All right, we'll go ahead and get started.

Um I just want to um reiterate what staff just said that um attendees participating by phone.

Um please keep yourselves muted and please note that since we're the work session only and that we do not take any public comment nor any official actions during our work session.

So we will not be calling on anyone, we will not be taking uh any public comment.

So please remain muted.

Um I guess that also kind of goes into my communications.

So um happy fourth of July week and upcoming fourth of July, happy 2515.

Um World Cup win last night.

So lots of exciting things.

Um I also wanted to note that this is uh Commissioner Slattery, Andrew Slattery's last work set.

Oh, first of all, but honestly, you've been such a um such a great mentor to me and I think to many others on this commission.

You've been a long-standing and well-serving member, and I'm really sad to see you go.

But onward.

Yeah, and we can try to pass some of the best.

Well, thank you again for everything.

Um, and then also welcome to our new commissioners.

I think uh Kevin and I both talked about that last meeting, but uh Aaron Edbert will be our new voting member.

He'll start in August after Andrea's term.

That's correct.

And then um Daniel Way is also also an alternate.

I don't think it's either here, and then Henry Wright Leisner, who is here with us today as our second alternate, so I think we've got a full agenda um and lots to talk about.

So um Kevin, I'll give it to you for communications.

Okay.

Yeah, the city council took uh the second meeting in June off.

So there's not a lot of new items to communicate from city council.

Uh they are having a number of items that they are gonna be hearing in the next few months, AD News, which we'll be talking about, Southeast Strong and a variety of other fairly issues.

But they'll be taking on for fall.

Other than that, I don't really have any other communications.

Um we will not be issuing any yellow or red cards.

And there's no video review.

Well, too bad that there's not video review because uh because we've changed our rules on work session.

I was just informed we have to do our roll call, which I forgot because we did not have to do that uh previous.

If you will do the roll call.

Commissioner Slattery, here.

Sorry, Chair Hensler, here commissioner Robins.

Here commissioner Willby.

Here, Commissioner Engel.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here online.

Commissioner.

Here.

Commissioner Clements.

Here commissioner Cecil.

Here online.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Okay, and my apologies for uh forgetting that we've changed our okay.

Anything else on communications?

Yeah.

All right, then we'll move into the consent calendar.

So, we're very good.

We're in a different spot.

I will like our nine.

We're also moving quickly through.

Okay, yeah, this will be quick.

All right, good morning, commissioners.

Carrie Shot, planner two with uh Lanyast Review.

Um, this is a conditional use application for property located off of airport road.

So we are just north of Colorado Springs Airport, west of Peterson Space Force Base, South of Platte, East of Towers.

The existing zoning is APD, so airport airport plan development zone with airport and streamside overlay and accident potential zone one and runway protection.

Um, can you change this slide?

Oh wait, you did.

Sorry.

No, you didn't.

Sorry.

Second slide.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so the conditional use is to allow for warehousing, wholesaling with office accessory and light industry, industry uses within the streamsite overlay.

So these are permitted uses with all within the designated zone districts, but because they're within streamside, they're conditional, hence this application.

Um all streamside review criteria were reviewed in that, and details can be found in your packet.

There is a concurrent development plan application currently under review, and overall the proposed uses are found to be consistent with airport master plan and existing development patterns in the area.

So all agencies did review the application, and they had no um issues with the proposed uses.

Um with the exception of uh Space Force, we did uh get two comments of concern for consideration.

Um they're outlined in your packet, but basically one is being the site's proximity to potential aircraft operation risks, as well as the potential for introducing hazardous wildlife attractance within active airspace.

Um we received no neighbor comments and with the public notice, and um we currently have this on consent.

Any questions?

These two.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Morning, uh Bill Gray, City Planning.

Um this application is a non-use variance for parking for a future restaurant use at 2001 West Colorado Avenue.

The property zone MXM is 3600 square feet of size, and it is an existing single family home with a detached garage.

So next slide.

So long.

You can see the site in this location here.

Uh Colorado Avenue is MXN for a big stretch.

Um, it is mixed use in its uh land uses.

Uh next slide.

Um there is just a close-in view of the properties.

You see the single family home that exists here and the garage.

You've got a street view of 20th Street or the intersection of 20th and Colorado, and then uh uh street view looking back toward uh Colorado with the site on your on your left.

Um so the future plan of this uh um future plan for this property is to convert that single family home to a restaurant.

So next slide.

Salon so that brings us to why we're here.

So we are they have applied for a variance uh to allow for one off-street parking space with seven parking spaces are provided.

I will note that this project will require a development plan.

Um, so in order to convert from the residential use to the commercial use, a development plan is required.

Um, property is mainly being considered for um variants because of its uh small size, so it is a physical condition, that is a limiting factor for this property to meet parking standards and maybe even other standards.

Um we did provide direction to the applicant um at the time of pre-application that it would be better for them to pursue um this parking variants um prior to putting um time and effort and money into a uh development plan, and that is uh one last thing.

I did um as I this project was initially reviewed um and as the staff report was written, we had received no public comment except for a phone call.

Um but I did receive a public comment the other morning uh in opposition of the uh the parking variance just uh generally opposed to um not that the applicant should just meet the parking requirements and not ask for that.

I think that's it.

Okay, Bill, I just had one question.

What other parking would there be for that facility?

Is it gonna be around the garage or take out the garage?

Yeah, so the garage, existing garage sits here.

No, that one is actually having the other one.

So, yeah, the existing garage sits in this location.

There is um a driveway out to 20.

So the garage would be taken taken down.

Okay, their plan is to provide the off-street uh parking as an accessible space and then take advantage of whatever on street credits or parking reductions that they do.

How many spots do you think are going to be there?

Um there are um I think there are eight adjacent parking spaces between the front and the uh the side property line.

Just all call them saying in general, it's pretty tight.

Yeah, the there is on street parking that is allowed throughout these adjacent neighborhoods to West Colorado.

You better get away from that thing for both um are there are there uh more specific questions that you have that you would want to pull this from consent, or we agreement can stay on consent just since you have okay, okay.

Thank you.

Oh, you know what I didn't ask?

What kind of restaurant is it?

I mean am I gonna get tacos, the bird?

I'm just kidding.

I think it's French cuisine.

Oh, even oh, my kitchen, right?

Sorry, I'm not gonna pull for consent for that.

Sorry, I know.

Not nearly as exciting as what cuisine are we gonna have for land, but uh good morning, everybody.

Um today we're talking about a uh project at 752 park place, project main as 752 Clark Place LLC.

Um they are requesting a conditional use uh permit approval with a land use statement to allow for heavy vehicle storage on the slot, uh the lot of zoned BP SS APO APZ-2, which is business park with streamside overlay, airport overlay and an accident potential zone too.

Um the use for heavy vehicle storage is um permit in the BP conditional in the streamside overlay, um permitted in the airport, and permitted in the accident potential zone too.

Uh the site area is 2.29 acres in size and the southwest of the alley and road.

Before we move to the next slide, uh this whole area is part of the same development plan that was originally approved to allow for office and warehousing pretty much across the board.

So there's five lots included in the same development plan and they all permit warehouse office as I bring that up because aside from the heavy vehicle storage, they're also uh bringing in warehouse use, office use, and uh outdoor storage use.

Um the outdoor storage use was is also only permitted conditionally in the streamside overlay, uh, but that was already approved under prior um conditional approval.

If you go to the next slide, so wait say that again.

So this particular or the whole development including this particular lot is already approved for storage or outdoor storage, not the heavy vehicles, like the property next door that has all the RBA storage, for example.

Is that yeah, so that wouldn't be heavy vehicle storage, that'd be light vehicle storage, but um I don't know what it's outdoor storage next door, and the whole thing is allowed for out there, the heavy vehicles the new ones, the heavy vehicles, the new one.

I'm not sure if the rest of the sites were approved for outdoor storage or not.

Um, a particular place.

Are there protections in place for I'm guessing this condition on the stream site for you know oil leaks or things like that?

Are there other requirements that would need to be met in order to that condition?

Um there's no specific requirement, the buffer zones attached to the stream side.

Um, you know, that the intent of those buffers is to push uses further away from the site, given that having vehicle storage could potentially result in some form of it could be more impactful than other uses that are otherwise permitted.

Uh we have requested on the associated development plan review um to add a note, a conditional note, uh, general note that any uh leakage of pollutants, um they need to refrain from uh allowing for any leakage of pollutants and that this the vehicles need to be stored empty and uh to to get more specific into this heavy vehicle storage, um it is for a it is to support waste and recycling operations.

These trucks are only going to be stored there, they're not bringing in any waste.

Um, that's gonna go to a transfer facility.

These are just to store their their uh vehicle personnel and uh waste bins and stuff.

So we have requested that they use those items on site, but I'm not exactly sure if there's any specific use regulations in the streamside overlay section that just said address this particular use of certain state.

I guess they're trash truck or something, is really though it is that was your saying, trash truck, yeah.

I got all the complete, so they're gonna go out, do what they need to do, grab you know, transfer waste around the city, and they keep them here overnight.

Empty from trash or empty from fluids, we'll do that.

Uh they're gonna use it.

I'm just trying to push them to make sure that they keep a clean environment on the site.

But Allison Stocker, streamside would be working fall out any specific standards and code that address this use specifically.

Uh the yeah, so we've gone over the allowance and heavy vehicle storage and the operations that they're proposing here.

Slide.

Uh this is their land suitability analysis.

Uh, this is to show you that the buffers extend out to where they have an existing fence.

Um, so they are keeping the use outside of the buffers.

Um, the reason that this is triggered is because the lot itself is subject to stream side, but they are keeping the use out of the out of the buffer areas um on and stored on impervious surface.

Uh so yeah, there's an associated uh development plan minor modification under review.

Uh they have also requested administrative adjustment to the fence height because the fence height is six feet and is seven feet is what's required, but the fence was approved at six feet with the original development plan, so yeah, requested this stream.

Yep, the fence goes from they have a gate up here, so the fence comes from the gate all the way down across the site, and then bows the remaining for the site.

Could you just tell me one more time what that conditional what the condition of record is on the the development plan?

Uh so no condition of record the the conditional the outdoor storage, which is a different use than heavy vehicle storage, was already permitted under the previous approvals for this site.

Uh so while it is only allowable conditionally, that outdoor storage component has already been approved as a but you were it was the empty the empty or note that we requested yeah that they that they um that they store vehicles and their containers uh free of leakage and uh and remain empty when stored on site.

Uh I don't think there's any other slides.

No public comments.

Thank you.

Uh no public comments.

I'm okay with it on consent, but if anyone else has all right, okay.

All right.

Okay.

Carl Malone, Larry, what's the RDM?

Sorry, Alison got a haircut.

Alison got a haircut.

Um so Alison is out today, so I'm just covering this for her.

Um, yeah, so we have uh conditional use application with a concurrent land use statement.

The request uh for this property at uh 1883 Sheldon Road is for uh is it automobile light vehicle sales and rental of automobiles and light vehicle repair, as well as outdoor display of goods.

Um so uh OHVs, ATVs, things of that sort fall under our light vehicle category of equipment uh and vehicles per code.

Uh this is a new uh location for this operator.

Uh the site currently has auto tinting as a functionality or use within the space, uh, but they will they will replace that.

There is uh an anticipated minor modification for uh the user uh that will actually cover both this site and there in the negotiations for the adjacent parcel to put some some accessory parking uh or storage of vehicles uh on that adjacent site, but it does not impact the conditional use uh request that you have before you today, or I should say next week.

Um we did send out you want to do the next slide.

Yeah, so here's kind of a depiction of the of the plan, which really is just reinforcing what exists today on site and how its functionality will be used.

Um next slide.

Oh, nope, go back slide.

Never mind, okay.

I thought we had another one in.

Um, but what we have is so for this project, we did send out 151 uh public notice postcards posted the site uh according to code.

No comments were received.

There's no real issues with proposals.

Oh, yes, so I can relay to Allison.

No, I think we're gonna finish.

Thanks, Sam.

All right, 5325 Mark Dabbling Boulevards and Matthew.

Chris Sullivan, I thought I saw you come in.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh Chris Sullivan, senior planner, uh language review division.

Application before you today is a uh zone map amendment, specifically a rezone of a property located at 5325 Mark Dabbling Boulevard.

Uh, the site's located generally, as you can see, by the aerial map just south of I-25 and uh west of Nevada.

Uh this is appears to be a vacant site, but it's not.

There's an existing um office building, which is part of a larger complex with the adjacent property to the north.

The request is to go from MXN to uh MXN SSO, which is mixed use neighborhood with streamside overlay to mixed use main scaling streamside omese support, maintaining the streamside.

Um sites five, uh just under five and a half acres, and the proposal is uh so this is supported by land use statement.

Uh the proposal is to more or less reapprove what was previously approved.

So prior to the current code, there was a zone change to OC and a land use or a concept plan that was approved with it to allow for multifamily use.

Um the conversion to new code uh basically doesn't support what they had previously.

So MF and S stipulations on how many units per building uh you can have and their previous proposal was uh roughly 50 units in a single structure.

Uh so that's partially why they're going to MXM.

They also want the flexibility of MXM to allow some of the other previously proposed uses that were identified for this site, specifically RV, uh recreational camping kind of thing.

Um so that's the request.

Next slide.

Okay.

The site's currently surrounded by BP.

Um most of the usage you'll see surrounding the site is mostly office.

Um, and to the south you've got uh creek that extends all the way across and then behind that you've got additional multifamily and then it gets really mixed toward um nevata um we'll move on from that so it was mx and oh c it was oh c and then with the UDC change it became mx and that's correct but was everything around it like originated it or had began as business part that's correct so it was originally business with the rest of the BP surround okay so why did it get changed differently than the rest of the BP it was if everything was OC and lots of it became BP why did this not go to BP?

So prior to the new code uh there was a zone change from BP to OC.

Oh I see so it was on an it was the original island.

Yep there was a previous plan that's why it looks the way it does now.

Okay I just want to make sure I understood that transition over time.

Went through several rounds of review no significant comments uh no public comment I did receive a call though from the tenant of the existing office building and it was not in favor or against the application it was more of I didn't know this was happening would like to know if I need to move find a new location.

Other than that I think there's much to talk about here it is a consent item but see I defer you guys do they have any questions on that one no just for the record everything went to MXN that was OC previously okay yeah mxn absorb two other two zone districts and I don't remember the other one okay so here sounds good let us stand all right what is next are you up here again Buckingham industrial zone that is okay so Buckingham Industrial so this is a request to do a zone map amendment yet again um specifically a rezone the existing site is uh 7.8 acres located southeast of garden of the gods boulevard and centennial and this is Buckingham drive right here it's completely comprised of industrial type uses light industrial so warehouses offices uh with some outdoor storage commercial more on the front edges of the major roadways the request here is to go from BP can uh CR which is business park with condition of record to L I with conditions of record um site includes five parcels uh there's been as you can probably see in my report or once you review it there's been a lot of different requests to do development in this little pocket um most of those requests revolve around office warehouse um there was one request for I mean vehicle or light vehicle storage and then there was another request kind of in the north uh west corner for uh some sort of a gym use uh the request here with the L I the intent is to allow for the biggest mix of allowable uses obviously nothing has happened since um there's been several proposals here so there hasn't been a lot of there hasn't been any approved development that's occurred um the conditions of record are specifically related to the properties south of the site uh there are residential uses that directly about this property uh so what happens here could potentially impact those property owners um based on the conversations with the applicant they want to do office warehouse they want to want to allow for vehicle type uses such as storage um and some related uses within that category the conditions of record are to limit certain uses that may impact the neighborhood um they've identified some housing uses some um uses related to marijuana use um we have other instances of line industrial adjacent to single family homes do um i would say most of those are historic um or conversions um but i don't have any specific instances that i can give you this one might be worth having a hearing on sure um so just uh give you those other ones so industrial marijuana related related services natural medicines kennels uh salt living group living related uh all of those is what's being requested to restrict here anything else within that light industrial that is more intense uh the applicant is identified as being a conditional use and so that that already has to go through a higher level of review by uh planning commission and i'm trying to pull up the use tables but maybe you can just tell me or we decided to pull it are all of the things that would be allowed in the business park also allowed in the light industrial but what's allowed in light industrial is not allowed in business park I would say for the most part yes okay um so there's gonna be you know permitted uses within the business part those are gonna be uh being permitted in the LI there's conditional use items in the business part some of those get converted to permitting uses in the LI and then there's obviously some initial uses in the LI yeah okay I'll review the use table um further but I was trying to pull it up and I'm not that quick at getting into that so okay I wouldn't make sure I'm just um there has been a few comments in this yeah in this application specifically from uh not the residential properties but the commercial and industrial properties adjacent to the site um mostly related to uh type of use intensity of use um they don't want the what happens here to affect their business they don't want a competitor I I can't say that would be the only code does not have the building inbooks but um but I I am surprised to not have any comments from the residential use itself yeah because that fall apart just to the south um um what are your thoughts okay I'm yeah I'm seeing a request that maybe we'll pull this one for a hearing sounds good um yes but so then you can let the applicant know get that and you know one thing um any other questions for Chris sorry okay um unless you're up here again probably okay I'm not paying attention to what's coming there was also and I think it's a different property.

Remember, there was like G lights, other thing near on the other side of the bird dog.

There was the blind lady who was IP.

That was a multi-family.

Continual.

Do you remember me?

Yeah, and that was like a different request completely and I think the chief issue on that one was, or that we spent a lot of time on was access to a lot of path to get to the well and parking.

Yeah.

Well, there was several things.

Yes.

Specific to the um specific to the public comment, it was an access thing, but we haven't heard anything like that about this parcel.

Yeah.

Not that I'm aware of, yeah.

Um, I don't think that it comes.

I don't think it goes through the same.

No, side.

And it looks like there's some psychic crossing.

So, trails that maybe have been created along the side, but not in the you're talking about along the south side of the property.

Um, uh west side, maybe, yeah.

I think those uh so those actually match what's on the current.

There's a driveway easement that extends all the way around the south.

Okay, yeah, it is done.

And my map was turned the other direction.

I was looking at street view, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so we will yeah, we will close it.

Um, we launched that.

That just reminds me too.

I think I know in the last hearing, and I'm sure uh some of these two folks will want to get into the the particulars of the code or the particulars of the um the use tables.

So if you have specific questions that are specific about an area of the code or of the land use or the um use code use table, uh, and you know that you're gonna ask those in advance, maybe send them to staff in advance so they can be a little bit prepared, um, just so that when it's hard to in the moment to find them in the use table, for example, even for me.

So just a reminder for us to send those in advance if you have questions.

Uh okay, galley, am I in the right place here?

Yes, galley roads conditional use.

Bring us home on the consent advocate.

Um, so the request on this application is a conditional use language statement.

Uh, just so you're aware there are uh subsequent applications for development plan and subdivision plat in review uh administratively.

Assuming this gets approved.

Um properties located at 4725 galley road.

Uh we're off the southwest corner of Galley and Wooton.

Um as you can see, there's yet again another mix of uses.

Uh split by Galley Road on north and on the north side, you've got a lot of residential, and on the south you've got a lot of uh commercial industrial uh with outdoor storage.

Uh request the existing zone in here is business park, streamside overlay, airport overlay, accident potential subzone overlay two.

Um so there are quite a bit of uh overlay reviewers uh included on this application between airport and streamside.

Um the intent here is to do office, light industry, warehouse, outdoor storage, uh in the BP.

All those uses are permitted.

This is kind of similar to uh um the shot's application and uh Mr.

Fox's application uh where it's adjacent to Streamside and Streamside uh calls all of these uses conditional, uh which is why this application is before you today.

Next slide.

Um as previously noted, there are other applications under review for the same for this site, um, to establish these uses assuming this gets approved.

Uh this went through several rounds of review to kind of uh define the use a little bit more because it it was a little bit confusing at first.

Um, however, uh we do believe we've got the right uses lockdown on the site.

Uh this did go from several rounds review VR agencies, uh most particularly airport uh didn't have anything specific to say here, just making sure that it has the appropriate easements um and uh uh that those are established by Platt uh if they aren't already established uh additionally this was sent out to Peterson Peterson has uh put out the comment that you know this is uh this is located within that overlay and it does affect um their operation via you know potential wildlife attractions this is something we've seen a lot of lately how the uh did not have the same concern um from the stream side reviewer the only comments that were received on this application is that um if there are any hazardous uh there will be a restriction placed on the development plan limiting any sort of storage of hazardous materials on site uh to a defective stream uh system that's it other than that no significant public comment here actually no public comment on this site um there is an intent to section off a piece of the property to give to the city uh related to the stream side specifically swing yeah and then easement as an easement or uh as a gift needed and yeah I think that's all I've got for you any questions on this one yeah all right I think that brings us to the end of our consent agenda and Chris's multi presentation all right moving on to new business Lara you ready for the next hour and a half of your probably not all right umster planning supervisor um so before you are two items um in the same location the first one is Banning Lewis village B2.

So this property is located out east uh past uh banning within the drone just north of uh the future extension of Dublin um the current zoning is a plethora of variety of zoning what they're proposing to zone to is PDZ with airport overlay and streamside overlay for a portion of the property and then MXM with airport overlay and streamside overlay and I'll show you on the site plan the difference um of the two zoning the entire property is about 511 acres um what's being proposed out there is residential and commercial just a caveat on the applications before you for this one um this was reviewed under the previous chapter seven so the applications under review will be a master plan major amendment PDZ concept plan PDZ zone change concept plan and zone change and there's actually a road vacation as well a right away vacation um slide um I've got a few more slides uh the master plan is to revise uh the previous land use designations um to establish primary residential development and commercial opportunities um the PDZ zone um zone change in the concept plan is for the pro load uh medium density residential and the zone change and concept plan is for commercial and then there is a right of way vacation um the reason this is under chapter seven was this was geared up to go to planning commission um in March of 2024 um the applicant which is oakwood uh decided to postpone this application until they could bring in uh banning Lewis village C and some of it is tied to the park parkland dedication um and the public comments they recently received during um uh the village v2.

Um next slide.

So this is the proposed uh master plan.

This is the existing one to the left here, and this is what they're proposing to amend to.

Next slide.

Zone change.

So the commercial zone change is for this 9.3 acres down here on the corner of Banning Lewis Ranch and the future extension of Dublin.

Um is 9.3 acres.

Uh they're rezoning it to MXM, airport overlay and streamside overlay.

Um, and this is probably the one of the three commercial sites along um Dublin, um, east of Markshovel.

Next slide.

The remaining of the property is 500 uh and two acres.

This is the property or the area of the property that's being rezoned to PDZ for single family residential attached and detached products.

Um the density range is going to be 3.55 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre.

They're proposing a school site, which is in purple right here.

Um, and there are two future uh neighborhood parks that are in green.

Um I think there's one more slide.

No, there isn't.

Um, in regards to public comments, so we did receive public comment.

There were six of them during the initial review.

I realize that I do have additional 12 that came in after our neighborhood meeting.

So they did have a neighborhood meeting back in December of uh 2023.

Um that was very well attended.

I would say there were probably about 100 people at that meeting.

Um, but we didn't in regards to written comments, there were only 18 written comments that we received, and we'll get those additional comments to you.

Um, there was a second neighborhood meeting, and we'll touch touch on that with village C, but that was in September of 20 uh 25.

Uh Village B2 was discussed, but it was really more the status of that project of where they were, and then that um meeting was primarily for village C.

And that's all I have.

Questions for tomorrow on this one?

Were the comments from residents to the east to the west, excuse me?

Um comments were from the yeah, from the residents to the west, some of them were actually north of um Woodman, so they were really kind of in that full area.

Um, the neighborhood meeting, um, there was a resident that lived north of Woodman that uh had a lot of concerns about just the future development of Banning Lewis in general, and thus there was the neighborhood meeting was well attended.

What's the housing density in that area to the west?

So the housing density is similar um to the what is being proposed with this development.

So for most of Oakwood um holdings out in this area, they're in that density range.

Because the rest of it banning Lewis isn't PDZ, isn't it?

Um all the other holdings are PDZ.

I think to the south, like free freestyle and other ones kind of in the Banning Lewis area to the south.

I think they're going to more of a conventional zone.

Yeah.

But for the area um north of anything, well, north of Dublin, we got it east for those are PDZ.

Do you have a color-coded um zone map of the other?

I think um Oakland will have that presentation and all the other buildings that they have because what I'll at the meeting.

I think that um, you know, we've seen a few of these, especially as this area, right?

Was annexed so long ago, has been master planned, but 20 years has passed or whatever it's been in some cases, number of years, then now we're kind of revisiting some of these plans.

So I think that context of how planning, master planning and planning changes over time before implementation, maybe whether that's for you to speak to to some degree or the applicant, just so that our commission and our constituents understand.

Yeah, the history is the context of how planning works over a long period would be changes.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then you've got to have like five motions.

And then this banning Lewis Ranch Village C.

So this is C.

So this is so Banning Lewis Village B is to the north up here.

So this is everything south of Dublin to Stetson Road, goes all the way up to 24, and just east of Annie Lewis.

Well, it's actually east of village village A.

And to answer your question, this is PDC here, right?

So there are a number of applications with this one.

What's being proposed is so master plan and concept plan, as you're aware, with the UDC change, if we came land use plan.

So with this one, there's a land use plan, two zone changes and a right-of-way vacation.

And this one will be reviewed under UVC.

The zone changes are for R Flex medium.

So this is and as a result of the R Flex medium zone district for some accompanying development standard adjustments.

And then also they're proposing an MXM zone district out to kind of the east.

Next slide.

So this is kind of more of a color rendering of the land use plan.

The entire property for village C is 658 acres.

It is primarily residential with some commercial development.

And the commercial development will be closer to highway 24.

There are four neighborhood parks in this uh village.

And then there is one community park.

Just so you're aware, the parks department will be at the meeting next week to further discuss the park obligation for both for all of Oakwood holdings, in addition to Village B2 and C.

There is a 50 foot wide uh corridor for the Rock Island Trail.

That's kind of in the middle here with the red.

There are two sites, school sites.

There's one here, which is the PK8, and then a high school site, and then there's a public safety site for a future fire station.

Um so with regards to the RFlex zoning, um the prime the primary area is shown in blue.

Um so this consists of 546 acres.

Primarily, um, this will be the residential development.

Um, and to accommodate the R Flex conventional zoning, there are the development standards adjustment.

And the reason for that is when the UDC, when there was a change in the UDC, um under P under the eligibility for rezoning to PDZ is encouraged that developments um rezone to a conventional zoning, um, along with any kind of uh allowable tools for flexibility.

So primarily the development standards adjustments that are being requested would be allowed under the PDC zoning.

So basically it's the same product in village B2 that's gonna be in village C, but with the R Flex medium, they have to do the development standard.

Uh next slide.

Um the other area adjacent to highway uh 24 is 111 acres, and then this is being rezoned or proposed to be rezoned to MXM.

Um this will be primarily consisting of commercial andor residential.

Um, and the proposed development will meet the development standards of the MXM zone district.

So no dimension uh development standards adjustments are proposed for the MXM.

Um next slide.

Is it okay?

Okay.

Oh, in regards to comments.

Sorry, I did only receive uh six public comments.

We did have a neighborhood meeting um back in December or September of 25.

Part of that because the adjacency is so much further on this one, but buffer, was there less notification, just generally?

Possibly.

There's definitely been, I mean, the neighborhood meeting had about 60 people that showed up.

A lot of them are more concerned with traffic in the area, in particular along with men and there was traffic traffic impact study that was reviewed by traffic engineering, and they'll also be at the meeting.

So the allowed density in here is larger than the previous one.

That is one of the development standards adjustment is to increase the density.

So the density for RPLX, if I recall right, is uh five to sixteen units per acre.

They're asking to go down to three units per acre.

Um, but maintain the high maximum of 16.

Would that match the density to the north?

I mean, would it create a transition issue with the density to the north?

I know the applicants um prepare to discuss that during the meeting next week.

Um it's similar in density, it could allow for a higher density in this village.

Um I don't think that's their intent, um, and that's not their product type that they have out in that area.

That's the community park that kind of the middle.

Okay, what's the green space with the stream side and the pink line?

Lighter green from there.

The yeah, that is just open space.

Okay, there's some wetlands in there.

The there is uh stream side or there's um there's no no development is proposed in that area.

So, power lines.

So power line is at the um there's a utility easement that goes right through the property right here.

That's why it's not zoned or anything.

Is that where the transmission lines are?

I think something is taken, I think it's underground.

Are they about maps shows in the background?

But who knows if that's changed.

I think lots of good questions for next week, yeah.

So yeah, we can always prepare to provide you a pretty extensive uh presentation next week.

Any other um contextual questions, not specific questions?

Okay, my toe.

So the open space is that part of the parks requirement credits.

Does that contribute to that?

Yes, I think it is.

You had um certain park obligations that kept on kind of getting pushed further east, and now they're being addressed with the community community.

But the open space is not part of that calculation.

Not that I have seen that, but I will make sure that we yeah, that's for sure.

Okay, anything else?

All right, um, our last two items are the annex DOS um update and then um overview of the special appeal gearing on July 23rd.

I think we're gonna actually take this out of order um and and move to the special appear hearing um and administrative decision and then wrap up our meeting with Annex COS.

So Dan Dixon.

Okay, so Dan Sexton, uh planning manager for OUR and DRE uh divisions of city planning.

Um today I appreciate you guys taking the opportunity to kind of hear this in your work session here, kind of avoids another uh subsequent meeting before we will actually hold the appeal hearing, uh, but just to give you some context for the upcoming appeal hearing on July 23rd.

Um, staff made an administrative decision uh in June on June 11th, uh which triggered a 10-day appeal period uh at the last day of that appeal period, June 22nd.

We have five appeals filed against this project.

Um our individuals, one appeal has uh three primary appellants with an additional 26 listed co-appellants uh for the application.

They all are for various reasons, hence why they're all moving forward as independent applications that you will all get to consider uh as part of that proceeding for the appeal hearing.

So they're not being combined, they may combine their presentations, but still there are five separate appeal applications for the one administrative.

So to give you some context, we're looking at uh just shy of a 22-acre site uh here at 1565 High Tech Way.

So this is just south, just for context, it's just south of West Garden of the Gods, right next to the El Paso County uh community or citizen center uh there where everybody goes to renew their driver's license and and so forth.

Um, we're about uh just over a mile from Garden of the Gods Park to the west.

Um this site uh does contain some uh some ancillary properties that were previously entitled with it, which is this large parking lot, which was previously entitled to support the employees that were prior, previously um working within that industrial manufacturing facility.

Uh and that goes back to kind of the the early 2000s, and it's we'll say it's heyday.

Um, I don't want to get into too much details, but the current proposal uh that was approved administratively is for light industrial as a data center use.

Um if you want to switch to the next slide, Solange.

Um what you'll see is uh the developers proposing to utilize the existing building for their data center.

Uh, there's uh a myriad of ancillary structures and equipment on site uh that will largely be raised to support some equipment yards uh that will really house generators and chillers to support the data center use.

Um from a dimensional standard and code standard, um, if we shift then to the next slide there.

Um what we reviewed this against uh, you know, in addition to everything that's that's in code from a use perspective uh is the the 75516 D1, which is the major modification standards.

So there's four of those that we looked at from uh from an administrative decision.

I will note uh in your consideration of the five appeals, you have the appeal criteria, which are really are weighed against the administrative criteria.

So bear that in mind as you're looking at the packets that we will be sharing with you hopefully in the next couple weeks prior to the meeting.

Uh some important aspects to note uh through the administrative process.

Um we did three different public notices for that administrative application.

We will ultimately do another one prior to the appeal hearing.

And well, I'm sorry.

So total of three, including the public the appeal hearing.

Uh the first two were combined as neighborhood meeting public notices.

So we had two neighborhood meetings that were facilitated, facilitated by the applicant for this project.

Uh, the first one, which you may have read in, well, both of them you may have read in the press.

First one had around 400 people that uh attended.

Uh, unfortunately, due to capacity of the space for the meeting, uh, the applicant agreed to host another neighborhood meeting, uh, which had uh just over or just around 600 people attend uh to gain information to have uh I'll say constructive conversation on the project.

Um, all in total outside of those neighborhood engagement efforts.

Uh, as the staff planner taking it over from from Austin Cooper here, uh, who is out.

Uh, we had just shy of a thousand public comments on this project.

So bear in mind when you see this packet, because it will be inclusive all the of the administrative information that we received, is you're gonna see a lot of public comment.

Since even the approval, we've probably obtained another hundred or so public comments.

Um, and across that spectrum, there's four and against arguments across the board.

Um, you're gonna organize those into a chart for us, right?

That's a green.

Sure.

I'll I'll work on that.

Yeah probably i can synthesize what the comment the the high level issues were during the public comment we definitely did that um so we can provide that um but we do anticipate uh for this appeal hearing uh a significant because of the the significant uh interest in this project we do anticipate again a fairly large uh community engagement through the hearing um hence we've kind of internally been working on some ground rules and procedures uh we've been discussing uh with with chair and adene uh hensler here on the the project uh which if you go to the next slide um these are a modification of what you typically follow for for your hearing so we're kind of we wanted to open that up for discussion with you all um and we've shared uh or shared this or been discussing this internally uh but what we are proposing um for you guys to kind of talk through today um is we're looking at a 60 minute max for the appellants uh as well as the applicant we did denote because we have so many appellants the opportunity because they would otherwise only have 12 minutes per appellant group they have the ability to quote unquote transfer I'm not gonna use the word seed but transfer time to another appellant to have a larger opportunity to to put their their kind of case um the applicant team will have an equivalent 60 minute time time slot to present their their information on the project uh we'll open it up to public comment uh it will be only our in-person comment we're not going to do virtual uh just because the logistics of trying to manage that volume and really understanding are the people that are jumping on that meeting within our community our outsider community so we're kind of trying to focus that um and we want to give equal opportunity for people to participate um but it will be in person public comment only uh there will be no seating of time for other groups so you come up to give public comment you have your time slot um for those individual speakers uh or I should say the the arguments uh in favor or support of the appeals uh we've proposed a cap of three hours per group uh and each speaker will be limited to two minutes each um so if you do the math with three hours and two minutes each if everybody took their two minutes we're looking at 90 people that will get to speak on either side um if you really do your math from there including all the rebuttals that will that the appellants and the applicant will have and any additional discussion you guys have we are anticipating are anticipating probably an eight to 10 hour hearing on July 3rd so we encourage you to be to be prompt uh in in your attendance we will start off and we will go through we are anticipating to need to take breaks in terms of lunch potentially dinner uh which we will make sure that there are the necessary accommodations for that um any questions on the what I heard third and on the sorry sorry it was July 23rd not tomorrow oh yeah it's tomorrow we need to tell you like I can put it in the uh just because it always gets confusing so the public comment sections is opposition of the appeal correct okay yeah and support would be supporting the appealing the appeals correct and I think we'll try to reiterate and clarify that as we go yeah yeah remind yeah we're gonna have to we'll we'll strategically I think we're we're working very closely with comms on how to kind of do that messaging because we will probably need to do that multiple times during the event.

Maybe articulate just outright on.

Yeah.

Are you doing physical sign up sheets then also?

We are going to be doing sign in sheets when people enter the space for the hearing um given the heightened center uh sense of interest as well as some concerns.

Yeah.

There will be security uh at the space for the hearing uh we will be asking member of the publics to go through a security check when they enter the facility just for their safety and your safety.

So Delhi numbers could be helpful or sorry what's it like a deli number like you're going to have it there.

Yeah.

I mean you're going to call name but I yeah we're we're we are working through those final logistics of the of the hearing we actually have a walk through with a myriad of staff and departments next week with the facility uh manager because this will not occur uh at the RDC.

Shopway event what's that probably a shockway.

Yes so we are going to be doing it at the end center for the arts uh it will be in their large theater space because it has a capacity just shy of 800 people.

So we should have ample room.

We strategically decided to move the venue given the the level of interest uh we were really leery of having to cycle people out of the RD hearing room having people stand outside especially with our current temperatures right now.

That's kind of an unreasonable ask from the city's perspective for the the public to participate in this conversation.

So yes.

And it will still be televised and Facebook live and all that we are working through all those network uh pieces so yes we hope to have that a bit that capability for the public that choose not to attend in person to to the comfort of their home or workspace to be able to listen in yes where is it located it's at the end center for the arts so this is up on UCCS their campus right there across from University Village.

So Commissioner Cecil.

So uh to date this information has not been shared with the uh appellants uh an applicant uh yet because we want to have broad consensus of this group uh to make sure there is there's confidence and understanding in that approach uh post this meeting we will be sharing it outward so normally an appellant they would have 30 minutes yes all right um i'm I would love to hear the opinions of other commissioners for me if I had filed an appeal I would expect to have my full 30 minutes but that's just this is going to be a behemoth of a meeting and I'm scared that that's what they're gonna say.

Yeah so Trevor Gloss the city's office so I think that one of the reasons for that is uh if each appellant was given 30 minutes then that would add up to sorry my lawyer my math is about 100 two and a half hours thank you uh the applicant would also receive two and a half hours um to balance it out so I think the concern there was that that's uh five hours just there um but it is up to the board um if you would all like to give each appellant 30 minutes or additional time that is a decision you all can make yeah I think that we want to be respectful of everyone's times and and Jen your question is valid but um but our time as well I mean we're probably looking at eight to 10 hours right now if we add time in any capacity anywhere that is taking us to 12 or 14 hours um and I think that we have to balance right our ability to make good decisions after 12 hour day uh the public's interest and ability to to be there and be heard and so I think we're trying to to do that.

I I would be open to discussion maybe up to 90 minutes total um which someone else can do the math on that that's like 15 ish or 18 ish something minutes um per applicant or per appellant for the applicant.

I think we've also given the appellants um the opportunity as Dan said to kind of combine if you will in transfer time and have a cohesive presentation because I can imagine that a lot of their uh appeal comments are similar to one another um so they have the ability to use that time but i wouldn't i would not be personally um requesting more than say 90 minutes and then knowing that our applicant would get the same but i think right this is why we want to have this conversation with the group and get any other feedback by the way 18 okay i knew i'd done that math at some place along the way i i agree with you the time frame because after a while it could be ridiculous a lot of people are gonna be repeating what someone else said and repetition gets kind of boring after a while we start falling asleep so I think we just need to keep it sharp yeah and I can imagine I mean to that point that what we hear from the appellants um given that some of them are uh organized maybe uh within a group but many are individuals will be similar comments that we will hear from individuals and we're giving the public 180 minutes is that right three hours yeah so we're giving we are having three hours of public comment which I think will be similar in vain to what we hear from the applicants so we're at right now at four hours of um support for the appeal but again I mean we need to balance right being fair and fair and balanced on both sides of the and I would even add the one outlier that I think all of us are not able to account for is the discussion that you will need to have and whether that's with staff and our agency representatives that will be there you know follow-up questions that you may have in rebuttal follow up that you're gonna have in final discussion and deliberation um that is a that is an equal chunk of time so just be cognizant of that you remind me is it's just us it is just city planning commission yep yeah we're preserving the the process per code uh with it being an administrative decision you are the first uh appeal body um post the any decision that comes out of it um you know and the likely fact that there will be a subsequent appeal that will be brought before city council thank you this is also a quasi judicial item so uh you'll be acting as basically the judges for the item um so you know just a reminder no ex parte communications no don't uh try not to have conversations with neighbors about this things like that so just uh as a quasi one another with right yes correct uh right commissioner case yeah it's just uh ideas and we asked the appellants you know if they are prepared to present or you know is that a conversation we can have with them to maybe they don't have a presentation is all I'm thinking.

Yeah so post this meeting today or conversation today we will be engaging with the the appellants to um I will say encourage their kind of combining of conversation and presentation but again there were five separate appeals.

Each one has to a degree its unique perspective so uh we as a city staff can't force them or obligate them to do that but you know certainly we are encouraging that type of dialogue amongst amongst the appellants okay great so there's just one vote then is there one vote or are we voting on each appeal individual that'd be a good question.

That's a good question.

So we have been working with the city's attorney's office uh taking us if if those of you in the room remember the recent uh LDS church uh appeal that went through both this body and city council uh city council actually had cross appeals on it from the the church and the appellants perspective uh so we are looking to combine the actions of this body into one motion okay um it may be a dynamic motion but but we're working to to do that.

Yeah so uh for Dan's comment, um, you can deny all the appeals, you can approve all the appeals, you can approve some of the appeals.

Uh, but we can do it all through one motion since it's all one item.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, going all the way back to sorry, go ahead.

Did you have a question on that?

No, it was going well suddenly yeah, a little heavy um going back to and just to clarify for for all of our sake, the motions that we'll be making and the uh decision that we'll be making is to the appeal criteria, not the major modification criteria.

Correct.

So I just want to make sure that everyone really understands that.

And if and if you don't or you want more clarity, then maybe read out to staff.

Um reach out to staff individually, do not copy the whole commission.

Uh do not meet with another commissioner and ask, or at least not more than one, um, and ask that question, but really ask Dan or Kevin if you don't understand how that works, right?

Because we are reviewing the appeal criteria, not the major modification criteria.

And I think in um in consistency with all of our decisions, we are beholden to the criteria as written, not to opinions or um emotions or our thoughts on certain things or not certain things that we were looking at the criteria.

So just to make sure that I shouldn't and that we all know which criteria we're looking at.

So you prepare for certainly in that decision that that logic.

Um the chair just described, I think it it hardens back to the administrative criteria, in terms of our our decision as staff on the application, so just bear that in mind, but it is based on the appeal criteria, right?

Because the decision that we're gonna make is gonna be those four criteria or three, whatever two with the subsections as it pertains to the administrative decision, but unlike other decisions, we're not reading the original criteria and the decision on this.

Yes.

Well, we're seeing if we agree with the appeal correct because of you know if the decision was erroneous and didn't meet the criteria.

So that's I think we would look at the original.

But we're not making a decision on the original criteria.

We're making a decision on does the appeal have standing against the criteria.

Yeah, I know clear as med.

Um, can I go back to the public comment?

Yeah, and Jones got us.

Jen has her hand.

Jen, did you have a question before I go back?

Sorry, my question, my hand was not because I was gonna ask Trevor to do the thing he just did, where you don't have to go.

So thank you.

So can we um now move forward slide one more?

So can we go back to the conversation that you all were just having about?

See, we're all done.

Uh the 60 minute slot.

So am I hearing that there's consensus to do 90 minutes?

Uh or do you want to stick with the proposed 60?

You want to stick with it.

I think I'm up to I want to hear from others.

Okay, I think 75 would be what I would say as a maximum.

I'm fine with 60.

Okay.

Based on the scale of everything, I think 60 is appropriate, and that's double what 60 is about what a major um obligation has been granted in the past.

So I think it's consistent as well.

Okay, and 75 would be 15 minutes per if that seems more clean than 12 or 18.

Quarter and have a lot of clocks.

Yeah, yeah.

So I'm good with that with 60 or 70 60.

I like the safety 16, 16.

What about you, Jen?

Ryan.

I know this was originally my question.

I you raised an important point that I found very persuasive, which is the additional value of us being able to ask staff and agency partners questions during our deliberations.

And so I'm willing to allow the to go with the 50 minutes.

I do defer should you speak to the appellants, and there if there is strong concern or pushback over the allotment of time for you and Chair Hensler to work that out, uh, I feed to her uh judgment here.

I mean, I think you hit the the nail there is that we're allowed to ask questions directly to the appellants.

Right?

They're not a public comment speaker.

Right.

We can ask them direct questions.

Anyone else have I have good with the public comment section?

What was that again?

I'm sorry, you were kind of breaking up a little bit.

Sorry, um, I said 60 minutes is fine.

Um, 75 is okay too.

Probably wouldn't want any more than that, just uh based on everything and time constraints.

Okay, okay.

Commissioner Case.

Yeah, I I agree.

Uh I think overall, if you speak with the appellants and they have an issue or they aren't able to communicate in that amount of time, then maybe we uh reconsider, but uh this should hopefully be enough time for everyone to get their thoughts across.

Okay, it is 60 it is, and I would say up to 75 if that is a um hard push.

We'll work on how we message that.

That might be a hard one because I think we get 75, they're gonna automatically go to 75.

Just bear that on the skip at 60.

Okay, thank you.

Um, that's just questions.

Yeah, any any other questions on the kind of outline at the other time frames?

Um public comment like questions, you mean a question about some of the public comment or like the comments mark the question that you wanna maybe I'll say it and then you can label it.

Then I'll let Trevor respond.

Uh how do we propose so we already um calculated that it's about 90 people per side who would be given an opportunity to speak?

Um how are we organizing is it first come first serve?

Is it a lottery system of take a raffle?

You know, how are we organizing that or is there a sign-up sheet with you know, check the box if you care about water or noise or other like are we organizing, like what the comments are about?

Because that I think should be clearly articulated to the general public so they can help organize and perhaps um either it's divide and conquer or organize themselves if that's even you know possible.

So our standard processes first come first serve, and I think we generally just stay with that for uh a number of reasons.

The the main main one in my mind is that if you try and split it up between what they're talking about, you get the first amendment issues.

Sure.

Um, so just having it first come first serve in our regular process is the cleanest way to handle it, I think.

The day uh won't like show up that day.

There's no way you can sign up.

It's what we're gonna do staff is working to organize that we're gonna have to have uh sign in sheet.

Some signage, maybe two lines.

How early are you?

We're gonna know.

We won't be there.

I got my sleeping bag right now.

We have overnight accommodation.

No, we're those are all good questions.

I don't know that we have to fit into the answers, but those are the general that's the general gist of where we're heading.

Um, there was a part of the district, so like have a spot.

We'll talk about that.

Yeah, no, I thought about that.

In the back, but we'll look on that.

By the way, we'll do we have a walkthrough at the menu next week, and so we'll add those kinds of questions to it.

Yeah, okay.

Any other questions?

Can we just repeat one more time?

The language that you wish you and Amy Chair Hensler were saying, we're not deciding on the appeal we're evaluating.

Maybe we'll just reiterate it for me.

So I don't know.

Yeah, certainly.

And and this will be spelled out or clarified in greater detail as part of the staff report that you will receive for this this hearing item is the administrative decision was based on one set of criterion code.

Because that uh administration administrative decision has been appealed, the appeal as an application type has its own set of criteria.

So that criteria is what you will be following in your deliberations on the item.

All that as as was noted by members of the commission is there's you know, the decision is erroneous.

There could be an argument made that it was erroneous because we we um we reviewed or interpreted improperly one of the administrative criteria so like hmm I interpret the code says this you you denied this because you interpreted the code said this let's all right yes yeah and I would encourage in any of those types of thought processes um certainly the day of the hearing having that dialogue with um staff legal counsel uh for for the city for you uh to make sure um the understanding of how the city interprets that is is clear yeah and the difference is right like anything that we are talking about which on our agenda for next week we're looking at the criteria and the code and we're making a decision based on the zoning criteria they've already done that they've already done that administratively and says this said this project met the zoning criteria or the major modification criteria as laid out so we're not going back to that to say that doesn't need the appeal right so to the conversation we're having sure we need to look at what those criteria were and say do we think it was contrary erroneous or contrary to whatever but we're not applying the criteria like we would in anything that we're looking at say next week yeah you're not doing a re-review of the administrative decision per se you're looking at what the appellants said as their basis for why the appeal the why they file an appeal as it relates to the criteria for that application.

I get it second time yeah no it and appeals are often very confusing and to Andre's question earlier right with the opposition normally we hear um public comment in favor of an application so those in opposition of the appeal are those in favor of the administrative approval yes so those are thoroughly computer that's sounds like attorney talking yes so okay no that was helpful thank you i i was listening the first time but it wasn't quite computed yeah but now I'm streaming we'll say it a couple more times the double negative on this yeah and again that's where I think if you have some questions and want to make sure that you're understanding the process or the criteria properly um not the merits of the case right but the prop the uh process then reach out to staff and say am I getting this right as you're making notes or thinking about once you get your packet okay um even for our alternative release even though you may not be voting please feel free to reach out and ask questions because that helps your education for the next time one of the packets coming now for what is this we are just a little over two weeks out um I would expect you will probably be seeing that packet uh the week before ish um we're required to publish or post the agenda 24 hours before the hearing uh which does include those documents but I think you know understanding the fact that this is a lot of information you need to absorb um we'll kind of see see what we do with that but I mean internally it's it's already being so good because it's right across the street from uh we're going after you have a long day or just don't bring it don't bring it with you okay anything else thank you Jan Okay so then our last item to wrap this up is annex COS plan COS or yeah annex COS plan an update I think the questions okay, thank you all for uh uh for your participation today, the rest of the month and months coming um so we're here to bring to you um uh a graph of the uh annexation annex DOS, which is basically a policy and uh plan for the three-mile area outside of the city of Colorado today to give you some ideas as to how um how we might go forward with that.

Uh plan COS is uh called for that in 2019 when it was first adopted.

Been working on it for several years, um, sometimes with a public participation, other times at the staff level and with consultants.

So there's a lot of data out there.

Uh the current plan was adopted in 2006.

There's a requirement for the state.

The state has a requirement that the plan be updated every three years, not every 23 years, but every three years.

Uh, but but we haven't been able to, we have not done that except in uh fairly technical um uh terms.

So we're here really to to give you a comprehensive rewrite of what we're doing uh and what we propose to do with annexation.

They require that you update it every three years.

So why?

Why?

Uh you'll you know what I've learned not to speak for the state legislature.

Uh, I don't ever understand what they're really saying and why they do that.

Okay, you know that that's been that's been part of their plan since the 1980s, and so it's been around for a long time and it's been you know kind of a standard process.

Um obviously there are no um penalties for that uh if we don't, because we haven't, and uh but it it's time for us to try and get moved this needle a little bit forward and hopefully try to stay ahead of that just a little bit more.

Um, so that was adopted in 2006.

Uh we talked about clean and COS a little bit.

Obviously, there are differences between our in our community from 2006 to today.

Uh we've had really fast growth in 2006, 2007.

Really slow growth in 2008, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, maybe.

Uh, and then faster growth since then.

So we've got this constant, uh, you know, that that's part of the rationale for having to update this, make you look at what's really been happening in your community.

We've had several up and down cycles since then.

So that's a condition that certainly has changed.

Banning Lewis Ranch was annexed, uh, and it has had a major overhaul of their annexation agreement.

So it's moved banning Lewis Ranch, the entire ranch, not just the area that uh Tamara was discussing and we're we're talking about the front, but the entire really 26,000 acres that was the original annexation.

So that has now sort of gotten cleaned up from an annexation agreement standpoint and is uh you know has started to move into development.

You know, we're seeing some of the pertron uh freestyle and so and some of the things that tomorrow is talking about from Oakland.

Uh we had an IGA with the county that was adopted in 2021.

So that is a piece of the puzzle as well.

Uh the county adopted a master plan that basically said in those fringe areas outside of municipalities, they would like to see the development occur in this municipalities to the extent that they can.

They kind of gave an idea that these were areas that were subject to uh development and urbanization, and uh and so that's another rationale.

We did do a an IGA with the county uh uh under different leadership at the planning departments, different leadership at the at the head of the departments, and so uh we we don't we we recognize that there is an IGA, we recognize that it has been relatively ineffective in terms of its its application, uh and we would like to propose and we will propose in this document that we update that.

Uh, but but it's an acknowledgement.

They also had in that um IgA, a map called the AOPI, the area of planning interest, um, or potential potential interest, I think.

Um, and it was a different area than the three miles, but we've also annexed several areas outside of that three miles.

So, for example, the Southern Colorado Rail Yard was an example of an annexation that really modified the three mile substantially because it was outside the three miles.

And so we've had to update maps and all that kind of thing.

But it's a fairly dynamic process, as you can tell.

We've also had a little bit of sort of a sense of what the community thinks and what the council thinks and what our leadership thinks as it relates to annexations.

We've had the Amara annexation that was passed and then failed.

And then we've had Carmen Line where that was adopted and then turned out, turned out by the voters.

And again, the Southern Colorado Rail Yard, which was unique interests.

And so those are some things that inform kind of what we're trying to accomplish with this annexation.

And so those are some of the background context pieces.

Next.

So the process, we've obviously reviewed uh existing documents, put together some uh some data, had a uh growth um seminar uh outreach in 2024 uh in as part of the process, even though uh I want to emphasize that one of the things that is difficult for people to grasp is that annexation is not growth, it is simply a change in jurisdiction.

I actually I'm getting ahead of my slides here, so I'm not um next we had some technical focus.

We had some group meetings, we did a lot of data gathering, a lot of maps were generated, um, annexation goals and development and policies were adopted or drafted.

Uh, and then we had 2025, where we had Carmen Line, Amara, Southern Colorado Rail Yard, a referendum.

All of those things occurred in the last year.

Uh and we basically had to step back and say, what did that tell us about where we were heading with this document?

And we had to shift gears a little bit.

So we've been working ever since then to try and not throw out the information that was basically developed earlier, but to kind of change the emphasis and focus of of what we think an annexation policy should be.

Next next slide.

We just finished, by the way, a survey that's been online.

We had over 250 people uh comment uh and gave us some ideas about what they think about annexation and what they think.

So we're we've continued to try and gather uh information, not just from stakeholders, but also from the general public.

So we're working, working our way through that.

We'll have some more data.

Um we just just closed that survey, we'll have some more data for you.

Still open, still open.

Still open, you want to vote.

Sorry, if you want to come.

Sorry.

Okay, um, here are the areas that we're um gonna try to address in this policy.

Uh contiguity and enclaves, basically you have to be contiguous to the city in order to annex.

Um, but there are ways to create flagpole annexations that are that are while they are contiguous, they're not really contiguous.

And so they follow the legal, the legality of the law uh, but not the spirit uh of the law.

So contiguousness is uh is a is an issue that we're worried about.

We also have these enclaves.

You've seen several of them in the last few years or a couple of years where we've had annexations of pieces that were are completely surrounded by the city.

Uh, there's also near enclaves, some pieces that are not completely surrounded, but but three quarters surrounded or mostly surrounded.

Um, and maybe up against but up against the uh Air Force Academy or the forest, uh National Forest or places like that.

So those those are kind of near near enclaves.

There are some different rules around those, and we acknowledge that, excuse me, in this draft policy as well.

Uh fiscal sustainability and the cost, uh obviously two main places where we deal with that at utility extensions, as well as the impact on uh um services from the general city.

So those are two uh most important issues that we try to address.

We we are addressing in this in this draft policy infrastructure and utility efficiencies trying to make sure that we're using existing infrastructure as much as possible.

This is not though a policy that's going to impact infill infills obviously different but um uh but it's it's it's acknowledging that there are extensions of utilities and infrastructure and services that go outside the city limits when you annex them community development impacts on housing jobs and services so that's basic economic kind of things is it is it good for the economy is it good for us to have uh opportunities for future growth compatibility with existing urban development and boundaries housing diversity and affordability um you know we we obviously have that issue uh pending um more houses are generally considered to be maybe a better way to deal with affordability but and but annexation again does not give you more houses uh it just gives you the opportunity to have those houses built inside the city limits um proximity to existing and planned infrastructures kind of saying the same thing we're repeating ourselves a little bit we want to make sure we're cooperating with other jurisdictions like that IGA that we were just talking about a county uh we'd like to expand that into other jurisdictions uh obviously the two the three other communities that are nearby are Falcon I mean fountain um Manitou Springs and Monument those are areas that impact our three mile their three miles intersect in some fashions so we need to we need to work on make just communicating with them about this kinds of issues and we have to have some flexibility uh with special circumstances um so those are some of the things that we address or we're trying to address in these policies and comments next one um our next steps so you'll see in the the but what we're given to you is this document which basically is go look through a series of policies it's not as bad as it looks because there's a lot of appendix in the back that just kind of information but it but it will give you uh the the basic fundamentals and we'll get into a little bit more detail when we do a presentation for your next week.

Are we voting on the recommended okay yeah you'd be recommending this to council or not or however you want to do that or there's some specific changes.

This is the legislative item though so this is something that you if you have a question you can certainly call and ask uh for an explanation and and you know give us some of your feedback uh in a different in a different fashion so you do not have to hear it as a quasi judicial matter it's it's a legislative matter some of the things we're after once we have this policy there are several things that we would like to complete going forward one is uh to develop a model annexation report basically to make sure that you'll see in there several things that we're worried about contiguity and proximity to existing services we want to basically give uh a model for if you want to annex your property uh you need to give us this information in this kind of format so that we can assess that um one of the major things that I I don't think was in the one of the previous slides was we are not proposing to change uh we are not proposing that the city get aggressive around annexation that we try to annex certain properties we're still very much focused on the property owner being the trigger for an application for annexation it's not the city doesn't say hey we think that these are the 12 different areas that we want to annex in the next five years none of that in this policy it's it has always been and will remain in terms of this recommendation uh to be a property owner uh decision to ask for an extension.

So creation of a template for fiscal impact analysis for for especially for larger uh we have we have a uh uh uh a uh template for the utilities.

We don't have a template for uh general city.

So we want to develop a a template that says we need to look you need to look at it this way, you need to look at it over this period of time, and this is the assumptions that you you need to make and prove up relative to your fiscal impact.

So we're we'll come up with a model for that as one of our things.

We want to update the current IGA, which I talked about, and then we want to make sure that we do some annual monitoring and every so often update this, not every 20 years.

When do you anticipate doing those next steps?

Is it over the next year, the next three years?

Yes, okay.

I think one of them might take longer, but some of them won't.

I think is that the last slide?

Okay, but it is any questions, comments, thoughts?

Um look forward to the conversation and the discussion, and we'll kind of keep seeing if we can move this along.

Thank you.

Obviously, we have a lot on our plates this month.

Um there's next week is going to be a poll meeting.

I would end up a whole day, um, or the majority therein, maybe dance back in.

Yeah, yeah, given that we have the banningless ranch ones, which um has a lot of pieces and parts, and then uh being able to weigh in on this.

So be on time.

You ready?

Thank our staff.

Uh and then obviously as soon as we have information and packets out about the appeal, um, take time to review that in depth.

Anything we really don't think we're just kind of goofing around up there on the seventh floor.

Fair amount of stuff going on.

Well, and I think it's also always important to remember how many things that you've all you all do that we don't see.

So clearly you're not messing around.

So thanks, Roger.

Yeah, we're making up all the right job here.

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, so again next week, PRN.