March 24th, 2026.

We are in session.

Will the clerk please call the roll councilmember Crow Iverson?

Here.

Councilmember Donaldson.

I'm here, and I hope you feel better soon, Sarah.

I can tell you this.

Thank you, me too.

It doesn't sound good, sorry.

Uh Councilmember Gold.

Here I am.

Councilmember Henjam.

Present.

Councilmember Lion Weber.

Here.

Councilmember Rainey?

Here.

Councilmember Risley.

Excuse.

Oh, you're online.

Councilmember Williams.

Here.

All eight present.

Moving on to the invocation.

Please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

And today we are joined by Pastor Gene Steinkricher from Stone Church.

Good morning.

Good morning.

First, I'd like to read a scripture.

From Psalms 134.

Green means go.

Behold, bless the Lord.

All ye servants of the Lord who by night stand in the house of the Lord.

Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless the Lord.

The Lord who made heaven and earth bless from Zion.

Almighty God, we come before you now.

We, your children, and those who have been called to serve in this city council to watch over this city, to protect this city, and to use the wisdom of the Lord as they guide this city.

And this is the blessing we ask today on this city council.

And as we come before you, all of us, in your presence, how grateful we are.

And we would also ask a blessing upon them.

The men and women who have served and continue to serve this nation.

This blessing we ask in the name of our Lord, our Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Amen.

All men.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Yes, that's been pulled up.

Okay, thanks.

Seeing no other, I'll in uh motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Gold.

A second from Councilman Lineweber.

All in favor.

Okay.

Any opposed moving on to recognitions.

Um will the clerk please read item five A into the record.

A resolution recognizing March 29th, 2026 as National Vietnam War Veterans Day.

Councilman Donaldson.

Um thank you.

And today we have the opportunity and the privilege to recognize uh the Americans uh who served us in in Vietnam, who fought in Vietnam, many of whom are here today.

Um I've got the privilege of reading this resolution.

And you know, before I even do that, I'll invite uh post commander Andrea Finnegan Flossie to come on up to the uh to the uh podium, and you can just introduce the next speakers once I get done, Andrea.

And so uh couple things to point out before I read this resolution.

Uh the Vietnam conflict, Vietnam War, whatever you want to call it, was the longest conflict in uh in U.S.

history.

Um a lot of times we don't remember that, but uh it was.

And in that um conflict, there were 47,000 Americans killed in action and 11,000 non-combat deaths and 150,000 wounded.

Um there was a there's a good letter to the editor in today's uh Gazette from Len Bentley, and he points out a few things.

Uh he goes through that.

There are still 1,576 uh MIAs uh from that war missing in action, uh men who never never their their bodies were never returned to the United States.

Um with that, I'm gonna go ahead and read the resolution, and then we have uh Andre will introduce a couple speakers for us.

Okay.

And so this is a resolution recognizing March 29, 2026 as National Vietnam War Veterans Day.

So, whereas March 29th was selected as National Vietnam War Veterans Day, because on March 29, 1973, the last U.S.

combat troops departed the Republic of Vietnam.

And whereas Vietnam veterans represented nearly 10 percent of their generation and fought under challenging conditions, and when their service ended, they were not always welcomed when they returned home.

And whereas Vietnam War Veterans Day is a day of remembrance and gratitude for those who served in the U.S.

military during the Vietnam War, this day honors the courage, sacrifices, and hardship faced by these veterans, ensuring they are recognized for their service.

And whereas approximately 2.7 million Americans served in South Vietnam, and over 58,000 lost their lives.

This day ensures that these heroes are remembered for their service.

And whereas Vietnam War Veterans Day plays an essential role in recognizing their service and sacrifices.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Colorado Springs, that city council designates March 29, 2026 as National Vietnam War Veterans Day in the city of Colorado Springs, and it's uh dated um 24 March 2026 and signed by our council president uh Lynette Crow Iverson.

And one thing, one other thing I wanted to point out was that of those 58,000 that died in uh in Vietnam, and it was actually 58,479, eight were women.

More than half of them who died were 19 year years old or or or less.

So very, very young men being killed.

Um and with that, I want to welcome Andre.

Andre, if you want to introduce yourself and then introduce your speakers.

Sure, here.

Hi, my name is Andre Thinkin Fossey.

I am from American Legion Post 5.

I'm the past commander there, also senior vice commander, now incoming commander.

Um, I am also a junior vice for the district seven of American Legion, and I am first chair for the Pike Speak Veterans Council.

Um I want to share a few words and then I will introduce um the next speaker.

I want to thank you for recognizing our Vietnam veterans today.

Many of these men's answered a call they did not choose.

They were drafted, sent far from home, and asked to carry a burden few can truly, truly understand.

They served with courage and carried a weight of the service long after they came home.

When they did return, many did not receive the welcome or respect that they had not just deserved, but earned.

Today we stand to correct that, to honor their sacrifice and to show and to ensure they know their service will never be forgotten.

And we have to make sure that we do that, not just when it's a certain year.

We should be doing that every year and every chance possible.

Thank you.

And I would like to introduce Russ Miller.

Good morning.

Get this out on my belly button here.

Um Russ Miller, I am the president of the Pike Speak Veterans Uh Council, and also the uh National Senior Vice Commandant of the Marine Corps League, uh, which is the fourth oldest congressionally chartered veterans organization in the United States.

For a long time, Vietnam veterans, when they came home, as we've already heard, were not welcome.

They they didn't get the parades, they didn't get the thank yous.

And too often, even within their own veteran groups, they weren't accepted.

They weren't welcomed home within the VFW, the American Legion.

There were a lot of them that the World War I and World War II veterans and the Korean War veterans kind of kind of looked down on them and didn't treat them with the greatest of honor and respect.

For me, as I travel around the country, I'm always so grateful to be able to stand in front of large groups of veterans and to be able to ask that all the Vietnam veterans uh stand up if they can, raise their hand if they can.

Because it's because of those Vietnam veterans who experienced that when they came back in the 1960s and the 1970s, that they made sure that my generation, our generation, coming back from Desert Shield, Desert Storm, uh, all the various uh wars that we've been in, that the uh global war on terror, they made sure that we did not receive the same uh non-welcome home that they did, but made sure that we were we were taken care of.

And it was those Vietnam veterans who created organizations like wounded warriors to make sure that our veterans today, who were not still not receiving everything that they were promised by the VA, that they were that they would get what they had coming to them because of their service.

And so it it is so welcome that here this uh this day in this week that we finally get to give these Vietnam veterans the welcome home that they deserve, and the thank you for those who, like my brother, will were killed in combat.

Thank you.

And now, Mr.

Trustee.

I'm Leroy Trustee, an Air Force veteran, a retiree, representing a number of veteran service organizations that I belong to, to include the Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 1075, VFW Post 11411 and Florescent, American Allegiant Post 5, as well as the Military Order of World Wars among others.

And I'm alum of the Honor Flight Mission 21, as well as my comrades and brothers and sisters who served boots on the ground in the region and around the world in support of the operations that we were involved with.

I want to thank the city council and the citizens of Colorado Springs for this proclamation and the honoring of our veterans who have served and continue to serve, recognizing those who fought and won battles of a conflict doomed by the politics of the time.

Many of us experienced when we came back the hate, the vitriol, the name calling, and I can remember being spit on twice as I was leaving and entering terminals, getting back home to my bride.

Many of my comrades are still fighting those battles.

They're still fighting, and it's constant with that of the physical pain that they endured as well as the psychological battles.

And they've been doing this for over 50 years.

This affords many of those veterans the closure and the healing that they deserve.

So this proclamation is all comes together, and I want to thank you again for that.

And to my brothers and sisters, I say, welcome home.

May you never walk alone.

Okay.

Um I also, on behalf of uh City Council and the City of Colorado Springs, I want to say welcome home to our Vietnam veterans.

My father was uh served in uh Vietnam also.

Um with that, madam president, I'll bring it back to you and bring back up here to the dice.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I want to say thank you to Councilmember Donaldson for uh bringing about this resolution.

Um not only is it important that we recognize those members that have sacrificed so greatly.

Um I also want to remind us uh us as a collective whole just how critical uh it was to the current implementation of how the Department of Defense, Department of War, whatever you choose to say, um how it stands and how it is structured today.

I think oftentimes historically, people tend to forget that the way the department is structured was because of the efforts during Vietnam and after Vietnam, it was a critical pivotal point to figure out how we are going to move forward as a uh defense uh department and how we were going to treat our men and women moving forward.

So uh to everyone who spoke today, to everyone across uh the state of Colorado here in Colorado Springs and across this great nation, I want to continue to thank all of you for your service and the efforts that laid before me before I became a veteran.

Uh it was truly uh the dedication and the honor uh that you displayed uh to make sure that we continue to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So thank you very much.

And once again, Councilman Donison, thank you very much for bringing this resolution about.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Um, and I appreciate all of the words that have been spoken, and thank you for being here today.

Um I would like to take a moment and um share uh some words from uh my father's memoir.

Um a mighty lucky guy from beach to sand from beach sands to mountaintops, Joe Henjam.

Um, who at age 34 Air Force pilot was um called to Vietnam.

And I'm gonna read just a couple of paragraphs of he has a whole chapter on Vietnam.

I'm gonna just share a little bit about uh what he was doing there.

He writes, I was assigned to the 20th Special Operations Squadron, the Green Hornets, with a home base in Natrang on the coast of the South China Sea, about halfway between Saigon and Danang, South Vietnam.

We flew the slick and gunship configurations of the UH 1 F Huey.

At that time, we did we could not talk about our top secret mission, what we did, or whom we worked for.

It wasn't until the early 1990s when the mission was declassified that we could say we were flying a covert cloak and dagger operation in unmarked aircraft with no national identity.

We were a small squadron supporting U.S.

Army Special Forces, the Green Berets, and we were working for an office of the Central Intelligence Agency in Saigon.

It was known by the innocuous name of Studies and Observations Group, SOG.

With a name like that, one would not suspect they did all kinds of unconventional clandestine things.

And he tells some of those stories in this book.

They're really quite harrowing.

And uh some of the medals that he won for the flying that he did in Vietnam.

And I share that very proudly and also with a great deal of sorrow because his service in Vietnam ultimately was the cause of his death because of an illness related um to exposure to Agent Orange.

And we lost him way too young at age 76.

He would have been 92 this year.

And I miss my dad immensely.

Um what I also want to share with you, and he he told us, he I remember hearing stories when he flew back from Vietnam, and I remember waiting up that night for him to come home.

We were living in um Fort Lauderdale, Florida at the time, and uh arriving at the at the airport in Seattle and having to change immediately into his civilian clothes when he arrived because he was spit on and yelled at.

And I remember hearing those stories.

And that really stuck with him.

And the day after we went to war in Iraq, um, my dad and a friend who he flew with, Bob Carlone, um, they talked to each other that day and they said we cannot let happen to the troops who will be deployed now, happen to what experience what happened to us when we came back from Vietnam.

And thus was born the home home front cares, which is now the Home Front Military Network.

And it was really spurred by supporting troops and their families and the experiences that families went through.

And Councilmember Rainey just spoke to this a bit, but these conflicts they take a tremendous toll on the individuals serving in them, on the families who are uh supporting when they're left behind.

And um and on the soul of our country, and he was proud to serve in that war.

Um and yet wars are very costly in so many ways, and we are uh in the middle of many conflicts right now.

And so it's just with both pride and um gratitude for those who choose to serve for those who don't choose to serve who were called into service, um, and for those who are left behind that I appreciate this recognition, and at the same time acknowledge that these conflicts and what we're fighting for have a tremendous, tremendous cost.

And oh, oh, for the day when there are no more conflicts.

Um but thank you, Councilmember Donaldson, for uh for this uh resolution and um and thank you for listening to a little bit of my story and about my father and his service.

Thank you.

I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Gold to vote.

Let's vote on this resolution.

The motion passes a to zero.

So we'll join you up front for a celebratory picture.

Yes.

All right, one, two, three, one, two, three.

That's good.

This time's not as fun as it was.

Well, I do know a lot of that.

Moving on to item five B.

Will the clerk please read item five B into the record?

Presentation of just serve city certificate to the city of Colorado Springs.

Good morning, Mr.

Williams.

Morning, Madam President, Council members.

Uh, thank you first for that uh resolution.

And Nancy, thank you particularly for your remarks and sharing some of Joe's comments.

Uh having said that, this city was of course founded by a military veteran.

Medal of honor winner, General Palmer.

And uh this history has a long the city has a long history of recognizing those who serve and of participating in service.

And so on behalf of just serve.org, we are here to present a certificate to the city, and I want to turn it over to the Pikes Peak Regional Specialist for this, Tammy Ferris.

Good morning.

It's a privilege to be here to talk to you about JustServe.

I'm gonna briefly tell you what Just Serve is because that's my usually the first question that I get.

Is a website.

How do you change the you can change it for me?

Okay, what is just serve?

Just is a free website where the needs of organizations are posted and volunteers can search for opportunities to enhance the quality of life in a community.

So Just Serve is currently active in 17 countries with more to come.

So it's an international website.

This is our vision.

We may not solve world problems immediately, but we're convinced that by serving each other in our local communities that we're paving the way for broader changes.

Our individual efforts don't need to be huge, a little bit here, a few hours there, but even small efforts can quickly add up to make a real difference.

This is off of the justserve.org website.

Um what kind of organizations can use justserve.org?

Well, civic, nonprofit, academic business, military, faith base, um, and this is a list of organizations currently using just serve in the Pikes Peak region.

There's 158 total, so I just put a sample of what it is.

Um you can see that El Paso County Parks and Recreation is one of them.

Um City of Colorado Springs Park Recreation and Cultural Services.

Um what we do is we set up a landing page for each of these organizations explaining who and what they are, what their mission and vision are, and then after, and we give a contact person, and then after that, the individual organizations can post both their volunteer needs and their uh in-kind donation needs so that um we can invite our over 5,000 registered users that we currently have in the Pikes Peak region to look through the website.

Uh and we also have an app, a justserve.org app, that you can search for these different opportunities.

We call them projects on justserve.org, and choose to volunteer.

Um who can volunteer on justserve.org.

Well, any community member who is at least 13 years old can register on justserve.org and search for opportunity to serve.

And I encourage all of you, if you have not gone to just serve.org and looked at the website and registered as a user.

Uh I encourage you to do that.

Um a lot of people say, well, I don't want to get any emails or any texts.

You don't get anything from just serve.org unless you volunteer, and then you'll get information about your volunteer opportunity.

Uh you can volunteers can serve as an individual, they can serve as families, they can serve as a groups.

We also have just served.

We have just serve um high school clubs that we have started.

Uh there are currently four of them in the city.

There's one in Pueblo, um, where the the kids actually do the service, and uh they are in charge of of organizing their own service projects.

Uh uh many other um high school clubs use just serve.org to find ways to serve in this in the city.

Um now, just serve city program.

The city of Colorado Springs um filled out a uh a survey and then they applied for uh uh to be a just served city.

Uh this is part of our just serve city program.

Uh they they uh did a volunteer proclamation and submitted it to our um our leadership team, and then they were nominated along with many other cities to be a just serve city.

The there are over 400 cities across the United States and Canada.

These are just a sample of some of those that are uh has been designated as just serve cities.

Uh you can see that Colorado Springs is up there, the city of Los Angeles, the city of Fountain has also been designated as a Just Service City and received the Just Serve City uh award.

Um we're hoping to um expand that by a hundred more or more this year, just in our just in the region that I'm in, which covers uh 11 states.

Um now there are other um there are other awards that the city can um strive for once you become a Just Service City, you can become a global Just Serv City just by doing these four simple things.

Um be an active Just Serve City, which Colorado Springs is list service project opportunities on just serve.org, and you can see that we already have one at least what we have three of your departments on justserve.org that use the website in order to find uh volunteers.

Um list the projects opportunities which you have on just serve.org, encourage unity and city values by supporting diverse groups in service, and formerly recognize individuals for serving in the community.

So that's the next step after you're awarded the Just Serve City plaque.

Um the last one, the last uh portion of our program is just serve hero award qualifications.

Um serve or reside within, and this is where you can give individuals within your community the uh the just serve hero ward.

Uh if the person resides in within the city, a just serve city, uh, and they're identified as an outstanding volunteer who volunteers significant hours, participates in numerous projects, encourage volunteerism in others, and provides transformative service that impacts community, the city can decide to award that person the Just Serve City Award.

So that's just serve in a nutshell.

We're got this plaque that we want to present the city with.

So with that, uh that concludes our presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Uh just serve.org has lots of different things.

I was looking on it as uh as we were going through the preliminary matters and saw everything from being a line dance instructor at the Fountain Senior Center to participating in City Serve Day with Cause I Love You, uh, which is on May 1st.

And so there's a host of volunteer activities, and it also outlines which ones are available to people who might have mobility impairments or otherwise not be able to do some of the heavy lifting that some other of the projects do.

So whichever you're interested in, we encourage people to continue serving in our community.

And we want to take the opportunity to present this to our city council with a picture if we could.

I also have one more thing I want to say.

Uh we're currently promoting Global Youth Service Day, which is an international service day.

We partner with Youth Service America to do this.

Uh that is April 24th and 25th, and we have over, we have a special uh landing page on our website that has over 50 youth appropriate um service projects that can be done on that on that date.

And actually, we also have Global Youth Service Month, so they can, if that date doesn't fit them, they can choose to serve uh in one of those ways uh during the month of April 10th through May 10th.

So just wanted to promote that also because that's uh this is a 38th annual year for Global Youth Service Day.

Councilman Gold.

Well, one, thank you, Madam President, and um thank you for this uh presentation.

I didn't learn of this.

Um's the last time Just Serve has done a uh city council work session presentation.

Has that been done?

I don't think we've had that opportunity yet.

We'd be happy to do that if you'd like.

Yeah, I personally would love to learn more.

I'll certainly check in with my peers to see if they're interested.

Um, because you guys are enhancing the cultural volunteerism that does so much and making it very easy, might I say, I was able to create an account in under 10 seconds through my Facebook account.

So thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, just a quick question.

Uh, because of all the different organizations that you have under the umbrella, do you get a lot of folks that especially like high schoolers that have to do volunteer hours, community engagement?

Do you get a lot of those individuals that come in in the organization?

And I do agree with uh council member goal that I I know I would also like to have uh a more in-depth briefing at another session, but I just that question I'm kind of curious about.

Yes, we have a lot of youth that are required to do service uh as part of their education, and we yes, we have a lot of them that use the website in order to find ways to serve.

Okay, no, thank you.

That's great to know.

I'll definitely pass the word around to a lot of schools in my district, so thank you.

Councilman Henjam.

Thank you.

And I'll be the third person to say I'd love a work session on uh just serve to to learn more.

So thank you for I when I saw it on the agenda, I was like, what is this?

What are we and there was no link.

I couldn't check it out, but I could have Googled it, I suppose.

But um, I was taking pictures of the of the slides in real time and and sending texting them to a friend.

I was having a conversation with last night about volunteering and um and the incredible uh service mentality and culture and how important it is and lifting up volunteers and how do we coordinate and and and all of that?

And I'm like, oh my gosh, and here here's like an answer.

So um a question I do have is um I just there's so many volunteer organizations that come to my or uh organizations that run on volunteers such as CASA or Silver Key.

Um can any organization kind of loop into your system as a way of of like can you do you ultimately act as like the 411 for organizations that that need volunteers?

Yes, you can.

Um any organization that wants to have a landing page put on just serve can do so and we can either have the volunteers sign up on just server.org and then the organization's contact person will get those if that information as they volunteer, or we can redirect to their own page to register and volunteer uh by redirecting to their website.

So we have uh Silver Key is on there already.

Um and we redirect to their website for volunteers.

Great, thank you.

And then just one last thing.

I uh as I was just talking about my my dad.

I mean, his service above self was his motto.

And um, you know, coming back from that conflict, it w was always about how how do I continue to serve even as he retired uh from the military, it was a it was about service.

So what a what a nice um what a nice thing to show up on the agenda today.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Um as you may know, um the the mayor has uh five priorities.

One of them is community activation, and um within that volunteerism is just central.

But one of the key reasons it's so important uh as we come up on May, which is Mental Health Awareness Month, um, is that serving is not just one way.

When you serve, you actually get so much more out of it.

And it there's been countless studies and stuff about how important it is to your own mental health to to give because of the joy that you receive.

How do you do you communicate that?

Is there um do you um uh leverage that piece um through your organization on the values of uh what you personally can get out of it just by giving of your time?

Absolutely.

In fact, I have a whole presentation on that very point.

Uh we are very aware that especially with our youth that service uh serving helps them uh navigate the very difficult situations that all of our youth experience today.

So yes, we do.

Awesome, great.

Um I'm gonna look I'll look more into it.

I've I've got the app, I've had the app on my phone.

Uh because you you guys have been around for a while.

Um so when I was looking into how to expand volunteerism and and this whole component, you guys came up pretty prominently.

So um you're doing a lot of good things.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we will join you up front for a picture.

And the official presentation service.

Yes, they often use just service.

You have you work with the sanctuary church?

I wonder the sanctuary church.

Yes, we had their own here, one of the organizations on the one, two, three, and one, two, three.

All right, good to go.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do you have a card?

Moving on to item 5C.

Will the clerk please read item 5C into the record?

City Council appointments to boards, commissions, and committees.

So this morning we have a um an appointment to the civil service commission.

Um council liaison Brandy Williams recommends the appointment of Kurt Iomis to the Civil Service Commission.

Council member Williams, do you have any comments?

I again just want to thank everyone who applied.

And um for those of you, my fellow council members.

This board is uh it's very reactive.

So I'll take this opportunity to thank everyone that's on the commission currently because on a lot of committees where you get homework and you've got a chart of course, this particular committee.

Um you react to situations that are happening within the sworn community.

So it's not one of our most exciting boards, but it is in the charter, so it's here to stay for a while.

So I want to thank everyone who applied.

Uh particularly wanna thank Kurt for stepping up to the plate.

And uh that's all I have.

Next we have El Paso Teller County 911 Authority Board.

As the liaison to this board, I am recommending the reappointment of CSFD Deputy Chief D Leon to El Paso County.

Um to tell it's El Paso County Teller County 911 Authority Board.

I have a motion from Councilman Hindum and a second from Councilman Lineweber.

There are no additional comments.

Let's vote and the motion passes eight to zero.

Moving on to mayor's business.

Do we have mayor's business this morning?

Yes, very briefly, madam president.

My name is Kevin Walker.

I'm the city planning director sitting in for Travis Easton.

Just wanted to remind the council that uh the Swire Coca-Cola bottling plant groundbreaking is Thursday at 10 a.m.

Wanted to thank all the city staff uh both watching and are here in the room to that uh help shepherd that project through thank you.

Moving on to items caught up consent calendar.

Will the clerk please read item four AA into the record December 2609 amending the zoning map of the city of Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 2.93 acres located southwest of Dublin Boulevard and what's a Vincent Drive.

Um public this is item four AA pulled off as a public hearing this morning.

Um the hearing will proceed as follows.

We'll have here from the city staff.

The applicant presentation will hear from public comment and support, public comment and opposition, applicant rebuttal, closing staff comments, and back to the dais for questions and deliberation and decision.

So we'll start with city staff.

Good morning.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Austin Cooper.

I'm a senior planner here with the city Colorado Springs Planning Department.

Madam President, if if I could, I mean I I pulled it off.

Would you like me to just uh make a brief statement about why I pulled it off?

Sure.

Okay.

Um this item is is asking council to rezone a piece of property a little under three acres.

And many of us might be familiar with it.

It's across from if you're on academy and you turn uh west on Dublin or left on Dublin if you're heading north on Academy, and you drive down it, you get to a point where it takes a pretty strong left turn.

Um, and there's some dog kennels there, there's a vet's office there, but on the on your left hand side or on the east side of the road, it's just sort of an empty field for these uh two point sum acres.

And it's it's a in my experience driving around that, and I've put campaign signs in that uh field, it is a dangerous corner where it's difficult to get across the road because cars come through pretty fast, and it's sort of a blind corner when you're on one side, you don't see what's on the other side of it.

And so before we rezone this and and add more uses, possible uses to this property.

I would ask my colleagues to really listen to what you're gonna hear now and be sure we're doing something that's gonna be safe uh for for our fellow citizens, and also does that use align with what is going on on that side of the road, not what's on the other side, but what's on that side, which is really all residential um at this point.

And uh, you know, this was on consent, so a lot of the the you know the folks up there probably didn't know uh we were gonna have a real hearing, but um I believe we have at least one who will be here to speak.

So thank you for allowing me to kind of give a little background on it and uh and uh please proceed, sir.

Of course, thank you.

Uh so yeah, this is gonna be for a rezone.

Um, I don't know if my clicker is working.

Okay, cool.

Uh the current zoning, um, it's it's split zoned.

It's uh A for agriculture, PDZ for Plan Development Zone, and R16 for single family medium scale with the Air Force Academy, United States Air Force Academy overlay and hillside overlays.

Uh it will be rezoned or is proposed to be rezoned to mixed-use neighborhood scale with the Air Force Academy overlay retained, losing the hillside overlay.

Um, after discussions with the city engineering department and our hillside reviewer, it was determined that this lot does not fit the characteristics of the hillside overlay.

The site is 2.93 acres.

Um, the proposed land use is maybe a commercial office mix, but I will get into the the uh allowable uses within that mixed-use medium neighborhood scale zone district that they would be permitted to pursue once if this rezoning gets approved.

Uh so as I mentioned, it's split zoned.

You can kind of see it on the map, and I'll have a bigger picture later, but the portion to the west of the lot is zoned A for agriculture.

Um, and the eastern half is uh R16, and there's a sliver of PDC there as well.

Uh the initial subdivision was made in June 3rd of 2025.

Um, there are three cycles for the review to be completed.

The item was ready for agenda in August 27th of 2025.

It's taken a little bit to get through planning commission city council.

Um, but here we are today.

Uh there was three instances of public notices, uh, all sent at a thousand feet surrounding the property, 168 postcards each time.

Um, we received six comments, and concerns are centered mainly around the traffic and the safety that council member Donaldson has already mentioned.

Uh sent out to all the agencies for review.

Uh traffic engineering did have some comments about uh requirement for additional right-of-way, but it was determined after conversation that that will be kind of instituted at the development plan stage.

Um there are also other commenters, and all of those comments have been addressed.

Uh, as I mentioned earlier, the hillside overlay will not be retained.

Or is not proposed to be retained, I should say.

Um it has been determined that this uh development or proposal fits the plan COS compliance.

If you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to answer.

Um, and now for the allowed uses chart.

Um, as I mentioned previously, split zone.

Um, you can't do a lot with that split zoning, you would have to kind of subdivide it to allow for only one zone district per lot, or else couldn't be developed.

Um, so it's predominantly that R16, which would allow for single family residential.

The A, the agricultural zone would also allow for single family residential, but in addition to urban agriculture and the kennel use.

We mainly see it on the outskirts of town.

Um, but this is in this case it was just a holding zone as it was annexed.

Um, and then in the MXN zone district, uh, there are multiple permitted by rate uses, uh, including single family residential, single family attached, group living residence, long-term care facility, restaurant office, um, retail.

That's uh another one.

Uh conditionally permitted, which would require a public hearing at City Planning Commission to be approved, uh light automotive and light vehicle sales, personal or business services, think about like massage parlors or hair barbershops, um, self-storage bar multifamily would also be per uh conditionally permitted on this lot.

Here are the here's the application review criteria.

Um, we could reference this later if we need to.

Um and uh here are your optional motions.

I did forget to mention earlier that this project was approved to City Planning Commission on the consent agenda.

Um, but we are presenting it to you for a full hearing.

Um the applicant does have a presentation.

Uh if we wanted to move to that next, I don't know the order.

Yes, we can move to the applicant's presentation.

Or if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer an hour or later.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Have one question, and uh, I don't know if we can quickly go back to slide.

I believe it was either two or three uh one that had the map on it.

Uh there we go.

Um I guess I can just add one.

I know there was a previous one also.

In that corner, and as council member Donison had kind of already alluded to it and highlighted, um, I definitely know that area very familiar with it.

Right as you're coming around that curve, there is a gravel parking lot that a lot of people park in and get onto the trail, but recessed from that is a substation.

Through utilities, is there any concerns with any type of rezoning in that area?

Um, because even though I know you're identifying the lot itself, literally about south east, adjacent to that, is that other area.

So I want to make sure that has that been taken into consideration, especially that substation.

Yeah, I I personally drive by this area a lot.

I do know that that substation and parking lot for the um pulpit rock, I believe it's like trail area.

Uh that's a little bit further south than this app than this site.

Um, I don't even think it's on the map in this picture.

Um, but CSU was a reviewer on this application.

They had no concerns with the proximity to the substation.

Um, and they will be also a reviewer when it comes to the time of development development plan for this application.

So if there's any um development that would hinder that their ability to serve the public, I'm sure they would also make a comment during that.

And there's no impact to the trail.

Not an area.

No public trail would be impacted.

I know that there's uh social trails on this lot that may be impacted.

Um, but again, this is this private property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Of course.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks, Madam President, and that's correct.

The uh the trail and everything's not even on this map, it's farther to the south, the uh substation, the the trailhead.

Um Austin, that that everything that we see that's kind of in the yellowy color is hillside overlay, and then across the street, across Dublin to the west, um, where the kennels are, that is hillside overlay.

Uh the only thing that isn't is on the other side of Dublin going north.

That's my I'd have to look at the papers again, but I'm pretty confident of that.

Why is this piece which is sandwiched between hillside overlay, not hillside overlay?

Or is it the recommendation is to remove it?

Yeah, uh we took we thought about that.

It was originally proposed to retain that overlay.

Um, after looking at the site going out there and speaking with the hillside reviewer and city engineering.

Um, we looked at the geologic features of the lot, uh, mainly slope and um the uh soils content, and it was determined that it did not fit the characteristics of the hillside overlay.

Now it is surrounded by his hillside overlay.

And it is your decision if you would like to retain that.

We can absolutely make that happen.

But um, just our engineering department didn't feel like it was necessary for this lot given the given the characteristics of it.

Okay.

And did you say that uh, hey, on on agricultural agricultural that would would it need to be rezoned for uh single family?

Uh in the A zone, you you are permitted to do single family um on a larger scale, but uh it it really is a holding zone.

And um what I had mentioned was um with it being split, you can't develop on a split zoned parcel.

So it would need to be rezoned if you were to look to retain that whole parcel.

Um you could kind of subdivide it along that A line and use it as the agricultural use and use it as a single family residential use.

I don't think there's a lot of potential in doing that just because of the size and the shape of the lot.

You know, in our packet, it says uh under traffic engineering.

Traffic engineering comments have been addressed in full.

And then there was a little something on your slide there about that.

What what was the traffic engineering concerns and how were they addressed?

And there were five or six emails from citizens in our packet, one of which points out someone was killed uh at the intersection there within the last year, at least when they wrote that email within the last year.

Are you familiar with that?

And what was that that accident?

Uh I am I'm not familiar with the traffic accident.

We have uh representative from city traffic that can kind of speak to that, and they've been prepped on on these questions as well.

Um, in terms of the uh initial comments from traffic engineering, um, you can kind of see it on the map.

The the area is a tract of land right now, it's not a plated parcel, and so some of the kind of um owned area it goes into the right-of-way.

Um, so traffic engineering would like to kind of vacate that or uh allow it to be um kind of deeded over to the city.

But I I don't want to speak on that if traffic engineering is here.

So um we can leave that to them.

Okay, because that's a big the big concern of residents there.

This is maybe number one is the danger coming around that corner.

Um it has become a kind of a cut through for people who live out east to come across Dublin, you go around this corner, then you get down to Nevada, you go down by the BMW dealership, the the big apartment buildings by uh by UCCS, and they don't see traffic being uh being reduced.

They see it increasing and increasing and increasing.

And to have people pulling out into the road from a dead stop in this uh whatever this turns into with the many new uses we would be allowing if we uh rezone it, it's a big concern.

Uh so with that lead up, Gail, go ahead and explain to me.

Thank you.

So my name is Gail Sturdevant and the city engineer and deputy public works director.

Uh traffic engineering does report directly to me, and they provided me information in preparation since this item is being pulled from the agenda.

Um, when we uh just to clarify where we are from a process standpoint, with this being a rezoning, we did the applicant has not done a full traffic impact study at this point.

Um they will do so when they get to the development plan phase.

Um we do, however, when we look at infill type projects like that, we look at three criteria, which are daily traffic volumes, safety and intersection operations.

Um I also was provided the uh emails that you'd received, Counselor Donaldson, about the safety concerns in the area and had the opportunity to go in and look into those.

Um so when we look at the traffic volumes, the the traffic volumes today are much lower than what would be is all the capacity for that potential or capacity for Dublin.

And even if with the rezone and if it was maxed out at the potential density, it still would be lower than the uh maximum daily vehicles per day.

So from a capacity standpoint, it should be sufficient.

Um from a safety standpoint, I went back and looked at the crash data.

So there was one fatality on, it's not actually on Dublin, it was on Vincent back in 2024, and it was actually 400 feet north of the intersection.

So they never had any inner and they were traveling south, never had any um interaction with that intersection, and that crash was actually listed as being due to illness.

So not related to the geometry and traffic operations in the area.

Uh, there have been uh two other crashes on Dublin um in the last couple years, uh, both non-injury.

Uh one was related, one was a rear ended that could potentially have been contributed to uh lack of attention at the intersection, and one was not related to the intersection operations itself.

So, really from a safety standpoint felt like the safety operations is sufficient.

Um then the intersection operation, we really looked at that with the crashes as well.

The intersection at Dublin Vincent is working appropriately.

Um I think one of the main concerns that we will have with traffic engineering when we go to the development plan phase is gonna be looking at the access point, how it aligns.

Um, so that's something that we've already started uh preparing for.

Um it will most likely um end up uh being at the south end of the property, aligning with the access point that currently is opposite of the sunrise uh woodman pet care.

And we would need a check to make sure it's provided an adequate site distance from vehicles traveling uh essentially south on Dublin coming through that area.

Um we are gonna be asking this as uh mentioned asking for additional right-of-way so they can be out of the roadway improvements in that area to help with uh vehicles accessing Dublin.

So really this property appears like from an info standpoint would be adequate from a traffic standpoint.

We would need additional details when we get to the more refined uses, and that will be determined at the development plan process.

Let me ask you this.

This be my I think this is it for me for questions for right now.

Um you say, hey, we'll we'll determine this adequate site distance to if for my colleagues.

If you look at this area that shaded in that light blue, the the parcel we're talking about, they're planning to put the exit entrance somewhere on the you know, along the road along Dublin towards the southern end, so it's far enough away from that corner so that they don't get hit by cars coming around the corner and speeding down the road.

And you said we'll determine what that distance is later on.

Why don't we determine what the distance is now and find out if there is adequate distance in this parcel to have a safe?

So it actually the distance is established, it's in our traffic criteria manual how far it would need to be for the site distance.

I could not recite that, but I could go and look that look that information up for you.

But what they would do also with that traffic and that analysis to see what other roadway improvements they need may need to do.

So whether it's Excel D cell lanes, a protected uh turning movement coming out of it, that would all be determined when we get to see the specific uses volumes coming out of that property.

So that's when the technical criteria will be applied when we see more detail on the proposed uses.

And if it if it bear there barely is, I think if you read these emails, and we're going to have at least one citizen from the area speak to us.

I know one is signed up.

People don't follow the speed limit there.

And I think we may find out we're creating a dangerous, a dangerous um situation here.

But that's part of my concern.

The other for my colleagues is if you notice everything over in this yellowy area are homes.

There are single family homes in that blue, it is townhomes.

And again, I I know this area pretty well.

There aren't any any uh uh of these other use types over here.

So when we hear that, well, it's it's a nice blending, it it flows from one area to another.

Um it's pretty much agricultural to the west, and then to the north is really very much separated by the road.

That's all has to do with uh dogs, really.

It's it's vets, and uh we'll hear about that later.

Thank you, Gail.

Thanks.

Councilman Linewilbert.

I I had one question um for traffic, traffic come back.

I didn't get my mic on fast enough.

Sorry, Gail.

Sorry.

So um you you didn't highlight the fact that um at the very um north um east part of this property.

There's actually a um a traffic light right there and a crosswalk.

And so um do you normally put crosswalks in places that are dangerous?

No, we do not normally put crosswalks.

But I think that the perspective uh it's a perceived dangerous intersection.

It's the reason why the stop is there actually is to allow one for vehicles um going through that intersection, but also for pedestrians to safely cross in that area.

So I guess my point is is the traffic is impeded.

It it's it's it's cause to slow down because there's actually a traffic light right there, right?

And traffic lights are pretty efficient as slowing down cars.

So I just want to kind of just state because it didn't really come up that there's actually a traffic light with a crosswalk right there.

Um and if there's been a problem, I mean, I uh again, I'm not I'm I'm trying to find the problem here, and I'm not I'm personally not seeing it.

I think we could look at more safety things, and I think those things will come up through the planning process, which you guys do an excellent job.

But I mean, traffic lights are pretty efficient at slowing down vehicles, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, I would agree, and I actually pulled the speed data, and that would be reflective of it as well.

Um we do have systemic speeding across the city, as you are aware.

Um we have some speeding in this corridor, but in this area of the intersection, actually around the curve, it's the one area where the speed limits are generally adhered to in this area.

Um I'm curious if you got a red light um camera sitting there.

Maybe in the future, right?

Yeah.

I mean, we know that that's enforcement in general is one of the reasons why we have more systemic sp.

Yeah, thank you.

If I could um Gail this this traffic light turns green sometimes, right?

It does actually.

And is it very effective at slowing the traffic when it's green?

Um, you know, the not necessarily unless there's friction of other vehicles that were stopped there and and slowing, but the speeds through this curve area are within the speed limit.

It's when you go to the EC.

Any time lightly?

Uh I had the traffic data pulled this morning.

And how is that ascertained?

If you say we pulled the traffic data this morning, so we I have neighborhoods that ask for this all the time, and we can't get to them because we we have a little, you know, the little cords that we lay across the street.

Uh we can only bring them periodically.

So we use a software package referred to.

It's called street light that actually uses data, it's collected data from essentially from the devices we carry with us that registers speeds in the corridors.

And that happens at that intersection all the time?

Yes, they yes, what I was provided with me this morning that generally through that area, it's through the curve and through that intersection, people are driving the speed limit.

How is it measured in the curve?

I get it when they go through the light, we might have some technology there to measure their speed.

But again, then you you're getting people who are accelerating out of a red light, they're slowing down off of what's the name of the street from the north.

Um Vincent.

The problem is when they come through this, it's green, they go fast around the corner, and then there's someone pulling out from whatever this is going to be right there.

Uh that's gonna be the pro that's the I mean, and it's a real concern.

There, of course, if there's a red light and they're starting from a red light, it's probably gonna work out just fine.

But before we rezone it, what I'm asking my colleagues to do is be thoughtful about this and uh consider the worst case scenarios.

You know, consider that.

It's not always going to be that way, but are we setting up something that can create uh a hazard?

And we are not supposed to rezone things if we think it can have a negative impact on public safety or convenience.

Um there's a big difference.

If they're coming out of a red light or if it's green and they're late and they're rushing through there.

So I I've said enough at the moment.

Um I'm interested to hear from people that live there.

Uh and can tell us firsthand.

Thank you.

Councilman Gold, what is the speed limit right there?

It's 35 miles per hour.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilman Donaldson, are you still on?

Okay.

Madam President, can I comment real quick?

Yes, sir.

Um Kevin Walker, City Planning Director.

I just want to remind council that um this is a rezoning from three zones on a two-acre parcel to try and get it organized so that any use can be on there.

So that's the first step.

The second step would be what's a safe use, what's a safe access?

But we can't get to that question until we have a use that we can't get to because that this particular property has three zones on it.

And so in the logical sequence of uh the development process, this would be a logical step.

And then the next step would be, for example, maybe there's a write-in, right-out access point, or maybe it's a uh it's a single house or two houses, or maybe it's many warehouses or something like that.

It's a very low traffic generator, but we can't assess that until we have a zoning that allows any kind of use on that.

So that's why we're here today.

So the traffic engineering specifics will come at the next at the next level at the development plan level.

Thank you.

We will now hear from the applicant.

And if I if I could ask one question, Madam President of the planning director, oftentimes when we receive uh requests for uh rezone, though, we get the uh development plan or at least um what's it called?

The land use plan at that time.

So we can see what they're gonna do, and we can see where the exit's gonna be, and we can make uh a decision, yeah, this rezone will be in the interest of the citizens.

It'll be good.

And we don't have that today.

Uh you don't have that as a standard process, you do have that on an appeal.

Uh so this can be appealed all the way up to the city council.

Uh you could also put a condition of record on this particular rezoning that you see the development plan when it comes forward.

So there are there are tools by which you can do that if council wants to get into the traffic engineering detail as you discussed.

And for us to approve, let me just try to find it here.

A rezone, you know, the criteria for that are that it is not detrimental to safety.

And so if we if we aren't sure if this is going to be safe, uh that's our responsibility to not uh approve a rezone.

So can't stay here and talk about this all day.

So why don't we move along?

We'll now hear from the applicant.

For the record, Bling Perkins planning and landscape architecture group leader with HR Green.

Um, just one uh point of clarification real quick to Mr.

Donaldson's question to planning director Kevin Walker in city code when an applicant is going forward on a rezone application and the property is under 10 acres, they are afforded the opportunity to either submit a land use statement or a land use plan.

In this case, we elected to produce a land use statement instead of the graphical plan that you're seeing.

Um another component that factored into that decision was the client that I'm representing is not intended to develop this property himself, so he doesn't know what use to put on there, therefore we cannot do a land use plan.

His his goal is to set this forward for a future developer to come in there, which is why we landed on the zone district that we ultimately move forward with.

MXN was a new mixed-use zone district implemented in the 2023 UDC updates for this specific application, I believe, specifically.

This is a nice blend or an opportunity to blend two contrasting zone districts of very high intense, low intense uses on a property.

And what I would say to that is all the emails that were received, none of them said this is great.

We're looking forward to this blending.

What they said was uh we we love our R1 zoned um neighborhood.

Uh and and if this was single family, okay.

We still think there's some risk to cars entering and exiting, but it's it's zoned for that now.

I I think they are concerned about, especially now that I know that this is really I mean, not to be uh negative in my statement, but kind of a flip.

You'll get it rezoned to something else and then hand it off to somebody else.

So you don't really know what will go there.

Uh what kind of businesses will be there.

And I if you if my colleagues have read these emails, it's appreciated that this is kind of a rural again.

We'll hear from the owner of the kennels, I believe.

Uh agricultural in that direction, and then residential.

It's uh the pulpit rock neighborhood.

Um, this is the revacuation route for fires.

There the ones that wrote in were concerned about it.

So, but I'll pause and and please go ahead, sir.

Yep.

That I mean, that's really all I wanted to highlight.

I believe Mr.

Cooper and Gail did a great job kind of covering the other items as part of this application.

Um, to just again going back to the zoning.

That that again, we don't have to speculate what type of businesses will or will not be there.

The zone district stipulates that for us.

So you could expect one of those would be coming in.

It's an allowed or permitted use within the zone.

So it could be massage parlors.

I believe that was actually pointed out.

That's that's a use.

Um could it be recreational marijuana shops?

Why not?

Um, good.

I'm glad to hear that.

Can we put that?

Well, I'll I'll pause and save this for after we've heard from uh all the people who are gonna speak.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Presentation.

We will now um hear from the public, and we have public comment in support of the project.

Pete Fretch.

Good morning.

I just wanted to uh speak briefly on support of uh the parks department uh getting the five acres I've been submitting to the uh parks department ideas that I've been talking to neighbors and actually hoping to yes.

Um, sir, I think you're actually speaking to a different item on the agenda.

This is not going to the parks department.

This will be this item to be developed for commercial use.

Uh which Madam President, you want to which item on the agenda do you want to speak to?

For a zone uh 2510.

This is uh public hearing for a rezoning.

So I think if you go over and okay, I appreciate you to Sam.

Um, this is in for as uh a zoning, not has nothing to do with parks.

Okay.

So if you want to walk over there, he can help you when we get to the section in the agenda that you may want to speak to.

Thank you very much.

Of course, thank you.

And there is one later on with a park rezone.

Yeah, that's why I send him to Sam so he can show him where it is.

Um so that ends public comment for and support.

Moving on to public compos comment in opposition of the project.

First up, we have Doug Johnson.

Good morning, City Council members.

My name is Doug Johnson.

I'm the owner of Sunrise and Woodman Kennels located along this road.

Uh I've been there since 1977.

I've been a resident in Colorado Springs since 1966.

I've seen a lot of good things go through this city, and I've seen some bad things go through this city.

One of the things is what I find is the east-west thoroughfares that the city has problems with getting traffic from the east back over towards the west.

That all being said, I know traffic has been taken care of as far as through studies, but as a person who is open from seven o'clock to six o'clock during my business hours, I've seen traffic to be a little bit differently.

I've gone ahead and I've experienced fences taken out, I've experienced mailbox taken out.

I even had a rock wall taken out from around that corner by people exceeding the speed limit than what they're supposed to be.

The death that occurred was back up on the Vincent, was one of my customers, unfortunately, and he died instantly because he went ahead and he rolled the car.

But my experience as far as being in that area is coming around that corner is a serious problem.

Now, whenever they went ahead and they started off, as far as with that road construction, I don't know if many of you know, but that used to be a dead end down the other side of Woodman Kennels.

And we used to go ahead and access that through a dirt road down through Harley Davidson.

They went ahead and they constructed uh that road.

They'd gone through several different changes whenever they went ahead and they did that, which impacted me on different numerous occasions.

Number one was that stoplight was never supposed to be there, according to Kathleen, and I can't remember her last name.

Who's the traffic?

Thank you.

Because I sat in a car with her one morning and I watched those cars go ahead and come through exceedingly fast.

They put that light up to go ahead and divert traffic and also allow access because that sidewalk was not supposed to be on that location where it's at on my side of the kennel.

It actually was supposed to be over on the other side, that lot that we're talking about right up here.

In so doing, they put that sidewalk is which is a six-foot sidewalk.

They do have bicycle lanes on both sides, which are not utilized because the traffic going down through that road is exceedingly fast.

People do not drive in that uh sidewalk.

Um excuse me, they do not go in the bicycle aisle, they go up on the sidewalk.

They come up through Nevada, they cross over there where Nevada meets in the Dublin on that little island, and they seed back down in front of my property.

Now I have people that go ahead and they walk along that sidewalk, which I understand, but also too, you have to remember I'm in the dog boarding business.

Dogs become very protective, they also become very alert.

So anybody that's walking along that area, those dogs are going to bark.

I try to go ahead and be reasonable about how much access I go ahead and have with my dogs inside and out to be favorable to my neighbors and so forth there, but in also doing that acceleration from Academy Boulevard down through Dublin doesn't does exceed very fast.

And I can experience that from my own self.

Thank you very much for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next up we have Valerie Contreras.

Hi, good morning, City Council members.

Um I did a little bit of work uh with some planning and land use, you know, in the city of Los Angeles before I moved here.

The city is growing tremendously from the time that I bought my property in 2004.

I oppose this project because when you do your city planning, all right, that's when you take care of zoning, not when the developer wants to come, and he's not even gonna tell you what's gonna be put there.

I have to agree with uh Dave over here and city council members, thank you for what you do.

This is a tremendous job that you do, and I want to thank you.

I want to thank you for the time that I get right now to speak to you.

Um, on behalf of the people who bought their homes in that area, there was nothing planned to go there but what exists right now.

So, you know, even if you pay 200,000 for a home, that's your largest investment.

And they've put in to consideration what's in the surrounding areas before they purchased their home.

And I want to say, I think from what I heard on the news, all this development in our city and all this growth.

I know it's positive, but it's also negative if we have empty homes now.

If we have developers that are coming from other states developing in our community, and then they're gone and they leave us with a mess.

Once we change the zoning, okay, we don't know what's gonna go there.

What's gonna be developed there?

What kind of impact it's gonna have on the future?

What happened during city, the city plan?

When you when you do the city plan, it's what only every 10 years or 15 years.

That's when you change the zoning, not because somebody wants to come and develop that.

Then all these impacts happen later, right?

Uh the traffic and all that study.

We don't know how fast it's gonna grow.

We don't know what the future impacts are gonna be on this.

So consider the people that have already moved in there, they probably can't attend because they're working.

So here I am to say no.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Um, Madam President, I would have a question for uh Mr.

Douglas.

I just can't remember the last name.

Doug Johnson.

Johnson, that's right.

How can I forget that?

And so as Mr.

Don Johnson's walking up here, I just want to read a paragraph from his email.

And again, he he boards dogs across the street a lot.

It's a big uh business.

It's been there a long time in Colorado Springs.

He he does, he's been recognized as volunteer of the for the city, is that right, Mr.

I actually obtained the spirit of Colorado Springs Award for helping out during the forest fires.

We took in all the dogs and charged the people nothing.

Okay, and I want to read a paragraph from your your email.

My main, and this is about when when the sidewalk was put on his side of the road, people walk by his bit the the kennels, and then they think, well, uh, and the dogs start getting excited, and then they come over close to you know, go to the zoo essentially and see the dogs.

And it it's had uh and then people complain because all his dogs are barking, the ones who are in the neighborhood across the street.

And here's what he writes my major concern is the stress.

Well, I'm gonna actually start up a little higher.

The traffic numbers increase as well as the speedster's driving to and from work.

How will Dublin be impacted with turn-ins and exits to the developments?

The one we're considering if we rezone, and really that's what we're considering is a rezone.

In the middle of Dublin and Nevada is a pedestrian crosswalk.

Concerns for the safety of people using it with increased traffic.

My major concern is the stress and implications of multiple housing units and multifamily is a is a permitted use with a variance if we rezone it, that possibly be placed on this section of land that will cause a major disturbance for my business and the pets.

The echoing of the traffic and the pets bouncing off these units will have an impact to the noise levels.

If the development is for single housing, we can live with that.

And that is what is permitted now.

If it is for multiple housing or condos, there will be complaints and issues uh from uh about the dogs and highways, highway noise noises.

As I have explained, we experience these levels now in our section of town without any further development.

Um you like to add anything to that, Mr.

Johnson, because that's the concern of uh the large business owner in the area when the state came through and rebuilt I-25, they put up sound barriers further to the south.

As we went ahead and I've watched the city grow, I've had to give up part of my land to go ahead and do the expansion of the road because we have a ditch that goes back along.

If you put that uh the map back up.

Map back up, overhead view.

There's a ditch that goes along at the end of my property that crosses over through the road back over behind that used to be Richard Mole's property.

I don't know if it still is or not.

But that uh ditch was a problem.

And I anticipate to still be a problem, especially if they're planning on using the south entrance of that piece of land because they're gonna have to widen that road, which is gonna have an impact as far as on partial of that land.

Down here on section A, if you go ahead and you go to the further south part of that, if you go up a little bit further up, can you put that back up a little bit go more?

Yeah, right back there where it goes ahead and you see at the end of my property where it's gray, there's a ditch that comes back in there and it goes back over.

That used to be the old railroad where that right uh that blue line is on the right-hand side.

That used to be the old railroad that went back through there.

That's the reason why they joined those two parcels of property because that was the railroad property that was a tank.

Um my concern is as far as my business with the more structure that's being put up there, more access as far as people coming out, people going up and down the sidewalks and so forth there.

I know I can't stop the progress as far as in Colorado Springs, but people want to go ahead and they want to investigate the I have a fence that has a bind that goes across it, but they still come up and they're all going here, puppy puppy, puppy, puppy, hey, puppy, puppy, puppy, puppy, which activates those dogs to even stimulate them into more barking.

And I can't control that outside of being nasty and walk off and back and say, hey, this is private property.

Can you please leave?

And so forth there.

Is that the question you're asking me, sir?

That is what I'm asking.

And so what you believe is if uh single family homes as it is zoned for now.

That that would I have no problem with that.

Additional higher use um development is going to be a problem for you.

And then with the increased barking of the dogs, which are there first, is going to be a problem for the neighborhood that already exists and those who move in there.

Just accelerates back up through that canyon because if you notice I'm at a lower level back up through that pulpit rock area, it exceeds back up at a higher level, and that sound carries right back up.

My mother and father used to live up there, and they could say tell me they could hear the dog's.

And we have emails from people who do live up there saying, you know, it's just crazy noisy, but that's just how it is.

It's good, but you you what you're saying is it'll get worse.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I'm gonna close public comment.

Um, we public comment is now closed.

We will move it up to um an applicant rebuttal.

If the applicant would like to rebuttal, you have five minutes.

Again, for the record, Bling Perkins planning and landscape architecture group leader with HR Green.

Um, just one point I just wanted to um for the rebuttal stage is is Mr.

Johnson's comments.

Um, actually, previously in my career earlier on, I actually got to represent him and his son Colton with their project on Under the Sun.

I think it's a great use.

Um they brought a bunch of different things to the city that no longer were never never there before.

Um, but I would like to highlight that I don't want to sound disingenuous that there may not be a there may or may not be a traffic problem here.

We don't know that until a development plan or a site specific that aligns with the uses of the zone district that we're about to rezone it to will be submitted.

What I do acknowledge and understand is it sounds like there's an enforcement issue.

If people are speeding this long and this continuously up and down this street, then I think we need to get Colorado Springs police involved and get enforced.

I don't think this can be resolved just overall in an overall traffic item or discussion.

It sounds like it's an enforcement issue, in my opinion.

Thank you.

No final comments from staff.

Mr.

Walker, do you have any final comments?

Uh no, ma'am.

Hey, Austin, you're good.

Happy to answer any questions that you have.

Okay, now we'll bring it back to the dais for questions, deliberation, and a decision.

And I will entertain a motion of approval.

Um councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thank thanks, madam president.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, Councilman Williams.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

Um one of the people came up during public comment, and I wanted to clarify this, and hopefully uh Kevin Walker, you can help.

It's my understanding that we do not go through an exercise every five years or every 10 years to essentially put zoning on land.

Zoning either or land either has zoning or does not have zoning as it sits today at this point in time.

And the owner of that property can go through the process to change the zoning, but it's not my understanding that we as the city of Colorado Springs place zoning on private property.

Can you just clarify that for everyone in the room?

Yeah, again, Kevin Walker City Planning Director, that's correct.

Um, the pl the uh plan COS comprehensive plan is not a rezoning document.

Rezoning can result and uh from that, which is similar to what we did with our UDC, our uniform development code, but it does not actually zone property, and the process is not intended to result in zoning.

So this parcel is going through the proper process, correct?

Yes, it is going through the proper process and the process that we actually recommended in order to clean up the three separate zones on this one property.

Thank you.

Councilman Hindem.

Councilman Hindum?

Thank you, Madam President.

So the rezoning obviously is being presented now, and we could make the decision now for the owner so that the owner can sell and determine how it needs to be developed, or the owner could sell, and the applic the the developer who purchases could come in for a rezone at that time with the development plan.

It's really is that's kind of the the two options here.

I'm I I'm looking at you, Kevin.

Well, sure.

The uh the property can be sold at any time in any zoning configuration.

Um so yes, we could have a person who has a specific use come in and ask for a rezoning.

Um that's not what this particular owner would like to do.

Right.

I would assume primarily because it facilitates the sale.

If you've got one clean zone, that's the that's the intention.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And if that one clean zone was R16, I think um Mr.

Johnson would be happy.

The other speaker from the neighborhood would be happy, the other others that sent emails would also be happy.

That's what it is essentially zoned at as now, although there is some agricultural in there which could be changed.

I'm just gonna remind my colleagues on the first page of our packet review criteria.

Number two, the rezoning will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, safety and convenience.

The people that live there are are have sent emails and are speaking to us about those two pieces of our review criteria.

And if we aren't sure that it won't, that if we think there is a a risk or that that it will be detrimental, and without more information about traffic, I think that's a a real risk.

And uh public interest convenience, we're changing uh the land use on this side on the developed side of Dublin.

There are there are no other um businesses like this on the east side of Dublin.

I want to read just a couple of pieces from uh from some of the emails here.

Per per our and this one is it's from a Dale Doherty per converse, and it's to Austin.

Pro conversation on 5-1.

My concern with any development of that particular site have to do with site lines for traffic.

Right now, as it is, traffic that is northbound on Nevada Vincent has very poor visibility of the street light at Vincent and Dublin.

Even with the warning light that flashes yellow when the street light is about to change to yellow or red, or has already done so.

Restricting the site lines even further will only add to that problem.

I'm all also concerned about any traffic trying to turn left out of the property, interfering with southbound traffic coming around west on Dublin and out of the of the property would have no way of seeing cars approaching from the east-north if cars are lined up at the light going uh east, northeast.

And then finally here.

The the applicant, you know, in their find it.

The locate this is from a response to public comments uh by the applicant.

The location and number of access points will be determined at the development plan stage.

The property's only adjacent street frontage is Dublin Boulevard, and a new point of access onto Dublin must be established at the development plan stage.

The access is anticipated to be located on the southern portion of the property in alignment with the existing access across Dublin Boulevard and away from the curve to the north.

Access to design and traffic circulation will be addressed, reviewed by the city traffic engineering staff when more details are available at the development plan stage.

And so what I would ask my colleagues is that we um rezone this and allow additional uses on this site.

Which uh the the current uh property owners in the neighborhood um didn't anticipate it wasn't zoned for that, and it will change what their the uh their neighborhood on this side of Dublin.

There's also the safety concerns on the road.

No one has a right to a rezone.

We we should only do it if we do believe it won't harm uh the public interest, health, safety, and convenience.

And for that reason, I'll vote no on this.

Councilman Hincham.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So um I as I understand it, uh should the rezone happen or whatever happens, the development plan will come and at that point traffic studies would be done, and uh we would be addressing the specifics of impact of whatever would be developed there.

Yeah.

That that's correct.

And and just to make a point here, if it were to be rezoned as a whole R16, uh, we would still have to figure out an access to that site because there is no access points into the existing neighborhood to the east.

Okay.

So I I think that's really important because there is a process and the concerns that are being raised, I I really appreciate and the concerns about how people drive and the speeding, um, the crashes that occur all over the city.

By the way, a plug, go out to our city's website and look for the transportation safety action plan and go uh make some comments.

You have until April 2nd to talk about our city as a whole and the concerns you might have about traffic um and and safety on our roads.

And uh I think I think that's very important valid concern.

Um I actually will be voting in favor of the zoning because I think uh we need the ability to do infill projects, and once that developer, whoever it is, decides what they want to put on the property, no doubt it will probably end up here again, and we'll be having this conversation again with more data about um traffic impacts of whatever development uh should be happening there.

So um I appreciate the tension that um that we're addressing here.

I appreciate the concerns that council member Donaldson is raising, um, but I think there's still ample opportunity for those things to to be addressed in the process.

Thank you.

Seeing no other comments.

Just one final question, if I could, Madam President.

Did um did Mr.

Devent uh find that distance for sight from the basically from the corner?

Uh yes, in accordance with our traffic criteria manual, and this is consistent industry-wide for that speed, it's 390 feet as the site distance.

And what is the length of the uh the parcel I believe it's from the corner?

I believe from the corner it's close to 800 feet, I believe.

I'd have to go major, but from looking at and where we think that the access may be most likely and be proposed by an applicant is approximately across from where the sunrise and woodman kennels are located.

And how far is that from the corner?

It's 390 feet.

Okay, thank you.

I have a motion from Councilman Risley and a second from Councilman Williams.

Let's vote.

And the motion passes seven to one.

Moving on to item eight A.

Will the clerk please read item eight A into the record?

A resolution setting the gas cost adjustment rate effective April 1st, 2026.

Good morning, Tristan.

Good morning, uh council or excuse me, Council President uh Crow Iverson, um Proton Umsley, sorry, and City Council members.

It's a pleasure to be here with you today.

Um we have um before you a uh adjustment to our gas cost cost adjustment and our electric cost adjustment.

Those are two different items.

Sorry, Tristan.

If you're gonna deal with both of them, can I read the second one in to the record, please?

We the presentation does cover both of these items.

Yep, could you please read them both in?

A resolution setting the electric cost adjustment and green power service rates effective April 1st, 2026.

Yes, and uh um just for information purposes, the uh electric cost adjustment, the gas cost adjustment, these are fuel cost adjustments that the utilities experiences for um supplies that go to um furnaces and people's homes as well as our uh plants um to be able to uh generate electricity.

We review these with the utilities board on a monthly basis through updates with the um utility board at working committee and in our utility board uh meetings.

On a quarterly basis, we evaluate if we're um at a point where we feel like we want to adjust these rates.

Um time to time, the prices are steady enough where we don't have to adjust those.

And in this case, the last time that we adjusted the ECA and GCA rates were in July of 2025.

So we've gone a good number of quarters where we have not needed an adjustment to these rates, but um moving forward, what we're seeing is for the electric cost and gas cost adjustment, um there we're at a place where we need to recommend some uh downward movement in those rates for our customers.

So our proposal today is to uh move to the rates that you see on the on the screen, um going down to a ECA rate of uh 2.33 cents per kilowatt hour and uh GCA rate of 19.

Um 94 cents per CCF of gas gas.

What's driving the need for these changes is really um the gas market.

If you look uh to the right side um in the upcoming um heating season that stretches from the end of this year into 2027, you see that it kind of peaks uh the deeper that you get into the winter.

Um that's normally what we see across those winter heating uh season periods.

Um if we had looked at this um as we were entering into this last heating season, we would have seen a very similar shape, but just a little bit higher as compared to where things have actually come in with some of those prices that are kind of jigsawed looking um up and down as we go across the winter season.

And the daily prices that we have seen um outside of those monthly uh prices that are represented on that chart have been even lower.

That's been as a result of um warmer than normal temperatures, higher than um average gas storage, which has just um led to more supply of natural gas, which has pushed those prices down.

And if you look going forward, um the black line that is at the very bottom of the the chart, um our prices are very low right now and are projected uh lower than they have been in the last few um forecast updates that we've had.

So all of that combined together really ends up in a place where natural gas prices, which drives a lot of our energy costs are down and puts us at a place where we feel like it's appropriate to uh adjust um the ECA and GCA downward.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh thank you for being here for uh briefing on this.

Uh of course, uh, through a lot of correspondence, uh emails and text and phone calls.

Uh there's a lot of uh residents that are really wanting to clearly understand, you know, how are we actually working towards keeping prices down?

So whether it's you or whether it's uh over here our utility CEO, can you speak to you know what strategies you guys are working on to keep the prices low?

Yeah, as our fleet continues to transition when it gets into fuel source and gas is more prevalent in our fleet.

Gas does impact residential heating and basically electric generation.

So what we've been working on is actually more gas transmission to get more gas availability here that actually has storage.

Because when you start seeing your price hikes when it gets into competition of gas supply, the only way around that is sort of physical hedging.

So we've been working on those pro those programs for a while now to get our hedging program up and our gas storage program up.

So it sort of takes that price shock out because we're gas distribution company.

So really all we do is take gas from uh the system and bring it to the customers.

So we don't have a lot of availability.

We sort of pay just like what you guys would pay at the pumps.

So it's important to have uh multi-transmission systems with more storage and to look at even prepay options, which we're working on now.

So at times we're getting gas down below a dollar decatherm right now with some of our cost strategies.

So we're doing a lot to try to mitigate the risk, and I think we're starting to see some of that pay off and hopefully continue to take some of that shock out of gas prices, how it hits our customers, not only the residential but on the generation side.

Okay.

And with that being said, are we working on a marketing strategy to make sure that we can educate our residents to those exact points?

Yeah, we are.

Uh it's complicated, and I think we've put a lot of stuff out there, but I think you know, we got to continue to explain, you know, where our investments are starting to pay off and why we do the things we do to stay competitive in the market, because as our co-fleet um transitions away at whatever point that is, gas is going to be really our only vertical, you know, fleet, uh fossil fleet that will you know be more impacted on gas prices.

So we got to have those long-term strategies.

That's where we're continuing to work on.

Thank you.

Right.

So uh looking at the uh information from the ECA side of things, that electric cost adjustment.

Um currently we're sitting at a rate of 2.63 cents per kilowatt hour.

We're looking to move that down to 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

Um that would um be a reduction for a sample customer on our system about $2.10 a month, about a 2% drop in their electric bill related to that decrease.

From the gas side of things, what we are looking at is going from 32 cents, uh 32.63 cents um per CCF of gas down to 19.94 cents.

So fairly significant drop that we see in that uh gas cost rate for our uh gas customers.

That would equate to about a $7.62 reduction for a typical um residential customer on our uh natural gas system.

Um that's about a 15% drop for our customers uh bill in the gas service.

So looking at that from a total bill standpoint for our customers, currently uh current average sample bill for our customers sits at around 290 dollars a month.

Um, the combination of the electric cost adjustment and the gas cost adjustment drops by almost ten dollars, nine dollars and seventy-two cents, which would take um the sample bill down to two hundred and eighty dollars.

So really um a fairly significant uh drop for our customers that we see related to these uh uh decreases in the uh fuel cost adjustment rates.

And we do some comparison along the front range of Colorado, how that compares with other um energy providers.

When we look at our and utility companies, when we look at our electric and gas rates in particular, that we're talking about those adjustments right now.

We go down to um with these changes if they go into effect April 1st, where we're um requesting, um, we would go down to 106 dollars, 107 um for a typical uh electric bill and down to 42 dollars for a typical natural gas bill.

Um for electric, that's about 15 percent below the front range average, and it's about 27% below the front range average for a gas bill.

Um overall for the utilities, we're about on all four services, we would be about eight percent below um with these uh proposed changes.

Just going into some of how this uh looks across um the bills in particular here.

Um, as we look at residential customers, overall um what we would see is about a 3.3 uh percent uh reduction with these changes to their four service bill.

Um it's a little bit more significant for our commercial uh customers um and our industrial customers.

The reason that it comes out being more is our commercial and industrial customers tend to use more um volumes of electricity and uh natural gas.

Um, the more you use those um commodities, the more you um benefit from the cost adjustments for those fuels.

And again, just as we go through and um look at these changes, we are always conscious of our customers, and um, even though uh we are proposing decreases, we know that uh utility bills are still something that are very much on the minds of our customers.

We have this information here and um would encourage anyone that's um struggling with utility bills to reach out to 211 um for customer assistance and also to call us at 719-448-4800 with uh billing questions.

And the last thing that we would also just offer up is to visit our website.

There's a lot of um information out there, both about projects that we have coming up as well as energy saving tips that can help our customers uh to use less of uh these commodities, which helps them with their bills as well.

With that, I think that's all the information that I have on these um uh rate adjustments and would be happy to answer any questions.

Councilman Hingum.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So, Tristan, um I really appreciate that we have a policy that we pass along the savings on our fuel uh when it when it uh comes our way and and have to increase if if the prices increase.

And I I really support that policy that we have.

I think it's really important at the same time to recognize that uh pretty soon we'll be voting on a DIMP uh writer that will be adding to people's bills.

So this is important for people to see and appreciate and understand, and I'm glad we're doing that.

But when we add that DM writer, um essentially, can you you know, I know we don't know exactly what the what the what the cost will be per individual, but what what's going to happen when when that dump rider comes to us?

Yes, so and we do have the I believe it's April 14th.

Um we're scheduled to be in front of City Council for um that rate hearing.

Um, the demp writer, which um works on infrastructure connections in the natural gas system um for a residential customer, we're anticipating around eight dollars and fifty cents as the increase there.

We're um going down by um seven dollars and sixty-two cents right now in the gas service and nine dollars overall.

So um the overall decrease that we're seeing right now is larger than what we would see from uh just the uh dent um in total.

That's electric and gas uh service.

But again, I wanted to go back to this slide.

When you look at the gas service, we're showing that we're 27% below uh the front range average on our natural gas service, even with that change um for the dent, if that goes through with that eight dollars and fifty cents, we're still hovering around um 13 to 14 percent below um the front range average.

And and in those front range um organizations, uh is it fair to assume that they are they're also having to do damp infrastructure, right?

I mean, the regulations apply to every organization.

We have seen that in uh a number of other utilities along the front range that they are having to look at the same thing.

Really, anyone that put infrastructure in that's made of the materials um really in the 1960s and 70s are having to go back and look and see what's required to get um done with those materials.

Do we know if their damp costs are reflected in the bills that are shown here?

Um these were as of the first uh quarter, January 1st that we were pulling that front range average for the other utilities, and a lot of those are going in effect later this year for the other entities as well.

So there's additional um benchmarking that we'll have to do as we get further um information on those other entities.

I I think the point is you know, I'm sure this will make the papers and and people, it's people are always interested in knowing what happens with our utility rates, but I think it's also really important to not confuse public.

And we we talked about this quite a bit at the board about the timing and when to bring this, and there's I think we we are doing the best we can with uh with the process and procedures that we need to follow.

But I do want people to be aware that that we will be next at our next meeting having uh another uh vote on something that will actually increase their bill, unfortunately.

Necessary but unfortunate.

One of the things, and you did mention you know, the um we've seen um quarterly adjustments to the um ECA and GCA at times.

We've um gone through a period now where that has lasted longer.

Just going back and looking um at this uh gas cost adjustment information based on the markets right now, and this is why we do bring these monthly updates.

It can uh change rather quickly um in what we see in these prices.

But one of the things that we are um happy about right now is we look at those gas forward forecasts, we're able to hold this rate for um a long period of time.

Um, really as we look right now, not needing to adjust this again until March of next year.

So that's all very dependent on natural gas prices.

We continue to update the the board and the council about those costs as they do happen, but um having those in place for a longer time does help with um price stability for customers.

Right.

Thank you very much, Tristan.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks uh Madam President.

Uh good morning, Tristan.

Good to see you.

Just to summarize, um, if we vote yes on this, it's on a sample residential bill uh over all four services.

It's a nine dollar and seventy-two cent decrease.

Yes, that's correct.

Usually more in the winter time because we burn a lot more gas in our in our gas furnaces to heat our homes a little bit less in the summertime.

Um we are about eight percent less than uh competitors along the front range right now.

Is that right?

Yes, for all four services is about eight percent below.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh and uh once again, thanks for being here and explaining this.

And uh I also want to make sure that we re-emphasize understanding what is being voted on today versus what will be discussed at the utilities board, which will eventually come back to city council.

So I think it's very critical that everyone clearly understands what is being voted on today.

And I know a lot of council members have received emails uh about different rate hikes.

Uh, but of course, that could be easily conflated with what we're voting on today.

And so I I definitely encourage people to continue to engage uh their uh their council members to get clarity, engage utilities.

I think you guys have done a great job of reaching out to folks and providing information uh and clarity as best as you could.

Uh even for myself, I thank you all for coming to my uh town hall on April 9th to once again further clarify with residents exactly where we are and where we're going.

So uh just want to make sure that we're very clear on what we're voting on today.

Thank you, Councilman uh Rainey.

And utility rates are broken into several different parts, which makes it um uh uh difficult to track all of those parts, but we do want to be out in the public speaking about these as much as we can.

Our intent is uh especially as these things uh go through.

We intend that there's communication that goes out to all customers immediately to be able to um help them understand exactly what is changing at this point in time.

Thank you.

I do have a citizen signed up for um comment on this item, and it is Valerie Contreras.

I decline.

You no longer okay.

Okay, so um I had a motion in a second, but it disappeared.

Yeah, just hang on one second.

It's back.

I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Han Jim.

Let's vote.

And that was A.

8A.

And the motion passes a to zero.

So now we'll vote on eight to B.

I have a motion from Councilman Donaldson and a second from Councilman Rainey.

The motion passes eight to zero.

Moving on to item 9A, unfinished business.

Will the clerk please read item 9a into the record ordinance 26-13 repealing ordinance, ordinance numbers 0210 and 2192, thereby dissolving the citizens' transportation advisory board.

Councilman Lineweber or Councilman Henjam, do you have anything to say on this item?

Councilman Lineweber.

I just want to say that it sometimes it's hard to see old things go away.

And um, you know, in terms of um the citizens transportation board, um it was a very important tool for the city for years, and um but things change, and we have more ways of getting citizens' feedback and comments, and um and we can always start up uh uh another group at any time if we felt like there was additional need for that.

Um but currently with all the different options that are available for citizens participate on our transportation needs, it just seems appropriate that this um this committee um was providing a lot of duplicate efforts, and um it's not that they've done some really good work in the past, they clearly have, and they certainly have informed council on a number of different issues that are really vital to our transportation uh considerations.

So I just um it's kind of a little bit with sadness that we see maybe possibly one of the original committees.

I mean, I I don't know that is yeah, is it one of the original committees of the city?

I mean it could be no, no, not that okay.

I've seen shaking hands, but it's been around a very long time.

Let's just say that.

It is one of our oldest.

Let's go with that.

And um, and so there's some some little hesitation with that.

And I think originally when it says this was brought forward, both Nancy and I agreed that you know we need to rethink this.

And so we took six months and we did um some review and consideration, and so this isn't something that is being done lightly, um, but it's being done thoughtfully.

And um again, um, I just want to uh point out that I want to thank all of those people who have participated on this board.

Um, including our very own um councilman Brian Resley Risley, who served on this aboard and uh was able to uh provide um a valuable insight to um some of our city needs.

So anyway, um I think that's really the bulk of my comments is that um again it you know over time things change and you know that's just the reality as we move forward seeing no other comments.

I need a motion.

I have a motion from Councilman Rainey and a second from Councilman Lineweber to dissolve the citizens transportation advisory board.

Let's vote and the motion passes six to two.

Moving on to item nine B.

Will the clerk please read item nine B into the record?

Motion to reconsider ordinance 26-06, vacating the public rideway known as East Boulder Street, consisting of approximately 0.92 acres located between North Nevada Avenue and North Weber Street.

On Friday, March 6.

Madam President.

Yes, sir.

Sorry, Madam President.

I'd like to uh thank you.

Um, as I did with the original item, I would like to recuse myself from this discussion to avoid any uh perception of impropriety.

Thank you.

We'll see you sign off and then we'll start.

On Friday, March 13th, I received a request from Councilmember Williams to reconsider this item.

Council member Williams has um made a motion to reconsider.

Will you please state the basis for the motion, including conditions of the reconsideration and applicable facts?

Councilman Williams.

Um President Crow Iverson, thank you very much.

Uh I want to thank everybody who's put all the time, effort, and energy on this on all sides.

Um I know that's been in the process for quite some time, and I know that there's a lot of good thought that's gone into all of this.

The reason for my concern is um repeatedly during the presentation, it was mentioned that the intersections surrounding the school are not safe for pedestrians.

There's a lot of uh conflict points between pedestrian and cars.

And uh during the presentation, I know um it was kind of start-stop, start stop, but during that presentation, uh it doesn't and didn't seem like there was a robust conversation between the district and city of Corado Springs engineering to really put every option on the table to not only um mitigate the safety that would be part of the joint campus with the vacation of Boulder Street, but then addressing what's happening today, independent of all of that.

And I think this conversation, while it's forefront in everybody's mind, is the perfect opportunity to have those conversations.

And I I think there needs to be more out-of-the-box thinking as to what we can actually do, because independent of us snapping our fingers and bringing this to fruition tomorrow, we still have a safety concern.

And I think those global holistic issues need to be addressed.

And it seems like as long as we you know brought up the notion of closing Boulder Street, we close Boulder Street, that would solve all the problems.

And uh I don't believe that that is a true statement.

So I brought this up for reconsideration to have kind of that global conversation and shine a light on pedestrian safety uh around the campus.

Councilman Hincham.

Sorry.

Go ahead, Brandy.

If you're not done, please continue.

No, go ahead.

Nancy, that was just a pregnant pause.

Well, so this leads to a question for me because the request is to reconsider.

My question is what are we reconsidering?

Are we reconsidering what was voted on at our last meeting?

The vote was clear, it failed on a 4-4 uh vote.

And so continuing the conversation about traffic safety, um, I think is very important.

And um, and I have said this in in writing and in conversation.

I would be willing to reconsider, but not what was presented to us once before.

There would have to be a number of things addressed, and it would have to be a different um presentation for me to reconsider.

So I'm not I'm not quite sure what I'm voting on right now, if it's reconsidering exactly what was presented to us before.

I I can't support that.

Uh Trevor Gloss of the City Attorney's Office.

Oh, sorry.

Just uh procedurally.

I'll tell you my understanding and then you can correct me if I'm wrong.

But at this point in time, it's just a yes, no on the reconsideration, Nancy.

But it's not necessarily a reconsideration of the exact item.

So I think in that regard, you and I are on the same page, but because of how the timing works today is simply do we reconsider it, and then the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, but the sky's the limit based upon what it looks like when it actually comes back for reconsideration.

That's what my understanding is.

Uh Trevor Gloss, uh City Attorney's Office.

Procedurally, their motion to reconsider is to reopen council discussion and the vote on the item.

So if you uh the motion has been made for reconsideration, if there is a second, and then if the reconsideration, the motion to reconsideration is passed, uh the item will be reconsidered at a future meeting at which council will uh have further discussion on the item and uh revote on the item.

Uh the public hearing has already been closed per council decision.

So uh there would not be additional public comment to public hearing unless council voted to reopen that portion of meeting.

Councilman Lineweber.

But along those can I ask a quick follow-up question?

Of course.

Along those lines, my understanding is that we would not necessarily have to vote on the exact motion.

We could we could add conditions, we can talk further about you know intersection safety and whatever that looks like.

What I was told is it's it's not a one-for-one, it's a reconsideration.

But if this body decides to put conditions on that final vote motion, that's an option.

Uh Trevor Gloss for the city attorney's office.

If the motion portion is reopened um at that next meeting, or sorry, um, if this item is reconsidered and council looks at a motion, it can amend its prior motion or uh or add conditions to that uh for any future approval.

So any motion you will make will essentially be a new motion at that stage.

Thank you.

Councilman Lineweber.

Yes, I just like to um point out that for a number of issues that um we deal with um around the city.

Often there's two readings on on big items and stuff.

And and and we do that because we really want to put good thought into it.

And um, you know, I I I you know, Nancy said the vote was clear, it lost by four to four vote.

Um that doesn't feel clear to me.

And so um Palmer High School is so pivotal to the history of Colorado Springs and so important to our downtown community.

And I feel that this deserves, like many issues that we deal with in the city, uh kind of a second evaluation to make sure that we're getting it right.

I think that's kind of our job here is to make sure we get things right.

And um, I just want to kind of highlight the fact that it this is not unusual for city business to to look at things twice.

As a matter of fact, um many city council members over the years, including um some that are present today, have actually changed their vote and and voted differently the second time.

Um and so there are moments where we as council people are are conflicted and and need additional time to really kind of weigh the issue.

And we may have voted in favor of something and then later decided, no, I've changed my mind, I'm not in favor anymore.

And that has happened in our city history.

So I don't think this is inappropriate at all to take this item, which is in my mind, really a critical feature to our city, Palmer High School and the history involved, that it's absolutely worth our reconsideration.

Councilman Henjam.

Um, just a point of process and question.

Um, the applicant could come back with a different application, correct?

I mean, it does not have the reconsideration does not have to happen through this process.

The applicant could return with a a different application.

Uh Trevor Gloss, the attorney's office, uh, yes, they can do that through the uh uniform development code or chapter seven of city code.

Um I will say in general, there is a year break before you're supposed to bring the same item again.

However, the planning manager can waive that in certain circumstances.

Okay.

Well, just for the record, uh there are people here, a lot of people have written um, you know, uh asking me to not change my vote a lot and not reconsider a lot of people have written asking me, please to take uh the opportunity to reconsider.

Um I haven't counted if it's it feels it's felt sort of equal to me.

But where I stand is that um, and I have said this again, I I am very open to having more conversations with the district about what makes the most sense uh for what they're trying to accomplish for the campus, for the future of Palmer, for our downtown, for safety, for all those things.

Um, but I would prefer it come back in a separate application entirely.

So I won't be voting for the reconsideration at this time, understanding that the applicant can return.

I will say again, for the record, the things that for me are not addressed in in what we voted on um two weeks ago was the uh impact of the loss of parking um pushing students out to other places to park.

Um there was I think reference potentially, uh I don't remember exactly, but possibly using, for example, the Methodist church parking lot.

I didn't see anything formal from that church saying yes, we are in agreement, we will work with the uh District 11, we have a written agreement, and if that is the case, what about crossing Nevada is a very, very um uh busy and dangerous inner you know, dangerous street as well.

So that whole the impacts of losing that parking, where it gets where those students will be pushed further down to park, impact on the neighborhood, and how much further they have to walk to get to the campus.

That was not uh uh sufficiently addressed from my perspective.

That would need to be addressed.

Um also if we reconsider this, um I would never consider uh the vacation of a right-of-way of city property um without understanding and and so much of this what was presented to us was uh that this the district would need to pass a bond in order to pay for this development.

Um for me, it would have to be contingent um on the passing of the bond.

By the way, I did a survey last night the district put out about how do you feel about the bond.

I'm all in favor of the bond, with or without this project.

I think our schools need those funds.

Um, but but let's not put all of our hopes on this one development for the passing of that bond.

That's not fair, it's not good leadership.

Um and then uh also have questions and concerns about the track, the location of the track next to a very busy um uh what is essentially used to be a highway, but a very busy street.

So I'd like to see um that that addressed.

And uh and then lastly, I think big picture was um there was some suggested amount of additional time for ambulance uh transportation to and from uh Boulder uh from from Memorial Hospital, really, to Memorial Hospital.

Um again, it was just stated as sort of this is what we I I got I didn't see any formal documentation either from AMR or from Memorial Hospital or uh even from our own uh uh fire department um uh uh about really studying and understanding the impact on um transportation of of emergency vehicles.

So for me, those things need to be addressed.

Um and if they can be addressed, I will I will reconsider.

Uh I'd prefer it be done in a separate application.

And um I think that's all I have.

Thank you.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, Madam President.

And um this would be very unusual if we were to vote to reconsider.

Uh in fact, it'd be the first time in five years, my five years on council, and I think more than a decade uh since the last time something like this has been done.

Um as far as having a global conversation about safety around the campus, it wasn't really what we were voting on the first time, it was to uh whether or not to vacate boulder.

Um and that vacation would push students further out, those that park, and they would walk uh across busy streets.

So I I won't uh I won't support uh reconsidering this.

I asked my colleagues to vote against it.

Councilman Rainey.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um for our city attorney, uh just for clarity, I want to make sure I heard you correct.

When it comes to the applicant and normally the process is a year or so from the initial vote.

Is there any rollblocks at that applicant so decide to come back to address the safety concerns that are being discussed here from the dies?

Uh Trevor Golossi, the attorney's office, not to my knowledge from the legal perspective or from the planning code.

Okay.

I can't think of a reason why they would not be able to.

And if I understand correctly, uh Councilmember Williams and please chime in because I want to make sure that we get this one right.

Um your ask is for a reconsideration perspective is not to change a vote uh that was already uh discussed at the previous session, but to truly discuss the safety implications that you feel enough adequate information was not derived from.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Yes.

Um essentially, you know, let's just call it five safety concerns were brought up, and I feel like only one solution was given.

And I think in the uh in conjunction with that, the if it's not safe today, then let's work on that as well.

Like let's see what we can do with those lights, see what we can do with those intersections, and and this is a way to bring all of that together.

And uh Councilwoman Hanjam also brought up a lot of great points.

And my understanding is there is an opportunity to put contingencies on this as well that might give a level of comfort to other individuals on council of moving this forward.

So that those are all of my reasons.

Okay, and lastly, once again coming back to the city attorney.

This is a case where if we so decide to vote uh with this motion to reconsider that in another date and session to be established, it does not mean that those items in that discussion will be pertinent to the previous vote.

Will that be a separate vote or will that be if any votes change in that session?

Will we have to amend the previous vote, or would that vote be a separate standalone vote?

Uh Trevor Gloss for the city attorney's office.

So essentially, if this um the vote while uh things are being reconsidered is a brand new vote.

Um you will basically do away with the previous vote that was 4-4 uh denial of the vacation, and you will vote uh uh again on the same thing, or you can change your uh change the motion, but it will be a brand new vote that will then be that will be the decision going forward.

The old vote will no longer be considered.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Hingeum.

So again, I I think hearing it brand new with items being addressed is what um that's what I would like to see happen.

And I also um I don't know how this vote is gonna go, but if we do vote in favor of reconsideration, I think it's very important.

I believe I understood, having heard from someone in the last few days, that the public would not um necessarily be allowed to uh um uh comment on in the hearing, and I think uh in a reconsideration whether we vote to reconsider as it was presented to us last time.

Um I think the public should be allowed to uh contribute again.

And again, my preference would be that the applicant come back with an entirely new um uh proposal, and which case, of course, the public would also have the opportunity to um to share their opinions.

Councilman Donaldson, yeah.

Thanks, Madam President.

If what we want to do is look at safety around Palmer High School and what kind of uh improvements we can make to improve safety, we don't know need to go back and reconsider the vote not to vacate boulder.

The only reason to uh reconsider that vote is to reverse it.

So let's at least be honest about that and transparent.

That's the reason you reconsider the vote to change the vote.

So if we want to look at safety, let's do that.

But but let's not pretend or try to dress it up like that's really what we're gonna do when we reconsider this, that it's about safety and coming up with new ideas.

It's about reversing the vote.

So that's okay.

If if that's what the majority end up voting to do, that this body has that power, but that's the truth.

And so when that question was asked, so this is not about changing a vote, it is about changing a vote because we don't need to do this unless we want to change it.

And the motion fails three to four.

Moving on to item 11A.

Will the clerk please read a light item A 11A through 11B into the record?

11A ordinance 26-12, amending the zoning map of the city of Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 319.94 acres located west of Mark Shuffle Road, north of Drenner Road, and southeast of Peterson Space Four space from mixed use medium scale with conditions of record, general industrial and conditions of record business park with conditions of record, airport plan development with airport overlay and accident potential zone to plan development zone with airport overlay accident potential zone.

11B establishing the landings business park land use plan for proposed residential civic public institutional commercial industrial civic accessory and temporary use and consisting of approximately 319.94 acres located west of Mark Shuffle Road, north of Drennan Road, and southeast of Peterson Space Force Base.

We are going to take a five-minute recess before we start this hearing.

So seven minutes.

So we will start at 11 30.

We are in recess.

Your hand is raised.

Yes, thanks.

I uh just wanted to uh disclose something before we get started with this hearing.

Um my company has had a business relationship with an entity that is affiliated with the property owner uh for this project.

However, uh my company has no direct relationship with the property owner and is certainly not uh a participant participant in this project at all.

Um so I don't believe or feel that I have any uh uh uh any issue in in participating in voting uh on this item, but I did want to make that disclosure uh that there is a indirect business relationship um between my company and the applicant.

Thank you.

Today's hearing will proceed as follows city staff presentation, applicant presentation, public comment and support, public comment in opposition, and applicant rebuttal, closing staff comments, and then back to the diaspora council member questions, deliberation and decisions.

So we will start now with a presentation from the city staff for 10 minutes.

There we go.

Can you hear me?

There we go.

Good afternoon, Drew Fox, City Planning Um Department, Planner 2.

Uh, today we'll be discussing the landings, business park, uh, rezone and land use plan.

Uh currently the site area consists of seven parcels.

The three northern parcels are directly adjacent and east of the base.

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

Uh the land area is made up of 319.9 acres uh between the Colorado Springs Airport, Mark Shuffle Road, and north of Drennan Road.

The site area also consists of several zone districts to include mixed-use medium, general industrial business park with conditions of record, all three with conditions of record, and airport plan development.

All parcels are subject to the airport overlay and accident potential zone.

And the X and Potential Subzone is located through the southwest corner, as you can see on the screen.

The applicant proposes to rezone the site area to plan development zone, maintaining the airport overlay and accident potential subzone.

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

The residential land use types are going to consist of 66.29 acres.

The commercial land use types of 62.21 acres and the industrial of 168.24 acres.

The residential portion will be limited to 924 units with a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre.

However, individual residential developments will be limited to 30 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height for this portion, the residential portion of 50 feet.

And the commercial industrial portions of the site have been limited to a maximum floor area of 2.5 million square feet with a maximum height of 80 feet.

The application was determined to be ready for city planning commission hearing on January 15th, and this city council hearing on March 12th.

Public notice for these applications were issued at the beginning of the administrative review process and again prior to City Planning Commission, as well as this city council hearing to all property owners within 1,000 feet and included four postcard mailings and a poster place near the site adjacent to Mark Shuffle.

No comments supporting nor opposing the site were received by city planning.

Several internal and external agencies were included in the administrative review process for these applications.

City traffic engineering had reviewed and accepted a preliminary traffic study providing an estimated trip generation and traffic operations as part of the land use plan application.

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

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

The parkland dedication ordinance obligation requirements were brought before the parks advisory board on January 8th and approved on February 12th.

The provided parkland is expected to meet a portion of the dedication requirements on the proposed residential densities with the remaining obligations to be paid by fees.

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

The matter of development occurring in close proximity to their base was discussed at City Planning Commission.

In light of the conditions included on the land use plan by the applicant for further consideration or sorry, further coordination with Peterson.

Additional review will be considered at time of initial development applications.

And Peterson had no objections at that city planning commission hearing.

To get further regard to Peterson Space Force base, again, city planning received several review letters with their latest review letter including the above concerns on the screen to the left.

As a reminder, a land use plan serves as a general conceptual framework.

And while city planning staff recognizes Peterson's concerns regarding potential mission impacts and security, these issues can be more effectively evaluated and addressed during site development.

At that stage, these concerns can be reviewed in greater detail, and they will be distributed to as part of each development plan application.

However, at this stage of the proposed development, the applicant has taken this application as an opportunity to satisfy some of those concerns regarding base security, operational security risks, and frequency interference.

The applicant has included a one-quarter mile offset with conditions to satisfy the basis concerns for security assurance of adjacent development.

This offset would restrict uses such as electromagnetic technologies and allows a line of site analysis to be requested during the development plan review stage for any proposed projects, projects within the offset area.

And that is the area delineated in blue.

Future developments within this site area are expected to provide integrated housing options, mixed-use development, employment opportunities, and opportunities that work in strong connection with the nearby uh Keystone institutions and future Banning Lewis Ranch to the east.

All of these are complementary to the vibrant neighborhoods framework, and city staff finds these applicants' uh applications to be compliant with the city's comprehensive plan.

Above are the listed review criteria for the proposed zoning map amendment with some of these criteria not applicable to this site area.

The land use plan criteria will be addressed momentarily.

City staff finds this rezon application to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

City planning does not find the rezone to be detrimental to public interests, and the proposed PDZ zone with the accompanied land use plans, mixed use development is well suited to this location.

Given the adjacent vacant lands and opportunity to support and coordinate with the adjacent Keystone institutions.

Criteria 5 and 6 are not applicable given the size of the land area.

Additional criteria on this slide.

Criteria 7 and 8 are not applicable given there is no company concept plan and there is no proposal for the creation of an area design standards overlay.

Criterion number nine will be discussed in some detail on the next slide.

And finally, for criteria number 10, the proposed rezone is compliant with all additional standards for the proposed PDZ and associated overlays.

With that, city planning finds that the review criteria for the zoning map amendment application has been met.

Going into criterion number nine, however, uh, as part of the PDZ zone district establishment community amenities or benefits shall be provided with consideration to at least two of the amenities and benefits listed here.

On the right side of the screen is on the right side of the screen is a list of the benefits and amenities that are provided by the applicant.

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

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

The proposed 5.2 acre park creates accessible recreational and gathering spaces that further the benefit of community amenities.

And the land use plan also proposes a mix of housing types, supporting varied lot sizes and configuration that will likely result in a more dynamic mixed-use neighborhood near some of these major employment hubs.

City planning finds that the proposed PDZ zone satisfies this portion of the review criteria for the zoning map amendment.

On this slide, you'll see the land use plan review criteria.

Again, not all criteria is going to be applicable here.

No other plans and policies adopted by city council are applicable to the site area, and no specific dimensional or use development standards are applicable based on the proposed zone district, as the PDZ does not require defined dimensional or use development standards.

Aside from the requested density, maximum heights, permitted and unpermitted land uses, the remaining development standards shall be determined through review of a development plan application.

As for land use compatibility, to the north, the site adjoins Mark Shuffle Road and Peterson Space Force Base.

To the west, the vacant land belongs to the Colorado Springs Airport and are expected to remain designated for aviation development.

Therefore, it's unlikely to include any pad sites due to federal regulation and proximity to the runways.

Peterson Space Force Base is stationed in the northwest and has expressed again has expressed concerns with the land use allocations, allowing adjustments during future planning to promote compatibility between Peterson Space Force Base and the Landings Business Park.

And to the east is to the east is Mark Shelfle Road and is currently vacant, but it's subject to the Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan.

The Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan designates the area for medium to high density residential to the north side of that eastern portion.

Public facilities in the central portion or research and development to the south.

These planned use categories are fairly compatible with the landings business park mixed use development.

To the south, vacant parcels are zoned for GI, General Industrial and BP Business Park, which are all also highly compatible with the proposed industrial uses on the south side of the site area.

Regarding permitted um regarding impacts of permitted and requested uses, the site is proposed to allow all the uses listed in the UDC's allowable use table with exceptions for specific use types prohibited entirely, and others restricted by the conditioned uh quarter mile offset adjacent to Peterson Space Force Base.

Uh additionally, the existing airport overlay and the accident potential zone create restrictions on certain use types as well.

Regarding adequacy of traffic circulation, the land use plan proposes two collector street connections to off side roadways on the south side and one collector and one minor arterial connection to mark shelf on the east side.

All public streets will be required to meet City of Colorado Springs standards, and a preliminary traffic study was submitted with the land use plan with the requirement that a uh traffic impact analysis be submitted at time of initial development.

And as for the capacity of the existing infrastructure and civic uses, the site area is currently vacant with no infrastructure civic uses existing.

Finally, the land use plan proposes residential uses on the north side of the site and industrial uses on the south with commercial and office uses serving as a transitional buffer between those categories.

This approach promotes a logical progression of land use across the site, balancing intensity and character.

With that, city planning has determined that the review criteria for a land use plan has been met.

Above on the screen, you'll see the city council optional motions for the zone zoning map amendment.

And then the optional motions for the land use plan.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I have a question for you.

In the letter uh that was provided by Peterson.

By um Commander Kelly.

Uh there's a reference that they noted that a uh tribal consultation was not conducted and shared some concern about possible litigation against the city and the developer.

Has that been rectified I'm I'm not aware of this being a part of tribal lands.

Um so we know no meeting was conducted with the with the mentioned.

Okay, but the the paragraph says um during Peterson's uh uh Space Force Base's annual consultation with federal recognized federally recognized tribes.

Tribal historic preservation officers expressed concern that the landowner had not entered into Section 106 consultation in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

This requires a traditional cultural properties survey by a tribal survey specialist and can and consultation agreements with each affected tribe.

Failure to comply could result in litigation against the city of Colorado Springs and the developer.

Peterson Space For Space Force Base can provide tribal points of contact if requested.

I'd like to know the answer to that.

Yeah, well, okay.

So the city planning department hasn't responded to that comment.

Um, but it may be worth asking the applicant to see if any communication was done in that regard.

You I will.

Yes.

Yeah, it the because we aren't in, we aren't using federal dollars for this uh for this rezoning since we're not spending any money.

Um that's not a necessity.

And so we have actually um uh sent a response back to uh Peterson Field around that around that specific question.

So we don't believe that the city is required to do that in this particular process.

Okay.

Councilman Donaldson.

Yeah, thanks, madam president, and uh it's still morning.

So good morning, Drew.

How are you today?

Great, how are you?

Oh moving along.

Um you mentioned that Peterson Space Force Base didn't uh express any uh concerns at the Planning Commission meeting.

Were they present?

They were, yes.

They're physically there.

Okay.

But they have put a lot of things uh in writing to us, correct?

Correct.

I think there was about four different letters that were received throughout the administrative review process.

And which have been summarized pretty nicely on pages you know six through nine of our packets.

And there are there are a series of uh concerns, you know, base security, operational security, frequency frequency interference, traffic impact, um being being big ones.

And you're you're aware of the uh soy Q's or space operations installation comparable use zone analysis that's being done out at Shrever.

I've heard trickles of it.

You've heard what?

I've heard a little bit of it.

Okay.

And that is really uh a study by uh Space Force for Shrever, but it's gonna be the doctrinal um document for Space Force going forward in each my understanding is then Peterson will be looked at, but that will lay out guidelines for a lot of the stuff that we're we're kind of not sure of now.

Has has it been discussed um whether if it it would be wise to pause until that is released?

My understanding is is the uh contractor that is writing that study uh will will have that in July for Shrever and then uh it'll be released publicly uh after that.

Has that been considered by uh planning department as a consideration or recommendation?

Yeah, again, Kevin Walker City Planning Director.

Uh we consider that.

Uh in fact, I would say that we actually uh uh slowed down this process in order to give as much opportunity for that process to take hold.

It's still a year or two away.

Uh and we feel that uh in when we get to the opportunity to participate in that, uh this particular zoning action and the future development plans uh will give us better detail about how to do uh how to do better development adjacent to these uh to this area.

Um and so we're we are um uh we're fine with going forward with the rezoning the way it is, knowing that we have future opportunities uh to get more detailed, just as Peterson Field also gets more detail.

So we think this is fitting fine into that process, and uh we have considered that and and decided to go forward.

Has um a request to do that been expressed by a request for that pause until July or a little bit later, just not two years from now, not a year from now, just July, August uh time frame been uh expressed by uh Peterson Space Force Base.

Not not that I'm aware of.

It was expressed by me uh at various times in this in this particular review process, uh, but not by Peterson Field that I'm aware of.

I don't think anybody exactly knows the timing of that uh and how long before that study gets finished.

Okay, I think I my understanding is they they do know when the contractor is going to have that to to the commander out at Shrever.

And so it's not it's not a vague date way out in the future.

It it's not yeah, at Shrever, correct, but not at Peterson.

But I believe that will be the guidelines for all other um Space Force bases, and so there might be slight tweaks for each one, but but some of the questions we have here, and we're not sure what's right to do for what are really very valuable, even just looked at from a self-interested point of view, an economic point of view, assets which we wouldn't want to um encroach on to a degree that we're no longer seen as a as a good place to uh uh stay.

So that's a concern I have.

Um I'll wait, you know, and we'll come when this comes back to the dias or sooner.

I'll express some other questions or concerns, but uh uh I would ask that perhaps the presenters can can address that as we go forward.

Anything else from you on that, Drew?

No, I mean Peterson is here today.

Um if you have a question specifically for them.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Is that all you have?

That's all I have.

Okay.

So next we'll have the applicant um to provide an overview of the project, and you as well have 10 minutes.

I'll try my best to be done in 10 minutes.

Um I'm gonna probably hit the highlights.

Can I have the presentation fully up, please?

Thank you.

Okay, I think you're familiar with the site is located just east of uh Peterson and the airport.

It abuts the location of the um PX and Commissary, and also the uh S C FIS, which is centralized, sorry, CIFS centralized integrated um support facility, um, which is uh subject to some comments later.

It's part of the Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan, currently identified for retail on the north side, an airport industrial on the south, adjacent on the other side of Mark Shuffle is a large area in that kind of buff colour that's proposed for higher density residential and public facility in the blue.

I do have a question from Councilman Gold.

Yes.

Would you mind just going back to that previous slide, please?

I wanted to look at that a little longer.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then it's also adjacent on the other side to the peak innovation park, which is the large business park, industrial park that is proposed on the airport land.

This provide proposes it in greater context.

The uh this showing that the surrounding areas are primarily a mixture of industrial proposed land with some residential on the east side on the opposite side of Mark Shuffle.

So the current zoning for the area is um GI for the property, and that extends further south.

That's general industrial.

There is in the lighter blue colour, business park adjacent.

MXM is in the north section of the property, and then with a substantial area of R5 residential land to the east of Mark Shuffle within Banning Lewis Ranch.

So I want to talk a little bit about the existing zoning.

So we have a small area that's uh part of the airport plan development um area, and then an MXM mixed use medium zone that was originally zoned in 1988 as PBC, and that PBC zoning did allow conditional use for residential development for multifamily residential.

So what we're proposing in that location, which I'll go on to later, is generally consistent with the zoning, and the current MXN zoning does allow it as a permitted use.

The GI zone was also established in 1988, and there's a small portion of business park on the property, which is negligible, and then just across the bottom is the APZ accident potential zone, which uh doesn't allow any residential development, and we're not proposing any in that location on the site.

Um part of the reason for kind of emphasising that the zoning has been in place since 88 is that all the development immediately adjacent to this site within Peterson Space Force Base has taken place post that date, and some of it very recently with the commissary and PX.

And uh just uh summary of some of the uses that are allowed.

The APD allows a variety of commercial, civic, and industrial uses, as well as I think it's well relevant to point out, as well as a number of uh utility uses, including uh wireless communication facilities.

Uh similarly, the MXM allows a wide range of civic uh group home commercial, industrial and utility uh uses, uh as well as marijuana uses and um the residential um component that is allowed now in the MXM zone.

And then GIS clearly intended to be industrial, so it has again a wide range of commercial industrial focus, again with utility uses and other uses such as um waste and recycling allowed in this location.

So, what we're proposing is to change the zone of the property to PDZ for the entire property with the uh airport overlay continued and the APC remaining in that bottom uh left-hand corner.

Uh the PD zoning standards that we are proposing are a maximum non-residential floor area of two and a half million square feet, which is actually quite a bit less than is allowed under the current zoning, a non-residential building height of 80 feet, again consistent with the GI zoning, and an overall residential of 14 units per acre with allowance of up to 30 units per acre on individual parcels with a maximum of 924 units and with a maximum residential building height of 50 feet, which is consistent with the MXM zone currently in place.

So we tried to keep the heights and the density consistent or less than what's allowed under the current zoning.

And I think that's important uh to note that the current zoning does allow fairly intense development on this site and uses that um we're seeking to control.

So state of purpose of the PDZ, I'm not going to go into this too much because I think Drew covered it.

Um we're meeting the intent of the PDZ zone to allow flexibility, and I think that flexibility is a really important consideration.

And I think that flexibility is a really important consideration.

And one with our discussions with Peterson, they have appreciated and they like that the fact that the new zoning allows some flexibility and ability to move land users around within the site compared to the existing zone, which specifies very specific boundaries.

Again, same thing, it allows phasing, it just allows us to look at this site in a more comprehensive manner rather than in the manner in which the existing zoning sets up the development of the site.

So here's our land use plan on the north side is our proposed residential area.

That stemmed from meetings that were held with Peterson at an early stage.

So my client has been meeting with Peterson since early 24 and has had numerous meetings, and they have expressed a desire for more residential development.

I think that's consistent with what we've heard from Peterson throughout the recent years that they have a need for more residential development to service their both their military and civilian personnel.

And then we have an area that we're proposing as commercial use, and that will be focused on the primary entrance of Mark Shuffle, and then on the south side, there is an area for proposed industrial use consistent with the existing zoning.

There's also a small neighborhood park, which was required as part of the proposed residential.

Now we anticipate that this land use time will change, that uses may change location and intensity, and we've we've allowed a certain degree of flexibility within our land use plan to achieve that, and certainly through our zoning.

So the zoning would allow flexibility.

So if we had to change the land use plan, we would not have to rezone the property.

And again, with our discussions with Peterson, that kind of level of flexibility is appreciated.

And the dashed line there shows that quarter mile offset where we have sought to limit certain activities again, which are currently allowed in the MXM zone and the GI zone, so uh such as wireless and anything with higher frequencies or magnetic uses.

So we would we would just uh we have a very detailed note that um limits those type of activities.

So again, so we have some uses that are proposed and some that are limited, and uh at the bottom there it says within that quarter mile offset, things like cell phone towers, wind farms, solar farms, broadcasting, or use of electromagnetic technology.

So that was our attempt to um address some of the concerns that Peterson raised in initial comments.

Um we haven't really um, and I know Colonel Kelly is here, we haven't really had any concrete, we we want this and we don't want this, and they have said that they have really don't know what the likely impacts are, and until we get to a development plan with a specific use, we're not going to have that level of information.

But my client is committed to continue working with Peterson, they've already met with them multiple times.

We met as recently as December last year, um, and we will continue to have that dialogue.

My client is a locally based developer who is not intending just to flip the site, they will be developing the infrastructure for the property and really need this zoning and land use plan approval so that they can take that next step to start putting the infrastructure in place so they actually have something that they can market and that they can get real end users for.

So then we can start looking at well, what's the real impact of this and what what are what are the actual concerns of Peterson with regard to this specific use?

There are some general comments which I'll come to where Peterson have expressed specifics, so I will address those.

Um here it's just showing that this is a comparison of what the existing APD, MXM and GI zones allow in terms of density, height and uh setbacks and what have you, and just showing that we're proposing actually significantly less in terms of overall non-residential square footage than could be allowed in the current zone, and uh the current zone actually has no maximum building coverage.

Um, that was uh 40% was allowed in the original zoning.

Um so here are some of the concerns expressed by uh Peterson.

Um, the PDZ uh obviously we've we've talked about the limitations within that um quarter mile offset to address some of their concerns about standoff for electronic um welfare compound and the CISF.

Umperational security, um, we've limited uh related to building heights.

We started off with 120 foot uh was our initial submittal, and we reduced those based on this comment to what is allowed under the current zoning.

Uh again, the quarter mile offset addressing frequency issues.

Uh the traffic impacts near the East Gate.

Um, I mean, Mark Shuffle is designed as an arterial to handle high volumes of traffic.

Um, we have prepared a kind of a high-level master traffic study.

It's not showing any major issues, but we will, when we have refined our uses, uh, continue to work with traffic engineering on any required uh additional studies.

Uh stormwater, there are specific concerns, and we will be following uh the required guidelines that are that I believe have been imposed on Peak Innovation Park and Peterson use themselves on stormwater and um the wildlife and aviation hazards.

Um I think they're really kind of very similar to what's existing anywhere in that area, including on Peterson and off Peterson with landscaping.

So we're not proposing anything specific that would add to that um concern.

Air quality and clean air act, uh, it's not uh uh an area where that applies.

And the miss message we heard from Peterson Spaceball Space from our meetings with them was that they support growth, but emphasize the need for development to remain compatible, and again, they appreciated that we have um worked with them and will continue to work with them and uh continue that cooperation and to ensure that they are compatible developments.

And this is the this so Peterson uh Colonel Colonel Kelly was present at the planning commission meeting.

He did get up and make uh remarks, he noticed that there are evolving requirements, there was reference to the Soyku study.

Um my latest information of that, which I heard yesterday, is that it's more likely to be late fall where that study will be available if by then.

And um, so that's coming from uh maybe a different source.

Um, but uh there has never been any suggestion from Peterson that we should wait for the outcome of that study or the study that will follow for Peterson because we're at such an early stage in the process here, there's plenty more opportunities to deal with specifics when we have them.

Um they acknowledge the cooperation and they're confident, they said that they're confident that the current current proposal is meeting requirements based on their criteria, and uh encourage uh uh cooperative approach moving forward.

And I would say my client is committed to that as well.

Um, Drew touched on Plan COS, so I won't go over that.

I just want to say that uh as part of these policies, coordinating and partnering with regional military installations is one of them, and that's what we propose to do.

And then the criteria for the zone change.

Um, I think um my presentation has really touched on all the aspects of why we think we're consistent with these um items.

It's a good project for the area, it's going to bring a potential uh a lot of potential employment benefits and growth opportunities as well as much needed housing to support Peterson.

It's likely that housing is going to be some sort of higher density rental property to really to support the the needs of um uh transitional um uh folks at Peterson for either like I say the military or civilian.

And um I think the bottom line here is it's already zoned for pretty intense uses, and we are providing less intensity and more controls, which will um provide the flexibility that's intended with the PD zone and the opportunity to provide something that is actually more compatible with Peterson than is allowed with the current zoning.

And I think with that, I think this is um just kind of summarizing some of the previous things I've said.

So sorry, it's a little over 10 minutes, but that's probably one of my quickest presentations ever.

Well, you did address the questions from Councilman Donaldson, which is why I let you continue with the and I would like to actually address uh Councilmember Henjam's question about the tribal consultation.

We looked at that as soon as we uh saw that comment, and it and clearly says if you if you look up anything on tribal consultations under section 106 of the National Historic Historic Preservation Act is required when a federal undertaken it undertaking in parenthesis project involving federal funding, licenses or approvals may affect historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

So I can understand why Peterson would have to consult do a tribal consultation because they're clearly any projects that they're involved in on their on their property is going to be using federal dollars.

This is a private development, so there's no requirement for that tribal consultation, and I would say certainly no liability for the city.

Councilman Donaldson.

Um yeah, thank you.

And uh it's now afternoon, so good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My mic is on.

I'm just not close enough to it.

Say, please.

Um, in our packet under the uh security zone, this quarter mile buffer, um it says the applicant also added a condition allowing line of sight analysis to be requested during the development plan.

And I I just note that it says requested, not that it will be done.

Uh during the development plan review for any proposed project within this buffer, although this buffer was intended to address potential electromagnetic interference line of sight concerns, PSFB has indicated that the issue remains unresolved.

And I I think uh that's again, it just goes back to my concern is that they may not know what they need until this study is done, is completed this SoyCU study.

Um, so that it's difficult for them to tell you, and I eventually I I will ask them to speak for themselves, but what they need.

And I would say that uh we we as a city who rely heavily economically on military facilities to be here, it is I think it's in our own self-interest to be seen as a uh a partner who goes out of their way to uh accommodate the needs of of these uh military facilities.

Um I think these are kind of warnings here that uh some of these statements in here that you know this isn't resolved.

Would you like to say anything about that?

Yeah, that that was very much the kind of um uh message we got from Peterson when we met with them was that there are impacts that they don't really know or understand yet, and that these studies may uh shed some light on those.

But they certainly didn't want to uh you use that as a reason to hold up development coming forward because they see that this project provides a lot of flexibility in how it's been set up and a commitment to continue cooperation with Peterson.

So when we get to the point of being um of having some very specific ideas of what types of uses will be uh coming forward or we would like to come forward, that's when we will uh certainly re-engage with Peterson.

And as I said, this land use plan, the zoning is quite fluid, and the land use plan may have to be amended.

And with that amendment, just with the city process, because this land use plan is being approved by city council, any major modification to that would have to come back to city council.

So if we were proposing to change anything, and uh that would be uh another hearing process if it were a major amendment, and we can do small tweaks, but um nothing moving land uses around or changing intensity or density.

And that so that this is just so early on in this whole development process for this project that there is certain um opportunity uh to kind of get this project or this uh this property in position for development um without um really impacting Peterson in the interim, and then at the point where development is ready to move forward, then uh those opportunities for continued discussion uh will will be there and uh and and change I would anticipate change.

I mean, we had to take the best stab we could at putting a land use plan together um without any real information about what likely end users would be.

So this is more of a kind of desired mix of land uses, but it could it could well change.

And so, like I say, we've there's been multiple meetings and uh the comments made by Peterson at the Planning Commission were very generally very supportive and uh not uh seeing this as something that um is is going to majorly impact their operations, and certainly something that if there was a concern, it there is the opportunity to address it.

Was it was there ever discussion of just leaving this quarter mile um empty?

There was uh uh a suggestion of that being a buffer of no development.

And um clearly that's a significant impact on the property, and we we feel and and and to be fair, I think Peterson acknowledged that that probably isn't necessary, that there are uses that could go in that area that would be compatible and wouldn't cause them uh security concerns, but we were not at that point yet.

If um if your client was compensated financially, though, for that quarter mile of um a buffer, uh park, just empty land.

Well, it's not empty land, it is land that is zoned for MXM and GI, so it has a significant market value for it, so it's not an empty, it's not empty land.

Um I mean, clearly, um I would say this generally uh any military installation has the opportunity to purchase land adjacent to it to create the the buffers that they are seeking.

And um that that opportunity exists here, it exists at Fort Carson, it exists at Shrever, exists at the Air Force Academy.

Um, these questions of uh compatibility of adjacent land uses come up frequently, but there is the opportunity for them to create their own buffers, either internally or by purchasing land externally.

And this is just thinking out loud if they were pursuing uh acquiring the funds to do that.

Um I'm just making stuff up here.

If if a military facility was was pursuing uh funds to do that, um would you would you think that's uh a situation where um your client or or others would be willing to uh give them a little time to do that?

I I don't think my client would be um open to delaying this project any further.

I mean, there's that opportunity to do that in the future, but we already, as Kevin mentioned, put this on the slow track to allow for coordination with Peterson after we got initial comments, and uh we paused and tried to address the comments, met with them.

And so uh uh I I would not consider it um reasonable to uh request my client to put their project on hold uh pending some uncertain future of um uh Peterson purchasing the property or even a study that we don't know what it's going to say, especially when there's more opportunity uh down the road to make additional changes and flexibility within the zoning to make additional changes.

Okay, it's good to uh understand the thinking on on both sides and um the fact that uh they don't know exactly what the study is going to say or recommend.

Um is why they would ask for that.

But okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

We will move on to public comment.

Um we will start with public comment in support um of this project.

Well, and Madam President, could I just ask are we going to go to the end of this um item or are we gonna break for lunch at some point?

We are going to go to the end of this item, and since we don't have a topic today, it was it was done yesterday.

Um we will break at the end of this hearing for one hour lunch and then resume.

Okay.

Um first up, I have MJ Benati.

Thank you, Madam President, members of City Council, MJ Benanadi, Director of Government Affairs for the Colorado Springs Chamber in EDC.

And I am speaking on behalf of John Arita Claymeyer, our CEO and president who had to leave because of time constraints.

The chamber in EDC does not endorse specific projects.

And I am here to speak to the broader importance of responsible development that supports our military missions, the families who serve them, and our local economy.

Strong communities are essential to strong military missions, and our military installations and our business industrial base are all cornerstones of the Pikes Peak region.

They support thousands of jobs and billions in economic development.

The installations depend on the strength of their surrounding community to sustain their missions.

Military leadership consistently identifies the need for affordable housing, child care, health care, and quality of life amenities to along with industrial companies to support the bases and their families, including spouse jobs.

Responsible private development helps deliver these resources.

Local developers are committed partners in protecting the mission, and these local property developers are not outsiders.

They have deep roots in this community and have made long-term multi-generational investments in Colorado Springs.

They're committed to our military installations and are aligned in the goal of protecting mission viability while enabling responsible growth.

These developers want to be partners, and they want to build in ways that respect operational needs, support military families, and strengthen the overall community.

With clear guidance and continued dialogue, they can play a critical role in advancing smart growth solutions that benefit both the bases and southeastern Colorado Springs.

With private property rights, or when private property rights are respected and expectations are clearly defined, developers can confidently invest in projects that align with military needs while supporting the long-term economic health of the region.

We greatly value our military installations and their critical role in our nation's security.

The path forward is one of partnership that respects private property rights and supports national security.

We can have both of these together.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jill Gabler.

Well, good afternoon.

Council President and Council members.

For the record, my name is Jill Gabler, and I am the executive director at Pike's Peak Housing Network.

I'm here today to speak in support of landing business park as this land use plan will bring needed housing to an area where significant commercial and industrial development is underway, and rooftops must follow to ensure employees have housing they can afford in an area near to their homes and I'm sorry, work and school.

Specifically, over a thousand new jobs have been announced in the Southeast just over this past year at new companies that include ITS, Coca-Cola Swire, and Terra Firma.

Many of these new jobs will earn mid-range or median salaries, and I can provide specific wage examples upon request.

I won't bore you with that here.

These wage averages increase the need for mid-range rental housing in the area, allowing residents to live close to their jobs, which increases their own quality of life, time with family, while also reducing congestion on our road for all road users.

In El Paso County, a single person earning around 65K and a family earning 90,000 are considered to be earning mid-range salaries.

This means many of our military service members, medical professionals, and service industry employees working in the Southeast will be able to afford these many new homes.

Up to maybe 600 that are planned for this development.

And around 150 of these homes are maybe planned to be billed to rent homes or single-family homes that are only billed for rental use.

This type of housing is increasingly needed in our area as our younger residents want to live in rental housing because they can't afford homes.

As I've previously stated to this body, the average age of the first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old, providing strong evidence that our community members are renting home for homes for longer periods of their lives, and they want a variety of rental housing options.

In addition to this plan aligning with Plan COS, as previously mentioned, the plan also aligns with the draft Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan, as the plan clearly states specific support for both the Peak Innovations Park and the 2022 Airport Master Plan.

Both of these plans promote quality and a variety of housing that supports new jobs in the area.

The proposed zoning change will bring needed mixed-use developments to the southeast area of our city, which is a dynamic and fast-growing area that needs great development options to grow, grow well and create good jobs that bring high quality quality of life to its residents.

It's also important for our city to honor private property rights and to ensure that we work with the adjacent landowners as the development plan comes forward.

But again, that should happen to the development plan.

And uh, Councilmember Dowlison, I did watch the planning commission in its entirety for this item.

And of course, your planning commissioners voted eight to one in support, and the military was largely supportive too.

So I am hope you will consider supporting this plan, and I am always available for questions.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, hi Jill.

Thanks for being here this afternoon or this morning, all day.

Um quick question.

Um, do you I know you're not the developer, but by chance do you um know the home price range for the homes that are going to be developed there?

They haven't released anything like that.

In fact, as you know, this is just a land use plan.

Um, I have just asked, like, what kind of homes are you considering building here?

And there is multifamily planned, hopefully.

And um, this new build-to-rent option, which is is suddenly taken off in our region because of course folks who um community members who want to start families and um but can't afford to purchase a home, want to live in a single family home with maybe some shared amenities, but um don't want to live in an apartment when they're when they're starting families.

So I I love that they're there our developers are trying to find other rental options that are uh a different variety of options other than just multifamily apartments.

Thank you.

So that closes our segment of um public comment.

Um that is now closed.

We will move back to the applicant.

And if you have a rebuttal to anything, which there was no opposition, so I don't know what you had a rebuttal.

Um it would just be a rebuttal.

Yeah, I just have one comment.

It's not really rebuttal to the comments that were made.

It's a follow-up on uh uh council member Donaldson's comment about the offset zone and um at the hearing uh in the minutes uh uh Colonel Kelly noted that Peterson recognizes the standoff area will not be an undeveloped no man's land, and that the base anticipates adjustments on both base property and adjacent development as more information becomes available.

And obviously, Ms.

Kelly, uh Colonel Kelly is here if there are any other questions.

Thank you.

Um we will move to staff comments if there's any staff comments.

Nothing further.

Okay, back to the dias for council member questions, deliberation and decision.

Councilman Raimi.

Thank you, Madam President.

It was mentioned that there is a representative from Peterson Space Force Base here.

Um is that representative and not a able to speak?

Sir, Lieutenant Colonel Scott Kelly, I can serve.

Uh thank you.

Hey, good afternoon, slash good morning somewhere.

Uh Lieutenant Colonel Scott Kelly for the record.

I'm the 21st Civil Engineer Squadron Commander at Peterson, so representing Peterson Space Force Base in Shine Mountain Complex.

Okay, thank you, uh Colonel for being here.

Um my question is going to get right to the heart of it.

Uh is there any buffering concern?

Straight to the point.

So I I think generally speaking, there's absolutely a buffering concern.

I think the the comments would be similar to to what we said in the in the last meeting, and that um I will be unapologetic about talking about both sides of our mouth.

Uh Peterson is a place where people are working and living.

Uh we absolutely are supportive of compatible use in that area.

Uh and then on the other side, there is a there's a mission that's taking place.

And so uh we certainly have appreciated the partnership with both the the city and the developer uh in having those discussions, understanding that uh where we're currently at, um uh a quarter mile buffer is is probably not um feasible or even to be perfectly honest, uh necessary from a uh very specific threat uh requirement.

Uh and then I can certainly talk to the Soy Cus piece of that as well.

Uh but that would be that'd be how it answered that question, sir.

And in your role and capacity, uh not to put you on the spot, but evidently you're here and you have the authority to speak on behalf of the space-based Delta One commander for the installation.

So with that being said, as of today, is there a concern with this moving forward?

There is not a concern with this moving forward.

Uh the the points about the soy cus I can probably address a little bit of that uh those comments and kind of clear up some air on the dates.

The draft soy cus for Shrever is scheduled to be complete in uh draft complete in July with probably a finalization around September.

Uh the Peterson Soiku should begin this summer into the fall.

Uh and then understanding that while we'll certainly take gleam some framework and some uh best practices from the Shrever, much of that study is gonna uh talk about the specifics of what's going on at Peterson as far as what missions are taking place within the installation, where on the installation those missions are taking place.

And so while we'll be able to certainly glean some something from the Shrever Soikus, I don't think there's anything in that that's gonna uh cause us to want to put a pause on us moving forward today.

Okay.

Thank you very much, sir.

Seeing no other questions from the um if I if I could.

Yes, is your name up?

I don't see it.

Can you put put your name up so I can see when you councilman Donaldson?

Okay, thank you.

And uh uh good afternoon, Colonel Kelly.

Um you know, I did bring up that idea that uh if if there were funds uh to purchase land around different military um installations, that's a that's a possible uh solution.

Certainly, sir, we're working with uh high red quarters on um looking at pursuing some of those funds in certain areas around the installation.

Uh but those have all been internal to the government at this point, and we haven't uh moved forward with any of those at the time.

Okay.

And all right.

That's all I don't have any other questions for you, sir.

Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, um, we have a motion from Councilman Henjum and a second councilman Donaldson.

Right.

I thought that was just questions, and and now I guess it I believe it's back up at the dias.

And so what I would like to say is that um you know this morning we had uh a ceremony uh resolution for Vietnam veterans, and uh we should do that every year.

I hope that just goes on to our our scheduled resolutions.

Um we objected to uh the attorney general's um lawsuits against uh President Trump.

But I I think we also as a body as a city need to go out of our way so that when the Department of War when um something which will happen, I'm I'll tell I I believe another BRAC base uh realignment um and closure committee is formed, we are on the record as going out of our way to support our military installations and not um saying, well, hey, they didn't tell us we couldn't do this, so we're gonna we're gonna go forward.

I think we should look for ways to slow down when it may be useful, like to wait for studies that are are underway.

Um and so you know I've I've heard what the Colonel says.

Uh I think some of that is is just an acceptance of kind of the inevitable and um kind of coming to terms with what is inevitable.

But when Washington and the Department of War looks at where do we have space to grow, where can one of these installations grow?

Where can we adopt new missions, uh new technology because we don't have uh citizens living right on the fence, and that's what this will be.

Uh that the Colorado Springs stands out as a place that has done that.

And if not, I'm afraid we'll end up like the uh community in California that lost Shrever when it was brought out here because they built right up to the fence line.

And so I think military um leaders don't want to say it that bluntly to us.

Uh, but I think that's what we shouldn't president.

Yes, can I make a quick comment?

Yes, sir.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the this administration has worked very hard to try and establish uh communication lines with all of the uh military bases, and we will continue to do that.

We've asked specific questions about what would what we could do to buffer this better, and we have uh gotten some answers, but not all the answers, and we will continue to work to uh to listen to the planning uh efforts that are going on at Peterson Field and incorporate them into our um into our land use codes and into our land use decision uh decision making.

So I don't want anyone to think that we have any kind of sort of inevitability to this.

We've been working really hard to try and make sure that we uh that we establish those communications and that we listen to them uh and that we help our developers uh adhere to them.

Thank you.

We have a motion from Councilman Henjam and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote.

And the motion passes seven to one.

We will now be in recess for an hour.

I'm sorry, Council um President, but you do need to vote on 11B.

That was a vote on 11A.

Okay, let's vote on 11B.

I have a motion from Councilman Henjum and a second from Councilman Rainey.

Let's vote.

And the motion passes seven to one.

Okay, we will now reassess until 12:30 or 136 for lunch.

We're in recess.

Back in session.

I'm making sure I have all my council members here and online.

Huh?

There we go.

We are back in session.

Yeah.

So we were back at the dais for council member questions and deliberations.

Did we go through that?

Oh, I have to flip my pages.

Okay, 11 C.

Will the clerk please read item 11C into the record?

An appeal from the related city planning commission decision that denied the zone map amendment application pertaining to approximately 2.17 acres located at 4880 Airport Road from single family medium with airport overlay to multifamily high with airport overlay.

Madam President.

Yes.

I'd like to have a comment before we get started.

Please do.

Um Kevin Walker, City Planning Director.

This item has a procedural anomaly created by the Uniform Development Code that I'd like to give you some more information on.

The item just read into the record is an appeal of a denial by the planning commission of a zoning map amendment application.

In the UDC, the Uniform Development Code, when a rezoning ordinance is recommended for approval by planning commission, the ordinance goes directly to City Council for review and approval.

And the UDC is written in the UDC, the written the planning commission denial.

If the planning commission denies a rezoning application as it did here, the denial is the final decision.

Thus the appeal.

So we will go through the standard process.

The city council may then take administrative notice of the testimony given today at this hearing and incorporate that testimony for the rezoning later uh for later consideration.

And apologize for the complexity of this matter.

We are processing a change in the code that will clear this up so that we don't have to face this confusing issue again.

Um and so that uh I'll answer any questions about this process if you have any.

So to summarize um what the planning director said today, we will hear the testimony from both the appellate and the public.

For council, the process will look very similar to a standard land use hearing.

If council denies the appeal and upholds the planning commission decision, the matter will just be concluded today.

If, however, council chooses to uphold the appeal today, the item will return to us in roughly one month.

At that time, we will hold another abbreviated hearing in which all parties will be limited to strictly presenting new information that was not introduced already today.

Does anyone have any questions on procedure as we go forward?

Councilman Henjam.

Um yes, my question actually is uh I understand the procedure, but my question is about the appeal.

And Kevin, is the appeal is the original denial because of the con of the conflict in the code, or is it just about the matter of the matter itself?

No, I think it's not about the conflict and code.

Okay, it's about the matter itself.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Um can we go through the processes, Chris?

Just so that everybody's aware that for today's hearing that it'll proceed as the follow.

The city staff presentation, the appellate applicant presentation, the public comment in support, public comment and opposition, applicant rebuttal, closed staff comments, and back to the diaspora council members' questions, deliberation, and decision.

Okay, Chris, we're ready for you now.

So thank you.

Um we'll have a presentation from the staff.

Thank you.

Uh Chris Sullivan, senior planner for the South uh team for the planning department.

Uh I'm the case planner on this rezone slash this appeal uh uh that's coming for review.

This appeal is for uh as previously noted by our director of planning.

Uh this appeal is for uh decision made by city planning commission, uh, which was a denial of a zone change uh for the property up on the screen.

Um, and that zone change is for 2.17 acres from R16 APO, which is single family uh medium scale with airport overlay, uh, and the request is to go to R5 APO, which is multifamily high with uh the maintaining that airport overlay.

Um, looks like I skipped a couple of slides there.

Uh so yeah, this is the site up on the screen.

Uh, this is located at 4880 Airport Road, which uh lies just west of the airport powers uh intersection off the northwest corner of Airport Road and Carr Road.

Um, as you can kind of see in the uh aerial image provided.

Uh this is primarily a residential kind of uh segmented segment of area.

Um you can kind of see where uh you see a pattern of development that is very much uh of a suburban uh style.

Uh and then this site is located within uh kind of an island um of properties that were brought into the city uh but never saw any change or development.

So what you're seeing are existing uses uh within that little block there of uh properties that were developed when they came into the city.

Um the proposal uh the reason for the rezone to R5 is to do a residential development as noted in their project statement, land use statement.

It is intended for um likely a multifamily development, uh, but R5 does allow for a array of uses from single family up to multifamily use.

So this is some of the information provided at uh city plan commission.

Uh so a little bit confusing, but this item was actually reviewed twice before our planning commission group.

Um during the reconsideration, the second hearing of this, um, a concept rendering was provided.

Um so I should note that zone changes literally are are usually supported by another application, the DP, a land use plan, uh something of that nature to put a little bit more definition to what is intended for this site.

Uh in this case, we accepted the planning department accepted a um land use statement in lieu of a land use plan.

Um so what we're seeing here is a concept.

So this isn't the final design by any means.

Um this is more or less intended to give you an idea of what is proposed or what could go here within that R5 uh designation.

Um I put exhibit B up on the screen that shows you what the zone uh exhibit is supposed to look like.

Um a little bit of information on this.

It doesn't actually match the boundaries of this site uh as it extends a little bit into airport road.

Um so one of the stipulations as noted further on in this application will talk about um a condition of approval that uh originally went with the rezone request on the screen.

I've also put some of the general standards that were reviewed by City Plan Commission, um, which include the dimensional standards, uh R Flex or sorry, not R Flex, the R5 zone district uh does allow multifamily use or residential use in general, up to thir uh 25 dwelling units per acre.

Um, and then just below that are some of the general setback requirements.

And what we're seeing in this concept rendering is what that could potentially look like.

Probably can't read some of the verbiage on that concept, but it is in your packet, basically identifies a three-story building, um, totaling 50 units based on that 25 D use per acre.

Uh on-site parking, access onto car and uh on-site green space detention and relevant landscaping requirements.

Okay.

Now we're caught up.

Uh so the city plan commission in February made a decision on this application to deny.

Um, and that was based on the inability to meet criteria uh for a zone map amendment.

That's city sec uh code section 75704.

And they didn't say specifically which criteria, but it was uh narrowed down by staff and by the applicant to uh really be the criteria one through four of the zone map amendment section.

Um some of the comments that came out of that meeting included uh this is an incompatible use, or it has the potential to be incompatible based on the use type and density that R5 allows.

Um it also talked about limited access, uh being that the primary access proposed on this concept rendering shows access to car solely, which is the primary access to a lot of residential units in uh off of car.

Uh and then quality of life was a big one uh from uh both our commissioners and the public uh related to green space, that intensity allowance of use and how that impacts existing residential neighbors uh to the east, north, and uh to the west as well.

Um so that decision was made in February.

The applicant or the appellant uh property or AMC properties submitted a um an appeal uh within the 10 day time frame uh and noting the reasons for the appeal as well as getting into that information in their appeal packet uh which you all have.

Oh, before I move ahead, so uh up on the screen, this is the uh aerial map again, shows the site, it shows the general zoning of the site, the surroundings.

So you can kind of see that it's within that R16 pod, uh, and then crossing airport road to the south is more R16.

But uh outside of that, you can see that there is a pattern of development that is within the R5 zone of a multifamily type of development, but it is hard to see directly across the street on car.

You do have uh one single family home and you have one religious institution moving ahead.

So a little bit of a complicated looking slide because uh generally rezones or zone map amendments uh have three steps in them moving forward through a process.

This one has quite a few more, but uh we kind of already talked about that a little bit.

Uh right now we are at the appeal stage, which is uh 324 2026, and if the appeal is denied, that's where we end it.

If it's remanded, it goes back to planning commission, and if we uh approve the appeal, then we will have two more meetings before this body.

Okay, stakeholder involvement.

Uh so kind of uh connecting with the last slide.

Uh generally, there's usually three steps as far as public noticing, initial review, plan commission review, and then city council review.

So uh the standard notice is 1,000 feet, 377 notices go out with each time we notice uh with an on-site poster on site.

Um, up to date, uh we've received roughly 10 public comments, a lot of them from the same individuals.

Uh and in this case, there were five separate notices that went out for this project.

Uh a lot of the comments received were or all of the comments received were against the project or of high concern based on the uh quality of life, the access, the intensity of the use, the compatibility of the use, um, loss of green space, um, safety, safety from an access uh from a traffic and a pedestrian standpoint.

Councilman Rainey.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, just one clarification question.

Uh when you state potential intensity of the use, can you give me a little bit more clarity or explanation on what that means?

Yeah, so the R5, as I noted uh earlier in the presentation, it allows for a mixture of residential uses uh that can be single family, two family.

Uh that can be single family, two family.

Uh in this case, the the intent is multifamily, and that's up to an intensity of 25 dwelling units per acre.

So every acre you can have 25 units.

Uh on the high end for this site, you can get 50 units.

Uh so that's about the max you can get based on development meeting all the standards within the code.

So there's a bit of flexibility of what you can do on the site.

Thank you.

Councilman Hingum.

Thank you.

Can you go back one slide?

Another one, please.

The other way.

Uh no, they're they're right there.

Um so this shows a second reading on 113 26, but in the in the actual uh uh case report or staff report, it it adds on that uh on that January second reading that it was withdrawn from the from the agenda.

Why why was it withdrawn?

Because at that point uh it was determined by the city attorney's office and uh with uh support from the city planning office that the item could not be reviewed based on the way the code is written.

Oh, that's when we recognize the conflict.

Okay, so uh it my understanding is that city council at the time during that work session or uh prep meeting pulled the item from the agenda, allowing the applicant for reconsideration at plan commission, so they had their due process.

Okay, and unless I'm missing something, these slides are not in our agenda packet, but the but the report is where it shows the that's why I was confused when I saw that there were two readings.

I'm like, how can we be here?

Gotcha.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, it was technically scheduled, but then it was pulled.

All right.

So agency review.

Uh ultimately I'm gonna say that all of our agencies uh had input on this application, uh, and nothing significant came out except from public works.

And that's gonna be the last comment at the bottom, uh, where it was noted that a portion of the frontage was never dedicated for airport road um at the time it was built.

Uh so obviously we want to remedy that.

Uh and the request is to add a condition that they dedicate that additional, I believe 20 feet along that frontage so that we complete our 100-foot wide right-of-way uh for airport road.

Um the comments from airport are some of the general comments that we usually see on projects within their overlay, uh, such as the requirement to have an easement and the requirement to do that 7460 form related to building heights and construction uh within that overlap overlay.

Um, and then that any future review is subject to uh review by the AAC and the airport reviewer.

Um and I don't think there's anything more to note on this slide.

Um from the plan COS perspective.

There we go.

From the plan COS perspective, uh generally the application complies with the applicable visions, big ideas, strategies of plan COS.

And I'll generally note that uh as previously stated, the sites within a uh existing uh suburban neighborhood typology.

Uh these are areas that are generally built out, and when they do see development, it's usually either redevelopment or it's in fill development, like you're seeing in this case.

Um in addition, uh other portions of plan COS talks about uh the need for a mixture of housing, the addition of housing, uh various types and intensities.

Um so in general, as previously stated, uh it appears to comply with plan COS.

Okay, so now we're on to the criteria.

Um there are a total of 10 criteria.

I put them on two slides, but uh the main ones that appear to be in question are the one through four.

Um and as no this is an old slide.

So as noted by staff from the original review, uh the zone map uh after evaluation of the zone map amendment, the application meets the review criteria.

And then up on the screen, I've also included the appeal uh notice of appeal criteria.

Uh yeah, I don't think I have anything else to add to that.

And then just to triple restate, uh you have the ability to uh approve the appeal, which is reversing the decision by planning commission, but keep in mind we have two hearings to do after that.

Um you can uh deny the appeal, which the item ends at that, or it can be remanded and sent back to plan commission based on other evidence that you as uh city council members come up with.

Any questions for me?

I don't see any at this time.

At this time.

It's possible they're coming.

I'm here.

So we'll move on to the appellant applicant presentation.

And um, you have 30 minutes.

There we are.

All righty.

I'll wait for my presentation to get up there.

All righty.

Good afternoon, City Council.

Uh, Madam President Crow Iverson.

My name is Ann Odom, and I'm a planner with NES.

I'm representing the owner and applicant of 4880 Airport Road for a rezone and land use statement of the subject property.

The site is just over two acres in size and sits on the northwest corner of Airport and Car Road intersection.

The site is about a mile east of South Academy Boulevard and about half a mile west of South Powers Boulevard.

And this is currently a vacant parcel in a bit of an established neighborhood that has kind of a mixture of character.

So as Chris noted, northwest and south of the site is currently R16 zoning, but directly adjacent to the site to the east is the existing R5 zoning.

Uh, that site, as well as kind of where it arches over uh to the to the north of the property, the subject property we're looking at today.

Um this was rezoned in 1972 to R5, um, but later developed in the late 90s.

Uh at the time of rezoning to R5 and at the time of development for both of those, that R5 zone district, um, there were no limits in density.

So the UDC did introduce additional controls and additional guarantees and transparency in what ultimately could be developed in these R5 zone districts.

The request before you today is to overturn City Planning Commission's denial of the rezone request from R16 to R5 and a request to approve the expansion of the R5 zone district by approximately two acres at 4880 Airport Road.

Chris alluded to it or he spoke to it in his presentation, um, but during that survey boundary process, it was determined that approximately a 20-foot strip of that property, which you can see in the hatch was not ever properly dedicated to the city because the site remains unplatted.

We suspect the properties that are currently unplatted to the west have a similar condition, but despite that area being utilized as right of way, it was never properly dedicated.

So the owner is in agreement with the proposed condition of approval to dedicate that right of way as within a certain time frame of this zoning approval.

Chris spoke to it.

This site has been posted actually five times.

Um I did fail to include the uh city council first reading or second reading um date as well, but um this property has been adequately noticed.

Uh, a number of comments have come in with uh at each stage of um that public posting, and individuals have spoken at both of the planning commission hearings that have been held for this project.

The consistent concerns raised by neighbors have included traffic impacts, the proposed density, and compatibility with the surrounding area.

The site has been heard by City Planning Commission on two separate occasions.

First in November of 2025, where five commissioners were present and they voted to deny on a three to two vote again in February 2026, where again the decision was to deny on a six to three vote.

Commissioners who develop voted to deny the application, cited unknown traffic impacts of future development, existing traffic issues due to temporary construction impacts, and compatibility with the existing development in the area.

Commissioners who voted to approve the rezone cited that this request is a logical expansion of the existing R5 zone district.

This part of the city is growing and changing, and the nature of the surrounding properties are not necessarily consistent with the zoning and uh surrounding development, and that there was uh not currently any data or evidence supporting that the project would have significant detrimental impacts to surrounding properties.

Chris has already covered the zone change and land use statement criteria, but they're kind of summarized here on the slide.

Zone change criteria requires to demonstrate plan C compliance with plan COS, that the project is not detrimental to public health safety or welfare, and that the location is appropriate for the proposed zone.

Land use statements are allowed at their tool within the UDC to be used on properties that are less than 10 acres in size, so relatively contained in their impact, and properties that are within an established development pattern and where no major infrastructure is required to accommodate future development.

So site is or this proposed rezone to R5 is consistent with the goals and policies of Plan COS.

Speaking to vibrant neighborhoods, this is within an established suburban neighborhood.

Plan COS states, most established neighborhoods should expect some degree of infill and redevelopment.

Further, the goals and strategies stress that additional housing and that meet different separate excuse me.

The goals and strategies also note that it's important to support land use decisions and projects that provide a variety of housing types, sizes that serve a range of demographic sectors.

Here, this is a graphic that demonstrates the variety of residential development that you have in this immediate surrounding area.

As you can see, there is a combination of residential development types with varying densities and intensities, with those higher intensity, higher density residential uses being located along the airport road frontage, which is a principal arterial, and it is reasonably expected that you would have those higher intensity uses situated along the principal arterial for access, for buffering, and things of that nature.

Further, this project is consistent with the strategies of the unique places framework.

This is within a neighborhood center and situated along a major road.

The unique places focuses on the support of infill and redevelopment.

Neighborhood center recommendations also include a recommendation to integrate different uses and housing types.

This is currently on this screen, we show an illustrative concept, which I will expand upon in later slides, but this is currently a vacant, undeveloped parcel and an established neighborhood.

There is currently, it has great access to airport road, principal arterial.

No major infrastructure would be required to support development of this property.

So no major infrastructure projects would be required.

As you can see on the slide, the site sits within kind of right in the middle of a number of different industry sectors among all industries within the city.

And Plan COS, the thriving economy section has a real focus on meeting workforce needs such as nearby attainably priced housing and just providing housing where there is existing employment opportunity.

This graphic here illustrates the presence of employment opportunities in the area.

There's Peterson Space Force Space, Colorado Springs Airport, and supporting business and industrial parks.

There is the full array of commercial and office uses along South Academy, Fountain Boulevard, and Platte Avenue.

So all of this determined demonstrates that while the area where the proposed project is going is predominantly housing, and we are proposing housing in this location, it has really convenient access to major major employers in our area.

The proposed rezone is consistent with the surrounding development patterns.

There's currently multifamily to directly to the east and west of the property, as well as a mobile home park with pretty dense residential development slightly further east.

There are larger lot single family residential uses surrounding the property, namely 10 that utilize car road for access.

These were largely developed in the county in the 50s and 60s.

They're unplatted.

They're much larger than what you would see in the R16 and the R5 zoning districts, see developed in the R16 and R5 zone districts developed today.

And as the city has kind of grown around it, this little pocket has become more out of character with the surrounding development than the proposed project today.

On these next couple of slides, we'll kind of take a look at some of the higher intensity uses that are exist currently exist along car road, which are atypical for a local dead-end residential road.

There are operations like vehicle storage, outdoor material storage, possibly some kind of trucking and hauling and vehicle staging as well as development with multiple outstructures and things of that nature.

Ultimately, residential development, the R5 zone does allow for residential development.

It does not allow for anything of higher intensity than adding additional residential units.

So with this proposed, oh, excuse me, with this proposed rezone.

Based on what we've heard from neighbors and city planning commission, there was some unknowns about how R5 development within the R5 zone district could be compatible with the surrounding area.

So we took kind of that feedback and what we heard concerns raised by the neighbors, and we prepared an illustrative concept that shows absolute maximum build out under R5 development standards.

It is not necessarily what is proposed with this application, but it does illustrate maximum build-out under R5.

I do want to stress that this is a local builder and developer, and so they're not looking to flip it, and there is likelihood that it could be townhomes or slightly lower density.

But we just wanted to illustrate that even at maximum capacity, this project can be integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.

So this site plan illustrates a 50-unit three-story building with 75 parking spaces.

10% of the site will likely be required to go towards stormwater detention.

15% of the site is required for open space for future residents.

And we did include two access points based on consultation.

First, what we've heard from neighbors, what we heard from City Planning Commission about concerns of a single access point.

And based on feedback from city traffic, a second access point onto airport road can be accommodated, and the future builder would be amenable to that.

So a second access is shown as well.

Again, one of the main points of concern for future development of this property is related to traffic and whether or not traffic impacts can be known at this stage without a traffic impact study.

We did consult with traffic engineering and they did provide comments on the application.

Ultimately, they determine that a traffic impact study was not required with that rezone request because they can know the maximum density of 50 dwelling units, they can know what the anticipated trip generation will be.

Peak hour trip generation is approximately 40 trips for this development, which is relatively low.

They were able to pull records from the airport and car intersection, and that lacks notable history of any traffic accidents, showing only three accidents in the last five years with no fatalities.

And they are supportive of a secondary ride-in, right-out access onto airport road that would ultimately alleviate some of the stacking and kind of emergency service concerns raised by the neighbors.

Further, we took a little bit of a closer look at existing traffic on car road as well as what future maximum development of this project would look like, adding to that.

So currently 197 multifamily units and 10 single-family units utilize car road.

Existing trip generation would be approximately 67 trips out in the morning peak hour and 69 trips in in the evening peak hour.

This trip would add 16 additional trips in the morning and evening peak hours.

Existing peak hour trip generation would be about one car per 52 seconds.

The additional traffic added, it would be one car per 40 seconds.

That number would be even further reduced from impacts to car road with the ride in ride out access that is supported by city staff.

And with that, um the request before you today to rezone the property to R5 is appropriate for the area.

It's an infill site with access to principal arterial and convenient access to major employers in the area.

And with thoughtful site design at the development plan stage, this project can be integrated into the surrounding areas and provide a new housing option for future residents.

And with that, answer any questions you may have.

I don't see any questions at this time.

So we will move on to public comment, and we will start with public comment in support of the project.

Please limit your comments to three minutes.

And first up, we have Jill Gabler.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Council members.

I'm here again.

Hope you're had a good lunch.

For the record, my name is Jill Gabler, and I am the executive director at Pike's Peak Housing Network.

I am here to speak in support of this appeal and this land use plan as it will bring needed housing to an area where significant commercial and industrial development is occurring and rooftops must follow to ensure employees have housing where near their jobs.

Yes, my comments are gonna be very similar to earlier today.

I apologize.

As I mentioned in my previous testimony today, over a thousand new jobs have been announced in the Southeast in just this past year.

Many of these new jobs will earn mid-range salaries in our region.

These wage averages increase the need for mid-range rental housing in the area, allowing residents to live close to their jobs, which increases their quality of life, time with family, while also reducing congestion on our roads for all road users.

In addition to this plan aligning with Plan COS, as was previously mentioned.

It promotes the development of a variety of housing types along with increased housing density that supports neighborhood sustainability.

This land use plan also aligns with the draft Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan, as the plan's goals include fostering the growth of affordable and diverse housing options, especially near transit and essential services.

This project is right along Airport Road where there is significant transit.

There are numerous housing types adjacent to this property to include apartments, mobile home park, single-family homes, and across the street is the most essential of services, an elementary school that will allow a lot of families to walk to school and not have to drive.

No project is perfect.

And as past council member Yolanda Avila often commented, taken from Voltaire, perfect is the enemy of good.

It is the job of our public works department to ensure our roads are safe for all users, and any road issues should be addressed alongside the development plan submittal of this needed housing development.

This aligns with yet another goal of the Southeast Strong Plan, which encourages residents' collaboration with housing developers and the city to build affordable housing that meets the identified needs of the Southeast.

So let's think bigger and more strategically about the ongoing and critical need for housing and not get bogged down in the minor barriers that prevent good and needed housing from being built.

These barriers can be fixed, but our ongoing housing crisis will only be fixed by producing more homes for our residents.

As always, I'm grateful to this housing developer who has taken the risk to develop much needed housing in Colorado Springs, where more and more of our residents are struggling to live stable lives.

Thanks, and I'm always available for questions.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Miles Diaz.

Thank you, President Crow Iverson and Council members.

My name is Miles Diaz.

My family and I are homeowners in District 6.

And I sit on the board of directors for the Apartment Association of Southern Colorado and oversee Colorado's statewide multifamily operations for widener apartment homes.

I'm here today in support of the appeal of land use plan for the airport road apartments.

I do want to be clear that Widener has no affiliation with this project, and I'm simply here in my personal capacity as a concerned Colorado Springs citizen whose job requires that I keep my thumb closely on the polls of Colorado Springs' current and future multifamily housing market.

I have one reason why I'm supporting this appeal and three points of data to support that reason.

My one why is that I want to see our city see stable, consistent housing growth that mirrors the needs of our citizens.

And I'm here to be a canary in the coal mine that our city is on the cusp of absorbing the influx of recently developed apartment homes.

And if additional homes aren't brought to market, rental housing opportunities in the coming years will be drastically limited and significantly more expensive for our citizens than they are today.

Here's my three points of real-time data to support that assertion.

Point one high level occupancy trends.

The apartments that I oversee comprise approximately 5% of the multifamily housing supply in the greater Colorado Springs metro area and span from 50 plus year old classic communities to our Class A midrise overlooking Widener Field.

Exactly one year ago in March of 2025, 15% of Widener's apartments in Colorado Springs sat vacant.

As of today, only 5% of our apartments are vacant.

Looking back at historical trends, occupancy is only going to increase as the summer approaches.

Point two.

Narrowing in on neighborhood specific occupancy trends.

The citywide vacancy numbers and scary headlines about apartments sitting empty have been skewed by large scale new developments, primarily focused downtown and in northern Colorado Springs.

Regarding downtown new developments, experience of the epicenter opened in June of 2024 with 408 empty apartments.

And was over 53% vacant this time last year.

It's over 95% occupied as of today.

Regarding District 4, two of my 16 apartment communities are located near the proposed airport road project.

These two communities supply our citizens with approximately 400 homes.

Last March they were 10% vacant, and this March they are occupied just under 95%.

My final point, and it's a short but important one.

According to February's COSTAR data, Colorado Springs apartments absorbed 2,450 new renters over the past 12 months.

If we cut off the supply pipeline for future apartment starts, and our city continues absorbing new renters each year at that same pace, we will have zero vacant apartments in the city in just over three years, even factoring in the existing 1300 plus apartments currently in the construction pipeline.

In conclusion, I urge you to vote yes on this appeal and thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lucas Killeman.

Good afternoon, President Crow Iverson and City Council members.

My name is Lucas Killeman, and I work at the state's division of housing.

But more importantly, I'm a native and a local resident here of Colorado Springs.

And the Division of Housing does not have any interest in this development.

And I'm here alone to support the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the rezoning requests from R16 to R5.

You know, one of the things I am constantly amazed of and proud of with my hometown is our ability to bring in new jobs.

And it's already been mentioned, but jobs are coming to this area of Colorado Springs, which shows the attraction of the city.

So thank you, City Council, for continuing to advocate on this city's behalf.

But in this example, a thousand jobs also means a thousand units of housing.

And according to the 2025 housing needs assessment, our city is already 27,000 units short without all these exciting announcements factored in.

So my hope is that the economic spending power that is earned here is spent here and not just at the gas stations on their commute.

The HA also specifically identifies this portion of the city as having a mature housing stock, which leads to additional housing shortages as old buildings fall out of use, exacerbating the uphill battle we're already facing and catching up to our city's housing needs.

This is why the Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan, as currently drafted, focused on an all of the above housing strategy, combining rehab with redevelopment and of course new development, of which we're talking about.

So by approving this move to R5, we enable the exact types of diverse housing, such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes that the community vision requires for multi-generational living and aging in place.

So in summary, one job equals one housing unit.

The housing stock in the Southeast Colorado Springs is maturing.

And of course, citywide data backs up the need for this development.

So I respectfully urge the city council to trust the city's data and the community's stated vision by overturning the decision and improving the R5 rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment and support.

And we will now move on to public comment in opposition.

And again, um please limit your comments to three minutes.

And first up, we have Barb Overgaard.

Good afternoon, City Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you.

As said, my name is Barbara Overgaard.

I've been a resident of Sand Creek Commons for over 21 years.

And that's, of course, the complex right across the street, uh, bordering on Carr Road.

Um, I'm also a teacher at Pikes Peak State College.

I've been there for 15 years, and currently I'm teaching English as a second language to many of our wonderful immigrants in the city.

And because I'm a teacher and I can wax on, I'm gonna go ahead and just read what I've written.

And yes, as I said, to deny to uphold that.

This isn't just a casual request.

This is the third time we stood before a city body, two times, of course, with the planning commission to explain why this specific change is detrimental or potentially detrimental to our neighborhood.

We aren't anti-development.

We understand the need for attainable housing, but we strongly disagree with the conclusion that the R5 rezoning won't harm the public interest, in this case, the our neighborhood in particular, for these reasons.

One, our voice matters.

During the planning commission phase, over 35 of my neighbors submitted signed letters in opposition to this change.

Each letter reflects a personal conversation with those who signed.

These are homeowners who are deeply interested in the safety of our streets and our neighborhoods.

The second is the safety bottleneck.

Unlike the newer developments, there is we we have had developments since I've been there.

Um to the west and both of them to the west, and then one a little bit to the south.

They each have their own dedicated exit.

And we have only car road for over 200 homes to um, and it is a dead end there.

All right, so we have one way in and one out, and adding a high density development to this single egress and ingress where we cannot add a stoplight due to the proximity of that intersection to Sand Creek Drive.

Um, it is simply not safe for current residents.

While my neighbors will address a little bit more on the traffic, I can tell you from 21 years of living there that that bottleneck is a reality.

Uh the third reason is preserving the character of the neighborhood.

Our area is fundamentally a single family neighborhood, and even the R6 zoned area has one person living there.

And lastly, it's um just to protect the green space.

Um with the density has already actually made the case for retaining our current zoning.

What our city and what our specific neighborhood truly needs is more single family dwellings and more green space.

Um in conclusion, the planning commission heard us, studied the facts, and voted to deny this request twice.

We respectfully ask that you honor their expert recommendations and our combined years of residency by keeping the current zoning.

Let's prioritize the savement, the the safety of current residents and the needed growth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Helen McKay.

Hi, and good afternoon.

Um I'm Helen McKay, and I'm the HOA board president of Sand Creek Commons, which has 187 units, uh, not 175.

And um I'm also a neighborhood watch person for the police department, so I know everything that's going on.

Um so this is a problem more with safety and getting in and out of our community, took Airport Road from car.

So we come out on car, and then we make a turn to go to Airport Road, past the Buddhist temple and the site where they want to build.

Everybody's gonna end up at the corner, a car in Airport Road.

We do already.

Elderly people, the ambulance and the fire truck are in there all the time, and the roads are small, and they have to back up it sometimes at the fire department just to get out to another street, and there's only what a couple of streets.

So our problem is if they put an entrance across from the tempo, Buddhist tempo.

Um, we're all gonna end up at the corner at the as I said, car and airport.

There's no light, and they say we can't have a light because it's too close to the school.

We don't have another entrance to go or exit to go in and out.

And when we come out, we can only go right.

Unless you want to go left towards powers and get killed.

So I mean, I uh presented this last time.

Um traffic accidents on that corner.

Yes, they might be a little minor right now.

Uh I go back the five years to uh two of those accidents that I reported to the police department myself in the middle of the night.

Um there's been a question about a chain on airport road from our community that doesn't let anybody make a ride into the community because we can fit vehicles where cars are parked like this.

And while I'm thinking of it, um this proposed buildings, uh 50 units and one parking lot, or a few over, where are they gonna park?

Out on a car road.

I also monitor car road for 20 years.

So if a car or vehicles out there for over 20 um 22 hours, I reported to the police to have it removed because otherwise we can't do this.

Especially when they're parked on both sides of the street.

So we're we're kind of like strangling right now, thinking, oh my god, we're gonna have all these other people there.

How are we gonna get in and out of the community?

So we've done whatever we can to convince everybody.

Um I haven't read this this morning, but um so I'm um sorry, wrong one.

Got a couple here.

Um I want to start with the most telling facts of this case.

Helen, you your three minutes are up.

Oh, already?

Yeah, already.

It goes fast.

Thank you.

Can I take a nap now?

Yes.

Um next up, and I hope I pronounced this correctly is um Toei Tay.

Can you please say that for me, Toa Tay?

Tao.

Thank you.

Hello, City Council.

Um my name is Tao Tai.

Um I'm a Vietnamese Buddhist monk.

Um I'm not in a among rope today.

Um I'm working undercover, I guess.

I like to talk, take the up.

Um I'm here to oppose uh the rezoning.

Um the property, my property is right across from proposed site.

Um my problem with this is um they want to add in a 50 unit three-story high.

Would anyone of you want to live in a street, a dead end street?

It's the only road for us to get in and out.

You're adding in another at least 200 cars, people.

We had an incident.

There was a shooting, and the guy was running from one of the complex all the way to the the the one of the gas station uh of airport and powers.

His blood was dripping.

The whole road, car roll is completely shut down for four or five hours.

None of us can get in, none of us can get out.

Having this building built right at the corner of cars and airport is like a choking point.

We have no way of getting out.

This is our problems.

Um the people who want to build here, they don't live here.

The majority of us living here 15, 20 years, even more.

We know the place.

And besides, it's a Buddhist tumble.

Um we you know, we need more greens, more plants.

Um something that say peace.

Um I'm also a chaplain for the closing uh CSPD um police department.

I go to people homes every time, all the time, every week, and I've seen people, low-income people, middle class people.

You the more people you have, the more problems our officers have to deal with these problems.

Um like I said, it's a choking point.

Um I'm asking all of you um to to make a decision not based on data and numbers, but as a human beings.

Um, you know, we experience, we live there.

Uh give us a room, give us a way out.

Uh, don't choke us.

Um, this is the only road for us to get in and out.

Um at the end, if I know, I want to say if this doesn't get rezoned, doesn't get built, it's not the end of their word.

But if this is rezoned and built, there's a chance to the end of ours.

Uh, please consider that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jessica Brownlee.

Sorry.

Um, good afternoon, Madam President and fellow council members.

Um, my name is Jessica Brownley, and I am a homeowner in the Sand Creek Commons, and I am an educator in the borderlining district, district two.

And I want to say first that this rezoning has been denied by the planning commission twice already.

And so those decisions take time, and you guys know that because you make the all the same decisions.

And so respecting that process.

Um, I'm curious when they talk about the number of traffic accidents.

What's that actually relating to?

Because I know is that just major accidents or minor accidents included in that so far this year, it's March, and I have been blocked from exiting three times already by the community service vehicles that are dealing with fender vendors that are just blocking the road.

I've also was in one of those three major accidents traveling the opposite direction on car road, not car road, sorry, airport road, when somebody from the single unit family homes turned out in front of us, not seeing that we were driving and just turned out in front of us.

Thought they could make it, they couldn't.

We collided.

Everybody was fine, but it was a major accident.

Um, so I'm talking about the density of traffic on airport roads specifically.

Um, I'm sure that you know the airport is also the boundary between district 11, so it's the end of district 11 and the beginning of district two, and both of those school buses stop at that corner to pick up students.

And so in those peak AM hours, that's just another delay and an increase in density.

Um take that into consideration if you add another 75 parking spaces.

There are already frequent stops, heavy traffic, and that was before the construction on the bridge started.

I know the construction on the bridge is temporary, but we also don't know because it's temporary, what traffic will look like after that.

Um, there's a lot of talk about having a diversity.

We have a good diversity of different types of residential areas.

I want to note that the multi-unit residential areas in our space are twice, if not three times as big as the one that is being proposed to be moved into a multi-unit residential area.

So the size of that space is just already half the size of the other ones in the area.

That's a lot of people to cram into one corner.

I asked that the planning commission or I sorry, I asked that the council members review that the planning commission has determined it is not appropriate for a multifamily unit to be there.

And for safety and the impact of the community on airport road.

I ask that you deny this appeal.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Joyce Salazar Good afternoon.

My name is Joyce Salazar.

I'm the executive director of resilient inspired, strong engaged, or Rise Southeast.

We do serve the Southeast Colorado Springs area, 80910, 80916.

And our mission is to enhance Southeast Color Springs from within through resident-led change.

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

My comments today are about whether this rezoning is being considered with the level of care needed to protect safety and quality of life for existing residents.

Car Road is classified as a local road with preferred daily traffic with a preferred daily traffic threshold of 1,500 vehicles per day.

Currently, it is already carrying approximately 1,160 vehicles.

With this rezoning, estimated traffic would increase to about 1,493 vehicles per day, which is essentially at capacity.

This information was received by our traffic engineering department.

At the same time, there are incomplete sidewalks along Airport Road, no sidewalk and key segments near Canyon Ridge Mobile Home Park, a temporary four-way stop at Troy Hill Road, and a reported non-functioning fire hydrant at airport and car road.

So we are not starting from a blank slate.

We are starting from a corridor that is already experiencing strain.

City staff have noted that traffic impacts can be addressed later during site development.

However, rezoning establishes the scale of intensity of what can ultimately be built.

Once that decision is made, the conversation shifts from whether this level of impact is appropriate to how it will be managed.

This is where alignment and adoptive plans are critical.

Plan COS identifies area like this as changing neighborhoods, not established neighborhoods.

You can see that on page 29 of the Plan COS report.

Connect COS calls for safe and reliable transportation systems for all users, including closing gaps in sidewalks and improving multimodal access.

Current conditions along this corridor show that those gaps still exist.

And locally, the Southeast Strong Plan reflects years of resident input.

And I will forward this to you since my time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That closes our public comment.

So we will now move to the applicant rebuttal.

And you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, uh City Council, Council President Crow Iverson, Andrea Barley with NES.

I'm going to present the rebuttal.

I would, if you could bring up my presentation, please.

So our presentation, so we can just flick through to some slides.

We I'm going to say this out of all my years of presenting projects to planning commissioners, City Council, Planning Commission's decision has been on this particular project has been the most baffling to me.

It's a very small site, it's two acres.

We have been in front of you.

I have been in front of you arguing much larger projects in direct adjacency to single-family neighborhoods on major arterials that haven't raised as many concerns as this has at the planning commission level.

This site is proposed for an R5 rezone.

It will have a limited amount of residential units per that zoning because it is now capped at 25 units per acre.

The previous R5 zone, under which the adjacent properties were zoned, had no density cap.

It did include a calculation which roughly came out at about 50 units per acre being allowed.

But this site is very small.

Its impact is limited by its size.

Similarly, I believe that the type of housing that will go on here is limited by its side, size and the price point of that housing will be influenced by what can be accommodated on the site.

They want to do something good for the community.

They don't know yet whether it's going to be apartments.

It could be town homes.

And there was reference to the gates, and so I'm going to bring up a picture about that.

But the original development plan for Sand Creeks Common included an access directly onto Airport Road.

My understanding from the comments that were made is that this was closed off.

So you can see actually on this plan, just to the parallel with car road to the east is a drive aisle with an access.

That has been, as can be seen here, voluntarily closed with a chain and some cones.

I understand the reason.

It was because cars are parked opposite to each other, backing out, um causes conflict with people coming into the site.

So I can understand the reason for that being closed off.

But in terms of a safety issue, which is being which was being claimed, that that is car road is the only access or exit, should I say, for this development, that is incorrect.

That chain and those cones could readily be removed if those neighbors need to get out of that neighborhood.

So the implication that the only way out of the neighborhood for this neighborhood for this development is car road is incorrect.

They have an approved and functional access that they have decided themselves to close off.

And I think that's important because the safety issue was reiterated multiple times.

In addition, um there is reference to parking on car road.

We have shown an illustrative plan which provides the required parking for this type of development.

Obviously, when we get to a development plan stage, that will be reviewed in more detail and depending on the type of development.

We do not end it will be accommodated per city code.

Um there was um also comments about the accident, and if I understand the lady correctly, she said the accident was caused by traffic turning out of the single family homes.

So there are three single family homes immediately to the west of this property, which are part of that original zoning or original um county development that was annexed into the city.

Those three properties have direct driveway access onto airport road.

So they are not typical.

They are not typical of an R1600 neighborhood, and nor is the four-acre property to the north or the four-acre property to the north of that.

So there was a suggestion that this is a single family neighborhood.

It isn't.

It is an area where there are two existing multifamily developments and an area of non-conforming, unplattered residential lots that happen to be zoned R16,000.

I'd just like to finish by saying that per discussions with traffic engineering, they have agreed that we can put a right-in-write-out access onto airport road to accommodate additional traffic, which will uh distribute the traffic and not have it all coming out onto car road.

And finally, there has been a suggestion, and this is really only if we do the maximum development of 50 units of improving car road with a right turn and a left turn, which would mean using some of the site to widen car road at where it intersects with airport road to provide a dedicated right and left turn, which I think would address uh some of the concerns about the additional traffic, which from a 50 unit is minimal.

I can't emphasize enough.

This is a minimal density and minimal traffic impact development.

Councilman Gold.

Um thank you, Madam President.

So uh question if this does now get uh changed to R5, what will the property owner likely do with that uh two point some acres?

2.17 acres.

I really don't know.

They haven't really um contemplated that.

I think they will probably look at some some alternate some alternative use.

Um but um based on the area and when they first came to us with this property, they said we've got this two-acre property, we've done work work for the Bell Setware.

What do you think is appropriate for this property?

I immediately, based on the adjacent zoning, said R5.

It is completely consistent with the adjacent zoning.

And this entire area, I think, in the in the plan that Anne showed shows a significant amount of multifamily in this area.

So it's I I don't know what else they will do.

They may just sell it, they may um look at a different type of zoning, but um the R5, I think is the logical uh zoning in this location given the surrounding zones um on adjacent properties.

Thank you.

And then uh my next question.

Um, the illustrative concept, which I know is not um uh technically what we're talking about today, because that's uh illustrative, but just uh for the sake of some of my neighbors here.

Um it said 50 dwelling units, 75 parking spaces, three uh stories.

Is that correct?

That's what is shown here, and it's based on another project where we were proposing a 50-unit um development uh in three stories in in a different part of town, but it was uh something we were working on at the same time.

We knew that 50 units is the limit in this R5 zone because of 25 unit per acre.

So we we said initially it was just like, let's see what this looks like on the site.

Let's see if it fits.

Um, and actually it fits comfortably.

We have plenty of room for the open space, we have plenty of room for the detention, and we have plenty of room for parking and to accommodate the additional traffic.

Um sorry, the additional access onto airport road.

Are you sorry?

Are you able to share the um similar property that's in a different part of town?

Yes, it was the uh Silver Keys uh project on Weber.

Um we had just processed that with planning commission and and got that approved uh unanimously at Planning Commission.

And so the reason we utilize that plan was because it's something they were familiar with.

Okay, thank you.

But again, put uh we've discussed with our clients, and they say we really don't know what we we we're going to do here.

It might be we might want to do townhomes, we might want to do apartments, but less units.

It it really we are just simply trying to visualize, because that's one of the comments we got at planning commission is we we we don't really know what's being proposed here.

And it and to be honest, I heard exactly the same things this morning on the MXM zone proposed property on Dublin that we didn't know what was going to go there, didn't know where the access is, uh etc.

etc.

We have tried to put some meat to the bones of that discussion by showing something illustrative, at least with an R5, you know it's going to be residential, you know it's going to be a maximum of 50 units on a side of this site, it's not an unknown, it's not immediately backing on to an established R1600 neighborhood.

That established neighborhood is across airport road uh with a development wall, it's very separate.

Airport road is a wide major arterial.

So all these factors I think make it very different from the discussion earlier, and we've tr we've tried to provide more information than is actually needed with a rezone to to help that discussion.

Does AMC properties own um additional property in Southeast Colorado Springs?

Um I think they do on more of the um east of Powers area.

So yes, they AMC Painting is a paint a commercial painting company.

That's what they're best known for in Colorado Springs, they're locally based, but they have doubled in a little bit of um development in the Southeast area and in Fountain as well.

Thank you.

Councilman Henjam.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So I I think I I'm I'm a little bit opining.

I'm not sure if I have exactly a question for you, but um, you know, appreciating the the the comments from from the neighbors very much at the same time recognizing the importance of infill and um you know really providing more housing in our city.

And what strikes me is what keeps coming up in hearing after hearing after hearing is about our transportation in our city.

That you know, we're we're not great drivers, and we speed and we're crashing, and you know, I think about overall design.

And I'm I'm wondering, I I'm pretty certain that the Sand Creek Trail is just to the west.

So you can just see Sand Creek um on that kind of triangular multifamily.

Right.

Um that is Sand Creek and the trail.

I don't know if I've got one that kind of comes out.

And if I'm not mistaken, there's also a bike lane um on airport.

There is a bike lane on airport, and also uh there was a comment made by uh one of the residents about um I actually I think it was the representative from RISE about the um I would say spotty sidewalks along Airport Road.

That's because you have areas like this, which are historic um properties that haven't plattered, and as part of this, we will be required to provide sidewalk along Airport Road and Car Road.

And as these other areas develop, you will be looking at um getting sidewalk there as well.

But if something like this, I would just say is not supported, then I think it really questions whether the remaining area could uh possibly develop.

Well, exactly, and and so there's opportunity to really improve the infrastructure in this area.

And and I guess the last question I would have is is are you aware of what the mountain metro routes are here?

I mean, it's again, it's we're so car focused and so car dependent in this city, but there are uh there's ways to get around by bike and by walking, and I'm wondering what the uh Yeah, I don't believe there is a mountain metro route on airport.

Gail knows apparently Route 22 is a uh route on route 22 on airport.

But there are trails and backs as well.

Okay.

Well so that's that's very important.

And again I I I appreciate the the the feedback from from the neighbors I I genuinely do.

And the last thing I guess I would say and ask is uh especially given that this is a local developer um that once they do determine whatever the decision of this council is um that they would be meeting they would be having meetings with with the neighbors to talk about the concerns and ways to develop and mitigate those concerns.

Yes indeed I mean I I think the primary concern we've heard today is traffic and um and uh getting out of car road and the capacity um I understand that Todd Frisbee met with residents on site and and provided information.

Gail Sturdivans is here today um if you have any additional questions on traffic um but because this project um generates such a low level of traffic a traffic study isn't required it doesn't track trigger the need for a traffic study I totally understand that so I I think this will be my last comment but I'm just gonna I'm just gonna become a drum beat here around the uh transportation safety action plan and um awareness of everybody in this chambers and the 10 people that you know who complain about traffic in our city think about how you're moving around um participate in the feedback let's do better road design let's do um let's continue to to build um transit routes use bikes uh walk let's find our let's find our way to be a safer city for transportation thanks Councilman Lineweber yeah I heard I heard something earlier about um that airport is the dividing line for district eleven and so um I someone said that and I did I I can't but well what I'm trying to understand is where so if this was to go forward and it was developed would they would the kids that might be in this complex be attending sand creek's um elementary school I I if it if it's the dividing line then they would not necessarily be allocated to that school but there's always the option of choicing in anywhere really I'm trying to understand where are the where are the kids walking that's what I'm trying to get where do the kids walk that I I can I I don't know because if if they're having to go to a different school then they're probably being bussed as opposed to walking well that's not walking that's what I'm trying to understand because like um for right now for the sand creek commons area you know where are their kids going to school?

That's what I'm trying to do I think the people who are here from Sand Creek Commons could be best to to uh provide that response uh but I I really don't know where where the the school boundary is or where which schools they are are going to say you you generated in a really important question about the sidewalks and stuff like that.

And so I'm trying to make a connection between that area of the you know the north side and if they are truly going to that sand creek elementary school which is right there.

It it begs the question why isn't there a sidewalk on that side of the street?

I mean where are the kids crossing airport road that's what I'm trying to understand.

There doesn't seem to be a safe place.

Well and so that's my curiosity question.

I don't know who who to ask to get that kind of satisfaction.

I can answer one Paul to that question.

It's not about where the kids go to school but um there are a lot of places especially on arterials where there are gaps in sidewalks near schools.

I I mean the one I'm very familiar with is Coronado High School there's no sidewalk going up to Coronado High School because the properties that are adjacent to it are historic and haven't developed and it's only through that development that you get the dedication of the and and the construction of the sidewalks.

So I don't think the city and and Gail is probably best taught this has um a plan or or necessary funding to uh put in sidewalks um in places that are missing but there may be a different I know they have a a school specific program so I would defer really those comments to either Gail or in terms of where the kids go to school the neighbor neighbors maybe planning to talk to Gail they're just not yes I don't have my turn to do that yet so um but I will do that.

But I you know I kind of agree with you that I kind of would love to see sidewalks kind of added to this part of the community so there's an element of that and I do agree with you that 50 units is pretty low barrier.

And so those are some questions I'm gonna have for Gail in a moment.

Um, because it yeah, it really alarms me that there's only one way in one way out of that.

And why would a community ever elect to have that happen to their community?

So that's what I'm really concerned about.

It seems to be maybe self-imposed, which I have concerns with, and so um and and in honesty, they are um they're an R5.

So they're they're exactly the same thing that you're proposing.

So um anyway.

Oh, did you have um so I just wanted to point out that the original development plan for Sand Creek Commons actually had two accesses onto Airport Road, the one that you can see that's coming why the driveway is to Sand Creek Drive, that has been properly closed off.

That has been kind of blocked off and closed.

So that was originally open.

So I I don't know whether it was actually ever open or at some point during that development process, it was closed, but it is it that there's a wall there, it is that is properly closed.

But the one where the chain is has um from our research, and and Gail can talk to this as well.

Um, we haven't found anywhere through city planning, city tr engineering, okay, traffic engineering, or even through the fire department where that closure is authorized, and the comment has been that it is private, so uh the city don't have any author authority over that.

But my my simple point is if there is an emergency and car road is blocked for any reason, they can remove that barrier and very easily and and exit the site in that location.

Yeah, I would say to your safety.

Um, I even looked at the other the other exit, which is now it's there's not a wall there.

There's a like a sidewalk, though there's a curb and if you had if you had to, you could drive over that.

I suppose so.

I don't know if you've got a four-wheel drive, maybe.

Well, it didn't actually didn't look like it was that you just have to go over a curve.

So anyway, all right.

Um, so that is um that's all the questions I had for you.

Thank you.

Councilman Gold.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I think we had some folks from D11, D2 that maybe could have spoke to the question that was on the hand.

I can't even remember who answered the asked that question at this point.

Thank you.

Is it Jessica?

Okay, thanks, Jessica.

Hi.

Um so Colorado is a choice state, which means if you're a resident of Colorado, you can put in a choice application.

And if the school approves it, you can go to any school in anywhere.

So if I lived in Colorado Springs and I would like my student to attend school in Pueblo, if they approve my choice application, I can transport my student to Pueblo for that school.

So, but on the boundary, if your choice application is not accepted, then you have to attend the closest school within your district.

And so if you're south of airport, that's district two.

Sand Creek is there, it's district two.

If you're north of airport, which is where this proposed development is, that is district eleven.

And so they would have to attend a district eleven school unless they are choice approved by Sand Creek.

So you have been comment?

Councilman Lineweber, yes.

Thank you.

I just want to um so my question is is for um Sand Creek Commons, um, for majority of the parents that live in that those commons, are they using the school choice and doing Sand Creek?

I mean, that just seems to make total sense.

There it's some of both.

A lot of the older kids who can walk, do attend Sand Creek Commons and get that choice application.

But I know that we also have many district 11 families, and so the district eleven bus comes in and picks everybody up where the district two bus stops at the corner where the monastery is, and it picks up their students from there.

So when kids leave um Sand Creek Commons right now and they want to go to the elementary school, how are they choosing to walk?

They're walking along Airport Road on that unsidewalk area.

That unsidewalked area.

That's that's my question.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

You're good, Jessica.

Thank you.

Um seeing no other questions up here for the applicant.

Um closing staff comments, Gail.

We heard a lot of traffic.

Thank you.

Um, Madam President Gail Sturdivant, um, city engineer deputy public works director, and those of you who weren't here earlier, uh, the traffic engineering division does report to me, and they prepared me well for this meeting.

So I will go through and hit several of the comments up front.

And that way hopefully it'll have answer most of your questions in advance.

Todd Frisbee, who is our city traffic engineer, did meet with residents out there last Tuesday.

And so thank you for taking the time and doing that so you could understand your concerns.

He did also perform basically a traffic analysis that he provided to me.

And you heard that Joyce Salazar echoed some of that earlier today.

I do want to share with you though that what she those numbers she gave you, although correct on what was provided by Todd, that is the absolute worst case scenario, meaning the highest density, the 50 dwelling units on the site, one, and two, only having access off of car road.

So traffic engineering would be requesting a ride-in right out off of airport road.

So just you would take half those vehicles in theory at least and distribute them towards airport road itself.

So and if the dull-in units on the site go down, always obviously the traffic that goes down.

But even with those worst case scenarios that Ms.

Salazar shared with you, it does not meet the threshold or does not exceed the threshold for a local or residential road way.

Doesn't mean that there's still not concerns by the residents out there that they brought up, but just want to let you know that that road is designed for that capacity in the worst case scenario if there was only a single access point.

I do want to talk a little bit about the I know that Councillor Lineweber, you're gonna ask me about how did this other development get happened in 1999?

So I think a lot of us did a bunch of research on this.

Um in 1999, and when that development was put in place, um they really only had one access point that was their common one, which is off a car road, and they did an emergency egress onto airport road.

And it was very very frequently happened.

I think it happened relatively frequently at that time period.

Um I happened to used to live up by Mulligan Drive and Chapel Hills Drive, it was the exact same scenario with a dead end cul-de-sac, um, and then the emergency egress was chained off there at Chapel Hills Drive.

So if there's needed to have a second egress, it would be there.

Um as it was mentioned, I believe by Andrea that that is a private road.

We were able to do some research on it.

Um we are okay leaving it as is right now, both from a traffic engineering and from a fire department standpoint when we did consultation for them.

Not a deal, not necessarily what we do today, but if we were in a situation where somebody was backed in with one egress, we try to find an emergency uh egress route for them, should it be needed.

So you're also gonna ask me about missing sidewalks.

So the city actually does have a missing sidewalk program.

Um it is funded through PPRT funds.

Uh in 2026, it has a 1.5 million dollar budget area.

We've gone through and done a missing sidewalk assessment throughout the entire city, and we go through in chunks and address those, address them every every single year.

So there's there's many needs uh for that program, and we will continue to use that program.

When projects like this come along with new development, they are required to put in that sidewalk and basically complete their street section adjacent to their development.

And so this would be an opportunity to start filling that in.

Um, yes, okay.

See, I gotta sort of flip to the crashes.

So I do want to hit one thing, and we hit this earlier today.

When we have infill uh in these rezoning requests, and as it's been discussed a couple times today, one of those requires to look for the safety and health and welfare of the residents.

When traffic engineering does their initial analysis for that safety component, they look at three elements.

They look at daily traffic volumes, they look at safety, and then look at intersection operations.

So we've already talked about the daily traffic that the roads that are there today and what would be proposed for access and potential improvements would be adequate for the traffic volume that would be projected out there.

Um as Ms.

Barlow mentioned, uh, depending on the density units, we may require um uh construction improvements on car road itself.

So those are going to be addressed with the development plan uh should this zoning go through.

Um, from a safety standpoint, uh we did go through and looked at both the the um from a crash standpoint.

We have for the last five years, we had three crashes in that area.

Only one was a southbound off a car road left turn onto airport road.

Uh the other two were fixed objects that were speeding on airport road that just happened to be in that general area.

So, really only one crash attributed to that intersection.

Um, so we um do not uh anticipate there being any there is not an underlying existing safety issue at that intersection.

And then finally, from an operational standpoint, um we look at intersections.

You've heard this from us before, we'll tell you many times in the future.

We grade intersection operation from A being the best to F being the worst, and it is um an A or C.

It would be A in the uh so that and very let's just say very acceptable a good uh range of operations in that intersection.

So they are in that top level or top 60 percent of operations.

So it meets the safety criteria under those three criteria that we look at it.

So those are the things that I had in my notes.

I tried to pick up some of the things from their comments, but happy to answer any other questions.

Councilman Hand Jim.

Yes, scale, what's the speed limit on Airport Road?

It is 40 miles an hour.

Um that's for that for that class road class.

That's actually in the low end of that road classification.

Okay, thanks.

Councilman Gold.

Um, wow, um, I really appreciate all the robust conversation.

I'm just gonna make some closing remarks real quick.

Um, this isn't necessarily for you, Gail, but I don't know if Councilmember Lineweber has a follow-up question for Gail.

So looking at you, sir, if you wanted to ask that first.

Okay.

Um this is this is a really tough, and I I do want to say to um my fellow Southeast neighbors, I'm um extraordinarily proud and happy that so many of you uh were involved in part of the process.

Um land use is so much of what we do at council, and I don't think that the average neighbor really understands that.

And um here you guys are so intimately involved um in the process.

Um that said, um, this is this is really tough for me.

Um South Powers Corridor is going to see extraordinary change by by virtue of peak innovation.

Um I believe what the Southeast is going to look like in the next 30 years, um, those of us sitting in the room, there's probably very few that can imagine what that will look like.

Um we do need housing, we do need higher, we do need higher density.

And um I don't know um any as intimately, but in what I have learned about them, um they do really great work.

Um, and I'd love to see us as neighbors um work with NES to understand the process a little bit more um and to to for this time to trust them in the process.

Um we want to see improvement in the southeast, and I believe that NES is an organization that will help us see improvement in the Southeast.

There have been projects that I have voted against.

There have been projects that I'm voting for.

And for this one, um, I see that Councilmember Henjam has moved to accept the motion to uh for the appeal, and I will second that motion, and I will support the this change to R5 on this one.

I'm happy to discuss that at length.

Um, would love to do that in partnership um with many people because I hope you know and believe that I really do want what's best for our city and what's best for our southeast.

Councilman Line Weber.

So a couple of things.

Um so one, um, I'm just trying to get uh you know, trying to get the traffic safety thing.

Which thank you for really focusing on that, and I think doing a pretty good job for as huge as our land space is.

I mean, we are the largest city by square footage, right?

By far.

Um but I was kind of looking at this.

I was curious about um actually looking at the intersection that's one block over and to the south is called Sand Creek Drive.

That community is almost three times larger than the um Sand Creek Commons area.

And so they're coming on to um airport.

Um, and when you talked about um traffic issues like accidents and stuff like that, you didn't mention that intersection at all.

And so I'm just I'm making an assumption that that intersection hasn't had any problems, but yet it's handling maybe three times the volume that car would be handling.

Would that be correct?

So it's it's just to the south and one block to the east.

Right, and I know where it's located, but I couldn't remember if it was a signalized intersection.

No, it's not.

The other one is to the E the to the west.

Oh no, to the west is that's where the school is.

That's where Sand Creek Drive is.

That's all there's two sand creek drives that come in.

That's what's confusing.

Oh that could be.

Yeah.

So Sand Creek Drive does a big loop.

Right.

The one to the west is signalized, the one to the east.

So I I didn't I do not have that data, but I'd be happy to get that from traffic engineering.

Um, as was mentioned before, because of the nature and the size of this um the rezoning and the the small change in traffic, they were not required to do a full traffic impact study.

But because of the concerns we heard um from residents of planning commission, we Todd went and met with them and provided this analysis for me to be able to bring that information and share with you so we could actually have data to help support the decision.

I would actually be more than happy to go and look at that area, but we do know that the overall corridor of airport road itself operates relatively well.

Well, that's my next question is is because um the next thing is actually thinking about signal timing, or maybe what I would call it is traffic light pacing would be my term, but I bet you have a better term for it, where traffic lights in and of themselves help control the volume of that it travels on a street just because of the synchronization of that timing, correct?

Uh they do though the ones on that alignment, well, and most throughout the city, they do just by the nature of their design and the way we sink corridors in themselves.

What we're trying to move forward to in the future is more smart-based technology where they can actually operate even more efficiently, but we're not quite there yet.

We're on the cusp.

But still having, I mean, so to the to the um west is the sand creek drive traffic light.

And really, that's just like a block away.

That that does present some timing coordination uh and slowing down traffic or speeding them up.

So there is an element uh, it's not a free flowing right, and that creates gaps for folks to be able to make those free turning movements.

That's the point I'm trying to get to and trying to understand, make sure I'm clear thinking clearly about like all right, my grandmother is gonna try to get across that road.

How does she do that?

Well, she's gonna time it to that traffic signal, right?

Uh is what I'm kind of looking at.

So I wanted to kind of make sure I got that in my head correctly.

Um the other part is that there are these two roads that are private, um, Kitfield View and Ells Grove.

L'Lers Grove, I believe is what they're calling them.

Um the Ellers Grove is the one that's blocked off.

Um, and these are ones that are in the Sand Creek Commons area.

And then um, and then the uh Kitfield View is the one that's chained.

So Kittville View is the one that's chained.

So what happens in an emergency situation?

Does the fire department just come and just cut the chain?

Or I mean does or the first person out is gonna just blow through the chain, let's be honest.

Is that what kind of happens?

Is that just gonna go?

I mean, I just trying to understand like we see, and I don't know if we have them in Colorado Springs in the fire departments on here, but you see some communities that will have actually locked bars that have like a lockbox that fire department use.

We've been in this era in this era, we use chains and more passive um, well, these one-way in places like car is has come up before in many other uh development things.

And it and and I can understand the the buildup of traffic in case of an emergency of everyone needing to get out type thing.

I I I I get that.

Um but yeah, there is this, there is one there.

The only the only issue I had with that is I'm not sure it helps because it's gonna come on and it's right, it's gonna be right turn only, and it's gonna be right turn only right into Car Street.

Well, I I mean you were we've had this discussion, I think before if there's an incident, some kind of incident management is gonna happen, even if it was a smaller idea there that you would have incident-specific traffic control.

So you're right, they may or may not ever use it.

But let's say there was something that was bad at car, then you could potentially uh open that up and use it if you need if need be in the future.

I agree that I think 50 units is not a very big impact.

Um, but uh I also agree that the best way to solve missing sidewalks is called development.

And um half this block will get a new sidewalk, which is gonna go a long ways to helping those kids get to that school, which they can choose to go to.

Um and so I kind of see it as a possibility that the city might be more readily to take on the other half and complete the block, right?

Right.