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 on 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.

Um Shelley, please, if you will come to the microphone and introduce yourself.

And you will have three minutes.

My name is Shelley Etchen.

Um I live on Flying Horse.

I live directly across the street from the proposed temple site at 12770 Mission Meadow Drive.

Our family has lived in Flying Horse for 12 years.

Um why the design matters, um, not just to our faith and community, but to what this building represents to families and youth throughout the Colorado Springs area.

Um I have received the postcards or notices of the um and uh the neighborhood meetings, so I have attended the neighborhood meetings.

I have spoken to the architects and have seen the renderings of the buildings.

Um 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 the 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 have Latter-day Saints or Sacred Houses 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, member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, one of the senior most leaders of our church, described marriage as a triangle.

Our Savior Jesus Christ had the apex, 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.

Um, 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 youth um young people who 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 temples 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 sub uh in support of the application and in opposition to the appellant?

If there's anybody else uh 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 first star seeks 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 uh from the uh from the church on uh corner of Flying Horse Club Drive and Barosa.

I put in 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 uh 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 along 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 enjoy in 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 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 for being here to participate today, and also for those that didn't uh uh submitted written comments.

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

Do I do want to thank uh 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 any comments or uh points on the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, members of the planning commission.

Again, I'll be brief.

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

I submit that that interpretation is 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.

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.

Thank you, Mr.

Goom.

We'll go ahead and then 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 dias later for 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 uh 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.