All right, good morning.

Apologize for the technical delays here.

We'll go ahead and get started.

The Colorado Springs Planning Commission public hearing for November twelfth, two thousand twenty five is now called to order.

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

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

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

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

Throughout the hearing, we will require everyone to conduct themselves respectfully, understand that others may have different views from their own.

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

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

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Please keep your comments brief, focused on the and focused on the issues at hand.

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

Our budget was uh adopted as of yesterday on the first reading.

So it'll be going to the second reading uh at the end of this month with no changes.

So uh at least at this point, we know what our budget will be for 2026.

Um let's see, I was gonna uh announce all the new members, but I guess that they're since they're sitting up there.

Uh we'll uh uh just forego that and uh uh but anyway, welcome to our new members.

Um couple of quick things that the uh council did.

They approved the Peach Ranch annexation, uh also Miller Downs uh annexation.

So those two um enclave annexations were uh passed in the last month.

They've also uh uh denied the appeal of the old ranch uh storage unit, uh, which you also which was an appeal of your denial of the appeal.

Um and so that also was uh passed in the last month.

And uh that kind of concludes my remarks.

Anything else?

Any questions?

I'll be happy to answer.

All right, thank you.

Well, now we'll move on to the consent calendar.

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

So there won't be any individual presentations on those unless a member of the commission, member of the city staff, or member of the public want to uh have a full hearing on those items.

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

Uh please read the items into the consent calendar.

Item 5A C U D P 25-0026.

Christian Brothers Automotive.

Item 5B, N V A R 25-0004, 2826, Bacon Street, Law Size Non-Use Variance.

Item 5C, Z O N E-25-0005, Dorado Transport Zoning Map Amendment.

Item 5D N V A R25-0007, Sani Rimoto, Non-Use Variance.

Item 5E, C U D P 2505, 1590, North Newport Road, Conditional Use.

Item 5 F N V A R 2509, Franklin Residence Addition, and Item 5G, N V A R Dash 25 0017.

Also Franklin Residence Edition.

Is there any commissioner that wants to pull any of those items off the consent calendar?

Is there any member of staff that wants to pull any item off the consent calendar?

Is there any member of the public that wants to pull any item off the consent calendar?

At this point, we'll then we'll entertain a motion for uh to act on upon the consent calendar.

I'd like to make a motion to uh approve the consent calendar as presented.

Somebody second it the motion passes unanimously.

Okay, at this point, we'll move on to uh new business.

Uh Solange, please read the first item into the record.

Item 8A Z O N E-24-0020, a sound change consisting of 2.17 acres located at 4880 Airport Road from single family medium with airport overlay to multifamily high with airport overlay.

Your presenter is Chris Sullivan.

It's my first time.

Uh Chris Sullivan, senior planner, land use review team uh for the planning department.

I'm the case planner on the application before you 4880 Airport Road rezone.

Right.

The subject property is 2.17 acres off the northwest corner of Airport Road and Car Road.

This is a vacant site.

And it has always been vacant from what I've done in research.

The proposal is to rezone the existing property from what R16 airport with APO airport overlay.

So R16 is single family residential detached with a 6,000 square foot lot minimum with airport base overlay.

The proposal is to go to R5 with that APO overlay, which is R5 stands for multifamily high.

Next slide.

Max building height is 50 feet.

Directly abutting to the south west and north, you have R16, which is that single family zone district.

And directly abutting to the east is R5, which is that multifamily multifamily high residential zone district.

For uses, the site is uh abutted by detached single-family residential with maybe some ancillary commercial uses to be confirmed.

However, to the east of the site, there is also religious institution.

But within less than 500 feet, you have a lot of R5 surrounding the site.

And that is to dedicate additional right-of-way to uh airport road, approximately 20 feet by Dieter Platte to the city.

Perfect.

And uh was ready for agenda October of this year, 2025.

Went through six rounds of review, and that is due to trying to figure out that right-of-way issue, which is hence for the condition.

Next slide.

Uh for initial review, which six comments were received, and uh for this public hearing, which uh additional comments were received.

Uh approximately four.

Notices went out to property owners within a thousand feet, 377 postcards went out with posters uh put on site as well.

Uh from that, we did get public comment.

Most of that was based on quality of life uh related issues, adding an intensity that isn't currently there is going to negative negatively impact that quality of life.

Additionally, uh the intensity of the potential intensity of the proposed use of having up to 25 dwelling units per acre uh could potentially have an impact to car road and airport road, adding that additional traffic.

And then on top of that, the other uh comments that were received were uh just asking general questions.

And uh I will note that there was also a comment that uh didn't want to see the loss of more green space.

Agency review uh not a whole lot of comments came back.

A lot of the things that you see on the screen are just the standardized comments that come in with any development proposal or zone change.

Parks did identify that the future development would be have fees applied to it from CDI perspective parks and school.

Swint didn't have any comments school didn't have any comments.

It's D11 traffic didn't have any comments on this either.

Colorado Springs did reserve the right they didn't say they have any comments on this application but they will provide them at time of development planned.

Airport added their standard comments for avigation easement as well as uh provided information on structure as well as impacts for noise from airport traffic.

Plan COS compliance not going to get into this very much but essentially this does comply with uh plan COS and we did find that it matches the vision's big ideas and strategies.

There we go.

Up on the screen are five of the criteria for approving a zone change.

Next slide and there are the other five after reviewing these criteria staff has found that the application does meet the criteria for zone change.

And then those are your two motions on the screen either to approve or deny but ultimately we do want to see that condition if you do approve for dedication of right of way questions at this point.

Nope not at this point thank you now here from the applicant good morning planning commission.

Good morning my name is Ann Odom I'm a planner with NES and I'm representing the owner of 48 airport road for a zone change application with the land use statement.

Next thank you so as Chris kind of alluded to this is a vacant unplatted site.

It's been historically vacant since it's been in this configuration.

It's a little over two acres in size and it's on the northwest corner of airport road and car road it is about a mile east of South Academy Boulevard and just about half a mile west of South Powers Boulevard this site is currently zoned R16 with R16 and airport overlay to the northwest and south and R5 zoning to the the east I've kind of given a zoomed out exhibit to give you an idea of the zoning makeup in the greater surrounding area it doesn't quite reach powers and academy but as you can see there's a variety of different zoning types and development intensities along this airport corridor kind of embedded with these more suburban style single family residential zonings so the zone change with the land use statement is to change the existing R16 zone to R5 while maintaining that airport overlay next slide.

The zone change criteria requires us to uh demonstrate compliance with plan COS that the project the rezone will not be detrimental to public health safety and welfare and that the location is appropriate for the proposed zone.

A land use statement is allowed to accompany the zone change requests for these smaller rezone requests so generally under 10 acres where there's an established development pattern and kind of consistent zoning pattern in the area and where major infrastructure is not required to support development of the parcel.

So again this is just a rezone as Chris kind of touched on when we went out when the surveyor went out to get the legal boundary of this site we had a little bit of a snag because we realized there was really no formal documentation that that 20 foot strip on the south piece of that parcel was ever properly dedicated to the city to allow airport road to be widened.

So uh the owner is in aware and in agreement of that proposed condition of approval, and so that uh right-of-way will either be dedicated or granted within two years of um this rezone, should it be approved.

Uh, that would ultimately bring the lot size down to 2.02 acres, so a pretty marginal decrease, but um nonetheless.

Next slide.

So zone zooming out a little bit, uh, the land use statement again does require that we demonstrate that this rezone is part of a development, a consistent development and zoning pattern.

So I've highlighted some of the um variety of uses in the area with an emphasis on the multifamily and kind of commercial uses.

Uh so you can see there's a number of multifamily developments, primarily along that airport road.

Um, while we do have some of those uh detached single family uses reaching airport road, um, at this point, with airport road being a four-lane principal arterial, um, it that single family detached use is a little bit less compatible with that higher uh traffic roadway.

So I also want to highlight the uh powers and airport interchange construction to the east.

Um so that will add some additional functionality and mobility for um users in the area.

Um and then also you've got some additional investment with a developing business park and kind of commercial park along that South Powers corridor.

So even though you have a fairly developed established neighborhood, there is some additional investment, a little bit of change coming in.

And so this smaller rezone really does fit in with some of the changes we're seeing, as well as what is already existing out there.

Next slide.

Uh so as Chris mentioned, we did receive public comment during this um during the reviews of this application, five during the administrative review, and three more, possibly four more during the uh prior to today.

Um concerns were related to that quality of life related to traffic, density in the area, and just the potential development, whether it will be compatible, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Um so as I kind of touched on on a broader scale, um, I've zoomed in a little bit here.

So again, we've got quite of a variety of different uses and development intensities in the broader area, but you've also got a variety of uses in this more zoomed-in immediate surrounding area of the site.

Um, the uh modest lot size, just two acres in that maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre will max out the development potential for the site right at 50 dwelling units.

And while we're not really considering the finer details of development today, we're really just looking at the zone.

It is important to note that the UDC does have additional development standards that require those land use transitions and buffers, and uh there's other requirements that will have to be considered that will ultimately determine how intense this site can be: parking, um, height limitations, uh water quality, and those things.

So not being considered today, but uh important to remember that those can be limiting factors for development.

Um, and finally, airport road is a principal arterial as I kind of touched on, and um generally should have the ability to uh support development of this parcel.

Uh, if a development plan is submitted in the future and there is any concern of the development intensity impacting surrounding roadways and intersections, of course, uh additional traffic analysis would be required.

Next slide.

Uh so the site is within an established suburban neighborhood.

Um, it is very close to the Academy Boulevard Mature and Redeveloping Corridor and very close to the South Powers Boulevard uh new and developing corridor.

Due east is Peterson Air Force Base, which is a major employer in town, as we know, and um just southeast off the page is the Colorado Springs Airport kind of employment center as well as the developing Peak Innovation Park, all within 10 minutes of the site.

So next slide.

The project is consistent with the vibrant neighborhoods and thriving economy uh frameworks within Plan COS.

So I'll pause briefly for you guys to see those additional strategies that it aligns with.

Next slide.

And I'm happy to answer any additional questions you all may have.

Uh does anybody have any initial questions before we move on to public comment?

Did you uh I guess I can wait until after public comment.

Yeah, good.

Thank you.

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

Please check online as well.

Wouldn't have anybody sign in for um to speak in support.

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

There's nobody online.

Sorry.

Just a second.

Uh uh is this only in support or is it against or or either right now?

For public comment.

Yeah, right now it's just in support.

We'll be moving to against here momentarily.

All right, thank you.

Okay, there's no more public comment in support.

Is there any public comment in the room or signed up um in opposition?

We have um Tao Thi uh to speak against the item.

Thank you.

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

Yes.

Um hello, my name is uh Tao Tai.

Um I uh I live right across from the uh the property, um, the 4880.

It's uh it's a Buddhist temple.

And I'm here to uh let you guys all know that um I opposed.

Um reason uh is um the road is small, uh car road, um traffic.

It's the only it's the only row for the condos.

Um to get in and out.

Uh one incident we got um there was a shooting, um, police ambulance, um, fire department came out, that whole car row was blocked.

No one can get in and out um for two hours.

Um even I cannot pull out of the uh the driveway.

Um I I would rather see if the city can help our small community.

Uh we don't park for the community.

Um, for trees, for for for the enjoyment of the public, rather than jammed um a bunch of people into that small little spaces and more people, more problems, more dogs poop.

Um I have to pick up dog spoop along that car road weekly.

Um five times a week.

Um people are very inconsiderate.

Um we have a very small community there at that corner, and um I I hope and then you know, like I said, I'm we're Buddhist temple.

Um we practice meditations.

Uh more people, more problems, more noise, more sounds, and more of everything.

I'd rather see um it's it's quiet.

Um if you guys can help us out, that would be great.

I mean, that's all I have right now.

Thank you.

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

And please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes to speak.

Okay, my name is Barbara.

I live in Sand Creek Commons.

I've lived there for uh over 20 years now.

And I would uh agree with Ty's comments.

There when you go off of airport road onto car road, it's literally about three short blocks and you hit Sand Creek.

It is the only exit for 187 condo units plus 20 or 30 homes.

It's already jammed up when you try to leave in the morning and get on to airport.

Unless there is an airport access, I am adamantly opposed to increasing uh what what's not considered in I listened to all the comments is the amount of traffic plus the number of people.

The fact that there are other R5 um to me is not any validation for creating yet another one in an area where we didn't sign up to live in a crowded downtown area, and adding adding multi-family units is very different from the current zoning.

And um also, yeah, so I mean, I feel like you're you would be boxing us in both with population and safety is a major issue getting in and out of in and out of car road onto airport, adding an additional up to potentially 50 units is just ridiculous in terms of the actual traffic flow and safety issues there, not to mention just the human component of having that open space.

There's a ranch right next to that and horses and and then that buttons up against to the creek.

So um I I encourage you to actually take the time and go look there if everybody could do that.

I I do not think it's a good idea to rezone this.

Thank you for your comments.

Please state your full name.

Yes, Barbara Overguard, O V E R G A A R D.

Thank you.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else online for speaking opposition?

Okay.

At this point, we'll ship back to the applicant for rebuttal and then we'll bring it up to for questions of the from the daisy.

Right.

Thank you.

I think uh we certainly hear and understand the um the comments of the neighbors.

Um ultimately, I think just based on the surrounding area, based on uh the classification of airport road being a principal arterial, the current zone R16 is not entirely compatible with um existing conditions out there.

And um I think another thing too is we with the rezone, we have to zoom out a little bit.

We're not at the stage of analyzing access points quite yet.

Um we don't know what the development impact will be.

We don't have a um any site sort of develop entitlement application quite yet.

So um there are some some what ifs that will ultimately be uh analyzed and uh further scrutinized as it goes through a future development application.

And uh I think nothing further unless you guys have any other questions for me.

Questions?

Well, I think um the reason that this application got polled, I think was because of some of those, maybe understanding a little bit more about um why R5 isn't compatible, and and also the what-ifs um, because I think it does open some what-ifs to the additional and adjacent areas, which are still currently or it seemingly will continue to be R15.

And I think that one of the questions in our in-for-was around that, like is there um, which I know you're only focused on this parcel, but is there any energy around rezoning for the others as far as your role um with this parcel?

I think those were some of the concerns that that came up in.

So, what I heard is uh what are some of the future development impacts of the development potential that R5 allows, and then also um is there anything I'm aware of in the surrounding area that would potentially increase intensity on those surrounding parcels.

That's fair.

Gotcha.

Um, so I think you know, and I kind of touched on it on my presentation.

I think the UDC does um have some of those protections from use to use uh neighboring uses that are maybe not um identical.

So uh there would be buffering requirements, opaque screening requirements.

Um there is also a public notice process during that point as well.

So um if there is something that um really does impact the quality of life of surrounding neighbors and um they will have another opportunity to comment on that and participate in the entitlement process and potentially inform the design.

But um I think kind of taking this as a step-by-step approach, we don't have a development application to present to you today or even in review.

So um I think it gives us an opportunity to take into account some of those concerns of the neighbors and um allow that to inform the future development that goes on on this parcel as well.

Um and as far as uh future development of surrounding parcels, I'm not aware of uh any movement on those kind of more non-conforming, larger rural style lots surrounding the property.

Um but uh as I kind of tried to show in my um my presentation as well, that uh redeveloping business and commercial park to the east, um, it does come up and kind of inch north and west with uh a very high intensity uh multifamily development uh north of some of those um lots kind of on the northern side of car.

Uh so while there's no immediate plan for uh those other properties that access off of car, there is um some redevelopment in the surrounding area.

And so, right, to that end, uh is there any awareness of if car or some other access road?

Because I I certainly appreciate the limitations of car road and if you can't access off of um airport road, even with a ride-in, right out, assuming um that does create some additional congestion.

So, but are you aware of any um connections or anything in the future?

And I know Todd Frisbee's in the back and he says no too.

No, I'm not aware.

Okay, okay.

Thanks.

I think those are my questions for the moment.

Okay, Commissioner Engel.

Commissioner Engel, my question deals with the construction that's going to the right that is affecting airport road.

Do you anticipate or would is there any anticipation of increased traffic on airport road that would further challenge the uh development of uh a housing intense area on the road itself?

Um not that wouldn't have been analyzed.

And I think if a development proposal does come forward on this site, um that will have to be analyzed a little bit more closely if they feel that additional 50 units would kind of tip the scale of that intersection or of airport road, then um it would have to be taken a closer look.

But um ultimately with that interchange being constructed, I think that's ultimately going to improve mobility in the surrounding area.

Um at this point, I'm not aware of um any issues with traffic.

And as additional development comes in on that commercial kind of parcel to the east, um, each development proposal will need to be analyzed for their traffic impacts as well.

So if there are any foreseen issues, then those will need to be addressed as development comes in.

My question has to do with uh why R5, according to the Unified Development Code, R5 district is at the highest density permitted in the city's residential unit districts.

It's intended for use in areas adjacent to form-based zone or R Flex mixed use or PEZ districts were similar or higher densities or intensities of use are permitted.

And for my reading, that this does not seem um aligned with that.

Can you explain why you chose R5 versus a less dense option?

Sure.

I mean, R5 is directly to the east of the site.

Um I think you've also got some more non-conforming um R16.

And so there's no plan to redevelop, and um there's no intent to uh you know materially change how those existing residents um exist on their own properties.

But um the with a two-acre site, the development intensity really is fairly limited.

So with R5 directly adjacent and the development um standards that are allowed in R5, we felt this was a natural transition of that existing zone district.

And then you've also got the again, as Chris kind of noted, um, within 500 feet to the west, you've got another R5 zone district as well, and really just those um kind of non-conforming single-family lots with direct access direct access from airport road in between.

So you are seeing a little bit more uniformity in that um zoning district along airport road.

The other areas are zoned R5, but the densities aren't anywhere near the density series.

As you pointed out, there isn't a development plan here, so we really had to plan for worst case or most dense case, which would be 25 dwelling units per acre versus the current nine.

Uh currently 35 feet height restriction uh R5 is 50 height.

So we're looking at a three-story building, 50 double dwelling units in a very small area.

So I'm struggling with uh criteria number four.

If the application demonstrates a size, scale, height, and density, multimodal traffic so proposed rezoning are compatible with surrounding development.

I'm not really seeing that.

Can you elaborate or explain your thought process there?

Um ultimately when the R5 zone districts um to the east and the west came in.

There were, I think it was a similar 50-foot height limitation, but there was no density cap.

But um those developers analyzed what was appropriate for the surrounding area, and and that was what was ultimately developed.

And so um I think that there is uh a maximum in place.

So that uh that does give an absolute end range, but even on these larger development sites where there's less constraints, you're not really seeing that maximum be hit very often.

Um so I think there's ultimately cost of construction that's going to potentially limit uh the type of intensity and then the other things I described as well.

They will likely need water quality.

There's no regional detention that they can uh provide.

They will need to provide parking for up to 50 units, which could be pretty challenging with a two-acre site.

So I think that 25 dwelling unit limit does seem high compared to the surrounding uses, but again, when those came in, they didn't have a maximum.

And that maximum gives some certainty to the neighborhood that it will not exceed 50 units, and ultimately could very well be less based on uh just the surrounding area and and what market uh calls for so we're going from 18 to 50.

And again, I think that that does have a significant impact.

Uh again, you know, I understand that developers, there's constraints and that sort of thing, so it may not be quite 50, maybe 45, but it seems to be that we picked the highest density permitted in the city's standard residential districts, that seems like um not quite sure why we went there.

And again, I understand your perspective, but you know, you sell the land or the developer sells the land to somebody else, you know, the uh use by right of the new developer is is 50.

I think it's also important to note that the existing zone district isn't very practical for development in this area.

We're not really seeing a lot of R16 development in the city.

Um, and so it is reasonable for uh the the owner of this site to see that um there's not a lot of potential for this vacant site in a redeveloping area.

So um they are just taking into consideration surrounding area and um and planning for the future of their site.

Chris, did you have a comment?

Uh Chris Sullivan, senior planner land use review team.

Um I think you gotta take a look at the broader area a little bit on this one.

Um looking at the other R5 zone districts that are there.

Um they weren't originally R5, they went into R5, and that's uh where we're seeing the higher densities come in on the north side of car, uh, which is this this is simply doing the same thing.

Uh granted that the uh they may or not may or may not be doing a detached or an attached type of development.

It may be an apartment style, it is within the parameters of the R5, which these other projects could have done.

I would also note that just a little further northeast of this site.

Um there isn't another big multifamily development that's proposed over there as well as that commercial that's closer to uh powers, uh, which traffic was already evaluated with that uh going in place.

Um so I I think you got to take that into consideration when looking at this site as well.

Um I think that's all I got.

It's kind of all came out.

Well, from your perspective again, it says, you know, in the development code, this is intended for use in areas adjacent to form-based uh form-based zone, R flex mixed use, PDZ districts were uh similar or higher densities or intensities of you permitted.

I understand other other adjacent properties are R5, but the from your own map that you uh the applicant displayed the densities that are currently there aren't anywhere close to 25.

I think the highest one was like 15 or 16.

Which they they could have gone denser based on the old code at that time.

Uh but I think you gotta take into kind of what Ann was saying that the UDC does kind of account for uh I guess those parameters.

Uh you've got landscape code that takes into consideration active passive green screen green space with the development.

They would be required to add in 15% active passive green space.

They would have buffer requirements along sides that are incompatible uses to create that uh transition for existing uses on the north and east side and the temple to the west.

Um you also got to consider that they they still gotta meet parking standards, those dimensional standards, those aesthetic requirements that all kind of encapsulate what the use will be in the end.

Right, I understand that.

But when we trivia approved the zoning, the development plan, then it would be developed administratively most likely for those issues, correct?

That would be uh correct.

Okay, thank you.

But we could uh also add conditions if there's things out there that you know are sitting well with you.

Uh question for the applicant.

You're saying that our R16 R15 is inappropriate for the area, but this map seems to think show that it is appropriate.

So can you speak to that?

I think uh uh a fair bit of that.

I don't have the uh timing of development perfectly on top the top of my head, but I do think a lot of that came in before Airport Road was widened into this principal arterial condition.

And ultimately before South Powers started to see as much traffic as it has in this area.

Um this is a growing area of Colorado Springs.

A lot more industries placing themselves out here, and um there's just uh there's some change.

And ultimately, this is a a relatively small kind of infill project that will ultimately have limited um kind of impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

But really, that R16 did come in long before Airport Road was what it is today.

Okay, but it still is R16, and so it comes down to the question of compatibility with the surrounding development.

So from there.

Well, maybe more of a comment than a question, but maybe there'll be a question in here.

I'm I'm struggling with the lack of um development plan and plan for the site, and that the decisions that we make to change zoning um for this individual site without having um more understanding of the future use and impacts is I think where I'm struggling.

In general, I don't, I'm not opposed to the R5 designation.

I think it it does show some maybe connecting those other two R5s again with maybe the um the individual properties that are nearby that seem um quite disparate now compared to the other development around, which prior probably that was very similar to have large lots and and singular homes.

Um but I'm just I'm struggling with not having um some insight or future understanding of the future of the property.

And that's giving me pause because I think a lot of times we will see those um issues connected.

We'll see a zone change in a land use plan or a development plan.

Um and so now we're assuming that appropriate decisions will be made later and so forth.

So that's kind of my struggle.

I don't know if there necessarily is a question in there, but that's um it's kind of what I'm struggling with.

But sure.

Um I think I can respond to that.

Uh ultimately the land use statement was introduced with the UDC.

It was intended for these smaller projects where development intensity can be reasonably anticipated.

Um I understand maybe we're feeling like the 25 dwelling units per acre is a little bit high for this site.

Um, but as I previously noted, we're we're kind of taking it step by step.

We want to understand the feedback, the concerns um, and uh kind of have that inform the next step.

Um I think ultimately two, not to beat a dead horse here, but um the UDC does have these protections built in.

And there are other development standards that we have to consider.

Um the larger site in this MXN zone, uh north of the the mobile home park in the PDZ.

That is a um uh gosh, probably 30, maybe 2530 acre site.

Um, so plenty of room to add all of the features you could want and potentially maximize on uh that that highest end of the density, um, which there is no maximum in MXM.

But even there, they're only hitting around 16 dwelling units per acre.

Um I think it is realistic to consider the site constraints, the additional features the development will ultimately end up needing to provide.

And it is probably reasonable to assume we wouldn't be hitting that absolute maximum, 25 dwelling units per acre.

So um while there are still what ifs, it would be an administrative review from this point forward.

Um the the maximum development impact can be reasonably anticipated with these smaller lots, and that's why that land use statement was introduced with the UDC.

Thank you.

Uh any further questions before we move to motion.

Well, I I do appreciate the uh the applicant's information.

I am not in support of the application at this point for the reasons stated.

I do not believe it meets the criteria uh number four in terms of the height density and compatibility with the surrounding development.

Commissioners.

Commissioner Engel.

I also uh have reservations with the um proposed change because it is there's too many unknowns in the future of what might happen.

And I think that could end up either orphaning other properties nearby or creating traffic problems, particularly with traffic that's gonna change because of uh other development and just too many unknowns from my point of view to go forward.

I will be in favor uh as it meets adjacent property zonings and also it's subject to development plans in the future that have other criteria.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Commissioner Clements.

If someone wants to make a motion that we can move forward.

Could you put the the two proposed motions back up on the screen?

Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Engle, I propose a motion to deny, and the motion would read recommend denial to the city council the zone change 2.17 acres from R16 airport overlay to R5 airport overlay with high airport based upon multifamily with high airport overlay based upon the findings that the request does not fully comply with the criteria for zoning map amendment as said forward in the city unified development code section 7.5.7 it's a motion passes with three votes in favors and commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Case in opposition.

All right, thank you to the applicant to the members of the public that uh provide public comment today.

At this point, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, the Colorado Springs Recovery Center.

No, I believe there's no appeal on that one, right?

That's correct.

Yeah.

Right.

Uh so at this point, if you could go ahead and read uh Colorado Springs Recovery Center into the record.

Item A B, D E PN 25-0083.

The Colorado Springs Recovery Center Development Plan Major Modification establishing a human service establishment large, consisting of 3.11 acres located at 1155 Ayro Plaza Drive.

Good morning.

Sorry, good morning, everybody.

My name is Austin Cooper, senior planner with the City of Colorado Springs Planning Department.

Uh and as mentioned today, we'll be talking about a proposal for the Colorado Springs Recovery Center.

The mic.

Oh, all right.

Uh next slide.

So the site is located at site is located at 8155 Aero Plaza Drive on the intersection of AeroTech Drive and Aeroplaza Drive, just southeast of the East Fountain Boulevard and South Powers Boulevard intersection.

The site is 3.11 acres, and the proposed use is human service establishment large, uh, more specifically a drug and alcohol treatment facility, um, which is permitted by rate within the zoning uh of MXM or mixed use medium scale with the airport overlay.

And the application before you is a development plan major modification.

The initial submittal was made in June 18th of 2025.

There have been three review cycles, and the items were ready for agenda in October for the November Planning Commission.

Public notice there were three public notice occurrences.

First during the initial review of the application, uh second prior to the neighborhood meeting that was held on August 25th of 2025, and then again prior to the planning commission.

Uh the postcards were mailed at a radius of a thousand feet of this property boundary.

Uh 148 postcards were mailed out on those three occasions, and 42 total comments were received prior to the planning commission meeting.

We did receive one additional comment that is before you uh as a handout in opposition of the request received on Monday afternoon.

Comments were centered mostly around the safety of the residents, proximity to nearby schools and panorama park and the compliance with the most recent draft of the Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan.

During the agency review we did not receive a whole ton of comments mainly because there are no proposed changes to the building or the site layout apart from landscaping comments that were required as part of the major modification.

They had to come into compliance with the new landscape standards set forth in the UDC and all those comments have been addressed throughout the review.

We did attempt to get a representative from CSPD here for this meeting but we're unable to uh in lieu of their attendance I did provide a study that was completed through the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs in 2016 uh in Baltimore which concluded that the mean count of violent crime around drug and alcohol treatment facilities are significantly lower than the counts around liquor stores and corner stores corner stores being similar to bodega styles and then um the use was comparable to the number of violent crimes uh found around convenience stores plan COS compliance uh we found that generally the application did comply with the standards and suggestions set forth in plan COS mainly the renowned culture section strategy RC5.A3 to support plan for facility that proactively and holistically addresses mental health needs of our community and that are reasonably and appropriately integrated with the surrounding land uses here the application review criteria for a development plan major modification uh after evaluation of the development plan major modification uh staff felt that the application met the review criteria uh here are your optional motions today this will be a final action on the application it will not go forward to city council unless appealed so you have uh an option to approve or deny or modify the application in front of you today I'm here for any questions the applicant also has a presentation and can be available for any questions as well okay we can go ahead and move to the applicant thank you morning Chair Casey members of the uh planning commission I appreciate you uh giving us the opportunity to present our uh our project today um I'm here joined by Anthony Angerillo who is the regional executive director of this project he's responsible for the um program development compliance safety of the of the project also um Robert uh Robert Wolf who is responsible for the construction management side of our of our project um so we're here today to respectfully request the change of use uh to 1855 Aero Plaza from your commercial hotel motel to your human service large more drug and alcohol treatment center um again located 1855 um you know this button here technology all right perfect uh so some basic facts which mr mr ult first and foremost let me thank uh Mr.

Austin and the rest of the the individuals that that helped us through this process uh their diligence thoroughness uh and and being fair and impartial went a long way and we were not easy to work with I know that uh we spent uh a lot of time a lot of resources into this project we asked a lot of questions and they have been excellent uh through this process so I do I do want to thank uh the department heads as well as as as Austin Cooper um so Austin went over some of the information about the property 1855 Aero Plaza uh 3.1 acres changing it over from uh hotel motel to a human service establishment at large the property is is roughly 73,500 square feet four floors elevation obviously not changing because uh it is an existing property four floors and we're we're gonna go over a little bit the I want to give you as much information about obviously the programming and the proposed use um Anthony is gonna go over a lot of the safety however um I want to give you as much information as possible um to alleviate any questions or any concerns or any trepidation that you have uh so the four floors the four the first floor will be more of of admin space uh if you guys are familiar with the property it has a an attached dining room as well as kitchen um so that'll be used for for uh for food kitchen and uh culinary large lobby uh and then on the left hand side walking in you have a large conference room area which is going to be used for activity multipurpose areas um and then on the far left hand corner uh you have a pool which we'll discuss uh momentarily the second third fourth floor will be used for uh resident rooms as well as clinical offices uh lounges community rooms and fitness centers on each um a lot of time has gone into the development of this project with safety um throughout the entire uh throughout the entire proposal uh

A lot of time has gone into the development of this project with safety throughout the entire throughout the entire proposal.

Each floor has clinical offices, staffed, which Anthony's gonna go over, so I don't want to steal his thunder.

But you'll you'll you'll see that we we're gonna demonstrate the safety and the staffing required for this project.

A little bit about the organization, just so you guys understand it.

Um also Anthony's gonna go over the uh the job development that we're gonna have in the increased jobs to the area, uh, but I want to give you an idea of how it works.

Um I oversee, and then the CEO of Aspen BHC, Aspen BHC is the parent company of what will be Colorado Springs Recovery Center.

Uh we are a national, smaller national brand.

Uh we have currently three facilities that are accredited by joint commission or CARF.

Um we are regulated by SAMSHA DEA, the state regulatory bodies.

Um we have Virginia, Indiana, Massachusetts, um, and we provide the infrastructure resources and management to what will be Anthony.

So if you see at the top of this here presentation, organizational chart, you have Anthony, and then it drops down to his his management team, clinical director, medical director, HR, director of operations, director of outreach, director of nursing, and then from there they have their subordinates and direct reports.

Um as we census would increase our our our staffing would increase, but we are going to be generating a lot of jobs within this area.

Uh I I think we understand the definition of human service establishment large, but for maybe for the community um or for the the attendees as well as you guys, where we fall, we obviously fit is um is the drug and alcohol treatment center side of it.

Uh so residential dwelling or facility where persons are living together, staff, single housekeeping, providing care, supervision, and treatment for the use of citizens, whose right to live together is protected provision of the Federal Fairhouse Act amendments of 1988.

So if there's questions about that, definitely more than happy to answer that.

The reason that we went with large is because it's more than 16 uh 16 residents.

So that's why we have that sub definition of large.

So there are outside of the criteria that I know that we were gonna discuss today.

There's also criteria for human services establishment within this district.

Um as Austin demonstrated through the review and the diligence that we put into this, um, it's been determined that we meet the criteria for human service establishment at large.

Uh, there was a few of the separation requirements.

There's no other um detoxification or group living within a thousand feet.

Um, no assisted living, so not applicable.

Um we were we uh we provided our um our development plan, obviously, which is in front of you guys today to the uh planning department.

Permit requirements are applicable.

Um so then they we have the review criteria.

Uh the first four uh took a little bit of time.

Took a little bit of time.

Uh, Mr.

Greg Station was very diligent.

Um we have come up with a good plan that uh we'll put in front of you guys today and and go over if if need be.

Um it is a $350,000 investment uh to the irrigation, to the fencing, to the shrubbery, to the greenery, to the active space, and we're gonna be doing a lot of work too uh to this area.

Um we're we're very pleased with with the outcome and the proposed uh the proposal that we have.

Uh the physical alterations in exeria, nothing's changing um to the actual physical structure of the building, as we said, but the landscaping uh and any signage, uh keeping it with in within the character of the neighborhood, um, we're absolutely gonna do that.

In fact, I am confident that we are going to be one of the nicest curb-apiel businesses in the area.

Uh, we take we take a lot of pride in our buildings in our property.

Um, and we want to keep a safe therapeutic environment for our staff as well as our clients.

The signage, if any, will be tasteful at a minimum.

We don't want to put it on a bulletin board.

There's no need for it.

But as far as the therapeutic welcoming environment, it will be there.

It will be present.

And I think the community will be pleased with us being there.

And then lastly, the security of the establishment itself, adjoining properties in the neighborhood in general.

Anthony's gonna go a lot over that a lot.

However, when I'm done with my presentation, I'm gonna give you guys a little bit of information about myself and in my background, which will really speak to the safety and compliance of the uh the type of business I run.

Uh this is your this is your uh your landscaping uh plan, just for reference here.

Uh as you can see on the west side, the fences starting all the way going to the kind of southeast side of the building that wraps around.

Uh, we've had conversations with uh Colorado Springs Police Department.

We're gonna continue those conversations to see if there's anything else that they would like us to do, and we're more than happy and accommodating to do that, which is the reason why Mr.

Robert Wolf is here for any recommendations.

You can see the active green space that we've created.

Um there's also plenty of room now.

We can't use anything in the detention pond, but it's still it's it's it's space.

Um there's a wraparound porch, there's areas outside for seating.

This is a prime outdoor location for our use.

Um if there's any questions after it, more than happy to answer that.

Now, the next couple of slides is just a demonstration of what the inside's gonna look like.

There's really no changes.

This is a perfect compatible use for for us.

Uh but the downstairs you can see on the if we look at to the right side, you get your dining room, your uh your kitchens, and then moving right to left, plus you.

Uh right to left, you have your lobby.

Do some slight modifications, uh, nothing structurally.

We'll go through the town for any permits that are needed.

Um, but we just want to make it a little bit more private.

You have your administrator offices, your your employee lounges, and then moving towards the left.

You have five large activity spaces that are used for community and activity multi-purpose rooms to the left.

The rooms that were downstairs uh on the bottom left-hand corner will be converted over to uh to offices rather than rooms.

And then you have the pool, be a big bolt on that.

Nobody's going into that until we figure out our our final plans, um, which would essentially for right now.

Uh the idea is that will be where our outpatient program is with complete separation from the residential.

Uh, and then upstairs, the the second, third, and fourth floor, pretty much cookie cutter, guys.

Um, happy to answer any questions, but there's a mix of of lounges, fitness centers, offices, bedrooms, singles, doubles, handicaps.

Um, it's it's all there, and we've created a uh a key and a room schedule for you to review as well, should should you need to.

Some of those site modifications, uh, the exterior.

Sorry, uh we went over the landscaping and irrigation compliant with UDC 7.4.9, uh, fence installation compliant with 7.4.9, parking modifications as a part of the landscaping plan, uh, compliant with 7.4.10.

Um lights, this is the fun project.

Lights based on the submitted plans, uh, compliant with 7.4.12.

Um, so with the full uh full plan and full survey that we completed, we'll be making sure that's that's in compliance.

Uh we met with Swent and the city engineer to go over existing curb gutter sidewalks, ramps, cross pins, and drive aprons uh prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy.

We will make sure that those are all in full compliance and signed off by the city.

Uh installation of security cameras, which Mr.

Anthony will go over, uh low profile signage, if any, which we'll talk to the city about, make sure that it's in compliance, and then the outdoor activity and recreational areas, which are uh labeled on the uh landscaping plan.

Interior, um, all of there was there were some there were some comments uh during the meeting about the the maintenance of the property and the neglect and that's that's on them, but however, I just want to make sure that you guys are aware of um all major utilities and systems and MEPs will be replaced prior to occupying the property.

Um flood damages, there was a recent flood, that will be brought back to the current operator standards.

Uh, we're gonna replace all flooring to a more suitable system for our use.

Uh, we're gonna replace all door hardware with a master key system, which will be in communication with the fire department as well as the police department to make sure that they have a master key and that there's a knockbox and again safety.

Fully installed security system and delayed egress doors, repurposing in the dining room to remove the bar top and beverage equipment.

I don't know if that's really compatible with our use.

So we're going to make sure that that's taken care of which Mr.

Rob Wolf could answer any questions about that, should you have questions.

And then we're going to replace that with a hot and cold food serving line.

Remodel the lobby to ensure privacy.

Pretty straightforward.

Painting as needed.

I love wallpaper, big fan of it.

Interior branding, signage artwork, posting decals, which is going to be in line with the Southeast Colorado strong plan and Colorado Culture, which we're able to align our brand style guide with the uh with the culture of the local area, uh, which we do at all of our other facilities as well.

And then the pool conversion area late 2026, which was discussed with the city when the time comes.

Uh, I want to make sure that everybody here knows that we did contract, uh, good did contact several local Southeast Colorado Springs contractors.

Uh they had the opportunity to bid on the project, and we're reviewing all bids, and we will be we will be favoring local contractors for for all jobs.

These are the major modification standards.

Um, as again, Austin went through and you have in front of you.

We meet compliance on all of them.

Um the one that we definitely want to talk about more is the does not create more adverse impact on surrounding properties, then the development approval and process proposed to be modified.

So I'm gonna read this just so to make sure that um individuals uh joining us online as well as in the uh in attending here know where we are with this.

This criterion is the central focus of our presentation discussion.

I want to emphasize to the commission and to the members of the community that Colorado Springs recovery does not create any adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

In fact, we firmly believe that a proposed use will have fewer impacts and far more long-term benefits than the existing hotel use currently permitted on the site.

Through an extensive review process, all relevant city departments have confirmed that our project meets operational safety and design standards.

The proposed use introduced professional oversight, structured operations, and continuous supervision, thereby reducing transient activity traffic and traffic impacts commonly associated with hotel hotel use.

Moreover, the project directly supports the vision and guiding principles of the Southeast Strong Plan by promoting responsible redevelopment, expanding access to services, creating sustainable employment and opportunities, and contributing to a safety, healthier community environment.

Throughout this presentation, we'll focus on the point to clarify that this project does not only avoid risk to the community, but also actively enhances community stability and safety alignment with the city's long-term strategic goals.

Um, and I think you guys will will find that we we take great pride in exactly that.

Um quick timelines, uh, which I think you guys have known.

We started this, we started looking at the property in February 2025, executed an LOI in March, began discussing with Austin and Drew Fox in March.

Uh initiated development plans uh in accordance with the UDC's began outreach with community department, the partners, local agencies, and journalists following the pre-application meeting.

Um June, we hired Mr.

Anthony, uh, who's been focused on community engagement and facility planning.

We received public comments, we held community and neighborhood meeting.

I submitted a consolidated response that went out to all of the the commenters.

However, I also took the time to write an individual an individual response to each each letter.

Um I received some not so nice responses, but I understand it's emotional.

Um, but that's where we're at.

We responded to each one the best that we could.

A lot of the documents were petition-like, a majority of them are petition-like uh document that they signed.

Um, but we still took the time out to respond to them and learn about the community to make sure that we respond properly.

Um before I introduce Mr.

Anthony here to take over the remainder of the presentation.

Um, I would just like to quickly um note that I've been I've been in this industry for 15 years, 10 of those years at an executive level uh leadership position.

Not once have I had one community complaint about a patient who broke the law or committed a crime.

Never broke into a house, never stole a car, never went after the kids, sexually assaulted the kids or or battered an elderly, never happened.

Um I've operated next to schools, I've operated next to parks.

I've I've operated next to daycares, uh actually the largest in New Hampshire, um, in Rochester, New Hampshire.

Um, if there are concerns, we take care of them promptly.

Uh we handle it, we come up with a plan through QA and MPI processes, but if safety is the concern, I'm here to tell you it shouldn't be.

It just shouldn't be.

Um I take pride in what I do, and it's everything, everything is built around safety and competence and compassion.

So with that, I'm gonna give you anything.

All right.

Sorry.

Uh good morning, once again, City Planning Commission Chair Casey and the rest of the planning commission.

Excuse me, sir.

Would you mind backing up from the mic just a little bit?

Sure.

Thank you so much.

Absolutely, thank you.

Uh, I'd like to start by reviewing how our program and facility will support both the Colorado Springs Plan COS and the Southeast Strong Initiative.

Uh, we are in alignment with Plan COS in support of a thriving economy within goal TE1, parts of the plan that our facility will support, include helping to build thriving economy and grow medium and high-wage jobs, foster growth and retention of jobs, uh offering wages higher than the county average.

Uh we are a project that will meet the need of the workforce in business development, targeted towards lower income and other populations and areas with limited access to jobs and business opportunities.

We will revitalize an underutilized urban space, uh, which is in the location at Aerospace Drive or Aero Plaza Drive.

In addition, tax revenues uh generated by our facility will help fund uh upgrading infrastructure, uh, maintain parks, neighborhoods, uh, and community facilities.

How our facility is in alignment with the Southeast Strong Initiative.

Uh, some of the areas that our organization is uh supports within the plan include providing opportunities for all residents to thrive by providing much needed mental health and addictions treatment services, enhancing health and wellness by expanding access to mental health resources, a well-being goal H5, which calls for uh expanded access to affordable health care, including Medicaid accepted clinics, uh addressing mental health concerns, and promote self-care and essentials as essential services.

Uh, our program directly fulfills these goals uh by providing accessible Medicaid, contracted behavioral health and recovery services in Southeast Colorado Springs.

Uh preserve and grow jobs goal four, E4, goal E4, which calls for creating new job opportunities that can benefit the neighborhood residents and regional economy.

Our facility will create some 75 to 100 new jobs.

Uh in addition to uh the clinical team, management, and administrative staff will be hiring for housekeeping, maintenance, food service, landscaping, behavior health techs, peer support specialists, and drivers.

Uh supporting education.

We will be providing educational opportunities for individuals in the community.

Uh we will be setting up internship programs with local educational institutions in support of individuals wanting to expand their education and employment opportunities.

Support of local nonprofits.

Our philosophy is to help support the nonprofits in the community that we serve uh that serve the underserved and needy populations.

In Southeast Colorado Springs, this support will come in the form of volunteer work, uh collaboration with nonprofits, and financial contributions.

Since my arrival uh as a new resident of Southeast Colorado Springs, I have had the opportunity to reach out to residents and community partners, and have had conversations with them about how we can collaborate to best serve the Southeast Colorado Springs community and Colorado as Springs as a whole.

Some of the community partners and individuals uh I have talked with uh include RISE Southeast, Men of Influence, Hard Beauty Peer Recovery, Colorado Springs Homeless Union, uh Amy Cox, the Colorado Springs Chief Housing and Homeless Officer, the Place Housing Stability Organization, Restore, which is a DOC integration program, the Hot Team with CSPD, uh Big Table, which is a restaurant and hospitality industry advocate for those struggling with addictions and mental health issues, uh Hope COS and Serenity Recovery Connections, just to name a few.

Some of the community activities I have been involved in since my arrival and attended are the Colorado Springs Vendor Fair, RISE Southeast Coalition Meeting, 2025 SoCal Recovery Rally, RISE Southeast Community Parks Cleanup Events, Panorama Park, Labor Day Community Outreach Event, Street Art in the K fundraiser, RISE Southeast Community Walks, Colorado Springs School D11 Candidate Forum, Advancing Practice Centering Survivor Conference, which was put on by RISE Southeast and the United Way, Fiesta Spazias, and a number of Colorado Springs City Council and City Planning meetings.

My continued outreach and engagement has helped me to see how we can best support the Southeast Colorado Springs community and Colorado Springs as a whole.

I attended a number of city council and city planning meetings to get a good idea of how these organizations operate to support the needs of the community and function with fairness and equity.

When we had our Southeast Colorado Springs community meeting in August, we were able to address some misinformation and a misunderstanding about who we are and what we'll be doing.

And from the meeting, we developed an FAQ form, and I have been continue to distribute that information throughout the community.

Some of the questions were what kind of facility will we be?

That's already been reviewed by Chris here, Human Services Establishment Elarge.

What kind of programs?

All right, thanks.

What kind of programs will be offered at our facility?

So levels of care as outlined by the ASAM, which is the American Society of Addictions Medicine, will be having ASM level 3.1, which is clinically managed, low intensity residential.

We'll have approximately 86 beds for that.

A mental health transitional living levels one and two will have about 44 beds for that.

This low intensity residential services will range from three to six months depending on the individual, but maybe longer depending on the needs of each client.

In late 2026, we anticipate adding outpatient services, which will include 2.5 partial hospitalization outpatient, 2.1 intensive outpatient, and outpatient services.

What measures will be in place to provide safety for the local residents, clients, staff, and businesses in the community.

Safety is always a top priority in all of the facilities that we run.

We are also held to a very high standard for safety from organizations such as Colorado's Behavioral Health Administration, Medicaid and CARF, which is the Commission of Accreditation for Rehabilitation Facilities.

Our program will be staffed 24-7 with a high staff to client ratio.

All employees, regardless of their experience, will be required to go through a robust orientation process, which includes several safety trainings.

In addition, Officer Mathis, who is the Crime Prevention Officer for the Sand Creek Division of the CSPD, has said his team would be happy to do additional trainings for our staff around safety if needed.

There will be a thorough screening and assessment process for the clients admitting to our program.

All potential clients are entered into a public records database, and we will not admit anyone who is a registered sex offender or that has a violent criminal background.

The facility will have a delayed exit alarm system to manage anyone that might be thinking of leaving treatment.

The door exits will be delayed by approximately 15 to 20 seconds and an alarm sound.

This will give our staff the opportunity to redirect clients in if client uh chooses to leave, then we will provide safe transportation to their desired location.

We will have security cameras to monitor for safety, both within and outside the facility.

We'll have a perimeter uh safety fence.

We will hire uh security personnel as needed to help monitor the perimeter, and we will have ongoing collaboration with the community, local law enforcement, and other external stakeholders.

Umfficer Mathis also said that his department does welfare checks for all the time for facilities in Southeast Colorado Springs, and their department has no issues with doing them for us in the event uh one is needed for one of our clients.

Um the clients that are uh admitted to our program uh have already been in treatment for some 30 to 45 days, so they're stabilized prior to admitting to our program.

Um we will be providing services uh to any anyone struggling with the disease of addiction, primarily serving the Medicaid community.

Uh we are not a homeless shelter.

Uh we are a treatment center.

Um but if individuals are struggling with addictions and mental health challenges uh and are also displaced and homeless, they will be eligible for our program.

We will primarily be serving the residents of Southeast Colorado Springs that are in need of our services and have Medicaid coverage and from our research that appears to be about 50 of the percent of the residents in the Southeast Colorado Springs community.

Um what does research show about areas that have similar treatment centers as ours?

Um vicinity of schools and parks.

There are facilities like ours located in your schools and parks in Colorado, Springs and throughout Colorado that operate safely without any incidents involving children or adults that reside in the area.

Umce the facility is up and running, how will the community stay informed about operations?

We will have monthly community meetings.

Uh and anyone can attend those to give us feedback or ask questions.

Uh in addition, I am a resident of Southeast Colorado Springs, and I live five minutes from the facility.

So my phone number and email will be available to everyone in the community, and anyone can contact me at any time about any questions or concerns.

He recounted a story of an interaction he had with a resident of Colorado Springs shortly after a presentation last year.

He recalled that after the event uh where he spoke about the opioid crisis and what he would be doing to support the expansion of addictions and mental health treatment facilities in Colorado Springs and Colorado as a whole.

A man that was there uh with his son approached him and told him the story of how his wife, who was a successful professional with a good career, who was a good wife and mother, uh, who had been injured in an accident and was prescribed opiates for pain.

This led to her becoming addicted.

When she could no longer get the medication legally, she got it illegally.

This led to her losing.

Was that it?

Done?

Can I conclude?

Okay, just a little bit more.

Uh this led to her becoming addicted.

When she could no longer get the medication legally, she got it illegally.

This led to her losing her career, family, and ending up homeless, shooting heroin on the streets of Colorado Springs.

She ended up overdosing and dying on the streets, homeless and alone.

And soon after this, uh, he also lost his eldest son to an overdose.

So Phil Weiser then closed with stating what a grave need there is for the expansion of addictions and mental health services to fight the opioid crisis, addictions and mental health issues in Colorado Springs, and the whole of Colorado, and his commitment to support the expansion of these services.

We agree with Colorado State Attorney General, and we are here to help with that commitment here in Colorado Springs.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for your presentation.

Uh at this point, I know we have uh a lot of public comment for this item, so we're gonna go ahead and take a short break to uh 1045, and then we'll come back for public comments.

Comment I did uh want to have Mr.

Trevor Gloss from the city's attorney office, he's gonna speak about the Fair Housing Act, and then from there we'll go to public comment.

Mr.

Gloss.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Trevor Glass, City City Attorney's Office.

Um, just want to go through the law real quick on this matter and related matters.

Uh the Fair Housing Act is a federal law, and there's actually a Colorado counterpoint, the Colorado Fair Housing Act that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of a disability.

Uh disability in this case includes addiction.

It has been determined by law that addiction is a disability.

So really that means that you cannot use the nature of this place as a uh addiction treatment facility uh to determine uh the basics of your criteria and things like that.

It has to be related to um normal residential uh criteria that you would look at, such as if this were normally a well, if this were a regular hotel or if this were an apartment building, you have to treat it in a similar way, and you cannot consider the uh nature of the facility really or who it's serving.

Just wanted to reiterate that.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

And at this point, we'll go ahead and move to public comment.

Would you like to start with support?

Yes, uh, yeah, I'm sorry, public comment in support.

If there's any public comment in support of the application, okay.

We do have several members in support.

The first one is Derek.

If you could please come up to the front and introduce yourself, and then you'll have three minutes to speak.

Sorry, I'm a little out of breath.

Um again, my name is Derek Villagrana.

Um I'm proud to stand before you here today, not just as a peer coach, but as someone who has lived on both sides of recovery.

I have three and a half years in recovery.

I can honestly say that my life today is something I never thought possible.

Um there's a time when I was one of those people that were trying to reach uh the ones lost in cycle of substance use, anger, depression, and survival.

I caused pain, not just to myself, but to the community around me.

But with help, patience, and support, I found a way out.

And now I've made my mission to help other people too.

Um, that's why having a recovery center right here in Southeast Springs is so important.

This part of our city has been hit hard by substance abuse, mental health struggles, and lack of accessible resources.

Too many people want help, but don't know where to turn.

Too many families are suffering in silence.

A recovery center offers more than treatment.

It offers hope, structure, and a second chance.

When people have a safe space to heal and rebuild, they start to believe in themselves again.

And when individuals heal, our neighborhoods heal too.

I'm leaving proof that recovery is possible.

I went from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

Every day I get to help others take that first step towards change, and that same step saved my life.

So let's come together and support this recovery center, not just as a building, but as a beacon of hope in the Southeast Colorado Springs area.

Let's invest in healing, second chances, and the belief that no one is too far gone to change.

Thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Robert Struckis.

Sorry.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Robert Struckis.

I am a CPFS, QBHA, as well as a man in long-term substance use disorder recovery.

I believe that the need for this facility, especially in this part of town, will be immensely great to the community that I do serve daily.

I also live in this part of the community, and I see the damage that the substance use disorder problem is having in this part of the community.

And I believe that facilities like this don't attract much of the negative as much as it does to attract more of the positive when it comes to the building of this community and the substance use disorder affected people.

I'm also a man who has been affected by the criminal justice system.

I'm also a man who has frequented this hotel when it was a hotel for nefarious and illegal activities.

So I believe that what it will be converted to will serve a way better purpose to the community than what it used to be.

Thank you very much.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Sakaraya Garcia.

Hello, thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Zachary Garcia.

I work with Hope COS and um Hope COS.

I've been with them for about a year.

We started off working with uh I started off working with the people suffering through homelessness doing the warming shelters.

And um I uh I'm actually CPFS also, Colorado Pure Family Specialist and QBHA qualified behavioral health assistant.

And we're working on um trying to get some life skills going with within Hope COS, you know, not only to uh for the continuum of care.

And I feel like um that's what's missing in the in this aspect for people struggling through addiction and homelessness and these sorts of things is the these types of facilities.

And I think these types of facilities are um very necessary to like give people an opportunity, you know, a chance, you know, because I I just got out of prison 21 months ago, you know, and I felt like I was part of the redemption project.

I was um in a facility like this, a sober living, and people gave me an opportunity.

They gave me a chance, and I um was able to utilize that, you know, to uh do something different with my life.

And I think a lot of times people that are suffering through addictions or whatever homelessness, you know, I feel that's the thing that they're missing is that opportunity, that chance, you know, someplace where they could lay their heads, some place where they could lay their stuff, somewhere place where they can have some place to shower, someone to talk to, some kind of services that can help them get to that next step, you know.

And I think that's what's missing the gap in our community.

And I think by being able to offer that to people who um just want that chance, you know.

I and I think what's going on here with this um recovery center, you know.

I think it's uh it uh give that to people, you know, and uh people who being in the recovery organizations and the communities, you know, we're out here trying to get these people with that opportunity, you know, because sometimes that's all even if it only helps one person, you know.

I I feel like it's worth it in that aspect, you know, because um I was able to change my life going through these types of organizations and you know, these types of mental health services and addiction recovery services, and you know, and there's a lot of us in here that want to give the same back, you know, to the people that just need that one chance, that one opportunity, and I thank you for hearing me out today.

Thank you.

Next is Mitchell Newman.

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

Morning, folks, how are we doing today?

Uh my name is Mitch, um, and I'm an addict.

Uh, I'm a recovering addict, but an addict nonetheless.

Um, what does addict mean?

Um, why does that word feel so sharp?

Uh, why does it come with such a stigma surrounding it?

And that's really what I want to focus on today in this few short minutes talking to you.

Um, watching the news piece that was presented um a few weeks ago.

It seemed like a lot of uh a lot of that was centered around um the surrounding community's concern um for our mission and what we want to do here.

Um, and and not a lot of the piece was surrounding really what the mission is and what we want to do.

Um, and so I want to ask you firstly uh again, what is an addict?

Um, but this time I want you to remove the negative things that you associate with addiction from your answer.

Uh I won't answer the question personally out loud uh because everybody's different uh and everybody's definition is in fact correct.

Um but what I want you to focus on instead is how much stigma and negativity that word is drenched in.

Do you see how many layers I have to pull back and how many times I have to say it just to get you to define addiction in your head without any sort of negativity?

It's not easy.

This in and of itself is a massive part of our mission.

We're dedicated to not only helping people get better, but removing the stigma around needing and receiving the help that it takes to get better.

We want to build a uh these folks want to build a treatment center uh that people are proud to say that they're going to, free from stigma, free from judgment, free from all of the things that put you in the box to become susceptible to addiction in the first place.

Um if you watch the initial news coverage again, uh you'll know that a majority of this coverage was focusing on the neighborhood surrounding the proposed treatment center and their objection to it.

The main concern being an uptick in crime because of the community's preconceived notions of what the typical addict looks like and does.

This is a direct association between addicts and criminals that is harmful to not only our community and the work that we're doing here as recovery professionals, uh, but also as uh to our very sobriety as well.

The fact that the matter is a solid amount of crime committed uh is committed to support addiction.

And if we commit to creating a place where we are truly helping people and not just housing them, not just court mandated stays, but people walking in on their own two feet under their own free will, seeking help, everyone will benefit.

We can create community cleanup programs, food drives, pantries, and other massive community resources run by both staff and patients.

Um, lots of other visions and things going on here.

If and when this is done correctly, we envision to increase the safety of the neighborhood with the proposal of this project.

We come to you with open arms asking you to please treat us as normal people who were able to get better because we are, and we want to help other normal people get better as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Tommy Collin.

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

Hi, my name is Tommy Cochlin.

I'm with the ownership group of the Holiday in Express, located directly adjacent to the Holiday Inn.

Um, I am here to speak in support of this.

There's been a question here today about whether this would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.

We've had to consider this question very carefully as literally the closest property to the proposed recovery center.

We've determined that this would not have an adverse impact on us.

I just wanted to highlight the main reasons that assuaged our concerns.

Um the controlled exit fencing and coordination with the Colorado Springs Police Department is a big factor for us.

Additionally, we understand this is a highly regulated and very supervised industry that involves random inspections and regular inspections of the facilities.

Additionally, the stage at which patients come into this is meaningful uh sorry, a meaningful consideration to us.

Um, as they mentioned, the average patient is 34 to 40 days in recovery by the time they reach this facility.

And it being a voluntary admittance is meaningful as well, because it's people who are actually seeking to change their lives as opposed to a court order or something like that.

Based on these considerations, we view this as really no different if any medical or quasi-medical use were to be moving in next door, and therefore would support this uh rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Sarah next.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Uh good morning.

My name is Sarah Potter.

I am speaking on behalf of the nonprofit sector here in Colorado Springs.

Um, as some of you may know, we are having a uh crisis in our unhoused population and services.

And that the mayor recently asked city leaders, church leaders, nonprofit leaders for $950,000 to support extra beds in Springs Rescue Mission.

Unfortunately, due to the services at Springs Rescue Mission, mental health and drug addiction is not part of those services.

So the majority of those individuals that are going through this crisis are not going to Springs Rescue Mission.

So that funding may not impact them.

So according to our point in time count for 2025, we went from 1,250 unhoused individuals to 1750.

That is a 500 raise.

And 44% of those individuals, according to the coordinated entry VI VI spitats, which is the vulnerability count that people do when they do unhoused uh individuals.

44% of those were due to addiction and mental health.

So 44% of that new 500 or the 1750 are due to mental health being evicted and addiction and needed recovery services.

Programs like Homeward Pikes Peak, the place with their launch pad are all programs that have proven successful due to the wraparound services.

I believe Aspen is going to be one of those programs that provides that safety, stability, wraparound services with the same success rates as Homeward Pike Speak in the launch pad.

I would highly recommend that we continue to respect and understand the opposing voices of neighbors, but also there have been no statistics that show the comments or the launch bands only had greater additions to their community.

There are no crime reports.

There were never anything from the worries and concerns of the neighbors.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Chris is our last speaker in support.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Chris Kilcullen.

I am a member of the Silver Community.

And I live in a community in Colorado with an adjacent rehab facility that's about a thousand feet from my door.

So I want to speak to all three of those experiences.

So my commercial real estate, I list this hotel.

I represent the seller.

And this hotel, if it doesn't get approved for this, it's going to go back in the market.

Just at basic economic cycles.

But because this hotel is losing its franchise, the franchise expiring in two years, it's likely going to get downbranded to more of an economy brand, possibly even an economy extended state brand that will attract weekly and monthly kind of traffic to this property.

And you know, that's gonna just erode the current condition of the current climate of the current guests that are in this hotel right now.

Uh there is a chance that it could get rebranded into something else, but that's just based on my experience.

That's where I think this thing's gonna go.

Uh the revenue doesn't dictate somebody coming in and improving it to a Hilton or Marriott or an upbranded product.

Um I have been sober for nine years now.

Uh I will tell you that this is the missing link in the sobriety recovery community.

Um people go into a 30-day treatment center and then they're put right back out on the street or right back into their neighborhoods and right back into the circumstances that that got them there in the first place.

Uh this gives them a much longer runway and a much higher success uh for sobriety.

And I think it's it's one of the biggest missing links in sober living community right now.

Um, and you know, speaking to my experience as a neighbor with an adjacent rehab, uh, I've had zero experience of any crime.

Uh there has been nothing but positive results, and mostly because people that are going to rehab want to get better.

Uh the people that are out committing crimes uh are still out on the street.

And in secondarily, somebody that leaves a 30-day treatment center and raises their hand and says, I want more treatment is even less likely.

I mean, this is the kind of facility that the community needs and uh people in recovery need.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Uh, do we have anybody online to speak in support?

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

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

Okay, my name is Andrea Silva.

Good morning to everyone.

Um, I heard the I heard the presentation, I heard the opinions, and I expect all the opinions.

Excuse me, just my opinion.

Excuse me, just a second.

We're still um taking comments in support.

So if this is not in support, I'm I'm opposed.

I'm opposed.

Okay, just we'll call you later.

Just a second.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no one else in support online, we'll go ahead and move uh for those that signed up in the room in opposition to speak in opposition.

Our first speaker is Renee Gonzalez.

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

Hi, good morning.

My name is Renee Gonzalez, and I am a resident of Southeast Colorado Springs in the Southboro neighborhood, with my home located within 100 feet of Pamorama Park.

I am here in opposition to propose a proposed Colorado Springs Recovery Center DPT 2508 3.

Not because I oppose recovery services, but because this location and the economic impact that it will have are incompatible with our community's vision, land use, and the Southeast Strong Community Plan.

The proposed site is within walking distance of Pamorama Middle School, Beaker Elementary School, and Pamorama Park, our multimillion dollar public investment neighborhood park.

These places serve as daily touch points for our families, our students, and our community gatherings.

Introducing a adult treatment facility so close to where our children learn, walk, and play fundamentally conflicts with how this neighborhood is used and what it was intentionally built to support.

Our community worked for years to ensure that this area would be safe, family-centered environment, and this proposal directly undermines that effort.

The Southeast Strong Plan created in partnership with the residents, Harrison School District 2, and the city called for collaborative investments that promote youth development, family safety, and business fertility.

This proposal does not align with those goals.

The surrounding areas include multiple hotels, a church, and other surrounding small business service businesses, excuse me.

All part of an engaging hospitality and service corridor identified in the plan.

A recovery center in this particular location would disrupt those businesses, discourage first, excuse me, future development and strain the local economy.

We hear also, we were also told by the director of the recovery center that the facility would be funded largely in part by government sources such as Medicaid and Medicare.

With the recent government shutdown, I urge you to take that into account.

The uncertainty of government funding and the realize the realization that relying heavily on an unstable sources could compromise the facility's long-term stability and safety for the surrounding community.

For these reasons, this proposal is not the right fit for this location.

Our community has invested too much, planned too intentionally, and worked too hard to build a safe family-centered neighborhood to have those affected by this risk.

Southeast residents deserve development that strengthens our safety, supports our families, and grows our local community.

The Southeast Strong Plan laid out a clear vision for that future, and this project moves in the opposite direction.

Thank you.

We have Joyce Salazar next.

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

We are a community-based nonprofit dedicated to enhancing Southeast Color Springs from within through resident-led change.

Our concern is not with the recovery services themselves, but with the lack of data and compatibility surrounding this proposal and location.

The applicant's recent response in community comments letter makes numerous claims that these centers do not affect property values and that they pose no risk near schools and parks, and that residents are clinically stable, and that the project aligns with the Southeast Strong Plan and Plan CO Plan COS.

Yet no independent citations or verifiable data were provided to support those claims.

So today we are asking the commission to request that before any approval, the applicant submit independent data from other aspen BHC facilities across the U.S.

showing neighborhood impact, including police calls for service, code enforcement records, and property value trends within a half a mile of each site.

Also that the applicant provides peer-reviewed research citations to support its statements that proximity to treatment facilities does not affect safety or property values, and that the city conduct an impact analysis specific to this site because Aero Plaza Drive is not an abstract corridor.

It is a lived community space adjacent to Panorama Park, Brickert Elementary School, and Panorama Middle School.

The Southeast Strong Plan and Plan COS both emphasize family, family safety, youth opportunity, and corridor-based economic vitality.

Converting a 130-bed hotel into an institutional treatment facility in the heart of a youth corridor contradicts those planning goals and threatens the trust residents have built through years of collaborative revitalization.

If the applicant truly believes this project strengthens Southeast, then transparency should not be a burden.

We welcome a full presentation of evidence, citations and outcome data or any further consideration.

Until that occurs, approving this project would be premature and inconsistent with the city's own commitment to data informed decision making.

Rice LTE supports recovery, but it must be responsibly cited, transparently justified, and community aligned.

We respectfully urge you to deny DPN 250083 or defer action until this these evidence gaps are addressed publicly and verified by city staff.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I'm sorry if I'm in mispronouncing Janayo Colonis.

Janaya.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

Hello, commissioners, thank you for your time today.

My name is Jenea Colognes.

I am the founder and executive director of an organization, High Roots Wellness and Consulting.

We believe in listening to the personal experiences of people and uplifting those voices by connecting them with data, research, and resources to make sure we're making informed decisions with the people that we are serving.

My background, I am a certified health education specialist.

That means I follow the highest guidelines for national planning, assessments, implementation, and planning of health education programs.

And so working in public health.

So that assessment is to be closely guided by the CHIP, which is the community health improvement plan, which is guided by the Healthy Community Collaborative, and that is in partnership with our El Paso County Public Health as well as the city.

And as they were going through their presentation, I noticed that that was a miss, and that's really huge because two of our priority plans are suicide prevention and drug overdose.

Personally, I have been impacted greatly.

My grandfather is not here today because of alcoholism.

My grandmother is not here today because of alcoholism, and my stepfather is homeless and has great mental health issues.

So this is an issue that really strikes home to me as well.

What I do know is when we look at public health, we really do need a back up and look at this great scale of what's happening.

And in Southeast Springs, specifically that community, I think the opposition of what you're hearing as well is the resources that have been taken or are no longer available in Southeast Colorado Springs, such as the closure of Safeway, as well as there's no longer a community center that was just shut down.

So Colorado Springs now has two community centers.

When you compare that to Denver, they have 30.

And so when you're looking at upstream approaches of what are contributing to our addiction and our substance abuse, that's really, really important to look at.

So I really strongly believe that the community is asking for those things that uplift individuals before they get to these points.

So not saying that an addictions and a recovery center is not important.

It is extremely important, but the location is also important to look at because if the community is opposed, when we're looking at trust building for building out programs, I mean, that's immense, right?

Because who is going to be utilizing that community center if they do not trust?

And one of the concerns that I had heard was the company, and I'll wrap this up quickly.

The company coming in, they have many other facilities that they are currently developing.

So are they truly in the investigation interest of hearing what our community members are asking for?

Um so making sure that that's in alignment.

So is this the best place for it?

And again, the trust.

Like if the trust isn't there from everybody, are we going to make sure that that it's going to be utilized?

Um, so I would definitely consider that when we're making this decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Brittany McDonald.

If you could please come up to the stand, introduce yourself, and then you'll have three minutes to speak.

Hello, my name is Brittany McDonald.

I am a resident of Southeast.

I have been a resident of Southeast uh probably longer than a lot of people in this room.

Uh I went to Sierra High School, and I've seen the when Southeast was, you know, in the 90s and 2000s when uh it was not viewed as positive as it is today.

Now, I do want to make one thing clear.

I don't oppose having an addiction recovery center somewhere.

I don't.

Um, I've seen how much addiction and homelessness has come up.

Like if you go on the Sand Creek Trail just walking and writing, you can see tons of people just under the bridge, you know, doing drugs or drinking or just homeless because things that happened in the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, I do worry about our current resources and how Southeast has clawed its way up and how the greater city, as much as I hate to say it, the greater city views Southeast.

Um with and I'm just gonna read notes that I took.

I said we lost we just lost Safeway, our grocery store, our local grocery store, and there was a silver key belt that they're now like, well, what do our people do?

So I I do worry people that are trying to do addiction recovery, do they have an easy access to that as well?

It's just adding more strain.

Um I also believe I also am curious.

Um, someone mentioned about Medicaid Medicare, that a lot of these people will be receiving that, and that the facility is going to look beautiful and nice, but I do worry eventually if it becomes into disarray if we had another government to shut down or issue that affects funding.

And on top of that, what help happens to those people in the facility if funding was to lapse again.

Um I do believe I probably would maybe feel more comfortable with this if I had more of a study done of what the impact to the community would be as a whole.

And um, really that's it.

I I support addiction recovery.

I just don't think that that spot is the best spot, or at the very least, I need a lot more evidence to prove that it's going to help the community versus making the rest of Colorado Springs look at us more in a negative fashion.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Pastor Anthony Greer.

Morning, I'm Pastor Anthony Greer, True Spirit Baptist Church on AstraZone Boulevard, which is not too far from the placement of this facility that's being asked to be placed.

I'm in opposition against it.

I'm all for helping those that are mentally dealing with issues that have caused them to be uh in position that they are, and I'm also for helping those that are addicts or in some type of addiction need.

Um, but the issue is placement and safety.

Placement is everything.

Uh just because a facility is possibly going to go under does not mean you just throw anything in the neighborhoods where people have worked so hard to build their homes as a safe space.

We put educational centers there, you got other businesses there.

Also, you have churches there.

Um I uh assist in giving community help on Fridays, and we often see people who like to just linger around and be in areas even though they're displaced, and you can tell that they're not totally there mentally, and to get any type of assistance from uh police departments, it takes hours upon hours for them to come, and then to just know that we're gonna place something of this magnitude in the area where people live, the children play, our children go back and forth to school is just not a good place.

Um to get the help that's needed.

I'm not against it, but the placement is bad.

The safety is important for not only the youth, but our senior citizens that go walking every morning, people that are out getting exercises, businesses in the area, and also for a business to come into our our city from another state to try to impose a program.

That's another issue.

We don't know the type of program that they're offering, and we don't even know where these individuals would be coming from if they've already been pre-screened or already had 30 to 45 days of some type of clearance to come.

Um it's a major concern, and I'm against it, and I pray that you will uh uh agree with us all, those that are opposing this uh repositioning of this facility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is everybody in person that was signed up.

If there's anybody else in the audience that is here to speak in opposition, please come to the podium and introduce yourself.

There was no one else signed up.

Would you like to move online?

Okay, at this point we'll let the uh applicant.

Sir, yeah.

Would you like to move for opposition online?

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah.

That's right.

We did have someone.

If you could please introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak.

Okay.

My name is Andrea Silva, and I'm a teacher here in Colorado Springs.

I've spent most of my career working with children.

I also live right next to Pendoram Park.

Probably more than anyone, I see every day how this space transformed young lives.

It's not just a park, it's a gathering place where families of all races come together, children laugh and play in our community growth stronger.

As a minority, I see the positive effects of the park.

Never before have seen such diverse groups of people interacting with sheer enjoyment in the community park.

When I first heard that a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center might be built next to the park, I thought it was a joke.

From the beginning, this park was designed and celebrated by Colorado Street leaders as a cornerstone for rehabilitating our community to bring positive potential to our diverse area.

It was an exactly creating safety, joy, and a renewal for Southwest Colorado Springs.

And it's working.

You can see the results every single day.

So why we risk undermining that achievement by placing something so sensitive, so potentially problematic right next to it.

Why would you risk the sense of safety that families feel here?

I understand the importance of a rehabilitation center, the absolute need in our city, but location matters.

Putting a rehab facility immediately beside the park for children and close to public school simply doesn't make sense.

It introduced risk and changes the character of the space that had been such a positive force for our community.

As bad as this is to make it more shocking, I hear there are plans to surround this facility with a fence.

A fence is meant to keep something either in or out.

What message does it does that send?

More importantly, what potential danger are we exposing our children to?

Children who play here daily, and students from nearby schools who use this park and walk to school.

The park has already proven to be a source of healing and renewal for this community.

Let's not undo that by making a decision that puts our children and our good with felt here at risk.

I'm here today voicing my concerns as both a teacher and a citizen of this community to go on record as speaking up about the potential hazards this project might bring to community children.

Whoever's in charge of this project, if they care about the safety of children, please stop this project.

But if you do not care about the state of children, go ahead and deal with it.

This is my opinion.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Okay, at this time we'll allow the applicant uh 10 minutes for rebuttal.

Chris Foster, uh Aspen BHC applicant.

Uh first and foremost, again, um I was pleasantly surprised and shocked with the support and and opposition, and I want to thank both both sides.

Um I'm gonna try to compartmentalize this the best that I can.

There's a lot obviously thrown out.

Um, and I think you guys will probably ask questions as well.

But there's a first there's a couple things that I can that I can touch on really quick.

Um, which if we look at it, it was safety being the highest, I believe, and then it was the governmental shutdown, uh, which we're not gonna focus too much about, but I'll I will touch on it.

But I want to talk about safety real quick.

Again, here are the facts.

These are facts.

This is the truth.

This is empirical data that I provided to you in the PowerPoint that you guys have access to.

Also, Colorado Springs Police Department provided you guys with information as well based on data.

These are peer reviewed, John Hopkins University, NIH, these are peer reviewed.

So they're asking for um information that we treatment centers, drug and alcohol treatment centers don't increase crime and or safety.

So that's one fact.

I provided it with you.

Uh, and there's conclusions in there uh that will tell you that we don't.

In fact, we decrease crime and and and decrease homelessness.

Um again in 15 years.

I've never had a patient break out, leave, go rob a neighbor, break into a store, rob a bank, touch a child, beat up an elderly, abuse, and doesn't happen.

Patients that were treating are stable from the 45 days.

They asked where they're coming from, they're coming from local areas, which is a bridge into uh the conversation about government shutdown.

The individuals that were treating um are Medicaid beneficiaries, a lot of them.

And most of our facilities, I can give you the numbers, it's 85%, um 5% are scholarships, and then 10% between commercial exchange policies.

So if we talk about the shutdown real quick, and if you really look into it, not gonna get into politics, please, but please.

Um the exchange ACA policies or policies are are what's are what's being discussed right now, and that's a very small population of my patients.

Just the exchange.

The Medicaid piece, they were talking about work requirements and making sure that you do ongoing verifications.

I'm all for it.

Um, I don't think that's gonna impact us um as as the uh city council was discussing.

It's a disease, they are able to um continue treatment to look to treat that disease.

So Medicaid is gonna keep them on that benefit.

So I just wanted to wanted to touch on that.

We're not scared about the government shutdown, we're not scared about the any type of uh Medicaid changes, anything to do with the payer systems.

Um the economic impact, I mean there's there is zero economic impact in the area.

Um there's nothing here.

Uh we're increasing jobs, we're increasing city revenue, the impact fees are upwards close to I I believe, and don't quote me on this, please.

Uh 180,000 that we have to pay upon approval, which we're more than happy to pay.

Uh, and that goes to the CDI, I believe that's believe that's what they call the the impact fees for police and park and and first responders.

Um school, park.

I keep hearing children and and the elderly walking by.

I need data.

This is all circumstantial, subjective, as if we're a prison.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to do this.

Public record.

There's already crime in the area.

One of the folks in opposition banished a gun, got arrested recently, and we think that's that's an issue.

That's the issue.

Or the 500 registered sex offenders that are within a five-mile radius.

That's the issue, not us.

That's facts.

That's data that they have been convicted.

Our patients, where that they're in treatment, where is the facts?

Where is the data stating that we're gonna cause harm to children?

Mike, I have I was gonna do it.

Uh my kid goes to Panorama Park.

I spend a lot of time and I've been spending time in Colorado Springs for five years.

I I get it.

I'm not from this area.

But I've built a community and a family in Colorado Springs.

Um, and I didn't get time, but in the PowerPoint, if you guys have the opportunity, you can look at the last couple of uh slides.

And it's all of the um, it's all of the events that we do in the community.

Um and we hold community uh meetings at every one of our centers, as well as hold trainings.

Uh so somebody was up here discussing treatment's great.

Treatment's great, but if we look at it linearly, in the beginning, if we look at ACM, we talk about prevention and and in education.

We also provide that.

That's not a core service.

Um, so open again during community meetings.

If they if they decide to attend, they can bring up any suggestion that they want.

We meet as a team uh and we go over those things.

I get it, I'm the CEO.

I don't live in Colorado.

I am the most involved CEO that you will ever meet.

Have we had, I don't want to say even say issues.

Everything that has happened at our at our facilities, it gets taken care of.

If sheriff has a concern, fire department has a concern, we handle it.

Sheriff mentioned something in March of last year.

Responded to it, put quality assurance in place, put action in place, met with city council several times.

They love us.

Did the strawberry festival last uh cut last month?

I mean, we're involved in our community.

The community matters, and it does.

It takes everybody.

Um, but I I do.

I would like to see some sort of data because it doesn't exist about how drug and alcohol treatment centers cause an impact to the children and the welfare and the safety of the community.

Um Southeast Strong Plan, again, in the presentation, Southeast Strong Plan is is full of multiple goals and how the strategies that they're gonna reach those goals.

I've read it, I've studied it.

That is what I do.

Um, and I've outlined how we're going to meet several of those goals.

And that the I believe the three biggest ones is the access to care, which is huge, um, the economic and employment opportunities, and there's the basic cultural keeping and can in keeping the culture within Southeast Colorado Springs, and this is not a knock on the hotels.

How a hotel is gonna do that?

They're a brand that are they're unable to change the consistency of their brand style guide.

Me, I'm privately owned, I'm not public, you know, I'm not private equity, I'm not a hedge fund, I'm not.

I can do whatever I want with my branding.

I can have culture, I can have I I can do whatever we need to do to make sure that it's consistent.

Um so the Southeast Strong Plan, I I fully believe in.

I uh and I favor.

So if there's any questions on it, I'm happy to bring it up.

Um I think that's I think I responded to uh several of them.

Uh so I think I'm gonna end it there.

Again, I appreciate comments on both sides, uh, and I look forward to answering any of your questions.

Oh, yeah, go ahead, George.

Uh yeah, we're just talking about data.

So uh when I spoke with Officer Mathis, who is the uh crime prevention officer, uh we pulled data, uh, and I can share this with you if you'd like it, about the crimes that have been committed around the hotel, a hundred plus uh over the last year or so within a one mile radius, some 350 crimes.

And so when I spoke to him about our commitment uh to what we're gonna do there, he was in support of us, and he agreed that with us coming there, we'll most likely decrease crime in the area.

Uh I live in this community, I'm there all the time.

I see the people wandering the streets, homeless, in need of help.

Um, I walk Panorama Park four or five times a week.

And I also have been very involved in the community, and I've walked side by side with Joyce Salazar from Rye Southeast picking up garbage in the parks.

Uh none of the people that submitted those letters.

I haven't seen any of them people there with me.

So I'm committed to being part of this community and doing what we need to support it.

Uh and um, you know, make the community better.

So uh I just wanted to add that piece.

Okay, thank you, and thank you for all the provided public comment.

At this point, we'll move it up uh that closes public comment, we'll move it up for questions uh for the dais.

Uh Commissioner Hensler.

Yeah, so I've um I really appreciate all of the conversation on both sides.

It's really helpful to see all of the um all of the information presented, and it's a lot.

So thank you.

Um couple of questions.

Um did you look at other locations in town, and um are your other locations around the country also in kind of adaptive reuse of of a hotel?

Is that like a common use because of the way that they're laid out?

Um or was it the need in this community that drew you to this location?

And I guess that's kind of more of a rhetorical question, but I'm I'm curious.

Um answer that one first.

Sure.

So uh I don't I don't think it's really rhetorical.

I can answer it right now.

Yes, there's a need.

Uh there's a massive need all the way down the the corridor from um from Denver down.

Uh there just is.

Uh, and I don't think that's because it's it's Colorado or Denver, there's a need in this country.

Uh we're still doing with an epidemic.

It's just it if it's not one drug, it's gonna be the next drug.

Um as far as locations, yes.

I've looked at many, many locations.

Um, I've also been under contract.

Um, and because it's public, right?

I don't want to say anything.

Uh there's been local larger organizations that one we've been looking to acquire a portion of the stock uh or a full stock.

There this is just the beginning of what we're gonna be doing, and I understand that we're out of state.

We know what we're doing with subject matter experts in this area.

Um this just happens to be the first, and and luckily it's low acute, right?

Um if we were a high IQ, if if this was a detox facility, we'd be talking, probably have a different conversation.

Um, but to answer your question, yes, we've we've looked at several locations.

Yeah, and the other important piece was which was mentioned uh to provide the full continuum of care.

So there's a lot of places that will do detox or maybe the first 30 days, but then in order for people to learn the life skills that they need, uh learn how to iterate back into the community, they need long-term residential.

And not only here, but that's a missing piece across the country.

That long-term residential, which gives them three months to up to a year if needed to get their mental health services, to get case management to integrate back into the community, learn how to resume right, help them find jobs.

And so that piece is missing everywhere, including here.

Thanks.

Um, I guess along that, um, along those lines, we've seen some other um projects come through this body of a similar nature, and I know everyone, everyone's program is a little bit different, so I don't want to um draw parallels that aren't appropriate, but but when we've seen those, I think the operational plan and the safety plan have been paramount to our decision.

Um and I know you mentioned or there's a mention about fencing to the extent that you're allowed.

So can you talk a little bit about and you have extensively already?

Can you maybe succinctly again mention what your safety plan is and and talk about the fencing piece um specifically?

Because I maybe missed kind of what is required and what's allowed.

Sure.

If I if I can, I'm not sure.

I want to I I didn't answer your first question of your the first part of your first question about our locations.

Uh just real quick.

Um, yes, we are building out, it's kind of a newer thing because of the compatibility.

Um so between hotels in skilled nursing assisted livings, those two are kind of our are our go-to for conversion, uh, unless we acquire a facility.

Uh and a lot of times if we do acquire a facility, historically it's been a hotel or a skilled nursing facility.

Um so yes, it's it's something that is is done quite often.

Um to answer answer this this the really the safety question.

So uh again, safety is at the forefront of of everything that we do.

It's built in our DNA.

Um we have emergency preparedness plans that are built out based off of our hazard vulnerability analysis based on regions, conditions, the population, the human impact, the property impact, all of that.

Um that is typically signed off by uh the I think in it'd be the county fire marshal here.

Um, and then CDFP, there's a pretty there's a pretty rigorous uh inspection that we have to go through with uh CDFP or C D P H E.

Department of Fire Control Prevention.

Okay.

CF, yeah.

Yeah, so they we have to get what's called the certificate of compliance uh for safety.

That's just for life safety for environment of care.

Um so there we're we're definitely covered.

Now, as far as fencing goes, I know somebody said it's to keep as I said it's to keep people in and out.

That's not the case.

This is one for aesthetics and one for privacy.

Uh, we want our patients to know that or our residents to know that you know they are they're safe.

This is their clinical, this is their home.

This is their home.

Um if we didn't have to do it, we we would still do it.

Um, but in in conversations based on comments from uh uh Colorado Springs Police Department, there's going to be further conversations on access, um, but it just wasn't a required.

We satisfied their comments, and we just in our response back to them, we uh we let them know that we would be in contact further.

Um if there's any other safety requirements that you guys look at and you just want to see us implement, more than happy to do it.

But um we went above and beyond our safety.

Thank you.

No, and I appreciate that.

And again, I'm kind of drawing some parallels from previous projects we've we've heard about with fencing and with operational hours and access.

Um and you mentioned the fire control, but I I did make a note too about who is oversight for your uh your industry.

Is that through the C D PHE?

Um so if someone had a complaint, whether that's a resident or a neighbor, so they call CSPD and they say, hey, I've got an issue, or if there's a um a different issue that's maybe not crime related, does that go through CDPHE and is that who your um accrediting body is, or is it a national instead of a Colorado Department of Health and Environment, by the way, CDPHE, but I got so there's several, right?

So start with the highest is gonna be your BHA behavioral health authority, right?

They are a licensing body within the state of Colorado.

Um so any grievances or complaints, um, you know human rights uh violations, grievances, abuse, neglect, exploitation, that would all go through the BHA.

Um it could also go through uh Office of Civil Rights, it could go through the OIG, Office of Inspector General.

They have options all over the place.

Now we also have CARF, uh, which is our which is our accreditation body.

Um, and then we have SAMSHA and DEA.

So when we talk about highly regulated, it's more regulated than uh most of the facilities, and and again, I've operated 60, 70 facilities.

Colorado's pretty rigorous.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I've I've worked in five, six states doing this work.

The other the other piece internally operationally, which is what I'm responsible for, is uh within the operations for our staff, we need to check our clients either every 15, 30, or 60 minutes, so we know where they're at.

Again, the the delayed egress where they can't just walk out the front door.

There's an alarm system, our staff gets a chance to interact with them, see what's going on, see if we can you know redirect them and get them to stay.

And if not, we provide safe transportation to wherever they want to go.

So there's not people just coming and going, doing whatever they want.

Uh safety is a really, really big piece for us uh all the time in this industry.

Sure.

And um, and I appreciate all of that.

And I know you've covered a lot of that, but I think with the questions that we hear from the neighborhood and from residents nearby, um, I think sometimes it's just good to hear it again and have that on record.

And you know, and I'm really remembering Trevor's comments to us, right?

That um a reminder that addiction um and the Fair Housing Act.

And so I'm I'm removing in my mind the addiction component of this and really trying to consider what is the and I'm looking at our code, what is the human service?

So if it were um an elderly care facility or a child care facility or any other facility, some of these things would still apply.

A resident wandering off the property is going to be a concern, whether that's a treatment facility or a residential um maybe for assisted living.

So that I think that the safety um component applies across that.

Um generally I'm very much in favor of what you're doing and of your project, but I appreciate you taking my questions, and I have hogged the mic for like a really long time.

So I'm gonna pass off to others.

All right, Commissioner Engel.

Uh Commissioner Engle, I have two questions for you.

First of all, can you bring up the slide that showed the scale of the recovery for people?

And I think you said you were gonna start about three point something.

And then there was a comment made when you were briefing that scale uh that slide that that's exactly the one that you that you might move further to the left.

Sure.

And I'm curious as to how far to the left you're gonna go.

And if you were to put the 30-day period of developing a care for someone, where would it be on that scale?

Sure.

Um I don't know how you can I'll just say I'll just give you a number.

I'll explain it.

So if we look at it from um, let's look at it right to left.

So four to zero, right?

Um we are a 3.1, so right next to level three where residential services start, clinically managed low-intensity residential services.

That is our highest level of care, right?

Um four, 3.7, 3.5, done at another.

Um, and then once they complete that 30, 45 days based on clinical medical necessity, they're then transferred over to us if appropriate, screened properly, and it's an appropriate facility for them.

I I thought I heard though that you were gonna consider moving to the left, uh 2.1 or 2.5.

So I I live in the left.

I'm a walking billboard for early intervention and education.

So what we do, and and this is at all of our facilities.

We hold we hold monthly community meetings, uh, and we also hold trainings.

For example, um, in uh in Ladoga, we did a um a uh co-occurring disorder training in our um in our gymnasium.

We have done a de-escalation control.

So we do trainings, education, and awareness, which is zero level uh point five, and then you go into level one, which we will be uh early I want to say two thousand twenty-six, but early two thousand twenty-seven.

Um my goal is to really prove the model, make sure everything's in place, we have our robust models and it and processes in place, and then start offering the LP.

Okay, sir.

So ultimately your vision is the full spectrum presented on the slide.

Okay, thank you.

Second question was where will the entrance to the facility be on AeroTech Drive, or will it be off of Aero Plaza?

It looks like there's a road that is shared with the present holiday in that comes off Aero Plaza.

Which which would be the entry to the facility?

So you essentially have two entries.

You have one on Aero Plaza and AeroTech, um, and both of them kind of wrap around to the west side of the property, which is that front, that front door lobby where the overhang is.

Um throughout it most likely going, it depends on what direction they're gonna be coming from, but most likely they're gonna be splitting it between the two hotels if they're coming from yeah, if they're coming from Colorado Springs proper downtown, that's where they would enter from.

But either way, um same entrance points.

Thank you.

But you're not changing them, those are the current ones, correct?

So there's no change.

Yeah, there's no there's no changes to that, no.

Uh my questions are for um for um Mr.

Cooper.

So a little preamble.

So this is um zoned MXM.

Uh part of that is to uh MXM is to promote the adaptive reuse or redevelopment of single-use commercial centers that are vacant or underused.

So if this was a uh my so large scale and um facility that we're talking about is a use by right, is what I understand.

Right.

So if this were a vacant uh you know nothing developed on the property at all, it was uh it was a mixed use um MXM uh mixed use medium scale, this would be handled administratively.

This application, is that correct?

Uh correct.

This is an administrative application.

Uh we decided to elevate it to planning commission given the sensitivity of the neighborhood and uh the use type classification.

So normally this sort of development plan at the sort for this kind of facility wouldn't would not come to us unless it were appealed um type of thing, correct?

Correct.

I do want to also add the clarification that was kind of mentioned with uh Commissioner Engels last comment.

Um if they choose to go toward the detoxification center out, which is providing uh 24 hour medical supervision to individuals who need help removing the effects of drugs or alcohol, um that is conditional within the MXM zone district.

So if they do move toward that scale or that model, they will have to come back before you and ask for permission.

Okay, good.

That's a good point.

Uh any other commissioners have questions before we bring it up to the dice for discussion.

Use your microphone.

This is for everybody else.

Yeah.

A few years ago, I was a Whippers Department of Corrections and one of the facilities in Kenya City.

I've seen what drugs can do to the people to the offenders.

I seem at the lowest part of the life.

I never know what happened to them afterwards, usually until now.

And then proud of them.

And hopefully you will.

Thank you.

Chair Casey, if I may, real quick.

Uh, I just if I can respond to one of his questions.

Yeah, question.

Yes, uh I just wanted to make sure that that we understood we're on the same page with uh with this scale.

Four is the highest acute level of care within SUD zero is the education re-entry.

Okay, just wanted to make sure we're on the safe page.

Thank you.

And we understand uh what possible.

Right.

That's what I'm gonna clarify with Mr.

Cooper.

Some of the concerns of safety have to do with people wandering in another property, which is if you like you said, if it's become if it's gonna shift in focus in terms of becoming more outpatient ordered and more detox or more intensive purposes, then it would still have to come back to the planning commission as a conditional use, and we'd have another chance to say yes or no.

All right, thank you.

I'm more aware.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh my question is in regard to signage.

When I'm looking at the development plan, maybe I'm missing it, but where will signage be for the site?

Uh full transparency.

We don't really do a lot of signage.

We don't like to do the marketing, but what we'll work with the we would work with the city to make sure that it's in proper placement.

Uh uh just to mention that signage is not part of the development plan review process.

It's uh titled through a separate permit um through our development review enterprise office.

Which we would work with, and we're fully aware of it.

Right now, there are three signs.

You have one that's at the highest point of elevation on the building.

We would not do that.

Um we may have a little pylon sign that might be five by eight.

Um, and that would be based on the UDC's and the the building department and approval.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I guess to pile on to that uh pylon.

Um folks will, I mean, with three hotels in that adjacent area, folks will know that they're they don't want to turn into your facility unless they're necessarily targeting your facility.

If I'm looking for a hotel, I'm gonna know that that's not where I want to go, right?

Yeah.

Especially the way that you're coming from Arrow Plaza.

Right.

If you're coming from Arrow Plaza, you're gonna see the fence.

Um also because our active space is in the is in the rear of the parking lot, there's gonna be five mile per hour speed limits.

There's gonna be uh monitor.

So I don't know if you have access to the police department's uh comments, but they're asking us to put up a couple signs which no trespassing, no loitering, no weapons, no guns, no drugs, no uh both in English and Spanish.

Uh so I I don't think that would be an issue.

Yeah, yeah.

No, that was a good question, Ryan.

And and I guess in general, I mean I appreciate the gentleman who spoke earlier who um is involved with these properties and having three hotels near one another, I can imagine has probably led to maybe different choices when people book a hotel room, and it seems like this property has maybe seen the most decline.

So um, yeah.

So I think that's a good reuse.

Okay, if we don't have any further questions, any comments from other commissioners.

I will thank you.

Oh, yes, thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you very much.

Um I will start.

Um I certainly have read through, I think it was online 55 pages plus the ones that were printed of the community's concern.

And I I can appreciate um the significant investment that's been made in the Southeast and around this area, especially with Pamorama Park and the ongoing challenges that this area of our city continues to face.

And while I think uh at the at the outset, this might look like um yet another challenge to overcome.

I feel like the evidence that we've seen today, and when I consider the criteria of which we have to make a decision upon, I find that this is um a positive step in the right direction for us.

Um I think that mental health beds in our state are at a severe disadvantage.

And while this is not an inpatient go to the hospital because you're having a mental health crisis, I think the more that we can provide programs that give people the resources that they need, it helps alleviate those needs across the spectrum.

Um and again, I I say that um in all seriousness of understanding the challenges of the neighborhood and the fears of the neighborhood.

Um, but I feel like we've seen a few of these projects, and I think that the um the proof has been initially that they impact positively as opposed to negatively.

So um I am um in favor of this and I will be making um a motion to approve.

Um so thank you for listening.

Yeah, Chair Casey, I would uh uh agree with uh Commissioner Hensler.

I I too read through all the public comments.

You know, I understand the concerns about safety, but I think they've been addressed with the uh the applicants proposal or the applicant's plan.

And I do think that you know, looking at the difference between a long-term treatment facility, the 3.0 to across the way to uh to as opposed to something uh more outpatient oriented.

I am aware of you know, Trevor Gloss, our attorney uh talking about the Fair Housing Act and the applicability here.

I think the z the zoning uh supports it.

Um again, it's a use by right in the mixed use medium scale neighborhood, which is to promote the redaptive reuse or redevelopment of a center.

And I think that's that's that's vacant, and I think that's appropriate here.

Um I will be voting in favor of as well.

Any other commissioners have comments before we move to a motion.

Chair Casey LC.

I'm sorry to didn't see uh Commissioner Case.

Yep, no problem.

Um Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh I appreciate everyone coming here to speak before us today.

I think it's an emotionally charged decision.

Um, but we also make decisions based on data and review criteria, and so I believe that that meets that today, and so I will be voting in favor.

Uh Commissioner Engel.

Commissioner Engle, I actually may have mentioned it before, I actually drove by the area and looked at the looked at the facility and where it was.

And I was initially uh hesitant to say that this would be a wise thing to do.

I will say that I am uh impressed by your ability to protect the neighborhood around it with what you're gonna do to the facility, and there's clearly a need for such a facility in Colorado Springs.

So for those reasons, I will I will support it also.

And I I do also think that if you change the character of the service you're providing, you really do need to come back to us so that we understand what you're now doing.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion.

One more time, one more time.

I'll take it.

Sorry, for the record, can we have what the motion is?

I'll second it.

I'm sorry.

Uh, for the record, can we have what the motion is?

Yes.

Sorry, we're having some tech issues up here.

I'd like to recommend approval to city council, the zone change of 2.17 acres.

I sorry, uh wrong one.

This is the same.

Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry.

I just looked down and started a reading.

I would like to make a motion to approve the Colorado Springs Recovery Center, major modification of a development plan based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.516 point D.

I'll second it.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and read the appeal instructions in accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code.

An affective party may appeal to city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party within 10 days from the final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, November 24th, 2025.

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

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

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

Uh we will be taking a break.

The question is whether we'll be taking a break for lunch or just a shorter break.

We'll know here that in a moment, but thank you.

Item eight C-O-N-E-25-0025.

A zone change consisting of 156.18 acres located to the north and south of East Woodman Road and east of Benning Lewis Parkway from the planned development zone with airport overlay to mixed use large scale with airport overlay.

Your percenter is Molly O'Brien.

And item AD, PDZL5-0004.

A major modification to the Percheron Land Use Plan, changing the size and location of proposed line uses for 350 acres zone plan development zone with airport overlay located north and south of East Woodman Road and east of Banning Lewis Parkway.

And Chair Casey and Solange uh Commissioner Case for the record, uh I will be recusing myself from this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Molly O'Brien, planner two for city planning.

Um today I'm going to be talking to you about the Percheron land use plan modification and zone change.

Um so this uh vicinity map shows the entire Percheron uh land use area.

Um this consists of approximately 800 acres in the northeast area of Colorado Springs.

So this is north and south of East Woodman Road and east and west of the future um planned Banning Lewis Parkway.

Um this was originally um known as the Banning Lewis Ranch North Master Plan.

Um the area was annexed master planned and zoned um in 2021.

So it is a relatively new area.

Um that's kind of an early stages of development.

Um the current zone is PDZ planned development zone with the airport overlay.

Um this would be a uh zone change of approximately 156 acres to mixed use large scale with the airport overlay.

Um, and then accompanying that is also a land use plan modification, um, which would impact about 350 acres of the total 800 acre uh land use plan.

So some quick um facts about the land use plan modification.

Um, like I said, this would be reflecting um about 156 acres um being rezoned to mixed use large scale.

Um most of that would be um south of Woodman on either side of the future Banning Lewis Parkway.

Um this would eliminate uh 39.4 acres of residential land use south of Woodman Road and increase the total amount of commercial land use associated with the uh the master plan area, excuse me, land use plan area.

Um this would also um involve some circulation changes to the area north of Woodman and east of future Banning Lewis Parkway.

Um most of this would be to account for a consolidated school site.

So previously um there were two smaller school sites proposed, and this would consolidate um those two sites into one larger school campus on the uh eastern edge of the Perchron area just north of Woodman Road.

So I just wanted to quickly go over the numbers here.

So I have um the acreage of the proposed land uses as previously approved, and then as amended with this uh modification.

Um so we are seeing an overall reduction in uh residential land use previously approved, 438 acres were intended to be residential, and um as amended, we'd be looking at 402 acres.

Um so this is mostly um coming from the elimination of the residential area to the south of Woodman.

Um, but then there's also a slight increase in the total uh residential land use in the area north of Woodman.

We're also seeing a um an increase in overall non-residential land use with this plan.

Um so the most substantial being an increase from 81.9 acres of commercial slash office to 136 acres of commercial slash office.

Um then we also have some minor changes to uh again the school site and uh open space, trails, drainage, and parks.

So I have included um the uh previously approved land use plan um and then the um as amended land use plan as I mentioned.

Um major changes include um the uh commercial area to the south of Woodman uh would be increasing.

Um so um most of this area was previously intended to be uh commercial, um, but then about 40 acres of um of this area was was previously intended to be residential.

Um so we have that change there.

Um, and then you can see um the two school sites um are in that purplish color north of Woodman and east of future Banning Lewis Parkway.

Um, and the uh slightly larger school site shown as proposed in the new plan would be to the far east of the perchron area, just north of Woodman.

And then we also have some internal circulation changes to reflect this change.

So this is some additional information about the proposed zone change.

Um as I said, um, the current zoning is plan development zone.

Um this would um change the zone district of 156 acres to mixed use large scale with the airport overlay.

Um the permitted uses in the zone district include a variety of higher intensity uh commercial uses, including retail office, restaurant, um, entertainment, um, and um uh 146 acres are located south of Woodman, and the remaining 11 acres are in the little square just to the north of Woodman and just east of future Banning Lewis Parkway.

Here is the timeline of the review.

The initial submittal date was June 17th, 2025.

Um, it went through three review cycles with the items ready for the agenda on October 22nd.

Um staff did send out uh public notice on two separate occasions.

Um, first during the initial review period and again uh prior to this hearing.

Um 164 postcards were mailed.

Um, in the initial review period, five comments were received for an opposition and one in support.

Um these concerns included potential negative impacts on wildlife, um, increased traffic volume and the potential for crime and other negative impacts uh caused by the increased commercial land use.

Um then additionally, um, we did receive um some additional comments that um were placed on each of your um places on the dais um uh reflecting the the additional public comment received um prior to the hearing.

Um those comments are primarily from folks uh from the neighborhood to the south of the proposed zone change.

Um this is uh an area of single family residential, um, and um these neighbors were concerned about the potential intensity that the commercial uses um could bring.

Um quite a few um agency reviewers um looked at this.

Um I'll just highlight a few of the major comments here.

Um traffic engineering um did require a traffic impact study um for the proposed changes, um, and that was reviewed um a couple of times and ultimately approved by the city traffic engineer.

Um they just had a few uh comments um, including um just some potential um mitigation options that would improve the traffic flow at the future Woodman Road and Golden Sage Road in our intersection.

Um School District 49 did review this proposal as well, and they provided a letter of support.

Um they didn't provide any other comments during the review period.

Um, and finally, um, in terms of the city's parkland dedication ordinance um parks obligations, um comments were received and addressed during the review, um basically just certifying that the uh proposed parkland is sufficient um due to the reduced residential acreage.

Um this project was reviewed uh for compliance with plan COS, and it was found to be in compliance.

Um I have included the criteria for approval um for the zone map amendment here.

Um after evaluation of the zone map amendment, the application did meet the review criteria.

I've also included the criteria for approval for um the uh major modification to the land use plan.

Um this is the uh the section involving uh major modifications, and the major modification was also found to meet the review criteria.

So here are your optional motions.

Um this would be recommending approval or denial to city council of the zone change.

And additionally, we have the um recommendation to the city council for the land use plan modification.

And I'm available for any questions.

Any any initial questions before we move on to the applicant?

We'll go anywhere from the applicant.

We may have questions for you afterwards.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Planning Commission.

Andrea Barlow with NES presenting on behalf of the Pertron Development.

Waiting for my presentation.

Thank you.

So we're here representing the Perchron development, which is ongoing.

It's already commenced development, and this is a change to the land use plan and a zone change to reflect changes in the anticipated uses on the property.

So this is the site.

But banning Lewis Parkway is the road that thank you is road that's coming from the south to Woodman and will eventually go to the north.

And I have a plan a map later on showing where those future road connections will be.

Golden Sage is at the very easternmost part of the site, so further east with your keep going, that very edge.

That's the Golden Sage intersection.

You can see the dashed line around there.

We were actually required to include that within our annexation at the request of the county to capture that whole intersection, even though it was outside the actual property boundary.

And then Mohawk is just to the left.

So kind of there.

That's it, yes.

So just in case those were referenced, I just wanted to give you some context to where they are geographically.

So as was mentioned, we are proposing to modify the land use plan in the areas that are bubbled in blue.

There it's approximately 350 acres of the overall 800 plus acres of the master plan area or land use plan area as it is now.

Zone change is impacting 156 of those acres, and they're in the areas hatched red.

There is a larger area on the south side of Woodman Road and a small area on the north side.

We're proposing to rezone from the current planned development zone with the airport overlay to a proposed mixed-use large-scale zone with the airport overlay.

So uh a little bit of history here.

Um we first came forward with the annexation establishment of the PUD zone as it was then, and the original master plan uh that was approved by City Council in 2021.

So it went through planning commission, it went through Parks Board, it went through City Council and was approved.

In January 2022, we did a major modification to the plan, which was also approved.

That added 125 acres on the on the southeast portion of the property uh and some additional commercial land uses south of Woodman.

Um so a regional sports complex and additional commercial were added, and there was increase in the medium and high density residential use.

So there's a more intensification of use at that time.

Again, that was really um uh that was to mimic the development plan layout set had already approved.

Um I thought it was a little necessary, but um, a master plan is supposed to be a little bit more fluid than that, but we really revised the northwest portion of the property north of Woodman Road to reflect the development plan layouts.

Uh in 2023, the UDC became effective, so that changed.

Um we had a master plan and a concept plan before.

That's all lumped in together now to be a land use plan, and the zone was changed from PUD to PDZ.

So just so you can understand where this different terminology is coming from.

And then uh a land use plan minor modification, which was to reflect some minor changes on that northwest portion again, was approved in July 2025.

And then this current land use plan major modification and zone change was submitted in May this year, and this is what's before you today.

So a little bit more detail.

So as I said, we're modifying 350 acres of the 808-acre Pertron land use plan.

It removes all the residential land uses south of Woodman.

So previously, and I have a comparison.

There were south, we have a collector road, it's called Golden Jubilee, which you can see kind of two-thirds of the way down this portion in the south that connects across to the west and eventually connects to Mohawk.

That was something that was proposed in the concept plan on the adjacent property.

So when this was annexed into the city, that was a requirement to continue that collector road across that southern portion of the site.

Previously, there was some more residential in that south area and on the west side, which I'll look at the comparisons later.

As noted, we have consolidated increase of school site dedication in coordination with D49.

So that parcel in purple on the east portion of the property is now proposed for a school site.

And overall, we've decreased the residential land use from 438 acres to 402 acres.

So still substantial amount of residential, but it has decreased as the commercial has increased.

And we're increasing commercial from about 82 acres up to just under 138 acres.

Parkland dedication reduces due to the density of the residential development reducing.

So the PLDO requirement is a direct relationship to the amount of residential.

So as we've reduced that, that has slightly reduced as well.

But what we are proposing still meets the PLDO requirements.

So this is just to a side-by-side comparison of what was approved or what is currently approved and the proposed modifications.

So you can see on that southeast portion, that's the 125 acres that's proposed for a regional sports complex.

The red areas are the commercial, so it existing commercial.

We haven't really changed that area of commercial just northeast of the Woodman Road and Banning Lewis intersection.

That's pretty much stay the same.

There were existing areas of commercial on the south, east and southwest quadrants of that intersection, and we are proposing to expand those.

And they're being expanded because there is a lot of interest in commercial in this location.

Commercial is obviously type of development that comes after the residential usually, but at this point in time we're we're fortunate that the residential interest is developing alongside the commercial interest is developing alongside the residential, and that is going to clearly bring in substantial benefit to the city in terms of sales tax and we are excited that we're actually able to expand commercial in this land use plan where frequently we're coming before you to say, well, there's not enough commercial interests as we've anticipated originally and we're having to reduce it.

So this is a really exciting opportunity.

It's partly stimulated by the regional sports complex that's being proposed.

We anticipate a lot more demand from that for commercial development.

So the rezone more specifically, so that was the change in the land use plan.

The rezone, as noted, is to change from the PDZ to MXL.

So the purpose of this is that it provides a little bit more certainty regarding the range of uses and the development standards for future uses.

So MXL includes a wide range of commercial uses, and some that are not so commercial, such as it does allow continuation of residential uses.

So residential could be allowed under the MXL zone.

Also, other uses such as religious institutions and more and while classified as commercial, more low-key commercial, such as offices and so forth.

So it's not all intended to be high intensity retail type commercial uses.

So I think it's important to bear in mind that MXL is a mixed use zoning, so it's intended for mixed use, it's not a pure commercial zoning.

We have to identify a use on the land use plan, hence the commercial land use category, but um the zoning is a little bit more flexible.

And as noted, we we have come back for multiple amendments to the master plan in the past, a land use plan in the past, and um it there may be further changes in the future as users come forward with more defined requirements.

So we did look at um trip generation.

Um there was an increase, obviously, commercial generates much more traffic as a rule than residential.

We did do an analysis of this, and it's interesting that um while traffic increases overall because of the change in uh traffic patterns between commercial and residential, the AM, the morning peak hour trips actually reduced.

There is an increase in the evening peak.

And the original study that was done for the entire development anticipated various improvements at East Woodman Road and Mohawk and Banning Lewis Parkway and Golden Stage.

That's why I pointed out those intersections.

And they because they were anticipated to operate at level of service E and F, which is a little bit less and desirable.

I think if Mr.

Frisbee were here, he may still be here, I don't know.

But he usually says D is what we should aim for for ideal situations.

It's not a failing grade in this in this instance.

So but ENF a little short.

So and all the other proposed accesses accesses have long-term operations of level of service C or better during the peak periods.

But recommended improvements originally, and these have been implemented, are um increasing the through lanes at Woodman and Golden Sage and the Mohawk and Banning Lewis into intersections and a dual northbound left turn lanes at Woodman and Golden Sage.

So they've been implemented, and new improvements, I think which were alluded to various left and right turn deceleration lanes at the intersections within this master plan, as well as possible mitigation methods at further mitigation methods at Woodman Road or Golden Stage, and that was the reference that uh Molly indicated about what choosing one of these treatments to address that.

And with all these uh changes um without our proposed, obviously a development of this scale is going to need some sort of road improvements.

They've been analyzed and they're being proposed.

Everything should operate smoothly.

Famous last words, but they they based on the studies, they should operate um within the capacity of the road and the intersections as proposed.

Um review criteria for land use plan, major modifications are these are summaries, compliance with the UDC and previous approvals, no adverse impact on the surrounding area, and compliance with plan COS zone change, similarly, compliance with plan COS, not detrimental to public health health safety and welfare, and the location is appropriate for the proposed zone.

So we'll look at plan COS compliance first of all.

It's a little difficult because plan COS was um approved prior to this property being annexed, so it's actually shown as being outside the city.

But we're going to look at a few things in the surrounding area.

So generally that blue area on the northeast side of the city is identified as a newer developing neighborhood.

Um Woodman Corridor is identified as a new developing corridor.

So we believe that this site is a continuation of those classifications, and it's also identified as a smart corridor, which um it's intended to be like a multimodal transportation corridor.

Um these are some of the policies that are relevant, um, encouraging integration of mixed-use developments, I think is critical in terms of first of all the overall context of Perchron, but also more specifically in terms of the mixed-use uh rezoning were requesting and taking advantage of the capacity and potential of the corridors, the new developing corridors, to create more transit-oriented uh supportive um places, and also um providing unique opportunities, which we think we have here a unique opportunity to actually provide a pretty um substantial focal point for the community.

And also we in general terms we have uh throughout the development plenty of parks and trail access to support the development.

So compatibility and surrounding neighborhood, and Molly noted the public comments that received the three main categories that we heard were increased traffic, um new commercial adjacent to existing residential, primarily concerns expressed from the banning Lewis ranch residents to the south, and reduction in open space adjacent to the existing residential.

So I'm going to address each of those in turn.

So I I talked more specifically about the traffic impacts from this development and the traffic analysis as reviewed and approved by traffic engineering concludes that with the changes and infrastructure improvements that are proposed that everything will uh run smoothly.

And I think more importantly is to consider this development in the context of the overall changes that are being proposed in the area.

I think these are important.

Right now, East Woodman Road is the primary uh east-west connection to the east part of the city and into the county.

The red line there is marked shuffle.

It has been now extended up to Volmer Road, and it is proposed to extend.

I'm working on the project where the dash lines are.

It is proposed to extend to Black Forest Road, and then there will be a connection all the way along research out to I-25.

The yellow line is a proposed connection from I'm going to say Meridian Road for now.

It does actually plan in the future to go further east, but at least from Meridian to connect to Wall French and Briargate Parkway proposed there.

So these are areas that are proposed improvements in the overall east-west connectivity in this area.

In addition to the improvements going south, which I think we were aware that Mark Shuffle is currently being improved.

And Banning Lewis Parkway currently, I believe, extends to Dublin in actually, I think to Stetson Hills to the south.

It is currently planned extension to Barnes.

So that will connect north and south to Barnes in the near future.

It will eventually connect to 94 in the south, but that's a bit further in the future.

But I think it's important to not consider traffic in a vacuum of what it's like today, because there are lots of planned improvements, not only directly as a result of this development, but in terms of the overall road infrastructure in the area.

Now, commercial uses, we think there's a commercial zoning here is consistent with a location on the intersection of two major arterials, Woodman Road and Future Banning Lewis Parkway.

There are there is you can see from this plan that Woodman is a catalyst for commercial development.

It's a good location for commercial development because of the through traffic it gets.

So north-south connecting with Woodman Road.

So this is a logical expansion of that and a logical location for commercial.

The MXL, like I said, uh allows for a wide variety, not all the higher intensity uses.

And as I noted earlier, that the collector road that kind of cuts the parcel on the south side.

The anticipation is that the retail uses will be north of that collector, so between Woodman and the collector, and to the south will be less intense uses because they won't have that major arterial frontage.

So then it's not going to attract your restaurants or retail that want that high visibility of the arterial.

So we think that you know the uses that are most likely be situated to the adjacent to the residential to the south, include um office and non-retail commercial or possibly related institution uses.

They're the type of uses that the developer is anticipating in that area.

Um I do want to point out, and I'm not sure it's in the slide, so I'm going to say it now, it might be in another slide later, that there is a distance, a separation.

So that the neighbours to the south have a 30-foot tract to the back of their lots, which is a trail, and then we have, in addition to that, a hundred-foot buffer, plus due to grade, the the buildings will have to be pushed further north.

So there's going to be approximately 150 feet between from the back of the homes on the south side to the first building on the north side.

And I think it um if you bear in mind that there are going to be more um intense commercial uses for sure.

You know, it's going to be a typical commercial centre to the north of a golden jubilee, that anything to the south will actually act in itself, the buildings will act as a buffer to any activity that goes on in that location.

Um reduction in open space.

We do want to point out that we have retained the buffer along that south boundary all the way through this.

So the 100-foot buffer that I just mentioned, in addition to the 30 feet to the south, plus the buildings will be pushed back probably an additional 20 feet because of the grade in that location.

Um, we previously proposed uh 10 acres of um open space in that entire area as can be seen, and we have increased it by wrapping it around uh that western portion of the commercial and extending it along the south boundary up to Banningloos Parkway.

So we've actually increased the open space buffer in that area, not decreased it.

Um I think there were some concerns expressed by the um replacement of the medium density residential with commercial.

As I noted, we we we feel that the commercial in this location is not going to be a high intensity use.

And given the commercial surrounding that the the RN, that 6.4 acres of uh residential may not be as an appropriate use there given the changes that have gone on around it.

You will see that there is an area noted as easement.

Um that is a utility easement, it's an overhead electric line.

The easement is wide for the opportunity to underground that in the future.

When we're considering residential development, there's not much we can do with that because you can't put buildings in it.

And so we just left it as open space, and we were we included part because there was a part needed for the residential.

So that's all gone because we can actually utilize the easement more efficiently now with commercial development by putting parking in there.

So it is a more usable space uh with commercial.

So this explains uh the buffer um that I pointed out earlier that it is in reality a hundred and fifty foot separation uh.

And with that, um happy to answer any questions.

Anyone have any uh initial questions before we move to public comment?

I'm sure we'll have questions for you afterwards, but let's go ahead and move to public comment.

Do we have anybody signed up to speak in support?

Or online.

If there's um we don't have anybody sign from the public here in the audience to speak in support.

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

No.

There's nobody online to speak in support.

We have one member of the audience to speak in opposition of this item, Alison Colvin.

If you please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for your time.

Uh when I bought my house, um, I live right on that south edge of this uh excuse me.

Please introduce yourself.

Oh, sorry, I'm Alison Colvin.

Um I live in Bain Lewis.

Um, I'm um Pacific Crest, just to the south of this uh proposed area that's being considered.

So when I bought my house in February 2023, um I bought it because I thought there was gonna be residential behind me.

Um I am disappointed that this land um is being expanded so much to commercial.

Um, many of the houses on my street um are walkouts, so we have three stories, so we'll have these expansive views of this property.

Um we're concerned with the level of noise and the light that may be um coming in with the commercial.

Um I'm also concerned because a lot of my neighbors mentioned they didn't get any uh notice about this.

That's why there's only one of me here today.

Um, and in the postcard that I received in the mail, not all of the land was even selected.

So I'm not sure um if some of my neighbors might have been missed in the notification of this hearing.

Um I noticed that all the commercial is butted up right against our neighborhood, that there isn't very much to the north.

Um concerned about how that's going to affect my property value, and I can tell from the developers that they don't want to affect the the houses that they're building, but they're gonna box us in and give us no choice.

And um, you know, I'm worried about my home value there.

Um, I understand that there will be a barrier built.

Um, they mentioned in their response that there'll be fencing and there's the 150 feet barrier, but again, um, you know, our houses are very tall, and that's not very much.

I'm still gonna see this.

It's gonna really impact um, you know, my single family home.

So I think it's very odd that they want to put this massive commercial right up against single family homes.

I really um wish the developers would work with us maybe a little more to uh create more of a buffer, maybe have you know some of that retain some of that residential that's right up against our residential, and um I think that's it.

So thank you.

Appreciate you listening to me and um appreciate all the any thoughtful changes being made to this plan.

Thank you.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please press Dark 6 to unmute yourself.

Yes, I would.

This is Jason Bandle.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Jason Bandle.

I'm also a Banning Lewis Ranch resident.

Um my property is within the enclave, which is at the southwestern portion of this map uh that butts up against Banning Lewis Ranch, the portion that is in operation today.

Um I'll talk quickly about some of the traffic and congestion concerns, and then I'd like to isolate more narrowly to the home values that uh Alison mentioned as well.

Regarding the communication dialogue and engagement, it it really doesn't even begin to match the responsible level of involvement for the significance of this change when notifying the community.

I recognize that the minimum thousand and two hundred and sixty-four postcards may have been mailed.

Uh, but you're talking about over eight thousand uh people that live in Banning Lewis Ranch that will be impacted by this change.

Despite a traffic study, and we all know how those have gone in the past, there should be well known sentiment uh with the city regarding Banning Lewis Ranch residents and our ability to get out of the neighborhood during times like the Fourth of July parade where the city um uses the park and other uh emergency events that could occur.

This will only add to that congestion.

You can imagine when the commercial space butted up to the massive sports park that's going there.

And really, this is the only new exit out of the neighborhood.

Sometimes it currently takes residents 45 to 50 minutes to get out of the neighborhood during school time and other uh uh other times throughout the day.

Um more narrowly, if you look at the part of this map that's changing the most in the before and after picture on page five of the presentation.

The commercial is almost doubling as the acreage was properly noted, but it's more importantly where it's being placed.

The particular area where I live is called the Enclave, and where Allison lives as well.

This is the lowest density area within the massive Banning Lewis ranch development.

These are the most expensive homes.

People bought these homes, and the way that the homes were built is so that their backyards would open up and face the uh northern side, the most southern side of this map.

I'm very concerned that home values will depreciate significantly, and some residents may not even be able to sell their homes if desired.

So I also would ask, I know this sounds uh negative, but I would ask for a no vote and would instead ask that the developer be willing to work with many residents who will come to the table to make a compromise.

I would suggest that that compromise start where the power lines are located that were referenced where there's an easement.

You can see in the changes that most all of that space was not designated to be commercial, and we would suggest a compromise to go back to that plan to where there's space between our homes and the commercial um businesses that may be located there.

Lastly, I would say that it's important to note that the developer is using sketches online to share possible sales.

And there's a medical plaza that plans to be is currently shown as being listed within that 150.

I think it's actually closer to 130 if I'm looking at the mass correctly.

That would be from our homes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else online that would like to speak in opposition, please first are six now.

Please introduce.

Hi.

My name is Mark Harmon.

Um, I also live in the enclave uh near uh Jason.

Although my property does not butt up to where that buffer has been changed, um, I do see the concern of building residential um or having residential so close to commercial.

And um also with the traffic pattern status of the traffic increase that's going to happen.

Um I'm concerned about the mails that were sent out, even though I live in the enclave, I did not receive the mailer.

And I was only uh alert to this uh yesterday.

So there's not many people in the enclaves that live in Banning Lewis uh know about this.

So that's why there's uh such a low turnout.

Um I agree with Jason.

I don't want you know, I don't want to eliminate the commercial aspect of it, but I think the buffer needs to be there, and maybe some type of uh agreement or negotiation can be had to talk through and and come to some sort of compromise with that um that buffer space and how close it is to a residential um neighborhood.

Um my other concern is um the the traffic and pedestrian traffic.

Um with the increased traffic, you know.

Right now we enjoy being able to cross the streets safely, walking on the sidewalk.

Um are there going to be like any pedestrian bridges or anything for the residents in any crossing streets with increased traffic at the intersection?

Um hopefully that we can come to some type of sort of compromise with the developer.

Thank you.

So would you mind repeating your last name?

Armin, A R M O N.

Thank you.

Anybody else online to speak in opposition?

There's nobody else online.

Okay, at this point we'll switch back to the applicant who has 10 minutes for rebuttal.

Hello, Andrea Barla with NES again.

Um just a couple of things I wanted to uh comment on.

Um actually, if you could bring up my presentation so I can have the current master plan, proposed master plan, or actually the one that has the two together, if possible.

Yeah.

So the only part of this south um uh uh the area south of Golden Jubilee that is changing is about eight acres.

So we are expanding obviously the the area to the north of Golden Jubilee Um to the west, but um the buffer, as I noted, was be is being retained, and the open space is actually uh in increasing there.

And as indicated before, because it's south of Golden Jubilee and somewhat detached from Woodman Road and Banning Lewis Parkway.

This is not going to be uh a type of commercial use that is going to be attracting a lot of pass by traffic or a lot of traffic generally.

It's more likely to be some uh lower intensity use, such as office or something that doesn't need that um arterial frontage.

So I think the the concerns about uh intense commercial in that uh location are perhaps misplaced because I think they those uses we've got 49 acres on the north side and another uh uh equally sized portion on the east side of Banning Lewis Ranch, where we are proposing commercial that has that visibility.

So there's more than enough land to accommodate those intense retail commercial uses without them having to go in this location.

And the developer will um continue to uh be cognizant of the neighbors' concerns when they are looking at development in this area.

And the next stage obviously is a development plan, and during that phase we have to look at um photometric plans.

So what is the light, uh, what kind of light is going beyond the boundary and and issues like that.

And if there are um proposed uses that would generate unusual noise levels, we would have to look at that.

So all those things get addressed in detail at the development plan stage, and there is another opportunity to um uh to notify the neighbors and respond uh to their comments.

As um Molly indicated, um, we don't have control of the city notification, but it does go out a thousand feet.

Um pretty much to the to the west, north, and east of this property.

There are either vacant properties or properties under development in one ownership or large county lots.

So I think the number was somewhere around 240 notifications.

So I would say at least 75% of those were in that banning Lewis Ranch neighborhood to the south.

Um I don't have the exact addresses, but that's where the bulk of the population is within that thousand feet from from the property.

So it does look at the entire property.

Um I think the other thing that was referenced was traffic.

I obviously referenced traffic reports and the improvements that are being made and the broader network improvements that are being proposed in the area.

I think there are actually changes that are taking place that will benefit um.

I might be able to go back a couple of slides, benefit the neighbors to the south.

So um that connection of banning Lewis Parkway to the south, which goes to Dublin right now, and further south to Stetson Hills and ultimately Barnes provides an alternative access for them to the east to get either to Woodman or to go south.

So currently that neighborhood is all filtering out onto Mark Shuffle.

So the improvements that are being made through this development connecting from the southern boundary of the property to Woodman, that connection of of banning Lewis Parkway will actually significantly improve um circulation for that neighborhood.

And we'll also uh the the point is that it traffic kind of going through the neigh this development will unlikely develop um result in much traffic going through their neighborhood people going through the neighborhood are likely their neighbors to get to this commercial development um there are other more efficient ways to get to the proposed commercial than going through their neighborhood so I don't think it's going to increase traffic in that area it will ch increase traffic on those on primarily on Woodman and the north south connections and that will uh be addressed with future road connections and improvements.

There was a lot of reference to home values I think as a planning commission uh you you are should be aware that home values are not a consideration in uh the planning criteria and so that's not something that is uh assessed and um regarding like I say the adequacy of the notification uh city staff can talk to that but I would point out that with the 200 plus postcards that were sent out we had five comments received so it's it didn't generate uh uh a need to have a neighborhood meeting there wasn't enough uh express concern to warrant a neighborhood meeting in this particular instance based on these changes and I think that is all I want to say at this point so I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you I think we'll hold the questions we would like to hear from our city traffic engineer.

I think he knows that Mr Frisbee if you could uh address that could you put the uh staff uh presentation back up there was a comment in there about traffic and I just want to uh to see that addressed about potential mitigation I can see that yeah that's the slide okay okay uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering um Public Works Department uh members of Planning Commission um question regarding the comment that we left on in our review of our traffic study it is what it is it says what it says um that uh with this development there are is anticipated in in our 20 year projections 25 year projections 20 year projections um to for that road to you know that intersection to operate a level service f which is you know which is beyond what you know the normal we have a level service D there are some options that are recommended in the um uh in the traffic impact or in the traffic impact study including some turn lane um additions and some free right turn movements uh I will also add that um the city is um about to kick off a Woodman Road corridor study that's part of a PPRTA 3 A-list project to bring um upgrades and safety improvements to Woodman Road.

That would also that analysis would also include looking at access um development patterns all those connections that Andrea talked about uh and and evaluating the corridor as a whole and this traffic study now just looks at one little piece of the corridor we're taking a corridor and looking at a whole what we should do for intersection improvements so I uh I suspect that there you know we'll find similar situations like this in other intersections on the Woodman corridor and will be recommendations to address those um conditions that we're potentially see in the next 20 uh to 25 years so that's that would be my response to that question and um uh and more to come okay any other commissioners have questions from Mr.

Frisbee I'm good thank you if it's okay I'd just like to speak to the public notification piece quickly if possible um Molly O'Brien uh planner two um so 265 postcards were mailed out as is standard um uh to within one thousand feet of the the property boundary in question um there will be another opportunity to send out public notice though um prior to the city council hearing so staff at that time will verify that um all of those boundaries are correct and that all properties within 1000 feet will be receiving that postcard yeah that was my question is a thousand feet from the every boundary not center mass of the yes that's correct questions oh I do have one for the applicant uh if we could bring that map back up that shows the color coding uh currently in the proposed and I have a question for the applicant yes sir yeah I'm kind of waiting for the map to come up but I you had talked about some less intent

standard um uh to within 1,000 feet of the the property boundary in question um there will be another opportunity to send out public notice though um prior to the city council hearing so staff at that time will verify that um all of those boundaries are correct and that all properties within 1000 feet will be receiving that postcard yeah that was my question is a thousand feet from the every boundary not center mass of the okay yes that's correct questions mistress oh i do have one for the applicant uh if we could bring that map back up that shows the color coding the uh currently in the proposed and i have a question for the applicant yes sir yeah i'm kind of waiting for the map to come up but i you had talked about some less intensive uses on the um yes that one right there if not if i'm not mistaken that golden jubilee that's kind of an I don't even know if that's a developed road I think it was previously we saw another that we saw that road in another application and it looked like so it it it was proposed in the um annexation and development plan concept plan to of the property to the east um it is proposed connect a connection from Mohawk it was proposed in a concept plan from uh several years ago back in the 90s and it's continued um through this development and it may even continue further east west rather sorry but whatever is there now would have to be improved to support that commercial space that's there it would but it's part of it's part of the uh approved master plan already and the there are actually approved development plans in place for for the residential um before the change in direction on those parcels which actually include that road and the road section the road section from the western boundary to banning Lewis Parkway is part of a is is an approved um road construction to the east I don't believe is at this point.

Okay thank you commissioners uh Commissioner Engel uh Commissioner Engel I have a related question the golden Jubilee drive where does that sit and relate to the power line that appears to run from uh banning Lewis to the uh across east-west so as you can see here we have an area that's dashed um which is the 300 foot easement and the power line runs through that easement so obviously the road cannot uh go underneath the power line so it runs parallel with the power line then kind of crosses underneath it and goes to the east so it it the power line is there but it is avoiding all the um poles and what have you and this is all being uh approved um in terms of the appropriate clearances and grading and what have you with uh Colorado Springs utilities it would appear that there's a um viability commercial viability question related to the south of the golden jubilee drive in other words with that power line there how much commercial development do you really expect to occur in that area south?

So uh there's a couple of answers to that so on that 8.1 acres to the south you can see the dashed line of the extent of the easement um there I I believe at that point now you you're challenging me a little bit here I think the uh power line is actually north of golden jubilee in that location but even so within an easement we can put parking and that's the advantage of commercial we can we can utilize that easement area much better than when it's residential because you can't put buildings in there and residential typically doesn't have large parking lots so we can utilize that area for parking and I would not say it's not viable for commercial use in its very broad sense in terms of the MXL zoning or the mixed use zoning it's just probably not going to be viable for a a retail restaurant type use which want that high visibility location adjacent to Woodman and the Binding Lewis park intersection.

So there's lots of other uses in that zoning that could be uh accommodated here such as offices and and so on.

Let me flip it real quick uh would it be viable for residential given the easement on either side of that road.

Well the easement makes it more challenging um I have to say on that um south portion we were we were very challenged uh in in doing a residential layout we were able to get one with very small product to to work there the easement was um then um land which really wasn't usable um so we just left it as open space so not very efficient use of land but I think with the extension of commercial around it then that residential um maybe is is not as appropriate as just uh a lower intensity commercial use.

Thank you.

Is that that's the right word?

But distances that are required from those types of power lines, or is it just less desirable to put residential near it and more desirable to put something like commercial that's not you know occupied daily or I wouldn't say the the um terminologies is less or more desirable.

I think uh it's there are specific restrictions.

So the easement is 300 feet wide, like I say, it's not um the the power lines don't spread 300 feet, so they're in a specific location.

That easement is in there to partly as I recall, there was an initial 180-foot easement and then an additional 120-foot easement that was added to allow for potential undergrounding of those power lines at some point in the future, not really anticipated right now.

Obviously, that's very expensive.

But um the 300-foot easement uh from Colorado Springs Utilities is uh like a forbidden area for any building of of any permanent structures.

So we can put, like I say, parking in there because they can still access uh the utilities.

We have in other locations in this corridor being able to put detention ponds in those easements, um, but permanent structures they uh they don't want to see.

And then they have very specific requirements in terms of clearance, uh because they that you have to take into account the sag line, and so I've been through this a lot.

So uh of the power lines and the the distance between uh the power lines and any grading you do around between the poles.

So that's all reviewed very carefully by Colorado Springs Utilities.

So it does limit what we can do there.

But um, in terms of commercial putting parking there, like I say, is a much more efficient use of that area.

Um, because if this runs across the entire property, and when we you get into the sports complex, it gets easier because um you can either put parking or a sports field.

Yeah, so there's no structures there.

No, I'm just thinking in terms of replacement of businesses.

I do think it would probably be a less intensive, you know, because you're really gonna, if you're uh you know, retail business, you'd want to be close to the main road.

You wouldn't want to be tucked back in, you know, off of golden jubilee.

So I do think that's uh yeah, that's a good mitigation.

And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it is 49 acres that's available north of Golden Jubilee.

That's a substantial commercial center in itself.

And then if I go, I think maybe to the end, you can see there's another, I can't read it now.

I think it's about 28 acres, 30 acres to the east of uh Banning Lewis Parkway that is also available for commercial.

So that's where your uh larger scale uses are those that want that um pass by traffic and uh easy access are going to locate.

Can you go back to the side by side?

I just think it's so helpful to see that um so um it there's really as far as adjacency to the neighborhood, the buffer is remaining.

We're changing the 6.4 acres and then the 21 above, which by my calculation is somewhere around 220 potential houses to the commercial, which for the for the neighborhood I realize is a change, but the buffer remains, the open space remains, and it feels like when I look at kind of the overall aerial, the greater concern might be the parcel to the west of yours, but that's not part of this development.

And it would be to the left of the 21.4 acres in yellow, right?

That is even closer to those neighbors, but that's not part of this.

It isn't.

I did work on that.

Yeah, and uh that is proposed for um bear in mind though, the the boundary, you can see where it kind of kicks in.

So Golden Jubilee there runs almost parallel with the boundary of that property, and that area is just open because it's not feasible to develop for anything, but just to the north of that, there's multifamily residential apartments proposed, and then commercial along the Woodman frontage.

Okay, that's helpful that you knew that.

I would just but right, I think that that's even more of a concern area.

Can you talk a little bit about um the timeline of the potential timeline of the build-out?

Because I think we get a lot of um comments and public um feedback um about things dramatically changing in one's neighborhood.

But I think we know too in this process that sometimes these things take many, many years and they happen in phases, but maybe it's gonna happen very quickly.

Do you have any sense of I do have a sense of it?

I might defer to my client who's here if they have any more detailed information.

But based on what we understand, is it's it's geared up to go pretty quickly here.

So um whether it all uh certainly I would say the area to the west of Banning Lewis Parkway, so the other area to the east is a little bit more uh in the future.

And then the area in the northeast parcel, I think, is going to be uh in that s sim uh in the more immediate future than uh further down the road.

So I think these things are going to happen pretty rapidly, certainly in terms of everything north of Golden Jubilee and west of Banningloose Parkway.

There really are, as I understand, no firm proposals for anything south of Golden Jubilee at this point.

Okay.

Yeah, the major modification.

I think uh this application is consistent with both of those.

I do think there's enough mitigation between the existing houses and this proposed change to development uh to support that.

So I'll be in favor of the application.

Yeah, I concur.

I think and I I appreciate the timeline from concept plan to master plan to um this modification in zone change.

These types of developments shift over time, and what you might think five or ten years or however long it's been to what it needs to be today can change.

So I think it meets the criteria as laid out, and I will be in support as well.

Commissioner Engel, I also agree that it meets the criteria and would would support the uh the changes.

Although I I do think you need to seriously look at the commercial viability of what you propose south of that one road that's not even there yet.

Well, I would like to make a motion then to recommend approval to city council to zone change of one hundred and fifty-six point one eight acres from PDZ APO plan development.

Do I have to read all of this, Trevor?

Uh Plan Development Zone with airport overlay to MXL APO mixed use large scale with airport overlay based on the plan upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a zoning map amendment as set forth in s city code section 7.5.704.

Can I get a second?

One second that motion.

The vote passes with four members in favor and Commissioner Case recused.

All right, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council the major modification of the Persharon land use plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for land use plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.516.

Commissioner Engle, I second the motion.

The motion passes with four votes in favor and Commissioner Case recused.

Okay, we're taking a short break to two PM and then we'll come back and hear the Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard uh application.

All right, the planning commission is back in session.

Uh the next thing to consider is six five minutes.

Yeah, six five Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard, please read that into the record.

Item AE, N V A R Dash two Five Dash 0005.

Anonus variance to City Code Section 7.3.304.

Point C point one point B to allow for a height of 29 feet with approved pitch of less than 6.12, where 16 is required for a detached garage in a residential estate with wildland urban interface overlay.

Sun District consisting of 3.16 acres and located at 65 Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard.

Item 8 F N V A R dash 25, that's 0006, a non-use variance to City Code Section 7.3.304.1.8 to allow for 3,582 square feet of garage space where it 1650 square feet is required in the residential estate with wildland urban interface overlay Sone District consisting of 3.16 acres and located at 65 Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard.

Your percenter is Matthew Amble.

So we have the address here sixty-five Shine Mountain Boulevard here.

As she stated, it is in the Weldon urban interface overlay here.

So it is close to the Broadmoor area, just southeast there as you can see.

And then northeast of the intersection of Shine Mountain Boulevard and Marlin Road.

Here is a single family detached.

And they're proposing the detached there with the lounge and private indoor basketball court and also other recreational facilities there.

And the other one for the size of the structure there as well.

And the maximum square footage for garage space for a single detached uh family residence is actually 1,650.

So this is a little bit of an increase there.

This is on a lot size of 3.16 acres.

Um as you can see from the site plan here.

It does have its setbacks quite a bit there.

We're only five feet as the requirement.

Well, not in those, pardon me.

Um the closest area to the lot line there would be 99 feet.

Um actually to the uh northern lot line there.

And the front you have 242 foot setback, and the other side would be 153, and the rear would be 152 setback there.

Um the slot is actually surrounded by very mature trees there as well.

The northern part of the lot there, um, to the north of it there, is just open vacant space or open space, pardon me.

On the east side is also open space as well.

The only direct connection to another lot line is on the south side there to a residence.

And then the streets are gonna be on the west side of the property here.

Um here's more of the uh dimensional standards here that's kind of going on here.

Uh, there's an existing garage that's 894 square feet.

The proposed garage is 2,688.

Uh, this will equate to the 3,582 square feet total for the lot here.

Um, even though the uh only 802 square feet is actually gonna be used for the RV garage.

The other portion is separated by a wall on the interior side of the structure, and then we'll be used for indoor, like I stated previously, um, indoor basketball court, recreational facilities, and lounge.

Um the initial submittal date on this one is June 3rd, 2025.

This has gone through four review cycles there, and it was ready for the agenda back on October 16th.

Uh for public notice and stakeholder involvement.

Um, we did public notices twice there prior to the internal administrative review, as well as prior to the city planning commission hearing.

They did go out a thousand feet and about 60 postcards was sent out both times, and posters also placed on the property there as well.

Uh, we received a total of uh four comments.

Um, all phone calls there.

One was a general inquiry, uh, two, we're just concerned about the general size and height of the structure there as well.

Uh, which I did let those um the public notice uh folks know that this is gonna be in the middle of the lot.

It's gonna be difficult to see from the street, and they do do have the space for it as well, so it's not like a one-size kind of fits-all scenario here.

Um, and then also the uh the last one there was concerned about it being approved by the HOA, uh, which did get approval there back on July 16th of this year.

Uh for agency review here, um, all comments have mostly been addressed.

The only one that's still needed is the uh final drainage letter there that'll be required by SWINT prior to the building permanent approval.

Um, all other comments there are fire had some comments about fire ratings and things like that, which have all been addressed as well.

Uh, but everything else has been addressed.

Uh with the plan COS compliance, this project does comply with the applicable visions, big ideas and strategies of plan COS.

And then the application review criteria we have for the non-use variants are the four items there.

And after evaluation for NVAR25-uh 0005, uh, we do think the application does meet the review criteria.

That's gonna be for the roof height there.

And for the second one here, the same review criteria.

Uh, this is gonna be for the uh size of the building.

Um, after the uh evaluation of this non-use variance as well, we do believe it meets review criteria as well.

Um, here are the optional motions here to approve the use there, so they can build this.

Uh just with the condition of approval that the final drainage letter must be submitted and approved by the stormwater enterprise prior to the building permanent issuance.

And that's gonna be the exact same um condition there for the uh 006.

Are there any questions at this time?

I got a couple quick questions.

I think it's about nine slides back.

Yes, sir.

One with the standards, the 1650.

Yeah, that one there.

There we go.

So is do you know what the rationale is uh for the limitation on 1,650 square feet?

Is that derived from something or is it just so the four detached garages there for uh basically for detached single family residences there, they're only allowed the maximum of 1,650 square feet.

And this one there, I mean, it has a very large lot size.

No, I understand it.

I'm just wondering what's why 1650, not 1700 or 1800.

I okay.

I'm that's all I'm gonna do.

We're not quite sure there when that came in the code, but uh I understand that.

I just want to make sure there was a rationale for it.

And the height only has to do with the fact that it's a garage.

So if this was an accessory dwelling unit that I was building to rent out to something, those limitations wouldn't apply then because it's on a garage.

So for this one specifically under garages, it does apply to this, but for detached accessory structures, it also does.

Um, like the ADU, you can go up to 25 feet if it's on top of another structure there.

Okay, but with this one is the RE, so it is residential estate.

And so actually the maximum zoning height for this district is 35 feet.

Okay, and then this one as well, like the uh maximum lock coverage there's 30%, and this will only be at 9.5.

So the real issue is just because we want to park an RV and have the indoor basketball court then with something any less than that.

Um I would think the basketball game.

So if someone lived in the RV in the garage, would I make it an accessory dwelling either?

It would still be a garage.

Actually, code does not allow for that.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

We'll now hear, unless there's other questions we'll hear from the applicant.

Very good.

Thank you.

Commission Chair Casey, just wanted to clarify your your question on the exact number for 1650.

Yes.

So when the city planning uh brought forward the UDC update, um, this dimensional standard was actually a modification of what was an old chapter code because we had uh a more complex um calculation of what is garage and what is storage, which actually gave a larger number.

We removed uh some of that storage component from the current standards in the UDC uh that you see today, but the 1650 was ultimately a negotiation between planning and community stakeholders as it went through the adoption process.

There's no real magic rhyme or reason behind the 1650 per se.

Is that just because yeah, it's detached, or if it was an attached garage or residential, it wouldn't matter, yeah.

So, as Matthew kind of noted, so when we have these questions come up of total square footage for garages, we look at uh both detached structures that function as a garage and uh a garage uh kind of programming that would be attached to the house.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Mr.

Hansen.

No, I was just saying, I was saying sorry to them.

That was a that was a technical rabbit hole that was quite interesting, but we wondered why it was limited as well.

So I'm I'm Ross Fletcher, the applicant, and this is Ryan Callister, the owner.

So uh just brief history.

Uh some fun fact is one of the previous or owners was Robert Bob uh Bob Norris.

Are you familiar with that?

He was famous for a cigarette ad.

Yes, yes, yes.

And as the story goes, he uh rescued uh elephant, the baby elephant, and uh some point he had a baby elephant on that property.

So the good news is we're not applying for a variance for an elephant.

We're just trying to do a garage.

So if you uh the PowerPoint, so if you can go to the next slide, or I can I guess I can do that, huh?

All right, so here uh again the proposed uh gym garage.

So this might help with the 1650.

So you can see the right side is the RV garage, and then the left side is the basketball court batting cage uh uh recreation kind of area.

And I think they the way to understand the code is since it has two garage doors, they counted the whole area as garage.

So but the one on the left with the big garage door is gonna be the batting cage area, and that's why there's a garage door on the left.

But per code, they're counting the entire area as garage space.

Um and then the front elevation to make it architecturally pleasing.

We added uh car port, or not a carport, but uh entry on the front in the side there.

Uh so just again, some of the stuff that Matthew reiterated.

You can see the in the picture on the bottom left of the open space around the property, and then only one attached uh property to the uh south of the lot.

And then uh the upper right, you can see all the trees and that the round circle there is where uh we're proposing the garage to go.

And that is about 10 feet lower than the actual house level.

So it goes down even though it's a higher structure.

Uh the actual level will be uh lower than the main house.

And again, uh with the slide of the where the garage is going.

Um it doesn't uh doesn't go into any setbacks, uh easements, uh, and it fits all lock coverage, and obviously the lot is a huge lot.

Um and the variance aligns with neighborhood character as evidenced by nearby properties with additional structures or accessory dwellings units and approved non-use variances, including and then those are the addresses of um properties in the neighborhood that have had uh alternate uh properties on the thing.

And then you can see in the in the picture of non-use variants right close to the property, one that has a five garage doors and larger garage space um to the to the west and to the right.

Uh that has a non-use, and these have been approved non-use uh garage space.

That's 3,084 square foot, which is similar to what we're proposing as well.

Uh just a couple of things, Ryan McAllister and property owner.

Um, the the actual uh RV space combined with our existing garage is actually under the 1650 square feet uh as proposed.

So as far as meeting the garage piece uh to Russell's point, the uh the batting cage is an accordion style, so it will actually come out the garage door.

So that's the intent of it.

Uh the building's 47 feet deep, and it's some of you may know pitcher mound is 60 feet six inches, so need a little extra space there.

And so the garage door serves that purpose without having a bigger building than what's being proposed.

So uh that's the intent of the garage door.

Um, but it's really just for family use.

We have zero additional residence, zero additional traffic, zero additional cars.

It's um it really is and no elephants.

No elephants.

So any questions for us.

Yeah, if you would just hold or do we have any public comment?

Anybody sign up for public comment and supporter opposition?

Anyone out of there sit down and come right back up.

I might add one more thing.

As Matthew said, uh the HOA did approve it.

The other thing with the setbacks, um, the city's five feet, but the uh the HOA is actually pretty thorough in their their thoughtfulness of setbacks within the community.

We actually have 50 foot setbacks because of the size of the lot.

So the intent of pushing the buildings or any any other uses uh in inward of the property so it doesn't affect other views.

Uh the neighbor to our south um is in favor of it and excited uh for their for their kid to be able to shoot hoops in our in our garage.

So um it hadn't hadn't heard a ton of feet additional feedback from other neighbors, but it won't affect you.

Actually, can't even see the building from the road.

Um the tree coverage is is pretty dense.

Um and so the the general public won't see it uh potentially be able to see it from the park in the winter when the leaves commissioner questions.

I don't have any questions.

I know you guys had to wait through so many other issues.

I know you've been here all day, and then we have to do that.

This is a beach ball for you guys compared to some of these other one question.

It's a good way to end the day.

Yeah.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Um just as a point of reference.

I have checked the plan COS and the uh the retool UDC and elephant is not in either.

Okay.

Maybe a non-conforming something.

Uh no, I have to have a friend that lives just down the road um that I went to visit the other day, and I happened to drive by and I was like, oh, I think that's the the house, and I could see how many trees.

So um yeah, so I don't I don't have any issues with it.

I appreciate the thoroughness of the application and the due diligence that you've done with the HOA and the neighbors.

Um so yeah, I won't have any problem with that.

Getting back to the for my myself personally, I think it meets the criteria.

Again, that's what we go by.

Uh it doesn't meet the criteria for non-use variants for both of them, both the height and the uh square footage, and I believe it does.

I'll be in support of the application.

Commissioner Case for the record, uh I believe it meets criteria and sounds like fun project and great for the community as a whole.

So I concur, I think it will be a fun project, and uh it's it's amazing you can do that.

And I wish you luck and enjoy the uh enjoy the facility.

I have to ask, are you gonna build put trees around the other areas for the ones you cut down for the facility?

It's still surrounded.

Still surrounded.

Completely surrounded by trees.

All right, thank you.

I sorry, Trevor Gloss of the City Attorney's Office.

Um I I know you asked whether or not there was anyone signed up for public comment, but can we also just check out?

Okay, you're correct.

Can you check online and see if there's anybody uh in support or opposition to um the project, please?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak, either in support or opposition for this item, please press star safe to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

A quick question for the planners.

I don't think we mentioned postcards.

Did we send postcards out for this one too?

And postcards are sent out.

Pardon me.

Uh Matthew Ambul Planner 2 City Planning.

Uh postcards, yes, we're sent out.

They were sent out twice there, uh, once prior uh during the administrative review.

And then once for the uh public hearing here.

They're sent out on a thousand feet, and I believe sixty one out each time.

And I think it says you had two comments received.

Uh four all day.

Four, okay.

Okay, I don't have any further questions.

Okay, to that end, I'd like to make a motion.

Um a motion to approve the non-use variants to city code section 7.3.304 point C point one point B, allowing a height of 29 feet for a detached garage based on upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code section 7.5.526 point E with the following condition of approval.

A final drainage letter must be submitted and approved by Stormwater Enterprise prior to building permit issuance commissioner angle.

I second the motion.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks for your time.

Who knows what's going to happen on the second one?

All right, I'm sorry.

I took closed the page and thought I was done.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the non-use variants to City Code Section 7.3.304.C.1.A, allowing a 3,582 square foot of total garage space based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 7.5.526.E, with the following condition of approval.

Final drainage letter must be submitted and approved by Stormwater Enterprise prior to building permit issuance.

Commissioner Engle, I second the motion.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And at this point, we'll move on to presentation on the sign ordinance.

We know how to pack them in for signs, don't we?

Wow.

Oh, perfect.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Chair Casey.

My name is Kurt Schmidt.

I am the program administrator for the city's sign permitting and sign enforcement program.

We are bringing to you today as an informational presentation a drafted sign ordinance update to Chapter 7 of the UDC.

This will be before you in December as a formal item to take action upon recommendations to city council.

Some quick facts, project summary.

These reflect the sections on the left of the screen there of your slide, which include use tables and use specific standards, the proposed sign ordinance, administrative decisions, which include sign permitting and coordinated sign plan processing, rules of measurement, which is how we calculate sign sizes, heights, and locations for signs, as well as definitions which have been updated to reflect all the changes in the sign update.

These changes are for on-premise and private property regulations and will not reflect the revocable permit process, which covers the right-of-way, as this will be addressed at a future date.

A bit of history and background information on the sign ordinance update.

The city last updated its sign regulations in March of 2012.

Prior to this, the ordinance was regulated by zone districts.

Under the current ordinance, signs are regulated by the use of the property, which include commercial, industrial, office, civic, residential, and mixed uses.

These uses reflect the use definition tables in the UDC.

Other significant changes that were made were the implementation of electronic message center sign, which is the use of a digital display that has rotating messages.

And the addition of coordinated sign plan, which affords developments with unique characteristics, the flexibility for signage that varies from standard sign allowances through creativity and upgraded sign design.

Most recently in the 2023 Unified Development Code update, there were only a few minor changes implemented to the sign provisions.

These essentially were allowing condominium office uses under the coordinated sign plan criteria, as well as revising criteria for pitched roof signs and signs that extend above the roof line on the face of buildings.

The proposed sign ordinance update is an extension of the broader UDC and is an opportunity to streamline the city's sign regulations to better align with industry standards.

A quick overview of what we'll be discussing in this presentation will include the following highlights.

This will reflect the current UDC formatting.

Enhancements to the coordinated sign plan program, which was implemented in the 2012 sign code update, sign classification updates to major and minor and temporary sign types.

These will reflect new numerical values, use classifications, as well as new sign categories.

Updates to the electronic message center sign category.

This also was a category that was new under the 2012 sign code update.

Non-conforming, abandoned, nuisance signs and sign maintenance updates, as well as rules of measurement and definition changes.

Starting with the reformatting and reorganization.

This update will reflect the conformity with the current UDC and will add more continuity to the flow and the layout of the review process of signs.

With broader applicability and refined process for decision making under permits and coordinated sign plan submittals, which will include the addition of sign permit and coordinated sign plan approval processes, application submittal details, the decision making body requirements, permit and coordinated sign plan review criteria, along with predecision and post-decision limitations.

The update also reflects the reorganization of the rules of measurement, which have been moved along with definitions to their corresponding sections in the UDC.

In addition to the reorganization, we have updated all the informational graphics and diagrams for better visual understanding and comprehension of sign types, rules of measurement, property orientation and property layouts.

These include building and property boundary frontages as well as overall sign height calculations.

Some of the updated diagrams are shown below in this slide, orientation of the buildings, how we look at the elevations, sign category classifications.

This one shows how we determine facial mount rooftop signage and then the overall height determination of signs when assigns on a slope.

Enhancements proposed under this update include criteria that expands to multi-use condominium developments.

Current code allows office use, where the update will expand into the commercial civic use as well.

In addition, single-use single lot properties with unique characteristics, including property orientation off of right-of-ways, multiple access points off of separate entrances, and increased sign heights for freestanding signs along major arterial right-of-way or higher classifications.

This specifically reflects interstate and freeway locations for heights.

Additionally, a coordinated sign plan may modify the maximum number of allowed EMCs for what is generally allowed for the applicable use within larger developments.

Currently, our coordinated sign plan only allows one electronic message center sign per the development.

Sign classification updates.

The current sign ordinance is divided into multiple sign classifications, including major signs, minor, and temporary signs.

Each classification details the type of signs and the use of the property determines the size, height, and quantity of signs allowed.

Updates in these categories will include the addition of single family residential use, combining commercial and industrial uses together, as well as office and civic use classifications for more simplicity.

Removal and reclassification of sign types in the minor and temporary categories that reflect federal compliance requirements for content neutrality.

Revisions and dimensional standards have been updated for multiple sign types, including freestanding signs, temporary banners, and short-term signs, as well as new diagrams identifying these standards for better clarification.

Modifications were made to the temporary sign category, and the addition of two new sign types have been included to also meet legal compliance requirements and the regulation of time, place, and manner instead of a content-based regulation.

These new categories include short-term signs and fence screening or fence wraps for developments that require fencing during construction.

Electronic message center sign updates, also known as EMC.

The sign type was implemented during the 2012 sign code update and is currently regulated under the commercial use classification.

These are digital signs that are capable of rotating messages that pertain to the use of the business within the property.

Under this update, we are proposing the ability to allow the sign type to be added to additional uses, including industrial, office, and civic.

Currently, these types of signs are only permitted as components to freestanding signs.

However, we are proposing the addition of wall signs to be added in this update as well.

These additions, these additions will follow the strict criteria set under the current code for EMCs, as well as new requirements, which will include placement, orientation, separation restrictions, which respect to residential uses, as well as time operation restrictions for AMCs that are proposed in the office and civic use classifications.

Nonconforming, abandon, nuisance, and maintenance update.

We've updated and included additional criteria detailing compliance requirements on signs that meet a non-conforming, abandoned, and nuisance sign status, and we revised wording for stronger enforcement content.

We have created a new section for sign maintenance to address specific requirements such as prohibiting sign structures that are unsafe, not maintained, dilapidated, or have missing face panels.

Also, signs that have exposed sign components, such as electrical fixtures, otherwise constituting a hazard, or health and safety.

These maintenance updates will assist our enforcement team with more robust criteria in gaining compliance on blighted signs within city limits.

Sorry about that.

This will remain posted during the duration of this process.

We also presented these updates at a stakeholder and public meeting on October 29th here at the RDC, and had approximately 24 attendees between the two meetings.

In addition, we have also conducted multiple individual meetings with the HBA, the Economic Development Group, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the International Sign Association, and multiple stakeholders that were unable to make that meeting in person.

We do have a scheduled meeting on November 20th to present to the Development Review Enterprise Advisory Committee.

This does include the presentation, and I'm happy to field any questions that you might have.

Does uh do billboards and electronic billboards fall under the sign ordinance?

Good question.

Um, thank you.

Um they do, uh, but we are not addressing off-premise or billboard section in the code at this time, so it won't reflect that.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Well, that was easy.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

That's a lot of information.

It is a lot.

It is.

Real quick on so, like things like uh political signs.

Anything changing on those in terms of placement.

A little bit permitting or yeah.

Um, so the obstacle there, obviously, uh, Chair, is is we have the right of way and we have private property.

Um, private property.

Uh those signs now will fall under what's called a short-term sign classification, or under current code, they're actually specifically called election signs.

Um, we're not allowed to regulate signs by their content and what they say.

So that will change as far as the type of classification, but they'll still have restrictions, they'll still have size and quantity limitations, and it's based off the size of the property.

And if uh like for example, I'm in a homeowner association, so I know in in certain areas HOA control, they don't allow signs of any kind like that.

So is that is that that's permissible then for other for them to uh an HOA to regulate signs within their community?

Uh it would be as far as I'm I'm understanding, but I would defer that to uh Trevor Glass, the city attorney's office.

Um the HOA can do so.

Uh it would be a private right of action if they're going through that.

Um they are AHOA is not a government institution, so they don't have the same First Amendment obligations that the city does.

Um there could be something else prohibiting it, but I am not aware of anything at all.

Thank you.

I don't think we have any further questions.

We appreciate the work you put into this and forward to hearing it again.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And any other business?

Okay, and we are adjourned.

Thanks to our uh two alternates for filling in today.