Good morning.

The Colorado Springs Planning Commission public hearing for February 11th, 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 assesses all the information and evidence 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 the final decision authority, and for others, the planning commission is a recommendation body to the city council.

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

Understand that others may have different views from your own.

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

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

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

Public comment will 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 comments brief and focused on the issues at hand.

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

Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period of 10 minutes to respond and address any comments.

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

Please call to order or please read the roll call.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Chair Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Clemens.

Here.

Commissioner Didiano.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda or postponements?

None.

Okay, move on to communications.

I do not have anything.

I'll turn it over to Mr.

Walker, the city planning director.

Several quick items.

Thank you.

Kevin Walker, uh, City Planning Director.

Uh first, uh, wanted to note for those in the audience that there has been some changes to the uh park rezonings, the PK rezonings.

We are not hearing today.

Fishers Canyon, uh, the Stratton Meadows and Ute Valley Park rezoning.

So if anybody's here to speak for those, they will be postponed um to various different dates.

So check with us in terms of when they might be heard.

Uh second, the city council heard yesterday uh the uh Mormon um uh church steeple um appeal uh after several hours of testimony, they voted eight to nothing to um approve the development plan and without your conditions and um um so they will be moving forward um with basically the plan that we approved.

Uh the development plan that was approved.

Um let's see what else.

Could you clarify real quick again on which one?

So there's some of the uh rezons for the parks are not going to be heard today that are on the consent calendar.

No, different ones.

I don't think I think they're not on the consent calendar.

They yeah, they were removed from the agenda.

Okay, just want to make sure I we'd had several communications with folks that said they were coming and we were trying to make sure that we didn't um we we got that word out.

Thank you.

Um a couple other things.

Uh we are working on the meeting with um city council.

Uh they're working on March and April dates right now as we speak, so we will keep you in touch with that.

So that will be a joint meeting of the planning commission city council, probably scheduled for a two-hour um session.

And then the second and the last item I have is uh we do have on our work session uh for March, uh the spacious skies uh presentation.

If anybody has any other ideas or things that you might out of curiosity want to put on the April andor future uh uh work session uh planning commission items, just let me know, and we can go to work on any of those.

Kevin, when are we gonna see the downtown master plan?

The downtown master plan.

I think we talked about that this morning.

Um it's likely to come in April.

Okay, so maybe in the same time frame as spacious guys ish.

Uh well, spacious guys is an informal presentation.

Uh the downtown plan, you will see you will see uh formally that's going to DRB in March and then planning commission in April.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's that's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay, moving 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.

Pardon me, Chair Casey?

Yes.

Can we uh vote on the minutes?

Oh, yep, I'm sorry.

From last meeting, thank you.

Just to follow the agenda.

Thank you.

I missed that.

All right.

Uh yes, okay.

So now we'll look move to consideration of the minutes from the January 14, 20 uh 26 planning commission meeting.

Does anybody have any comment on those?

Or if not, could I get a motion to approve?

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, I'm gonna abstain from voting as I was absent for more of the meeting than I was present.

Motion to approve the minutes from January 14th, 2026.

I can second that.

Uh oh.

Never mind, Brian did.

I'll second it.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

That's pretty good.

Commissioner's lighter, how do you vote?

Vote aye.

Thank you.

Yep.

Motion passes with eight um members in favor and one abstained.

Okay.

Now we'll move on to the consent calendar.

So let me reiterate that.

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

So basically, city staff, commissioners, members of the public can pull items off the consent calendar if they want to have a full hearing on there.

If no one pulls them off the consent calendar, we'll vote on them as a whole without any further public hearing.

So with that, Solange, can you read the items on the consent calendar?

Item 5A, Z-O-N-E-25-0010, 6473, Vincent Drive rezone.

Item 5B, Z O N E 25-0032, Cumbre Vista Park.

Item 5C, Z O N E 25-0033, Greyhawk Park.

Item 5D, SUBD-25-0132.

US 24 SH21 Street name change.

Item 5E, C U D P 25-0033, Moxie Suites.

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

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

And are there any members of the public that would like to pull an item off the consent calendar for a full hearing?

Okay, seeing your hearing none.

Can I get a motion to accept the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar as read into the record.

I'll second that.

Okay, we'll move on to the first item on the uh new business 526 Brady Road Garage Edition.

Uh could you please read that item into the record?

Item 8A, N V A R 25-0014.

Uh located at 5226 Brady Road.

Your presenter is Matthew Ambu.

Yep, absolutely.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Matthew Ambul.

I'm a planner two for the City of Carter Springs Planning Department.

Today we have the non-use variants for garage addition.

All right.

This property here is located at 526 Brady Road, just southwest of Powers Boulevard and Constitution Avenue.

The current zoning here is a residential estate with an airport overlay.

This is zoned on my one acre site here for a detached garage in Council District 5.

This project here is to construct really a 2,560 square foot detached garage.

This one here will also be adding garage space to the house, uh the primary structure as well, which will bring the total garage space to 3,296 square feet.

As we can see from the site plan, the elevation drawings here.

It shows the location there on the southern portion of the property there, meeting the setback requirements as well as the easements with the elevation drawings on the right hand side there for you.

Next slide, please.

Have been approved in this area at several different locations.

Here are just a few of the areas that I've highlighted there, which have had non-use variances approved in the past.

One of which most of these actually were approved prior to the UDC adoption, so they're just done by planners there.

There is one recently done in 2024, the 5202 rucking R Drive, which was approved by the commission here for a non-use variance for a detached garage and total garage space.

There are actual several other properties to the southwest there as well that have had non-use variances approved for detached structures larger in size, and several ones that have not been approved and don't should even show on El Paso County Assessors records.

Next slide, please.

So this one here it has an existing garage of 460 square feet.

There is a permit that was approved to add an addition to the existing garage for 276 additional square feet.

And then the detached garage will be 2,560 square feet.

Like I said before, the total square footage bringing that up to 3,296 square feet.

This will also require an administrative adjustment as well to get that height there because the allowed uh height for the structure there is actually 16 feet with a roof pitch of less than 6 and 12.

Um, I have put up the uh code requirements there for detached garages there as well, as you can see there, the maximum of 1,650 square feet, and the maximum height there of the 16 feet.

Next slide, please.

Uh the timeline of review here, the initial submittal date was September 11th of 2025.

Um, this has had three review cycles so far with a fourth one that will be needed here to add some information.

Um, and on the items was ready for agenda on January 14th.

Next slide, please.

Um, this for stakeholder involvement here, we've actually had two uh public postings here, one prior to the internal review, and then one prior to the city planning commission hearing.

Uh the postcard radius was thousand feet.

We've done 146 postcards two times, as well as two posters on the properties twice as well.

Um, there's actually this one from the comments that I just gave to you this morning.

We've had a few additional ones, so now we've up to 30 comments received.

We have uh 15 uh that's actually opposed to it there.

Their concerns being that it is a too big of a structure, too close to the beginning of the neighborhood there, doesn't meet architectural compatibility standards for the neighborhood, is fears of also being used as a commercial property.

Um, there's also 13 now in support for the property or for the structure, and then two just being general inquiries on kind of what's going on there.

Next slide, please.

Uh, for the agency review, traffic did review the application, had no comments, engineering had no comments, airport all comments were addressed.

Same as fire and utilities.

Uh for the stormwater, there a final drainers letter will actually be required prior to building permit approval, and that'll have to be looked at uh by the stormwater enterprise, um, as well as updating the FEMA firm map information on the site plan prior to approval.

Next slide.

Um, this project does actually comply with plan COS.

Next slide.

And then the here's the application review criteria here.

After evaluation of the non-use variants, at this time it is unclear if the application meets the review criteria.

Next slide.

And then here are your optional motions here.

For the options to approve there, there's actually three items there.

The one prior to building a permanent approvements, the final drainage letter needs to be reviewed and approved by the city of Stormwater Enterprise.

Prior to the building permit issuance, also an administrative adjustment will have to be submitted and approved by city staff for the additional height of two foot two feet and four inches.

And any questions so far regarding this non-use variance.

I do have some questions, but I'll wait till after the applicant.

Now if there are any questions from the commissioners, uh brief questions, and we'll move on to the applicant.

Yes, I can.

Hi, my name is Scott Schwartz.

Um I'm the owner of 5226 Brady Road.

I'm asking for a variance for a detached garage to be built.

That'll be a total of 2560 square feet.

Is has well, let me just go through this here.

Next slide, please.

Um personal equipment, um, boats, cars, and so forth.

Um I understand it exceeds the fifteen hundred or sixteen hundred and fifty square foot maximum under code uh seven point three point three zero four C1A.

Property has in the process of having a total of seven hundred and thirty-six square foot of attached garage, which is included in the thirty two hundred and ninety-six square feet of the uh for the total.

Next slide.

Property site is forty-three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet, which is one acre.

Um that is the same as all the other properties in the surrounding area.

And again, the lot coverage on that, the maximum allowed is 30 percent.

Current usage right now at eight percent.

When the addition is done, then it'll be um twelve point four percent.

And I think we're fully compliant with the uh residential estate zoning requirements, and the structure heights will be eighteen point four feet where the detached garage is.

The house sits approximately four feet above that, so the roof line of the house and the detached garage will be four feet lower at the detached garage level.

The extraordinary and exceptional physical conditions.

The area, Rustic Hills, uh Improvement Association, acres there includes many properties with the oversized garages.

The uh DRE, the city planning commission, um again, many of the neighbors have similar size garages.

Uh the neighborhood has established the pattern of of support for these structures, and has been approved by the uh Rustic Hills Improvement Association time and time again.

Property use um will be in again for indoor storage of personal equipment, trailer, truck, uminate the visa visibility outside with trucks, uh you know, trucks or camper or whatever sitting outside to make it more appealing to the neighbors.

Um supports the best use of the property without undermining the city guidelines.

No adverse impact or to to the surrounding or on the surrounding properties.

The variance will not negative impact the properties uh next to or down the street, uh the property owner, the public welfare.

Um expected benefits include enhancing the bare lot with a clean landscape, groomed appearance, elevate elevating the visible appeal of the neighborhood, the structural design will match the uh existing house, which is lap siding, asphalt shingle, um, painted earth colors.

Um they will not visibly demonate uh demist dominate or distract from the neighborhood natural screening.

Um the whole the whole one-acre property has between 50 and 70 foot trees that line the whole uh exterior portion of the property, so most people won't even see the the garage.

There you go.

This here is a picture of the property.

Um you can see the house in the front there, and then the the red box represents uh the proximity of of where the garage will be built.

Um it is well within the um limits of uh the setbacks, uh, front and back side, uh, and so forth.

As you can see, even the the neighbor behind there has a pretty good shop garage that is right there.

Uh the neighbor behind me to the to the west there uh can't see the garage.

Um most people cannot see it because of the vegetation and the trees and so forth that are on there.

Um again that property will be used for uh uh housing.

I got teenage kids, they're gonna be getting their cars here pretty soon.

There's that'll be four of them, so I'd like to put them in so they're not sitting all over the house uh driveway and stuff to where it looks uh terrible.

Um, you know, to put my boat away.

I am retired.

I'm a I'm a disabled vet, and uh I would appreciate your vote uh to approve this.

Anyone have any questions?

Again, I'm I think we'll have questions for you here, but I'd like to go through public comment first, and we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody sign up for public comment in support of the application?

We do our first speaker, David Moore.

Morning.

My name is Dave Murr.

Highlight on Rocking Archive.

How are they going rocking our drives just uh we're Scott's going to build a new want to build a new building?

These are one acre properties in this area.

Um people move in there mainly to enjoy the area if they want to shop for their horses or their toys, whatever.

The covenants in this area is written in 1963, 53 years ago.

Yeah.

Architectural control committee is nothing but volunteers.

So this almost breaks it down to this person is being collectly picked on because other a lot of other buildings have been built in the area, and some are actually approved or illegal to the property lines, and they just wants to build a building is like you said, it's in compliance with setbacks and all that.

Uh the some of the areas behind him, the yards are so full of junk.

I wish everybody would build a garage this size and get the junk out of the backyard because the covenants in the area really doesn't exist, and they don't enforce any of this.

So the large properties for these building that he showed where the trees and everything were kind of the building really won't show up.

But my opinion, I spent four years on the board, and my opinion in he's being personally picked on, just on other people.

There's a lot of buildings in there that have been approved with nothing with no problem.

And some of them have been approved.

But the setbacks regional is saying that the setbacks on one acre properties are approving them at 15 feet.

What's actually zoning in a covenants are saying 35 feet?

And so I just kind of the like to the architectural control.

There is no guidelines on architectural control.

So really people have absolutely nothing to go by other than an opinion of a few people like to whether they like you or not.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Scott Schwartz.

Oh, okay.

That was the applicant, sorry.

Oh our next speaker, Bill Brown.

Morning.

Good morning.

My name is Bill Brown.

We live a 5215 Brady, about three houses south of Scott's new property.

My house was built in 2005.

House is in excess of 3,000 feet, which exceeds whatever the rules were at that time.

They have a large oversized three-car garage on the house, which is approved back then, and about a 2,000 foot barn.

And I don't have all the blessing of trees around mine, like he has, and nobody's ever fussed about it.

I personally think with all the exceptions that have been allowed, because our neighborhood is so large, and properties are so large, and he's so isolated, he should be approved.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else in the audience to speak in support of this item, please come to the podium.

See no one, we have one speaker.

Um, sorry.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this item, please unmute your c um sorry, unmute yourselves pressing star six.

There's nobody online.

We have one speaker registered to speak in opposition, John Newman.

Um, want to make it clear there's no personal animus towards Mr.

Please go ahead and introduce yourself.

I just met him a few minutes ago.

Please go ahead and introduce yourself first.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm John Newman.

I reside at 1916 Patent Circle.

I live about a mile from uh Mr.

Schwartz's property.

I just met him moments ago for the meeting, and he seems like a nice enough guy.

My purpose today is to remind you all that both the architectural committee and the board of our HOA or RHIA, that's what it's called, uh voted against this variance.

And bottom line is every variance that is granted becomes the next step for the next variance.

We've looked at it.

Uh property was built from me across the street two years ago, last one on the pro in the uh complex, and ended up with seven garages, and those variances were finally granted.

So everything becomes the stepping stone to the next building project, the next height increase or uh size.

And that's what I wanted to remind you all, which I'm sure you're aware of.

It's just that uh we did collectively have a vote and voted against this.

So I'm hoping that'll carry some weight.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Yes, my name is Gordon Stegner.

Um, I'm chair of the architectural uh committee for the subdivision.

Uh I live at 1911 patent circle.

Um, while this uh variance uh has a precedent relative to uh other structures that have been built within the neighborhood, it is as the previous speaker spoke, creates a stepping stone and a precedence for the next time.

We feel based on the uh overall size of the house being kind of like a 10-pound um garage on a five-pound lot, that it is not uh justified.

Granted, he has a lot of uh personal possessions and so on that he's trying to uh store.

We just feel like in general terms for the neighborhood's benefit, we need to limit this scratch.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition?

See none going online.

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

Press star six now.

There's no one online.

Okay, at this point, we'll move to uh the applicant response rebuttal.

You'll have 10 minutes to respond to any of the comments that were made today.

Is that uh I've lived in that association for approximately 25 years, and it's a nice neighborhood, and it is I used to belong to the architectural control committee as well.

Um dealing with the size of barns and so forth.

Um it comes down to the president uh more so than anything.

Um but they have approved uh these structures, and I don't know for whatever reason that they chose to uh deny mine.

I don't know.

Um, but it's a history that they've been doing it for uh 20, 30 years, and uh that's all I really have to say.

Great, thank you.

Okay, at this point we'll close public comments and we'll move up to uh questions from the dais uh for the applicant or the city staff.

Commissioner Slattery.

Thank you, Chair Casey.

Uh Mr.

Schwartz, so on the site plan, um I don't I see the two I see the attached garage and existing driveway.

Looks like there's a curb cut on the other side.

How what is the proposed access to the new garage?

Is it around the back of the house?

Is it off Brady or what how does that work?

It'll be off of Brady.

Um the road would be um not concrete, it'll it'll be just uh um natural.

And uh that's how I propose to have that.

It'd be on on the it'd be on the west side of Brady, which the house is as well.

So if you see, I can't see the picture, but it on the on the it'd be the uh south side of the driveway there.

Yeah, where the where the south side of the driveway is there, it'll actually there's an opening between those uh in the right in the middle there.

There's an opening uh that was cut out of the trees to to uh be able to access the property from that side.

So a gravel type of thing from that.

Um guesses there's not a curb, but for lack of a better term, curb cut access to the colour.

Yeah, there's no no curb cut, no uh um sidewalk required, no nothing on that.

But it's utilizing an existing access point, I guess is my okay.

There is also uh an access point further to the south there, as you can see that fence along there.

There is a uh what what the association calls the bridal path.

There's an access there that's 20 feet uh wide there as well that goes all the way down uh through that uh to the west there, it goes all the way down through there.

Okay, uh right at the pro at the southern border of the property line as well.

Right, the southern yes, that's correct.

So that could be utilized as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think that that was my only question, right?

Uh Commissioner Willoughby.

Thank you, Terry Casey.

Um, I was just wondering, can you speak just a minute about how you determine the square footage and specifically the height of is there a camera that you have that's dictating that this garage is 18 foot four?

Or did you just decide 18 foot four seemed like a good height?

Can you just talk a little bit about that?

Well, it's it's based upon whatever the height of the wall is for the the trusses.

We can't really um I guess we could make them, but uh to make a 412 pitch, which I do believe is the minimum um pitch on a roof, you gotta have certain height on on the pitch.

And and the so the ridge will be um right at 18, give or take a couple inches.

Okay, so you just have normal size garage door or eight foot or nine foot garage doors going into it.

Uh that'll actually have a uh um I do believe it's a nine or ten foot.

And and then again that garage height on the peak of that um house or on the on the detach garage, the house sits four feet above that, so it won't be no higher than the house itself.

Uh thank you.

Commissioner Robinson just got a quick question.

I forgot how many uh variances were already allowed in in their neighborhood that people have built larger than the HOA required.

Um they have approved approved.

Let me see here.

Okay.

Guy behind you just mentioned 12.

There was there was a minimum, you know.

I walk down the street.

If you if you go out the the front entrance there and go on the road of rocking R, between rocking R and Constitution, if you walk a half a block up, there's at least 12.

Okay.

There's a lot of them.

It's probably a more appropriate question for a city planner if you want to go ahead and speak to that.

Matthew Ambul Planner 2.

Um, so with the non-use variances there, there are actually multiple on Brady Road.

Um, will you be able to bring up that my PowerPoint presentation?

So it's the non-use variances.

I think it's on page three or four.

So just on this um snap alone there, you can see there's a couple off of Constitution Avenue.

So there's two that were approved there, the two um actually right on Brady Road there, two on the north side.

Uh one was done, like I said, on 2024.

And then there's a couple down on the southwest there as well that's actually cut out, which I didn't have enough room for on this slide.

But there are several more to the southwest there as well that have non-use variances, and those were mostly approved prior to the UDC adoption.

Um, with that, too.

Um, there's been also several other structures that have not had non-use variances, like I stated, that's are bigger in size there as well, and actually do not even show up on El Paso County Assessors Records.

Okay.

So there are, I don't have a total number for you, but there are multiple up there.

I got a good picture of that.

So appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Um the other question I would have is um since there's an architectural control committee and the HOA, I'm just wondering why they haven't bothered to enforce um keeping the lots cleaned up like you had mentioned, where you have neighbors um with stuff everywhere instead of confining them so that it's not visible and not really rooting value of uh of the area.

Um seems like the HOA needs a little bit of an update, perhaps, or need some strength uh put into the architectural control committee.

Um what I can see is that just based on what I do, and someone else here and on this committee is uh what you're proposing would add value to the property, and everyone else that has built an oversized or an additional building, uh that adds value.

Uh something that's not accessible in a lot of the city.

So anyway, at this point, that's that's all I've got.

Thank you.

And I did want to make a quick comment to the representatives from the HOA that attended that our purview is the planning commission is required to be based on the UDC.

And that's our criteria that we have to evaluate against.

So for this non-use variance.

Um we have to look at these specific findings, especially related to the extraordinary or exceptional physical condition of the property, which are I think at this point, um, really kind of ambiguous to have been demonstrated.

So I wanted to take the moment to ask the staff a question about some of these standards.

I was looking at the use table for residential estate.

And I found lower down, you mentioned a few other properties have stables so that stables is an allowed accessory use.

It does a similar thing, but for animals, not cars in terms of providing cover, but it didn't seem to have any limitations on size in the standards.

Am I reading the UDC accurately?

So with that there for accessory structures, I mean it's typically based on habitable space.

Um, you still cannot exceed um the lot coverage there, and so with a lot coverage for this area is actually 30 percent.

So with this one there, like Scott stated is 12.4%.

So he's still well below with that one there.

But yeah, the stables and all that would still have to adhere to the overall lock coverage of the residential estate zone district.

But a stable of the same size and scale would would that require a variance?

So with that, um, they'd have to do the um the same height there as well, but actually for uh space there would not require the same standards.

So I find that so that's where I'm of two minds about this.

Like I don't feel like I'm hearing the extraordinary unique lot conditions that are preventing the use otherwise.

I get the precedent setting, but that's not one of our standards.

The that it's been done before.

If we could put up uh slide number 10 for the uh the staff presentation that has that criteria on there, right?

That'd be helpful too.

Um, but the part of this that is flummoxing me is if something else is allowed, the the only difference is a potentially more disruptive use with more traffic and potential negative externalities like noise or smell or things, then why would the garage not be allowed by the code?

And that's that just for other commissioners is where I'm hung up.

Um, because I don't right now see that exceptional or extraordinary characteristic that makes this lot you know, otherwise unusable, where this variance is appropriate the way that I'm looked used to looking at it.

Commissioner Slatery.

Thank you.

Um Matt, can you talk about you mentioned a couple times on how some of the other approvals were pre uh chapter seven rewrite with the UDC?

Can you explain what changed um within this area specifically in regards to this non-use variants?

Absolutely.

So with the chapter seven, um, they had the requirement there for garage doors, maximum garage doors um with the UDC that was taken out there, and then prior to uh UDC there, they also did have a in the code.

If you did restrict access, basically to the building there as well for a vehicle, then that area that you're restricting the access to would then not be considered um garage space.

So now with the UDC adoption, that was actually removed, and so even if there's a wall in there or there's some sort of restriction to the rest of it, um, then that whole space still has to be considered garage space.

So I mean I was having a little bit of trouble following you.

So the tell us about the garage door height.

That was the first thing you said.

Yes.

So the maximum garage doors was four back with chapter seven.

With number of garage doors.

It was a maximum of four.

Okay.

And now there is no maximum.

Now there's no maximum for garage doors, and it's just one thousand six hundred and fifty square feet with the two heights there for sixteen feet if it's less than six twelve.

And if it's more than six twelve, it is 20 feet in height.

If the garage square footage is more than six twelve.

For the garage overall garage height.

Commissioner Slaty Slattery, maybe I can try to clarify there.

So under old chapter seven, certainly as Matthew is trying to explain, uh, we had a variety of different dimensional standards that apply to detached garages or garages in general.

Umted the there was a limitation on the number of garage doors that was removed under the UDC.

We had a limitation on size.

In that limitation under old chapter seven, it set uh a maximum size for the garage space, but also then a maximum side for storage areas.

So we had this internal bifurcation where the storage area could not be occupied, quote unquote, by a vehicle.

So we had walls put up, we had larger curbs that were put in, ballards put inside structures.

Um, but through the the codification of the UDC, that kind of nuanced bifurcation of internal programming within the garage space was removed, and the size maximum was increased uh under the UDC.

So those are the big changes that that occurred.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

Okay, my questions are gonna be for uh the city for Matthew.

Um so in the slide that we have up right now, we have the four criteria.

I want to bring everybody back to the criteria for approval for a non-use variance, and based on the staff's evaluation, uh it says after evaluation, it's unclear if the application removed um meets the review criteria, which is um not particularly helpful.

So I go back to your staff report, and I find for uh criteria number one that says city planning staff finds this non-use variants application does not meet the specific use criteria as proposed and cannot comply with the use specific standards for number two.

Uh it says after evaluation and non-use variants, city plans have questions whether it's review criteria is met, and it says this is not representing an extraordinary exceptional condition for varying from citywide dimensional standards for new building, which I think gets to Commissioner Cecil's question.

And number three, we have city planning staff questions whether this review criteria is met, and then four after evaluation and non-use variants, city plan staff finds it unclear if the application meets this review criteria, which is a criteria about having an adverse impacts, and I think we have probably 50-50 as far as public comments of whether there's an adverse impact or not, and then uh taking into account um the architectural committee from those homeowners association's view on that.

Um can you help us explain any of these any more than those?

It sounds like you're saying, you know, based on previous staff reports are usually pretty clear whether whether this one's a little fuzzy for us on it's unclear if it meets the uh review criteria.

So can you elaborate more on that or call out anything from your staff report?

Yeah, so with that one there, so the standards there, why I'm saying number one it doesn't meet is because it does exceed the guidelines there for what is uh 1,650 square feet, also does exceed the building height for that as well.

With the exceptional conditions to the property, I mean it is larger in size.

There is a lot of screening, natural screening throughout the property there as well.

Um it's just kind of unclear at this point.

Like, is this meeting all of our uh criteria 100%?

Um it's you know, it's about the criteria that we wouldn't need a non-use variance, right?

I mean, that's kind of a okay.

So let's go then.

Let's go to the second one.

What are the extraordinary and exceptional physical conditions that do not generally exist, or are there any extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions?

So with that, this is a larger lot size, so it is one acre.

I mean, there are other one-acre lots in the neighborhood there as well, but comparatively to Colorado Springs, I mean it is quite a bit bigger in size, and then it does have the natural screening, it does have the open space there as well, enough room, has lock coverage, all that as well.

So I mean, I can fit a uh building this size there, uh, but it's uh just a little bit unclear on that one.

Okay, number three, basically, if the if we're not gonna um is there a reasonable use of the property would not be allowed if it's the current zone is left in place and not absence of relief or absence of approval of the non-use variants.

Yep, so as stated there, um it'll be useful just for the storage of the vehicles, personal things like that to kind of clean up the area there as well.

I mean, I think it will be a beneficial use there for the applicant there too.

So it's um just for that use, it's kind of once again I question it.

So okay.

Any other commissioners have additional comments or questions?

I have a quick one for the law department regarding the criteria um and whether they are additive criteria, which was my instinct in reading them.

Do they all have to be met or any have to be met?

Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

Um it's interesting because I will need to look at the code to see if it's a conjunctive or disjunctive um set of criteria.

So if I could just have a moment, I'd like to take a look at the actual code section.

Okay, while she's doing that, does anybody else have any other questions?

Uh Commissioner Slaughtery.

Hello.

Um Yeah, so as I'm looking at this individual application, um and seeing the area and understanding compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Um, you know, um on the satellite view of Rustic Hills, one acre lots, RE, which is I I don't know what five percent of the city.

Do we have a stat on how much of the city is zoned?

RE.

I mean, looking at Springsview map, it's it's very few.

So, you know, in terms of um an extraordinary circumstance, I see this um I don't know, little country oasis within the middle of the city to be uh pretty extraordinary when I look at the rest of Colorado Springs.

Um I think that while the garage seems big to me, and it seems big to the code, um having an under 13% lot coverage where 30 is allowed, you know, you could just build more house and more house, but um it seems like given the total lot coverage is so minimal, um and compatibility with this, you know, outbuilding, whether you want to, you know, it's called a garage or it's called something else amongst uh some of the neighbors, it seems like um it would meet the criteria, in my opinion, on um being compatible and being allowed with the neighborhood.

So I I would be in favor of the non-use variance for those reasons.

Commissioner Hensler.

Yeah, I agree, and I I think as I look at this criteria for approval and kind of the I would say ambiguous um comments from staff, is I take the ambiguity in the sense that um it we probably don't even need to be here in some ways, right?

Like we're below the 30%, you're within the setbacks.

If you were building another livable structure, if you were building a horse barn, all of those criteria would make this administratively approved.

And so it it feels like we're just in this really narrow gray area.

And so for that reason, I find the ambiguity to be actually indicative of meeting the approval.

Um, because we're so close to approval that we shouldn't even uh maybe be needing this type of hearing.

But since we are having this hearing, I think looking through the neighborhood, having been in that neighborhood, having a friend that lives there, um, and like Andrea said, a country oasis in the city with a lot of outbuildings as I look around.

And sure, the HOA or HIA um maybe wants to start to create some more precedence going back to the 1960s rules, but it might be time to set new precedents moving forward.

And I don't find that Mr.

Swartz plan is anywhere outside of the precedence and the character and consistency of the neighborhood.

So I too am in favor of um of approving of this variance.

So thank you.

Commissioner Robbins.

Well, I don't intend to obloviate any more.

Um I do agree with these two uh the past two comments, and I uh I too agree uh that we should uh I approve of the non-use variants on this as long as there's no commercial use involved uh whatsoever.

I remember the uh well, I have a come from a large family.

We had seven or eight vehicles outside our house parked in the streets, and I know the neighborhood didn't care for that, but there were 10 of us kids.

We had seven or eight vehicles outside our house parked in the streets, and I know the neighborhood didn't care for that, but there were 10 of us kids, so um, I see that the use for that uh is very large, and it helps it helps keep the place in order, which is something the committee and the HOA should probably do to enforce uh other properties in the area that um don't seem to care about values and trash out their units.

So I will approve this.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

I just wanted to confirm they are additive criteria, so they all have to be met.

Thank you, Sarah.

Um so it is not really so much with the spirit of the code, but more with the technicality of the code that I'm gonna need to vote against this because I do not feel that it complies with the use specific standards if these are additive criteria.

We're still asking for additional changes.

I don't believe we've demonstrated the extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions.

I don't believe that the reasonable use of the property is interfered with.

However, I do believe that this would have no adverse impact on the neighbors, and so it is an unfortunate technicality that I will be voting against this.

Uh Commissioner Hensler.

I guess I'm still signed up to speak.

So I think, but taking uh city attorney's comments and yours, Jen, I look at this differently, that it does comply and that there are extraordinary because I don't have a one-acre lot.

I think that's extraordinary.

Um, and the physical condition um I think will not allow reasonable use.

And then the granting, so I guess for two of the four criteria at the very least, I see very clearly granting will not have adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

I absolutely agree it will not have an adverse impact because all the surrounding properties are very similar.

So I think I look at this um in from maybe the different side of the lens, um, and that's why we have nine people up here.

Um I think that there are extraordinary and no adverse impacts.

Um, and this property is a physical condition that um is unique.

So that's my maybe commentary on that.

Uh Chair Casey, uh I also am in agreement with Commissioner Cecil, but what I focus on really is number four, the granting of the non-use variants will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.

At least 50%, if not more, the public comment does say it'll have an adverse impact.

And really, the organization that exists to make sure that things don't have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties is the architectural uh review committee of the rustic hills improvement association.

And they have said that they don't support it.

Now I granted there are other other variants before, so I would encourage the applicant to work with the with the um rustic hills improvement association, so they do support it.

If apparently they supported stuff in the past, uh to me, if we saw this again in the Rustic Hills Association and public comment was in favor, I would I would be in favor of it, you know, even with the issues with uh criteria number one through three.

But to me to say that doesn't have an adverse impact when you have the organization that that's responsible for determining whether things have an adverse impact uh is not in support, then I can't be in support, and I will not be voting in favor of the application.

Are there any other commissioners that wish to make uh comments?

And if not, now we'll move to have a motion.

Yeah.

Do any other uh other commissioners that haven't spoken up?

Do you have uh comments, support favor or not in favor?

Hopes to know which direction the motion should go.

Dave, you're gonna make a motion.

Yep.

I'd like to make a motion to approve um recommend approval of two city council, a zone changes.

I think eight A is here.

Let me try that again.

Sorry, guys.

All right.

All right, this is going to be the um motion to approve for the 5226 Brady Road Garage Edition.

Uh approve the non-use variants to City Unified Development Code Section 7.3.304.

C is in Charlie point one point or Aloy allowing 3,296 square feet of garage space based upon the findings that the request complies with their criteria as set forth in a city unified development code section 75526.e, with the following conditions of approval.

Let's start again.

We'll be covering the next big landings, business park.

If you could please read it into the record.

Excuse me, just a second.

We're having technical difficulties.

From mixed use medium scale with conditions of record, general industrial with conditions of record.

Two plan development zone with airport overlay and accidental accident potential zone, excuse me.

And item eight Cam 8C L UPL-25-0011.

Establishment of the land is landing business park land use plan for proposed use types classified as residential, civic, public, institutional, commercial, industrial, civic accessory, and temporary and consisting of 319.9 acres located west of Mark Sheffield Road, north of Drana Road, and southeast of Peterson Space Forest Base.

Your presenter is Drew Fox.

And chair Casey, just before we get going with this, I do want to just disclose that I am involved in a neighboring property, but that will not impact my vote with this.

Thank you.

Today we will be discussing the landings business park.

This is uh for a zoning map amendment application and a land use plan application associated with 319.9 acres located southeast of Peterson Space Force Base, uh between Colorado Springs Airport and Mark Shuffle Road and north of Drennan Road.

Uh currently the site consists of seven parcels.

Um three northern parcels are directly adjacent to uh east of the base.

The remaining four parcels are between the Colorado Springs Airport property and Mark Shuffle Road.

Site area consists of several zone districts uh to include mixed use medium, general industrial, business park, and airport plan development.

The mixed use medium, general industrial, and business park all have conditions of record associated with them.

All parcels are subject to airport overlay, and the southwest corner of the site area is impacted by an accident potential subzone.

The application for the zoning amendment proposes a rezoned to the site area to plan development zone.

Uh they will be maintaining the airport overlay and the accident uh potential zone.

The associated uh oh sorry.

The associated land use plan application proposes internal public roadways, access points, a mix of general land use types, and a 5.28 acre park site.

Uh the residential land use component is located on the north portion of the site, consisting of 66.29 acres.

The commercial land use type is central to the site and uh consists of 62.21 acres and the industrial land use type uh being proposed located on the southern portion, consisting of 168.24 acres.

Residential portion shall be limited to 924 units with a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre.

Uh however, individual developments that come through for this site area pertaining to residential land uses are subject to uh a maximum 30 dwelling units per acre.

The maximum height for this portion of the site uh will be limited to 50 feet, and the commercial industrial portions of the site will be limited to 2.5 million square feet uh um floor area in total with a maximum height of 80 feet.

These applications were submitted on June 17th, involving five review cycles through um through through the administrative review process.

The application was determined to be ready for the city planning commission hearing on January 15th.

I think I skipped a slide, sorry.

There you go.

Public notice for these applications was issued at the beginning of the administrative review process and again prior to this planning commission hearing to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the site area.

Uh, this included four postcards and a poster place near the site adjacent to Mark Shuffle.

No comments supporting nor opposing the proposed applications were received by city planning staff.

Uh regarding agency commute uh agency review comments uh several internal and external agencies were included in the administrative review process.

Um the above were the more pertinent comments uh worth mentioning today.

City traffic engineering had reviewed and accepted a preliminary traffic study providing an estimated trip generations and traffic operations.

However, a full impact traffic study will be required at time of initial development.

In this uh traffic report at time of initial development, there will be uh additional details involving uh including uh the roadways internal to the site and access locations.

This application is located within and was reviewed by School District 3.

Uh, the district had determined that the site area is uh too close in proximity to the Colorado Springs Airport and therefore requests fees in lieu of land dedication.

Uh Ellicott uh school district is also uh consumes a small portion of the northern area of the site.

Um they did not comment on the project, but it is understood by city planning that they will be requesting fees in lieu of land dedication as well for the same reasons.

City parks and recreation had reviewed the proposed 5.28 acre park with consideration to the required parkland dedication um obligations.

The park uh land dedication ordinance requirements were brought before the parks advisory board on January 8th, and there were no concerns.

Uh the dedication is expected to meet a portion of the requirements based on the proposed residential uh densities with the remaining obligations to be paid by fees.

That parkland dedication uh obligations will be presented again for a second time at the Parks Advisory Board final acceptance tomorrow, February 12th.

City of Colorado Springs Airport provided one informational comment regarding acknowledgement uh by property owners within 0.7 miles of the airport that noise, lighting, and other activities associated with aircraft and the airport may be experienced.

The Peterson Space Force Base provided several review letters throughout the review process.

Uh city staff and the applicant had met with Peterson Space Force Base uh on multiple occasions.

These comments were addressed, and city staff is within the understanding that uh some of these comments remain.

Um we'll be discussing that on the next slide.

Uh above our Peterson Space Force Base's uh latest review comments.

Um, like I said, several letters were provided.

Uh, the latest letter um was asked to include all um present concerns, so these are being addressed here.

Uh, regarding the base security and operational security risks and frequency interference, uh, the applicant has included a one-quarter mile buffer to satisfy the base's concern for security assurance.

It also restricts uses such as electromagnetic technologies and allows a line of sight analysis to be conducted and requested uh at time of development plan review for any proposed projects within that buffer.

Uh you can see that buffer delineated um on the screen.

For concerns over traffic impact, uh, traffic impact analysis must be submitted with the development plan application for review and approved by city traffic engineering at time of initial development.

Uh Peterson Space Force Base will have the opportunity to evaluate this updated analysis during that process.

And additionally, the Colorado Department of Transportation uh will be reviewing each subdivision plat application that comes through for this site area to evaluate um whether or not improvements to mark shuffle um access points and roadways are necessary since they are involved in the mark shuffle.

Regarding potential drainage, pollution, and aviation hazards caused by wildlife, the base will have uh additional opportunities to review and evaluate proposed development through the development plan application review process.

Uh land use plan just as a reminder serves as a general conceptual framework.

Uh, while city planning staff recognizes Peterson's uh concerns regarding potential mission impacts and security, these issues can be further evaluated and addressed during site development at that stage.

Uh, all the factors that have been mentioned can be evaluated in greater detail.

Uh for the city's comprehensive plan, uh plan COS compliance.

The site is primarily uh subject to the goals and policies of the vibrant neighborhood framework.

Other frameworks do exist in close proximity to the site area, including unique places and thriving economies.

Um, these frameworks were uh closely analyzed in the staff report that was provided in the packet.

Um, but just to kind of hone in on the vibrant neighborhoods framework, uh, several goals and policies associated with it are supported.

Uh these future developments is a typology within that framework, and within this site are expected to provide integrated housing options, mixed-use development, um, neighborhood park, employment opportunities and opportunities that work in strong connection with the nearby Keystone institutions uh and future Banny Lewis Ranch.

Um, so these um these do identify that um they're supporting plan COS.

Furthermore, peak innovation parkway development has become a leading economic driver for the city, intended to consist of employment, retail, and recreational opportunities.

This in turn allows the site area to accomplish what Plan COS references as placemaking in this undeveloped area of the city and becomes a proponent to the peak innovation parkway.

These applications will ultimately lead to development ready sites for all types of end users and also support collaboration with Peterson to ensure that their missions are not impeded by future development.

The allowance for mixed use development will encourage strong connections and integration with both Peak Innovation Parkway and Peterson through employment opportunities, infrastructure development, and other collaborative development approaches.

City staff finds that the proposed rezone and the land use plan is compliant with cities plan COS comprehensive plan.

Above are the uh listed review criteria for the proposed zoning map amendment application.

Um of these are not applicable to the site area.

City planning does not find that the rezone is detrimental to public interests, and the proposed mixed-use development is well suited to this location, given the adjacent vacant lands and opportunity to support and coordinate with the adjacent Keystone institutions.

Regarding criterion number nine, uh the additional standards of the proposed district include consideration to compact lot development due to its proposed density and all residential development uh shall comply with the regulations pertaining to compact lot development.

The associated zoning layer standards associated with the airport overlay and accident potential zone.

Um shall be met at time of development.

City planning finds that the review criteria for the zoning map amendment has been met.

One criterion that is involved there to go on is the community amenities or benefits that are required as part of the establishment of the plan development zone.

On the right side of the slide is a list of benefits and amenities that are demonstrated by the applicant on their land use plan.

With consideration of the adjacent institutional partners, the PDZ framework allows the concerns brought forward by Peterson to be responded to with greater flexibility and adaptability, enabling the developer to incorporate amenities and design solutions that may be more difficult under conventional zoning.

This flexibility also enables the developer to prevent fragmented site design and better incorporate a mix of compatible uses, which may also be more difficult under conventional zoning.

The applicant has stated that this site area will incorporate high quality design through cohesive pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and uh integrated land use transitions.

Um however, the applicant has not demonstrated that the high quality design features exceed those set forth in the UDC.

The land use plan also proposes a 5.28-acre park.

Uh, this creates uh accessible recreational and gathering spaces that uh plan COS calls for.

Uh it also provides livability and engagement and furthers the benefit of community amenities.

Uh, those are all topics that plan COS calls for, um, and that is part of the criteria in this communities and the benefits.

Um, additionally, it should be mentioned that out of the four that are listed here, uh city zoning code code only requires that two of these be met.

Uh to go on, the these applications also promote mix of housing types with up to 924 residential units, uh, overall 14 dwelling units per acre and 30 dwelling units per acre that are uh specific to each development uh within the site area.

Uh, it supports varied lot sizes and configurations supporting vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods near some of the city's um important employment hubs.

This attribute satisfies some of the goals for the applicable vibrant neighborhoods framework and again supports plan COS.

Uh finally, the proposed district enables sustainable development practices, uh, another item listed here through uh phase development.

Uh, this promotes efficient develop um efficient infrastructure delivery and um promoting cost effective and resilient growth.

Uh, city planning finds that uh the PDZ satisfies this portion of that review criteria.

Moving on to the land use plan review criteria.

Um, no other plans and policies adopted by city council are applicable to this site area.

Uh, no specific dimensional or use development standards are applicable based on the proposed zone district.

Um, the land use plan defines those, such as density, maximum heights, permitted unpermitted land uses.

Uh, the remaining development standards will be determined through review of development plan applications as they come forward.

The land use plan proposes.

Compatibility.

The west side uh is vacant.

It belongs to Colorado Springs Airport.

Uh, but no development is expected to exist within that area due to proximity to the runways and consideration FA standards.

Uh so no pad sites are are expected there.

Um Peterson is stationed to the northwest.

Uh again, has expressed concerns with compatibility.

However, the proposed PDZ zone provides again that flexibility and land use allocations, allowing adjustments during future planning to occur and promote compatibility with Peterson uh and the landings business park.

Land east of Mark Shelfle Road is currently vacant as well.

Um it is subject to the Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan.

Uh the Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan designates this area for medium to high residential density on the north end of it, uh so adjacent to the site on the north side across Mark Shuffle.

Uh central to that location uh is proposed public facilities and then research and development to the south side again across Mark Shuffle.

These land use categories with Banning Lewis Ranch are highly compatible with how uh land use uh landings business park is being orchestrated per their land use plan.

Um and then finally on the south side, again, also vacant.

Uh currently zoned general industrial and business park.

Um these zone districts are highly compatible with the proposed industrial uses that are um that this land use plan calls out.

The impacts of uses permitted for the land use plan.

Um the site is proposed to allow all uses listed in the UDC allowable use table with exceptions for specific use types prohibited within um within the buffer and also subject to the airport overlay and accident potential zone.

Um at present, Peterson and Colorado Springs Airport are the only adjacent areas with established development, and the vacant land south and east of the site area are compatible with the land use designation set forth in the land use plan.

Um regarding adequacy of traffic circulation, the land use plan proposes two collector street uh connections to off-site roadways on the south side of the site area, and um one collector and one minor arterial connection to mark shuffle on the east side of the site area.

All public streets will be required to meet Colorado Springs standards.

Uh preliminary traffic study has been submitted and accepted by traffic engineering, and again, a full traffic study will be required at time of initial development.

Um as for the capacity of existing infrastructure and civic services, the site area is currently vacant and has no existing streets, utilities, parks, schools, um, or other public facilities.

The associated school districts have requested fees in lieu of land dedication uh as previously mentioned.

Um it is important to recognize that uh district three has requested that uh coordination uh continue um as the site develops uh due to um their concerns over access to uh Peterson to pick up kids and attend sporting events.

Uh finally, the land use plan proposes residential uses on the north side of the site and industrial uses on the side with south side of the site with commercial and office uses central to the location.

Um this approach promotes a logical progression of land uses uh across the site, balancing uh intensity and and character of site development.

So city plan has determined that the review criteria has been met for this land use plan application.

Um this screen you'll see your motions.

Uh staff would like to add a technical modification uh to these motions proposing that as part of the motion to include a technical modification to reflect all the existing zone districts as part of the site data elements of the land use plan for current zoning to include business park with conditions of record.

At the beginning, I had mentioned that business park with conditions of record is a zone district that is part of the site area.

However, it was not detailed on the cover sheet of the land use plan.

So just a technical modification to add that.

Would that be a technical modification to the land use plan motion?

Correct.

Just real quick if for the staff, if you would update the uh update the sheets that we have for those that lay out the potential motions when we get to that point.

I have well one question, quick question for you before we move on to the applicant.

Uh can you go back a couple slides to the land use plan criteria more?

Yeah, I think you said there there was no other plans or policies adopted by city council.

So I just want to point out I my understanding is the city council approved the 100 plus page service plan for the contrary and metro district on August 6, 2025, and that lays out the roads, uh utilities and drainage for the entire this entire area.

You're referencing the uh the metro district.

Correct.

Yeah, there's a service plan, and it just was covered on plan.

Is that you're just talking about other like development plans like Southeast Strong or something like that, or when you say there's no bother plans, what would you not include the Metro District?

Right.

So I was more referring to land use regulating plans that Metro District um service plan is something that the city does need to evaluate and bring forward to city council for uh acceptable acceptance.

Um it's not a it's not a land use regulating document that we would utilize to evaluate uh what is going to be allowed, how we want things to be orchestrated.

Um that is that is a metro district service plan that is um it is more privatized between the the board of the district and the eventual end users that will be on that site and how their um their their programming of uh of debt and issuances is taken care of and and improvements are installed.

Um, but it's not so much a regulating plan for land use purposes.

Understood, thank you.

Anybody else have any uh brief questions before we move on to the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Planning Commission.

Andrea Barlow with NES representing the applicant who is the landowner standing over here, so I can read the screen.

It's as young as Drew.

So we're talking about the landings business park, proposed land use plan and rezone.

Uh this is site context.

Um, I think you're familiar now that it's located on the east side of Peterson Air Force Base, sorry, Space Force Base, and west of uh Mark Shuffle.

Uh I just want to provide some surrounding use context.

This is actually part of the uh Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan.

Um, this land use plan that we're proposing today will supersede this.

Um, but I just wanted to give a picture of what's approved to the east.

I believe that will um ultimately change as time goes on, but there's high density residential proposed.

Do I have a cursor that works?

No, I don't think so.

So the the kind of buff colored area to the east is high density residential.

Um the uh purple area to the south is industrial, the purple on the site is industrial, and the kind of pinkish area on the north part of this property is retail.

So that is what has been approved in the past as a master plan for this area and on the adjacent land east of um Mark Shuffle within Banning Lewis Right uh ranch immediately adjacent to this site.

And you can also see more residential further further east.

And then uh this is a plan that shows the peak innovation park, which is uh the area generally south and of the airport, and it wraps around the airport and abuts um Peterson on the south end there.

And that proposes uh a mix of uses, um, aviation development in the pink, uh which is adjacent to the property.

And then I also want to point out, and this is where I hoped I'd had a cursor, that the area that is to the east of Peak Innovation Park and immediately south of the property has now been sold to the airport as well and will represent an extension of uh the peak innovation park.

And you can see that there is a road that is proposed to connect just to the south of this property across to Mark Sheffield from the peak innovation park.

Um so uh when I get to the land use plan, you can see our streets are proposed to go south to connect to that road.

This is the zoning of a property currently and the surrounding area.

Again, um GI, which is general industrial, it was originally zoned as PIP1.

I'm going to talk a little bit about that.

And the MXM, um, that was um originally a PBC, went to MXM in the um in the new UDC and allows residential use, and then the APD in that northwest corner again on the opposite side of Mark Shuffle, substantial area proposed for R5, uh as well as um areas that are proposed for business park in the purple colour.

I just want to provide a picture of what's being proposed around the area because um if you look at it in isolation in terms of what's there right now, there's not much there, but there's a lot of plans for other uses in this area.

So the existing zoning, as I noted, is APD airport plan development.

The MXM mixed use medium was originally PBC, and that was zoned in 1988, together with uh at the same time the zoning of the area, the largest part portion of the property to PIP one at the time, or two, sorry, PIP2, and then uh it has been changed to GI in the UDC.

So that was also done in 1988.

And there is a very small portion as Drew mentioned of the property that is BP in that little corner that sticks out by Mark Shuffle, so we will happily include that on our land use plan.

And then the APZ, which is the airport uh potential accident potential zone one is in that lower uh right hand corner, left hand corner, sorry, southwest corner, and that limits the types of uses you can put in that in that zone, which limits any residential use, but we're not proposing residential use in that area.

So uh just wanted to go through some of the uses that are allowed in the current zones because I think it's important to understand what's allowed currently versus what we're proposing.

So the APD accommodates airport compatible uses, corporate office, business parks, hotel supporting retail uses, all of these residential is not permitted in that zone currently, but there are a wide range of civic commercial industrial uses that are permitted.

The MXM zone does allow for residential from a range from single family detached all the way up to multifamily and live work units.

Also uh a wide range of civic uses such as daycares and hospitals and religious institutions, and then group homes are allowed in the MXM zone, commercial uses, wide ranging commercial uses, industrial range of utility uses in the APD as well, including wireless communication facilities and so on.

And then also a range of marijuana related uses are allowed in the MXM zone.

So the GI zone, which is the majority of the site, um, we um are looking here at an area that isn't permitted currently for residential.

Again, a more limited civic uses, commercial uses are fairly wide ranging, industrial are a little bit broader in their allowances because it is an industrial zone.

Again, the utility uh facilities are allowed in this zoning as are a much wider range of more manufacturing associated marijuana uses as well as waste and recycling uses.

So that's the context of what the current zoning allows.

So, what we're proposing is to change this entire property to a PDZ zone, and the PDZ zone has certain limitations which are based on the land use zone.

The PDZ zone, um, if approved, will be limiting our non-residential floor space to 2000, sorry, 2.5 million, and our non-residential building height to 80 feet.

I'm going to do a comparison of the existing zone and the proposed zone shortly.

And the maximum overall residential residential density of 14 du per acre and number of units maximum and also the height of the buildings in the residential zone.

So the purpose of the PDZ is multifaceted, but one of them is to encourage high quality developments that could not otherwise be achieved through the application of city standard zones.

And we feel that as we've gone through this, we've been able to hone down on certain uses that we we feel are maybe not appropriate for the location, and also provides flexibility to move users around in the site.

Whereas when you have rigid zone boundaries, that you have to put those uses in that zone.

You can't have a lot that straddles a zone, so it just gives us an opportunity to be adaptive to changes in the market and also changes with the site as it evolves through development.

The other one is it provides the means of developing a large undeveloped area with a unified approach.

So this is this is a substantial site, and so this gives us an opportunity to really master plan the entire property and provide within that a transition of uses from the industrial commercial to residential, which is what we've tried to achieve.

Facilitating creative high quality developments that have an integrated mix of non-residential uses and housing options, that's what we've tried to achieve here.

One of the benefits of this development in terms of the residential use, it has the potential to provide higher density residential right next to Peterson, which has been indicated as a desired use in the past as something that can serve the people, the servicemen on the base and also other contractors and so on.

So there's there's a huge demand for more affordable housing in the community generally, but specifically related to Peterson's Space World Space activities, they've they've made numerous comments over the years that there is a need for more housing to support their mission.

And so we have the opportunity to integrate that in a true mixed-use environment.

Providing clear and reasonable plan for phase development, that is also part of the service plan for the Metro District was mentioned.

That is the funding provides the funding mechanism, the bond capacity to actually put the infrastructure in, and then moving forward, it also provides the opportunity to allow controls on operations and maintenance and so on and so forth.

So that will be a key aspect of allowing for a phase development and getting the infrastructure moving that's needed to support this project.

So talking a little bit more about the land use plan, we've got uh almost 320 acres here, as I say, it's a large undeveloped property.

Uh 62.29 acres of residential maximum of 924 units.

That's we we started off with a lot more than this, and we've kind of honed it down in response to various comments.

Um the reason for the uh layout is that the um the areas to the south are proposed and and southwest are proposed to be industrial in nature.

So we wanted to maintain that industrial flow to the north with the connections that were showing to the road that I pointed out earlier, and then transition to commercial, especially adjacent to the proposed main intersection off of mark shuffle where commercial uses would be most appropriate, and then transition to residential uses.

So the residential in the north is actually buffered from the more intense industrial uses to the south.

Uh, we have some constraints with this land use plan.

There is a dash line that runs just adjacent to the main spine road north-south.

That is a substantial gas easement, so we can't put any development on that.

We can't put any roads on it.

We can cross the easement to provide access to parcels, but that's kind of been the limiting factor on our uh road um network, and then also we have some fairly substantial grade across the site, which we are trying to work with, and that's why some of the areas are probably larger than would actually be developable in reality because of some of the grade constraints.

Um, as I noted, we have our main access point on the southern access point onto Mark Shuffle and then a proposed access point further north.

Um that has been okayed by um traffic engineering in terms of separation.

Um there are some great that's probably the most challenging area where there are grade issues, so we're going to have to work through that and see how we can accommodate that northern access.

And the intent is that the streets we are showing, um, I think there will be more streets, but the streets we are showing as the main spine roads will be all public streets.

We are proposing um a park site because of the uh residential we're proposing.

It is a requirement of the partland education ordinance to provide park land.

So we have done that, and that has been approved by the Parks Board.

So uh the proposed use chart.

So we have tried to take the existing uses that are allowed per the existing zoning and really kind of focus in on what we really want this site to look like.

So there are a pretty wide range of residential, commercial, industrial, civic, and so on uses allowed on the property per the current zones, and we've transferred those forward, but certain ones that we we feel are probably not appropriate for the environment we're trying to create is anything uh marijuana related or uses related to group homes, except that which is per state statute required, and individual uses such as long care home, cemetery, correctional facilities, and so on.

There's a few different ones.

We went through the entire use list and say what do we want here and what don't we want here?

And that that's what the PDZ zone allows that flexibility to do that.

And uh then I think as Drew mentioned per comments from Peterson F uh Space Force Base, sorry, I will remember to call it Space Force Space.

Um the uh quarter mile um, it's it's not a buffer, we have not identified it as a buffer.

I want to clarify that we've identified it as an offset.

Specifically because a buffer implies no development, and it is not intended that that quarter mile dashed area will not contain any development.

It is an area where we are adding specific additional requirements.

So one of the concerns was uh that was expressed by Peterson was the uh potential for electromagnetic interference.

So we have put in these provisions that specifically restrict certain uses, such as cell phone towers, which are allowed under the existing zoning, wind farms, solar farms, anything that could create similar interference or any broadcasting or other uses with electromagnetic technology, which was one of their primary concerns.

So that that is that is one way we we did not have that on our initial submittal.

We received their comments and tried to respond to it in this manner.

So just to go back, I said I was going to do this design comparison.

So we talked about um the uses in some detail between what's allowed versus what we're proposing.

So we we've incorporated most of the uses that are currently allowed with some exceptions.

Density, um that is something that we have um proposed to increase on the individual parcels, but not overall.

So for the 14 DU per acre for the overall residential area, it lies is consistent with the five to sixteen DU per acre that is currently allowed in the MXM zone.

But the individual parcels could go higher.

So for example, the two parcels were bifurcated by the spine road.

We we could see that one parcel could be multifamily apartments, whereas that would mean based on the um maximum units we have that the density of the remaining parcel would by necessity have to be much lower, and it could be, for example, uh a single family rental community or something similar.

We're trying to create an environment where we can have a mix of residential that meets the different needs of um uh personnel on Peterson.

Um, not all of them want to be in apartments, some of them have many of them have families and might want to be in a single family home.

Uh, then with regard to lot coverage, um, the only one that had a lot coverage requirement initially is the GIGI zone.

It doesn't currently with the news UDC, but it did when it was PIP2 or 40%, our proposed maximum lot coverage based on our uh proposed two and a half million square feet, which sounds a lot, but it is actually only 34% lot coverage when you calculate it across the entire acreage of industrial proposed.

Maximum number of units, um, it the MXM is a smaller uh site area than we're currently proposing for the residential, but um that would have allowed 413 uh residential units were proposing more because we've expanded it more to the east.

Uh again, the heights, um, that's one I specifically wanted to focus on in that the GI use area where we're proposing our industrial primarily is currently 80 feet, we are staying at 80 feet.

Initially, we proposed a little bit more, we've pulled it back to be consistent with what the existing zoning is.

And similarly, with the residential height, the MXM allows 50 feet, so we were we remain consistent with that to stay at 50 feet, and then the setbacks are really kind of just determined at the um uh development plan stage with the PDZ zone and will be different from the existing zones.

So we have um had significant coordination over the course of a couple of years with Peterson uh Space War Space.

Um my client in particular has had direct meetings with several people, as I think everybody knows the personnel changes on a on a frequent basis.

Um, but um these are some of the concerns that have been expressed in recent correspondence.

I think we've had about four different letters, and this is a summary of what we heard as the main concerns.

So there is concern about a lack of standoff adjacent to the electronic warfare compound and centralized integration support facility.

I have a map that will show where those are shortly.

Um the PDZ limits certain uses within uh the quarter mile to include this these uses, and as we noted, the current zoning has no such restrictions.

And as we noted, the current zoning has no such restrictions.

So what we feel that PDZ zoning allows us to do is to provide more controls and more consideration for Peterson's activities than the current zoning does.

And we've attempted to anticipate what their concerns are, and they have not we've met with them, and then they're not easily articulate their specific concerns.

There is a study that is is taking place at Shriva regarding these issues, and I think ultimately it's going to happen at Peterson as well, but until that they can't they can't say that this specific issue is a concern because it's not been studied.

So operational security related to building heights.

We've um reduced our building heights to the same as is it allowed in the existing zoning to address that comment.

Like I say initially, we were proposing a much higher building height.

Frequency interfering interference risks, as noted before, we've we've limited the use of electromagnetic and related uses within that quarter of a mile offset, and the current zoning has no such restrictions and does allow cell towers and similar uses.

Traffic impacts near the Eastgate.

We we've we submitted a traffic study with uh with this um land use plan, it's a very high-level traffic study, and actually it analyzed the much higher level of use that we submitted with our first um submittal that we included with our first submittal.

Um, we since then brought it down, but the traffic report wasn't updated because really it's it's so high level that until we have specific uses and development plans, we're not going to really know what the traffic impacts are.

But based on this higher level of traffic analysis, it I identified that Mark Shuffle has a sufficient um uh capacity to handle this high volume of traffic, it has been widened, it has been straightened.

There's been a lot of work gone into Mark Shuffle to accommodate the anticipated uses that I identified at the beginning with um uh the peak innovation park connecting to Mark Shuffle with uh banning Lewis Ranch uh developments.

So Mark Shuffle is going to be handling a lot of traffic in the future, it's going to operate very differently than it does today, and um that is uh something that will be taken into account as development comes forward, and as if there are needs for any improvements that will be um incorporated with future development plans, but it has been significantly improved in in recent years.

Stormwater and PFAS concerns, um, we we when we met with uh Peterson, we did say that the the plan is to grade the property so that everything will drain away from Peterson, and they said, well, if that's the case, then they really don't have that concern about stormwater and potential um substances going into the uh uh base.

Um, and in any event, we'll have to meet all city and state requirements regarding stormwater and any pollutants.

Wildlife and aviation hazards, um, there is concern, there was concern about the detention ponds proposed on the property.

Obviously, there are detention ponds within Peak Innovation Park, there are detention ponds within Peterson Air Force Base, Space War space, and they um all have to meet a particular standard because they are in the FAA influence zone.

So instead of the standard 74 72 hours of um uh release um from the detention pond, it has to meet a 48-hour release.

So we will address that concern as is required by FAA standards.

Landscape and open space, um we are providing a part proposing a park to support the residential.

There will be landscaping within the development as especially along the main streets, but we don't believe that this is going to be any more or less intense than the landscaping that's already present on uh on the base or or within the peak innovation park.

So it's just going to be standard landscaping.

We don't believe that that's going to cause a wildlife issue from the perspective of hazards.

Air quality and clean air act, um, this doesn't apply to this uh project.

Um El Paso County is not within a non-attainment or maintenance area for the purpose of Clean Air Act, and the proposed project doesn't require federal funding, so or have any federal nexus, so therefore it doesn't have to meet those specific requirements.

And we are committed to maintaining a relationship with Peterson, even as personnel change because this is a long-term project.

And when we get into actual development plan level proposals, we'll have something more concrete to discuss with them.

At this moment, we're just trying to get the property zoned to allow us to take that next step to start getting infrastructure bonded and installed and then looking at potential users.

And the PDZ zone gives us a flexibility to move uses around, which the current zoning doesn't.

It would be an amendment to the land use plan, but it wouldn't be an amendment to the zone.

So that seemed to be acknowledged and appreciated by PCM when we met with them that it's actually more flexible for them than the current zoning.

Again, we we are equally concerned about the protection of military readiness for Peterson, so we're not going to do anything that would compromise that.

My clients very committed to that.

They are local, they they want to see this be a good project and a project that helps Peterson not hinders it.

So with uses such as the residential, which we hope will be a help for them with their needs for housing, but also with potential for space force or space related uses on the property and so on.

So I just wanted to point this out so I could actually identify some of these uses for you.

So as I noted, this property was zoned originally in 1988 for the various uses I identified.

The use that is identified there is the, and I'm going to go back so I get the right name, is the centralized integration support facility that was mentioned.

That was constructed in 1993.

We didn't have a clear photograph prior to that.

As you can see, that was pretty much the only thing that was there at the time.

Since then, um in 2011, you can see that the north of there, and I remember this being constructed, uh, is the PX and Commissary in the white building is the PX and Commissary.

So that's a facility that's open to all personnel, family members, and so on.

And then on the south side is the okay, and I don't want to insult them by getting the wrong name, the electric warfare, electronic warfare compound, and you can see on that uh on the more recent uh photograph, there is an area of satellites on that south portion of that property.

So these are the uh facilities that have been constructed by Peterson next to this property post zoning of this property for the current uses.

So we believe that we have existing uh property rights here, existing zoning rights, and um it we while we are more than willing to meet with Peterson accommodate their requirements.

The suggestion of a quarter mile buffer with no development, we believe is unreasonable.

Um COS compliance.

Um, Drew covered this in quite substantial detail, but just to say show it's a high identified as a high area of change, future neighborhood on the visions map.

Uh it provides an opportunity opportunity to create new and device diverse neighbourhoods.

Um I think it will integrate well with what's proposed in Binding Lewis Ranch to the East.

Um I think what's particularly relevant is are the policies of the thriving economy framework.

Um this is uh all talking about growing key sectors, expanding quality jobs, uh leveraging livability to boost workforce and economy.

So it talks about how it's important to have an adequate supply of attainable housing to uh uh meet the needs of these key areas such as Peterson and the Air Force Base and Airport and the future BLR centre on the northeast of this plan.

Um so having uh readily accessible affordable housing in these locations is really important per Plan COS, and we're meeting that need with the residential component, but also fostering uh collaboration and planning with the military partners is is something that's really important to my clients, and we will continue to do that.

So uh zone change review criteria.

I've talked about plan COS compliance that uh we are promoting economic diversification and also mixed and integrated uses of residential to support the nearby cornerstone institutions that were identified and located near highways and airports, so we're very close to the airport.

Um for it's great for our uh logistics and industrial growth, and the housing will uh enhance workforce accessibility to Peterson and the airport.

Um not detrimental to public health safety and welfare that we the site's already zoned for the uses that we're proposing.

We're not really proposing any more intense uses than or in fact we've scaled it back from what's currently uh allowed.

And we we will continue the significant development and employment that is is taking place in the area with a peak innovation park, the new parcels that have been incorporated into the airport to the south, and then um the east of uh Mark Sheffield in banning Lewis Ranch.

And we think it's a good place for mixed use development.

Um there has been uh as as I noticed the master plan for banning loose ranch to the east includes a mix of high density residential, uh business part uses, uh RD, industrial uses.

So um it's kind of continuing that theme.

Um and then we have we have a slide on the community uh benefits, but I think um Drew covered that in some detail.

So unless you have a question, I'm not going to go over that again.

So we put that at the end.

Um and then similarly with the land use plan, uh, I'm not gonna go through the uh the first one again, compliance with COS, we feel we meet that.

Um, and then compatibility again, set similar points in terms of um compatibility and traffic study.

Uh we're prepared.

I mentioned that previously, there's adequate utilities, and we've um that's the design of the land use plan is very deliberate in terms of transitioning the land uses from industrial to commercial to residential within the site.

I think I'm very close to the end.

There you go.

And I'm there.

Again, with questions, I think we'll unless we're suppressing questions, we'll go ahead and go to any public comment and then come back for questions.

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

We don't have anybody sign up, but if anybody would like to speak in support of these item, please come to the podium.

Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

Sir.

Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that representatives of Peterson Space Force Base are here.

They didn't sign up in favor or against, but they are here as a resource.

But they do have a time constraint, and so they need to be out of here at about 20, 25 minutes.

Okay, thank you.

So they're available for questions.

Okay, we'll call on them once we finish the book comment here.

Anybody online?

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

There's nobody online.

Is there anybody here online and in opposition?

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

Or anybody in the audience that would like to speak in opposition.

Nobody online either.

Okay, uh, so we don't need a rebuttal, then let's go ahead and have Peterson Space Force Base if they want to have representative come up to answer any questions.

We'll go ahead and uh do with questions uh for Peterson Space Force Base so they can meet their timeline, then we'll take a short break and go back to additional questions for the applicant in the city.

And do I have anybody, any commissioners that want to ask questions?

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Hi there.

I assume that um this uh UFC for 010-01 may have come from you guys, or at least that you're familiar with it.

And I had uh a little bit of confusion based on your request of uh the developer to have a one-quarter mile standoff.

What you were including in that standoff is the standards in here are much smaller than a quarter mile.

Are we talking uh quarter mile standoff area that would say not allow for residential trash cans for concealment purposes, or could you clarify that intent because they didn't seem to meet the other thing?

Yeah, real quick if you don't mind introducing yourself for the record, thank you.

Absolutely, sir.

So I'm Lieutenant Colonel Scott Killley.

I'm the 21st Civil Engineer Squadron commander representing uh both Peterson Space Force Base and also Cheyenne Mountains Space Force Station.

Uh obviously a lot of our comments were uh a little bit vague, and I think some of the some of the things that both the applicant and the city pointed up are the reason for that.

Um there's a lot of unknown spaces growing very quickly.

Uh and so I think while we while we present a one-quarter mile buffer, uh, we understand that that a lot of that is because of the unknown unknowns at this point.

Uh, as the applicant talked about, we're currently working through developing a space operations installation compatible use zone.

Uh I'm the uniform guy, so it'd be I'd be remiss if I didn't use an acronym.

So Soikus is what it's going to be called.

Peter or Sh Shrever is currently going through it now, and then we're hoping to uh award that this year.

So as we move forward and work with both the city and the developer, uh, we should have more fidelity on some of those electromagnetic requirements as well as also the anti-terrorism and force protection requirements.

Uh, but I do think I've really appreciated the partnership with both the city and the developer through both informal meetings uh that they reference with our leadership.

But then also this is an item that we're working with the city on through the uh land use working group that we've set up through the mayor's office.

And so I think there's gonna be a lot of touch points to continue playing around the fringes on that.

Uh but as far as the buffer, I recognize and the installation recognizes that this isn't gonna be a you know uh a no man's land of uh absolutely nothing in that development area.

Any other commissioners have any questions?

Commissioner Slatery Hi.

Um Thanks for coming, sir.

Can you articulate that a little bit more?

So you're anticipating within the next year to have um more clarification on what is compatible and not compatible within that quarter mile buffer.

Yes, ma'am.

So specifically, we're looking at the no-kidding Space Force uh combat forces command missions that are moving into that area that exists already that you saw on that slide, but then also things that are planned over the next 10 to 15, even out to the 30-year plan of what that's gonna look like and where the interferences would be and what kind of standoff and where we would need that.

But we don't we anticipate most of that occurring on the installation, but then of course we don't wanna you know approve something that's gonna, or we want to make sure we're very clear about what we're putting where on the installation.

And how does that in your preliminary assessment compare amongst um business or industrial uses versus residential uses?

I would say right now, not very.

I think right now uh the accommodation on the height restriction within the area has been very helpful, and that that most of everything that they're doing is gonna be up and out.

And so I I think given the current uh restrictions that we're placing just with the zoning itself that we're gonna meet most of those requirements.

Commissioner Case.

Uh no question, but just appreciate you being here.

I think uh for our city, the comprehensive planning and going around our bases is uh mission critical.

And so thank you for being a part of that process.

Thank you.

No, I appreciate that.

And really, like I said before, we've really appreciated the partnership with the city on on moving forward on this and a lot of the other initiatives.

Commissioner Hensler.

So to what you were saying before, if I if I understand that, or if I maybe can um extrapolate on what you were saying, um so both the responsibility on the side of the the base and private development would create the would be able to create the appropriate distances.

So not all of that distance that you may require now or in the future will be on the developments to the east, but could also be setbacks or um placement of facilities that you may in the future locate there.

Are you referring to within the Peterson Space Force?

Correct.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

So we're we're having to take a look at that.

We're going through constant iterations of a district plan to figure out what are the right zoning and what are the same same sort of process that we go through outside of the city, yes, sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I guess that saying that good fences make good neighbors or whatever, right?

So thank you.

No, and I also appreciate you being here.

I think it's important both for the Belbrand for um you know the Space Force, you know, Peterson Space Force Base that you guys are working together on this.

Uh, I know encroachment's an issue.

I've worked bragged before base realignment closure and encroachment on military bases is certainly a criteria that you know could maybe harm our community in a whole.

So I do appreciate that.

I just kind of wonder why um perhaps placement.

I'm sure you if you're probably one of those two, why we put some facilities so close to the perimeter.

It seems like we create the standoff problem that we have by I guess it's been done years ago, so but is there is that in your future approaches, are you looking to that to move more sensitive um buildings or functions, you know, closer to the per off the perimeter of the base?

Yes, sir.

So yeah, thanks for letting us zoom in come talk to you, sir.

Uh uh I um uh absolutely so as part of that greater uh plan, we are certainly looking at uh maybe not fixing but at least mitigating a lot of the sins of the past uh when we transition from Air Force to Space Force.

Uh the space has a lot of growth and a lot of different mission sets uh that are both coming in going on and off the installation.

Ma'am, if you figure out a way to stop saying Air Force Base, let me know because I do it all the time as well.

So um, but absolutely trying to make sure as as she pointed out, the things like the commissary and the BX, which makes a lot of sense to be up against the fence line and pulling back internally some of those other mission sets, absolutely.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments?

Chair, I have a quick comment before before we let him sit down.

We'll move on to questions for city staff applicants or others.

So the first one up is Commissioner Hensler.

I'm sorry, I think that was a leftover from last time.

So my question is for Drew and staff.

Hi.

I understand, right?

This is now MXM Zone District, uh with which some of the residential uses are allowed.

Um any residential in the PBC was a conditional use.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And whether you're talking about the original use, uses that were permitted or conditionally permitted in the PBC under old chapter seven or under the UDC today.

So in the UDC today, it's my understanding that the PBC just automatically converted to the MXM.

Is that correct?

I would love it if that was the case, but no, there were changes and stuff that occurred to many of those zones.

Um when we started um combining PBC and C5 and C4 and other commercial zones into the MX zone districts.

So there were some adjustments to land use uh allowances with that that change.

Um can you expand on what those were in relation to this parcel?

Because as I'm looking at the banning Lewis master plan, um specifically and its proximity, not just to Peterson, but to the airport itself.

Um I'm finding myself with reservations about you know residential and the density of the residential and and how we got here now, because it to me does not uh seem to be a compatible use to the proximity of our uh runways and and what's happening, right?

And I see in the master plan across Mark Shaffle, not too far away, right?

We have um master plan for some residential medium use.

So how did we get here and what were the allowable uses in the previous PBC before uh as stated?

So what tell us about the history and the allowable uses that would help me if you have those, I guess.

And I I hope that we have some.

Yeah, I'm just pulling up chat chapter seven so that I can take a look at that unless uh commissioner Slatter, you just you you want to know about the allowable residential uses in PBC and PBC, I guess in that parcel specifically before we converted to MXM.

And how did we make that designation of the that zone to convert to?

Because it's a little bit of a spot within what I see surrounding it.

Um just to clarify, so well, maybe to answer the question I'll say.

So in terms of residential dwellings under old chapter seven, um single family, two-family residential uses uh were conditionally permitted in the PBC uh zone district.

Um now uh I think the important thing for commissioners to remember is that while that might have been the use restriction uh pre-June of 2023, um, the current use restriction, unless it was specifically stated as a condition of record on that zone, the new use table under the UDC would apply.

So that's what you would be making your decision making on uh in reference to whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted in that zone.

Um maybe Drew can speak to whether those conditions of record on the specific zones on the property today um contained any land use specific restrictions.

Okay.

Um yes, I understand we're making our decision based on current zone.

Um, but it you know how we got there and informs, I think um our decisions here as well.

And then what about multifamily?

Was that a permitted or conditional use prior?

Conditional.

Thank you.

Yeah, let's hear.

Thanks.

Okay.

So the following conditions of record apply to uh that PBC zoning, um now MXM.

A concept plan and conformance with Article 5 of the zoning ordinance, um, including a traffic study as specified by the city traffic engineer and a preliminary drainage report as specified in the city of Colorado Springs drainage criteria manual.

Uh that shall be submitted and approved by the city for each land use parcel prior to subdivision, and the maximum floor area ratio in this PBC2 district shall be 0.20 to 4 for each land use parcel.

That's it.

Just repeat that last statement again with the 2021, what the whole sentence.

Yep.

So the maximum permitted floor area ratio in this PBC-2 district shall be 0.20 to 1 for each land use parcel.

Does that mean like 20% lot coverage?

Is that what that means?

We don't usually hear floor area.

Yeah, we don't usually hear floor area, but yeah, point uh 20% of the of the the zoned area is allowed for essentially pad site.

So let me let me clarify that just a little bit.

Yeah, you don't usually hear floor area ratios, but that is a standard kind of uh measurement for commercial type zones, especially when you get into multi-uh story buildings.

20% is pretty low for it's about a it's kind of a standard for a shopping center or uh you know a uh something along those lines, but single story buildings primarily, not not uh multi-story buildings.

Okay, so it it essentially it means uh 20% for the building itself based on the lawn.

Is that I don't know why lack coverage and floor ratio are different.

So if you had a 20% yeah, 20% lock coverage for a two-story building, that would be a 40% floor area ratio.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Didn't quite understand the question, I guess.

That's it for now.

Okay, uh Commissioner Cecil.

Not sure if this is the right question for you, Drew, or for the applicant, but during the applicant's presentation, there was a list of uses that were going to be prohibited.

Um by adding the any use allowed in the following zones except for these uses.

One of those was a detox center, and I'm concerned that might conflict with fair housing or ADA laws.

Um, since addiction is a per or folks with addiction issues or a protected class.

So I was wondering if that was intentional or just an oversight or if we intended to really prohibit that.

Uh I'm not aware of the laws around detox centers associated with what you had referenced.

Um, and I'm also not aware of the specific purpose as to why it was excluded.

Um, but I can let the applicant speak to why they excluded it.

So I I'll clarify that a detox center is is more of a is not a housing facility.

It's uh it's a center where people come in um more of an in outpatient kind of middle area.

So it's not covered by the Fair Housing Act.

What is covered by the Fair Housing Act is uh drug and alcohol uh reap rehabilitation home or group homes and things like that.

And we specifically we while we excluded that we said unless we required by state statutes.

So if if we are prov proposing um something that is a compliance or required by state statute or the fair housing act, then we wouldn't restrict that.

But there are some depending on the size and all sorts of things that that aren't covered by state statute.

We just wanted uh harmonious development um with uses that we felt were compatible with each other.

And so um that was a decision of the applicant, the landowner of what uses they wanted to restrict.

But certainly there's nothing in there that would um impact the fair housing act.

So the restriction are ones that you made, then the developer has made they're not zone zoning restrictions that are.

They're not requirements.

We could have just said uh anything in those zones, but we went through the an entire permitted use list and decided ones that were we felt would create a compatible development internally, and um there were certain ones that were restricted, but certainly no intents of impacting uh fair housing act requirements.

Um we specifically state that they are.

So some of those could be permitted uses, but you're self-use regulating and saying you don't want those permitted.

Okay, got it, understood.

Sorry.

And I will certainly defer to the uh city attorney if there is anything that we've excluded that would conflict with Fair Housing Act.

Sorry, Jen, if you want to continue or Sarah Bruin City Attorney's Office.

The Fair Housing Act doesn't require someone to as in this case, um, locate a facility that would be covered by the Fair Housing Act for purposes of uh group home or something like that, where the Fair Housing Act comes into play is if one is going to locate somewhere.

Um, then the Fair Housing Act kicks in, and there are certain protections that apply to that facility.

Um you know, and our treatment of the facility if they wanted to locate somewhere.

So I don't know if that helps clarify.

If you have additional questions, I can answer those, but uh uh it it absolutely does, and it's uh fine needle to thread, and it was a brief part of the presentation.

Nonetheless, I do think it's part of our approach to plan COS to have vibrant computers to have access to all necessary health and medical care, and knowing what an what a difference it makes being able to get to places to assist you in times of need uh can be.

I would not be rolling out those sort of essential services that if not available, could actually have a deleterious effect on your community once built.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hensler.

Sorry, Andrea, I may have you coming back up.

Um shoot, I lost my questions.

Um, can you talk about?

I mean, I think it oftentimes in these, it feels like everything is happening tomorrow, and that we're gonna run into these challenges and hurdles and conditional uses and permitted uses right away.

But can you talk about what the timeline of build out is, say um with the approval today, and then kind of all the next steps.

Are we talking about three to five years, five to fifteen?

I think we're probably in that three to five year time span.

There are certain um infrastructure improvements that have to be made, including um it uh utility infrastructure improvements with uh uh eastern wastewater system upgrades uh that have to be made to service this property.

Plus, we we have not really embarked in the even the design stage of the infrastructure for the site, and we want to get through this um this phase of the zoning and land use plan.

Clearly, the metro district has been approved, which provides the bonding capacity for that infrastructure, but that that is gonna be a uh two to three years.

And and at that point when those things start moving, is when um uh my my client can start looking at potential users for the property, and that will probably be spanned over a period of time as well.

So I would say probably about three years before you'd start getting any initial developments on the site to five years, maybe between you get the first users, and then it probably would span over a few years after that as well.

Thank you.

Excellent.

And the metro district plan has six different metro districts, so it's like a phased development.

Okay.

Uh any other commissioners have any questions.

Any commissioners have any statements they want to make as far as support or opposition to the to the uh plan.

Okay, not hearing any.

Uh at this point, uh, we do have a new uh motion uh which has the different uh technical modification that was uh Drew mentioned earlier.

Uh if you could review that and if uh we'll open it up to any motions.

Um I have motioned, but I but I'd also like to say I think that this plan is is very uh clear and defensible, and I think that this is a natural expansion of um of what has already been zoned, or I'm sorry, master planned for um expansion of this type.

And I actually do really like the um the shift from the MXM.

I think it gives you a lot more flexibility and ability to respond to market demands in the future.

So with that, I would like to make a motion to um recommend approval to city council, the landing business park land use plan based upon the finding that the proposal complies with the review criteria for land use plans set forth in city code section 7.5.514 with the following technical modifications.

One, the existing zone districts under the site data shall be updated to state all current zone districts and condition of record.

Yeah, if I could just one copy it.

I think we have to read 8B first, the Map Zone Amendment.

That was H.

I just read the paper they gave me.

I believe we don't do that, so Sarah's gonna intervene.

So I think we need to do 8B first in the order that they are appear in the minutes, or not the minutes, but the agenda as I was told previously.

Dan.

So do you want to make a motion on that one too, Commissioner Hensler?

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office, yes, please.

Hi, my name is Commissioner Hensler, and I don't know how to read all these papers on my path.

Uh AB, I would like to recommend approval to City Council of the zone change.

319.9 acres from MXM CRGI CR, BPE, CR, APD, APO, APZ.

Oh my goodnight.

Why did I decide to do this one?

Mixed use medium scale with conditions of record, general industrial conditions of record, business park with conditions of record, airport plan development with airport overlay and accidental accident potential zone.

Two PDZ APO APZ1, which is Plan Development Zone with Airport Overlay and Accident Potential Zone, based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for a zoning map amendment set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

Commissioner Willoughby seconds that motion passes with eight members in favor with Commissioner Slider We opposed.

One more time.

With the following technical modifications, the existing zone district under the site data shall be updated to state all current zone districts and conditions of record.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Robinson.

You're off.

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Okay.

I second the motion.

The motion passes with seven members in favor and Commissioner Sissel and Commissioner Slider.

We have post.

Okay, thank you.

At this point, we'll go ahead and move on to 4880 Airport Road.

Can you read that in the record, please?

24-0020.

Reconsideration of a zone map amendment consisting of 2.17 acres located at 4880 Airport Road from single family medium with airport overlay to multifamily high with airport overlay.

Your presenter is Chris Sullivan.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Or good afternoon.

Pretty close anyway.

And before you, we have a reconsideration of a re proposed rezone for 2.17 acres located at 4880 airport road from R16 APO, which is single family medium airport overlay to R5 APO, which is multifamily high airport overlay.

And to give you a little briefing on that, this item was set to go to the second readingslash the public hearing before city council on January 13th.

But during the review of the item, city attorney's office determined that there the process that which the planning department was handling rezones was not in compliance with what is written in code.

With that information, we spoke with city council during work session.

That information was provided to them.

And the outcome of that was due to the fact that they knew new information was going to be provided by the applicant via their presentation.

Which is why we are here today, and which we are going to review that new information that they provided.

Any questions on that?

Perfect.

All right.

So we have a vicinity map showing the site location.

We're located off the northwest corner of Airport Road and Car Road.

This is a 2.17 acre site that acreage is inclusive of a portion of land which is also airport road right-of-way, which I'll talk a little bit about that later.

Current zone R16 APO as previously stated, that's single family medium scale with the base airport overlay.

The request is to go to an R5 multifamily high with airport base overlay maintained.

With the intended future use of some sort of a multifamily residential development.

Okay.

So on the screen, we have a concept.

So not an actual plan that we're approving today.

This is just a general supporting document of what development would look like on this site.

That includes a three, uh, what they're showing is a three-story uh multifamily structure, uh single unit footprint, totaling 50 units, and that's based on the R5 standards of how much they could actually get on this site.

On-site parking shown with amenity space and green space and landscaping provided with access, primary access leading onto car road, um, and then obviously leading into the intersection of car and airport road.

I put it in my uh report, the general requirements of the R5 zone and what would be allowed, uh, which is what is being reflected in this little concept they've provided.

Um I'll I'll let them speak more to that during their presentation.

Um, as previously noted, and you can kind of see on the little exhibit B depiction on the screen on the top right corner.

Uh there is a uh a strip outside of the we'll put the property markers as shown on the survey.

That's a 20-foot wide strip, and it that is inclusive of a portion of airport road right-of-way.

Uh this is why the application took a little bit longer to review, and that was to make sure that this portion of property wasn't already deeded to the city.

Uh, through that research, it was determined that obviously that wasn't.

Uh, so as part of this application, you'll see in the motions later on, uh, public works as well as city staff, uh city planning staff are requesting a condition of record be included, and that is to request that additional 20 feet of right-of-way B dedicated over to the city to complete that 100-foot width as seen elsewhere along Airport Road.

So a little bit about the process.

You can see it's a little bit lengthier because of the issue that was identified along the way.

Uh, application was originally brought in uh in September 2024.

We went through seven rounds of review, and most of that due to that issue with the right-of-way.

Uh, on uh that's October, October uh 2025.

It uh the item was ready to be set on an agenda.

November, this went to City Plan Commission.

We had five members at the time reviewing the item.

It was recommended for denial via 3-2 vote.

And that was based on meeting criteria number four of the zone map amendment criteria, as well as identifying which relates to compatibility, density, um, and pattern of I guess development within the area.

And then the other thing that was identified was the effect of the potential density of the use and how that would affect traffic on car road as well as airport road.

Um first reading that occurred that occurred on December 9th, and then second reading, which was supposed to happen on January 13th.

That's where the item was withdrawn.

And just to make sure you're clear, it was withdrawn, not denied, no decision made.

And this was to give the applicant opportunity for reconsideration, which is why we're here today.

Stakeholder involvement.

So generally with rezones, you have three different opportunities to provide public comment.

Public notices go out for internal review prior to public uh public hearing before city planning commission and then uh before city council.

Uh this is now on its fourth public notice because of the re-notice for this item.

Uh went out to properties within a thousand feet within that thousand foot buffer, 377 properties were notified.

Uh, we originally received six comments, uh, but as you've probably all received within the last couple of days, uh, a few more notices did come in.

Those uh comments uh are reflective of the things that y'all have identified previously related to compatibility intensity effects on car road as well as airport road, and then uh quality of life for the existing single family homes within that neighborhood.

During the agency review process, uh, which occurred through the staff review of the item prior to coming to this meeting.

Uh comments were received from several agencies.

Any comments received were addressed up on the screen are the primary things that really came out of that review.

Just a couple of general notes.

Uh parks uh via the program administrator is gonna require CDI fees uh meeting the PLDO ordinance as well as the school site dedication ordinance, which will come later on during the review of a development plan.

Uh SWINT had no comments.

CSU also identified the need for a preliminary utility grading plan, which will be reviewed at time of future development.

Airport uh put in some standard notes as the sites within airport overlay, they were included.

Their items uh included uh making sure that the site has a avigation easement, which if they don't, they'll need to require one via plat.

And if they do, they need to provide proof, which will be reviewed at time of development plan.

Um, and then in addition, uh they'll be required to do a 7460, which is related to building heights, structures that large structure or large equipment that'll be used within the overlay that may affect airport, airport traffic, and then public works.

I put in there uh because of that requirement to dedicate the additional 20 feet of right-of-way.

Plan COS.

Um, I will generally note that this project complies with the uh applicable visions, big ideas, and strategies of plan COS, primarily the vibrant uh neighborhood section as well as the thriving economies.

The site is generally an infill site, uh, so in fill development is generally encouraged versus building outward from the city boundaries.

The site is surrounded by a mixture of single family detached and attached and multifamily residential uses.

Uh so R5 is generally compatible with that type of development as it also allows those uses.

Uh R5 is generally intended to be near R flex zones, MXM zones, uh PDZ zones are generally zones that allow more high-intensity type uses.

This site is adjacent to R5 to the west, but also note that to the north to the east, uh it is adjacent to R5 to the north and west and to the south, uh, it is adjacent to R16.

To the north and west and to the south, it is adjacent to R16.

It is important to note that the pattern of development that has occurred along the north side of Airport Road does show a pattern of higher intensity residential use.

R5 generally needs to be located near a collector or an arterial street to provide adequate access for traffic or for the higher intensity amount of traffic that occurs with those types of use, which the site is located.

And design uh for this project would be something that is more compatible with with the type of development you see in a suburban uh type setting.

And I think that is all I the next two the next two slides are related to the criteria related to zone map amendments.

There are 10 of them.

And uh based on staff review of the zone map amendment application with the land use statement.

It is uh the application appears to meet those criteria.

And then this slide is showing your potential motions.

Notice that uh that there's a condition of uh added to the motion if you should approve, adding that 20 foot that uh the need to dedicate 20 feet of property to airport road right away based on the city needs.

Uh if you deny, you'll also know that that was changed.

Uh so if you deny, this is where it ends.

And one last note, um we do have uh a representative from city engineering as well as a representative from uh CSFD here for any questions related to traffic or safety.

Okay, thank you.

Uh if there's no pressing questions, we'll go ahead and move on to the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Good morning, plan or good afternoon, planning commission.

Uh Chair Casey and Odom here with uh NES.

We are representing the applicant and landowner of 4880 Airport Road for a zone change and land use statement.

This is an infill site just over two acres in size along uh on the northwest corner of Airport Road and Car Road.

Airport Road is a principal arterial.

It's currently four lanes, and there is a median there in the middle with various kind of turning movements as you um hit intersections on either uh north or south of the of Airport Road.

Um South Academy Boulevard is about a mile to the west of the site, and South Powers Boulevard is um about half a mile to the east.

Surrounding zoning, um, Chris touched on this uh is largely R16 with airport overlay to the northeast and south.

Um, however, there is R5 directly east of the site, um, all with airport overlay.

Uh, and I also want to point out that that existing R5 zone does kind of wrap around the site further north on to car, and then again uh west toward the creek along airport road.

So the request before you today is an expansion of the existing R5 zone district.

Um, it's not to be considered a spot zoning because um this zone district exists, it's been established um in the area for uh a long time.

The purpose of the R5 zone district accommodates all kinds of residential development, not just multifamily, um, and does limit that multifamily development ultimately at 25 dwelling units per acre.

It is intended for areas uh adjacent to some of those higher intensity zone districts where higher densities or intensities are permitted.

Uh, not necessarily developed, but um, where those uses are permitted.

And it is important to note when these other sites came in in the R5 zone for development, they were allowed basically double the density based on the lot size per unit at the time.

They would have been able to accommodate 50 dwelling units per acre.

UDC kind of reduced that allowance down to 25 dwelling units per acre.

Here is the more technical document that was submitted showing that 20 feet that will ultimately need to be dedicated for right-of-way.

The owner and applicant is happy to make that dedication either at the time of final plat or via deed if development takes a little bit longer than expected.

Chris got into this.

So multiple comments.

This site was posted on multiple occasions with public comments coming in at each stage.

Those public comments in the earlier postings were pretty minimal and concerns related to traffic and ultimately the impacts of additional density at this site.

Two people spoke at the Planning Commission hearing in November of 2025, again, just with those concerns about traffic and increased density.

Yesterday we received 33 additional kind of template letter comments.

I'm sure you've seen them representing 26 different households.

Their main concern that they expressed were related to additional traffic.

So we'll be happy to answer any questions, and we'll touch on that in some later slides as well.

So review criteria kind of summarized here for you.

The zone change requires us to demonstrate compliance with plan COS, that the project is compatible with the surrounding area, and was not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and that the location is appropriate for the proposed zone.

Land use plans can be waived by city staff when the site is relatively small and development impacts can be reasonably anticipated, and that and when there is kind of a consistent development pattern in the area and when no major infrastructures or improvements are required to accommodate the development.

So for plan COS, as Chris mentioned, we are consistent with a variety of sections of plan COS, beginning with vibrant neighborhoods.

However, those established neighborhoods should anticipate some degree of infill and redevelopment.

And we'll go into it later.

But as you've seen, this is a currently vacant underutilized parcel on a major arterial.

So it is a prime infill location.

Vibrant Neighborhoods also talks about providing a variety of housing types, styles, and price points for residents.

And so that is exactly what R5 is intended.

It's got the full range of residential uses that are permitted.

And as you can see here, this is this is an infill site right along a major road.

So Thriving Economy has a strong emphasis on providing housing to a variety of housing types to support the workforce and major employees, employers in the area.

You can see on this map, the site is within a mile of Peterson Air Force Base.

So this would be an option for attainable housing for soldiers living off base or just base supporting staff with convenient access.

So that would just be a straight shot down Airport Road where the site is located.

Additionally, as you can see, it's kind of smack dab in the middle, probably about within a mile radius of a variety of major employers across all of the institutions.

So it really is a prime location for additional housing to support our existing employers, existing and future.

So as that begins to expand, the need for housing is going to increase as well.

So as far as compatibility with surrounding area, as you can see here, a lot of the higher intensity uses a lot of multifamily along airport road and then kind of more intense industrial and commercial uses as you head toward Powers Boulevard exist currently.

And it's it's typical that you would see those higher intensity uses along major arterials.

And as I mentioned, this is this area is seeing a lot of infrastructure improvements, a lot of business expansion.

You've got the South Powers and Airport Road interchange that is finishing up, I believe, uh directly west within half a mile.

And then again, as I kind of touched on in the last slide, you've got those airport supporting industrial and business parks nearby as well.

So a lot of opportunity for good connectivity to existing employers.

Also wanna uh emphasize that Sand Creek, the green line running north to south is that Sand Creek Tier One Trail.

So there's um recreation opportunities as well in the area.

Zooming in a bit, um, there are variety of surround land uses, um, a variety intensities in the more immediate surrounding area.

As you can see, there's uh multifamily and with variety of um densities, and some of those uses on the square uh the single family lots on Carr Road were largely developed in the county in like the 50s and 60s.

So those are uh existing single family, but more out of character with kind of the more suburban um intense areas.

Um, and it's not uh these larger lot rural residential uh lots are not typically what you would see along a major arterial.

Um directly west of the site are three single family lots with direct access onto airport road.

Um, this is a legal non-conforming situation.

Um you would not necessarily be able to get individual lot access onto airport road with its current classification.

So this general area is out of character with the improvements that have been coming in in in recent decades.

Um we'll get into it on the next couple of slides, but um, this is not necessarily kind of a as much of a sleepy single family residential neighborhood.

There are some higher intensity operations kind of operating in this general area as well.

And um, so we'll kind of touch on that.

You can see here, um, kind of very far north on the car road.

Um there is outdoor storage, kind of hauling with um large trucks being parked in the right-of-way, um, currently operating along Carr Road.

Um, the properties highlighted here are both currently zoned R5, um, as well as the uh the residents directly east of the property, just south of kind of that southern highlighted.

Those are all currently zoned R5, and um perhaps operating businesses are more of like a ranch, but uh those are currently zoned for higher intensity development and are currently operating in less of a traditional single-family way.

And then while not along Car Road, I think it is important to identify some of the higher intensity development that has been approved in the surrounding area.

Um, so just northeast of the site is a 27-acre multifamily development that was approved.

Um, this was approved in 2023 with uh 456 units and almost 750 bedrooms.

So fairly intense large site.

Um, I'll just go back a slide, and as you can see, that's directly adjacent to single family and then much lower density uh mobile home park.

Um so there is precedent for higher intensity development in this area.

And um, as I kind of touched on, it it is an area that's being redeveloped currently as we see uh infrastructure improvements being able to accommodate some of these the increased traffic that we're seeing as well.

So one thing we heard from planning commissioners in November was um kind of a difficulty to visualize what was ultimately being proposed and how that density would be compatible with the surrounding area.

Um at this hearing, our our presentation wasn't um ready to uh kind of help you visualize that, but um, we did try to describe that.

Um so these next few slides will um kind of illustrate what higher intensity development could ultimately look like at this site.

It's not necessarily what is being proposed, um, but we wanted to give you kind of the worst case scenario if this site were truly maximized, um, what that would ultimately look like and how that would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.

So here is a table describing the R5 development standards and then how those would look when applied.

So ultimately, density would allow up to 50 dwelling units, no more.

Building setbacks would either be met or exceeded because of some of the land use transition requirements with the landscape buffers and setbacks.

It illustrates what is actually required for those landscape setbacks and buffers.

You would have a number of trees, dozens of trees lining the perimeter of the site, helping with both the visual impact and potentially noise and things like that, helping to soften a lot of that.

And it also with those buffers where there are single-family residences to the north and the west, opaque fencing as well as uh robust landscaping is going to be required.

15% of the site is required to be open space for multifamily development as well.

That equates to 13,000 square feet, 13,200 square feet.

Um ultimately parking, depending on the unit mix, depending on the number of units, kind of the maximum intensity would require 50 to 100 parking spaces, which the open space requirement and that general stormwater detention requirement is all going to minimize the developable area of the site as well.

So we've illustrated that on the slide for you.

Again, not specifically proposed, but this is a layout that we found really maximizes the site.

So this is a three-story 50-unit building with 72 parking spaces.

Um we are right at the 13,000 square foot for square feet for the open space being shown, and that 0.2 acres for the detention area.

And as you can see, this generally accommodates all of the plantings and things that would be required around the perimeter.

So with this layout, um, generally the units within the building would be two bedrooms.

That's the 75 parking spaces.

This is kind of the maximum uh development that could be achieved here.

Um I also want to point out this building is similar in scale to the Silver Key project that you considered last month that was on a much smaller site and adjacent to kind of smaller lot single story development.

Um we also consulted with uh traffic and fire when developing this layout just to make sure we were actually meeting their requirements.

Um fire confirmed that as long as the building is has sprinklers and a fire lane is provided, then only one access point is allowed.

Uh, we also asked about the viability of a second access point onto airport road with traffic, and they did confirm that uh they could support a ride-in ride out.

It would probably require a right turn D cell lane coming into the site, but ultimately a second access could be provided if it's shown to be warranted.

Um again, what we heard from uh commissioners in November and uh the uh the neighbors was the concern about traffic.

A detailed traffic study isn't required at this stage of development.

However, um you can uh we pulled numbers from the 2026 12th edition ITE trip generation manual, and uh to try to um estimate what the uh the impact of really maximizing the density at this site would be.

So currently 197 multifamily units and 10 single family units utilize car road to gain access to airport road, morning out and evening in are always the highest trip generation movements existing based on um based on those uh trip generation rates.

The um existing morning trips would be 67 trips leaving and 69 trips returning in the evening.

That's about one car per 52 seconds, and then the maximum potential is uh 83 trips leaving the site in the morning and 85 trips returning in the evening.

So that's all units combined, including um development of 4880, and this would come out to one car per 40 seconds.

So as you can see, it is a fairly minimal impact, and um at the development plan stage, a traffic study would be required.

So if it is found that any intersections in the area um are not are underperforming, then um potential improvements would be required and ultimately would need to be implemented, or the density would need to be reduced to accommodate uh those conditions.

Um this slide zooms out a little bit and just uh kind of illustrates the scale of that building.

Um how that uh development would integrate into the area.

Um as we kind of described and and showed on previous slides, uh the impacts of higher density could be mitigated through um those UDC code requirements um that are required to be implemented with the development plan.

Um the future development plan does require public notice, so neighbors have an opportunity to continue to engage with um this project and city staff to express concerns and um ultimately based on the information provided.

R5 is appropriate for the site.

Um it is based on the surrounding zoning, um, based on its location on a major arterial and um the fact that future development can be mitigated through not only site design but the uh the requirements in the existing requirements in the UDC.

So with that, um happy to answer any questions you may have.

I think we'll go ahead and go to public comment first, unless there's any pressing questions, and then we'll uh I'm sure we'll have plenty of questions for you afterwards.

Thank you.

And do we have anybody signed up to speak in support?

We do not have anybody to speak in support.

If somebody didn't get the opportunity to sign up.

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

There's nobody online.

Okay, is there anybody in person to speak in opposition?

Yeah, we do have um a few people to speak in opposition.

The first person is Tao Tai.

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

Uh hello, um, my name is uh Tao Tai.

Um the uh owner um of the land right across from the uh address um proposed.

Uh yes, uh my property is R5.

That doesn't mean now I will build big buildings.

Um last time I uh talked about safety.

Um, but I want to briefly go over it.

Car Road is the only road for our community to get in and out.

It's the only exit in case of an emergency, we are stuck.

There was an incident, uh, someone shot police car, ambulance, fire department came.

That road was completely blocked, no one gets in, no one gets out.

It's dangerous for people that are living there.

Okay.

Just like on an airplane, there's an exit.

The airplane.

You need room for people to get in and out.

What are the chances for you to jump out of the airplane after exit?

Rare, but it needed.

That car road is our lifeline.

Okay.

I always I also want to speak from uh a volunteer point uh um position as well.

Um I volunteer just like you guys.

Um I'm a chaplain for the police department.

Um every day I go out to families, answer death call.

Police officer involved shootings, um, suicide, domestic violence, all these a lot happen from places from household um that are cramped.

People have no room to breathe.

They have no space.

Uh really uh very um big on the psychological issues on on families.

Like when you walk out here, this exit right here.

Well, when you open the door when you walked out, what do you see?

Space.

Nothing.

Uh cover your eyes when we are stressed.

We want to decompress where do we go?

We go to open space.

We'll go to the mountains, we'll go to parks so that we can rela relax a little bit.

If this building is built, it's like a chokehold.

We need room, we need space, we need to breathe.

We need to exit if there is an emergency.

This is what she's mentioned was about whatever in the future.

Mention nothing about who's actually living there right now.

People that want to build this, they don't live here.

Probably live in the up on a mountain somewhere with a nice view and everything.

And all of us here, the normal citizens are living here.

It's not about coat anymore.

It has a lot to do with psychological and mental issues as well.

Please consider that 10, 20 years from now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Helen McKay.

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

Hi, I'm Helen McKay.

And I live in Sand Creek Commons.

I'm the HOA board president.

And I've been there about 20 years now.

Um I'm also neighborhood watch for the Sand Creek Police Department.

Um I can tell you this is not a good idea.

I also monitor car road.

I'm a volunteer.

I don't get paid for anything.

I do.

And uh I monitor car road because we have people dropping off junk cars.

They're sleeping on car road at night.

They bring junk field vehicles and leave them there.

So I take a picture every morning of what vehicles are there, and I wait the 72 hours.

I take them three days in a row, and then I report them to the police department.

So I monitor the creek bed also, and so does Ty.

Um so I've been on the board twice.

It's not a great place to be.

But um, I have 187 units and their family units.

So you've got not only 187, you've got family in there.

Kids, husbands, relatives, whatever.

We cannot get out of our community.

So we can get out and come in part the car uh airport road to car.

Then we have one entrance in, which is Leland Point, and then we have another one towards the creek bed at uh Ellers Grove.

We're backed up already to get out of there, and I can't tell you how many times the police, the fire department, we have elderly people in there.

Um we can't have a blockage of no traffic, and if this car is parked on car road, it's like down to one lane.

I mean, it's it's scary, and it's scary to pull out on airport road.

And yes, I did my own traffic.

Here's what's happened since the first of January.

The yellow is traffic offenses and incidents.

So not only can we get out, sometimes it is the police and everybody else there.

So um, I just printed this off this morning.

So that's the list, and um that's the space.

Well, you can't go by that because I enlarged it a little bit, or just front it a little bit.

Um we are very unhappy with it now, as is, but we manage to be courteous to each other to get out and back in.

Now, they've done the Westgate.

There's a four-way stop down there on Powers, and the traffic.

I watch people that work at the motor vehicle in my community, sit there.

Once they get out of car road, and then they sit on airport road, and all they have to do is go go across powers to get to the motor vehicle, and I I can wave to them from my I'm two doors down from car road.

I mean, airport road.

So, and it's very noisy, let me tell you.

Um, I speak this all the time.

And so I don't see how this is gonna help.

It's gonna hinder and make it more dangerous for all of us.

And when all these people go out to work, they're not gonna get there on time unless they leave an hour earlier.

Okay, do you have anything further?

Because your time is up, so I just want to.

Oh, it's my time up.

Um, I think I covered, I think I could go on.

You can tell.

Okay.

So just remember with that traffic.

All right, thank you very much.

It's very helpful.

Okay, thank you.

Next is Barbara Overgard.

You'll have three minutes um after you introduce yourself.

Well, I'm Barbara Obergaard.

I live in Sand Creek Commons.

I've been there for 21 years.

And I want to thank the Chairman Casey and Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak.

I realize you guys are sometimes in a difficult position.

I get that.

So I wanted to uh fully agree with everything that's been said so far, especially in relation to the traffic, but I wanted to bring up something a little bit different to add to that.

And that is, let's see, I've got my notes here.

I hope I can read them.

Um in addition to these traffic consider uh traffic concerns, there's a consideration uh that relates more to the quality of life.

The um this little neighborhood is kind of tucked in, and as it has been noted, it's it's it's got one egress, but also it's what those of us that moved in there, we moved in for the um the neighborhood for what it was and what it was not, and what it is and what it is not.

What I mean by that is one of the appeals of of appeals of moving into this neighborhood was because it was sort of a little bit um a little oasis, kind of like the Cimarron Hills north of us, where you had a lot of green space, you had a ranch across the street, it's R5, but it's not developed.

You have the Buddhist Temple on the corner, it's R5 but not developed.

Stand Creek Commons was the only multifamily dwelling there where I live.

And uh as you would expect over time, there was development and those two developments.

Um there were just to the west of us, there were townhomes, and then there was Copper Creek apartments, natural growth, natural contribution to the need for housing for the city.

But one thing I want to point out that's very unique to those two developments is they all they both have their own egresses onto airport road.

That is not possible with this development, as has been noted.

The only way the residents of this potential that would be built, these potential condos or apartments that would be built, would be to share the egress where it's already overcrowded.

So uh, you know, that's a different feature is the egresses.

Um, I also wanted to mention that um, you know, we didn't move there.

It's been said, well, you know, there's more and more developments, right?

There's there's more, and there then there are.

There are more and more multifamily developments, but that's the exact reason why we should not have additional ones because we're we're not trying to I feel like we're getting surrounded by all of these by all of these housing developments, and we need to keep the integrity of the what this neighborhood has been historically, which is a more uh the the single family dwellings, and then just that that one area with Sand Creek Commons.

We don't want to be surrounded by multifamily dwellings.

That's kind of what my point is in regards to that.

And I realize I think I just heard a beeper, so um Do you have any final points or quickly?

Yeah, I think yeah, I think I I I kind of covered it.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Next is Joy Salasan.

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Joy Salazar.

I am the executive director of resilient inspired, strong engaged, or rise Southeast.

Our mission is enhancing Southeast Color Springs from within through resident-led change.

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

I talk quite a bit, so I'm just gonna go ahead and read my notes.

Um, I want to begin by saying that RICE supports thoughtful growth and additional housing.

We recognize that Colorado Springs is growing and that land use decisions are complex.

My comments today are not about stopping growth, they're about how growth decisions are made and when community safety is considered.

Residents nearby are worried about access and emergency safety because parts of the surrounding area rely on single egress point onto car road.

When could you when congestion crashes or peak traffic occur?

Limited access can quickly become a safety concern for residents trying to enter or exit their neighborhood.

We understand that traffic and safety impacts are typically evaluated during the site development plan stage.

However, rezoning establishes the scale and the intensity of what can ultimately be built.

Once that entitlement is granted, the conversation often shifts from is this appropriate here to how do we manage the impacts?

That distinction matters to residents.

When safety reviews come after density is approved, communities can feel that they are reacting to decisions rather than helping to shape them.

Even if this sequence is standard practice, it can feel disconnected from neighborhood realities on the ground, as you've heard.

Residents are not asking for perfection, they're asking for preventative thinking.

They want assurance that roads already experiencing congestion are truly ready to absorb additional intensity before it is approved.

Planning decisions are not only about land use, they shape how people experience their neighborhoods every day.

When residents consistently raise the same safety concerns, it signals an opportunity and opportunity to look closely at timing, sequencing, and community trust.

My hope is that the commission considers how rezoning different decisions affect roads with single egress points and how safety and livability can more fully be considered early in the process, not only later in technical review.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

There's nobody online.

Okay, this time we'll move back to the applicant for rebuttal.

You have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

And Odom for the record.

So first, we we heard about um concerns around emergency access.

So would you mind pulling up my presentation right quick?

I've got one image I wanted to share.

Um, so completely understandable concern.

Um the the Sand Creek Commons project to the um to the east has this emergency access right onto to Airport Road.

Um that I would envision in those instances where there are egress concerns that those could be um that could be offered to the community.

I think additionally, um a ride-in-write out is not um off the table.

That is is certainly an option for uh this project as well.

If access is needed onto airport road, that can absolutely be accommodated and considered with future development to help alleviate some of those access concerns as well and give this development a secondary access point.

Um I think it's also important to note in regards to just providing open space and and and room to breathe.

Uh, the site is will be developed, um, so something will go there.

Um we've attempted to demonstrate even at that maximum uh intensity, there's still substantial setbacks, there's still substantial open space and green space for future residents and existing residents to enjoy.

Um in response to the concerns about um folks maybe car camping on car road, uh additional development does typically help alleviate that.

When you have these large vacant parcels, it tends to attract some unsafe reactivity just because you have fewer eyes on it, um, there's fewer people that will care.

So additional development at the site will likely help mitigate that.

Um, while this is considered an established neighborhood in uh Plan COS and kind of in the eyes of the neighbors, um, infill and redevelopment should be anticipated.

And with a lot of the changes that we're seeing in the surrounding area, um, both along Airport Road having been widened and intensified, um, as well as that uh expansion of um the Powers Boulevard interchange and a lot of the um higher intensity development we're seeing directly east, the expansion of the airport, all those things.

Um, this area of town is um becoming more attractive and is is attracting a lot more residents and and has new needs.

So um additional housing um is is needed in this area as major employers continue to expand.

Um let's see.

Um the density is is not set in stone.

One thing I I failed to mention, but I I really want to reiterate that this is this is the uh possibility.

This is the absolute maximum intensity that could be achieved here, but um the applicant doesn't necessarily know what they would like to develop, and it could absolutely be a lower intensity um if that fo is found to be to be more appropriate um when it's time for development.

So um the density is not set in stone, and um while we are considering the zone, which does allow for a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, um that does not preclude additional studies um to uh explore uh the safety of intersections, the traffic flow, um, the need for emergency accesses.

So um those things are still part of this process and will be covered at the development plan stage.

So um the the approval of this zoning does not eliminate one future public input or uh the need to explore um those additional considerations and off-site impacts.

Um and I believe that covers everything I wanted to cover, so happy to answer any additional questions.

Okay, at this time we'll go ahead and close public comment then and we'll move up to the uh to dias for commissioner questions.

Commissioner Hensler.

So I think um my question is gonna start, and maybe it'll be for the applicant, but maybe for city traffic, whomever may be online.

You know, I see in the adjacent development, which Ann showed a picture, and I was looking right on the map of that gated off exit out of the adjacent to the east housing development.

So I'd like to understand is that emerge is that used as emergency only?

Is it been closed off by the community or is it closed off by city uh by fire department or CSPD?

Um because that appears to be a place that one could um exit and and enter in a ride-in, right out.

And if we're anticipating the potential of such in the new development, um I'd like to understand how those are utilized or how they're not seeing it's important.

So and set down.

So I'm guessing that maybe this is city traffic.

So I'll give whomever's online a moment to this is Zach Kera Alaza from City Traffic.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Uh honestly, I'm not aware who closed off this uh access.

It's not closed off by uh uh traffic unity.

Is it a violation of any city traffic rules or egress to have that closed off?

And maybe that's for CSFD who I see is in the back of the room.

It's it's a private uh driveway.

So it if it's called off by the by the barby building or the uh residential I don't think the violet the the cold of the traffic, but I will let uh try a response to this question.

Okay, thanks.

Hello.

Hello, good afternoon, Commissioner Steve Smith, Fire Protection Engineer in Colorado Springs Fire Department.

I am not familiar with that site.

Uh that was before my time.

I assume that it is an emergency access.

Um I don't know if there's an ox padlock on there that we can get through or not.

But uh well, there's a stop sign, which makes it appear as it should be an egress situation.

So I mean, I think, and maybe you all can tell this.

My question, you know, stems from I I can see the concern around car road, right?

We're putting there's already more development, there's maybe some commercial or industrial uses beyond.

We're trying to put more housing.

I recognize that car road is a constraint.

Um, and yet when we have the opportunity potentially for folks to enter and exit from the adjacent development and the I mean, I would be I would be apt to maybe put that as a condition of approval to have that in right in, right out in this in this um particular, right?

But if there's a reason that that's not being used from a legal fire police, um, but if it's capable, and I know our our citizens and hacker probably wanting to come, and we can't you necessarily do that, but I just want to understand from your perspective, this should be access.

Typically, when we have emergency access, is it's for fire department use only.

Uh so that's what I would assume that this is.

However, if this uh community wanted to use that on a daily basis, I'd be fine opening up.

I don't fire department doesn't have any issues with that.

So perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah, Chair Casey, a follow-up for the traffic engineer.

There's a solid white line there, which kind of indicates it's not a regular turning lane um in or out.

Uh, can you speak to that?

Wouldn't there be a break in the white solid white line if that were a turn lane?

Uh Mrs.

Zeka again, let me just look at the map and what you're referring to.

You're talking about the tier name that exists.

I'm talking about the main uh road there, and then there's uh looks to be a uh entrance that's chained off into the community, doesn't appear to be a regular in and out.

I I guess the bigger question is not so much this one is is I guess more for city planner or something like this viable for this other development to have a entrance or at least an emergency entrance off of airport road, kind of the bigger, I guess the really what we're trying to get to here.

If it exists here, it can exist a property over.

Uh Commissioner Casey, uh Dan Sexton for the record, planning manager.

I think those types of questions in terms of how uh final ingress and egress to a project is determined would be determined through the development plan stage.

So again, redirecting you back to the application packet that you have at hand.

Uh and while I think it is it is value added in terms of information from the residents, understanding that there's a concern of egress potentially for the adjacent multifamily development that was built out in the early 2000s.

We can certainly research that with traffic and fire just to make sure that there is uh compliance with current approved entitlements for that site.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Case.

Yeah, um, Steve, question for you.

Uh, obviously, we're talking a lot about traffic and safety, and that's always a concern.

But when we're looking at the place holistically today, have there been issues from your eyes and from traffic overall for this area as it's sits today.

I'm not gonna be able to answer that.

That's more of an operations question, and I don't have that information in terms of any incidents that we may have had issues with.

Okay.

And Zachar, I know you're online as I know there was no comments on the report for this site, but was there any comments?

Yeah, yes, and we did uh check on the past five years extent, and we didn't see any problems at that intersection at car and uh airport road.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Robinson.

Microphone.

There we go.

Thank you.

Save me again.

Um, yes, the concern I have is the fact that uh with the in with the um interchange just to the east, uh it increases the amount of traffic in that area.

I've driven that place many times, and um to me traffic is still the main issue, and it should not uh until the city has done does something with airport road in there, it's becoming uh well, it's becoming dangerous, and now we're thinking of adding another complex in there and they're already what fortified and surrounding area.

I just see it as a real death trap in the nearest in the very near future, and I just um I'm not in agreement with anything on this regards.

So I just think that the city needs to re-evaluate what they're gonna do with airport road.

There's a school not far from there as well, grade school, a lot of traffic with parents coming and going as far as that goes.

It's not just the kids in that immediate neighborhood, is there?

Um, so I think uh I think that needs to be reconsidered.

So I'm not in favor of this project.

Okay, real quick, does anybody have any more questions for for fire department?

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Case.

Yeah, my question's actually for Ann.

Um, you know, as we're going through these kinks of working out through a development plan, I know you've already kind of highlighted how some of that stuff is worked out through that.

Um, do you mind elaborating a little bit more?

I think some of the uses that are in the area, you know, we've got 15.4 density unit per acre for the San Creek Commons and 12.4.

The max allowed is 50 for this site, which you've highlighted, but is that likely going to go there?

I mean, that's up to question, obviously, by the developer.

And then obviously, as you're hearing from public comment too, that safety and traffic is an issue.

So from my eyes, I would think something like this wouldn't go there, but we have to look at it at it as a max use basis.

And obviously, it sounds like it's a bit vague from city traffic and even fire department that they don't really have the studies.

So all we have is public comment to go off of people who live in the area.

And so I would just like maybe if you have some sort of explanation as to that development plan process as to how you decide the max use of density.

Sure.

I think ultimately a fairly um extensive market study would go into determining what would be appropriate for this location.

Um and then you do have to look at um does is how is this intersection currently underperforming?

Could it support uh additional density?

Um if it is underperforming and um improvements would need to be made.

Uh what is the what's the cost of those improvements?

Who's responsible for them?

And so there's a there's a fairly extensive kind of cost benefit analysis that goes through that.

Um deciding where what kind of use is gonna go at uh what sort of location.

So a lot of these numbers will be looked at preliminarily.

Um there are codes in place to ensure um emergency service uh availability um can be accommodated, evacuation access, all of those things um can be considered preventative measures like sprinkling the building.

Um, all of those are um elements of these development projects that um protect the the development as well as the surrounding neighborhood.

So um ultimately uh a lot of those details will be looked at in the early stages before um an eventual uh development is selected.

If that answers, and I guess it's more clarification when I'm looking at what's on the slides right now.

You know, 25 density units per acre is substantially more than what's currently there, and you're hearing that there's issues there now.

So I I guess I'm I know a lot of it's market based um and how you deal with that, but um was just curious if you had a little bit more insight and how that decision might be made.

Um maybe not.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I do right now.

Um, but I think I I do want to point out that um even with these more medium densities, because the site is so small, going from 25 dwelling units per acre to 16 dwelling units per acre, say, which is um kind of more in line with uh the the townhomes on either end.

Um it's really only a difference of about 18 units.

So um the decrease in potential traffic is pretty marginal.

I think we'd be looking at um, you know, we we we stated one car per 52 seconds is kind of the existing frequency.

I think we would probably be at one per 47 seconds or something like that, even if we went to more of a a medium density range.

So that smaller parcel size um really does limit um the development potential and kind of those off-site impacts.

Sure.

I understand.

Thank you.

As Chair Case, you have a few questions and full disclosure during the initial hearing of this, as you know, it was opposed to the project, so keep an open mind.

But uh, I do want you to if you go to your back to your slide, the compatibility with surrounding neighborhood.

Um, I think we could talk about this previously.

No, it's the one that shows the actual densities.

Oh yeah, so I mean we have R5, you know, as you pointed out, the two multifamilies, but neither of them are developed at 25 dwelling use per acre.

And I understand you know that the land use statement is kind of the lowest level commitment, basically.

So I just want to kind of point out more for the commissioners that if we approve a rezoning to this, this the plan that's being presented today, or the statement that's being presented today is not necessarily you know, meet this land could be sold.

I assumed with um with the different zoning, it was probably more more uh more valuable.

Yeah, that's all right.

That's where I was searching for.

Probably more valuable.

So another developer come in here and develop the site with as a use by right with the zoning.

So it I well, I appreciate the plan, or at least the pictures of showing what could be there.

I do want to point out that you know we're talking a difference of someone said 15 uh dwelling units, but I'm I'm counting it's R16, 6,000 square foot yacht lots would be eight of them would make an acre.

So you're talking eight dwelling units per acre, and we're talking going to 25, and we're going from 35 feet allowed under R16 to 50 feet.

So it's basically two store to three story or so there's a significant difference on here.

And I don't know that I don't know if the multifamily that's to the east there is two story or three story, what that is there, but it does seem like this again, this is as the city code kind of describes R5 is the highest density permitted in the city's standard residential districts.

So you're going to go going from a fairly low density of R16 up to all the way up to the most the highest possible density permitted in the city.

And so as I point out before, I I I found that you know I I had problems with that in terms of uh uh criteria number four in that the application demonstrates the size scale, high density, multiple traffic impacts of the proposed rezoning are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

And at the time I found that they were not compatible, and I'm not sure I'm um I'm convinced that they are.

Uh do you have anything to add to that that would convince me this is compatible that you already have an added because it seems like the the highest possible gonna prove the highest possible density on a you know basically back of the napkin plan um that that's not a development plan, it's not anything locked in stone, but we're locking in a zoning for this area that could be you know could be changed into anything or any other uh residential use.

Sure.

Um I think first point I'd like to point out is um the kind of the purpose of the R5 zone district.

Again, it is intended to be around those areas where um higher intensity uses are uh permitted.

Um this is an expansion of that existing zone.

So this is not an this is not a spot zoning scenario.

Um it is consistent with the development potential of um some of the northern properties uh along Carr Road that are currently single family um but could be reasonably redeveloped in the future.

I think what I remember hearing from you in that uh November uh planning commission hearing as well was that um perhaps R Flex Medium would be in a more appropriate uh kind of transitional zone for this site.

Um that would allow that's where I pulled that that 16 dwelling units per acre.

It's pretty consistent with those uh more medium density town home developments on either side and kind of references back to some of the concerns you had previously.

Um and so the difference between um potentially a more transitional zone district um is about 18 units, which with that trip generation, um again, it the difference is uh is really quite marginal.

Um I think I also want to point out that um residential single family residential development on this size of a parcel is probably pretty unrealistic.

It's going to be difficult to find a builder that's gonna um build only eight homes on the corner of a a major arterial, and um, you know, it might not necessarily be a site suitable for custom home development either, where you have individuals coming in and um wanting to build whatever they want to build.

So the existing zoning isn't really viable at this time.

So um while rezoning to R5 would make the the project um or the site a little bit more valuable, um it allows for uh in fill development on an underutilized parcel in an area that is developing and seeing some higher intensity where we have industry nearby that is expanding um and does need additional housing for uh future employees.

So um we feel with the broader context, um, I I think also one more point is um compatible doesn't necessarily mean identical.

Um so just because you've got um townhome style multifamily development uh along airport road, that doesn't mean with the uh UDC buffering and land use transition requirements um and ultimately site design um that the site can't be made compatible at a slightly higher density.

Um so uh yeah, let me know if you have any other questions on that.

Yeah, you mentioned the silver keys in the silver keys case that was already zoned, it wasn't a rezone, it was just a conditional use, and really the only change in density had to do with the amount of dwelling units in a build in a single building.

It was you know, 10 was the limit, and so they could have put five structures with with 10 on it, or they you know conditional use was just to build one structure, though the density wasn't necessarily changing there, but did you how else I'm not quite wasn't quite clear how you saw that as a parallel situation to this one.

Sure.

Um I think my point there was um that this the size of the building um was similar in that instance on a much smaller site.

So um your dwelling units per acre is much higher.

I think it was closer to like 47 dwelling units per acre.

Um and it was uh much closer in proximity to um smaller kind of single story single family development.

Whereas in this instance, you're on a higher classification of roadway, you've got instances of multifamily development in the surrounding area.

Um, and ultimately the with the site design and everything, um you can optimize the the buffers between existing uses and um I lost my train of thought.

I have one more point to make.

Let's see.

Um yeah, uh ultimately that um it it is a a similar scale and uh and it's an expansion of an existing zone district.

So you've already got that high density multifamily zoning in the immediate area.

So and so that uh kind of density precedent is already set with the surrounding zoning, which is it's a different condition.

Um, but it is sort of similar.

There are uh there were density limitations in that silver key project as well.

Um I mean, you keep on going back to the it's consistent, the zoning is consistent, but that's why I like this map because it's it probably doesn't work in your favor, but it shows the actual, it shows the actual density.

So that could be R5 there to the east, but it's only 15 dwelling units per acre, 15.4 versus 25.

Um, and I realize this this could end up being smaller than that too.

It doesn't have to be 25, but that's what we have to go on because there's no you know, there's no development plan here.

It's just a land use statement.

So yeah, again, I think what I would point back to is um compatible and consistency doesn't necessarily mean identical.

So um you do have instances of higher density um as you go further west.

You've also got instances of much more high intensity multifamily development as well.

So um this is kind of a transitional area.

This is uh this is a pocket of um much older develop single family development um that uh was ultimately developed in the county, and so um, and there's a lot of legal non-conforming instances with those primary accesses is off of airport road, um, as well as maybe some kind of higher intensity operations operating at some of these.

So um I think ultimately this is an area that um may see some redevelopment.

Um, and the greater surrounding area already has begun to see that redevelopment.

So um it is reasonable anticipate a higher intensity use to be along uh a major arterial in this area.

Okay, thank you, uh Commissioner Hansler.

Yeah, and probably don't go anywhere, Ann.

Um can we go back to the slide that has the zoning?

Because I think that I am while I'm hearing what um Ryan and Ken are saying about the what's developed currently on that other slide, right?

14 units, 15 units, 12 units, what have you.

If we were to look at different zoning, I mean, if you all and your applicant had brought forth different zoning, right, then it would be even potentially even more of a spot zone if we were to go to um like an R4 or uh R flex or an R Flex lower medium, that would be potentially even more of a spot zone because we are surrounded by and potentially those other two lots could go R5.

And so while I recognize that that the density may be more than is existing now or in the two adjacent properties, I get your point of it's it's actually more consistent with the zoning, not with the actual built-out, which is really what's more of our purview is what is the zone.

Our criteria is the zoning and not necessarily how many units they build to.

We we get to weigh in on the zoning more so than how many units they actually put on it.

So I think I'm in uh contrast to your commentary.

Um and certainly this is I agree.

This is an area that has you know seen a lot of growth and will continue, especially as airport and the commercial to the east continues to grow, and it feels like it's a bit of an island, which I think creates the challenge for neighbors that are there that they've lived on their island and they want it to continue to be an island, and I understand that, but I also think that growth is a natural evolution.

And so I'm in favor of, I think this zoning as I talk myself into it, maybe because I think it is more consistent, even if what gets built may be inconsistent.

We're we're keeping with zoning that's compatible.

Um so I just as you were saying that, I was like, yeah, I don't, I think I I feel differently.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Thank you.

Um I've I just keep coming back to this undercurrent that I've heard most clearly from Joyce Salazar from Rise, but that I keep hearing in our comments, which is it's kind of frustrating that this may not come back before us as the plan becomes more specific and matures where there would be an input for a public hearing.

So I do want to acknowledge that and say that I feel like that tension has been brought up a few times, and I hope it's something that you know we can discuss or consider as we move forward long term.

I don't think we can fix it right now.

Kevin, I see you moving to unmute.

I just want to remind you that uh you can uh the applicant and the neighbors can always uh appeal these kinds of decisions if they don't think that they were appropriately made, and then it will come before you.

Uh, even if it was made administratively, they just have to watch for the approval to happen.

Well, they'll they'll get noticed and and the same way they've gotten noticed today.

So thank you for that.

I think we had a fairly large one of those fairly recently.

No, did we?

Um, but I wanted to refocus on section 7.5.704 D, the criteria for approval and looking at this in the context of what is known right now.

I have to put on the cap of could it be like could it be not detrimental to the public interest?

It sounds like absolutely it could be non-detrimental to the public interest if that right in, right out turn lane were approved or were incorporated to it.

But there are so many uncertainties right now because of the stage of development that it's at, that I can't say it definitely will be detrimental to the public interest and when I'm making my determination.

I do find much like Commissioner Hensler said that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I feel like even if it did end up at its maximum density, it adds to the diversity of housing in the area and it works in a graduated way.

And I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that an undeveloped parcel within an incorporated area should remain perpetually undeveloped.

I think this again, the same sort of contrapositive approach.

The it it may be an appropriate building once it's all hashed out, but I can't say it definitely is not, and so I'm reticent to deny it.

Um I think much along the same lines, you're going to find my comments for criteria four and five, or criteria four and five to be very similar.

It it is possible it could be.

And until you've violated the intent or you've shown that it's not, then I can't really find that it isn't compatible with density or that it's gonna locate or dislocate occupants or tenants.

I I don't believe it's going to dislocate anyone at all.

It's vacant.

Um I find that there being no land use plan number six in the criteria is not applicable.

Um that ADS does not apply, the ADSO overlay would not apply in this instance.

Um, and it appears to comply like it will comply and like the further review process will have it comply with uh section 7.2 related to the future development on the site.

So I think my only remaining question would be is there anything concept plan-wise for criteria seven that I haven't that I'm not aware of that it might violate here for staff.

Uh the the answer is no.

So in that case, I'm I'm not myself able to reason my way into opposing this on the basis of it not meeting criteria.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Slaughtery.

Thanks, Chair.

Um, I'm having a hard time with this one.

Um, understanding our need for more housing as a community as a whole, um, seeing that you know the intensity of use along airport road um being consistent with its you know, arterial designation.

Um the compatibility zone-wise with adjacent R5s um makes sense.

It seems that, you know, I I think I'm um understanding a lot of what Chair Casey is putting out with the intensity of uses, the heights, um with most of the surrounding area, you know at max build out doesn't quite seem compatible um with its neighbors.

It it doesn't feel like it it is um harmonious with the uses directly around it.

Um and one of almost a bigger concern is that car road access um as a choke point for you know the large um condominium development and and the properties behind it.

Um so perhaps that would be made um differently or plan differently at the development plan area from what we've seen um as car road as the access point uh for this development.

And you know, height was a big um, I think compatibility issue in my mind with what's around it as well.

So um I am having trouble uh believing that it meets the criteria any other commissioners with questions or comments or any other commissioners want to make a statement that they're either in support or reasons for opposition.

Commissioner Robbins Well, once again, um I am not in support of this at all.

Um I feel that the uh again the the traffic issue is vital and the volume of traffic on airport road has changed greatly over the years um as the city has developed and having that interchange uh bringing in more traffic into airport road.

I feel that here, regardless of the dollar value or anything that applies.

I think the value of uh the lives of people uh that are endangered by the increased accidents is uh is worth more.

So um anyway, um until the city has figured something out in regards to airport road, and uh it has become more of a highway than it was previously.

I think it's very dangerous, and things need to be uh changed um from the city first.

Uh Commissioner Gigiano.

Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Gigiano for the record.

Um I concur with uh Commissioner Robbins.

Um I'm not comfortable with the traffic issues um and also just the compatibility with uh surrounding zones.

Commissioner Case.

Yeah, so I uh voted to approve this uh the last time, and after hearing more from public comment as well as city traffic and fire, uh it seems there's quite a few unknowns with this area and with the public comment as well with the R5 that there is some issues with traffic there already.

Uh I feel that there needs to be some more done with the city overall.

Um so I'll be voting to deny this project.

Thank you.

Are there any other commissioners with comments or statements?

And if not, uh well, we'll move to entertain a motion.

Yeah, I'm not again it's we seem kind of split, so I'm not sure with the motion which which one of the questions.

I don't know how to do uh I I can do say the one that we have written up.

Well, if you're if you're making the motion, then you can uh make the move which motion you wish.

Right.

I'm making a motion to deny the zone change of the 2.17 acres from R16 APO, which is single family medium with airport overlay to R5 APO, multifamily high with airport overlay, based upon the findings that the request does not comply with the criteria for a zoning map amendment as set forth and city unified development code section 7.5704.

Why does it say a motion to accept when we're trying to deny?

Okay, then I wanted to say go ahead and put your microphone on, please.

It is on.

I just said it so it is a motion to deny, correct?

Correct.

That's what he read.

That's correct.

So you're gonna second if you would just second it for the record.

Yeah, second seconding for the record.

Thank you.

The motion passes with seats six votes in favor.

Okay, I want to thank everybody that came out today for public comment and for uh applicants and our city staff.

We had a good discussion here on this one uh in particular.

Uh at this point, we've concluded all the business we have on our agenda, so we are adjourned.

No, Commissioner Casey.

Can you pause one second?

Yes.

Um as as per current city code with the denial of this application or approved motion to deny the application.

Uh you do need to reel read into the record appeal instructions.

We're trying to fix that, but it hasn't been fixed yet.

Okay, because it said non-appealable in here.

I don't think I have the appeal up there.

I sure do.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, in accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code.

An affected party may appeal to the city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party within 10 days from the final action of the item being appealed, which is Monday, February 23rd, 2026.

The appellant must file notice of appeal and pay the 176 dollar fee with the city clerk.

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

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

Anything else from the staff?