So I have been informed that we need to do a roll call for attendance this morning.

So I will turn to Salon for that.

When you are ready.

Commissioner Slattery.

Commissioner Robins.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Engel.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Commissioner Didiano.

Here.

Here.

Commissioner Thissel.

Here.

Thank you.

We have eight members present.

Okay.

Um.

Any changes to our agenda?

I know there were some missing links that will get taken care of by formal.

Any other changes to the agenda?

I'm just going down the agenda.

Kevin, anything you feel like is going to or Dan?

Dan, any UDC items we want to add?

So it's like not allowed.

Okay.

So for communications, I'll probably say the same thing to Kevin's probably going to say.

We did interviews last Friday with a slew of candidates.

I can't remember how many.

27.

No.

Like six or something, I don't remember.

And I believe an offer has been extended for a voting member and two alternates.

Out of that.

And you probably know when those are going to go to council.

Next Tuesday.

Next Tuesday.

Okay.

So we should have.

I'm not sure when they scheduled the start date.

So I think that may be August, not July.

Okay.

Yeah, because Andrea's term is up officially on the 28th of July.

And so it would be our first August meetings.

We would implement that those new individuals onto the commission.

And that would include you and Jen's reappointment.

And I'm assuming that city staff has reached out to you.

Have they've not.

Yeah, we just conferred with uh council staff on that.

Okay.

Is it safe to assume that we wish to be reappointed?

Or as you wish to be reappointed.

Okay, good.

Okay, good.

Too bad.

Too bad for reappointing you.

Okay.

Okay.

And likewise, I'd like to be reappointed.

I've left long to know that.

Um so then hopefully by August we will have a full complement of voting and non-voting members.

And then I think as um I've talked about with a couple of staff and commissioners.

I think we'll make sure that we have all of our secondary DRB, whatever else, whatever else appointments and make sure we've got people slated where they should be.

So I think that's all I had that I can remember I took half your thunder, but maybe you have more.

No, I knew you were gonna do that.

Okay.

So I just have a couple of things.

First, I want to uh have Melissa introduce our new staff member.

So uh thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Kevin.

We have our new plan tech one that started on Monday this is Samantha Fawn is stock did I say that right oh okay I've been practicing in my head so she comes to us she is currently living here she comes to us uh as a previous uh she worked in the city of Austin in historic preservation as a planner too sorry perfect um for a little while so we're really excited to have her and uh she is on my team and anything that you want to say oh happy to be here nice to meet you all and uh looking forward to working with you know extend uh my thanks to all of you for your uh patience with some of the changes that are going on uh you know we're doing AI minutes and appreciate your patience with that we're changing our rules around work sessions and other things like that based on the fact that we've been doing it wrong for 48 years and so some of those habits some of those habits die hard uh but I appreciate your guys' patience as we try to make sure we're doing this correctly um with the city attorney looking over our photo um so thank you for that um yeah from a council perspective the boulder vacation was approved at their last meeting um after much uh backs and forths and all kinds of public meetings uh it ended up being a six to two vote um with one uh vote um abstaining so um that that was probably the biggest uh thing that's occurred at council um in in the in recently and then there is no council meeting uh the second meeting in uh june so that'd be June 23rd they're all out of town at a colored municipal league um meeting and so that's put a lot of oddness in terms of trying to plan for agendas and getting hearings done and and those kinds of things uh so that's going on and um what else is going on around our office our office we're starting the budget process believe it or not for 2027 and so a lot of information around that and um that's kind of that's kind of all we'll talk more specifically about the scheduling of the special meeting for the data center and kind of the timing around that um here in a few minutes so any questions comments concerns great that takes us right into new business and mr gray that's you had cottage court at costilla or of costia on the court on costilla yes on costilla take us away all right um so this is our applications um they are a development standards adjustment and a development plan um it is uh the development is for 14 single family adapt homes and the development standards adjustment is uh related to part you go on to the next slide there so we are located um at 745 east costilla and 404410 south prospects or the southwest corner uh costilla and prospect and we are just east of uh downtown across uh shooks run uh the zoning of this property as you can see is um mxl most of the zoning from the edge of downtown, as you can see, is a mix of business park, like general industrial, and then for the remote part, rest of hillside, is all residential um zoning.

Um this mxl zone district, to the best of my knowledge, it's been around since the 1980s.

It could be longer than that, but i could not uh figure out um the rezoning sequences in this in this area, but um this MXL zoning to some extent makes some sense in reality because we do have more commercial um businesses once we get to like the middle of this block and then heading east, but on the south side of the alley, we have more residential um zone property.

So, anyhow, that's kind of give you just a little overview of the zoning in that area.

The site is just uh about a half acre in size, as I mentioned, it's for single-family attached um housing and go ahead and go to the next slide.

Slow.

So uh here's just a uh context map just to kind of give you a more specific idea of what's going on.

We do have our main streets uh running uh east-west and north-south, and then kind of traditional critic pattern of this part of the city.

Um we have uh the ships run uh trail, we have bus route, we have bike routes.

Um we have, as you can see, a mix of uh residential commercial um and industrial uh land uses in the vicinity of this project.

Um, and again, I'll just emphasize yeah, we are just kind of a stone's throw away from um from downtown Colorado Springs.

Next slide.

Um, this is just zoomed in on the particular property that we're talking about.

So yellow is the outline of the development site.

The site was uh previously developed, developed.

So there was an old convenience store here, I believe it was in existence through the 1990s.

There were two single family homes uh built in the early 1900s, those have now been um uh demolished.

This property has been vacant uh for quite a long time.

So it hasn't been anything there.

Um we just give you a little more detail on Costa Street.

We're probably all familiar.

It does have two travel lanes, it's got bike lanes, parking lanes, is um on a bus route.

The right-of-way is a hundred, it's at 80 feet or 100 feet in width.

The one thing you should know about the prospect when you're looking at this is it's a very narrow, uh very narrow right-of-way, so um, which is kind of somewhat important as it relates to this project.

So next slide.

Uh, and so here it is.

This is the proposed um development.

So we would have 14 single family lots um around a kind of central green space that runs from Costias Costilla back to the alley.

Um, these images on the right give you an idea of what the development would look and feel like uh when it is built.

So you would have uh seven buildings, um, they would be um kind of in a duplex style, but they are on their own individual lots, they're four sale houses.

Um these are two story in height, and uh the units on uh the west east side are one story in height.

Um they do have parking that they're providing in the rear, um 11 11 spaces.

Um, so those all those are accessed by the alley.

Um, we would have new landscaping they would put in.

They would have um reliance on the public street to meet their parking standards.

So the development standards uh adjustment is really asking for planning commission or the city to consider two things based on kind of the style of this development and duplexes, um, that they uh would like us to look at it as if they were multifamily, so then we can apply this different parking standards, which brings the parking requirement to 18 uh on-site parking spaces, um, and they're asking to provide just 11 and then take advantage of the credits or reductions that code allowed.

So I think everyone is familiar that in the development code that if you have if the street has on-street parking and it is adjacent to the site, it's not specifically going to be their parking, it still remains general parking, but they can apply that credit, and then um if you are on a uh trans transit route or within you have to be on a transit route, but you have to be in a certain distance of a stop, you get a transit reduction of 10%.

And if you're on a bike route, it's a five percent reduction of the uh um parking requirement.

So that's that's to me, probably one of the bigger pieces of this um application.

Um, and then I just wanted to highlight to the planning commission that this application is coming to us talking or attempting to address the housing needs of the city, and this fits into I guess this big umbrella that people call missing middle housing.

So in this case, I think this cottage court style, which we don't have it as a land use, but many places around the country, maybe even in Colorado that do have this cottage fort, add a specific land use, and that's kind of the concept that these guys that this application is trying to do.

So much of their um uh language or um explanation in their application is about the missing middle diversifying housing, uh the scale of this these units, even though there's more density, fits with the residential character of this area, and it's also supported because it's in a location that's walkable, bikeable, I guess busable, training, busable, um, and to some degree trying to explain that hey, if you don't, we I think yeah, to some degree that we can provide a more affordable product by providing this many uses, reducing their size and not having to build so much parking.

So that's kind of I think their explain explanation that they provide a rationale um for this project.

So you are going to hear I believe you're going to hear, I said this last time and nobody showed up.

I believe you're going to hear from the neighbors on this, and I you're going to hear about too many units.

You're going to hear about parking troubles.

Um I think those are really traffic, I guess.

Just we hear those things all the time.

Um, and so those are going to be the big um, yeah, I think the big items.

But if if you want, I I can I'll share two last things with the planning commission.

I'm sorry to roll off, but take your time.

I was thinking about this project and how we all should be looking at it.

And this to me is kind of a development where we're talking about housing versus parking.

Um this might be just something you think about as you're reviewing this over the weekend and leading up to this hearing would be should on-site parking standards be applied in an urban setting like this, where we have walking, biking transit available, um, or um, I guess in some cases prioritized.

But I would just say in this case for the city of Colorado Springs, it's just available.

I don't think we can prioritize um transit, or the other way to look at it is it acceptable or the rational that to trade off parking access for housing access.

Um, and that's so this is uh there's this is kind of to me a maybe a little philosophical, really policy directed.

This could have bigger impacts, but I think that's kind of the focus of this um this application.

So and I don't believe we've seen a cottage court style development in the city, uh where um an applicant is asking us to consider the general use of the street in kind of a different way because I think the very traditional way is the streets are first driving, and the private parking is to be on private property.

So that's all I think I have.

Applicant will have a robust presentation.

Yeah, they'll have a I would hope so.

Yeah, and I know that we weighed in on the transit oriented development uh legislation as a body, but then council didn't do anything with that, and this would not count as one of those because it's not near a transit hub or center.

Do you all know remember what I'm talking about?

But this is this is too far from transit, but so they're not necessarily utilizing that uh provision.

You're talking about the parking yeah, no, and part of that has to do with this these are not apartments either.

Oh, right, that was true multi-family.

That was really multi-family oriented.

But when we find ourselves with things that are somewhat between that, I think that's getting back to your philosophical.

I hear some of that argument from the app.

Sure.

Yeah, if you have I think um it looked like this was going to be an well, since I didn't have any links either, an easy item, and maybe not so much.

So good, good, okay.

Um I know you said near bike routes, but is there bike parking set up here at all?

I know it's not multi-family or commercial, so the share parking, but is that something we've done?

Um you should ask that question of the applicant, but in this where it is right now, there is no bike parking.

Okay, they have a week.

Yeah, no, I I mean it's a good question.

And yours, because I know.

Yeah, but I it gets to the point of to me, this is one of those where you fall in the middle.

I can multifamily versus single family attached.

It's like, you know, they might just tell me it's like they're gonna park their bikes on their lot, lean it up against our house or store it inside.

I don't know, but it's a good question.

And we have talked to the applicant about that very thing.

Um they chose more parking spaces.

I mean, I could see the the struggle and the fight for that, yeah.

That I think yeah, to me, I think they they feel they're maybe I won't say otherwise it'll just start being my advocate.

It'll be my personal opinion about what they should be doing back there.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, I would say if if you've got time, it's helpful to drive by if you didn't see this um because um it's it's it is really helpful to take to take this and then go to a half acre lot and visualize that, and then also what happens on the street when on street parking is gonna be more relied on for the types of project than it would otherwise.

Yeah, um, I have lots of questions that I'll say for next week.

Otherwise, Sarah will give me the second.

I guess i i'm curious about maybe management of the overall development since it's kind of that mix of apartments and single family.

Are they gonna have some sort of maybe HOA type thing with that or have an owner's association?

Okay.

So they'll set it up right now.

They're gonna they're setting up a town home development.

Right.

Right, okay, yeah.

And because they're single family, they'll all be individually owned in theory.

I mean maybe maybe it'll be a it's a good one yeah it really is yeah and when do we think we'll get um links to all the info yeah that was my fault by the way so I think everything has been approved and there you should get them shortly okay that's good okay any other questions can't be asked until next week no I just yeah okay so we're ordering lunch is what I'm just I'm hoping that we're not because I have another one to attend next week so um okay well then is um sheila for annex coas actually no i i'd like to see if i could swap those i ask for changes to the agenda i know and i didn't look at them until the it's an audible now so sorry it's an audible not a change what i what i'd like to do is just sort of chat a little bit about the schedule on the data center yeah don't want to talk about data centers in general or specifics because we're in the process of reviewing and these are all coming to you probably at some point and so don't want to talk about anything that uh resembles the project and or the issues can you opine on that for just a moment um like what type of information can or should folks be thinking about or not thinking about or you know what you mean like what we're what we want to talk about is just really the schedule the status what what the process is and where what the status of the process is and what the expected schedule is.

That's the only three things that I want to talk about.

So the status is that we have had a project submitted that is of significant uh concern to the city and um we will we are working towards an approval um of that or not i mean we could it's possible still that it's not there but we haven't finished our review so we are in administrative review at the moment sometime next week is when we expect to have a conclusion to that process um the likelihood is that either way however we go forward this will be appealed um and we have a fancy schmancy uh methodology is a lot better on on a large screen um to try and figure out how to what what the dates kind of are and how to get this done so um we have a 10-day appeal period then after after any appeal is received that has to be heard has to be scheduled within seven days a meeting and that the meeting has to occur between 30 and 60 days um uh from um 30 and 60 days yeah from the date of the appeal receipt so um and since this is a uh rapid response the city and the city council would all like to get this done as quickly as possible and so our schedule at the moment is to have this approved sometime next week or denied and appealed after that then we would have a uh 30 day waiting period which leaves us out into the end of July so you guys have we've asked you to opine on what on your availability on the 23rd which is a Thursday 28th and the 29th which is a uh Tuesday and Wednesday um but with this appeal process uh we can't do the 29th because it ends on the it ends on a weekend and that additional day will create a 30 day delay beyond that.

So the available options right now that you've seen are the 23rd and the 28th uh the 28th doesn't look like it's doing very well in terms of attendance.

And so the 23rd is preferred.

I would though offer that we could have the meeting on Friday the 24th or Monday, the 207th.

27th um and so if anybody has if if you could by maybe by the end of the meeting today, think a little bit about whether what your availability is on that Monday and or Friday.

Because it's certainly we can do the hearing on those days, and it's available.

And then this would then, if it were appealed after the planning commission.

So this is just a development plan.

Just a development plan.

And then it would go if it were appealed, it would move to the uh September 8th City Council meeting.

So that's kind of the general schedule.

And so our ask of you is to take a look and see if there's any interest at all in a Monday or a Friday hearing like that.

Cause that it gives us really only one day since the 28th has not been a good.

We didn't get it.

We anticipate that being a full day thing though.

Yeah.

I I would anticipate that.

Yeah, this is a significant issue.

Well over, though there's probably doubling up, but we had 600 people at one meeting and probably four or five hundred at the another meeting and over 600 comments online and others.

So it's a substantive substantive issue.

Anyway, that's that's what I would like to have you guys think about.

That's why I wanted to go, that's why I wanted to swap this so it gives you some time to think about it a little bit before the end of the day.

Yes, Melissa.

I just asked that um at the end of the meeting if commissioners that are present can come see staff so we can just talk about that and make sure the dates make sure we have that selected for anybody online.

So the large will reach out to you all individually.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, I'm just gonna speak and maybe others agree with me.

I think a Friday meeting would be the less ideal.

I would I would prefer the Thursday or the Monday, but if we have to do the Friday, maybe we kind of say first prior first choice might be the Thursday if people are available, spollowed by Monday and finally Friday.

I mean, I'll give up my Friday for anything for this city.

But knowing that this isn't go late into the evening, um, I think that's less preferable, but um, but if someone can't do the Thursday, then maybe we look at if the Monday's available.

And then I think also too, like the Andrea's term is at the 29th, which we could uh I think she could be extended beyond, but if we get that also is part of the I think the timing that we keep the kind of the same commission that we've had and not trying to change our members or have someone be gone.

So I think that fits as long as we can get it done by the 28th.

So we do earlier in the week of the 23rd, like Wednesday or Tuesday, even no, because the well, you know.

I think it all depends on when ultimately an appeal would be filed.

So the the date ranges from a kind of conservative standpoint that we've looked at um maximize the 10 day appeal period and then start the 30-day clock as opposed to day two of the 10-day appeal period, somebody filing, and now we can start that 30-day clock.

So we're we're it's we're kind of approaching it.

That is more dependent on the date that we are done reviewing.

And um, and so if we could get the review done sooner than it's possible that we could do that the Wednesday or the Tuesday before.

Sorry, I missed that last statement right now.

It's the difference between July 10th or July 12th as the target date.

Yes.

Yeah.

So remind me of some of my favorite civil service.

Well, you know what?

Let's not let's do this then.

Let's add those two dates.

The 22nd and the 21st.

To uh thought process there.

And um maybe we might have already seen if we think we can realistically get that.

I just need to confirm whether REC is available in the states.

I'll do that right now.

Sorry, this is June or July.

July.

July.

Okay, thank you.

This is June, but the meeting we're talking about is July.

Also, thank you for that clarification.

And what day of the week is today?

I don't know.

I need to know that.

That's asking that that we can.

That's too much.

Yeah, okay.

Well, I would say, and again, just like my um suggestion or admonishment, whatever you might have taken it as to respond to staff quickly about if you're gonna attend meetings, be as timely as possible on any of these dates, knowing even that it could change, just so that we can make sure that like we would have a quorum.

So please and thank you.

Okay.

Um my question is what days are we zeroing in on because I've heard so many days now that you guys have talked about 27, 21, 22, yeah, 21.

22, 23.

Now we're back to 21.

24.

That's what I just asked you.

Based on a question from staff or from the commission.

So that week.

So the weekend, Thursday of that week, and basically Tuesday or Monday.

No, Tuesday.

Monday the 27th or Tuesday, the 20th.

Yeah, or Tuesday the 20th.

Yeah.

I'd have to miss a golf tournament if we did on Tuesday, so that's not.

Uh so the week of the 20th.

If you have any major conflicts, any that okay, good.

Yeah, it's just such a moving target.

Yeah.

And please come see staff before you leave.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, this is Shiva.

I just have a conflict on the 24th.

Otherwise, any and all of the stuff you were saying works.

And Ryan, you have a conflict the whole week of the 27th.

Oh, yeah, last week of July, but the week of the 20th through the 24th is best for me.

Preferably earlier in the week if possible.

But in these 21st, 22nd.

Oh, this is uh Amanda.

I just wanted to weigh in that I can make any of those dates.

Awesome, thank you.

Since we're kind of discussing this, is it kind of stool over on Robin?

Or do you still want to wait till afterwards?

Let's just continue the dialogue.

I am available all of those dates.

Um, and I'll make it work.

I could do any of the dates.

Commissioner Clements.

I'll make I'll make it work.

Brian Brian.

Which one?

21st or 22nd, the best for me.

But could you do the 20th, 23rd, or 24th if needed?

24th, 20th, 23rd, no.

You cannot do the 23rd.

Okay.

I could, but I might have to leave early.

That's not ideal.

So okay.

This time the only person we don't know about would be Commissioner's Lattery.

Is that correct?

Correct.

But she's coming back from a European trip.

She can't take any more time off.

It's very good.

I'm just saying she may not come back.

She may not come back.

That's true.

So uh once we get confirmation from RDC that those dates are available for the 21st and 22nd.

Um we'll send out, we'll confirm with Kevin and Dan and then send out a final, hopefully a final email for dates.

Thank you all.

Yeah, that's okay.

Sounds good.

I wasn't sure at the preamble to the discussion of the scheduling only aspect of the data centers.

Was there a comment that there's other aspects of data center regulation being considered by the administration or staff to be drafted at all?

I was trying to parse that in my head.

No, I don't suggest discussing anything substantive related to the data center.

Gotcha.

Because it's going to be an appeal item, which is a quasi judicial item, and everything that you need to consider will have to be presented at the hearing itself.

Okay.

Yeah, and that's what I mean.

I was going to say Kevin wants to do a preamble, but my preamble would be that while we need to be knowledgeable, we need to be most knowledgeable about the code of which we are applying and that and the review criteria of the UDC and the process that we take.

And um, just like we may not um know a lot about some things and we may know a lot about other things based on our own knowledge.

That's one thing, but we have to look at the criteria as the criteria for each and every project.

So despite what people might research or read in the paper or do whatever, right?

We're beholden to the code.

So I don't think that there's any other forthcoming information from the city that would be appropriate to guide our decision.

Okay, that's what I'm gonna say.

Um the appeal document is what's going to guide your analysis, you know, what you're going to consider and and what you analyze.

Um, you know, if there is an appeal, depending upon the decisions that are made and then whether or not um there is an appeal or appeals filed.

So just like anything, I think we want to minimize bias and look at our criteria and do our process as we normally would.

Correct, because again, you know, you're you're sitting very similar to, you know, the way that a judge would sit at a trial, right, or in a hearing, where you're receiving the information that's presented at the hearing itself and analyzing that um against the criteria in the code.

Regardless of if you like the defendant or don't like the defendant, you're correct.

None of that factors into it, correct?

So for what that's worth to you all.

Please keep in mind.

I mean, there's lots of things that we see and we are beholden to the criteria.

So question, anything else, Kevin?

No, no question.

And I'm gonna present the annex COS.

Ooh, okay.

I have a slideshow because I can't do it without one.

Right.

So this is uh Annex COS just to give you a little bit of history the uh plan Clan COS calls for an update of the ocean three mile plane.

Um and it has been sort of started and worked on for many years.

This particular iteration started in 2020 um four.

Uh it's always been going on for a little year, um, and there's been significant information changed, and I'll go through that a little bit about that.

Um, but there is a statute requirement that we have to do these things, these updates every three years.

And so we haven't really been in compliance with that.

So uh what are we discussing today?

And this this, so where we are in this particular process is that we will be bringing this to you probably for review in July.

Um this is the first time, and I and I'm presenting some of this information to city council on Monday, kind of in the same informal way is the way to introduce the issue and a way to introduce what we what we've got as a draft plan.

So we have a draft still going through final changes and that kind of thing.

So we'll have that for you when we get to the hearing, but we don't have that for you today.

Uh why we're doing this, partly because of state statute, partly because of plan of US asking to get it done.

Quite frankly, everybody would like to have something done, uh property owners, city, uh, some of the city agencies.

Uh, it's just something that has been on the books for a while.

Can't seem to get to the finish line.

So that's why we're trying to get this this particular one done in 2024.

Uh, we hired a uh a consulting firm and created a public process uh and did a substantial amount of work on the three mile area.

Um, and then a lot of that got uh uh had to be redone based on what happened in 2025, which was several major annexations, which which were outside, gave us a little bit of guidance, and then there was an election that also gave us a little bit of guidance.

So uh that's part of what's gone on and what's resulted in today.

Annexation, what is it?

We'll talk about that in this process or in this uh in this um slideshow, content and policies will give you a little bit of flavor for that.

The specifics again are being uh finally worked on.

Uh, and then um what's what's the process of annexation, how we're gonna go through that in the based on this on this particular um uh policy statement, and then how we're gonna implement some of the guidance and some of the policies in here.

Then we'll have some questions and answers.

So next.

So plan COS targeted some city expansion over the next 20 years, again, 2019 is the tar is the date for plan COS.

Statute requires regular update of the plan, supposed to be every three years.

Um, and what the plan is is uh sort of up to the local jurisdiction.

The emphasis uh emphasis in plan COS was on redevelopment.

So basically saying we would like to uh continue to uh redevelop and infill uh with strategic uh with strategic growth opportunities on the outskirts, vacant lands within the city with that already have access to utilities.

Uh that's what we basically kind of define as infill.

Um, and then annex only a fiscally beneficial and aligned with city plans and with a lot of focus on water uh in terms of making sure we have adequate water for uh new uh growth areas.

Um the annexation plan has been a council priority.

So it's been something that they've been waiting for and wanting to get done.

Next annexations are limited to no more.

The annexations, the statutory requirements are you're only limited to three miles beyond the current boundary of the city in any given year, except under special circumstances.

So we had one of those last year where we annexed the uh uh Southern Colorado rail yard beyond three miles there.

Um, and so that was a special circumstance, special economic uh development kind of opportunity.

The municipality must adopt an annexation master plan for three mile area.

Uh the three mile plan is what they call that, and uh and supposed to have that in place prior to completion of the annexation.

So we have one that we've been using, and that's in two to that's dated 2006.

That's the general plan at the moment.

And the three month plan is a city um I'm looking for the word, but anyways, this is a city mandate, but the other some of the other things that govern annexations are state statute, correct?

Miles is a state.

That's state statute, okay.

Yeah, and other things we have others, which we'll get into a little bit.

Uh annexation area of potential inclusion, planning interest.

Planning interest, something like with ALPI.

We just call it AOPI.

We don't know what it really stands for.

Um, anyway, the last the last plan that was officially adopted was 2006, and we've had statements that basically affirm that plan um since that time, the last one being in 2024.

Next so the comprehensive annexation plan, annex COS is um uh policies that evaluate impacts of infrastructure and services impacts known in advance of annexation petitions.

Um what properties within three miles again.

We're you'll continue to hear this three mile.

It may include property outside the three miles if if we identify them as growth opportunities, um, and uh if if they are uh the other potential annexations are uh growth potential areas, enclaves, isolated county areas, which are not enclaves, but maybe have three sides.

For example, there's a number of them here in town that have not not completely surrounded but uh three-sided, um, and then any other county property with the property owner wants to apply.

So that's kind of a general idea of what's available for annexation.

Annexation is not growth, it is not roads, it's not houses, it's just simply a change in jurisdiction.

So it's come becomes city jurisdiction if it's annexed to our city, can stays in the county as they're in their jurisdiction if it's not annexed.

Next.

Current plan adopted in 2006.

Uh there's been a lot of annexation and infill since then.

So obviously we need to have an update of that.

Um that's what we're working on now.

The other challenges that have occurred is that in 2006, we were growing rapidly.

Uh, I think 2005 was the record year for um numbers of single family homes constructed in El Paso County and in the city of Colorado Springs.

Um, and then we had 2008, which was a record year for not building houses in Colorado Springs and El Paso County.

Um, so we had very slow growth ramping up, you know, through the 2008 to 2020 and 2021 and that kind of time frame.

The banning Lewis ranch impact, 25,000 acres of vacant land that had not been developed, primarily because there was an annexation agreement that made it impractical.

And in 2018-19, there was a work towards uh modifying the annexation agreement, making it more available and more um practical for some of those development for some of those developments to occur.

And since that time we've seen substantial starts, new development in uh what was the old banning Lewis Ranch uh master plan area, which had at one point been 26,000.

There's about 20,000 left, plus or minus.

Um we had an IGA with El Paso County in 2020, 2019, 2020, 2020.

Uh it it established the AOPI, the area of planning influence.

I'm gonna get that down by Monday.

Well, I just to prove to you that I'm not reading the slides.

Um I wrote them, but I didn't, I'm not reading.

Um, and so that act that IgA was an attempt between the city and the county to try and implement the county's master plan, which basically has this three-mile area as being an area of transition, and their interest, at least as it's stated in the plan, is to have that land develop inside a corporate structure inside the city limits, uh, either fountain or monument or Colorado Springs primarily.

Um, so that was an attempt to try and figure out how to motivate property owners to do that.

It has been woefully um uh ineffective uh and basically hasn't been worked on, but it has did establish an additional area that AOPI area, which some pieces of it go beyond the three-mile map, and we've got a map of that here in a minute.

I'll show you.

Like, what is the what is it?

What are the goals from the county's perspective and what's the benefit to the county to have those areas annexed?

Um versus staying in the county.

Uh well, I don't want to speak for the county, I'll let them speak, but I think I know what they will say.

Uh the benefit to the county is that uh right now what's happening is that they're becoming individual county developments that are served by county uh uh service agencies, especially police.

They're serviced by what is most often rural, what used to be rural, uh fire districts.

Uh they have county park uh standards, which is substantively less than what our standards are, and no way for the county to maintain those because the county does not maintain neighborhood parks.

Uh and the land and the land ends up being in a district.

And a lot of a lot of what they worry about also is the uh groundwater, is that most of those are based on groundwater and they are you know just a long-term concern about groundwater, though the county does have pretty strong policies relative to uh water provision.

So that's kind of their interest, um, but they have without fail uh entertained development opportunities for that.

Larson Ranch, for example.

Um the ones that are running now Bull Run and some of those Falcon is a great example of a development that occurred uh with county services.

Um, and but it, so it doesn't have a corporate structure, uh a municipal structure that provides police and fire and other kinds of other kinds of services.

So the county sort of is in this boat of providing urban services when their structures really are not made for urban services.

So that would be, I think their rationale for wanting to see that growth area be in a municipal setting rather than in the county setting.

And that's important.

I think you think about like Falcon area, right?

There's a patchwork of metro districts with a variety of water services and sanitation and this and that and the other, but it's such a patchwork.

Whereas annexation into the city, maybe not in that particular area, but anywhere else or wherever might provide more comprehensive and consistency services.

Absolutely would.

Yeah.

Which might increase and that's that's the city's concern too.

The city would prefer, I think, to have that urban form that has uh urban services provided by urban service providers as opposed to rural and county service providers.

Um, you know, the Ellicott Fire District is while it it will transform itself into a more urban setting, they certainly can't do it right now.

And uh, and so having that kind of location annexed um makes that transition a little bit easier.

If you look at some of the, you know, the fire district, Falcon Fire District, for example, certainly has turned into a uh a more urban service provider um and and can and can provide that, but they still have that mix of some urban and some not, and they have the questions of fair taxation and investment and all of those kinds of things.

So it's just easier, I think, from a city planner's perspective to have those things work under a municipal organization rather than not 2022.

We had a water ordinance, a lot of heat and light around that, having to do with making sure that we have adequate water in our control and our development right now before we annex these things.

Um the way that has finally worked out is that uh it's 28, we have to always have a buffer of 28% of our current water use is somewhere in uh the reality of our of our system.

Um there has not yet been one annexation because of the way that's written.

There's not been, it's not a cumulative uh effect.

So if you annex a thousand acres uh and it's under the 28%, the next thousand acres use the same capacity.

So it's not now 1,000 acres plus 1,000 acres, it's just 1,000 acres.

And so the ordinance has kind of been ineffective.

I think it was designed at one point to sort of restrict annexation, hasn't and won't the way that it's working.

And so there needs to be some work towards that.

The uh the Color Springs Utilities is working on a um integrated water resource plan right now.

So they are looking at that particular ordinance.

Um, just as we are looking, and you'll see some of this later.

Uh, we're looking at potential of what working through the uh IGA with the county and coming up with a different sort of scheme for that.

And then we've had recent annexations, Amara Carmen line, the rail yard, the election last June, um, 82% people voting against the annexation.

Um, whether that was, you know, the right way to operate a city or not, doesn't matter.

It was voted out, and that's kind of where we are.

So that certainly informed some of our work in the last six or eight months in terms of what we think the next COS should be.

Next slide.

So the process since the present, we had a review of existing documents and identify uh some uh area we had, or some some of the issues, uh some limited public engagement there.

We had a uh speaker panel event, which was mostly designed to talk about more about growth and development, not specifically about annexation.

Uh the next phase was a lot of uh work in house, and then we had some focus groups.

Um we also had uh in 2025 an open house with some of the data.

Uh what was being focused on at that point was 20 they identified 22 different sectors of land that were sort of uh cut off or bounded by the city and/or by uh uh logical um other um aspects of uh uh development such as roads or drainage ways or those kinds of things.

They had each one of those, they were going through a land plan of each one of those and a fiscal impact model of all of those, um, and um uh and so then we had these other annexations and sort of the Kamara or the Carbon Line, Amara and the election, as well as the rail yard.

None of those seemed to fit very well in this into this process, and so we and after the vote that basically said now we're not particularly interested in annexation, um, we sort of shifted gears and stopped the uh process from determining a land plan.

So the principal change was uh it was our opinion that we really did not we we needed to get some policies written about how we go forward in annexation, not so much about what the land plan was.

Um the land plan is not annexation, uh, but what we were trying, what that effort was trying to do was to try and say there's a fiscal impact.

We're trying to judge whether or not different areas might be better for annexation than not, but in order to do that, you have to determine a land plan.

And in order to do that, you had to do that yourself.

And in my opinion, 22 different areas that have probably a thousand different property owners that we were going to be bogged down a long time, trying to figure out what our land plan was.

So it would be better if we did just a general uh look at at uh how we annex, not so much what we are about to annex.

Um, and you'll see uh what kind of where we end up with that.

So we are drafting and finalizing that right now, and we'll be going through that here in the summer and fall.

And that will have some public involvement again or just the committee.

Yeah, some focus groups, the public involvement.

We we are probably we probably will have another open house, uh, but mostly now it's going to be uh hearings in front of planning commission city council.

Next.

Oh, oh, one other thing that's really changed substantially is the relationships and the and the uh uh interest on the part of the Air Force bases and space force bases and air force gathering for Carson to participate in the land planning aspects of this.

Some of those have been created because there's been development that has occurred, and you heard you've heard some of them the landings as being the most recent one, where there is impact on the on the uh operations at the uh space force bases at Peterson and Shrever primarily.

Uh so they have not only just engaged with us a little bit more, and we've engaged with them a little bit more.

Uh, they also have actually started a process, and it's called Soikus, and I am not gonna try to wonder what that was.

I don't know.

I don't know what it's been doing in there, but um but they are basically going through a process where they're analyzing their uses on the base and trying to figure out what the impacts are uh from development on the outside of that.

Uh, for example, line of sight.

Uh try not to build a 20-story building right in the way of their uh uh access to a satellite field or location or a geostationary location, stuff like that.

Um that's relatively simple, but there's the electromagnetic and uh protection of uh uh forces and those kinds of things that are all critical.

They have now engaged in that to the point where they're trying to come up with a standard uh out there retriever, and this will be a standard actually that they'll use around the country.

So this is kind of a guinea pig sort of idea.

So that that's a substantive change as well.

We don't really know what the land uses ought to be until they get done with that.

That uh we'll hear a little bit more about that in September on the time frame.

Next slide.

Um this is the um this is the uh map.

It shows uh annexations from 1872 by decade.

So it's kind of an interesting little map in terms of when when these states were annexed.

Obviously, uh uh the 80 to 89 time frame uh annexed the whole boatload of land.

That would be Briar Gate and Banning Lewis and Northgate and others.

Um Southwest um annexations, which included the Broadmoor and all that land down there.

Uh obviously major expansion in the 80s.

But that's kind of an interesting map.

Let's go slow for a while and then boom.

Uh next map or next slide.

This will give you uh an idea of the relationship between the three-mile line and the uh AOPI, uh, which is the shaded area there.

So the area that's a clear is basically the uh the city limits line today, um, with uh including Banning Lewis.

Then you go out three miles from there, that's the red line.

Some of that land obviously is in the mountains, so probably not much going on there.

There's a little bit of a little bit of land around uh Manitou and uh pieces and parts around through there.

Uh a fair amount of enclaves, um, and uh a lot that uh is impacted by monument as well as by fountain.

So those areas kind of are we'll end up not having any kind of opportunity for annexation.

But this this three mile line uh bulges out substantially at the south because of this Colorado or the Southern Colorado rail yard annexation.

Uh and so it's a it's a substantive difference than where we were even with the 2024 map, because that those were not annexed in the Star Here's process.

The AOPI is the land that the county and the city agreed to uh have special interest in.

And well, what the idea was was that if someone wanted to do a development out there with the county with a special district with another water source, et cetera, that they could uh ask the city uh if the city was interested in annexing, and therefore they could end up developing to city standards as opposed to county standards, which is why it was so ineffective, because if you're not going to annex today and you're developing to a city standard in the county, it becomes a nightmare for the property owner to figure out who's responsible who's who they're gonna who they need to talk to about getting their plans approved, and once they're approved, who they turn the water or the system and or the road system or the park system, who they turn that over to in terms of maintenance.

So that's why that IgA has been ineffective in terms of encouraging annexation or trying to make it a little bit easier.

But that's there, that's the area there.

What we're proposing is a modification of the IGA, which is you guys are still have your county master plan that is concerned about this area.

Uh, what else can we do to cooperate around that to encourage development inside municipal uh structures as opposed to county structures?

And I think they're still interested in discussing that.

I don't have any idea how that might turn out, so I don't know, but but it's a it's a recommendation out of this to modify that that area.

Next um what is annexation?

Um it's a change of jurisdiction.

Uh that's all it really is.

Again, it's not it's not growth, it's not using water.

Uh the the act of annexation obviously makes it more uh it's just changing the jurisdiction of who's gonna who's gonna maintain your your roads and who's gonna maintain your parks, etc.

95% of our annexations have been through private petitions, property owners, maybe 99%.

Uh the the one that wasn't, if you remember that map, that's whole southwest annexation area.

Uh that was not uh driven by private property owners requesting.

In fact, they requested not to be uh and and took it to court and did all kinds of things to stay out of that.

But that's the only one of major note uh in the last 40 years, it has not been driven by a private property owner, uh, either major ranch lands in the case of Banning Lewis and Briar Gate, North Gate, um, or even smaller if you look in some of these uh smaller uh enclaves that we've annexed recently, Peach Ranch and some of those others that have just come in recently.

So those are all initiated by private property owners.

That's the majority.

There are other options, though.

You can petition for annexation.

If 75% of the property owners who own 50% of the land uh can petition other people to annex with them, so there may be enclaves out there where you could get 75% of the owners, but you can't get 100%.

And so instead of leaving a patchwork, you can kind of make all of the area annex.

Uh, we have not, to my knowledge in the last 45 years, done anything like that in Colorado Springs.

It's done in other places, but it's not been done here.

Uh we can if the city bigly encircles an area, we can unilaterally annex that.

Uh the city has not chosen to do that uh in the last 30 or 40 years, but it's possible to do that.

Uh, and and there are times in other jurisdictions where that has occurred.

Um we may think a little bit about expanding that just a little bit, and it's especially concerning if you have raw a vacant land and you have development occurring right inside the city limits that's urban in nature, etc.

You might the city might consider annexing that just to make sure that whatever gets built there is integral to what's where where the how the city is operating.

And then city owned land, we can request that at any time.

Um, you can even add uh I think you can even request that without contiguity.

So you can have a piece of property that's not contiguous to the city and you can annex it yourself.

For example, some of the lands down at Cheyenne Mountain State Park are owned by the city of Color Springs for the parks, uh, but are not annexed.

Uh, but we could annex those.

Um, and that's the um that's a possibility.

Uh the city of Color Springs owns substantial land out there by Carmen Line where the reservoir is going to go.

So there's a possibility that they would annex that piece of property.

Not likely, but possible.

Same with the Ray G Nixon Power Plant or those kinds of things as well.

You could annex those to the city, and the city could provide its own services like that.

I think that's important because it I think in both of those issues, and not everybody was here for all of those, but the city owns a fair amount of land that's not currently annexed into the city boundaries, but that are used for either land holding or other uses, right?

Which I think was pertinent with the rail yard and Carmen Line, etc.

So yeah.

Jen, did you have a question or comment?

Or did you forget it?

I was just wondering this, the emphasis that annexation is not growth.

Um, but uh it's usually conceived of as a growth management tool.

What exactly are the city's obligations following annexation?

Well, a lot of that depends on the annexation agreement.

So you can you can modify so if a piece of property is inside city limits, the city has all the same obligations it has for any other piece of property inside the city limits, downtown or whatever.

So that would be some kind of fire protection, some kind of police protection, uh, and then service of public rights away, uh, maintenance of those kinds of things.

So that they would have all the basic urban services available to that piece of property.

Those can be modified though, and they are modified often, uh, in annexation agreements.

We just talked about the BLR annexation agreement in 1988.

They had obligations to actually pay the city 250,000 a year for police protection.

Um we basically said, yeah, if there's a car accident out there, we're not coming.

Uh, you know, those kinds of things.

And so there's a way to basically establish a level of service that's different than the level of service that you expect if you were inside the city limits today.

So that can be modified by an annexation agreement.

So that's that's I think that answers your question.

Yeah, no, thank you for clarifying especially the public safety end of the obligation on the city's part.

Is that also ever waived?

I'm sorry, is that public safety obligation on the city's and never amended or not included?

It's never not included.

I think it I think it's always been considered a core function, and the city has to require, and I, you know, maybe there's a legal way to say that, but I I think what has been what has happened in the past is that they established that you might get a different level of service here.

Yeah, that doesn't take the obligation away.

If somebody's murdered on the banning Lewis ranch in 1989, they would the city would have had to deal with that and would have had to uh prosecute that or police that uh but if you have a car accident out there or you get a call for a police or fire, you might not get service in eight minutes.

You know, you may get a level of service that's a lot substantially different, but it doesn't change the overall obligation.

I think it just changes the level of service that you can expect.

And so and then annexation agreements also go change a lot of things, um, especially as it goes into development and growth.

Uh, for example, annexation uh or annexation agreements can amend who builds parks, uh, how they're maintained, who maintains uh, you know, open spaces, dedication of park lands and fire lands and uh or fire station land and and those kinds of things.

So there's a lot of different things that the annexation agreement can amend.

Um, when the annexation occurs, though, there is a transfer in who receives the property tax proceeds from that land, right?

Not no, not much.

Uh only that the city, only that the city will get a share.

So, for example, banning Lewis Ranch always paid county taxes, always paid school district taxes, always paid all those other property tax entities, and they were collected by the assessor and distributed.

Uh, but when it was annexed to the city, we we applied our new levy to that, and then we would collect a little bit, we they would pay more and we would collect more because we weren't collecting anything if it wasn't in the city.

Right.

So yeah, there's a little bit of change, but not I wouldn't consider it to be substantive.

But I think the comment of like annexation is not growth, um, is is important because I think that is the common conception, it's a change in jurisdiction, which can allow for different growth, doesn't mean that it's going to be massive or immediate.

It really is, and I think that's the lens that this body, right, that we need to look at these types of things as they come through is like what exactly are we weighing in on?

And we're weighing in on a change in jurisdiction, and then potentially if that land is already inhabited in some way, it might just stay as it is, like some of these enclaves with the housing, right?

But then the city's gonna get taxes, we're gonna send police department, but in areas that are um undeveloped that can allow for development, sure, services have to be provided, but it isn't, I think that's maybe the common public misconception is annexation is bad because it immediately is growth, which may not be the case.

So I think the point we're trying to make is that annexation in and of itself does not increase traffic, it does not increase water use, it does not increase wastewater use, it does not do any of those things.

Growth does, if you build houses, it does, but if you don't build houses, that the act of building something on it is growth, but the act of annexation does not jurisdiction.

Yes, yes, yeah, but you can provide utilities outside the city limits as well.

Falcon is the is the number one example.

I mean, you can solve those problems in different ways.

You can have the sheriff's department be on call for robberies and uh you can have the fire a fire district on call for fires and uh medical emergency and those kinds of things.

So, you know, your growth occurring outside the city limits is different than your growth occurring inside the city limits.

That's the distinction.

And then a development plan or a land use plan or any of these other things that we are going to see um on occasion, potentially through a process, would still come forward after an annexation, whereas if it wasn't annexed, any growth plan can be the county.

So the all those mechanisms and potentially planning city planning would weigh in, whether it's us or not, as a as a board.

Um that's a great point.

What you said there made me think, is there a plan and within Annex COS to do more staggering of the annexation item from the development plan or rezoning item no there's one of the policies we have written and this policy we have anyway now is that if you annex you got to bring us a land plan we got to know what it is you're planning on doing there and and so we can't we don't I think regularly annex without a without a land use plan of some sort and a zoning action at some point.

Okay so that yeah that's true those do come with so I think we will that'll that'll be part of the policy statement that we make can we go to the next one thank you Kevin.

Got the constitution and statutes municipal code and then we apply the unified development code which has a process by which you annex the criteria for annexation etc.

So those are all involved in the hearing um we have a checkpoint policy at city council so if there's an area that wants to be annexed we take it to city council on an informal basis at the very beginning of the process that basically says you guys okay if we consider this because we don't really want to spend a lot of money and a lot of time if council basically says there's no way we're ever going to annex that so go away um and uh and so there's there's a policy that we we are maintaining the opportunity for council to wing in to say whether or not you're qualified or whether or not you want to annex we aren't going to do it and or yeah proceed ahead now now we'll get to the um uh to the nitty gritty and try to figure out whether we want to or not and then we have this intergovernmental agreement with between the county and the city so those are other sort of pieces of uh uh that influence annexation aside from just this particular policy so next uh again it's a policy framework it's a planning tool to shape the urban form again jurisdictional it's a guide for infrastructure expansion utilities very interested in what we think uh of of annexation on this and it gives a guide for the city and property owners so the property owners need to know should I consider that should I consider today or am I 20 years away you know and and that's gives a little bit of guidance to that what it's not it's not a land plan for 40,000 vacant acres out there.

It may even be more than that now because I think the 40,000 did not include that boatload of land that we did when we added the Southern Colorado rail yard and so um and it is not a priority map to say we want to annex that piece before we annex that piece.

So it's not that um I think it was it was headed towards something like that in 2024 but with with the various activities that occurred from a political standpoint and a leadership standpoint but I don't think that's a viable option for the plan at this point.

Do you think that since maybe it was kind of going that direction in the past was that something that was maybe driven by some of the um city side or some of the public of saying we kind of want to know and some foreshadowing would be helpful or was it just the way that the conversations kind of then did themselves during that yes or was it all of that okay I think it's all of that it was it was a variety of reasons um I think utilities had a lot of influence about where that was going and there if you remember when this started they really didn't have a good idea what they were doing with wastewater plan down in the southeast part of Colorado Springs and they've since that time sort of gone through that process and worked through it and they would they're engineers they just would like a little more predictability I'm not uh an engineer so you plan to be as sort of like you know the hobgoblin of small mines, right?

Uh so it's uh so I think that was part of that was as much of an influence as as anything.

Um, and there were property owners who wanted to know kind of and and obviously some property owners who asked to annex uh since that thing started, and they were kind of waiting to see what was going to happen there, and then they they moved it forward anyway, much to their chagrin.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Next.

Here's uh this is the draft that you'll see before we get the before you get to hearing.

Uh this is some of the pieces, uh, the book goals and policies in chapter two and how we're going to implement this.

Uh primarily what we're looking for is a lot of the same things we do now.

We showed you the the influences that were already there.

We'll make sure that you have a land plan.

Go to the next slide.

I'm not sure how much detail I have.

So uh what we're looking for is uh basically an annexation report for all of these.

It talks about the contiguity, how close are you to current infrastructure so that people will know.

Not so much that we uh can't deal with the stuff that's out not adjacent, but it will be obvious that you're adjacent or you're not adjacent.

Um the fiscal impact, we think the fiscal impact analysis needs to be much stronger.

So we're recommending a stronger fiscal impact analysis be developed.

Um, utilities really does have a very strong uh uh fiscal impact analysis, and there's pretty hardwired as to how they get through their process.

So it's really a very good thing.

Then it can give you an idea of some infrastructure extensions, especially in utilities, how we need to cooperate with other jurisdictions, how we deal with enclaves.

We have a lot of enclaves still, and we've uh the city's moved its thinking a substantial amount in terms of enclaves already in the last five years, and I think we will continue to do that to try and bring these things back under city control so we don't have a patchwork of urban services being provided, and then flexibility for special circumstances.

Um that all you have to do is Southern Colorado rail yard, and that's kind of the that if you look up uh special circumstances in the dictionary, it it shows the southern project.

So it's those kinds of things that you know the state statute allows for that.

I think this policy needs to allow for that as well.

Next, so this gives you an idea of the goals, the general goals that the basic areas there, uh their goals under in underneath each one.

Um next uh the process.

This goes through again the fiscal impact report, the annexation report that I outlined a little bit earlier, uh the checkpoint process, um, making sure that the land plan accompanies the request, those are the kinds of things.

And then that we develop an annexation agreement.

Are we backing ourselves into any sort of unfunded mandate coroner with emphasis on the fiscal impact report in a way that might impact the city or its budget negatively?

Or is that within current staff capacity?

Oh, I think that's that special circumstance.

I mean, the city could basically say we're willing to go in the hole for that.

Uh, don't know why they would do that, but they could.

Uh, but it's primarily the fiscal impact analysis drives the annexation agreement.

So, for example, if you had uh a road that needed to be built and you were planning on building it and it needed to go three miles outside of the city's jurisdiction right now, but you were only gonna have one house at the end of it.

There could be an annexation agreement that basically says you can build that, you can dedicate that to us, but we're not maintaining it for the first 10 years or until there's a thousand homes, or you know, we're not gonna maintain your park until there's two thousand houses built out there, or something like that that can mitigate the fiscal impact.

And so that's kind of performing the fiscal impact analysis.

We're not overburdening planning staff, finance staff, or so what what we're doing, what that's a good question.

Maybe I can clarify that a little bit.

The fiscal impact analysis is paid for and done by the property owner.

Uh, but but what we don't have is a really strong set of criteria that says this is how you're gonna do it.

Um we're not paying for it.

Uh we'll pay to set up the criteria, and we do actually pay for the um fiscal impact analysis for annexations under 400 acres.

I think small smaller annexations we actually will pay for like for the enclaves that we're trying so they just plug a couple numbers in and look at it that way but uh no we're not obligating the city staff to do anything uh that's all still on the nickel of the property good question though i'd clarify that next um again guidance and implementation private property owners uh you know could figure out this is once once they know what this is they won't know exactly whether they're gonna get annexed or not but they'll give them better guidance as to what pieces of information they need to weigh and what they need to think about uh same things with the city um and then uh we still want to recognize that we've got substantial vacant land inside city limits already 20 000 acres and and she and I were talking about this yesterday a lot of what the state statute requires especially this three mile kind of annexation plan is they were trying to deal with those jurisdictions in Denver where they're all competing for various pieces of property and trying to figure out who's going to annex what and I don't want to annex that you annex that and you know that kind of thing and I don't know that they the statute contemplated something like what we have here which is basically 40 000 5000 acres of vacant land available inside that 30 mile or that three mile area it just puts a different kind of emphasis on you know what what what do you think we can do with that is I can scratch it from there next it we'll get you a little bit more detail at uh the next planning commission and we'll see if we can get to the finish line of some of this anyway.

You'll have a copy of that for us to review next week or no something else occurring next week that's occupying a little bit of my time um aside from the fact I'm driving my kids to St.

Louis or my grandkids to St.

Louis um it you'll have it before the uh before the planning commission and we'll get it to you as soon as we've got it kind of ready which should be certainly before work session and um we'll give you a couple weeks to try to digest that questions from anybody thank you yeah thanks that's good stuff.

I think that's the end of our agenda yes ma'am so I did hear back from RDC and the 21st is available all day okay the 22nd would be available after 9 30 a.m and other entity has that so if everybody can do the 21st Kevin is that still okay uh it yeah and it'll just give us a piece of information as we continue to try and figure that out yeah we'll take we'll take that idea yes so it sounded like earlier the 21st would be okay with everybody can everybody just give me a little nod or thumbs up great um and the 22nd needed assigned with me too commissioner Gigiano 21st is still okay with you yes that's fine thank you very much for confirming we will keep you all posted as this process evolves and Brian we gave it up first okay moving targets all the time I'm good yeah and it ended up push