All right, good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding that others may have different views from your own.

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

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

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

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

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

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

Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period to respond or address any comments.

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

Please go ahead and uh conduct the roll call.

Vice Chair Hansler here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Chair Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Clemens.

Here.

Commissioner Gidiano.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Thank you.

We have eight members present.

Yeah, do we have any changes to the agenda or postponements?

None from our side.

Okay, moving on to communications.

I just want to point out uh it's been announced to the commissioners, but commander Commissioner Ksapilovich has moved outside of Colorado Springs and has resigned from the commission.

I want to thank him for his service to the commission.

Mr.

Walker.

Yeah, I also want to say thank you to uh Assad for his service and uh good luck.

Um we will have a uh replacement uh full time for you after the city council meets in January, third first meeting.

So should be in time for uh your next meeting.

Um is this my uh communications time?

Okay.

Just a couple of other quick things.

First of all, seasons greetings for all of you.

Um hope that your uh December is safe and and happy for all of you.

Um we are having our um office Christmas party on Friday, so uh I know Melissa will probably shoot me for this, but um you all are certainly welcome to stop by we will buy some extra lunch for you.

Um anyway, at lunchtime.

Um also just on uh on a positive note.

Um we had at our last city council meeting, all of our items were on the consent calendar, and none were called off.

And so that was a very positive, positive uh meeting for all of us.

So on that note, we will um I will let you go into this meeting.

Okay, next we have approval of the minutes starting with the minutes that uh we have three months' worth to go through.

So the minutes for the September 10th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting is first.

And if you would review the minutes, commissioners, just to verify if you were yeah, if you don't remember if you were president of a particular meeting, I know we had uh a lot of uh shifting attendance.

And then we'll entertain a motion uh for that to approve them.

I'd uh I'll move to approve the September minutes um item 4A.

I'll second Chair Casey.

Uh I was not here for the September 10th meeting.

We have marked you as abstain.

And I will abstain as well.

The motion passes with six votes in favor.

And two people abstained.

Okay, moving on to the uh October 8th, 2025 uh minutes.

We had Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Slattery, Robbins, myself, and Commissioner Clemens and Commissioner Gigiano present at that one.

I'll make a motion to approve item four B, the minutes of October eighth, twenty twenty-five.

I'll second.

The motion passes with seven members in favor and one abstained.

Moving on to the November minutes, the November minutes.

Uh the commissioners that are present today are myself, Commissioner Hensler, and Commissioner Clements.

I have to abstain.

I'll also abstain.

We have a motion first, please.

Oh, sure.

Sorry.

I will make a motion to approve the November twelfth, twenty twenty five meeting minutes.

I'll second it.

Um Commissioner Cecil, I'm abstaining.

I wasn't present.

I'm also abstaining.

Commissioner Slattery as well.

And I'm abstaining.

The motion passes with three members in favor and five abstained.

Okay, now moving on to the consent calendar.

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

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

Any member of the public, any commissioner or any member of the staff can pull an item off the consent calendar to be heard today.

Can you read the items into the record?

Item 5A, C U D P, sorry, C U P D 25-0021, exotic crops, LLC, conditional use.

Item 5B, URAP dash 25-001, Audysc ad North Weber.

And item 5C, CPC 2722, rules and procedures.

Are there any members of staff that would like to pull an item off the consent calendar?

Are there any commissioners that would like to pull any items off the consent calendar?

I'd like to pull item five C off the consent calendar, the rules and procedures.

Okay.

And are there any members of the public that would like to pull an item I off the consent calendar either here or online?

If there's any member of the public online that would like to pull any of these items from consent calendar, please press star seeks now.

There's nobody online.

Okay, if we can move forward then uh the first item that will be heard then is the rules and procedure for city count uh planning commission.

Uh head presenter is Trevor Gloss, but Sarah Bruin, are you filling in for him on that one?

Casey, before we move forward on that, could we please vote on the remainder of the consent calendar?

Yep, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Okay, so the removed so the meringue items in the consent calendar.

Uh we'll need to determine whether um to approve those items as a whole, as I mentioned.

So that's so we'll be voting on the exotic crops and odyssey at North Weber on the consent calendar.

Do I have a motion to approve these items?

Motion to approve the consent calendar items 4A and 45A and 5B as read into the record.

I'll second.

Allow us one moment while we amend the motion text.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, now we can move on to the rules and procedure for City Planning Commission.

Um Chair, I just wanted to make clear I talked to Sarah briefly before the meeting.

I had two concerns about these, and I am willing to work with the whole commission on how to handle the rules and procedures, but there were two things that were missing from them in terms of what I had expected to see.

One being whether we need to state explicitly.

We need to read the item in.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We're just gonna read the item.

One second.

Item five C CPC 2722 rules and procedures for the city planning commission.

Presenter Trevor Gloss.

Good morning, Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

I'm standing in for Trevor related to the rules today.

Uh I don't have a formal presentation.

I believe um all of you have had the opportunity to look at the rules, and I'm more than willing to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Um the two questions I had were about whether we need to explicitly state the procedure for how to handle it if both a chair and vice chair are out.

The other question that I had was whether we needed to explicitly state whether or not virtual participants who call in are allowed to seed time, or whether both of those are fine being discretionary and do not need to be um called out within the actual rules and procedures.

Um for something that's not explicitly stated in the rules, typically the dis that discretion will lie with the president of the commission to make a decision about how that would be handled if it's not explicitly stated.

Alternatively, it would you would refer back to the rules that govern the city council to see if it explicitly states uh how that should be handled.

Um your purpose today and determining how to proceed with the matter that's before you.

Obviously, you have the option of adopting the rules and requesting to amend them later.

You could also decide to um table the matter until a later date if you wanted to have further discussion about changing the rules before you adopt them.

However, that is obviously up to the commission to decide how you want to handle that so I think the first item you brought up about the absence of the chair and the vice chair, is that correct?

Okay.

I think we had that situation once before, and we voted as a board uh as a commission to appoint uh Commissioner Ricketts at that time for that, then that would probably be the process I would imagine the rest of the commission would use.

And I felt like that worked great.

I just want to make sure that if we ought to say it out loud or in writing, we that we do.

And the second question you had had to do with uh we've seen time if you're virtually adjourned.

Okay, because normally we require you to be personal in presence by the rules.

Okay.

Yeah, I think um just a little vernacular as there wasn't a vote, it was just an appointment appointment um of a replacement by the current chair.

So whoever you deem, you know, if if both you and vice chair are out, uh whoever you deem fit to run the meeting um in your absence is um how we've handled it before and um I agree it seemed to work fine.

And I think that's because we had a known absence.

We knew both people were gone.

So I think if we had an unknown, yeah, suddenly, yeah, like you know, whatever reason both chair and vice chair couldn't make it on time due to okay.

Mr.

Chair, we can make we can modify the rules to address those two issues.

I think they're relatively simple.

Um corrections and or additions according to the way you the way you discuss them, and we can either bring them back or you can approve them with those modifications and we'll communicate to you how they were changed.

I'd like to hear commissioner thoughts on uh seeding time if you're not present by doing so virtually from other commissioners.

Is that something that we want to do or allow?

Well, um so I think leaving it at the discretion of the chair gives most options.

The only time we allowed somebody online to see time was when there was a medical issue and there was um an inability to be here in person.

So there was, I think one time I can think of in five years where one person seated three minutes.

So that was at the discretion of the chair, but typically you need to be in person to see time.

Um so if you want to spell that out and in a way that um makes sense, um we can or just leave it at the discretion how it how it is.

I think the discretion is a good idea because like you said, there may be an exception for good reason, but in general, maybe not.

Commissioner Cecil, is your problem that we don't address it at all or that we don't allow it?

Uh it's more that it's not addressed, and I wanted to make sure that we have clarity because I recall a couple of times when people really had hoped they'd be able to seed time online and we're a little vocal about it and wanted to make sure we had clarity for what the public could expect.

So you'd be recommending that we table the minutes or the rules for now, uh allowing adjustments and then looking at it next month.

Is that what you're looking at?

I I personally prefer that, but we're a body and we can vote it as a body and make that call.

Mr.

Hensler.

Yeah, my thoughts are that I would prefer that we stay in um alignment with city council's rules, which I'm reviewing, which were included in our packet, um, which says that most both both parties must be present in person at the meeting.

Um, I think the one time I recall we had someone who signed up to seed time and they had to leave and they called back in, or maybe they tried to call back in.

I remember that, something of that nature.

But they had been here, and as we know, our meetings are not always conducive to public um and anyone's schedules.

That being said, I would prefer that we stay in alignment with what is um in alignment with city council rules.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

I just wanted to point out that the current version that you are looking at right now, um, all opportunities to seed time, um the authority and power to grant or deny that rests with the chair.

So whether or not someone is in person or they are online, both of those scenarios would be addressed in the version of the rules that's currently before you.

Um and therefore the president of the commission would have the opportunity to make those determinations as needed currently, um, in the event that you didn't feel that it was necessary to include something specifically about participating online.

And I would just mention um for participants online.

The other thing that would be a consideration in a meeting is if someone requested some form of reasonable accommodation or something like that to seed time or appear online and make comments.

Trevor Burrus Gloss from the city attorney's office.

I'm sorry, can you uh hear me in the moment?

Yes.

Sorry, uh if the board um allows, I I can uh speak to this issue as well.

Yes, please do.

Um so Commissioner Cecil's uh concerns are also addressed in part five of the city council's rules and procedures, which are incorporated into um into these rules and procedures.

We had at first in our first draft, we had laid these out explicitly, um, but city council insisted that we uh just refer to the part five instead of incorporating more explicit instructions.

So for example, her first concern about um presiding officers when the chair and the vice chair are are out is taken care of in rule 5A D.

And then as commiss uh Commissioner Hinsler pointed out, um the seating of time is also taken care of in the council rules, and the city council, well, and the rules of the planning commission have to be consistent with the rules of city council that cannot conflict their wit.

So if city council has a certain rule on the seating and time when it comes to uh electronic attendance, uh that is also the rule that planning commission will need to follow.

Thank you for the clarification, Trevor.

That's really helpful.

Could you tell me that rule one more time regarding uh the absence of the chair and vice chair?

Sure.

Uh please see rule 5-8, uh section subsection D.

For brief periods during the meetings, the chair may designate any board member to preside when the chair or vice chair is absent or otherwise unable to act.

So uh the chair designates who will preside it as the chair at a meeting when the chair or the vice chair are not present.

I see that that is absolutely satisfactory to me.

Thank you so much for pointing that out.

There's no further questions if we could have a motion to um accept the rules.

I will make a motion to accept uh item 5C rules and procedures for city planning commission.

Second.

I'll second it.

I think Brian Beach.

Can I clarify who the second was, please?

On the tablets, it's uh was uh Commissioner Clemens.

That motion passes unanimously.

Okay, moving on to new business.

Can you read the first item into the record, please?

Item 8A APPL 25-0008, an appeal of the administrative approval for the Colorado Springs sample development plan consisting of 18.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Flying Horse Club Drive and Barrosa Valley Road.

Your presenter, Islamara Baxter.

Before tomorrow gets uh gets started here, I want to read a statement.

Uh good morning.

Uh regarding the next item on the agenda, the Colorado Springs Temple Appeal, which is located in the Flying Horse neighborhood in Colorado Springs.

I want to disclose and provide clarification about information that could create the appearance that I have a conflict of interest regarding this matter.

I am currently the vice president of the flying horse homeowner association board of directors.

I was previously the president of the homeowners association board from January 2023 to May 2025.

I've lived in Flying Horse since 2012 and was aware that the land in question was going to be a religious institution for at least a decade.

I became aware of the development plan application when I saw the planning department signs posted on the property earlier this year.

The Flying Horse Homeowner Association Board has not taken a public position on any neighborhood developments in and around flying horse as long as I've been on the board.

The board doesn't even discuss pending developments as agenda items at our monthly board meetings.

I deliberately did not attend the two developer meetings on this application because I figure this development might eventually find its way to the planning commission.

The flying horse homeowner association is approaching 2,000 homes.

So developing an HOA-wide position would be impossible.

From the written public comments from homeowners and flying horse, the comments range from strongly support to strongly oppose.

So the association does not attempt to reconcile different opinions.

In the applicant's response to public comment, which was attachment three to the uh to the agenda, the applicant states in a response to a public comment about compatibility with homeowners association design centers that they have reviewed the homeowner association design centers and held an initial meeting with flying horse leadership.

From this subscription, one might be led to believe they met with the homeowners association board.

They did not.

And with that, we'll go move to uh tomorrow boxer.

Good morning, commissioners.

Tamara Baxter, a planning supervisor for the record.

Um, before you is an appeal of an administrative decision.

Um the property in question is located in Flying Horse.

Um, it is currently zone MXN um with an uh Air Force USAFA overlay.

Uh the property itself consists of 18 acres, and what was approved on site was a development plan for a religious institution.

The approval was made by staff on November 16th, which granted approval for the religious institution consisting of a temple, meeting house, maintenance building, and a pavilion.

Just to give you a little history on the approvals in this area.

So the city council approved the flying horse master plan in October of 2003.

As you can see on the image before you, the subject property was identified as office and also residential with a density of uh 10 units per acre.

In 2012, um a portion of the site was rezoned to OC, which became MXN in 2023 with a citywide rezoning.

And the religious institution was identified as a permitted use in the OC zone district.

Along with that rezoning, there was a master plan amendment, which designated the 18.61 acres to religious institution.

And along with that was a concept plan, which approved a religious institution campus consisting of a worship area, meeting space and detached accessory structures.

With regards to the appeal, apparently I have a spelling error in party.

For affected party and appeal, uh the appellant resides more than a thousand feet from the subject property.

However, they did provide comments during the review of the project, thus uh uh they had the ability to submit an appeal.

As you um can see with the appellant um documentation provided in your packet.

Uh the appellant noted that the UDC uh requires architectural features um exceeding height limits in residential zones to be designed and screened to minimize visibility.

Also, the appellant noted that staff uh approved the development plan without visible visual mitigation conditions, and that the structure is more than three times the maximum height permitted.

Also, the appellant challenges the cities that the city failed to enforce neutral general applicable development standards that protected residential character and visible uh visual harmony within the UDC, there is an exception section for height.

Um it identifies that no structures, buildings, or part of a building structure can exceed the maximum building height within uh any zone district.

Um there's a table in the UDC unless authorized uh by that table, and actually to the right, I did pull out uh the section of that table dealing with the uh spires or steeple.

Um, in addition to the uh height exemption, it identifies that the building features that exceed beyond the maximum building height in the zone district be screened.

Um designed, um, I'm sorry, and screening may not be taller than the permitted exception to the maximum building height.

Um, to the right of your screen, as I indicated, it I pulled that section for the religious institution uh for the height requirement.

And as you can see that for a spire, it may uh exceed the maximum height of the applicable zone district, provided that the largest horizontal cross section of the spire or tower does not exceed 5% of the footprint of the primary structure for which it rises.

So with that being said, um the footprint of the structure that was provided with the development plan is 33,000 square feet.

Um 5% of that would allow a steeple to be 1600 square feet.

Um obviously that's not a practical design in this area.

Um thus, uh, and I'll show you in the next screen, the steeple from the maximum building height in the MXN is um 95 feet.

So here's an example of how that's measured.

So as you can see on the screen from zero to the top of the spire is 140.5 feet.

However, as indicated in the MXN zone district, the maximum height is 45 feet.

The structure itself is 35 or 39 feet.

So as you can see, the difference from the uh 45 to the 140 feet is 95 feet.

So that is the height of the structure or the uh steeple and the spire.

Um it has been designed to step back um back um as it goes up.

Um also the lighting, they did provide a photometric plan with the development plan, and so the site and building lighting has been designed uh designed to prevent light trespass beyond the property line.

Um with regards to the timeline of review, um the project was submitted a development plan was submitted in May of this year.

It did go through four rounds of review.

Staff did make a decision and approve the development plan on November 6th, and the appeal was submitted on November 10th.

With regards to stakeholder involvement, um, there were postcards and posters that were sent out numerous times on this project, uh, both for the neighborhood meetings, also when the project was initially submitted to the planning department, and also um uh posters or uh postcards were sent out for the appeal.

Uh the radius of notification was a thousand feet from the property boundary.

350 postcards went out each time.

Um, during the review of the development process, and actually during um the appeal until this became came before you as an appeal, we received approximately I want to say like 86 comments at this point, and you've received a couple um in the last couple days.

Um there were two neighborhood meetings that were conducted for this project at two different locations.

One was off of uh Lexington and Research.

Um that was on May 15th, and then the other one was held at DCC uh Discovery Campus Um August uh 21st.

Um public comments uh that are there were the comments that were received in opposition were related to traffic, height of the steeple, compatibility, and landscaping.

The applicant did provide a response letter, and that's in your packet.

During the review of the development plan, um this application did go out to all of our review agencies, including USAFA.

Um agencies review the application.

All comments were addressed during the review of uh during those four review periods, and uh all comments were addressed prior to approving the development plan.

With regards to plan COS, um so this property lies in um the newer developing neighborhood of the vision map and plan COS.

Flying horse development is uh considered a neighborhood center topology.

Uh goal of this type of topology is to provide the focal point for um community life and services as a neighborhood scale.

Um, also uh these smaller scale centers provide benefits and amenities for residents and other uses of the local area.

So before you are the development review criteria that the development plan was reviewed against, and then additional review criteria, and then uh after evaluating the temple development plan, staff determined that the project did meet the review criteria and um approved the project on November 6th.

With regards to the appeal, these are the criteria for an appeal, and then these are the proposed motions for the appeal.

That's all I have.

If you have any questions, more than happy to answer.

One question.

You said that the 5% of the 33,000 square feet is 1,600 square feet.

Right.

16 yeah, the so is that linear vertical, not square feet.

I just want to make sure that I understood those um so it's five percentages and yeah, it's it can't exceed five percent of the footprint of the building going up.

The 1668 feet is not square feet.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

I think that was 1600 feet.

Sorry.

Yes, that would be a very big spire.

That's a very big thing.

Yes, so okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

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

There's 30 minutes to present.

Good morning.

My name is Michael Kuhn.

I'm an attorney, and I represent Jennifer Kuhn, who is the record owner of the property at 12640 Woodruff Drive.

I'll be brief because the issue before the commission today is exceedingly narrow.

Specifically, whether the proposed spire on the temple complies with UDC 7.4.203 B2.

That section mandates through the usage of the word shall that any religious spires exceeding the height limitation be designed or screened to minimize visibility from neighboring residential neighborhoods.

But let's start today with what is not in dispute.

Appellant has no objection to the property being used as a temple.

Appellant further does not dispute that the spire complies with the footprint requirement of table 7.4.2f in the UDC.

Appellant's sole objection is that the planning official approved a spire that would tower 140 and a half feet above a residential neighborhood without any mandate, condition, or requirement that it be designed or screened to minimize visibility from those neighborhoods as commanded by the UDC.

In fact, the proposed project does the exact opposite.

It includes a spire that will be illuminated day and night.

That maximizes visibility, not minimizes it.

Further, there's no condition on the color or mat of the spire, and then the only rendering that has been submitted to the planning official is that it'll be a metallic gold color that will be reflective.

But more problematic is that the planning officials approve this project without any consideration of the mandates of UDC 7.4.203B2.

Nothing in the record shows any analysis of this section, and every argument for compliance with it is all post hoc rationalization.

I'll represent to you that I filed a quorum request, and there's no mention in any email between any planning official about the requirements that the spire be designed or screened to minimize visibility.

In fact, I'd ask this commission to ask Ms.

Backers directly when this was considered and how it was considered.

Now, after Ms.

Kune brought UDC 7.4203 B2 to the applicants and Miss Baxter's attention, they offered a few explanations as to how the spire complies with the design and screening requirements.

Each of them fails.

First, they claim that the lighting will be directed at the spire and not trespass into the exceeding neighborhoods.

Illuminating a spire increases visibility, not minimizes it, even when it's cabin to the subject property.

Second, they claim that mature trees will eventually reduce the visibility.

But that will take decades, and even then the vegetation won't reach 140 and a half feet.

That would be quite some tree.

Third, they claim that the spire was designed in a tapered fashion.

Yet again, that's all post hoc rationalization.

Nothing in the record shows that the applicant made any changes out of a concern with the compliance for UDC 7.4203.

Even so, narrow structures are still subject to the mandates of that section of the code.

For example, the table references antennas that are presumably narrow than the spire at issue here.

And even there, they're required to be designed or screened to minimize visibility from residential neighborhoods.

Finally, the applicant in its response letter promised to use mat finishes that would prevent reflection of sunlight into the neighborhoods.

But that's just an unenforceable promise.

Nowhere did the planning official condition approval on the project that they comply with that because there was absolutely no analysis of it.

Wonderful, thank you.

The maximum height permitted, I think that was a typo and should be 45 feet.

The proposed spire is going to be 140 and a half feet.

I know that Ms.

Baxter said that you measure it from the top of the spire, but the fact is that the exception talks about the building from which it arises.

There's no dispute that from ground to height, it'll be 140 and a half feet.

That's taken from the applicant's proposal.

And they're correct again that table 7.42F provides exceptions to the height limitations for religious institutions' spires.

Next slide.

But here's the relevant section that I addressed in my remarks.

Building features that extend beyond the maximum building height in the table shall be designed or screened to minimize visibility from residential zone districts.

Again, I would point to the word shall, which is mandatory, not discretionary.

Next slide, please.

Here's the only evidence of what the spire is going to look like.

Again, the applicant promised that it would be matte finishes that wouldn't be reflected, but all that we have because there was no condition in the approval is the bright reflective gold color of the spire.

Next slide, please.

Again, I covered it.

It doesn't, it maximizes the visibility because of the color, the height, and the 24 hour illumination of the spire.

Next slide, please.

Again, no analysis, no conditions, and it ignores the mandates of the section.

Next slide, please.

So how big is 140 and a half feet?

Well, the Statue of Liberty from head to heel is 151 feet.

An airport controlled towers on average about 150 feet.

A Boeing 737800, 130 feet, and I asked ChatGPT this, and it suggested 10 giraffes from head to toe or approximately 140 feet.

Next slide, please.

So looking around town, there are several religious spires.

And you know, most of these spires were built well before the advent and implementation of the UDC.

But even looking at them, they are substantially shorter and not boarding residential neighborhoods.

One that came to mind because my office was across the street from it for years is Grace and St.

Stevens Episcopal Church downtown.

That spire is only 90 feet, and again, not bordering a residential neighborhood.

The Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun is 100 feet.

St.

Mary's Cathedral, I believe the West Spire is 73 feet, and the Chauve Memorial Chapel on CC's campus is only 30 feet, just to give each of the members of the commission how large of a spire we're talking about.

And in fact, there was an email that I obtained a core request where one of the planning officials says, wow, you'll be able to see that from downtown.

That's a big spire.

And they're right.

Next slide, please.

Now I'm sure the applicant's gonna get up here and talk about a federal statute called Relupa, which protects religious land use from substantial burdens imposed by the government regulations.

And I'll just share a couple comments on this because I suspect it's going to be an issue that'll be addressed through a higher body, and that is nothing in the statute prohibits general design requirements for neighborhood harmony and aesthetics.

That's a neutral excuse me.

One of the cases they cited in their paperwork that you may have seen was a church was a case of Martin versus Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Even there, the Mormon Church agreed to reduce the spire from 156 feet to 83 feet.

Nothing in that statute prohibits this body from enforcing neutral design codes.

Next slide, please.

Again, I want to emphasize no objection to a temple itself.

I think having a temple there is a great usage.

Now I do want to just talk sort of finally about a comment that Ms.

Baxter made about the 5% requirement.

That section, I believe, references a horizontal cross section.

It's talking about how wide the structure can be, not as tall.

I don't think the code would ever intend for a spire to be able to tower a third of a mile into the sky.

So looking at that section, I think what it's saying is you take a cross section of the building, how what's the footprint of the building?

You figure out what 5% of that is, and that's how tall the structure, the square footage of the structure can be from which it arises.

Not that it can exceed 1,000, what would she say?

1,668.

That's just a misinterpretation of that section.

And with that, we'd ask that you sustain the appeal and remand it back to the planning official for the appropriate analysis.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the planning commission before I I think we'll probably hold them until after we hear from uh the applicant public comment.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll shift over to the applicant who will have 30 minutes to respond to the appeal.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, planning commissioners, members of city staff, and members of the public.

My name is Carolyn White, and I thank you on behalf of the applicant, the appelle, um, for this opportunity to speak with you in connection with the appeal of the administrative approval of the development plan for a temple and associated buildings for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I will just refer to as the church for convenience.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our vision for this site and explain to you why and how the staff analysis and conclusion that the application meets all of the requirements was entirely correct.

See if I can figure this thing out.

Oh, now I've gone twice.

All right.

So briefly, I just want to introduce to you our team that is all present and available to answer your questions.

Although I am the only scheduled presenter, if you do have questions, we have other experts available to answer those questions.

Um you've already seen a couple different versions of the vicinity map.

This one is a little more zoomed out than some of the others that you've seen.

And we wanted to show you this one to give you a larger perspective that includes, for example, the I-25 corridor, the United States Air Force Academy, the United States Air Force Runways, the entirety almost of the flying horse uh development, as well as some of the other smaller things that I'll show you here in a minute, um, which also includes some of the future right-of-way for, for example, for Powers Boulevard, which you can see a little bit more clearly in this depiction, which is a concept plan overlaid on a more zoomed-in aerial, showing the immediate neighborhood vicinity, and you can see very clearly to the west, which is in the south part of the bottom part of this screen, that future powers boulevard ride away.

Um, one reason for showing this graphic, which I think you haven't seen before, at least in the PowerPoint slides, is that it's worth noting that the steeple that we're talking about is on the portion of the building that is closest to the Powers Boulevard ride-of-way.

It's on the west side of the building.

It's not adjacent to Barossa Valley Road, which is um the closest side to the existing neighborhood.

And you'll see that in a couple of perspectives that I'm gonna show you here in just a second.

Um, so has already been pointed out by staff by Ms.

Baxter, and uh the what the appellant has to show to you today is that the decision of the um administrative approving official is either contrary to the express language of the code, erroneous, or clearly contrary to law.

And what we will show you is that it is not any of those things.

It is a hundred percent in alignment with the code, and it should be upheld.

Um you've already seen, and it's already been pointed out that this property was officially designated for religious uses at least as of 2012, when the flying horse master plan was amended with amendment 10.

This is just a blow-up of that graphic so you can see it just a little bit more clearly.

This project will be the fourth temple for the church in Colorado, joining three other facilities that each serve church members in a designated region.

This temple meets a critical need for church members in Colorado's second most populous city here in Colorado Springs, who otherwise would have to drive to Denver, Fort Collins, or Grand Junction in order to participate in temple activities.

This temple will serve the entire southern Colorado region.

Uh, you have already seen this graphic, which is the exterior design of the temple, looking at it from the west.

One thing I do want to note though is that the attorney for the appellant, Mr.

Kune, just said that this is the only evidence of what it would look like.

That's actually not quite correct.

The evidence of what it will look like is the 35-page development plan, the 24 by 36 sheets that constitute the official approved development plan by the city that was submitted and approved.

And we can delve into that in more detail, but there is a couple of sheets in the development plan starting around sheet 20 that detail with great specificity the elevations and the materials to be used.

And that is actually the official evidence of what this project will look like.

This graphic, this rendering was prepared for the convenience of the neighborhood to be shown at the neighborhood meetings, and we're also showing it to you today because for most people it's a little easier to understand a rendering compared to the dimensioned elevations in black and white line drawings.

As I mentioned, this portion of the building is also facing towards the west, towards the future Powers Boulevard right away.

This rendering shows the temple from the eastern side from Barossa Valley Road from where the closest homes in the neighborhood are.

And as you can see, the steeple is on the far side of the building compared to where those homes are located from Barossa Valley.

All right, so now let's get into the actual process of what this appeal is all about and what the analysis was that staff conducted.

So appellant decided to section 7.4.203B2, which provides that certain building features extending beyond the maximum building height must be designed or screened to minimize visibility from low density residential uses in zone districts.

But I want to break down exactly how this UDC analysis should go and was in fact conducted by your staff because uh there are some really important nuances and details here.

First, the UDC explicitly allows for real religious institution spires and towers to exceed the maximum height allowed in the applicable zone district, provided, and then there's that formula with the 5% and the 1500 feet that we've already talked about.

So the way that you ought to think of it is your UDC provides a maximum height limit for the zone district, and then it has this table that says within these parameters, certain features of a building can exceed that height limit.

That's the second level.

And then in the section that was referenced by the appellant, it says if you exceed that, if you exceed the height limits allowed in the table, then you are required to comply with the screening requirements.

So I just want to back that up and speak again in a little more detail because I think there's some confusion about that.

Um we already talked about the 5%, the footprint.

There's no dispute that the steeple that's proposed is well within the maximum height limit.

Whether you conclude that it's 1,500 square feet on the ground or whether it's 1,500 linear feet into the sky, it's only 140 feet from the ground, it's 95 feet from the top of this building.

It's well within that limit.

There's no dispute about that.

But uh what uh on this slide I've reproduced for you the exact language of both of the relevant provisions of the code, which uh Mr.

Kuhn just kind of glossed over a little bit.

What's really important here is that first there's the height limit of the zone district, as we talked about, which is 45 feet, and then in table 7.4.2 F, it says if you're one of these things, you can exceed the height limits to this degree as long as you fall within this formula.

And then the section on which Mr.

Kuhn relies for the entire appeal, section 7.4.203 B2 says building features that extend beyond the maximum building height pursuant to the table, not building features that extend behind the maximum height of the zone district, 45 feet, only those which extend beyond what is allowed in the table are required to engage in additional screening and design measures in order to minimize visibility from adjacent residential properties.

This steeple does not extend beyond the maximum height limits allowed in the table.

Thus, this section requiring screening and designing is wholly inapplicable to this project.

It is not even relevant.

It's not part of the analysis.

It only applies to design features which exceed the maximum height limit allowed in the table.

So I've got the exact language up there on the screen just for your convenience so you can see it.

However, I do want to just focus on a couple of the other details because notwithstanding the fact that this is wholly inapplicable, the requirement that you engage in additional design considerations or additional screening.

Nonetheless, the church did in fact engage in those additional design considerations and screening.

And I want to highlight some of those for you.

First of all, it says that it should be designed or screened.

In the initial letter, the appellant said it should be screened.

And then we responded with a letter explaining that actually design considerations were taken into account in order to minimize visibility, notwithstanding the fact that that requirement doesn't apply.

And so some of the things that the church has done ahead of time before this was even submitted in order to minimize visibility and to try to accommodate that concern or potential concern are, for example, traditional architecture for this type of structure within this church calls for a two-story structure of the building.

Two-story structure of the building means a taller building, that means you can have a taller temple.

It also, most of the temples are larger in footprint.

This one is not, and therefore that automatically reduces the size of what the steeple could potentially be in this location.

The church is also proposing to use glass fiber reinforced concrete, GFRC for the structure itself, instead of the granite traditionally selected for temple architecture.

One of the advantages of this material is it's quite matte.

It has a sand texture and it is not reflective.

Now that's talking about the building itself, not the steeple.

But with respect to the steeple, I will say that it is designed to have a matte finish, and that fact is reflected on the official development plan that is part of the record.

Notwithstanding the claim that that's not an enforceable promise, it is part of the design that that steeple will have a matte finish, not a reflective material.

And then the design of the steeple itself is also designed to minimize visibility.

As it goes up in height, it gets narrower and narrower and narrower until it's very, very slender at the top, which not only minimizes visibility, but it's consistent with its purpose, which is the religious symbology of drawing one's eyes towards heaven and to contemplate that sort of uh higher power.

And so the claim that there has been no effort to address any potential visibility concerns at all is simply not true.

There are a number of things that have been done, even though that screening and design requirement doesn't apply to this temple.

I will also mention that this architecture has been approved by the flying horse architectural control committee as required by the recorded covenants.

If the screening, if if the church were to employ screening or if the city were to uh uh require screening, as is suggested by the appellant, um, that would result in some very absurd design outcomes.

And I'm bringing you back to this visual of the temple to sort of allow you to picture and speculate on what it might look like if a screen were placed around the perimeter of that steeple in order to screen it from view.

Uh, you know, we're not talking about HVAC equipment here, which is what it seems that that requirement is primarily aimed at and other types of rooftop facilities.

If a screen were placed around this or if the steeple height were reduced, it would really negatively impact the proportionality of the building's architecture, and it would contradict traditional architectural principles, resulting in a much less graceful, much less attractive, much less visibly pleasing and architecturally pleasing structure.

The appellant has pointed to no example of the city interpreting this provision to require screening, reduction in height, or elimination of a steeple on a religious institution, especially one that is within the maximum height limits allowed in the table.

Those requested modifications are found nowhere in the UDC.

There is absolutely no basis in the UDC or elsewhere in the law to uphold the appeal.

Appellant has simply failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the planning director's approval was incorrect.

Finally, to just illustrate this point about visibility a little bit further, I'd like to show you a couple of renderings of perspectives of what this temple is going to look like from different points throughout the neighborhood.

On this graphic, you can see a couple circles, numbered one, two, and three.

Numbers one and two are homes immediately adjacent to the temple.

Number three is the appellants' address.

And as we go through here, we're going to show you this is what the temple will uh look like from uh position number one, uh sort of around the roundabout there near um Barrosa Valley Road.

Looking towards the west.

This is what the temple will look like from position number two, also from Barossa Valley Road.

And this is what you will see from the appellants address.

It's also worth noting that the development plan contemplates and is approved for substantial landscaping, which will also provide screening around the perimeter of the proposed development in a way that will complement the architecture and also help it blend in with the neighborhood and minimize visibility from the adjacent residential properties.

City staff, as noted, has already found that the landscape plan is in compliance with the city code.

We just wanted to give you a little bit of a visual showing you what some of those plantings might look like, what some of the colors might look like, and how the landscaping will enhance the visual appeal and really help it fill in with the surrounding community.

For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the planning commission uphold the planning director's decision and deny the appeal as having no merit.

The development plan fully complies with the unified development code.

It reflects thoughtful design principles, including proportionality and aesthetic harmony, and minimizes visibility to residential areas using design features.

It is also an integral part of the religious expression for this church community.

The appellant has not met the burden of proof to demonstrate any error in the director's interpretation or application of the code.

Affirming the approval will ensure consistency of the city's standards, protect religious expression, and allow this project to move forward as envisioned in the approved flying horse master plan.

Thank you for your time and attention and the opportunity to talk to you about this, and we look forward to answering your questions and speaking to you in concluding remarks after public comment.

Great, thank you.

I think at this point we'll withhold our questions until that time and move into public comments.

Uh looking for public comment in support of the appellant, Mr.

Kuhn, appealing public comment in support of the appellant.

Do we have any chair?

Excuse.

Yeah, so we're gonna go to public comment in support of the appellant, public comment in opposition to the appellant or in support of the application, appellate uh rebuttal and then applicant rebuttal.

Thank you, Chair Casey.

Um at this time we do not have anybody signed up in support.

If there's anybody in the audience that has not signed up to speak in support, please stand up now, introduce yourself, and you'll have three minutes to speak.

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

There's no one online.

Okay, then we'll move to public comment in opposition to the appellant or in support of the applicant.

The first speaker is Nathan Wood.

Please come to the microphone and you will have three minutes to speak after you introduce yourself.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I appreciate uh the opportunity to speak to you and address you and uh take some time this morning.

My name is Nathan Wood.

I'm a resident of the Flying Horse Development.

I live at 2384 Cinnabar Road and uh have been a resident there over six years.

Uh I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I uh want to speak in in uh opposition of the appeal and in support of the temple for a couple of different reasons.

One, in the appeal, I noticed um that the appellant had noted that there was no religious uh purpose, I believe is what it said for a spire.

Um, a quick search and and having my own experience.

The upward pointing spire draws the eye and mind towards heaven, fostering religious contemplation, and it sets the church apart as a significant building, a symbol of faith, strength, and security in the community.

I currently volunteer at the Denver Colorado Temple four times a month, and uh my wife and I make that drive on a regular basis.

The uh approval of this temple structure, including the spire, would significantly increase our opportunity to serve our opportunity to volunteer and our opportunity to practice our religion in a way that would make it much easier, uh more convenient and more frequent for us to uh uh attend the temple and to participate in these religious ordinances, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Mike Law.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Thank you, Mike Law.

Um, I live at 2303 Coyote Crest View.

So I am a flying horse neighbor.

I've lived there for over 12 years, uh purchased the property 14 years ago.

And uh, you know, as always, we are very respectful.

We're grateful to live in this great nation where uh we can voice our our opinions.

Um I just wanted to share two things.

One as I uh uh as I look at the Air Force Academy, which I can see from my home.

And uh right now I know the the chapel is boxed in and covered, but when it's not the 17 spires reach 150 feet from the ground.

What an inspiring and beautiful building that is.

Saint Mary's, I work downtown Colorado Springs, St.

Mary's from ground to the top of their steeple is 150 feet.

So we know that uh, you know, in in our society um spires are inspiring for religious people, and it's very important to us to have and and as met was mentioned before for us to look to the heavens and think of a higher power.

And uh I would just suggest that uh we uh we work very hard to be considerate of our neighbors.

We care about our neighbors, we have many good neighbors in the flying horse community, and uh we appreciate uh you as commissioners considering this.

We feel like uh it has been well addressed and uh we would appreciate moving forward as uh soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Harvey.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Good morning.

My name is John Harvey.

I serve as the ecclesiastical leader of one of the congregations in Colorado Springs, and I live about a 10-minute drive from this uh site.

Um I I want to say that I appreciate this opportunity to to speak.

I appreciate the appellants uh not being opposed to the temple itself.

But I I do want to say that I I feel like you have done due diligence in in studying the code and and uh analyzing the the design features, and I would declare that it's it's a beautiful structure that points us to God, and I think it uh provides great balance in uh in allowing us to feel that peace that comes from from worship, but it's not too over overbearing, it's not too big, it's just right.

And I think the majority of of the citizens in the area in our community would uh look to this as a as a beautiful thing as a delight.

And so we we support you and your decision and and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Creed.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Morning.

Uh my name is Creed Splain.

I'm the owner and operator of Quantum Residential Group.

It's a real estate brokerage that deals in residential and commercial real estate.

Uh prior to that, I was with Flying Horse Realty, and we operated the sales of the custom lots and the residences and some of the commercial activity in Flying Horse from 2006 through 2016.

Uh so not only do I recognize um the individuals who live in Flying Horse, uh, but all of those who have a stake in the success of Flying Horse as a community and its role in Colorado Springs.

Um I appreciate the professionalism and the resources we have in our planning department and have walked with them for decades.

Uh I appreciate Mr.

Walker and Mrs.

Baxter and their due diligence that they've given and that they've demonstrated to you today uh in remarkable detail.

Um I would simply add my endorsement of this property.

Uh it affects real estate values in an extremely positive way.

Uh I have had significant increase in sales since the church announced and released this design from those who are looking forward to it and those who have already seen an increase in their property's value.

Um and that is consistent with the church's track record where they've put these in other areas as well.

Um so I look forward to it being a wonderful part of our community and uh um and the great good it's already uh done in that respect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jody Ellsworth.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

I am Jody Ellsworth, and um I live on Barossa Valley, a couple hundred feet from where the actual site is.

And I just came today to understand, and I'm not sure it's super clear, but what's what the idea of screening this steeple would look like.

Um I was to be honest, a little afraid that it might be a fake tree or something that um that screens a tower of some sort.

And um I just really hope, since it is very it was very impactful, much um closer to me than the woman that opposes it to my home, um, that it that in order to cross all the T's and dot all the I's of whatever people oppose, it doesn't jeopardize how a beautiful structure that we don't throw good a good a good a beautiful piece, just if we we don't change it up to make it screened, I guess is what I'm saying.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is at Ellsworth.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

Morning.

My name is Ed Ellsworth.

I live at 2207 Coyote Crest View, which is just a couple of blocks away from the site, as I drove here.

Excuse me.

This morning, I I passed by St.

Mary's Cathedral, which is a beautiful building, and I don't know the square footage of that building and how the steeple is proportional to it, but I know that it looks right, and it's a beautiful addition to our city.

And for the past uh 23 years, I've been a commercial uh real estate developer.

And I I mostly um build hotels.

And I also passed the the Hyatt Hotel as I as I drove here this morning.

And hotel brands have a unique feature, they're iconic, and the same is true with temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If we were to search the internet, we could find hundreds of examples of what temples look like, and they are very similar to what we see, if not larger in stature.

So I don't believe that it should be a surprise to anybody that there would be an associated steeple in the correct proportion.

I I mentioned that I develop hotels primarily.

I've never developed a church or a temple, but I would rely on an architect to do that.

And I know that the church has done this, they have done their due diligence, they have plenty of examples to make it look appropriate and fitting for the community.

And I and I believe just as the St.

Mary's Cathedral as we uh exit uh Bijou is a beautiful structure that this will be a beautiful addition to our community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Stephen Wells is up next.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

Good morning.

My name is Stephen Wells.

I live just across the street from the temple site, uh 12778 Mission Meadow Drive.

Um so literally I walk across the street and I walk that area quite every day.

Um I just wanted to voice my concern and appreciation for the planning committee, also for the church.

Uh they spent a lot of time, I know, uh, going through the different ordinances and requirements and addressing those in a proper way.

And I just wanted to express my support of moving the temple forward and having that built in the in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jeff Johnson.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

My name is Jeff Johnson.

I've lived in Colorado Springs for 60 years.

I know I look younger than that.

Um I own uh two houses in the flying horse community.

One of them that my mother, who is 92 lives in.

I love the city.

The opportunity that'll provide not just the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to worship in, but to also be a great asset, I think.

It's something that would be very, very useful and appealing to our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Woodward.

We will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

My name is Kevin Woodward.

I live at 12916 Brookhill Drive in Colorado Springs.

I'm about seven minutes from the temple site itself.

It is hard to follow a number of the comments that have been made already.

But I too would like to speak in favor of the proposed project.

Um grateful that we have this opportunity to be able to hear concerns from others.

I think it's an important process, and we're very grateful for you as our as a commission to be able to evaluate these concerns.

I serve in the Denver Temple.

It is a great blessing for me and my family.

I will say that uh when that temple was constructed some 40 years ago or close to it, there was concern about that temple at that time.

But there was a similar process that went forward, and uh that temple was approved, and it has blessed the community in that area and the immediate neighborhood in the years, intervening years.

I um again thank you for your time and effort to evaluate this important project.

And again, if you would consider the uh the proposal that the church has put forward, which I feel is very appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Bullock.

You'll have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Good morning, members of the commission.

My name is Catherine Bullock.

I've lived in Colorado Springs over 30 years.

When the children of Israel escaped Egypt and were camped at the base of Mount Sinai, God commanded Moses to build a tabernacle where God's presence could dwell.

In our day, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints build temples so that we can also draw nearer to our Heavenly Father in Jesus Christ.

Worshiping the temple is so important to me that I drive one hour at least once a week, every week to Littleton to worship there.

When it was announced that a temple would be built in Colorado Springs, I was moved to tears.

It would now only be a three-minute drive for me.

Just as God's presence was in the temple, our temples are also literally houses of God.

Each aspect of the architecture carries deep symbolism, including the steeples, prominent on most religions, which point our eyes heavenward.

It is important to note as the lawyer mentioned that the height was already specifically reduced to reflect the character of the neighborhood and not to block anyone's view.

Temples are unique places of worship in a divisive world.

When you step onto the grounds, you feel a calm that is hard to find elsewhere.

The grounds are open to the community for quiet walks.

Temples invite men and women of all social classes and backgrounds to enter sacred buildings and make binding promises.

Thank you to your service to our community.

Thank you.

And um as a former um temple worker at the Denver Temple, um, one of the greatest joy and as well as families every time we drive west, um, it's just um to see the beacon to see the steeple.

Um my now 11-year-old daughter, that is one of our favorite part is you know, she's like, hey, that look, it's Angel Moro and I.

Um we all know and understand uh and just want to share our testimony.

This one of the biggest blessings of the temple is um for our family for my family's piece.

Um I would um going through in life, um stepping, you know, stepping aside a temple, even walking to the temple grounds, bring joy and comfort to the family, and um I testified that the house of the Lord is the beautiful structure.

Uh no matter where you place it, it brings beauty and comfort and peace to everyone around it and those who may want to visit or drive by it, and thank you for our time.

Thank you.

We have Michael McDowell next.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Michael McDowell.

I live at 1273 Pensador, which is the western edge of uh the Flying Horse neighborhood, and as I just learned, immediately uphill of the appellant.

Uh, based on one of the renderings, I also learned that I won't be able to see the temple from my house.

Um I do enjoy going to the temple.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My wife serves in the Denville Temple um each Thursday for a half day, and it will certainly be a joy for her and for me to have a shorter commute uh to that temple shorting from an hour to just two or three minutes.

Um, every temple that I visited throughout this country has beautiful landscaping.

It's well maintained, manicured, uh, a place of peace and a place of harmony, one which the community is welcome to visit and enjoy the grounds.

Um, it is inspiring.

The uh steeple itself is a beautiful reminder to look heavenward and um a place of of beauty and one that will be I think enjoyed by the community and and bringing it a great aesthetic appeal.

Um I know that I'm excited to have a temple nearby, but as a member of that faith, uh that's to be understood.

But I think my understanding based on my communications with many in the community in our neighborhood is uh one of curiosity but also of interest and excitement to see that as well.

So I am excited for that.

I would encourage you to move forward with the uh approval process.

And um wanna thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker is Wayne Williams.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Good morning.

My name is Wayne Williams.

I have served our community in a number of capacities, including representing the flying course area for 20 years as an elected official.

As part of that, I was a member of City Council.

So I want to explain a little bit about why we have these provisions, because I was part of city council when we approved the current code.

There is a restriction on when you have something that exceeds the building heights to provide screening.

What types of things do that?

Air conditioning units, ducks, things like that.

And that's why that provision is in the code.

But it's important to note that that's when it exceeds the heights in the table, as was explained by the counsel from Brownstein.

The table allows a spire to be higher without screening.

By the way, the Air Force Academy looks wonderful with their spire screened, don't they?

Isn't that what we all love to see all that vista as we look towards the mountains from our homes in northern Colorado Springs is the beautiful screening of the spires.

No, that's absurd.

Council, when we adopted these provisions to allow a spire to be higher, had no intention for screening of spires.

That would be nonsensical.

As has been expressed, spires draw our vision heavenward, cause us to contemplate things.

And council specifically created that as an exception in the table.

And so that exception does not require screening at all.

In fact, that would be a contradiction of what council approved in the code.

So we believe, I believe that staff's approval is correct.

It follows the code that City Council adopted.

And the proposal to require boxing in spires, screening them like we've done with the Air Force Academy, doesn't make sense.

It's not what our community asked for.

And it is not what City Council adopted.

And so I would ask that you deny the appeal and approve the application.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

We have one last speaker.

Shelley, please.

If you will come to the microphone and introduce yourself.

And you will have three minutes.

My name is Shelley Etchin.

I live on Flying Horse.

I live directly across the street from the proposed temple site at 1270 Mission Meadow Drive.

Our family has lived in Flying Horse for 12 years.

The steeple.

Sorry, throughout history, steeples and spires on sacred buildings have symbolized reach, reach reaching upward toward heaven.

They focus on X and it expresses a foundational teaching to look to God and elevate our thoughts and values.

And this vertical expression is integral to the building and its spiritual identity and purpose.

Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sacred house of worship and covenant.

As described on Church of Jesus Christ.org.

Temples provide peace, clarity, and spiritual grounding in a world that often feels chaotic.

They're not used for weekly services or social gatherings.

They're quiet, reverent spaces where individuals come to pray, serve, make covenants, and draw closer to God.

David A.

E.

Brad Bednar, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, one of the senior most leaders of our church, described marriage as a triangle.

Husband and wife at two base, two base corners.

As each person draws closer to Christ and becomes more like him, they naturally draw closer to each other.

This simple image captures what temples do.

They help families build unity, compassion, and lasting commitment.

Beginning at age 11, or sorry, um, temples also impact our youth.

At age 11, young people in our faith have the opportunity to participate in temple service.

They experience or these experiences teach humility, accountability, and service to others.

Um participate in the temple worship consistently develop strong moral foundations.

They become kind the kind of adults who contribute positive positively to their schools, workplaces, and communities.

In our time when youth face unprecedented pressures, having a place of strength that can develop their character and values is invaluable.

I can witness that I have seen youth attend and flood the temple.

Youth attend temple and do service on weeknights, on weekends, and during school breaks and holiday breaks.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you for your time for considering the temple.

Do we have anybody in person or online to speak in support of the application and opposition to the appelling?

If there's anybody else in the audience that would like to speak and didn't register themselves.

Okay.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of the appeal, uh please press star six to unmute yourselves now.

We have nobody online.

So you're speaking in support of the appellant and in opposition to the project, is that correct?

Well, go ahead.

Just introduce yourself in your three minutes.

I'm Dave Phillips.

Uh live at 13084 Cake Bread Heights.

I'm right across from the uh from the church on uh corner of Flying Horse Club Drive and Barosa.

I put an extra large windows so I could look at the mountains when we moved in 13 years ago.

Now I've got a beautiful view of the what will be the church.

Uh I think what you've heard so far is very impressive.

Uh and uh uh these are good people, but uh I ask you to remember that probably the majority in the community are not people of that church.

We may be people of faith, but uh uh this is an unusual structure to be a heart of a residential community.

We've talked about St.

Mary's Grace Episcopal Air Force Academy, those aren't in residential communities.

So I think the thing that uh that I'm asking for and have been asking for uh is a couple of things that helps mitigate uh the impact of that in our residential community.

Uh they showed you some pictures of the uh of the site and what it would look like.

Well, those were mature deciduous trees.

Well, what about the six months of the year when uh deciduous trees have no leaves and uh you know it's gonna be uh it's not gonna be screened unless there are a lot of uh evergreen trees, pine trees, different kinds of evergreen trees, and particularly along Barossa and wrong flying horse club drive, if they could be, I would say a majority, more than 50 percent of the trees would be uh screening kinds of trees that would help mitigate the impact of of uh our living in a residential community.

The second is the lighting.

My understanding is that there are some temples where the community uh the uh the city has required that there not be the lights on at night.

Uh uh the uh the spire faces to the west toward powers, and uh uh, but as I understand there's lighting around the whole building.

And for those of us that uh uh uh enjoying the particularly in the summertime, sitting out on the patio, uh, you know, visiting with family and friends and around a fire pit, the idea that there's this huge building with lights on uh isn't very attractive to the community.

So uh I would ask you to consider that there be no lights on uh after certain hours uh uh just uh as a uh uh as something that helps make it uh a little more residential for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, there's no one else to speak.

Uh I do want to take a moment here to acknowledge the public comment today.

Thank you for being here to participate today, and also for those that didn't uh to uh submitted written comments.

I think we had over 140 pages of written comment uh today.

So I do want to thank uh the members of the public for doing so uh for being here to speak.

Um so at this point we're moved to the appellant rebuttal.

Uh you'll have 10 minutes uh to rebut uh any comments uh re comments or uh points on the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, members of the planning commission.

Again, I'll be brief.

Um I first want to address this this argument that the design and screening requirements only apply when there's an exception when it exceeds the exception set forth in the table.

I submit that that interpretation is wrong and it would be nonsensical.

To accept that interpretation would be to say there is no design or screening requirements when, according to the city, a spire that is a third of the mile tall would comply.

Would also mean that you never have to have design or screen requirements for TV and C B antennas because they are accepted all together from the height requirements in the table.

Certainly that can't be the law.

But even so, even if we accepted that argument, it doesn't end the issue.

We submit that approval of a spire that is a hundred and forty and a half feet smack dab in a residential neighborhood by itself would be clearly erroneous.

Now, I also want to discuss this whole discussion about screening and design.

Despite what Mr.

Williams says, I've never argued that the spire needed to be boxed in.

Of course not.

The code states designed or screened.

Now, had there been any sort of analysis or discussion, we could have engaged in this.

But for example, you could easily design it to minimize visibility through limiting the prohibiting it from being illuminated at night so that neighbors aren't burdened by the light.

Likewise, there was discussion from applicants' attorney that there were some materials referenced in the approval.

But again, there was no reference specifically to the color that the spire is going to be, the specific paint.

And there could have been a condition in there say, hey, if you're going to have this spire, it needs to be painted in a way so that when people are outside, the sun's not going to reflect off on it, and burden surrounding residential neighborhoods.

That's the exact reason we have that requirement in there.

And again, there were discussions about other spires, the one at Usafa, St.

Mary's.

Those are different.

First, they were all constructed before the adoption of the UDC.

Second, St.

Mary's is downtown and not in a residential neighborhood.

And third, Yusophus Temple is on federal property over which the city has no jurisdiction.

In short, approval of the spire is contrary to the law, the plain language of the UDC, and by its on its own, erroneous.

According to the planning commission should do this, return it back to the planning officials so that we can engage in discussions to minimize the visibility from the neighborhoods so that there is not a spire that towers 140 feet above them.

Now, there was also a rendering showing that you wouldn't be able to see it from my client's house.

I submit that that's wrong.

I have majored the altitude of both where 12640 woodruff sits and where the proposed temple sits.

And it's in fact higher.

So again, I I don't know how that was created.

I can't see the input metrics, but the temple will be visible from the property.

With that, I'm happy to entertain any questions that the planning commission has.

Thank you, Mr.

Goon.

We'll go ahead and hold our questions until after we hear back uh the now we're gonna hear from the applicant's um rebuttal, and then we'll bring up to the diocese later for questions for you.

So please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the planning commission, planning staff, city staff, members of the public.

Once again, Carolyn White, on behalf of the church.

Um, first I want to just uh briefly correct and clarify something I said earlier because um, Mr.

Chair, you are correct.

You said it's uh that the HOA has not reviewed and approved anything associated with this project.

And you're right, the architectural review is presently conducted by representatives of the original developer classic homes, and that is who has reviewed and approved the architecture, and we have that approval letter um available if you'd like to see it.

Um so thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate that.

Um, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission, you've heard members of the church express how important this steeple is to their exercise of their faith, and they've done so in a way um much clearer and much better than I could ever do, and that we could ever do with our official technical documentation.

You've also heard a former council member explain what their intent was in approving the unified development code and that table with the exceptions in it, and explaining what their original intent was in creating those exceptions, and then it was never their intent that additional design and screening requirements should apply to the additional height that was granted to the items listed in that table.

And finally, as we have shown, the planning director's analysis followed the precise letter and language of the code and was entirely correct.

And so just to recap that for you, the structure and the system in your code is that there is a maximum height for each zone district, and then you have the table that says certain things can exceed that height within these limitations.

And then you have the requirement for screening, which applies only to items which exceed the maximum height allowed in the table.

Mr.

Qun referred to that as an argument.

That's not an argument, that is the express and precise language of your code.

And we can put it back up here on the screen for convenience so we can all refer to it.

It says, if you exceed the height in the table, not if you exceed the height in the zone district, if you exceed the height in the table, then you are required to engage in additional screening or design mitigation to try to address the visibility from.

Oh, thank you.

I'll go, I'll go back to it here.

There we go.

Perfect.

Thank you very much.

Building features that extend beyond the maximum building height pursuant to table 7.4.2.

The steeple that is proposed with this project does not exceed the maximum height within table seven point four point two F.

In fact, it could be significantly higher and still not exceed the maximum building height.

This section on which the entire appeal rests is completely inapplicable to this project and to this proposal.

That said, it is not the case that the church has completely ignored the notion of visibility and design requirements.

In fact, as we presented, a great deal of thought has been put into exactly how this temple would be visible from the surrounding neighborhood.

And as I showed you, there are a number of perspectives looking at how it will appear from the closest homes.

And I also explained um how some of the materials were thought through, how the design and architecture of the steeple itself is designed to become more and more slender as it uh as it goes higher up so that it uh approaches almost invisibility against the sky when it gets to the upper reaches.

And I'll go back to the um there we go.

I mean, in this in both of these, you can barely see the high the highest part of the steeple, because it is very, very slender um as it approaches the highest part there.

So for all of these reasons, there is no basis whatsoever to uphold this appeal, and we ask that you dismiss it.

We look forward to the opportunity to answer any of your questions, and we thank you for your attention uh uh to our um and our opportunity to express ourselves and respond to this appeal.

Thank you.

Uh surely we're gonna take a uh break till eleven o'clock when we come back.

I would like to hear from um Sarah Ruin from the city attorney office if she could opine on section four point seven point four two oh three as well as table F duplicability of that, that would be very helpful.

I'm I'm putting her on the spot because I didn't ask for to do this report.

So uh if you need more time to prepare for that, please know but that seems to be the crux of the matter here.

So with that, we will take a break until eleven o'clock.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started again.

And as I mentioned before the break, uh we'll be hearing first from the city attorney's office, uh Miss Sarah Bruin.

Miss Bruin, you're up to Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

Um I'm responding to your question related to how um the I guess let me get the right uh seven point four point two oh three B.

Yeah, if we could go and put the I'm sorry, if we could put the applicant slide number ten back up, I think that one kind of covered the both.

Thank you.

B two would be interpreted.

Um in looking at this entire section, the manner in which it would be interpreted would be that building features that extend beyond the maximum building height of the zone district um would need to be designed or screened to minimize visibility.

Otherwise this section would have no meaning if it was interpreted to mean that um the height requirements in the table uh were you know, it would exceed the height requirements in the table.

So um therefore the way in which we would analyze this is that if the building features extend beyond the maximum building height of the zone district, so exceed the zone district height limits, then it requires designing or screening the structure to minimize visibility.

If it faces residential um any of these residential districts, you can see that we're gonna have to go to the same thing.

Yes, we our office would advise that we would interpret it based upon uh uh although it is a bit vague because it doesn't explicitly say uh zone district after maximum building height.

If you look at that section and and the in A, it talks about the building or structure not exceeding the maximum building height of the zone district.

Then goes on to say anything that exceeds the maximum building height, it's intended to mean of that zone district.

So circumstances in which the table allows a height that exceeds the zone district, then you have to design to minimize visibility or screen.

Uh any commissioner questions for um the city attorney's office.

If you could use your tablets, please respect uh request to speak, then I'll call on you in that order.

Okay, not seeing any.

Um Mr.

Walker, I think you hadn't make one to make a comment.

I can make uh I can certainly make a comment.

I I think that uh the proposal and the process and the staff review that we've gone through.

I I think that uh the proposal and the process and the staff review that we've gone through um has taken into account the height of the steeple and the location and the design aspects of that.

Um the fact that the the steeple is located on the western part of the site.

Uh we we do have um analysis of the height in our write-ups um and various other things uh to to let you know that we did take into account um the height of the steeple and its impact on the residential areas adjacent.

There's substantial federal regulations that uh uh are that affect this kind of review, and we're very aware of those, and we think that the review that we did um uh takes into account uh what what impacts the steeple will have, but also um uh the religious expression that uh the the steeple and the building and the grounds uh actually uh um express in in the land use and in the plan.

So regulations are you meaning the law, the rulebook?

Uh the I have the name of it somewhere here.

Um but yeah, that's what we're talking about.

The uh the federal um the federal uh restrictions that we have on local zoning laws as and uh and that and this kind of review.

So thank you.

Um Commissioner Slatery Thank you, Chair Casey.

Um a couple of I think comments, and then I do have questions for uh the applicant, Ms.

White.

Um, I think can you hear me?

No, the applicant.

The applicant or the appellant.

I said it twice now.

Okay.

And it would be Miss White.

I think that's what everybody's okay.

So um, you know, we've we've heard a variety of things.

Um, and this body is here to determine code and fact-based um items.

So we know that this is already zoned for a religious institution.

Um it's been master plan for that for over a decade, right?

Um the features of the spire, I do think are um designed, you know, to set back as we've seen in that table 7.4.203, right?

It's not exceeding five percent of the square footage of that temple building.

Uh there seems to be the controversy of you know, shine uh of lighting and reflective material.

So my my questions for you, Miss White, uh, if you want to come up, are are in regards to that.

So there was a statement that you made about map material was a part of the development plan, and I did search the development plan and didn't see where that was.

So I would love to just see where that is.

And then also in that attachment five, the development plan project study, there was the Westwood photometric study about lighting at all at ground level.

So my question would be about lighting the spire.

Are there lights um at a higher level?

Is all the proposed site lighting at ground level and then the map finish of the spire?

So if you could answer those two questions for me, that would be lovely.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, Commissioner.

So two questions.

One about lighting, is the spire lit or not, and what does that look like?

Yeah, and at what levels are the lit?

Because the photometric study um in attachment five showed all of the lighting projecting on the building, and there what you know, I've seen other examples of these temples where you know there was another level of lighting on the spire to cast light on the spire, but the study didn't show that.

So I guess my question is where are the lights that are casting onto the building and or steeple?

And then where in the development plan um talks about what the finish will be.

Got it.

On the second question, I might need to ask for some assistance from the architectural team here, because you're right.

I just flipped through and I noticed that um it where I thought it said that there was mat finish, it just described like brushed aluminum or something like that, and it didn't have the words mat finish.

So um I want to just consult with the architectural team about that.

Let me come back to that one.

On the on the lighting, the the question is if the question is, is the steeple lit, the answer is yes.

But what I want to share with you on that is that the proposed lighting plan for directing light upwards towards the steeple is significantly reduced compared to how most temples are normally lit.

And again, for sort of more technical details about that, I'm gonna need to consult with my team.

But I do know that um other examples that you might have seen of other temples in other jurisdictions, um, you might be familiar with a sort of very well-lit type of um type of facility, and that is not what is intended for here.

The original design was considerably scaled back from what is normal for these types of temples, again, in light of the fact that it is located within a residential area.

But it is planned that there will be light directed on the steeple.

It will just be considerably reduced.

And that's not in the photometric plan, um, because the the photometric plan required by the city really talks about um lighting escaping from the perimeter of the property, the technical requirements of how a photometric plan is um depicted doesn't include that type of um upward lighting.

It's the ground, you know, the lighting on the property.

Uh okay, thank you.

So I guess consulting with your architectural team, I still would like to answer to those questions, but I'll give you a minute to if you would please we can move on to another question, just so you're not all waiting if you would like.

Other people have questions for Commissioner Willoughby.

Um, my question was actually related to the lighting question as well.

Um I under hearing what she's saying and that it is lit, I just wanted to make sure it was pursuant with 7.4.1203 subsection C, subsection three, subsection C, which says um a lighting fixture may beam light upward, only if all upward light is reflected back down by a canopy roof or other such structure.

So I'm assuming she's gonna answer my question once she comes back with the additional details on that lighting.

Chair Commissioner Casey and fellow commissioners, this is Dan Sexton, uh planning manager for uh the land use review division.

I would just like to clarify in the development plan on sheet 30 provided provided by the applicant and the design team does acknowledge all site lighting, including lighting fixtures that are proposed within or uh attached to the structure.

Uh subsequently, as staff evaluated the potential glaring and shielding requirements of those lighting fixtures.

We have a subsequent sheet on sheet 33 that looked at specific uh light fixtures that were intended to uh illuminate the steeple itself.

So we did evaluate all of those uh fixtures with regards to the lighting parameters in the UDC Commissioner Cecil, um I know one of the points that was brought up by uh the appellant was well how the or to what extent the design did go undergo revisions to make it more compliant.

Um saying that the initial application, you know, may not have gone through any versions of that.

But from what you've said here just now, Mr.

Sexton, it sounded like um it was actually kind of reviewed thoroughly in the indication from his white was also that you know this was not a normal temple.

I wondered if either from the initial application or um in documents that could be shared by the applicant, a you might give us an example of what the typical non-residentially located temple would look like so we can determine um how the design has been adapted.

Mr.

Chair.

Um Commissioner, if I may, just sticking on lighting for a second.

First, I appreciate Mr.

Sexton correcting me that sheet 33 does in fact show the upward lighting, which is um not necessarily typically required in a photometric plan, but it is required to analyze the provision that you mentioned, and it does um demonstrate compliance with that particular provision.

Um, in terms of the sort of comparison of a regular temple versus this temple, I don't have any graphics or slides depicting a normal traditional temple, but I do have a slide depicting this temple at night that we can put up on the screen.

It wasn't part of our main presentation, but we can provide that to the clerk and see if we can get that up on the screen for you so you can get a feel of what this would look like with uh with the lighting um other than the daytime one that we've showed you.

Thank you.

That'd be helpful.

Uh Commissioner Hansler.

Before you step away, I know there was uh question from one of the neighbors about um hours of the lighting, and I guess what I'm understanding is that the intention is that the spire would be lit 24 hours a day.

But is there any um is there any consideration given that in um uh other instances maybe um temples of this nature or churches in general may not be so closely located in residential neighborhoods as we've heard and and seen?

Is there any consideration by the applicant to reduce the hours or to reduce the intensity of the lighting, say after 10 p.m.

or so forth to kind of meet in the middle with some of those neighborhood concerns?

Um I think you'll see when we show you this graphic that the lighting intensity has been proposed to be reduced, sort of uh uh uh starting at night, right?

Already that is the proposal that's on the table right now.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Chair Casey for the record.

Um so the presentation states the spire was designed with a step back profile to reduce its visual prominence as it rises.

I too went through the 30 plus page development plan.

I saw the height of the structure, but I never saw the dimensions, length, and width.

Like what do we how how wide is the spire at the base?

And then I know it steps up into uh into a smaller footprint, but what are we looking at in terms of uh is it a flagpole, is it the size of an elevator shaft?

What what's you know, what is the spire look like?

Or at least in terms of length and width, how big is it?

I'm gonna consult with the architectural team in a moment, but just really quick to clarify if you look at the architectural design of it, right?

There are probably six or seven different widths as you go up, or do you mean this most of the things?

Well, I mean the whole thing, in other words, it's x X number of square feet at the bottom and it tapers up to you know what, you know, a square foot.

Are we talking flagpole with I mean what what's the how does it taper?

In other words, that's a you know, that's a key part because we're talking about is this been designed, you know, to minimize uh its visibility from residential neighborhoods.

So I'm looking at how did you design it?

I understand.

Okay, let me give me just a second to consult if you would please Mr.

Chair, um, our architect is just confirming the dimension, but at the base of the steeple, it's around 18 feet, and at the topmost, most slender point, it's around three inches.

So it tapers down from that largest 18 feet to three inches over the from the bottom to the top of the steeple.

Okay, and I noticed you had some artist renderings of where you could see the steeple uh from or spire or whatever we're calling it.

Um did we do a line of sight analysis in other areas for the whole neighborhood or just those specific vantage points?

J just those vantage points and the it was uh intended to illustrate sort of um what it would look like from the closest couple of homes, right?

Immediately across the street on Barossa Way.

And then once this appeal came forward, the additional one was constructed to see what it would look like from the address um provided by the appellant.

And um related to that, I I know there was some commentary um arguing that perhaps because of topography that that line of sight might not be correct.

And um, we can provide some further information about that if you'd like, but the topography is actually the opposite of what was stated, and it um supports the notion that it will not be visible from the appellant's address as opposed to challenging that notion.

Okay, and I think we're still waiting on a couple other questions.

Well, that's a good point about topography.

I am trying to dig through the um site plan and and drawings.

Is there any um is there any slope in the existing topography, or is there any excavation?

Um I guess we haven't really looked at, but that's a good point that you kind of bring up to my mind.

Uh, how does the building sit in the topography?

I think that when I drive by, I know that site as well as fairly flat.

There's not a lot of round.

So is there any excavation plan to lower the building, or is it just being built on grade?

And so we're assuming that that the heights of both the building and the spire.

Oh, look at that picture.

Um, are from basically flat grade.

There's excavation or not planned.

The question is what kind of fill and cut are we looking at for the site and um perhaps related where is the site relative to the rest of the neighborhood?

Um and I'll get that answer for you.

But as you pointed out, we do have the night um perspective here.

Um uh relative to the other questions that were asked about lighting, so hopefully this answers this is uh um a rendering of what we think it would look like given this photometric plan that has been submitted.

So is it correct to view this and see that like the I guess I'll call it the needle at the top itself is not lit and that you're achieving the um requirements of the section that Commissioner Willoughby brought up the um sort of curved and blocking requirements with the tops of each of these tiered columns?

I I think that's a good way to look at it.

Okay.

All right, so let me come back to you just really quick on the grading question.

I know we talked about this at one of the neighborhood meetings, but I don't have it at my fingertips.

If you'll give me just a moment.

All right, so Commissioner Hensler.

Um sheet six of the development plan is probably the one that best illustrates the answer to your question.

And if you look at where Barossa Drive is, which is at the top of the sheet, it's at the east of the site, and you can see a couple of contour lines there going from Barossa towards where the temple structure is and the parking lots are.

It's about a six-foot drop from Barossa to where the temple site is, and it is not planned to bring it up, so that will remain, but the site is not level uh north to south, right?

This way, so it will be flattened out a little bit.

There will be some fill to balance it out.

Uh yeah, north to south.

But that six-foot drop from Barossa down to where the temple is remains.

And it might also be worth noting that the topography does continue uh downward as you progress towards the west, um, towards the neighborhood where the appellant is located, and towards where Powers Boulevard is located on the bottom of this sheet on the west of the property.

Thank you so much for addressing that.

Yeah.

Does anybody have any more questions for the applicant?

Chair Slaughter?

Chair Emeritus Slater.

Yeah.

I was still waiting on that um question about the map finishing.

What does it say map finish?

Got it.

Um I will say that uh even if it is not in the development plan itself, uh, it certainly is in all of the narratives describing what this project is going to be that have been submitted to the city and approved.

And it is certainly the intention of this applicant to use a mat finish on the steeple.

Additional questions for me.

Okay, uh in your staff report, uh, you analyze the application against the application review criteria for development plans.

Criteria D requires a significant off-site impacts reasonably anticipated as a result of the project or mitigated or offset to uh to the extent proportional and practical, but your staff report didn't mention any off-site impact of the spire or whether any off-site impact had been mitigated or offset.

Can you address why you didn't cover that?

Again, referring to the development plan criteria, criteria D that was in the staff report.

Uh can you repeat your question?

Yes.

Okay, in your staff report, you analyze the application against the application review requirement for development plans and criteria D, significant offsite impacts are reasonably anticipated as a result of the project or mitigated or offset to the extent proportional practical.

You did provide some language there, but you didn't address the offsite impact of the SPIR or whether the off-site impact had been mitigated or offset in that particular uh paragraph.

So I'm just looking at why you didn't cover that there.

So uh I responded uh in regards to the off-site impacts related to detention pond traffic.

Um I guess I did not um add that in there for the SPIRE.

Um I do provide an analysis of that further on in my staff report um on page eight and nine um of the um with a discussion having to deal with uh uh the height exemption and screening um with landscaping uh second question uh the the appellant uh basically said that staff approved the development plan despite objections and without imposing any visibility mitigation conditions.

Could you could you address that and I'll repeat it?

And what page are you referring to?

Uh this is part of the uh this is part of the appellants uh this isn't your in your staff report, it's just the in the appellant's uh statement.

You just said that um the staff approved the development plan despite objections um and without imposing any visibility mitigation can uh conditions.

Can you discuss what visibility mitigation conditions?

I think you covered that a little bit, but can you cover those specifically?

Um I think that is um at the purview of planning commission to decide if they want to add any kind of modifications to the development plan for further um visual screening.

Okay, the appellant had uh provided four different recommendations, and it wasn't a part of the appeal, it was in part of the public comment before that.

Did we look at any of those?

They talked about reducing the height of the spire, screening the spire with roof epithets using materials that blend with the sky, that prohibit elimination.

Did we address any of those?

Um during the review of the project, we looked at it based on the the code um and determined that it you know what what was presented with the development plan met the criteria of the uh unified development code.

And the applicant, at least in their reasoning, said that they didn't believe that the the height restrictions and the screening uh and stuff was necessary.

Is it was that the position and now would city attorney's office has said that is applicable.

What was your position as you reviewed this?

That was it applicable or not applicable, the screening and uh mitigate or screening and uh design requirements.

I think just to respond to your questioning um that you're presenting to me right now.

I mean, we reviewed, I reviewed um the development plan um and the project based on the unified development code and felt that it met the criteria of the development uh plan criteria um as well as the exemption section of code for height.

Okay, thank you.

Any further comments or questions from uh commissioners?

If if no further questions, then we'll uh move into any comments.

Commissioner Slayer.

Thank you.

Um this is for Sarah, our attorney.

So I was taking through all of the files, and it looked like it was attachment three, page 82.

It was a letter from um Brownstein has a reply response to public comment, latter dated October 25th, and within that the item one um the architectural and design change to accommodate neighborhood concerns.

It talks about the steeple material itself having a map finished rather than a shiny gold.

With would that statement hold up as a part of the application and development plan, or would a potential modification or condition of approval be required?

Can we even approve a condition if we're just upholding or denying an appeal?

Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

Your job here is to consider the narrow question of the appeal and not the content of the development plan.

What I will say though is comments outside of what was formally submitted to the city would not be binding.

So what is in the development plan itself and what was approved would be what would be required.

Anything outside of that is not requinding.

But today your job is to evaluate the nature of the appeal and make make a decision on the question that's presented regarding the requirements in uh 2B and whether or not those have been met, or if those meaning whether or not the planning department considered those, and if they did not, um whether or not it needs to be sent back to them for evaluation.

Thank you.

Yeah, that brings up a good question.

If you could put back up these uh the presentation we had from staff this morning, um slide 16.

I guess my question on for Sarah on this one, we have a uh potential motions, one's to deny, one's to approve, ones to modify.

And I think that's um if I'm not mistaken, that's what uh Chair Slattery is getting at.

It talks about making revisions to the development plan.

So are you saying that our proof that that motion uh potential motion that's listed on there to modify the decision is not one that we're doing today.

We're just solely looking at the motion to deny or motion to approve.

Sarah Boone City Attorney's Office.

Um for purposes of the appeal, you could make recommendations about a modification to the development plan.

Um for purposes of the appeal, though, the determination that you have to make today is whether or not is the question that was presented to you, which is whether or not the planning commission considered uh to be when approving the application, and um in deciding whether or not to uphold or to deny the appeal.

Could you look at the number three modify the decision?

Just that's what I think what I'm struggling with is what does that mean?

So, Commissioner Chair Casey, not that I want to put words in our our legal counsel's mouth or anything here, but um with respect to the proposed uh motions that you have before you on the screen and and looking at the parameters of of the UDC and 754 uh 15, which are the general requirements and parameters for an appeal and decisions on an appeal.

We have had instances where um uh a decision-making body has denied an appeal, but deny that appeal with conditions that would require modifications to the approved plan set.

We recently had that occur uh on an appeal uh or on a project that was recently before this body, but council heard it on further appeal and made a similar action.

So it is within your parameters to to recommend a denial of the appeal with a condition that may require subsequent changes to to that approved development plan.

So it's a partial denial, partial approval, and I guess Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

I I concur with Dan's description.

Okay.

Um that was what I was going to say next is that if you were to deny the appeal, you could recommend changes.

Okay.

It just if we're denying the appeal, it means it didn't meet the criteria.

And but now we're saying we're finally yes, I meant you could recommend changes if you were to approve the appeal to send it back and um recommend conditions or changes be made.

Okay.

Uh any further questions or comments from commissioners or thoughts about uh motions.

Well, sorry, commissioner's not right.

Yeah.

Um so uh along the lines of option three, their motion to modify um, you know, I'm in the belief that the design itself um seems like has gone through a very robust um and engaged public process.

Um looking at other temple examples, looking at the step down of the spire.

Um I think the design intent is to be compatible with the neighborhood.

Um and not that we don't believe you, but ratifying that map finish within the development um plan documents would be my preference.

Um I I think that the idea, I'm gonna just go back to the screening piece.

And I'm gonna agree with uh with Mr.

Williams in that screening aspire seems um ludicrous.

The purpose of that exemption in the table is to have an element that um stands stands out as an architectural feature.

Um screening uh things over building height um right would be HVAC or other pieces that have screenings um as a part of the building over that 45, you know, or or zone height.

Um so the exception to the height doesn't carry with it the um requirement of screening the exception, in my opinion.

So I I don't think that screening um makes sense.

I think the arguments of lighting and and finish compatibility, I think the the um renderings and answers to the lighting component um satisfy my opinion on is compatibility and then ratifying the map finish into the development plan documents would be my preference for a motion that I'm happy to make, but I haven't heard from other folks here.

Commissioner Robinson.

Um I have to concur with what was just said, actually.

The screening of something that tall is pretty ridiculous in itself.

Um the lighting scenario um to me is not great for the neighborhood, period.

And I I do think that uh we're would be in violation of a city code.

And I think that um just to answer your question, I'm thinking about also the deny the motion deny uh within the exception.

Um I think that having a spire is something that you look at in the sky is supposed to enlighten you.

So when really if you are of faith, it comes from the heart, not from a building that man makes.

And uh I think we need because all the other examples that have been brought forth, those temples, those spires are not in a residential area.

This is a residential area.

And um, I'm just not fond of the idea of always having to look out my window and look at uh look at the something else that represents something I'm not in favor of.

Um anyway, at this point, I think uh I would go with uh option three.

Uh Commissioner Hensler.

Yeah, um this has been a really interesting discussion.

Uh, and I appreciate the opportunity.

I think my interpretation of 7.2 um 7.4.2 F in that the height may exceed the maximum height of the applicable zone um to not exceed 5% for religious spires and towers and satellite dishes is truly to ensure that those types of structures are able to achieve their intended purposes and use, and that would be rendered ineffective if they were required to have screening or mitigation.

A satellite couldn't maintain a signal or a spire couldn't inspire.

Um, hence why that exception isn't there for other uses.

Um that that's how I'm I think is in conjunction with what Andrea is saying.

And while I do see that this seems tall given the residential setting, it appears to be percentwise.

I've been doing some research up here of LDS temples and their spires of about 70 to 72% of the building height.

Um, and while our code does not need to keep um with the 70 to 72% of the building height, it does seem consistent and not abnormally large compared to other temples.

Um I think that it is in keeping with the code and the 5%, and that the exception to the height is accurately applied in this case.

And the argument from the um appellant that the screening was not considered is seemingly accurate given that um screening would not be considered in this type of case.

And again, back to my it would render it ineffective.

So it's a very long way of saying I am um in support of the denial of the appeal, given the confusing languages that we have today.

Thank you, Commissioner Willoughby.

Um thank you.

I would probably just echo what Commissioner Slattery said.

Um I do think it's important to not just address the screening component of what the UDC says, it also says designed or screened.

So I just want to make sure they're not getting stuck on the screening.

I think we're mostly all in agreement that it would be absurd to screen it, but I do feel that it was designed in a way that minimized the impacts with the stepping.

Once the square footages were um given to us by the design team, it feels like it's appropriate and architecturally proportionate.

So I I would also though um probably like to see that mat finish captured in the development plan just to again as uh Commissioner Slattery said, it's not that we don't believe you, but it would be nice if that lived in that document.

Um so I would be in support of what the other commissioners have said so far.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Uh, much like Commissioner Willoughby, I feel like this has been designed rather than screened, and that that mitigates a lot of the issues here.

I would like in addition to the mat finished to add the stipulation that the top tier of the steeple not be lit on the development plan just to mitigate that very top needle section um becoming a disruption or overly bright um intrusion into the neighborhood.

I also would like to take an uh the opportunity to make a nod to the appellant though, that the language here is dense and the interpretation clearly can come out different ways depending on who's reading it and for what purpose.

And so I'd like to recommend to staff that we just have a conversation at some point about whether the language needs to be clarified further or not in the code uh so that everybody can transparently reach the same conclusion.

Yeah, and echoing that, I have you know, going back to the review criteria for an appeal.

One of the review criteria, the decision to approve the development plan was contrary to the express language of the UDC section.

Well, we've had a lawyer for the appellant, we've had a lawyer for the applicant, we've had a our city attorney, we've had uh Mr.

Williams from City Council all kind of give their interpretations of something that that differed to some extent, and because of that, I I don't agree that the language is that plain in the first place.

So determining something is uh decision it was to approve the development plan was contrary to the express language.

I don't know that I could reach that uh reach that um determination.

Uh I am in favor of the conditions on the development plan that uh Commissioner Slattery pointed out and others have echoed as well.

Do we have any other commissioner comments?

Okay with that, I'll open it up for a motion.

Hang on a minute, we have uh one more Commissioner Gigiano.

I just wanted to make the statement that I am leaning towards uh agreeing with Commissioner Robbins that the lighting in and of itself is maybe problematic and um but this one is uh not compatible with the neighborhood, but this is a tough one.

Uh Commissioner Slattery, did you want to make a motion since you uh raise the issues?

I think uh Commissioner Cecil already raised her hand for that.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um I don't see your hand up, but okay, uh, Commissioner Cecil.

Oh, I would like to make a motion for amended approval.

Um to uh is that right?

No.

You can go ahead and put up the uh proposed motions on there.

I think we would sorry a motion to modify the sorry the decision.

I I was already a minute ago and got thrown off.

All right.

Um so I'm making a motion uh to modify the decision.

That's number three.

It's I'm going to move to deny the appeal and modify the administrative decision based upon the finding that the appellant has not substantiated that the appeal satisfies the review criteria outlined in city code UDC section 7.5.415.82 with revisions to the development plan.

Um as already stated, but if you've got model language for me, I'll take it.

Yes, what we've kind of crafted based on the discussion that is has transpired there for the body is that with that revision that the facade material of the steeple shall be a non-reflective mat finish.

Does that appear to capture the discussion?

Um the top tier of the spire not being illuminated because it doesn't have a method of capturing the light.

And do we need to make a caveat for that for the uh the FAA lighting potentially at the top of that?

Oh, that's a great point.

Yeah, no, I meant yeah, ground-based illumination rather than the light that would prevent the collision.

So I think some language would be to in the top tier of the steeple not be illuminated, illuminated with the exception of illumination as that is required in accordance with FAA regulations.

I think that is very clear.

Okay, from there I'm gonna go ahead and read the appeal instructions.

Uh the appellant can appeal uh this uh decision today in accordance with the requirements of section seven point five point four and five of the city unified development code, an affected party may appeal to city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party within ten days from final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, December twenty second, twenty twenty five.

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

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

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

And with that, we will break for lunch until uh twelve forty-five.

And then after that,

All right, good afternoon.

We'll go ahead and uh reconvene here.

Uh first item up is the Palmer High School expansion.

If you'd read the the record, please.

Item 8B, Z O N E two Five Dash Zero Zero Two Six, a zone map amendment consisting of eight point two seven acres for the two blocks bound by North Nevada Avenue, East Sunbrain Street, North Weber Street, and East Platte Avenue.

From single family medium, multifamily high, an office residential to Form Bates Transition Sector 2A.

Item 8C.

SUBD 25076, an ordinance locating the public right-of-way known as East Baldur Street, consisting of approximately zero point nine two acres located between North Nevada Avenue and North Weber Street.

Ryan, as you're making your way up, I have a couple of comments to make and I think maybe some other commissioners as well.

Just in advance of this item, I want to mention excuse me, several connections that I have to both the item and the applicant.

Um first in my professional realm, my firm is working with School District 11 on a different and separate project.

Um our work on that project does not impact my ability to make a fair and impartial decision on the Palmer High School application, but I felt that was worth mentioning.

Secondly, I sit on the downtown partnership board of directors, an organization that has seen presentations on the Palmer High School proposal and has had a high level of discussion um around the project over the last few months.

Um while I've been in some of those presentations and conversations, they've not constituted information beyond what has been publicly available, nor do I feel that any of those engagements or presentations equaled ex parte communications.

So I feel that I can render an impartial and fair decision based on the information that's being presented to me today.

So I wanted to make that for the record.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I too work um my employer does business excuse me with school district eleven.

Uh however, we are not associated in any way with this Palmer project.

And I also sit on the downtown review board.

Excuse me.

No, I don't.

I sit on the downtown partnership board.

Uh I'm a new member there, um, having worked with their nonprofit group for many years.

Uh we have not taken an official vote.

I've not voted within um the downtown partnership board um on this at all.

I've only seen publicly available information and feel that I can be fair and impartial and make my decision based on the information at the hearing presented today.

Thank you.

Um I will try to go through my slides fairly quickly in the interest of time, so feel free to interrupt or ask questions if I'm moving too too quickly or you need additional information on any of the items presented today.

Um the project before you is the Palmer High School uh redevelopment project.

Uh the site is located on the northeast edge of downtown.

It covers roughly two square blocks bound by Nevada, Platt, Weber, and St.

Rain.

Um, it is just over eight acres in size total.

The uh the project includes three applications today, um, a zone change, a right-away vacation, and a land use plan.

Uh, these three applications were submitted in order to support the proposed renovation and significant improvements to the existing Palmer High School campus.

Um, a key element of this project is the closure of Boulder Street between Nevada and Weber, which would create a consolidated campus and allow few for future phase improvements to uh span the two blocks, uh, and those could include or would likely include, as illustrated on the land use plan, the uh creation of a new track and field and uh recreational facility uh on the site.

I do want to just remind the commission that while I'm going through today's presentation relatively quickly, there's substantial information in the written staff report where I go into significant detail uh over everything that I'm presenting today.

Um before going too into too much detail on the project or the applications in front of you.

I think it is noteworthy to remind the commission of the unique situation in that this is a public school project, and public schools are granted significant authority by the state of Colorado to advance the educational needs and and purposes of the state of Colorado's youth.

Um building permits are reviewed by Pikes Peak Regional Building, but they do so as a state certified reviewer.

They review on behalf of the state.

The zoning office, which is an arm of the planning department, does actually does not review building permits for public school projects.

However, as this project includes a right-of-way vacation, which is city controlled land, um, the school district needs full approval and and um support from the city, uh, specifically from city council, who's the entity that has the authority to vacate public right-of-way uh for the proposed project.

As such, the district has worked closely with uh city staff to forward the necessary entitlement applications, including the right-of-way vacation.

This project was submitted over the summer in June of 2025.

It's gone through multiple rounds of review and was ready for public hearing process in early October.

Um, there has been significant stakeholder involvement for this project.

Um there have been formal public notice on three occasions uh at time of submittal, prior to the downtown review board meeting, and then prior to today's planning commission hearing.

Um those postcards were sent to over 300 property owners within a thousand feet of the site.

Um the staff packet, the agenda packet has significant stakeholder input.

Um, in fact, the 12 plus comments uh uh on this slide that's documented on the slide is is true, but I would actually say the exhibit in your packet, I think has probably more like two dozen uh emails and letters, uh both in support and opposed to the project.

Um, I also distributed just before, as we were wrapping up the lunch break, uh, three additional emails that came in yesterday.

I believe two were in support and one raised a number of concerns.

Additionally, I forwarded, I believe, four emails to the planning commission Monday afternoon.

Uh so hopefully you all had uh the time to review those as well.

Um briefly, the amount of public input uh documented in in the packet and via these last emails is both uh there are many in support and many opposed.

You'll see many emails and communications from individuals, uh property owners, residents, business owners in the area, as well as a number of communications from formal organizations, including the downtown partnership, the historic uptown neighborhood association, the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC, as well as the YMCA.

Um so I just hope that the commission had opportunity to review all that input.

Um I'm sure you'll hear some more today, uh, verbally at the hearing, but there is uh plenty of documentation of community input in your packet.

Um, in addition to just the standard public notice process, this project included a number of other opportunities for public participation.

Uh a steering committee was created made up of significant, uh a wide range of stakeholder groups.

There were numerous public open houses held at the school itself really throughout 2025 to allow folks, um, stakeholders, interested residents, uh property owners to learn about the project and influence the um design and improvements that were being proposed.

Um there was uh various digital and traditional updates via uh social media, email, uh physical mailings, um, and targeted stakeholder groups uh meetings with uh student groups, alumni groups, faculty, businesses, et cetera.

Um, as has been mentioned, this project did already have one public hearing at the downtown review board last month.

Um stakeholders had the opportunity to participate and uh comment during that uh hearing.

I think three people spoke in support, three people spoke opposed at the downtown review board um hearing.

Um there are draft downtown review board minutes in your packet.

Uh, I think there's probably somewhere around 25 pages of minutes.

It was a lengthy hearing.

So hopefully you had the chance to um look through those minutes.

A lot of great dialogue uh was held at the downtown review board meeting.

Um let me move on to the next slide.

Um before moving past stakeholder input because it was such a significant element.

I did want to emphasize and highlight a few of the key issues that were raised and discussed by stakeholders and in many events were incorporated into the project.

Um the Palmer High School, what was previously known as uh Colorado Springs High School, is the longest uh standing high school or educational institution in the city of Color Springs, almost 150 years old.

Um, as such, there's a very active and notable alumni association, and that association participated significantly in the process of developing this project and uh honoring the school's traditions, historic elements, et cetera.

Um there was significant stakeholder input, obviously, on the proposed vacation of East Boulder Street.

That is a community asset that lots of people use for transportation purposes.

It is a minor arterial.

Um, and but the proposed vacation allows for a consolidated campus, allowing students to have the full eight and a half or eight plus acres to utilize without having to cross a busy public street.

So there was a lot of stakeholder input on both support and with raising concerns of the proposed consolidated campus concept.

Um the project does include the land use plan illustrates the removal of four structures along the south side of St.

Vrain.

That's the very north edge of the property.

Three of those structures are within the Weber Wasach Historic District.

And there was a fair bit of stakeholder input regarding the value of that historic district, the value of these three particular homes, and a desire from a number of stakeholders to uh preserve those buildings and preserve the quality of the historic district.

Um, there's also been significant stakeholder input on um District 11 and Palmer High Schools promised to be incorporated and uh integrated with downtown Colorado Springs and utilize downtown businesses for job training, um, internships, all types of partnerships to really integrate the students into the heart of our downtown urban community.

In addition to stakeholder review, obviously, there's been significant city review.

Um all the typical traditional um agencies reviewed the plans.

Um, the vast majority of those uh comments and concerns, technical modifications have been resolved.

I think the right-of-way vacation still has three conditions of approval, but all other items have been resolved.

Um, the biggest and probably the most discussion that's taken place has been with our traffic engineering and public works department regarding the vacation of Boulder Street.

And I think uh this next slide goes into a little bit more detail on that.

There was an initial traffic study, and both the initial traffic study and the traffic study update are included in your packet.

The initial traffic study was completed in spring of 2025.

The update was done in September of 2025.

Over the summer, as many of you probably know, Boulder Street was closed for construction activities through a temporary traffic control permit that allows contractor and construction work to occupy all or portions of a public right-away.

The September traffic update looked at how traffic patterns, volumes, intersection and operations, et cetera, were functioning with that temporary closure in place.

The data was collected after school was back in session to make sure we were capturing really as closely as possible how the area would function should the vacation be approved and the closure become permanent.

And there are some additional delays for certain movements at some of those intersections, but largely those um those impacts are modest and acceptable and do not create any uh failure of any of those intersections.

I um do have Todd Frisbee, the city's traffic engineer in the audience today.

And uh while he's not incorporated into the presentation formally, he's more than happy to come up and answer any questions should you have them at the conclusion of staff's presentation.

Uh lastly, I should note the last bullet on this slide does speak to the three conditions of approval that are recommended by staff as part of the right-of-way vacation.

Those all speak to an agreement uh that would require the district to coordinate and collaborate with the city regarding a few different elements related to the boulder vacation.

Uh, the city staff is working, continues to work uh with the school district to um uh uh articulate and um flesh out the details of that agreement.

It will likely take the form of an intergovernmental agreement or IgA.

We hope to have the details of that kind of ironed out by the time this goes to council um early next year.

Um, but I I think the commission should know that there's a lot of dialogue and a lot of optimism that we can really spell out the details of that IGA going forward.

Um, key element of review is obviously if if the project complies with plan COS, there's significant discussion of this issue in the staff report again.

So I'm not gonna go into much detail here today, uh, other than to say that the project staff believes and finds that the project is highly compatible with plan COS.

Um, I just have a couple quick slides here for each of the three applications.

The first, again, is the zone change to change the zone from R16R5 and OR to the form-based zone transition sector 2A.

As a reminder uh to planning commission, you you most of you other than Commissioner Hensler have um little direct experience with the form-based zone.

That zone was established in 2009.

It covers roughly one square mile of downtown.

Projects within the form-based zone, should they need relief or conditional use, other types of actions, those projects go to the downtown review board, which is essentially a planning commission specific to the form-based zone.

Because this project is not yet in the form-based zone.

Uh, the code does spell out the need to go to both the downtown review board and planning commission and then ultimately get approval or hear have a public hearing at City Council.

Um, this is the first application we've seen since 2009 to change or add additional form-based zone property to the zone.

So, this is the first instance where we've run across this particular uh process.

Um the proposed sector is the T2A sector.

Um, and that is a transitional sector that largely occurs on the edges of the form-based zone.

Um, and it is intended to both allow high density urban development, but also serve as a transition to surrounding non-form-based zoned properties.

Uh, the maximum building height is four stories.

There is a ability to get density bonuses that could take a building up to six stories, but that does require a formal public hearing and action at the downtown review board.

Um, I should note there is a fourth application associated with this project, a development plan that spells out the actual details of the initial phase one A construction.

It is under review administratively today.

Should this zone be approved?

That development plan would end up in front of the downtown review board because they are requesting relief.

The development plan illustrates the need for relief from multiple form-based zone standards.

Um in front of you, and then again, obviously in the staff report are the 10 review criteria for a zone change.

There is significant analysis within the staff report.

Staff finds after evaluation of the criteria that those criteria um are met.

Moving on to the boulder vacation, uh, this request specifically applies to a 100 by 400 foot um area of land uh just under an acre in size of boulder av between Nevada, I'm sorry, Boulder Street between Nevada and Weber.

Um, it does reserve public utility infrastructure.

There is some utility underground utility infrastructure within this right-of-way.

Umce vacated, the county assessor assigns ownership of this land to the adjacent property owners, which in this case both to the north and the south is school district eleven.

Um, if vacated, uh the um transition of the land from city ownership to school district ownership would create the consolidated campus as illustrated on the land use plan.

There's been significant city and stakeholder input regarding the implications of the vacation.

And again, uh the staff report does include the recommendation to include three conditions of approval on the vacation, and those will be articulated through an IGA with the school district moving forward.

Um these are the five review criteria for the vacation of public right-of-way, and there's again significant analysis in the staff report of those criteria.

I think the criteria that has had the most dialogue, both with stakeholders as well as with the city is criteria one, whether the right-of-way is no longer needed for public transportation purposes.

It's been a lot of debate and discussion of what exactly does needed mean.

Uh, can people still get to where they're going?

Does everyone still have access?

Um those types of questions have been uh discussed at length throughout the community as well as internally with the city.

Uh, after evaluation, staff finds that the uh requested vacation uh the criteria may be met if the three conditions of approval are applied.

The last um application in front of the commission today is the land use plan.

That just really illustrates um how the land would be used, the uses, the densities, access points, green spaces, etc.

Um, should the zone change and right-of-way vacation be approved.

Um there are three phases shown within the land use plan.

Phase one A is a is essentially under construction today uh on campus.

Phase one B would uh establish a new running track and athletic facility, kind of on the west northwest portion of the site, and phase two, which is a future phase, would create an additional athletic building um north of the boulder alignment along the Weber side.

There are potentially other buildings along the St.

Rain edge of the campus as well.

Um, these are the criteria associated with the land use plan.

And again, after a close evaluation of the criteria, staff finds that the criteria are met.

Um I have optional motions for all three applications.

I'm not going to read through those.

I will again point out the three recommended conditions approval on the vacation.

Um, but with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

I just I just have one brief question.

So the vacation of the right-of-way, if approved would take place during phase one B or phase two.

Should the right should city council approve the right-of-way vacation, which is an ordinance, uh, that ordinance is relayed to the county assessor and the clerk and recorder and ownership is conveyed immediately to um the adjacent owner in this case, school district 11.

There was some initial discussion of whether the city could uh place a delay on the vacation.

So, in other words, approve the ordinance, but say it doesn't actually become effective until certain triggers are met.

Um, but that there's an argument to be made that that would be obligating potentially future councils.

Um, and the decision was made really, we need to uh either approve the vacation and becomes effective immediately or deny the vacation.

Thank you.

Does anybody else any commissioners have any questions before we move on to the applicant?

Uh normally we allow 30 minutes for the applicant in this case because the complexity of the applicant did ask for additional time, so they will have 45 minutes uh to further presentation.

Great.

Well, that's uh coming up.

Uh Chair Casey and uh members of planning commission.

Uh thank you uh for this opportunity.

My name is Chris Lieber.

I'm with NES, and I'm here representing uh the project team uh for the Palmer High School project and uh uh for D11.

Uh and again, uh thank you for the opportunity to share what we believe is truly a transformative uh uh project.

Uh a project that's catalytic for our downtown and uh a project that truly uh is strategic, represents a strategic investment uh in our youth.

Uh I'm joined today uh by uh uh what I believe is an outstanding uh team uh that has been working on this project uh for uh almost uh almost up to two years uh now.

Um today we have a number of folks with us uh from school district 11.

I want to identify and call out two of those, uh specifically uh Jessica Wise and uh Jennifer Hodling.

Uh and uh Jessica will be uh part of our presentation and we'll be sharing a few words uh uh with you in a moment.

Uh we have two uh architectural firms uh that uh you will see uh some of the uh really exciting work that they have uh put together.

Uh Doug Abernathy with uh RTA architects uh and uh Gabriela Brmia uh with uh a Perkins Eastman, I believe is joining us uh remotely.

Our civil engineer is John Schwab with JPS Engineering.

Uh and uh as uh Ryan uh I think indicated, uh we we also have uh traffic engineer uh with us, uh Lyle DeVries with uh with FHU.

And uh all of these folks will be available certainly as experts to answer questions.

Uh before we really, though, jump into uh uh the depth of our presentation.

I think uh the context uh in which uh community engagement has taken place uh really uh it's important uh to share.

And and uh so this project has been shaped by our community for our community.

And uh over the past 18 months, uh D11 is engaged in numerous uh meaningful conversations, again, which have informed uh decisions and uh really are reflected in the project that we're excited to bring forward uh to you today.

Uh D11 partnered with organizations uh to push out invitations uh to participate really citywide, uh well beyond even the the boundaries of of the school district.

And this was done uh really utilizing uh a lot of newsletters, uh, existing e-newsletters, mailing lists, whether that be uh in partnership with CONO or the downtown partnership, as well as the extensive uh uh mailing lists and newsletters that D11 is able to uh to uh to to push out.

Uh we've had six uh community meetings, uh two dozen uh focus groups uh and and community meetings, over 56 different outreach events with uh students, staff, uh community as well as partners.

Uh this item has been uh presented six different times uh to the uh D11 uh school board who ultimately approved uh the master plan uh which uh we're bringing forward uh uh here today and represented.

Um we've been before the the uh downtown review board, uh but also uh two uh two stops before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

Uh and I think that was probably uh I know that was identified within your packet, uh, but that pertained to one of the a question about the one of the historic uh uh medians.

And so throughout this process, uh D11 has really made a strong commitment uh to engaging the community and uh and and and listening.

Um so for our presentation today, uh I want to divide it into really three three parts.

Uh we did something similar at the design or the developed downtown uh review board.

I'd like to invite uh Jessica Wise uh to come up and talk a little bit about the vision uh for this uh this project overall.

Uh then Doug Abernathy with RT Architects will give a quick uh overview of the master plan and then I'll come back up and really dive into the three specific applications uh before you and uh Chair Casey.

We're gonna be respectful of the uh the the uh additional time that you gave us.

So thank you.

Uh with that, uh uh Jessica Wise.

Uh I have to mend my uh notes here.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

It's uh tremendous honor to be here today.

My name is Jessica Wise.

I'm the executive director of engagement for school district 11.

It's my privilege to present on behalf of the school district, but I also want to acknowledge some of my very important colleagues in the audience.

We have deputy superintendent Brandon Comfort here today, who can also answer questions, as well as Principal Krista Burke of Palmer High School, um, who's happy to be here with us as well.

As Ryan mentioned, school districts do have certain privileges when it comes to development plans.

It's an honor to be taking this abnormal path and having this discussion with you all today, just as it was to have the same discussion with Downtown Review Board.

This is truly a community project.

You're going to hear that from us again and again.

And as such, your input and all of the discussion that happens today is something that will make this community project all the stronger and all the more efficacious.

This Palmer Project, as I'll tell you, started as a discussion about air conditioning.

The current building, uh, it was built in 1940 uh dedicated in 1940, and as such does not have air conditioning.

The third floor in the months of August and now really almost to November is uninhabitable because it's so hot.

I'm sure the students in the audience are shaking their heads in acknowledgement.

Um very quickly that discussion pivoted uh because this is not a facilities issue.

Palmer is not just a typical high school.

Palmer is a civic institution in the heart of Colorado Springs.

As Mr.

Tiefer Teller mentioned, it is the oldest school in the history of the city.

And so that warranted a very different discussion for the district.

Instead, we chose to step back and ask some bigger questions about what a downtown high school must be, not just for today, but for the next hundred and fifty years that we intend it to stand there.

So to understand those questions, um, we have to look at how the city has made decisions like this before.

From the very beginning, education has been central to the identity of Colorado Springs.

General William Palmer, I'm sure you have seen or heard this quote many times before said, My theory for this place is that it should be made the most attractive place for homes in the West, a place for schools, colleges, science, first class newspapers, and everything that the above imply.

I don't think it was accidental that he put schools first.

And so one of the very first things he did in his plan for Colorado Springs was establish a great school at the heart of this city.

And you'll see that beautiful Romanesque building constructed in 1893 that stands was placed across the street from Acacia Park.

And in fact, when we were looking for architects for this project, we started our tour in Acacia Park because it was essential that whoever was planning this remodel understood that this is about more than just what's inside the four walls of Palmer High School.

This is a project for downtown Colorado Springs and the whole city.

When that school, that beautiful Romanesque building I love so much, was deemed inadequate for use and unsafe, the city had another decision to face.

In the 1930s, they had to decide do we reinvest in this school, the Colorado Springs High School, or do we walk away?

And so over the course of the last year, I've read every Gazette article from 1936 to 1941 and have come to very much understand the discussion that was had that time.

And the decision was, after much public conversation with a much more active PTAs at that time in our history, uh, to reinvest.

And thus you see the 1938 building dedicated in 1940, which was a WPA funded project in concert with School District 11.

That decision reflected the city's values then, and today we stand at a similar moment, faced once again with the question of do we invest reinvest in education at the center of our great city.

So we began a discussion in the district of what Palmer needs today for this reinvestment to be successful.

Over the last year and a half, we've asked these questions.

What does it take to educate students safely and successfully in a modern downtown high school?

What physical conditions are required to support learning, well-being, and connection in a dense urban environment.

And what responsibility do we carry not just to preserve this building, but to ensure that students can move through their campus safely while thriving academically.

So a lot from you're gonna hear from me is how we came to this idea of a connected campus that we believe answers all of these questions and supports these solutions for the future.

Through this 18-month process of listening and engagement with students, family staff, alumni, neighbors, downtown partners, and city colleagues.

Six priorities emerged consistently.

Academic excellence through the IB philosophy, community engagement, arts and cultural enrichment, athletics, health and well being, preservation of the history and tradition, as well as essentially going back to that air conditioning, a healthy, high performance building.

We didn't just stop with naming these six priorities, however.

From there, we worked with the community to define what they mean when translated into the daily experience of the school and the physical reality of the campus.

And so when we talk about this community-driven process, we didn't start with a design, an idea pre-baked and prefabricated that we brought to the community.

We first identified our values, and then we thought through with the community how do those values take physical form.

And that's what you're going to see today.

District 11 is funding this project with 100 million dollars by itself through the form of a COP.

So we did not go to the taxpayer and ask for more money.

We are using a COP dollars to put 100 million dollars into phase one and start this vision that we believe in so strongly, and we hope that our community will then follow along with us to get us to phase two.

So, reasons for this connected campus.

Um, I want to start uh by talking about a sense of belonging.

At Palmer, students have embraced a new phrase, I belong.

It's a little play on the IB.

Um, it reflects their desire their desire for a sense of shared purpose and a true community of learning.

That's not just language.

Research in the academic world consistently shows that students who report a strong sense of belonging are up to five times more likely to be engaged in learning and more than twice as likely to achieve academic success.

A cohesive campus strengthens that sense of belonging.

A fragmented campus as it is now undermines it.

We lose students much throughout the middle of the day.

They're far apart from each other in their learning and is very difficult to gather.

Just this morning, the whole campus had to march down from Nevada from Weber and Platt down to Wasatch and Platt for an assembly.

Um, that's quite an orchestrated uh event with over 1,200 students, and it takes that just to get the whole campus together.

We have better solutions for that.

Second, I want to focus on the IB philosophy and how this pedagogical and learning methodology will be improved by a connected campus.

Um, the international baccalaureate program models itself on connection, on intersections between disciplines, ideas, cultures, and real world experiences.

A connected campus creates a true nexus for the work where academics, arts, athletics, and community life can intersect and engage in very meaningful ways.

Modern learning, we believe, requires modern, coherent space.

All of that academic promise, however, will depends on one very non-negotiable condition.

So I'm gonna actually skip two slides ahead and then go back.

The issue that underscores all of this with about five underlines is student safety.

Safety is our non-negotiable.

We've seen the worst in our district.

Just a couple years ago, a student was killed in a crosswalk on Barnes Road at Doherty High School.

That loss has reshaped how we think about responsibility and prevention.

It clarified that waiting for tragedy is not an acceptable approach to safety.

Palmer goes on lockdown last year, it went on lockdown four times more often than any other high school in our district, just because of the nature of its situation.

Thousands of daily crossings occur between academic, athletic, and recreation spaces across active downtown streets.

The near misses are too frequent.

The risks are too real.

I'm certain you'll hear more about that from my colleagues this morning.

Connecting the campus is not a convenience or a design preference.

It is a necessity.

It is the only responsible way to create safe, cohesive learning environments for students in the heart of our city.

While Boulder Street may be desired for some users, state student safety is our imperative.

And importantly, prioritizing safety does not mean disengaging from downtown.

It just means engaging it differently.

That's why I want to go back to this slide now.

So I want to be very clear.

This campus is not intended to close Palmer off from downtown.

It's intended to activate it.

Right now, students are scattered, navigating downtown individually, often unseen.

This plan gives them presence and purpose.

It creates a defined place for students within the life of the city and a launching point for meaningful engagement.

This includes, and I should say our plan for modern learning includes a bunch of internships and externships, something that Colorado Springs School District 11 is leading in in the county right now.

What better place to engage in those opportunities than in the heart of downtown, which is so ripe with availability of businesses and organizations who can support student learning.

We see this space as a new space where we can integrate intergenerational opportunities from learning, both in the and the augmented heart of the school, which will have a pre-function and larger gathering space, as well as the opportunity for students to see their chance to activate and move into downtown.

Their student paper, the lever has a motto.

Um, give me a place to stand on from which I will move the world.

It's time for us to give those students that place on which to stand.

Um, in closing, you've heard a lot about our engagement in the steering committee.

I want to say that we have never shut down conversation on this project, and we never intend to.

Uh, we continue to have wonderful, ripe, fruitful conversations with the entire community that are shaping this project for the better.

And we we are very open to continuing those, especially with the city, as we work towards a potential IGA that that solves critical problems, we've heard, like maintaining pedestrian and cycling access through the campus, even if uh vehicular traffic may not continue.

Those are things that are shared commitments, not competing values, and we can work together on those.

I just want to end by saying as I started that this moment is not unprecedented in our city.

When the WPA era Palmer School was dedicated in 1940, um a Reverend Paul Roberts offered a dedication speech, and he gave the following blessing that I'd just like to share with you all today.

He said, We must dedicate this building not only to the securing of knowledge, but to the safeguarding of wisdom.

We must dedicate it to man's highest goals and visions and purposes, as well as the training and tasks.

We must dedicate it to the living of life nobly, happily, and securely, all of us together, to the breaking down of barriers that divide us.

That charge still stands today.

This plan protects students, strengthens downtown, and honors the values on which Colorado Springs was built.

I believe a city reveals its values through the choices it makes.

And this is a moment to choose safety, belonging, and opportunity for the next generation.

And I'll hand it over to Doug Abernathy.

Thanks, Jessica.

Uh uh, Commissioner Casey, um, members of the commission, Doug Abernethy, principal at RTA architect.

So I'm gonna give you the background of the physical portion of the building or the master plan as it was generated to date.

And so let's talk about that master plan and building on the legacy of the Palmer High School that Jessica uh shared with you.

And so I'm gonna start with the disjointed properties that the district has.

It's evolved over the last over the the history of Palmer High School.

So you can see the the true two properties that we're speaking of uh today.

Of course, uh the original 1938 building and the and the property to the north, but you can also see it was herbs field to the east.

That's also a daily activity for the students that they access.

There's also two parking lots as you can see that are next door.

All of those are places where students and staff circulate on a daily basis to this building.

And so the master plan is evolved, and we're gonna go backwards here.

I'm gonna show you the final master plan, and then we're gonna go back to phase one A, and then we're gonna go step back to phase one B and the original context that drove this.

So you can see the master plan and celebrating the 1938 building as it uh currently exists, and actually returning it to its original form where the original entry of the building was off the corner of Nevada and Platte.

The yellow portion is the building, uh is the portion of the building, the academic portion that's under construction now.

At the southeast corner of that block is the future master plan to enhance the performing arts for the students on that campus.

That portion will follow in a future phase.

You we've talked a little bit about the track as part of phase one B in this project, the track in the athletic field to support this master plan solution.

And you see the brown building in the northeast corner of the site, which is the future athletic building that will support both students and potential community partners in that in that um execution of the master plan on the site.

On top of that, there are improvements that are occurring all the way around this property to address pedestrian needs, both for students and for the downtown uh public around the property.

So let's move on to phase one A that we're talking about here today.

So the yellow portion is the three-story academic building that is the first phase that it's under construction to support the IB philosophy that Jessica talked about.

The 1938 building is in the southwest corner of the site and is being maintained.

What you see above that is what exists right now is the 1980 1968 addition to the building that is shown in this phase.

It will still be there until the track in the field is executed, along with the auxiliary gym that you can see to the north on the northwest corner of Boulder and Nevada, and the existing parking lots, uh tennis courts, and multi-purpose field on the site.

This plan also shows uh Boulder Street in its closed state, but still with access across it for pedestrians and bicyclists, but connecting that campus, as Jessica talked about and Chris talked about, in order to allow free student activities to flow between the ox gym, the multi-purpose field, and on the campus on a daily basis.

You can also see the four properties to the north, which are those residential properties that are not impacted by this first phase of the project.

If we look at phase one B, which was Commissioner Casey, you had the question about this.

Um Boulder Street becomes more engaged when we move forward with this next phase of the project, and we start to implement the track and the field and the improvements to unify the campus.

This master plan still gives the ability for pedestrian access across the campus and for bike circulation.

It's just a little bit more circuitous because it goes around the track and the field as opposed to straight across in the boulder right-of-way as it exists today.

So the generation of this, Chris talked a lot about the engagement with the public, but I wanted to go back to the original concepts that were actually presented to the community and were weighed in.

And there are three key components here that were talked about in these three.

So the court, the courtyard heart concept was really focused around the bell and the students that ring the bell at the beginning of their freshman year and when they graduated seniors.

That was a very important aspect that they wanted to celebrate with this solution.

And so that was key to this solution.

Boulder Street was something that was in fate in the connected campus that you can see that was an evolution, and where we are today is a little different than what we presented originally with this project.

The third was the multi-purpose field that was in the Boulder Plaza version of this.

And you can see all three of these options came together to really create the master plan that you see today.

And just a little bit of imagery.

So the bell in the courtyard, the bell in its existing location, the addition of the new building on the lower side, the activation of Weber Street, the improvement in the pedestrian connections and the circulation along Weber Street as the improvements of the building.

And then you see in the upper right-hand corner the courtyard and the new academic uh building addition.

At the Weber Street, which is their two primary interests when this master plan is created.

Um, we're gonna we're gonna improve safety and security as the district is asked for.

So uh Nevada Street is where bus drop-off will occur, parent drop off will occur during Weber.

We're gonna use both sides of the building to actually to enter the building.

Primarily, the students will enter on the on the existing front of the building, historic building, but most of the students will enter on the Weber side of the building.

So this is right at the corner of Boulder and Weber Street, and this is that new plaza at that entry point.

So think of about 1,200 students every day arriving to this building throughout the course of the year, entering on both sides of this building.

That is it.

Thank you, Doug.

Again, uh Chris Lieber uh with NES.

What I'd like to do now is uh really focus in on the applications that are before you for your consideration and uh really take them in this order a land use plan, uh the rezone uh from what today is literally a mix of zones across uh uh the eight and eight point two seven uh acres.

Uh ultimately uh with a goal of rezoning to the form-based zone, again it with that transitional uh two uh zone, and then of course uh the right-of-way vacation.

I do want to mention, and I think as Ryan alluded to, um he spoke a little bit about the development plan, uh, which has been submitted and is under review, but is also our intent uh to submit a a replat.

Um the both parcels include multiple uh individual lots.

Uh some of those were individual uh residential lots from uh more than a hundred years ago.

So this is all that is really about uh in many ways uh cleaning up uh some of those uh historic uh uh uh land use and entitlement uh issues.

Uh we talked about uh the community engagement.

Uh it would be remiss if we didn't uh mention uh the uh the amount of uh review time uh spent with numerous uh documents, existing master plans uh within our our community, whether that was the connect COS plan, plan COS, uh downtown uh Clever House Springs market assessment, and vision shix run, experienced downtown master plan, uh state of downtown report, uh the new mark study, uh all of these were very informative in helping us uh understand uh the role, the place, the context uh for education uh in our community, uh where we could uh better understand the importance of pedestrian connections and school safety.

Uh and many of these uh uh documents also uh really talk about uh the need for I I'm gonna say stepping up our game when it comes to uh to education uh for the benefit of our economy, uh for uh workforce development and really to attract and retain businesses.

And out of that really came again this desire to make sure that we are properly connecting uh with downtown and providing a fantastic uh learning uh opportunity.

There were a number of uh key considerations.

Uh these are the items that uh uh were raised by uh folks as part of that uh community engagement uh process.

We spent a lot of time uh talking about student safety and pedestrian uh safety uh traffic, uh not only as it relates to specifically uh the right-of-way vacation, but also in the context of larger planning efforts, such as the Platte uh corridor uh study.

We've talked a lot about uh parking needs and capacity, uh we've talked about zoning compatibility and uh neighborhood uh concerns uh about uh potential for future density creep, uh questions about emergency access and response times, questions about uh the homes on the north end uh of the property, um, and also uh uh questions about uh detour uh opportunities or what that might look like uh when uh Platte is ultimately uh reconstructed.

And I want to touch upon each of these as I move forward uh through uh through my presentation.

So, first with the land use plan.

Uh as uh uh both Ryan and Doug had alluded to, uh this is uh the land use plan includes three different phases.

And I wanted to just kind of graphically illustrate uh uh the movement of and the progression of these three uh particular phases.

Uh the first focuses on that southern end, uh the second uh primarily uh includes the track and field, but there's also a reconfiguration of parking that would need to take place at that uh second phase, or what I should say phase one B.

And then phase two, of course, is the uh academic uh uh or uh athletic uh facilities in that far northeast corner.

But what's important is that all three of these phases uh have an impact on uh uh and would and would benefit uh from the vacation uh of Boulder.

Uh phase one A is currently that academic building is already under construction.

Um phase one B uh could begin as early as 2028 or 2029, and phase two, which is that northern piece, uh the timeline for that isn't determined, but it would depend on uh additional um of funding.

Uh when it comes to parking, and if we look at applying the uh form-based zone, and I want to emphasize that for the downtown core form-based zone uh does not include requirements for parking.

However, the transition to zone does.

And when we look at the total square footage uh for a civic use, um, what that generates is a requirement of approximately 400 spaces.

Uh today, uh the school uh functions and has functioned for decades using a mix of both uh off-street parking as well as on-street uh parking.

The majority of that on street is actually within that section, that diagonal section of Cheyenne um uh Cheyenne Street, uh just to the north, the northeast.

Uh so today again, 443 spaces are available in phase one A, we're projecting 435, uh one B 416.

And in phase two, as we get further out there into the future, you can see that the using just the inventory pool that's there today uh would uh would uh drop to 271.

But it's important to talk about need and demand at this at the same time.

So today there are approximately 80 staff uh members, uh uh teachers, uh staff.

Um uh they need places to park.

Uh when we look at the number of student passes which were uh issued, uh there currently are 60 uh two.

Um and I actually did a double take and I said, is that it?

Is that is that it?

And uh the answer is yes.

And uh the answer is yes, the the district has been following that very closely.

We recognize that perhaps not all students are obtaining those passes.

Um so when we look at that, we look at the needs, and we look at the kind of the full build out, uh, we are anticipating uh the school parking need to be approximately 250 spaces.

Um and that's uh that's been consistent.

Uh we've looked at that over time with area photos to see how much of those, you know, what percentage of those parking lots are being used.

Uh so while the code uh requires that 400 uh uh uh spaces, what we're finding is there's actually far less uh demand.

But that's only part of the story.

What's important about understanding uh parking in the downtown is that uh this notion or idea of shared parking and really understanding how those surface lots, those uh parking spaces are allocated is really key to a successful uh downtown uh within a two-block walking uh range, there are over 200 uh excuse me, 2,000 uh parking spaces uh uh available.

And certainly uh the majority of those uh parking lots are owned by churches.

And uh you what you'll find is that you'll see that those will be heavily parked on on weekends on Sunday mornings, uh, but often uh the demand on those parking uh spaces is far reduced uh during uh the rest of the year.

And just to uh kind of illustrate, I think some of that capacity literally within the last two weeks.

Uh District 11 has entered an agreement with uh United Methodist Church uh to be able to utilize some of their their parking, and that would help, of course, facilitate uh during this during this construction period, uh, but potentially uh above and beyond.

My point here is there's a lot of capacity, and the district has a has a history of being able to work together with adjacent property owners and really make smart use of uh some of those overall parking uh resources.

Uh now I want to turn uh attention quickly to uh a topic that uh the uptown uh the historic uptown neighborhood has certainly uh raised uh concerns about and that is uh there are four uh um uh buildings that were acquired uh recently by the district uh specifically for this project.

Uh they're located on the north end of the eight uh eight uh and a quarter acre uh site.

Uh they are located, they are sit just inside uh the boundaries of the Weber Wasatch uh uh residential uh historic district.

Uh this particular exhibit, if you see kind of that darker gray color, that represents uh the boundaries, it just clips uh the north uh the north uh uh boundary here.

Um it is important though to note that it is not located, these properties are not within a historic overlay district.

Why that matters is because uh those properties within our city that fall within an overlay district are subject to uh the historic uh preservation uh committee authority.

Uh these are uh these are not.

Um the district uh from a legal perspective has the the same right uh to relocate, remove these homes as every other property owner uh within the Weber Wasatch uh district.

That said, uh the district has gone uh to the uh to the effort of completing a historic evaluation and inventory to really understand uh the history of these uh of these buildings.

So though that history is fully doc documented.

And in addition, uh the district is uh uh currently uh actively uh having conversations with uh potential partner uh who uh may be uh interested ultimately in in relocating or moving uh these homes.

And and so the district is open to those those possibilities, uh, but to be very clear uh that the footprint, the land underneath those units is um is needed uh to ultimately fulfill uh the uh the proposed uh master plan.

Um as uh Ryan alluded to uh we uh we believe strongly that we meet all of the review criteria for the land use plan.

I'm gonna move on if we want to go into any of these in more detail, we can certainly uh do so.

What I'd like to do now is turn to uh the the rezone.

Uh the exhibit that you see before you really identifies the outline uh of the uh uh form-based zone.

And what's interesting is that uh you can see that there's a long finger of the form-based zone, which is also uh primarily a transition uh zone that extends far north up into the uh historic uptown uh neighborhood.

The uh rectangle that you see in red is the proposed uh connected campus, which represents uh the Palmer uh footprint.

Um so we are indeed contiguous uh uh with uh existing FBZ and we believe uh represents a logical uh extension.

Uh when you will look at this in a little more detail, you can see that we are contiguous again to the FBZ on the south and a portion of the uh of the west uh uh boundary.

Uh currently there's a mix of R5 and mixed use uh zoning uh around around the campus.

Um again, the site itself today uh under on the underlying uh zoning is a mix of R1600.

Uh we have some multifamily and we have a small piece of of commercial zoning.

So irregardless, we need to be able to clean this up because uh we cannot have uh according to uh code uh uh building straddling uh multiple zone districts, and that's exactly what exists there uh today.

Uh it's also important to note while the uh the high school is uh could be built, it's uh uh uh a school use, especially as a state institution is allowed uh to build within any of these uh zone districts.

The reality is uh the school, even as it exists today, does not conform with R1 uh six uh zoning.

It doesn't conform with the building uh setbacks or heights or those allowable uh parameters within those existing zones.

Again, an opportunity uh to really uh clean this up and and uh by moving to the FBZ zone, it really allows the design flexibility, uh create creativity, and it really ensures uh compatibility with surrounding uh land uses.

Umlike other uh zoning, the FBZ zone has extensive requirements uh which uh require appropriate building facades, streetscapes, pedestrian improvements, and we believe all of these uh will uh uh uh ensure that uh that the edge, the interface between the school and the surrounding neighborhood will be very thoughtfully and uh uh carefully uh designed for today and into uh the future.

Another very important piece of the FBZ zone is there is an extensive uh emphasis, strong emphasis on the public realm and on pedestrian linkages, and that is a key component of this uh of this uh project.

Uh again, uh we believe we uh strongly believe we meet all of the zoning uh criteria, and uh certainly available to dive into that in in more detail.

So now let's turn our attention to the right-of-way uh vacation.

I think it's important uh to note that uh there is significant precedent for what I'm gonna call interrupting the grid system within the core of our city.

You know, our city has consistently said yes to interrupting the grid system really for three different purposes or or what I would call uh land uses.

First, you'll notice parks.

You think about Memorial Park, uh, you think about uh Monument Valley Park and others.

The second, hospitals and health care.

Penrose Hospital, uh Memorial Hospital, UC Health are all, I think great examples of that.

The third is education.

Uh and examples of that would be uh Colorado College, uh, the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind.

Now these land uses greatly benefit from connected campuses, uh, and quite frankly, they necessitate larger footprints.

Uh they all prioritize pedestrian movements, access for both functionality and uh safety.

Uh our early city builders saw the value and necessity of connected campuses uh for Penrose, Colorado College, Memorial Hospital, the School for the Deaf and Blind.

Again, they prioritize these land uses uh over the grid system.

Uh and over the years, uh these uh campuses have continued to grow uh with additional uh right-of-way uh vacations.

And so given this history and precedent, uh I can imagine uh, you know, General Palmer with the high school, his namesake uh high school, uh, you know, sprawling across multiple blocks.

I can I can imagine him expressing a desire for a connected campus and really putting education uh education first.

Got a little bit of a delay there.

Uh I think it's also uh worth uh looking at uh at uh a number of the other high schools that we have within our community and understanding what that footprint and the value that they gain by having a connected uh uh campus in terms of safety, functionality, and uh learning uh environment.

The upper left-hand uh corner uh depicts the 8.27 acre uh uh or proposed uh connected Palmer campus.

Each of the other slides, if you see that yellow dashed line, that represents the footprint of Mitchell High School, Coronado, Rampart, Sand Creek, Doherty, and Cheyenne Mountain.

And you will see that all of those campuses uh they range from 24 acres in size uh all the way up uh to uh to 50 acres.

And uh and and each of these I would I would submit also uh you could make a reasonable argument that each of these large school footprints interrupt or certainly change traffic patterns within the respective uh neighborhoods, uh yet we can readily see the value that comes with a connected uh campus.

Of course, a lot of time and energy has gone into understanding traffic and traffic uh patterns uh related to a potential vacation of uh Boulder Street.

The first of those traffic studies was completed in February of 2025, and I'm gonna refer to that as the before uh study uh because that uh that study really projected what the implications might be.

Um that was before uh Boulder was temporarily closed uh for uh for construction.

The results uh uh high-level uh results of that study or simply that uh the uh surrounding uh intersections were anticipated to can uh continue to function at acceptable uh levels of service.

Uh there were some uh as as Ryan alluded to, some suggestions for things like um uh adjusting traffic timing, traffic signals, uh understanding the the depth and stacking uh for uh left turn lanes.

But certainly that study found that uh closure of boulder uh would uh would be uh acceptable.

One of the other significant findings was a closure of boulder would result in in very uh important uh pedestrian uh safety.

Once Boulder was temporarily closed for construction activities, the the uh study was then updated with new traffic counts, uh and these traffic counts confirmed uh network intersections again continued to function.

Uh so think of this as as a test case and proving that this one block section of Boulder Street uh from a traffic vehicular perspective is not needed, it's not necessary, uh nor is it required uh for traffic.

Um furthermore, the city spent extensive time uh in conversation with police with fire with AMR to understand emergency service impacts uh and the findings of that uh in uh report that they provided to us indicate that those impacts are minimal.

As part of that study, uh there were eight different intersections that were looked at in detail.

Uh the tan area, those two blocks represent the proposed uh connected campus.

Uh so uh intersections on Nevada, Weber, and Wasatch, uh Cross Streets, uh St.

Brain, Boulder, and Platte.

And the big question uh that we wanted to test and we wanted to understand after uh that uh the initial closure was how much traffic, what would what might be our the implications for Platte?

How much of that traffic would be uh shifting uh to Platte?

And what we found is that because this is part of an overall grid system, uh that uh much of the traffic is uh dispersed across that system, uh as I guess what would be what would be six uh expected.

And so westbound drivers are making early choices to divorce divert uh north or south, whether that be at Wasatch, Weber, or even earlier in their in their drive or commute into downtown at Platte Hancock Institute and a variety of other other streets.

So that grid system is working and uh we're able to demonstrate again that uh traffic functions with this uh particular uh closure.

We've spent a lot of time also uh considering pedestrian movement and access.

And as uh Doug uh indicated with this kind of disjointed campus that we have today, many of those uh pedestrian movements are shown here with these red arrows, and as students move throughout their uh the school day back and forth between these.

What we're able to do with the connected campus is ultimately take all of those movements uh during the school day and move those uh to a much safer uh uh uh connection, rarely represented uh there in green.

I also though want to be very transparent about um one of the things we heard loud and clear uh from students is their love for open lunch.

Uh and it's a way in which uh the school remains connected to downtown.

That will still continue, that will still remain.

Um those kids are right, they're still gonna be crossing the streets, but all of the other uh those uh street crossings again during the day, uh whether it be for an assembly uh as Jessica was referring to or for classes, all of that uh uh is being addressed in a much uh safer, more inclusive way.

This project includes significant pedestrian improvements around the perimeter on all of the streetscapes and the frontages, uh and those would be constructed uh with the various phases.

A lot of thought has been given to that.

How can we improve?

Yes, access for students around the perimeter of the site, but also uh for pedestrians moving from the neighborhood from Shooks Run or from the historic uptown uh in and out of of downtown.

Uh been extensive uh conversations as well about the possibility of uh providing pedestrian access through the center of the site.

And while this uh graphic depicts that overall uh corridor, you can see how access could uh come around that south end of the uh of the uh the track.

Um the currently uh the district has provided a letter of intent to the city that uh clearly identifies that that is a uh their their intent to engage in that and ultimately we anticipate that would be enter into the form of an IGA, uh that that a draft of the IGA could be ready and prepared uh ahead of this item ultimately moving to city council at the end of end of January.

Um so that intent is is uh is is very real.

Do you have much more to go on as your time is up?

If I may I'll wrap up just here for briefly.

Okay.

Um not only can that access be provided with uh uh uh uh the ultimate build out, but also with uh with phase um uh one A.

We believe we uh meet all of the criteria uh for the right-of-way vacation.

But what I want to do is I want to dive into um criteria number one.

Um because I think that's the most important.

And in this particular case, uh the that right-of-way criteria specifically states the right of way is no longer needed for public transportation purpose.

We believe the key word in this criteria is needed.

Uh it does not say the right of way is no longer wanted.

It does not say uh that right of way is no longer desired, beneficial, or useful uh for public transportation purposes.

It specifically says needed.

Um if you look up West Webster, if you look up the definition of needed, uh if something is needed, it is necessary or it is a requirement.

Uh the traffic studies clearly indicate that this one block segment of Boulder isn't necessary or a requirement for vehicular circulation, and that we're able to maintain acceptable level of service uh service at uh intersections.

For the past six months, uh this section uh segment of Boulder uh has been closed to traffic.

Uh the traffic continues to move.

Uh people continue to be able to get to their their destinations again, demonstrating that this street section is not necessary or a requirement uh uh for access.

However, what is clearly needed and necessary and a requirement is student safety and a connected campus, which is at the core of our our uh our proposal.

So we look at across the way on all of the different uh community benefits.

Uh you weigh those uh against uh closure of Boulder, and we believe that those benefits clearly uh are outweighed.

Um Ryan mentioned conditions approval.

Uh the uh D11 has uh begun conversations with the city.

They provided a letter of intent uh that clearly indicates uh their their willingness uh to uh uh follow uh these uh uh conditions of approval.

And again, ultimately that will find its way into uh the format of a of an IGA.

Uh but to be clear, uh there is interest in providing that uh both the pedestrian access, uh there's a willingness to consider uh some form of a I want to call it a reverter, uh if you want to call it a gift back, uh, but if the school is no longer there, no longer functions, there would be an intent to be able to have that right-of-way transfer back uh to the city.

So simply in in conclusion, um want to thank you for your time uh and uh uh for this project again, which really emphasizes educational excellence, uh transformation of how uh education is delivered and uh truly a dynamic hub and connection uh to our our downtown.

And with that, um thank you for the extra moments there, and we'd be happy to uh provide any uh answer any questions that you may have.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll eventually have a bunch of questions for you, but I'd like to move on to public comment unless any commissioners have anything urgent.

Oh break.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, we'll go ahead and take a short break for five minutes at the request of uh commissioner.

Uh so we'll see you back here at uh let's call it 10 after that.

Okay, planning commissioners gonna go ahead and get started back up and move on to um public comment first we'll speak uh hear from those public comment in support of the application and then public comment and those in opposition to the application.

So with that, I'll turn it over to if you'd call on whoever's first.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Yes, good afternoon, commissioners.

MJ Benanati, director of government affairs at the Chamber in EDC.

At the chamber, we do not endorse specific development projects, but we do speak often on the merits of development.

And today, we want to speak specifically about the merits of having a strong downtown, which begins with high quality education outcomes and the physical spaces that we can all be proud of representing our city.

Our future workforce are the students in Palmer High, D 11, and all of our districts.

If we don't invest in them, they won't be ready for the careers of the future here in our own home region.

We must prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow, and that starts with high quality learning facilities.

This project meets the requirements for the changes per the code and will leave a positive impact in our community for decades.

We strongly recommend that you move forward with this project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We have Austin Wilson next.

After you introduce yourself, you will have three minutes.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Um, my name is Austin Wilson Bradley.

I'm the director of economic development for the Downtown Partnership and the Downtown Development Authority.

The partnership strongly supports the proposed development plan, including the zone change and vacation of East Boulder between North Nevada and Weber.

The redevelopment of the historic Palmer High School building represents a catalytic opportunity for downtown, primarily serving, of course, to enhance the quality of education and student life at Palmer High School, but also serving to enhance downtown's appeal to future residents, improve infrastructure, enhance streetscapes, and bolster safety.

A recent newmark study assessed our community's strengths as well as its shortcomings, and the findings of the study highlighted the need to better educate and train the students of Colorado Springs for a 21st century workforce.

As a community, we are far too reliant on importing the talent demanded by today's major employers.

So investing in the redevelopment of Palmer High School as downtown's only high school and District 11's only IB high school is essential.

Further, the vacation of East Boulder Street between Nevada and Weber significantly enhances on campus security and the safety for students of Palmer High, which should be of utmost importance to D11, this planning commission, and our community more broadly.

Creating a super block across both blocks, currently bisected by Boulder Street will consolidate most of the academic and athletic facilities of Palmer High, reducing required street crossings and bolstering the students' ability to maintain on campus security.

The traffic study highlighted by NES analyzed both existing traffic volumes and forecasted 2030 volumes and found that the redistribution of traffic created by this vacation does not cause significant queuing and would allow all signalized intersections in the area to maintain acceptable levels of service.

The partnership believes that this development plan is complementary to the surrounding uses and the neighborhood, gives appropriate consideration and deference to the existing historic buildings and conditions, while still creating a modern world-class academic center that better consolidates the campus and enhances student safety.

The plan also enhances the public pedestrian experience with a coordinated streetscape plan and upgrades to the pedestrian realm.

The development plan will enhance downtown's appeal to young professionals and families as we continue to invest in and build out our residential portfolio and provide other catalytic opportunities at adjacent sites and areas in need of further investment in downtown.

So we strongly endorse this development plan and welcome this investment in downtown's educational resources and built environment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Daniel Way next.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for your service to the city and your stamina today.

My name is Daniel Way.

I live in the Middle Shooks Run neighborhood.

I support the investment in Palmer High School.

Phase one alpha of District 11's plan will strengthen downtown and my neighborhood.

My request is simply this.

If Boulder Street is vacated, please include a condition that's enforceable requiring a permanent, non-exclusive public pedestrian easement or equivalent instrument through the campus.

This condition supports the intent of the UDC and the form-based code and preserves the integrity of the downtown pedestrian network and the long-term public interest.

First, Boulder Street is still needed for public transportation as part of the downtown grid network.

The importance of the 400 block 400 foot block structure is emphasized in the form-based code, section 2.7.

The historic block rhythm has guided 150 years of downtown development, and it's foundational to urban legibility and vitality.

Urbanists from Jane Jacobs to Jeff Speck have shown that small permeable blocks create safer, more functional cities.

Second, comparable institutions in the same urban context show that unified campuses and public connectivity are not contradictory.

Colorado College preserves public walkways through its campus.

North Middle School maintains public access across its grounds.

Even widener field at Citigate retained pedestrian movement through a vacated right-of-way.

These local precedents demonstrate our community's share value of maintaining pedestrian access within significant institutional civic products projects.

Third, it looks like the only element of Palmer's proposal that requires full right-of-way vacation is a choice to build a 400-meter practice track.

Palmer already has access to the regulation track at Jerry Berry Stadium, and they plan to retain Earth's Field.

Finally, the Elevate Downtown Plan identifies Boulder Street as an activity street intended to enhance the pedestrian experience.

A mid-block pedestrian easement is fully aligned with this designation and with the mobility, placemaking, and connectivity goals of the downtown master plan.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you either deny the vacation or approve it with a condition that maintains an enforceable public access through the campus.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you.

We have Celeste Martin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Celeste Martin.

I live at 1612 North Weber Street.

Thank you for giving me time to share my thoughts on the street closure.

I speak as both a parent of a Palmer High School student and a community member.

I support the suppose uh purpose, closure of the section for several reasons.

Number one, safety due to traffic.

I've lived in this area for four and a half years.

I've observed Palmer students throughout the day having to cross Weber and Wasatch.

It's always concerning to me due to the heavy traffic in the area.

In addition, the carpool lane on Weber before the construction began was very limited.

Many students had to cross Boulder in order to enter the school as they were dropped off further from school.

This issue is addressed in the new master plan by incorporating an improved carpool lane on Weber.

Number two, security.

The consolidation of two properties will allow campus to control points of entry more efficiently.

It will be much easier to secure the campus in case of an emergency on a contiguous site rather than separate ones.

The new design, new state-of-the-art building security, communication technology will provide staff, students, and parents much more confidence in this regard.

Number three, the future of Palmer.

Palmer High School has a unique IB program, dedicated staff and faculty.

The facility should reflect this dedication and vision for the future.

We have this unique opportunity to elevate the campus and provide space to accommodate a growing population.

Combining these properties will give the campus a presence in our community.

I believe that is important for a school in downtown Colorado Springs.

It will provide new opportunities both for the school and the community to host gatherings and events as well as provide flexibility to adapt to future needs.

The long-term benefits to the closure of this section of Boulder will serve the school and students and community very well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Denise Moore.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

I'm the lead security at Palmer High School.

Been there for 20 years.

I think you hear about the security.

You hear about the safety.

Well, that's my job.

I appreciate everybody giving that heads up.

But Boulder itself, closing it will definitely benefit my job, my team, and the school and the students.

It's very, very unsafe.

Traveling on foot downtown or uh Palmer.

Any day we got 12 to 1,500 kids out and about all day, starting 6:30 in the morning to 5-6 o'clock at night.

Boulder would go away.

That will just be one right-of-way that I will not have to cover.

Kids would not have to come across, and cars would not have to uh deal with those individuals.

Over my time, you can imagine how many accidents I've seen.

Seen students get hit, boulder, Weber.

I've seen teachers get hit.

Homeless get hit.

I think with the boulder going away, it would help those numbers tremendously.

It's our safety and security.

Palmer high school.

Thank you.

We have Ava next.

Please introduce yourself and sorry, introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Eva Thomas Tappy Take.

I am a sophomore at Palmer and vice president of the sophomore student council.

I'm a student athlete and I run varsity track and cross-country.

I'm in support of the Boulder Closure for many reasons, but today I would like to speak about how it opens up many possibilities to improve our athletic facilities at Palmer.

Palmer doesn't have a standard track and field right now.

We have this weird like 300 meter square thing that's on dirt.

Um in order to practice in the spring, the entire track and field team has to commute to Gary Berry Stadium.

As well as track, lacrosse, soccer, and the softball team aren't able to practice in the Palmer campus.

And this makes these sports, which should be accessible to all students a lot less accessible.

The commute to Gary Berry, or in case of the softball team, the commute all the way to UCCS should not be necessary for high school students and other students at different schools in D11 and other districts across our city do not have to do that because they have facilities for students on their campus.

Um as a very busy student athlete, there's nothing that sounds better to me than being able to stay at Palmer after school and go to practice without having to drive 15 minutes across town to Gary Berry and adding 15 minutes extra on my commute home.

That time could be better spent with my team or working on homework from my classes.

Palmer is a school with a long legacy of athletic and academic success, and closing Boulder Street means we have a great opportunity to give Palmer the new athletic facilities that future students and our and the future of our school deserves.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

We have Willa speaking next.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Hello and thank you for having me.

My name is Willa Kalmanowitz, and I'm a Palmer, I'm a sophomore at Palmer High School.

I'm the treasurer of the sophomore council, and I'm the editor of the school newspaper as well.

I'm in the I'm in support of the closure of Boulder Street because it will make school safer for us as students.

Being downtown, safety should be a higher priority than other schools in residential areas due to the many extra risks risks it comes with.

As Ms.

Wise mentioned, we have four times the lockdowns as other high schools simply due to our location.

However, it is currently worse our safety is currently worse than at other schools that are less risk than us due to the separation of our buildings.

The closer the closure of Boulder will make prioritizing safety easier and more efficient.

It is easier and faster to lock down a connected building rather than multiple buildings, such as this year when we have the main building, auxiliary gym, and herbs gym, which puts additional pressure on administration and security when a situation requires their assistance.

Also, during secures, when we can move around inside the building, but not outside of it.

People in the gym might get stuck and have to miss classes due to the fact that they cannot leave the building, and they shouldn't have to miss time on education due to a situation outside.

Being downtown, we should embrace our location, but also make sure that the school is something that is not interrupted or disrupted due to it.

The two should be able to coexist without sacrificing education and convenience for students.

Overall, the closure of Boulder Street will make the school I go to every single day a safer place for me to be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Brooklyn is next.

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

Hi, I'm Brooklyn Barnett.

I'm a sophomore at Palmer High School, and I'm also a student council representative.

I'm in support of closing boulder for a couple reasons.

One being pedestrian safety.

As a student, walking down to the gym during or after the school day has many risks.

While walking down to the gym and crossing the streets, people aren't very cognizant drivers, often not paying attention to the students crossing the roads, and in some instances coming close to hitting students.

As you walk down at the gym, the unhoused population is often lining the path that students take down to the class down to classes, creating another risk factor that students have to deal with in order to get to class.

By connecting the athletic facilities, it also makes it easier to monitor students leaving campus.

Right now, students can leave the building whenever, and when asked why they're leaving class, use the excuse that they're going to gym class.

When really they're not, impacting students' academic success.

Lastly, the walk down to the gym takes time out of class.

So by bringing the athletic facilities up to the main building and closing Boulder, there is no time taken away from learning.

Both the gym classes and health classes, as of right now, are down at ERPS Gym.

And students get an extra 10 minutes, not including passing periods to get to health classes and around 15 to 20 minutes to get to gym class, due to the fact that students have to get ready to participate in the class.

I'm in support of Boulder the Boulder Closure because it would make Palmer safer and make going to class easier for students.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Arvani's next.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Abani Stack.

I am a varsity softball captain and a part of junior student council at Palmer High School.

And this is why I'm in support of the closure of Boulder.

Having a closed campus opens up more opportunities for community.

With a campus so spread out, a lot of students are too focused on being able to get from point A to point B in a timely manner.

Students tend to be more independent, which is good, but also more often than not takes away the feeling of community that is so important to Palmer.

With a closed campus, students can focus more on the people around them.

Closing closing Boulder opens up a large area that can be used for multiple different community activities, such as sports spaces as well as potential outdoor learning environments or social spots for luncher free periods.

Not only does it benefit the average student, but it benefits the athletes and brings them closer together as well.

The sports community can focus less on navigating to different parts of the city and instead be able to feel at home with Palmer's own sports facilities.

All of the sports being together and able to interact with one another opens more opportunity for being social, making friends outside of their regular teammates, and building a community that is not separated every day, which is why I am in support of the closure of Boulder.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Judy.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Judy Owsley, and I'm the president of the CSHS Palmer Alumni Association, a 42-year institution.

I've been actively involved in the Palmer Renovation Project since really very early in the process.

As it began, I was impressed with the systematic and thorough way that the design team dedicated a full year to collecting vast amounts of information from alumni, students, parents, staff of the school, neighboring business owners, and any citizen who was interested.

Leaders of the design team have spoken to meetings of our alumni association.

They've shown plans and explained the process and patiently answered any and all questions and concerns and challenges.

I've been a member of the steering committee, and that was a wonderful opportunity.

A serious concern for most alumni is the preservation of the historical character of our school that has been a fixture in Colorado Springs for 150 years as of this year.

The design team has made sure that the most cherished pieces of our history will be maintained, and I thank them for that.

One particularly positive aspect is that the campus will become safer, and you've heard that over and over if the total plan is made possible.

Students will no longer need to cross two busy streets as they walk to the gym and that small practice field that has a square track.

If the vacation of Boulder is approved, Palmer will at last have a full-size track and field for practice, gym classes, and the full range of sporting events.

What a boost that will provide for our student athletes and for the whole student body.

I get excited thinking that it will what it will be like to have the athletic gym and fields on the same two-block area, along with a full complex of academic and trade buildings.

That is bound to create a campus that is much safer and that generates energy and spirit and a vibrant sense of community.

And we are located right in the heart of the Colorado Springs downtown community.

This magnificently updated Palmer High School will enhance the downtown master plan, and our students will continue to benefit from all that the CBD has to offer.

I'll just say thank you for considering the proposal and helping to facilitate the vacation of Boulder.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Krista.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Commissioners.

My name is Krista Bark, and I'm the principal at Palmer High School.

I belong at Palmer High School, an IB World School where we are a community of lifelong learners who thrive.

We cultivate opportunities and diverse perspectives through applied and innovative learning in the heart of downtown Colorado Springs.

This is our identity statement, what we who we are and who we aspire to be.

I'm here today to express strong support for the vacation of the right-of-way at Boulder Street and the land use plan.

This decision is far more than a facilities change.

It is a critical investment in student safety, campus cohesion, and the long-term success of Palmer High School.

Safety must always come first.

Right now, hundreds of students walk, as you've heard, a full city block and over two busy streets to get to their PE in health classes to get to assemblies and to get to some of their athletic practices outside of school hours.

But safety is only the beginning.

Connecting two of our three city blocks allows us to reimagine how our campus can serve students.

We'll be able to create outdoor learning areas, collaborative spaces and environments that support the kind of inquiry-based hands-on learning that defines the IB experience.

These spaces will help students think creatively, work together, and engage more deeply with their education.

A unified campus will strengthen our school culture where students can move freely and safely between buildings, they feel more connected to each other, to their academics, to their teachers, and the programs that make Palmer unique.

Clubs, athletics, art, and academic teams will be able to have easier access to shared resources, encouraging collaboration and inclusivity across the school.

As an IB World School, we emphasize global perspectives, interdisciplinary learning, and community engagement.

A connected campus gives us the flexibility to host exhibitions, service projects, and events that reflect these values.

It also enhances our ability to partner with organizations throughout downtown Colorado Springs.

Something we are proud to do as the only downtown high school.

In short, the closure of Boulder Street and the adoption of the land use plan represent a transformative opportunity.

They allow us to create a safer, more collaborative, and more innovative learning environment that aligns with who we are and who we aspire to be.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration this afternoon.

Thank you.

Mike.

Thank you.

We have Ron next.

They all know I love the square track.

I'm Ron Elston.

I graduated from Palmer High School in 1970.

I owned that track for four years or three years while I was there.

Um I'm gonna I want to see it go away, and I want to see the new track built, which means I'm much in favor of this closure of Boulder and the rezoning as it is.

Um my sister, my brother, three of my nieces, my nephew all went to Palmer High School.

I've got two incoming great nephews that will be going to Palmer and will benefit from the remodel of this building and closure of Boulder Street and the new facilities are going to be built.

Um, I want to encourage you to vote in favor of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's everybody in support that sign in.

Would you like to go online?

Uh, yes, please.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of these items, please, Pristar seeks to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

Okay, they will now go to any comments uh in opposition.

Our first speaker in opposition is Mariah Osborne.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Morning, Commissioners.

My name is Mariah Osborne.

I live at Boulder and Walsatch, a stone's throw from Palmer High School.

I'm speaking as a nearby neighbor, parent of a high schooler and former teacher in opposition to phases 1B and 2 of the Palmer High School rezone land use plan and the vacation of East Boulder Street.

The project team says that this renovation prioritizes investing in education.

I am here to say that this renovation does not fully meet this goal.

I'm sorry, increasing teacher salaries, student support, educational materials, family engagement, mental health resources, or decreasing poverty.

This project team says that they have listened to the community.

I am here to say they have not involved the concerns of neighbors or nearby businesses outside of the minimum required radius.

Three National Register Historic Homes on St.

Brain are in the Weber Wassach Historic District and are slated for demolition in December 2025.

D 11 spent millions to purchase the homes after threatening the owners with eminent domain.

D11 forced out tenants who had their leases terminated during the holidays without relocation support while we are in the midst of a housing shortage and volatile economy.

Palmer claims these homes are not historic because of a self-funded historian statements, noting they are not in a city historic overlay district, but these homes have been recognized as historic since the 1970s by the Federal National Register.

I am asking this board to please hold until an independently funded preservation alternatives report and mitigation plan are completed, made public, and the appropriate historical preservation has stakeholders have had a chance to review the analysis, and local historical leaders have time to raise funds and pursue the requirements for a city historic overlay for the Weber Walsach Historic District.

Vacating East Boulder removes a key publicly owned east to west connector.

Neighbors, commuters, and first responders use.

Again, D11 privately funded a traffic study.

This is a major conflict of interest.

Boulder was built and is maintained by taxpayers.

How will the taxpayers be compensated for the handover of historical Boulder Street to D 11?

It is a main thoroughfare and emergency response route.

Since the temporary closure of Boulder, traffic, including sirens and speeding emergency vehicles have been pushed into the neighborhood.

This has resulted in my quality of sleep, safety, and daily living being affected.

Please require an independent traffic and emergency access study with event day scenarios and options that retain through access, not at the expense of our neighborhood's residential streets, especially to include the Memorial Central's emergency response teams and taxpayers' involvement.

Given the scope of these three items, please require independent studies and stakeholder input to make the decisions which will forever change the fabric of the downtown grid and historic buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Cheryl Brown next.

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

And additionally, I'm a parent.

First of all, it's not necessary.

Schools in Colorado Springs are all zoned residential.

Every high school, every junior high.

Since state law exempts schools from local zoning requirements, there's no need to change the zoning to FBC T2.

The district could keep the site residential without altering its plans.

Maintaining residential zoning is more compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood it serves.

This type of zoning could set a precedent for future commercial encroachment, putting pressure on the National Register of Historic District Neighborhood over time.

It is absolutely not necessary to change this zone.

Keep it residential.

The vacation of Boulder Street.

Platte Avenue, however, is less suitable for drivers turning left on Nevada, forcing them to use unsignalized intersections if Boulder is vacated.

This creates a more dangerous driving environment, especially given the limited visibility from parked cars and the speed that occurs on Nevada.

I urge you not to close this major street.

As was stated earlier, we must weigh how many students will benefit from a proposed practice track against how many citizens rely on this roadway every single day.

The number of daily commuters, emergency vehicles, neighborhood residents, and local businesses affected by this closure far exceeds the number of individuals who would use the practice track.

And this is all they're closing it for is a practice track.

And so destruction of the uh Weber Wasatch Historic District homes.

It's already been talked about.

There'll be a historian will talk about it soon.

But the first thing I want to say is District 11 wants to destroy them because they're not in the business of rental homes.

Well, district two is.

They have homes that have uh what probably house 10 to 20 people.

And so uh to close this, it it gives them the opportunity to destroy these, takes away the opportunity to offer housing for their teachers, um, you know, affordable housing, because this is affordable housing in historic buildings.

And so we would love to see these buildings remain because the destruction will destroy the southern part of our uh Weber Wastack Historic District.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Jeff Hodges.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jeff Hodges.

I live uh the corner of Willamette in Nevada, which is just two blocks of uh north of Boulder Street.

This is a non-signalized intersection that has experienced two traffic fatalities in the last three years and numerous major accidents.

The two intersections to the east are also non-signalized.

And the stress of these intersections has not been addressed in this presentation.

And I urge a professional, non-biased traffic study be done before putting increased stress on these vulnerable intersections.

We all agree safety of Palmer study students is of utmost importance, but let's also examine the safety of the entire neighborhood before closing a major artery with signalized intersections and try to negotiate as try those try to negotiate dangerous non-signalized intersections in order to uh connect um proposed athletic facilities.

In other words, um the closure of Boulder is primarily uh for the athletic facilities, and as Cheryl said, um it puts extreme uh stress on intersections that are already um experiencing traffic fatalities and major accidents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next last speaker registered is Tim.

Please introduce yourself, and you will have three minutes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tim Scanlon.

I'm a city resident for 25 years.

I worked in the city's comprehensive planning division.

Since then, I've worked as a historian.

Both my children graduated from Palmer.

I fully support phase 1A of Palmer's work.

School District 11 has embarked on an ambitious effort to transform an aging and increasingly obsolete facility into something that is a model for learning for the next 50 years and beyond.

I'm unhappy with phase 1B, specifically Boulder Street and the block north.

In reverse order, the elimination of three residences on East St.

Varones, Verain Street gravely harms the Weber Wasatch National Register of Historic District.

The National Register is America's official list of historic places determined worthy of preservation.

The Weber Wasatch listed in August 1985 remains uniquely significant as the city's best intact middle-class residential neighborhood in the city.

As noted, it's the uniformity of scale, density, and placement, which gives the district its visual cohesiveness.

Removing these buildings opens a wide gap in the southern boundary.

I share the neighborhood's concern for the potential effects of foreign-based zoning on Weber Wasatch.

We should encourage redevicent in our historic districts, not redevelopment or clearance.

The school district owns these buildings and will ultimately decide their fate.

I share I I did suggest the project consider leasing these buildings for private use while retaining uh district ownership of the land, but that's another matter.

My second concern is the street vacation.

Our street system is a dominant land feature in the downtown, occupying about a third of the surface.

It's designed in a hierarchy of avenues, streets, and alleys, and our current rights of way remain largely as planted 150 years ago.

It enables multiple uses and multiple travel options.

Vacation seems reasonable.

Public land would remain in public use.

But use of this space as an athletic track would dramatic dramatically change access and appearance, narrowing general municipal use to educational use.

Phase one is intended to rehab Palmer for another 50 years and more.

But what about after that?

75 years, 100 years.

Right of way vacation is permanent, creates a super block in a minor arterial street.

And I will argue that Boulder is needed, if not essential.

I oppose the vacation.

However, if the athletic track is sufficiently compelling, then permanently close the street, but retain the right of way.

An additional interim use agreement between the city and the school district could then be negotiated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Those are all registered speakers.

Um in person.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of these items, please press star seeks to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

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

Once again, uh Chris Lieber with NES.

I'll I think I uh addressed a number of these items during uh our our presentation.

I want to uh hit upon a couple of them.

Uh one uh uh comment I think several uh folks uh brought up was concerns about the traffic study.

I do want to emphasize that uh uh uh Lyle Devreeze with FHU prepared that study.

Uh that study was uh both actually both of those studies uh and they were thoroughly reviewed uh by uh uh city engineering uh and uh there were many conversations with uh with city staff uh about those and and even back and forth about making sure that the proper intersections were indeed uh evaluated.

And so while yes, that's an independent study.

I can assure you that there's been extensive uh conversation with with this with the city uh to ensure uh the quality integrity of that uh of that traffic study and it's uh and its findings.

Uh uh Mr.

Scanlon uh who spoke uh talked about uh concern about about uh kind of long 75 years from now uh and uh and the the right of way.

And as I mentioned in uh in at least the very briefly in my presentation, uh the uh the school district uh and uh has provided a letter of intent that ultimately we we believe will become an IGA that makes the most sense uh but that IgA will identify uh the method, the means uh by which, if the school district uh should not need uh that right of way in in the future if Palmer stops becoming Palmer uh at some point, which is hard for me to fathom, uh but that there would be an avenue uh for that right of way uh to be restored.

In other words, the district couldn't turn around and sell the sell the property, and then uh uh the city would lose the opportunity uh for that that right of way.

So I want to ensure that that has been been uh discussed, been thought about, uh, and we are looking for the IGA ultimately uh to uh to provide that.

Uh a number of uh comments about uh the right of way.

Uh uh again uh from a safety perspective, vehicular traffic on Boulder for that one that one stretch, and if we're thinking about creating uh a um uh a school, a facility, an educational facility that really puts students first, whether it be from a safety perspective uh or any of the other uh reasons uh that closure, the idea of this connected campus really is essential.

That said, uh there is a uh clearly an intent and I think shared values around uh being able to uh provide pedestrian access and so that that form of transportation uh through the corridor uh could be figured out, could be accommodated while still maintaining uh public safety.

And I think the specifics around that, yes, would need to be worked out through the through the IGA, but there are a lot of good, I think, good conversations happening about happening around that, and the district has been very clear uh about uh the intent uh uh uh to uh uh to provide that.

Uh let me spend just then another just couple moments uh talking about the Weber Wasatch district.

I touch upon that very briefly.

Um there are a couple of of pieces.

First of all, uh the evaluation, evaluation of the buildings themselves uh that has been that has been uh uh conducted has indicated that independently each of those none of the the buildings and structures on their own would qualify for the national uh historic registry.

Uh the value is in the overall um uh uh rubber wastach district.

Uh I would point out again that one of the real anomalies uh to these three homes belong being part of that district is that in almost every other case a a street or a public right-of-way or an alleyway define the boundaries.

This is one of the few uh examples where uh literally there's this one little tab, if you will, uh that captures these these uh uh three homes.

And we would suggest that in many ways, integrity of the district really does make sense in thinking about public right-of-ways or alleyways or those pieces of the district that are integral.

Um the reason for those homes being uh removed or the right-of-way goes well beyond uh the uh what as what was suggested that this was being done just simply to support uh the the uh practice track.

And I hope we've made that uh that case uh uh pretty strongly uh for a connected campus that goes well beyond uh moving from a straw uh a square track to an oval uh track.

Yes, it's important, but but uh when it comes to public safety, when it becomes comes to connected campus uh educational opportunities, uh the benefits are far uh vaster.

Um so with that, uh if there are more specific questions about uh traffic or specific intersections, again, I think I would invite uh Lyle uh DeVries with FHU to come up and uh uh uh be able to address those.

All right, thank you.

Um we'll come back.

I'm sure we'll have questions for you here shortly.

Uh that go ahead and closes public comment for now or for or for the uh for the hearing.

I do want to thank the public that came out and uh specifically spoke with her in support or an opposition, and particularly to our Palmer High School students.

You have you clearly articulated your views and you did a great job.

And with that, I want to turn it over to Sarah Bruin from the city's attorney office.

She has a some comments to make.

Thank you, Chair Casey.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

I think there are some clarifications that are necessary regarding what can legally be included in an IGA.

Um there's been a proposal to include a reverter clause, so to speak, in the IGA, and that would not be legally permissible.

Um in the IGA, we could agree to allow the district to use the property for a particular period of time.

But once a vacation is approved, it becomes private property.

Therefore, it becomes the property of the district, and the IGA is not the vehicle through which they can agree to essentially give us back the property.

Um I I wanted to make that clarification because an IGA would not be able to include a requirement that they effectively gift it back to us or sell it back to us as part of the IGA.

Now, um there was also a comment made about a concern regarding conditioning the vacation.

You can recommend conditions on the vacation.

So if you wanted to approve a vacation and recommend to the city council that they condition it on, I don't know, completion of phase one, for example.

Um that is legally permissible to condition the vacation approval.

Um so I just wanted to clarify that that those those two points are critically important for consideration of this issue, um, just based upon uh you know what the recommendation that you need to make today.

And I can answer obviously any other questions you have.

Yeah, just a quick question.

Sometimes you have conservation easements where property is allowed to be used for something else, but if it doesn't have that use anymore, then it's allowed to come back.

Is that not an applicable and like this kind of land use question?

That no, that is not part of this currently.

Um a conservation usement would have to be addressed separately.

Um in this particular case, what you are considering specifically to the item relative to the vacation of Boulder Street.

Um, the the uh application has been to vacate the street, which means um the city would relinquish its ownership of the right-of-way and it would become public property or private property of District 11.

Um, so for that application in particular, you know, it's relevant because there's been a recommendation to execute an IGA, and but the IGA will not be able legally to include terms whereby the district gives the property back if it no longer owns the property.

That part that right of weight becomes part of that parcel and then would be um you know, part of the entire parcel.

Okay, uh sure.

Um Commissioner Slattery.

Thank you, Chair.

Um there.

So what I heard you say is essentially that condition three uh in the proposed mouth motions um would not hold up as a valid condition.

It should probably not be considered by this board to put into our motion.

Well, it cannot be part of an IGA.

You could so the comments that I made are specific to the terms of an IGA.

What has been proposed is that any condition on the vacation is done through the execution of an IGA agreement.

Yeah.

The IGA agreement, however, cannot contain that term.

Now we the only thing that we would the language that we could use in an IGA would be to grant authorization to use the property for a specific period of time, but because there's a real estate interest that's being passed through the approval of the vacation and making it private property, we cannot force District 11 through an IGA agreement to give it back to us.

Sure.

So condition three is uh enforceable.

However, would um maintaining there's public egress, there's some conditions uh regarding public egress.

Could an IGA enforce public uh pedestrian or bicycle access through a property where the right-of-way has uh been granted, where the right-of-way vacation has been granted.

Yes, there could be an agreement to uh between the parties to create a you know public egress of some sort.

Okay, but that would be over private property, you know.

It would be the district would be agreeing to incorporate that.

Understand, but it could it put it's an option, it's on the table.

Okay, I think that's all my questions for you right now.

It would be similar to like the right now, we have the utilities easement that already is there.

Would it be any pedestrian easement type?

That'd be the right language to do it.

It operates very similarly, yes.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

I was wondering, and this may come to the actual applicant to speak to.

It strikes me that some of these safety issues may not actually improve safety by achieving a vacation, insofar as monitoring the say of uh fence status of people walking through the campus that I know would be troubling for parents and students alike.

Um I was wondering if you could speak to why a skyway or an aerial um walkway was not considered because it seems like that might make it easier to secure and address the traffic concerns.

That's for the applicant.

Okay.

That um Doug Abernathy with RTA.

So we actually did look at an overhead pedestrian condition over the top of the right-of-way as one of those things.

But as the program evolved and the impact and the in, and we got in um get feedback from the community, became apparent there were other multiple uses that needed to be addressed on the consolidated campus.

By elevating the walkway in a lot of cities, they've started to go away from those because actually having less pedestrians on the streetscape actually erodes public safety.

So having more people on the street actually improves public public safety to address your question about so the other part of that is there's about 60,000 square feet of program that are going to need to be executed in phase two.

So, along with athletics, uh physical education, uh health sciences, CTE requirements are still some of the things that are foundational to the IB program.

That program has to be delivered in phase two of the master plan.

And so people will the comments been made like, hey, we're only closing this for a track.

There's actually an instructional need for the closure of Boulder for the second phase of the project because we'll have 1100 students moving back and forth between the phase one building and the phase two building.

I want to address the safety and the security question a little bit.

So one of the concepts that's used both in an urban planning standpoint and also for the design of school just called um is uh crime prevention through environmental design.

And what that really establishes is perimeters of security in a building.

And so the first perimeter is this is the block itself, and then the pedestrian access.

So more activity around this school actually helps with safety and security, but then there are layers of information to improve the safety and security.

And the way the school is designed, we have the ability to compartmentalize the building down.

So as we as we go into more of a lockdown situation, we secure the perimeter, then we secure this perimeter of the building, then we compartmentalize the building, and then we can go all the way down to an office or in a classroom.

And so all of those things are influencing the design of this school.

To that end, um, I recall having dealt in other cities with uh the creation of a mega block and that creating new defensibility concerns when it comes to a lockdown situation and the ability for a whole campus to be shut down.

Um is there anyone on your team that would like to speak to how the mega block sort of angle the double squares would impact emergency response and the ability of law enforcement in an emergency situation to access the campus effectively?

So working through both with the district security, David Allison, also with first responders from the fire department, police department.

We've talked about access through through the courtyard and through the vacated right-of-way boulder in order to provide access for both fire first responders and police on the campus, and that is integrated into both the plan that you've seen today and the development plan.

And so that is an integrated approach that we have when it to address those things from an access standpoint, or is there another question that I missed there?

I I was looking a little bit more at like how like what does that uh like we'll be able to drive up to get to a problem or yeah.

So there's a there's a protocol in place that the district works with first responders both internally with their security team and externally with the fire department and the police as far as protocols for responding to events on campus, and they practice that.

Christa Burke could speak to that, how they practice that on a monthly basis um for safety and security of the students and staff.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Sorry, hold on.

I just accidentally there we go.

Um this question is for um Mr.

Lieber or maybe the representative from FHU.

I was just wondering if you could speak a little bit about the recommendations that were in the traffic study.

I believe there was one about a roundabout and then the reduction of Platte Avenue from four travel lanes to two.

Can you just talk a little bit about those recommendations and what where you're at with those if you've chose to adopt them, etc.?

Yes.

I think I'm going to invite uh Lyle to come up and talk a little bit about uh about those studies.

Right.

Um so I'll address what I think you're you're getting at, the implications to Platte Nevada in particular, that intersection associated with the vacation of Boulder.

So there is a change to patterns that would increase some of the turning movements at the Platte Nevada intersection resulting from that uh vacation.

What we determine, and I'll try to make this as clear as I can, is that Platte Avenue could function as was laid out in the Platte Avenue corridor study with a reduced number of travel lanes if that intersection were to remain signalized.

If it were, if still was an interest in making it a roundabout, that would put some constraints on Platte Avenue's travel lanes.

It would be value to still have four travel lanes on Platte Avenue if it were to be a to a roundabout intersection.

So there it needs to be kind of carefully considered in that light and that impact question.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, can you hear me now?

Um, I just want to comment your mention a while ago about uh a condition of approval using a paragraph two, um, public egress.

And if the property belongs to the district eleven, but you have public egress, and who gets to care for who's who has to pay for that?

That's something to consider because I think that'd be a real issue.

Uh so and as far as the rest of this goes, um well, maybe I should hold my comments for a little bit later on and my thoughts.

So if you have any other questions right this time, no, that's the only thing I was worried about there.

Okay, any uh further questions?

Um we do have our oh sorry, did you want to go?

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, I was I was talking to the attorney first.

I have some questions.

Uh I think for the applicant team.

Um maybe I'll read them aloud and you can decide who would be the best to address them.

Um we talked a little bit about parking and where does that go?

Maybe just reiterating that as the north lots are coming offline.

How are we absorbing that um those needs?

Um, especially with athletic facilities coming on site, and are those um simply for practice, or are they also competition where we would you know be having community members and parents and maybe going back through that with that lens of you know special events that do happen?

Um so the parking issue, ERPS field.

Uh, I know that is not on the table for any of these applications, but what is the vision for ERPS um and that site and how does that correlate to a part of uh the vision for those two west parcels of the campus?

And then my final question would be um this public access.

There's been um notes of intention that public access, pedestrian and bicycle would remain through the campus, right?

Kind of circumventing the track.

What does that look like?

How would that look like in a practical scenario?

Say there's a lockdown on campus.

What does that mean for pedestrian access in?

Are those gated?

Are they not?

Like just how would that function um as a cohesive pedestrian-friendly, you know, cohabitation?

So those are those are the three pick your order, pick your responding humans.

Uh thank you in advance.

Uh Chris Lieber, this we may tag team um responses to your questions.

Uh, I don't know if it's possible to pull up our our presentation, uh, but we have a graphic that I could speak to that I think would really uh help answer the question about parking and allocation over phases.

Um the majority of the parking, the on-site parking today happens occurs on the north end of the of the site.

Flip to our phasing here, bear with me.

And uh obviously with phase so with phase one A, the existing parking uh largely remains as it is, right?

So when we move to phase one B.

Oh, there we go.

I went too many.

Uh it's important to note that the track and field, you're correct, would relocate a significant amount of the parking to the north.

However, if you see the there's a it says uh civic parking, it's the gray rectangle sits north-south, just to the east of the track and field.

That is a reconfigured parking lot.

And what would happen today, there are uh tennis courts in that location.

Uh those tennis courts would be removed, and that that portion of the site, which will be in phase two would be the athletic building.

That is the footprint um where a lot of additional parking uh would be in kind of this transitional period between phase one at the time of phase one B and prior to uh to phase two.

Yes.

So the addition of the of the track and field will displace a significant portion of the existing parking on the north end of the site.

That parking will be replaced by a new lot that uh parallels Weber and it's reflected on that green elongated rectangle.

Today that is where the tennis courts are located, and there's some parking uh in that space, but that's essentially this interim kind of interim um phase uh for uh for parking.

Um your question about uh let me move on to ERST uh if I may.

And okay, do you want to address parking in phase two also?

Okay, so for phase two, um, at that point, the athletic facility would would come online.

But that's essentially this interim kind of interim um phase uh for uh for parking um your question about uh let me move on to earth uh if i may and okay do you want to address parking in phase two also okay so for for phase two um at that point the athletic facility would would come online uh as i indicated in my presentation um we look at the parking demand that we have today is significantly less than the uh requirement under under the zoning right um however uh we also know that there's a significant amount of available space uh within a two block uh uh radius a lot of those are those surface lots again that are are currently owned by churches the intent would be to enter into agreements uh that would allow for additional parking uh for that uh you know when those when there's additional uh demand for that we have had uh several conversations uh with the city parking enterprise uh a group and um to try and understand and it was that really at their behest that we look at and create a a count of how many spaces are within several blocks in other words what is the overall kind of parking uh uh capacity um and uh their suggestion is that we look at this from an incremental um sort of approach um uh perhaps uh ultimately uh we've also had conversations about at some point does it make sense for this northeast part of our downtown uh to invest in a public parking garage and the response that we received was perhaps someday but we're nowhere near that kind of demand right where that would where the where that would make sense and so the recommendation the suggestion to us was let's look at ways to maximize our on our our on-site parking which we're doing uh with phases this phase and with phase uh one B and then really look at as as in other parts of downtown and many other communities look at how do you maximize the value of those uh those shared lots because it's no one's benefit to have surface lots that just sit empty um and that's a certain uh degree is what we have uh uh today because there's uh far more parking than there is demand uh within this part of our part of the community but that would be uh something in the future we've talked with uh uh the uh each development plan that moves forward has to uh resolve uh the parking and those parking demand uh issues would it be fair um and and correct to state that um the demand from an education institution would be more weekdays and perhaps saturdays than say sunday mornings when peak demand on some of these religious institutions where the lots already exist are um in highest demand as well is that can factored into your parking assessment yes that uh absolutely uh that is true um and i that kind of parlays into your other question about other events that might take place um uh I I want to be very clear we've received this question the district's been clear that uh there is no intent uh for this this multi-use field for the football field uh or for the track uh to replace Gary Berry uh or for this to be uh this the the large stadium right where those large and big games uh take place that is not at all uh the intent um this is really to uh uh to provide for those practice uh uses there may be small sporting events that take place uh but this will not be built with extensive um uh stands uh for uh for you know watching games and and so on and that's another way that we're trying to be smart about then managing if we don't have that demand we don't have the same kind of then the pressure for parking before you leave parking I as you go on this parking diet that excites me because I am no fan of surface parking um could you explain whether or not the district has an obligation to provide secure parking facilities to students or for their staff I may need to defer to the the district on secure uh as it relates to secure parking so I don't uh I'm I'm not aware of any secure parking uh they do a permit parking uh program uh to ensure specific spaces for students uh and for uh for teachers and staff but I'm not aware of any of that being secured in any specific manner correctly so what are you is any of the current parking then uh maybe a question for the security uh officer you know do we have cameras there is or security in other words uh is there existing security for the lots that are part of the campus now and in terms of either you know cameras lighting anything particular like that yeah please introduce yourself again too for the record yes my name is Dennis Moore lead security Palmer High School yes there are cameras in our parking lots uh at one time we had four parking lots uh two of which got taken away by the construction of the other two are still uh being used and they all do have cameras that are monitored uh 24-7 if you will by us.

Yeah, please introduce yourself again too from the recording.

Yes, my name is Dennis Moore, lead security Palmer High School.

Yes, there are cameras in our parking lots.

Uh at one time we had four parking lots, uh, two of which got taken away by the construction, but the other two are still uh being used, and they all do have cameras that are monitored uh 24-7, if you will, by us.

But is that any kind of I guess more of a question for the district eleven?

Is that a requirement then from a perspective of yeah, I don't know if you have a union contracts or something like that where you would require to have that in place?

Okay.

I wouldn't think there was a requirement for a secure parking, like a parking garage or something like that.

Oh, so yeah, just secure access, you know, and you know, you'd see that at plenty of hospitals and other facilities where you have controlled access cards.

So parking's just open a lot, it's not you know there's no gate to get it there.

But it's not okay secured.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Slattery, did you have more?

Traffic's always spicy, so that was or excuse me, that was not that was parking.

Um we're still I think we're through that adequately in my mind, and we were gonna talk about um the future of ERPS and pedestrian and bicycle access.

Yes.

So let's talk about ERPS field first.

We've looked at ERPS Field.

Actually, there are a couple of components that are being displaced through the master plan.

So the the tennis courts, of course, are being displaced.

Those will go down to ERPS Field.

We also have room for a full-size baseball field and softball field.

Um the man the the Shuxrun Master Plan also talks about improvements along Shooks Run.

It actually identifies the D11 property as part of that master plan.

Through the uh evolution of both the softball field, the baseball field, the uh tennis courts, there is still some opportunity for the district to collaborate with the city and parks as that evolved.

So we can meet the other functional needs for athletics and for PE on the Earth Field site, which would be comparable to the other uh properties.

And then the other one was public access.

And so public access uh across the property uh would be signed appropriately for that in order for pedestrians to go through the the property to use the property.

Of course, when school's not in session before or after school and uh in the summertime, of course, there would be easy access through that.

The district would maintain that property, because all that property would be the district's property, but there would be access and appropriate signage for that uh for them to circulate through the property um on pedestrian or bike.

How does that work while schools on session?

And maybe so that's I think that's where I think there's some nuances that would have to be worked out because traditionally during the school day, we would say that you would need to check in at the office in order to circulate through the through the campus.

If we have students, 14 to 18-year-old that are that are transitioning between the primary academic building into the athletic building, then we'd want to control that access um during the school day.

Or at least have it, you know, if somebody check in like they would normally have to check in at a school site.

So you envision some sort of gates or something at the end of each I uh from uh if we apply the septe principles and we go down to lockdown at the full build out of the campus and the master plan, then we would have envisioned that there would be vehicular barrier, right?

So that we would only have uh first responders that were getting onto the property, but for a pedestrian and bikes, they would be able to circulate through.

If we wanted a full lockdown where we had to be a full lockdown, which has happened as been talked about uh in the past, then at that point we would have we could have gates on the site at the full build out of the site in order to secure the whole campus so students could circulate.

That is down the road as phase two and is not contemplated right now until additional funding is available.

Well, there'd be like well, if you allow pedestrian access, people are gonna stop, right?

And and you know, stay on the grass or whatever.

How do you how do you envision that?

Members of the public or uh is that gonna be allowed, or those people were gonna be asked to move along, or in other words, how would if you're in a lockdown and you're gonna go lock two gates, you still got people in between.

You know, it seems like an issue.

At that point, the security protocols go into place for the district security where they sweep the building, everybody's locked down, they identify if there's a threat that's either on campus or off, and those are removed.

And so if we if lightning struck and we went into lockdown and there were pedestrians on site, then the security team would would clear those folks through the cameras and the access and then lock the building down appropriately.

Thanks.

Yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Commissioners.

I just wanted to expand on two points, Doug was talking about first with Earth's Field.

This was a point of confusion in our downtown review board meeting.

So I just want to be very explicit about it.

If the plan gets to the phase where we are talking about a baseball diamond or a softball diamond on that ERPS field property, as Mr.

Abernathy just described, could be possible.

First, that would be the very last, very last part of any of this.

Second, it's not daily activity.

So there were questions at Downtown Review Board of if you're still putting athletics facilities down by ERPS, then how are you mitigating the student traffic?

Currently, the gym and the track, which are used most often, are the things that students travel to all day throughout the day.

Every student has a period of health classes or some kind of PE classes, or currently other random classes down at the ERPS gym, that daily, all throughout the school day traffic would move up to this campus, this connected campus.

Any motion down to a baseball diamond would be for a very limited number of students and only for after school activities.

So that is significantly cutting down on that traffic to our most dangerous intersection, which is Plot and Platinum Wasatch.

So I just want to clarify that.

And then as far as pedestrian and cycling access, you are hitting on the very beginnings of our conversations with the city about how this could look.

We understand this is really complicated, and there's going to be a lot of questions to answer.

I I won't pretend as though we've gotten to every one yet.

And then what is non-school year access look like?

Because that's very different level of interaction with the with the school community.

It's a much quieter time for the Palmer campus.

We're just in very preliminary conversations about working that out.

Chair Slutter, did you have any other questions?

I think I asked them for now.

And uh Commissioner Willoughby.

Yeah, I think this question is for the planning team.

Can I just make sure I'm crystal clear on the historic preservation component?

So none of these three houses are specifically listed on the historic register.

However, the Weber Wasatch Historic District is on the register, but each of those houses within said district are able to do whatever they want.

Or can you just explain the nuance of that?

Ryan T.

Fertiller Urban Planning Manager, I can certainly try.

Um there are multiple levels of historic recognition at the state and federal level.

Um individual properties, structures, even pieces of infrastructure, can be individually recognized on the federal or state register as historic elements.

Um these three buildings as in these three homes as individual structures have not been registered on either the state or federal register.

They are part of the Weber Wasatch Historic District, which is um, geez, I want to say a couple hundred homes.

It it spans maybe 10 blocks or so of Weber and Wasatch up to uh the UITA area.

Um all those homes together in that geograp geography in that geographic area, together represent a point in time, a type of architecture, a certain um level of maintenance and preservation that together as a district have been um included on the national register.

The everything that I just described is separate from the city of Colorado Springs historic preservation overlay, which is a zoning designation that's applied both to um neighborhoods specifically, the old North End neighborhood, as well as to individual properties.

For instance, City Hall has the historic preservation overlay.

Um, Phantom Canyon Brewing, that individual property has the historic preservation overlay.

Um Planning Commission not so long ago uh adopted a new neighborhood district, the parkside district that covers, I want to say 13 or 15 properties, something like that, just on the northwest edge of downtown.

Anything with that historic preservation overlay has a whole additional level of process and requirements and standards to to uh to demolish a building to build additions on a building to significantly modify a building, if you have the historic preservation overlay requires a public hearing at the historic preservation board, and they evaluate that request based on a wide range of criteria and standards.

If you have the historic preservation overlay requires a public hearing at the historic preservation board, and they evaluate that request based on a wide range of criteria and standards.

These just to clarify and finalize my comments, these three properties are not within the historic preservation overlay.

They are only within the North Weber Wasatch Historic District.

Thank you.

Um about those three properties.

Um I was really intrigued by Cheryl Brown's comment regarding displacement of residents, and I believe uh Mariah Osborne may have also said something about displacing the residents.

Is there anyone who can explain what has happened and how leases were terminated?

And I just kind of want to understand the management of that.

Absolutely.

And I want to also point out that the report that's been referred to thus far is part of the public record and that it's on our Palmer Renovation website with a whole um top layer over um overview description of every conversation the districts had about these houses as well.

So I just for it's not part of your packets today, but that that is part of the public record.

Um the district acquired these homes in uh uh April and June of 2025.

Um so in in the last uh board session before the beginning of this academic year.

So one of the last things that they did.

Um when we acquired those homes, there was very clear conversation with the tenants of those buildings that we would allow them to see out the rest of their leases.

Um most of those leases do expire on December 31st.

The home on Nevada does have a few leases that um may extend past December 31st without our real estate attorney here.

I don't want to say that for certain.

Uh I would want to have a statement exactly from them.

Um we have received uh no uh I would say uh negative uh response to those the termination of those leases as they saw the natural end of this year.

Um I want to correct a statement made by Miss Osborne.

The district does not have a scheduled demolition date of these homes, and it is most certainly not December 2025.

In fact, our report states quite the opposite that we are still in conversations to see what are the potential options for these homes, as Mr.

Lieber stated.

We continue to have conversations with people who are interested in the relocation process.

Um one potential party right now has come forward and we are investigating the costs associated with that and the practicality, as these are pretty old homes that have been leased for a number of years.

They haven't been privately owned and therefore have um taken some beatings over the years, I would say.

So that assessment of the how the win the where is still very much ongoing.

When you say the relocation process, you don't mean relocating someone who's renting, you mean physically lifting and moving the home.

Yes, okay.

I also want to say that um several of the three of the homes were uh had tenants that were living in them, and then one was a business, just to clarify.

Um so they were not all residential.

Um at so at this point, we expect most of the homes to be empty by the end of the month, but we're still very much in conversation about what is the best option in any discussions about relocating the physical homes themselves, not the individuals.

The district has been very transparent that we're not interested in making any profit off of this.

So whomever is interested may have these homes for a dollar to move them to another part of the neighborhood, and we want to be supportive of that process.

I will say that it did, I think it might have been Mr.

Scanling who really tugged the heartstring of my former teacher self who had to room with two other people in order to afford being a teacher while I had a second job, that affordability is pretty crucial, and I know downtown's only getting more expensive.

Thank you.

I do want to point out that uh Mr.

Todd Brisby, our city traffic engineer has been sitting patiently in the back.

Uh, I don't know if any of the commissioners have any questions for him or Mr.

Brisbane, if you have any comments that you'd like to make.

Can I um well, because then I'll get the applicant back up here.

Okay.

I mean, it's kind of traffic related, but uh go ahead then.

Well, my question is you know, we see these um plans, right?

1A, 1B, and phase two.

And um if funding does not um occur for some of the future phases, does the vacation of Nevada um go by the wayside and you would revisit the the idea of like a bridge or some other use of the two blocks?

And I guess that would ultimately you know lead back to to traffic, but um so but maybe you want to talk first, Todd, and then I can get back to the applicants.

I don't know.

That's what's in my mind.

Sure.

Uh Todd Frisbee, City Traffic, City Traffic Engineering.

Chair Casey, since you didn't you know offer the invitation, I thought I'd just take a moment to come up and uh and um reiterate what uh Mr.

Lieber said, we did receive a traffic study.

We did review the study, we did work with the applicant on the contents of the study.

Uh and in terms of the analysis and the analysis that was presented in the study, we were satisfied with with how the analysis was conducted, um, and the results um as well.

Um, and so I'd really up here just to answer questions about the traffic or any other question related to traffic.

But I wanted just for the record make that statement.

Well, speaking of traffic, I'm guessing that you really count cars, not kids, uh, when you think about traffic.

But in your from a traffic perspective, is there um any opinion on the reduction of traffic on Boulder, which would say so vacating Boulder, which eliminates traffic on Boulder and pushes more students there, which eliminates as many, I mean, maybe after school student transfer down to ERPS.

What impacts would you anticipate on traffic, or is that something that you can speak to?

Like if we eliminated kids from plat going down to ERPS.

Yeah, uh, it was uh good question.

Uh it was mentioned that one of the, you know, one of the um, I don't like to use the word dangerous, but one of the critical intersections for safety is Platte and Wasatch, right?

And um adding, you know, every day you have that potential of and I've been there and I've watched traffic at the intersection that are not paying attention um as students are trying to cross.

Yes, and they don't, you know, I don't get this is you know, Todd Frisbee traffic engineering opinion right here.

I don't I mean, if you drive through the intersection every day, you should expect to see pedestrians, but uh drivers act like they don't.

So uh clearly if you can remove some of the daily need of pedestrian of students or any pedestrian um having to cross at that intersection, you reduce your risk.

If you reduce risk, you have improved safety.

Now, going to lunch and all that, that's all you know, that's gonna be there always, but you're just reducing the you know the the amount of exposure by by moving pedestrians from their and off a off a plat.

So um yeah, the the vacation of Boulder has that benefit um for sure for pedestrian safety.

Thanks for the opinion.

I appreciate it, Todd.

Um, I think well then the other part of my question was back to the applicant of if if Boulder Street vacation is not approved um ultimately, for example, then what does that do to the plan and um does that ultimately shift how you how you go forth in future phases?

Yeah, good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Brandon Cutford.

I'm the deputy superintendent.

I also serve as the district chief financial officer.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Um, I will not obligate our own board of education and how they will spend funding.

We will be um providing adequate funding to fund phase one B when that becomes available in I don't know if that's gonna be the spring of 27 or the fall of 28, but we will be securing enough funding to fund again phase one B.

Phase two, as many projects in District 11 will require the will of our voters, uh, but we will be able to to address phase one B, assuming our board of education approves that.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess my question is moot, but that's good news.

Okay, I'm not seeing any further uh commissioner signed up.

Just uh just uh sending it in the comments.

Do we have anybody else have any um questions?

If anyone have any questions, we can go ahead and move to any kind of closing comments anybody would like to make about uh the application.

Oh, Ryan Ryan T for Teller Urban Planning Manager.

Um first I just wanted to offer the opportunity to ask planning staff any additional questions or comments about any of our analysis, the um findings on the per on the required criteria or the three proposed conditions of approval on the right-of-way vacation.

And on that last comment, I do want to clarify a couple things.

Um Ms.

Bruin and I have been exchanging some messages here and uh a couple thoughts relative to particularly the condition number three on the right-of-way vacation.

Um first and foremost, while staff and the applicant and others have specifically used the term IGA or intergovernmental agreement.

First and foremost, while staff and the applicant and others have specifically used the term IGA or intergovernmental agreement, that's not a foregone, that's not something that is absolutely certain.

The conditions of approval are intentionally just talk about an agreement between the city and the school district.

It might be an IGA, it might be a contract, it might be any other type of legal tools.

To date, we've been negotiating and working through a letter of intent.

And that letter of intent is trying to better articulate and flesh out the details of these quote agreements.

But I just want to make sure, because we did use the term IGA a number of times that that may or may not be the actual tool.

The intent is of number three, though, is that if the writer, if the school invests 100 million dollars plus to improve their facility, and sometime in the future, whether that's 10 years or 100 years down the road, Palmer High School ceases to exist, and they and the school district looks to sell or transfer the property for some other use.

An agreement would be in place where this the district agrees to offer what used to be Boulder right away back to the city.

At that time, the city could evaluate that offer.

We could accept it if we want it all back, all 100 by 400 square feet.

We could accept a portion of it back because maybe we no longer feel like we need a hundred foot wide right-away for Boulder.

Um, or we could say, you know what, we no longer need Boulder.

Uh, we've been great for the last hundred years.

Go ahead and keep it and sell it yourself.

That is, we're hoping to articulate that through this agreement, but I just want to make it clear that while we use the term IGA and Ms.

Bruin made some comments about what we could or couldn't include in an IGA.

I believe that condition number three is still applicable and is something that the commission should consider including on their action.

Should you feel that the criteria would be met if those three conditions are applied.

And I'd be happy to let Miss Bruin add to that if she feels I misinterpreted anything that she said.

Okay.

Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

Uh, I don't have any further comments.

Okay, thank you.

Uh see Commissioner Cecil.

Um, real quick, Brian, I appreciate you coming back up here and offering yourself up.

Sorry, that's resulting in another question.

But one of the public speakers mentioned the point that many schools are in residential zones in the city and suggested that the zoning change was not necessary.

I was wondering if you could speak to my changing to the form based zone would be preferable.

Uh I'd be happy to.

Again, um, actually, that the comment was made that no other high schools or middle schools in the city use anything other than residential zone districts, and and that's false.

Um, a number of schools are A-zoned, which is our agricultural zone.

Um, there are other schools, Atlas Prep, for example, SIVA charter school that have commercial or industrial zone districts.

So we do see schools in a wide range of zone districts across the city.

It is quite common for them to be residentially zoned, but that is not uh it is not true that all schools are residentially zoned.

Um when we first began discussions with the school district, it became obvious that a zone change was necessary.

And that is because they hope to uh uh um submit a subdivision plat to create one lot for the entire campus.

One platted lot cannot have multiple zone districts.

Today there are three zone districts across the site.

So we need a zone change to establish something.

So then the question is what is the appropriate zone district?

And there are a range of considerations.

Um use, what uses are allowed in the zone districts?

What are the um development standards like setbacks, building height, lot coverage?

Prior to 2023 in our old zoning code, we had some language that said non-residential uses, such as schools in a residential zone could utilize the zone district standards, setbacks, height, et cetera, for some of our commercial zones.

Um, the UDC does not include that.

So if we were to establish R16,000, for instance, across the entire site, the development of that property according to the zoning code would be limited to a 25 foot front setback.

It would have a 35 foot maximum building height.

They would be held to the development standards that are no different than a single family home.

And that didn't seem reasonable for an urban high school campus.

Um, the form-based zone does exist to the south um and to the west.

Um, it it is a transitional, we do have a transitional sector that's intended for these areas that are both urban and downtown, but also transitioning into the adjacent neighborhoods.

The development standards associated with the transition sector of the form-based zone are quite reasonable and support what the school is trying to do as far as their density and their height and their bulk and the scale.

They also have standards as far as public space and standards, frontage design, et cetera, that create an interesting and pedestrian-friendly environment.

Um, so the district and staff agreed that the form-based zone was the appropriate zone district for the property.

That makes so much sense.

And I appreciate you taking a minute to follow up question for that.

I think the concern, and I'm not as familiar with form-based zone as other zones, but um, I think there was a public comment to do with whether that would invite or allow for commercial uses or if the school wanted to use it for other things.

Are there other uses by right that would be in that zone?

Uh yeah, great question, and and absolutely appropriate considering the the proposed zone.

Uh form-based zone is intentionally uh uh a mixed use zone.

We allow the form-based zone allows uh a wide range of commercial, uh civic entertainment, uh residential office uses all within the zone.

And oftentimes we want those uses right next to each other or even within the same building.

Um mixed-use buildings are ideal in an urban environment.

So, yeah, um, you know, 75 years from now, 100 years from now, should the school district sell the property, it would still have that form-based zone, and um a range of uses could occupy those buildings or be established in new buildings on the site according to the form-based zone.

Um, however, again, this is an urban environment, and we are looking as a transition into the adjacent residential areas.

Um, I'd actually point out that phase two of the land use plan, uh, it calls for a um uh athletic uh recreation type building on the north part of the site.

That might be, and the school district could probably speak to this better than I could, but there's been dialogue with um service providers like the YMCA or other recreational uh entities that maybe they're co-lay located with on the site within the same buildings, they're together sharing the cost and maintenance responsibilities of a pool or a gymnasium or those types of things, and so there could be um other uses on this 8.2 acres that are not just D11 Palmer, it might be a partnership with other non-district users.

Thank you.

We don't have any other questions from commissioners, any closing comments from commissioners.

Um Ryan sorry.

Um the condition number two of approval um related to the PPA RTA funded Platte Avenue improvements.

Have those been scheduled?

I mean, we've heard that the district's intent for um 1B is maybe funded but not allocated.

I don't know if that's the appropriate terminology.

Um in two or three years.

What is the schedule of PPRTA and is that a fair condition of approval to put on the district if their plan is to move forward with uh a track and field and essentially making the safety happen earlier?

Todd, do you have the schedule?

Mr.

Frisbee to speak to that.

All right.

Um Todd Frisbee, City Traffic Engineering.

I uh uh Ms.

Slattery, let me answer your question the best I can because I don't have my um my handy duties spreadsheet that would tell me more.

But if I recall, um uh the Platte Avenue project, uh it is for so PBRTA three, you know, is a 10-year program that began in 2025, ends in 2020, ends in 2020.

2034.

The Platte Avenue project design effort would probably begin about the middle of that program, about the five-year mark, and then you know, design takes a year, two, and then I would suspect that construction and would be toward the end, my best guess, toward the end of PPRTA three.

So we're looking 2030, 2031, 2032, until maybe you start seeing construction um and changes in that corridor.

So then Mr.

Frisbee.

And how would that would it be detrimental to the success of Platte Avenue's reconstruction, or would other plans be made given you know a change in circumstance?

Yeah.

Um the potential vocation of Boulder Street does would not change um our um uh our plan for implementing uh PBRTA projects, you know.

We would continue, we wouldn't move it up, we wouldn't delay it.

You know, we would you know it's the program is funded as the pay as you go program.

So we have plenty of other priorities in the early part of PPRTA three for construction and for design and construction.

We wouldn't move, we wouldn't adjust our schedule if this vacation of paper was approved.

That was um perhaps I perhaps I said it yeah incorrectly.

Given um what we've heard here today as intentions on schedule and the completion of the track and field portion one B being completed prior to the Platte Avenue reconstruction, would then the design phase incorporate other solutions for interim um, I guess detours are the right word uh rather than boulder.

Um so it's absolutely right.

So, you know, we don't know what conditions will be like in seven years, right?

Correct.

Right, you know, there could be some other road that could be closed, right?

So when we begin construction and need to do detours, uh we would uh we would address the need for detours at the time of construction.

Uh and so you know it's that's how we would address any any construction project.

Thank you.

Yeah, that answer your question.

Yes, okay.

I'm done asking people questions.

I'll probably comment later.

Yeah, okay.

No, I just uh so it's possible then the condition number two might not even be feasible.

So we're getting to okay.

That's what I'm actually getting to.

Okay.

Yes, right.

Right.

Okay.

That is possible.