeah, timeline um for implementation again is ongoing and um working with the community and continuing to work within the community, but also working with our departments.

But so that continues, and this this plan will advocate for these uh, you know, if they're capital improvement projects or you know, residential or commercial improvement concepts that are advisory.

Um, but they'll be looked at by uh developers coming into the area, and they will have to speak to you like they do with Plant COS, speak to what's in this plan and how their project aligns.

And then you also had cost.

Um this document doesn't require any uh investment, um, but it is also just it's honestly supporting the investment that's already planned by our public works department or our economic development department.

Um regionally, El Paso County economic development.

Um the area is growing.

We have a lot of growth in Banning Lewis Ranch South.

Um, and um, you know, it just kind of goes on and on.

We're gonna see a lot of change in the next coming 20 years.

Yeah.

I love it.

Thank you.

I think it's a great positive for the city.

Um I think it can be nothing but great for us.

Thank you.

Okay, any final questions or comments?

Okay, with that we're