Okay, good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to call the Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for July 8th, 2026 to order.

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

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

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

The city planning staff facilitate the process.

Oh, hold on, I lost my screen to be able to see my scrap.

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

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

Briefly on ground rules and procedures.

Throughout each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully, understanding that others may have different views from your own.

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

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

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

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Please keep your comments brief and focused on the issues at hand, and please respect other attendees' rights to both listen and be heard.

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

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

So with that, I think we will move to our uh roll call.

Chair Hensler.

Here.

Commissioner Sissel.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Clements.

Here.

Commissioner Didiano.

Here.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Commissioner Engel.

Here.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is changes to the agenda or postponements.

So if there are any items, Mr.

Gray.

We will read them into the record and vote on uh changes and postponements.

No.

Is it items in the number of first?

Do we need to change?

Do we need to vote on changes and postponements or just on changes to consent?

My script says that we should vote on them.

I apologize.

You all confer.

Mr.

Gray, can you please give us your postponement item?

What's gonna happen here?

Um so um this is item 5B, which is on the consent calendar.

It is for the kitchen parking variants and the record numbers NVAR 26-005.

Excuse me, I apologize.

The question was if an item is pulled off consent.

No, sir.

Changes to the agenda and postponements.

The information reads that if there are any items, they should be read into the record and then voted on separately.

Yes.

If uh if an item is being postponed or moved from consent or another, it should be uh moved to that area and then voted on when it comes up.

Perfect.

So let's back up a step.

And Salange, can you read um the item into the record and then Mr.

Gray will give us his item 5B and V AR-26-0005 onon use variance to city code section 7.4.1003.

To allow one off-street parking space for a restaurant use with outer seating or seven off-street parking spaces is required.

The standard for the property located at 2001 West Colorado Avenue.

Okay, Mr.

Harry.

Okay, thank you, Slaunch.

Uh good morning, planning commission.

Uh, Bill Gray City Planning.

So uh this item um as read into the record was scheduled to be on the consent uh calendar.

That item was going to be polled, but in addition to that, uh, we got notice from the applicant that due to medical um issues that they would not be able to attend this hearing this morning.

So they are requesting uh from the planning commission a postponement of this application to August 12th, twenty twenty six, which is the next regular regularly scheduled planning commission hearing.

Okay, great.

And I just would say before one one other item.

Um, if there are those in the audience that are here for that hearing, um, I can answer or address any comments uh out in the hallway after um after the postponement.

Okay, great.

So with that, then I think we need a motion to postpone item five.

B as invoy.

Okay.

Officer Robins here.

I make a motion that we uh postpone item five B, which is La Kitchen Park and Variance in VAR two six five or two six zero zero zero five until August twelve, twenty twenty six.

Second.

Commissioner Slattery, second.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, thank you so much.

Folks, thanks for being here, and sorry for that postponement, but maybe we'll see you again in August.

Okay, moving on.

Our agenda uh next is communications.

And um, I just wanted to formally thank uh vice chair at the moment, Andrea Slattery for her uh dedication and service to the planning commission over the last six years.

I think you've been a tremendous member and mentor and friend, and you will be very much missed.

And since this is your last formal normal meeting, I wanted to uh take today to thank you for your service and commend you for all you've done for our city.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and beyond that, I don't have any other communications today, Mr.

Walker.

Just a couple of quick things.

Um we continue to work on the administrative details of your special meeting on July twenty third, so uh look for continued communications around that.

Um lots of decisions to be made, and uh we will keep you informed as best we can.

Um also though, I want to point out that the staff uh and to thank my staff for uh keeping the rest of these things going.

Um, got a large agenda today.

We've gonna have a large agenda again in August, and uh, you know, it's been yeoman's effort on their part to keep all of these other things moving forward uh while we deal with the elephant in the room.

So I appreciate that from staff.

I concur, and I should have said something similarly, thanks to all the staff.

You guys have been working tremendously hard.

So I appreciate you all.

Okay, next is approval of the minutes.

Oh, okay, one moment.

Um, Okay, sorry about that.

We're trying to accommodate some uh public comment needs.

But I think we're ready to move on to approval of the minutes.

Solange, are you ready to move on to approval of the minutes?

Okay.

Item CPC two seven three nine minutes for the June 10th 2026 City Planning Commission.

I'm sorry, item four A, CPC two, seven, three, eight, minutes for the June fourth, twenty twenty-six work session, city planning commission.

Okay.

Does everyone had a chance to review the work session meetings from June fourth?

Okay.

Can we look for a motion in a second, please?

Commissioner Robins here.

I move that we accept the minutes for the uh for the last meeting.

Um, and I think this is going to be four AC PC two seven three eight.

Commissioner Clements, I'll second it.

Commissioner Slattery abstains.

I was not present.

Thank you.

We have eight members in favor, and Commissioner Slidery abstained.

Item four B, CPC two seven three nine, minutes for the June thent, twenty twenty-six city planning commission meeting.

Um I move that we accept the the minutes for the June 10th twenty twenty-six meeting.

Um item four B, CPC two seven, three nine.

Commissioner Clemens, I second it.

Commissioner Case abstaining as I was not present.

Thank you.

Commissioner will it be abstaining as well.

Commissioner Slattery abstaining.

Great.

Thank you all.

All right, next up is our uh consent calendar.

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

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

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

So Solange, if you can read the consent calendar items into the record, please.

Item 5C, C U D P-26-0010, 752 Clark Place, LLC.

Item 5D, C U D P-26-005, Carl Malone Polaris, conditional use.

Item 5E, Z-O-N-E-25-0037, 5325 Mark Dabling Boulevard zone map amendment.

Item 5F, Z-O-N-E-26-0012, Buckingham Industrial Stone Map Amendment.

Item 5G, C U D P-26-0003, Gally Road conditional use.

Thank you so much.

Does any planning commissioner wish to call an item off the consent calendar?

Commissioner Slattery, I would like to call item 8F, Buckingham Industrial Off Consent.

I did bring readers.

It is 8F.

No, it's 5F.

Oh my gosh.

I think it was a different number on informal.

I would like Commissioner Slatter.

You would like to call item 5F off of consent, please.

Thank you.

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

See none.

Does any member of the public wish to call an item off the consent calendar?

Do you want to check on the online access?

If there's anybody online that would like to pull any items of the consent calendar, please press star six to unmute yourselves now.

There's no one online.

Okay, thank you.

With that, we will uh look for a motion and a second for the remaining items on the consent calendar, and then we'll address Buckingham Industrial 5A after.

Commissioner Robins here, I move that we accept the remaining items that are on the consent calendar.

Commissioner Willoughby, second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Given that the majority of the items on the consent calendar are appealable, I'm gonna read the appeal instructions at this time, in accordance with requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code, an affected party may appeal to the city council any action of the city planning commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party within 10 days from the final action on the item being appealed, which will be Monday, July 20th, 2026.

The appellant must file notice of appeal and pay the 176 dollar fee with the city clerk.

The appeal notice should address specific zoning code criteria that were not adequately addressed by the city planning commission.

City council may elect to limit discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matter set forth in the appeal notice.

And with that, we will move into um our unfinished business or items called off consent combined, I guess, and that would be item 5A.

So, Solange, if you could read item 5A in its entirety into the record, and then we'll invite staff up.

5F.

Did I say 5F?

Sheesh, we are on a roll.

We must be still is hired from the 4th of July holiday or something.

Item 5F Z O N E 26-0012, a zone map amendment consisting of 7.79 acres located at 4290 4910 4320 4330 4340 Buggingham Drive from Business Park and Business Park with conditions of record to line industrial with conditions of record.

Your presenter is Chris Sullivan.

Good morning, Chris.

Thank you.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner for Land Use Review.

I'm the case planner on this project for Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment.

Zone 260012 is a zone map amendment request for proposed site known as Buckingham Industrial.

It's not working.

It's an area with existing commercial and industrial development.

In general, the site is located southeast of Centennial Boulevard and Garden of the Gods Road.

And just looking at the aerial map, you'll see that three sides of this property is surrounded by commercial industrial use.

However, to the south, which will be probably the main points of conversation, is residential single family detached use to the south off the south border, uh zoned R5.

Meanwhile, everything else is on BP BP Business Park or MXM.

The request is to rezone the site from BP with conditions of record to L I with condition conditions of record.

And that's to allow a little bit more flexibility in industrial use.

Um, but in addition, we'll look at some conditions of record uh as proposed by both staff and the applicant.

Um I don't know if I said this already, but the site is 7.79 acres.

It's a zone map amendment.

Uh generally you're required to have a supporting dark document to go with that zone map amendment.

Usually it's a land use plan, but in some cases we'll wave it and allow a land use statement.

This is one of those cases where we as staff allowed a waiver by land use statement.

All right, here we go.

There's a little lot of information on this slide, um, but generally you have an aerial map that's showing um kind of the lightish pinkish purpley color there.

Um everything within that is zone B P, uh, and can and consists of existing uh industrial use, mostly warehouse office, outdoor storage type uses here.

Um, and then the more pinkish color, uh, I would say to the west and a little bit to the north.

Uh that's zoned MXM, and you'll see more of the commercial um retail type uses along that stretch, and those are fronting either on Garden of the Gods or uh Centennial.

To the south of the site, as previously noted, that's zoned R5.

Um, and that is existing single family residential detached.

Um, and in this case, uh, I would say this is probably one of your more uh pertinent notes to consider is compatibility and how we look at the proposed zone for this site and how it may affect those properties.

I've put a snippet on this slide of that um exhibit B of the zone, the proposed zone map amendment.

So uh it's previously noted, there's five parcels.

Um there's been a slew of development on our slew of proposed development on various parcels in this site.

I'll say that's been that's been occurring since 1990.

We've seen a request for um office warehouse with outdoor storage that actually got approved.

On the northwest most parcel, we've seen a request for um keep forgetting the name of it, but uh a gym sports complex.

There we go.

That got approved but never occurred, and then most recently was a proposal for outdoor um vehicle parking.

Uh that would have come to you guys through a conditional use, but that application was withdrawn.

So there's been kind of a range of considerations here.

Um the original zoning BP conditions of record.

Uh the conditions of record related to that were related to a 25-foot landscape buffer along that south edge, and that was to create a buffer from those residential properties.

Um, and additionally, there's talk about where we put the more intense kind of uh aspects of development uh and separating that from the residential side.

So if there's outdoor storage, garbage enclosures, things like that, they wanted that away from those residential properties.

So pushing that to the north end, which is what previous plans showed, is kind of what uh the city uh intended.

The new conditions of record eliminates those previous conditions of record.

However, those are considered if you look through the applicant's project statement that they want to continue that type of development pattern that was previously proposed.

Uh the new conditions of record uh seek to prohibit certain uses as the applicant believes that those may be uses that you wouldn't want to see here from a compatibility standpoint, and then any other more intense use identified in the LI zone is already listed as a uh conditional use.

So those would have to go through a higher higher review process through a public hearing through planning commission.

So I've listed those prohibited uses, um household living, group living, industrial hemp, marijuana related uses, natural medicines, and kennel indoor outdoor other proposed prohibited uses on the on this site.

Um I added this slide just recently, and I believe that was based on informal, uh just to give you a little bit of perspective on comparing the BP to the LI.

In the BP, I'll note that there is uh generally standard setbacks, dimensional requirements, which are listed in that left column.

Um most notable thing that I would point out is the fact that BP has a 100 foot separation for buildings from residential use or zoned.

LI does not have that requirement.

LI also does not have as many dimensional requirements because those are established by land use plan or development plan.

Will you repeat that last thing you said one more time?

About the separation.

So BP, it's kind of hard to see, but it's about three-quarters of the way down.

There's a specific requirement in the BP zone that buildings within the BP have to be separated by a hundred feet from a residential zone or property.

Yes, I got that.

And then what was the very next item that you mentioned?

LI does not have uh established dimensional requirements besides a 20-foot front yard setback because all of the other requirements are determined by development plan or land use plan.

Thank you.

And I'll also say landscaping requirements as well.

Thank you.

Um, and then to the right of that chart, um, I've listed out more or less the what I believe to be the uses that are allowed in the LI versus what's not allowed in the BP.

That makes sense.

So generally LI allows more vehicle related uses, more uh waste and recycling related uses, more retail, um, retail uses, more natural medicines, industrial hemp, plant-based extractions, junkyards, bars, bed and breakfast, hotels, hookah bars, uh, room and boarding.

Granted, if you look at a lot of those uses, there's a lot of conditional requirements conditional review required for those, which is why a lot of those weren't added as can uh prohibited uses within this request.

All right.

Um so this review began in March of 2026, went through three three rounds of review and was prepared for the agenda on June 12th.

Uh public notice was issued on this application through internal review and uh prior to this hearing.

Went out to properties within a thousand feet, 264 postcards were issued with a poster on site.

Um three comments were received.

Those comments were based on intensity of use compatibility effects on uh quality of life.

Uh, and I'll note that this was more or less related to the commercial and industrial uh existing developments in the area, not the residential properties to the south.

Um, which is perplexing, but um, so I think those are things you should consider uh when reviewing this application.

You do have those comments listed in your packet as well, agency review.

Uh this went through three rounds of review.

Agencies got had a chance to provide comments.

Uh any comments that were were received were addressed.

Um screen are the agencies that left comments, which are basically stating that they'll review provide more comments at time of development plan.

COS.

I'll note that uh we did review this uh uh with relation to the policy goals strategies of plan COS.

Generally, we we found that this application is compliant uh with conditions of record established with this uh zone map amendment.

Um the criteria for a zone map amendment.

There are 10.

There are five on this screen, five more on that screen after evaluation of the Buckingham uh industrial zone map amendment.

The application is determined to meet those review criteria, and here are your motions.

Uh if you choose to approve or recommend approval to city council, uh staff is recommending that you add conditions of record as identified on the screen.

Or you may recommend denial, in which case I won't answer that.

We have motions for both.

Any questions for city staff?

Does anyone have questions for Mr.

Sullivan at this point?

Or would you like to hear the applicant presentation first?

Okay.

Chris, we'll bring you back up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there an applicant present to okay?

Great.

Come on up, sir.

Um please state your name and you'll have 30 minutes to present.

Okay, uh, my name's Ben Swanson uh with Buckingham Land Holdings LLC as the applicant.

Um is there a controller?

Yeah, okay.

Perfect.

Um we could go to the second page, sorry.

And maybe the third page.

And we can continue on.

Sorry about all the dividers here.

I think this this slide gives a just a better overview of these photos were taken recently.

Where this fits in with the context of the neighborhood around it.

There's it's been a long time vacant parcel.

There's been some some challenges over the years.

Some of those being that there's some geotechnical concerns that would come up.

I think that may have been a precursor potentially of some of the failed developments in the past.

This site was used as a gravel pit mine by the city in the 60s, and then it was backfilled with unknown material.

So we've done a lot of research into that to try to understand where those geotechnical constraints may occur just based on unknown what the fill is and compaction quality.

And so that has led to this site being vacant obviously for a very long time.

That is recently become a bit more of a concern.

You'll see there's been a list of violations with that site with homeless encampments, illegal dumping and things that have happened over the years.

Since we acquired the property, we have taken control of the perimeter and really try to improve that.

We've since have had no additional illegal dumping.

We've met with the police department to try to figure out how to best manage that.

So, but we think putting this into productive use is the best way to kind of eliminate those ongoing concerns.

If you go to the next slide, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then maybe one more slide and maybe one more.

No, I don't want to duplicate some of this information.

Here's some of the existing uses.

So with the exception of the residential to the south, there's retail to the west, there's a there's a truck terminal immediately to the north and kind of the rounded shape parcel.

There's a distribution center to the northwest, and then there's an assortment of industrial and flex buildings, all bordering everything to the east, um, so the way we approach this, um, the the site, in my understanding, was previously was zoned in the old code PIP 1 and PIP2.

Um that was re-zoned to PIP 2 being an ordinance.

Um, in 2005, that approval was a believe extended via site plan through 2014.

And that basically introduced the same uses that I think are proposed in our application.

Um when it was changed the zoning in the new code down to BP.

I think some of those were eliminated.

So we tried to take a look at what those various uses and then the concerns that would come up with the residential neighbors to the south and find a way to creatively not too far from what previous applicants had proposed, but be able to orient that site in a way that it would mitigate some of the things that may be concerning.

Some of those were restricting uses that we felt like had potential for odor impact, such as marijuana and things like that.

Um, and then the rest of it is really the way we have envisioned this site is that there'd be there's an existing common access road on the south side of the property.

We'd utilize that and then orient buildings on the south side of the property to act as both a visual and a noise barrier.

Um laying south of that would be parking for these buildings, so that continues to just increase that buffer and transition.

In the current BP zoning.

There's a is Mr.

Sullivan mentioned, there's a hundred foot setback for residential.

My understanding is that's for um the building itself, but maybe not for the use or for parking or um maybe yard space or something, it's just the building setback, and so what we're trying to do is improve that by having a common access road.

Um, if we can make the grades work, some storm water, um, and then parking and then the buildings going from the south to the north.

So just increase that um in addition to landscape buffering on the south side um to help mitigate that.

Um the next slide, I think is what I what I tried to do here is look at because Mr.

Sullivan mentioned, there's a lot of different um levels of review as we go through, and so in the in the spreadsheet there on the left, everything highlighted in green.

So I've taken all the uses that we are allowed and then deleted everything that we've done with the root the proposed conditions of record, and so you're left with these uses.

Everything highlighted in green is a conditional use and requires additional review, which is the reasoning of why we didn't include those on the uh restrictions, and then once you remove all the green ones, you're left with the top right list, and everything highlighted in blue actually has a required specific standards that have to be met.

Um so another additional level of review there.

So if you eliminate those, the bottom right is really what the change in the uses that are permitted without additional review would be, if that makes sense.

Um, and so it's a it's a rather short list that we think can be really well mitigated with all the sites designed and is reflective of what was previously approved from the zoning to PIP2 historically.

I think that's more the plan COS, but um generally that's the overview of what we're attempting to do.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um I think we will um go through our process and take public comment, but or do commissioners have questions now?

Or do you want to you yeah, I think we'll take public comment first and then we'll have you back up for rebuttal and then we'll ask you more questions.

Alright, yeah.

So stay close.

Okay.

So moving uh to public comment.

If there's anyone here to speak in favor of this item, please indicate so, or if we can check online if anyone is here to speak in favor.

Okay, yes, sir.

Uh, and if there's anyone here to speak in opposition for that matter, uh, please indicate so, and we'll take general comments as well.

Good morning, sir.

If you can state your name, for the record, and just kind of get close to the mic.

I'm very wicked and I'm here with Marsha Wick.

We are uh residents of the cul-de-sac that is adjacent to this um large lot, and I just want to make a few comments.

I I don't see any of our neighbors here, but uh they also know about this hearing today.

Um basically that lot has been unattended for a long time.

Certainly the last the previous owner uh did nothing, it was uh overgrown.

There were homeless living there.

Um I we have no idea what what the previous owner was planning to do, and we have no idea what the current owner is planning to do in that lot.

That lot is um borders the shopping center on the uh west, and it borders residential area on the south.

The previous owner was actually got a citation for uh because that lot was totally unattended for two years.

Um again, I don't know if I'm in favor of this or not in favor of it, because we have no idea what are the plans for that lot.

The other major issue is that lot slopes, and it has a major drainage issue that I don't know has ever been addressed by anybody in the city, any uh city engineering or anybody, and I'm assuming the current owner realizes that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wick.

Hi, my name is Marcia Wick, and as Barry mentioned, we live on Tulip Place, just south of the proposed development.

We're also just east of the retail development.

My concerns are when the drainage, because um the shopping center at Garden of the Gods and Centennial, which did not exist when we purchased our home, and it all got developed and paved, created a huge drainage issue.

Um all the water from Centennial and Garden of the Gods comes into our backyard.

We did get that finally addressed.

But as Barry mentioned, this other lot also slopes, and all the drainage will come into the Holland Park area.

Um we also get a lot of debris from the retail development with the winds that we have, it carries the litter into our backyard.

And I'm wondering about the landscaping buffers that tall trees and fencing.

Um, what happens with the retail development right now is a lot of cars shortcut um and go behind the development, and their headlights come directly into our house.

Um, and so I'm wondering about you know the traffic that's gonna be there off Forest Hill in Buckingham, um, which is an egress into our housing development.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you both for being here today.

We appreciate it.

Is there anyone else uh online or in the audience that wishes to speak on this item in any capacity?

Okay, I didn't think so, but Sanjay do you want to check if there's anyone online just in case?

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in uh favor or opposition of this item, please press our six to and mute yourselves.

There's no one online.

Okay, thank you.

Um, sir, if you'd like to come back up and uh address any of the questions from the public comment or have any other um final thoughts.

We welcome you to do so.

Definitely um thank you.

Um so yeah, I I agree um with some of the comments that were made.

The site obviously has been very dirty.

It's been it's been unfortunate the condition has been.

Uh we purchased it in March.

I think it's much improved.

Um, but it has been a long-standing concern about um how it was treated, uh, particularly over the last several years.

Um I think we're making big improvements.

The the investment that we're making into the site.

Um, we want to see a cleaner site.

We want to see this that controlled and it fit into the the context with the neighboring properties, which I think are done very, very well.

Um so we uh we share the same concern about control of trash um and those things.

I one of the challenges with the shopping center, particularly is that's the service area in the back of the building where they have their trash enclosures and things, and so um that's something that we would similarly have concerns with if that continued.

Um, but I think again, putting this into a productive use is the best way to be able to address some of the homeless concerns, which is where a lot of this really stems from.

Um drainage, you know, there's undoubtedly some drainage concerns there over the years.

I think through the civil engineering process that would be addressed.

Um, you know, pre and post-development flows and on-site drainage and everything that needs to be done to do a proper development.

So I think those would be um addressed in that way when when is developed and for the for the uses specifically.

The reason we don't have a specific site plan is because it would be so speculative at this point.

Cause it could we could find, for example, in those areas of geotechnical concern.

Maybe we find that that's isolated in certain areas, and we can put a larger building in some areas where that may not be possible, then there might be a more yard-oriented use, but that would be pushed towards the north, and so it would be buffered by the buildings and because you can't just have a yard, you have to have uh buildings and parking and those things, and we're utilizing that to be able to buffer.

Um, but the reason there isn't a specific plan is for that reason be so speculative that I don't think it'd be accurate.

Um, and that the previous plan done in 2005 with the warehouses would be generally in line with what we would expect for visualization, but that's the history of the uses.

And sir, I'm sorry, I probably didn't ask you at the beginning.

Can you state your name one more time for the record?

Yes, sorry, it's Ben Swanson.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Um, do any commissioners have questions for Mr.

Swanson at this point?

All right.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby.

Um, can you put the applicant's slide back up specifically?

The one that was comparing the uses?

Yeah, that one.

Um so I know you kind of said you don't know exactly what you want to do yet, but can you speak to is there something on this bottom?

Because you're saying basically the the bottom right, correct.

The bottom right is the uses that would now be allowed if it was rezoned to light industrial.

Are you specifically trying to do one of those uses, or are you trying to make this site as flexible as possible?

Or you know you want to do construction sales and services, therefore, that's why you want to rezon it.

Can you just speak to that?

Definitely.

Um, we're definitely not trying to do a cemetery.

So just for clarity, that was uh just there, um transparency.

The the other ones, um, I think it is trying to have a broad uh use.

If you look at the existing uses under Business Park, there's some that are very similar to these, such as uh, trying to remember exactly, but there's um take a look at my notes here.

One of them, for example, truck terminal that's allowed in business park, which is very similar in ways to some of these construction sales and service and things, and so there's there's a there's uh some more clarity provided by the light industrial zoning to the market so that we can identify these users and work through them with specific site plans that we could come forward with and and address concerns with a more specific plan.

Um, but it's broadening the range and removing some of the hesitancy of some of the market to um not knowing and having full clarity on the business park zoning.

Thank you.

And question for the staff, just for the public, um whatever plan is presented would be reviewed by uh development plan process, correct?

Chris Sullivan, senior planner.

Um, so yeah, the the next step, assuming that the zone gets approved, uh they would be required to come in with uh at minimum a development plan and likely a plat.

Um and uh depending on the final use, it would be to be permitted or conditional, and they would have to go through whatever coordinating process um meeting uh chapter seven.

Which just to address some of um the citizens' concerns also can uh include stormwater management, civil engineering, all those types of yep.

There'll be a civil plan uh with a uh presumed to be a drainage report to go with this, and they'll have to uh make sure that they meet the four-step process for SWET, um, to ensure on-site-offsite flows and whatnot.

Um, and then in addition, I think the other comment was the uh being adjacent to residential use.

If there's any requirement for buffering, uh landscape code does have specific rules and how we buffer between non-like uses.

Um, in this case with potential commercial industrial, it'll likely be something like a 15-foot buffer with a seven-foot tall uh opaque wall of some kind.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Hi there.

Um just a couple of quick questions.

Uh, first on your presentation, if you could you mentioned a couple of times and you might need to scroll back up in it, the southern access route.

Uh that when I drive behind that safeway, there is not a curb cut there.

And so it sounds like you were talking about the site being useful through a private lot access.

And I wanted to know if you could clarify that more.

Exactly.

So right where the mouse cursor is right there, that I would not consider an egress point.

That is a four-wheel drive road, basically, um, that has been used for people to access the site.

We have now concrete blocks there to prevent that.

But that is there is no easement, there is no egress from that location.

Um, that just is a road that if you went out there, it's a pretty steep road.

Um, I wouldn't call it a road trail.

Um, so the way that we have looked at the site going to on the east side of the site from the horseshoe Buckingham Drive, there is an existing drive that's shared with West Tech.

Um, as that comes down, it actually turns and it's pretty degraded and needs to be improved, but across the whole southern boundary currently there is a road.

Um that makes so much more sense.

Because that was just sitting here going to southern access.

The southern access, that's not access.

I'm sorry about that.

Okay.

So that's that L-shaped road was essentially act as a common access, taking all traffic up to Buckingham Drive and then continue on to Garden of the Gods Road.

Um I know Chris just spoke to it, but um, I was we were talking about buffers, about maybe a 15-foot buffer being standard.

And I was wondering if either you or the staff had, since we're attaching the if we approve this, we would be attaching the conditions of prohibited uses.

If you also endorsed a or would prefer a deeper buffer, something more in the 20 to 25-foot range, or if we feel that the seven-foot wall, like a seven-foot wall and 15 feet is sufficient to protect residents from that, since it's right next to residential.

Uh Chris Sullivan, senior planner.

Um I would say that depends on the final use uh for what we'd want to see a buffer there.

Um, obviously, if it's more intense, then you know, maybe that 25 foot would be better.

Uh, but otherwise I think the code does a pretty good job.

Uh fair enough.

And I think most of the rest of my concerns really wouldn't come up until you get to the development plan stage.

So I guess I'd like to end with anything that you'd like to say to us wage uh drainage concerns before we start talking about how we'll be voting.

Yeah, sorry, so just anything about drainage concerns you said.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I so obviously we need to handle pre- and post-development flows.

Um, we're working through kind of, you know, the next step is work at how that would look.

Would that be a regional pond?

Would that be individual ponds on the parcels?

I think there's probably we would come through one of these parcels and then unplotted, so we would come through with the new plot.

And at that time, we'd have a better understanding and and at least initial design on the stormwater would work so that we can capture those flows, let them outflow appropriately to the outfalls that are existing, and generally improve the existing condition for all the neighbors, particularly the south, just so based on the way the site trains.

Alright, thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um good morning.

So I also did a review between the use tables, and here's things that were um I think more concerning to me.

It's it was um nice to see some of these permitted uses.

Um you also found incompatible.

Uh I think I would add animal shelters and an indoor kennel to the prohibited uses as well.

I know they're conditional, but bar and junkyard, I I would see as incompatible and would recommend um putting those as prohibited uses on the condition of record.

Um the other ones you have already identified.

Um additionally, I think the existing conditions of record should remain with the 25 foot buffer, although you are um proposing something different with the road, right?

Things change, ownership changes, development can take a long time.

So I think that the original conditions of record with the landscape buffer and then the garbage and intense uses remaining on the north.

I would I would propose to hold those conditions.

Um the other one that seems, you know, a little uh perhaps too intense for the adjacencies to the south would be that 60 foot height limit uh versus the 45 that's uh currently allowed in the BP versus L I.

So those would be the conditions that I would propose um to be included if it is rezoned from BP to LI.

Does that seem like it would be workable within uh the constraints that you're envisioning you know, stormwater and all of those things will be addressed during development plan, and and I think our code does a good job.

I see staff getting the um hook on me here.

Let's yeah, so Commissioner Slattery Dan Sexton, planning manager for the land use revision of city planning.

Just to remind commissioners too, is that um with consideration of of restrictions of uses specific to like the kennel or any type of animal shelter type operation, uh, which per LI today is permitted in that zone, is that the city council did within the last what was it about uh six to ten months, adopt new use specific standards for those uses, which are universal regardless of zone district uh across the city, which do include additional buffering and separation requirements to any type of dog runs or where those animals may be uh allowed outdoor access.

So those types of use specific restrictions have now been implemented uh under the UDC, but certainly if it's still the desire to to buffer or prohibit those uses because of the adjacency of residential, that's something that you guys consider.

But we just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that.

Yeah, and thank you for that update.

Um I know we saw some compatibility issues with those land uses semi-recently.

Um I would my uh opinion is that um in spite of those restrictions, I would see you know, compatibility on on three sides, but maybe not the fourth.

So it would be my purview to add that to the prohibited use.

But I'm I'm just one person.

So those are my opinions on that.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Case.

Commissioner Case.

Uh so maybe a bit of a joint question between the applicant and maybe Chris.

Uh you mentioned I wasn't able to find it on your presentation, but the buffer zone you said is a hundred foot with the residential with BP, and it's being changed to roughly nothing with the LI.

Correct.

Chris Sullivan Senior Planner.

Uh yes, that's correct.

The BP has an established set standard uh a hundred-foot separation from residential, uh written into the dimensional table for it.

Uh LI does not have that standard.

Okay.

And so for the applicant, does that potentially render your project maybe infeasible to have that hundred foot buffer?

It it does, and the reason we approached it the way that we did was that I that setback that 100-foot setback is just for the building.

And so in theory, if I understand it correctly, the use could actually encroach on that hundred-foot buffer.

So let's say there was a yard, you can actually encroach on that with the way that's written.

So what we're trying to do is actually improve that, increase that buffer by a landscape buffer, a road, parking, buildings, and then any uses that would be north of that.

So that by we think it actually increases that buffer, um, or improves that buffer by pushing those uses uh to the north, if that makes sense.

Sure.

Yeah, and I mean my question is with some potential drainage issues in that back lot that that's maybe able to be solved within that buffer zone.

That's what that's the preferred solution.

There's some things we need to navigate with that, but um the preferred solution would be to be able to handle that with stormwater ponds and landscaping within that southern area because it'd be the perfect place to um be a good neighbor.

Okay, great, yeah.

Thanks.

Well, then this chair, Hensler, I I think just piggybacking on that, as I measure the distance from what appears to be someone's back fence to the northern boundary of the existing road, if you maintain that you're already at 45 or 50 feet-ish.

So with no requirement, you're already almost to the hundred foot.

And if you're adding parking or other buffers, it appears that you'll be able to do that.

And I would guess that your uses would want to be closer to Buckingham or closer to that uh access road.

Yes, I think it depends because we don't know the specific use about how that parking, the number of parking, how that would lay out, like there's a variation there on where that building footprint may be.

Um trying to.

And I understand that you're it is speculative at this point.

What's your speculation on the on the road that is currently existing on that southern boundary?

How far do you anticipate?

So it looks like there's some grade change up to the shopping center, right?

So how far do you do you anticipate that that would be kind of like a loop that would go through the whole site?

Or would it have some sort of um bulkhead at the end or cul-de-sac and then in that corner that has the the rough road?

So it would not continue around just due to grade or drainage, but it would it would encompass the whole southern border potentially.

Right.

So the way we looked at it was that we we've in concept it would come across, it would have a fire department turnaround hammerhead at the end of the road, exactly where you're referring to.

So that would essentially act as a border across the whole southern side.

Okay, okay.

I don't have any further questions.

I think that the uses that you're proposing are um are appropriate for the the site, even given the adjacencies, and I think it's probably far um preferable than what it has been used for, but I appreciate all the conversation today.

So uh other questions from other commissioners.

This is Commissioner Cecil.

I'd like to just clarify what Commissioner Slattery was suggesting.

Um you were saying that you would be most comfortable, is that right, Commissioner Slattery with retaining the 100-foot setback, the 25 foot buffer, and reducing the 65 foot height to 45 feet, or sorry, the 60 to 45, is that right?

Um almost.

I was um, and there were three uses that you wanted to added.

Well, the um there's two existing conditions of record, which include the 25-foot landscape buffer, which looks like it's pretty existent on site, um, as well as the service facilities to be arranged um to avoid the residential areas.

So that was a big one, and I think the height um I think the existing height limitations are more compatible as well.

So I would um propose that, and then I had adding the um prohibited uses of bar junkyard and animal shelter.

Thanks for clarifying that.

And to the applicant, Mr.

Swanson, do you um do the additions of bar junkyard and animal shelter give you any hesitation to the list of potential prohibited uses?

Yeah, I don't think bar has no, that's we can yes, yeah.

So I think that is no problem at all.

The other two, the only concern I would have is junkyard, we have no intention to do a junkyard.

The question becomes is if a business comes in and maybe there's not their business is not unique, it doesn't fit exactly in a box and it strays into maybe is it false partially within that?

Can we then junkyard specifically has those additional standards that are required?

Could we then have the opportunity to address any mitigation that may come from that?

Um I don't have the definition of junkyard handy um to be able to comment specifically um unless I have it in here.

Maybe staff could help define that for us because right if we've got this uh you know vision in our head of what that means, but what the that would help Chris or Dan.

Well, I've got junkyard up okay.

From the definitions, um a use involving sales, storage, display, dismantling, demolition, abandonment, or discarding of junk, as defined in this UDC, or any lot, parcel or contiguous parcels of land used for the purpose of dismantling used vehicles and the salvage and resale of used parts.

This use shall not include scrap metal processing facilities, automobile, and light vehicle storage uses or heavy vehicle storage uses.

Doesn't seem compatible in adjacency to residential, like just the way that it is, and perhaps um it, let me look at this map again.

I mean, and for clarification that junk as defined includes any manufactured goods, appliance, furniture, fixture furniture, machinery, vehicle, personal property, and or any other thing or part thereof, or the value or whether of value or value less that is demolished, discarded, dismantled, partially dismantled, dilapidated, or so worn and deteriorated that it would not be normally usable in its current state for its original manufactured use.

This includes but is not limited to wood, use lumber, paper, glass, bottles, rags, rubber, scrap metal, tin cans, scrap, material waste, waste, concrete, rubble boxes, creates building materials or machinery parts.

I mean, per perhaps parcel four is compatible with that use, but I don't think we'd want to necessarily um the land, the prohibited uses by partial.

Commissioners, I would also just add for the the conversation that you're having regarding the use.

I mean, today under LI if if the zone district was was approved, a junkyard is a conditionally permitted use.

So in essence, even if the the applicant wished to develop such use on the property, they would be back before this body for uh consideration of that use and its compatibility through the conditional use permitting process.

So there is inherently in code an additional approval layer built in uh as opposed to an outright prohibition.

I understand that.

Thank you.

And I think that was our intent.

None of those uses, thank you for buying that definition, none of those uses are um something that we see is like we want there, both from environmental perspective or otherwise.

But my only concern has always been if there was a not a primary use, but maybe an ancillary use by a business that may fall in there, how would that be viewed?

And if we could not meet the conditional standard or the standards of a conditional use for that particular use, then we would just simply be denied.

Um I understand the concern.

We don't envision those as what we're trying to do.

And regarding Commissioner Slider's suggestion around keeping the height limitation at 45 feet, does that seem prohibitive or that's fine?

I don't have any issue with that.

Okay, so it sounds like the buffers and the setbacks are the biggest issue that may interfere with your future site development.

And I certainly don't want to lose the cleanliness that's happened at the site, but I'd open it up to other commissioners to comment on those setbacks and buffers.

Um I'm okay with removing the hundred yards uh with the zone change, the um hundred foot buffer going away in the LI as long as the 25-foot landscape landscape buffer remains, and it's probably in most of the uses anyway in dimensional standard.

So I don't see a harm in maintaining the original um conditions of record, especially with the intensive uses piece.

Commissioner Willoughby, can I just ask a clarifying question to Mr.

Sullivan?

If um we keep the current conditions of record with the buffer, if there's a more restrictive buffer type required by the use, then that trumps the conditions of record.

Okay, I just want to make sure I was clear on that.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments.

Okay.

Um, seeing that we do not have any other questions, we'll let you take your seat again, Mr.

Swanson.

Um, I appreciate the conversation and the public comment, and I think anyone has any final comments they'd like to state.

Otherwise, maybe we can move towards a motion.

I'll say I I personally am in favor of maintaining the recommendation as shown in the staff report and as requested.

I don't think the additional requirements are necessary given I think the improvements that have made to this been made to the site and the conditions that are already existing.

Um, but if a motion is in question for other uses, maybe we can hear that.

Mr.

Walker.

Kevin Walker, uh planning director.

Um, made this comment before at other planning commission meetings, and so I want to reiterate um as as you guys go through your motion making, especially as it relates to restricting uses or further restricting specific items that are in the zoning code.

I want to remind you that the UDC was designed in order to make sure that these kinds of questions and these kinds of concerns could be taken care of in the next steps.

So the planning, the development plan steps or those the plating step for for drainage control, those kinds of things.

Um the concern I have is that this becomes part of the record or if this becomes part of the condition of that particular use, we're losing a lot of the value of the UDC as it relates to uh you know timely um uh management of impacts adjacent to properties notice, all of those kinds of things.

So I've made that comment before.

I just wanted to make sure that I reiterated that as you go forward in this motion.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Engel comments?

Commissioner Engel.

Um I would support the uh zone change, and I think uh actually Commissioner Willoughby hit hit the most important issue, which is the follow-on actions, which include the development plan.

And that would really in my mind provide an additional set of comfort to the uh citizens.

And if of course there's a particular use that requires a conditional approval, it comes back to us for one more review.

So given the circumstances, I I would support the uh Zoding change.

Commissioner Case.

Commissioner Case, I too would be in support of the uh motion to approve uh with city staff.

So thank you.

And Commissioner Robbins.

Commissioner Robbins here.

Um I appreciate everything that they have done to uh really bring this forward and eliminate a lot of the uh other challenges, and I really like what uh you have here, so I will be in support of this as well.

Anybody else like to uh make a comment or can we open it up to a motion?

I think my comments are this is Commissioner Cecil, I believe my comments will be dependent upon what's in the motion.

Okay, yes, I've I've um I've made comments and I would reiterate that I would be comfortable um adjusting this adjusting the proposed motion um with those inclusions and maintaining conditions of record with building height.

So that if if somebody wants to make a motion that way, um I would support that.

I guess I I would only make a motion if other folks if it's gonna pass, right?

I think we have some if folks are not comfortable with adding things and want to use the staff one, then someone else should make the motion.

Okay.

Go for it.

I think the place that we're at is that if um if most of our commission is in agreement with the motion as written, then please make a motion.

And if not, then the motion will be with additional conditions.

So let's start with the motion as written.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh item five F zone 2600 twelve, Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment.

Uh recommend approval to City Council of the zone change of 7.79 acres from BPCR business park with conditions of record to LICR, light industrial with conditions of record, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria of a zone map amendment set forth in the city code section 7.5 point 704, subject to the following conditions of record.

The following uses shall be prohibited, household living, group living uses, industrial hemp, marijuana-related services, natural medicines, kennel, indoor and outdoor.

Commissioner Robbins, I second.

Actually, we already have a second from Commissioner Clements.

Commissioner Clemens.

Commissioner Clemens, I second it.

Thank you.

Would you like us to use the tablets or do you want to do a roll call?

Okay.

Uh regarding what I uh previously said.

Based on the motion, I'd like to explain how I intend to vote.

That's all right.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Um, so after reviewing the application and the record, um, I've not able to support this application for approval for criteria for a zoning map amendment.

While I do find that it meets criteria one, the request is consistent with plan COS and the purpose of the light industrial zone, and it supports the redevelopment of long vacant infill within an established industrial related grouping area.

Um I do not feel like the criteria two is met, which would be I feel like it's if it goes forward without a cap on the building height, it will be detrimental to the public health and safety um in the area, especially related to potential noise and future development.

I also find that it would be incompatible with the adjacent use and would therefore be an appropriate next to residential use per criterion three, criteria four, um not compatible again with the surrounding development environment.

Um I understand that a buffering is likely sufficient, but the height requirement is my chief issue there next to the residential uses.

Um I do find it meets criterion five because it's a vacant property and it's not going to um displace any tenants or occupants.

Or sorry, is made or met because it allows for a land use statement and lively land use plan, and at this point in the development of the site, I think that makes sense.

Criteria seven.

Uh, criteria is eight and nine are not applicable because it's not in an ADSO or Planned Development Zone.

And criteria ten, I do find it complies with the applicable standards of the unified development code generally, except for the part where I think it that allows too much height next to residential, therefore I'll be voting against the motion.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion?

Okay.

I think we have uh tablets up, and you have the opportunity to vote at this time.

Okay.

Some folks do not have Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Cecil do not have voting options.

Commissioner Cecil, how do you vote?

Nay.

No.

Commissioner Willoughby, how do you vote?

Aye.

Let's do it from the top, given her extra comment, make sure everybody's okay.

So just go from the top.

Okay, we're gonna do a roll call for everybody.

Com um Chair Hensler.

Aye.

Commissioner Cecil.

Nay.

Commissioner Slattery.

Nay.

Commissioner Robins.

One more.

Commissioner Clemens.

Hi.

Commissioner Gidiano.

Aye.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Aye.

Commissioner Case.

Aye.

Commissioner Engel.

Aye.

Thank.

Sorry.

Thank you.

We have seven members in favor and Commissioner Cecilin and Slattery opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Applicant.

Okay.

We're gonna move on to our next item.

I think we'll try to get through uh staff presentation and maybe applicant presentation, and then we'll take a break unless folks want to take a break now.

Now okay.

All right, we're gonna we're gonna take a 10-minute break at this point.

We'll come back at 10 35.

Okay, thank you for your patience.

I think we have solved all of our technical issues and needs for that morning.

So, like to move us into our new business item eight on the agenda.

And Solange, if you could read in to the record each and every item of Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2.

Item eight A M A P N-23-0001, a major modification to the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 Master Plan changing 511.9 acres to allow residential commercial park, school, and public facilities uses located north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway.

Item A B P U D Z-23-0002, a zone change consisting of 501.99 acres located north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway intersection from Plan Development Zone District, multifamily high with conditions of record, single family medium, mixed use medium scale with conditions of record, and airport and streamside overlay to planned development zone district and airport and streamside overlays residential density of 3.5 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height of 35 feet.

Item 8C Z O N E-23-0008.

A zone change consisting of 9.2 acres northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway from Planned Development Zone District Multifamily High with conditions of record and airport and streamside overlay to mixed use medium scale and airport and streamside overlays.

Item AD C O P N-23-0010.

Establishment of the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 concept plan for proposed commercial consisting of 9.2 acres located on the northeast intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway.

Item 8E S U B D-23-0052.

Vacation of 30.58.

Sorry, 856 acres of public right-of-way known as Vista del Oro Boulevard and portion of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway located located north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway.

Item 8F PDZL-24-0003.

Establishment of the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 PDZ concept plan for proposed residential consisting of 511.19 acres located north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway intersection.

Your presenter is Tamara Baxter.

Thank you.

Welcome, Miss Baxter.

Good morning.

Tamara Baxter, planning supervisor for the record.

So before you is a Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 application project.

As Solange is noted, the proposed rezoning of this area is to PDZ, with airport overlay, streamside overlay for a large portion of the property, and then for a small portion of the property, MXM with airport overlay and streamside overlay.

The whole site consists of 511 acres.

The proposed land use for this area is residential and commercial.

Solange read everything into the record.

Just to give you a summary of the applications, the master plan amendment is to revise the previous land use designation to establish primarily residential development with some commercial opportunities.

There are two rezonings.

One is to PDZ concept plan.

Oops, and PDZ zone change for low to medium density residential.

There's also a zone change and concept plan for commercial property and then a right-of-way vacation.

As we discussed at work session, this project is reviewed under the prior chapter 7.

And I can get provide an explanation if you'd like.

As you can see, it's just really shifting some of the use types around on the within this area.

And moving the commercial, so if you can see in the existing master plan, there is an area for commercial noted as NR.

They are they propose to move that to the corner of Banning Lewis and Dublin.

With regards to the zone change, with regards to the commercial zone change to MXM, this is 9.3 acres.

It is located in northeast corner of Dublin and Banning Lowe's Parkway.

It's the purple area to the south, or on the screen that's circled in red.

This area is one of the three commercially zoned properties along Dublin east of uh Mark Shuffle.

The larger area of 502 acres will be zoned or is being proposed to be rezoned to PDZ.

It is intended to be for single family residential with uh with a density of 3.5 to 799 dwelling units per acre.

There is one school site, it's 25 acres.

It's the purple um parcel in the middle, and then there are two future neighborhood park sites, and those are identified in green on the plan.

With this project, they are proposing uh road vacations of about uh 36 acres.

Um that area, those include via Del Rio Boulevard and portions of public right-away along Dublin and Banning Lewis.

Um future subdivision plates within Village B2 will dedicate the right of ways as uh the as future development plans are submitted.

Timeline for this review.

So this project was submitted back in March of 2023.

Um ironically, it's only gone through six reviews, and it was ready for agenda for this meeting on June 15, 2026.

With regards to stakeholder involvement, we did have uh a neighborhood meeting, and actually for this one, there were two uh neighborhood meetings, one in December of 2023, which was specific for banning Lewis Village B2.

And then there was one neighborhood meeting in September 16th of 2025, which included an update on village B2, but it was primarily for a discussion of village C.

Postcards were sent out a thousand feet from the property line, as you can see.

Uh, the amount of postcards increased, and that was due to development that's occurring in the area.

We did receive written comments.

There are about 17 of them.

Um we also received a few this week, so those were passed along to you.

Um, written comments do include concerns with density, a reduction of uh of park and open space, sorry for the typo, uh congested streets and insufficient struct uh infrastructure in the area.

With regards to agency review, um all agencies uh were part of this review of this project.

Uh the school district um was uh is uh has identified that the school site is suitable for the school district needs.

Um with regards to the parks, uh this project along with village uh C did go to the parks advisory board um in May of this year and in June of this year.

There was a unanimous vote for the Metro District to own the neighborhood parks.

And also there is um some of the PLDO requirements that will be that will go to uh village C for the community park, and we'll discuss that um with the other project.

Um I do have representatives from uh traffic engineering, so Todd's here uh with Traffic Engineering and um Lana is here with the parks if you have any specific questions for those two agencies.

Um plan COS.

Uh this project does comply with the the vision big ideas and strategies of plan COS.

Um it does encourage a variety of housing types from low to medium density, um, and in addition to uh commercial.

Um it does provide uh uh a variety of price points as well for this area.

Uh during work session, I there was a question in regards to the other holdings for Oakwood.

I know the applicant has a presentation on this as well, and I'm sorry for the uh makeshift uh screen or plan, but there are uh five different villages of uh that are there.

So there's village one, village C, Village B1, Village Three, and Village A.

Village A is currently being developed, and then as you can see, village B2 is north of Dublin and village C is south of Dublin.

These are the criteria for master plan amendment, um, and again, these are under old chapter or previous chapter seven.

Um after evaluating the master plan amendment, the application does meet the review criteria, and with regards to the zone change, these are the criteria for zone change, and after evaluating the proposed zone change, the applicant uh application does meet the review criteria, and in addition, these are the review criteria for the concept plan after reviewing the uh the concept plan, the application meets the review criteria, and these are the similar criteria for PDZ zone change, and uh for PDZ concept plan.

These are the criteria for a vacation of a ride away, and after evaluating the proposed vacation of the ride-way, the application does meet the criteria.

There are a number of optional motions.

So this these are the motions for the uh master plan amendment.

These are the most uh motions for the concept plan for the proposed zone change for the PDZ concept plan for the PDZ zone change and lastly for the right-of-way vacation.

That is my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions or and I know the applicant has a full presentation as well.

Thanks, Tamara.

Any questions for staff at this time?

Okay, we'll move to applicant presentation and probably have you back up.

So I almost said good afternoon because it feels like we've been here a while already, but good morning, sir.

Good morning.

You can state your name and then you guys will have 30 minutes for your presentation.

I'm Don Ryan with LAI Design Group.

We also have representatives of Oakwood to answer any questions.

So the project at a glance, I think.

Uh tomorrow covered a lot of this detail, but we have a total of 511 acres.

Of that is primarily residential with over 500 acres for residential.

At the southwest corner, there's a little over nine acres slated for commercial, 15 acres of parks, and one 25 acre school site, which is identified for a K through eight school.

This shows uh context for all of the villages for vetting Lewis Ranch, including village C, which we will address with the next item.

Is shown here in red.

So what's in place is village one, two, and three, and B1 are complete.

Village A is nearing completion and under construction.

Dublin Boulevard now connects to Benning Lewis Parkway, and Banning Lewis Parkway extends through the BLR corridor to Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Village B2 continues the BLR Street Trail Park and School Planning Framework north of Dublin Boulevard.

And again, a comparison of the previous and uh current plan to our proposed plan, showing in color uh the changes from uh what was more of a fragmented plan with various uses uh scattered to the edges of the plan that we are now consolidating with uh more current uh ideas about location of retail, location of residential and parks and open space, as well as the the road configure the road configuration through the site.

And that date at the top, master plan 1988.

Was that the was that when this was defined and published 1988?

Yes, 1988 is the is the current master plan.

Current, thank you.

This slide identifies the areas that are not residential.

Uh in particular the the nine acre commercial site at the southwest corner, the 25-acre school site with it, which is central to this village, B2, and two fifteen acres or fifty a total of 15 acres in two public parks.

The rest of the area is almost 90 acres of drainage and right-of-way area.

So these are the areas outside of residential development.

In terms of the parkland dedication, uh these are the calculations that show the required acres, our proposed acres, and the surplus.

So we're required to provide 12.87 acres.

The plan provides 15.05 acres, and the community park obligation just for B2 is 15.59 acres.

We will be providing 35 acres combining with village C to the south.

So there on the graph when you see the uh B2 is the community park obligation at 15.59, but then we're gonna provide 35 when we add B2 and C together, and that location will be in village C to the south.

So again, just a summary of the land uses generally within the 511 acres.

Thank you.

We're available for questions and comments.

Okay, um commissioners, do we want to um start off with any questions at this point for applicant or staff, or do you want to move to any public comment?

Any questions burning in your mind?

Okay, sure.

Quick question, uh, Commissioner Engel.

Can you tell me what the uh densities are in the surrounding developed areas in terms of number per dwelling dwelling units per acre?

We sure can.

So we we prepared these additional slides to address that.

This is a plan of BLR Village 3, which is to the southwest of B2.

And this one is mostly complete.

What it shows is a cluster of various uh densities for the single family homes.

Uh this includes a uh single single family density of three to five units per acre and a cluster density of eight to twelve units per acre.

Uh overall it equates to about seven units per acre for the entirety of uh village three, but it allowing that range of density allows a mix of units from single family homes on lots to clustered single family homes.

Um also we have DLR village A, which is directly to the south of B2.

Uh similarly, um, it is a mix of single family homes and densities.

Uh in reality, even though uh the request is for uh 3.9 and and five units per acre, five units per acre is essentially our lowest density, and it goes up from there with the cluster homes, paired homes, and other products that are within these villages.

And these two villages, villages village three and village A, represent uh what is expected in terms of the pattern of development for the future villages as well.

Sure, yeah.

Could you um articulate then on total number of proposed development units between the approved master plan and and the one that you're proposing?

And how does that uh fit into the developed plan?

Because it right it seems like the floodplain has grown based on just topography, yeah.

I'm trying to find if we have those those numbers in here.

Um may have to get back to you on those details because I don't have that number in the presentation.

Let me see if it's in the other slide.

So that this information will be in the um in our application, of course.

But um I don't have that detail at the at my fingertips, I'm sorry.

But we can um we can confer and get back to you.

Did that was that demonstrated tomorrow on your or maybe sir on yours where you had the two master plans next to one another?

Did the dwelling units per acre?

Were those demonstrated in that side by side?

Maybe you can go back to them.

It might just be hard to read, but I'm wondering.

Sorry.

Tomorrow Baxter for the record, um, it was not the densities were not shown.

There was no comparison of the densities from the existing 1980 1988 master plan to what's being proposed.

Okay.

Yeah, that'd be great if you guys can figure that out a little bit and get back to us.

Yep, go ahead.

Commissioner Engel.

One additional question.

You quoted two density units on that one slide, uh, and I don't understand the difference in definitions between those.

Right.

SFD density and cluster density.

How are those defined?

Well, they're um they're not necessarily defined, they're uh how these plans are being drawn up and built.

And so what we have is uh in this particular case, in this uh village three example, the single family detached units are shown in yellow, and those are individual lots, kind of a typical single-family dwelling on a lot.

Um, and in terms of density, those are lower density in comparison to the cluster density, which are also single family uh units.

However, the cluster density takes advantage of alleyways or shared drives to increase the density so that you can't achieve eight to twelve units per acre, even though those could be uh single family units or duplex units, um, and those uh usually have a shared alley or a shared drive to achieve that density, whereas on the single family lots, they do not share driveways.

Alright, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions at this time for staff or the applicant?

Sounds like maybe we have a little bit more.

Hold that, hold that finger, salonge.

Is there anyone else from the applicant team that would like to speak?

Looks like we have some individuals here.

And if you could just state your name for the record.

Good morning.

Tyler Jones with Oakwood Homes.

I had to go back and I pulled up our neighborhood meeting slide deck, and I was able to pull up the question was in regard to I think total homes that are being proposed in the current plan versus what was in 1988.

And I do have a graphic that I think I could probably email to tomorrow if you guys would like to see it ultimately.

So back in 1988, for this is now a little bit not quite apples to oranges here, because this includes B1 and B2.

So this just kind of there's a segment here, but rough overall order of magnitude.

Um the 1988 plan allowed for 4,574 homes.

Our current proposed plan is less than that.

Now I don't have my notes on what this specifically was, but I have 2,547 homes.

I'm now this is my assumption on what I would have done back then, would have been that midpoint of that density.

So middle of that range between three and a half and 7.99 homes per acre.

I have a similar analysis for Village C when we get there, a similar story with 1988 C and D.

There was two of them, but the same boundary condition of 3,825 homes.

This is south of Dublin, what we'll hear in the future.

And in the proposed plan, it is also decreased to 2,558 homes.

So overall, we're looking at a net reduction in total homes, and I think as somebody astutely said, there is some additional drainage ways that have been identified since the 1988 plan and some other site changes that have changed since then.

Additionally, back in 1988, I don't know if you're able to get into some of the detail, but some of the zoning classifications within that plan included some very high density zoning types.

And so that kind of with that aggregate change or bringing it down to the low and medium was also kind of a factor in driving this revised density.

Granted, when I said in our current plan, it is a range, so that can flex up and down.

Um, but that's kind of what we had done at the time, was kind of a pinpoint that midpoint uh is what I believe we had done.

So kind of general um arching, overarching kind of trend is kind of a down from 1988.

Thank you, sir.

Uh stay close.

Gladly.

Just uh I just want to Mr.

Jones just want to clarify what you said.

So the 1988 B1 and B2, and maybe just shoot that over to tomorrow because some of us are visual learners here.

Sure.

Um the B1 and B2 at like 4574 homes.

Changing to, you know, approximately 2507.

2547.

2547.

And then what has been built already?

Does that include like because it sounds like the boundaries have changed?

So that does include B1, which is I don't know off the top of my head, but it's approximately 200 homes, would be my guess is what B1 was.

Um that have been built that was kind of carved out of that number count.

So we could both of those would probably drop proportionally from that that that number that I gave you.

So let's say 4374 for uh 1988, and then 2247 for um about 300 have been built in the I'd say two probably two hundred two to three hundred three hundred.

We'll say range was in B1.

Got it.

Okay.

And then is there the visual comparison of because there was a mix of right, not just the medium but high and low densities as well, and how that has certainly done that analysis.

I have a spreadsheet somewhere.

Yeah, but in this neighborhood meeting presentation, I don't have that level of detail.

Um, as Don mentioned, I'm glad to get it and provide it.

But uh this kind of gives a general overall trend of where it has shifted from 1988.

And some of that shift was um the reduction in units is basically the elimination of the high density areas to more of a cluster max and more of a homogenous product across the boundaries.

So there were some large swaths in the 1988 plan that were high density that would have driven that potential total home count up pretty high.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, other questions uh for Mr.

Jones, or the applicant in general at this moment.

Okay, um I do think it would still I think that number of home counts would is very helpful.

I think if we still could have the comparison of the allowable units per dwelling units per acre from proposed from 1988 proposed to current proposed would be helpful.

So we'll let you guys continue to work on that.

Sure.

Hey, and I can do that probably that math, it'll just be units divided by and I we can provide that to you.

Yeah, that would be great.

And tomorrow, I did send you that email.

Hopefully it comes.

It's a fairly large file, but it is in there.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Well, then I think if we don't have any other questions for staff or applicant, we'll move to public comment and then we'll come back for rebuttal and more questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak on this item.

We don't have anyone to signed up to speak at all, or just in favor of this item.

At all on this item.

Okay.

Do we want to check on the is there anyone in the room that is here to uh to hear this item and would like to speak?

Okay.

If not, let's check online.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support or opposition of this item, please let me yourselves now.

There's nobody online.

Okay.

All right.

Just seeing that we had folks in the audience and knowing we had a lot of public comment, I want to make sure that we uh capture those comments if they are here.

So, given that we don't have anyone here to speak on this item, it's coming right back up to us, but I can also we can take a few moments to uh ponder if folks want to consider any questions that they might have.

I know there's a lot of um items to look through here.

I just wanted to clarify when we said this item, we're talking about all items A through F for set to for the banning Lewis B.

For B2, correct.

That is what has been read into the record.

Is what we're talking about.

Correct.

And then we will um move into this next item after we make determination on.

I think I see your wheels turning.

Yeah, no, I I know I have questions, and I just I I'm surprised.

I thought we had a couple of folks who were also going to help me understand their concerns.

So I I just need a moment.

Sounds good.

We'll take a few moments to ponder.

And given that there was a lot of conversation and comments made in public comment around traffic.

And Mr.

Todd Frisbee has joined us in person.

Maybe we'll make your trip worthwhile, sir, and just have you talk in general.

So I don't know if we have any specific questions from commissioners, but if you could give us a new author, and then last meeting.

I mean, she has nothing to lie.

There might there might be in a couple of weeks.

Yeah.

Um yeah, just if you could talk about like road sizing, I think, Woodman and Dublin and like the definition of the road type collector and arterial and all of that and what they're designed to handle and how this development um adds to that, you know, maybe percentage-wise, some people can help Matthew, or roughly.

Yeah.

Right.

So how and then the interior streets, right?

So there's some new proposed interior streets, and it seems like the realignment and connectivity in the new master plan.

Um could potentially be more beneficial than the interior loops and in the old one or okay.

I'll try.

Um uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering.

Yeah, so we did require an updated.

There's been several traffic studies, as you can imagine over the years for this.

So we required an updated traffic study uh for um uh for this update, um and basically I would say that the roads that they the new the new the new roads that they plan to build, uh I'll start with arterials such as Stetson and Dublin.

Um those are the two main parts of there of this part of Banning Lewis, they're gonna build sections of those roads.

Those roads based on uh development, the plan development, plus um uh any future development.

Uh these new roads should be able to accommodate uh additional traffic.

They're gonna be uh four lane roads, four lane principal principal arterials.

Um they were um have always been master planned that way, uh as we have noted the densities have come in less than what were originally planned, so a lot of but the road size hasn't changed that much.

So um I think um uh this development allows for some of these roads uh to be built that otherwise wouldn't be built uh if the city if we were relying on the city and their funding to build it to build these roads, so um uh so you know we've seen different studies.

I'm confident that what I've seen out of the studies that the the surrounding network of roads will hand will be able to accommodate the traffic that's generated by this update.

And it's been that that's been the planning since 1988 when the original studies as these roads were designed and and thought of to be those sizes based on a much higher density than uh than we see today.

So in terms of the um interior roads, uh this is at more at the master plan level.

Uh so um we will not um we'll see more detail as uh development applications come forward, but they're gonna follow our criteria for collectors and locals and uh and um uh so we'll be reviewing those plans as they come as they come through.

I don't know if I really answered any question there, or I'm just talking to the board.

I think you did.

I think my my interior was um the arterials that you already um addressed.

And then um I guess Dublin Woodman or any of those you want to speak to.

Yeah, so there's always there's you know, as you know, it's you know as development as you know, many of our uh the city's arterials are built by developers.

Um and so they only build what we require them to build, and typically that's adjacent to their development.

So there's going to be a time, is this so you have notice over as this area is developed.

Dublin didn't connect to Banning Lewis Parkway and Banning Lewis Parkway didn't connect to Woodman.

Well, they all they all now do as development has come in and filled in those gaps.

Same thing will happen with Stetson or with Dublin first.

Uh eventually it will connect and it's planned to connect to US24.

Uh, but Oakwood, but they're the final piece to 24, uh, is not an Oakwood responsibility.

It's gonna we're gonna have to fill that gap to make that last jump from the Oakwood property to 24.

I hope I said that right.

I just didn't paint myself into some future corner.

Oakwood.

Um, I'm okay.

Okay.

Uh and then um Stetson the same way.

Uh eventually it will connect to 24.

But the challenging part is making the connection to Mark Shuffle because that goes through another developer.

Uh uh banning Lewis, Norwood, and the freestyle development, and then there's that doesn't quite go all the way to Mark Shuffle, so then there's another connection that's got to be made from the end of Stetson to Mark Shuffle, which would likely be unless new development comes in, partially developer and city effort to make that final connection.

So as land develops and homes are built, the road network will come along uh along the way as so as so.

Are those types of projects PPRTA eligible or not really?

They would be.

So those final connections that we would have to make, sort of the one I just exam uh mentioned on Stetson.

They are PPRTA eligible right now.

Uh PPRT is it is not a project identified on the A list for PPRTA3.

If there's a PPRTA four, and we identify that project as a need, and it could end up on an A-list project uh for extension, but we won't not know that until we evaluate a PP PPRTA four list, which is probably five to six years out before we actually start thinking about it, follow follow the need of what's existing versus proposed.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, so that's yes.

Okay.

Thanks, Todd.

Uh Commissioner Cecil.

Don't go too far.

Yeah, no, this is still staying on traffic.

Okay.

All right.

Um, could you speak to how the future commercial center connects pedestrians and cyclists to the surrounding residential neighborhoods in this application?

And particularly thinking of the commercial concept plan portion of this.

I'm going, I would say I'm not 100% familiar where the commercial piece.

You're talking about village C in the commercial session or to the north along.

I might be on the wrong document.

Yeah.

Hold on.

Let me scroll back up.

Which one am I on?

I would say, sorry, I might be doing that.

I was trying to move fast.

Uh establishment uh concept plan for proposed commercial consisting of 9.2 acres.

A item 8D.

Yeah, it's you're way into the details.

Then I don't uh normally follow.

So we're at the master, this is at a master plan, and so the butt you know, there's not detailed oh, I thought we were doing A through F.

We are doing A through F.

Okay.

But okay, but the overall we're it's an update to the master plan.

Yes, overall, that's the A.

You're asking for a very specific question.

How does the retail connect to the residential?

Um, that that's your question.

Right, right.

Um well it ideally it will connect, but we don't have to we don't know what that looks like uh at this point.

I mean, I'm gonna have to build sidewalk and build connections you know within the neighborhood to make those connections.

I hope they would uh you know, we will look as as development plans come in for our review.

Um we would look for those connections and how those connections are made between residential and commercial.

So moving on to the right-of-way vacation element of this, is that one you're more familiar with?

Not really, but yeah, as you can try, I can try it.

Yeah, some of the right-of-what are the right-of-way, some of the some of the old is some of the old roads.

Yeah.

Um, would it so I'm gonna try to go back over here, pull up right of the way, yeah.

Um, this is public rights of way known as the Vista del Oral Boulevard and portions of Dublin Boulevard and banning Lewis Parkway north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Voulevard and banning Lewis Parkway.

Item 8E.

Yeah, okay.

The question that I have.

Yes.

Is by approving that, would we eliminate any future public street connections that we would that could be of concern to what you were speaking to with Commissioner Slattery about being able to connect?

No, I don't believe that any of the right-of-way vacations uh would um preclude uh the future road connections and future roadway network that we need to, you know, that this development needs to accommodate its traffic and other traffic that may be traveling through the area.

Okay, I think that was probably the most salient concern that I had relative to this was making sure we weren't getting, we weren't gonna end up in a corner where we couldn't do what we need to do to sustain transport out there.

And I think I'll just uh piggyback on that with maybe my comments or interpretation, is that as the master plan states there was the provision for future public right of way named these three streets.

They're asking to to vacate that intention in the master plan because my assessment is that that land was not actually given over, or the easements were not officially deeded, or what have you.

So, or have they been, and that's really like the the deed of the land of the easement of the land, but it's this is so conceptual the master plan.

We're saying the road is gonna go here.

Now you're saying the road's not gonna go there, it's gonna go here.

We're still gonna have roads, they're still gonna connect, they're still gonna carry traffic the way that they need to.

We're this is just simply asking from a high level master plan level.

Do we have permission to change where those roads are?

And yet, right, the easements have not been given over.

It's a master plan for a future easement, yes.

Uh Tamara Baxter for the record.

Yes.

Okay.

Right.

So, unlike other things we might have seen where we're actually vacating a known street.

This is a future planned street that now we're saying we're putting to put that future planned street in a different place.

Absolutely.

That's we're looking at the current our review is the current master plan and it's planned infrastructure or the proposed master plan, and it's planned infrastructure, and it does it satisfy our needs and our requirements for traffic for traffic and traffic flow, and we believe it does.

Right.

So, I mean, the way I read a lot of these, like establishment of vacation of it was so conceptual uh 38 years ago, if I'm doing the math right, um, in 1988, that we're now reconceptualizing, but we're not actually changing legal status of a of an easement or a road because the road doesn't exist.

Right.

So I just want to make sure that we don't get too far into the weeds of like, are we vacating a street?

Well, the street doesn't exist.

Like, I'm looking at the map, right?

Yes, I try to provide clarity there, uh, Chair Hensler, Dan Sexton, planning manager.

So, yes, the streets don't physically exist today, they are a master plan street.

However, um, back in the 1980s and 1990s, those streets were platted.

So they are legal parcels or rights of way of record, um, hence why we're doing a companion application for this and the next project to vacate those for lack of better term, paper streets and allow greater flexibility for the developer and staff as they review subsequent applications to really reimagine that street network uh to align with current expectations and standards today.

Perfect.

Okay.

And I know I jumped in on I think some other folks had signed up to speak or Jen.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Case, I think you had some questions.

Not a question for you, Todd, but just I guess you're gonna go.

Thank you, Mr.

Frisbee.

Um, Dan, just confirming, I guess again, what you just said, it's really more of a cleanup of the 1988 master plan to current uh market today, really, and also making sure there's no issues that they can do their development.

So that is 100% correct.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from commissioners on this item?

Are we still waiting for some clarification on tomorrow?

Yeah, yeah.

Unit count or allowable dwelling units per acre.

For the record, Tamara Baxter.

Um, sorry for the scramble on that.

I was trying to figure out where we had all that comparison, but it is in the master plan amendment.

Um that you're looking at.

So on sheet two is what is currently um what the current 1988 master plan proposed for density.

Um, as you can see, they didn't have a unit count.

Um, it was more of a uh range um based on the debt proposed densities.

Um also uh a couple things to note is that the park areas have uh decreased.

Um so now they're going from multiple areas with parks um to two areas, and as the applicant noted, um some of that acreage is going to be part of the community park to the south.

So you're gonna see more density um as shown on sheet three.

But before we go to that, there are two school sites into uh two areas that are resident are for commercial that are um pretty much the same size.

Um so there's just kind of a shift between the low and the high to basically a medium uh density range that's being proposed, the 3.55 to 7.99.

So if you can go to the next sheet, um, and so what they're proposing here.

If you go down to that um uh table, they are proposing kind of a density range uh with regards to um residential medium.

So it's kind of in that medium range of single family attached and single family um detached.

Um in the previous master plan, they could have had more multifamily, kind of the higher density uh type uh products.

I'm not sure if that completely answers your question, but it's kind of it's not an easy comparison with what was originally um in 1988 versus what's being proposed.

Thank you.

I think uh the applicant satisfied that question as well.

I do I do see that the ranges, um, and and there was not in '88, you know, a cap or or of units, but rather you know, pretty um widespread for ranges.

Correct.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff or the applicant?

I have one about the community parkland and just wondering about um build-out timelines because some of the concerns um regarding, you know, the open space reduction, um, you know, that's turning into right drainage and and some of this unbuildable area.

What's the timeline for build out when that park may come on within uh village C and what is the sequence of that in order to satisfy that requirement?

Yeah, that's for the applicant.

I was gonna say I'm just gonna go to the applicant.

Okay, or that that early in my ramblings.

Tyler Jones, Oakwood Homes.

The village city community park um is across the drainage channel, and we intend to start construction on that uh probably middle of next year.

So I would say we will be ideally kind of adjacent to it or bringing development adjacent to it by 2028, and then probably the park, I want to say in the next five years, probably the end of that, so four to five years out.

So probably in that 2030 range is what I would expect based on current development and sales velocity trends.

Granted, ideally those pick up.

Um and that increases and we can accelerate that timeline, but kind of based on our current absorptions and how many homes that we're actively selling and banning this ranch.

Um, my guess would be in that 2030 kind of a range is that that park will start.

Yeah, that's when the park comes online, and then what is the build-out anticipated timeline of village B and although we're not on village C right now, how does that fold in?

Yeah, I I would see really this development is gonna be moving from the west to the east, kind of not looking at boundary conditions between B and C, it will kind of run concurrently across.

And I would expect kind of the entire build out to take 15 years or so.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Cecil?

One more question for the applicant.

Just speaking to the market, which I think is always important in these circumstances.

So the build out you said is currently at about 200 homes that you guys have out there, and this is a response to the market and doing uh the zone change.

Can you speak a little bit more to the adjacent parcel that's near this one?

Is it 200 homes overall or I'm I'm sorry, I've the two could you add a little clarity to that?

I'm the B1 parcel.

Yeah.

So B one uh that one it was driven off I'll get a little more detail.

That B1 was driven off sanitary sewer drainage and it drains into a separate basin.

So that was actually completed um a few years ago.

We are actively building in village A right now.

Um, and so in Village A, we are probably halfway up.

If you were to kind of think of Stetson being the southern boundary and Dublin being the northern boundary of that village A.

We are uh about halfway built out through that particular village right now, and we have another I would say 500 homes left to go in Village A.

Uh, if you can kind of zoom in there, we're kind of right there at that midpoint or just south of that neighborhood park within village way, just or just north of that E, if you will, that green bubble is where our development is, and we are moving north right now.

So we have about 500 homes left to construct within village A.

Great.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Gigianis.

Uh, this is just in reference to the schools.

Um the report repeatedly brings up the schools, but it doesn't give the detail about um the funding or the construction timing on that.

Um so I was just wondering, are the sites just reserved or um are construction plans and funding in place?

To my knowledge, um, I am not aware of any construction plans or or funding for the schools.

We have met with the school district multiple times and had great dialogue.

A lot of it's centered on timing of the schools and kind of trading spots out based on timing and sequencing of our development and when they think kind of when they will have funding for those school sites.

So we've tried to marry up kind of our proposed development timeline and what they think they will have in terms of funding.

And so kind of looking back on some some previous iterations of this plan, probably even more specific to village C, because that's what's going to come on first with the San Terry Sewer.

But that southern school site, we initially had it on the other side of uh Falcon Meadows, which would be the village C the west side of that kind of north-south road, just to the east of the creek.

And they said, you know, we don't think we're gonna have funding at that time.

I don't want to put words in their mouth, they're not here to talk about it.

But on our conversation, we initially had that school site there.

They said we don't think we'll have funding, kind of when you think you'll be bringing development through there.

What's put it on the other side of the street um to accommodate that and kind of better align when they'll have funding and when our development will be supportive of that site.

And so we've tried to marry up those two the best we can in our in our dialogues with the school district.

Um just to follow up, just curious, may not be able to answer, but what happens if the residential development outpaces the school construction?

And we don't plan to stop our conversations with them.

Yeah, um, I mean, if if we ultimately outbuild, we will provide um the anticipated school sites with utilities and roadways adjacent, and when they have the funding, they are welcome to build at that time.

Thank you.

Thanks Mr.

Walker.

Kevin Walker, our planning director, just in response to the school uh questions, um, it's really kind of a uh uh let's uh staying in our lanes kind of uh um answer.

Um the city, the city's role is to make sure that school sites are reserved uh and that they're adequate and that they meet the needs of the school district.

So we work on that through the process that was just discussed through the developer, but also through our codes and and other requirements.

It's the school district's responsibility to capitalize and build and plan for the schools, and we don't take a role in that.

So i and sometimes we're in uh they're caught up and sometimes they're behind and sometimes they're ahead.

Uh, but it's primarily the school districts and the state's responsibility to build schools, not cities.

And so we don't get specific around that.

We just want to make sure that the land is dedicated in the proper place at the proper time and uh with the proper um amount.

So thanks for the clarification.

Commissioner Cecil.

Wrong button.

Um I was just wondering if you would be uh able as staff perhaps or as the applicant to tell us what, if any next steps might appear before this board or this commission again in the future, or if once the master plan is approved, if it just is able to go entirely through administrative review.

Uh Tamara Baxter for the record.

Um to answer your question.

So this will move on to City Council.

Um, this project will not come back before you unless there is a future rezoning of any portion of the property.

Um but um this whole series of applications will move forward to city council.

Um, I'm assuming probably in September or October.

Thank you.

That's really helpful.

Okay.

I feel like we're winding down on questions.

Um, so I'd like to see if there are any comments uh that folks would like to make around this application, and if we can move to um a whole bunch of motions.

Dave, you're on a roll today, so I'm happy to let you.

I I guess I just wanted to say that um through this hearing and process, understanding um site constraints probably better than we had 30 plus years ago.

Um, it seems that the application does meet the criteria uh and offers a path forward to um single-family homes and um clustered and and a lower density multifamily home that I think is compatible um and in line with the surrounding area that has been developed while offering um a path forward and more units that our town um is ready for for you know growth and and future vitality.

So I will be in support of this item.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Case and then Commissioner Engel.

Commissioner Case, I too uh agree with what Commissioner Slattery just said.

Uh I see this is a cleanup from the 1988 master plan uh allowing for some more flexibility for people to do what they need to do to respond to the market.

Thank you.

Commissioner Engel, I also agree with Commissioner Schlattery that this is a uh forward step from the 1988 plan, and I would be supporting this.

The park units are a little low, but nonetheless I accept the applicant's uh proposal that they'll make that up with uh village C.

Commissioner uh Chair Hensler, would it be best if I gave comment on each before we vote or on all of them at once?

They're short, don't worry, they're not like the last one.

Let's do them all at once.

And do you want to go last?

Sounds good to me.

Okay.

So um, Commissioner Robbins, I saw you reaching for your button.

Go ahead, any comments?

Yes, I'm in support also of this.

Uh I appreciate the fact that you took the time to uh upgrade from 1988 uh doing the vacation of uh roads and re-redesigning them, yeah.

I'll get this straight sooner or later, but I'm in support of everything that you guys are doing so far.

Thank you.

Any other comments before we move back to Commissioner Cecil?

I mean, I I'll echo the sentiments I think that we've heard and and I particularly like that you've kind of addressed the whether they're creeks or drainage or arroyos uh and avoiding trying to put bridges, which is probably a cost-saving measure on your part, but I think it also is a little bit more sustainably um minded, and so I do think that this is a great update, and turns out that 38 years ago uh it was 1988.

So that's been a long time.

So I like the refresh and the reduction, and also the diversity of housing.

Um, all right, Commissioner Cecil.

Give us all your thoughts.

And do you want to make motions as you go?

Or do you want to sit let someone else?

I thought you said to read them all before motion.

Yeah, go ahead and read them all.

Sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

Commissioner Cecil for the record.

Regarding item 8A, the major master plan amendment.

I support approval because the amendment substantially conforms to the applicable master plan criteria, remains consistent with plan COS and provides an integrated mix of residential commercial parks, schools, and infrastructure supported by the reviewing agencies, while I recognize there are still some concerns regarding traffic density and park acreage.

The record demonstrate that those issues have been evaluated and do not constitute a basis for denial under the applicable criteria.

Regarding item 8B.

Residential PDZ rezon.

I support approval because the proposed BDZ implements the amended master plan and is consistent with plan COS and maintains future city oversight through development plan review.

The evidence demonstrates that the rezoning itself does not create impacts beyond those already evaluated and satisfies the require the required findings for approval.

For item 8C, I support approval because the proposed MXM zoning is consistent with the amended master plan, is appropriately located at a planned arterial intersection and advances the goal of providing neighborhood serving commercial uses within a growing community.

Although commercial development may increase activity in the area, the record supports that those impacts have been evaluated and can be addressed through future development review.

For item 8D commercial concept plan, I support approval because the concept plan provides an appropriate framework for neighborhood scale commercial development, demonstrates safe access and compatibility, and preserves detailed review of architecture landscaping and site design through future development plan approval.

For item 8E, I support approval because the proposed vacation removes obsolete roadway alignments while preserving the overall transportation network, utility corridors, and public access envisioned in the updated master plan.

And finally, for item 8F, I support approval because the concept plan establishes a comprehensive framework for future residential development that integrates housing parks, schools, transportation, and open space while preserving environmental features and requiring future development plan review.

I find this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the amended master plan and satisfies the applicable concept plan criteria.

Thank you for your thoroughness.

Um I think with that we'll move to motions and Trevor or Solange, is there any opportunity to read just the um item number as opposed to the full descriptions?

Uh since Salon Joe already read the items into the record, you can just read the item number.

We will need a full motion for each one though.

Well that's what I'm asking.

Like so all of the recommend and all the legalese and all the things.

Yes.

You you'll you'll need to do a motion for each item.

Okay, that's what I was asking.

All right, I'm going to suggest that we start um at the left and we go to the right, and besides myself, everyone reads a motion.

All right.

Starting with 8A.

Jen Cecil.

Since yeah, verbal domination here.

Okay.

I recommend approval to I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to the city council.

The major modification of the banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 Master Plan based upon the findings of the proposal complies with the review criteria for master plan says as set forth in City Code Chapter 7 section 7.5.408.

This application was reviewed and decided according to previous city code chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2003 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Willoughby, seconds.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8B.

Uh I want to recommend approval to City Council to City Council the zone change of 501.9 acres from PDZ slash R5slash C R slash R 16 slash MX-M C R slash APO slash SSO Plan Development Zone District Multifamily High with Conditions of Record Single Family Medium Mixed Use Medium Scale with Conditions of Record and Airport and Streamside Overlays to PDZ slash APO slash SSO Plan Development Zone District and Airport and Streamside Overlays.

Residential density of 3.5 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height of 35 feet.

Based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a PDZ zone change as set forth in the city code chapter, section 7.3.603, and the review criteria for a zone change as set forth in the city code section 7.5.603.

This application was reviewed and decided according to previous city code chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Cecil, I'll second.

The motion passes unanimously.

I recommend approval to the city council for the zone change from 9.3 acres from PDZ slash R-52, or excuse slash C R.

We get after a while we get better at this.

Takes time.

This application was reviewed and decided according to the previous City Code Chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Clemens, I just second it.

Hold on, you gotta vote.

Gotta vote.

Yeah.

We still have like eight, whatever, the whole other one.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Now, item 8D, Charlie Oscar Papa November 23-0010.

Little aviation thing snuck in.

The motion to approve.

I recommend approval to the city council the banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 Concept Plan to allow commercial use within 9.3 acres based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for the concept plan as set forth in city code chapter 7, section 7.5.501E.

This application was reviewed and decided according to previous City Code Chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Slattery second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Slattery make a motion on item 8E SUBD-23-0052.

Recommend approval of the vacation of right-of-way of 35.856 acres of public right-away known as the Vista del Oro Boulevard and portions of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Branch Parkway based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.7.402.

This application was reviewed and decided according to the former City Code Chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Case, second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Case, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council item 8FPDZL-24-0003.

The banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 PDZ Concept Plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for PDZ concept plan as set forth in City Code Chapter 7, Section 7.3.605, and the review criteria for establishing a concept plan set forth in City Code Section 7.5.501E.

This application was reviewed and decided according to former city code chapter 7, which was repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03.

Commissioner Clemens are seconded.

The motion passes unanimously.

Excuse me, Commissioner.

We haven't gone through those yet.

Oh yes.

Wait.

So eight, I'm sorry, eight F was our last one.

Oh, well, you're gonna be up first for the next set.

Okay.

Correct, we did get through eight F.

There were so many.

We got we we lost track.

Um I think I'm gonna make a suggestion.

We have lunch coming today because we knew this meeting would run long.

I'm gonna make a suggestion that we um push through our applicant and staff and applicant presentation and um discussion on uh village C.

Because I'm making the assumption that most of our questions have been satisfied in general, given the similarity between these two villages.

Is that safe to assume as I look up and down the dais?

Or are we gonna have a lot of questions on village C that are going to be different and you want to take a lunch break?

Yeah, okay.

All right, we're gonna get it done.

Okay.

I mean, I guess I don't anticipate that we won't have questions, but do you think that the questions are going to be lengthy?

Would you like to have our staff and applicants wait for 30 minutes while we go have lunch and come back?

And I'm okay either way.

It just feels like these are so consistent in their uh merit that maybe yes, sir.

And uh Chair Hensler, I would also just note that we do have members of the public signed up for village C to speak.

We do.

We do.

Okay.

And are those individuals in the room or are they?

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, let's just push through then and we can um push lunch to a little later, I think.

We'll be.

Yep.

All right, so lunch.

If you can start us with Banning Lewis Ranch Village C and read those items into the record as opposed to us making motions on them.34 acres located north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, west of highway 24, south of Dublin Boulevard, and east of Banning Lewis Parkway.

Item H sorry 8H Z O N E-25-0021, a zone map amendment consisting of 111.54 acres south of Tamlin Road and west of highway 24 from single family estate, single family medium with conditions of record, and airport and streamside to mix use mixed use medium scale.

Item 8i Z O N E-25-0020, a sum-up amendment consisting of 546.79 acres north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and south of Dublin Boulevard from single family medium, multi-family high with conditions of record, single family medium with conditions of record, single-family estate, multi-family high, mixed use medium scale, an airport and streamside overlay to R Flex Medium and Airport and Streamside Overlays.

Item 8 J.

S U B D-24-0131.

Parkation of 25.845 acres of public right-of-way known as Falcon Meadows Boulevard, Vista del Prado Boulevard, Vista del Loro Boulevard, and portions along Dublin Boulevard and Stetson Hills Boulevard, and portions of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Item 8K D VSA-25-002.

A development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209.2.2-i to provide a density range of area of three to sixteen dwelling units per acre in the R Flix Medium Zone District, where five to sixteen dwelling units per acre is required.

Located south of Dublin Boulevard, East of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Item 8L, D V S A-25-0004.

A development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209.2.2-E to provide minimum lot area for residential uses of 1000 square feet per per dwelling unit in the R Flex Medium Zone District, where 1500 square feet per dwelling unit is required located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Item 8 M.

DVSA-25-0005.

A development standards adjustment to city code 7.4.203.

Table 7.4.2-E to provide second and third floor encroachments of principal structure into the front setback up to two feet per length of the building.

We're up to 30 inches, but no closer than two feet to any property line is required.

Located south of Dublin Boulevard, east and of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Item 8 N D VSA-25-0006.

A development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209 point B, Table 7.2.2-I to provide corner lot side street resident residential use setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is required, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stenson Hills Boulevard.

Item 80 D VSA-25-0007.

A development standards adjustment to City Co 7.2.209 point B.

Table 7.2.2-I to provide five feet sides side yard setback for all sides of lots that have no street frontage or alley loaded located south of Dublin Boulevard, ease of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

And item 8P D VSA-25-0008.

A development standards adjustment to City Code 7.4.203.A, table 7.4.2-E to provide covered porch encroachments into front setbacks of up to five feet located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard.

Your presenter is Damara Baxter.

I don't know what time it is, but good morning, Tamara Baxter for the record.

Noon on the dot.

Oh, good afternoon.

Alright.

So before you is the Banning Lewis Ranch Village C project.

To give you context, uh the project is located east of Banning Lewis Village A, south of Dublin Boulevard, north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, or this future extension of Stetson Hills Boulevard, and to the east um uh state highway 24.

What is being proposed is a rezone, a land use plan, um, two rezones and uh six development standard adjustment.

Um the total acreage is about uh six uh six hundred and fifty-eight acres.

Uh proposed land use out in this area is residential and commercial.

To give you a little bit of a summary of the proposed uh land use plan.

So as you're aware, um so this project was reviewed under uh the current UDC.

Um under the UDC, the master plan and concept plan went away and it became a land use plan.

Um so before you with the land use plan is envisioned residential and commercial.

Uh the two zone districts are a conventional R Flex medium zone district, and to accommodate that um conventional zoning is the development standards adjustment, as well as a rezone of uh MXM for commercial and or residential, and that's in the portion of the property that's adjacent to Highway 24.

For the land use plan, which is before you, it's 658 acres.

That doesn't sound right.

Um, sorry.

Actually, it's less.

So that was that's a typo.

Uh residential and commercial.

Um there is a community uh 35-acre community park that is proposed and four neighborhood parks.

Um, as you can see, diagonally, the red is a 50-foot-wide Rock Island Trail corridor.

Um, there are two school sites, kind of campus style.

One is for a high school, 48 acres, and the other one is 25 acres, which is a PK through 8 school campus.

As you can see in the pink, which is kind of on the lower left of your screen, is a public safety parcel, and that's for a future fire station.

111 acres of the project, it will be rezoned to MXM.

Again, this is adjacent to Highway 24.

I have provided you the development standards for the MXM zone district.

And so this area is proposed for commercial and or future residential, and there are no changes to proposed with the development standards as you can see on the screen.

The remaining of this project, which is 546 acres, is proposed to be rezoned to RFlex medium APO, which is airport overlay and streamside overlay.

And as indicated, there are six development standards adjustment, which we'll go over to accommodate the this conventional zoning.

The applicant originally submitted the application as a PDZ, but under the UDC, under the eligibility for rezoning to PDZ, it states that a PDZ district is only permitted where the proposed design could not be developed under conventional zone district or UDC standards, including available to available tools allowing flexibility in those districts.

The staff encouraged them to rezone to a conventional zone for so the RFLEM, which with the current product type that they have in the other villages required a request for the six development adjustments, which we'll go over.

And maybe to deflect the question that will come up.

If they did proceed forward with the PDZ, we would not be requesting the development standards adjustments.

So in on your screen, these are these are what was approved with the ordinances.

So you can see in village one, they have a variety of densities from 3.5 all the way up to 16 based on the product type.

Village 2 had a density up to 6.37.

Single family detached product.

Village B1 range was 3.5 to 7.99.

Village A is also the 3.5 to 7.99.

Village B, which you just considered is 3.55 to 7.99.

And then Village C will go through those different villages.

And I'm more than happy to go back to that screen too if you need me to.

With regards to the development standards, so the first one that was requested is to reduce the density range for the RFlex medium zone district.

So currently that zone, that density range is five to sixteen dwelling units per acre.

The applicant has requested that it go down to three to 16, and that is in order to provide some flexibility with their smaller footprints of their products.

And I will, I can answer questions, but I think the applicant has a presentation to address each of these as well as why they are requesting these.

The next development standard adjustment is for allowing the corner lot setback to be reduced from 15 to 10 feet that also exist in the current uh different villages for the product type that is being constructed.

And then the next the next development standard is to allow for a five foot yard setback for all lots that do not have street or alley loaded.

And as you can see, this is one of their product type as kind of a cluster product.

So the UDC, the UDC does not clarify that, so they're asking for that to be clarified with the RFLEX zoning.

And then the last one is to allow for covered porches to be to encroach into the setback by five feet.

Currently, we do not allow covered porches to encroach into the setback without a variance.

The right-of-way that similar to village B2.

So they're proposing to vacate about 26 acres of right-away.

And those will be also platted as future development plans come in for village C once they know more of their internal road network.

This application was submitted last year, June of last year.

It did go through five review cycles.

This we did have a neighborhood meeting on this project as indicated prior.

That was on September 16th.

It was well attended.

I think there were probably about 50 people that were in attendance.

The concerns that were raised had to do with traffic, safety, wildfire amenities, parks, open space, and schools.

And we also did get some written comments.

A couple that were received after the neighborhood meeting, and then you received a couple this week.

With regards to the agency review, all agencies had a chance to review this project.

This also went before the Parks Board in May and June of this year.

It was a unanimous vote by the parks board to allow for the Metro District to own the neighborhood parks and provide land for the community park.

So the 15 acres, I think roughly 15 acres from village B surplus was brought into village C for the community park.

CDOT was also a reviewer on this since there's access off of highway 24.

So development plans and Platz will be reviewed by the city as development plans are coming in.

And we will take a look at any kind of contributions to on and off site roadway requirements.

With regards to Plan COS, similar to village B2, it uh the plan COS does support uh this development.

It does encourage a variety of housing types from low to medium density.

Um, and also for the commercial development and redevelopment of the area criteria.

These are the criteria for the land use plan.

Um the land use plan does meet the these review criteria.

With regards to the zone map, uh rezoning for the two applications for rezoning.

Um the both re applications uh meet the criteria for a rezone, and for the development standards adjustment, the six of them, the development standards adjustment uh meet the criteria listed above, and also in addition to the road vacation, uh the proposed road vacation application meets these criteria.

And then I can go through the motions really quick.

So these are the motions for the land use plan, approval or denial, um, the zone change for one of the applications, rezone for to MXM.

Here is the motions for the rezone to R Flex medium, and then uh the development standards adjustments.

So there are six of them.

So I'm just gonna kind of go through them quickly.

And then the last one is for the road vacation.

And that's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

I think we'll hear from the applicant and then um come back with any questions.

Thank you.

Don Ryan with LAI Design Group.

Chair and Commissioners, thank you for your patience and efforts to get through these items for Betting Lewis Ranch today.

As shown before, Village C, which is shown here in red, is to the south of village B2 and extends a little bit further east to highway 24.

And as we discussed, uh, we spoke about what is currently in place and what is being developed up to village A.

And here compares the 1988 current master plan with what we are proposing.

Uh there are significant differences uh primarily in the open space due to the site constraints.

Uh there's an increase in open space.

And to the east, uh, we are proposing MX MX MX zoning to the east.

And uh that will allow for uh more flexible zoning for commercial or residential.

Uh in the previous 1988 plan, um, it was assumed that there would be access to that site from Highway 24.

Uh we have heard from CDOT that they will not allow access, only emergency access to that site uh from highway 24.

Therefore, we see that uh not as viable for commercial but for uh other uses as opposed to retail or um intense retail.

Um but that is uh a difference here between 1988 and our current proposal uh as well as the additional open space areas due to the site constraints that were not shown in 1988.

Um in addition, uh for the uh go to the for the overall uh acreages, there are over 16 acres of neighborhood parks, and those are split into four separate parks of approximately four acres each that are distributed throughout the the project to allow access to every parcel uh and to allow uh residential access to those neighborhood parks, and as mentioned with B2, the uh community park is 35 acres total, and that is located centrally at the north of the village C site along Dublin, with access from Del and Louis Vard.

The Rocky Island Trail itself, which is uh 50 foot wide required easement as part of the annexation, uh comprises 9.4 acres and runs diagonally through the site from the northeast to the southwest.

A total of 72 school acres in two sites to the south and a 5.8-acre site for our future fire station.

And to show the total parkland dedication, uh, what is required within village C is 16 acres?

We're providing 16.25.

The community park calculation, uh the village C obligation is 19.4 acres when you add that to the village B2 carry over from the north, the 15.59, that is for 34.99 acres total, and we're providing a 35-acre community park as stated before, the the total R Flex acreage is 547 acres, and the MXM zone acreage is 11 acres to the east.

And some additional details about the density, uh the requested range from three to sixteen, and uh in the R Flex medium, five to sixteen, the estimated units are two thousand four hundred and twenty-six with the average uh density at 9.94.

Part of that is due to the parcel to the east, which is being zoned MXM that would allow some higher density than what has formerly been developed at Benninglois Ranch.

So that would allow potential multifamily or just higher density uh residential to the east.

So thank you.

That concludes this presentation.

We have additional slides if additional detail is needed.

Questions for the applicant at this moment.

Go ahead, just go ahead and speak, sir.

Commissioner Robinson, I just want to get clarifications on the roadway because we there's no access to 24.

That's coming off the top to Dublin or what?

So the access to that parcel will be from Dublin on the north side, and from the future roadway connections that are made to the east as development occurs from west to east in village C.

So there's uh uh there's a proposed collector street that connects Stetson Hills with Dublin, and then uh there will be access from that collector road to the east to serve that site.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Okay.

Go ahead, sir.

Commissioner Engel.

Uh, sir.

In the uh R Flex medium zone, I think in some areas you suggest the high end of the density would be sixteen point sixteen dwelling units.

That's higher than I think you have in uh village A, and it's a little bit higher than we discussed for B2.

So my question to you is, why do you need that higher density in the R flex medium portion of this project?

Well, the R flex medium allows that density, so that's based on starting with the R flex medium as the base zoning.

Uh the uh the actual density, and I'll I'll go to these slides that that we looked at before, um, to show case studies of the typical density for the residential areas uh that will be zoned R flex include uh again a similar pattern of development that has been established in village three and village A, which include a combination of single family homes and cluster homes, and the density up to 16 allows for flexibility for multifamily or for higher density in the future if the market allows that.

Uh but the generally we see multifamily happening further east if it happens in the area that was not our flex medium, right?

To the east.

Okay.

So I I look at village three and it it looks like similar to what you had in uh village A, but basically the range is three to twelve to dwelling units that you have there as compared to three, and you asked for a uh variance to go lower than 3.5, but three to 16 is what you put on the chart, yes.

That's the request, and it is really simply to allow for flexibility to meet the needs of the market.

Uh this village three and the village three and village A examples show what we anticipate.

How would you get a uh 16 dwelling unit per acre layout?

Would that be a cluster structure that you use similar to village three and village A, or would it be an apartment complex or something completely different?

It could be an apartment complex, however, those are generally even higher in density.

Uh I think it would be maybe some uh new or uh not a not necessarily something that's been built and been in Manning Lewis Ranch yet, but it could be uh like a a home that has four flats in a in a combined single building, single building structure.

So like a four-plex, the sixplex, instead of a duplex or something, yes.

All right, would you go back to that chart that showed homes as well?

I want to say I wanted to add town townhouses, yes.

Yeah.

Could you go back to the chart that showed the whole picture?

Both the area to the east and the uh that one, yeah.

So the potential for high density in uh the MXM zone, you somewhat uh voted or worked out that it probably wouldn't be feasible to do commercial in there, but it's uh it's authorized.

Um the entrance to that point is uh the road to the north, which is it's not Dublin.

Dublin, yeah.

Uh if you make that a very dense area, the traffic getting in and out of that area is going to be a little challenging, I would suggest.

But nonetheless, if the traffic study has said it's credible, I will I will accept that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, do you have these same um development standard adjustments for some of the other villages that had already been built out?

All of these same adjustments, or none of these, or some of them.

Well, the those villages are being built, and they would require those.

However, because of the zoning at the time, uh they don't actually require it.

Um, and they those requirements were not put in place because they weren't needed, okay.

But under the UDC with the new zoning and as tomorrow discussed, uh, to enable the density that we are getting with the cluster homes, then we do need those adjustments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does that bear uh uh Chair Hensler for the record?

Does that bear a little bit more repeating by staff the difference between the previous code 7 and UDC and PDZ to MXM?

No, I think I'm good.

I think I just wasn't sure when those other villages came online since I'm fairly new to the commission, whether they went through the same process or they got uh in before then.

Um so I think I'm clear on that.

I think it's less about when the in 1988, I guess, or whenever those were approved, but it was under the old chapter seven, and Tamara said that at the beginning of her presentation, that application was chapter seven, which allowed PDZ and with the change to UDC and our new unified development code, the available zoning that is most conducive to this falls to be the MXM and the development or the standards that are required by that, but asking for the adjustments to make it consistent with the previous villages, so there's consistency across, even though the zoning has changed.

Yeah, but if we could certainly have staff articulate that more if that would be helpful for anyone.

I know we have newer folks and also folks that weren't here during chapter seven um and the change to UDC.

So a very good question.

I just want to make sure we have clarity up here.

Other questions um for Mr.

Ryan?

Yeah, I just wanted to dive into that MXM zone um unit calculations because there was no provided unit calculations, um, all of the proposed units, which seemed to match closely to the previous master plan, were only for the RFlex medium.

And you know, you had stated that the MXM uh was likely to be commercial, but then after talking with CDOT, that that has changed.

So there's no unit calculations uh for the MXM area, and that um is the area in my mind that seems uh potentially problematic or just you know just unclear at this point as to what um the intention or plan where that could is going.

Yeah, I would say that the intention is for that parcel and those parcels that are uh requesting MXM zoning uh to be the most flexible for future development.

Uh because the development is occurring from the west to the east, that would be the last parcels of Benning Lewis Ranch that get developed, and as such, being so far in the future, uh just want to maintain the maximum flexibility for that.

Understood, and then I um would imagine revisiting with CDOT at a future point, or is that I I would think as well that happens.

I mean it it's it's seems logical to put uh more commercial applications along that region.

Yeah, so I think um by the time that the MXM zone is developed, uh we will see a lot of other development on this side of Colorado Springs.

And uh right now it's harder to talk about because we're talking about roads that are not in place, we're talking about intersections and connections that are not yet in place, they're not built yet.

Over time, those things will be improved, and uh road connections will be built, and then uh yes, I think there'll be an opportunity to revisit uh access to the site depending on the highest and best use in the future.

Okay, and did you um if it was built out as multifamily, it was there a calculation on how many units that could be the calculation was done as an average over the whole C Village C.

J.

Yeah, that well, it was it was done for the entire area as a average.

Okay.

Other questions, comments?

Commissioner C.

Actually, Commissioner Clements first.

Yeah, that's true.

We haven't done public comment.

I just want to make sure we have any other questions for.

I have a question for him, yes.

Go for it.

Yeah.

Commissioner Clemens.

I see that the uh lot size is going to be a thousand square feet.

What's about an apartment?

Would there be uh room for like yard for the uh for the lots?

Uh that actually speaks to the density that we have uh to achieve the higher densities in the cluster products that we have.

It could even be a single family home, but maybe more likely uh duplex or a town home, uh, but that is a smaller lot, and that's why this has a higher overall density up to 16 units per acre, uh, which would allow for that smaller lot.

Yeah, all right.

Have you built products now on thousand square foot lots?

Are some of them built in the other villages?

Not sure.

Do we have a yeah?

So the answer is yes.

I thought I so it's going different.

Yeah, you could answer that.

Yeah.

Um, I can kind of speak to I don't know how.

Oh, sorry, Tyler Jones, Oakwood Homes.

Currently, we are building um some smaller duplex product.

I don't know the exact dimensions of the lot, but the homes themselves are uh 18 feet wide.

So that'd be a 23 by, I think 46 foot deep home lot.

So uh what does that come out to be?

But it's it is a fairly small home site.

So just as at right now, I think we're probably just over a thousand square feet, but ultimately the goal with those adjustments were to line up with what we are actively building and banning Lewis Ranch.

So that is one of those adjustments that lines up.

It I don't think it's quite necessarily a thousand, but I think it is less than 1500 feet that we are yeah, yeah.

So kind of in that range.

So what we wanted to do is kind of allow for a continuation of what we're actively building and banning Lewis Ranch.

Is that at the Clarity?

Alright, we'll go to Commissioner Cecil, and then we do need um to open up to public comment since I think we've uh kind of gotten into a lot of questions and answers, but we'll take public comment after your questions.

Sure.

I only had one, which was because there are so many development standards adjustments here, and one of the criteria is compensating benefits.

I didn't hear a lot of speaking to the compensating benefits for those, and if there is a balance on their initial presentation time left, I thought that might be a good use of it.

I think that's a really good question.

Let's um maybe we'll let them ponder that while we take public comment, and we can take that in our rebuttal or further QA.

So Solange, I know you said that there are a couple of folks that are signed up here to speak, so we'll get to that.

We have David Osburn.

They did not state if it's in support of so if you can state that please when you introduce yourself.

I'm uh David Osburn.

Um, I think we had yeah.

Um, so this is I have a few comments.

Um, this is kind of related.

Uh what you see here is US 24, and uh we have a property right along US 24 borders, the uh C project, and right straight above where it says US 24 is the Falcon Highway intersection, and they're gonna stub that off and bring us a road back behind us so that we can stay in business.

Um we have an RV park out there, uh, been in the family for 60 years.

Um, so uh at the moment or at when that gets done, I think they told me corner one in next year.

We'll have that little stub all to ourselves.

You'll be able to get to us coming from the east, coming from the west.

Uh perfect.

Uh when that Dublin goes through, it's too close to the highway to to give us full access there, that will become right in right out.

So my comment or my plea or my question is if you could, you know, as you guys consider designing these roads, make us a road that makes it easy for someone to get a 45 foot trailer to us, so we can make money and we can pay taxes.

So that's that's all I have to say about that.

The next a bigger view.

The one with the like the county map, the parcels.

Yeah.

So right there, kinda in the middle where it says Falcon Meadow Campground, that's us, and we have those two parcels, and then just to the west is the banning Lewis, that's the C.

So my concerns here are um, you know, building right up to our, you know, we have RV park.

People come to see Pikes Peak.

Um building right up to our property line, how's that?

I don't know the you know, the rules regarding that.

I did see they could build something up to 45 feet tall.

I mean, hopefully that wouldn't be right on the property line.

Um it would it would be awesome if they could do I'm appealing to them to do you know, consider doing some open space there just as a little buffer for us.

Um yeah, so that's it, those are my comments.

Thanks.

Hey Dave, real quick.

Uh Commissioner Robins here, sorry.

Is that where there's a little gas station?

Is that part of that?

Yeah, that's okay.

I'm from all right, I just wanted to make sure I had it in my head.

Thanks.

Sounds good.

Sir, thank you for coming and speaking.

Solange, are there other ma'am?

Are you here to speak on this item?

Yes, okay.

Solange, do we have anyone other than the two individuals that are here?

Okay, you've probably seen this a few times.

State your name and you have three minutes to speak.

Thank you for being here and your patience.

Right.

My name's Jay Larson, I'm a resident of Banning Lewis Ranch, a current resident.

I have been to both of the planning commissions, so uh this will be no surprise to I've uh said this twice.

Now this will be the third time.

Um of the things that was discussed today is compatibility and effect on the community, and that was one of the things I did send in to, and my comments that also came in writing to the planning commission.

I recommended a survey of the current banning Lewis.

I haven't heard anything today that's addressed the compatibility and effect on the on our existing community, and how that this will fit into the context.

I think it's important that the individuals have that be part of the planning and their future planning, not just the land planning, but the future planning.

The other that I have the biggest impact on is that currently if you can look from the roadmaps, etc.

There's one way out of Banning Lewis Ranch.

My concern is we do not have a southern route.

If I cannot, if there's a fire in the northern route, I cannot get out of the facility.

I can't get out of the community.

Today I heard from the reason I sat here is I wanted to hear from transportation.

So thank you, whoever brought transportation up, because it is that disconnect between those roads.

Um, and that is not part of the planning right now, and it's not on the agenda.

Um that is a concern of mine.

I'm concerned for our residents, and I'm concerned for we have we are a 55-plus community.

We have a number of people that have use adaptive devices, and we need time in order to evacuate.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm guessing we don't have anyone online.

But Solange, could you double check uh if there's anyone online who wants to speak on this item?

If there's anyone online that would like to speak in opposition, sorry, in favor or opposition of this item, please unmute yourselves.

Pressing a star seeks.

Okay.

I was guessing not.

There's somebody.

All right.

Then we will give the applicant time to address any rebuttal from public comment, and then we can just come back to questions, which I think we have some remaining.

Sure.

That means you or Mr.

Ryan if he wants to come back up.

Tyler Jones, Hokewit Homes.

All right.

I'll I'll speak with uh in regards to the RB park and what I know now.

I don't know if Todd's still here, but the connection at Dublin kind of north of the RV park is uh it's not adjacent to our holdings right away, but we have had meetings with CDOT in regards to it.

It's a fairly convoluted intersection.

I know their current plan structure kind of has a stub out road at a 90 and an access road for the for the park.

Um, but the overall connection between kind of where our property ends, and our intention is to continue the right-of-way of Dublin to our property boundary.

Um, it gets a little nuanced on how to kind of make that connection because the proper connection of where CDOT's currently doing.

I'm now I'm describing engineering, which always goes well, um, is gonna be at a 90 degree angle to 24.

Um, and how it will currently, you know, kind of need to bow out through the county and through parts of the city and a few different property holders there.

So it is a dynamic um intersection.

And I know we've started the conversations with CDOT, and that's starting out.

Um, there's not a final answer on how that's all going to come together, but it's gonna require collaboration between the county and the city, uh, a few of those property owners.

Um, and then we'll of course pick it up where our our boundary line continues, but it's uh it's a fairly um dynamic situation right there.

So I based on all the conversations I have have had with CDOT, and um the various people in the room, it seems fairly positive.

It's also, I mean, as we're building through development, it'll be one of those last connections potentially made, depending on how that kind of comes through there, but it's not kind of on the immediate term.

Todd, I don't want to put any words in your mouth on kind of the nuances of that area, but it's it's something that we all we've had multiple meetings on, and I think we'll continue to have meetings on because it's gonna be a big problem to solve, maybe not problem, but just uh a challenge to solve.

Um I know that doesn't add a lot of specific clarity to it, but I think all the stakeholders are are trying to make sure that those considerations are taken into account.

We don't want to negatively impact any adjacent um property owner or or business, certainly.

Now to the open space adjacent to the RB park, there is um so that whole area is fairly chopped up with some drainage channels and trail corridors, and in fact, I think the whole southern boundary line of the RV park is a drainage channel and will be open space.

Um, same with there is the Rock Island Trail that runs through there, I believe closer to the northern boundary of your RV site.

Um, and so I think with that, there's going to be a lot of open space potential kind of around um the RV park.

You can kind of see kind of coming into that corner, and then with just standard setbacks and stuff.

I mean, certainly we'll we will try to be mindful of that and and take into account code requirements and make sure we're keeping everything in line um with that area.

Um that's all I had to say in regards to kind of the interface with the RV park and what I I know on that.

Um, in terms of compatibility within the community, our intention, you know, that's I think a lot of the driver for the adjustments that you saw is to continue to build what we're actively building out in banning Lewis Ranch.

We don't right now we don't intend to change our programming or our product offerings.

This is a master plan.

We have multiple product segments.

We want to be able to provide that attainability and product types that people are looking for to create a vibrant, dynamic community, and we want to continue that forward throughout Banning Lewis Ranch.

And so we want to make what's made banning Lewis Banning Lewis, and we want to carry that through for the next 15 years, have a vibrant master plan that has homes for first-time home buyers, have homes for move up buyers, have that full spectrum of homes within the community.

In terms of accessibility, you know, we can only do what we can do.

We've we have built our materials along the development where we can.

We've had some great input from Norwood being able to connect up to Woodman on Banning Lewis Parkway and getting some additional access.

But we don't control the property to the south.

So that's that's one thing that we can't kind of speak to ultimately, and then we will continue to build out as we can the other adjacent arterials.

Reasons for why the adjustments, I think it kind of speaks to my previous point a little bit.

Our goal is to provide that attainability, the dynamic and versatile product offerings or home home styles, living styles that we want to offer where it's either a lock and leave home, where an empty nester can just have that small home and not have to do any of the exterior maintenance, not have to maintain a yard either or front or rear, have different uh offerings in terms of garage spaces.

And so there's a number of things, and what our goal ultimately is with the adjustments is to continue what we have built or are actively building and banning and carry that through.

So um, and so all the adjustments are trying to align what we have currently allowed and are actively building within the um the our current zoning type and continue that through under the UDC and the R Flex medium zoning.

I think you were this is Commissioner Cecil, I believe you were referencing my earlier question about the benefits uh criteria for the um development standards adjustment, but it's my understanding that and what I was trying to get you to speak to was not whether you meet the requirement that is in that zoning district, but how you exceed that in a way that benefits the community so much that the adjustment is warranted.

Sure.

So the adjustments allow for our lock and leave, ultimately it the all of them are geared towards having a dynamic product offering of small lot duplex townhomes, cluster product of various sizes, um, single families, um, alley load product that doesn't quite fit into the R medium flex zoning, and what that ultimately allows for a more comprehensive master plan that adds additional attainability appeals to different demographics, and ultimately driving towards a more vibrant community, so the examples listed in the code of benefits, just to get you kind of thinking down the path, are things like parks, trails, or other submerlar public or cultural facilities, landscape buffers, public art, permanent conservation of natural land areas, increased building setbacks or decreased height or other benefits that you might come up with an argument for articulating here.

Okay.

Yeah, so I would say a prime driver with that would be a alley load duplex product where you have setbacks, and one of them is a porch out into a setback.

So that in my mind enhances the um the cultural, you know, the kind of you create a whole different living dynamic outside of that and um creates additional accessibility to parks.

Um it allows for more communal park space in that product type, you'll have shared paseos where you'll be able to interface with your neighbors that you don't typically see on a more traditional product type.

And so I think maybe that's one example that might speak to kind of what those benefits would be.

Okay, so um are we done with rebuttal?

I think we've morphed into questions.

So we have to say, did you have any other topics or points that you wanted to bring up?

I tried to kind of address the okay.

So I think just seguing right from that variety of product types and the clear value of having a variety of product types and different, you know, age communities or ability communities catered to is something I know I really value, but um could you just maybe I'm a point and grunt kind of learner, very visual.

If you could show on the map um what it is that for the southern route of a potential evacuation, where your cutoff is and where you lose control of being able to provide a connection, sure.

Um so you can see we don't control anything south past Stetson Hills on Banning Lewis Parkway.

Um same with uh continuing um Stetson Hills to the west to mark Shuffle.

Um so those are the two kind of boundary conditions that are outside our control.

And thank you, Steph, for giving me the arrow that's really helpful.

Yeah, and so we we have continued uh banningless parkway north to our boundary condition, and while we don't control the property that ties from the our northern boundary to Woodman, uh Norwood has completed that development.

Um so that uh path has been constructed, and then of course we have the two exits to the west off Dublin and uh Visa del Cerro.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, I know Commissioner Slattery, I'm done now.

Uh along the um benefits component, um and maybe this is seems like you're more familiar with um product types than maybe some of the other nuances.

But I was wondering, uh, and perhaps staff can jump in with this, if the um right given some of the topography and floodplain constraints, if the open space dedicated to that would be a compensating benefit, and if the community center areas would also be considered a compensating benefit since they um you know aren't adding to the dwelling units per acre, but kind of that that density maybe um allows for that type of shared facility to uh be created in this in space.

I'm getting nods, so that sounds like a yes for the benefit of those who create meeting minutes.

It sounds like other compensating benefits would be a community center and that large swath of open space um kind of in the center on the the big western chunk.

So the eastern portion of the the western chunk for lack of more eloquent words.

Um my other questions to you, slash um, and if Mr.

Frisbee needs to jump in, but the um we talked about the gap, but is the development of both I think it's um Stetson Hills Boulevard and then Dublin on the north and south boundaries?

Are you responsible for developing those in conjunction with a build-out over the years, or what is the timeline and responsibility of those two uh major roadways?

Yeah, great point on the amenities.

I got a little snowblind on on some of my uh we have built and are planning to continue to build clubhouses and shared amenities, pools, uh workout facilities in all our in our previous villages, and we plan to continue that through our subsequent villages.

Are those um covered within the HOA?

So this is within a metro district, and they are metro district owned and controlled and uh available to those residents.

Yeah, that's a really big help.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Yeah, and I think our our next one, which will be in Villa J is uh just waiting on some some utility connections and should start um middle of next year.

Uh to the roadway connections, roadway connections so I might defer some of this to Todd he probably knows the the code and the continuations a little better than than I do Mr.

Frisbee welcome back.

I think that's stuck around uh okay uh top Frisbee City Traffic Engineering uh the question was regards to um future connections to 24 specifically or just well uh sorry it was not to cut you off but it was like the development of the the north and south border roads yeah uh okay because connectivity I think we talked about before where there's you know um potential PBRTA funding the gap between development and um and those connections but particularly the the north and south roads because our our master plans um show kind of the interior portions but not necessarily we haven't really articulated on those boundary yeah you're talking about the north south oriented roads.

No I'm talking about the east-west oriented roads that run along the north border between parcels B2 and C and then along the southern boundary of village C.

Okay so I'll start with the northern boundary which is double which is Dublin Boulevard uh this developer is building Dublin will build will be building the full section of Dublin Boulevard uh and uh but they as they described and they're correct it will stop short of connecting to US 24 uh and as C dot as part of their widening of US 24 uh project they are um building a little stub out that will provide access to the um uh to the park uh the R V park uh but ultimately that connection from that stub out to where Dublin will end will be uh a project of PPRTA or the or a future developer led effort it's but it is in our master plan our transportation master plan to make that connection so uh to the south is Stetson Boulevard uh eventually as uh this development moves to the um east they will make a connection to uh US 24 uh and that's um um ultimately uh um that's how they're gonna get a lot of access to their to Village C from 24 and rest of Banning Lewis um uh and then uh that Stetson connection also connects over to Banning Lewis parkway further to the west so you'll have that sort of network built um by um uh by this development from there um all of our transportation plans show Dublin uh bless you uh show Dublin extending south to Barnes eventually uh but that's under the control of uh Norwood and their freestyle development um and uh Barnes is currently in design um and it it currently connects to Mark Shuffle it the section from Mark Shuffle to future bar future Banning Lewis parkway is under design uh right now so uh could potentially be constructed within the next few years the timing for Banning Lewis park waste extending south um your guess is good as mine on when that will happen yeah thank you for articulating and educating us that I I you sure know the roads better than I do.

Well I just keep in mind too there's been significant um invest our infrastructure improvement in this area uh we're wrapping up the widening of Mark Shuffle uh between Barnes and Dublin.

And we're wrapping up the widening of Dublin from uh from Mark Shuffle to um the Peterson Road.

So uh there's been um in the last couple years and in and um and in the near future, significant upgrades and improvements to capacity and connectivity on this area.

And as mentioned, Banning Lewis Park was extended to Woodman.

We also added a third lane on Woodman just two years ago.

So a lot of infrastructure improvements have gone in in this area.

And by the city through PPRTA.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Tom.

All right.

Commissioner Cecil?

Question?

Oh Mr.

Frisbee, please.

Sorry, Commissioner Cecil.

I just wanted to ask about one of the development standards adjustments 8N, which is to reduce the corner side lot.

Yeah, the corner side setback to from 15 feet to 10 feet while reducing that setback.

Continue to provide adequate visibility and separation at street intersections.

Yes, it should.

So when we when we get development plans and review those plans, we'll be looking at sight lines at intersections so that it is, you know, those lines of sight are not blocked.

And those lines of sight in your experience is 10 feet sufficient of setback or I'd have to see what I would have to see what uh the context is and how that's how that's set up.

But that is something you look at at each development plan review?

Yes, we'll get a use development plan review.

Uh especially we'll look at those corner, whatever intersection we're looking at.

And we'll look at the corners, the corners, and see if we have those lines of sight at those, and if we and if there is a building or something that could block that line of sight, we'll request that that be pushed back.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Good questions.

All right, thanks.

All right.

Uh other questions from Commissioners.

Comments.

Um do we have any um do we have any commentary in favor or opposed to this?

And can we move towards motions?

Oh, Commissioner Cecil has commentary surprise.

Why don't you go first?

Oh, that's oh, um, go item by item again.

What?

Are you going to go item by item once again?

That's how I put my stuff together.

But yeah, it's up to you whenever you're ready.

I I think that maybe that if there are items that you are opposed to, maybe you just highlight those.

And if there are those that are that you're particularly in favor of for some, but maybe just keeping it a little more brief this time.

Okay, yeah, sure.

I sorry was trying to comply with the direction from council city council thing to be very explicit about wise.

But um, on a spectrum, and that was quite explicit.

And if you feel necessary, go ahead.

But I think um where you might be opposed or not in opposition to an item would probably be most helpful.

So I will then um only make one comment regarding um item 8K, the development standards adjustment for density.

Um I'm generally find that the density and the flexibility is really helpful and good to opening up more types of land use, but um I felt like that was the one area where I didn't totally get the whole picture of the compensating benefits for the neighborhood.

Elsewise, I found that the other development standards adjustments were very much in line with the requirements and found that um much like the prior application of the right-of-way vacation um makes complete sense to update the plan uh overall, and so in general, I am supportive of all of these, and I wrote two pages on this, so sorry.

I appreciate your thoroughness.

Any other comments from commissioners?

Commissioner Willoughby, sorry.

Commissioner Willoughby, I wrote no pages, but um I appreciated Jen's question.

Commissioner Cecil's questions about the benefits because I was having a hard time getting there in terms of some of the development standard adjustments.

I know that the team has spent a lot of energy on the UDC and they come up with these standards for a reason.

And so I appreciated the discussion around the open space and the community centers that helped me get there.

So in general, I am in favor of all of the motions, including the development standard adjustments after that conversation.

Sir, go ahead.

Commissioner Robins, um, I know it's not easy to uh take the time to uh put all the uh pieces of the puzzle together and make everything come out, and I really appreciate the work you guys did.

I'm I'm in favor of the hard work that you have done, and I know that's still you know could be 10 to 15 years out, and things can change down the road.

So I appreciate all the work you've done, and I'm in favor of this proposition.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Engel, I likewise generally support everything you have done, and I think uh it is constructive to provide the variety of housing that you're gonna do.

My reservation is uh why do we have a UDC when we have to so significantly depart from it in my judgment, uh, to do some things that are worthwhile?

Was there no other feasible uh way we could have partitioned or evaluated this under the UDC, so it did not require these changes.

Having said that, what you were really doing is a continuation of what you have done before, and had you elected probably to stay under chapter seven.

I suspect this would have been a little simpler than what we're currently looking at.

Okay, you didn't.

You went under the UDC, that's good.

Uh, it is probably a little bit of a warning to warning to us that uh when something like this happens, why are we forced to each to create so many uh exceptions to it?

Notwithstanding that I generally support this and will support uh the development.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else on the north side of the dais would like to make a comment?

Since we're talking so much north and south today, okay, okay.

Well, I think I think it's Brian's turn.

Yeah.

So now you can do your 8G.

Thank you.

Commissioner Clemens.

L UPL-25-008.

Motion to approve.

I recommend approval to city council, the land use plan of the banning lewis range, Billy C land use plan, based upon the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for land use plan as set forth and city code section 7.5.514.

Commissioner Case, second.

Commissioner uh Gigiano, 8H Zone-25-0021.

Motion to approve.

Recommend approval to city council for the zone change of one one one point five four acres from R slash E slash R slash one six slash C R slash S S-O-Slash A piece-o.

Single Family Estate, single Family Medium with conditions of record and airport and streamside to MXM mixed use medium scale based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a zone map amendment as set forth in city code UDC Section 7.5.704.

Commissioner Clemens, a second it's the motion passes unanimously.

All right, I'm gonna come back down to you, Commissioner Cecil.

I'll just start at the other end again.

Don't worry, I'll only read the motion, nothing else.

Oh gen.

Item 8A, or sorry, 8i.

No my alphabet.

Zone dash 25-0020.

I'd like to make a motion to approve or to recommend approval to city council for the zone change from or sorry the zone change of five hundred forty six point seven nine acres from R16 slash R f R five slash C R Slash R one six slash C R slash R E slash R5 slash MXM slash APO slash SSO single family medium multifamily high with conditions of record single family medium with conditions of record single family estate single family high mixed use medium scale and airport and streamside overlays too our flex medium a P O SSO that's R Flex medium and airport and streamside overlays based on the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a zone map amendment as set forth in city code section seven point five point seven oh four commissioner willoughby second also the motion disappeared from our screens just kidding.

So apologies if you can vote again on your tablets.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Willoughby item eight J SUBD-24-0131, motion to approve.

Recommend approval of the vacation of right-of-way of twenty-five point eight four five acres of public right of way known as Falcon Meadows Boulevard, Vista del Prado Boulevard, Vista del Oro Boulevard, and portions along Dublin Boulevard and Stetson Hills Boulevard based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.522.

Commissioner Cecil sent.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Robbins.

8.

K.

Yeah, 8.

I make a motion to approve the development standards adjustment to City Code section seven point two point two oh nine point B.

Table 7.2 point two one, allowing the establishment of a density range of 3 to 16 dwelling units per dwelling units per acre in the RFlex Medium Zone District based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for the development standards adjustment set forth in City Code Sections 7.5.525.

Commissioner will be seconds.

The motion passes unanimously.

Item 8L D V SA-25-0004.

Motion to approve approve the development standards adjustment to City Code Section 7.2.209-B.

Table 7.2.2-1, allowing the establishment of a minimum lot area for residential uses of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the R Flex Medium Zone District based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria of a development standard adjustment set forth in the city code section 7.5.525.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Slattery on item 8M as in Mary.

Uh on DBSA 25-3005.

Motion to approve the development standards adjustments to City Code Section 7.4.203A.

Table 7.4.2E, allowing the establishment of encroachments of the principal structure into the front setback up to two feet for the length of the building for the second and third floors based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a development standards adjustment as set forth in city code section seven point five point five two five.

Commissioner Case second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Case, like to make a motion to item 8.n.dVSA-25-0006.

Motion to approve approve the development standards adjustment to City Code Section 7.2.209.b.

Table 7.2.2-i, allowing the establishment of a 10-foot setback for corner lot side street residential use based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for development standards adjustment set forth in the city code section 7.5.525.

Commissioner Clemens has seconded.

The motion passes unanimously.

8.0 DVSA-25-0007.

Motion to approve the development standards adjustment to City Code Section 7.2.209.b.

Table 7.2.2-1.

Allowing the establishment of 5-foot size your setbacks for all size of lots that are those three runnings or alley loaded.

Or Leload based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria or development standards of adjustment set fourth as City Code Section 7.5.525.

Commissioner Case second.

Commissioner Gigiano, eight P D V S A-25-0008.

Motion to approve, approve the development standards, adjustment to the city code section seven point four point two zero three point A.

Table seven point four.

E, allowing the establishment of covered porch encroachments into front setbacks of up to five feet based upon the finding.

Council may elect to limit discussion at appeal hearing time to specific matters as set forth in the appeal notice.

I think we're ready if you're ready, sir.

I'm ready when you are.

Are we staff?

Are we ready?

Are we live?

Are we ready?

Okay.

All right.

Final item on the agenda.

Mr.

Walker.

Question is whether he's awake or not.

That's true.

Do we want to read the item in?

Item 8Q NPLN-26-0002.

The 2026 Annexation Plan Annex COS.

An update to the 2006 annexation plan and 2019 comprehensive plan.

US.

Your presenter is Kevin Walker.

Thank you.

For the record, Kevin Walker, City Planning Director, and presenter for this particular item.

I appreciate your patience.

Hopefully, after the blood sugar rush or lack thereof, right after lunch, we can get through this as quickly as possible.

So thank you for the opportunity.

But we are updating basically the city's annexation plan and their policies.

The context for this project we'll talk about a little bit.

We'll talk a little bit about what annexation is and isn't.

And then we'll talk about the future annexation process and answer any questions.

But if there's anything that you need to interrupt me with, please do so.

If you have a question, if you don't understand what I'm where I'm at with this, we um you can go ahead and interrupt any time.

So plan COS uh it suggests a targeted city expansion over 20 years as well as emphasis on infill and development of vacant land.

And it calls specifically for an annex COS process.

So Plan COS uh was adopted in 2019.

Um and there have been various sort of pieces and parts of uh annexation discussed, and um we'll go through a little bit of that uh as as this presentation goes on.

But primarily the motivation for this is plan COS, and the guidance for this is uh plan COS.

The state statute requires that we have an annual update to the three-mile plan.

Uh we've uh various times um accomplished that.

Uh the last time a comprehensive look at this was done was in 2006.

So the framework documents are aging.

Uh, we also did an IGA with the city or with the El Paso County uh on various areas.

I'll talk a little bit more about that as this uh presentation goes on.

Uh that was done in 2021.

Uh and 2023, uh actually 2022, there was a uh water ordinance that um uh affected annexations, and so those things are all sort of uh on the books.

Uh they are helping to guide uh annexations right now.

Uh but we were looking to update them a little bit with this particular process.

Uh in 2024, recent activities uh along the annexation line included Carmen Line and uh Amara, uh the Southern Colorado rail yard.

Uh we had a referendum in 2025 about a year ago.

Um, and there have been numerous, I think uh over 10 um actual or uh enclave or partial enclave uh approvals for annexation.

So it's not as if annexation has not continued to occur.

Uh it has been a controversial matter, especially as it relates to some of the larger ones that we discussed.

So that's part of the context for this uh that we went through.

Certainly um the voters uh and planning and planning commission and city council commentary on annexations, especially the the couple of large ones uh have helped inform this particular process.

Uh it continues to be the objective uh to annex only if fiscally beneficial uh and in alignment with city utilities as well as Colorado City of Colorado Springs.

So I don're not we are not trying to annex things that are not fiscally sustainable.

And that's that's an emphasis of of our work here that we're presenting today.

From statutory requirement annexations are limited to no more than three miles beyond the current boundary in any given year except under special circumstances.

So one of those special circumstances was the Southern Colorado rail yard which occurred outside of that area.

The municipality must adopt an annexation master plan for the three mile area and prior to the completion of any annexation like I said we have at various times adopted a plan but mostly it's just been to acknowledge that the 2006 plan is still our plan.

The three mile plan must be included in the municipality's comprehensive plan.

That's what we're doing here today with annex COS and the city's annexation plan was last adopted in 2006 as I've discussed.

What is annexation?

First let's start with what annexation isn't annexation is not growth.

It's simply a what it is is a change in jurisdiction.

So annexation by itself does not is not a growth proposal it is a place where basically decides what jurisdiction growth and or development can and will occur.

So it's a it that that's kind of a threshold question and I once wanted to emphasize again that having an annexation plan or having an annexation policy is not the same as growth.

The and the most obvious example is that in 1988 we annexed the city of Color Springs annexed 2600 acres of Banning Lewis ranch and uh you just spent a couple hours talking about a piece of that and yet there are still 2000 acres of that are vacant so this is not again annexation does not equate to growth we have uh a lot of different jurisdictions require different standards for growth especially we're talking here about El Paso County and Fountain and some of the other municipalities they have water source and reliability differences with the city of Colorado Springs our park requirements police and fire response all of those kinds of things are different in different jurisdictions and so in order to uh to come under the city of Colorado Springs jurisdiction you need to annex to the city of Colorado Springs.

So part of that is we the standards city standards are not applied to development outside of the city limits and annexation certainly can affect the urban form we talked you heard a little bit about uh some of the uh uh growth patterns outside of that earlier today uh falcon is an area that basically developed because the city of Colorado Springs was not developing Banning Lewis Ranch so annexation can affect urban form sometimes positively sometimes not so positive uh but it certainly has a uh an effect on what our community looks like and how it operates uh security and white field is an example that was a long time ago in the 1960s uh operated uh not as a separate jurisdiction or municipality but as a uh development inside the El Paso County so all of the services all the urban services there are provided by El Paso County and or a plethora of districts uh wide field water and security water and sanitation and the the parks district and the school board the school district there all of them operate in a hodgepodge of kind of how how those became urban developments or suburban developments but the county and the districts are basically the urban service providers in there, not the not a municipality.

So residents uh we've just completed the spacious skies uh discussion um we we believe that the uh the deaf the the that was a good example or a good study of what folks feel about growth and development in El Paso County and in Teller County.

Uh basically the majority of the Pike's peak uh residents believe growth is making things worse, but that they believe that they can we can grow responsibly, and uh that they would be in favor of responsible and balanced growth.

So that's what we're trying to achieve a little bit here, um, is to uh create uh the opportunity for balanced growth and for um a logical extensions of the city.

So the objections, the objectives of annex COS is to create responsible urban growth patterns uh with uh responsible provision of urban services, water, roads, parks, etc., and provide it in a timely and an efficient manner.

And uh again to emphasize the that includes the fiscal sustainability of the city.

Um the rail yard and soy kus are other kind are sort of special circumstances.

The state allows for special circumstances, and this plan will allow for special circumstances to be uh applied.

So those the soikus is the uh the military installations uh and their efforts at trying to uh inform property owners and jurisdictions what their concerns are relative to um you know land uses outside of their outside of their ownership and outside of their uh military bases, but obviously of of great public concern.

Um, and we're hoping that that uh plan is completed here in the next month or two.

Uh so we'll have the opportunity to start to review at least what the military bases think uh is uh what their interests are outside of the current military bases.

Uh the uh but just to make sure the Soiku study is first focused on um Shrever Air Force Base or Space Force Base, uh not Peterson, not Shine Mountain, not the Air Force Academy, not Fort Carson.

The first the first one is the soy couses coming out on Shrever, and then they'll start to apply some of those to the other bases, especially Peterson, I think is next on the docket.

So uh give you a little bit of background growth occurred uh last time we did this plan was in 2006, like I said.

Uh growth was occurring very quickly in 2004 through 2007, five uh four and five thousand units per year, ten thousand mil uh multifamily units per year.

So there was a lot of growth in that mid-time, and then uh then there was a recession in 2008.

Some of you may remember that.

Uh some of you may be too young to remember that.

Look, Ryan Ryan's awake.

He is awake, okay.

Uh but then we had very slow growth after that.

And and then we had the pandemic growth, which was totally unexpected, 5,000 units per year, 2021, those kinds of those kinds of anomalies, but it's always hard to predict, always hard to know, but basically we've had up and down growth ever um, you know, since since the last time we did this plan.

Banning Lewis Ranch has an impact.

We talked a little bit about that at at added, uh we have right now about 25,000 acres of vacant land inside the city limits, primarily uh in the Banning Lewis Ranch uh eastern boundaries.

Um, and it was activated uh by modification of the annexation agreement in 2018.

So there were concerns uh that part of the reason that the area hadn't developed was because of the way the annexation agreement had been structured, the requirements for off-site improvements and other ways of funding and financing improvements.

So there was a substantial change to that annexation in 2018, and as a result, we're starting to see some of those properties uh that were part of the annexation begin development a little bit more, both south and north uh of the city.

Uh in 20 and there was an IGA with El Paso County in 2021.

It created an area of planning interest, the AOPI.

Uh, we'll see a map about that here in a little bit.

It's different than the three-mile plan, but it basically was trying to make sure that any proposed development first had the opportunity for the jurisdictions to see if they could annex and would annex, with the idea being that the El Paso County Master Plan was really trying to uh uh suggest that uh urban type development occur inside municipalities as opposed to uh in the uh in the metro districts and the other ways we were talking about earlier uh with the provision of urban services by municipalities.

Uh in 2022, we had a water ordinance which was designed to try and make sure that if we are going to annex uh additional land that we had adequate water resources, that's been applied to every annexation since then.

There has yet to be an annexation that has not complied with that ordinance.

Um, and they I don't know uh I it's possible that this particular plan will prompt uh a further discussion of the art water ordinance, but it's uh but it's it's something that certainly influences development today.

Recent annexations we've talked about, and it wasn't 10, it was eight enclave annexations, so my apologies for that.

Uh, and then we have this soicus in the military base as increased activity.

So we're talking about though that gives you a sense of what the background is and the context.

Can you just spell out the Soikus acronym for us?

I'm trying to remember here.

Yeah.

Um, I'm gonna have to use AI to come up with that.

Impact something zone, can we we'll get it.

Somebody somebody will look it up for me.

You I actually suggested that last time and didn't look it up, so my apologies.

Uh we'll get it.

Other challenges, 20,000 acres of vacant land inside the city limits.

That's where we are today.

That's a lot of vacant land.

So again, we don't, you know, many communities that are that deal with annexations and are uh make annexation a public policy uh area of interest uh have the problem of not having developable land inside the city limits.

We certainly do not have that problem.

Uh and so this is really uh gives us the opportunity to be very strategic about what we annex and what we don't.

Um, and and so this is not a question of we need more land to continue growth of our local economy and our local uh community.

Uh it's that is not the issue.

The issue is is uh is something different.

Uh the El Paso County Master Plan expects growth adjacent to the city of Colorado Springs, especially in that eastern edge between us and Shrever essentially, but it basically along the whole eastern edge of our community.

Um it emphasizes the importance of coordinating growth, and it also has metro districts and pro-growth policies add up to new growth occurring on groundwater resources and adjacent to the city limits, similar to the rolling meadows and Bull Hill development down along Bradley Road, which are basically adjacent to city limits but are occurring outside of city limits based on uh other water source other water resources, but they're all occurring in the county, similar to the ones that we talked about before.

Private property owners will continue to control timing and land uses.

That's what has been uh the uh the the way Colorado Springs has annexed property for the last 40 years.

Um it's been a private property owner-driven um request, so it's not the city of Colorado Springs looking to annex specific properties, even in some of the areas of the enclaves uh where we are incentivizing some annexations, those are still at the at the request of the property owners and not uh you know not through the city to annex property that doesn't want to be annexed.

So the property owner still has the control uh and that that should probably continue, and that's what the a primary um sort of tenant for annex COS.

We did not do uh as some had suggested, we did not do a 50,000 acre land use plan, which is basically how much land is out there inside outside of the city limits in the three mile area, and that especially gets much larger when you start adding the the three mile area at the south end there.

You can see how it grows down along I 25, and that's basically the three-mile boundary from uh the uh Southern Colorado Rail Yard annexation.

Uh so we what annexation annex COS is not is uh again a 50,000 acre land use plan driven by the city.

All those land uses will be decided as the markets decide them and as the property owners decide them.

So this is uh uh give you an idea of our um process.

Uh we've reviewed the existing documents, uh identified critical data August 2024, two years ago we had a uh a panel discussion on growth and development.

So that was uh something that we uh sponsored through the NX COS process, took that back, did some technical focus and groups, group meetings, did a lot of criteria and mapping, uh, and then we had these major annexations that occurred in 2024 and 2025, um, and uh sort of re recalibrated our process to draft some goals and policies uh that you've that you're here to review today.

Um, and we've had some additional stakeholder input and engagement, even up to the end of our we closed our um uh survey uh yesterday evening.

I'll have a little bit of the results about that here in a minute, but um we're still uh uh looking at all of that kind of data and and still taking in public comments, still tweaking documents, and and again, you get you will have the opportunity to do the same today.

What is annexation?

It's a change of jurisdiction, it's not growth.

I just want to emphasize that again.

Uh it's basically the incorporation of land that's currently in El Paso County's jurisdiction into the city of Colorado Springs jurisdiction.

Again, primarily a voluntary petition.

There are some state standards by which you have to meet.

You have to have one-sixth contiguity to the city.

In some circumstances, it needs to be a little bit more, um, but that's at least a minimum.

Uh you have to petition.

There are ways to petition property uh into the city, even if the uh some of the other property owners were not in favor.

So there could be an area where at least 75% of the qualified electors and 10% uh uh you can request annexation for a specific area that does not include people who want to be annexed.

Um I think the last time that occurred was in 1982, uh when the city uh annexed the southwest annexation area.

Uh, but so it is not a common practice, but state statute allows uh some property owners to force other property owners to annex.

Uh we do have enclaves, uh unincorporated area, unincorporated area that's been encircled by the city for at least three years.

Um, and the the city can unilaterally annex those areas.

Uh you've seen a couple of them uh through at least portions of them come through in annexations.

Uh and some of those enclaves are being closed out uh in over the last few years, but it is possible that uh, and there is a process by which the state allows the city to annex property that is completely encircled by other properties.

Um, and so that is a process that um that again hasn't occurred very much, but it can, it is possible.

And city-owned land can also uh be annexed, and we have a lot of city-owned land that's adjacent to the current city limits that is not currently in the city, especially uh parkland uh and utilities land south and east or south and west of the community.

Those are the primary areas where the city owns property that's outside the city limits eligible for annexation but not currently annexed.

Mr.

Walker, before we move on, you said to interrupt if we uh question.

And I'm way better questions than than doing this, that's for sure.

Throughout this presentation and the one in working session, you've emphasized that annexation doesn't mean growth, but I think it could be possible that we're trying to actually communicate that annex COS itself does not cause population bro growth or annex COS does not approve development, but saying annexation doesn't mean growth is really broad and arguably imprecise, especially when the definition for annexation that appears in the document we're sharing is an expansion of the jurisdiction's total land area.

And so I was wondering if you could just spend a moment before moving on to elaborate more on since there are many types of growth.

There's growth in land area, growth and tax base, growth in population, growth and building.

What kind of growth are you trying to communicate that annexation does not mean?

Uh urban development.

So built environment.

Built environment.

So annexation does not equate to additional built environment.

Those other approvals, there are other approvals between annexation and that.

Um urban growth can occur outside of the city limits.

Uh as I just talked about uh rolling hills and um uh bull bull hill or whatever the name of that development is, but that's occurring Larson Ranch, all of those have occurred outside Falcon, all of those are growth that has occurred outside of the city limits.

So growth can occur without annexation, but you can also annex property and not immediately have growth occur, banning Lewis Ranch.

I think that that's where it is.

Really, where the distinction is that just because something gets annexed does not mean that the next day we're starting urban growth.

Right, and that urban growth or that built that urban built environment, that really helps me understand what you're trying to communicate because I kept going, but we are growing the land area.

Yeah, even if there's nothing on it.

Yep, you certainly do.

So I I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on that and to define that.

So again, um Colorado Constitution has uh provisions in it.

The revised statutes have a municipal annexation act.

It's been modified and changed.

Not so much in the last 20 or 30 years, but uh but uh in the uh 70s and 80s there was a lot of state activity in the annexation uh statutes.

Um the municipal code does make provision for special annexation ordinances, so we do have our own restrictions and our own code statutory requirements, and certainly a statutory process uh that you have to apply for and policies that are that are related to that.

Uh some of those will be updating with this particular process.

The Unified Development Code has a uh requires um things like uh the utility extension policies, how you're gonna extend utilities, how you're gonna deal with stormwater, how you're gonna deal with all of those kinds of things in an urban growth environment.

Um, and so if you decide to annex, these are the rules that you're gonna be following uh uh now.

And we do have a couple of other things, the checkpoint policy that the city council has initiated in the last two years, uh where annexations come to them as soon as as early as possible in order to get a reading as to whether or not they think that city council is amenable to some of these annexations or not.

Um they haven't yet said no to any of those, but it's possible that um the city council can look at something and say that's not something that we're ever gonna annex.

So don't go through the process, don't spend the money, don't spend your time, don't spend our staff's time uh in trying to get this annexation done.

That's kind of the idea is to make sure that uh we try to make we try to uh promote and uh not a push, but uh process forward annexations that that really have an opportunity to be annexed as opposed to not being annexed.

Uh and then we have the intergovernmental agreement with the city and El Paso County.

Uh it basically uh outlined the opportunity for anybody who wanted to develop inside that uh annexation or that area of planning interest, the AOPI should first talk to the city and have the opportunity for the city to say we would like to annex you or we would annex you, or to give the property owner the ability to develop that city standards outside of the city limits in order to, and then uh potentially annex that in the future.

So we don't have a an area, a substantial urban growth area that is uh right next to the city that isn't gonna be annexed uh because of city standards.

Chair uh Cimarron Hills would be an example of something like that, where we don't have utility standards and we don't have road standards that equate to what the city is, and so today that's really uh very difficult to figure out how to annex something like that.

So they were trying to avoid that kind of thing.

Um to date, there has not been one uh property owner or proposal that has uh avail itself of that, and we think that uh we we would like to revisit that uh agreement with El Paso County to try and figure out either how to move forward with that and modify it, make it effective, or to abandon that and uh move forward in a different manner.

But that's so that's a recommendation going forward.

It's not a it's not something that will result with this annexation, a change in the uh IGA.

The IGA will this it's just something uh the next steps that we have to do based on this policy.

So this gives you a uh annex COS of the annexation history.

You can tell that you know there's been substantial growth uh in several decades.

Um but this will give you kind of an idea of how this is how the city is expanded by decades.

We did not include uh well, it does actually include uh the rail yard at the at the very south end there.

Um so uh that that just kind of give you an idea of how we've grown over time with annexations.

Um the process 2024 to pres uh present.

So here's some of the, again, we have a three-mile plan area that's basically the dotted line area, uh, three miles from the existing city limits, um, and the area of planning interest is the hatched area, uh, basically on the eastern and northeastern edges of the city.

Uh, and and that was a map that was devised and derived uh during the IGA uh process uh in 2020 uh 2021 and 2022.

Annex COS is a policy framework.

Um it's a planning tool to shape the urban forum.

It's a guide for infrastructure expansion, it's a guide for the city and the property owners as to how to evaluate future annexations or whether or not the annexation would be appropriate at this point in time.

Uh so that's what annex COS is is uh attempting to accomplish for the community.

What it isn't is uh 40,000 acre land plan.

So we are not again telling you what commercial land, what's commercial what's industrial, what's in residential, what's parks, etc.

Uh in this process.

Uh and it is not a priority map.

It is not telling us where to go.

Uh it's not saying these are the areas we want to annex first, so don't bother to call us until you get to you get on the line.

It's it's not designed to do that.

Uh and it isn't urban development.

I said growth there, but it I changed the thank you.

I think I'd change my definition.

This is the uh basically the contents and the folks that have worked on this over time.

A lot of people spent a lot of time at this and said we've appreciated all of their participation.

Um I I have to um uh especially thank Color Springs Utilities.

Uh, spent a lot of time, a lot of energy, a lot of thinking about how this affects them and how they're working forward, they have their own sort of fiscal impacts and and other ways of looking at growth and development, and but we continue to cooperate with them as we as it relates to annexation and new areas uh for community development.

I'm not we're not gonna go through each individual policy.

If if you have a question about one, we've had a copy of it.

If you have something to suggest in terms of changed wording, or if you have a question about one of those, please either bring it up here today.

We'll talk about it or uh contact me and we can talk about it.

Uh, like I said, we continue to tweak words a little bit here and there as this goes forward, and we appreciate that opportunity to make this uh a better document.

Would you mind highlighting maybe one or two significant policy changes that you think will impact how we evaluate annexations for public welfare?

Um to think about that.

Uh I I can put up the policies.

I don't I think one of the probably the the areas that we will were looking to change the process so much, not so much the outcomes, but the process are in two areas.

One is in uh fiscal impact.

So to date, the fiscal impact analysis at the city level, not at the utilities level, at the utilities level, they're very sophisticated, they have a lot of data, they are able to apply very rigorous models about whether or not these annexations pay for themselves given the current city uh utility makeup and rate structures.

The city of Colorado Springs, however, does not, and in larger annexations, the city of Colorado Springs has had uh basically the approach that says you decide how you're gonna prove to us that we're fiscally sustainable.

We're gonna change that.

Uh we're gonna basically say we're gonna tell you what we want to know, and we're gonna tell you what we think the costs are, and we and how we want you to evaluate that so that we don't have a situation where we're comparing two developments or two proposed annexations that are substantially different in the way they analyze fiscal impact.

Um, and so that's one area that we're that we're very um uh cognizant of.

And the other is the information that you need to submit uh basically uh with the annexation.

So we're basically asking you uh uh previously it's basically been whatever your annexation or master plan looked at look like, that's the information that we got in order to evaluate um uh the annexation.

What we're gonna ask uh a property owners now is to is to be a little bit more uh structured in that.

We want to know how far away from the city limits you are, uh, how far away uh how far away you are from a fire station, police station, where you are as it relates to actual transportation facilities, you t and other infrastructure, especially as it relates to utilities.

So we're gonna have a much more structured um uh submittal so that we can make sure that as we go through time that we're comparing apples to apples as it relates to what pieces of information are important to the city to evaluate.

So those are two significant changes that this policy should bring about.

Um but that but there's a lot of things that are that are the same, uh like like I we're not proposing to change the fact that the city isn't doing your land plan for you.

We're not proposing to uh uh we're not asking for annexations, we're not we're not seeking annexations.

It's still a private property owner driven uh document.

It doesn't prescribe certain answers, um it uh and that that is in the same vein as plan COS.

Plan COS doesn't say this is the future outcome that we're gonna have on this particular piece of property.

Uh it allows uh time to not wear out uh this annexation policy, so that over time uh you can adjust land plans and you can adjust political uh thinking and and whatever to apply to these annexation requests.

I'm very much looking forward to the refined submittal requirements.

I think those are some really key criteria to do consistently and to prescribe, you know, are you measuring from the furthest from what side or you know, to make sure people are doing that the same way.

But in regards to the fiscal impact analysis, I understand why it probably ended up the way it was in the past, and I would love it to be more structured going forward, but as you pointed out with banning Lewis Range, if we had assumed in 1988, a fiscal impact that had a certain, you know, production level of housing, we'd have a totally different city budget now than what we currently do, and I imagine it's very complicated to come up with a comprehensive approach to fiscal impact analysis for annexations.

So since from what I've understood, that is kind of lagging behind the overall NX COS adoption, having that framework.

What models going to be used between now and when that forecasting tool is completed.

Well, that's a good question.

I don't have an answer for, because we don't have any pending at the moment, and so we're not really in any kind of uh pinch to try and get that.

I think that uh I I think it would be easy enough for us once we once we know that this policy is done, and we talked a little bit about not having all the resources that we would like to have as the planning department, so we don't have time to work on uh fiscal impact analysis uh without knowing that we've got a policy that calls for it.

Um and so um uh I think that's just on the next step.

But you're right, there's always an interim problem of uh we'd like to do better, but we don't have the documents to tell you at the moment.

So um I think we would probably uh rely a lot on what Collar Springs Utilities does uh in terms of uh some of their assumptions and some of their processes and and how they evaluate that.

Completely fair and understandable.

I just want to make sure there's nothing that we've we end up committed to through the text of the ordinance or the adoption of this that would force it to be rushed or inaccurate.

Thank you.

Yes, yes.

I better use this, huh?

Uh question, just concern.

The people are everyone is putting this together.

Have they thought about uh trying to put the right way?

You know how Denver it grew and then it stopped growing, and now it's surrounded by all other little communities and cities, and so now they have the the problem with the police and the fire and the administrations of all the different cities.

So once once they have an issue in Denver and it travels into Aurora or Commerce Center, city or wherever, it gets to be a bit of a challenge.

And I'm just wondering if that's a concern or thought here where the city does logical growth, it has to pay for itself, but also try to not have itself surrounded and um have the same issues and challenges that Denver does.

I don't know if that's something they've been thinking about or what.

Absolutely, and I think that that's one of the things that uh is a constant and plan COS calls for concern around those uh in terms of jurisdictional um developments on the outskirts of the city.

Uh the it's it is clearly one of the biggest advantages that Colorado Springs has is the ability to continue to grow uh and and to manage its its edges and manage its circumstances.

Uh there are some notable um issues where we can't and won't and didn't.

Um, and I think we would like to avoid that.

Uh the El Paso County Master Plan is is one of those things saying we we would prefer to have those developments uh inside city limits rather than outside, but it didn't stop them from actually approving some of the developments that are occurring out there.

So uh I think it's an important consideration.

Um I think state statute and this three mile idea uh came a lot from the situation in Denver.

Uh and it doesn't really apply so much to Colorado Springs because we're not constrained by our border, and we're not um jurisdiction shopping with property owners where the jurisdictions say, well, hey, if what if we if if you annex us, we'll do this, and then you go to the next one and say if if you annex us, would you do would you do that?

Uh it it stops a little bit of that, and that goes on in Denver.

Um I I went to school in St.

Louis uh and and so it's always been important, it's been an important consideration about why Color Springs has such a different setting for it.

In St.

Louis, there's a hundred and thirty jurisdictions inside St.

Louis County.

Um that means there's a hundred and thirty mayors and a hundred and 130 police chiefs.

Well, not really, there may be fewer than that, but but it's still a nightmare.

Uh Denver has it, but both only 30.

And so it's not as bad, but it's pretty, it still creates a lot of regional uh issues, and that's another reason why I think annexation still needs to be an option for the community, and I think that we have thought about that, and we're trying to balance that again with the fiscal impacts uh of growth and development.

Did that answer your question?

Great.

Um so these are the areas that we talked about.

You've heard them already.

Um I don't know uh I'll just go through them quickly.

Contiguity and proximity to urban services, fiscal impact, infrastructure extensions, cooperation with other jurisdictions that would be the IGAs, maybe beyond El Paso County, maybe we need to have an IGA with monument and fountain and other jurisdictions.

Um an emphasis on um enclaves uh and and yet a flexibility for specific circumstances.

So uh you could I can feel some of those potentially coming through the soikus, as my staff been able to figure out what that stands for yet.

Dan, the basis of operation installation compatibility use zones.

Oh, god.

Thank you.

Thank God for AI, huh?

Still Google, still Google.

Still Google, good.

Thank you.

Um I can see that you know, those are special circumstances I think that might prompt the city to look at annexations in a little bit different manner.

Um, and so we're uh looking forward to that.

Well, I'm going the wrong way.

Um so here's here are the general areas.

Uh uh utilize that utilize the three-mile plan and the AOPI as tools to inform and manage uh annexations and enclaves for the city.

Uh utilize the provision of public facilities and services, adequate uh urban facilities and services to annexed areas are in goal three.

Goal four is to consider the fiscal impacts of annexation to the city and springs utilities, um, and utilize annexation as an incentive to achieve desired community form and meet plan COS goals and policies.

Example of that might be like I just talked about Soikus or uh the rail yard, that kind of special circumstances.

Uh, and to imp implement annexation policies through intergovernmental cooperation.

That would be those IGAs we were talking about.

So those are the general policy areas.

We have specific policies in each one that uh that are proposed, and we can talk about specific ones if you have any, but I'm not gonna go through them all.

There's probably 50 of them.

Kevin, I just have a question in regards to like you just said, the town and monument and like your background with metro districts and then military bases.

You know, with each one of those, that's a different circumstance that would probably require a different IGA and this framework seems to at least guide that.

But do you mind just kind of maybe doing a little case study of maybe what you look at with like the town versus metro districts versus like military base?

It's kind of a tough question, but well, let's just take the military-based one because I think that's probably the easiest.

Um, you know, we all know that uh they have sensitive missions there, that uh the missions are critical to uh national security um and you and those bases are critical to our local economy, and so the ability to expand those and and to continue to use that land uh is important um if there were to say a be a piece of property that uh has a line of sight question related to it, and we ran into that a little bit with the zoning on the landings that we heard earlier this year.

Um, that that maybe there's a line of sight that they need to protect.

Um, and uh so the city of Colorado Springs could annex a piece of property with a height limitation in a certain corridor that would uh make sure that the military felt more comfortable that that uh development would not occur that would impact that mission.

And so I think we can I think that City of Colorado Springs would consider an annexation that would make sure that we protected that as much as possible.

That would be one example.

There are others.

There are a lot of uh pockets and pieces um that the city of Monument and the City of Fountain uh sort of we have pieces that are adjacent to each other, um, and then to but and and how to cooperate on those, making sure that that moves into development in a timely manner and it's begin it's getting uh services in a timely manner, and we don't play off each other.

Uh, you know, we'll we'll we'll give you an extra one cent sales tax if you'll give us fire protection.

You know, we don't want to get into those kinds of negotiations.

So an IGA with City of Fountain, IGA with the city of Monument, IGA, maybe even with some of the larger metro districts, especially as it relates to water, uh, could potentially uh you know be a value to the region as well as to the city.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And Sarah I had a question about goal five because I was excited when I first made the staff report that it included using annexation as a tool to achieve the desired community forum, support economic development, encourage housing opportunities, but it looks like the language got pared down in the final report a little bit of what the goals said.

Um so that was from the staff report, but not in the final Annex COS publication that you shared with us.

So I was wondering if you'd be able to talk about whether Annex COS does establish any new housing requirements or just uh identify housing as a consideration during annexation review, or if it's only limited to general compliance with plan COS.

No, I think it it uh well plan COS actually does that as well.

I mean it does it does emphasize it and encourage uh more affordable housing.

Um it has been a goal of the city council.

Um, and if you look at the checkpoint questions, they have that question in there is what are what kind of housing are you providing and is it meeting our housing goals?

We're going through some housing goal discussions right now.

Um, and so housing is obviously uh an important is important to the long-term growth of the community.

So it it is in there, um it's in there more than what we had in 2006, and I think it it does mirror kind of what plan COS is doing.

Um if it's watered down a little bit, then um I don't think that the emphasis is lost, especially as it relates to checkpoint uh the checkpoint policies.

Thank you.

A question, so we talked about um you talked about intergovernmental agreements with metro districts and and housing and affordability.

Is part of the fiscal impact analysis, taking into account metro district costs and and how those are pushed forward onto future homeowners and and is that part of a potential fiscal impact analysis?

Yeah, I think that it could it it can and probably should be an important aspect of the fiscal impact analysis so that you can uh you know, when we ask you for these specific things, you you can uh we could potentially say how is it that the use of districts is gonna make this housing more affordable?

Um and I think that we can we could certainly ask for that, and I think that that's a good a good addition.

The policy itself does not address that.

Um it's not gotten to that level of detail in terms of how we how we interact with metro districts.

Okay.

But I think it's I think noted that it's probably something that we need to add to our uh our report and our fiscal impact analysis.

Thank you.

Uh how we decide.

Uh this is the process that you guys are a part of property owner petition.

Again, that's the primary method.

Um they have to prepare and submit an annexation report, which we're talking about.

That'll be a new requirement with some structure around that and and with all of the things that we've talked about already, a fiscal impact analysis that's the petitioner um develops based on a city template.

So the city, the city does not pay for the fiscal impact analysis, the developer does, but the city is the one that will be guiding, you know, what how how those reports are prepared and what their conclusions are.

Uh we are retaining the checkpoint process um that might actually be up there a little bit earlier it should probably be up there in underneath property owner petition the sooner the better that we get a political look at these and see whether the current city council and or the administration has any interest at all in annexing this property or if we should just not do that.

And so that's retained and an important thing that has been it's it's been critical to the way the city of Colorado Springs has distributed costs and made things fiscally uh responsible is annexation agreements and so there are annexation agreements every single property has its own unique annexation agreement.

There is a model annexation agreement that we work from but all of the numbers and all of the uh exactions andor requirements uh for example paying for park development or managing parks uh different annexations have different rules around how who pays for the parks who's maintaining the parks uh and how they're doing that who's building what roads what the timing of some of those improvements are etc.

So the annexation agreement is really the culmination um and and it's certainly retained as a tool to make sure that annexation is a positive thing for the uh city of color springs over time is there requirements for like timeline on some of those requirements or you know if uh if some of the goals include um and some of the models include right information known today right so if for banning lewis for instance right there's no timeline on when development should occur or plans to be implemented or or negated so we have you know over 20 thousand acres not developed is that something that you would consider putting into an annexation agreement as a timeline for implementation right you see like things change hands um I've seen it in other uh nearby jurisdictions where you know parcels were sold to um folks with intention of affordable housing say and and with no timelines attached and and nothing's happened right so the goals are not being met because there's no uh considerations in place on time is that something that's included in the annexation agreement um or something that you would consider as related to validating the fiscal impact analysis that's a great question um and probably to should be explored quite a bit more in the fiscal impact analysis piece of this puzzle um I'm not aware of any very long-term kind of timing uh that's associated with uh annexation agreements there are some that basically say in the first six months you have to do this and you you need to do that and the only way that the city has actually to um to enforce that is through uh bond assurances or something like that you need to put the money up and we need to know it's gonna occur if you doesn't if you don't do it like build that interchange or if you don't build that road connection in the first six months like you agree to we will take your money and do it ourselves so there are some fairly narrow issues and times when that's applied in an annexation agreement but the overall kind of you need to have two thousand houses developed by uh in 10 years the real problem with annexation agreements is that what if you don't you're gonna de-annex it you know probably not uh but it's the real structure the real structure the real important piece of that is to make sure that the city is insulated from any of that kind of uh negative impact.

So if you don't develop, we don't want the city on the hook for providing uh a water line or uh uh constructing a road or making that critical connection it it needs to be it needs to protect the city from having to invest if the if the development doesn't occur I think that's really been the way it's it's been used in the last 40 years um rather than the other way to say if you don't do this we're gonna de-annex you or something like that.

I don't recall any instance like that.

Did somebody we have agenda.

Oh I was just gonna point out that if we do set that kind of a standard in there then it almost would require annexation to mean growth ironically but right now the way that annexations have worked while I've been on the commission is that everything comes in to a sort of dumping zoning classification and agricultural.

And then something else and um it it gets rezoned thereafter and I imagine that has a big impact on the fiscal impacts that you're trying to evaluate and the sort of requirements that would even go into an agreement where you're trying to put a developer parcel owner who's being annexed on the hook for particular provisions like that.

Are we going to continue with this annex CLS annexing and bringing things in as agriculture initially and not designating a use zone.

I don't think that occurs actually what what the zoning doesn't occur but the actual land use designations do occur.

So you have to uh submit an annexation except for very small parcels I think uh you have to actually have a land plan along with it otherwise we can't we won't be able to assess the the uh fiscal impact or anything else so I think there is a requirement uh that you have a land a land plan associated with your with your annexation okay I may be thinking of that I you know I I've got the same question now so I I don't have the answer to that but I've never seen an annexation of any significant piece of property that hasn't had a land plan associated with it.

Old chapter seven annexations or something I think what you're thinking of is that uh especially with large really large pieces of property um when the property's annexed you don't know exactly the legal description of the where the road is going to go and so in order to allow some of that flexibility you put it in what they call a holding zone an A zone for example and you basically say generally this is going to be multifamily like what you just did with um uh banning Lewis and what you end up doing is uh letting the development occur and the engineering to occur and the planning to occur to the next level and then you know where the road's gonna go so therefore you know where the boundary of the uh single family or the multifamily or the commercial properties ought to go.

Uh it it was it was incredible I I believe this is Kevin Walker's opinion that part of the rationale for part of part of the reason that banning Lewis didn't develop is that they did every single land use was legally described and zoned and so we've got pieces of property out there that have been defined as commercial you know basically a five acre commercial property uh four miles from the nearest development and so I think that that makes that the the uh bringing together of landowners or what I forget the word for that but it was basically trying to aggregate land in order to make an efficient development because you've got when you buy you you've got for sale the five acres 5.25 acres of commercial property that really ought to be residential or maybe half of it should be commercial and half of it should be residential.

And so I think that's what you're referring to a little bit and I guess the A zone is what I was referring to.

So the land use statement is what's going to fool the development or fuel the development of the fiscal impact and the annexation agreement conditions or circumstances.

Yeah they all work together, and I think that's why you can't really have a major annexation without a major land use plan of some sort, but the major land use plan should not say it's 5.25 acres of commercial right there.

It should say five acres commercial location here.

So going forward zone it later whenever you get whenever you figure out where the road really needs to go.

But going forward, we'll continue to use a holding zone and just pay attention to the land use plan as the thing that informs those other elements of the review.

Yes.

Thank you.

Sorry, I got word of you.

Could have just said yes.

My apologies.

This is just basically the same kind of stuff.

Annexation is not urban development.

It's meant to be a balanced approach.

It's not prescriptive.

It allows the markets to um to respond to land uses and property owners to respond to land use markets.

It's operational, it's not aspirational.

We're not trying to tell you we only want to annex commercial property.

We don't want to annex any multifamily property.

This is just this is how you want to do it.

If you want to do something, this is how we're going to assess that.

And we don't we are we are not being prescriptive in terms of our proposals.

It does recognize the value of annexing enclaves.

I think we actually are kind of pushing the language a little bit to say the city ought to consider possible uh annexation of enclaves on its own on a case-by-case basis.

So it's allowing a little bit more aggressiveness in the city looking at annexing enclaves.

Um it it's again still the private property owners' decisions on timing and land use.

It encourages urban growth in municipalities, not in unincorporated uh El Paso County.

Um, and so we're uh we're trying to balance this question of we don't want to annex anything with the question of well, maybe we don't really want an urban development occurring on our border either.

And so it's it's trying to allow um the assessment of that question um based on uh based on uh actual things that are happening in the market.

And so uh I I think that's one of the primary goals that we're trying to accomplish.

It allows still for special considerations again.

We've talked about those, um, and it's recognizing that substantial growth inside the city limits can still occur on in with strategic infilling, uh, which you hear all the time about infill properties.

It's probably the number one reason you're here, uh the number one item that you hear is discussions around infill.

Um, and uh, but we also still have again a large amount of vacant land uh and growth uh can occur in that vacant land as well.

So we're not desperately trying to annex, uh we will be strategic about our annexations.

Uh the implementation of this particular policy will have uh associated with it a model annexation report and a checklist.

So we talked about that.

That's something we will develop after this policy is developed uh or adopted uh a fiscal impact analysis framework and model and an update of the current IGAs.

So those are those are the three sort of most important pieces of the puzzle that once we've adopted this, we can move forward with some of those other more implementation matters.

Um we want to make sure that we update, we we keep annex COS updated with the county's plans for uh land outside of the city limits.

Um again, we we we should we should be doing some more enclave inventory, updating our inventory of that.

Hasn't been done in a few years.

Um we want to uh really do try to make this an annual three-mile update as opposed to not.

Um, and then um consistently annex uh every every few years go back and and take a look at this policy and see if it's doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Regarding these actions, I did want to notify you that there's a it appears to be a typo in action 6.3, it's number seven on page three-three of annex COS regarding the annual three mile plan update, or it's just out of order one or the other.

Not sure if it should just be sorted differently, nonetheless.

I know annual feels very frequent, and it's also listed in annex COS that we'll do the biannual review of annex COS.

Will that be done before this commission, or will that be done by staff and submitted in a report to council?

What does that implementation look like?

Uh the answer to your question is yes.

I I'd a good one.

I think I think we have to assess those on a uh, you know, on a case by case basis, whether it's worth your time or like whether it would be an annual hearing or an annual piece of paper.

I don't think it's required.

It the the state statute is not uh it does not specifically say it has to be adopted by city council or it has to be adopted by your planning commission.

It doesn't prescribe the way you do your annual update.

So I think that's kind of up to us.

Um I think if we are doing an annual update, it certainly should be on somebody's uh uh agenda to say this is what we just did, whether we have a hearing about it or not, if there's no change, if there's not sort of any even annexations that have occurred, uh, you know, perhaps we don't need to waste everybody's time, but so there's nothing prescribed in there.

Okay, I wasn't sure if it had to be on the record that we said there were no annexations in the last year, therefore this did not change the end.

Yeah, or what I think I don't have I don't we don't have a prescription for that, so I think it's on a case by case basis.

I've really love certainty, that's all.

Kevin, do we have a list of all the enclaves in general that are potentially looking to maybe be annexed within the city?

If we're thinking about smart actual goals for this update of the plan, I think that's important.

There was a really good comprehensive look at that.

Uh I don't know, maybe 10 years ago or so, and so we have a report that has a lot of information on each one of those enclaves.

We just need to update it, uh, but it hasn't been updated.

So here's some of the responses from uh the last couple of weeks of online survey.

223 responses.

Uh the summary is that the greatest importance is ensuring infrastructure capacity and fiscal sustainability.

Um I think you can read water into that pretty easily to say we have the adequate water to do that.

So that's an important aspect of of that.

Uh there's divided opinion regarding the overall annexation strategy, which means to me that I think we hit the right spot.

There are people who think we didn't go far enough.

There are people who think we went too far.

Um, and so in pure planner uh talk, that's like the best spot to be in, right?

We've had either managed to halfway please some people and halfway annoy others.

Um and so I I think that you know it's it's some it's some measure that uh uh that we're on both sides of that equation and and uh we'll continue to probably be.

Regarding the survey, um I wanted to just understand this was was this an online survey or was it a random sample survey?

No, it's an online survey, so and and it was advertised.

On Facebook or just on the city side, or boy, now you're I'll have to ask Sheila whether she knows that.

I'm sure she does know that, or knows the answer to that.

Um Sheila Booth Planning Department, it was advertised through our comms department and it made television um and print media, so we got a pretty good turnout.

As soon as those um newspapers went out, we got a big hit around that time.

Thanks.

That's really helpful, but um I did want to just the results looked right to me insofar as in my experience whenever anything is done around land use and planning, it's usually a pretty even split in the people that like a thing and don't like a thing in general.

Nonetheless, I did want to just state that there is likely a pretty significant selection bias and not in having a non-random sample um accessibility to it and uh likely demographic SKU that's not documentable.

So while I think these are these look like fairly realistic numbers on the surface, I'm probably when reviewing this item on the agenda not going to weight the survey results as heavily as I would a more statistically significant sampling.

Point taken.

Uh top three considerations there.

This this was more so uh a survey of their um reading of the draft, not uh their not are they pro more of a comment than a survey.

I'll I'll just clarify that.

Yeah, that's helpful context.

Top three, um obviously ensuring adequate infrastructure and utility capacity.

Again, read water there, um maintaining fiscal sustainability and balancing all the priorities.

So those were those were the three most um most stated uh comments.

So while it's not statistically valid potentially, it it was it was designed really to make sure that everybody still had a chance to comment.

Uh and if there were there were actually a couple of specific uh, you know, like a typos and some other couple of things that came through uh that said uh we should probably make sure your word choice is correct there.

So anyway, so we did we did do that, and it's been completed.

It's just another another piece of information, making sure that as much as we can.

We're listening to um the folks out there.

I do really though actually appreciate you giving that opportunity for people to comment and be heard.

It is I do appreciate the residents who took the time to do that.

Um I just the way that I'm gonna wait it is the only thing it does matter to me what is expressed.

Yeah, and again, that's part part of part of the emphasis that I've talked about in terms of annexation not meaning growth or urban development, has has come from this sort of on this sense that folks are equating the two together.

And and while it it seems like it's splitting hairs a little bit, uh it's important for the city to have a policy regarding annexation as to how we how we grow how we grow our boundaries so that when property owners, and it's important for property owners to know too, because uh they they need to decide if they're they're ready to move their property into development, what where's the best place for us to do that and and what what what's the right way to do this?

And so I think it's important to get a policy in place, even if it's not perfect and even if it's not prescriptive.

Um you can we can take a look at these kinds of things.

It's it's uh um it's again just similar questions and and answers.

I know you've had the chance to ask me as many questions as you can.

Um I'm open to answering any more.

So thank you for consideration.

Thanks for your guys' patience around this.

Um this I know has been going on at least five years, and uh, and and I think we're trying, we're getting close to the finish line again of a just a piece of the puzzle.

It's not it's not the be all and end all, but it is an important piece that I think we should accomplish.

How often does all of NXCOS need to be reviewed or redone?

Not every 20 years.

How about that?

Um I think we we said in I think we said two years um that we take a look at it, whether it needs to be redone, you know, that uh in this kind of environment, every two years you have an election and the world changes.

Um and so I think that uh it it's basically on an as needed basis.

I guess I just want to comment that um as one of the as the last remaining commissioner liaison to the process.

Um part of the length and duration.

I I guess I want to commend you on light of circumstances around annexations, public sentiment, votes, things that occurred.

Um I think you did a good job at responding to um the voice of the people and the citizens, um and and some of their opinions on annexations that came through.

So there was right that the length of time taken to produce the document uh directly correlated to I think a big changing course that was um intended, and I think is actualizing being responsive to sentiment around these issues thank you yeah I concur thank you for guys for the team and Sheila and Kevin and your teams for all the work because that was a big pivot I think we saw a big kind of sea change um at least vocally and in the ballot if you will in the last couple of years which really shifted probably a lot of the direction but I agree um the other comments so far that I think that this and your commentary as well Kevin that this provides a framework at which everyone understands the playing field and it's not aspirational and it's not saying here's where we're gonna go grab land and I think that it really helps um dispel some of those concerns that maybe the public has or that certain um kind of groups or mindsets out there and creates a framework that we can all work with and we can all understand and have a level playing field so um well done my comments commissioner Robinson I just want to say uh I'm amazed about the amount of work that is put into this and I know that uh you're never gonna get everybody to agree on a framework uh period but it trying to get the answers from everybody and put it together and and uh work from the best results that you get that's what I really think you guys did a heck of a job so I really appreciate that can't wait to get my hands on a copy of the finished product yeah me too thank you um overall I just I want to really emphasize that the probably the most important criteria in me um wanting to move this forward is that I think it does a very good job of implementing the goals and policies of plan COS and remaining consistent with those including the housing point that I brought up earlier it appears to be a very logical approach that prioritizes the enclaves but doesn't try to over extend the uh three mile boundary potential and that it emphasizes the interplay both with fiscal responsibility and the CSU utilities infrastructure in a way that I do find responsive to the public feedback we've received.

Thank you.

Any other comments from any other commissioners or questions for that matter for Kevin or for Sheila in that case I might want to ask Commissioner Slattery to make a motion.

It might be one of your last ones you worked extensively on this plan so if you are so inclined um and congratulations to Sheila too with the heavy lift um I will I will add to that I would like to propose a motion on item eight Q and PLN dash 26-300 two annex COS I would recommend approval to city council the adoption of annex COS the 2026 annexation plan for the city of Colorado Springs based upon the finding that the proposed that the proposal complies with city code chapter seven section 7.5 point seven zero six and serves at the three mile plan as required by CRS 31-12-1051 events I second this commissioner engel second the motion I think you were beaten to the punch yeah commissioner clear is I seconded thank you very much gentlemen actually that motion is not the over was Commissioner Slater.

Thank you the motion passes unanimously.

And with that, Annex COS moves on to City Council.

And our commit yes, yes, let's have a moment for that.

And our hearing is concluded.