Good morning.

The Colorado Springs Planning Commission public hearing for January 14th, 2026 is now called to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For items presented on today's agenda, 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 that are being on heard on appeal today, the appellant and applicant will be given equal time.

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

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

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

Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period of ten minutes to respond and address any of the comments.

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

Go ahead and call the order, please.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slidering.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Chair Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Clemens.

Here.

Commissioner Jano.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Thank you.

We have eight members present.

All right, thank you.

First up on the agenda is changes to the agenda or postponements.

Did you want to address that now?

Got it.

Okay, we'll move on to communications.

Uh I do not have any communications, so move to Mr.

Walker, the planning director.

Thank you.

I'm a little more prepared than I was last week.

Uh so I have a couple of things I'd like to point out.

First of all, as it relates to uh the agenda, um, the Mesa Road STR appeal was withdrawn by the applicant.

And so that was on your preliminary agenda, but is no longer on this agenda.

So it was not advertised, so not an official uh withdrawal, but it has been withdrawn.

Uh I can uh let you know that Ryan Case was appointed yesterday uh as a full member of the planning commission.

So congratulations to him or Saros, however he would like to accept those, but he is now officially a member and uh welcome aboard.

Commissioner Case.

Um couple of items related to things that you have adopted in the past and or have commented on.

Um the Palmer High School items, there are three items there.

They were um going to be scheduled this month for city council.

It has now been scheduled for March, and so we will be working with them to uh move forward with those in March.

The airport road R5 uh approval that you did in November uh has been withdrawn by City Council.

Um and some new information has been submitted on that particular matter, and you will hear that again in February.

Um I'm working also on the getting the spacious skies uh uh item uh or the uh um report that they did or late last year uh to be on our uh uh work session agenda for February.

Um so that'll be that's all of my communications.

We'll go from there.

Great, thank you.

At this time we'll move on to the minutes from the December 10th, 2025 City Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioners have any input on the minutes.

If not, do we have a motion to approve them?

Motion to approve the minutes from the city planning commission, December 10th, 2025.

A second the motion passes unanimously.

Okay, at this point we'll move on to the consent calendar.

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

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

Please read the consent calendar of the record.

Item 5A, ZONE-25-0031, ridge ad waterview north rezone.

Item 5B, PDZD 25-0030.

Polaris Point South, filing number four.

Item 5C, C UDP dash two five-0029, nine extra ex conditional use request.

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

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

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

There's no one online.

Yeah, Chair Kish.

I'd just like to disclose that item 5A, uh, do have financial interest in that project overall, but that will not impact my vote for this item.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, was there anybody online that had to speak?

Okay.

Okay, I can uh entertain a motion then.

I'll make a motion to uh accept the consent calendar as presented.

I'll second it.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, next we'll move on to new business, the silver key apartments, and presenter is Mr.

William Gray.

Item 8A, C U D P two Five Dash 0030.

A conditional use to allow a multifamily dwelling use in the OR Sun District located at 2126 North Weber Street.

And item A B D V C S A 25-0009.

A development is under adjustment to City Unified Development Code, Section 7.3.301.A to allow a 49-unit multifamily dwelling when the use is limited to no more than 10 units in a single structure.

And the compensating benefit being affordable housing located at 2126 North Weber Street.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning, planning commission.

Uh Bill Gray, City Planner with the City Planning Department.

And as introduced, this application is Silver Key Apartments.

The property is located at 20 2126 North Weber Street in the City of Colorado Springs.

It's been zoned OR since the 1980s.

There's no change in the zoning requested with these applications.

So to the north, you have R5 zoning.

To the west and southwest is predominantly R2 zoning.

Across Weber Street is mixed use medium scale.

The size of the property is 1.3 acres in size.

The proposed land use for this parcel is a multifamily dwelling, and we are considering two applications, a conditional use and a development standards adjustment.

And I'll go into those in a little more detail on the following slides.

But I think while we're on the vicinity map, it's important to point out that this project is located in the historic grid of the city of Colorado Springs.

So it's served by a developed street system, sidewalks, bike routes, transit.

It is also adjacent to the a historic district, the North End Historic District, and also the North End Historic Preservation Overlay.

I was gonna say next slide, but I'm controlling the show.

So as I mentioned, there's two applications that we're considering this morning.

The conditional use, which is for multifamily in the OR zone district, and a development standards adjustment to allow a multifamily dwelling to have greater than 12, 10 dwelling units in a structure.

They are proposing a multifamily building that would include 49 units.

The multifamily will be affordable housing.

It will be affordable housing for seniors, and it will serve seniors earning up to 60% area median income.

But as you can see, the conceptual plan that's proposed for this has the building that fronts Weber Street and Madison Street.

It has access off of Weber and access also from the alley that runs north south on the west side of the property, and also an alley that's located on the south on the southern end of the property.

Parking for the site is to be located behind the building.

And then as being in a more kind of urban environment, this is also a location where on-street parking would take place with probably any use that would occur on this property.

Some additional information as it relates to this project that I think are key considerations.

This is a redevelopment of a vacant site.

It potentially eliminates a property that's been a neighborhood nuisance for a number of years in this location.

It's new infill development and reinvestment into a historical historically residential neighborhood.

The area is already a mixed mixed zoned and mixed use area.

And also, I think to respect the neighborhood and also the functions of that of that neighborhood.

So the building does move in and out horizontally.

The property was also posted.

Um it was a well-attended um uh neighborhood meeting.

I think we had uh approximately 50 people um in attendance, and it took place over a period of 90 minutes.

The application um, as you can see in your packet has received broad opposition and support.

I think some of the pros to highlight is the need for affordable housing, positive addition and in character with the neighborhood.

It's good urban infill, it converts uh vacant lot to housing, which would be a positive change to the north end.

It has good access to transportation, health care, shopping, and parks, and it also broadens the housing choices across the city.

Some cons that were identified, too many units, the building is too big, there'll be parking problems, uh traffic issues uh both on Weber Street and in the alley.

It doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood, which is predominantly single family residential, not multifamily.

The conditional use application is not sufficient to evaluate project uh impacts.

So that's kind of characterizes I think the types of comments that we received, um, and the planning commission did receive all of those comments in your packet.

Um this application was reviewed by other city departments, um, including traffic engineering, SWENT, engineering development review, utilities, uh, and also planning.

Uh I think maybe the most uh important comment as it relates to the agency reviews is most of our agencies um issues would be dealt with at um uh development plan uh level, um, and that was primarily their comment.

Uh both traffic and engineering um made statements that uh any curb gutter sidewalk that was deficient would have to be upgraded, and also they have determined that the alley, both the north-south alley and the alley to the south of the uh building would have to be approved at the time of development.

Swent's comments was that the build the drainage would have to comply with the drainage criteria.

Colorado Springs determined that they would have adequate utilities, uh, but they would need the uh utility plan to be submitted at time of development.

This application was reviewed uh with plan COS.

Um in our review, we feel that the project complies with uh plan COS and that it reflects neighborhood identity where it is located, and that that identity it's a housing neighborhood, and this is housing.

That's how it identifies with this location.

Redevelopment of a vacant lot, it's targeted infill, it reinvests in a historic neighborhood, and it supports the values of I think both the north end and the Weber Wasatch historic districts.

It um it meets the um big idea housing for all and adding a diversity of housing across the city, and also um the the location of housing.

The housing should be located in established neighborhood with good connections to transportation activity centers and majestic landscapes.

This this site meets all of those criteria.

So in this the next two screens, um the planning commission will see the criteria that was used to evaluate these projects.

I'm not going to read those, but the on the screen currently is the criteria for approval of a conditional use.

That criteria is really: does this project fit and are they addressing to the best they can at this point the impacts that would be associated with this project, and do we have the infrastructure capacity to serve?

Um in our review of the application, uh city staff has found that the criteria is met for the conditional use.

Um with a develop the next screen here is a development standards adjustment.

The development standards adjustment is a process where the applicant can ask for an adjustment to a certain standard within the code, and the um the the standard would be it could be different than what the standard requires and obtain the same result, or it could be better.

And the other part of the development standards adjustment is that it needs to provide a compensating uh benefit.

As uh stated in the introduction, the compensating benefit for this application is affordable housing.

And in staff's review of this application, we do find that the development standards adjustment meets the criteria for approval, but with conditions.

And I should add conditions also applied to the conditional use.

So the next two screens will be some optional motions for the planning commission to consider as you deliberate this application.

The first one is a motion to approve with a uh condition of approval, and the second is a motion uh to deny.

On this screen are the two motions for the development standards adjustment.

The first is a motion to approve with two conditions, and also the motion to deny um is included.

And that um concludes staff's presentation for Silver Key Apartments.

Can you briefly just go back to that last slide?

Okay, thank you.

There's no preliminary comments from the commissioners, we'll move on to the applicant morning planning commission.

Terra Casey.

Do I point it toward you all?

Thanks.

All right, my name's Ann Odom.

I'm representing the applicant uh for today's project.

The project is 226 North Weber Street Senior Affordable Housing.

The applications before you include a conditional use and development standards adjustment.

First, I want to take a minute and introduce the project team.

Um, everyone here listed is present.

If you have any questions, um, if we can expand on anything in today's presentation.

Uh, first and foremost, we have Jason De Bueno.

He is the president and CEO of Silver Key Senior Services.

They are the applicant, they would be the owner and operator of the development we'll present today.

Danielle Vashon Bell is the development director of MGL Partners.

Um, she's been brought on by the Silver Key to help facilitate this process and help Silver Key navigate the complex landscape of funding for this sort of project.

Doug Fullen is the director of Way Architects, and he's the architect on the project.

Um and his firm have a long history of helping affordable housing um providers in our community deliver quality communities.

Um, and then myself.

You already know me.

Uh the applications before you include the conditional use uh to allow multifamily residential in the OR zone district.

This is a request by Silver Key as the applicant to deliver affordable housing to seniors 62 and older whose household income is 30 to 60 percent of the area median income.

This will be uh secured through a 40-year land use restriction agreement, um, as is required by uh the Colorado Division of Housing and Finance.

Um they are uh ultimately the the one of the funding sources that will be sought for this project.

Um, and Silver Key has elected the 40-year restriction to make themselves the most competitive.

Um, and second, a development standards adjustment for to allow 49 units in a single structure where 10 is the maximum allowed.

Uh so with that, I want to um give Jason an opportunity to um introduce Silver Key and why this project's important for our community.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present about Silver Key.

So, Silver Key and I are both 57 years old in this community, native, both of us, and have stayed in the Pikes Peak region.

Silver Key is an organization that's grown up in this community, and through the community, we're the designee as the Meals on Wheels provider throughout.

We are also the largest transportation program for older adults.

We serve a strong behavioral health uh support system for individuals that struggle with uh isolation and loneliness.

One of the key constructs of our organization is to make sure that people can live well independently as long as possible in the journey of aging and stay in the place that they choose to live.

One of the challenges that's happened in our community is that so much of what's uh been uh experienced both nationally and stateside and locally is that there's just not enough access for affordable housing for older adults.

Silver Key has initiated the first project in the 80s, uh, which is over on Hancock.

That particular project was also an influencer recently to be able to help establish the senior center to be able to make sure that we've got a place space for people to act stay active and healthy and well.

The second project that we have in partnership with all the people that were on that list was the one that we just uh broke around with about a year and a half ago, two years ago, over on uh Mount Murray and Fountain.

And that one is a 50-unit affordable housing project, which one of the key constructs that we have is first we want to bring value to the community.

When you see that property, it shows and demonstrates that we very much heard the from the community, integrated well, and then the other piece was is we want to make sure that we were able to establish a place and space that people could call home for the long haul.

And through that, we had over 400 people on the interest list for that property as it stands.

When the first uh article had gone out about this particular property that we're talking about today, at that point we were receiving so many calls about so many people who had interest in living in the new property, and we're still here today, just even talking about it.

So people have a need for housing, people have a need for a place space to be able to grow in the community that they deserve to stay.

And through that, Silver Key is committed to all the services that you see on the screen to be able to make sure that our mission is fully achieved.

We want to make sure we support the journey of aging.

I'm committed to that.

I'm committed to staying in this community, and I'm committed to be able to make sure that we integrate well.

We're good partners, and through that, in every place and space of which we have 16 different uh locations throughout Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak region, we bring value to those communities, and I would invite the support to be able to bring forward into this project.

And I believe that you will experience and the team and the community will experience the same.

Thank you.

Alrighty, now we know a little bit more about Silver Key.

Um dive into the project here.

Um, as Bill kind of oriented us, uh, this is a 1.2 acre infill parcel just southwest uh on the southwest corner of East Madison Street and North Weber Street.

We're directly west of the Bond shopping center, about half a block uh to the east of Pinrose St.

Francis Hospital.

Um, and this is a walkable mixed-use uh neighborhood just north of downtown with some of that urban character still remaining.

Um the surroundings, the current zoning for the property is office residential, and the surrounding zoning is quite a mix with uh R5 multifamily and R2 two family to the north, uh, R2 with the historic preservation overlay to the west, MXM mixed use medium scale to the east, and R2 directly south.

Um, I also want to point out you can see here on this map, we are not within the historic preservation overlay, and we really are on the forest northeast corner of that district.

So we do neighbor it, but we are fully outside of that and surrounded again by uh a decent mix of other zones that are also outside of that historic preservation overlay.

Surrounding land uses, um, as Bill mentioned, it is predominantly single and two family residential, primarily to the west and the south.

However, um, to the north and the east, you see uh a larger variety of um uses, including uh a very large hospital that we're all familiar with to the northwest, um, a very large shopping center and some office spaces to the east and the south.

A little bit of history on the site.

Uh, this site was zoned OR in 1980.

Um, around 2005-ish, maybe a little bit before that, it was used as the division of wildlife offices and fleet storage.

Um, and then as you can see, by 2007, the site was up for sale, the garages were boarded up, and ultimately that office building was demolished in 2011.

Since then, the site has sat vacant, uh, and the city has accumulated a number of nuisance complaints related to homeless camping, trash, things like that.

In 2017, a development plan and two non-use variances were approved to allow 44 units, uh, 61 bedrooms of multifamily with a small office space.

I want to point out that this was approved under Chapter 7, so before the UDC was implemented, um, and the OR zone did not have a limit on the number of units in a single building.

So that is how they were able to achieve this design.

Uh, the previous approval was intended for market rate housing, it had a variance for parking, a variance for a front setback.

It was intended to also be three stories or 35 feet in height, um, and it was going to be a bit of a larger building than we're proposing today.

Um, and it had some garages and such uh along the alley that really increased that overall footprint and coverage on the site.

Zooming into uh the the current process, this site was posted on three separate occasions as Bill described.

Um, I think by the time all of the postings uh occurred, we had a higher number of comments received.

However, um, a number of those were in support with a few of those in opposition as well.

Concerns were related to traffic, parking, use of the alley, site layout, and architectural compatibility, density and proximity to other affordable housing.

However, comments and support noted Silver Key's track record and delivering quality communities, the need for affordable housing, namely for seniors, and that the location was ideal to serve this population.

Um, approximately, we did hold a neighbor neighborhood meeting on December 11th last year.

Uh, approximately 40 people attended that neighborhood meeting.

Um the sense the project team left with was that neighbors were generally appreciative of the additional information and learning more about Silver Key, um, how some of their other operations have been going.

And most participants felt their concerns were addressed, though still a few had some remaining issues.

Prior to that larger neighborhood meeting, a few representatives from the Old North End Neighborhood Association requested a smaller group meeting with the project team.

So we did meet with five of them on December 16th to discuss the finer details of the project and how we could be a good neighbor to them.

Meeting takeaways included Silver Key committed to providing architectural detail that was cognizant of the surrounding neighborhood, both the neighboring historic district and just the neighborhood as a whole on all sides.

There was a lengthy discussion on the Silver Key's founder, Mickey Crashour.

She was also an old North End resident, and so we all felt it was a nice touch to dedicate the future garden kind of in her honor.

And then finally, there was a lot of discussion around a more formalized agreement between both parties that we're calling the Good Faith Neighborhood Engagement Framework.

This was mailed to the Old North End Association on the 22nd, and it was intended to ensure ongoing updates, kind of a structured way for the project team and the neighbors to engage and stay updated on the project.

Ultimately, the Old North End elected to not execute that.

So that is where that stands.

Diving into the project specifically what we are proposing today.

We did provide illustrative concepts with the application materials to provide some transparency to you all, staff, neighbors.

This project will include 49 units or 51 total bedrooms, so slight increase in units, but overall decrease in bedrooms from that previous approval.

This will warrant 30 parking spaces with qualifying reductions or 50 without those qualifying reductions, though the project will be able to provide 48, including 15 on street.

But I think Silver Key could really speak to the fact that in their other communities, parking is not a huge demand.

So they feel very strongly that the on-site parking will be sufficient to support this community.

The proposed building is also slightly smaller than what was proposed previously at just under 16,000 square feet and around 30% of lot coverage.

Ultimately, City Code requires 15% of the open the site to be open space, which is more than previous code would have required as well.

So there will be more open space incorporated into the site.

Additionally, the site design was carefully considered, and that is what led to the layout that is proposed today.

One thing that was considered was how can we orient the building to optimize the distance from existing residences?

This is a slightly larger build, not slightly, this is a larger building than some of the surrounding homes.

So they're kind of leveraging the right-of-way spaces to ensure those distances are kind of as large as possible.

It also maintains a presence on both Weber and East Madison Street.

This is favored in city code.

It's also consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding area.

And having that presence on the street will allow this building to screen the parking from street view and ultimately utilize the alleys as access, as well as just kind of screening the parking, screening these vehicular areas from the right-of-way and kind of behind some of the outbuildings on the other homes along the alley.

Utilizing those alley accesses also allows them to consolidate vehicular traffic, which again is probably going to be pretty low generation with this use, especially with the shuttle services that they provide, but by consolidating those access points.

There's fewer accesses onto the existing roadway, fewer interactions with traffic, fewer interactions with pedestrians.

And then, of course, City Code builds in setbacks and buffers to consider preservation of light and air as well as land use transitions.

So the illustrative elevations were also provided as part of this application.

We are proposing a three-story building at 34 and a half feet.

The maximum height for the OR zone district is 35, which is consistent with the R2 zones adjacent to the site and is significantly less than the R5 and the MXM zones to the north and the east.

This is above and beyond what code requires.

So this is not just a bare minimum requirement.

Additionally, street level glazing and pedestrian activation will be proposed on the Weber and Madison Street corner.

You can kind of see that in the bottom right hand there.

It's intended to be kind of a patio space for residents that will really help anchor this building into the surrounding community.

Conditional use review criteria requires us to comply with any use specific standards, which we'll discuss further with the development standards adjustment.

We'll also need to demonstrate that the proposed project and those impacts are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the existing infrastructure can serve the development.

So again, this is a transitional mixed use neighborhood with urban character and a lot of opportunity for multimodal transportation for future residents.

North Weber Street is classified as a collector, which is a higher classification classification of roadway, which can be reasonably expected that higher intensity uses would be situated along this type of roadway.

Additionally, there's a number of large office buildings, a hospital, commercial center that are already integrated into the surrounding neighborhood and are a part of the existing fabric of the neighborhood.

So this is an existing condition.

Giving a little bit more visual aid to these existing uses.

So I want to point out none of these uses, these are all kind of non-historic uses outside of the historic preservation overlay.

You really don't see any historic uses along the Weber and Wasatch corridors.

So this site is also adjacent to multimodal transportation, including it's right on a bus stop, multiple bus routes, regional trail and bike routes.

I think while a number of them will be able to enter the community with a personal vehicle, not all will, and many will age out.

So this site allows Silver Key to provide kind of longer term mobility and independence to their residents just based on the proximity to existing transportation services as well as these commercial services as well, including the bond shopping center, a hospital, medical and dental offices.

These are all within less than half a mile of the site.

So diving into the development standards adjustment.

Again, this is to allow more than 10 building, 10 units in a single building where that is the maximum in the zone.

Again, this was not a requirement under the chapter 7.

So this is new with the UDC.

The development standards adjustment review criteria require us to provide a compensating benefit.

In this instance, it is that affordability piece.

And we need to demonstrate that the proposed design meets the intent, meets or exceeds the intent of the code and further advances the goals and policies of the UDC.

This slide includes the list of benefits, compensating benefits.

We've elected to propose other benefits as agreed by you all.

And that proposed compensating benefit would be that all units will be affordable with that long-term affordability guaranteed through the four-to-year Lura.

This will benefit the community as a whole as well as future residents.

While Plan COS is not specifically called out in the development standards adjustment review criteria, it does set the plan for the city and it is the basis for us asking for affordability as the compensating benefit.

So both the UDC and Plan COS both call out housing affordability as a goal and have a number of policies and goals surrounding that.

So in addition, the 2025 housing needs assessment was also presented to City Council in December, demonstrating that we have a significant shortfall in affordable units, particularly for seniors in our community.

With the population of individuals 65 and older doubling between 2015 and 2040.

And with that, it's going to have new demands on our market in our facilities.

So it should be expected that highly specialized senior living facilities are going to be needed.

And ultimately, that the desire for multifamily units in these areas with urban character are desired, but there is kind of a shortfall in those being available.

So with this application, we have demonstrated that the alternative design being 49 units in a single building, coupled with the affordability, achieves the goals and policies of the UDC to a better extent.

First, I want to point out that other uses in the OR zone are not regulated by building size.

So a very similar footprint for an office, group living, religious institutions, something like that could be achieved on this parcel.

And that would just be through an administrative development plan application.

So larger footprints can be anticipated in this zone.

Additionally, we are not maximizing the lot coverage allowed on the site with the proposed design.

Further, kind of when you consider the design with the services that Silver Key provides, one building allows for those services and communal spaces to be consolidated, which is really critical for these residents.

It also provides efficient access to elevators.

If you have a three-story building, typically you don't need an elevator, but for an older population, obviously, those would be super necessary.

And with kind of those constraints, multiple smaller buildings do not allow Silver Key to provide their services as efficiently.

And then it leads to long-term maintenance and kind of early on construction issues.

Additionally, it hides that parking from the street and concentrates it in the rear.

This is very typical for the development pattern in the surrounding area and is consistent with the old North End historic districts design standards where you have most folks entering and parking off the rear of their lots through the alley.

And then again, it just kind of optimizes the distance from existing homes to the new building.

With all of that, I want to reiterate the project commitments, that being who this project will serve, individuals 62 and older whose income is 30 to 60% of the area median income, and that being guaranteed through that land use restriction agreement.

Um, including a commitment to provide the facade articulation, the minimum of three facade materials above and beyond city code, the building orientation on Madison Street and Weber Street frontages, and placing majority of that parking behind the building.

And with that, um I am happy or anyone from the project team is happy to answer any questions you may have.

Like if we don't have any uh questions up front here, we will have some later, but I'd like to get to public comment listening, Commissioner's everything.

Okay.

All right, at this point, we'll go ahead and move to public comment in support of the application.

Our first speaker in person is Dutch Schultz.

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

President of the Old North End.

Dutch Schultz, president of the Old North End board.

In the many years that I've been president, we've had a lot of different projects presented, none more vexing than this.

We are in full support of this project as it is in general.

We love Silver Key.

We have a long association with Silver Key.

Uh Mickey, whom the uh garden is dedicated to, was a resident of the Old North End.

And we also like the concept.

It's a perfect fit for both of us, senior citizens, close to housing, close to the hospital, walking distance, uh right to the transit.

But the proposed concept plan, not a development plan, has a fatal flaw in it.

And that one fatal flaw is it puts all the traffic onto the alleys.

These are very small dirt roads right next to residential housing.

Now, the old North End has a history of not just being opposed to things, we have solutions.

And we will cover those solutions in the following speakers in support of this project.

How to fix this today while we're at the podium, so that the project can move forward on time.

The first speaker will be um Rob Harrison, who's on the board, and he will talk about the alley problem.

The second speaker will be talking about solutions on the density.

And finally, Mike Anderson will present a plan to solve all these problems.

We would like this project to move forward if you can solve the concept problems that are presented here and move it forward, keep it going, but we do have some real problems for the local residents.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rob Harrison.

You'll have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Morning.

Uh my name is Rob Harrison, and I, as Dutch pointed out, I'm also on the board, the old North End neighborhood.

And uh in addition, I live in the Old North End neighborhood.

As Dutch pointed out, we do support the the idea or the concept of Silver Key building the facility, but we do have some issues, concerns that we would like to see the uh committee address today.

Uh we met over the past month with many of the residents that live adjacent to the proposed site property, and uh there were four primary concerns that'll go over real quickly with you.

And I did submit a letter that that provides information on these in a lot more detail.

So I'll just kind of summarize it right here.

Uh the alley entrance is a concern, density is a concern, the current architectural design is a concern, and the lack of a development plan or design details, and we understand that comes later, but you know, not knowing what what exactly is proposed is is it's it's fear of the unknown, if you will.

So the alley entrance, you know, as Dutch pointed out, uh the alleys in the old north end, and in particular the alley between uh Jefferson and Madison is an extremely narrow, uh low uh unimproved alley at its widest, uh I mean it at its some of its narrowest points.

It's 12 feet wide, uh, which is insufficient to support two-lane traffic, let alone any kind of delivery vehicles or or bus or van pickup uh service type vehicles, and and perhaps most importantly, it can't support uh emergency vehicles or uh ambulances or fire trucks that would have to access the facility.

The current site plan, we we don't have the the full-blown design details, but the current plan is showing the primary access to this facility via the alley.

And we're saying that's that's totally inadequate and and and unacceptable.

Uh you've got Weber Street on the opposite side, which is you know a very wide street, and we're recommending that the current site plan be flipped to allow access there.

Vehicle emergency vehicles can't access that narrow alley off of Madison or Jefferson streets.

You don't have the turning radius especially when you consider the fact that a lot of the residents park on both sides of the streets thereby making both Jefferson and Madison basically one way one way streets or only accessible by one car at a time.

So that that was a primary concern.

Another concern is the density uh the OR density that's proposed for this is five times the the norm and and and it's just it's just too much for this particular neighborhood.

A lot of the homes in that neighborhood are small uh uh old old home old residential homes and and the density uh that's proposed forces a three-story flat roof construction which architecturally uh is is insufficient as as well so anyways that's my time uh you have additional comments in the uh letter that I submitted thank thank you our next speaker is Pat Doyle Pat Doyle thank you our next speaker Mike Anderson please introduce sorry introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak thank you uh good morning my name's Mike Anderson I'm a member of the Owen board uh to fully address the concerns described uh by Mr.

Harrison we recommend four specific conditions that should be added to any approval of the conditional use application you should have a hard copy we did hand that out earlier I'll go through them very quickly the first is to require our the R5 density which is a maximum of 25 units per acre to reduce the total units from 49 being proposed to 33 apartment units and limit the height of the building to a maximum of two stories.

As Rob pointed out the proposed density of 38.2 dwelling units per acre is too large for this site it's too much.

It's become clear that the sole reason the main entrance and all the parking is on the alleyway is because of the excessively large mass and scale of of the proposed building to accommodate 59 or 49 units on a 1.3 acre site you got to go the full three stories and you got to stay within the 35 maximum allowed height that means that the building has to be flat roofed and pretty much devoid of any kind of significant architectural features.

So as a result building design is quite we believe monolithic placing such a monolithic building in the back of a lot adjacent to the alleyway would dwarf and shade most of the existing historic homes to the other side of the alley.

So to address the problem they've moved the building over to the Weber side and move the uh the main entrance and the parking obviously to the alleyway but again as Rob pointed out that creates significant issues uh for the alleyway in terms of uh in terms of safety in terms of noise and in terms of access so it's almost a kind of pick your poison impossible dilemma uh for the homeowners and the adjacent property owners uh the density of the uh uh silver key if if the density was limited to 25 uh 25 units per acre it'd allow 33 apartment units uh not 49 but the 33 units would effectively require not a three-story 35 foot high building but a two-story building effectively um a two-story building would allow pitched roofs in a design that's more complementary to the historic neighborhood that it's adjacent to second as uh Rob had suggested we uh think a condition should be to require Weber Street to be used for the front entrance uh and main uh roadway entry to the facility essentially flipping uh the conceptual site plans you have before you um and we think that that's feasible uh if you uh uh change the maximum density to 25 DUs per acre because again you're going to two stories you can move the building around on the lot a little bit third condition is we believe require pitched roofs and apartment uh exterior designs that are architecturally compatible with the adjacent neighborhood residences and the own and design standards we're not saying that the this structure should be uh designed to true historic standards but have features that complement the neighborhood uh tip to the and that's it's a tip of the hat to the neighbors from that perspective and then last of all um we um believe that the uh uh the development plan should have to come back to planning commission for a public hearing uh and approval instead of being reviewed and approved administratively we recommend this given that the uh the importance of the site layout uh and the mass and scale of the building and if there are some uh conditions that you add uh we believe it would be more appropriate to come back to the commission all right thank you thank you very much

And then last of all, um we um believe that the uh um the development plan should have to come back to planning commission for a public hearing uh and approval instead of being reviewed and approved administratively.

Uh we recommend this given that the uh the importance of the site layout uh and the mass and scale of the building, and if there are some uh conditions that you add, uh we believe it would be more appropriate to come back to the commission.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker, Robin Johnson.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Thank you.

My name is Dr.

Robin Johnson.

Um I am a 33-year resident of the old North End.

I've been a physician in the emergency department at Memorial Central as well as involved with public health.

I have three things that I'm so excited to present to you in support of this project.

I think the first is that I think the old North End is a perfect place for some diversity of not only architecture, while we want to maintain our historic preservation and our presentation in the community.

We also have embraced change over the life of our city, and this is another opportunity to do that.

I think it is um second from a professional perspective.

The idea of bringing in um housing for our seniors is an important aspect that we can provide for our city and for our citizens.

It is a perfect place for built environment, meaning the access to walkable spaces to the parks, to a church that's right there, as well as grocery store and bus stops.

And so, in all um ways, I really believe this couldn't be a more ideal setting for such an endeavor.

And the third is to really speak to Silver Key itself.

As a professional, having been in the emergency department and having to care for seniors and finding access for them, Silver Key has been an exceptional partner over decades.

Not only as a professional and in that type of care for our seniors, but actually in the communities in which they end up being partners, they have also cared for the communities that they are in and provided um beautiful settings and increased services that are accessible for their participants, but also the community at large.

Um they do wrap around services that really honor the individuals that they serve.

They are served by not only people that they employ, but the volunteers that are able to participate and create community through their participation with Silver Key.

They have been honorable and um an organization of integrity and have continued to grow and to adjust to our community as the community itself has grown and shifted.

Um I believe that the fact that they would be our um key provider in this project speaks to the longevity and sustainability of it within our community and the maintenance of it as a um particularly beautiful architectural site for our neighborhood.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Chair Casey, our next speakers seem to be part of the um development team.

Should we still read their names?

The development team will have opportunities to speak in rebuttal to the public comment afterwards.

Okay.

Then our next speaker will be Sam, and apologies, Jari Dai.

You will have three minutes to speak after you introduce yourself.

Hi, uh, my name is Sam Geraide.

It's like variety with the J.

Um, I live on Washington Streets, uh, which is a few blocks away from this development, and I'm representing six families that live on that street in absolute support of this project.

And um, yeah, as I mentioned, we all live uh two to four blocks away.

We enthusiastically support the this um apartment complex.

While we do have some concerns, the need in the community far, far outweighs, I think some of the issues that have been brought up today and that we ourselves have.

Um, and yeah, we just want to make sure that our supportive voices are heard as part of this conversation.

Uh, first of all, uh, you know, as someone mentioned, there's more than 400 people, I think, on the waiting list for this.

I mean, this is about the character of our city and how we take care of our seniors.

So we need to maximize uh the number of people that we have in that space.

Um so it's addressing a real and documented uh housing gap.

And as they've mentioned, uh, the speakers be uh before me have mentioned um it's like the peanut butter and chocolate in terms of like location for seniors.

It helps promote self-suffsufficiency.

There's the um safe way right there, there's a park right there, there's the bus stop, straight shot downtown.

Um, also like us in the community with you know, uh in the neighborhood.

We I've got a toddler.

I'd love for him to like grow up and volunteer here and build that connection with uh uh with the community.

Um, and also just from like an economic diversity perspective, I think that that's gonna add some benefit to us.

The businesses around there could benefit from the additional traffic.

And um, yeah, just building more connection.

And this is just like a perfect example of good smart infill in our city.

Um so, yeah, economic benefit I've mentioned.

Um, the concerns that have been mentioned, alley access, I do think that that's a thing that needs to be looked at a little bit more closely.

Um neighborhood character, like uh it would be nice to have it look similar to like, I don't know, something like the John Zay guest house, which is by Penrose Hospital.

You can barely tell that it's like, you know, not a traditional um house in the uh old North End.

But ultimately, I think that the benefits that this provides far outweighs the cost.

Um yeah, well uh I mean, in summary, basically I think that this proposal meets a real need in a location that makes sense, and uh with an experienced and trusted operator.

I mean, I've looked up Silver Key, they seem to be doing uh really, really good work in the community.

And I think that some of the concerns that have been raised are manageable and uh just the broader benefit of providing safe, affordable housing for seniors, it just deserves strong support.

So that's it.

I did three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker in favor and in person is Jin Garbler.

Jill Gabler.

Sorry, Jill Gabler.

Apologies.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Casey and planning commissioners.

My name is Jill Gabler, and I am the executive director of Pikes Peak Housing Network.

In the case of this project, I also live in the Patty Jewett neighborhood, just a few blocks south of the property.

This land where the project will be seated has long been vacant and blighted.

And so many of us, I would say the majority of us are very excited about the opportunity for Silver Key to be building housing on this land.

And we hope you will approve the project as it is proposed.

Not only will it add needed senior housing on a field adjacent to a grocery store and other shopping amenities, it will add new and more affordable housing options within this homogeneous neighborhood where the average home price is around 700,000, according to Realtor.com.

Seniors over 65 and younger people age 25 to 34 are the fastest growing demographics in Colorado Springs.

As such, it should be a priority for our developers and our decision makers to make these types of housing a priority as our city grows.

For seniors, they are often stuck in larger homes that may provide them financial stability and security, but are also not likely safe for them as they age, as single family homes are difficult to maintain, often include stairs, and are frequently lonely, as many seniors want to connect with people and aren't as uh mobile as they once were.

Given these seniors, giving these seniors the opportunity to move to an affordable housing home or near the neighborhood where they currently live, not only provides them stable and affordable housing, but provides them safer homes and opportunities to build social networks and community.

This is what Silver Key will provide at this new housing development.

And as we're talking about changing, potentially changing a project, it I'm sure most of you know how expensive it is to build affordable housing, often around four to five hundred thousand dollars a door.

And so as Silver Key is working to build its capital stack and bring forward a project that can really serve so many people in our community, asking them to reduce the number of doors and make their their project unsustainable financially and in so many other ways is really a ridiculous ask at this point in this proposed plan where their timeline is short, their funding sources are obviously short, and it could possibly kill this very much needed project in our community.

Lastly, providing housing that allows seniors to move out of their larger homes has the added benefit of increasing our available housing supply, which in turn lowers the overall housing prices, possibly making it financially feasible for a young family to finally purchase a home they can afford in the neighborhood where they desire to live.

This housing continuum works well if cities ensure there are diverse housing types available for their residents at all stages of their lives.

It is the job of city planners and our decision makers to ensure these housing types are built throughout our city, creating livable neighborhoods that are accessible to all community members, not just those who choose to live in single family homes.

Thank you so much.

Good luck with your decision.

If there's anybody else in the audience that didn't get the chance to uh register themselves to speak, please come to the podium.

Excuse me.

Are you in support of the project?

Okay, thank you.

Please state your name and um you will have three minutes.

Good morning, planning commission, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Lauren Moore and my husband and I live in the Old North End area, directly overlooking the proposed um area for Silver Key project on East Madison Street.

It's a wonderful area with many amenities.

I want to start by saying that I uh value affordable uh senior housing, and I appreciate the mission behind Silver Key, and we support this project.

However, I, as well as everyone else here have concerns about the specific proposal as it fits into our neighborhood.

The Old North End is a historic area with strict building guidelines that have been preserved and its charm has been preserved for generations.

A three-story 49-unit building with snip that would be significantly taller and denser than anything currently surrounding it, where most buildings, aside from the hospitals, are currently no taller than two stories mostly.

I'm also concerned about the practical impacts.

Um is it existing alley as the main entrance would create safety noise and congestion um issues, especially since it's currently used for service access and residents during construction and long term increased traffic, parking strain, utility capacity, construction noise, and light pollution will directly affect nearby homes, including mine.

Additionally, many residents already experience water and sewage pressure issues due to aging infrastructure.

It's important to underst uh understand whether the current system can support the added demand without negatively impacting existing homes.

I'm not here to say no, but I am asking that scale access and neighborhood compatibility be carefully considered so the project truly fits in the old Old North End.

These changes to the current proposal, 33 units at two stories with complementary uh architecture as well as Weber Street access is just makes more sense for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

There's nobody online.

Okay, if we could move to those that are signed up to speak here in opposition to the project.

We have Janine.

Janine Hafman.

If there's anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please come to the podium.

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

Yes, we can hear you.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Hi, this is Steve Schroeder.

Um I'm not necessarily calling I'm not necessarily in opposition of it.

I am one of the neighbors that lives there on Madison Street.

Um in the old northern area.

I think that most of my comments have been addressed as far as the I don't believe that the alley access is adequate.

I don't believe that the um the ability for the number of units versus the amount of parking spaces and such as they have allotted is going to be sufficient.

I do agree that I wish that something nice would go in there.

I um agree very much so with what the um one of the previous individuals talked about that the the um over across on Madison and take home there.

There is that um that facility that is part of the hospital that looks like it's built beyond pay home.

I don't know how better to describe that.

I think that as long as the architecture of the building would at least somewhat match that.

I understand that this is affordable housing, but it's the you know, it should be built to fit and suit the style of the neighborhood in which it is gonna be built in.

And I think that that facility did a great job of doing that.

Um so I think that that that needs to be one of the things that's addressed.

I think that the alley access needs to be severely looked at and addressed because it is currently not going to work.

I mean, there's a there's a house on the corner of Madison and that alley that is gonna be on the opposite side that does not um even give varying access to adequately have the trash trucks turn in and out of there without making multiple point turns.

There's no way a delivery truck is gonna be able to get in there, period.

Um outside of that, um obviously our biggest concern as a neighbor that shares Madison in that direct area is gonna be that this whole area is going to be you know covered with a number of cars.

I mean, when they have event nights at the new um I think it's actually at the kilobar that's across the street from where that is that just that just went in next to the as part of the tattoo shop that's there.

Um when they have events, there are cars parked up and down that entire area right there.

There's just not a sufficient, I mean, even for a small bar type facility to have that kind of parking congestion issue that a living facility is not gonna have more problems than that.

And then combined with, I mean, when cars park on both the left and right sides of Madison, it is not a wide enough street for you know two-way traffic to go through.

It's constantly down to one lane traffic where there are cars parked on both sides of the street.

So I think that that severely needs to be looked at and addressed.

Um, but I would look forward to um where they're at.

I also uh would agree with the analysis that um you know, if you're gonna go with that kind of height and be at three stories to be underneath that, that you'd end up with a flat type roof.

I think that that uh would be a severe mistake.

It wouldn't it won't look anything like it should um to fit into the old north end and would fall under kind of an architectural um disability and disadvantage to a building that's been put into the community, but I I'm not opposed to the idea of something happening.

I just think that it needs to be built to suit for the neighborhood and style that's there.

Okay, thank you for your thank you for your comments.

Do we have anybody else online to speak?

If there's anybody else online that would like to speak in up with Susan, please press star seeks to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody else.

Okay, at this point we'll move back to um public comment now that's complete.

The applicant will have a rebuttal period of 10 minutes to respond to the specific comments that were raised uh this morning.

All right.

And Odom again for the record.

Um so first I'd like to um kind of point out what we heard from all that and and where the sign-ups lie.

Um folks are not entirely opposed to this project.

There's just some details about it.

And so um I want to first by uh start by addressing those specific conditions from the old north end.

Um so number one, requiring that R5 density, 25 dwelling units per acre, um, but limiting the uh site to two stories.

Um I think if you'd like to understand more from a funding perspective why that doesn't work, we can certainly have Danielle here from the project team elaborate on that, but ultimately they're asking for kind of a special zone district.

They want us to um have a lower height um and a lower density.

And so um they're kind of just building their own zone with this one, which um doesn't really uh align with city code and some of those um requirements already in place.

Uh requiring Weber Street to be used for the front entrance and the made roadway to intern to the facility.

Um I think that ties into alley access as well.

Uh one um from a from a traffic perspective, introducing additional access points onto a roadway is not optimal for um traffic uh hazards and such.

Um I think limiting the the amount of accesses onto existing roadways is um more in line with traffic standards.

Um additionally, alleys are intended for vehicular access.

They are not designed with sidewalks, they are just designed to have um cars access from them.

Um with that through the development plan review, the alley would need to be improved to meet emergency service standards.

So it would hit that 20-foot width, it would be paved.

Um, so that dirt road kind of narrow condition that they're experiencing now would be addressed with this application.

Um, again, the trip generation from this use being for uh older adults, um they're not going to have as high of a trip generation.

A lot of those trips are going to be consolidated with the shuttle services and that access to the bus stop.

So even if this were developed with some other type of residential density, you'd probably have a similar, if not slightly higher uh trip generation on that alley.

Um let's see.

Number three, requiring the pitched roofs and apartment exterior uh to be compatible with the um old north end design standards.

This is not within the historic preservation overlay.

This is not within the National Historic District.

Um, you have a lot of non-historic uses outside of these districts uh in the surrounding area that have not been um in compliance with those old north end design standards.

Uh the John Zay guest house was brought up a lot.

John Zay guest house is within the old north end um historic district and historic preservation overlays.

So they did have additional architectural design standards that they needed to comply with.

Um, so they did.

So that's a that's a key difference between that project and this one.

Um, and finally, requiring that that development plan to come back to planning commission for approval uh based on the um commitments that we've included in our application materials as well as the presentation and some of those illustrative concepts.

Our proposal would be that if the development plan does not align with those based on the commitments submitted and just the overall um materials provided that it come back before this body.

But otherwise, it would be um we would ask that it be an administrative approval uh just from a um being a competitive project through this funding process, which again, Danielle could talk more about if you have any additional questions.

Um I also want to touch on uh it was mentioned that um the density exceeds what is allowed in the OR zone.

Um not entirely accurate.

We are proposing more units in a single building, but the density itself is not limited in the OR zone.

So while site constraints um and likely funding would potentially limit the overall density that could be achieved.

Um, we are proposing to consolidate uh those units in a single building for additional reasons that we feel have um higher and better uh project benefits than um just requiring that density to be dispersed among multiple buildings.

Um and I believe that is uh covers my responses unless anyone has any questions for me.

Oh Danielle would like to respond.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for having me.

Um my name is Danielle Basham Bell.

I'm the development director of MGL Partners.

We are the turnkey developer working with Silver Key.

We also helped on the first project of Silver Key Apartments at South Murray.

Um I just wanted to address the reduction of units.

So in the community that has such a shortfall of affordable homes, specifically for seniors, the reduction wouldn't actually just be to 16, wouldn't be 16 units reduced to 33 units.

It would very likely render the project infeasible.

Um the funding that we are looking for is so tied to the number of units that the conditional approvals that we've already received from the state of Colorado, the city of Colorado Springs, and El Paso County would be significantly reduced.

Also, just the economies of scale in general with um high and fixed development costs would make this very challenging, especially with the affordable rents that we're trying to achieve.

They make the NOI, the net operating income so much lower that we would very likely not be able to finance the project and or operate it and provide the resident services that Silver Key would really like to provide this service, this this community.

So I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sure we'll have plenty of questions for you, but we're going to take a short break to 1035.

Uh, when we come back, we'll bring it up to the dias for questions.

Uh commissioners are reminded please use your tablets to request to speak, and I'll call on you in the order that you sign up.

Okay, we'll go ahead and resume the Planning Commission meeting today.

Uh we do have the city traffic engineer Anna Rad, he'll be here in a few minutes, so we'll we can have uh hold our questions on uh for the traffic engineer until such time, but we can go ahead with the uh commissioner other questions on different topics, and I see we have uh Commissioner Cecil up first.

Oh, and thank you, Chair Casey.

Um I was hoping that uh to chime in when we do get traffic on, but I wanted to sort of point out my understanding of this property as it is adjacent to the old North End, but not near not actually within its design standards.

Um even if a if it were, um, I still understand that as in Phil it and a historic district, the standards around from the National Park Service around inville development don't need to create a false sense of historic character and uh but they should be compatible and take cues where appropriate from the area.

And I was wondering if the applicant would care to discuss in any more depth the architectural cues or materials that are being contemplated to integrate in as an alternative to um some of the suggestions around pitching the roof.

Um in regards to your question, Jen, um we had designed the building, and I think this was kind of shown in some of the illustrations that were shown earlier.

To break up the facade into uh widths that are roughly equivalent to the existing historic housing in the surrounding community.

So we've got twenty to thirty foot bays that are set back from the facade of the the main facade of the building to give sort of that uh rhythm that is existing within the surrounding community.

Uh in regards to the pitched roofs, I think it has kind of been alluded to earlier.

One of the issues there is to in order to make this project feasible, we have a number of units that we are trying to meet and going with a really you would have to go with a two-story building in order to achieve those pitched rows.

In regards though to a pitched roof um from a design perspective, I'm just curious of how if you're trying to be compatible but not necessarily an exact traditional or mimic of the surrounding area.

Where do you sort of see that line uh dividing the you know exact imitation versus the compatibility?

Yeah, so I mean, we again we've kind of tried to articulate the facade in a way that mimics the rhythm of the existing housing.

We've introduced additional materials than what would be required under code um to again try to introduce some articulation to that facade and some variety to it as well.

Um those materials are laid out in a way that sort of emphasizes the verticality as well within those bays, so that it's not uh it doesn't have that kind of appearance of a uh massive building in terms of its width.

So we've tried to kind of break up the hor the horizontality of the building with vertical elements that are done through materials.

Um there's also some overhangs that occur uh particularly at the uh northeast corner of the project where we've got that outdoor uh patio area that is again kind of introduced to really uh create an interaction with the surrounding community.

So there's an outdoor terrace that wraps around the north uh east corner of the I mean from my perspective, looking at this as sitting Caddy Corner across from what's effectively a strip mall being so near a flat roofed hospital being near the safeway.

I think that incorporating the higher scale materials on the exterior with the articulation makes a lot of sense and sort of bridging the gap between the historic residential traditional style, it it makes it a transitional space effectively.

Yeah, and that yeah, that is the case.

It truly is a transitional location between the existing properties to the east and the more historic neighborhood to the to the west.

Okay, thank you.

Did you have something to add?

So uh thank you for your question.

The other comment that I would share, one of the board members of um Owen had asked me to share this with this committee.

And what it is is that we have the limited amount of resources we have to be able to fully bring forward and articulate this effort.

However, in the spirit of really listening to what the community is saying, that bridge between the hybrid of what is versus what it's becoming and how we bridge through, that's gonna be some additional resource to do so.

So what's happened is is that we have been exploring different funding avenues that are not traditional within the housing project, and that is one of the strengths of Silver Key.

So we've been uh outreaching to different um entities that are uh interested in um recognizing the historical parts of communities and what does that look like?

And because Silver Key is a nonprofit, we have a little different way to be able to access maybe some of those resources.

That doesn't mean that we will be able to create enough space and place in what we're trying to build out, but what it does mean is that if we have a little bit more resource to be able to bring forward differently than the housing itself, and really in the way that it's designed and the feedback from the teams that we're involved with, I think we can get to something that's winnable across the board.

Uh again, a lot of those are big ifs in the you know, when you're applying for grants and things like that, it's a bit of a challenge.

But I want you to know that um I just met with one of the board members and she said, please make sure you let them know that we are looking to explore other options in that regard.

Thank you.

Uh Bill Gray, uh city planner.

Uh, I just wanted to add that Commissioner Cecil is correct that if you were to evaluate a new building in a historic district, it would be very much in the as Commissioner Cecil characterized, but not in a historic district in this particular situation.

Commissioner Cecil, do you have any other questions?

Not until we're joined by traffic.

Okay, we're still not there.

Uh Commissioner Slattery.

Thank you, Chair.

Um appreciate folks coming out.

Uh Mr.

Schultz and your team here in support, I really appreciate that today.

Um, and bringing concerns uh and potential solutions here to this project.

So the commission here today has two decisions, right?

One is the conditional use to allow multifamily within the OR.

It seems like that is universally um needed and wanted uh both by the neighbors and the community at large.

That one um appears pretty straightforward.

Um there are right some conditions and density pieces that I'll go into in a moment.

Um and then the other piece there is that 49 unit building versus a 10-unit single structure.

And so that is a condition, a development standard of the OR neighborhood.

And when I look at the zoning map, I think it was 1980 when CPW moved into that.

It's kind of a spot zone.

OR is a bit of a spot zone in this area.

So we have references of our five and MXM.

So across the street, if we're looking across Weber where this will face more so the MXN MXM zone exists where this is a use by right, um with a 50 foot maximum height.

To the west side, um that 35 foot height and the OR 35 foot height appears to be, you know, is the compatibility is the zone that this is maximizing.

If I look at Silver Key's other product down on Murray, it is an MXM zone.

So that 35 foot height limitation doesn't apply.

They do have a pitched roof, which right potentially could be more compatible to the pitched roofs in the neighborhood.

However, the trade-off is the height.

You know, we've we've heard from multiple people, right?

Construction has gotten expensive that both the number the number of units is a key factor in making this project pencil out to become anything to become feasible to to provide the units um for the neighborhood.

So if we are you know significantly reducing that, it's to the demise of anything happening at all, right?

So if we think within our um I guess limitations and trade-off of what's better or what's worse, right?

The alleyway, I think traffic's coming on online appears to be a concern.

The trade-off there is pushing the building more towards that uh collector that Weber Street, which I think is more compatible with the neighborhood and with the surrounding single family residential, right?

The buildings across the street from that along Weber, as I'm looking at each of those, they're all flat roofed.

So right, so maybe it's mimicking uh its adjacent neighbors to the east versus the residential component.

And as a multifamily, um, we see that often, whereas the multifamily um structures and dwellings are more uh consistent with the commercial type property where this one is, I'm seeing.

So I don't feel um that it is our purview um as a body here to require a pitched roof on this structure.

Pitched roofs are also more expensive, right?

And so it to meet the height requirements or not require another hearing to come back to get a variant on the height requirements.

It is not my intention to um require a pitched roof here today.

Um the other component um, let's see, to talk about the item 8B of the 10 units per single structure.

Um so as folks are designing buildings uh and understanding there's there's something called like you know, skin to footprint ratio.

It's more expensive to build the outside of the building, right?

Because it needs to be waterproofed and you have windows and you have other things than to build, you know, the drywall in your bedroom, right?

So the more buildings.

So if we had this size unit to be broken up into five individual buildings to fit on the site, now you're you're losing your parking area, you're losing your outdoor amenity, um, you're not fitting that in, and you're greatly increasing the cost.

Elevators are expensive as a senior um, you know, one day who might need an elevator to get to my third-story apartment.

Um having five of those individually to not just construct but maintain and certify year after year, uh, I think would also render this project unfeasible.

Um the density is not limited within the OR zone.

Uh we've heard that.

We've seen examples of higher density multifamily as I'm looking in the neighborhood.

We've seen examples of higher density multifamily as as I'm looking in the neighborhood, you know, there's several instances of high of multifamily um units block to block and you know, 10 story pitched roof aren't necessarily more attractive or compatible than this proposes to be um I think I see it as a stepping stone between the commercial uses in the MXN and the single family residential uses.

So I don't think that I um I am not opposed, and I feel that the development standard adjustment um to have a building size of more than 10 units, and we've already discussed the articulated um facade to mimic and complement um the dimensional standards or the dimensional um rhythm, thank you, Jen, set forth within the neighborhood.

I think it is um seeking to complement that so I believe that the um benefit of affordable housing far outweighs um the constraint to only have 10 units in a building.

I think that this is a smart um use of resources uh to get that and to be able to meet that development code standard um would be a detriment to the project and its ability to be affordable.

Uh so for that reason, I am um going to be voting in favor of the development standard adjustment.

Um if traffic, if I've haven't rambled on long enough, I would like to understand um because this is early on, right?

We're doing a conditional use and we are doing um a standards adjustment.

There's a whole development plan process that will take place with this.

Um so I want to talk with traffic and I would like to talk um if city staff has anything to add after, right?

I could understand as a neighbor um being concerned about that alleyway and a dirt alleyway as um the only access point.

So I would like to call upon city staff and then also have them articulate on that southern, you know, it's labeled as alley, but as I'm looking at the lot lines and plan, I believe that's a private access on the site itself.

So I'd like that confirmed um as well as how the development plan and requirements um affect the alley and its access and understand um emergency egress and access um to the site from those areas.

Mr.

Frisbee, are you online?

If we're still waiting for Todd, I think I had a couple questions for the applicant or the design developer or design team about that particularly, not necessarily from the city traffic standpoint, but how did the site layout come to be?

What is the use from the applicant's perspective of that southern alley um and the setbacks as well?

Because I think there were some couple questions that the setbacks are quite robust and could be less.

Um so I think I would I would enjoy some perspective from the applicant and then maybe to have city traffic comment from there.

I um fine with that.

I understand that uh Mr.

Frisbee is online.

Perfect.

Okay, and then Mr.

Brisbane uh yes, Chair.

Uh I am online.

Okay, we uh have a whole bunch of questions for you.

Starting with starting with uh commissioner Slatering.

Hello, Mr.

Frisbee.

Okay, we'll go there.

Could you talk about usage of the alleyway as access um to this site, and then the southern portion as that private alley.

What um what would that do to um would that be, I guess a would that be acceptable for emergency ingress egress, and then what things will happen um through the development plan process?

What requirements will you have of that access to be made before this project would be constructed or during construction?

Okay.

Um this is Todd Frisby City Traffic Engineering.

Uh let me know if I have sound, can you hear me acceptfully perfectly okay?

Okay, perfect, great.

So just for context, um we did because of the number of uses, number of units, it's below our threshold for requiring a traffic impact study.

So we did not do a traffic impact study or didn't require as part of this uh part of this uh part of this application.

But we did review uh staff did review uh the um uh the application we on regards to access to the alley, we're we uh and I'm not sure what came up in the presentations, but we are requiring the alley be paved behind uh both the one to the west and the one to the south uh to handle the additional traffic.

Uh the um uh the trip rates, you know, if you so you know, for example, if um if we talk if you want to talk about trip generation for a second uh uh senior housing um in you know, say it's independent living kind of housing, uh those trip rates are much less.

Um typically more than half what you would expect for your traditional multi-family um um development.

Uh and so uh given the number of units in the in the lower trip generation rate, right?

You know, uh we believe that the impact, you know, if you paid the alley and the impact, you know, that will be able to accommodate the additional traffic um anticipated um or handle that traffic low anticipated by by this by this development.

I'm not sure if I got all your questions.

We also asked about fire access.

I you know, we don't review fire access that falls under the fire department, and I would assume and correct, you know, Bill Gray may need to correct, you know, may need to jump in, but you know, uh I'm sure it was reviewed by fire and um and would have provide a comment on that.

So but I can't specifically directly I can't speak directly to um uh fire.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Frisbee.

Are there dimensional standards for alleying width?

And does this meet that?

Yes, there are.

Um, and I was just looking at our yeah, we you know, um, we've asked for um uh um civil drawings, you know, uh when they when the construction drawings are submitted for on and off-site improvements, we've asked if they you know they meet our uh criteria for alley widths uh for traffic control devices meet all of our standards.

Uh and so those alleys would have to be upgraded to our standards and our criteria manual.

And I'm looking at what those standards are and this might be a silly question, Todd, but if the requirement is to pave the alley, is it just what's adjacent to the affected property, or would it be the entire alley from Jefferson to Madison, if I remember the streets?

Yeah, we would require yeah, the whole outlet and not just the 10, you know, the alleys are typically 16 to 20 feet wide, right?

Um we would require the entire alley up to the other, you know, up to the adjacent property owners to be you know to be paved.

Is that I think that was that your question?

Uh well, sure, sure, width to width, but from Madison to Jefferson is what I'm saying.

From the the streets that it intersects behind the project like the full length of the alley, not the width of the alley.

Oh, yes.

Right.

So that whole, you know, I guess I'm just looking, yeah, I'm looking at the side.

Uh you know, there's an alley on the west side and an alley on the south side.

Um it would be all of that, you know, the full length.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, from uh point but now oh you are asking, and I'm assuming Dan.

Sorry, I'm gonna from Madison to Jefferson.

I think we would require all the way through the Madison to Jefferson.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Slaughtery, did you have further questions?

I think that was all of my questions for now.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Cecil.

Well, we've got you here, Mr.

Frisbee.

Um it comes to dedicating the uh I heard the neighborhood say that that alley is only 12 feet wide at present to dedicating the additional eight feet.

Um how will that take place?

Will it require, and I'm sorry if this is uh question for other staff as well.

Will that require a subdivision and or an easement?

How will the additional width become part of the alley?

What yeah, and I see somebody coming up to the podium, so I'll let them answer.

Um I felt like I could answer that as well.

Um there's already 20.

We'll just get your name for the record.

Oh, thank you.

Uh and Odom.

Um, there's already 20 feet of right-of-way along that alley on the west side of the site.

Um, so additional dedication is not required, it would just be physical improvements.

Um, I also want to point out there's um fences, outbuildings, all those things along the alley.

Some of those are very old.

So um, if that physical improvement requires us to encroach into our property a little bit to accommodate that width, um, we have the room to do so.

And the southern alley?

The southern alley.

So uh my our understanding we have uh an alter survey on the property and it does differ from the uh previous development plan, but we are showing that alley to be uh public right-of-way.

So that is how we've designed our site, as if that is a public access.

Um, and as Todd stated, we would need to improve that fully as well.

Um let's see here.

Yeah, so no dedication required and in that full 20 feet is already accommodated in um whether it's a public access easement or how we understand it as right of way, that 20 feet is there.

Okay, thanks.

Um, and I think this one is a Todd question.

And I please forgive me for being out of date, very likely on my understanding of traffic planning.

But in general, I'm used to multi-unit buildings on collector streets having an entrance on the collector street and the alleys kind of being uh fine backup, but not primary mode of entrance.

Um how what in particular concerns or reasons for not having concerns does traffic have for not using the Weber Street side as an entrance.

Uh again, uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic uh engineering.

Uh our our position on that is because of the type of use is um a lower generator um, you know, senior housing is a as I mentioned, or there's a lower generator.

Uh and what we're looking for are daily threat the daily traffic thresholds potentially in uh in an alley.

And um just doing a brief quick math in my head, you know, uh uh we're comfortable with with the access all to the alley because of the use and the number of units.

If it was a multifamily traditional multifamily um site, we would push for additional access to Weber, likely um to limit impacts to the alley.

But in this case, because of the use, um feel like it's compatible with um with that alley with with access being on the alley.

Thank you for explaining that.

Sure.

Well, and to keep kicking the dead horse, if I could, um just on that topic with um with the parking, as you said, the use doesn't necessitate it.

I noticed that the multifamily to the north has some um nose-in street parking off of Weber.

Is that ever a consideration or was that a special condition?

Oh yeah, that yeah, great again.

Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering, uh that is something we would never consider um today.

And that is a legacy project that was built as it was.

Um we um uh wouldn't we would not allow head-in parking like that on an new development?

We would allow parallel parking.

Uh and which is already exist on Weber Street.

Uh, but yeah, and all that a head end is not a design standard we would consider.

Okay, thank you.

Just one uh question as Chair Casey, uh Mr.

Frisbee, and I know you said you don't look at fire, but I mean we talked about the calls, we talked about the number of trips generated.

I agree it'd probably be overall, it would probably be lower, but I think with calls for service for medical assistance, fire, that type of thing, ambulance would be higher in a senior living facility.

Is that factored in at all, or is that up to the still up to the fire department to determine whether they can access the uh location?

I mean, I think that you'd have more trips of what I'm saying of a larger vehicles and smaller, you know, amount of trips for you know regular sedan and things.

In in our analysis, we focus strictly on traffic, you know, traffic and transportation.

Yeah.

Um that would be uh uh a great that would be a question for fire, you know, for the fire department.

Um you know, I'll speak I'll sort of speak from experience.

Um it comes to emergency service, uh they'll you know I mean I don't know the you know I don't know the details of the development, but you know if they need to if there's lock-in access off of off a Weber or off of the pull in right there uh and pull up to the front, so to speak.

So um it may not necessarily have to access the alley to get into the building.

Yeah, I don't know the details of the building, so I just understand.

So buyer just they will my experience, they they figure it out uh and uh and will do what they need to do.

Related to um Commissioner Hensler's question about the nose in parking.

I couldn't help but notice that on some of the conceptual site plans, there was nose in parking that was included, I think from earlier plans.

We're not doing that on this one.

Is that correct?

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that I was reading there were so many prior drawings of other developments.

I was reading that right.

And I sure case again, one poll, one question for Mr.

Frisbee.

So the the pictures that um Mr.

Harrison submitted as part of the uh public comment show utility polls and things like that, the relocation of those, I imagine would be a requirement for the developer.

They're like you know, right on sitting on the side of the of the alley.

You might realize you may not have those pictures, but um that it showed utilities there that would just be maybe need to be relocated.

Maybe the applicant can speak to that.

I think the applicants should speak to that.

Okay.

And applicant the utility polls, you've consider those in terms of whether they need to be relocated or not in terms of improving the alleyways.

Without having seen the photos, um, I think our team's understanding of those is that they previously served the old building.

Um, so they potentially would not be needed for this project.

Um again, I I'm not totally sure.

Is there an image of of those that could be that I could take a look at?

I'm not sure.

No, no, need a full answer on that.

It looked like some of the wires though were going across the alleyway as well.

So I understand what your point is.

If they're not needed anymore, they could be removed.

Yes.

Okay.

I think well, if it's my turn, and if Ann, while you're still up there, or if you come back up, I still I still think I would like some um at least editorial on the um the site layout and the access um separate from you know, say the the governmental response from Todd, but from the design standpoint, how do you um envision folks mainly accessing the facility since there is that southern alley road and appears to be an entrance into the development and then also an entrance through the alley.

I I could recognize that this is um you know a change of the use of the alley to the neighbors that can feel concerning.

It can feel maybe a little bit um uh fearful uh that there's gonna be a whole bunch of traffic.

I I think that we've heard, you know, and and I agree that there's this type of use does not generate huge amounts of traffic, um, especially with one bedroom apartments.

But can you speak a little bit to the site layout as you have presented it and also to the kind of the maintenance of the um setbacks, maintaining those, whereas maybe some of the other portions of the neighborhood, the setbacks are reduced, probably from historical right context.

Um I think it may just be helpful from an overall understanding, and maybe that ties into what Todd has been sharing with us from traffic perspective.

Sure.

Yeah, thank you for that question.

So um speaking to just the overall layout of the site, um, the the building was placed where it is to kind of mimic that historic development pattern where you have buildings a little bit closer to the street.

Um primary vehicular access is not off of uh the streets necessarily, they largely are off of the alleys.

Um so uh really just trying to mimic the surrounding area.

Um additionally, having that street presence from this building um and has a little bit of architectural interest, whereas um if the architectural interest where the site is visible from the public and not just residents uh utilizing the alley to um get to their detach garage or park for the day.

Um so it largely enhances the neighborhood more so than if this development were flipped and um people driving by were large and walking by um were largely just seeing um a larger parking lot.

Um so that's kind of some of the intent behind the layout.

And then as I mentioned in my presentation, we really are leveraging those um right-of-way widths by trying to situate the building as far away from these existing homes as possible.

Um as far as utilizing the alley, I think East Madison Street we all know is um fairly narrow.

I think that's gonna deter a lot of traffic from heading west on Madison Street.

Um, I think they're largely going to um, as you can see, the directional areas for that portachet.

Um they'll kind of head south down the South Alley and very likely use Weber Street, probably head up to Jackson if they're going north, um, or take Weber Street uh down to Fontenero or Uinta where there's um those stop-controlled intersections, it's a little bit more um just predictable from uh traffic flow standpoint.

So um, and uh as we've all kind of uh touched on, this is gonna be a pretty low traffic generator.

Um, and a lot of those trips are going to be consolidated with that shuttle service that Silver Key provides.

So you're gonna get a lot fewer individual trips and a lot more um consolidated kind of group trips with uh a driver who does this every day and is looking out for that sort of thing.

So um let me know if that answered your question.

You got more for me.

Yeah, no, I think that's really helpful.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robins.

Oh, did you have a response?

Hi, this is Danielle Bashan Ball at Balaparagan.

Um, I just wanted to add a little bit more color.

So the Silver Key apartments at South Murray, the average age right now of the residents are is 67 years old.

So the majority of them are retired.

And so they'll be traveling, they have a very large wait list, as was referenced before, over 400 um folks have been signed up.

And so we will draw directly from that list to help fill this project as well as reach out to the immediate community.

Um, but the folks will be traveling at off-peak times if they are traveling in their vehicle.

But I do just want to emphasize the pedestrian focus of this site.

So you can walk directly from the where it's showing kind of where the community area is.

There's a walkway directly out from the community area to the bus stop.

And so that helps encourage residents to go wait indoors, perhaps when it's cold or quite hot outside for public transit, as well as what Ann mentioned, the shuttle service that's offered by Silver Key.

But the idea here and the entire focus of this building is to age in place.

And so maybe folks are uh they're moving into the building at 67, but they're staying until they're in their 90s.

And so they will lose their ability to drive.

They'll lose their ability to have a vehicle, which lowers the burden of vehicle um uh, you know, um drives on the site and and refocuses or re-emphasizes the pedestrian access and availability for all of the resources and amenities nearby.

So I just wanted to point that up for you all.

Thank you.

Jason De Bueno, Silver Key.

One of the other comments I want to make is while we were talking, Danny was just talking about the current project that we recently did.

I also want to talk about uh the one on Hancock.

We have original residents that started living there that are now 80 and 90 years old that are now residents forever in that property.

We continue to provide the Silver Key shuttle and support to those individuals.

So this is an opportunity not only in what initiates, but then as people are aging to Danny's point, Silver Key remains.

This is a 40-year commitment to this community, and it is something that we've stand behind with that first initial apartment, and we hope to have people stay there for the long haul.

Silver Key works to be able to minimize the the drain on the healthcare system when people don't have access to the support.

That is how we're able to keep people healthy and well, and that is our commitment, and that is one of the reasons why I can demonstrate that at the other property we are closer to an average age of 79 with the support of Silver Key, putting that whole nutrition transportation support available.

So I think you'll start to see actually a weaning down eventually with the support of the formal system coming into play for individuals that want to stay in that community.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Robbins.

Okay, I appreciate everything you guys are doing.

I think uh part of my question was uh was answered or the reason why the uh building was located the way it is on the lot, because I was really thinking of the flipping it to resolve the issue with uh the alley.

Um I still think that the alley needs to be cleaned up and and uh and paved uh because it's still gonna get used here regardless.

Um but by doing the flipping of it, yes.

The exposure of the uh parking and area near to the to the public may not be so sweet, but if you also put in, you know, take that garden area and use that as part of the sheltering as long as as well as all your landscaping, I think that'll offset a lot of the problems.

And I think you'll still end up with uh well, you will end up with a better situation for traffic as well as pedestrian traffic.

Um closer to the the hospital going walking across the street.

Um if you have to, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that one, but on the traffic end, maybe on Weber Street have uh an apron uh incorporated into that, so it makes it a lot easier to get in and out with safety vehicles, everything.

Um but that's really important.

And if you're going to now I agree with Slattery, um, this is needed.

Um I I worked for a few years delivering meals and wheels for Silver Key to uh people that were shut in, both in apartments around town and little houses that were not being kept up because they couldn't.

And this facility is really really needed.

And if we're going to um go the extra mile and say, all right, we're gonna have 49 units, and we also need to have you guys work with us to make those changes, and we need to accept the fact that yeah, maybe that parking lot ought to be somewhat exposed.

Um it's just you know, if you're gonna have change, uh it's because of improvement of what currently exists.

We can't keep forcing whole things into something new.

Times change.

Um our family's lived here like I I've told you before since 58.

Although I think he's gonna be there before me.

Um he may need it.

Um, but I do appreciate everything that you guys put together, and this will get solved.

This is going to be solved.

This is a needed project, and I really appreciate your work.

Thank you.

Commissioner Case.

Hi, everyone.

Um, so one of the questions is probably directed toward Danielle or Ann, and specifically with an Ulta survey.

I don't know if you guys have actually done a survey for the alleyway to understand the affected property owners.

Um, counted them up, and it's roughly 10 property owners, and obviously Todd's mentioned that there's a 20-foot ride of way.

But is that actually field verified that there's no property issues within that area?

Um maybe more forward thinking as we go about trying to get this project go along.

But like you've mentioned, Ann, are the utility poles actually there being improved?

Are there garages that are in the right of way?

You know, are these things that are gonna frankly make people mad when they have to move their garages?

Thank you.

Um Ann Odam here, thank you for that question.

Um, so uh the the 20-foot right-of-way exists.

Um without having that Ulta survey right in front of me.

I can't remember uh what encroachments may exist, or um if that northern, I'm sorry, western side of the alley um on the kind of um the west side of the property, or if that southern alley have um southern portion of that alley have been field verified necessarily, but um based on uh the the survey that we do have, we are confident that we have the room to accommodate some of those potential encroachments.

Um I think it's more than uh a few inches.

We've got a couple of feet to play with, so we can't accommodate that.

Great, thank you.

And overall, I think this project is great.

Appreciate you guys.

The public process seems to be going very well, and so thank you for doing this.

And also beneficial that this is a dirt road.

Uh, I know that's a cost savings for an affordable project.

So kudos to you guys on finding the site.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

So I'd like to kind of wrap up some of my thinking on this at this point, if that's all right.

Oh, well then please go on and I'll I'll wait.

Okay, my first questions are for Mr.

Gray.

Uh in the staff report on the agency review, fire department's not listed on there.

Has this been reviewed by the fire department yet?

Yes, it has.

Okay, do they have any comments you didn't mention?

They didn't have any um comments on the conditional use, but they will have comments on the development plan.

Okay, and uh I just looked at the table that looks at permitted uses for zone OR and uh it's like group leave at living residence, small medium, large human services establishments, small drug and alcohol treatment facilities, detoxification facilities, and long-term care facilities.

It didn't appear from the development standards that that there was any limit to the number of units per building.

Is that correct, or might be other limitations?

The only limitation on number of units within a building applies only to multifamily.

We're doing anything else that might be permitted in that zone district.

We wouldn't be talking about uh 10 units per building.

Okay, thank you.

That's the one question I have for you, but uh I have uh all one question for Silver Key.

Um Ms.

Gabler and her public comments said that there was a timeline for funding and they've stressed the importance of this moving forward.

I didn't hear anything from any of the applicants or any of the presenters about a timeline or funding constraints of the project center.

I think I think there's some funding associated with this.

Could someone speak to that, please?

I think you need to turn the microphone on good thank you.

Hi, Danielle Bashon Bell um developer.

Um, yes, we are applying to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, which is the provider of low-income housing tax credits, both federal and state for this project.

That would provide 70% of the equity necessary for this project.

So that's the main vehicle for financing this project.

Um we the application cycle for this size project is annually.

It is on February 2nd this year.

And so we are required to have zoning in place in order to apply.

Um we will find out whether or not we receive an award by May of 2026.

We would be required, if approved and received um tax credits, that we would have to uh pill pull building permit and close on our financing and start our construction by June of 2027.

So that is sort of our our our runway right there.

We anticipate that this project would take 14 months to construct, and therefore we would be hopefully moving low-income um seniors into this project by August of 2028.

Okay.

And just one following question, maybe more for Ann.

Um several of the public comments um talked about having the development plan come back to the planning commission for approval as I think for us to add it as a condition of record.

If that were to be the case, how would that affect your timeline at all?

I mean, you still have to go through the development plan process, anyways.

I mentioned this would add a little bit of time to it, but does is that feasible for that to accommodate the uh public comment or or what's your views on that?

Of course.

It it's less of a timing issue and a little bit more of a risk issue.

So when we're applying to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, um, it's a very competitive process.

One in three projects that are submitting applications will be awarded.

Therefore, um for us to be able to show them that the process from here on out is an administrative review, provides a strength to this process and reduces any kind of weakness in the eyes of CHAPA, that there may be a significant or material change presented through the process.

And I would just add one quick comment.

Um when we are presenting our application to CHAPO, we are presenting exactly what you see on this screen, this conceptual plan.

We are not able to make material changes after we have presented our application and certainly made an award of tax credits.

So that means the number of units would retain at 49.

The AMI or area meeting income levels would be the same, if not if anything lower, if we are successful in receiving the number of grants that we will be applying for, um, and as well the number of parking spaces would not be able to be reduced.

So just to add that color.

I want to add on to that and just note that um we did go uh fairly detailed in the application materials that we provided as well, not only in our um just narrative, but also in the conceptual site plan and elevations that were provided that kind of exceed the requirement for these typical applications.

Um and and with that, I think staff has the uh the power to if we come in with a development plan that um varies from what materials were submitted that you reviewed today, they would have the grounds to refer this back to planning commission.

Um, or if the development plan does substantially comply and all of these uh you know design elements that we've committed to um are provided, then um they it would just be kind of a repetitive review.

So based on what Danny said, based on the materials provided, we feel that um what will come forward with that development plan is going to be uh entirely consistent with what you've seen today.

So um that additional planning commission review is not necessary.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Cecil.

All right, unless there are other questions, I'll um go ahead and explain that um I believe that I will be supporting the application for a conditional use and find that it complies with the use specific standards as long as the development standards adjustment is approved in order to allow for greater than 10 units in the OR district.

I find that the size, scale, height, density, and traffic appear to be appropriate and compatible with the existing and planned uses and mitigated to the extent feasible, especially thanks to Mr.

Frisbee uh chiming in and filling in some of the gaps in my understanding of the traffic end.

Um I don't hear anything right now that gives me cause to believe the in existing infrastructure and public improvements would have a problem with the capacity.

In fact, it's my hope that uh Ms.

Bourne who mentioned having water and sewage uh issues, perhaps some of the main lines that may end up getting work to support this or connections that could be causing things to be slow or um to have uh to be producing what you indicated, uh, that those will be addressed as this whole facility will also need to lean on the utilities to provide them direct service.

I hope it will improve along with that.

Um regarding the development standards adjustment, I wanted to say that I think this is exceptionally appropriate in so far as it advances the goals and purposes and policies of the UDC from Section 7.1.103, including the general welfare, which is part A, um, implementing the comprehensive plan as noted in the staff report um for the diversity of the types of residences and economic vitality of an area for ensuring logical growth.

Um it also appears to leverage multimodal transit appropriately in furtherance of the UDC goals and affordability, which is part G and I, which is the quality and diversity of housing.

Um, I also want to compliment um from 7.5.525E4, that the design does seem to provide compensating benefits in regards to the landscaping and resident green space as well.

And for those reasons, I'll be supporting both of these items approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Cecil.

That was a great summary, all the points.

Uh do any other commissioners want to uh have closing comments uh Chair Casey uh again for the for the record.

I also improve uh in favor of this uh project, both the conditional use as well as the design centered adjustment, and rather than repeating everything that Commissioner Cecil spoke about, I think that's uh I I would concur with her comments.

I think it's a needed project.

It's located very well near hospital shopping, uh bus lines.

I think it's almost an ideal location.

I think the other issues uh with the alley, the traffic and all those things can be worked on the development plan process.

And there is a public comment process in there, I believe, Mr.

Gray.

So there is a public comment process uh within the within the development plan development as well, where uh uh the neighborhood associations and others can uh participate in that process as well.

So I'll be voting in favor of both the conditional use and development standards adjustment.

And with that, if there's no other uh closing comments, so open the floor to a motion.

There is an extensive motion in the proposed motions that does have a following condition.

Uh well then I'll second your motion.

Uh and I'll just concur with everything that's been said.

So I don't sound repetitive, but I think this is a great project, and I'm glad you're bringing it forth.

So thank you.

I move to uh approve item 8A C U DC 25-30.

Um to approve the conditional use to allow a multifamily dwelling unit in the OR office residential zone district located at 2126 North Weber Street, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for conditional use as set forth in the unified development code section 7.5.601.c point two with the following condition.

The site and building design of the development plan shall be compatible with the site plan concept and building elevation concept as provided with the application.

This includes at minimum building orientation to both Weber and Madison Street, architectural articulation use of more than three exterior building materials, 80% of the off-street parking spaces located behind the building, and paving the alley between Madison Street and Jefferson Street.

Sorry.

Verbal second verbal second motion passes unanimously.

Trevor Gloss, the city attorney's office.

Sorry, just to clarify, uh was there a second and who was it?

I seconded.

I seconded verbally.

Okay.

And I said I will second that.

And I concur with everything that's been said not to pile on.

So I guess I combined my second with a comment, but I verbally seconded and I will verbally second again.

Thank you.

It's okay.

And then again and again.

Did you get that for the record?

We did.

Uh one more time.

I'd like to second the motion.

And state your name.

I'll second the next one.

Uh do we have a motion for the development standards adjustment?

There's no button.

I motion to approve item 8B, the development standards adjustment to the Silver Key apartments.

Uh motion to approve the development standard adjustment to city code section 7.3.301.

To allow a 50-unit multifamily dwelling when the use is limited to more than 10 units in a single structure, and the compensated benefit being affordable housing, as well as the green space.

Located at 2126 North Weber Street, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a development standard adjustment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.525.E.

With the following conditions.

A deed restriction or land use restriction agreement is provided prior to or with any future building permit for the proposed multifamily structure.

And two, that the site and building design of the development plans shall be compatible with the site plan concept and building elevation concept as provided with the application.

This includes at minimum building orientation to both Weber Street and Medicine Street, architectural articulation, use of more than three exterior building materials, 80% of the off-street parking spaces located behind the building, and paving the alley between Madison Street and Jefferson Street.

I think we have one disconnect between the motion that we were given in writing of it says 50 unit and the one of the screw uh on our screen tablets is 49 unit.

Is that what you were going to bring up?

No, Commissioner Casey is Dan Sexton, uh planning manager for the record.

Um we were just made aware by the applicant team that there is a request to uh modify some of the the language in one of the proposed motion as it relates to the condition of approval.

Uh so I'll let the applicant speak to that and note that uh for your consideration.

And why wasn't this brought up earlier?

Is it A or A B or both?

Because there's a repeat language of the articulation.

And maybe it's behind the building.

Of what does that mean?

Um so it's not related to the site uh design, and um, this wasn't necessarily just brought up.

We we emailed this to staff a couple of days ago for consideration in the record, and um it ultimately just did not get captured today, and that was our oversight as well.

We wanted to slightly modify the language in the condition of approval related to affordability, just to reflect the actual process for um that land use restriction agreement.

Um, I believe we sent it to Bill with that uh Monday.

This is Danielle Vishon Bow.

This is the development director.

Um we're actually okay with it.

As long as we can what we'll need to do is we will need to hold off on recording a Lura until the City of Colorado Springs uh records their Laura and the state of Colorado records their Laura in order of priority on the title.

And so we will pull permit.

We will close on a permit ready letter and pull permit and record the LURA at that time at the financial closing.

So it's not an issue, is how it's read, but initially we thought it may be.

And Laura is a land use restriction agreement.

Laura is land use restriction agreement.

Um, the city, just to give a little color, the city of Colorado Springs requires 30 years.

About that senior housing beautiful property.

We also have to the east a very influential peak innovation park, lots of job opportunities there, the airport business park, Panorama Park is one of our most successful park redevelopments in the area and in this planning area.

And we also just to we have other URAs, but the vineyard URA is pretty impactful and has future opportunities.

Today you'll be looking at the plan to uh under the criteria that's the general purpose of the UDC.

So the plan hits on all of these A through I pieces from health to safety to infrastructure, and then also that uh encouraging pride in our investments.

The development map, we've seen this before, but this will be a key component when projects come before you again, and um you'll see the new planned and the reinvestment areas on this map.

Um our next steps will be again annual reporting, progress in measures reports.

We'll have indicators similar to plan COS indicators.

Those can be found online, plan COS indicators, and we'll come forward with some more uh information on action planning and collaborating with our partners in the coming years.

And here's our uh motions.

We um the city planning department asked uh for a recommendation for approval to city council.

Um before we go there, I'd like to just point out um we have uh steering committee members in the audience.

Um they will be speaking uh after and um and we're very grateful.

Some have been with us for those five years.

Um so again, uh recommendation for approval to city council to adopt this plan and implement it.

And that's all.

Thank you.

I think at this point we'll move to public comment.

Our first speaker in person is Heather McBroom.

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

Good morning, planning commission.

Thank you for having me here.

My name is Heather McBroom, executive director for the Thrive Networks, long-term Southeast Colorado Springs resident, as well as someone who's been involved in this planning process for a few years now.

Um, Southeast Colorado Springs needs a city plan with resident-led voice because the area has this distinct challenges that citywide top-down planning often overlooks.

Residents understand daily realities, aging infrastructure, gaps in services, unsafe streets, limited transit, and access to jobs and foods in way that data alone cannot capture.

When planning is done without meaningful resident input, projects are more likely to miss real needs, waste public dollars, and deepen mistrust rather than improve quality of life.

A resident led-led plan leads to better outcomes and fairer growth.

It helps ensure investments go where they matter most, strengthens that trust and accountability, and balances revitalization with housing stability so current residents are not displaced.

By grounding decisions in lived experience, the city can make smarter, more cost-effective effective investments while building long-term community ownership and stewardship in Southeast Colorado Springs.

Bless you.

Outcomes that align directly with the Thrive Network's mission to empower entrepreneurs and strengthen communities.

By formalizing strategies, strategies that connect residents to resources and pathways for economic stability.

The plan creates the conditions necessary for long-term sustainable impact.

We ask that you please approve our plan today.

Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joyce Salasa.

Good morning.

My name is Joyce Salazar.

I'm the executive director of Resilient Inspired Strong Engaged or Rise Southeast.

We're a community-based organization with the mission of enhancing Southeast Colorado Springs from within through resident-led change.

Our vision is a vibrant connected community that offers opportunities for all to thrive.

And this, we've been working with partners, the City of Colorado Springs, City Council, all of the departments within the city since then, along with public health and foundations and developers.

And so this plan means so much to our community because it brings everything together, not just for what we've done, but for what we'll do together in the future.

So with that, I'm just really overwhelmed right now because this plan has it's it's a big deal to our community.

It shows that the city of Colorado Springs values the people that live in Southeast Colorado Springs and they see and they understand the challenges that we face.

And as a tool, we can work together with our city, with future developers, and with the residents of Colorado Springs.

So I'm just gonna stop there, or else I'll be in tears and there isn't any Kleenex.

But thank you so much for reading and concerting this plan, and I hope that you will approve it today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments today, and thank you for your work on the plan.

If there's anybody else in the audience that didn't get the chance to register and would like to speak in up sorry, in favor of this item, please come to the podium.

Seeing nobody else, um, if there's anybody online that would like to speak in favor of this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves now.

There's nobody online.

We do not have anybody registered um in person to a speaking opposition.

If there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak in opposition, please come to the podium.

Seeing none going online.

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

There's nobody online.

Okay, with that we can uh end public comment unless there I don't think we need a rebuttal period.

Do you need a rebuttal period?

So at this point, we'll go ahead and close up public comments and move to uh commissioner uh comments and questions.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Hi, I thank you so much to the staff, particularly Paige and all the community members who dedicated hours that could have been spent doing a lot of other stuff, um, believing in this and giving this process credibility.

We look forward to incorporating this as we view future developments in the area.

And I actually ended up after your first presentation, uh, doing a lot more of my Christmas shopping in the Southeast than I had planned on because it was really fun to get to know that area.

I've only been here for five years, so I appreciate what you're doing there.

I did have one question for you, Paige, around the years that the spent in development and your five-year refresh plan.

Could you speak on whether that begins right away or if that is something that at five years we then reinitiate?

Sure.

A good question.

Um, if you could think about the process of plan COS.

Um we are attempting also to do a refresh and address some of the things in plan COS that maybe are now accomplished and there are new goals.

Um, as much as we would like it to be five years, you know, give or take.

How about that?

You know, there's an error, uh margin of error there or something.

So um, but it will be done because uh development is happening quickly.

Um, all of the development we saw on the development tracker map is um still ongoing, and these are large projects.

We're seeing a lot of um movement in Bradley Heights, so that would be Benning Lewis Ranch South.

And we haven't really seen a ton of commercial over there yet.

It could be happening.

I'm not, I'd have to look at the concept plan, but a lot of that traffic will probably go through and over to the southeast.

So a lot of we we really see that this area is growing.

However, we also want to preserve affordable housing that's naturally occurring in the area.

Um, and those are just you know existing homes that um and it and it is a very diverse community, has diverse housing options, and we didn't always see that.

And uh across the city, you know, we need to measure also commercial um vacancy rates.

So uh those indicators are important, those will be developed.

I'm uh I'm predicting forecasting in the next year, and the action planning, and then um that five-year refresh, you know, we'll be looking at 2031.

Sounds a little bit futuristic, but um, we'll be there before we know it.

Any anything else you want me to elaborate on?

Let me know.

You just so your updates will stay aligned, then I think what you're saying is with plan COS, NXCOS and other city plans in the U.S.

Yes, absolutely.

It it aligns with um it's part of this plan COS um uh six um uh most important things that to accomplish was a neighborhood planning program, and we've uh accomplished all of those six now um it because of this neighborhood planning program.

Part of that was the update to the UDC.

Um so now we need to refresh.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, any other commissioners have any questions or comments?

Uh I'll I mean I'll say one.

I think the amount of work that's gone into this is tremendous.

I think it sets the stage for all the other plans to come and it sets a very high bar.

I also think it's a very beautiful plan to look through.

It's colorful and vibrant and informative, which I think also reflects the Southeast.

So I just can't commend you all enough.

I think it's tremendous, and I think it's very actionable.

I think so often we've done done plans in this community that seem very um informative but not very actionable, and I think this one is very actionable.

And I think you have a community that's um that's uh very active.

So I think this is a great plan.

Thanks for all your work.

Yeah, it is the grassroots community-led nonprofits that are really doing the work in the community, and they're making the big difference.

So we hope to support them.

Commissioner Case.

Thank you guys for all your work on this, and I just want to let you know that I look forward to all the success stories.

So thank you.

Uh Commissioner Slatery.

Thank you.

Uh just echoing some of my fellow commissioner sentiments.

Uh great work on this.

Um wonderful to see uh voices come together and elevate in a way that is uh authentic and tangible uh to be able to move forward with because it's it's hard to get somewhere if you don't know where you're going.

And so hopefully this is a great framework to implement.

Um see um, you know, many tangible things come to fruition.

So thank you for all your efforts.

Commissioner Robins.

I just want to say thank you for your not echo everyone else's response.

I think it's amazing to me how you guys can sit there and analyze and take the time to put all this together.

It's pretty amazing.

I was just reading it uh, you know, yesterday and today.

Wow.

So thank you for all that you do.

Appreciate it.

And Chair Casey for my comments is just uh you know concur with all my uh the other commissioners' other comments as well.

I think it's well done, very comprehensive.

Um just you know a great product, particularly all the stakeholders that are involved.

I know having worked on group projects with number stakeholders, it's difficult to get you know one final product together.

So congratulations on doing that.

Thank you.

If there are no other uh commissioner comments, then we can move to motions.

I was gonna say maybe the reading time, but go ahead.

Well um for item 8C, the Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan.

I would make a motion to approve two recommend approval to City Council, the Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan prepared by the city and at the direction of Plan COS I will second that and will Commissioner Gigiano uh be voice vote.

Yes, uh I say aye.

Commissioner Cecil, how do you vote?

Thank you.

And Commissioner Willoughby, how do you vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, and with that, uh