Good morning.

We're gonna kick this regular meeting off for City Council of Clara Springs meeting Tuesday, October 28th, 2025.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Bailey.

Here.

Councilmember Crow Iverson.

Here.

Councilmember Donaldson.

Here.

Councilmember Gold.

Here.

Councilmember Henjam.

Present.

Councilmember Lionweaver.

Excused, he's in route online.

He'll pop up here soon.

Councilmember Rainey.

Here.

Councilmember Risley.

Here.

Councilmember Williams.

Here.

Eight present.

So if you'll please stand.

Um we have the honor of having our invocation this morning from the police department.

Um, Chaplin McCormick.

My name is Paul McCormick, the chaplain.

The green light.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Colin McCormack.

I'm a chaplain with the Colorado Springs Police Department.

Thank you for your service, City Council to our city.

Um we know that you work very hard and um volunteer a lot of time here.

And as a community member, I'm grateful for that.

An invocation is a type of prayer where God is invited into our meeting.

There are different types of prayer, prayer of healing, prayer deliverance.

And so I'll do the invocation here, and God will come.

But there's a second step where we invite God into our decision making.

So he'll come and be a part of our our audience today, but he would ask that we also invite him into the decision makings that we do here.

And so I'll just do a simple exercise to position ourselves to position our spirits to hear God.

We're gonna hear a lot today.

You're gonna hear a lot today.

You'll hear a lot of opposing views back and forth, and there's a lot of noise.

I went over your agenda this morning while I prayed for you all.

And it's very extensive and very long.

And so um, if you just follow my lead in this, it'll position us to hear God, and then I'll pray that prayer of invocation.

Let's close our eyes.

Um, members of the audience, you're welcome to join us in this.

Let's take a slow deep breath in.

Let's hold it at the top.

Release it.

Last time.

Slow deep breath in.

Hold it at the top and release it.

Dear God, I invite you here into our meeting today.

This is an important meeting.

And we just position ourselves to hear your voice and what your opinion is.

We're gonna hear a lot of opinions today, God, and we also want to hear your opinion and your side and let that affect the decisions that we make.

Thank you, Lord.

Amen.

Thank you.

Amen.

Thank you.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Moving on to the consent calendar, we will now consider the consent calendar.

These items will be acted on as a whole, unless it's a specific item, is called off for discussion by a council member or a citizen wishing to address council.

Is there anyone who wishes to pull an item off the consent calendar?

Good morning.

My name is Tim Leonard, and I would like to pull item four B U off the agenda.

Good centre.

Done.

Thank you.

So we will note 4BU pulled off.

Any others?

Um I need a motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Donaldson on the consent agenda with the one for B U pulled off.

Um can I have a voice vote?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Moving on to items 5A.

Will the clerk please read item 5A into the record?

A resolution in recognition of National Disability Employment Awareness Month, October 2025.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, this is one of my favorite parts of councils when we're able to do some awesome resolutions.

I'd like to invite uh presenter Jason Crow, our ADA Title II manager to help present this resolution.

Good morning.

Can you make sure the green button?

There you go.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Yes, um, October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of this recognition, which began in 1945 as National Employee the Physically Handicapped Week.

Over time, it has grown into a month-long observation that highlights the importance of inclusive employment opportunities and celebrates the many contributions of America's workers with disabilities.

The 2025 theme is celebrating value and talent.

Why this matters?

Uh National Disability Employment Awareness Month is an opportunity to raise awareness about disability employment issues while recognizing that value, skill, and dedication of employees with disabilities.

The City of Culture Springs is committed to fostering a workplace that values each employee's unique qualities, promotes an inclusive and equitable organizational culture, and encourages employees to treat co-workers and customers with respect, openness, and understanding.

Our legal and ethical commitment includes the following.

The city is committed to providing resources and accommodations so that qualified employees with disabilities can perform their jobs and enjoy equal workplace benefits.

Employees can learn more about ADA Title I and Reasonable Accommodations through the city's ADA SharePoint site or visiting the job accommodation network at Askjan.com or Askjan.org, sorry.

Accessibility and inclusion in our community.

The city is leading efforts to meet web content accessibility guidelines to ensure all residents have access to online resources.

And this is important in the employment process now.

Everyone looks for jobs online and through that process.

Beyond digital inclusion, we continue to improve accessibility in all city facilities across parks, programs, and services, as well as in the public right of way, building a city where all residents, including those with disabilities, can live, work, and thrive.

Support beyond accommodations.

Our commitment goes further than compliance.

The city offers a reboot robust health and welfare package that includes coverage for hearing aids and cochlear implants, chronic condition management programs, comprehensive mental health resources, fertility benefits, enhanced coverage for low vision needs, enhanced oral care benefits for employees with select chronic health conditions.

Hiring inclusively, the city recruiting and our partners, NeilGovs and Spark Hire are committed to ensuring all applicants can participate fully in the hiring process.

Applicants requiring accommodations may contact City.recruiting at Colorado Springs.gov at any time during the hiring process.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, I will read our resolution in recognition of National Disability Employment Awareness Month, October 2025, whereas 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of National Disability Employment Awareness Month, which began in 1945 as National Employee the Physically Handicapped Week and has since grown into a month-long observance, highlighting the importance of inclusive employment opportunities.

Whereas in 1988, Congress declared the month of October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month to recognize the contributions made by individuals with disabilities.

And whereas National Disability Employment Awareness Month is a time to celebrate the contributions of people with disabilities to our city's workforce and economic strength.

And whereas our residents with disabilities deserve the right to live independently, enjoy self-determination, and to be treated equally in the workplace.

And whereas it is essential to create an environment in which people with disabilities have access to full participation in our economy and the ability to experience the benefits of employment.

And whereas workplaces, workplaces welcoming the talents of all people, including people with disabilities, are a critical part of our efforts to build an inclusive community and strong economy.

And whereas the City of Colorado Springs reaffirms our commitments to fostering opportunities for people of all disabilities to apply their skills and talent in the workplace as they pursue their dreams.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs.

The City Council recognizes October 2025 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month, dated the 28th day of October 2025 by Council President Madam Lynette Crow Iverson.

Thank you.

From Council members.

If not, I have a motion from Councilman Hingem.

And a second from Councilman Bailey.

And the motion passes a to zero.

Mr.

Crow, feel me to set front for a celebratory picture.

We will do that now.

Moving on to item 5B, will the clerk please read item 5B into the record?

Resolution recognizing November 3rd through 7, 2025 is National Veterans Small Business Week.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President, and uh once again, what an honor to uh read this resolution uh being a veteran myself and also a business owner.

Uh it's absolutely great that there's this national recognition of small business uh amongst our veteran community.

Uh I see the excitement oftentimes uh when people either separate or retire from the military and they decide to get into the uh the business uh ventures and become entrepreneurs themselves.

And it's a very exciting uh moment for them because they get to continue to serve their community, but just in a different capacity.

Um, and I love seeing it, and it it just brings a lot of excitement to me to see uh just in this community how many veteran-owned businesses uh that we actually have.

Um before we read the resolution, uh, Madam President, I would like to invite Jesse Kimber up to uh say a couple of words.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramdy, Madam President, members of City Council.

We are so blessed to live in this community where we have so many military members, military spouses, military dependents, uh, who can call on a vast amount of resources uh to help them with transition to settle in.

Um, some of my uh my transition is as a veteran myself uh was done right here in Colorado Springs through Mount Carmel, uh assistance from Homefront Military Network, obviously the Small Business Development Center, the Veterans Business Operations Center, and sitting right behind me on camera is Mr.

Joe Reagan, uh, also a veteran himself.

Um, the City of Colorado Springs, as I said before, is so blessed to have these resources, particularly for our veterans who are looking to take the next step into their next chapter and take on something even more daunting than a deployment, um, opening a small business.

And I know you feel that, Councilmember Rainey.

Um, but this is definitely a time for entrepreneurism, particularly with our veterans, because of all of these wonderful resources we have.

Uh, in addition to that, we have other connective tissue.

Um, we have a ton of different organizations that provide camaraderie, mentorship.

My one of my favorites is the Veterans Beer Club, um, that can help you connect to resources, but also have your back.

And so when I think about our veterans, small business owners, I think about uh the fact that this community has their back, and uh like so many of us had for each other when we wore the uniform, and I can't think of a better place to live.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Thank you.

And I will go ahead and read the resolution.

Um, a resolution recognizing November 3rd through the 7th, 2025 as National Veterans Small Business Week.

Whereas the U.S.

Small Business Administration has designated November 3rd through November 7th, 2025 as National Veterans Small Business Week, honoring the service members, veterans, members of the National Guard and Reserve, and military spouses who strengthen our communities and economic through entrepreneurship.

And whereas veteran-owned businesses within the city of Colorado Springs play an essential role in driving innovation, creating jobs, and contributing to the economic vitality of our community.

And whereas the Pikes Peak Small Business Development Center and the Colorado Veterans Business Outreach Center at Mount Carmel Veterans Service Center provide vital resources, including business counseling, training, mentorship, and access to government contracting opportunities that empower veteran entrepreneurs to thrive.

And whereas the annual Veterans Small Business Conference to be hosted on November 7th, 2025 by the Pikes Peak Small Business Development Center and the Colorado VBOC stand by the largest event of its kind in the state, bringing together veteran business owners, community leaders, and resource partners to exchange knowledge, foster innovation, and celebrate entrepreneurship.

And whereas it is fitting that the City of Colorado Springs recognize the honor and valuable contributions of veteran entrepreneurs, reaffirming our community's commitment to supporting their continued success and growth.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City of Colorado Springs, Section One, the City of Colorado Springs recognizes November 3rd through the 7th, 2025 as Veterans Small Business Week and encourages all residents, businesses, and community organizations to recognize and support the veterans and military spouses to continue to serve our nation through entrepreneurship.

Dated 28th day of October 2025, signed City Council President Lynette Crow Iveson.

And Madam President, the one thing I do want to also emphasize about this particular resolution is the fact that it's mentioned several times and it's never lost on how important it is that we honor the spouses of those who serve next to each other.

And the fact that there are spouses who maybe they did not wear the uniform, but now they're out in a community starting their own businesses and representing military uh veterans.

So I want to make sure that is not lost on anyone to make sure that we're also recognizing those spouses.

Back to you, Madam President.

So bring it back up to the dais for any comments.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Councilmember Rainey, for those lovely remarks.

I do see that we have Lauren Shakespeare and Joe in the audience.

I did want to give them the opportunity to speak.

I know they have some exciting events going on here very soon.

Madam President, um, council members, good morning.

My name is Nicole Rhody, and I am proud to serve as part of the Colorado Small Business Development Center at the Colorado Springs Chamber in EDC.

To stand before you not only as an adequate advocate for entrepreneurship, but also as an Army veteran and a military spouse.

Today we recognize remarkable group of individuals who continue to serve our veteran small business owners.

Each year, National Veterans Small Business Week reminds us that service doesn't end with the uniform.

Our veterans bring the same discipline, grit, and sense of purpose to building businesses that strengthen our economy and our community.

At the Colorado SBDC, we are honored to walk alongside these entrepreneurs from Idea to Launch and Growth.

With the steadfast support to the U.S.

Small Business Administration, the city's economic development team and partners like SCORE and VBOC, we're helping veterans turn their experience into impact.

Next week we'll celebrate that spirit at the 18th annual Veterans Small Business Conference presented by Huntington Bank, bringing together nearly 400 veterans, partners, and corporate supporters.

It's the largest event of its kind in the state and a true reflection of what happens when our community unites around those who served.

As we issue this proclamation, let it reaffirm our shared commitment to invest in veterans' dreams, to amplify their voices, and to build a stronger, more resilient Colorado Springs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nicole.

Madam President, members of council.

Joe Regan, I am the uh director of the Veteran Business Outreach Center for the State of Colorado at Mount Carmel Veteran Service Center.

And uh in the past three years that we've been in existence, we served over 1,000 veterans and military spouses to help them start their small business journey.

There's over 48,000 veteran-owned small businesses in the state of Colorado, 22 billion dollars contributed to our state's economy.

So this is something that this is really showing our city's commitment, not just to saying that we are a military-friendly community, but truly being a military-friendly community through our actions.

And it does to echo your remarks, uh, councilman, the support of military spouses.

When military spouses come here, oftentimes they are bringing unique skills and to be able to provide them with that training so they can start a small business that only not supports us here in Colorado Springs, whoever their journey takes them next.

And then encourages them to come back here to Colorado Springs to call their permanent home once they're done with their military journey.

Uh so very grateful for your opportunity to recognize this and all the work that we do at the Veteran Business Outreach Center.

This goes well beyond just money and jobs, but this really is a sense of creating resiliency within our community.

It's empowering our veteran community, the military spouses, to give them new purpose in their post-service careers.

And this is what this is all about.

So when we think about this, don't just think about the economic impact that this has, but the message that that sends to each and every member of our military community that we value what they're able to, what they have done and what they continue to do for our community.

So we're grateful for that.

Thank you.

Bring it back to the dais, seeing no other um comments.

We have a motion from Councilman Gold and a second from Councilman Henjam.

So let's vote.

And the motion passes it to zero.

If all of us that spoke or any veterans or spouses want to meet us upfront for a celebratory picture.

Moving on to 5C, will the clerk please read item 5C into the record?

A joint proclamation recognizing November 8, 2025 as the Senior Resource Council 2020.

2025 holiday dance.

Councilman Handim.

Thank you, Madam President, and uh good morning, everybody.

Um, you know, we almost always start our council meetings with recognitions of some kind, uh, recognizing the work of um uh organizations in our community and different parts of our population.

And this morning, you know, we've already uh recognized too, through resolution, which as you've noticed is a vote.

Um, so for uh our our work on disability in the in the city and our our small business veteran community.

Um, right now we're gonna do actually a proclamation, uh, which is joint between city council and the mayor's office.

So um I will get up in a moment and read that with someone from the city who I'll introduce in a moment.

But first, I would like to invite to the podium the board chair of the senior resource council, Jamie William.

If you would come forward to the podium, Jamie, and if you would um tell everybody here a little bit about the senior resource council holiday dance and why we're here celebrating it.

proclamation uh which is joint between city council and the mayor's office so um i will get up in a moment and read that with someone from the city who i'll introduce in a moment but first i would like to invite to the podium the board chair of the senior resource council jamie willier if you would come forward to the podium jamie and if you would um tell everybody here a little bit about the senior resource council holiday dance and why we're here celebrating it yes thank you for having me today and I'm actually board vice president I don't want to take any spotlight from Rebecca Melpacam who is our board president I am so embarrassed and sorry okay sorry about that no embarrassment at all um the holiday dinner dance is more than just an event it's a celebration of our community's spirit love and togetherness this is our 19th year running not responsible for all 19 years but it is our 19th year of celebrating um the seniors in our community this is a free event for seniors to attend it includes a 19 piece band dinner dancing and a free drink um we're excited to celebrate this next event on november 8th with 384 attendees and it's all possible thanks to our incredible board and our committee and then the incredible attendees of the event great thank you jamie and Rebecca we'll definitely do a picture at the end uh one of our celebratory pictures but I'm gonna come down and invite uh um uh share mdaniel who is the CFO for the city of Colorado Springs and who has a very very special place in her heart for the senior community and did a tremendous amount behind the scenes to help our senior center in Colorado Spring Springs be completely um revised and um and renovated and actually built it wasn't even a renovation so um I will join share down at the podium share why don't you start okay a proclamation for the senior resource council 2025 holiday dinner dance on November 8th 2025 whereas the senior resource council 2025 holiday dinner dance is more than a festive gathering it is a heartfelt celebration of our community's enduring spirit love and togetherness and whereas this treasure cherished event honors the seniors who form the foundation of our community raising families building businesses serving in our military and pouring their hearts into Colorado Springs and recognizes their invaluable contributions and whereas we acknowledge that the holiday season can be a time of loneliness for many seniors and we are committed to ensuring that no elder feels forgotten or alone and whereas the holiday dinner dance offers a joyful afternoon of live music dancing delicious food and warm fellowship all at no cost creating a welcoming space where the seniors in our community can feel celebrated and connected and whereas this celebration is made possible through the dedication of countless volunteers community partners and sponsors who stand alongside our seniors and whereas Colorado Springs is and will remain a city for seniors and this event stands as a symbol of our deep gratitude a way to get back to those who have given so much and a beacon of light laughter and love during the holiday season.

Now therefore Lynette Crow Iverson president of the Colorado Springs City Council and blessing Yemi Mobilate mayor of Colorado Springs do hereby proclaim November 8 2025 as the day to celebrate the senior resource council's holiday dinner dance honoring life community and the extraordinary seniors who enrich our lives every day.

There you go thank you very much and uh with that thank you President uh Crow Iverson for signing this joint proclamation and shall we invite I think all including David Lord is in the audience up uh anyone here who is in support of seniors for the photograph unless uh members of the council would like to make any comments I guess yeah I'll bring it up to the diaspora um comments and a vote no vote no it's proclamations thank you councilman rainey anyway I support you um seeing none we will meet you all down for a celebratory picture

Moving on to five six mayor's business.

Um, do we have any mayor's business this morning?

We do, thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Um, just three quick announcements to share with you today.

Most of you likely saw on the paper yesterday that we had a great announcement for economic development.

I think our Jesse Kimber has left.

Um, but just want to congratulate the Chamber in ABC and our own economic development department on bringing 400 jobs to Peak Innovation Park out at the airport.

We cannot reveal the name of the company yet, but know that an announcement will be coming soon on that, and that's exactly what we want to see happening with that property.

Um, also, I know there's a lot of discussion last night at your session about Meadows Park Community Center.

So I want to thank uh council members Nancy Henjam, Kimberley Gold, and David Lineweber for coming to a town hall with the mayor on October 22nd.

We had about a hundred community members show up and had some great engaging discussion about what to do with that um building and how to program it in a way that will benefit the community going forward.

Uh, there will be a solutions team formed in November to continue that conversation, and we look forward to all of your engagement on that.

And finally, uh some news to congratulate our parks department.

They were re-accredited by CAPRA.

I can't tell you what that means, something about parks and recreation association.

Uh, but they are one of thirteen departments in the state of Colorado to earn that accreditation, and only three percent of parks departments nationwide earn that.

So, congratulations to our parks department.

That's all.

Thank you.

I heard we're more remarkable.

Moving on to item seven items called op consent calendar.

And we have four B U.

With the clerk please read item four B U on pulled off the consent calendar into the record.

Resolution of the City Council of Colorado Springs, Colorado approving the proposed twenty twenty-six operating plan and budget for the Narquest North Business Improvement District.

Good morning, Allison.

Good morning.

Um this morning I do have a short presentation prepared just to kind of go over some high-level information for the 2026 Interquest North Business Improvement District.

So I can go through that and then we can do any questions we might have.

So the uh Interquest North Business Improvement District is roughly 112 acres at the north part of our city, is located within council district number two.

This is the approximately 112 acres.

Um, so this is just north of Interquest Parkway, um, adjacent to I-25.

The Air Force Academy includes um the movie theater, um, Shields, and some other commercial properties.

In 2026, um, as of right now, there is no debt issuances being planned.

They're continuing operation maintenance services that are specified in the operating plan.

There is some anticipated construction of additional public services and uh private services as well within the district, which will account for things like water and sewer, stormwater facilities, landscaping, snow removal, etc.

In 2025, five acres were included in the district, however, there's no planned inclusions or exclusions for 2026.

In 2026, we're expecting the assessed value of the properties within the district to increase from about 47.4 million to 53.4 million.

In terms of financial details, the district does have some outstanding debt at time of operating plan being submitted to planning.

That number was estimated to be about 22.9 million dollars.

There is a plan developer advance for 3.4 million in 2026 to help continue to fund other uh improvements within the district.

The district has a 1.25 public improvement fee.

So that is assessed at time of sales within the district, which then goes back to the district to help pay for any improvements.

That is estimated to bring in about 2.9 million in revenue in 2026.

And then at the bottom of your screen, you can see that the mill levies are being slightly adjusted in 2026.

Most significantly, the debt mill levy is going to be lowered from about 12 mils to five.

And that's to account for the increased public improvement fees that are continuing to grow as the district fills in.

So there's less need to have that higher debt in the levy.

And that is the brief presentation I have for you, but I'm available for questions.

I also have the district representative as well.

Thank you, Alison.

I do have one person signed up in opposition, Mr.

Tim Leonard.

So we will open that up for public comment on that.

And please make sure the green lights on, state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Emily, are you able to pull up a letter?

Great.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the council.

I submitted to you a letter last week that is going to be pulled up here.

And I'd like to be able to just go to the first map that's on there.

One of the most important things that a council has to do is to have oversight with this.

This is a quasi-governmental agency that you formed under your authorization.

Financial oversight is the most important thing you can do.

So these taxpayers here have no more representation for taxation.

So these mill levies that are I applaud being uh reduced.

Um that's excellent because um it just it shows a little bit of the pressure that hopefully we've been able to keep on um this district to be able to be prudent with their dollars.

These are the dollars that are collected.

I would urge you today to uh postpone this um approval until this operating plan is more satisfactory, and I'll I'll show you some of these um issues.

First, I want you see this map.

You'll see words like undeveloped, there's a lot of undeveloped land, so $3.4 million.

Actually, the budget has $4.1 million, needs to be spent for public improvements, qualified public improvements.

But you'll see these eight parcels here, they're totally surrounded by public um improvements.

There's water, sewer, everything surrounds these.

So when you go to develop these, as a developer, when I purchased lot number eight or five or four, it's called a developed lot.

All I have to do is put a building on it.

So all the storm, and if you see the next picture, the next two pictures actually show this additional five-acre lot that's going to be included in.

This is uh uh all the utilities here around, and the next one shows the um grading plan.

But if you see, and you can go back one, but if you see all this all the circles um as opposed to the squares, um I put in to show you all that improvements are already in.

Water is in, everything that's in an oval is already in.

So when a developer says I have to put 3.4 or 4.1 million dollars in, we should see that list of qualified public improvements in the operating plan.

We need to put in curb cuts or water or sewer or storm, and you'll see that doesn't exist for these um this five acres with some exceptions of bringing some loops in and all that.

But again, that's very important because there's six point one million dollars of cash in the bank in this um district, and it should be used to pay off bonds.

These bonds are held by the developer.

The developer owns those lots that you saw up there.

The developer runs and operates the business improvement district, and the developer manages, cuts all the grass, plows all the snow, or or hires it out.

So all the fees and all the money that circulates around circulates within the developer.

And that's why it's important for you to be able to ask those questions.

Thank you.

I'll bring it up to the diaspora.

Um anybody from the council like a presentation from the developer.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, I would ask that those questions be uh addressed that were raised by Mr.

Leonard about uh the level of cash that's that's uh on hand and the uh uh the lack of a list of improvements to um justify the 4.1 million so if that's in the presentation then yes, or if I can understand it better with a presentation then yes.

But and I would ask that those questions simply be addressed.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam president.

Morning, fellow council members.

My name is Nicole Pakoff on behalf of the Inequest North Business Improvement District.

We do not have a presentation, but I would like to address some of the questions that were raised.

First, um, before I do so, Mr.

Leonard did submit a letter to the INEQS North Business Improvement District, and many of the questions that were raised today have been answered in a response letter provided by the district's board president.

First, um to address the the question of the concern that there is no representation in this district.

The district just held its regular election this last May, and all property owners and tenants of the district can be eligible to run for those board seats.

The district did not receive any um self-nomination forms to run for any of the vacant seats.

Um next, I'd like to um address the fact that there are public improvements that still remain um to be built and constructed within this district.

Um many of the public improvements that were set forth in the 2025 operating plan were delayed and are now anticipated to be constructed in 2026.

Um those numbers that you saw last year you'll see reflected in the 2026 operating plan.

Those include water and sewer main extensions, significant landscaping improvements throughout the district, as well as stormwater facilities.

Those improvements, as I mentioned, have not been constructed yet.

And those are all public improvements eligible under the business improvement district act to be financed and constructed by the district.

And then finally, when public improvements are constructed, um, either by the developer, um a property owner, or the district.

Um typically what happens with those public improvements, and in this case with the agreement the district has with the developer, those public improvements must be certified by an independent engineer, and that certification involves the fact that the improvements were indeed constructed and that those improvements were constructed at a reasonable or market-based cost.

The district board then reviews that certification.

Those costs are within the board packet at the meeting where that um acceptance takes place, and that board packet is available to the public as well as to any um council member or city staff if they would like to see that.

And the board then reviews the certification and then accepts those certifications and those costs, and then be those costs become district um responsibility to be um reimbursed to the developer at that time and when um funds are available to actually pay for those costs.

I believe I addressed all of Mr.

Leonard's questions and concerns.

I'm here to um answer any other additional questions there may be so can I just uh clarify it.

The reason uh the 6.1 million is needed needs to be held in cash is to pay at least for these 4.1 million in cost, correct?

Um and you would just say that uh Mr.

Leonard is wrong about uh these lots being essentially developed, and the only thing left is to run the services in into the building uh or whatever uh structures are put on the lots.

That's correct.

There are significant improvements, public improvements that are needed to finish the lots within the district.

And as we've mentioned in previous years, the district does not have any remaining operating plan debt authorization, and so the district does not have an ability to issue general obligation bonds, and through its um financing program, it is determined that the best way to finance the remaining public improvements is to have a cash reserve program in place.

Um I don't have any further questions.

Uh Madam President, I would be interested in having Mr.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate it.

I did receive a letter I I included after a few days, weeks actually of not receiving any answer back from the district.

And by the way, there has not been a public hearing on this budget from the district.

It was presented with uh no questions, but the public hearing was supposed to be the 15th before here, so that the board, the district board could approve the budget that you're seeing.

Um but that was delayed till after this meeting.

So you are actually seeing a draft plan.

Um and then in two days they'll have a a public hearing.

That's that's the opportunity that the um uh residents, the taxpayers get to voice their opinion on the uh budget, which is obviously backwards.

The the right way to do it is to be able to have those questions voiced.

One of the questions that I did ask that didn't get answered is why is a developer fronting $3.4 million in advances only to get it paid back the same year when there's $6.1 million worth of cash, and maybe there's $3.4 or $4.1 million worth of improvements that have to get done.

Um there's no need to be able to do that.

Before bonds were issued, $25 million of bonds have been issued here, but before those were issued, there was no cash.

So the developer would front the money, actually commingle with his public with his private improvements, the public improvements within the same contract, and then have to differentiate those costs that the certifying engineer would try to do, but usually it was the develop how much road was graded, how much grading was public, and how much grading was private.

A very um mischievous way to be able to separate public and private improvements as opposed to having a a separate contract.

So now we don't need this this district does not need uh developer's cash to come in and then go out again and collect interest in the meantime.

Unless, of course, you are commingling the development, the uh construction contracts.

Now this developer and I have uh had a core request many years ago that took us to court, and they were um not wanting to divulge those contracts until the court did say if you combine public and private within your contracts, then the contract is public.

And so they were able to um get those contracts to us so we could take a look at what amount of money was actually being spent on public improvements.

That's another very important issue.

When you're overseeing all this developer controlled district, the land and the bond bondholders and the development contracts, it's really important to be able to have a policy maybe in place that says if you're gonna do public improvements, just have it be a separate contract.

Just just ask your asphalt person if you're gonna pave a road, give me a contract for the road and and curb cuts, and then go pave the asphalt for the movie theater or the Wadaburger or the Burger King or anything else.

Same way with landscape.

It's really easy to be able to have a loop for a main for a water main that this does have.

I'm just saying I don't think it's $3.4 million.

We don't know how much money has to be spent in here.

And there was no money last year.

Uh there were, I should say there was no breakdown.

There was a breakdown of of a very large number, but it had no map to go with it.

I I developed lots and shopping centers.

And I would never come to a council and say I need $3.4 million unless I had a cheat sheet that said at this much landscaping is public, this much is private.

And I would never mix them.

So that it's really easy as humans to pave my parking lot while I'm paving the public street.

And I'm not saying that happens here, but with some transparency, it would be a lot better to be able to do that, because otherwise we're going to have to quarter these construction contracts and be able to say how did they separate a water service main or uh from a service line that went from the main into the restaurant.

And so anyway, those are those are the questions that I think need to be in the forefront of your mind for all these BIDs, but especially ones that are so development controlled and and the bonds, because I wish the bonds were paid off.

If they were paid off, you of course they would have less money, but they would have less in um debt service.

One bond has over $300,000 a year in debt service, the other bond has over $500,000 a year in debt service.

If you pay those off, you get another $500,000 coming back in to be able to pay for some of these improvements.

So if I could ask, Madam President, what is your recommendation that we do today, Mr.

Mr.

Leonard?

I just want to be clear.

You don't, you're not opposed to BIDs.

You're not opposed to special districts, metro districts.

That's correct, right?

That's correct.

I've sat on a metric.

They're necessary and good.

Yes.

However, they can become lack transparency or become questionable sometimes, and it needs uh sunlight, so to speak.

But so what do you recommend we do today?

What I would recommend is that you you request of this operating plan more transparency that you would like to see.

If they're going to say $3.4 million or $4.1 million, you'd like to see a breakdown of it, and you'd like to see it on a map.

You'd like to see what's existing and what's being spent for public improvements.

Then you'd also like to say, why aren't you paying off these bonds?

Remember, these bonds have they have custom amortization schedules because they're owned by the developer.

And so some have very high and they're double tax exempt interest.

So they really don't care how much interest is paid, but the landowners do.

And remember, you don't see a lot of landowners or tenants here because the land is maintained by the developer and the tenant the is has a landlord, has the developer is a landlord.

So you're not gonna have, you know, um Jimmy Johns coming up here, Wadaburger coming up here and and telling you, hey, I wish you would look, you know, under the rug a little bit of my developer.

So anyway, that I would say postpone that until you have better answers to the questions that have been raised about how money is moved and why aren't bonds being paid off.

And you don't even know this because there's because a private uh covenant has been put on this in July, that the PIF will go to a retail sales fee.

Now I'm not familiar with retail sales fees, with the exception that the retail sales fee that's collected isn't isn't to the benefit of the district.

It's to the benefit of the developer.

And it doesn't go for qualified public improvements under IRS statutes, it goes for public improvements, and that's whatever the developer says that goes to.

Now I haven't done enough investigation on that, but that's a major issue that I asked them to put into the operating plan so that you could know that the PIF might be going down for the for the district.

But the same fee collected would be going back into the developer.

So again, I don't know enough about it, but I wish that were in here so you could have far more transparency of what's going on.

The uh board meeting, which was postponed, is that useful if that occurs before we approve this?

And is that useful?

Absolutely.

That they would be able to uh hopefully answer questions publicly.

Um questions like this, they could figure out if there's any changes that they would need to make to the operating plan.

Maybe you could give some direction about what you would want in an operating plan for a district such as this, and then they would be able to come back either with a revision of this or or uh something that answers those questions.

I'm gonna ask Kevin to come up and um speak to these concerns.

Thank you, Madam President Kevin Walker, I'm the city planning director.

Um I would like to clarify a couple of things in terms of the role and what we're doing here today and what your role is and what the board's role is.

So the statute requires that this body create a service plan that creates the actual district.

That was done in 2004.

And so we are operating under that plan.

We operate uh among the rules of that plan, which is improved approving inclusions, exclusions, bond issuance, et cetera.

Um the questions that uh Mr.

Leonard has uh are clearly important questions, but they're not questions that are appropriate for this body.

They're appropriate for the board, and we appoint a board and statute calls out for a board in order to operate this district.

Um if I had a list of all of the improvements, the next question would be how much how much are you charging each one?

We would then have to go to the next question of is that a fair and appropriate charge?

Is it a fair appropriate budget?

That's what the board's uh choice is.

So the property owners have representation.

Um I don't know if Mr.

Leonard represents any of those property owners, but they are represented by a board.

There's elections that are followed.

These are the level of questions that we hire the board to manage, not this not this body.

So I I would urge you to um approve this plan and the questions um need to be directed to the board, not to the not to this body.

Kevin, if I could just ask you.

The problem for me is that it says right here what I'm doing is we're about to pass a resolution approving the proposed 2026 operating plan and budget.

So that's what we're doing.

We're approving the operating plan and budget.

That's right.

And and we're not experts in this.

And so when someone who comes to us and and he's involved in this field and has done it for a very long time, and he points out things that he thinks are not transparent, that that give him concern, um, and we don't have a consultant who will actually evaluate these things for us.

It puts us, it puts me especially if I'm trying to do the right thing by both parties, by all parties, be serious about the job that I was elected to do, to just rubber stamp these things.

Um it does doesn't seem like the right way to do this in the interest of all parties, including the business owners inside and and the citizens who pay the PIF.

Um it just seems like honestly, it seems like we're we rubber stamp these things.

No, you don't.

Um what I think you do is that you rely on the board, the elected board by statute, which is the same.

The board has the level of detail, they have the list, they issue the bonds, they manage the finances.

If we were to begin that process for 20 BIDs and 70 metro districts, we would have a staff of 30.

Um, and no other community in the state does that.

Uh what you're doing is relying on the board to make sure that all of these things are done correctly and appropriately, and that board is properly elected.

And the board hasn't met yet to approve that this is the board, the board did meet and they submitted this, they submitted this budget through their uh uh council um and their um financial agents.

So has it been approved?

Uh it has been preliminarily approved by the board.

It hasn't been finally approved, but that has not ever been one of our statutory requirements.

Um if it were to be changed on October 30th, they would have to come back to us and and make a modification of their of their uh budget.

But I but but I again that the point here is that these questions are appropriate, the questions are uh fair.

There's an elected body to that pays the money to make sure that all of these questions are properly answered and properly managed, and that is not this body.

Can you remind me who sits on the board?

Uh I don't have that in front of me.

Okay.

But I can I can we can get that here in a second.

I believe that is one of the concerns of Mr.

Leonard is that the board may not have an interest in um paying off the bonds as rapidly as if it was uh made up of others.

So again, I feel like I I'm stuck, right?

I I think you said all you know what what you can say today.

I I would ask uh Madam President that we allow Mr.

Leonard like two more minutes to speak and then we vote.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

No, I thank you, Mr.

Walker, for for clarifying that.

I think it's important for the public to understand what the process is and exactly what our role is.

Um I appreciate Mr.

Leonard coming forward with these things, but I I agree that it's the role of the board.

There was the opportunity for an election of the board to pick people to represent that district to do the work of um prioritizing developing the budget, doing the doing the improvements, making the improvements in that district that are necessary.

And it sounds to me like, and it hits a little close to home, it sounds to me like there's um you know somebody that doesn't agree with a decision that is pushing this to a level above and above and above and trying to go beyond.

We just approved on consent 20 some odd other districts, all of which operate the same way, and all of which had from my reading very substantially the same in terms of the level of detail provided to us for that review.

And so the fact that we've seen that, we have a process that works, and I think that it is important that we as a council don't start to get into things that are not in our lane.

We have plenty of things that we could be doing up here, but to start to do the work of an individual an individual board um a district is is not what we should be doing.

So just wanted to make that, and I think you've clarified it very well.

I think we have all the information that we need for a for a vote.

And uh, but Madam President, you're welcome to have your uh obviously not just welcome here encouraged to uh to to take this however you want to go.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank you.

And uh that's exactly the point.

There were 20 others that flew through on consent.

I voted for all of those.

We received no concern from a knowledgeable party about some of the aspects of the uh of the budget and um and the operating plan.

So when uh when it the rare thing happens that a a party who understands BIDs, understands special districts, brings forward concerns about this one.

We need I I recommend we slow down and at least take a look at uh what that individual is pointing out to us.

Uh is it is it too arduous a task to uh okay, we'll we'll list out the expenses that this uh four million dollars will be spent on, and we'll we'll we'll state why it uh makes more sense to do it that way than uh uh well we'll state why we're not gonna pay off the bonds.

We'll address some of those concerns.

Um for me, the fact that we don't have a consultant to ask to look at it, it puts us in a in a weak position as a city council because we do approve these things.

So it concerns me.

If everybody else is comfortable to vote, then I mean that's what we'll do.

Um council.

I would still ask to give Mr.

Leonard a couple minutes to uh uh give it, you know, we're we're not gonna do this again for another year, so two minutes doesn't seem like too long to ask.

Yes, uh Mr.

Mr.

Walker.

Walker, thank you.

Sometimes my little brain gets tired.

I get it.

Uh I just want to let you know that um uh I have 38 years experience with metro districts, ran a number of these for 15 years.

Um I know exactly what Mr.

Leonard's asking for, and I would ask you that if I had a list of a list of the improvements, what would I do with that?

Uh what I uh what the board does is make sure that those improvements are properly uh vetted, that their attorneys and the IRS make sure that they're uh eligible expenses.

Um and we don't do that for all of these um districts because we have a board.

Um if if we don't like the board, then we certainly have the power to change all of that if we want to do that.

Uh but uh we have never done that before, and that's the way these things work.

And um, I would suggest that you probably have as good an expert as you're gonna find in the state uh as your city planning director.

And I don't I don't even argue that, but the uh analogy which uh was given by Mr.

Leonard is the role of our planning department is essentially like I'm gonna use the analogy of buying a car.

Your role is to say, yep, that's the car you're buying, the VIN checks out.

This is a legal transaction.

But what you don't do for us is tell us, but you know what?

Um the seller of the car has a really weird uh financing scheme for you uh that you're gonna approve.

Uh they've put you know four layers of undercoating on the car and they're charging you for that.

And they've also done like this very extraordinarily expensive window tint.

Little things like that, which it really isn't your role, uh I believe as the head of the planning department to look into.

But in this case, it's unusual because Mr.

Leonard does keep coming back here.

And he's not a crazy person.

He's not ignorant of the topic.

He feels there's some things that are unusual.

We'll just put that way that are unusual about this uh special district.

And it concerns me.

Again, I would just like to hear a couple more minutes from him, then we can vote and move on with this.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I just um in the operating plan and budget, just uh the named board members are Timothy Seibert, President, Chris Jenkins, Vice President, David Jenkins, Secretary LaRoy Johnson, Assistant Secretary, and Greg Barbudo, Treasurer, and the board voted in May of 2020 to eliminate term limits.

Thank you.

I have a motion from Councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Bigley.

Let's vote.

And then motion passes six to two.

Moving on to item eight A.

Will the clerk please read item eight into the record?

Consideration of a resolution setting certain electric rates within the service area of Colorado Springs Utilities and regarding certain changes to the electric rate schedules.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Are we doing eight through F all at once?

Are we doing them?

Are we going to read them in individually, or do you want to read them all in now?

We do have to vote individually on each item.

So generally we will read each one and require a motion and a second agreement.

I just want to know what you prefer.

Thank you.

We'll we'll start with A.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Chris Bidleck, senior attorney with the City Attorney's Office Utilities Division.

Two weeks ago on October 14th, City Council held utilities 2026 rate case where you vetted utilities proposed changes to the rates for the upcoming year.

At the conclusion of that hearing, you gave me your direction on how you wanted the final orders to look.

Today we asked for your approval on those final decisions and orders and utilities proposed changes based on the direction you gave at that rate case.

As noted, there are six items before you today because they represent the individual individual tariffs that are being changed.

But collectively, they are utilities proposed rate case that you heard on the 14th.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

I don't know if this is a good time, Tristan, for you to make a few comments about the large electric load uh item that we discussed yesterday in work session.

Tristan Gearhart, uh Chief Planning and Financial Officer, Colorado Springs Utilities.

And uh yes, um, Councilman Risley, um, when it comes to the electric large load tariff that we have there, um, I do want to highlight that in our utilities rules and regulations, section I number one, it does have a provision for economic development special contracts.

Um those apply across all of our tariffs that we have there.

If there's an opportunity for us to evaluate um uh the application of an economic development contract based on criteria that the utility sets up, those do apply across in the electric large loan tariff as it is currently stated.

That language does not um specifically apply, but we believe the URRs do apply to all of those.

What we would like to do is come back at our next rate case, which we anticipate maybe in the spring of next year, and specifically on the electric large load tariff, include the terms um of the economic development special contracts that are available to that large load tariff.

Thanks, Tristan.

And the reason I want to underscore this is for a few reasons.

Um it's really important in my view to get this on the record.

One, that we will make this change at our next rate case, but two uh to to highlight that it is currently uh a modification that is allowable under our rules and regulations.

The problem that I have is that when a uh site selector or a company looking to relocate to Colorado Springs, uh, when they're looking at rate cases and they're looking at the potential cost of doing business in a region, they don't necessarily dig into the weeds as it relates to rules and regulations.

They tend to look at the tariffs and look at the rate cases and look at just sort of the high-level information.

And so I want it to be on the record that we're gonna make this change at our next rate case adjustment.

Uh, and I also again want to underscore for any uh current deals, let's say, that are in the pipeline for for uh current businesses that are being um that are considering Colorado Springs as a location to either expand their operations or to relocate their operations that I want them to understand that we are still, I think, a very business friendly community and one that understands the sensitivity of cost as it relates to doing business here.

Um and so I think all of that is is really important to underscore and to get on the record.

Um also I I think memorializing it in the form of the tariff is also important because a few years from now we will have a different city council.

We may have different utilities leadership, and I think it's really important to uh to codify this in a way that is not just in the rules and regulations, but that is part of the rate tariff and part of the rate case uh moving forward.

So I appreciate your willingness to work with me on on all of those um aspects and and again for making the point here this morning.

We definitely understand, and these are um for the large load.

We understand these are very um large customers.

Um, and there are uh different economic factors there.

So it really does go back into all of the things that we've set up from economic development that's there, making those changes moving forward is something that we agree with as well.

Yeah, exactly.

I for one certainly don't want to stifle uh economic development in the region, and I'll give you a prime example of why you know we're right now struggling with the budget season and trying to understand how we're gonna uh um deal with the hand that's been dealt to us in terms of uh sales tax revenue, and one clear way of solving that problem is to grow revenue, which is by growing the economy locally.

And so if we do anything that appears to be stifling that growth, that's a huge issue in my mind.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

You just say there.

Um yeah, I think we're all we're all business friendly, but uh idea with uh this change to our large load tariffs is to uh to be ratepayer friendly also, correct?

And protect ratepayers against large customers that come in and then change course and leave us with a mess to clean up, so to speak.

Can you talk about that a little bit?

Yes, so the provisions of the large load tariff um really are set up to make sure that we are insulating all of our existing customers for large loads, and these begin at 10 uh megawatts.

Um this would be a very large substantial user on our system amongst the very largest, any of those that would come in at that level, single users on our system.

Making sure that we don't start planning for assets such as generation um infrastructure and other things that a company then walks away from uh leaving the rest of the ratepayers in Colorado Springs to pay for is something that we're trying to make sure is covered inside of these contracts through the terms of economic development uh contracts.

We're also able to evaluate um the um particulars of those entities, the types of jobs that they are bringing in, and if there's anything that should come as um offsets based on the way that those look.

That's something that's there not just for this tariff, but all of our tariffs um that is available.

Those contracts go through and are audited by the city auditor's office, um, are reviewed before any of them are signed.

But having the balance of those two things really puts us in the best place for Colorado Springs utilities customers, um, making sure that we are able to still promote all of the economic development things that we need to, while also making sure that our tariffs are set up in such a way that we don't leave um all of their existing ratepayers holding large costs for infrastructure.

And I know that is a significant concern of uh our citizens, our ratepayers.

We we hear that from them.

Is this a theoretical concern or is this happened in other cities, other communities in the United States?

Yeah, there are definitely articles you can find out there of um of companies that have um come in, requested large amounts of electric uh infrastructure to serve their needs, and have walked away a couple of cases in Ohio in the last year in particular.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Risley.

Thanks, Madam President.

The large load users that I'm concerned about and thinking about are the ones that bring large numbers of high-paying jobs to the region.

So high-tech manufacturers, for example, chip manufacturers, other manufacturing uh uh uses that are we call them large loads, but we're like we're talking a 10 megawatt threshold, and you know, some of these uh users can easily exceed that um through high-tech manufacturing and other process manufacturing types of work.

And again, these are companies that can bring hundreds, if not thousands of high-paying jobs to the region, which again expands our tax base and actually helps to remove the burden from current rate payers and current taxpayers by expanding that pool.

So I just want to be clear that those are the groups that I'm talking about, those are the types of organizations and companies that I'm focused on.

And I do believe we have the right balance inside of this by having both of those vehicles available again when we when it comes to these economic um development contracts that are there, jobs, number of jobs, um, pay of those jobs are definitely factors that go into the matrix that um Colorado Springs utilities uh uses to evaluate with um the city and others that are looking at those deals and what makes sense to make sure that we are bringing in those type of things for the community.

I don't see any other questions.

We have a motion from Councilman Hinge and a second from Councilman Rainey.

So a vote on AA.

I'm gonna cancel this and have you guys revote because Councilmember Linewever has joined us and I need to reset the system.

And the motion passes nine to zero.

Moving on to eight B.

Um, will the clerk please read item eight B into the record?

Consideration of a resolution accepting conclusions and recommendations of the staff of Colorado Swings Utilities concerning the infrastructure investment and jobs act of 2021 standards amending the federal public utility regulatory policies act.

Again, happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don't see any questions.

I have a motion from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote.

The motion passes nine to zero.

Moving on to eight C.

Will the clerk please read item eight C into the record?

Consideration of a resolution regarding certain changes to Clara Springs Utilities, rules, and regulations.

Happy answer any questions you may have.

Seeing that I did a motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Hinchum and a second from Councilman Bailey.

Let's vote.

The motion passes nine to zero.

Moving on to eight D, will the clerk please read item eight D into the record?

Consideration of a resolution making an administrative change to the Colorado Springs Utilities open access transmission tariff.

Seeing no questions, I need a motion.

Let's vote.

Moving on to item eight E.

Will the clerk please write item eight E into the record?

Consideration of a resolution rescinding the Colorado Swings Utilities open access transmission tariff in conjunction with the transfer of functional control of utilities, transmission facilities to Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organization.

Councilman Hinge.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I'd actually like to ask our CEO, Travis Steele if he would speak.

This is a pretty important thing that we're voting on right now, and uh would appreciate for the public record, uh Mr.

Deal if you would speak to the importance of this particular resolution.

Yes, happy to um so as we go in the Southwest PowerPoint, it's an organized market.

So you have basically trading as well as utilization of resources that brings the lowest power, you know, to our customers, which is a great, you know, I think for our community, gives us more diversity in our fuel mix and allows us to um expand into other markets.

The RTO, which this affects here is a transmission authority that lets us utilize transmission differently, and that's why we're having to change this.

Where we would really turn over the operational of that and basically how projects are put together for beneficial use.

That allows to do construction large-scale projects that others may pay into to help keep costs down.

It'll also allow us to get into more transmission um availability through these interconnects that allow us to bring in power at lower costs as well.

The state is also going to be requiring everybody in the state to be in an organized market.

So you're going to see the entire state get into market.

There's really two of those to choose from.

Great.

Thank you.

And my recollection is it's it's been at least three years ago that we started talking about this, at least uh from my perspective as a board member about which market to join.

And uh and this is the one we settled on, and here we are finally.

Thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And my question will be directed again to the CEO.

Just for uh members that are watching and members that are here.

Um the clarity with joining the Southwest power pool is not the fact that we're giving up any sense of authority that we have here locally is basically joining a larger marketing organization, correct?

Yes, sir.

So everybody has to come to the market with utilization of their own assets.

So whatever our load is, like say if it's a thousand twenty-six, we got to bring to the market that much load.

Then what happens with that?

It's an economic dispatch.

So if our load is eight hundred megawatts, the market will dispatch the cheapest power at 800 megawatts, but we still have to have our own resources.

We choose what to bid into that market.

So the types of resources we put in is you know by our choice.

And you know, the open access transmission tariff, I call that is like a toll road.

So just like you know, in Interstate 25 was, you know, you were paying tolls to go up there.

That's the same way here.

When people utilize that infrastructure, they have to pay that that tariff.

What happens now is the RTO, the regional transmission authority will actually monitor that and make sure those tariffs are being applied, and we'll put in what our cost is to operate that, and that revenue will come back to the ratepayers.

Uh thank you for that clarification, because the one thing voting on this, and I think sometimes just in language, it can give the impression that we're giving up a sense of authority, and that's not the case here.

Yes, it's a voluntary market that we can actually exit at any time if we needed to.

Um there's a cost to that, but it's still our choice.

Thank you.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

And uh thank you, Councilman Rainey, for highlighting some of these things.

I think it is important for the record.

All of these votes are important, and I don't want the their concern was expressed earlier that uh this body is perceived as a rubber stamp.

That's not the case at all, because there has been considerable amount of effort that's gone into this, both as the utilities board and as council.

We've heard these things over and over again.

We have been able to study them, ask questions, had those things um, had answers, you know, gotten answers to those things.

You may not see that right here today, but there's a lot of work that's gone into this, and I just don't want to make sure that uh nobody's left with the impression that we're uh we're rushing through something.

These are all very considered decisions, and uh um because they are very significant to the citizens of Colorado Springs.

Seeing no other discussion, I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote the motion passes nine to zero.

Moving on to eight F.

Will the clerk please read item eight F into the record?

Consideration of a resolution adopting transmission formula rate template and the implementation protocols for establishing an annual transmission revenue requirement for trends for transmission owner filing submittals for the Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organizations open access transmission tariff.

Seeing no questions, I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote the motion passes nine to zero.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Moving on to 10 A.

Will the clerk please read item 10A into the record?

An ordinance amending chapter 7 UDC of the code of the city of Colorado Springs 2001 is amended as related to Kennels.

Uh Madam President Kevin Walker, City Planning Director.

Uh, per our commentary and discussion yesterday, we'd like to ask you to postpone this matter to November 10th.

Can I get a thumbs up if council members agree to postpone this to the 10th?

Okay, we have support to postpone.

Okay, we have support to postpone and uh I I apologize, but we actually do need a motion and a vote to post.

We need a motion and a vote, not a thumbs up.

Okay, I have a motion from Councilman Hingum and a second from Councilman Rainey.

To postpone to November 10th, we need a vote.

The motion passes none to zero.

Moving on to 10 B, will the clerk please read item 10B into the record?

A resolution of the City Council of Colorado Springs supporting home rule municipalities in litigation against the state of Colorado and asserting home rule authority over local land use and zoning.

Councilmember Risley and co-sponsor Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm gonna make a few comments and uh read the resolution, and then I think Councilmember Rainey is going to uh also make a few comments as well.

Um so why are we doing this today?

For those of you that may recall, there was an executive order issued by Governor Polis in May that mandates compliance with a number of state land use and housing laws, and a lawsuit was filed by six um Denver metro jurisdictions uh alleging that that this executive order usurps um home rule authority from from municipalities, Colorado Springs being one.

Uh at that time in May, we read a resolution that adopted a resolution as this body uh in opposition to the governor's actions and in support of those municipalities.

And very recently in early October, there was an injunction filed by four of the cities uh in the Denver metro area because the um governor identified, or the state, I guess, identified uh a number of uh cities that were not in compliance and some grants that may be associated with uh with noncompliance.

And so I've been coordinating with um some of the elected officials in Aurora because our our city has not joined that lawsuit, uh, nor have we uh joined the injunction because we're not part of the lawsuit.

However, um Aurora has indicated that one way that we could be supportive as a fellow municipality is to um entertain a resolution uh in support of the lawsuit and in support of the injunction.

So that's what we're going to do today.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution, which again will uh explain in more detail some of the particulars of the topic.

So we have a resolution of the city council of city of Colorado Springs supporting home rule municipalities in litigation against the state of Colorado and asserting home rule authority over local land use and zoning.

Whereas by vote of its citizens, the city of Colorado Springs is a home rule municipality governed by its own charter pursuant to Article 20, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, which grants plenary authority over local and municipal matters, including zoning and land use, and whereas the charter of the city of Colorado Springs affirms that the city shall have all powers possible for a city to have under the Constitution of the State of Colorado, including the power of local self-government and home rule authority, and whereas home rule municipalities bear the responsibility to assess and manage local land use to ensure the adequacy of water infrastructure, public safety, environmental stewardship, historic preservation, and overall community character, and whereas the state of Colorado enacted House Bill 24-1304, which is uh addresses minimum parking requirements, and House Bill 241313, which addresses housing and transit-oriented communities, which imposes statewide mandates on local land use and zoning authority, it could curtails public input in decisions, development decisions, and it overrides established processes for legal decision for legislative decision making and administrative review.

And whereas these laws apply only to a select group of municipalities and override local discretion in zoning, remove minimum parking requirements without context, and mandate administrative approvals of certain high density housing developments without public hearings, and whereas the city of Color Springs strongly believes these responsibilities are best met by listening to the voices of our residents of the city most impacted by these decisions.

And whereas on May 16th, 2025, the governor of Colorado issued his executive order D 2025005, threatening to deprioritize competitive and discretionary funding opportunities, including grants, incentive programs, contracts, loans, and tax credits for municipalities that do not comply with House Bill 241304 and House Bill 241313 and related laws.

And whereas on May 27th, 2025, the City Council passed a resolution opposing Governor Pulis' executive order D 2025005 and related state housing laws and reasserting the city's home rule authority, and whereas six Colorado Home Rule municipalities, including Greenwood Village, Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Lafayette, and Westminster filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that these bills and executive orders violate the Colorado Constitution, including Article 20, Section 6, which is the Home Rule Authority Provision, Article 2, Section 11, which is the impairment of contracts, and Article 5, Section 19, which is referendum rights.

And whereas on October 9th, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an injunction to temporarily block enforcement of Governor Pulis' executive orders, asking the court to recognize that the plaintiffs, plaintiff municipalities demonstrate demonstrated merits of their constitutional claims and potential irreparable harm to local self-governance if the orders were to be implemented.

And whereas the City of Colorado Springs affirms its longstanding support of powers granted to home rule municipalities by the Constitution of the State of Colorado, including the right for local self-governance and control over land use and zoning matters.

And whereas the City Council of Colorado Springs wishes to express its support for the plaintiff municipalities and align with their efforts to defend home rule authority.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of Colorado Springs, one that the City Council of Colorado Springs affirms its longstanding support of the powers granted by the Constitution of the State of Colorado, which includes home rule authority over zoning and land use planning, signed this date by Council President Lynette Crow Iverson.

And so again, what we're really trying to do, what I'm advocating for is that we uh plant a flag in the ground that we as a city believe we know what is best for our citizens, that we have the ability and should listen to the input from our citizens and make decisions that make the most sense for our community, whether it's with regard to um uh ADUs or wooy uh information designations or a number of other land use and and housing um uh laws.

And so with that, I'll turn it over to my colleague, Councilmember Rainey, for his comments.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Risley, and um I I want to uh before I get into a couple of comments, I want to thank you for your um unwavering leadership uh on this topic.

Uh, not only is it critical, it is the absolute foundation of who we are as a city.

And I think we cannot lose sight of that.

Uh when you talk about home rule authority, which refers to this, you know, the power granted to local governments, you know, to exercise self-governance and to make decisions that needed without the hand of the governor, current or any other, um dictating to local municipalities on how they will actually conduct business.

And I've seen this way too often out of this particular uh governor trying to impede that process.

And as my uh colleague stated about planting a flag in the ground, um, I'm very passionate about this because this is a reoccurring theme with this governor, attempting to impede and attempting to put laws and push bills in place that impede our ability to self-govern.

Um for example, which was already mentioned, uh holding over our head uh the uh or threatening, I'll use that term, to uh deprioritize competitive and discretionary funding uh to include grants.

That has been a reoccurring comment out of that administration about taking away grants if you don't move forward with supporting uh two or three specific House bills, two of which were already mentioned in this resolution.

So I think is indicative upon us as a city to make sure that we are supporting, and I do applaud the other cities, uh municipalities that were mentioned in this resolution for having the conviction to stand firm in their position that no, we are a home rule authority, and no, we are not going to allow the governor to come in and uh direct or dictate on how we conduct and self-govern.

Um we can't be afraid uh to push back.

Uh, and that's not to say that there may be times where, hey, we may agree with the governor, but I want to make sure that I'm very clear.

It doesn't matter if it's this governor, the next governor, or any other governor.

No governor should ever impede on home rule authority.

So once again, I just want to say to my colleague, thank you for your leadership on this.

Uh standing firm, and and I do hope that uh our city council feels the same uh in supporting the current litigation by those other municipalities.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yes, I just want to say that I um I wholeheartedly support this, but I do want to just have some clarity from our uh legal Mark Smith can kind of weigh in the legal aspects of a resolution.

I believe there's not we're not actually joining the lawsuit.

We're just making a statement, perhaps that implies that we're willing to join the lawsuit, but we're not actually doing that.

Could you bring some interpretation to our legal obligations by um moving this forward, Mark?

Yes, Councilmember Lineweber.

We are not joining the lawsuit.

This is demonstrating council's support of those municipalities who are participating in the lawsuit.

At this point, there may be opportunities in the future for uh an amicus brief or something along those lines once this gets to an appellate stage.

But at this point, it wouldn't be appropriate to actually join the lawsuit.

I think it was just important for us to kind of make that statement.

But but yes, I am uh supporting this and and um brought forward the motion.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Ben and President, and uh I'll support this because I uh I do believe in uh home rule, especially uh in land use.

Um I'll just point out though that uh on April 8th, 2025, I think it was the last vote of the old council, it was the day of the last votes that uh three of us voted against uh an ADU ordinance here in Colorado Springs, which was uh generated by requirements by the state that uh hey, each city will have will now um it's very similar to these other two things.

Uh each city above a certain population will have to allow ADUs uh in all residential areas in all residential lots.

Three of us voted against that, and it was yourself, madam president, me and uh and former council member uh um who was the third one?

It was Michael Malley, that's who it was.

The three of us voted against that for the exact reasons we're discussing here today.

We thought it was an infringement on a home rule by the state.

Uh, but five others voted yes.

And if any one of those had voted no, that would have failed.

And we altered it slightly, and and a lot of that was because of my uh recommendations in the woo we won't allow uh detached ADUs.

But it was really the same thing that we're now in an irresolution opposing happened here on uh April 8th.

So I ask that we remember that in the future, and we don't pick and choose which of these encroachments by the states by the state we oppose, but we oppose them uniformly.

Thanks.

I have a motion from Councilman Lineweber and a motion from Councilman Bailey.

Let's vote and the motion passes eight to one.

We are going to take a 10-minute break before we start our public hearing.

Moving on to item 11A.

Will the clerk please read item 11a into the record?

And appeal to city planning commission decision denying the appeal and approving the old ranch storage filing number one development plan consisting of 4.70 acres located at the northeast corner of old ranch road and rhinestone drive.

Today's hearing will proceed as the following city staff presentation and appellants presentation and applicants presentation, public comment in support of the project, public comment and opposition of the project, applicant rebuttal, final comments from the appellant, final comments from the applicant, final comments from staff, and then we'll bring it back to the dias for council questions deliberation and decisions.

So we will now hear from the planning department for an introduction of the item.

Good morning, Tamara.

Good morning.

So my apologies, I'm getting over a nasty cold, so if I'm coughing, I'm got cough drops and I've got my water.

Um before you is an appeal of a planning uh planning commission decision for a storage facility.

Oh, located on the northeast intersection of Rhinestone Drive and Old Ranch Road.

Um the current zoning of the property is MXN M with a with the USAF overla.

Previous zoning prior to UDC and the Citywide rezoning, it was PBC, which was Plan Business Center.

Site is approximately 4.70 acres.

Um, what is being proposed on that site is a storage facility facility or mini warehouse.

Um this application was reviewed under chapter seven, so the previous chapter seven.

Um, and um here's a layout of the proposed uh the development from the development plan of the proposed facility.

Uh there will be one office on the site and nine one story storage buildings.

Um it will be gated off of Rhinestone Drive.

Just to give you a little history on the Briargate Master Plan in 1980.

Uh the site was identified as commercial village center or C, as you can see on the map.

And then on the 1998 master plan, um, that actually expanded that C into three uh different uh additional uh commercial um categories, um, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, and regional commercial.

And then to give you a little history on the approval in this location.

Um, so this is part of the bison ridge at Cattle Creek concept plan.

Um that was approved back in 2023.

Um, as you can see on the concept plan, this site along with the site to the west uh was identified for future commercial use.

Um, it was about 16.75 acres.

No access was proposed from either one of these sites onto Old Ranch Road.

Um, as I identified, um, the prior zoning on the property was PBC mini warehouse was a permitted use under that zone district.

And even under the current zoning of MXM uh storage facility is uh a permitted use um within that zone district.

I did provide you a little bit uh a snapshot of the land use summary from that concept plan so that you can see that the 16.7 acres was identified for commercial.

So kind of doing a little round robin on the area.

Um, to the north in the same year, um, and part of the concept plan was a multifamily site.

Um this was 7.3 uh 35 acres.

Um, it was part of the bigger um 19 um acres.

Um it was it is approved or was approved as a towns at Kettle Creek and was constructed, and there are about 82 unit townhomes in that location.

Further on, the concept plan was an area identified for proposed PUD zoning and single family detached.

Um, same year that was rezoned to PUD, which is now PDZ.

Um, and that allowed for uh 1.95 dwelling units per acre that was built out as filing one and two of the bison ridge at Kettle Creek.

So 94 parcels were constructed.

In 2024, um the concept plan was amended for the property to the west of the subject property.

What occurred was a rezoning of the property to allow for single family.

That was became filing for bison ridge Kettle Creek, and then 50 single family homes were constructed in that location.

As you can see on the concept plan, the subject property remained commercial through the entire uh amendment of this property.

Also, there was no access onto Old Ranch Road, even with the proposed uh single family to the west.

You're all familiar with the adoption of the UDC, so I'm not gonna go over that.

Um, but I did want to identify that um with the rezoning, the PBC became MXM, PUD became PDC, and the R5 became R5, what remained R5, just different um uh labeling.

Um I did pull the proposed uh purpose statements from um chapter seven and uh UDC with regards to the PBC and MXM.

As you can see, um, it does encourage a mix of uh uses in an area.

Um so including commercial, residential, multifamily, civic.

In front of you is a comparison of chapter seven and UDC development standards.

I wanted to bring this to your attention because the application came in in 2022, um, knowing that the UDC was gonna be um is was being considered.

Uh the applicant opted not to pivot to the UDC and remain under being reviewed under Chapter 7.

Um, so changing from Chapter 7 to UDC was an optional um was optional, and they chose not to.

Uh so on the table, um, as you can see under chapter 17 you did see the use type uh was a permitted use.

Um it was just identified mini warehouse under chapter seven and storage self-storage under UDC for architectural standards.

Um they did meet the requirements of the UDC, even though we reviewed the application under Chapter 7.

Parking, they did meet the parking requirements.

The height um, as you can see with the UDC or the change of the rezoning, the height um went up by five feet.

Uh they did provide a photometric plan with the development plan.

And also the landscaping requirements were met under chapter seven and UDC.

And with regards to site-specific standards, I wanted to bring this to your attention that under UDC there's no outside storage except for um RV.

Um, and they're not proposing any outside storage with this proposed development.

Time of review.

Um, I did want to bring this to your attention.

So uh the application, as I had mentioned, was submitted in 2022.

It did take a number of years to get through the process.

It was actively being reviewed by a number of planners in the planning department.

Um there was um continual communication between the planning department and the applicant.

Um the development plan was approved um of July of this year.

Um, the application itself went through six reviews.

Um there was an appeal that was submitted uh of the administrative decision, and um that was received in July of this year as well.

And uh the item was scheduled for planning commission.

And then also the appeal that you're hearing today was received on September 22.

It was within the time frame that is set out by UDC.

In regards to stakeholder involvement, um, postcards and notifications have gone out numerous times, a thousand feet from the property boundary.

Um, that was about 281 postcards.

Um, uh, there was 160 um public comments received.

Um we received about 20 additional comments um prior to planning commission, and you should have received three of them before this meeting that I received this week.

We did hold a neighborhood meeting, however, it was after uh the approval of the administrative decision on this project.

About 61 people were in attendance.

I'm sorry, the comments that were received as part of the neighborhood meeting and uh with the written comments had to do with traffic, compatibility, lighting, um, crime access, um, and uh decreasing house values.

A little summary on planning commission.

It was heard on uh the appeal of the administrative decision was uh heard on September 10th.

Um Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal and affirm the administrative approval of the development plan at a vote of uh five in favor of denying the appeal, two in favor of the appeal, and two of the commissioners were absent.

Review agencies um during the initial review of the project, um, we had all of our agencies review the application.

Um, I do have traffic engineering here to address any questions that you may have.

And also um uh uh uh Colorado Springs fire.

Our um police department.

I'm almost done.

Um go through that.

So, regards to Preble's jumping mouse, um, we do have mapping on our um city view mapping.

So the site is located about 1,600 feet away from any closed surveyed areas.

So if you see on the map, the little kind of bubbles or rectangulars that have um pattern, those are actually surveyed prebles jumping mouse areas um within the area.

And Cattle Creek kind of runs north to south.

Um where it says Kettle Creek open space, the actual Catholic Creek kind of runs north to south.

Oops.

Uh here are the review criteria for the development plan.

Um, that staff and planning commission made a determination with regards to meeting the the these standards.

And then here are the review criteria for an appeal.

These are the optional motions.

So the first one is to affirm the decision of planning commission and deny the appeal, reverse the decision of planning commission and approve the appeal, modify the decision of planning commission and approve the appeal, remend the matter back to planning commission.

And I have put those together as written um motions.

And that is all I have.

Thank you.

Well, now hear from the appellant.

Oh, Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, can I just ask a couple questions?

Um you showed that the vote was 5-2 and 2 Tamara on uh Planning Commission.

Do you recall why the two of the voted know what their reasoning was?

Um, if I recall, one of the council members just indicated he wouldn't want anything like that um in it or near his house.

Um and it I don't remember why.

I don't even, I don't think there was a I don't remember.

Well, in this ginormous packet which we received, I read that uh commissioner uh Ricket uh asked if if harm on harmony or um what's the exact word that's used in here compatibility with the neighborhood was a was a criteria uh to be considered, and he was told yes by staff, and that was his uh his um reason that he felt like it it fits the uh it's a commercial zone thing and always has been, but but now with what has been built around it, this would not be harmonious with what exists.

Um with regards to the development plan, correct.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Now here we'll hear from the appellate presentation.

Good morning.

Please state your name for the record, and um you'll see a clock, but you have 30 minutes.

Good morning, yes, ma'am.

My name is Julie Price, and I'm here speaking on behalf of our community.

Um control the slides, correct.

Fantastic morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present.

As I said, my name is Julie Price, and I'm honored to be here representing our community.

Our community appreciates your time today to hear our appeal of the approval granted by the city planning office to the old ranch road self-storage.

The five key items I would like to go over with you today are background, basis for our appeal, application process, appellate understanding and request, and then finally project considerations tied to our request.

From Plan COS, we understand the vision is to form diverse and safe neighborhoods with active gathering areas, a mix of housing types, transportation choices, and a shared sense of pride.

Further, under importance of neighborhoods, it notes that the premise of Plan COS is that every person and place is a part of a neighborhood.

It notes that neighborhoods are fundamental to our city's identity and development, specifically, each of us deserves a great neighborhood.

As part of this, policy VN 1.b is called out to inform and engage with neighborhoods, neighborhood-based organizations, and individual residents during the development review process, capital improvement planning, and decisions on the city and county facilities and services.

Our community was robbed of everything policy VN 1.b calls out.

Additionally, due to when this application was filed, August of 22, the new UDC was codified and put into place.

The applicant was allowed to choose if they would be reviewed under the former Chapter 7 or the current UDC.

From what we've been told, and Ms.

Baxter just said, this application was filed and reviewed under the old Chapter 7.

I will get to this in a moment in my presentation.

Some background.

As I noted, this application was filed, and Miss Baxter noted on 15 August of 22.

On September 16th, 22, signage was posted denoting a comment period that ended on 28 September of 22.

There were concerns with how this signed was placed on a corner facing opposite the flow of traffic.

This was foreshadowing of how this process would go for our community.

The premise in the application was pretty disconcerting to our community, so much so that at that time, 168 comments were provided during this comment period.

And contrary to what Mr.

Walker asserted when I met with him and Ms.

Baxter on the 18th of July this year, they were not, quote, cut and paste and sent.

Each comment was thoughtfully done by a member of our neighborhood, our community, and provided to the city.

We, as the community, were promised by Peter Lang, this is the planner at the time, that he would require all comments to be a tressed and a community meeting held.

This did not occur.

Well, not prior to the approval anyway.

One regarding the failures of city planning and one pertaining to the UDC, which I note is a different code than what the application was reviewed.

Plan COS and the policy I noted was never part of the application process.

There was nothing further provided to the community after being promised required responses to our 168 community comments, and after being promised a required community meeting.

For the planning commission, Ms.

Baxter noted that the existing homes, my home, for example, likely will have more impact onto this habitat than the proposed use.

There's nothing to substantiate that claim made at the Planning Commission.

It's highly likely that where this facility is planned to be, where the Preppels jumping mouse may have formed a habitat when the homes, such as mine, were built.

Additionally, our research notes that for mating purposes, the Preppels jumping mouse will travel to high ground as far as 2500 feet from their habitat.

In what Ms.

Baxter just briefed, this facility is planned for approximately 1700 feet from the Kettle Creek open space.

So this is well within the 2500 feet that they may travel for mating.

As I noted on the previous slide, this application was reviewed under Chapter 7, a different code.

But due to the lengthy delay in the application review process, nearly three years, our appeal to both the Planning Commission and here to you all today on the City Council is being adjudicated under a different code.

It was not until the Planning Commission public hearing when we as the community were provided the differences between the standards.

Approving a project with one set of code and requiring the appeals to proceed under a differing set of code is like comparing apples to oranges and saying the apple is an orange.

It's still not clear why there were all the stalls and delays for nearly three years with no communication to the community.

None.

But then there was a rush to approval on 9 July of this year, 2025.

When I questioned Mr.

Walker and Miss Baxter when I met with them on the 18th of July this year, I asked if it had anything to do with the landowners being the Venisia family.

Mr.

Walker sternly told me I was being inappropriate.

But when the NES representative, Ms.

Barlow mentioned this that who the landowner was at the planning commission, it seemed to be pretty appropriate.

Finally, I would like to note that when I met with Mr.

Walker and Miss Baxter on the 18th of July this year and noted the communication failures and broken promises.

Mr.

Walker said something to the effect, we made mistakes, let's just move on.

And this has already been approved, and you've already filed an appeal.

The planning commission supported the assertion of the mistake and moving on and said this was up to city council to fix this.

I hope City Council does, as this is not how the public, who are very concerned and passionate about preserving their community and their neighborhood should be addressed and treated.

As noted on the last slide, despite the application being reviewed and approved under Chapter 7 and our appeal being under UDC, I'd like to note Section 7.5.603.b.1.

Detriment to public interest, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.

This storage facility introduces an industrial scale commercial use in a high density residential neighborhood.

The neighborhood streets are not designed for the high volume and size and weight of the trucks and trailers.

Despite the calculations Ms.

Barlow showed with the post-approval community meeting, our calculations using the same data sources and formulas demonstrate something different.

But most importantly, our knowledge of our community and neighborhood provide truth, ground truth, not calculated values.

The fencing, specifically the metal rods and use of buildings as barriers, and the lighting are incompatible with the character, standards, and expectations of our community.

These standards and expectations were put in place by various homeowners' associations.

Further, they do not provide adequate buffering, privacy, and transition from a neighborhood to an industrial complex.

And maybe most importantly, the health, welfare, peace, and safety and security pose a significant risk and detriment to the community due to the light pollution, noise, late night traffic, and most importantly, crime risk.

I'd like to note recently a storage facility was in the news for a unit containing dead pets.

Also, there have been a reports in units that people are living in them due to non-affordable housing.

And then finally, the changes from the application to now or hours of operation provide a great concern to our community and relate to our health, safety, and crime.

Sections 7.5.603.b.2 and B.3 and consistency with comprehensive plan and the master plans.

The comprehensive plan exists for the protection of a neighborhood character, to ensure compatible infill and to mitigate negative impacts of non residential development.

Additionally, the premise of a comprehensive plan is to make a positive contribution to what makes a community and a neighborhood.

Finally, the comprehensive plan is to help establish a community-based need for developments within sensitive residential areas.

This project does none of these things.

As it pertains to the community-based needs, this picture speaks a thousand words.

Within a five-mile radius, there are already 10 storage facilities.

Of the ones that we contacted, they are not at full capacity.

There's no need for this type of development in the community.

There has been no recent amendment or additional justification within the most recent comprehensive plan or master plan that demonstrates how this project supports the community.

The master plan for this area, as Miss Baxter noted, was developed over 40 years ago based, and that information was also provided to us at the Planning Commission hearing.

And through presentations from Miss Barlow at the post-approval community meeting and the planning commission public hearing, it was made clear that the comprehensive plan, master plan, and zoning have been modified several times.

It was also made clear that the changes over time to both of the plans lend more to a residential community than a commercial hub.

Looking at this picture, again, speaking a thousand words, you can see only neighborhoods.

A community, if you will.

There's a golf course.

There are two schools.

It's not until you get to the top right corner of the picture that you see anything commercial down near Voyager Parkway.

Over the past 40 years, changes have clearly evolved into a community with neighborhoods, not a commercial use area.

Section 7.5.603.b.4.

Location criteria criteria for mixed use not applicable.

As we understand, the intent of mixed use zoning is supposed to offer transitional benefits going from residential zoning to commercial zoning.

This is why multi-unit residents are included in this type of zoning.

This storage facility offers nothing in the way of a transition from a neighborhood to a purely commercial built-up area.

Just looking at the plans, there is nothing about horizontal corrugated metal panels and metal roofing that screams community or neighborhood.

And while this is the same picture I showed on the previous slide, again, speaking a thousand words, I just want to demonstrate that there would be no transition from neighborhood residences to commercial structures.

As noted in the basis for appeal section, there were many failures by city planning.

The emails here demonstrate that promises were made, and yet those promises were not kept during the application process.

The emails here show a timeline related to the comments provided to the community.

Per Peter Lang, they could not, these comments could not be replaced, released, excuse me, to the applicant until the fees were paid.

The first email here was to November of 22.

As I mentioned in an earlier slide, the application was filed 15 August of 22.

The fees were not paid through these emails as of 1 February of 23.

It was not, it was noted to the community that if an application is dormant for 180 days, it would be withdrawn or expired.

On one February of 23, Peter Lang noted that this day was close to the 180 day threshold.

Actually, 180 days would have been 11 February of 2023.

We were notified by the at the planning commission hearing that the fees were paid on 28 February of 23.

My apologies for the typo on the slide.

This demonstrates that the applicant was given a grace beyond the 180-day threshold, despite what the code stated.

And Ms.

Baxter just showed that in what she demonstrated on her slides that there could be forgiveness or grace given for lateness.

Multiple emails went back and forth with the community member on the fourth on the 15th, excuse me, of March 23.

To summarize, Peter Lang would be quote, requiring that the applicant applicant conduct a community meeting, and he would quote, send the comments to the applicant in a separate email when have them respond to your comments in a response to comment letter.

For Miss Baxter to assert multiple times that a community meeting is optional, which was done, and had the applicant not required to provide one, demonstrates this promise made but promise broken.

Well, I would like to note that a community meeting was eventually held.

It was held on 12 August of 2025, more than a month after the application was approved, and only because the community filed the appeal.

That was an empty gesture made, not only by the city but by the applicant.

And then add to that, the one-page response to the community comments from September of 22 was finally uploaded in Excela on 9 July 2025, the day of the approval, which proved to be as useful as the community meeting that was held after the fact.

After 15 March 2023, there were no few further communications with Peter Lang.

On 10, 11, and 14 July of 23, a community member reached out to Peter Lang, and those emails went unanswered.

After 15 March of 23, it was again not until 9 July that the community heard anything.

This email was from Miss Baxter, and it was sent to only a select few members of the community and not to the community at large, or even to the 168 that provided comments back in September of 22.

Once we learned of the approval and how to access a sell Excella to see the application file, and you heard that right.

We were never told there was even an Exella to go look at, or that there was even movement on this application.

That was when we learned that the actual application had changed hands twice.

The first was in June of 23, which explains why those emails in July went unanswered.

The second was in February of this year, 2025.

I'd like to note back in an earlier slide, I mentioned a policy from Plan COS regarding information and engaging the neighborhood.

It is plainly obvious that informing and engaging with our neighborhood was not a priority.

This slide demonstrates the email that was sent to only some members of the community.

I just want to highlight this email is to notify you that the city staff has administratively approved the request for self-storage facility and ancillary site improvements.

Additionally, it notes that the administrative decision begins the time frame for appeal under UDC code.

We acknowledge as the community that we were informed of the code for which we were to proceed with our appeal, the UDC.

Again, this was not the same code.

The applicant was reviewed or approved.

It's still not clear why the application was allowed to be processed and approved under a different code.

There are different standards, and this constitutes a failure of city planning.

Again, comparing apples to oranges.

The purpose of this slide is to demonstrate timelines for this application and the delays in the duration.

The application was provided, the application that was provided was dated April of 22, but not filed until August of 22.

The comment period proceeded in September of 22, and the applicant did not pay their fees until the 28th of February of 23.

Like the previous slide, this slide further demonstrates timelines and delays.

Early on, it was clear Peter Lang attempted to be a good steward to our community.

He tried to communicate with the applicant to move this project forward, noting that he, quote, tried reaching out to the developer again about a week ago, and I haven't heard back from them.

I will probably give them a call by the end of the week to get an update on their application process.

Clearly, the applicant was not being responsive, furthering delays.

I would also like to note that in the documentation for this application, Jonathan Shearer noted that there were delays in the resubmital of the required documentation.

It quote, has not been resubmitted in over a year.

Second submittal comments were returned to the applicant for revision on 6.123, followed by quote, note that given the length of time that passed since the previous FDR submittal was received reviewed, the next FDR submittal will be treated like a first submittal and new comments will be made if necessary.

One might wonder if this was due to the Venisia family being the landowner, or could it have been to do with a potential buyer finally on the horizon?

Would other applicants have been allowed nearly three years for an application process?

Like the previous two slides, this side further demonstrates allowed delays.

The second city planner assigned was Kyle Fenner.

Based on her notes, she was not happy with the quote, extreme delay in moving this application forward.

She also notes in the application that if the application is, quote, dormant for more than 180 days, the application will be deemed expired.

Looking at Excela and the attachment submitted dates, which may or may not be 100% accurate for the items that were provided to city planning, there are significantly significant gaps in the upload dates.

There are several that do exceed the 180 day mark, with at least 14 days or greater in exceedance.

Looking at Exella and the review route during Kyle Fenner's tenure, there are two that exceed the 180-day mark based on due date and receive date.

There is potential based on these dates that the application was dormant 180 days, but never allowed to become expired multiple times.

This is inconsistent with code.

To wrap up this section on duration, I would like to note that when I look at the nominal application timeline from the city planning site, 2025 application submittal cycle, it is in terms of months, not years.

We understand the land belongs to the landowner, and it is their prerogative to do with as they choose.

We understand the land is zoned in a specific way, as MXM, which is commercial, but is to offer a transition from a fully residential to a fully commercial area.

This project does not do that.

It is not clear to the community why this parcel of land was not rezoned when the surrounding land was rezoned to residential.

But we do understand that that is not what's before city council today.

In all honesty, we would like to see this appeal accepted due to the poor manner in which city planning handled every aspect of this application, and how the plans, and my apologies for the typo from concept plan on the slide, it should be comprehensive, and zoning have changed over time.

This has changed from a purely commercial to in reality what is a purely residential area today.

The reality is though, you will likely appeal this or deny this appeal, like the planning commission did.

And as the planning commission told us, they are not empowered to levy any sort of restrictions or terms and conditions on this application.

But they told us the city council is empowered to do just that, and it has been done in the past.

So, should the city council deny this appeal, we would like for the city council to entertain some considerations that would make this project more conducive to being a part of our community.

These include hours of operation, traffic flow, and landscaping lighting and aesthetics.

As far as hours of operation go, these have significantly changed over the course of this application.

Initially, this was supposed to be a 24-7 facility.

After the approval, we learned that that was no longer the intent.

And at the post-approval community meeting, Miss Barlow told us that the hours would be from 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

We were well aware that the applicant is trying to sell this development.

We were informed of a meeting with a buyer the week of 25 August this year.

At that meeting, those hours changed from Monday to Saturday, 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

and Sunday, 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

These most recent hours do not account for noise and disruption from trucks, trailers in the early morning and late evening.

Despite Ms.

Barlow saying at the post-community meeting that these are no different than Amazon trucks that come through our neighborhoods daily.

These hours do also not account for seasonal daylight and darkness.

The community has concerns of safety, security, and crime.

We all know and we're probably told by our parents, nothing good happens after dark.

For this consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city provides assurance and enforcement that ours will be what was called out in the post-approval community meeting and will not be allowed to be changed without an application process, allowing the community insight, input, and involvement in the process, which we were denied previously, and then strict and stringent recourse if not adhered to.

This is probably one of our most critical concerns.

This is from safety and quality of life perspectives.

Currently, there is no way into the storage facility heading eastbound without going through our neighborhood due to the median on Old Ranch Road.

The most recent approved plan notes that there would be a forced left turn out of the storage facility to bypass the neighborhood.

There's no mention to how this is going to be enforced.

There is no way to go eastbound leaving the storage facility without going through the neighborhood as well.

Even with a forced left turnout, recently a no-U-turn sign was posted at Old Ranch Road and Chapel Ridge Drive.

So a forced left turn does nothing for anybody wanting to go eastbound, as there's nowhere for them to turn around.

The median on Old Ranch Road is plenty wide enough to allow for a left turn lane to be put in to access Rhinestone Drive.

This would make for an opening as well to access from Rhinestone Drive, going eastbound on Old Ranch Road.

At the Planning Commission hearing, Todd Frisbee, who's here today, spoke.

He said he does not like unprotected left turns, and I understand that a hundred percent.

But he provided no other viable solutions.

He also indicated he had never seen this area and was not even aware that the median there was raised.

He seemed to disregard and discount the community concern, despite our knowledge of our area and how people drive through our neighborhoods.

For consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city requires the applicant to put in where the median is now, a left turn lane to on Old Ranch Road.

This allows for eastbound traffic on Old Ranch Road to turn left onto Rhinestone Drive and for southbound traffic on Rhinestone Drive to turn left onto Old Ranch Road.

Landscaping, lighting, and aesthetics are what make the area look and feel like a community and a neighborhood.

As it pertains to landscaping, as currently approved, parts of the community will have a bird's eye view into the storage facility, significantly taking away the look and feel of the neighborhood and making it look and feel like an industrial park.

With less mature plantings and seasonal changes, the intent and purpose of the landscaping is negated.

As it pertains to lighting, the lighting that was approved, as noted from the information from the meeting with the buyer, is slated to be reconsidered due to the hours of operation.

As previous consideration for the hours of operation has been noted.

As part of the rationale for changing lighting, security cameras are noted.

Modern security cameras do not need additional lighting beyond what is already approved.

As it pertains to aesthetics and exterior barriers, community standards for barriers on major roadways are greater than six feet and our precast concrete walls.

The metal fencing and building walls are not secure and do not conform to our community standards.

And at one point, the approved plan ties into the barrier established by the townhomes to the north, which is a concrete wall.

This is not the same material as proposed and approved in the application, which are metal rods.

Putting up community standard barrier not only conforms to what is throughout the community, but it ties into the barrier established by those townhomes.

And it also provides some deterrence from security and safety perspective.

As it pertains to the aesthetics and signage, there has been no mention provided regarding the signage.

This is a community and a neighborhood.

The signage conforming to what the community standard would provide some small bit of transition from a neighborhood to this commercial facility.

For this consideration, should our appeal be denied, we request that the city requires more mature landscaping that is not impacted by seasonal changes to be placed to the north and west of the facility.

Leave the lighting as currently approved, and require the exterior barriers and signage to conform to the community standards by having no open fencing or building as the barrier to the perimeter of the facility and requiring the signage to be offset and compatible with other signage in our community.

I would like to thank you all for your time today.

It is greatly appreciated.

I know after Miss Barlow presents, there's an open comment period.

At the planning commission, Miss Barlow made a comment that there were over 60 people at her community meeting, and then there was just a small number at the planning commission hearing.

So clearly there was not a great community concern over this project.

She's wrong.

Our community members work to provide for their families and contribute to the economy of this great city.

So please do not take any lack of presence here as lack of interest from our community, as that is not true.

As noted, we are a community and a neighborhood.

Please let us stay this way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now hear from the applicant.

Please state your name for the record, Andrea, and you have 30 minutes.

Andrea Ballo, uh Principal with NES representing the applicant.

Thank you, and uh good morning.

Wait for my presentation to come up.

Hopefully the timer hasn't started yet.

Okay, thank you.

I'll get started.

I think you know what we're here to discuss.

Oh, sorry, the slides are a bit delayed.

And I think by now you're familiar with the 4.7 acre site location on the corner of Old Ranch Road, Rhinestone with powers to the east.

Neighborhood concerns, this is a summary of what we heard both during uh when we reviewed the neighbor comments and uh during with the appeal uh presentation and also at the neighborhood meeting.

I do want to point out here that NES only got involved in this project when the appeal was submitted.

Um I will state that um much of the concerns expressed by the neighbors relate to the process, the process with the city, and as much as that seems very unfortunate when I look back at it, there seems to be some missteps along the way, and if I had been advising the applicant at that time, I would have strongly recommended they have a neighborhood meeting earlier in the process based on the number of comments.

The city didn't require it.

Um it was um a process which was not um very conducive to a good relationship with the neighborhood.

However, I would say that if I were a betting person, which I'm not, I think it would be a pretty safe bet to say that even if we had had a neighborhood meeting back in early 2023, that we would still be here today with an appeal in front of um city council because there are a number of things that have been tweaked and changed, and I don't think based on the neighbour's concerns that there's really very much that we could do with this plan to address their concerns.

But I'm going to talk about what we feel we have done to address those concerns and how we meet the code criteria.

So the criteria for the development plan do not relate to the process.

They talk, they don't speak about the process at all.

Um they speak about the actual development plan.

So that's what I'm gonna focus on.

But I will also say that um I think during the process there were some suggestions of the 180 days being a firm cutoff if if you uh exceed that.

And that is not the case.

It wasn't the case with the previous code, it's not the case with the current code.

It always allows a discretion, and this happens frequently with projects, where the um plan it the planner will reach out and say what's the status of this project, uh, send us um an email just explaining how you are still what is there a reason we've had projects that have gone into a state of um hold basically because of funding issues, multiple issues can come up during a project, and we always work with the planner to ensure that both parties know that no, this this application is still active, we're still working on this, we're addressing these comments in one situation.

It was the final drainage report, which is the FDR that was referred to.

That's a very complex document, it requires uh quite a lot of work, and uh various other things that additional information was provided to address some of the neighbours' concerns.

So area history, Miss Baxter did go into this in some detail, so I'm just gonna focus on a few things.

So the only reference I actually made to the Venisia family at the planning commission was in relation to the fact that this particular section of the master plan was referred to as Venisia Interest because it represented their family interests.

So they have been the landowner for this portion of the property, uh known as Briagate, uh, since the 80s, 90s, and this area represents their interests.

So as you can see on here, the parcel that we are talking about was identified as commercial very early on in the process.

Um the zone change from A to RS 6000 for the broader community, um, which was uh is highlighted there was that was the first zone change.

There was a series that happened at the same time in 2003.

So that was the first change to um from RS 6000 in agriculture to PUD, and that has been um uh the status of that's um approval since that time.

Um that um was then the R5 was zoned at the same time.

There were a series of ordinances in 2003.

The property we're talking about today was part of a larger site that was zoned PBC in 2003, and then that area um identified red is the area that was originally PBC for commercial, and that got rezoned in 2014 to uh a PUD for residential use.

And then finally, um, the final portion of um Bison Ridge is uh shown there, which was zoned more recently in 2017.

So everything has been zoned in accordance with the original master plan, apart from that one area four, which was changed from commercial to residential PUD in 2014.

So to suggest that there have been multiple changes through the years and it's constantly changing, I think is inaccurate.

There was one change in 2014 from what was originally planned in 2003 with the zoning.

And that's uh reflected here, and I just want to talk a little bit more about this particular parcel.

As noted, it was zoned in 2003.

There was an approved concept plan in 2004, which I'm going to talk a little bit more about, which identified 41,000 square feet of commercial on this particular portion of the commercial area.

And the concept plan today continues to show this is a commercial use.

And the only thing that's changed since then is in 2023, the UDC changed the zoning from PBC to MXM.

So this is the same.

Can I have a question from Councilman Hinjam?

Yes.

Hey, Andrea, could you go back a slide, please?

Just on that very last point, the UDC change from commercial to mixed use.

Would you just, as a planner, could you just describe the the difference between commercial zoning and mixed-use zoning?

Yes, so kinds of things you would find in those different things.

Yeah, so um with the original PBC zoning, only commercial uses were allowed.

Um any residential uses uh were considered a conditional use, so they were not allowed by right.

The MX zone, MXM zoning has sought to integrate um residential uses, so now allows a multifamily residential as part of that mixed-use zoning.

It really was an attempt to move away from pure commercial zonings, that's why we have none left in the code, to more of a mixed-use um uh concept.

But um, there was the option to uh allow um residential as part of the PBC zone through a conditional use process, and that was we we've did many of those.

So this is the concept plan which was submitted in 2003.

Uh I think Miss Baxter, just for the record, misspoke and said 2023.

I just want to clarify it was 2003.

Um, and this was approved in a 2004, which clearly shows uh a larger commercial center on the west side of Rhinestone, and then a smaller element on the east side of Rhinestone, with access uh via Rhinestone and Old Ranch Road as a right in right out, and then obviously through the through the neighborhoods of the west uh as well.

So the access is really uh as we're proposing today, nothing has materially changed with the proposed access points.

Um, other than that, um, if I go to the next slide, this area here has actually changed to a residential use.

But the current concept plan, which this is, continues to show the commercial use of this parcel with the 41,000 square feet of commercial that was originally envisioned.

So I just thought it was interesting to put some historical photographs up there to show how the area has developed.

Um in 2004, there was nothing out there.

So this is when everything was originally zoned, including the commercial on this parcel.

So the area has built up around it as planned, and this parcel has remained commercial as planned.

So nothing has changed in terms of the overall intent of the area, other than that one parcel which was rezoned from commercial to PUD.

So the expectations from anybody moving into this area should have been that this parcel was going to be a commercial uh property.

There was a lot uh commentary on expectations, community expectations, but the expectation should have been per the master plan, per the concept plan, per the zoning, that this was going to be a commercial site.

Countermann Rosley.

Thank you, Madam President.

I think this is a great slide to ask a question from your perspective as a professional land planner.

Um given that this property was intended for commercial use from its inception, and given in the which is now somewhat concealed, the 2004 imagery that shows two major arterials, one of which being Powers, which is now a state highway.

Yes.

What other land uses in your mind would make sense to put at the intersection of two large uh thoroughfares, arterial thoroughfares in this in this type of uh location.

I mean, given the commercial zoning, obviously it was intended for commercial, so there could be other uses um which uh uh are allowed, and at an intersection such as this, it could be a more intense commercial use, such as a gas station.

Um also um this type of location is often prime for multifamily residential uses.

We see a lot of multifamily residential going into these locations which are close to two major intersections or the intersection of two major roads.

That wasn't previously permitted, but it is permitted now under the current MXM zoning.

And there are other commercial uses that that could potentially go in this location.

One of the popular ones right now are car washers, anything that uh can uh access um an intersection easily.

And I will talk a little bit about this when I get to traffic, but there are um obviously uh traffic implications for those uses which could generate additional improvements, which this um project doesn't uh require.

I mean, in your view, would that be a good location for a uh an open space or a community park or something along those lines?

No, not really, not at the intersection of two major roads.

Uh you would expect a park to be more embedded within the community, so it has access to the broader community and also has um uh local roads around it rather than um major arterials.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks uh Madam President.

Good morning, Andrea.

Still morning from the minutes.

Um, right across the uh the street there, uh it's it's residential, correct?

On the south side of Old Ranch is residential, correct.

Yeah, and to the west of this lot is residential, and to the north of this lot is residential.

And then to the east of it is is roads.

And the rule there won't be any access onto this lot from the major roads there.

It'll be through these smaller roads, correct?

Yes, so there won't be any direct access to this property um from Powers or from Old Ranch Road.

But I would say to the point about it being residential surrounding, that's how it's been planned.

It's been planned in that manner and it's being executed as planned.

Except for the commercial lot right adjacent to it was switched.

It was switched, yes.

Yeah.

And so I think that just raises the question what fits now that that lot has been changed and and with you know, is this use compatible and harmonious or not?

But but that's all for me.

But I I'll talk a little bit more about compatibility on and harmonious later in my presentation.

Okay.

So as has been noted, this was submitted well in advance of the new UDC coming into effect, so it was considered under the old code.

Um the changes are really that the MXM has just become more um amenable to um residential.

So multifamily residential is an allowed use in the in this zone uh today.

Um but either way, um I think uh Tamara provided a slide which really shows that it doesn't really matter whether you look at under Chapter 7 or the UDC, we meet all the standards.

In fact, we're significantly below the theory allowed height and uh self-storage, uh, whether it's called self-storage or mini storage uh is allowed under both codes.

So this this is the UDC definition.

Uh I put that up there because you see it really doesn't uh change when we look at the old code.

And I think the key, the key thing I want to explain uh note in that definition is where access to storage units is infrequent, and that is the entire basis of a stealth storage facility.

It's where people store things.

It's where they put things that they don't need on a day-to-day basis.

It's where they maybe will go back every now and again to access their storage unit to get something out of.

So it isn't something that um generates a huge amount of activity or traffic, and I've got more information on that as we go through.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

If you could go back one slide, I think this might just be a good point for me to throw out the comment about some of the other potential uses because I looked it up in an MXM district.

You indicate there are a mix of commercial retail office, multifamily, so on and so forth, in addition to residential, and correct me if I'm wrong, but according to what I pulled up on our city's website, um, it appears that allowed by right uses on this type of property in the zone would be things like adult entertainment, a bar, hotels, restaurants, a stadium, um, construction sales, marijuana sales, both medical and recreational, as well as testing, um, and even a transit station, which again at the uh junction of two large uh arterials could maybe make sense.

So I guess my my thought is that, and maybe you can expand on this at some point, but it it just seems like there are a lot of other uses that could be um even more intensive than what's being proposed.

Is that a fair statement?

There certainly could.

I think there are some uses that would trigger additional improvements, which I'll talk to about.

But and I also think um, you know, per the original plan to have a commercial center there uh of a basically a strip mole, once that's approved, there really is very little control from the city's perspective about what uses go in there if they're allowed under the zoning.

So the uses can fluctuate and change uh throughout that process.

So there is a much less control on a standard commercial center, and that was kind of one of the uses that the neighborhood had expressed a preference for one of the several, which again I'm I'm going to look at in more detail.

And these are all uses by right, which are uses by right, yes.

That is the proposed use.

Correct.

Yeah.

And so this might be more of a legal question, but you know, if if it were denied and it's a use by right, is that essentially considered a taking or I think it would depend on on what the basis for that denial was, um, but um it could potentially.

Um, I think there was some suggestions about, you know, is is commercial in this area in character.

And if it's like if the conclusion is that commercial per se is not in character with this area, then yeah, I would say that potentially could be a taking.

Thanks.

Councilman Donaldson.

Um, yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And in those examples that were just listed, adult entertainment centers, marijuana shops.

Again, I think it would be the duty of the planning commission, the planning department, and then council if it came to us to look at that harmonious and compatible standard.

And and would an adult entertainment shop really be compatible and harmonious with uh a residential all around it.

Uh I doubt it.

I I don't think that would be approved.

So you may be able to find things that are worse, and uh that's kind of the scare uh can scare people as oh god, it could be worse.

But that doesn't mean we we approve what's in front of us because something worse could get put there.

Um again, I don't think those things would be approved either.

So well, I I would like to respond to that particular point because I think it's important.

And I would say and I would say that we we have not during our process suggested any of those uses for this property.

We didn't want to scare monger and say, oh, it could be a lot worse.

This is what we're proposing.

I appreciate that.

I don't know.

And it meets the requirements.

But but to that point, I have a couple of comments, and this is a little bit to respond to um the comp the comment that was made by the appellant that um I said that we had 60 people at the neighborhood meeting and they aren't all here at the hearing.

My the point I made was that even though the neighborhood meeting may have seemed a a little too little too late, there were a lot of people there, and several came up to us afterwards, and some spoke out in the meeting who said we acknowledge it, we appreciate the meeting, we acknowledge it could be a lot worse, and and that some of the uses that are allowed in the zone could be a lot worse.

So we did actually get that feedback at the neighborhood meeting and afterwards, and some of them were concerned about um the the more minutia of the project.

So I will point out that the criteria in the development plan review is different from zoning.

The development plan says site design, building location, orientation, and exterior building materials are compatible and harmonious.

It does not refer to use.

Use is determined by the zoning.

There is an assumption that the uses allowed in the zone are compatible with the neighborhood.

That's why it's zoned for the use as it's owned.

When you get to the development plan, you're really looking at orientation, location, and building materials.

And to that point, you asked a question, Councilmember Donaldson, about what Commissioner Rickett expressed concern about.

He did reference harmonious.

He, in his reasoning for voting against the project, he raised a question, he raised the matter that he didn't ask at any time during the proceedings, and which we would have been happy to respond to.

His concern, and it's in the minutes, related to the reflective material of the roof.

He specified a project where there were similar issues in the Broadmoor, and we are happy to commit here and now that we will not have a reflective material on the roof, that it would be painted in some material that is non-reflective.

That was the sole reason he put forward for his concerns regarding not being harmonious.

It was related to the roof material.

And at a point in the hearing where we were not given the opportunity to respond.

So I'm responding now on his behalf.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to clarify the reason I was asking questions and pointing out other potential uses was certainly not a threat or a fear taken.

I appreciate that.

Simply one to articulate that, in my view, there are a lot of other uses that are equally allowable by right on that property.

And I think by comparison, I'm certainly going to wait and hear the rest of the testimony today, but by comparison, this seems like a fairly benign uh use.

And to your point, the use is not even part of the decision at this level.

The uses is a foregone conclusion.

Yes.

So anyway, thank you.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I think I think uh Can I just verify the clock is stopped?

Thank you.

You don't need any more time.

No, I'm just kidding.

Um I I just wanted to the I appreciate all the background.

It's useful, it's helpful for us, but as I understand it, the question that we're being asked today is we're considering an appeal, not zoning, not a development plan.

It's simply the appeal, and that has certain criteria.

Our judgment, our decision in a quasi-judicial setting to approve or deny an appeal has certain criteria that we have to focus on.

And a lot of what we're hearing, I think, strays pretty far from that.

And maybe it's a we'll get the planning director back up here at some point, but I I think it's important for us to focus on what it is we're here for.

So I'll let you get back to your presentation and start the clock now.

Yeah.

I think I was get getting to the meat of it anyway.

So Madam President, if I could, just because that has been stated.

The group criteria for an appeal, one of which is the decision is erroneous, or the decision is contrary to the express language of the UDC.

And so if it violates if the previous decisions, you know, if council looks at it and say, you know what, I don't think it meets criteria one of the development plan, then that's an erroneous decision in the past.

I would ask the attorney if that makes sense.

And I believe that's the only reason it's allowed to be discussed at the Planning Commission.

Ben Bullinger City Attorney's Office, that's correct.

The underlying criteria is still relevant in the appeal because uh of the implication that may be an erroneous decision.

I would also add, since it's been a topic today, that a denial of a permitted use is not a taking.

Um, one of the leading home rule cases in Colorado is Colorado Springs versus Secure Care, which was actually very similar uh storage facility like this.

And the argument that Secure Care made on their denial was that they had a permitted use, and that meant it was use by right.

But the Supreme Court confirmed that as a home rule city, Colorado Springs could set its own means and methods for reviewing uh permitted uses.

So I would not call in Colorado Springs a permitted use, a use by right technically for that reason.

Okay, thank you.

Trying to get to the next slide.

Okay, so talking a little bit more about the project, getting into the meat of what I think are the relevant considerations about uh the development plan criteria.

So we're proposing uh self-storage units, uh, 519 of them.

There are small units, um, some just under 80,000 square feet and a 1400 square foot office.

Uh four parking stalls are provided for the office in accordance with code requirements.

All the setbacks are met per the old code, so under the PBC it's 25 feet all around.

The setbacks are less with the MXM zoning.

The building height permitted was 45 feet.

We are proposing a 17 feet and three inches of both the office and storage units, so significantly lower height than would be allowed under the zoning with other uses.

Um we uh added this information about construction and facilities opening mainly for the neighborhood benefit because they were questions that were asked at the neighborhood meeting.

So landscape buffers again, um, we are providing everything that's required in the code.

That was uh what was required at the time of the previous code and the current code, they haven't materially changed.

Um there is a requirement for a 15-foot landscape buffer along Rhinestone Drive rather than just a setback, which would be 10 feet because it's a non-arterial, 20 feet along old ranch, 25 feet along Powers because of their arterial status, and then a 15 foot landscape buffer along the north boundary adjacent to the town homes.

So uh we're providing significant buffer planting and um and the total number of trees is 55 with 16 internal.

We are focusing pretty much all our landscaping on the perimeter of the property to provide the appropriate screening.

And uh we are significantly overplanting on the proposed shrubs and with an attempt with a focus very much on the old ranch road frontage to provide an attractive entrance to the property in that location.

Um I've got more information on the um landscaping, but uh I think one of the things that I wanted to emphasize here, there was a request to have more landscaping and that it be um more mature landscaping and that it be all evergreen is is basically what not seasonal.

So uh I just want to emphasize that we are um proposing, as I said, 105 trees in total, um 50, sorry, 109 trees in total, 51% of those that will be evergreen, as is required by code because of the buffering buffer standards require over 50% to be evergreen.

So we are meeting the code requirement.

Um I think to have all evergreen trees would look a little bit monotonous, and you want to provide some uh deciduous trees to provide some colour, especially at this time of year or in the fall.

You can see how pretty it looks.

It's it wouldn't you won't have the benefit of that if you just went with all evergreen.

Um as I noted, it's all around the perimeter of the site, and the majority of it, uh other than a little bit around the detention pond and by the first unit there, is all outside of the fence.

So all the landscaping is exterior of the fence where it will have the most benefit.

Um, all the plantings installed will be as is uh required by code and also industry standards of one and a half uh inch caliper for deciduous trees and uh a six uh foot minimum height, and and the five and the shrubs will be five gallon shrubs.

So they're all going to be, they're not going to be full and mature trees.

It's very difficult to get fully mature trees to establish, so they will become uh mature over time.

Obviously, like any landscaping in any neighborhood, including the residential neighborhood to the west and to the north.

Um mature trees weren't planted there, they have grown over time.

Um, and and as noted, we're meeting code standards on this.

Hours of operation.

Um the first discussion I had with my client on the hours of operation was after the neighborhood meeting.

There was no uh information given that would be that said we would um do a certain hours of operation during the neighborhood meeting.

It was clearly stated that that would be something we would follow on with our client.

The operator was on board at that time, they were present at the neighborhood meeting, they heard the discussion, and these are the hours that we came up with after that meeting.

Nothing was originally put into the um project statements for the um initial submittal.

So this was the first time when we responded to the neighbours after the neighborhood meeting before planning commission that a firm indication of hours was provided.

We are willing, and it's I know it doesn't come close to what the neighbors are asking us to do to come down to 9 pm on Monday through Saturday.

We are basing these hours on what is happening with what other similar facilities in the neighborhood are proposing for opening hours.

Access will be gated with an entry with uh at the entry with a code, and there will be no access permitted to to the facility after these hours.

There will be a management company on site management during secure uh normal business hours, operational security cameras, set 24 7, and there will well there will be a contract with each of them.

I think there was comments about people living in in the units that won't be permitted.

Um, and as noted, um, the gated entry, secured perimeter, no outdoor storage is permitted, there's no room for it really on the site with the design, and the material and colour palette is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, insofar as it can be for the nature of the project, but the materials and the colour scheme will be sympathetic to the neighborhood.

It's not going to stand out as uh it's not going to be bright green or bright yellow, it's going to be in earth tones, which will blend in.

And as I noted, it's only a single story in height, and it's uh not going to be particularly dominant in terms of the building scale, and this is just the elevations.

I'm conscious of time.

I don't have no idea what I've got.

Um, so roundstone drive, these are some renderings we prepared.

So to the to the left of the screen is the current residential uh neighborhood, and then to the right is our our proposed development.

You can see the proposed landscaping, a mix of evergreens and deciduous.

You can see the proposed wall and the building that's the nearest building, and the new sidewalk that will be installed along Rhinestone Drive on the east side.

Here it is from the um entrance of Kettle Ridge Drive, which goes into the adjacent neighborhood.

So this is looking at the entrance of the property, again, showing the kind of relative scale of the buildings.

You can see the town homes just to the left, and then you hear it is looking um south on Rhinestone Drive with a town home.

So town homes are actually elevated somewhat, they are elevated by about 10 feet.

Um, and I think that's where the expression of concern was coming about them looking down into this property.

They'll be looking down into this property no matter what was built here.

Um I do want to talk about traffic.

So the uh the uh much uh uh reference has been made to traffic.

The proposed development is identified on the top row, some other land uses which have been expressed as preferences, including uh townhomes, uh, the strip retail retail plaza that was already approved, general office building was expressed as a preference, and we also included medical offices in there.

And as you can see, significantly less uh of traffic will be generated from this type of development, including trucks, because a lot of emphasis is being placed on trucks, truck traffic will be of a similar percentage to the truck traffic that is already going through the residential neighborhood.

That was my comment about Amazon trucks, FedEx trucks, other contractors.

It's usually around um four or five percent of a residential neighborhood, and we will be producing a similar percentage of traffic in the context of this development.

Um, so it's not going to be noticeably increasing.

And you can see compared to the currently proposed uh commercial um that it would be significantly less.

This is known to be one of the least traffic generating uses in a commercial district.

That's why I think it is completely appropriate for this location given the commercial zoning.

You have a use that has very little activity, that has uh very little traffic to the point where we weren't required to have a traffic study.

There is no basis for any traffic improvements, whereas if a strip retail plaza were proposed here per the approved plans, you would probably have to have some improvements at Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone, such as have been requested by their neighbours.

But they are not warranted or justified for this type of development with this scale of traffic.

And this just shows um the distribution of weekly trips because I think that's important.

Mini warehouses, the thick line across the bottom.

There is kind of a generally a low traffic um generation throughout the day, it's steady, people come and go compared to other uses such as housing and offices where they peak during the morning peak and they peak during the afternoon peak.

And so the traffic just generally is a lot higher, but also the peaks, I think, are the significant point.

You get traffic on the road at the same time of day with residential and office type uses.

Shopping tends to be a little bit more skewed towards the evening time, but uh a mini warehouse use, and this is all information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

I didn't produce this information.

This is standard published information.

So it will just be steady, low traffic throughout the day.

We looked at access site visibility as requested by the neighbors in their initial comments.

They expressed concern about that.

Traffic engineering asked us to follow up, and we did.

We also moved the gate back to meet city standards.

It was initially closer to the intersection, so the gate was moved back.

The site has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles as required, but not large semi-type moving trucks.

I think there's been this impression that there's going to be moving trucks coming to this development 24-7 all the time.

They go to the homes and unload there, and anything that's left over gets taken to the storage unit.

Smaller box trucks can be accommodated within the property based on the turning ratios required for emergency vehicles.

Photometric plan was uh included.

All the lights are wall-mounted lights on the buildings.

There are no tall pole mounted lights.

Um, they're all full cut-off, and they uh next slide shows how much they cast their light.

And our proposal is that with the minimum that is needed for security will be kept on at night.

Um, on one hand, the neighbors are expressing concern about security and safety, but then on the other hand, they want us to switch off all the lights at night, making it less secure and less safe.

So our proposal is to keep that to a minimum, just put on what lights are necessary to provide adequate safety and security.

And this this is the example of the wall mounted light, and you can see that the light doesn't extend beyond 10 feet from the building.

A lot has been made of the concrete fence along uh rhinestone that is being proposed and fencing generally.

We are proposing uh the red uh in the red line a concrete screen fence along rhinestone of six feet tall, which is the same that has been constructed and approved in the neighborhood.

There is a lot of suggestions that the wall is taller than six feet.

If you look at the approved development plan, it has six-foot concrete fence, which is consistent with city code all around the perimeter.

We show in the purple the areas where we are proposing a metal fence.

Um much of the area, so on the north side, that blue line is the existing fence for the townhomes.

What we are proposing is to connect into that rather than putting a fence against a fence, which doesn't make any logical sense.

So we are connecting into that and using the back of the buildings, which have no doors, windows, lights, or anything, uh, as part of the exterior fencing for security purposes.

So the little purple lines you can see is where those connect, and the majority of the fencing is in fact the back of the buildings along the north boundary and the east boundary adjacent to powers.

And as I noted before, the majority of our landscaping is outside that fence.

And then along Old Ranch Road, in the purple there is the proposed metal fence that has been critiqued.

But I think as I noticed, noted in the landscape plan, we are proposing a significant amount of landscaping in front of that fence.

And on the design side, it's important to note that this commercial site is not part of the HOA.

It is not beholden to the same design standards as apply to the HOA.

Is there a question?

No.

Oh, mouse habitat.

I'm going to be very brief on this.

We're nowhere near the mouse habitat.

The mice need continuous um habitat.

Um, they don't go across where it's interrupted, which it is clearly by development here.

Um, they don't travel beyond their habitat.

They may move up hill, but they keep within their habitat range and uh not or not going to cross over developed areas.

This is the permit information for the um bison ridge at Kelter Creek Filing 5 and 6, which is that northwesternmost recent development, which I noted I think was 2017 approval, and that wasn't even restricted due to the mouse habitat.

So this is very much detached from it, and it is really not a relevant consideration.

So in summary, I want to go through um the actual development review criteria.

So here is a number one that I pointed out earlier is compatibility and home harmonious from the context of the building location, orientation in exterior building materials.

I've already noted that we are willing to ensure that the reflective nature of the roof is limited by uh an appropriate treatment, and uh that was the only matter that was raised in terms of compatibility at the planning commission meeting.

Um, a specific reason, let's say.

And uh the building height I've noted is only single story.

The lighting has been uh proposed in a way that will not impact the neighborhood.

There is significant landscaping around the perimeter, more than is required by code, and the proposed fences do match what is proposed in the neighborhood.

Other than we acknowledge the rail along Old Ranch, but we would consider that outward facing, not facing towards the neighborhood, and not being subject to the same compatibility considerations.

I have a question from Councilman Donaldson.

Yes, sir.

Thanks, Madam President, and uh thanks for including this uh Andrea.

But I think in number one, you left out a portion of uh the first criteria for development plans, and it's the sentence starts off the details of the use, comma, site design.

Okay, so details of the use are important, and that could I believe that can include things like the size, you know, the uh scale of the storage facility, the hours, the details of the use, which is kind of what this may hinge on for me.

Not it doesn't start, you know, the site design building location, etc.

So I guess an important question.

And and at that point, I would say I agree with you.

The details of the use are things like um operation hours and and and so on and so forth, rather than the principle of the use, um, which is very much a zoning consideration.

And I would think scale would be a detail of the use.

Uh a facility which was going to have 100 storage units and more open land around it, might be uh well received by a neighborhood, but one where it's to the edges of the property and with 500 and um whatever it is, units could just have a different impact and and can it impact its uh uh harmoniousness and compatibility.

So thanks.

And then uh that's leads me into the rest of the criteria, which kind of go to that point about what's the appropriate level of use on the site.

Uh city adopted plans have been mentioned.

Sorry, I can't read my slides right now.

Okay, went forward.

Um I haven't gone into great deal of um discussion on plan COS.

I do believe once you've got a property zoned and it's accordance to the master plan, plan COS has less relevance.

Uh it meets all the dimensional standards of the zoning code for the zone, irrespective of whether you look at it under the chapter 7 or the new UDC.

It complies with the drainage criteria manual, um, as uh was evidenced by the detailed consideration of uh Swent's comments on the drainage report.

It provides adequate parking per the code, parking stalls, drive aisles, waste removal areas all meet standards, complies and exceeds the landscape code.

Um there are no sensitive hazardous natural areas that impact this site.

It provides safe and convenient access for all transportation modes, including ADA.

We have to ensure that uh ADA access is provided.

Driveways meet the traffic criteria manual.

That was a requirement to move the gate back further from the entrance.

It connects to or extends public utilities.

There are existing utilities, it provides an on-site stormwater detention facility as required by the city, a roadway and intersection improvements provided as required, and none are required, and so um none are provided, and that goes to the fact that this is a very low traffic generating use, and any significant off-site impacts have recently been mitigated or offset, and we believe they have with the design of the site, the low the height and so on and so forth.

So these other factors, these are the criteria tend to dictate the intensity of the use on the site from a code perspective.

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

Thank Robert Brandy.

I don't see any at this time.

Thank you.

Um so by majority of polling, we're going to power through public comment before we break for lunch.

Um we're gonna start with public comment in I don't have any in support.

So we'll move on to public comment in opposition.

And first up, I have Rob Hernandez.

Good morning, counsel.

Uh greatly appreciate you having me here today.

Um let me tell you a little bit about myself.

I'll make it very brief.

Retired veteran, 23 years, military.

Uh, work for the sheriff's office and retired from the county.

And recently I retired from the city of Colorado Springs as the ADA manager.

And uh I'm here today because I live in this neighborhood.

And you might have seen the photo where she showed Kettle Ridge and uh Rhinestone.

That's literally my home right there.

Um, right on the corner.

So I can I could step out my backyard and I'd be looking right at this bit proposed business.

I can walk out my front door, and that's the proposed route.

I have a young man of uh 34 years old, my son who suffered a uh a massive stroke uh three and a half years ago uh due to the COVID 80 uh COVID vaccine.

Took 65% of the left side of his brain.

I find myself very blessed to be able to live in a neighborhood the way I do.

It's quiet.

I'm able to excuse me.

So what happens when you have a son?

Anyway, I work daily with my son to uh with therapy.

He goes to therapy four to five times a week, and we use the neighborhood a lot.

We I'm working with him.

Uh he's walking now, thank God, right?

He's walking.

Um, he's got about seven disabilities, but slowly but surely we're working through them and it's coming along.

That neighborhood is great because it's a quiet, uh very respectful neighborhood.

Um traffic is great.

Um, even though I don't take that for granted, when I'm walking with him, I have to carefully walk across the street to do our traversing through the neighborhood so that I could get his therapy.

Um this concerns me.

Having something like that, traffic, you know, I mean it's a neighborhood now.

It won't be a regular neighborhood.

It would be a neighborhood with a sizable business.

And I know that um, I mean, common sense tells me, regardless of what the stats show, this and that, we're gonna have traffic.

We're gonna have traffic, especially going right through our neighborhood, which is really weird.

To me, it's just really weird.

It's just not the proper place for something like that.

And uh, thank you for your time.

Next up, we have Alyssa Downs.

Good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for having all of us here.

Um we are not here.

I think we know that this is going to happen.

So, what we're here to do today is we don't want to fight, we want to work together and make it work for everybody, as uh Councilman Bailey said.

What we want is because they've already changed a couple things.

They changed the hours of operation from what they told us, and the building height went up five feet.

Our main concerns are the traffic safety.

We really want that turn lane on old ranch um so that everybody has access going east.

They will go through our neighborhood.

I walk my dog six days a week.

I'm not the only one out there.

Our whole it is amazing.

Come to our neighborhood and come for a walk.

There's so many people who are out there, and we're active in our neighborhood, and it's it's beautiful.

It's what makes living there worthwhile.

I've lived here since 1987, and that matters to me.

I'm just asking for you guys to help keep us safe.

It's the planning we want.

We we want to make sure that turn lane's in there.

We want the aesthetics brought up to the rhinestone and also to help cover the town homes for those people who live there.

So landscaping, hours of operation, and we want that turn lane.

That's I mean, is somebody gonna have to die before that goes in?

I believe that's why they put the lights in down below.

Is that two people died?

Do we have to have a death before that happens?

We just want to stay safe, and we want to keep that traffic out of our neighborhood.

The streets are already falling in there, anyways.

I got a pothole right in front of my house.

They've already fixed once.

I have a low two low cars.

I mean, uh, you know, I just worry about the infrastructure there.

So if we could just keep the traffic down coming through, put that turn lane in, keep the landscaping forward, minimize the hours of operations.

We will be happy to work with what's going to happen.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

I have Chris Hartoya seating time to James Lowan.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So you have six minutes.

Thank you, Madam President, City Council.

Tough job for you all today.

I'm the uh, my name's James Lobin.

I'm the uh vice president of the HOA community.

I'm representing the 50 families that live in our neighborhood, in addition to the townhomes, which have an HOA, and the town home to the north of us, Kettle Ridge, which has about I think 250 families.

A lot of consternation, a lot of worry.

Um Mr.

Hernandez is my neighbor.

I'd like to speak about safety for a second.

Obviously, Rob has a big concern, as do several other families that live along Kettle Ridge and Rhinestone that have children with special needs.

Um the traffic right now is pretty mild, and we hear about the traffic patterns of a new storage facility going in, and it's only gonna increase it by 30 or 40 vehicles a day.

That's doubling what we currently have.

That's that's not a good solution.

Customers are gonna have no choice but to drive up a residential area on Kettle Ridge because when they're coming from the west, going east, they can't traverse over a raised median on Old Ranch Road to get into Rhinestone.

They have to turn into Chapel Hills, they have to come through our residents.

Likewise, when they leave, they're not going to be able to travel west, or excuse me, travel east on Old Ranch Road.

They'll have to go down Kettle Ridge or North on Rhinestone or down looking glass to be able to access Old Ranch Road where there's a light.

So that's that's just bad business.

No fault to us, no fault to you, no fault to the current planning commission.

But when they changed that area from commercial to residential, they landlocked that little square that sits on the corner of powers in Old Ranch Road.

There's no way 50% of the traffic is gonna be coming through Kettle Ridge through our community.

So we're concerned about the risk to our children.

Um what was not brought up is the fact that on rhinestone that is the pickup drop-off location for a lot of families for their high school kids.

I didn't invite you to take a drive out there between 230 and 3 and see the cars lined up on rhinestone that go down to Kettle Ridge where the entry will be to that storage facility.

There's probably at any time 15 cars setting out there waiting for their kids.

Now, in addition to those, because they I believe are picking up kids that live to the south of us, down along the Pine Creek Golf Course area.

Our kids obviously walk up and down that road all the time.

The criminal element, which was briefly touched on, but I just want to throw the numbers out at you.

A hundred or one thousand two hundred and forty some burglaries last year in Colorado Springs.

10% of those, about 129, occurred in storage facilities.

And they're they weren't in the storage facilities that are like the public storage that are completely concealed and locked in.

They're in the open storage facilities, like is being proposed to be built in our area.

Um, I think uh Miss Price also talked about people, families that move into those facilities temporarily that are looking for home.

There was a homicide last year in one of these storage facilities that's open to the public.

So approving it, you just bring in a criminal element that we don't need in our in our area.

Um a lot of talk about the commercial aspect.

Well, we've got the opportunity now to change that.

They there could, and and I respect the rights of the owner, but right now it's zoned, it could be multifamily.

If the zoning were changed, it could be single family as well, which would probably bring in developers.

Um we would prefer to see a family element living in that area, not a commercial facility, because when you're part of a community, you're respectful.

I visited a few of the storage facilities within that five mile radius that Miss Price talked about.

You see these panel trucks going in and out of there all day long.

I think that might be data that was presented that might be a little outdated because a lot of home businesses and and small um commercial businesses now use storage facilities to store their equipment, store their product, uh, whatever it is that they might be fabricating or building or making.

So when I was visiting a couple of these, I saw some of these 30-foot panel trucks driving in, and I was like, holy cow, I would not want to see that going up down our street, which Alyssa had addressed our potholes and our things that are falling down, uh, manhole covers.

Um, so I'm out of time.

Appreciate your time.

Nice tunes.

Um I hope you consider our pill, the safety of our children.

And you transition from one side of the road to a commercial facility.

And the fence that they proposed also along Old Ranch Road, that's a picket metal fence.

In our community, it's a six-foot concrete stone fence.

Thank you.

Even then it doesn't.

Thank you for your comments.

Um that closes um public comment um at this time, and it is 12 34.

So we are going to adjourn for um recess for one hour.

We do have a meeting um until one.

We are back into our city council regular meeting, and we will continue with this hearing.

We have closed public comment.

So now we will start with the applicant rebuttal.

And the applicant, if you would like to share any more.

Is it the applicant?

Yeah.

You have five minutes if you would like.

I mean, appellant.

Yes, I just have it backwards on my agenda.

I'm so sorry, but it is the appellant rebuttal.

Yes, ma'am.

Julie Price again with the community, and thank you again for your time.

Couple things I would just like to note.

Ms.

Barlow indicated that she believes that we would not be here today, or that we would still be here today if even if the community had been involved early on.

That can't necessarily be asserted because we were denied that opportunity.

So I would like to just note that that we can't make that assertion today.

Additionally, one would think with 168 comments, the applicant would want to work with the community.

It's not one or two, it's 168.

So, what I got from your questioning when you were questioning uh Miss Barlow earlier, keywords are compatible and harmonious.

Couple things I would just like to mention regarding compatible and harmonious.

It was stated that people store things and there's little activity at storage units like this.

And there was a nice pretty chart that showed one day's worth of trend.

I will tell you, I myself and several of my neighbors, we've gone to some of these public storage facilities that are small mom and pops, kind of like what we're talking about.

First of all, their hours are pretty well contained.

They're like from seven to seven in the in the in the summertime, and then they bring them back and draw them back in the winter.

Additionally, what we've been told by those folks are that uh similar facilities like this, they say realtors use them to store signs.

People store their barbecue grills if they live in apartments and such, and they take them for tailgates.

People store jet skis and those kinds of sport equipment type items.

And additionally, I'd like to note when you're storing those kinds of items, that's not infrequent traffic.

Maybe more so in the summer and in the spring, and maybe even in the fall, but that's not infrequent.

Maybe in the winter when it's snowy, more infrequent, yes.

But based on our research and talking with these people who have these types of facilities, that's not what they're trending to see.

Additionally, one of the things that one of the facilities told us about crime.

And one of the reasons we would like to see the concrete barrier behind the buildings and not the buildings used as a barrier is some of the crime they've seen in their facilities.

Our people will go and use metal cutters and cut out the backsides of the buildings to break in and put tarps over it, so then people can't see things moving in and out of the backs of those buildings.

This is coming from people who have these facilities and use these facilities.

So what I'd like to reiterate here is that uh there's a high probability today that our appeal is going to be denied, and we understand that.

We understand the landowners have rights and all of that stuff.

But as Miss Baxter showed in one of her slides, there are four options here today.

The the three and number four on the list were to deny with appeal modified to deny the appeal with modifications and to deny and go back to planning.

We would like you to consider if you do deny our appeal today, the condition the considerations that we noted earlier, the three, the hours of operation, making them relatable, making them compatible and harmonious to the community.

I'm sorry, 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

doesn't seem compatible and harmonious to me.

There's going to be trucks, and oh, by the way, when we went to some of these mom and pop kinds of storage facilities, we saw, Jim and I saw several panel trucks pulling in anywhere from 16 feet to 26 feet in length.

And that was just in the short 30 minutes that we were there.

There were at least two that pulled up.

So to say that there's just going to be small things and people are going to be infrequent is not true based on the research that we have done.

So again, the considerations that we would like to put forth to you guys on the city council are looking at the hours of operation.

Set something that is compatible and harmonious and put enforcement actions on it.

And if the whoever ends up buying this facility from the developer wants to go change those hours, put some kind of process in there where the invite where the community can be involved in that.

Number two, and you saw the pictures in my slides, with that median there at Old Ranch Road.

If there were a turn lane put there, it would divert not all of it, but most of the traffic come from coming through our communities and coming through our streets where our children play and our families are and our kids walk to school and new drivers are picking up their friends to drive.

There was a comment mentioned about there could be other things there.

I would like to note Pine Creek High School is just up the road.

Mountain View Elementary and Challenger are just down the road.

So likely some of those more, in my view, nefarious type places would not be allowed there because of the schools that are nearby.

And the third thing in my last 30 seconds here, we would like to have the consideration for the aesthetics and the barrier to be more compatible with our community to help provide that penetration and security and that protection from us as well in the community.

So I would just like to take my last 15 seconds to say thank you.

I appreciate the time to be before all of you today.

And I just look forward to hopefully the considerations as part of this discussion.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Now we'll have the applicant final comments for five minutes.

Thank you.

I don't doubt that it is a quiet neighborhood right now.

It has been planned as a neighborhood with supporting commercial, with commercial in the area.

This has been a commercial site for over 40 years with the master plan and then the zoning in the last 20 years.

It is not going to stay a vacant property, despite what the neighbors may prefer.

Despite what they may have expected when they moved in, that expectation would have been misplaced because it had the master plan and the zoning and a concept plan in place, showing a much more intense commercial use than is currently proposed.

Much more intense.

So the quiet neighborhood is one aspect, but the fact that it is going to stay a quiet neighborhood based on what's there currently is a misplaced expectation.

It is going to change, the site is going to be developed, and it is going to be developed commercially based on the zoning.

And there is some benefit, and the gentleman who was referring to the fact that he backs onto the site and looks over the site.

At the moment, there is noise from traffic on powers on old ranch road.

This development will provide screening to that in the way of buildings, fences, solid fences, and significant landscaping.

So the actual noise, ambient noise in the area will reduce as a result of this development.

There was reference, an very incorrect reference to the fact that this development would double traffic in the area, and that there are about 30 cars currently in the neighborhood.

There are currently 220 single family homes.

Sorry, I correct that.

80 town homes with a single family homes comes to a total of 220 residential units.

Per the standard traffic counts, there are approximately nine to ten trips from a single family home a day.

That's based on the international transportation engineers data.

That's over 22, that's around 2200 trips in a day from the existing neighborhood.

To put that in context with the, and if you could uh go to the slide.

I want to go to my traffic slide, which is somewhere.

We noted the different traffic use in the various um categories.

It's not getting there quick enough, but I'll go through it while I get there.

So our development at 116 trips a day will represent a 5% increase in traffic in that neighborhood.

5%.

Comparatively, if it were to be developed for single-family attached housing, which is in the table, that would be a 17% increase.

A retail plaza would be 102% increase.

So that would be a doubling of traffic.

And not far behind it is medical office at 97%.

And an office use would be a 30% increase in traffic in the area in that neighborhood.

So I want to underline the fact that there is a lot of fear in the neighborhood and amongst the neighbors who spoke today of what might be the case.

The reality is something very, very different.

And with that regard, the traffic improvement that they're asking for, a left-turn lane, an old ranch road into Rhinestone, is not warranted.

It's not warranted basis based on existing traffic conditions.

It's not warranted based on proposed traffic conditions.

It is not a needed traffic improvement.

And there was some suggestion that it should be rezoned to single family residential.

That would also generate 9% increase in traffic, more than the storage facility.

So this idea that this is going to generate a lot more traffic in this neighborhood is just simply incorrect.

Regarding hours of operation, as I indicated, we're willing to change that 10 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

We want to remain competitive.

The operators want to remain competitive with other facilities in the area which have similar operating hours.

And that is something that we would prefer not to negotiate on, especially on the dais.

The aesthetics, again, I believe that this project does match the aesthetics in the neighborhood.

The wall that is proposed along Rhinestone is exactly the same wall that the neighborhood has on the other side of Rhinestone.

The fencing along Old Ranch Road is a different type of fencing.

It is for a commercial use that is fronting a major arterial, the same with the power side.

And the buildings themselves provide much more of a protective barrier than the more fencing would do.

So with that, I just want to finish with one thing, because I think this is my last opportunity to rebut, although I was confused earlier.

I thought I had another chance.

But in my mind, what the neighbors is asking you to do, they have moved into this area knowing that this was a commercial site.

Yet now they're saying we're here, and we think you should listen to us, and that our rights are more important than the rights of the property owner who has planned this community and this property for over 40 years.

And for some reason, they think that should be ignored, and that the use in itself is enough reason to deny this development plan.

I don't believe it is, it is the least intense commercial use, and that should be acknowledged and recognized in this consideration.

Thank you.

We will move on to um final comments from staff if there are any staff comments.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Madam President.

I I wasn't sure you were coming up.

I I'll let you go first and then see if I have a question.

No additional comments.

Okay.

My question then is there were some procedural issues with this.

And I I think it's important that we give you an opportunity to address that.

So I see Mr.

Walker coming up.

He may have been telegraphed that this is coming.

So thank you for giving us a little insight into what happened here and what you think.

Thanks.

Sure, happy to do that.

Um Madam President, Kevin Walker, City Planning Director.

Um I have heard this um Bill of Particulars around what happened in this process several times, and it doesn't get any easier to hear each time I hear it.

Um not going to dispute um what what what you've heard today, that is what happened.

Uh we can dispute days or numbers or whatever, but but the fact of the matter is is that this took too long a time for uh the planning department to resolve.

Uh and when we did have a resolution, uh we were not aware of uh previous commitments.

And um and and those are uh things that uh have affected this particular process.

May a couple our responsibility.

We've taken steps already to try and resolve both the languishing projects that are sitting uh out there uh as well as um making sure that our planners have access to uh all the communications between uh the neighborhoods and planners, even when they leave.

Uh and so that we've we've we've started to work on all of those things to make sure that this does not happen again.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

So all of that said, Kevin, I I mean to me there's a couple of takeaways.

One is that uh I don't want to see any department make errors or mistakes, but obviously they happen.

Um but what I heard you say is that there would be there has already been a uh an active um choice to improve processes to improve communications to make sure that something some of the the omissions or the procedural things that happened before uh hopefully don't get repeated again.

But all that being said, at the end of the day, had it gone perfectly from a procedural standpoint, would there have been any excuse me, any impact in terms of the outcome or where we are today?

I well I I would tell you that it probably not in terms of where we are today specifically, but you've seen the process work here in just the last 60 days where we did as soon as as soon as I heard that this had happened, we sat down with the neighborhood representatives, we called for a neighborhood meeting.

Um we did uh we heard what was what was said there, uh, and you're seeing now some of the things that might have been able to occur prior to this hearing uh being done right now, hours of operation, colors of roofs, additional landscaping modifications of fences, those are the kinds of things that do happen when uh applicants are asked to meet with neighborhoods, um things that are around the edges.

Um I think that the issue of whether commercial use is fitting for that um uh that look that particular location, we would not have changed because the property is zoned and trying to honor uh the fact that we have a piece of property and a property owner who has expectations relative to current zoning.

Uh we would have we would have been obligated to try and deal with that.

But you're seeing some of that happen today.

Uh and some of those things um I think are appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all you have.

Thank you.

Um I'll bring it back to the dais for council member questions, deliberation decision.

We can entertain a motion for approval denial or a postponement, Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, uh Madam President.

I got a question for uh Todd Frisbee or uh traffic engineer and so uh good afternoon, Todd.

Um I said members of council yeah.

What what would it take to keep the traffic out of the neighborhood?

How could we solve that problem?

The traffic from flowing through the neighborhood streets and just okay.

Sorry.

Uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering uh representing public works department.

Uh certainly a what the residents have asked for, a left turn lane um in the median would provide an opportunity for you know site traffic to you know buy you know not turn a chapel ridge and head down um um that neighborhood street and turn directly onto onto uh I believe it's called Rhinestone uh road.

Uh so yeah, that would help uh alleviate some of the traffic in the neighborhood from this development.

And if uh council decided that would be a condition uh to do this, who who would pay for that?

Who would pay?

Yeah, who pays for the uh adjustment to the median to make create the lane, yeah.

Normally that that responsibility would fall on a developer.

Okay.

And you know, I'm curious to know what the dollar amount roughly is, but I won't ask it if it's uh you know something you can't estimate up here or it's considered uh bad form to even ask.

It's hard, you know.

I don't like to do math in a in a public in a public setting because you know it's you know it's okay.

You say something in a dot, you know, on public record, then your help to it's all.

But that's the solution then to this.

If we want to keep traffic off the street side streets, the neighborhood streets, the street where the gentleman who has the son who's had a stroke, uh then we put in a left-turn lane.

It wouldn't keep all the traffic because um if that was part of the project, then I would recommend that only a left-in be provided, not a left out, because it's it's a major arterial with four lanes across.

Uh uh, that's a risky mover uh maneuver.

And so it wouldn't keep all the traffic, but it would uh reduce some of the traffic that's um that could use that street.

Okay.

Um other thoughts or recommendations from you if that's our concern.

No, I'll just you know it's been uh this uh we have criteria when it comes to say traffic impact studies.

You know, we require traffic impact studies.

So it's clear we did not require a traffic impact study because our the trip generation for a mini or for a mini store is pretty low, uh one of the lowest.

Uh and so we do not require a traffic impact study for this.

Uh and as I said in planning at the planning commission, I was asked the same questions.

Do you is a left turn lane needed?

Uh I do not believe it's needed from a from a traffic operations point of view.

Um and so um I stand by my comments I said in in planning commission uh that from uh from my perspective um traffic flow, the generator, you know, it's you know, and you're gonna add when you add a left turn lane across traffic, uh you add another level of risk to drivers and risk of high speed crashes.

So those were some of my reasonings for not recommending um a left turn lane um at planning commission.

Or left turn in but right turn out.

Yeah, they're not recommending the left turn lane in.

Yeah, left I would not you know I would totally be against the left turn out because that's even more risky, even more of a sky maneuver.

Um but the but uh a left turn lane off of old stage coach road, uh you you think that's very risky, just like right there and then pulling into rhinestone?

It is anytime you yeah, entertainment you introduce a left turn across you know, high speed traffic, there's a level of risk that's not there today.

And so that's um and given um sort of the low is given sort of the low channel the generator there that the impact the impact to the potential risk of a left turn across traffic is greater than the potential risk of it's some of a few additional trips inside the neighborhood.

And that was my that was my reasoning.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And then I do have uh just a question for uh for Ms.

Barlow, just about hours of operation, and uh and I appreciate your willingness to back it down to 9 p.m.

on weekdays, right?

And then what is it on Sunday?

Or I'm just trying to figure out what the hours are.

I'll have to refer to my slide.

It was reduced hours, but I would prefer to get it correct.

8 a.m.

till 6 p.m.

on Sundays.

And what's the start time on the week?

6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

So 6 a.m.

Okay, and and you commit to the 9 p.m.

Yes, indeed.

And then as far as uh uh the aesthetics and the fence go, what what are the units made out of?

Are they metal?

Are they backed in metal?

Is that what it would be?

Yes, they are metal, I believe.

Or metal.

There's some stucco stone and stucco on the ends, and then details are stone and stucco, but the main construction is metal.

Okay.

And the metal roof was the concern at planning commission, and we are committed to ensuring that's not a reflective material.

Is there concern about uh cutting through that and and breaking into the units from the outside?

Have you heard of that before?

Is that a real concern?

I mean, I I can I I'm sure it happens.

Is it's planning, I would say to the lowest common denominator.

Um we try to plan for what we can expect and anticipate, but there will be on site security um during um the opening hours.

There will be 24 hour security cameras, um, both the rear and the front of the buildings.

And there will, to the lighting point, there will be lighting only as needed for security in the evening hours, and that lighting doesn't extend beyond the perimeter per the photometric plan.

Um we are not allowed to expand light beyond the perimeter of the property.

Okay, I see others have some questions for well for someone.

I'm not sure if they're for you, but uh so I'll start.

I'll stay here until I'm told I'm no longer needed.

Okay.

Councilman Rainey.

Yes, sir.

You're needed.

Um Thank you, Madam President.

So I want to go back to hours of operations to make sure I am totally clear because the the term that was just used was committed to 9 p.m., but the phrase that we use earlier during your presentation was you didn't want to get into negotiating, you know, times uh in this particular uh venue.

So is is 9 p.m.

negotiable, or is that something that you all are leaning towards?

So so that what what I presented in my uh PowerPoint earlier was um 6 a.m.

till 10 p.m.

Right.

And we agreed that we would pull that back to 9 p.m.

with the 8 till 6 p.m.

on on Sundays.

We are willing to commit to those hours.

And um I I didn't want to get into I I believe that the neighborhood representatives were suggesting much more constrained hours.

And I didn't want to be going, well, what about this time and what about that time?

Um we we have to consult, I have to consult with my client who has to consult with a future operator.

So um we are those are the hours we are willing to commit to today um based on what we presented and what we are we have discussed that we can pull that uh closing time back to 9 p.m.

Okay.

The next question I have um and it might involve you, Kevin, a bit.

Um the date 12 August came up for the community engagement.

But there appears to be four recommendations from landscaping, turn lane, hours of operations, and some aesthetics.

Um was those recommendations provided before that community engagement event, and was that taken into consideration before today?

So um yes, yes and no is it my answer to that, and Kevin can illuminate.

But um, when we had the neighborhood meeting, there were a lot of questions about what was being proposed as a part as opposed to solutions.

But the suggestion and and at that time it we agreed to come back with additional information on certain things.

One of those was hours of operation.

The suggestion of um the turn lane of Old Ranch Road and um the concerns about aesthetics and the and the wall and what have you were expressed at the neighborhood meeting, as were the concerns about the hours of operation, the left-turn lane suggestion only came in at planning commission, and the neighbors presentation that you saw today and the things that they would like to negotiate on are the same as what was presented at planning commission.

So it hasn't just come forward today.

Okay.

Um sorry, I would like to add that the the issue of the metal roof was came up at planning commission right at the very end when we had no opportunity to respond.

So we have responded now.

Okay.

And in regards to the entryway, based on the diagram, as you're turning right, uh, I will make the assumption that the storage area will have a uh secure gate entry, and that gate entry would be recessed pretty far away to where there's you know, let's say, and I see this a lot, uh, and maybe I say this because I'm RV owner.

Oftentimes during the summer months, people are going in and grabbing things out of their storage areas, and it there tends to be backup.

So it's recessed enough to where if you had two or three vehicles that were trying to get in, that it would not impede any traffic.

That that's one thing we were required to adjust through the process.

And um, it was one of the things that traffic engineering requests that that we move the entryway further back into the site to leave such sufficient distance for stacking vehicles.

Okay.

So that that was addressed during the process at the recommendation of traffic engineering.

Okay.

And when it comes to lights, uh, is there any concern about light impeding uh anyone's uh backyards, front yards, or whatever have you, because of course there's gonna always be a level of lighting in the storage facility.

Um, and on on multiple counts.

So uh as was noted, we did a photometric plan.

A photometric plan looks at the light, how it's how it spreads throughout the site or where it is, where the lights are through out the site and how that emanates from those lights.

The requirement is that we have to be pretty much at zero when you get to the property boundary.

So that photometric plan shows based on the lights that we're proposing, um, it will be at zero at the property boundary.

So no light is going to go beyond the property boundary.

As I showed that all the lights are proposed are building lights, so they're on the edge side of the building, bearing in mind, and I think we did this calculation at planning commission.

The buildings are only 17 feet tall to the pitch of the roof.

The lights are at about or under the eave, so they're at about nine feet, I think is where we were at.

So and they shine down, and they don't shine beyond around 10 feet from the building.

In addition to that, the townhomes to the north are elevated about 10 feet above this site.

Their ground level is about 10 feet above this site.

So they are going to be looking down on the property.

So there's going to be no light going into their property from this because it's it's not doesn't go up.

It's not shining up.

Similarly, for the residents on the other side of rhinestone, not only do they have their own perimeter wall, there will be a perimeter wall here, and landscaping on the outside of that perimeter wall, plus the fact that the lighting doesn't extend beyond the perimeter boundary.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um my last question, and maybe this question is both for Kevin and Todd.

Um this has come up a multitude of times now, I've noticed in my six months here.

When it comes to development and turns, left lanes or left turns, I should say, continues to be an ongoing thing.

And I can actually think of three specific cases that have come before us where left turns have been denied, one for safety reasons, but in other cases, not really a good explanation.

So I understand this decision of not wanting to do a left turn lane was definitely rooted in risk uh and and wanting to mitigate those risks.

But at the sake of mitigating risk, have we thought through what are other options with the exception of having panel trucks driving through neighborhoods?

Is there any other options?

Either one.

Kevin Walker City Planning Director, and that's clearly a question that uh uh Todd would be better at.

But I can tell you that uh I can't tell you that when we looked at the site as as soon as we had this issue come up, one of my first questions was what are the other access possibilities there?

Can we access directly onto all ranch road?

Can we move the access point?

Um, can there be a left turn lane?

Can there be a full movement?

Can there be a signal?

All of those kinds of things were reviewed.

Um and this is kind of where we ended up.

So we did review uh several of them, but I'll let Todd um respond.

Yes.

Uh Todd Frisby City Traffic Engineering.

Kevin, actually, Kevin did a good job at answering answering that uh answering that question.

Uh I did notice that one of the con one of the app uh appellants have a in the appellants um presentation, there was a no U-turn sign put up at the intersection just to the west.

We could probably I don't know why that sign would be there, so I'll probably have staff go to take that sign, take that sign down.

Uh, but that would be um one way coming out of the out of the uh storage facility.

Someone could make a right onto old ranch and then go down to Chapel Ridge and make a U-turn um at that at that location.

But Kevin is right, we did talk about the different ways.

Uh you cannot get another axe between where rhinestone is and the ramp.

Um C dot, you know, the sit highway 20, you know, powers of the CEDA road, they don't like um access points um closer than 600 feet from their ramp.

Uh and so rhinestone's right at that point.

So we couldn't get another access point between rhinestone and um and and the off ramp.

So Kevin is correct.

We did look at other options, consider those things, and um uh that's about all I can offer uh to your question.

Okay, thank you.

Don't tell me where Councilman Bailey.

Todd, sorry.

Uh just wanted to follow follow on with that.

Yeah.

Um how often or do we ever if if a intersection something like this doesn't meet the warrants for a traffic improvement, how often do we require a developer to make those changes?

Um Todd, yeah, Todd Frisbee City traffic engineering.

I um uh I don't know if I can give you, I don't know if I can answer that question directly.

And and what we do, what we try to do traffic in traffic engineering, I like to say sometimes traffic engineering is um you know there's engineering and science involved, but there's also a little bit of a little bit of art uh and a little bit of judgment, you know, making some judgments on whether to require an improvement or not an improvement.

And so in each so it needs development.

We we have criteria that we start with, and then we look at the situation and and make a determination of what what would be required improvements.

And so in this case, right?

Um again, I you know, just given the use, um, uh I felt the added risk of a left turn of left turn movements across that opposing traffic was greater than the risk, because you're introducing a new conflict that's not there, greater than the risk of a little bit of a dis of some additional traffic in the near, you know, uh in the in the neighborhood.

So that yeah, it's one of those, you know, we make a we make it's what I like we call engineering judgment, and we make that and we make that call.

I I understand that, and I and I I I probably would agree with it, you know, if I sat and studied it for a long time.

A lot of the other concerns that that I know the the neighbors have to do with you know just the volume of traffic, but speed and other things that sadly are uh a uh problem throughout the city.

People don't follow the rules.

And even if there is a no no u-turn sign, there's probably people that are making a U-turn next to it.

I may know somebody that has done that once or twice in his life.

Um are there methods maybe that we could use to try to deter some of that behavior, such as local, you know, not a through street, local traffic only, when you've got a a walled entrance on either side of that street that's across, and I'm sorry I don't remember the name of it, but you know, could a a sign like that try to discourage people coming out from cutting straight through that street, send them out to old ranch, and then go go around as you describe.

That would obviously be the or that would to me, not obviously, it's never obvious, but it's to me that might make make a little sense and might help to limit the people that would just be using that as their primary primary access road.

Right.

Just a possibility, and that's a whole lot cheaper than you know, making a turn lane across a median.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think um uh I I don't like to say no no no through traffic, no local traffic or no or no through traffic when through traffic is allowed, yeah.

You don't you know you want to give a yeah, um but uh yeah, you know signage that would say you know that as someone leaving the site, you know, turn turn left, right?

And and head to old ranch, uh and then make you know I yeah, I mean that would be um uh a way to try to deter some of that, you know.

Again, you know, someone still do whatever they want, but right, but those are some of those things that maybe you can try to encourage that usage of old ranch rather than through the neighborhoods and perhaps even the operators of this storage unit could you know have in their agreement, you know, uh a note that says, please use this for entry and exit, that might help do it.

But yeah, um, you know, it's a it's a different solution.

My my main my main issue is I I'm not sure I want would want to hold a specific applicant, a developer to a standard that's that's higher than warranted by our normal procedure.

And that's if the traffic count warrants it, then the developer does it.

If not, not so much.

Um I've got a I got a couple other questions, not necessarily for you.

If I can if if I can continue um and and this is for Ms.

Barlow, the I appreciate I appreciate the language of the commitment on the operating hours, but I want to point out that isn't it possible that usage and when you have people on site during opening hours that between seven and you know seven and nine in the winter, nobody's coming anyway.

So maybe you would close, you know, reduce those hours at certain times based on market demands.

I think that's entirely possible.

I I think that's a difference between what's reaction to market demands versus what's imposed on the development.

So I I'm just concerned about commitment.

You know, I don't want somebody to come back and say, well, wait a minute, you're supposed to be open until nine o'clock, even if that's not so uh you you maybe what you're committing to a maximum.

Yes.

Certainly.

Okay.

Fair enough.

And and and on that same on that same note, just an observation that the operator is going to take all actions to make the operation as you know economically feasible as possible.

So having security cameras, having a way to monitor the back end of those metal buildings to discourage people cutting into it for for theft.

Um, that's going to be a normal normal course of action.

So uh understand the concerns.

I certainly understand that there are lots of possibilities.

We've talked about a lots of a lot of possibilities, but whether they're likely or not is another thing that uh that I think it's important that we consider.

So just my observation, thank you.

Councilman Williams thank you.

Um this has definitely been on the books for quite some time, and I always uh realize that people though aren't in this particular industry don't understand how long it takes to get from planning to fruition.

Um I think a lot of things have been mentioned.

I don't know that we need to necessarily codify the hours of operation.

One thing I would like to talk about is the fencing along Old Ranch Road.

I I know this isn't going to perfectly mimic what's necessarily in the neighborhood, but most of the fence along Old Ranch Road is opaque.

So I would ask my fellow council members to consider mirroring that um same fence that's gonna be on rhinestone also on old ranch road to at least make it continuous.

And then the uh the units along the east side will provide their own barrier.

So I know there's concerns about those being cut into.

Um anybody coming off that off ramp of powers would be able to see that, and I hope they would call their local police department to help out in a situation like that.

But um, I would just ask my fellow council members to consider the possibility of uh the oak an opaque fence along Old Ranch Road.

Councilman Donaldson.

This this will be it for me until we just do our final comments and vote.

But um and Todd, you can answer this, or I can I'll just say it, and if you want to chime in, uh a left-hand turn off of Old Ranch Road does introduce some risk, but increased traffic in a neighborhood increases risk, and it's a kind of a trade-off, which one do you go with.

Um we do have left-hand turns, you know, across uh heavy traffic throughout the city.

Yeah, you can I think everybody knows that.

And so it wouldn't be something um unusual.

Uh it would be uh a reaction, we would be doing something to address the situation which occurred when it got rezoned from commercial to residential, you know, where where uh kettle ridge fronts it.

So all that territory, which the cars would now be cutting through or the trucks.

So personally, I think it's it's worth it to uh address the concerns of the neighbors to do that.

So I'll I'll offer that when we get to the point of voting on this to uh add that is we'll have to have the attorney remind me what we call those condition of uh just a condition of approval.

Condition of approval for that, and I would support uh uh the suggestion by uh councilwoman Williams for the for the fence.

I thought the same thing, but just hadn't brought it up yet to uh make that uh similar or the same as uh the fence that's along the rest of the road.

I'll I'll offer that when we get to the point of voting on this to uh add that is I'll have to have the attorney remind me what we call those condition of of uh just the condition of approval condition of approval for that and I would support uh uh the suggestion by uh councilwoman Williams for the for the fence I had thought the same thing but just hadn't brought it up yet to uh make that uh similar or the same as uh the fence that's along the rest of the road that's it for me for now councilman henjam uh thank you madam president just wanted to um bring back into the conversation uh while the neighbors didn't bring it up uh the applicant um representative did uh if if this if there's going to be conditions of approval that um uh we add the top of the roof not be shiny whatever that particular offer was made okay so we'll bring it back up for deliberation and any motion for these changes I'll need a motion and I will need a second for and the changes Councilman Rainey Thank you Madam President uh in regards to the changes or um conditions of approval are we gonna outline that do we have pretty much uh what we believe is an outline of what those conditions of approval are I think we're gonna articulate them and then hopefully vote on them one by one instead of as a group I guess that's the question I would we can put it all into one motion councilman Bailey thank you madam president yeah I just I guess I had a a question before we go too far down this road um understand the uh the request to make the uh barrier along old ranch road similar to the other side but I I I just question the the need for significant landscaping if you're gonna put an opaque wall there anyway would you rather have an opaque wall that's just another barrier like you have around your community or would you rather have some trees some some vegetation that provided similar screening and it might not be in the first year or two but ultimately in the long run I would argue that a that a natural you know national natural wall with the shrubs would be much preferable to a bunch of you know just just a wall so if you change the requirement from a uh a fence that's going to be covered by screened by shrubbery to go to a to go to a wall I would think that the added expense would come at the at the cost of now you're not gonna have any uh any landscaping in front of it councilman donaldson um I I'll go ahead and state the four conditions of approval that I think I I have heard and one is is what the uh what uh Ms.

Barlow two of them are really what she's already said one is that the uh closing time on on weekdays uh will be 9 p.m.

uh the second is that the building materials for the roof is is a dark color as I believe it's in your presentation today correct yeah and then three would be it seems the the neighborhood would prefer the solid fence facing stagecoach so fence to match that go ahead brandy old ranch road yeah so that that fence would be the uh material that matches that which is proposed on yeah on rhinestone and then number four would be that there is a left turn lane um created off of old ranch onto rhinestone and I think we should we should vote on them separately because there may be support for some but not for others and madam president I just I guess what I would add uh and council member henjum had mentioned in her language uh specific delighting um I know that was mentioned already but I I know that was one of the items she had mentioned specific to lighting yes the roof lighting yes the roof what did you call it non-reflective roof okay we'll make that note non-reflective um paint on the roof councilman Bailey thank you madam president just to help me understand and maybe it's a question for our uh city attorney it sounds to me and I I don't I please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what I'm hearing it sounds to me like the motion that uh councilman donaldson is talking about is to deny the appeal but impose conditions of approval that didn't previously exist so in which case it would be our final action on this and that there would be um the the the the condition

Just to help me understand, and maybe it's a question for our uh city attorney.

It sounds to me, and I I don't I please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what I'm hearing.

It sounds to me like the motion that uh Councilman Donaldson is talking about is to deny the appeal but impose conditions of approval that didn't previously exist.

So in which case it would be our final action on this, and that there would be um the the conditions would stand and have to go forward if it were to be to be developed.

Is that uh I don't somebody gave us a nice little handout with some options, and this is not one of the options.

Ben Bollinger City Attorney's Office, yes.

As I understand the proposal would be to deny the appeal, approve the underlying application, but then attach uh these four four conditions to it or you know, first we go through thumbs up if we all agree on each one, then all three of them are are amended to it.

Uh if if one isn't and that one isn't, and then we vote on that.

Is there a motion currently made?

My tablets.

No, there's no motion.

Um so would we can do it more?

There's more than one way to do this.

Uh one would be what you've proposed, which is to use thumbs up or something to come to a general consensus now.

Alternatively, somebody can make the motion, and we can take a series of motions to amend.

I don't know if that's over overly uh formal for you or not, but it it is kind of clean for the for the minutes, I think, unless the clerk tells me it's not, but I will defer to the city attorney.

Okay.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I know we've heard from the applicant on three of these four items, I believe, or at least two of them.

Um I'd like to hear from the applicant about whether or not they're even interested in entertaining uh the opaque wall on old ranch road and the left turn lane.

Uh because I think that's that's obviously something you would thank you.

I appreciate that because a lot of discussion was happening without our ability to provide input.

Yes, we agree with the hours, we agree with a non-reflective roof.

The wall along uh or opaque screen along old ranch road, it is not a requirement for commercial development to provide an opaque screen adjacent to arterial roads, it is a requirement for residential development, and that's for noise reasons and uh screening reasons.

So there is no basis for requiring that.

It is something that we would prefer not to do, strongly prefer not to do.

It is an expensive wall, and um the fencing that we are proposing together with the substantial landscaping that was mentioned, we feel provides a better solution.

Um if that is imposed, despite the fact that we would really strongly ask you to not impose that.

We would like the opportunity to go back and revise the landscaping plan because that landscaping was substantially over and above what is required by city code to try and make that um frontage look attractive.

But if the preferences for a wall instead of an attractive landscape frontage, then we would like the opportunity to amend that.

But we are still our preference would be not to have the wall on that stretch.

It is not neighborhood facing, it is at it is close to the intersection, so we would would prefer not to do that commercial use at the end of the day, and always was intended to be a commercial use.

Um regarding the left-turn lane, I think Mr.

Frisbee made the point that it is not required for this development.

It is not required as a result of the traffic generated by this development.

So I would argue that is not justified to ask for that left-turn lane.

He even made the comments, which um I would take his word for it, that it is creating more of a potential safety issue than traffic going through the neighborhood.

The bottom line, which I would like to emphasize again and again as many times as I can, the traffic generation from this type of use is extremely low, to the point I refer you back to the graph I showed, where it's barely tricking along the bottom of the graph compared to residential, commercial, which generates far more traffic, particularly at peak hours.

So I think the solution that Mr.

Frisbee suggested removing the U-turn sign, no U-turn sign on Chapel Ridge Road, um would be a better solution than traffic from this development would be able to turn left onto rhinestone, turn right onto old ranch, and then be able to U-turn to go east rather than go through the neighborhood.

And I think they would prefer to do that.

That was one solution we thought of, but there was a no-U-turn sign.

Um that will help significantly because that will be a much quicker movement, and bearing in mind the traffic from this type of use is not a peak hours, so it's not going to be trying to do those movements during peak busy hours.

And bearing in mind the traffic from this type of use is not a peak hours, so it's not going to be trying to do those movements during peak busy hours.

It will be off peak hours, so it will be an easy movement for them to accomplish most of the time.

Thank you for that explanation.

Was okay.

So for um purposes of moving this along um from our legal, we need a motion in a second to deny the appeal and then a motion per each one of these conditions, correct?

That we will vote on separately.

You know, it it sounds to me like the applicant has uh consented to the uh closing time at 9 p.m.

on weekdays and the roof being non-reflective.

So I'd recommend you just make that part of the motion, and then since the other two maybe uh still have some debate, take some motions to amend on those two.

Does that work well for you?

Yes, that does.

So I need a motion and a second to um deny the appeal with the conditions of closing at 9 p.m.

on weekdays and the building materials with no glare, no reflective paint on the roof.

I have a motion from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Risley.

Let's vote on this one.

Well, as you could hold the motions to amend our are technically intervening motions, so you need to handle those before you take the final vote.

And right, this wasn't the final vote.

I just asked if that's how we were going to do this.

No, so we're we're gonna amend it though.

But we have two motions.

So I would like to offer uh an amend a motion to uh amend the motion that's on the floor to uh require a left turn lane off of old ranch road.

And it we'll need a second for that.

So I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Gold to add the left lane turn.

Is that correct?

That's that's uh I see uh councilwoman gold's name on there, so that is correct, and we've discussed it pretty thoroughly.

I think it is uh it addresses uh the concerns, some of the concerns of the neighborhood, and uh if this is gonna happen uh it alleviates the the concern they have because right now traffic has to um enter through.

I always have to put my glasses on to read the street names, but there's no choice right now but to uh turn at the light and then hang a right on what is Kettle Ridge Road, which is through the neighborhood.

It wasn't originally laid out that way.

This whole thing was supposed to be commercial, but now there are homes there.

So councilman Risley.

Thanks, Madam President.

I certainly understand the concern about the cut through traffic on Kittle Ridge Road, but I also see that there's looking glass way, which of course those uh residents would not want that cut through traffic either.

But in my mind, um as a member of council at large, I have to think about the greater good for the entire city, and I can't in good conscience vote against the uh input from our traffic engineer who is saying that this is a more dangerous solution.

So I I can't support a left turn lane, and that's how I'm gonna vote.

Thanks.

Okay, so first up we have a motion.

I just want to make sure this is right for the record, Sarah.

Can you go back from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Gold to deny the appeal?

Oh there's oh there's is to add to the left turn the original motion to require the left turn lane.

That's right.

Does everybody clear?

Okay.

So let's vote.

And the motion fails on a two to six vote.

Um we've got the main motion on our screen.

Yeah, we need a second.

All right, Dave, are you gonna say the next one?

Sorry, Councilmember Donaldson.

I believe we're gonna re-vote on that one.

Um Randy Hold on, I've got to reset the whole system.

Are you not seeing it?

Because it's showing on my screen.

We see the motion for a minute.

So you're good.

No, thank you.

Councilmember Rainey does not have it on his screen.

Just give him a thumbs up or down.

Text me your vote for right now.

Are you comfortable with that?

Yeah, just go ahead.

Okay.

The motion fails three to six.

Okay, back to the original motion to deny the appeal and uphold.

Well, and I madam president, I believe at this point, uh Councilwoman um Williams wanted to propose an amendment to uh require the fence along Old Stage Road, old stage roach, old range road.

Williams, can you state that please?

Yes.

I would like to propose um having an opaque wall along Old Ranch Road and allow the applicant the option to reduce the landscaping in that location.

So I have a motion from Councilman Williams.

I need a second.

I have a second from Councilman Donaldson.

And we'll vote on this.

Okay.

Um I need a motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Bailey and a second from Councilman Risley.

Let's vote.

So on this, a yes vote will deny the appeal.

No vote.

Um supports the appeal.

And the motion passes on a six to three vote.

And that is the end of this hearing.

Um moving on to item 13, which is one hour of citizens discussion for items not on today's agenda.

Each citizen will have three minutes to share your comments.

I have a list of those signed up.

When I call your name, please come forward.

Please introduce yourself and limit yourself to the topics that are relevant in germane to city business.

Up first, I have Derek Shetrone.

Afternoon.

How are you guys today?

So I'm Derek Shetron.

Thank you for having me.

Uh I appreciate your time today.

First, I wanted to address uh Mike Johnson directly, actually, in regard to flock safety cameras.

He said that it was an ideological difference we have.

I would uh strongly disagree with that.

I would say it's more like a constitutional disagreement because these cameras afford retroactive investigation of all of us who are per the constitution innocent until proven guilty.

Uh with that said, I'm gonna go ahead and skip down to the bottom here.

Thank you to Lewis Rossman, who was at City Council Town Hall up in Denver on the 22nd.

He came down and was talking about flock safety and AI aggregate.

The conversation that I've been, and I missed your question last time.

I was had to check the meter.

Appreciate you, by the way.

Um the conversation is about aggregate investigation, because they take this data and then they they collect it on you and create a mosaic of your lifestyle.

These are your daily decisions, and that would afford a lot of investigative power to many sources, you know, such as the police department, which in many cases can be good.

But um, in this form, I believe that AI and its use to collect information on all of us in the way that they are, is a weapon.

It's not, and I've been here many times about Timu and Shen and those types of algorithms being weapons as well, because of course they're designed to garner more information about you, and then in turn results out of you know, whatever that finance might be, whether it's to make a profit or to transmit an idea.

So I again I think that their affirmations that it will not be misused are at the least misguided.

And with that, I that's really what I'd like to leave it at.

So thank you guys for you know doing what you do.

Appreciate you.

I'm ready for questions too, if you had any questions at all.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Glorious Clark.

Hello.

I don't know.

I'm kind of disappointed because as somebody who has built and owned two storage facilities and who has been through that and been through the water delineations, the level uh land leveling where I've had to get four feet of dirt for a five-acre property.

I know how many trucks are coming through.

I I could give you a hand count roughly if you just want to count concrete concrete trucks.

That would be about 45 concrete trucks.

And then if you want to count delivery of material for a five-acre, the one I built in Florida, we have seven buildings on there.

That's probably roughly another 40 to like the 50 different trucks.

Never mind owning or it's a franchise of U-Hall.

And U-Hall has really big trucks.

Now, U-Haul doesn't garner whether people have have good driving ability, bad driving ability.

They just think, oh, well, here's a big old truck.

A JH is one of the biggest trucks that you all offers.

Somebody who has had 30 JHs on their property on five acres.

It takes up a lot of space.

And I'm surprised that wasn't one of the questions of pending approval.

Are they gonna have us alter side business on this property?

Because that will draw more traffic that will draw more bad drivers driving trucks that most people who rent you halls probably shouldn't be driving you holes.

Because they are huge trucks.

They they do feel boaty, you know, they don't feel like the average car to the average person.

And those are people who are renting these.

They're average everyday Americans.

Another thing is that when it comes to building a storage facility, there is so much logistical challenge.

I was lucky where I built it, I was one of the first properties to be there on the vacant piece of land.

The whole entire property that I built it on is probably about a hundred acres.

Well, my five acres, that was a logistical nightmare bringing trucks on to that property.

Never mind being in a neighborhood, children, parents, you know, playing in the street and all that, and I have to watch out for concrete trucks.

A buddy of mine lost his license in Massachusetts because a car cut him off, and he was driving a concrete truck.

Well, she the car is no longer here, and neither is that person who was driving that car.

Because when you have concrete trucks, they just don't stop on dimes.

They're not stopping like Honda Civics.

They're stopping like holy cow, I'm a big fully loaded concrete truck.

I bet you all can go on YouTube and find concrete truck crash videos.

Yeah.

What was the like the average speed over there?

45 miles an hour for a concrete truck to even go 45 miles an hour as fast.

55 miles an hour is extremely dangerous for a concrete truck.

Now I wish I had like more time because I don't really see anybody here, and like we do have a whole hour, you know, for all this, but yeah, granted, I'm not given an hour.

But to kind of change topics off of this storage facility is that something that David uh Leidenmuber said, like like the previous meeting.

You do have just the three minutes because that's our rules.

I understand that, and that's okay.

Thank you.

That is the end of our public comment, and that is um actually the end of our meeting today, so we are adjourned.