Uh good morning.

The Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for March 11, 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 areas.

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.

The commission reviews those applications and proposals governed by city code.

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

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

Understand that others may have different views from your own.

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

For items presented on today's agenda, the city planning staff will give a presentation on the application, followed by the applicant.

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.

And please respect others attendees right to both listen and be heard.

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

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

Solange, please uh call the roll call.

Vice Chair Hensler.

Here commissioner Sissil.

Here.

Commissioner Slidery.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Chair Casey?

Here.

Commissioner Clements.

Here.

Commissioner Didiano?

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

And uh my system is not working for signing in, just to let you know.

So I may just speak.

Okay.

To vote if that works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Yeah, thank you.

Confirming that we don't have any changes to the agenda or postponements.

Okay, communications.

Uh I do not have any.

Uh Mr.

Walker.

I just have one real quick update from yesterday evening.

The uh city council approved the rezoning and the land use plan for the Palmer High School, but did not approve on a four to four vote the uh vacation of the right-of-way.

What that means to all of the other approvals is uh yet to be determined uh or has some question around it, but we're working through that.

Um, the city council will be hearing an appeal of the rezoning on airport road.

Uh your denial of that rezoning um uh March 24th.

Okay, thank you.

Uh for the minutes for the February 11, 2026 planning commission meeting, we're gonna defer uh the review and approval of those to the April meeting.

So with this time, we'll move on to the consent calendar.

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

The planning commissioner takes action on the consent calendar with a single vote without further discussion.

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

Slaunch, please read the items in the consent calendar into the record.

Item 5A, CUDP-25-0012, 1790 South Academy conditional use.

Okay, does any planning commissioner wish to call an item off the consent calendar?

Is any member of city staff wish to call an item off the consent calendar?

And does any member of the public wish to call any items off the consent calendar?

Okay, based on that, uh we can entertain a motion uh to approve the consent calendar.

Again, please use your tablets.

I will make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Second the motion passes unanimously.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, moving on to new business.

We have creekside flying horse.

Could you please reset into the record?

Item 8A Z O N E-25-0038, a song map amendment consisting of approximately 44.72 acres located north of the intersection of North Powers Boulevard and Interquist Parkway from PDZ to R Flex Medium with United States or for Air Force Academy Overlay.

Item 8B, L UPL-25-0023, establishment of the creekside at flying horse land use plan for medium density residential and parks consisting of approximately 44.72 acres located north of the intersection of North Powers Boulevard and Antiguous Parkway.

Your percenter is Ali Son Stalker.

I don't think I've ever had to turn this on up here before.

Good morning, Allison Stocker Senior Plan with the land use review division.

This morning we're going to be discussing as mentioned, the Creek Ridge Zone Map Amendment and Land Use Plan.

The Creek Ridge site is northeast of the intersection of Interquest Powers and New Life Drive, kind of in that vicinity.

The area that would be rezoned is 44.72 acres.

The property would be, if approved, changing from a planned development zone or a PDZ to R Flex medium with the Air Force Academy overlay.

The proposal is being requested so that the property could be developed as medium density residential.

The R Flex medium allows for a variety of different housing products.

So there isn't a specific housing product that would necessarily be built, but it does allow for a range of density between five and sixteen units per acre.

The zone change area is surrounded generally by other plan development zones, most of which are um lower density or kind of moderate density residential.

There's also business park along New Life Drive, particularly Pikes Peak College, just to the south, and then east of the property, it is majority of agricultural area as you kind of go up it toward Black Forest.

This is like a major traffic node for the city, especially with the realignment proposed by CEDA as well as the city for the intersection of powers and interquest.

So this request would remove the property or a portions of the property from the PDZ.

The 44 acres is about two-thirds of the existing PDZ.

The portions not removed from the PDZ and that are not a part of the zone change would stay in the plan development zone as previously approved.

So as mentioned, the rezone would allow for the development of mixed use or sorry, moderate density residential, um, which is a little bit more um in line with kind of market demands.

With this rezone, it would remove all of the commercial components from the currently approved PDZ.

So the portions of property that are staying in the PDZ would essentially just be the multifamily pieces.

Um along with regional commercial type facilities.

Um as to what was required there.

So the PDZ is all based on the master plan, which includes blocks that spoke to what type of land uses should occur where.

And then the remainder of the PDZ would be that area converted to R Flex.

And I have a map that shall show that a little bit better here soon.

So I know there was a lot of discussion at work session on density changes with the PDZ and portions going to R Flex.

So on the left side, you'll see the exact land use spread of permitted items for the PDZ.

This includes across 67 acres, a maximum of 1,500 units, 250 hotel units, 50,000 square feet of conference space, 3,000, sorry, 300,000 square feet of commercial area, and then about 800,000 in employment, which I assume would in this case be office spaces.

With the transition to this uh Creek Ridge land use plan, 44.6 acres.

Um about 36 acres of which would actually be used for um residential uses.

The absolute kind of maximum gross density we're looking at is potentially 580 units.

So of course, this does not account for things like landscaping, new roads that would need to be built internal to the properties, um, and then any other kind of uh communal areas.

The remaining downtown flying horse PDZ that you can see kind of on the right image that's highlighted in blue.

Um as I mentioned, block B already has been approved for 242 units, and then blocks C and F would have a minimum of 12 units per acre.

Um so the overall density would drop a decent bit for this entire area with the approval of the Creek Ridge zone change.

Um I have a quick comparison of some non-residential uses going from the PDZ to Creek Ridge.

Um the PDZ did allow for a very wide variety of non-residential uses.

Everything's from bar and restaurants to office spaces to vet services, schools, civic uses, etc.

Um, these, of course, were all written under the old chapter seven, so the actual use types are a little different than how we discuss them now.

And then the Creek Ridge under the R Flex medium would have a much more limited set of non-residential use types that would be allowed.

These are largely limited to things like daycare, churches, schools, uh semi-public recreation, hospice uses, public safety, certain utilities, and then urban agriculture.

So this application or these applications have been in review since November.

They've gone through three separate reviews with all of the standard review agencies, and this item became ready for planning commission on uh the 24th of February.

Um 109 postcards were sent out to the immediate area, everyone within a thousand feet.

I did receive one email just kind of asking some questions about the application, um, but I did not receive any kind of formal kind of comment in regards to this application.

So all agency uh review comments have been satisfied through the review period.

There were no outstanding concerns from any of the reviewers.

Um, this application did go to parks, CDOT, Colorado Springs Police, among many, many others.

Um, all of the uh comments were more on the lines of informational or things that would be required at time of development plan review.

The uh staff did find that the application does broadly comply with plan COS.

There's a number of different uh plan COS objectives policies that are listed in the staff report to refer to.

And then we have our application review criteria for both the zone map amendment and the land use plan.

Staff does find that the applications meet both sets of criteria.

And then I have optional motions for both applications that we can peruse if needed.

Um but I'm also available to take any questions.

Nobody has any personal questions, we'll move on to the applicant and then go back to now.

Can I use this one?

That's okay.

Let me turn this one off.

Good morning, commissioners.

Jason Awwan with NES here to represent the project.

Um go through.

Uh a little bit of kind of repeat into some background site location context is mentioned.

Uh site is kind of the the intersection of future North Powers Boulevard is across the Interquest and Highway 83.

You can see Kettle Creek to our south, flying horse ranch existing to our north and to our west, Interquest, and then further west Air Force Academy.

Zoom in a little bit more.

You can see uh the map on the right hand page, uh, Pikes Peak State College, uh, where New Lack Drive comes in Interquest, uh just uh where that new fire station is located, and then you can see the the dash line of the approximate future powers boulevard extension and that interchange there.

Uh as mentioned on 2021, this is part of a flying horse master plan update.

Uh see encircled in kind of the the the black revision cloud uh identified about 67 acres for regional commercial, multifamily, and residential with a max density of 1500 units.

Uh and as planner mentioned, this master plan has already been implemented, so no requirements to amend this master plan were requested or required.

Um looking at the existing zoning concept plan, uh the map to the right, the the red outline is the area of proposed change.

Uh it is uh zoned PDZ use variance plan development zone, approximately 67.42 acres.

A variety of uses were approved of with this uh MU mixed use, office hospitality residential, residential multifamily, open space detention pond, uh the youth uh Air Force Military Overlay, uh, and then this again is established in 2021 by the P the PUZ and the PUP uh contemplate that you see here.

Uh it's important to note the intersection locations on Highway 83.

I don't think I have a cursor, um, uh shown it right in ride out, and then the full movement intersections along New Life Drive.

I'll get to those in a moment.

Um, and these are just some of the approved uses of that or part of that PU uh PDZ.

Again, is a very general broad uh use list.

It wasn't specifically commercial, nor was it specifically residential, but a combination of everything.

Uh and as you'll see in just a moment, a lot of these uses were allowed in many different parts of the of the plan.

Uh some of the residential uses include uh dorms, duplex, uh multifamily live work type units, uh, retirement facilities, uh single family detached, uh, office, general office, medical, mixed office, residential, uh, specific uses such as clubs, uh, schools, hospitals, uh, religious institutions, uh, and then an array of commercial uses, uh, bars, hotels, uh, bed and breakfast, general office, general business park, um, liquor sales, retail, uh, restaurants, uh, both drive up, quick serve, and sit-down, uh, and then also a small component of industrial research and development, and then parking and utilities.

So, all of these uses were identified throughout the plan.

Again, there wasn't one specific area that allowed only commercial or only residential, and I'll highlight that in and in just a moment.

Um, the area to remain is about 23 acres.

That's highlighted in blue, kind of the southwest portion of the overall property.

Uh as uh Alice mentioned, block A, that's the open space detention pond that is constructed.

Uh block B is that uh residential multifamily that's also under construction.

Uh and then uh block C and a portion of block F, those will remain as is today as part of the approved uh flying horse uh downtown um BDZ concept plan.

Uh a variety of uses are included, even though it's a designated R MF residential multi-family, it's single family detached, it's multi-family, it's office, it's commercial, it's food sales, it's general retail.

So, again, to my point earlier, a lot of variety of uses can be could have been used on this site.

Again, not specifically commercial, not specifically residential, but a wide of race.

So there was no telling back in 2021 exactly what direction this is going to go.

But the fact remains with these parcels C and F, there is potential for um commercial at this intersection if uh developers so choose or or demand was there for that.

Um looking at the area of our change highlighted in red, uh, just over 44 acres, 44.72.

Uh there's a lot of text here, so I'll try and do my best to explain this.

Um we got block D, uh, which is five acres.

That's kind of the northwest portion, kind of tucked into the site.

That's identified as mixed use.

That is probably more of the specific uh commercial, mixed residential type use.

Uh block E is open space in commercial.

I thought that was an interesting designation that you could do park or commercial site.

Uh a portion of block F identified as that residential multifamily that I just spoke of.

Uh blocks G and H identified as office, hospitality, or residential.

That's about 13 total acres.

Uh, and then uh block I in the far northeast, that was identified as residential, uh roughly 10 and a half acres.

So you can see there's a wide range of uses, all intermixed with not one designated uh use for for each site.

Uh of the of the 44.72 acres of proposed change, about just under 15 acres is that uh OHR, that office hospitality residential, or mixed use.

And I do want to point out that all those both those uses did allow for multifamily dwelling units.

So does the R Flex medium.

So it could have been commercial or it could have been residential.

In this case, going R Flex Medium, it does pinpoint a more distinctly residential.

Also want to note that blocks F and I, uh approximately 17 and a half acres of the 44 acres, uh, were primarily designated for residential.

They were that residential component that allowed single family detached as well as multifamily.

So just about a little over 40% of the proposed change was already identified as a residential use with the approved PDZ.

Uh looking at some of the site context, again, PDZ surrounding us, that's a uh you know, old old PUD plan unit development.

Uh to our west and northwest, we got R1600, that's a straight zone residential, uh business park MXN.

Uh and then immediately to the southeast.

I know the assessor or the map isn't updated, but that is the uh Kettle Creek Center.

That was a rezone to MXM, I think believe, maybe summer of 24.

Uh so that is about 40 acres of of that medium scale commercial that got approved as a the rezone and land use plan uh just across the street at that intersection of 83 and powers.

Uh and then if we zoom out a little bit more for looking at some of the commercial context uh with nearby commercial centers.

As I just mentioned, across the street, there's 40 acres of that Kettle Creek Center.

That was a straight zone MXM.

Uh within one to two miles, mostly to our west, as you got New Life Commons, Interquest Marketplace, Interquest Town Center, Victory Ridge, all in the past five years have really taken off and shown uh some pretty good growth with both office component, uh employment centers and commercial component.

Zooming out a little farther, you've got the Cordera Retail Old Ranch Road.

That is also fairly new with a gas station there, some inline retail, but there's a taco bell there.

Uh and then farther out within five miles, the the main uh Cordera Retail, which has the the target, uh some restaurants there, and then to the north flying horse.

I point that out because in the last five years we've seen pretty tremendous growth in the commercial sector, office sector uh surrounding this property, which lends to why we're looking at rezoning this to more of that R Flex medium to allow variety of residential uses and not be able to compete with the the commercial office use that have been well established within that five-mile range of this site.

Uh getting into some of the requests now.

So it is a zone change from PDZ uh to R Flex Medium with the Air Force overlay, uh 44.72 acres is mentioned.

Uh it'd be a mixed density residential.

The max density would be 16 dwelling units per acre.

Uh the proposed density for the straight zone is five to sixteen DUs per acre uh with a max building height of 45 feet.

Uh from a land use plan uh point of view uh of the 44.7 acres, a little over 36 acres would be that area of residential.

That's the orange UC up to you take 16 DUs maximum times the 36 acres for about 580 dwelling units would be our maximum uh number of dwelling units on this site.

Uh we have 3.5 acres for a neighborhood park that helps meet the PLDO obligations, uh roughly in the same location as the previous PDZ, uh kind of central adjacent to the channel.

Uh uh we have almost five acres, uh 4.9 acres of preserved open space.

That's kind of the far northern of the map uh where there's a Pebbles uh metal jumping mouse habitat, so it's a no-build line and a preservation area up there.

Uh and then from an access point stand, uh we have we're retaining the riding right out along State Highway 83.

That's kind of with the arrows and uh the circles there, and then utilizing Summerstone Drive for our full movement.

That's that access point that comes off new life, and then serving the apartments under construction now.

Uh, all the streets right now would be are planned to be internal public, uh, and then part of this project would be the future construction of the Black School Creek Trail that would run through this project in some capacity and connect to uh trail corridors along New Life.

So that trail would connect into that and help complete that segment of planned trails.

From just an approved use comparison chart, I wanted to throw this up and kind of talk a little bit of the approved uses.

Again, on the PDZ side existing today, it's residential, office, commercial, civic.

What we're proposing too is residential and a park site.

The non-residential density allowed up to like a 25% FAR, which is a floor area ratio.

That included things as hotel rooms, 50,000 square feet of conference center, 300,000 square feet of commercial, 800,000 square feet of office employment.

But again, going back a couple slides, you can see what's been developed around us within five miles over the past five years that have really taken demand from this site away.

Our site would only allow residential, except for some adult child care and religious institutions are part of the straight zone.

Another point I think is important to talk about is on the approved PDZ, we need a minimum density of eight to 12D use per acre, not a maximum, a minimum.

So any use coming forth residential would have to meet those minimums.

And that is really difficult to do a single family detached, I'll be honest.

Most likely that's going to be an attached product and then upwards of two more apartments in order to get that minimum of 12D use per acre and try and get that 1500 unit maximum that was approved.

Conversely, we're maximized at 16 D use per acre or roughly 580 units, almost a thousand units less than what was proposed.

So quite a bit less intense, less density, you know, less traffic generated by this.

The non the both the commercial height and residential heights that was approved was 125 feet.

With the straight zone or dropping that down to 45 feet, so again, quite a big difference there.

And then with landscape and building setbacks, all that's determined at development plan, but roughly in line, 25 along powers and requests with landscape buffering and so forth.

And then going into some of the plan COS compliance.

This is a newer developing neighborhood on the vision map, and it's also adjacent to a new developing corridor.

The emerging neighborhoods typology provides opportunity to grow and maintain a diversified mix of residential densities and unit types.

Going into some of the compliance, policy V and 1A, prioritize neighborhood plans for those areas with the most potential for change.

And I think we've seen this area is changing a lot with what's happened around it.

Amend the zoning and subdivision regulations to implement neighborhood plans such as this.

Going down strategy VN3E3, encourage and support flexible site and building designs and residential densities that are adaptable to specific site.

Go into the RFlex medium allows that with the 5 to 6D or 5 to 16 D use per acre.

We can get single family detached, we can get uh attached, and we could almost even get a small component of multifamily depending on the number of units in that.

And then finally, you know, support the greenfield development that includes uh mixed use, higher density clusters and quality design.

And this is surrounded by cities, surrounded by infrastructure, both traffic and utilities.

Uh looking at some of the applicable zone change review criteria.

Again, it supports the emerging neighborhood typology by expanding a diverse mix of residential densities, uh, encourages that balanced neighborhood growth through a variety of housing options that accommodate different household needs.

Uh and we benefit uh from nearby employment, commercial, and manufacturing centers again, as mentioned, all within five miles of this site, uh big growth in that commercial office sector uh just down uh several major corridors.

Uh is this detrimental to the pub uh public health safety welfare?

Uh we don't believe so.

It's in line with the original PDZ as far as the expected uh housing types and uses.

Uh it actually reduces the site intensity while increasing certainty for residential development standards.

PDZ, it's pretty open, uh open-ended with R Flex medium.

It's uh we have restrictions on what lot sizes we have, setbacks, building heights, etc.

Uh, and then traffic impacts are expected to be minimal due to the reduced uh overall traffic volumes.

Um this location is adjacent to existing major roadways with multiple points of access.

Uh continued uh with some of the zone change criteria.

Uh it is uh the site is suited for our flex medium district and aligns with surrounding development patterns, such as existing flying horse to the north.

Uh the Black School Creek creates a natural buffer and an amenity for both the existing and proposed neighborhoods.

Uh and the roadway and utility infrastructure was planned for a higher intensity uses, thus, what we're coming in with uh what's been provided would adequately serve uh this development.

Um, and then is it consistent with approved concept plans in the area?

It is consistent with the uh flying horse master plan that we mentioned earlier.

It's consistent with the approved PDZ and that with uh similar type of residential uses.

We're just going to a straight zone, we'd rather do the PUD.

Uh it does remain uh consistent with previously approved and permitted residential use types uh in the area, uh namely flying horse to the north and northwest.

Uh and again, the flying horse master plan is implemented, so no modifications to that plan were required.

Uh and then just want to talk on a few of the applicable land use review criteria.

Um again, compliance with plan COS.

It supports the emerging neighborhoods typology.

Uh uh, it encourages and we're proposing to balance uh neighborhood growth through a variety of housing options, uh benefits from nearby employment, both commercial, office uh, and manufacturing centers.

Uh and is this compatible with adjacent land uses?

Uh it's really an extension of the fine horse development to the north.

Um, so it does align with that.

Uh the roadway and utility infrastructure are there and we're planned for this site, so so it's adequate to serve the needs.

Uh this project will continue uh the significant development and growth we've seen in this area, uh both from residential and an employment center.

And the integration of the res residential options near employment centers helps address uh work for housing needs in this area.

And I believe this is the last slide, so uh bear with me.

Uh with regards to proposed ingress, uh street utilities, public schools.

Uh, traffic study was completed by LSC transportation consultants, and it confirms that the existing streets and access points uh can accommodate the proposed development.

It did outline some turn lane improvements.

Uh again, you utility infrastructure was planned and brought to this site, so we'll conserve this.

Uh a neighborhood park will be provided.

That's that 3.5 acre site century located that I pointed out.

Um, and then with uh respect to the promotion of transitions and height density and character, the RFX medium uh defines those standards.

So going forward, that you know, mentioned that we have you know defined setbacks, lot sizes, heights, etc.

So going forward, neighbors and uh residents would know what's gonna come with this community where the PDZ it's implemented each development plan stage.

Uh and then um finally again it aligns with the flying horse development uh to the north.

Uh and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

I think unless there's any pressing questions, and we'll go on to public comment and then right back to Dice.

Okay.

Thank you.

So is there public comment in support of the application?

Either present or online.

We do not have anybody sign up to speak in support or opposition for this item.

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

Press star six.

There's nobody online.

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

There's nobody online.

So there's nobody signed up.

Is there anybody in the audience that was there's anybody in the audience that would like to um come to the podium and speak?

Seeing nobody.

Okay, that concludes public comment, so there's no need for rebuttal.

Uh so we'll move it up to the dais for commissioner questions.

Commissioner Robinson.

I just want to know if you can give me some more explanation on the uh the traffic situation.

The ingress.

Everything that's going on there.

Is there going to be a lot of road change that happens?

Uh if I may repeat the question, are you asking uh other road changes going on or or improvements?

Right.

Because you know, the amount of traffic that's there already, and then you're adding to it.

And I'm sure they someone's mentioned something about this when it was first zoned as PDZ.

But uh, I was just concerned about the traffic coming in and going out because that intersection is really busy, even in all power.

Can you not hear me?

Can I pile on to um Commissioner Robins' question?

Because that was gonna be my question too.

Is that you show on the um land use plan three main access points in the traffic studies says that as well?

So I I think my question was gonna be kind of in in concert with that of we've seen in other developments that access to highway 21, is that what powers is and highway 83 has some limitations from the state.

So maybe could you speak to are those access points?

Nothing is guaranteed.

I know that's a DP level probably decision, but can we anticipate that those would remain?

And then probably with the um powers exchange going all the way through.

What's the anticipated Todd's coming out?

He knows he's next.

Uh maybe go to slide and go back a little bit.

Uh this one.

So I don't I don't have a mouse, but um on this map on highway 83 interquest, uh, just above where it says land use legend, there there's a circle and then uh kind of two arrows uh along the thick gray.

So that so that is a ride-in ride out from highway 83.

That that access is already approved.

That was approved previously, and that access point carried over.

We have some turn lane improvements to make.

Uh we know uh I'm gonna get a little bit over my skis here, but there's some A-line issues with C dot.

Um, so so that location is set based on those future uh powers 83 interchange.

Um as we kind of work our way clockwise, um you'll see a another at the very bottom of the page in white.

Uh so that will be our Somerset connection.

Yeah, right there, thank you.

That is also a ride-in ride out.

Uh, that is off new live drive.

So that'll be two ride-in rideouts at that location, and then just kind of continue to the west.

That is Somerset.

That will be a full movement access that hits New Live Drive.

So we can go west or east there, and then with some intersection improvements at the uh lighted intersection of new life drive in 83 will help with that traffic.

We've got some turn lane improvements, but for the most part, this area has been planned for traffic.

Now, to your point about traffic, because we're reducing the density from 1,500 and and estimated you know pretty substantial commercial, our our traffic intensity drops quite a bit.

So from 1500 units to 580 units, our traffic volumes just on that alone are roughly 10,000 units less.

Um so significant decrease in in traffic, which I think uh Commissioner Robbins to your question actually should help alleviate some of those traffic concerns in the future, as you know, we know improvements are coming, uh just a matter of time and years before those get implemented and help with it with that traffic flow.

But with this proposed R flex medium and then CCAP again, our our traffic patterns should actually dramatically increase uh versus what was approved in 2021.

So my next question then is those intersections you're mentioning, are they traffic or are there signal lights there, or is it just whenever someone can make a move and come in and go out based on the current flow of traffic?

So the the intersection along highway 83 is a ride-in ride out.

So so you can soon you can go right in westbound, uh ride in westbound, uh, which of the the size of of that street, we can't get a full movement there.

The full movement at Somerset as right now is just a stop-controlled uh intersection.

And we don't believe based on traffic volumes that will need to be a lighted intersection in the future.

Todd perhaps can speak to that and correct me if I'm wrong, uh, where Somerset connects to new life drive will just be a a stop condition.

Uh additionally, the um there's that third point of access that that's sort of about this the six o'clock right there that also function as a ride-in ride out.

I can't speak to whether that would get turned into a full movement or three-quarter movement, but right now that is a ride-in ride out.

So just confirm real quick.

Um the change of zoning from uh PDZ to MXM is not changing the traffic patterns right now.

The in and outs are not the same, is that correct?

It it it doesn't change the access locations, correct.

The access locations and roads are the same, it changes the projected traffic volumes dramatically.

Okay, yeah.

The fact that uh you're saying we're reducing from a higher volume that you was already proposed to a lower one, does not to me take care of the issue of the heavy traffic increased traffic from what currently exists, and that's my concern.

So I was really worried about that, and I'm I'm still kind of confused about how the safety of going in and out from 83 into that neighborhood is going to be well.

I'm worried about the safety period on that.

There is a lot of traffic there, but I think that's gonna be on the scope of what we're working on looking at today in terms of the zone change.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Hello.

Um, I think this one might end up being for staff, just heads up.

Um, I understand that the flying horse master plan is considered implemented as a result of the unified development code adoption, right?

First, is that correct?

Is it that we adopted the UDC since then that it becomes considered implemented, or were there other criteria in determining that?

So with the change to the UDC with the Rio Tool project, we do not have in code anything for master plans anymore.

So we don't really have a mechanism for amending those anymore.

But then also in the past, the way we've handled master plans is once they have reached a certain level of implementation, they are considered complete.

So uh we no longer would have amended this one under chapter seven because it had reached a certain degree of build out.

So I I recall during the adoption of the UDC following all of that and making that making sense to me that if it's not in code anymore, you can't enforce it.

I just want to um confirm that the same applies to the downtown flying horse concept plan, that that's also basically considered implemented.

Or if not, I'd like to know about whether approving this rezoning would require that concept plan to be amended.

I think I understand your question.

So the concept plan, um the the flying horse downtown concept plan, it will still be in effect for the portions that are still zoned PDZ.

We, as a separate application, have uh requested the applicant amend that showing the removal of the portions that are going to R Flex.

So that's not coming before this body, but that is happening in the background, so that that is brought up to what would be current condition if this application was approved.

So that's well, that would be administrative.

That would be administrative.

Okay.

So basically it's the only change to that application, that concept plan is basically just we're kind of crossing off the parcels that are subject to the zone change.

But then separately, the land use plan wo for the R Flex portions would then take the place of the previous flying horse concept plan.

The land use plan that accompanies this application.

Exactly.

So the downtown flying horse concept plan will no longer function as an operative land use plan.

The for this for this section.

For the subject property of the two applications we're talking about today, yes.

So it's it's a little it's a little convoluted, I understand.

That is well, that is gonna be fun for reviewing all the permits that end up coming through.

Okay.

We made a point of at least having the flying horse um concept plan as a separate application so that at least there'll be an application idea tied to that so that when future you know applications or permits go through, they can trace it back to this change a little easier.

Okay, thank you for my ridiculous technical question.

No, and I have a uh correction to make to my own comment uh with to uh Commissioner Robbins.

When uh so, in terms of the zoning, the ingress ingress and uh egress aren't an issue, but for the land use plan, one of the criteria is the adequacy of the proposed ingress and egress points and traffic circulation, both on-site and off-site.

So I stand corrected, Commissioner Robinson.

If you have any follow-on questions based on that.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Wilby.

Um, this is for Jason.

Uh it's not really a question, and I know that the land use plan and the zoning requirements don't require this.

It's just sort of a matter of discussion.

Do you think by lowering going away from the PDZ and lowering the density that it's reducing the amount of potential affordable housing that could be there?

I mean, I'm using affordable and a really broad stroke, yeah, attainable.

Um, and again, there's not like a requirement that this needs to provide that.

I just seems like now that there's far less dwelling units, they're probably fitting in with what is characteristic of flying horse, right?

Which is these large single-family dwelling units.

I I can't speak to the price point uh of what would cost less or more, but I can speak to um we believe going to R Flex me allows us more type of housing units.

Again, going back to the required, we're required to have in the current PDZ, uh, some parcels eight DUs per acre minimum, some parcels 12 DU per acre minimum.

And that again tends to lead to more to an attached product.

It's very difficult to get 12 DUs per acre on a single family detached product.

Uh they'd be very small units and very small lots.

So I I think going to R Flex Medium, we're gonna actually have more variety of houses.

Sure, there's a thousand less of them, but we can fit single family detached.

We can fit single family attached, which is kind of a paired product.

We can fit townhomes and we can even fit smaller uh call them mall apartment type as long as we stay under that 16 dual units per acre.

So I think we'd have more variety on here because we have a wider range from five to sixteen DU per acre.

Our minimum lot size is 1500.

We know we can deal with that.

That's still, you know, we can still get some decent uh number of single family detached, but allows us more product range.

So I don't know if that answers your question of affordability.

I'm not sure I can answer that, but I think it allows us a little bit more diversity on the product type because of that density range.

Thank you.

I don't know that I had a question.

I just wanted to hear what you had to say about it and for the good of the group.

So thank you.

I appreciate that.

Commissioner Slaughter.

Thank you, Chair Casey.

Um good morning.

Good morning.

So I um thinking back to 2021.

Um I'm not sure how many of my fellow commissioners were here at the time.

Maybe I'm the only one.

Um but I remember, and I remember um specifically being very excited about the um the changes that were proposed in downtown Flying Horse.

And specifically the density increase and the mixed use components, which do lead to vitality.

And that was, you know, a big part of the pitch then of bringing um amenities to a neighborhood that unless you're a club member, you're not going to get, and you're going to have to get in your car.

And kids um can ride their bike and get an ice cream and have a neighborhood scale series of amenities that I think um was for Colorado Springs at that time very forward thinking.

And I still um agree with the sentiments and my vote at the time that it was the right it's a good thing to do, and I think it's the right thing to do in looking at kind of reverting back to a homogenous mixed-use medium, right?

I understand this need for a single family product.

Um across our community, but I you said something that talked about expanding the diversity and mix of product, and I think that this proposal does the opposite.

And then looking at the review criteria, there is one, and I highlighted criteria number two for approval is that the rezoning will not be detrimental to public interest, health safety, convenience, or general welfare.

I think the public wants this type of amenity, and I think that the convenience, if I'm gonna single it down to one word will be greatly reduced versus implementing the proposed master plan and and PDZ as is presented and approved today.

So while I can understand, you know, desire um to move forward with this, you know, tried and true product.

I think that it is not in the public interest and that creating this scale of amenity um within the neighborhood that is easily accessed through new life and interquest.

Um I think the plan's better as it stands before today.

So I won't be voting in favor of the rezone or land use plan.

I I appreciate your comments.

I I think my rebuttal to that is a couple different fold.

Um this plan here.

Uh even though there was a variety of uses, there was no guarantee we were gonna get a mixed use.

Each one of these options, you look at OHR and the mixed use areas allowed for multi-family residential.

There was no requirement necessarily to do commercial.

You look at blocks F and I.

Those are predominantly residential uses, even on the approved PDZ.

Again, you could allow some commercial, but there was no guarantee that we're gonna get commercial or mixed use in here.

So I I appreciate your your comments and and your thoughts, but just because it was uh on a bubble diagram doesn't necessarily mean we were gonna get those components because it was the PED I've got it here was so general and generic on what uses could go where.

It could be all apartments.

And to get that density of 1500, it is very dense.

So to say that the a five to sixteen is more homogenous than 1500 apartments, I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment because you're gonna get a lot of tightly packed uh multi-floor, multi-unit uses in order to get that 1500 units.

And then conversely, you look at kind of the what we just talked about with utilities and traffic, 1500 more units is 10,000 more trips per day.

Or you look at all the commercial surrounding.

Sure.

Twenty five years ago, seemed like a good idea, but what has happened since then?

We've had you know the victory ridge takeoff, we've had Interquest takeoff, we've had fine horse takeoff, all of those things are putting pressure or on this development to compete with that.

And again, across the street, you have 40 acres of MXM that was just recently approved.

So uh I'm not sure we would have gotten that mixed use, even though it kind of set it on here because it was so general that we could have done any of these uses, including multifamily and single family detached.

But I do appreciate your thoughts and your commentary.

So thank you.

I just said one question.

Um so normally, and I realize this wasn't originally designated as a PDZ, it was it was moved into that with the change of the of the code.

But a PDZ district normally talks about have to get that uh zoning has to provide significant community amenities.

Is the switch from uh PDZ to MXM going then going to reduce community amenities?

I know some of it was listed open space.

I think that's still there.

Are there any other amenities that would have been in here when it was PDZ that are um no longer gonna be available?

Uh uh no, I think what's interesting is a block E, it's open space or commercial.

Um so I think it could have gone either, uh, potentially.

If you look at our land use plan, um we are designating on the map a 3.5 acre neighborhood park.

So that's going in kind of centrally located.

Uh regardless of the development, the black scroll trail, it's it's kind of the dashed line that goes under the word park.

Uh that would have been built regardless of the subdivision.

Uh, I think in this context, we are showing on a land use plan a 3.5 acre neighborhood park.

So we're committing to that versus on the PDZ, it could have been office or it could have been open space.

Um sorry.

Uh I see Allison coming up.

Did you have a comment first?

No.

I just thought it worth clarifying that under the old chapter seven, uh community amenities were not a part of the PDZ.

That was only introduced as a part of the retool project.

So this PDZ would not have been subject to those requirements as a new PDZ would.

Um and our flex medium being a new hard zone does not have those types of requirements.

Thank you.

Um I'm not sure that I have a question, but you're welcome to stay standing if you wish.

Um I think more so, I mean, I certainly hear what you're saying, Andrea, and I um I agree.

I think being a resident on the north side of town, it it did seem exciting to have something, but I think that the slide with all of the other developments is compelling.

And again, living in that area, I see all of that.

And I I don't think that there really would be access to get to this downtown from a lot of the adjacent, especially to the north neighborhoods because of the the ro you're not gonna cross over, maybe put a pedestrian bridge over Black Squirrel Creek, but it does seem like it would still be a little bit landlocked to be this idea of a walkable downtown unless you live immediately adjacent.

So all that said, I appreciate and I also think that um development has to follow the demand.

And if the demand isn't there and is being built out by others with commercial around, um I'm very bullish, as I've said many times on this dais about housing.

I think, you know, the recent reports that we are 28,000 units short of all types of housing, and I would love to see some attainable and mixed sizes of housing, but I think regardless, housing is important.

So um I'm in favor of the um of the application and we'll be um voting as such, but I just wanted to state that for the record.

Commissioner Case.

Yeah, overall, uh I appreciate all you guys doing these reports.

I think they're very well done.

Um what I know from a real estate perspective is generally rooftops or commercial follows rooftops.

So I think there will actually be more commercial generated from this.

Um as far as the traffic in the area, I think C dot could be an issue.

I'm not sure about how that will work with the residential.

Um, but that's something that's dealt with further down the road, and maybe Todd can answer some of that.

But um overall, I think this is a a great use and change.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilby.

Uh, I just want to say I appreciate Andrea's comments and your guys' discussion, because that wasn't something I had thought of, but I think Alison's clarification for me made me lean more towards in favor of this because I'm a little bit weary of what we might get if it stays PDZ because there's so much flexibility where it's a little bit more known if you if we go ahead and approve this.

So I I think that I very much appreciated that back and forth.

Um and I was feeling conflicted for a minute, but I think I am now also in favor of this.

So great questions, Andrea.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson.

I'm going to uh say I'm also in favor of this, uh the change.

Um quite different along that area in that area.

I've been a member of the club for quite some time.

So I understand uh 10 years ago, there wasn't much of anything for us to uh to enjoy unless you went to the club for and here.

Um now there's so much more growth that's going on in and uh industry.

Um we do need the housing.

My biggest concern that you guys may be tired of hearing me say is is the safety.

Um that roadway, people use it as a highway.

It is very fast.

And that's my concern.

And if there was some way of warning, having a warning light or something along that, um, I think that would really enhance that quite a bit.

So and make it safer for the people that are gonna be living there.

So other than that, I really think that's uh it's a good idea to to uh reduce the number of um units being built in there and having extra housing.

So I'm in favor.

Thank you.

Yeah, I like the idea of lights too.

Um I know at uh Shoop and um 83, there's the light that flashes to lets you know, and similar to the ones that are on powers, if that could be available or potentially something I mean, it might be a matter of CDOT, but uh new life drive and or powers or those there seems to be significant number of accents in those areas.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Thanks.

It looks like we're going toward the I support or I oppose step here.

So uh based on the criteria on section 7.5.704 of the unified development code and the evidence in the record before us today.

Um I I don't think I'm gonna be able to find that this rezoning meets the criteria for approval on the basis that under criterion one, I am not persuaded that this proposal is consistent with plan COS and other adopted plans.

Plan COS emphasizes housing choice, but it also emphasizes land use diversity centers, corridors, and the creation of activity centers, a combined activity density, mixed uses in public spaces.

The previously approved downtown flying horse concept plan, envision this as a broader mixed use and employment-oriented district with commercial office hospitality and residential uses, and this rezoning removes or moves away from that diversity and converts the stripe the site to pretty much straight residential zoning.

Uh second, under criterion three, I'm not convinced that the site is appropriately zoned for this district given its location.

The property has access to major corridors and was positioned to function as part of a mixed-use center.

Plan COS calls for focusing growth in corridors and centers that support walkability and multiple transportation options.

And in my view, the rezoning of the site to exclusively residential, uh leaning obviously toward the single family product, underutilizes the strategic location that is better um better situated to a broader mix of uses.

And third, under criterion four, I do not find the proposed change compatible with the larger plan development pattern.

Um the record you presented shows that prior entitlement envisioned a more intense mixed use district.

And while this proposal removes commercial uses and reduces the intensity, granted that the commercial uses were not guaranteed.

The diversity of development does to me appear to be lower, and that shift weakens the long-term viability of the plan center here, in my view.

And finally, under criterion seven, I'm not persuaded that the application is sufficiently is sufficiently consistent with the concept for this area as a whole, even recognizing the UDC transition.

The proposal represents a substantial departure from the land use mix embedded in the downtown flying horse concept.

And it's for those reasons that I don't think I can make findings, the findings required under section uh 7.5.704 D, and we'll vote to deny the rezoning.

Yeah, Chair Casey.

Um I guess I would differ from some of my colleagues.

I I do I do find it uh a good use for the for the overall property.

Uh and I kind of look at it, I I'm very familiar with this area, the entire interquest corridor, and one area um I think you're also competing with you didn't have on your map is the uh inner uh the Voyager North Gates I 25 area and Bass Pro Shop area for reference point.

But uh I I think this you know the the marketing conditions, I mean I saw the sconce plan, I saw the whole sketch for this area.

Oh, that looks like a great area to live in type of thing, but I know since then there's been market changes since it's been approved.

There's uh that a corridor has been uh very well developed.

If you look at the uh the permissible uses in the PDZ zone, I mean I think every single one of those uses my went on the list there that you put up in the slide has already exists somewhere on the Interquest corridor there between I-25 and Powers.

So I don't think uh what is missing probably is is different options for housing.

I think you have plenty of commercial space in there, even across the street further south.

We didn't get into the area by um uh south of uh Interquest.

Um there's significant development there, both commercial and multi multifamily attached and uh um apartment complexes in that area.

So I do think this is a good uh a good change.

Um and I think it is consistent with with uh the criteria, and so I will be voting in favor of it.

Uh Commissioner Robinson did you have a follow-on question.

So with that, uh I'll open it up for any motions.

I guess I'm a motion maker.

Sorry, Sheeta.

Well, I just can you clarify are we making a motion on both eight A or yeah, A and B at the same time?

Or one at a time?

Yeah, one at a time.

Okay, yeah.

Do you want to read them?

I'll let you take the motion.

No, okay.

I'd like to make a motion to uh recommend approval to City Council of a zone change.

I'm sorry.

Item eight A, um zone twenty-five oh three eight Creek ridge at flying horse.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council of a zone change consisting of approximately forty-four point seven two acres, located north of the intersection of North Powers Boulevard and Innerquest Parkway from PDZ to R Flex Medium with Air Force Academy Overlay, based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for a zoning map amendment set forth in City Code section seven point five point seven oh four.

Sure.

Uh make a motion to approve item eight B zone twenty-five oh two four Creek Ridge at Flying Horse Land Use Plan.

Recommend approval to City Council the Creek Ridge at Flying Horse Land Use Plan based upon the finding that the proposal complies with the review criteria for the land use plans set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514.

Second the motion passes with uh seven members in favor and Commissioner Sizzle and Commissioner Slattery opposed.

Can we have a motion for eight C.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's the wrong one.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah, give me one second here.

So my understanding this is appealable only if it's a dial.

So we're recommending um recommending approval.

That is correct.

Uh Chair Casey.

Uh as the motion was an approval in accordance with the UDC, it just moves on to City Council for final action.

And what about a the is there any member of the public withstanding that wouldn't want me to appeal instructions?

No, there is uh an additional provision of city code that uh articulates that any recommendation of a lower decision making body is not an appealable action.

So ultimately the final decision rests with City Council.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we're gonna go ahead and take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back and hear the amendment to UDC text.

So we'll meet back in here at uh 20 after uh 1020.

Thank you.

Okay, applying commission will resume.

We will be covering amendment to UDC Text 7.5.5 Minister of Decisions, please read the item into the record.

Item A C C O D E 26-0002.

An ordinance amending Article 5 Admin Administration and Enforcement Chapter 7, the Unified Development Code of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001 as amended.

As related to procedural process changes for various entitlement applications types.

Your presenter is Daniel Sexton.

Good morning, commissioners.

So actually here, let me turn this here.

Okay.

So we do have as kind of kicking off our series of uh efforts to make some some corrections, changes, updates to the unified development code.

Uh for those of you that have been on uh commission for some time, there was a conversation at implementation of the UDC in June of 2023, where there was a commitment by our department uh within a year or so that we were going to be bring backing or bringing back uh some edits and adjustments, because inevitably when we do a lift such as this to rewrite an entire chapter of code, there's gonna be unforeseen uh circumstances or or errors, uh omissions, things of that sort.

Um fortunately now we're about two and a half years out from there, uh, but we are starting to bring those efforts back to you.

Uh this item was peeled away from our our kind of phased approach that our uh comprehensive and special projects manager Sheila Booth had mentioned to this body at a recent informal uh just because a number of the aspects within that we're gonna discuss today are are more pressing from a procedural standpoint.

Um after talking with the attorney's office and and others that we just need to move those in a much faster fashion than waiting for the phase one phase two updates to kind of move forward.

So with that, um we have before you in your packet uh a proposed uh amendment to the UDC text.

It's an application type and code.

Uh we're specifically looking at provisions in a vi in a in a variety of different application types within article five.

So that's the administration and enforcement article of the UDC.

Um that specifically kind of outlines you know procedurally uh all the various entitlement applications, how bodies such as yourselves kind of uh operate and function in terms of your decision making authorities, your capacity, um, talks about how uh your decisions uh relate to actions and decisions of city council.

Um but again, we're looking at some very strategic uh pieces of this article today with the proposed ordinance.

Um so I kind of touched on this in terms of the the broader effort to update the UDC.

Um, you know, as I said, you know, it's it's inevitable that we're gonna have errors and omissions with such a heavy lift.

Um but honestly, I think this this ordinance today is is pretty straightforward in what we're proposing, uh, but happy to kind of talk through that.

Uh and then again, you know, uh later this year uh into next year, potentially, depending on how things run, you'll be seeing some more robust packages of updates to the UDC.

So what we have today, uh, and I have updated this um since informal, um, just to kind of give some additional clarity based on conversation that was had.

Um initially, well, in this ordinance, um, you have seven different articles uh or sorry, subsections of article five that were proposing revisions in.

Um following the last informal meeting, um, there was uh a last minute item within this article that was brought to our attention through conversations with the attorney's office that we felt was urgent enough to include in the conversation today.

So as we kind of proceed, you will have the option to kind of give me direction on how to pursue pursue uh bringing this ordinance forward to city council, uh, whether it will include that last provision, uh, which is uh article seven five two oh two.

It's at the very bottom of the list.

But uh when we get to that slide, we can talk through that.

So uh first and foremost, uh this actually slide combines two different sections that we're proposing adjustments to.

Uh the first one, which is in 754 uh 15, and I'll try to not dive too deep in the thread of code sections and references because uh you guys don't eat and sleep this information, whereas I could probably rattle off a lot of the sections pretty easily.

So I'll try to stay with the content that we're changing here.

Uh, but in that appeals uh section, uh, somewhat as was discussed on an item just a moment ago, uh, we've uh at the at the request of the attorney's office and talking through how we have heard uh commentary coming from the public as it relates to recommendations of uh various decision-making bodies, including uh this body itself, is that we have proposed an update uh to uh provision in the appeals language that further clarifies the fact that a recommendation of planning commission, the uh FBZ review board, which is the downtown review board, um, and the historic preservation board are in fact recommendations.

Those recommendations are not an appealable action because no true decision in accordance with chapter seven is being made.

It is only a recommendation.

So we've added some some clarifying language uh to that section that we hopefully will help being more transparent with the with the public as it relates to our process and procedures.

Uh now before I pivot on to the development plan, and I'm happy to answer questions as we go through, just so that we don't have to click back and forth.

So if there's any questions on that aspect, so currently, right now, then um both the uh FBZ review board and historic preservation board have the same um language that we had.

It was all up together as far as okay.

Yeah.

So today the section of code.

So if you look at the the structure of the edits, bold is new, strike through is is eliminating existing language.

And so today that section of code reads any recommendation to city council um to approve an application.

It doesn't specify who's approving that application.

So we're trying to provide that clarifying context for the provision to denote that planning commission, FPZ review review board, uh, and historic preservation board are those recommending bodies.

Okay.

Thanks.

I have a question on that.

Yeah.

In the event that, say the council chooses not to act or table something for a long period of time, does it then have the opportunity to just die and not take effect, or does failing to act automatically grant approval?

So nothing in the land use code grants an automatic approval of an item that is recommended by this body, but yet to be heard, or I'll say never heard by council.

Um, as I am the understanding, and maybe I'll defer to legal counsel is that if um council decides their agenda, so we can present you know items that have gone before this body and are teening up to be heard, but it is the council's prerogative in which when those items are heard.

There's no mandatory shock clock in code that would stipulate when and how they act on those.

Does that make sense?

That does, and I just love it if the law department could confirm that uh failure to act on any land use matter does not end up granting an approval or denial by no action.

Uh Trevor Glass with the city attorney's office.

Um, generally it does not.

Um just to add a caveat to what Dan was saying, there are certain laws, um, state federal level that do place a shot clock, for example, um wireless facilities.

Um so if things are not acted on within a certain amount of time, then they are automatically approved.

However, those generally do not go to city council.

Um, we do have certain timelines for appeals and things like that, but city council will um does set their agenda as Dan said, and not and things are not automatically approved, they have to hear items and uh especially for quasi judicial items, they can't table it indefinitely.

It needs to be heard.

Thanks.

I just wanted to make sure we weren't dealing with a scenario where the right to appeal was going to be um a loss of a public hearing in the end.

No.

Good question.

Um okay.

So then pivoting on to the next uh article that we're proposing or provision in that article that we're proposing changes, which is in the the development plan uh section.

Uh that's 75515.

And I didn't do all of the SNPs in the the slide here for you, but the the first uh editor correction is reaffirming the fact that in other sections of code, uh it speaks to the fact when you have multiple applications uh coming into our department, they are not automatically bundled together and elevated to the highest decision-making body.

That was the case in old chapter seven, uh, where if we had a development plan and a zone change, they automatically smash together and they went all the way up to city council from an approval sequence.

Uh under current code, uh, from a more permissive kind of state or position to add flexibility, um, consistency, dependability to the decision making process.

Uh, the proposed change in this uh subsection um clarifies that in the event that we have an application that requires a concurrent decision, such as a conditional use, um, inevitably in many cases will require a development plan uh to review the actual site changes or new building that is occurring uh with respect to that conditional use.

That development plan can stay at the administrative level and does not have to be bundled with the conditional use for this body to ultimately consider.

So it it maintains that bifurcation of an administrative level decision of the development plan and the conditional use as a use, which has different criteria with this decision making body.

Okay.

Now we still maintain the opportunity from a staff perspective to refer packages up.

So you could, in a in a more complex scenario, see a situation where you have that conditional use and the development plan brought to you as one package.

Um, you know, I've seen frustration, I think, on some of your faces when you're looking at a conditional use and you don't have that information.

Exactly.

But code consciously gives an avenue for an applicant to not bundle that development plan.

It it certainly makes the conversation more dynamic and sometimes difficult, but they consciously have an option to do a land use statement with that conditional use.

So we're just reaffirming with this, these edits in that first provision that there is the bifurcated process.

We maintain that ability.

Uh, and then uh in a subsection of that where it talks about applicability, um, it references that a development plan is required for a conditional use.

That technically is not always correct because you could have a situation where you have a developed property um with a commercial building, large parking lot, nice landscaping, uh, conditional use comes in, and because of the standards that are in play for that use, no change to the development plan is required.

So what we have have proposed in here is some clarifying language that really reinforces that at the manager's discretion, when a conditional use comes in, we can determine based on all the other provisions of Article 7 or chapter, sorry, Article 7, which is the unified development code.

We can determine whether they need to do that uh development plan or a modification to that existing development plan to account for any changes.

It's not an automatic requirement because uh we see that as a very onerous aspect uh of a conditional use that if we force uh uh an applicant to come in with a development plan when there really isn't anything changing, you guys are gonna be scratching your head saying, why are we even looking at this when we're just talking about a use itself?

Okay.

And this came up recently, I think on the silver keys one.

Yeah.

So we had the we had we had one item for the silver key apartments, and then we've actually had two recent conditional uses as well that have come to you where the development plan is being reviewed administratively.

One was a, I think a auto repair or tire shop off of Academy.

Um, and then there was another one uh recently, I think for an automotive, uh a conditional use for an automotive dealership or something like that, where they were doing storage of vehicles or display of vehicles.

Um, but yeah, so ultimately we just want to maintain the fact that code already allows those to be separated and really maintain the fact that at the manager's discretion.

We're looking at all the all of the relevant provisions of code to decide whether development plan or modification thereof is really required, if that makes sense.

Yeah.

Um do you anticipate this changing the volume of applications that come before us in any way?

No.

So as long as it's a conditional use, it'll still come before us.

Correct.

That does not change the the approval threshold.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Shifting then forward.

This is probably the most robust uh uh proposed set of changes here, which is under the subsection uh for adjustments and variances, which includes you know, your administrative adjustment, your design uh standards adjustments, non-use variances, use variances.

Um and what we have done through this section, it was an unintended uh omission when the UDC was adopted.

Uh today we have actually been operating under uh an interpretation since the codification of the UDC that allows applicants uh to seek uh remedy uh or variance of a dementia, a numerical dimensional standard.

Um, but what code reads today is it it does not include dimensional standards that are referenced in 733, which are use specific standards.

Um and so what we've done as a as a means of of cleaning up, that was not the intent.

The intent was to afford any property owner or inter uh interested party to seek remedy of that numerical standard.

Um, so we've in proposed to include that uh that part as referenced under all of the various uh application types listed in this this subsection.

Uh additionally, uh we've we've provides provided some um clarifying language um that's kind of supporting the fact that a non-use variance uh again this kind of goes back to the the piece of of bifurcating a conditional use from a development plan, but we have some some clarifying language that's added that's that kind of sets forth the the opportunity for an applicant or property owner uh to be able to request that uh that variance or remedy without having to go through the uh uh expense of providing a very expensive development plan in most cases.

So if a project wants to be able to, we'll say uh build a commercial building and the max building height is 45 feet, but they want to go to 53 feet.

Well, that doesn't fit under the 15% administrative adjustment.

They would have to go to you as a body to adjudicate on whether that non-use variance is appropriate.

But what it reaffirms is that in that conversation, because that could that height limit could basically make or break that project from a developer's perspective, is we've kind of laid out the fact that that consideration can be made separate of a development plan.

Now, again, we understand that that maybe makes your decision making process a little bit difficult in some cases, but that was the inherent kind of um basis of many of the UDC updates is to afford greater flexibility for entitlement applications as opposed to um projects having to spend uh a lot of money to prepare multiple applications just to really consider whether that one kind of uh varying parameter is acceptable.

That makes sense.

Um, and then the last big piece for virtually all of the application types.

Again, this was uh an error and omission, which is the uh post-decision actions is uh we have included language uh and this is virtually verbatim from chapter seven.

Um and it it attempts to clarify, and I think I on the screen here I only have the administrative adjustment piece in here, but basically the same language applies to all of the sub-application types.

But what it's really intending to state is that um if a non-use variance is act upon by this body without the development plan, um, really that non-use variance, because it doesn't align then with the development plan in terms of its six-year expiration window.

It has one year to act.

It does have the ability to ask for an extension, uh, or that applicant, I should say, has the ability to act, ask for an extension.

And it also speaks to situations where uh I think most recently you guys have seen a lot of non-use variances that affect residential properties that do not require a development plan and go right to building permit.

Um, fleshing out what is again that expiration or post-ision parameter for when we have uh a remedy that's being granted for a residential property that goes to a building permit.

Um so we've kind of built that all out uh in the proposed update for that subsection.

Questions?

That was a lot there for that one.

No, but I really I really appreciate that because I think there have been times that we've approved things that or have seen things get approved that then it feels like it just goes into the ether.

And then also like who else could use that approval, and if it wasn't what the intention was.

So I think that the time frame is helpful.

Yeah, and what we've ended up seeing is I think you guys have uh in a number of these recent non-use variances, you're seeing um technical modifications or um to those decisions that add triggers.

And so this is intended to codify per code a trigger for that expiration.

So move for it, Commissioner Cecil.

Um, so I was under the impression that the reason that you specific standards were not included in this was actually intentional.

And the reason that I assumed that and reading through the code is because so many of the use specific standards, even the ones that are numerical, are really aimed at operational and compatibility impacts.

For instance, I'm not totally in favor of people being able to request a variance to the half million dollar insurance policy on a short-term rental.

And I don't feel that it's completely clear at this version of the code how it's intended to deal with those operational and compatibility impacts that are not just setbacks or high.

And I was wondering if I'm missing a piece that you could now highlight to improve my understanding.

Yeah, so I mean, we in in making these edits, we did go back and look at the record of conversation when the UDC was being adopted.

Um, and while it certainly did not speak to that specific example in terms of the insurance policy that is required for short-term rentals.

Um simply put, the r the rationale we've put this proposed change before you uh is the fact that not every project is the same.

And so while yes, the the in many cases the use specific standards are a best guess on industry or business practices to ensure compatibility of land uses.

Not every project, not every site, not every neighborhood is the same context.

And so by adding this option here, we don't anticipate it's gonna increase the number of non-use variances that you see, to be honest, but again, what it does is it affords greater flexibility for a developer or a project uh applicant or uh team to ask to that to be varied, and it still comes to you.

It's not being done at an administrative level by staff, um, with the exception of the administrative adjustment, which is still a uh a staff level decision, but the vast majority of these come to you as a higher level decision making body to say, is that really does that make sense?

Do we want to be doing that in this instance?

Um, so I understand that and wonder if there's an opportunity to offer a friendly amendment such that administrative adjustments shall not be used to modify you specific standards that are in that are intended to mitigate operational or compatibility impacts unless explicitly authorized within the use specific standard.

Can you say that one more time?

Administrative adjustment shall not be used to modify use specific standards that are intended to mitigate operational or compatibility impacts unless explicitly authorized within the use specific standard.

So if um if I understand the the proposed kind of uh consideration of an adjustment there, essentially what that would do as you kind of articulated is it would completely eliminate the ability of an administrative adjustment application to consider any uh change to a numerical standard in the use specific standards because the vast majority of them, as as you kind of just talked about, are a compatibility component.

So if it's a compatibility concern, then really that that use specific standard we wouldn't be able to, we wouldn't be able to do it.

That's rather incisive of you because my initial read on it was I want it to be a public hearing where the neighborhood whose compatibility really matters has the opportunity to speak and illuminate issues that they're facing before us, and so yeah, I'm which they still have the ability to do to ask for further consideration because again, as an administrative application, that can be appealed.

You are the first step in an appeal action, which actually increases additional layers of consideration to that proposed request.

But the notice is a required public notice.

Oh, yeah.

It'll just put the onus on the neighborhood to be active in the conversation.

Correct.

And the fee that they would, I'm just thinking about neighborhoods where, you know, like mine, a lot of people work all day, have a hard time taking off work, don't have a lot of extra cash.

They would still have to file the appeal and everything too.

Correct.

And the fee for 175.

Okay.

Both for appeal to this body and appeal to city council is 175.

So what's that?

I think it's 176.

It's a 176 hour.

I can rattle off code sections.

Maybe not that dollar amount.

Sorry.

It's the appeal instructions.

If I forget my daughter's names, maybe I'll be get there.

But again, can you just summarize in this part?

What why do you need this adjustment that we're talking about here?

Yeah, so this really kind of gets at bullet number the first bullet, uh, which is consideration of whether it is appropriate to add uh a remedy option for all of these application types.

Uh granted, uh, Commissioner Cecil had noted some some potential hesitation or concern regarding allowing this uh type of variance or adjustment to be asked when it uh is an application for an administrative adjustment, which again is only a 15% adjustment.

It's a maximum of adjustment of 15%.

Um that whether you specific standards should be allowed to be considered for that type of adjustment.

Are there any more questions then on that point?

Commissioner Cecil.

Good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next one, uh, which is also uh a uh a proposed change uh to a recent kind of issue or item that has been before this body, which is uh correcting uh what we understood from a staff perspective, again, referring back to that previous section where any recommendation of a body really is a recommendation, uh, final decision should be made by that higher body uh in in certain cases for certain application types.

Uh so for a zone map amendment today, if an application is denied by this body um effectively without appeal by that applicant, it is dead.

Okay, the project is done, uh, unless they appeal.

Um, so what we have proposed, uh uh, and this is this aligns with again that that prior provision as well as other decision-making thresholds for applications in code, which is again setting that you as the planning commission, as well as the FBZ review board, because again, they review actions for changes to the FBZ, and you have historic preservation board that makes recommendations on HP overlay, uh, is an effect that if a denial occurs for a proposed zone change uh that is brought before any of those bodies, that that recommendation denial is simply a recommendation, it is not a final action, and counsel is given the authority or power to make that final decision, if that makes sense.

Last one, this is the one that you can say you don't want to talk about it, or or we we can talk about it.

Uh I think probably to give you full context, it's best if I at least explain what we're asking.

But again, if the if the feeling of the body uh is that we don't want to include this in our in the proposed ordinance that will be moved to council under this package, we will simply separate it out and we will bring it back to you for further discussion as it's independent ordinance uh adjustment uh and or as part of that uh phased effort to update the UDC.

So in 75202, uh, which is this body's kind of umbrella of parameters in which it operates, there is uh a singular statement in this section that says all meetings of this body shall have minutes, and what in in our reading of this um it requires staff to now begin to take minutes on every work session meeting, including a meeting such as we are in today.

Um the fact of the matter, with the proposed change to eliminate this sentence, it doesn't eliminate um this body and staff as your liaisons from adhering to Colorado opens meetings law, uh, which says when you have a body that is making a decision, uh, and that can include a recommendation, minutes have to be taken.

But when you are having an informal conversation at work session, there's no action being taken.

You will actually, as you many of you have experienced, you start going down too far down the rabbit hole of questioning, and our happy city attorney is gonna cut you off because we're not deliberating, we're not getting into that detail.

It is to stay at a very high level, the fact that we are are giving you uh an advanced notice in turn in of sorts uh regarding the the item that you are ultimately a week later gonna be acting on and making a decision on.

So to save uh from staff's perspective a lot of internal time to process both minutes for a work session and minutes for um the the formal hearing, because again, we're still gonna continue to have minutes for the formal hearings.

It's just to save time from that work session perspective, is that we have uh the only way to kind of deal with this um this issue or item uh in talking with the attorney's office is to strike this section, this sentence.

Now the city council does have minutes for their work sessions.

They do, I believe.

They do.

That is in their rules and procedures, if I'm not correct.

Yep.

So it's not codified that they do that, but they have chosen procedurally that they will take minutes at their work session meetings.

Okay.

So right now our work sessions are another broadcast online.

Are they recorded for if I want to?

They're not.

Okay.

And that doesn't violate.

And that doesn't violate any open meeting rules or anything.

We have not, yeah, because we have not um, because again, there's no action being taken.

If we take the stance that we need to be taking minutes, yes, we will be doing full recordings of those, um, transcribing minutes.

You effectively will have to review those and and ultimately recommend approval of those minutes from a work session meeting.

So again, this is a this is a last minute addition.

It was not part of the ordinance.

We are prepared uh on on your tables actually to have a modified motion, uh, which I can go to if if there's a desire to um move this kind of point or item on to council for their consideration, because again, they have to decide on whether to uh strike this or not, uh, since it is a change to code, it's a legislative item.

Um, what if we took a look at minutes shall be kept at all formal commission proceedings or something else where we differentiated between the work there were our work sessions and our non-work sessions.

Because I'm kind of leery of this this makes it look like we're reducing transparency.

Uh by you know, to from my perspective, I don't and I don't think we want to go in that direction.

I realize we're not taking minutes now, but I mean, just to strike this language, I think we need to look at you know, second third order effects of that, and you know, what else?

What's the you know why?

Why don't we just change it to minutes shall be kept of all formal commission proceedings?

Yeah, modify your modified uh, you know, I mean, that's kind of what I'm coming from here.

It's a great point.

And I think I'll defer to to counsel on this one, uh, legal counsel on this one, because we had suggested a similar thing, but uh a more simplified approach was suggested.

So Trevor Glass of the City Attorney's Office, uh, that is pop possible you could change it to uh say minutes shall be kept of all regular commission proceedings.

Um I believe that the interpretation uh in the in the past, probably the reason we haven't been taking work session uh minutes so far is because uh this has been interpreted in the past to re to mean formal regular meetings, however, it's not very clear from the language.

So if we struck it completely, we would only be applying opens meetings law.

Um which do require meetings uh sorry, minutes at the regular meeting.

Uh by striking it, if there is a change in the adopted uh open meetings law in the future, we don't create a potential conflict.

Uh whereas if we do change it to something like minutes shall be kept at all regular meetings, there is a potential conflict in the future, but it would work for now.

It wouldn't be uh wouldn't be a large issue if that's the current yeah, sorry, what's the current language then for the downtown review board?

And uh do they have this same thing that you recommend striking from there, or is this just something that's unique to the planning commission?

This is unique to planning commission.

Those other the those other boards don't have uh work sessions or informal meetings.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

I heartily um agree with your concern over the apparent loss of transparency by striking something like this.

I think you'll have an easier time getting this ordinance through today without this particular section added into it.

Um I'd also like to point out that in terms of uh any meeting broadcast in any way, it's not as if it disappears completely from all potential records, and that there are so many softwares out there now where people can just record what is streaming on their teams and introduce that into the record, and I feel like it leaves us defenseless against future challenges about where we might go out of line if we're not actually treating these work sessions with the same level of documentation when we move forward.

And I saw staff uh indicate something about okay.

I thought you were saying, yeah, no, I've may have recorded a teams meeting in the background in the past, but not for this.

Um absolutely not for this.

Um so yeah, I think this might just be a little much fast.

Uh Vice Chair Answer.

Oh, I thought you were going in a different direction with your comment than I was gonna say, I agree.

Um I actually so I maybe I disagree with you, but I I think that we are in a great area of not having meeting minutes for our informal meetings because even though we call them informal, they're very formal.

We have an agenda, they're posted, uh, they're broadcast live like everything else.

And I think we are one of the few bodies besides city council, and I'm looking to staff and a council to uh confirm, but I think we're one of the few that has that type of informal meeting session plus formal.

And if council is recording their work sessions uh and informal meetings and doing minutes for those, then I feel like we probably should be, and it creates more transparency, which I think is important in this community uh specifically and in general, although I realize that's gonna take more time and work for our staff to create those, but right.

Jen's to Jen's point, anyone could sit there with something recording it in the background online it we wouldn't know, and then they put that into the record when they appeal something or they could bring a lawsuit against the city, and we have little recourse, right?

I think in a recent case we just saw someone uh introduce a recording from this uh session into a city council meeting.

Uh Trevor Black in the city attorney's office.

So legally the difference between a work session and a uh regular session for the purposes of open meetings law is whether or not uh the body can make decisions there.

Um so the work session, the informal, um, it's not technically formal because uh you all can't make decisions, you can't make votes.

Um everything is left up to the regular session.

So we're not using any Roberts rules.

I see your point that there's agendas and there's notice and things like that.

Seems very formal.

Right.

Like I I guess there's like an overlap that's very fine, uh a very small overlap, but what exposure does that create?

And does just I say just creating minute meeting minutes, sorry, to our staff, but does just creating minute meeting meeting minutes eliminate risk exposure for some person to bring forth, right?

Certainly not.

Um for a work session, not particularly what they would do is um if they're if they say appealed an item um at the regular meeting, the they would take a transcription of the of the regular meeting and any minutes, and they'd put that into the record and look at those.

The work session um minutes and any discussion there would not normally come up.

Um however, to your point, it is public, it is notice any recordings are retained for a certain retention period per uh per municipal law.

Um that's why we try and not have too much discussion at those informal because we don't want those records to uh to alter any future decisions or go to any future decisions.

So is the recommendation from staff and legal counsel that we not do minutes for the informal meetings.

Do you have a recommendation or can you make a recommendation?

So I can say that from sorry, Trevor Golass City Attorney's Office.

I can say that from the legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with not doing minutes for the work session.

Um that this change would just be to clarify that.

Uh but it would it's allowed not to do the minutes per open uh meetings law.

And also just to clarify with some additional information from our staff that supports uh all the the recordings and minute takings uh for this body's uh meetings, um, just to clarify the work session is not broadcast, it's just a team's meeting.

So it's not following the same structure of you being in this room, which we have vocaster and we broadcast it uh through the the city's um networks and systems.

Um that does not occur.

It is simply a team's meeting.

But members of the public can come in person, correct?

They can.

We're just not taking public comment.

We're correct, but anybody can come to the correct.

And they can join on teams as well.

Yes.

Okay.

They can call sorry, Melissa Watski, senior analysts, they can call in, but they cannot join teams online as if it were a staff meeting.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I may rescind my opinion.

It's just like just talking this through is helpful, right?

Um to understand the nuances.

But I will also say is like if it's uh, you know, uh, again, and I I think I'm gonna I'm gonna use the words of of our director, uh, Mr.

Walker, is that this was really quick to add into this package um in terms of of having you want to look at it.

Um, you know, if there's if you need more time to digest it, you know, we're happy to leave the ordinance as it is uh and and move the other items forward.

We can bring this back as a separate item.

Um we were just looking at it from an efficiency perspective that we're touching so much of this article today under this ordinance that it made sense to incorporate this component and have city council act in a unified fashion on changes to that article.

I don't have them in front of me, but our planning commission rules.

Do we speak to minutes in there in terms of what we're give a second?

Well, while he's looking for that, I I want to give you my direct words yeah, that this was a last minute ad.

Uh we're not really making a recommendation.

What we're doing is putting this out there for exactly what you guys are doing, and that is discussing it and giving us your perspective on that.

Um, if you want to postpone it, that that's perfectly acceptable.

We could we'll bring it back next month and maybe think about it a little bit more, um, especially with your comments.

But it so we're not making a recommendation to do this one way or the other.

This is a way to clarify that we haven't been doing this this way.

We go back or we keep the language the way it is, we're gonna have to go back and start at doing minutes to these meetings.

So we want to try to clarify what everybody thinks.

And I think that all the discussion has been quite appropriate.

So thank you.

And just to clarify, it wouldn't be postpone the entire amendment.

It would just to be remove this provision that we're talking about from the ordinance consideration.

Right, because the the um motions that you gave us, there's two.

I mean, there's the original one, which doesn't have this in there, so we could still move forward with that.

And personally, I'd like to do that.

Um open up to what the group wants to do, but I I'm fine with the other portions of the uh the amendments that you proposed.

This one I'd like to think about more uh before we move forward on it.

That's my personal view.

I'm sorry, I know my goal last, but I jumped in there.

But go ahead, uh, Commissioner Cecil.

Uh same sees on this last amendment uh uh regarding what we were just discussing about striking the minutes.

I'd like to hold off on that.

I did want to just give you a heads up that I have a few more questions related to uh 7.5.724, I think.

Um, but I can wait if we're still talking about the minutes.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'll just make one.

So I I um as often happens, I think up here, right?

You go from one spectrum to the other and then can kind of come back to the middle.

And so I think having more discussion, I would be in favor of what you've proposed, or or adding the board formal or regular or whatever, and not doing meeting minutes for the informal work session meetings.

So uh so I I've I've kind of come back to I think it's fine as it is now that we've discussed it further and it is available and it is all those things.

So uh I would be in favor of going forth as long as we change keeping it, not striking it um in our motion and just adding formal or regular to that language.

So that's my thought there, but we can hear from others and then also answer Jen's other questions.

Commissioner Sluttery.

Thank you.

Um so yeah, I understand that the um and maybe we'll talk or sounds like we're gonna talk about this again next month, but just to play um devil's advocate, I suppose here.

Um things do happen in the informal meetings that are not brought forth to the formal meetings, such as um different presentations and discussions around there.

So perhaps we should consider if those are worth documenting uh and brought forth, like such as from CSU or this housing study, blue skies, and things like that that are um intended to inform and educate the commission, I would think, as well as the public, um, when we're making these decisions.

So I just want to throw that out there for folks for consideration as well.

Yeah, I mean, I never look at the city council, you know, work session minutes, but they do put out a recap of the dias, which does have a summary kind of thing.

They put up the email that has, you know, you could subscribe to that as a list of that.

So I mean, I'm I'm not necessarily in favor of minutes either, but I think there should be some sort of documentation you know, for the reasons that uh Commissioner Schlatter really just brought up.

Um so again, I'd I'd like to table this till next month and then give a little more time to think about it.

Uh Commissioner Cecil, I know you have some follow-on questions regarding other topics.

This would be about the administrative adjustments piece.

I want I've been double thinking while I've been sitting here, and I believe zoning systems rely on a balance of predictability in their standards and flexibility for unique sites.

But if the flexibility expands too far, it became the code becomes less predictable, which can impact the neighborhood expectations, consistency across projects, legal defensibility, even.

So and looking at the expanded ability to grant administrative adjustments and relief from use specific standards.

How do we ensure that those tools remain for truly exceptional situations and don't gradually just become a substitute for updating the code itself, you know, death by a thousand adjustments?

Um good question.

I mean, I think from from staff's perspective, we you know, we look at each project independent of another.

Um, you know, for an administrative adjustment similar to a non-use variance, is it's not creating precedent for reoccurred decision making approaches.

Um, you know, we we from staff's perspective have have tried really hard to when we see a problem.

Granted, I I say this, but I know I led with the very beginning that it's taken us two and a half years to come back to you to make these adjustments and changes.

Um, but we try really hard to document when those issues or when we see continued uh asks for certain things to bring those to you uh and ultimately to council to evaluate whether there's a need to change it.

Um could you speak more to how the staff tracks how often administrative adjustments and variances are granted?

Yeah, I mean, so we track every single application type that comes into our office from an entitlement perspective, an adjustment is an entitlement.

So it's a separate application that can be filed independently or bundled with another application, such as a development plan or or similar uh request.

Um so we document every single application that's submitted by by any property owner or individual.

Um we look at from a perspective of what is the because they're they're required to provide a description of what they're doing.

So we're constantly looking at that to see whether we're seeing reoccurring requests in a specific zone to change this type of side setback or this type of height requirement, so that we can make a more informed decision when we're looking at those adjustments and changes to code, that we have the basis to say, well, we had you know 50 applications in the last two years to reduce the side setback through an administrative adjustment for X that gives us kind of the the starting point or baseline for the conversation to say we already see that there's potentially a need in our community because no Euclidean zone or base zone is perfectly gonna fit on every property.

So if we see that broader need, we can holistically look at for that zone district.

If we see very specific uh considerations in that context, we can bring that to you to say, well, five feet is really it's not clearly not working, and we need to look at three feet or whatever it might be.

And I think I think we've seen that happen here.

I think we've we saw that with the first deluge of dog kennels and then the later adjustments made when you know uh the code was amended to allow that.

Um Commissioner, yeah.

Just to give you uh I had I just pulled up the data last year.

We did 10 uh administrative uh variances and the year before we did seven.

This year today we've done none.

Oh Lord, none?

None so far.

So I I think one thing that would make me hugely comfortable is being able to maybe on an annual basis see what you just saw, maybe uh uh including some kind of a report on a regular cadence to the board on the areas where we are allowing administrative adjustments regularly, just as part of like the annual work plan update or something, so that we know if there is a code section in need of amending.

Yeah, we certainly can can do that.

We are internally working on actually at the direction of the administration to develop a data dashboard to be able to share out kind of that day-to-day work product that's coming out of our department.

Uh, and we've already internally discussed whether that will be sharing, uh, which I expect it will be is sharing that entitlement data as well as building permit data.

We do the same presentation of building permit data to the DRE advisory committee.

Um, but we can certainly look at whether we do that on more regular basis.

I think it comes out in our annual report or has come out in the department's annual report in the past.

Um, but again, we can we can look at whether we can more um regularly share that with this body.

So uh with this, uh, we also, as I asked on our previous item, would not expect the number of cases heard before this board to increase or decrease necessarily.

Is that right?

Correct.

Having kind of a neutral impact since we've had none so far this year.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, with that, I don't have anything further uh to share uh with the body.

Again, you know, it seems I'll leave it up to your your uh whoever ultimately makes the motion.

We have a cleaned version of the motion that doesn't consider that last item uh that should be on your screen there.

Uh in the event there is a desire to take a different approach and include that in this package today.

Uh I do have uh uh a separate set of that, and of course, if we need to consider additional modifications, we can we can do so.

So thank you.

Any further commissioner questions or comments will we entertain a motion?

And if we're gonna entertain a motion, do we want to do a motion um with um the striking of the minutes shall be kept sentenced, or do we want to just go with the original uh motion that is in your uh was in your packet this morning or on in your stuff that was on your desk this morning to give it to you a minute to take a look at that?

I might be in the minority, but I don't know that for sure.

I'm fine with I I'm fine with it being the regular meetings, and I don't know if that needs to maintain the original motion or if that's the revised motion, but with a revision of the language, you know, I think to make this easiest from a documentation perspective, I I would maybe recommend that doing a motion to adopt the order to to recommend approval of the ordinance as written.

And if there is a desire to add the meetings piece into it, that we can look at that as a as an amendment to the motion.

Does that sequentially work better as opposed to if if we do a motion with it and it's denied, the whole thing dies.

So the city attorney's office.

Um that would work procedurally.

Um we'd have a first and a second on standard motion to recommend approval.

And then if someone is interested in uh they can make a motion to amend that motion to include uh a change to 75702 uh changing minutes to be kept at regular commission meetings.

Um and that that worked procedurally.

Um, I see Dan's concern that if the other motion is denied, then that would that would just be a denial or a recommendation of denial.

Right.

But the way that the optional motion reads is minutes shall be kept of all commission proceedings.

So we would so in my potential motion would be minutes shall be kept of all formal commission proceedings.

So we'd unstrike the strike and add in a word.

Yeah, so essentially you're looking at some uh uh a further kind of iteration of what we have on the screen here, which is uh uh and I'm just gonna simply read it because it's the easiest way to do it for you.

So uh the original motion with the following technical modification uh to strike the last sentence.

So we'd change that.

So we would say modify the last sentence uh from city code section 75202B2 as illustrated below, and then we would go in uh from the motion perspective and say minutes shall be kept for all new bold word regular commission proceedings.

Should be regular and special because our minutes, I mean our rules talk about the difference between regular work and special.

So I think in in our rules, it says the minutes will be kept at special meetings.

So I think you're gonna if you're gonna wordsmith it that needs to be regular and special meetings, and therefore the exclusion would be just the work meetings.

Chair Casey, Melissa, what's getting and was city council when we have the joint meetings or special meetings, city council staff does take minutes of those and sends that out.

I think he's just referring to if we independently had to hold a special planning commission.

For example, we did one for I think the marijuana ordinance a while back.

We had a special meeting that was out of out of normal sequence for that.

And because that was a regular C it was a special CPC meeting, those minutes were taken.

Right.

But I'm just trying to align this, what we're doing today with our actual rules that we've already been, which talks about taking minutes at special meetings and then we got our regular meetings and then excluding work sessions.

So the only thing I was saying for this sentence is you know, amend it to say minutes shall be kept at all uh regular and special meetings or commission proceedings or however you want to.

And to recommend approval of the other items and that, but I don't know if I have support from um from the dais to do that.

Yeah, Chair KC would support that.

Brian, I I know there's some yeses and no's down here, so is anybody opposed to that?

Uh well, I I think it I think more discussion of it would be appropriate.

I don't know that I could support it yet, because there are things that happen in the informal meetings that you know could be a benefit to the public to be documented, you know, such as data center ordinance, you know, precursor we heard from CSU housing needs assessment.

Thing things like that that you and I understand that's more work for the department.

But is I I just I think it's worth more discussion.

I'm happy to make a motion on without the minutes component, and then if you want to throw it out there, um you can, and and the rest of it will move forward.

Other commissioners, your views.

Yeah.

I would tend to agree with Andrea, just so you that helps you need to know how much support or I think just a little more discussion.

Um since I'm pretty new, I haven't seen a lot of the presentations, but I think something like that blue sky again, like I don't know who's reading the minutes, probably no one, but that's not really up to you.

Fairly, but I do think it's probably not fair for me to decide on someone else's behalf.

Like at least and again, I don't I'm not trying to downplay the amount of work that it will be for the staff.

Like I understand that there's a an actual consequence to us taking minutes, but I'm undecided on like whether I think it's worthwhile or not.

Question for staff, are there are the presentations that are given to us at the work sessions?

Are those publicly available then to people after that?

Do they get posted somewhere online or a link to the uh uh potential uh minutes?

No.

Not at this point.

Okay.

That that's actually what caused this discussion uh was the meeting last week where we had a presentation, but we didn't have any way of really making that available to others.

And so now we've got this question of that we're trying to resolve.

And it was what what should we have done in in that case?

And it wasn't even on the agenda.

No, that's right.

That's even worse.

Yeah.

I mean, is the solution then by the way, the city attorney pointed that out to us.

So of course you did.

Good for him.

Uh I mean, isn't it?

Sorry, just for the record.

So there is a way to cure that um for open meetings law purposes, the way to cure it is to notice it and um basically play a recording of it or have it represented at the next meeting.

So we will um have that cured at the next meeting.

Uh so you don't need to uh worry too much about that.

Um anything that is presented at the work sessions or the regular sessions is public.

So um we will get copies of those presentations and and have them available.

Right.

Or the other solution is that any of those types of presentations just happy happen at this meeting as opposed to at our work session and the work session informal meeting, whatever we call it, really is about our agenda and we have those here.

No, Andrea says I've been here to seven o'clock at night multiple times.

So I don't I think we want to necessarily, I think part of it is um, you know, say if there was a long agenda, you know the amount of focus and effort that could be given back to understand the presentation has a risk of being reduced.

So yeah.

So I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I can support taking that action today, but I am you know open to taking the rest of the action.

And I think if we mirror city council, their work sessions they have presentations routinely with those.

Just a couple of considerations here that we're that we're facing.

Obviously, we have staff issues in terms of trying to get these minutes done to a level that city council would like for them to be.

Um and so we do a lot of work on the minutes to this particular meeting.

Um adding another meeting to have minutes and expecting them to be that level of detail is probably a staff issue that I don't have resources for.

So we're working on trying to figure out some other ways to do that, maybe uh some other um software uh issues that we can we can do.

Um, you know, it was it was it was an attempt to try and get you some more uh information and to spark a little bit more discussion at the informal meetings uh around issues that just give you some background.

So um uh uh it was not you know we weren't intending to make that something that to add to this day, and these days can become really long, as Andrea pointed out.

Um I I think that it's better to do them at the at the informal meeting.

But so we're in a short, you know, we we we uh it uh acknowledged the issue from last meeting, uh didn't notice it correctly, didn't record it correctly, didn't keep minutes, and that's kind of why we're here today to try and resolve that and we will resolve that, but going forward we just want to make it as efficient as possible.

And I don't want to add another meeting with a whole lot of minutes where uh I don't really have the resources to do that.

Uh Commissioner Robinson This thing has a uh response every time I touch it, like um I uh I have a little bit of conflict.

Uh well actually I see both sides of the of the um issue here and um perhaps just because of that and we should put this off till uh and maybe think about it and bring it back next month.

I hate to do that.

I don't like adding more to the uh to the agenda, but uh the liabilities we have by not having the information down the road, I think is can be detrimental to us and cost us more time and and headache than it if we uh I think we need to have it recorded.

So anyway, I again I'm having mixed emotions on this, so maybe we uh better put it off a bit and think about it.

Yeah, quick question for the staff have you ever received any inquiries for the uh minutes for the work sessions from any member of the public or city council?

No, in my time here we have not.

No, not that I recall in the last 10 years that I've been here.

Okay, Commissioner Case sorry.

Yeah, just real quick.

So I think again, it's transparency and information.

So in our informal meetings, having those presentations for the public is obviously crucial.

Uh I'm not sure if there's even a blend.

I see we have presentations on our agenda here.

Uh I don't know if it has to be actually presented.

Um, but is that maybe providing that information where there are meeting minutes and saying you know, there's links and things like that.

I think that's a crucial piece that like we've talked about that was not presented before.

Um the other piece is just having overall transparency between the two meetings.

I think again, it's just providing the information that's in those Yes, certainly.

If we have an item that's gonna be on the agenda, uh and we we we agree it was an error on our part for include it for missing to include that in the last uh work session meeting is if we have a presentation, they provide it to us in advance.

It's a hyperlink document that we can load into our our system to agendize it, and that becomes publicly available.

Uh and to that, I think the designation from what I've heard from Trevor is the informal, we're not making any votes, you know, it's correct.

And that's a pretty crucial piece to this.

Um, so most people are really here to you know have their public comment at this meeting because that's where it's impactful.

The informal is really to learn.

So I think that's an important designation as well.

Mr.

Slattery.

Thank you.

Um the other.

You know, I understand like the the level of detail within these meeting minutes where actions are taken, right?

And perhaps there's another um more abridged level of detail that would be appropriate for an informal meeting.

But while there is no voting, actions are taken, such as removal of items from consent agendas.

Perhaps the applicants would like to see who polled things and why, uh, and you know, to inform them if they're not focusing and listening in.

There are some um changes and modifications that occurred during an informal meeting that you know perhaps are um appropriate to document.

Um while I understand, you know, council is probably not going to read the informals, you know, there could be determined what the appropriate level of action and detail within those maybe minutes is appropriate.

Yeah, I wouldn't know uh maybe add to that or or clarify with that that question there, Commissioner Slattery is like so.

If we have an item that's that's discussed at informal and we see a fairly concise, you know, consensus that there's an issue with having that item on the agenda, um, you all are still discussing it and and formally acknowledging that that's being removed from the agenda at the formal meeting.

Um so we're talking through those aspects, but it gives us the ability to start to understand um from a decision making body, if an item that's on consent gets moved to regular, we will do that uh through the discussion.

The agenda gets reposted for the formal meeting with that change made uh to it based on on indications here.

Similarly, we would do that through the changes to the agenda discussion at that formal if we got an onslaught of public comments on something and we knew that there was interest from the public perspective to talk about it, we would move it from the consent to the regular.

So I think there's avenues to do that.

Uh, but I see what you're saying in the sense of trying to, again, it's probably all under the umbrella of transparency uh, you know, and trying to to document and and further public interest uh on certain things.

Um, but I think what we're trying to suggest with this proposed change is that you know, under open meeting law, this as it reads today, the UDC is more restrictive than open meetings law.

That's not to say that that's not bad.

It's just to say, you know, looking at other decision-making bodies within the city and how they handle themselves from a uh a consistency perspective, is it was uh discussed or recommended to change this section.

So Commissioner Willby.

Yeah, I wonder maybe this is a city attorney's question.

Is there some version sort of along what Andrew was saying of a hybrid, like maybe the agenda and the links to presentations are captured and then it's like transcriptions of meeting are available upon request, or I I understand video recordings take up space, like data storage, but maybe they're simply just recorded and not processed in any way, and then they're available should the one person in every 10 years request it or uh glass messy turn as office.

Um as we go down this rabbit hole, um, which maybe it would be good to have an informational session on this, uh, we we're getting into different areas.

For example, the one you just implicated was the uh record retention.

Um so for example, if we took recordings of these meetings, um they would potentially have to be retained forever um per certain record retention laws, and that's a lot of storage that the city doesn't necessarily have.

So there are considering considerations like that as well, whereas just keeping a copy of work session agenda with uh links to the different presentations and things is a lot less uh data consuming.

What about transcripts?

Tell me the legalese around transcripts versus So transcripts, uh yeah, are basically the they wouldn't be official.

Um they would be we would have to take minutes uh for them to be the transcripts of the meeting.

Um if you are thinking of something like AI transcripts or something along those lines, there is a lot of concerns with that.

Um, they would still have to be reviewed and formalized and adopted, and in that case, they would still be um up for a long period of record retention.

So that's not as easy as it seems offhand just with the different uh municipal laws that are in effect.

I was sure it wasn't going to be, but I thought I would say it anyways.

Mr.

Case.

Yeah, and to Andrew's point, I think it is very important that when we're talking about moving items on the agenda that that is documented.

So just like when we talk about in the informal, you know, if we have to recuse from an item that there's a reason potentially why, and we discuss that at the formal meeting.

I think that is crucial.

Um instead of just moving the agenda.

I know it allows you guys to to prepare a presentation more so.

Um, but I think at the dias, maybe that's a procedural thing that we can do a bit better at.

I think too for if you're gonna move something off the consent and you bring it up at the informal meeting, we don't probably formalize it then till the formal meeting when we ask if you don't see it.

In other words, we're not gonna move something off consent at the informal meeting.

We just I know we do, but maybe that's a way we get around that is not do that to say I intend to take this uh call us off consent at the formal meeting.

Yeah, I think procedurally because we're we're publishing an agenda for the work session, and it says this is these are the items and these hierarchy uh from a hierarchy we're gonna be discussing them, but we discuss them all versus at the informal, you know, if there is a desire of a commissioner to to pull an item and heard it hear it under the regular business, that procedurally is what occurs.

But yes, it it prompts staff to be ready to with a presentation to have the applicant team, you know, there to discuss it.

Um of the items today was in that same boat where we were initially anticipating it would be in one bucket and it was not.

So we didn't move anything.

You didn't move anything, yeah, because we had already anticipated that.

Okay.

So so from the informal meeting, if we say I say I want to take something off consent, do you you m generally move that then for the commit for the agenda for the formal session, or do we wait till the formal session then I can say I've alerted you that I'm going to call it off consent, and then we don't I don't formally call it off consent until the formal meeting, therefore I wouldn't need it because otherwise it's sort of a decision of some sort that's being taken correct at the informal or the work session.

I do want to point out a little bit of irony and that I'm a I'm really kind of dedicated to let's hold off on this potential amendment as it was not part of the noticed amendments that were published.

Good call today's agenda.

Okay, well, I had one final thing.

But I can I was gonna say, why are we still kicking the horse into next month?

But I do think that that is a nuance that is very important if it was not uh uh uh motion, if it was not whatever.

So technically the notice for this was amendments and changes to Article 5.

Which this calls in Article 5.

Which as far as falls under Article 5.

Notice was given through publication in newspaper uh so in the draft attachments, this amendment did not appear as part of the draft ordinance.

Correct, correct.

That hence why during the presentation today, we proposed it as a as a technical modification to the ordinance that you see procedurally.

This is totally above board.

It's still in that section.

Correct.

I don't want it to be perceived that we're trying to slide something on in without having no one percent part of the same section of code, just a portion of it that hadn't been contemplated in the draft ordinance.

Okay, I'd just have to.

And we're gonna make sure that those statements are recorded and in the middle being recorded.

Thank you.

All right, uh, Chair Casey.

Um okay.

If we say we're gonna kick this to next month, what's gonna happen between now and next month that's gonna make someone change their opinion on this one, I guess.

Is it just that you want more time to contemplate it?

You want to look at other other things on it or I'm fine with approving it the way it's written on our screens right now.

Um with with with a caveat that we'd like to charge the staff with taking a look at how we can better capture uh you know a synopsis of our work sessions, whether we call them call it minutes or something else, you know.

That's what that's what's gonna happen over the next 30 days.

We'll we'll be able to talk about it internal, try to figure out what our recommendation is in terms of how we do that.

And and if we want to do it at all.

And my next thought was if we have a presentation, can we call that a special meeting as opposed to an informal meeting?

And if we're only getting those a few times a year, I mean it's not like every single month we have a presentation.

And so maybe those are the ones that we need to have meeting minutes because it's a special meeting.

So any other informal is informal.

So Trevor Glass, the attorney's office.

So a special meeting is a certain type of thing per the rules.

There it's basically uh it's basically a regular meeting that's held at a different day.

So it's still you should still be on that, yeah.

Um so if it's just purely informational, it doesn't necessarily fall under the special meeting designation.

Okay.

Okay, to move things along.

Do we have a motion?

Uh would it people this informally do we have with the what's written on our screens the way it is right now?

Does somebody uh is anybody opposed to what's on the screen right now?

So we got three opposed to that, four opposed, five opposed to it.

Okay.

So since we would like to have more discussion, I would recommend that we just go with the uh uh motion again.

It's up to one of you to make the motion, but make the motion to uh that was in our original list of motions here to approve everything but this part, and then we can move uh go back to that next month.

So work sure um I I do appreciate all of the um putting up with the questions here and you answered several of mine on administrative adjustments.

I think the clarifications being made around the appeals processes and things moving to council for final decision are really important, and those are those signify some really needed progress in the evolution of the UDC.

But I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8C C O D E 26-002, an amendment to UDC text to recommend approval to the city council of the adoption of the administration and enforcement ordinance amending chapter seven unified development code of the city of Colorado Springs as uh as amended.

Sorry, is that right?

2001, the city of Colorado Springs 2001, as amended, relating to the procedural process changes for various entitlement application types based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria set forth in city code section 7.5.702 the motion passes unanimously.

Okay, that concludes the items we have on the agenda.