Hi, folks.

If anybody else is going to be seeding time to allow to have that person speak longer, please go ahead and indicate that now on the sign-up sheet before we get started with our meeting so that we can be as organized as possible.

If you have any questions, please come see me.

Thank you.

Okay, good morning.

I'd like to call the Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for May 13th, 2026 to order.

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

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

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

The city planning staff facilitate the process for applications.

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

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

Just a bit about ground rules and procedures.

Throughout each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully, understanding that others may have different views from your own, disrespectful words or actions, speaking out of order when not recognized by the chair, and use of profanity will not be tolerated.

I will also say we have a very full room today, and we have quite a bit to get through, so just um being as quiet as possible and respectful of others that are speaking.

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

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

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak, and please keep your comments brief and focused on the issues at hand, and again, respect other attendees' rights to both listen and be heard.

We will allow, as we just mentioned, the seeding of time for items.

Those seeding time must be present and must state their name and who they are seeding time to.

No more than four individuals may cede their time to any one party for a total of 15 minutes.

And again, if you haven't signed up to seed time and you wish to do that, which in general is giving up your time for someone else to speak, if that isn't clear, please go sign up or uh be sure that you want to speak individually.

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

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

So we'll now move to uh call to order and roll call salonge.

Chair Hansler, here.

Commissioner Sisu.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Commissioner Clements.

Commissioner Jidiana?

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Commissioner Ingle.

Here.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Great.

Thank you.

Are there any um changes or postponements to the agenda?

Seeing none.

Shiva.

Ah.

Uh not yet.

Yeah.

Next, we're going to move to item 3A, which is the appointment of a planning commission vice chair.

And um recently, as some of you may know from our last meeting, our previous chair, Ken Casey was uh nominated and appointed to city council.

I moved into the chair role, which leaves our vice chair role open.

So we are seeking a nomination um to fill that vacancy for the time being.

Commissioner Case for the record, uh I would like to nominate Commissioner Slattery for the vice chair position.

Commissioner Willoughby, I would like to second that.

Do you want to do a tablet or a roll call for that?

We can do in a tablet just a second, please.

Okay.

Seeing that we have a motion and a second, we will get the tablet ready.

Um, and I will just state for the record that um Commissioner Slattery is going to serve in this role until her time on the commission um ends, which will likely be in August, depending on appointment of new commissioners for this body, which we'll talk about in just a moment.

You should see the votes on your tablets now.

Thank you.

The po the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um I'll move on to communications, and uh really the only communic communication I have is kind of in conjunction to our nomination just a moment ago, that um just to state that the application period has closed for openings for planning commission members.

City staff and our city council liaisons are currently reviewing those applications, and we will begin to schedule interviews soon.

Uh, myself and the vice chair will be part of those interviews, and the hope will be to have any new um voting and alternate commissioners slated and seated um this summer, hopefully no later than August.

I think that's all I have.

Mr.

Walker, uh that was mine.

Oh shoot.

Well, sorry to steal your thunder.

No, that's fine.

Uh just a couple of quick ones.

We are uh working towards uh um having a special meeting scheduled for June, um, which is to hear the uh data center project that's coming up as a separate item at the moment that uh is uh tentatively scheduled for June 17th.

It'll be here in this room, time to be determined.

Um so we will keep working towards that.

That item has been is likely to be referred by the planning uh by the planning department to the planning commission.

Uh and that's so that's the schedule for uh coming up on the data center.

Uh just a couple of updates on city council.

Southeast Strong uh is being heard at work session sometime later in July.

Uh we have a variety of items that are being heard on May 26th to elevate downtown plan.

Um, the daycare center proposal uh zone changes.

We've got some other zoning uh modifications relative to the conditional use issues that we had before and other technical referral data.

Uh and um so those those will all be heard here shortly in May 26th and following.

So City Council is not having a meeting on June 23rd, and so that cycle um has changed uh has changed some of the scheduling for that, also might impact the uh seating of new uh planning commissioners, and so we will pay attention as that goes forward.

That's it for me.

All right, thank you, sir.

Um moving on to the approval of the minutes for the April 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Um I think given some of the transcription considerations, I think we'd like to uh postpone approving those minutes.

Um I know that we've had some comments on edits to those with some of the new process, so um if we can entertain a motion to postpone the approval of maintenance until the June commission planning commission meeting.

And voting on the minutes totally your time.

Do we want to postpone this to the June meeting and have a date certain or not necessary?

A date certain would be preferable.

Can you amend your motion to I think it's June 10th?

Okay.

Let's postpone the reading of the minutes and voting on the minutes until June 10th.

Thank you.

Second.

Perfect.

And we will have you abstain again probably next month.

So thank you.

Okay.

Jen Cecil.

As I was not in attendance, I will also be abstaining.

Okay, perfect.

And we'll have you do so again next month.

Sorry, I apologize just for the record.

Who was the second on that motion?

Thank you.

Commissioners, just bear with us for a second.

One of the commissioners got inadvertently removed from the motion here.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

The motion passes with seven members in favor.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Okay, moving on to the consent calendar.

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

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

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

So Solange, if you can read the consent items into the agenda.

Item six A, Z O N E-26-0004.

Austin Bluffs Pump Station Zone Map Amendment.

Okay, and then we make a motion for approval of the consent calendar.

Commissioner Slattery motion to approve the consent calendar as read into the record.

Commissioner Willoughby second.

Hey Trevor.

I inadvertently did not have in my notes to ask if there was any intent to remove the item.

Do you mean to redo that?

Okay.

Okay.

So items on the consent calendar can be removed by staff, public, or commission.

So my apologies.

Is there anyone on our staff on the planning commission or in the audience that would like to remove this item for the Austin Bluffs pump station from the consent calendar before we vote on it?

My apologies.

Seeing none, I'm going to let the motion stand and we shall vote.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Moving along.

Um unfinished business.

We have none.

So we'll move on to new business.

And Salange, I'll ask you to read our first item into the record.

Item 9A, C U D P-25-0009, conditional use to allow the retail marijuana cultivation facility land use in the MXM Zone District located at 2926 Wood Avenue.

Your presenter is William Gray.

Good morning, Planning Commission.

Bill Gray, City Planner for Colorado City Planning Department of Colorado Springs.

And this morning, your first application is the Colorado Chronic Marijuana Cultivation Facility.

So this application, I should say the applicant for this is Colorado Chronic, represented by Austin Edmondson.

He is in the audience today.

In the city code that would allow for retail recreational marijuana throughout the city.

The site where this use is located is within a 9,500 square foot commercial center.

It's most likely developed in the middle of the last century.

The building does contain a mix of uses from hair salon, retail marijuana sales, pet services, and including the medical marijuana grow.

The medical marijuana grow occupies 2600 square feet of this building.

You can see the approximate location and size of the space that the use occupies in the image to the right in the dashed red rectangle.

It's also shown from a street view on the lower image.

This business has operated in this location since 2012.

The applicant has been there since 2016.

This request includes no expansion to the building or the operation or and staff through its review has concluded there's no new impacts associated with this, and I guess mainly because the applicant will not grow additional plants.

So it doesn't have a lot of users coming and going to the to the site.

So this application was initially submitted in March of 2025.

It went through only two review cycles.

It was ready for the agenda in April of not 2025, April 2026.

I've been having trouble with dates lately, if nobody knows, but I'll try to get to get that fixed.

But through the review process, working with planning and engineering, which determined no development plan was required, so no standards that would relate to improvements to the site would be warranted.

So but to address that condition or that situation, there is a condition in the staff recommendation for either restriping to remove the encroachment or the issuance of a revocable permit.

As with all applications, there was stakeholder involvement.

It was just standard public notice.

We notified the site two times, once with the initial application and the second for this planning commission hearing.

Those public comments are included in the packet of information provided to the planning commission.

All the input was objecting to the proposed conditional use, the issues or problems that were cited by surrounded surrounding property owners and or neighbors, included odor, lighting, the compatibility of adjacent medical medical uses.

So there are some medical office buildings nearby that jeopardizes safety, increases traffic, attracts undesirable people, and the last would be its proximity to the North Nevada Avenue overlay.

So the criteria that are used for reviewing an application of conditional use are on the screen before you.

It's primarily do they meet additional use-specific standards?

There are use-specific standards that apply to marijuana businesses.

Are they compatible and are their impacts mitigated?

And does the city's infrastructure is the city's infrastructure adequate to support the use?

And in staff's review of this application, we find that it is in compliance with the criteria for approval.

And with that, we have provided or are providing to planning commission two motions: a motion for approval, which is motion number one, and a motion to deny the application if you find it does not meet that criteria.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Does anyone have uh questions for Mr.

Gray before we hear from the applicant?

I think I'll I do have some questions.

I think I'll think I'll actually maybe just ask.

Why would the condition or the revocable permit for the parking be beholden to this applicant and not to the building or lot owner, or is it one and the same?

And I'm just missing that.

It's it's not one and the same.

Okay, but as a way to uh at least recognize or give the opportunity for the encroachment to be dealt with in one way or the other.

Um that in this case, yes, the applicant is being these this conditions being placed on the applicant's conditional use, but in some degree it would be the responsibility of the owner to assist in making sure this got done.

As well, city staff will assist in helping the owner and/or applicant, particularly if it's the revocable permit.

I can't we couldn't do much if we have to restrict the parking lot.

Sure.

I guess my I mean, and then my following question to that is the most of these items we see on our consent agenda because the law is fairly straightforward.

And so I think we're seeing this because of some of the public comment, but normally we've seen these on consent.

So if this were to have been a consent item, would those conditions or the revocable permit still be applied to this, or would that not have been?

We would have still applied that that condition, yes.

Okay, okay.

I'll let that stand for the moment.

Maybe we'll hear from the applicant.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for your time this morning.

My name is Austin Edmondson.

I'm the owner and operator of Colorado Chronic.

We are a medical cultivation located here in Colorado Springs.

A little background about Colorado Chronic.

Basically, we're a locally owned and operated company that has been serving the wholesale community, the cannabis community since 2021.

The cultivation has been to my knowledge in existence since 2016, but going on public record, looks like 2012.

Um, it currently operates as a medical cultivation facility.

We are a boutique style grow that only houses 500 plants in a 2600 square foot facility, and myself and one other employee currently run the day-to-day operations of this facility.

Um today's request is to add a can a conditional use on the recreational license to the already existing medical cultivation license.

Proposed license change would basically be an administrative expansion of the market eligibility into a newly established market in Colorado Springs and the rest of the state of Colorado.

No expansion or operational increase is being proposed.

Since purchasing the cultivation, Colorado Chronic has received zero citations from the city of Colorado Springs and the state of Colorado.

To the best of my knowledge, the cultivation prior to my ownership has never received any violations.

Colorado Chronic takes the rules and regulations of the cannabis industry seriously and works hard to maintain a strong reputation amongst city and state officials and the local community.

The cultivation facility at all times has a handful of large industrial-sized carbon filters running to mitigate any odor of cannabis, ensuring it does not impact the surrounding community.

The air inside the facility is never expelled into the neighborhood and is only in the event of high temperatures, is outside air brought into the facility to cool the rooms.

If those measures do not uh cool the room, the environmental controls will shut down the room to reduce the temperatures to a safe operating temperature.

Um the minimal impact on this community is basically given that this cultivation has been in operation for around a decade, there are no significant changes being made.

The cultivation does not serve the public directly.

So there will be no increase to traffic, street noise, no added light pollution to the surrounding neighborhood, and no additional parking will be needed.

The proposed change does not intensify operations.

Colorado Chronic is committed to being a responsible operator under regulatory compliance, and so today's request for approval for the recreational license is just to add that recreational cultivation license to the already existing uh medical cultivation.

I would like that everybody could recognize the long-standing compliance history and operational stability of the business, acknowledge that there is no expansion or operational intensification being requested today.

Thank you for your time.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Alright, we will move on to uh public comment for this item.

There's anyone here to speak in support of this item, please indicate such.

And if we can, if there's anyone here to speak in opposition of this item.

Yeah, did anyone sign in?

No.

For either in favor or in opposition?

Do you want to check on online?

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

There's nobody online.

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

There's nobody online.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, so uh I guess we could ask the applicant if you have any rebuttal, but there's no comments.

Is there anything else that you want to add for the record since you didn't use all your time anyway?

No comments.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Well, then we'll bring this back up to the diaspora conversation and emotion.

Are there any comments?

Sir.

A question really for the applicant.

Uh, when you change to retail marijuana plants versus uh medical, does it change in any way the character or the intensity of odors or that otherwise may be generated by the growth process?

Thank you for your question, sir.

Uh there will be no changes to the odor or anything of that nature.

It's simply just adding a piece of paper to the wall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh looking at the use criteria and conditions for uh approval.

It looks to me like this application does meet the criteria.

Commissioner Slattery for the record.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cecil?

Commissioner Cecil for the record.

Um this question is less I think for the applicant than it is for perhaps staff or the legal team.

Um, just because it's a conditional use, I want to make sure we're all clear up here on how it attaches to the either business or the exact square footage or the shopping center type area.

If you could provide any clarity on whether the conditional use attaches to one of those or something else, that'd be really helpful.

Uh Trevor Gloss from the city attorney's office, the uh conditional use will attach to the business itself.

Uh, uh this applicant and its use of the property.

So it's as long as uh sorry, just double check.

As long as Colorado Chronic owns the property and operates the business, the conditional use will apply.

Would they be able to obviously the business could change your ownership, but would the business should it say acquire new square footage in the same center?

Would it be able to apply that and expand or would that require additional approvals?

It would require additional approval.

So it'd have to go through the major modification process and uh I think an additional conditional use would be required for that course.

Thank you.

That helps a lot.

I will just state that I'm still um, I don't know, maybe frustrated about the conditions that are being put on that the applicant that's leasing a portion of the building that doesn't own the land, but I think I'll let that go and in in general I'm very much in favor of your application.

I appreciate you being a business small business owner in our community, and I'll be in favor of this application.

Anyone else for the record?

Commissioner Cecil again uh in terms of the conditional use criteria.

I wanted to clarify that I do find that this complies with the standards for the use.

Um that are in the UDC, that the there being no change in the size, scale, height, density, multimodal traffic, or other impacts.

It seems to um not trigger part B of our criteria, and the city's existing infrastructure do appear to be able to support this.

Therefore, I will be voting in favor.

Commissioner Engel, I will also be voting in favor.

I agree with Commissioner Cecil.

Says principally this does not change any of the surrounding environment in terms of the impact of the operation of the facility.

I see no reason why it should not be allowed.

Commissioner Robins.

Commissioner Robins here.

I'm also in agreement with this uh based uh exactly on what uh the young man said over here.

Um so yes, I really approve of what you've been doing as long as you're not expanding the business in the future.

Thank you.

Hold on.

Uh Commissioner Case.

Commissioner Case, I will be voting in favor of this application.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Wilby.

Commissioner Wilby, um, just responding to some of the public comments that we got, based on what the applicant presented, it doesn't sound like it's changing the odor, the number of plants, it's literally administrative.

I'm assuming you're splitting of your 500 plants, some quantity of that is medical, some quantity of that is retail.

So just in response to those comments, I don't think there would be any change in in the odor in the types of traffic that's coming and going from your facility.

So I would also be voting in favor of this.

Okay, anyone else for the record?

Okay.

If we could look to a motion, uh Commissioner Willoughby um motion to approve item nine a Colorado Chronic Retail Marijuana cultivation, um approval approve the conditional use to allow the retail marijuana cultivation facility land use in the MXM mixed use medium scale zone district, located at 2926 Wood Avenue based upon the findings that the request replies with the criteria for conditional use as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.601.c.2, with the following conditions.

One a revocable permit is obtained for the parking lot encroachment and wood avenue right of way, or the parking lot is restriped to eliminate the encroachment within 90 days of conditional use approval by City Planning Commission, and two add a number add a note to the land use statement reading there are no changes to building utility requirements proposed as part of this application.

Commissioner Robinson I second the motion.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all for your time this morning.

Okay.

We will now move on to our next item.

And Solange, if you could read that into the record.

Item 9B Z O N E-25-0023, a zone map amendment for 7.93 acres located at 1625 Springcrest Road from Business Park with conditions of record, high rise overlay, and the United States Air Force Academy Overlay to mix use medium scale with the United States Air Force Academy overlay.

And item 9C.

LUPL-25-0010 establishment of the Briar Gate Voyager multifamily line use plan for proposed multifamily residential consisting of 7.93 acres located at 1625 Springcrest Road.

Your presenter is Allison Stalker.

Good morning.

For the record, Allison Stalker, senior planner with the land use review division.

As mentioned today, we're going to be talking about the Briorgate and Voyager multifamily zone map amendment and land use plan project.

So for some context, this property is located at 1625 Spring Crest Road, is just northeast of the intersection of Briar Gate Boulevard and Voyager Parkway.

The site contains 7.93 acres.

Currently the property zone business park with conditions of record, high-rise overlay, and Air Force Academy Overlay.

If this application is to be approved, the zone would be multi-sorry, mixed use medium MXM and the Air Force Academy overlay.

So as mentioned, this application package consists of a zone map amendment and a land use plan application.

If these are to be approved, they would go forward and have a development plan application and a subdivision replat.

This application has been in review since June 18, 2025, so just under a year.

It's gone through four separate reviews in that time.

And this application package was deemed ready for uh hearing on April 20th of this year.

So to give a little historical context to the site, this site is a part of the Briargate Master Plan at the time the Briorgate Master Plan was last adopted.

Since that uh latest approval of that plan, the city did adopt a resolution 4322 in 2022 saying that the master plan was considered implemented.

The reason I bring this up is just to serve some context for how this area was originally anticipated to be developed.

But of course, we know that the market has changed significantly since that time.

The current zoning was based, of course, on the master plan, and the current zoning with the business park allows for office and light industrial type uses.

The high rise overlay also allowed for a much higher uh average height than we would ordinarily see in our base zones throughout the city.

Um, but at the time of the latest rezoning, which I believe was 1998, it did add a condition of record capping that height to 68 feet.

I won't begin to try to speculate what the high rise overlay would have given them otherwise, just because the math is a bit complicated, but the important thing to note is that they currently are capped at 68 feet.

With the proposed rezone to mixed use medium, that would remove the high rise overlay and the condition of record, and it would bring the allowable maximum height to 50 feet per section 7.2.304 for the mixed use medium zone.

On screen, you'll see a SNP of the land use plan that is being proposed.

Of course, this is a conceptual layout just showing roughly how the property would be used at time of development plan.

Staff would evaluate more of the details of number of parking spots, exactly where trees go, lighting plans, things like that.

At this point, the applicants are estimating that the property could potentially hold 236 residential units.

So context, I think is very important for this application, so I'm going to take some time to go into it.

This site is kind of in a transitional area, I would say.

So we have a lot of different things going on to be aware of.

So the site to the north is surrounded by a bunch of county enclaves as well as some agriculturally zoned properties.

In this area, we see a lot of estate-sized lots, a lot of single-family residential.

We also have a lot of churches, and of course, the classical academy just to the east.

Further to the east, we do have some hotels and office uses, other kind of mixed-use commercial retail.

But then when you go south of Prior Gate Poulevard, that's where you kind of start to see kind of a different land use pattern and level of intensity.

So further to the south, you have a lot of regional commercial with the shops at the promenade, focus on the family center, other commercial centers.

I think there's a Dave and Buster's down the street, as well as the research business park, and a number of new multifamily residential, a lot of which do have a much higher, much higher building allowances.

I would say also the roadway connectivity is also pretty relevant for this application.

So I'll go into that a little bit.

We do have traffic engineering here as well for any more detailed questions that I probably am not the best person to answer.

But I will point out that the site is adjacent to two principal arterials.

So Briorgate Boulevard and Voyager Parkway are principal arterials.

So typically, when we like to have higher density or higher intensity uses, being adjacent to principal arterials is generally a good thing.

However, the Spring Crest Road, which is one of the main access points and the only full movement intersection that the site will be served by, is considered a residential street.

Similarly, Otero to just to the east is considered a county road, so it is not necessarily up to the same standards as a city roadway.

This is important to note just because this springcrest road does serve TCA as well as a number of neighborhoods to the northeast, and there is limited alternative pathways to and from those neighborhoods besides Otero.

Alamosa, which you'll see at the very top of the map, is a dead end, and Mulligan Drive is an emergency exit only.

So there's really no other kind of connectivity or alternate routes here besides Otero and Spring Crest.

Because of all that, we do have some requirements for the applicant that I'll just make note of real quick.

Traffic engineering would require the restriping of the right turn lane from Voyager, so going north into the site, serving the right in right out.

They would also be required to stripe the eastbound right turn lane that would be on Spring Crest going toward the full movement intersection that serves the northern portion of the site.

CDOT would be involved in any development plan applications to make sure that any runoff from the site as well as any traffic impacts are managed.

So those requirements, of course, would be talked about at that time.

And the engineering department required a dedication of nine feet along the northern portion of the site, five of which would be in a public improvement easement to allow for sidewalk connections to be established.

Moving away from traffic, the site would also be required to construct the skyline regional trail connection, which would be along the western portion of the site.

So that would increase further connectivity with alternate forms of transportation.

And the site being only 7.9 acres, we'll be providing parkland dedication and school fees in lieu of land dedication.

For our agency reviews, because this is a zone map amendment and a land use plan, there are not a lot of detailed card requirements or or you know edits that were needed at this point, all of which were either taken care of or the requirements nature was informational.

So we do not have any outstanding comments or concerns from any of our review agencies or regional partners.

So I'm gonna start with our stakeholder engagement here.

Within this time frame, we did have a number of engagement options and opportunities that were conducted throughout the last almost year.

Public notice did go out during the first internal review that generated a lot of public comments and a lot of public engagement.

That necessitated the need for a neighborhood plan.

I'm sorry, neighborhood meeting, which was held on August 28th, 2025 at the Classical Academy.

That did have roughly 70 individuals in attendance.

That was hosted by Kimley Horn, the applicant in Blackburn communities.

Additionally, there was a change.org petition.

Last I checked, there was about a thousand signatures.

I'm sure somebody in the audience can update me if that's higher now.

Um, and there's been continued outreach to the extent feasible from staff to the neighborhood groups and to individuals who have comment to make sure that they are up to speed on changes or resubmittals that have been made up until this point.

So I did put together a quick summary of comments that we did receive.

I will say this is staff's summary of the comments and do not necessarily get to every individual concern or maybe in the detail that would be needed, but just for a high-level overview.

Um, we do have a lot of traffic concerns from the area because Spring Crest is one of the main points of entry for neighborhoods and the school.

There's already a lot of traffic issues in this area, especially with the school.

So the addition of apartments, there is a concern that that would only exacerbate that issue.

And then, of course, just the lack of alternative routes could cause issues with emergency services accessing the neighborhoods.

I understand there has been an occasion or two where EMS have struggled to get back to the neighborhoods because of traffic on Spring Crest.

School safety and welfare is of course a major concern.

Having an apartment next to a school is an unknown people nearby, is a major concern.

Of course, traffic with school children, people coming and going during pickup and drop off.

There's concern that kids could be in the middle of a situation they shouldn't be, as well as kind of the relationship of the school with its natural environment in its view of Pink's Peak.

The school does use the fields that are on the west side of their facility for art classes, recess, field days, all sorts of stuff, and then finally compatibility.

Um, of course, to the north, we're seeing a lot more low density, lower intensity uses, that they do not feel meets compatibility standards for the area by introducing an apartment complex.

There are no other major tall or intense uses in the immediate area.

Of course, there are some nearby, but they're not immediately adjacent to these neighborhoods.

And many commenters did note that schools are not typically located immediately adjacent to multifamily residential.

So staff did review, of course, this application, and we generally found it to be in compliance with Plan COS and generally in compliance with the application criteria listed in 7.5.704 for the zone map amendment, and then 7.5514 for the land use plan application.

So I do have some optional motions.

Of course, these can be amended as needed.

Um, but we're welcome to use those if we'd like.

I'm available for any questions, or we can get into the application applicants' presentation next.

Does it do any commissioners have questions for Allison?

Or staff?

I'm Terrible from the city attorney's office.

Just a point of clarification on the motions for later on.

Um the code amendment is going through, but currently, uh since this is a rezoning, it'd be a recommended uh recommendation to approve, but then if planning commission denies, it's a straight denial currently, and the applicant would have to appeal to city council.

So just a process point there.

Okay, thank you so much, Trevor.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Commissioner Willoughby, um, my question actually might be for Trevor, but I was gonna ask Allison, can you just speak really quick?

When they when we do a park land dedication or fees in lieu of parkland or school land dedication, where does that fee go?

Uh so parkland dedication fees, those get put in a bucket.

This is a simplification, of course.

They get put in a bucket of funds that parks can use to acquire parkland in the future.

So typically with smaller sites that are you know less than 20 acres, it's pretty common to see fees in lieu, just because typically, you know, the size, the acreage required to feasibly build a park and then actually build whatever the developer was intending to build, the math doesn't usually add up, so that is typically why we take fees and loop for some of these smaller, smaller sites.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Robbins.

Commissioner Robins here.

I just uh mentioned, I want to mention that I am familiar with uh one of the people that wrote up a um on opposition from um the Korean Baptist Church in here, and I've dealt with them in the past.

But in talking with uh counsel for the city, I have no financial um benefit out of this whole project.

So I just need to make that known.

Thank you so much for doing that.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff before we move on to the applicant?

Okay.

Then we will invite our applicant up, and you'll have 30 minutes to present, and then we will move to public comment and then back to you for rebuttal.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Jennifer Shagan with Kimley Horn, and I'm here to discuss rezone and land use application for Briar Gate and Voyager.

Property is roughly just shy of eight acres.

It's located in the northeast corner of Voyager and Briar Gate Parkway.

Zusisting land use is currently vacant, has remained vacant for nearly 26 years, and is zoned BP with high rise overlay, and we are proposing to rezone this to MXM for attached single family residential.

Sorry, I'm just struggling to change the slide.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

A little bit of history of the site.

The site was zoned as PIP1 with a development plan processed in 1999 to allow for a 68-foot tall office tower.

The development plan has since expired.

However, the 68-foot tall high rise overlay has remained on the property.

The property was then rezoned to BP zoning in 2023 with the adoption of the UDC.

As I mentioned, the property has remained vacant for a number of years.

We're proposing to rezone the property to MXM, which will create a continuation of the MXM zoning immediately south of the property.

Uses within that MX zone include office, hotel, and the promenade shops at Briar Gate.

From a land use plan perspective, the MXM zone will create a transition of the surrounding land uses, including the Air Force Academy, the National Guard Readiness Center, the Church of Briar Gate, and the Classical Academy to the detached single family residential that you see northeast of the site.

Additionally, the attached single family residential will transition the land uses from the high intentional region high intensity regional traffic uses of Voyager Parkway to the classical academy and the detached single family residential that's northeast of the site.

All building setbacks will be met for the base zoning district, and with the rezoning, we'll remove the high-rise overlay, which will restrict building height to 50 feet.

It's 18 feet lower than what's currently allowed today.

The exact building height of the development will be determined with the development plan, which is a separate land use, which is a separate application process.

This property is located within the Briar Gate Master Plan.

This plan was built out over a number of years and has been considered and is considered as fully implemented.

The land use plan and zone change application that you have before you today was presented to the Briar Gate Business Campus and approved.

A letter of support from the Briar Gate Business Campus was included with our application.

Within Plan COS, the property is located within the established suburban neighborhood.

These neighborhoods are largely built out.

However, they are expected to experience redevelopment and infill on vacant lots such as this.

This property will meet the vibrant goals, vibrant neighborhoods goals by providing a diversity of housing types and providing a variety of housing services, a range of demographic sectors in this area of the city.

From a stormwater perspective, all stormwater on site will be treated will be treated with water quality, which will be provided on site, and then connect to the Pine Creek Regional Detention Basin.

Property is not located within a federal wetland, and it is located within zone X area of minimal flood hazard.

Improvements with the development plan are the Skyline Regional Trail Extension, which is the bright yellow line that you see on the slide.

This is located on the west and west portion of the property.

This will connect to sidewalk along Briar Gate Parkway, which will then connect to the existing skyline regional trail along Chapel Hills Drive.

The green lines that you see on the slide are a city bike route along Springcrest Road and a shared bike lane along Voyager Parkway.

Access to the site will be provided by a right-in-rate out located along Voyager Parkway.

This will serve as primary access.

Secondary access will be provided by a full movement intersection located on Springcrest Road.

This will allow vehicles to make a right in, a right out, and a left-hand turn onto Spring Crest Road, which will connect them to Voyager and I-25.

Improvements required with the development of this project include stop sign, no left turn on Voyager, northbound right turn lane with the existing within the existing acceleration deceleration lane along Voyager Parkway, eastbound right turn lane with 115 foot length and approximate 50 foot taper to be implemented of the proposed access along Springcrest and Stripe Chevron to be provided at the half voyager in Springcrest, and this will allow the taper to be introduced prior to the right turn line.

A traffic study completed for this project found that all intersections and roadways functioned sufficiently during the projected peak and PM traffic times for the attached single family residential.

Additional traffic counts were completed to include school pickup and drop-off times.

Those traffic counts found that during the school pickup times, the school pickup queue line extends off the extends off of the school property onto the roads, creating gridlock traffic along the roads and through the intersections.

Based on that finding, a recommendation of our traffic study was for the school and the city to work together to find a way for the school queue pickup line to remain on the property, which will allow for roadways intersections to function efficiently during all points of the day.

This land use plan and rezoning application were sent to CDOT.

CDOT has approved the land use plan with no objections.

A future drainage study will be required with the future development plan application.

From the rezoning and land use plan perspective, this is a traffic comparison.

So if this site were to build out under the zoning that it is today, which would be P zoning and build out at an office building, a two-story office building will generate approximately 1,200 additional trips a day versus a multifamily housing development with 250 units at full capacity.

Looking at the chart, you can see a six-story building is nearly 5,000 more.

And with that, I'll carry into goals of the project for so far as a multifamily development.

The developer takes a lot of pride in creating high-end apartment home communities, creating exceptional living experience for residents at this area.

It would support a lot of the surrounding area commercial and amenities.

Do commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

Yes.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Commissioner Willoughby, um, can you go back to that slide with the trips?

Sure.

I just want to look at it a little bit longer.

No questions on it.

I just want to look at it longer.

Thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Commissioner Robbins, I know you had a question, so maybe we'll just leave this slide up for the moment.

Or no.

No.

Okay.

No, sorry, I didn't take that off from last time.

That's okay.

Uh Commissioner Engel.

Sure Angle, I have a question for you on, I guess two parts of the presentation.

Number one is if I lived in that area and I wanted to get on I-25, how would I do it?

Can I go back to our context slide?

Some of that question unfortunately depends on where you live in that neighborhood.

But if you were to live in, say the R19, you would go on to Spring Crest, which would connect you to Voyager.

And from Voyager, you could either take the I-25 exit north of the site, closer to Interquest, or you could go south of the site and go to Briar Gate.

There's a traffic light at Voyager and uh Spring Crest.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um, second question is the land the development plan is presented in the thing listed 236 dwelling units.

I think your one of your previous slides showed 250-ish dwelling units.

What do you see as a reasonable amount of dwelling units you would put in that area?

Some of the discrepancy of those numbers come from we're at the land use plan stage, and so the exact number of units will be determined with the development plan, which should be a following application.

At this point, you know, it may be it may be 236 and maybe less than that, it may be more.

We really don't have a hundred percent finalization of that number.

We put 236 as a conservative number on the land use plan, conservative in what context, please.

Um, sure.

Hey good morning, Andrew Ritter.

I'm with Blackburn Communities, uh, the developer.

Um, we originally, I think part of that discrepancy was we originally were pursuing 250 units uh on the project, but as we've worked through the rezoning application, we've modified that application to pursue MXM zoning, uh which has a maximum density of 236 units.

So with this submittal, we would the maximum amount of units that we would be able to put at this project would be 236.

But I think our traffic study probably that was shown in those slides was reflecting 250 because that was what we were originally proposing.

So going forward, our plan would still be to be pushing for 236 units.

That would be the actual absolute maximum number.

We would be going down from there if we couldn't achieve that density.

And could you meet the uh UDC criteria for parking positions?

We just have 36 units.

Yes, sir.

We can.

And our conceptual plan that we put together with our architect and civil engineer uh shows that we can achieve the parking ratios required.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, back to you.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, I do have some additional questions, but I wasn't sure if we should wait.

I feel like in the past, we waited until we've heard from public comment public comments.

So I'm happy to wait, so we don't go off the rails.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh yeah, and and the applicant, I think you still have about 10 minutes left of your presentation time.

So if there's anything else that you have to present, we're we're open to conversation, and then we'll open to public comment and then probably come back for more questions.

But you do have some remaining time, I believe.

If you want to use it, I think we're good.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you so much.

Okay, given that.

Um, I anticipate we're going to have a lot of public comment.

Oh yeah.

Okay.

I'll be I'll be driving.

I'll just have to go to the cleaning.

Um, I don't know if it's a lot of fun.

Um, I think that's a good one.

It's like we can just find that.

Um, I think it's a little bit more than a lot of it's very hard.

It's like a lot of it.

Um, you don't have to have a process, but we could do it.

But a lot of times you can pick it up.

Um, like, um, yeah, it's back to it.

Yeah, I don't know.

Well, of course, I think they're bad, but it's a good backup, you know, but that's why you both want to see how it's a path.

Yeah, so I think it's a little bit.

I don't really know all that much.

I don't know, but it's not a lot of like, I think it's really good.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So I mean, nine is kind of a mark like, yeah.

But mine is just like one, it's uh, I don't want to have a second, of course.

I think that's a good one.

I actually said, I think we have to go.

I don't even know if it's really a good one.

I'm not a long because it's a good one.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'd really like to bring our meeting back to order in a timely manner.

I know we're trying to get a few final folks signed up for seeding of time, but if we can please do that in a quick time frame just to keep be respectful of everyone's time in the room.

Are there just a few of you left?

Okay.

And um, and just as a reminder, if you are ceding time to someone, you need to stand up and come to the podium and state your name for the record, and um, and then that individual will see speak their name and speak on behalf.

Yes, ma'am.

Correct.

You need to state your name and who you're ceding your time to, so be prepared to come to the podium as we call you and um quickly and efficiently if we can.

I know we have a lot of folks that want to speak, and we appreciate the participation, but we're trying to keep order as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

No.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you all so much for your uh cooperation.

So moving into public comment, we will first hear public comment for those in support of the application.

And Melissa, do we have individuals signed up to speak in support?

Yes.

Our first speaker is Amanda De Mario.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for your time.

My name's Amanda DeMarco.

I'm with the apartment association of Southern Colorado.

We represent the rental housing um community from owners and developers to operators to those strategic partners that support their operations.

Not just apartment buildings, but single family uh rentals as well.

Uh we are here today in support of the Briargate Voyager multifamily project.

Um as most of you know, Colorado Springs has a documented housing shortage of over twenty-seven thousand units and is projected to need sixty thousand additional homes by twenty thirty-five.

The city's own housing assessment notes limited rental options, rising housing costs, and a need for more housing choices across the income levels.

As a community, we cannot continue to acknowledge the need for additional housing while simultaneously opposing nearly every proposed residential development when it reaches a specific neighborhood.

Market rate multifamily housing remains a critical component of a healthy housing ecosystem and serves teachers, healthcare workers, military families, young professionals, seniors, and many others members of the workforce that keep Colorado Springs functioning and economically competitive.

This proposal represents infill housing on a vacant site adjacent to major arterial roadways, existing utilities, commercial uses, and established infrastructure.

The city's staff report analysis concluded that both the rezoning application and land use plan satisfy the applicable review criteria under the UDC.

Staff further concluded that the project is consistent with the planned COS goals, supporting in-fill development, housing diversity, and productive use of land already served by existing infrastructure.

We recognize and respect that nearby residents and parents at the Classical Academy have expressed concerns related to traffic, compatibility, building height, and student safety.

Those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration.

However, land use decisions should ultimately be based on adopted planning policies, objective review criteria, infrastructure capacity, and legal property rights, not generalized fears regarding future residents or opposition to multifamily housing as a concept.

Concerns about student safety and crime have been raised in opposition to this project.

While understandable, it's important that these discussions remain grounded in facts rather than assumptions about housing.

Professionally managed multifamily communities typically require screening processes for applicants, including criminal background checks, rental history verifications, disqualifying criteria for violent and predatory behavior.

In many cases, these standards are more structured and consistently enforced than what exists within the for-sale housing market.

Let me conclude.

In closing, we would like to highlight the benefits of this project.

It advances several important community objectives simultaneously.

It adds much needed housing supply.

It encourages infill development within existing urbanized areas.

It maximizes existing infrastructure investments.

It supports economic growth and workforce housing needs, and it reduces pressure for outward sprawl and more costly infrastructure expansion.

Thank you.

Your time has expired.

Thank you so much for your comments, Ms.

Marco.

Next up, in support.

Our last speaker.

Sorry, our last speaker in support is Jill Gabler.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Sit on.

Okay.

And planning commissioners, it's great to see all of you today.

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

We advocate for housing affordability and production in the Pikes Peak region.

I am here today in support of the rezoning of the Voyager Briar Gate apartment multifamily development as this market rate retail rental housing is very much needed in this area of our city.

This Northeast section of Colorado Springs and specifically the area within the Briargate Master Plan is largely dominated by single-family homes, and there is significant need for rental housing that provides homes for lower-income community members, like the many young families who want to live in a neighborhood and send their kids to great schools but can't yet afford to purchase a home.

Over the past 10 years, the cost of home ownership has risen three times the pace of the local incomes, making it difficult for younger families to purchase a home.

This disparity is why the average age of the first-time homebuyer has risen to 40 years old from 31 years old over the past decade, and why more of our residents are living in rental housing for longer periods of their lives as they build their families.

These residents who can't afford to buy a home are teachers, healthcare professionals, firefighters, our military members, and again, the many service industry employees, possibly from the Near Gate, nearby Briar Gate Shops or Chapel Hills Mall.

These residents are not dangerous to the students at TCA, and they will certainly not be noisy, as this will be their homes.

The loudest noises will be the joyous noises coming from the nearby school playground.

This land could be used for a variety of uses under the existing zoning to include a development that is billed higher than the proposed property and one that would see significantly more traffic.

Apartment properties do not add a lot of traffic to a neighborhood, as evidenced by the traffic study you heard earlier, as people come and go at different times, mostly times that are unlikely to directly coincide or conflict with student drop-off and pickup.

And lastly, many of the families living in these apartments will now have the benefit and opportunity to attend a lovely school like TCA without needing to drive to the campus.

This is a win-win for those families and the school who could see less traffic from families who can walk to school.

Further this proposed development aligns with plan COS, as you heard, as it will attract employers that will enhance the economy.

It supports infill investment, and it develops a vacant and stranded property that is currently bringing zero tax dollars to our city.

Most of us have rented homes at some point in our lives.

I certainly have.

We were no different from the families who will be living in these proposed apartments.

We are all trying to build our lives with the goal of someday owning our own home and experiencing the American dream.

Let's support all residents in our fair city by supporting housing they can afford in all areas of our city.

Thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Appreciate your time.

Thanks, Miss Gabler.

All right, Melissa Ms.

Launch, do we have anyone else signed up to speak in support of this item?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak in support of this item, please hit star six now to unmute yourself.

We do not have anyone online.

And is there anyone else in the audience that did not sign up but is here to speak in support?

Okay.

Then I think we will um turn to those that are here to speak in opposition to the project.

And I believe you have an order in which we're gonna follow.

Thank you.

We do have a list of people that are speaking in opposition that have uh speakers and people that are seating time.

The first speaker we have is Alison Flany.

And Barbara Vaugette has indicated that she would like to seed her time.

Barbara, if you could please come up to the podium, state your name, and who you were seeding your time to.

Hi, my name is Barbara Vogue.

I'm seating my time to Allison.

Alison, please introduce yourself, and you'll have three, sorry, six minutes to speak.

Hello, good morning.

My name's Alison Flannery.

Not Flanny, Flannery, F-L-A-N-N-E-R-Y.

Um, I live on Bramblewood Lane, and I wanted to speak this morning because I am very familiar with natural disasters, therefore evacuations.

In 2005, my husband, my four daughters, and I lived in Bay St.

Louis, Mississippi.

On August 31st, the eye of Hurricane Katrina swept through our town, killing 1,833 people in its path.

We personally sat for 12 hours evacuating north to flee this storm, but some people were not so lucky.

One of those was an elderly woman who could not evacuate.

As the waters rose, her grandson held her in one arm and his sister in the other.

When their home was washed away, they then floated down the street.

He had to choose to let go of one of them so he could save them by holding onto a light pole on the side of the road.

His grandmother was swept away to her death before his sister's eyes, so that he could save himself and her.

In 2006, my family and I moved back to Colorado Springs, fleeing Hurricane Alley, and hopefully natural disasters.

But in 2012, Waldo Canyon fire destroyed 386 homes, causing 32,000 residents to be evacuated.

Our best friends lost their home in that fire and a beloved pet.

Because evacuating their neighborhood was difficult and slow.

They left behind everything and lost it all.

This became the most destructive fire in Colorado history.

I need to book a room.

In 2013, the Black Forest Fire destroyed 511 homes, surpassing Waldo Canyon fire as the most destructive fire in Colorado history.

38,000 residents were evacuated.

Following that was the Marshall Fire in Boulder, wiping out an entire neighborhood, which then became the most destructive fire.

So that leads us to our current predicament in Colorado Springs.

We had a warm winter with very little precipitation.

One news source recently said, watch out, it's gonna be a doozy.

My neighborhood, Pine Woods, sits directly east of the lot where the proposed apartment complex is slated to go.

We have one entry road and one exit road.

That's Spring Crest.

My house is on Bramblewood Lane and is at it is at the end of that road.

If I were to need to evacuate for a fire, I would be at the end of the line of cars to get out.

That concerns me deeply, even in this current situation, with 160 homes of the three neighborhoods feeding Springcrest, two vibrant churches, and one elementary school all needing to use Springcrest Road.

It concerns me even more if 236 apartments with two parking spots each were built on that lot.

That is nearly 500 more cars lining up in front of me on Springcrest Road.

Again, the only way out.

Truthfully, I could probably get out a little quicker than most because I am on the younger side of many of my neighbors.

But I live in a neighborhood of people that I know, people that I care for, people I have dinner with.

So I'm aware that my backyard neighbors are caretakers of their elderly parents, both of whom are non-ambulatory and reside in upstairs bedrooms using a chair lift to get to the main level.

They would be at the very, very back of that line of cars by the time they got loaded up.

My other neighbor has a handicapped child.

Again, the back of the line.

And that boy I told you about earlier, he had to make that decision to let go of his grandmother and send her to her death.

He isn't somebody that I found out about on the internet, or somebody that I heard about through the newspaper.

He was a 16-year-old student in my husband's AP English class at St.

Stanislaus High School.

And when given the assignment to write about his experience in Hurricane Katrina, that's the story he told.

This is the scenario that this young man who is now 36 has to live with, probably lying awake at night thinking about it.

A story of having to make a choice that no one should ever have to make.

So my question to you today, commissioners, and thank you for being here.

My question is, is it worth risking people's lives to change the zoning of this parcel?

Do you want to put me or my many neighbors in a position of having to choose to leave an elderly parent or a disabled child or even a pet in your home during an evacuation so that we can save ourselves?

I do hope you can see the gravity of this situation.

It is literally a life or death decision you have before you, and I hope that you could choose life.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Plannery.

Our next speaker is Jacqueline Pivito.

And Patricia Pivito is seating time.

Patricia, please state so.

And um Jacqueline, you will have six minutes to speak.

I'm Patricia Pivateau, and I'm seeding my time to Jacqueline Pivot.

Good morning.

My name is Jackie Pivateau, and I live at 9620 Otero Avenue.

Today I'd like to direct your attention to the impact the proposed development will have on traffic in this area.

I've dug into the traffic studies as best I can, and while the narrative of those documents is vaguely positive, the concerns of the neighborhood and the school deserve more than what feels like a blithe thumbs up, especially when the name numbers, caveats, and projections in those studies actually ground our concerns, showing impacts and level of service degradation that don't meet with the city's stated standards.

This proposal contains a major discrepancy when it says it has no detriment to public interest or general welfare, both for the residents already here, including the school, and the residents of this proposed multifamily project.

To begin with, I'd like to emphasize that there are only two ways into our neighborhood: the intersection at Springcrest and the Turn at Old Ranch, a two-lane road to the north.

Otour Avenue connecting the two is often left out of traffic studies because it's a county road, and the maps attached to this proposal tend to show more of the springs that's built up to the south.

The proposal sketch is a project that also has two ways in and out.

The main access along Voyager will be restricted to right in, right-in-write-out movements, while there's a secondary access point on Spring Crest.

The latest traffic study noted especially that this development only adds a total of 15 eastbound trips on Spring Crest during the morning and midday analysis periods.

Yes, logically, residents of the proposed development would have no need to go east on Springcrest.

All of the neighborhoods to the east terminate in dead end.

However, this model can't account for the fact that it is going to be much more desirable for cars to avoid Voyager, something we are already living with in our neighborhood.

The fact is, as Voyager gets busier, the calmer, quicker alternative of Otero Avenue is used to zip north and south.

Congestion on Springcrest also makes Otero an appealing detour, though not for those of us who have to negotiate the rise in traffic and speeds without the safety of sidewalks.

With this development, we anticipate people taking the easier right turn from the secondary access point rather than turning left across eastbound traffic in order to get to the intersection.

Our county road simply wasn't designed for this level of traffic burden.

During the community meeting, the developers assured us they'd encourage residents to avoid using the secondary access point.

Yet we can't reasonably expect this, especially if it saves time and hassle.

Also, in this response, the developer was not taking into account future residents returning from the north.

With no left turn access from Voyager, the secondary access point is the only direct way they can get back home.

The main access point of the proposed project, which would be connected to the existing acceleration-deceleration lane, would be a daily nightmare.

The distance from Briar Gate to Spring Crest is about a thousand feet.

The proposed entrance is only 325 feet from the Briar Gate intersection.

This does not provide sufficient space for acceleration for cars to join Voyager right where slower traffic will be turning in and out.

Drivers frequently swing wide into that lane.

Often there's barely enough time for cars to get up to speed to merge with traffic that's going 45 miles an hour, if not higher than the posted speed.

As a resident on Otero, I often find it's a problem to get into the Spring Curse Springcrest turn lane during busy times and not just school pickup and drop off.

To avoid merging into someone trying to get over, I've gone past Springcrest to turn on Old Ranch, driving almost the full length of Otero simply to get back home.

The proposal heavily emphasizes how the development will support the adjacent and nearby commercial developments along Briargate Parkway to the south.

However, there doesn't seem to be any way for future residents to actually go south, making the traffic studies note about the project only contributing 6% to the southbound right turn movement at Briar Gate a little misleading.

The shops at Briar Gate access to the highway and Academy Boulevard are all left turns from the project, and the right-in-write-out only on Voyager ensures everyone is directed north.

If this proposal is accepted, the Springcrest intersection will absolutely see a massive jump in U-turns, and that can only happen after cars sprint across two active lanes of traffic before their 675 feet run out.

This is nothing to say of U-turns made at Briargate to avoid turning on to Springcrest at peak times.

The traffic studies specifically note that their synchro model is unable to account for gridlock independently caused by school traffic backing up into public streets.

The studies say that the intersection should be operating acceptably, but not if vehicles are being blocked along Springcrest and Voyager.

Both residents and school families are well acquainted with how unacceptably this intersection already operates on a regular basis.

The developers, however, have put the responsibility for a solution back on TCA and the city.

The developer has also failed to address our concerns about evacuations in case of fire, as we've heard.

My house has been in pre-evacuation zones twice for the Waldo Canyon fire and the Black Forest fire, so this is not purely a hypothetical concern.

The response to our previous comments was that evacuations for residents, ostensibly of the apartments, not the rest of the neighborhood, would take about six minutes.

The response from the developer also states the current code guidance is to build fire resistant buildings and shelter in place.

The developer suggests that their residents can be evacuated while the rest of us wait to see if our homes will burn.

In this it's not clear, it's clear they are not interested in integrating into our community.

Of course, they are not responsible for everyone living here, but simply saying shelter in place is just another dismissal of our legitimate concerns without truly addressing a problem of their creation.

Along with many of the others here, I urge you to deny this proposal.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Miss Cavito.

Melissa, can we have our next speaker, please?

Our next speaker is Ariane Pivito, and seating time we have Racher Davidson and Gigi Greer.

Reacher and GG, please state so, and Ariane, you will have nine minutes to speak.

Hello, my name's Richard Davidson.

I'm ceding my time to Ariane Pivato.

Hi, my name is Gigi Greer, and I'm seeding my time to Ariane Pivito.

Good morning.

My name is Ariane Pivateau, and I live, I also live at 9620 Otero Avenue, which is the first house to the north of this proposed development.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue today, as it is a matter that is literally and figuratively close to home for me.

I would like to touch on three primary objections.

Number one, the MXM zoning district is too intense for this area.

Number two, alternative zoning districts would be more appropriate.

And number three, the MXM zoning district allows for future developments incompatible with the existing community.

To start, I'll discuss why mixed-use medium is too intense for this area by reviewing what the Unified Development Code says about the purpose of this zone district.

I'm sure you are all very familiar with this information, but I would like to review the criteria to demonstrate that this zone is ill-fitting and aggressive for this area.

First, one of the purposes of mixed-use medium zoning is to accommodate the development of new activity centers in emerging growth areas.

However, the area under consideration today is located within an established suburban neighborhood, not an emerging growth area.

To the north is a city boundary, marking the enclave of the Otero neighborhood, which is county land and rural residential zoning.

To the west is the National Guard Armory and Air Force Academy land.

To the southeast is Pine Creek, which has been substantially built up to stop erosion and stabilize creek banks.

The rest of the surrounding area is classified as an established suburban neighborhood.

I hope you can see that this tiny pocket of land off Spring Crest Road does not qualify as an emerging growth area.

And if that were not enough, the two churches and the school itself are already established as our activity centers.

Second, the code says that MXM zone districts should promote pedestrian activity and provide a variety of outdoor gathering spaces.

At the town hall meeting, the developers' representative told us about the outdoor spaces, walking paths, and pool.

We don't doubt the apartments would be very nice, but it practically goes without saying that these amenities would only be available to the apartment residents.

One of my neighbors pointed out that the existing community would only be given a sidewalk, a sidewalk that doesn't connect to the rest of the neighborhood.

We would have to walk on Springcrest Road to reach that sidewalk.

In essence, this apartment complex is not designed to unite with the rest of the community.

It would be an isolated detached bubble off Voyager.

Apartment residents would have no safe way to walk to the other parts of the neighborhood, and current residents and school families would certainly not be welcome to enjoy the outdoor spaces or paths offered by the apartment complex, much less the pool.

Lastly, the code says that MXM zones should support multimodal access, but the proposals claimed to do this should be held up to the light.

To say this housing development would be supported by the city bus route along Voyager is disingenuous.

The closest bus stop to the south is over a mile away, and the next stop along Voyager's Pikes Peak State College, two miles north of where the apartments would be built.

Realistically, a new stop could not be placed between the Briargate and Springcrest intersections, nor could a stop be added until at least Old Ranch Road, which is on the other side of the Otaro Enclave, and also has no sidewalks for connection.

For all these reasons, I believe that the criteria and intended uses for MXM zoning are a poor match for this area.

Zone Map Amendment Criteria 7.5.705D states an application for rezoning a small area of land should demonstrate that size, scale, and multimodal traffic impacts of development will be compatible with surrounding development.

I hope that reviewing these criteria has shown how this development would be incompatible.

Moving to the second objection, there are alternative zoning districts more appropriate for this area.

Last September, my neighbors and I came before this commission to express our concerns about a nearly identical proposal for the property on the other side of Springcrest.

To refresh your memory, as I'm sure you've heard hundreds, if not thousands of proposals since then, the church to the north of this area submitted an application for rezoning from agriculture to mixed use medium.

Your commission found the church's request to be spot zoning in addition to stating that MXM was too intense for the area, especially when alternatives were available.

You denied that rezoning application.

It stands to reason that MXM zoning would also be too intense for a property only 50 feet across the same road.

The application repeatedly states that the development would serve as a transition.

However, if the applicant truly sees their development as a transition, why have they not submitted an application for mixed use transition, a zone precisely designated for this purpose?

MXT is designed to transition areas between institutional, commercial, and residential, as well as to be compatible with the scale of nearby neighborhoods.

Even MXN would allow the applicant to develop housing on this property.

MXN zone districts, which are intended to promote low-intensity land uses, are typically located at the edges of residential neighborhoods.

Importantly, MXN is also intended to maintain the scale of the adjacent neighborhood.

While the proposed 50 feet is shorter than what a business park zone allows, the surrounding buildings are in agricultural zones, which have a max height of 35 feet.

With at least two other zoning districts that are substantially less aggressive and more in character with the neighborhood, the applicant's pursuit of intense zoning shows a disregard for the current community.

And to conclude with the third objection, the mixed-use medium zoning district allows for future developments that are incompatible with the existing community.

Residents of the three surrounding neighborhoods and the school families are not thinking of just the next few years, but of the next generations.

Our vision is focused on the long term, and the carte blanche MXM zoning opens the door for almost any kind of development.

The application says that this development is intended to offer, quote, much needed housing options, but with the construction of another multifamily housing complex just a mile north on the other side of the Otero Enclave, that claim holds less water.

Our community is also skeptical about the need for more apartments in this part of the city.

The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority has been conducting a survey of apartment vacancies for the past several years.

In the areas that the CHFA designates as North and North Central Colorado Springs, the percentage of vacant apartments is only risen for the last five years.

In this specific area, North Central Colorado Springs, apartment vacancies were last reported at 9.4%, which is above the national average at 7.3%.

If the steady five-year trend continues, the vacancy rate in this area of the city will soon pass 10%, which is considered to be an indicator of low demand and oversupply.

If the need for housing diminishes, as it appears to be according to the CHFA's data, then it is quite likely that this area will be redeveloped into something else besides housing, and MXM would allow an incredibly wide array of land uses that the community would have no say in.

As a community, we share the city's goals, such as policy BN3A to preserve and enhance the physical elements that define a neighborhood's character.

Our neighborhood is made up of small churches, a thriving school, a rural neighborhood, and quiet cul-de-sacks tucked away from the rush of the rest of the city.

The open space and open skies characteristic of this community are precious to us.

For us, these are the common desired neighborhood elements described by policy VN2A.

As Plan COS recognizes, our neighborhoods are not all the same, nor do we wish them to be.

While there are many places in Colorado Springs where this development would be a natural fit into the neighborhood, this pocket off Spring Crest is not one of them.

We ask that you deny this application.

Thank you very much for your time.

Okay.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker, please.

We have Nancy Karsten and Becky Francione.

Seating time.

And um, Melissa, who do we have after them?

Just so that maybe folks know if they're next, they can kind of prepare if they're in the middle of a row.

I see we're pretty crowded.

Sarah Pemenick and Casey Kennigan.

Sorry, Kernigan.

Sitting time.

Okay.

So just so you all can prepare.

Hi, I'm Becky Pancioni, and I'm ceding my time to Nancy Karsten.

Perfect.

Thank you, Ms.

Carson.

Well, I'm glad she seated time because I've tried to um I just lost it.

Uh I was trying to edit um because I didn't think I had enough time, and then okay.

And can you state your name for the Nancy Karstens?

Okay, so I might be a little back and forth.

Um, because of my trying to rewrite it.

Um, it would be nice if you um would raise your hands if you have driven by, or better yet, walk the propriet the property of this proposal and the surrounding roadways, which would be used to get to and from it.

I would think this would be part of your decision making on the proposal and the pet uh impact of safety and on the roadways.

What people have to say today should make sense to you.

Please consider the usage of roadways to navigate to and from the apartments, as please remember that there is a project going on on old ranch road.

People living on Old Ranch Road in those apartments would need to take Voyager or Old Ranch Road to Voyager and then down to Springcrest, both having the possibility of having to stop at stoplights.

Or, like so many people already do, they drive through our subdivision by taking Otero Avenue off Old Ranch to get to the apartments or Voyager exit.

How would you like non-resident cars driving through your subdivision?

It's not just a few cars a day, and it's not just parents taking the cutoff to pick up their kids.

Just try walking Otero Avenue in our subdivision any time of the day, and you wouldn't want to take that walk.

If you took Old Ranch Road, then you can't miss those massive movers that are preparing the land for the apartments.

I would like you to give thought of that impact that will also have on the current proposal and the roadways that would be used to go in and out.

Otero will be a traffic nightmare as well as Voyager.

When you are um trying to take a right or left turn off of I-25 onto Voyager, and you want to get into our subdivision, it is already tenuous.

The people coming from Briargate to uh merge onto Voyager are not very good at merging.

And if we want to get into our lane to take a right onto Springcrest, well, that can be very interesting.

Um the apartments are right by a school.

Wow.

I don't understand why anyone would think that's a good idea.

At the meeting held at TCA last year, I was surprised that the developer made a statement they expect residents to have jobs such as physical therapists, nurses, different types of technology, etc.

And some of their residents will be commuting to Denver, thus only a right-hand turn.

Sitting there, I thought, hmm, so they seem to think that higher priced complex with higher paid people don't do bad things in their lives.

You can do all the vetting that's out there, but it is not foolproof.

Can um visitors and friends that come and go on perhaps even or perhaps even a person living there with a friend, unbeknownst to the management company, be vetted, the answer is no.

Remember that the playground is right by the complex, and several times a day, twice a day, parents sit in the car line to pick up their children.

Um, did you happen to notice that nothing was mentioned about the 15 feet from the school, but it will be buffered by landscaping.

Well, that's a crazy estimation on my part.

15 feet.

That's not very much.

Betting is a misnomer.

It just takes one person that's off kilter to take an easy opportunity to have a good advantage point to shoot at them, or even shoot with a camera and create a picture with that using AI or whatever technology there is.

What's the likelihood of this happening?

Well, it may not be high, but remember, it only takes one person, and we've all heard about these awful things that have happened in the news.

It takes just one person.

If I were the developer or a board member, and this did happen, I could not live with the fact that I approved of something that has such an awful impact on the children, on the adults that are around the TCF TCA area.

Please consider the safety and the navigation of roadways that impact our subdivision.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speakers.

Next, we have Sarah Kermanik.

Sorry, uh, who's speaking, and Cassie will be seating time.

If you could please introduce yourself, Cassie.

And then after them, then we'll have Elizabeth Gilbert and Patty Kruger.

Okay, perfect.

My name is Cassie Kerrigan, and I'm seeding my time to Sarah Bominek.

Good morning, members of the Planning Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Dr.

Sarah Pramonic, and my area of expertise is security engineering.

I stand before you not simply to oppose a rezoning application, but to advocate for something far more important: the safety, stability, and quality of life of our children and our community.

At the center of this discussion is an elementary school, a place where parents should feel secure, dropping off their children each morning, where teachers should focus on education rather than security concerns, and where children should be free to learn and play without unnecessary risks introduced directly beside them.

Excuse me, ma'am.

Could you back off the mic just a little bit?

Sure, is this better?

Oh no, you can you can be close, just not in it.

Thank you.

I ask you to carefully consider whether this rezoning proposal truly serves the best interest of the families who already live there.

One of the most troubling aspects of the proposal is the repeated expectation that existing residents, schools, and taxpayers absorb the consequences of this development.

Every concern raised by the community seems to be answered not with meaningful mitigation from the developer, but with suggestions that the burden be shifted onto everyone else.

When residents raised traffic concerns, the recommendation was not for the developer to reduce density or redesign access.

Instead, the suggestion was that the elementary school change their dismissal times and resident shelter in place during fire evacuations.

Think about that for a moment.

A school that has served the community for over 20 years is now being asked to completely reorganize its operations and disrupt family schedules because a private developer wants to maximize profit on a rezoning request.

That's backwards.

The people who built their lives here should not be forced to adopt, adapt their community around the financial goals of an outside developer.

We must ask ourselves an important question.

Are we willing to allow developers, in particular those who are not from here, to determine the future quality of life of our residents?

Because once these decisions are made, our families will live with the consequences long after the developers leave.

Another major concern is the proximity of a five-story apartment complex to an elementary school playground.

It's not merely a question of aesthetics or property values, it's a legitimate safety issue.

A building of that height creates elevated vantage points, overlooking areas where children gather multiple times every day.

Parents are rightfully concerned about the potential inappropriate exposure, potential voyeurism, unauthorized photographing and videoing of recording minors, and the broader security vulnerabilities created when large numbers of unknown individuals have direct visual access into school grounds.

We live in a time where technology has changed the nature of these risks dramatically.

Artificial intelligence tools now make it possible to manipulate innocent photographs into exploitative material with alarming speed and accessibility.

What once may have sounded hypothetical is now a documented and growing concern nationwide.

And yet there appears to be no meaningful mitigation plan addressing these realities.

There's no way to screen at that high vantage point, no forcible protections, and no serious acknowledgement of the risks.

We're being asked simply to trust that everything will be fine.

I cannot speak on behalf of the school, but I know a lot of the teachers in AIDS that are charged with protecting our children are stressed, put it mildly, because they know there's no way for them to actually protect against this proposed threat.

When it comes to children, probably fine is not a sufficient answer.

We also can't ignore the location itself.

The proposed rezoning sits near I 25, a corridor that law enforcement agencies have long identified as a significant trafficking route for drugs and human exploitation.

No one's suggesting that every apartment resident poses a threat.

That would be unfair and inaccurate.

But high density multifamily residential zoning inevitably increases transient populations, increases anonymous access, and increases opportunities for criminal activity compared to the existing business zoning currently in place.

That matters when the adjacent property is an elementary school.

Rezoning from business use to dense multifamily residential is not a neutral change.

It fundamentally alters the safety environment surrounding young children.

Once this rezoning is approved, it cannot easily be undone.

The question before you is not whether the development should occur.

Communities grow.

Responsible development is important.

The real question is whether this particular development belongs in this particular location.

Responsible planning requires balance.

It requires respecting existing neighborhoods, respecting the schools and the infrastructure, and the safety of the children.

Our community should not be forced into a position where residents must continually sacrifice safety, privacy, traffic flow, and peace of mind while developers externalize the impacts of their projects onto everyone else.

The elementary school existed first.

The families existed first, and the community existed first.

Those realities deserve weight in your decision.

I urge you to reject this rezoning proposal.

Please send a message that our children's safety is not negotiable, that our schools, families, and community are not secondary considerations, and that the development of this community must enhance our quality of life, not diminish it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, next speakers, please.

Next we have Elizabeth Gilbert and Patty Krueger will be seeding her time.

And then after then after that, we'll have Alisa Tipps and Diane Myers.

Hello, my name is Hattie Kruger.

I'm ceding my time to Elizabeth Gilbert.

Thank you, Ms.

Gilbert.

Okay.

Thank you for the extra time allowance.

I really appreciate it.

My name is Elizabeth Gilbert, and I've lived in the Colorado Springs area for 12 years.

I have three children at the Classical Academy Network, including two who currently attend TCA Central next to this property.

I'm also a renter in the area.

I emphasize renter because so often these development oppositions are mischaracterized as a form of class welfare.

I want to be clear that my opposition is not about homeowners versus renters or current residents versus future residents.

It's about whether this proposal in this location meets the standards of Colorado Springs.

The parcels context differs sharply from one that would support medium density or mixed use zoning.

It sits across a residential street from rural homes and churches on county land, the National Guard Readiness Center and Air Force Academy land to the west, and beside TCA Central to the east.

According to Plan COS framework, this land lies within established suburban neighborhood typology zone.

Recommendations for development in these areas include implementing traffic calming measures and enhancing existing parks, of which there are currently none for residents.

Only in the emerging and future neighborhood typologies does Plan COS recommend higher density housing for remaining parcels.

So this development does not meet the city's own guidance for how growth should occur in this area.

At the community meeting last year, many parents of children who attend the adjacent school voiced concerns about the scale and proximity of the development to the campus.

Based on the information we were given, it would likely include a five-story building taller than anything around it, with units that run north to south overlooking the school's grounds.

Current school security best practices increasingly recognize that school safety is a perimeter issue, not just a building security issue.

Colorado's pending HB 261318 would treat roadways within 1,000 feet of a school boundary as part of the school safety zone.

And Colorado Springs is expanding school safety zones around middle and high schools, which I appreciate very much.

Other states are going further by proposing land use buffers between schools and certain developments, and Colorado's own school safety guidance calls for evaluating nearby land uses, setbacks, concentric security zones, hidden cameras, blind spots, camera blind spots, and unauthorized roof access.

Department of Homeland Security derived school design guidance also warns that external observation points can expose school grounds to intrusive surveillance.

A tall structure overlooking a school campus should not be dismissed as ordinary growth.

It's exactly the kind of perimeter vulnerability that modern school safety guidance is trying to prevent.

These community concerns are not new.

We've been raising them since this proposal emerged last year.

There's a petition on Change.org opposing this rezoning project, and it currently has 1,093 signatures.

A whole lot of people think this is an inappropriate spot for this development in rezone.

A community community members have also recommended reducing the height, changing the building orientation to reduce lines of sight into the school grounds, and considering less detrimental uses such as office, medical dental, or small commercial space.

But Blackburn and Kimley Horn have not changed the nature of the proposal.

It remains 236 units with potentially 500 cars on the narrow plot parcel beside the school.

Blackburn community suggested that tenant vetting addresses the concern of allowing potentially problematic people to live in such close proximity to where students gather and play.

But tenant vetting cannot control every resident, guest, visitor, future or future change in occupancy.

In fact, a tenant of Polaris Junction, another Blackburn managed apartment complex off Spectrum Loop, was charged on October for murdering her Uber driver.

In response to us pointing this out, Blackbourne and Kimley Horn said, unfortunately, there are occasions when a background check doesn't prevent an incident like the one that occurred at Polaris Junction.

I actually agree with them on that, but I would add that the promise of vetting tenants in close proximity to a school is not a suitable substitute for appropriate land use decisions.

Just five years ago, this Voyager Parkway corridor was about 75% single family homes and only about 25% multifamily.

Since then, the corridor has added several large multifamily projects, not even including this proposal.

These have pushed the multifamily share toward 40%, a major density shift in five years.

So when Blackburn said in their community response letter that this rezone is needed to provide how provide housing diversity, I have to ask, what needed diversity are they talking about?

This corridor is already absorbing a significant share of multifamily density.

At this point, housing diversity is not a persuasive justification for placing this development beside a school.

To conclude, we should not abandon the protections afforded to established suburban neighborhoods and schools simply because growth is inevitable.

In fact, inevitable growth is exactly what makes those protections more necessary, not less.

Based on the unified development code and Plan COS, denying this application would not be bending the rules, it would be upholding them.

I respectfully ask you to protect the integrity of our city's planning standards, protect this established neighborhood, and protect the students and families of TCA by denying this application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speakers, please.

We have Alisa Tips and Diane Myers will be seating time.

Diane, if you could please indicate so and introduce yourself.

Over here.

I am Diane Myers and I'm seeding my time to elicit.

Thank you.

Yeah, next we would have.

Next speaker will be David Wall and Hilary Jean Jacquet will be seating time.

Okay.

Thank you for the extra time.

Thank you for this opportunity to represent the parents, teachers, and grandparents of the students at the Classical Academy.

We ask that you do not rezone this land due to the health risks, traffic strain, and inappropriate location for a 50-foot structure.

Across District 20, the standard is already set.

There are no apartment buildings behind or adjacent to school playgrounds.

Ma'am, I'm sorry, could you please introduce yourself for the record?

Oh, yes, my name is Alyssa Tips.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Across district 20, the standard is already set.

There are no apartment buildings behind or adjacent to school playgrounds.

Having such a structure of four to five apartment story apartment building with 15 within 15 to 20 feet of a school playground is unprecedented.

Colorado Springs has unilaterally shown value to community homes and schools by not allowing more than a two-story buildings behind a school playground.

This healthy boundary has been critical to facilitate award-winning performance from teachers and students.

And if we need more housing, why not two-story and pattern with the district?

A different plan is better for this land.

Please consider the health of over 634 students and their teachers.

Children playing in a playground close to windy soil erosion during construction are at risk for severe lung and eye issues.

Windblown dust and debris from massive building sites can carry fine particles, including potentially harmful heavy metals and contaminants like lead that can cause immediate irritation to eyes and lungs, and in some cases, respiratory distress asthma, chronic eye inflammation, chronic lifetime issues, and this is because children breathe faster and low to the ground during activities like running and playing, causing increased rate of inhalation.

The EPA states that children need to avoid playing in areas near construction sites during windy days.

Dug up soil typically moves when wind reaches eight miles an hour.

The average wind speed in this area is 9.5 miles an hour, but it frequently reaches 30 to 60 miles an hour when wind storms come and move in.

I've been picking up my children multiple times, and the wind is just intense.

It's crazy.

This area does carry a huge increase of wind, unlike other parts of the city.

Please keep in mind that this project is guaranteed to last and be in process for over two years.

50-foot apartment buildings will need deeper digging and much more soil movement than other construction.

A four to five story apartment building requires five times the excavating than a two-story office building.

The weight of the structure changes everything about the construction.

The building size and proximity to a school are not a good match.

It is extremely unwise to rezone this land.

I would like to pivot now and talk briefly about traffic on Voyager and Briar Gate as I travel this multiple times a day.

I turn left onto Voyager, coming onto Briar Gate from the highway.

As many people have talked about, I also agree.

As I immediately merge into the far right lane to turn onto Spring Crest Road, it is very treacherous at times.

The point at which I merge is the exact location of the proposed outlet, the right turn in, right turn out, or apartment traffic.

This is a portion of road with constant stream of cars at high speeds.

It is already a congested intersection.

We risk blocking Voyager and Briar Gate intersection with backup or gridlock by complicating a traffic situation that already requires careful navigation for drivers.

I have polled many drivers familiar with this road, each one has concluded that adding a write-in, right out with more traffic in this stretch is a dangerous and poor decision.

It is clear that the developer sees a strain that adding more traffic to this intersection would bring when they make multiple suggestions for the school to adjust their drop-off and pick up traffic.

These suggestions that were made are extremely impractical and uninformed.

Passing the buck to the school in order to accommodate the compromise of adding the structure is backward.

If this structure brings a strain on the traffic, it should not be built.

This land was zoned properly by reasonable people who understand the immense risks.

For the health and safety of our community, we ask that you do not rezone this land.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speakers, please.

We have David Wall, Wade, Hillary Jin Jack, seating time, please state so.

Hi, I'm Hillary John Jake, and I'm seeding my time to David Wall.

Thank you.

I am David Wall.

Same spelling as the Clippers, but no fortune at all.

And I want to take one moment to say well done.

I agree with most of all the comments that have been made in opposition, and I too am opposition to this uh rezoning request.

I live on Spring Crest.

I've been there 27 years.

I've seen where Springcrest was a stop sign and how we've grown and how it needed a light for safety, and turn lanes, and although those things are good.

But I've also seen what happens when we push beyond our streets and neighborhoods are designed to respond uh support.

Our neighborhood is a quiet neighborhood, family-oriented community, and of the homes in Pinewood, there are about a hundred, maybe a little bit more, and then there's a Mulligan and the uh Tara neighborhood.

But according to the uh city's own traffic manual, it's designed to handle about a thousand to three thousand trips a day.

That's in and out.

So 500 out, 500 in.

And that's uh that's pretty comfortable.

But that balance matters uh because Springcrest is our only reliable city street in and out.

And as you've heard, a tarot is a um relief point that when Springcrest backs up to the light and that light's not turning.

Umtero is an easy way to get to uh out of the neighborhood.

But I understand there's also another uh development at the end of Otero of 170 rental units.

I believe that's called uh cottages at Kettle Creek.

Um, and so that's going to cap um uh OTERA use as well.

Or the proposal to have uh 230 or 236 or whatever they're trying to push to, and a uh realistic rate if we say 7% is the uh vacancy rate, then we could see uh a doubling of the traffic on Spring Crest.

Now, while it's right there at that intersection, it backs up, and so there would be traffic backing up in the parking lot of the apartments as well as on Spring Crest, making that intersection very uh very risky indeed.

Um wouldn't be just a bottleneck for us as residents of the Pinewood area, but a bottle cap.

It would choke our neighborhood.

Voyager Boulevard by contrast, as you heard, is a principal artery, and so it can handle up to 60,000 plus uh trips a day.

Um but the problem is uh as noted several times is a stretch between Briar Gate Parkway and Spring Quest Springcrest has a right turn only lane that if you do a right in and out of that would exacerbate that traffic that needs to go from all the lanes over into the right lane to get into Springcrest.

I think that would be problematic.

Residents leaving the complex would likely need to head south.

I'm supposing this because right there at Briar Gates, major east-west, and then you have the entrance to I-25 right there.

So if you came out of that neighborhood, you would using that right in and out.

You would have to make a U-turn at Spring Crest.

Again, complicating the use of that intersection.

The school is a commuter school, so it doesn't have school buses.

So all of the students that come there have to come by car or are part of that uh the uh Pinewood neighborhood.

And I heard that the uh a comment uh from the developer that uh the overcrowding on Springcrest when they're uh trying to get students to or from the school that could be resolved with TCA taking the issue on property.

Uh that is, there's no property available for that traffic to occur.

As I uh as I uh think about this, I when I read a book, I like the white space around the words, the margin specifically.

They make the page breathe, it's easier to read, the margins when margins disappear, that text becomes cramped and hard to follow.

I think the same principle applies here.

That if we crowd this land with the proposed development, it would remove the margin of safety for our neighborhood that we currently enjoy, it would squeeze our street, that intersection, and even the school nearby.

I think there is uh that issue with the timely emergency ability for emergency vehicles to enter our neighborhood without being in the traffic, is important.

I think we need to have the ability for us as we daily commute in and out that we need this margin of safety.

Growth is inevitable.

I mean, we all see it.

We're growing this this city is a great city.

Who wouldn't want to live here?

But how we grow remains a choice, and we have an opportunity today to choose safety compatibility and long-term livability.

I hope to live more than 27 more years in this neighborhood.

I respectfully urge you to deny this rezoning request and help our keep our neighborhood safe, functional, and family-oriented.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wall.

Next, please.

Next speaker is Lance Miller.

And we have Casey Voget seating time.

And after them, and after them, we will have Patty Gould and Annie Khan.

And I do believe Lance has a presentation.

Okay.

So if you guys could both introduce yourselves.

I'm Casey Voget, and I'll seek my time too.

So can you get just a little closer to the microphone?

Actually, you should turn it on.

Or okay.

Okay.

Hello, I'm Lance Miller.

I live on Mulligan, which is one of the affected neighborhoods by this rezoning request.

Thank you for your time and the ability to speak today in very distinct opposition to this request.

Um, okay.

There we go.

So what I'd like to do is rebut this based on the decision and approval criteria that's part of the city code, both for the zoning request and for the land use permit.

And I'm gonna pick five distinct areas from the zoning criteria where, despite assertions from the developer, things are still flawed.

We've heard that there are no remedies in place for the citizens' objection to this proposal, and the assertion that everything will just be fine.

We'll check our boxes going through the process of planning approval, we'll go to city council, we'll check those boxes, and therefore we're entitled to have our project approved.

And you've heard repeatedly the neighborhoods say, no, thank you.

There are better answers.

We're not against development.

We just believe that there are better answers than the one that's proposed.

So the first of the criteria is we're an established neighborhood.

You've heard everyone passionately describe our neighborhoods, what makes them unique and what makes them hold together, and how much we appreciate that, and how we do not want to see that disrupted by something that's put on a very small parcel of land for profit purposes.

We're not an emerging or vibrant neighborhood, we're not a future neighborhood.

We're an established neighborhood, and therefore we're not consistent with the assertion that this is a no impact proposal.

Similarly, if we look at the stated interest of the public on health and safety and convenience and general welfare, we've met with officers from the local Falcon substation who say, well, we don't have a whole lot of input to the planning process, but we can tell you we're not real thrilled with the additional traffic, and we can't speak to the safety, although we've heard a couple of speakers speak to that already, but they do have concerns about it.

So public safety is an issue.

It's inconvenient.

Yeah, I understand we can all be inconvenienced a little bit, and we don't have to be snowflakes about it.

But the single artery in and out of this area on Spring Crest is a major inconvenience.

We shot videos during prime pickup and drop off and showed them at the last meeting where traffic not only backs up on Spring Crest, it backs up on the Voyager northbound from that proposed acceleration deceleration line, and it backs up there.

That's traffic that's not even on Spring Crest yet.

Once on Spring Crest, a single lane eastbound has two cars abreast.

I can show you those videos.

I don't have the ability to do that in a city presentation because videos aren't supported.

But if you're interested, go there and visit the property.

And if we're the public, our interests are not being served.

So I will call your attention.

If you look, we've seen different diagrams, and the one that I've outlined in red, the regular shape, are the three affected neighborhoods where the proposed project would basically be center bottom of the picture where you see the green athletic field.

The dark red box at the top left is the proposal at the end of Otero, which is already moving a ton of dirt, multiple tons of dirt, and is going to be a sizable development.

So, as was just pointed out by the most recent speaker, this is not appropriate for our neighborhood.

We've heard people talk about the size scale density and traffic impacts, and I spent 50 plus years in this tech field, and I can tell you, I took Google Earth, described to uh Chat GPT, I wanted an image of a two-building apartment.

It took me 30 seconds to generate this rendering.

Now the building rendering is subject to debate, but imagine you're standing on that playground or athletic field or in the school and looking to the west.

What are you going to see?

Four or five-story buildings.

And it's not an angle of geometry that's going to affect that view.

That's the reality of it.

And you can see that the traffic in and out rendering here is going to make that whole corridor a real problem area.

So we've heard about plan COS, and I want to call your attention.

I believe this is being shoehorned into a very small parcel of land that's incompatible with the surrounding area of use.

And I would urge you to consider that when you look at the decision criteria.

So shifting from zoning to talk about land use, I've already spoken to the comprehensive plan and the surrounding areas.

We just don't believe as a community that it's appropriate to the neighborhood.

There are inadequate, pushing it to the problem to schools and churches and the communities to adapt to a developer's proposal is an inside out approach, and it's an inadequate approach to address the ingress and egress from this.

And if you believe the rendering, it is not a transitional plan.

It's an abrupt disruption of the view of the neighborhood, which has a bearing on the neighborhood definition.

So there are a number wrap up your comments.

I'm sorry.

We'll ask you to wrap up your comments.

The time is.

Last slide.

Um I would say that I would be in complete agreement that there's not a demonstrated need within a three mile radius.

There's at least five or six major apartment complex.

And so I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny this request using your own decision criteria to reject it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Our next speaker needs Patty Gowell and uh Annie had a sitting time.

Okay.

And as you all make your way up, we are gonna.

Those are the last two that are seating.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, after you all complete your comments, we are going to take a break at 11 45.

It's already almost 11 45 for a lunch break, and then we will come back after that.

So you'll be our last two speakers, and then we'll take a lunch break.

I'm Annie Hahn, and I'm ceding my time to Patty.

Glad I made the lunch cut off.

In the nick of time.

My name is Patty Gould.

And um say good morning to you.

We're almost at good afternoon planning commission.

I'm here today to add my voice of opposition to the rezoning and land use request.

My re my reasons are threefold.

I'm the proud and concerned nana of a TCA first grader.

I am his main transport two times a day, five days a week.

I travel southbound down Voyager to turn onto Spring Crest with northbound traffic on Voyager.

It's frequent, it's a frequent occurrence that only one or two cars can get through to can make that left turn onto Springcrest.

With the addition of four to five hundred new residents, the traffic congestion caused by residents beginning their work day in close proximity to students beginning their school day will become chaotic, clogged at an already overcrowded intersection.

To put the proposed number of new residents on this sliver, as I call it, sliver of seven acres is inviting accidents and mishaps, traffic snarls, and unnecessary congestion to currently adequately functioning neighborhood.

With the precious cargo, all parents and after school program buses are carrying.

This program, this proposal makes no sense except to the out of state developers' pocketbooks.

City planners, you can do better.

Just say no.

My second concern is the out-of-scale density and height of the proposed apartments overlooking the playground and the athletic fields of the TCA Central.

Nowhere else, as it has been spoken about this morning, nowhere else in Colorado Springs does an apartment complex loom so closely over an elementary school field and play space.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where safety and protection of our most valuable citizens, our children, our next generation, is a more prevalent concern than ever.

Our school resource officer and our front door security checks would mean nothing for a deranged resident with a weapon, four or five stories above a playground.

A balcony, a gun, and a recess bell is all it would take for a front page disaster story to occur.

I don't live a fearful life, but I wisely assess my surroundings, and there's little you can do when you're a sitting duck for an unbalanced person with a gun.

City planners, you can do better.

Just say no.

Finally, the scale and density of this project is inconsistent and frankly out of scale for the surrounding area, including the entire Voyager corridor.

I've seen Colorado Springs grow throughout the years.

I remember when the horses statue, that big sculpture right across Briargate Parkway was helicoptered in and formed a gateway green space to this northern corridor of town.

Perhaps opposite the horse sculpture in green space, a matching green space, or a small or a small, and remember it's a seven acre sliver of land.

A small open space or park could be developed.

A busy interstate exit extending to a high volume intersection of Voyager, Breregate Parkway, and Springcrest does not need higher density apartments in an already oversaturated rental market that is not in fitting with the character of the Colorado Springs corridor.

City planners, just because a developer has submitted plans on time, fulfilled all the proper obligations, and met deadlines is not the only criteria for approvals.

There's a character and a hard to measure moral obligation the public depends on you for.

A high density apartment building on a seven-acre sliver is not a wise placement right up against a schoolyard with a s what and in conjunction with a small residential um street access.

I respectfully and I earnestly ask you to just say no on this land use request.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Gould.

Okay.

With that, we are gonna break for lunch.

Um and we're gonna come back at 12 30, so a little over 45 minutes.

Um, and then we will continue on with public comment.

Um if you are here in person and signed up to speak and you aren't able to return, which I understand things happen, you can call in on Teams, and you can still do your public comment that way.

Um there any other comments I should make on that.

I think that uh how yeah, how many?

Okay.

Um Salange, do you have the sign-up list?

Yes, like what are the children saying?

And then after that, because I'm assuming they are gonna return back to school.

Oh, lucky you.

Um, you know what, that let's do that.

That's fine.

Um we'll just take a few more minutes for them just to get that through, and then um, if you all don't need to return, I think that's I think that's acceptable.

Yeah.

I just we have a couple staff changes that we need to make and um and to have a break.

But yeah, if we can get the um students um to just come up.

Ma'am, if you can please uh come see me and then we'll start with Maddie Hen.

Hi, my name is Hold on, Natty.

Just one second.

Hold on for us.

We're gonna get a little bit organized, okay?

And you can pull that microphone down lower to you.

I'm sure it too, so I get it.

We can start with Maddie Henn, please uh state your name, Muddy, and then you'll have three minutes.

Okay, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Madeline Joy Hunt.

I actually go to TCA, and every time I go there, it is a lot of traffic in morning or an afternoon.

And if there were apartments, there would be more people and more traffic because the people at the apartments will be leaving when others are arriving.

It will be very busy and not safe.

This apartment will not feel safe having so many people that could look at me while I play.

Please make this a green space or a small store so that I feel safe as a student.

I would be very sad for the future students if they are not able to be free, safe, and able to learn and grow.

Thank you, Maddie.

Ellie, Ellie Han, please.

And who's after Ellie?

We have Hannah.

Hannah.

Okay.

Okay.

We will allow this.

Can you both just state your names though?

Hello, my name is Ellie Han and Hannah Adams.

And we are best friends in fourth grade at TCA Central.

Um at recess, me and Ellie love the view, but with the apartment, we'll be stared at by random people, and they might take a picture without permission.

Who will protect us from all these strangers who might be very dangerous?

Think of all the kids this will affect.

It'll be all shady.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, young lady.

Millie.

We have Lydia too.

Is she speaking?

Okay.

Please state your name.

And you have three minutes.

You can move that down a little lower if you need to.

There you go.

Very flexible.

Hello, my name is Millie, and I'm a fourth grader at TCA Central.

Today I would like to share my thoughts about the apartment complex going in by TCA Central.

The apartment complex won't bother us at us much if students at Central never went outside.

But we go outside a lot at TCA Central.

Every grade has one to three recesses a day at school.

And if a big apartment complex is put right there, we would not feel it very safe going outside because harmful people could be living in the apartment and people could stare at us while we are playing outside.

And that would feel very uncomfortable for us students.

People at the apartments could be wearing inappropriate clothing that little eyes should not be seeing.

My friend lives in the neighborhood that ITCA Central and walks to school almost every day.

And if harmful people from the apartment complex come and hurts or takes her, it would not be safe for students.

What if a harmful person drives through the carpool lane and takes a kid?

What if there was a fire in the whole apartment complex and TCA Central and the whole neighborhood had to evacuate on the tiny road?

Would that be safe?

Would everybody make it out of the fire?

Uh pick up and drop off at school.

There are a lot of little kids, including me, running around and it would, and it wouldn't be safe for us.

Would we feel safe going to school?

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Melanie.

One final, okay.

Hi, I'm Lydia Gearhart.

I'm 11 years old and I'm in fifth grade.

So sorry.

My first point is if there could be a lot of strangers and none of us want them there, and they could have a lot of inappropriate clothing or tattoos, and we don't want that.

And they could like a lot of apartment complexes let the people outside smoke, and us kids don't want that in our lungs in our air, and we wouldn't want that.

And then my second point is I have two quotes.

One is from my little brother, and he said, I sorry.

He said he and his friends just like laying on the field sometimes and just looking at the mountains.

And then my second quote is from my best friend, and she said, Why did God make the mountains if they're just gonna be blocked up by apartment complexes?

And I was agreeing with that, and yeah, and then lastly, is I I don't know anyone who wouldn't want that.

Wouldn't want the bill, who would want the building there, and it would just be like really hard, and I want to be safe like everyone said with all the exits, and it would just not be very safe, and so yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Lydia.

And thank you all for participating in the public process.

Uh, we are gonna now take our break for about uh 45 minutes uh for lunch, and so hopefully most of you can make it back and we'll continue with public comment when Melissa, are we good with technology?

Okay.

Okay, I'd like to call us back to order.

And we are going to pick up where we left off with public comment in opposition of this application for members in the room who have signed up.

And perhaps we have a list of where we stopped and who's next.

And maybe you can call out like the next three.

Or do we have any more people that are seating time or are we on to individual comments?

Okay, so can you call out the next three?

And that way, if you're in the room, you're prepared.

And it does look like we lost some people, so hopefully.

We have Steve Luna speaking now, and then Brandy Henderson, Elizabeth, and Edwin.

Okay.

And before you start, sir, I just want to take a moment.

We've heard um obviously a lot of comment already this morning and a lot of the same concerns.

Traffic and safety, um, pedestrians, neighborhood, disturbance, etc.

So I would just ask for all of you that are coming up to speak next.

If if there's a way to um think about what you've already heard and that what we've already heard, and maybe not be as repetitive.

I we understand that the concerns are very common, but if there's other things that you can make mention of, that is helpful.

Just as a just as a suggestion.

Thank you.

Okay.

And you can pull that closer too if you need to.

And just state your name for the record before you begin.

Yes, good morning, commissioners.

My name is Steve Luna, and I live on Alamosa Drive near the project, and my children attend TCA.

The proposed MXM zoning and the 57 foot five story apartments are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

To the north lies a two-story church on a 7.7 acre agricultural lot, along with a neighborhood of single family homes on two and a half acre residential rural lots.

To the east is a two-story school, and to the west is the Air Force Academy.

To the south is a retention pond, followed by a park, followed by one-story medical offices.

None of these surrounding buildings exceed two stories.

A 57-foot five-story apartment complex would be completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

Zoning categories such as OC, MX neighborhood, or R Flex Low would provide a more reasonable transition to the school and the large lot residential uses to the north.

If residential is a better fit than BP zoning, it should be limited to two-story homes, townhomes, or apartments.

Rezoning the property to MXM would lead to an erosion of the neighborhoods to the north.

The Church of Briargate previously thought MXM rezoning but was denied because such an intensity was incompatible with the area.

If MXM is approved here, the church could reapply successfully, creating a domino effect where adjacent residential parcels sell to developers seeking similar rezonings.

This chain reaction could ultimately threaten the integrity of the taro neighborhood.

The current natural boundary at Briar Gate Parkour and Voyager should be preserved.

The developer argues that MXM zoning is preferable because the current BP zoning allows a height of 68 feet.

I believe this is a false comparison.

An office building built today in today's market would likely be two stories, or even if taller, it would occupy only part of the lot with the remainder used for parking.

By contrast, three apartment buildings that span the property from north to south would be far more obtrusive.

If rezoning were approved against neighborhood opposition, a strict 50-foot height limit should be enforced.

The existing 68-foot high rise allowances from the 1990s is outdated and is intended only for office development, not apartments.

BP zoning without the high-rise overlay only allows for a 45-foot building.

Regarding traffic, the proposed write-in-write-out access on Voyager may help, but also creates new hazards.

During school hours, traffic already merges from multiple directions into the spring crest turn lane.

Adding outbound traffic at this point introduces a three-way uncontrolled merge, increasing accident risk and congestion.

Allowing four to five-story apartments overlooking an elementary school playground is unsafe.

Residents or visitors would have clear elevated views of children on the field throughout the day, multiple times per month, and multiple times per month, the entire school is on that field for special events or fire drills.

In an era of heightened concerns about school shootings, this exposure is unacceptable.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Luna.

Next, please.

We're gonna need to pause one moment.

We're having some audio and audio nodes on T.

Okay, one moment.

Okay.

If there's anybody.

We're just gonna triple check before we get going.

Yeah, I could hear that as well, so don't know what.

We are good.

Okay.

Can you remind us who's next?

Brandy Henderson is our next speaker, followed by Elisabeth Edwin and Rebecca.

Are those individuals in the room to speak?

Ma'am.

Can you hear me?

Oh, ma'am.

Were you previously previously in attendance and you've moved online?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Can you state your name?

Brandy Henderson.

Okay.

Thank you, Brady.

You'll have um three minutes to speak.

Great.

Um, my focus is on the welfare of our students, and while I am definitely agreement in everything that has been said, an aspect that has not been brought up is that the residents in the apartment complex may be legally smoke marijuana in their home.

Aside from the carcinogen, children's brains are highly sensitive to the THC, and even small amounts can interfere with brain and organ development.

With the apartment apartment so close to the school and the wind often coming from the west, that smell will permeate the playground, field, and even inside the school where the windows are open.

And it's not a smell that our children should be forced to learn under or anything that they should have to breathe.

Also, I would like to point out that the proponents have said that we need more affordable housing, which we do, and that these will be luxury apartment.

These two are in opposition.

The cost of renting a luxury apartment is not affordable for the average citizen in Colorado.

I ask that you deny the summing change.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Ms.

Henderson.

And who do we have next?

Alisa Gonsoli and Edward Hamada.

Are either of those individuals in the room or online?

Is there anyone in the room who has signed up to speak?

Could you raise your hands?

Okay.

And could you tell us your maybe we'll just try to get to those that are in the room since we seem to be disconnecting on who's where?

So ma'am, do you wanna, since you're in the front row, do you want to go next?

And can you tell us your name so um we can look for you on the thing, and then you'll have three minutes to speak.

Uh Rebecca Hernandez.

Okay.

Just calling me after those two.

Okay, can you move the mic a little bit closer to your thank you?

Is that better?

Yes.

Um, thank you.

It says good morning on here, but good afternoon, and thank you for your time today.

Umnez, and I live in the Pinewoods neighborhood at 2050 Surfwood Lane, um, with my husband, our three children, and my mother.

We've lived in this community for nearly six years, and several members of our extended family also live nearby in the same neighborhood.

This is not just where we sleep at night.

This is our home, our support system, and the community where we chose to raise our children.

I'm here today to strongly oppose the proposed Voyager and Spring Crest rezoning for an apartment complex.

This proposal is simply incompatible with the neighborhood that already exists there.

Springcrest is not a major roadway designed to support high density housing.

It is a small residential entrance serving single family homes, a school, and churches.

Most importantly, it is essentially the primary entrance and exit for our community.

Placing a large apartment complex directly at the uh directly at that choke point will significantly increase congestion, delay emergency response times, and create additional safety concerns for families and students.

During evacuations, severe weather or wildfire emergencies, bottleneck access becomes critical.

Traffic is already difficult during school drop off pickup and special events.

Adding additional daily vehicle trips at that exact location is irresponsible planning.

As a mother, I am also deeply concerned about the proximity of this development to the elementary school.

Multi-story buildings with balconies and rooftop access overlooking school grounds are inappropriate next to a campus full of young children.

Parents should not have to worry about visibility into playgrounds or increased congestion around students simply because a developer wants to maximize density on a small parcel of land.

This proposal also conflicts with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The area consists primarily of established single family homes.

The heightened density being proposed are dramatically different from the existing community and inconsistent with the city's stated goals for preserving established suburban neighborhoods under Plan COS.

Finally, I question whether this development is even necessary in this location.

Many apartment units have already been built all along the Voyager corridor in recent years, while vacancy rates in Colorado Springs apartments have increased as more supply has come online.

Residents are repeatedly being asked to absorb all the impacts: more traffic, more congestion, more safety concerns, and changes to our quality of life, while the developer takes none of the burden.

This project does not fit this location, it does not improve our neighborhood, and it definitely does not prioritize the safety and well-being of the families that are already living there.

I respectfully urge you to please deny this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Hernandez.

Um, I think you had your hand up.

No, no, not yes, ma'am.

You did you want to speak in?

Um, okay.

Okay.

I think there were three hands if I counted correctly.

There's one more in the back.

Okay, there were three of you that had raised your hand, and then maybe we'll try to go back online and see who else we have just to try to call the confusion.

You look like someone that I know, and so I'm like, it's not her, but it sure does look like her.

It's kind of interesting.

Please state your name and you'll have to read it.

I am Igy Watkins, and I live in the spring, I should say right off Surfwood on right off Spring Crest on Surfwood, sorry.

And there's some concerns that haven't been brought up.

For one thing, I want to understand if any of y'all have ever gone down by the uh food machine downstairs where you get water or snacks, and looked out beyond at what's your surroundings are.

There's an apartment complex, but in between this building where you work and the apartment complex is a huge green grassy area with lots of walkways on it.

So that to me says that you all want to be safe and you don't want people right in your backyard when you're working.

And I don't want people in my backyard while I'm outside.

I walk every day with my friends, uh, and I just don't think that it's the right place for an apartment complex.

The other issue I have with it is let's say you do allow the rezoning, and then they build some apartment complexes and they can't rent them.

Then what happens?

They can do anything they want because of the way the zoning is working.

So we have to worry about that in the near future because there's a lot of apartments for rent in Colorado Springs, quite frankly, and besides that, people can't afford to pay these.

They're talking about these tech people and all these super wealthy people that can move into these apartments and they're gonna be vetted so well.

But if they're that wealthy, that's great for them, but it's not helping anybody who can't afford housing.

So there's that issue too.

And the idea that in putting a sidewalk is gonna benefit our neighborhood, it's not gonna benefit our neighborhood.

That's just the bottom line.

So I really would like you not to allow this to happen.

And what I really mean is I want you to put people above profit, homeowners, renters, children above corporations.

That's what I'm really asking for you to do.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Watkins.

Um, sir, you had your hand up as well.

Um, and had you signed in previously.

Okay.

So state your name and uh and yeah, and then maybe we'll find you on the list, but state your name and yes.

My name is John Purcell.

And two of my children are currently students at TCA Central Elementary.

And in years to come, my two younger children will be as well.

In addition, my brother-in-law Andrew also lives on Spicewood, which connects to Spring Crest in that neighborhood, just east of the school of the school.

I'm urging you to deny this proposal and to deny it in order to prioritize the safety of our children in our community, and specifically my children as well.

This morning there was a request to consider the facts.

So please consider this fact.

That the demographic most closely associated with an increased crime rate is population density.

And it's not appropriate to extremely increase the density of population in this neighborhood immediately next to an elementary school.

As such, this proposal is a threat to every student at TCA Central.

That field that you saw on the picture that is used every day, several times a day for recessed or physical education, and it's also a gathering point for evacuations or fire drills.

And the apartments would look down directly onto that field and expose the children.

Every student would be potentially a target for exploitation for unauthorized photographs, videos, which could be manipulated in terrible ways.

The residents themselves could have an opportunity to expose themselves to our children.

Or put inappropriate banners, materials not appropriate for grade schoolers.

Heaven forbid.

It could also allow for the planning an occurrence of an abduction or shooting.

Our children cannot protect themselves.

They look to us to protect them, they look to this commission to protect them.

And background checks screening processes are not sufficient.

The protection of our uh children should not be reactive.

It must be proactive, and it must be proactive by denying this proposal.

Background checks are not sufficient.

This apartment building, if it's developed, would be a target, would be targeted by those who would target our children.

Background checks don't also cover visitors to the property either.

Uh, the developer has not considered reasonable um measures that would help increase the safety of our children, like not having windows on that side of the building, no balconies on that side of the building, having a shorter building or opaque walls.

Please deny this request.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone?

Um, is there anyone else in the audience that has signed up to speak, or if you have not signed up to speak and you still wish to speak?

Raise your hand and let us know.

Okay, then I think we'll try to go back to the list and the phone lines and see if we can connect with any of those folks.

We're just gonna go down the list of the people that we don't have marked off in hopes that they're online.

If not, then we'll just move to online.

Okay, yep, perfect.

Bruce Francion.

Veronica Gierhart, Elisabeth Gunzoli.

Edwin Hamada.

Christina Winger.

Go ahead and set your name.

Hi, Christina Winger.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christina Winger.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your time.

I appreciate all of you.

Um, I agree with all of the things everyone has said earlier, but I just wanted to send out some statistics that go with the uh mental health crisis in our state and our current school.

I printed some and I gave them to the man next to the launch when I was there at the meeting this morning.

Um, I just want to ask that you please consider the safety of our students and the staff at TCA when you make your decisions after this hearing.

TCA Central has 640 students and 80 staff members.

The car path field and playground adjacent to the proposed apartment building has between 100 to 720 people on it for a total of four hours and 50 minutes per weekday during the many recesses and carpool time, PE and art classes that are held on the field.

That is not including the monthly fire drill.

Accounting for everyone exiting the building.

Now please consider the state of mental health in Colorado.

According to my site of statistics, 720 students and staff members are outs of Colorado, which is 26.2% reported for mental health in 2023.

17% of those residents were unable to access the mental health care needed.

Let's pair that information with the amount of mass shootings and homicide deaths that took place in Colorado.

Between 2014 and 2023, Colorado experienced seventy-seven mass shootings in which 103 people were killed and 299 were injured.

In 2025, there were 18 school shootings that resulted in injuries or deaths.

Far less than the 39 shooting in 2024, 38 shootings in 2023, and 35 in 2021.

In 2023, 71% of all violent crimes in Colorado include involved a firearm.

Criminally background checking residents when they sign their lease does not prevent them from causing damage or harm to others.

Um I don't have time to share all of the data that I collected, but if you would just please imagine the possibilities of danger with a five-story building only 15 feet from a school's playground and field with over 100 balconies and windows with vantage points.

This is not even taking into account the access the residents would have to taking photos and videos of our children to use in inappropriate and uncontrollable ways.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay.

If there's anybody online, anybody else online that would like to speak?

Okay.

So we're gonna do it by the phone number.

The last uh four of the number zero four four zero.

If you're speaking in opposition, please unmute yourself now.

And a state your name.

Did you all exhaust the list of people who had signed in?

Okay.

Okay, great.

The number ending in 0440, please.

If you are gonna speak, unmute yourself now.

And state your name.

Maybe we just do an all call for anybody who's there's too many.

Okay.

We do see that you are unmuted.

If you would like to speak, go ahead and state your name.

We're gonna go ahead and move on to the next number.

If your number is ending in 6513 and you'd like to speak, please go ahead and hit star six to unmute yourself.

Hello?

Hi there.

Let's go ahead and yes, we can go ahead and introduce yourself and then you'll have three minutes to speak.

Yeah.

It said I was unmuted and then uh it said I was muted.

My name is Jack Stewart.

I live at uh 9635 Blindwood.

My wife is Patty Stewart, she's there in the audience with you.

I'm friends with pretty much everyone that uh listed off.

I'm not gonna introduce any uh new arguments.

I am gonna ask a question though.

I I and I know this is cynical, but I I'm just wondering are we rearranging lectures on the Titanic?

That is, is the planning board in the pocket of the developer or are the people who appointed the planning board, um, you know, in the pocket of the developer, so that uh it's a three to complete.

That's really my only question, and I am wondering is if they're, you know, we're desperate in this area.

We've all given the arguments again, and I'm wondering, do they really have an impact?

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, sir.

Um, do a couple of these.

If your phone number it's ending in 6513, please unmute yourself now.

Somebody else we're moving on to the next one.

0876.

The next one please five five nine seven if you're willing to speak please unmute yourself now.

Prestar six to me yourself, 5597.

Introduce yourself please and you will have three minutes.

Hi my name is Jeff Willie.

I am a resident of Bramble with Lane.

I know we've already been talking for an hour and a half so uh I'll keep it brief because I don't know if I can get into these arguments better than the people who have said it before.

But yeah I'm very much concerned about the traffic in the area.

I'm very much concerned about the impact for the neighborhood.

I'm very concerned about the fact that the developers have asked the resident to deal with or mitigate the changes or the impact to the local area that they will be imparting upon us.

And lastly and most of all I do support apartments but I think they should be built in areas with high density and mixed use in this area is very much isolated from anything else except for the suburban development I think the city has done a great job with high density housing up on Interquest where they're right next to Shields they're next to the movie theater.

I think the city has done a good job putting an apartment um a little bit further south by the Bryargate promenade but putting a high density housing project with no bus stop minimal walking access and low density housing doesn't make much sense to me.

Please vote no on this change and I yield back the rest of my time thank you.

Thank you Mr.

Wilsie Sir if you don't mind spelling your last name please for the record.

Sure that's W I L L S E Yes Thank you.

If there's anybody else online that would like to speak in opposition off this item please unmute yourselves now there's nobody else online.

Okay.

I see your face are you sure there's no one else okay okay well with that um this is the last call if you want to say anything so we're gonna close public comment okay so with that we will close public comment and we'll bring the um applicant back up for applicant rebuttal and you will have 10 minutes for applicant rebuttal and response.

All right good afternoon uh andrew Ritter with Blackburn community is the developer of the project um first of all thanks everyone for their time thank you everyone for their public comment it was uh a lot of really good presentations and this is the purpose is to hear people's opinions and their thoughts so I appreciate the opportunity for us to um to give ours as well so I wanted to first introduce we're gonna touch on traffic is that was such a major concern may introduce Jeff Plank who's our trap traffic engineer with Kimley Horn and he uh he will touch on the traffic issues thank you.

Good afternoon Jeff Plank with Kimley Horn to help prepare the traffic study to North Nevada Avenue Colorado Springs I'm gonna touch on several topics from a high level um one of the first topics brought up was the usage of um Otero Avenue um by project traffic and that would be the gateway to old ranch road to the north project traffic has more of a demand to head south to uh Briargate Parkway and I-25 we had 20% traffic to the north um the development traffic would want to use Voyager parkway for that north um traffic um and brought up with the gridlock with the school.

You know, if you're gonna use um otero, you'd be mixing yourselves with the school traffic, and so it's easier outlet.

They have that right out right out of um voyager, and then entering back in bringing Voyager back, but very low traffic to and from the north with respect to um the south.

The weave condition brought up less bound uh Briar Gate Parkway to northbound uh Voyager Parkway.

I'm in agreement with that.

You know, C dot is usually the agency that you know provides acceleration lanes.

Agencies kind of follow suit with that.

This is not a C dot roadway.

Um, I was able to talk to city traffic engineer.

Um that is a safety component when you have an acceleration lane because vehicles that are making that westbound right turn movement are moving while northbound throughs are going and eastbound less as alluded to.

Um, a mitigation for that would from a safety standpoint, which would sacrifice vehicle delay at the intersection, would be making that a yield stop control, yield or stop control where you would not have an acceleration lane.

So that would eliminate the weave condition with that, and so that could certainly be something considered by the City of Colorado Springs traffic department, with that being an existing condition, we evaluated it with that existing condition.

But yes, it is a safety concern, mitigating it brings on more vehicle delay, and so that needs to be weighed through by city staff.

Um, the trip generation of the project, fairly low generator, certainly compared to the existing use by right that has the right to develop.

If a two-story office went in, that would be four times as many trips during the peak hour than this proposed development.

It has been mentioned that it is be allowed 68-foot building heights.

If it was ever developed with a six-story building, you're looking at 10 to 11 times as many trips during the peak hour.

Would six stories be developed?

Likely not, but it has the right to do so based on the current zoning.

Um, but the current program generates significantly less traffic than what it is zoned for today.

The gridlock condition that was I alluded to that has been observed.

Um, the school this has become sort of a trend in the industry with a lot more public charter schools, private schools, um, there's less bus uses usage, there's less pedestrians, so you have a lot of vehicle-centric trips for pickup.

Um, and when you have that, it you have a lot longer vehicle queues during student pickup times, and that has been observed backing up into spring crest into the public street and even Voyager.

And so the volume suggests that the intersections are operating well.

They're less than capacity in intersection standard of level service D or better.

Um, but when you have blockages, that prevents the saturation of vehicles being able to get through the intersections, and so they're not operating well because they're being blocked.

The volume suggests it should be operating well.

So the traffic study, you know, didn't make necessary you have to do recommendations, just considerations.

That would reduce um the number of people picking up students in half, and so if you're reducing the number of in half, you likely are not gonna have vehicles backing up into the public streets.

I know there's challenges with that.

Um, you know, you may have two students in the school, and you're gonna say you have to pick up during two separate times.

You know, that can that that needs needs to be worked out with the school if they do consider that, and you know how they would pair how they would stagger that.

There's other school application apps that I've seen in the traffic industry where um you don't release all the students out to the grounds at once, you keep them in the classroom.

You have flaggers that scan vehicles as they come up to the designated student pickup area.

That sends a transmission to the classroom that says you should release such and such student.

Um, and so you're not having all the students out there at once.

You're gonna have me and me 20 to 30 students out there, and then you have flaggers, and then when you go out there, you know that your parent or guardian is gonna be right there or at least approaching to right there, and you're not having to look for them through the chaos of all the students, and you have the flaggers help them get into the vehicle.

That's a much more efficient process.

Um, that is just a consideration.

Um, as I alluded to the level of service by volume, the intersections operate a well.

So as soon as the vehicle blockages are removed, the intersections do operate to city standards, state standards, industry standards.

Um, you all have about four minutes left in your rebuttal time.

I don't know if you want to continue on traffic or if you have other topics, and we'll probably have questions for you as we go as well.

One more, the evacuation.

So there was mentioned one or two routes.

There are three routes during an emergency.

Mulligan drive would also be utilized to the east of Chapel Hills Drive.

Um, the current trends consider shelter in place based on building materials, but that's certainly not our recommendation or stance with this project.

Um, the density of the existing residential area is actually a lot less than typical.

There are a lot of large lots, rant style homes in the area.

And since we only have four minutes, I'll let the rest of the team.

Thank you, Jeff.

Um, I know we're tight on time, so I'll try to be as efficient as possible.

Uh, obviously, a huge concern that we heard today was safety and the safety safety of students.

Uh, that is a huge deal to me and to our team and to our company.

There's no doubt about that.

So I don't want to take that lightly.

I do want to touch on the fact that um we we hire professional property management companies to manage our properties.

Um we do everything that we're allowed to do under the Fair Housing Act uh required by law with background checks, screening, um, and trying to promote a strong sense of community there that promotes safety and well-being of everyone there.

So that is a huge deal to us.

Um, there are there is risk of single-family homes in that area because there's always one-off instances.

We can't nobody's perfect, things slide through the cracks.

Um, and it's our hope and prayer that that doesn't happen.

That can also happen in single-family homes as well.

Single family rentals and homeownership is not required to go through the background checks that we are allowed to give and and required to give our tenants uh who might be moving on to the community.

So I wanted to make sure and emphasize that.

Also, a different use, whether it's office or retail, could also bring in different people, different visitors who aren't subject to buck background checks and stream and uh screening solicitation could be allowed on site.

Uh, you never know who's coming on that property, and I believe with a residential community like this, you're able to limit that as much as possible to prevent you know instances uh disasters from happening.

Um, another thing that I wanted to touch on is uh a comment was made about the zoning being too intense.

Um, the and the site to the north of us with the church site being turned down and as it was proposed for MX and MXM.

They did not have the access on the Voyager parkway like we have.

Their main access points were on to Otero and to Spring Crest.

So I believe the comment and the recommendation was made that they have an access on to Spring Crest, on the Voyager, I'm sorry, which we do have, which alleviates the traffic impact to Springcrest that has been so emphasized today.

Um, also, you know, the existing, uh Jeff mentioned the existing um zoning allows for 68 feet, which would be a much higher than what we're proposing, um, and allows for a greater uh would allow for a greater size of square footage of office building, which will allow for more traffic, like we talked about.

Um, and I want to touch on the market too.

There's been a there's been a glow of apartments that's come online all across the country, there's no doubt.

But if you look at where Colorado Springs is heading, they're forecasting by 2050 the population here to be north of a million people.

And this year alone, we only have we're only scheduled to have 600 apartment units come online compared to 2024.

There was about upwards of 6,000 units that came online.

So there's been a massive drop off.

Vacancy has fallen from 16% to 7% in a two-year time period, and it's forecasted by the end of this year to be four and a half percent.

So we are held in the own trajectory to have a housing shortage just like we have, and things have tightened uh tremendously, which impacts home o uh the cost of uh uh homes for for penant uh people in your constituents.

Sorry I ran out of time, but I know there will be a lot of questions, and we hopefully can address more of the concerns that were made.

Thank you.

For sure.

Uh um I cannot recall your name.

I'm so sorry.

Jennifer, did you have a couple brief comments you'd like to make?

I we'll probably get to a lot of it in comment and questions but if you could just be brief but give us your high points so that we hear that no problem thank you for that I wanted to touch briefly on plan COS so this area is develop is designated as area of change within plan COS which shows its opportunity for development and its priority for development.

Within the established neighborhood these this topology is also expected to experience some degree of infill and redevelopment for something that I mentioned earlier in my presentation.

And then it's also intended to support ongoing mixed use investment and improvement adaptation and sustainability.

Will transition the land uses which will enhance which will um it will transition the surrounding land use intensities to a lower intensity to the lower existing land use intensities of the detached single family residential which will be supportive of the established um established neighborhood and plants us.

Thank you.

Okay thank you very much.

Okay with that uh I'm gonna bring it back up to the dais I'm sure we have a lot of questions um I'm gonna remind um commissioners to use the request to speak button on your tablets and also I'm the worst offender state your name before you speak so we can have it on the record um so don't all push the button at once but I'm sure there's a lot of questions.

Let me ask this question.

I see that um Mr.

Frisbee is um back with us as well as um color springs fire representative do we want to just have a commentary from city traffic first.

We'll probably have lots of questions there.

So okay well Todd since you were back with us and you're making your way up welcome.

Okay thank you uh Todd Frisbee city traffic engineering um sounds like you just wanted some commentary from our point of view or do you want to start with questions?

If you have some overall commentary I think that would be a great place to start I mean obviously we've heard a lot about traffic on this one I'm sure we'll have questions as they come so I'll give us just some general commentary on um on the so that we we followed our our standard process required a traffic impact study uh it met all our metal requirements um did all the things that we asked for in a traffic impact study uh as Jeff uh their traffic consultant alluded to and alluded to in the study that you know when you get um a site that's near a school uh the the analysis and evaluation becomes a little more tricky because you have that typical 15 to 20 minute crush of traffic that occurs in the you know in the morning and uh and in the afternoon it's just difficult to analyze that and so um uh to really sort of drill down uh on that so uh um we recognize that the school has um you know the pickup and drop off is challenging uh is challenging as you know with most schools that's the case uh uh I will say just in general uh with regards to uh uh this campus uh we've been working with uh this can TCA here on this campus for years on their pick up and drop off uh process and abilities uh and have a good working relationship with them and have been open to us to our suggestions uh in the past um and even even today and so we've had some recent conversations with them and one of the things about that about this school that a lot of schools don't have is they have a very long driveway that kind of wraps around a part of the school and they um you and it's wide enough to double stack uh cars in that line uh and so we believe and the school as well believes that um if you could operate in a double stack you know double stack cars with some staff help you can eliminate or significantly reduce the queuing or potential for queuing back on spring crest so we had done some observations earlier this year of queuing on to spring uh spring crest then what and the day we went out uh we noticed 21 cars backed up on Spring Crest during the uh afternoon drop off.

It didn't reach voyager.

Uh it um stopped before that.

We talked to the school about they were not operating with a double double pickup.

So we talked to them about it.

Um and uh I believe that they're trying to you know implement that.

Um and we had one out there recently and observed school traffic again, and we saw uh two cars backed up on Springcrest road.

So I think there's some solutions there for the school uh in terms of how they operate the pick up and drop up that to help uh help with help alleviate uh that and you know I made reference to the 21, you know, the 21 cars that lasted for a total of seven minutes.

Uh so this is what we see in a lot of schools.

We see a this this crush of traffic and then it's gone.

Uh and so uh with when it comes to this project specifically, uh we don't have any significant traffic concerns.

Um I pulled crash history on Voyager Road, say it's have been a crash history of side site sort of side swipe crashes, you know, for people coming turning off a briar gate to go north and people turning left from and I did not have our crash history did not show.

I think I saw one side swipe in five years.

Uh so we don't have we don't have safety concerns with related to the the right turn, the right in right out on uh onto Voyager.

Uh and then you know, I'm sorry, I was probably rambling at this point, but um also we looked at the distribution of traffic in Altero and where traffic might go.

Twenty, you know, uh the estimated and we agree about 20% of the traffic is estimated to go north uh on Voyager, 80% to the south and to I-25 and to Briar Gate.

So um, and then you look at sort of Otero and and its connection to Old Ranch, it's a little bit out of the way.

So we don't we don't believe that there is would um this development would this would add a significant cut through element.

Not that there's not cut through traffic there today, there could be, um, but we don't believe it'll add a significant element of cut through traffic to Otero because it's just if you're going north on Voyager, um just take Voyager.

It's a lot quicker than to go and working through a neighborhood on Otero, and that's usually what drives cut through traffic is somebody thinks they can find a faster way.

Um and so that's that's sort of our take, our general observations of traffic and operations um with regards to traffic in the school as well.

So I hope that helped gives you a broad overview of our point, our point of view is traffic engineering.

Thank you.

All right, we've got some questions.

Commissioner Cecil.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cecil for the record.

Um are there any do you have any concerns with the two points of entry and exit that are currently shown on the land use plan being any in any way insufficient?

I do, I do not.

Uh, we we supported the idea of the ride-in-ride-out, um, primarily to to ru to remove some of the traffic from Spring Crest and and uh reduce some of the interaction of new traffic with the school traffic.

So that's uh when they came to us with that request, we said yes, we support that.

Were there any uh mitigation measures that were suggested by your office at all related to the peak period traffic stacking for an additional development going in right next to the school?

Well, I I think uh yes, so every uh recommendation that they provided and that we provide is part of they will implement.

There wasn't um any uh point of contention between us and developer on on, you know, we asked for something and they didn't didn't provide it.

So I think I think a lot of uh the stacking when it comes to the school, a lot of times, the management of the pick-up and drop-off uh time.

Uh and uh and I think we believe that school has some options and solutions, and we continue to work with the school on that.

And as I said, they're open to our suggestions.

Thank you.

Did you did the analysis sufficiently cover any potential pedestrian conflict points near TCA, or is it 100% pickup-drop-off there?

Yeah, it's but you don't have a lot of uh because a lot of the pickup and drop-offs continue within the school site itself, there's no pickup and drop-off on Spring Crest.

So uh so well, but uh so um uh it's designed to pick up and drop off inside the school on the school site.

Uh and we encourage that that kind of action would happen.

If kids are running across Spring Creek because parents are dropping off on the north side of the street, then you know we can't do we can't control uh behavior.

So we'd rather we prefer that to be on site, all of that.

And so um, but like when I used to go when I was in school, they'd call for walkers to go out to welcome.

Are there walkers when you're observing traffic?

It's primarily a commuter school.

Uh so there's not a lot of walking to to uh to that school.

Uh so folks, I know you have opinions, but let's let our questions be answered, please.

You know, they're putting in they're putting in sidewalks as part of their part of their requirements for development application.

The school the intersection of Spring Creek and uh and Voyager is got all the pedestrian, you know, push buttons, crosswalks, got all the things that we would have uh at an intersection.

So um we feel we there's been enough.

There's enough there uh to accommodate whatever pedestrians might be walking to.

Fair enough.

I understand, or at least looking at the GIS map, it looks like the parcel that is to the southeast of this is owned by the city at the moment.

And it strikes me with some of the traffic concerns that were brought up that it may be appropriate to provide some sort of roadway up to the school and possibly to the site there.

Is that an option that's been explored?

No, it has not.

I think that site is a regional drainage facility, so road is not possible.

That would not be possible.

Thank you.

All right, that is the end of my traffic questions.

There will be more for fire.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Case.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Thanks for being here, Todd.

Um, question is revolved to the ongoing analysis and also maybe if you could speak to a little bit more of the development process with the development plans in the middle of a project and just what that looks like.

I think a lot of the people here would like to know if what that process looks like if something doesn't work and you know, yeah.

So uh there's a couple with regards to the development process.

Uh we'll get another, you know, it'll come back as development plan, as you know.

Uh, and um we'll have opportunity to comment on it, you know, comment on any infrastructure that they're planning to put in, we'll you know, signing a striping side, whatever you know, that make sure they meet our standards.

Um, say for so when it comes to um making changes to the infrastructure to address issues.

Um it is um the approach to traffic engineering, uh given you know, our you know, our our funding and availability funding and the use of our funding, uh we typically react to issues that are that develop over time.

It's hard to predict what issue might develop or not develop um over time.

So when it comes to say, let's let's take for example uh this weed between uh on Briar Gate between um uh no on Voyager between Briar Grade and Spring Crest.

Current data shows no, does not show uh a crash history problem.

So we would not address that uh because it, you know, we don't there's nothing to address at that point.

Say perhaps a side swipe problem develops over time.

Uh then at that point, if the if the sol if the problem is significant enough, we would then take action to address that with to to attempt to mitigate that kind of that kind of uh that kind of issue.

So for example, might be restricting the right turn coming off of Briar Gate to go to go onto on the Voyager.

Uh it would become a city project that we would have to address that, address that concern.

So it's you know, it it's you know um in a perfect world, we'd like to address every traffic problem that we think will happen, but a lot of times we're in a position of reacting to what the data is telling us when it comes to uh uh to making transportation decisions.

Thank you.

All right, um, Commissioner Slattery, and if you could remove your request to speak if you are done.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Frisbee.

Thanks for joining us today.

Um I had a couple of yes, questions and pieces uh responding to what we heard today.

So the springcrest road looks like east of Otero Avenue is city owned.

Um, includes a sidewalk kind of that east half just north of the east half of the TCA property.

Would the development um if it is approved of this parcel?

Mandate, is there is there any um initiative of the city to bring that Spring Crest Road between Otero and Voyager into city owned property or city um level of development, like with sidewalk.

How how would this proposed development affect that?

And would that be you're talking about Springcrest?

I'm talking essentially between Voyager and in Otero?

Yes.

Yes.

Which is county, which is currently a county road.

Yeah, would there be a um requirement to bring it up to city standard?

Yeah.

So uh yeah, so uh per code um uh if for development code uh developers are required to build curb and gutter and sidewalk to bring it up to city standards uh adjacent to their property.

So let's say the property to the north developed, they would have that same requirement to uh upgrade sidewalk curb and gutter to spring, you know, to spring crest.

We don't have any separate plans right now uh to upgrade or to add curb and gutter to spring crest.

We're um at this point at this time.

I think is that Commissioner Slatter, does that sort of get what you're at?

Yes, I think so.

So that would be uh, and if there's adjacent to the parcel, however, the gap, the sidewalk gap does extend to the east.

Yeah, um, and is that something that the developer, I guess we can maybe ask that, would be willing to um you certainly in your purview to ask the you know the asset developer, we are not we are not requiring that.

Uh but we do have um uh we do have some programs, uh capital programs to fill in missing missing sidewalk gaps, uh and um, you know, and you can imagine there's a lot of city, there's a lot of sidewalk gaps in the city.

It's about a two million dollar year program.

Uh and um the city um uh can use that program to you know if we see a need to you know to fill a gap in a sidewalk if we don't think development would ever fill that gap on the song you know, do a development application.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we talked a lot about the write in write out on Voyager, where and I believe you stated 80% of the traffic would anticipate going south.

So maybe that's out of Spring Crest and down Voyager.

Uh there was some uh can concerns about U-turn on Voyager at Springcrest.

Would you propose a no U-turn sign or some sort of mitigation to prevent U-turns on Voyager or how would that potential issue be addressed?

Uh we would we could consider a no U-turn.

I mean, we don't normally do that.

Um if there's a reason for us to if there's a safety reason or a conflict of some sort where we don't want U-turns at an intersection.

I in and looking at that intersection and knowing that intersection on the west side, not a ton of traffic comes out on the west side.

Uh so I don't see uh need to restrict U-turn at this time.

Um, but certainly um it's not out of the realm of possibility of of that being implemented.

Would that be a consideration at development plan level or um as I guess that at occupancy if we can make that approved at the yeah at the development plan level we can make that recommendation?

Okay if necessary.

Um I'll note that.

You know, Zachary, if you're listening, please note that.

Okay, and then let's talk back on Voyager with the um write in write out kind of in the middle of the property parcel um and the turn lane from Voyager to Spring Crest.

Um, how would it be striped or proposed to avoid uh kind of that swerving in and out conflict that was discussed?

Yeah, so we're uh at the at the um at this level, I don't have details on.

I don't know, I don't have details on how it would be striped.

Um my recommendation for it would be um to stripe it in a way that if you're in the lane, uh say you're in that auxiliary lane turning off a briar gate, you would be forced to merge into the Voyager traffic before you got to the ride and ride out.

So the right and ride out would sort of essentially be the lane drop for the northbound, and then you use can you use layman's terms a little bit, just for I thought I was using non-traffic engineer who just you have a continuous lane between Voyager between Briar Gate and Spring Crest.

So continuous recall we'll call it a turn lane.

Sure.

So now you're gonna introduce a right.

So right now that lane, if you come off of Briar Gate and you go north, you can you have to if you stay in it, you have to turn a spring crest.

You're forced to make that that turn.

So it's we would call it a lane drop.

You're forced to make that turn.

If you add the right in ride out, we would essentially force that lane drop at the right and ride out.

So if you were coming off, if you're coming off Briar Gate, going north on Voyager, and you got you would have to, and you stayed in that lane, you'd be forced to make the right turn into the right and ride out.

Coming out of the ride and right out, you would have another lane continuous from the right and right out to spring crest.

And again, and then you would, you know, if you turn if you're coming out of the apartment development, uh, and uh you turn on the Voyager, you're in this, you're in this extra lane, this auxiliary lane, turn lane, you would have to you'd be forced to move over instead of voyager through traffic.

And if you didn't, you'd be forced to make a right turn of spring crest.

So we would that's how just off the top of my head, that's how we would do it.

But there are there are other ways to do it as well.

I can jump in on the question and the description there.

Would you add additional space for that right in, right out, or it would be it would just be right up against that acceleration dedicated turn lane, or would would the development need to create um a place where I would scooch over and then make my right hand turn to for lack of a more technical scooch?

Yeah.

So uh the lane would have to meet our our our standards.

So th this lane, we're gonna call it a turn lane, you know, continuous turn lane would have to be eleven foot lane with curb and gutter and a sidewalk.

So it would have to meet all of our standards.

Um and we wouldn't add like a but it would just abut to that acceleration deceleration standard turn lane that's there.

Yeah, the pavement's there.

Right, and it would just abut off of that, but there wouldn't be any requirement to ex to make any more lane from what's there.

Okay.

No, you have a lot of the pavement there already.

You're just gonna clean it up.

Right.

With curb and gutter and make sure it's all striped correctly as well.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry, Commissioner Flattery, I jumped in on your question, but maybe you have a bit more or no?

Believe that is the end of my list for Mr.

Frisbee.

Thank you.

Sure.

Does anyone else have questions for city traffic while we have Todd?

Don't go too far, please.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll be I'll be in the back.

Okay.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions from anyone?

Um, how thank you, ma'am.

Okay, my questions, um, then I've got a couple on um the zoning, and this might be for Allison um to some degree, but also for our applicant.

There was conversation earlier in some of the comments that we heard about consideration or lack thereof for mixed use transitional or mixed use neighborhood scale.

Um, you know, from what I'm reading in our code and kind of right revisiting all of this, the setbacks and um are similar.

The height actually could be greater.

I'm guessing that the density is potentially the factor, but I just um I'd like for someone or both um applicant and staff to talk to me about um talk to us about were those different uses considered, why why or why not?

Were they pr applicable?

Um yeah, that's my question.

So whomever wants to take that first.

So for the MXMZ.

And if you could state your name again, okay, and I again horn, I think in Link Horn.

Um so I did hear that comment of the MXT and the MXN zoning that was suggested.

The MXT zoning uh it does allow for a higher building height of 60 feet versus the 50 feet, which would ultimately allow for a higher intensity.

That zone is also primarily focused on institutional housing, such as student housing, and it's like I said, it really is it's a higher intensity use.

The MX end zoning, which is the mixed-use neighborhood allows for a building height of 45 feet.

However, there's no other MXN zoning in that area.

The adjacent zoning to the south is MXM, and so to prevent doing a spot zone and to allow for a wider range of uses overall.

So yes, when you look at the MXM allowed uses, some of those are more intense, but some of those are also far less intense than what's currently allowed today.

Again, today it's it's BP zoning with a 68-foot tall height rise overlay, which is fairly intense use.

I also wanted to point out that MXM within the UTC and promotes the adaptive reuse and redevelopment of single use commercial areas that are vacant or underutilized or otherwise obsolete.

So it's really pointed for vacant lots such as this that are adjacent to MXM.

Other questions?

Oh, related to that particular question, if I may.

Looking at both the use tables and the nature of mixed use transition, it does strike me that mixed use transitional, while it could be construed as a spot zone as it would be not surrounded by zoning, it does exist in purpose to abut residential or agricultural uses and provide that density bridge.

It also has a set of uses that seem far more appropriate for what one would find next to a school as MXM does allow for things like alcohol package sales or adult retail business is um and so my question is with the view of this being mixed use.

Are you planning first floor commercial?

And if so, what type does it fit in either or category?

So there's a land use plan that's attached to the rezone as part of the public hearing, and that land use plan it's showing attached single family residential.

If the applicant was so barring and everything's approved, you know, everything goes forward today.

If the applicant was to change his mind and move forward with with commercial, that would come back to a public hearing because a land use plan would have to be amended by the approving body.

And so at that time it would be reconsidered what those uses are.

Go ahead.

We do not here.

We have uh number one, we we we've seen this become a push to push put retail within residential communities, really all over the place uh in all markets, and it in this particular type of location where it's not a very walkable location where a lot of pedestrian traffic and activity like you'd more see in a downtown area, um, it really struggles.

Uh we've I've got a friend who has a project in Thornton and they had 20,000 square foot of retail on the first floor, it sat vacant for uh three years now.

Uh and so we we have no intention of that.

We also think you know, hearing the traffic concerns and the safety concerns, having a retail component would increase the amount of traffic and flow and also increase maybe a risk of uh lack of safety.

So, too bit.

I would say then since this would make multifamily is a permitted use of both MXT and MXM, and MXT has far fewer uh retail purposes here that the zoning would actually give you more height and it could give greater security to adjacent neighbors to know that certain uses aren't even listed as conditional in MXT.

Um, I'd like to know more about why MXT wasn't considered here.

Right.

I I can't answer everything about MXT is I'm not um an expert in that zone, but what I would say is we were evaluating the zonings.

We we took height into consideration.

We knew that height was a concern, and so we chose a zoning that had a lesser height restriction, and hopefully it would give them more comfortability uh from a from a rezoning standpoint, as we didn't we're not trying to go to 60 feet, and we knew that that was a a concern of the neighbors from what we heard uh and the conversations we've had, and if I've left anything off there, Alison, did you have some comments that you wanted to make there?

I just see you maybe, and don't go too far, folks.

But I just wanted to concur.

Oh, Alison Stockers, in your planner.

Just wanted to concur with Jennifer that with the MXT, really, the intent of that zone district is more for institutional type transition.

So really the only places in town we really see that zone district used in a greater extent is near Colorado College or UCCS.

So I believe that particular zone actually replaced a now defunct zone type that was kind of created at the time to kind of be specific to those transitional areas.

Um it is kind of a unique zone we don't really use much outside of those areas, and that was kind of the intent through retool when it was created.

Thank you.

I appreciate uh all the commentary because I do think that it was an interesting conversation from the public comment of you know why are some things considered and why they're not.

So thank you for addressing that.

Um Commissioner Cecil, I see that you've requested speak.

Or you is that old?

Uh that is actually uh for a different question, what's going on?

Okay, thanks.

Um I was curious if you could speak to any of the transitions that were planned that are planned for the current site, whether there's any sort of graduation and height that is planned between the uh school and the peak height of this, or um, I think we had a couple of people suggest things such as whether balconies would be not facing the school, or if everything would necessarily have a balcony in terms of trying to graduate the intensity as it uh becomes closer to the school site.

Right, right.

Good question.

Um I know we've mentioned I'll touch on a couple things, but we've mentioned uh the 15-foot buffer um and the landscaping and the uh screening that would be at that 15-foot buffer.

That 15 foot buffer is to the screening, and then on the outside of that would is only a roadway, so it's a drive aisle that flows around uh our entire site, then we have a parking lot, and then we have our residential buildings.

So our buildings are technically when we're mentioning this 15 foot buffer.

Our I want to emphasize that our buildings are abutting that buffer.

Uh, I don't have the exact distance, but it is a substantial amount of distance between our residential buildings and uh the property of the school.

Um, regarding the how we're transitioning the buildings, so initially, I think I touched on earlier, we were pushing for I believe a minimum density of 250 units.

We obviously heard a lot of concern with that density.

We because of that concern, we chose to pull back on that minimum and put it at a maximum of 236 units.

That's where we're at today.

Um we also heard the concerns from a height standpoint.

Um our initial plan that we proposed showed um a combination of four story buildings and five-story buildings.

The five-story buildings were actually on the northern end of the site, which are closer to the school.

Um, since then we've revised that plan.

We've stepped those northern end buildings down to four story, and then our our building that's on the far south is actually it's four-story on the north end, and then because of the grade with the site, we stepped the foundation.

Uh, so it keeps that same roof line and steps the foundation to hopefully imp help with that height concern uh and provide a greater transition.

That's very helpful, and I appreciate you being responsive to the concerns that have been raised.

Were there any other impacts that were identified during your public outreach that you incorporated into the revisions in the proposal before it came here?

So those were some that we definitely listened to and tried to incorporate as best as we can.

Trying to think there anything else.

Yeah, those were the and then of course, obviously trying to work with traffic to implement the right plan uh that hopes to alleviate safety.

But we we do you touched on balconies.

Um we do have balconies on that side of our building.

Um that is that is a uh I mean it's there's nothing set in stone.

We haven't designed those buildings yet, but that is our intent uh for those sides of the building.

Well, and if I could jump in, Jen, on your question, uh Chair Hensler for the record.

I think that might be the first time I've said that all day.

Um, trying to get better.

So I had kind of had the same questions, and and I certainly understand the um the concern of the parents and the school staff of right having um balconies, and we might think that people aren't gonna look at that kids and kids are gonna look at buildings, but who knows, right?

We can't control every factor.

So is there consideration to the orientation of the buildings um that they would face say north-south instead of east-west.

So maybe it's just a stairwell um that faces to the field.

And again, that doesn't eliminate every single obstacle or or risk, but um, you know, it it changes a lot of things.

I understand, but I just wonder if you guys have given any consideration to that or if that's something that would be um would be something you would consider in future design iterations.

It's a great question, and it is something we considered and evaluated.

The site has significant challenges with easements and utility locations.

There's a storm drain running along uh the western side of our site, north to south that encroaches within towards the center of the property, and then there's also a sewer line that bisects the southern end of the property.

So those are two things we're having to work around.

We also the site isn't very wide, so we don't have a lot of room to work with.

Our original intent um just to be transparent was to try to abut the um Voyager Parkway as much as possible, and maybe even have an L-shaped building that was up there at the Spring Crest and Voyager interchange, but because of those easements, we just simply we we couldn't locate the buildings in those locations.

Okay.

Um I mean, I I appreciate at least maybe the consideration of that or even angling, you know, the buildings to try to avoid some of that.

Um we have uh it's it's not shown on the the site plan, but our uh our building that's on the southern end, kind of the current uh conceptual plan that we have sort of angles the southern end of that building going back towards the southwest.

So it kind of does like a wide V almost that building.

So those build those units would be looking more at a southerly like towards that stormwater area that's owned by the city and the golf course.

So that was a adjustment that we've made as well with our conceptual site plan trying to trying to work with the site and take as many units away from the school as possible.

Okay.

Um and if I may still oh go ahead, Jen.

Mine because uh it's still with this still same line of code.

I'm gonna shift one what I've got one more.

I'm gonna shift one degree, okay.

Go ahead.

Maybe five degrees.

Um have you considered any incentives for teachers or staff in a housing plan or reduced rents or anything that would that would get um, you know, maybe some residents that are part of the TCA community and building a bridge between this might be in 180.

I don't know.

That's a great thought.

Well, I have not thought about that.

We have done it many of our communities uh that we own and operate where we have uh sort of corporate agreements, if you will, in place with nearby companies to provide incentives to those uh employees, and I could see that being a great opportunity here with the school.

Is that I mean that is the that's the type of tenant we're pursuing here as a is a you know, a teacher and a uh, you know, just good people with good jobs.

So uh we would definitely be open to considering that.

Okay, I hope someone's taking notes from that.

We have a to emphasize that we have a project that's in Austin, Texas as well that uh we have that same type of agreement.

The school is a huge employer, and we have the same same type of uh agreement in place where we provide incentives to to those uh employees.

Okay, I think it's I mean I think it's something to explore.

Obviously, we cannot put that into any condition of record, but being a good neighbor is always a good thing, um, especially when it starts off with maybe some challenge, and so if that were to go forth, yeah, thank you.

Okay, back to you, Commissioner Cecil.

Sorry, thank you.

So, Commissioner Cecil, back on for the record as a former teacher, appreciate you considering that.

Um, I will my final question that I wanted to ask you guys was actually about part of Jennifer's presentation when she was talking about the Vavrant Neighborhoods strategy 2A3 about supporting land use decisions that provide a variety of housing type sizes serving a range of demographic sectors and meeting the needs of residents and families in various life stages and income levels.

Later um in that presentation, you also mentioned that these were high-end apartment home communities with income requirements and credit checks.

And so I was wondering if you could help us understand.

You know, I know when I way back when my old self was teaching, I made all of 27,000 a year.

Our median in household income here is around 85,000.

But I'm trying to figure out what are you looking at for making these affordable and addressing that need to have diverse income supported through multiple types of housing here.

Right.

That's a great question.

This uh we don't have any affordable units that are, you know, um identified and recorded as affordable units.

But what we have seen is just the cost of homeownership here is become astronomical.

I think Jill Gabler mentioned earlier that the uh first-time homebuyer, average age of first-time homebuyer now is 40 uh 40 years old.

And we've run a mortgage comparison to rent, and we don't have our rents finalized.

I mean, we're a long way off from that, but we have a blend of studio units, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms that all hit a certain price point, right?

That all it may range from I'm shooting from the hip here, but it could range from $1,400 a month to $2,500 a month, depending on the the unit type.

So that in and of itself appeals to multiple renters, especially when the average mortgage payment for the average home price in Colorado Springs is with taxes and insurance uh and principal and interest uh is pushing four thousand dollars uh a month.

So we're we're providing a tremendous uh cost effective option for people who can't afford home ownership.

And um one thing to touch on too is competition in the rental market also drives down the price of renting, and uh yeah, we we've seen that over the last couple of years where there's been a wave of apartments and rents have decreased.

We do see a wave of where those new deliveries are falling off of a cliff, which then turns uh vacancy begins to shrink and rents begin to rise.

So it's a tricky equation there, but I do think we're we're reaching a broad base from a renter demographic standpoint that gives a lot of optionality.

I really wish that we'd have the chance to see this again later in the development process when more of those questions are really starting to crystallize and you know the market is more current and you know, diagnosable for the units you're trying to create.

It's just that looking at the you know, that two thousand dollar to a month range or something slightly above it, you still end up pushing close to median income or well above it, and six figures are kind of hard for teachers to come by and uh I totally totally understand.

All right.

Uh that was the end of mine.

Go for it, Ryan.

Commissioner Case.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh, few interesting observations I've made, and maybe I don't know if you guys have looked at this, but by being surrounded by churches, that's a unique opportunity, I think, to alleviate traffic during the week because most churches operate either Saturday or Sunday.

Not sure if you've engaged them as far as how that might look.

Also, the current site is not developed, and so obviously you can't park there for students.

And so I know maybe Jeff, you can speak to more of this with the traffic studies, but the data you've pulled versus what feet on the street is actually observed with kids walking on the streets, parents dropping kids off, and what that really looks like.

If maybe that's something you can speak to, or if that's a potential engagement to alleviate some of those traffic concerns with student drop-off and pickup.

That's a that's a great point.

Well, I have not thought about that.

Um we've got a similar instance with uh another property that's in another market where we have but a church, and we kind of have an agreement in place that during the week uh we our some of our tenants park in that parking lot.

Uh also we've got a restaurant that's in that area, and we got office, and some of our folks park in that church parking lot during the week, and vice versa on the weekends.

Uh sometimes those churchgoers end up parking in our parking lot.

So we want to be good neighbors.

Uh I want to be clear there, and we're definitely open to having those types of conversations.

And so just one more question on that piece, and thank you for that.

I think that's an opportunity there.

Yeah, the other piece with MXM zoning is the mixed use and the optionality of that.

Um with apartment complexes, there's generally amenities that are you know a part of that.

Have you guys looked at potentially child daycare or any of those types of uses to be a part of your complex?

That's another good question.

We haven't.

You know, I I think we're we're trying to be very strategic with limiting the traffic that's coming in and out of our property because I know that's such a concern.

So we really have w we've our intentions have been for our amenity spaces for them to be specific to our residents, just to limit the, you know, adding additional trip counts that are coming in and out throughout the day, especially a child care, although I know there's a massive need for more child care.

Um, and I love that idea, especially if our tenants could have that within the community.

I know that would also probably add to the peak hour of uh because somebody's probably dropping their child off at the same time that somebody would be dropping off at the school.

So I could see that maybe being a negative on the overall traffic as it is, and so we've we've had the mindset of trying to limit that limit that as much as possible, and that's why we haven't entertained any more uses on the property.

Great.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilby.

Commissioner Willoughby, for the record, um, I didn't have any more questions.

I was gonna change the topic, but is that okay?

Are you ready to do that, Chair Hensler?

Sure.

Um, I don't actually have questions.

I just um I'm feeling pretty conflicted, and I want you to feel conflicted with me.

So I'm gonna add information to the pool here.

I just want to remind us that we're deciding between um BP and MXM.

So I was looking up other uses.

If we were to deny this today, I was looking up other uses that would be allowed under business park.

There's such things as like a cell tower that does not seem compatible next to a school, but as it stands right now, they would not have to come before us again.

They could build a cell tower.

I don't think you're gonna build a cell tower, but for example, uh a fuel dispensing station.

I assume that's a gas station.

But um, that also doesn't seem I'm a parent, I have kids.

Um I actually dropped my kids off at a daycare and then got a text that said there's an active shooter at the gas station.

So I have that one's close to home for me.

That doesn't feel like a good fit.

Um, a parking structure is also permitted under BP.

A truck terminal is also permitted under BP.

That doesn't seem very compatible to me either.

Um there's also plant-based extraction hazardous and not hazardous.

I don't know what that means, but hazardous is not normally a thing I want near my kids or other people's kids.

Um, so just keeping in mind some of those things, again, we can't dictate what he's gonna develop the property as if we decide that this is MXM is not the right use for this property.

So I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing when we're deciding between these choices.

Um, just another thing kind of responding to a lot of the comments that we heard today, in some cases to me BP seems a little more dangerous.

It seems like there's more traffic that might be coming throughout the day, more unknown people that might be coming to whatever these business parks are.

So, for example, if it's a truck terminal, I don't know what kind of people are coming and going from there.

If it's a cell tower, probably people aren't coming and going from there, but it's kind of a suspicious space.

Certainly if it's a parking structure, you raise exactly the same concerns that our citizens have raised today in terms of creepy people hiding out in that area, but we can't control that.

Right now, he could build a parking structure there.

Um another thing I just wanted to add about surveillance.

I think a lot of our citizens have been expressing a concern about the surveillance in the opposite way that sometimes we think about it in design.

So our citizens are bringing up the fact that people, bad people, creepy people could be viewing kids, taking pictures of kids, doing all kinds of manipulative things.

That is possible.

I'm not going to say that's not possible.

We're sort of now making an assumption that the people who live in apartments are creepy people, which I don't know that we want to do that.

Um but in design, as an architect in design, another way that we tend to look at that type of surveillance.

We call it passive surveillance.

So sometimes in design you use residential or apartment complexes to have what we would call as more eyes on the street, right?

So you have more people looking out for the safety of these kids.

You have more people activating that space, keeping it safe.

And again, I I feel conflicted about this, but I just want to add some information to the pool that eyes aren't always surveilling in a creepy way.

It can be a passive sense of security.

So I I don't know the kind of people that are gonna move into this space not to set off a panic, but I did just pull up CBI just to see like that's the criminal bureau of investigations.

There's five felony convictions in the neighborhood between uh powers and voyagers.

So it's not creepy people don't just live in apartment complexes.

There are people who live in our neighborhoods too.

So I don't uh just adding information to the pool for you guys to consider while we're making this decision because I think it is a tricky one.

Thank you, Commissioner Willoughby.

I I appreciate the comments and I think that's well put.

Um Commissioner Cecil.

Thanks.

Commissioner Cecil, I uh I would like your guidance chair on when I can call up fire department for questions, because I do have a few of those.

But I did want to also throw in the Commissioner Willoughby's discussion of uses that there are a lot of uses allowed in MXM that aren't allowed in BP that I also find troubling, including hotel and motel is permitted.

Uh restaurant is permitted, but conditional in business parks, campgrounds are permitted in MXN, bars are permitted in MXM, adult entertainment is permitted in MX and a stadium is permitted in MXM, but not in B business park.

So I think that's a there's a double-edged sword either way that we go there, but I appreciate you bringing up the consideration for uses because I understand that right now, you know, those are there are certain things that by approving this zoning change, we could just be allowing.

Um, nonetheless, I wanted to go back to my first part of my comment here, which is is it time for fire or should I hold off?

No, I I think that's appropriate, unless um let me just check.

Commissioner Engel, did you have other comments that were not fire?

No, my comments are not fire, they're more general.

Then we will pull it and wait for when you're ready for fire.

Okay.

Commissioner Slider, we're yours on the similar note.

I just um to address some of the questions and concerns about allowable uses.

It is the purview of this body to put conditions of record um on the partial as part of our zone change.

So if we feel like that is appropriate, um, that's within our purview to do so.

Also, um, if we feel like this body needs to review this application again at the development plan stage, we can put a condition to bring the development plan back to this body before final approval.

Um information for the commission.

Commissioner Engle, did you want to ask your or make your comments before we go to fire questions?

Or yes, I can make my comment.

Okay.

I think this is a very difficult commissioner Engel.

I think this is a very difficult set of circumstances, and you have a lot of things stacked against you.

First of all, the road at Springcrest is really not constructive to the type of volume that people anticipate it will see.

And it's constrained after it passes the extreme of this particular property and narrows significantly before it goes into the rest of the housing area.

So that is a challenge.

If they exit to the uh right out, and then you add to that uh the overall concern about an apartment complex next to a school, and you end up stacking up more and more challenges to being able to say this is a reasonable thing to do.

And finally, uh 236 dwelling units, I I really think it's excessive to what can be handled by this area and handled by its transportation.

And to add one more challenge, there's no really serviceable public transportation that could relieve the use of automobiles.

Those 236 dwelling units are gonna rely on automobiles for transportation.

So for all those reasons, it becomes very difficult to see how this can be done and really meet the criteria of the code, particularly uh criteria number two under 7.5.704 that talks about uh detrimental to public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.

So I having said that, adding to the complexity is that I agree with uh Commissioner Cecil and others that the current zoning business park is probably no better, it's probably worse than what you are proposing.

I think the argument for MX uh zoning is not strong by virtue of association because what you have to the north is essentially rural or agriculture, school to the to the uh to the east and the southwest where there is an MXM, it's not really used as an MXM.

It really has a bunch of horses on a statue.

So uh I find it difficult to say the MXM is the best choice at 236 uh dwelling units.

And my only question to you, did you really look at some less dense type of uh zoning?

Thank you for your comments.

I'm sorry.

Uh thank you for comments, Commissioner.

Uh could you say your name one more time?

Yes, Andrew Ritter, Flight River Communities.

Um, we did consider a lesser density, and we've looked at it.

We the problem we run into is when it comes to operating an apartment community, you start getting down in these smaller scale apartment uh communities.

They just don't operate efficiently.

So there's no way to operate them to where they can cash flow when you start going down in these lesser and lesser units.

So the reality is from a financial standpoint, there's no way we or anyone else we've talked to could develop apartments on this site at a lesser scale from a density standpoint.

I would love to do that to be totally frank, but the reality is the metrics just don't work because you lose the ability to to cover your expenses uh with lesser units.

I did want to clarify one thing, and I may have heard it wrong earlier, but Jeff, this may be something you need to chime in on.

But there was a comment made earlier that 80% of traffic is forecasted to go south.

Is that the existing condition?

80% is going south, or is that what's forecasted for our condition to be our development?

Okay, I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify that because I knew that was a big point uh that was made.

I also want to emphasize this.

We and I don't know MXM covers a broad, you know, uh amount of uses.

What we are proposing from a traffic count standpoint is a huge step in a positive direction compared to what is approved there today.

Residential apartment uh traffic impact is actually one of the most minimally invasive from a traffic impact standpoint compared to all the other broad uses, whether it's retail, office or other types of commercial.

So although it sounds big in theory because it's 236 units, you know, upwards of 450 uh cars and parking spaces from a compared to the other uses that are in place, it is a minimal, much more minimal impact, as Jeff explained earlier, and we think is a step in the right direction to preventing something uh that could be um more detrimental uh to the area.

So, or Jeff Plank coming horn again, and I'll give it a little bit of perspective of that 80%, and so yes, it you have the 80% traveling out of the development to go south in the morning, you know, you're residential and you're gonna commuting to you know work base commute trip.

Um but when you're coming back, you're gonna use the right in right out, so they're not touching um spring crest.

So there's a net neutral with that, but with a perspective, we have a hundred trips during the peak hour.

That's less than two per minute on spring crest in the morning, um, with your demand to go south, you have 60.

That's one trip per minute.

So you have one vehicle going through that signal at a cycle length of 60 seconds or two vehicles going through it at a cycle length of um two minutes.

And so that gives a perspective of this is not a big generator, we talked numbers office buildings 68 feet tall, you know, it'd be generating 10 11 times this.

They would have to have access on spring crest.

My number of one trip per minute becomes 11 trips per minute.

And so one trip per minute is a very low generator.

Commissioner Engel for the for the record, um two observations.

Um one trip per minute may seem like very small, but if that trip gets backed up because of a traffic allowed at Voyager that doesn't allow traffic from spring springcrest to turn, then it's more the more of an impact on Spring Crest itself.

So I I think it's more than just who walks out the gate.

I think it's whether or not they can just disperse to where they need to go.

Just an observation.

That becomes into an issue of this land not being developable at all, then because well that that gets, yes, sir, that gets to my next point.

Uh 236 units.

Well, you said it's not viable, not viable for an apartment, perhaps at anything less.

Is it viable for single house uh medium or single occupancy estate?

I mean, obviously the lands to the north are essentially that type of activity, and that would not have the traffic problem, but it would probably be a financial disaster for you.

I I I appreciate that.

But the point is you can't say it can't be done because it can be done because it's done in other places uh directly north of where you're where you're proposing the development.

Oh my goodness.

Can everyone please mute if you're online?

That was loud.

Um, I and I don't know if you necessarily want to take that question.

I think that might be a better question for our staff.

Um, and I I mean I will opine that potentially doing a residential use is just a non-starter.

I don't think someone's gonna build a house next to a highway, but people will build multifamily houses next to a highway uh or a major arterial, but I don't know if there's any other commentary from staff as far as a zoning perspective.

Um I mean, I certainly appreciate that the line of questioning, right?

Cause I think we are in this this conversation of density and in intensity, and um I'm sure that there's some.

Maybe some opinions around why less intense uses and generally, right, at an intersection where you're transitioning from major arterials, business uses to intense residential, less intense residential.

There's a transition that is generally in a planning perspective anticipated, but Alison, maybe you can speak to that better.

Yeah, Alison Stocker, senior planner.

Um, I don't have too much to add to that discussion just because beyond what the zoning districts allows on a piece of property, really after that it becomes a market driven question.

I for the same reasons, you know, you just mentioned, I don't think a lot of developers are going to see their performance work for single family in a location like this because who wants to live maybe that close to a major intersection.

Um so the types of uses that we expect as a planning department to see here are going to be things that require more accessibility that kind of fit more along principal arterials, um, but that doesn't necessarily mean that planning is going to encourage or restrict specific uses.

Again, it's a market-driven issue.

And I'll also say, just for you know, the conversation in that way.

Like we've talked a little bit about the uh application that was to the north and uh and this body had denied that application because of spot zoning.

And same thing if if we were to put up an R1600 zoning here, that would certainly be a spot zone, which would not be consistent both with the adjacent properties nor with the overall master plan.

So this is one level away from what it was if we look at the allowable uses.

Um so just for yeah.

These issues are not easy, yes, sir.

Okay, uh at the risk of muddling this further.

Um this is Kevin Walker's planning director.

I'd like to add a couple of quick comments.

First, uh zoning is not always a scalpel.

Uh it does uh allow a broad uh band of uses, and it's an attempt to try and figure out the next level of specificity.

And we have several other um steps that occur in this process, and some of them you've mentioned there is a development plan and other um chances to review and appeal and have these things heard at public hearings as well.

So this is just the next, this is just a step.

Um, and I heard some of the discussion around restriction of uses.

I also just want to remind you that um that you're just a recommending body here, so uh uh we you can recommend that some of these uses be um stricken or restricted, especially if the uh the applicant is willing to, um, and and then that will go forward to city council.

So um I just wanted to add those couple of things that either help clarify or help muddle.

Thank you, sir.

Uh, Commissioner Slattery.

Uh thank you.

And I do um agree it is a um multi-layered um application to consider, but I wanted to just step back and I'm I guess address a topic that hasn't been discussed really at length at the DIES, and just touch on um criteria number one, which is the zoning goals and compatibility with plan COS.

Um, and so looking back to that document and to the master plan, even although it has been implemented, um, I'll first touch upon the master plan, which identifies this parcel as um, open as an industrial office, and and it's obviously it's uh pretty zoomed out, uh, but it looks like it is pretty much this parcel as industrial office, um, and looking at those uses and and what's allowed, um, you know, it would probably be a gas station, I would think looking at other looking at other um nearby, still looking at the master plan, looking at other uses of you know, there's commercial uses, we see it um, you know, implemented as the you know, hotels on the north side of Briargate, and you know, the the promenade uh shops and restaurants on the south has been implemented compatible.

The office building, um, may or may not happen, but I guess what I'm saying is that this parcel has always been identified for a high use um and high intensity usage within the master plan um within the Briar Gate Master plan.

So I just wanted to say that my um reading and interpretation of the master plan is that this proposed development is um compatible with that.

Moving on to plan COS and compatibility there, which is our first criteria.

If we look at map I have a lot of browsers open with um all of the many pieces of information provided.

If we look at the plan COS map um it was I believe I want to get which map it was correct first.

Um pardon pardon me I probably should pulled that up before you called on me.

Um within the plan COM established suburban neighborhood no so there's different right there's areas of change um it is you know considered uh within one map it is considered an entertainment district and then specifically on here it is the use map um plan COS map.

The area of change map um although the neighborhood right is an established neighborhood if we're looking at this parcel specifically it is the darkest red as an impacted high area of change.

So even within plan COS it was anticipated that this was a parcel um that would be developed the rest of them are low low to no areas of change because they are already developed um and then there are changes within the South bringing back and forth you know kind of changes of shops at promenade and the other retail we're seeing so if I'm you know basically I believe that it's meeting criteria one uh proposed area of change uh it it is uh compatible with plan COS and it was identified within that planning as a um high impact area of change that's it okay thank you uh you all may want to take a seat I don't know if we have any direct questions in the moment but as soon as I say that maybe Commissioner Cecil has a question.

You've just been standing for five times so yeah I'm still trying to get to get it fire.

Okay.

So uh Commissioner Cecil going to criteria number two from the same section 7.5.704 D two rounds come on down.

Um I'd like to know from fire's perspective whether the two points of uh access to the site seem adequate for um evacuations and emergency access.

Good afternoon Chair Hansler my first time Commissioner Steve Smith Carl Springs Fire Department we the fire code does not have any provisions for evacuations.

Fire code has provisions for giving into the site.

So the uh proposed 236 units it requires two points of access which they have so it meets code.

Or will meet code.

Being also uh having lived through Katrina and the Gulf South like uh Alison Flannery who spoke earlier I always have emergency concerns and I understand that that's not necessarily part of the FIRE code but I know the FIRE is very active in encouraging people to sign up for evacuation um notification apps and things of that nature but um in this area in your professional judgment is having an undeveloped site or a developed maintained site, a better control factor for abating or mitigating any wildfire risks does it basically if the what's the safety trade-off between what's there now and having it be managed and maintained.

Any structure that's gonna be built there is going to be hardened as compared to what it is today, which is just made of grass.

So if there were any fire that were to start really anywhere, close proximity.

Sparks could land and ignite the grass where it was a structure, the sparks could land and like I said, they'd be hardened.

So the chances of ignition would be significantly less.

And with the recurring topic of the school loading and on and children leaving at the end of the day, does fire have any additional concerns resulting from the traffic studies or the impact of the school about being able to access during the beginning and end of the school day?

I'm not aware of anything like that.

I haven't um been privy to any internal discussions concerning schools and other areas that present concerns for emergency response and access.

So I don't think I can answer that too well.

Can I piggyback on that?

Seem to be doing that a lot today.

Chair Hensler for the record.

So the um there's an existing station on Briargate, and then the one on North Voyager, and then there's a new one on 83 inner quest.

Yes, near New Life Church.

Yes.

So are you seeing already decreased response times for that general area?

It seems like this this location is now kind of surrounded, whereas before 22 and now whatever the new one is.

24, that maybe response times would have been more challenging on this north side.

But 22 is up near uh the amphitheater.

19s is the one that's on Briargate at Chapel Hills.

I believe this one is in 19s district.

Okay, I believe.

I have to double check.

In terms of reducing the overall call volume.

Response time is what, but either way, yeah.

With the addition of station 24, I don't believe that would reduce the response times on that because 19s is still the closest one.

Assuming they're in house, call comes in.

Okay, thanks.

Sorry, Jen.

Back to you.

I was done.

Okay.

Other questions for fire while we have Mr.

Smith here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, no one is signed.

Any other any other questions?

I'm not seeing anyone on the okay.

Robin's you were signed up earlier to speak.

Did you have anything or no?

Uh to try and get uh response from fire.

Um the only question I would have is who how fast would anyone be able to get the key to open up the uh east end of what is it uh that goes into Chapla Hills.

Who's got access or do you just bust through that thing in case of emergency?

And while Mr.

Smith's making his way back up here, um I would just ask, I think we're probably getting to a point of um wrapping up questions, it feels like.

So maybe think about any um comments that you have and would like to share so we can move towards a motion.

So Steve Smith again, Colorado Springs Fire.

I am familiar with that access point.

Uh, it is emergency access, it is gated.

What I don't know is if there's a community lock there.

There should be a Knox lock, which is for the fire department, but I'm not sure about community.

Oh, it's anyone's guess at this point.

Right.

We could definitely use it, but I'm not sure if the community can open it and use it.

In a case of an emergency, I think just uh that's an emergency.

You gotta get something done.

Sure.

Can't wait for uh half an hour.

Yep.

Okay.

Thanks.

Oh, sorry, wait, Steve.

When one more moment.

Uh huh.

Commissioner Casey.

Commissioner Case for the record.

So um sorry.

Question came up as I was thinking about is this is in the city-county boundary.

Um, how does that maybe limit or make your jurisdiction I guess better what what kind of mitigating factors are involved there with fire hydrants and things like that?

Um not sure if you can explain that.

I understand your question.

The Otero neighborhood, I'll call it they had a correct counties on that northern side and northeast and even further and then cities.

So, Donald Westcott jurisdiction technically.

Okay.

However, we have an agreement to respond in that area for them on their behalf.

Okay.

So, and and they I don't believe that there's any public water through there.

I don't think there's any hydrants.

Okay, yeah.

So it yeah, we just have to rely on what the city's got.

And so do you know what is currently there for mitigating factors with fire hydrants along that road?

If that's congestion, then the evacuations right routes I've heard, or there's three different ones for the area.

Yeah, I'm not familiar enough with the layout of that area in terms of water supply and stuff.

Okay, answer that confidently.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, was your question for Mr.

Smith?

Okay.

I was just gonna ask if they are required to add a hydrant on this plan.

I didn't look close enough at the I'm almost positive.

Okay, I'm guessing one, maybe two.

But that'll be determined when the development plan comes in.

Okay.

Sorry, Commissioner Willoughby for the record.

In your opinion, Mr.

Smith, do you in terms of the evacuation concerns that were raised?

I think it's almost more of a traffic question, but do you have anything to add to that or do you have any significant concerns about an evacuation during uh no?

Like I said, the the fire code doesn't have any evacuation provisions during an emergency.

Fire department is getting into the site to mitigate the emergency.

Police department who was here earlier.

Probably could have answered this better, but they are the ones that actually perform the evacuations, and we do have police online if we want to ask questions of them just as a point.

Yeah.

Thank you.

One last time.

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

Um, so speaking of that, we do have um CSPD who's here earlier, but we do have them on the phone.

If um anyone does have questions that are more specific to police.

So Commissioner Case, do you have to?

Yeah, I think I'd just like to hear a general statement about the safety and how CSPD has analyzed the area for the board and public.

Is it Mr.

Dud Trainer online?

Yeah, good afternoon, everybody.

Sorry, I couldn't be there in person.

This is uh Deputy Chief Doug Trainer with Colorado Springs Police Department.

Just making sure everybody's able to copy me.

Yes, loud and clear.

Okay.

Yeah, uh certainly in looking at the area, it's an area where we have not had a um we certainly have a low crime rate.

We have a low incidence of traffic impact.

So our general statement is is just that that um we we don't can't really assess the impact of any crime or anything that this would potentially bring.

But if you have a more specific question, I'm happy to answer it.

Can you speak to with the growth of apartments on that side of town?

Uh, can you speak to any increase in volume in crimes in those specific communities?

Or is that something that you would have any knowledge of?

Well, I think I I did pull data for the crime in that in that area and certainly in that district, and it is what I would consider to be very low compared to other parts of the city.

Thank you.

And you don't see that.

I certainly can't provide an exact analysis of that specific this specific project on how it would impact crime.

Sure, or any commentary on apartment um communities versus residential neighborhoods versus commercial as far as crime would be concerned.

Is that a fair question to ask?

Yeah, I think it's certainly a fair question, but uh there's so many other factors that you could not just identify an apartment complex and say that in general apartment complexes cause more or less crime.

I don't think that would be a fair depiction.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Uh Commissioner Case, just for question to go on to what Steve was talking about with fire city code doesn't necessarily address evacuations.

How would police address that and what's maybe a worst case evacuation scenario and how is that analyzed today?

Yeah, obviously, thank you for the the question there, Commissioner.

I think our ability to evacuate has certainly been improved over the last six months with our implementation of a drone program that can assist in that.

But with regard to this particular project, again, I I think it would be very incident specific for us to assist fire in any kind of evacuations that were needed.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the dais for anyone?

This is Commissioner Cecil.

I have questions from my other commissioners.

Um given the discussion that we've had, including the discussion around uses appropriate to this site and um Commissioner Slattery or vest share slatteries reminder regarding the potential of a an additional review of the development plan stage.

Are there any amendments or um say use exceptions that we'd like to discuss here before we really evaluate of an emo a motion to approve or deny?

Yes, short answer, right?

So looking at that allowable use table, um there was two kind of you can um limit limit allowable uses or you can exclude uses.

So um perhaps we can get confirmation from city staff that the I mean for this application, right?

The the land use is it appears to me, correct me if I'm wrong, you can just not that that the multifamily use is tied to um the land use plan and that the zone change is independent of that, right?

So basically we have to make any amendments at the zone change level, if we wanted to.

Commissioner Slattery Dan Sexton, planning manager.

Um so if I understand your question specifically, I mean, these are two applications that you're concurrently hearing uh for this project.

Um so you know, given the the general inquiry from Commissioner Cecil of amendments or modifications to either of those applications, I think you can look at them collectively in that conversation here, but ultimately when a motion is made, uh any proposal for a condition of record applied to the zone change should be acknowledged through that zone change motion.

Uh and then similar if there was a condition of approval applied to the land use plan, that would be through that the motion for that application.

Thank you.

Yeah, so you um so conditions of record that could be proposed would be to limit the allowable um use within that zone, a condition on that parcel to multifamily.

Um alternatively, we could exclude such uses that would be permissible within the MXM, such as adult retail, um, some of the commercial centers, if we choose a liquor store, um transit station, different retail.

So there could be specific exclusions, um or a much more limited um, you know, single um allowable use.

You know, all of all other uses besides multifamily, if that was chosen, or we could specifically exclude um some of the allowable or conditionally allowable uses.

There's also considerations of accessory uses, such as Commissioner Case brought up with potential to leave open um uses such as daycare or other community amenities that you know could be a benefit down the road without going through a rezone.

So as we're um taking the scalpel to this particular parcel of zoning, um, we could be mindful as a body to um you know maintain the long view and potential benefits as well.

Are you anticipating making a motion?

You know, I'm of uh a couple of feelings here, like I really hate the idea of rezoning and then stripping the rezoning of all meaning, but I also have a sensitivity toward what some of the commons and I things that I don't think would be allowed anyway, and I wonder if maybe this is a thing I ought to ask maybe Alison or Dan, which is you've got things like uh a bar or an adult entertainment facility and retail marijuana that would be allowable, but they wouldn't be allowable in this proximity to a school.

So are there buffers we should consider that would eliminate some of those more deleterious uses?

Hello, Alison Stocker for the record.

Um without having the code in front of me and having done the research on all of these particular different scenarios.

I can't say with 100% fact for all of us, I would say though, that each use is looked at in relation to the zoning for the property.

We look at dimensional standards, we look at use specific standards.

So a lot of these uses that are allowed in the MXM, just because they're allowed in the MXM does not mean they would necessarily fit here.

It does not mean that traffic or fire necessarily would be comfortable with those uses.

It also means that there might be use specific standards prohibiting them in certain zones, or if they're in proximity to schools or residences.

So I would say there are a lot of other protections built into the code that might influence what else could happen on site.

But again, without having sat down and done the research, I can't eliminate or tell you which would be a concern or not a concern for this particular property.

Commissioner Slattery for the dumb question.

We heard multifamily, we heard attached single family.

What's the difference?

I think in this case, the applicant is referring to multifamily as in more than three units on a property.

Usually when we refer to single family attached, that's more like a um town home type product.

So they can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting nods.

So this is gonna be more of a traditional apartment multifamily community.

That was my understanding.

I think that the applicant used perhaps the wrong term in part of her presentation.

I just got confused.

It's worth clarifying.

Mr.

Walker.

Yeah, I want to add again a little bit more uh context.

The next step in this process, if this were to be approved the way it is now, would be the development plan.

The development plan has criteria that has to be met relative to adjacent uses and impacts on adjacent uses and impacts on existing infrastructure, etc.

So this is not the last time that uses and intensity and inappropriate um, you know, mixing of land uses or relationships to adjacent land uses will be heard by the planning staff.

And so I I just I I I wanna emphasize that the process here still has um triggers that that can, you know, the planning department can say a bar is not appropriate, and uh at the development plan stage or a gas station or other kinds of uses, especially when the land use plan states that the objective for this rezoning was multifamily apartments, and so I think that we have a lot of a lot of firepower to to get to where you're trying to get to, which is to not uh not allow um some uses, but allow appropriate uses and rather than trying to negotiate that here at the at the podium with the extraordinary list of uses that are in our code and the 500 pages of it that were you know that affect all of this, I'd I I think I would recommend for you to consider that we've heard your comments, they will become part of the record.

Um the development plan will be compared against the land use plan and the criteria for development plan, which is has substantive uh wording having to do with adjacent land uses and compatibility to those uses.

If I might also add in addition to that, of course, any land use plan amendment or development plan that comes forward would also have the same public notice procedures that we've seen for this item and they would also be appealable by the public if certain criteria are met.

So the public would have also the opportunity to be involved in that as well.

Thank you, Allison.

Um Chair Hensler.

Uh Mr.

Ritter, I have a question for you.

Um given all of this, I think that some of the concern that I am maybe sensing between the lines here is if we approve a zone change of this parcel to MXM, lots of things can happen with an MXM.

And so what if your development does not go forward?

Then we are responsible for having changed a zoning that allows all sorts of things that that are even worse than your development to the neighboring community.

Do you have a timeline for the development?

Do you have any certainty?

Do you have any commentary that you can give to kind of address some of that?

Because I agree, like we don't want to take away every single thing, but we want to make sure that the use you're asking for is the use that's gonna be there so that these folks who have come and spent time and are care about their community have a sense of certainty of what will be there or will not be there.

Right, yes.

Um, again.

Oh yeah, sorry.

Andrew Ritter, uh Blackburn Communities.

Our timing, our plan of timing is once we get through obviously planning commission and get set city council approval, we would immediately move into the development plan process and pursue development plan approval as fast as possible.

Now, once we get through development plan, um that does not mean that we're starting construction the following day.

We would then need to work through construction documents and plan and designs uh architectural and civil with the city and with Pikes Peak Regional Building Department.

So I would say the soonest that we would actually be starting construction of the project would be next summer, so probably July, June or July of 2027.

Um it could be later than that.

It obviously depends on the market, you know.

If the market were to take a turn and um for whatever reason we had to press pause, you know, that that could shelve uh the the project for the time being until we wait on the fundamentals to be where we need them to be to start construction.

Is that answer your question?

It does, and I I mean I think that we can't ever ask for certainty, right?

I mean, it is market-based, and right now we have a lot of need for a lot of housing, and um I don't think that's gonna change in twelve or fourteen months, but um, but I think that that that's what I'm kind of sensing is if we make this change, it can lead to other things.

And if your development didn't happen, then what would it potentially be there?

And we would be back in this process again with the community.

So, so okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Ritter while he's still here?

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Uh this is Commissioner Cecil for the record.

I appreciate Mr.

Walker's reassurances.

I wanted to revisit one other suggestion that uh Vice Chair Slattery had brought up earlier, which was whether or not we require the development plan to come back through here in the context of knowing that that would likely slow down some things to an extent to have something docketed and scheduled, not wanting to compromise financing.

I wondered if my fellow commissioners had thoughts there.

Mr.

Walker, Mr.

Sexton.

I'm not a fellow commissioner, but I will I do have some remarks.

Or directors of planning have thoughts.

Kevin Walker, planning director.

Um our concern in this what when we get to this kind of question is twofold.

One is it the development plan can end up here if we refer it or if it gets appealed.

And we would much prefer that we have that rather than for uh a development plan that comes before you has an approval, but a minor development plan, uh changing a couple parking places around or doing some other kind of thing in a later context, also then has to come to you uh and delays you know what should not really be a matter in front of the planning commission.

And so we think that the code and the process has adequate triggers in it that can get this to you if there's an argument.

Um and so we would prefer that it remain like that, and that's why it's written the way it is.

Um and so that's the that's kind of my comment.

It's it's again it's heard.

We've the this is gonna become part of the record.

Um if we think that there's a concern um that needs to be addressed by the planning commission and really is gonna end up here anyway, we'll bring it to you.

At least that's been our practice in the past with this new code.

Does that satisfy your yeah, that's consistent with the opinion I expected Mr.

Walker to express, but I'd still like to hear if commissioners had other thoughts that they wanted to share on that potential amendment.

Sure.

If somebody was to make a motion um either to a put conditions of record to exclude certain activities, and I'm sure um if it got to that point that our staff would um already be looking at compatibility issues, um, however, right, because it is a public process and because uh we have heard so many voices here express concern about children's safety and proximity.

Um I would be in the camp of supporting um exclusions to it, and uh if someone was to make a motion, I would um be supportive of development plan approval coming back before this body.

Does that answer your question, Commissioner Cecil?

Yes, thank you.

You're welcome.

I mean, I think with that, if if we could um get most folks to weigh in here if there's if you have a um a sense of which direction when supportive or not, and if so, what conditions might be in the back of your mind so we can kind of get a sense of that and start to draft a motion.

I think that would be helpful.

If I'm looking at use categories or or um allowable uses and categories as a blanket and thinking about traffic generation and um concerns, the eating, drinking, and lodging category within MXM.

Um and the entertainment recreation and heavy commercial storage industry pieces I would think would not be compatible um with the MXM and this parcel.

So I can state each of those or the ones we think um, or we could we could alternatively limit the allowable uses to um without being specific.

Um to which types of household living categories they could apply to household living overlay, Mr.

Sexton.

Dan's gonna yell at me, I think.

Dan Sexton Planning Manager for the planning department uh commissioners, I think kind of using the the terminology uh our director Kevin Walker had used to before, you can be as surgical or as you know heavy handed as you would like with your recommendation for restriction or prohibition of uses.

Um, you know, certainly if you if you use those subcategories of heavy industrial storage, things like that, that is sufficient guidance for staff to say all uses under that subtype um are prohibited.

Um or if you want to be very specific to say, you know, a restaurant is prohibited, uh hotel is prohibited.

We can go that realm as well.

Um, Commissioner Cecil for the record, Commissioner Slattery.

I like the uh categories that you named.

I would like to add marijuana related services as well to the um broader categories of uses that I don't think would work well on the site that aren't also in the site plane right now.

Allison stocker senior planner.

I would just add that um per code marijuana-based uses would not be allowed here anyway because they are in proximity school and there's a 1,000 foot buffer.

That's my earlier question.

Correct.

I actually was just doing the measuring and I forgot I had that open.

The far south southeast corner is a thousand feet, the rest of it is within seven or eight hundred feet of the school building itself, so fair enough.

And it needn't be stated.

And I think that also naturally prohibits you were talking about that earlier.

I think that naturally prohibits a lot of other uses um that cannot be within a lot of other several other uses that cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school.

Mr.

Um Commissioner Robbins, did you have comments or questions?

I know you signed up on this.

Uh yes, I guess just to this whole thing is quite the can you hear me?

I'll eat this thing if we can get closer.

Okay.

Um, yeah, this is really quite the mess, I think.

Uh there's a lot of reasons why not to do this, and there's also a lot of good work done on the developer side to uh try to make everything as compatible as possible.

But in a lot of ways, I feel like trying to put a uh quarter peg in a round hole, and it all comes down to what can that lot be used for successfully.

And uh traffic is an issue to me.

The safety of the children, of course, is definitely an issue.

Uh I'm really not in favor of making those problems enhanced.

Um I think the neighborhood uh obviously was developed uh with um in the county, and you're trying to force city code, I think, into an area that was a county.

Um just so many issues that come into play right here, and I really, you know, the development up north off of old ranch road, that alone, that county-based road of old ranch road being turned into trying to force traffic there, and they're gonna come down Otero.

That's gonna be busy.

Uh I have many times been in the area during parent drop-off and pick up um people getting off work trying to make the turn coming south on Voyager into the neighborhood, and that's backed up.

It's just a mess already.

And I the improvements, supposed improvements that I'm hearing, really are going to cause accidents from what I can tell.

Uh, and I just remember that from my previous occupation of the city.

So I'm just not real excited about this whole project.

You could turn that thing to a beautiful city park for all I care, but I don't like the idea of endangering people, children.

Uh I think that's uh that's just again, it's a quandary that we had before us with all of this.

Um a lot of times we are trying to use a piece of property and put it in a box and say that's that's what you can do with it.

And yet common sense says no.

No, that's really not usable.

That doesn't make sense at all.

And I just don't appreciate that uh we're forced to try and tell someone else what they're going to do with their personal property either.

Um it is not good, it's not safe, and I I know I'm meandering on here, but it just doesn't make common sense to to put everyone at risk, just so somebody can build a building and uh and move on to the next project uh somewhere else.

Um, I'm not in favor of this at all.

And if we have to just say no for now and come back at a different time and um addressed a different issue or different use that uh maybe more compatible, then we do that.

But right now, I'm not in favor of this whatsoever.

Okay.

Thanks for your comments.

Um Commissioner Willoughby, I think you had signed up.

Did you have questions you want to make a comment?

Commissioner Willoughby, um, I was wondering along Vice Chair Slattery's comments, would you would we exclude transportation and utilities and communication as well?

Or if you had specific thoughts around why you wouldn't exclude those uses.

I'm making a list, I'm going through the uses right now and trying to find a logical proposal.

So I think that T is is down below where I'm at right now.

Okay, thank you.

Um I mean, I'll I'll this Chair Hensler, I'll opine.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Sexton.

Go ahead.

I was just gonna say if if any of the commissioners have uh or would like to take a break and and discuss with staff potential kind of language for uh a modified motion that we've proposed with potential amendments, we would be happy to do that.

You know, we have been going for a while.

Maybe it's time for uh uh a bio break and a check in with staff, and then we can finish our comments.

Okay, all right.

Well, we'll take a twelve-ish minute break until the hour, hopefully that'll give us enough time.

Thank you all for your patience.

Okay.

I think we're gonna come back to order.

If staff is ready.

Okay.

Uh Chair Hensler.

I'm gonna open it up with some additional comments and conversation with chair with Commissioner Slattery.

And then I think we will go kind of down the dais and get some opinions and response and kind of see where our um our motion is going to tend towards.

Commissioner Slattery for the record.

I want to for those few remaining, thank you for coming, giving your opinion and participating in the public process.