City Planning Commission - workshop

All right, we'll go ahead and get started. I just want to reiterate what staff just said that attendees participating by phone, please keep yourselves muted. And please note that this is a work session only and that we do not take any public comment nor any official actions during our work session. So we will not be calling on anyone and we will not be taking any public comments. So please remain muted. I guess that also kind of goes into my communications. HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK AND UPCOMING 4TH OF JULY. HAPPY 251.50. WORLD CUP WIN LAST NIGHT. SO LOTS OF EXCITING THINGS. I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT THIS IS COMMISSIONER SLATTERY'S LAST WORK SET. No, honestly, you've been such a great mentor to me and I think to many others on this commission. You've been a longstanding and well-serving member, and I'm really sad to see you go.

But onward. Onward. Onward. Term limits. Term limits. Yeah. And we can try to pass some of the data.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you again for everything. And then also welcome to our new commissioners. I think Kevin and I both talked about that last meeting, but Aaron Egbert will be our new voting member. He'll start in August after Andrea's term. And then Daniel Way is also an alternate. I don't think it's either here. And then Henry Wright-Wiesner, who is here with us today, as our second alternate. So I think we've got a full agenda and lots to talk about. So... Kevin, I'll give it to you for communications.

Yes, the City Council took the second meeting in June off, so there's not a lot of new items to communicate from City Council. They are having a number of items that they are going to be hearing in the next few months, ADUs, which we'll be talking about, Southeast Strong, and a variety of other fairly budget issues that they'll be taking on for fall. Other than that, I don't really have any other communications. We will not be issuing any yellow or red cards. And there's no video review.

Well, too bad that there's not video review. Because we've changed our rules on work session, I was just informed we have to do our roll call, which I forgot because we did not have to do that previous. Solange, if you will do the roll call.

Commissioner Slattery? Here. Sorry, Chair Hensler.

Here. Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Commissioner Wilby. Here. Commissioner Engel.

Here.

Commissioner Gase.

Here online.

Hi, guys. Here. Commissioner Clements.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Here online. Thank you. We have nine members present. Thank you. And my apologies for forgetting to leave. Thank you, Chair. Okay, anything else on communications?

Yeah.

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

Hello. Oh, me.

We're in a different spot. Moving quickly. Yeah, this will be quick.

All right, good morning, commissioners carry shot planner to with the land use review. This is a conditional use application for property located above airport road. So we are just north of Colorado Springs Airport west of Peterson space for space south of class piece of hours. The existing zoning is a PD so airport airport plan development zone with airport stream side overlay and accident potential zone one and runway protection so. Can you change this slide oh you did sorry no you didn't say like it's like Okay, thank you um. So the conditional use is to allow for warehousing, wholesaling with office accessory and light industry uses within the stream site overlay. So these are permitted uses within the designated zone districts, but because they're within stream side, they're conditional, hence this application. All stream side review criteria were reviewed in that and details can be found in your packet. There is a concurrent development plan application currently under review. And overall, the proposed uses are found to be consistent with airport master plan and existing development patterns in the area. So all agencies did review the application and they had no issues with the proposed uses. With the exception of Space Force, we did get two comments of concern for consideration. They're outlined in your packet, but basically one is being the site's proximity to potential aircraft operation risks as well as the potential for introducing hazardous wildlife attractants within active airspace. We received no neighbor comments and with the public notice and we currently have this on consent.

Any questions? Yeah, OK, thank you. Wow.

This application is a non-use variance for parking for a future restaurant use at 2001 West Colorado Avenue. The property zone MXM is 3600 square feet of size. and it is an existing single family home with a detached garage. So next slide. This is kind of a us in the context map of the neighborhood. You can see the site in this location here. Colorado Avenue is MXN for a big stretch. It is mixed use in its land uses. Next slide. Here is just a close in view of the properties. You see the single family home that exists here and the garage got a street view of 20th street or the intersection of 20th and Colorado, and then a street view looking back toward Colorado with the site on your left. So the future plan for this property is to convert that single family home to a restaurant. So next slide. So that brings us to why we're here. So we are, they have applied for a variance to allow for one off-street parking space when seven parking spaces are provided. I will note that this project will require a development plan. So in order to convert from the residential use to the commercial use, a development plan is required. property is mainly being considered for variance because of its small size. So it is a physical condition that is a limiting factor for this property to meet parking standards and maybe even other standards. We did provide direction to the applicant at the time of pre-application that it would be better for them to pursue this parking variance prior to putting time and effort and money into a development plan. And that is one last thing I did as I this project was initially reviewed as the staff report was written, we had received no public comment except for a phone call. But I did receive a public comment the other morning, in opposition of the department of variance just generally opposed to um not that the applicant should just meet the parking requirements and not ask for it i think that's it okay bill i just have one question what other parking would there be for that facility is it going to be around the garage they take out the garage yeah so the garage existing garage sits here The existing garage sits in this location. There is a driveway out to 20th, so the garage would be taken down. Their plan is to provide the off-street parking as an accessible space and then take advantage of whatever on-street credits or parking reductions that they need. How many spots do they think are going to be there? There are eight adjacent parking spaces between the front and the side property line. In general, there is on-street parking that is allowed throughout these adjacent neighborhoods to West Colorado. You better get away from that thing.

Are there more specific questions that you have that you would want to pull this from consent? Or are we in agreement, can stay on consent just since you have questions?

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. 7.52 for ladies.

Oh, you know what I didn't ask? What kind of restaurant is it? I mean, am I going to get tacos? I'm just kidding.

I think it's French cuisine.

Oh, La Kitchen, right?

La Kitchen, yeah.

Sorry, I'm not going to pull consent for that.

Sorry, Drew.

I know it's not nearly as exciting as what cuisine are we going to have for lunch, but...

Good morning, everybody. Drew Fox, planner to the City of Colorado Springs. Today we're talking about a project at 752 Clark Place. Private name is 752 Clark Place LLC. They are requesting a conditional use permit approval with a land use statement to allow for heavy vehicle storage on this lot. The lot is zoned BPSSAPOAPZ-2, which is business park with stream side overlay airport overlay, and an accident potential zone 2. The use for heavy vehicle storage is permitted in the BP, conditional in the streamside overlay, permitted in the airport overlay, and permitted in the accident potential zone 2. The site area is 2.29 acres in size, and the southwest galley and road. Before we move to the next slide, this whole area is probably the same development plan that was originally approved to allow for office and warehousing pretty much across the board. So there's five lots included in the same development plan and they all permit warehouse office. I bring that up because aside from the heavy vehicle storage, they're also bringing it warehouse use, office use, and outdoor storage use. The outdoor storage use is also only permitted conditionally in the streamside overlay, but that was already approved under prior conditional approval. Keep going to the next slide.

Wait, say that again. So this particular or the whole development, including this particular is already approved for storage?

Or outdoor storage, not the heavy vehicles.

Like the property next door that has all the RV storage, for example.

Yeah, so that wouldn't be heavy vehicle storage. That'd be light vehicle storage, but I don't know what...

But it's outdoor storage next door, and the whole thing is allowed for outdoor storage.

heavy vehicles the new ones the heavy vehicle is the new one i'm not sure if the rest of the sites were approved for outdoor storage or not this is one in particular points are there protections in place for i'm guessing this condition on the stream side for you know oil leaks or things like that are there other requirements that would need to be met in order to that condition

There's no specific requirement. The buffer zones attached to the stream side. The intent of those buffers is to push uses further away from the site, given that having vehicle storage could potentially result in some form of. It could be more impactful than other uses that are otherwise permitted. We have requested on the associated development plan review. to add a note, a conditional note, a general note that any leakage of pollutants, they need to refrain from allowing for any leakage of pollutants and that the vehicles need to be stored empty. And to get more specific into this heavy vehicle storage, it is to support waste and recycling operations. These These trucks are only going to be stored there. They're not bringing in any waste that's going to go to a transfer facility. These are just to store their vehicle personnel and waste bins and stuff. So we have requested that those items are on site. I'm not exactly sure if there's any specific use regulations in the stream side overlay section that particular use of certain things.

A spare trash truck or something? Is that what you're saying?

A spare trash truck? Yeah. They're a fleet, so they're going to go out and do what they need to do. Grab, you know, transfer waste around the city. They keep them here overnight.

Empty from trash or empty from fluids?

We'll do that later. They're just trying to push them to make sure that they keep a clean environment on the site. But Allison Stocker, our stream side reviewer, didn't fall out in specific standards and code that address this specific problem. We've gone over the allowance of heavy vehicle storage and the operations that we're proposing. Next slide. This is their land suitability analysis. This is to show you that the buffers extend out to where they have an existing fence, so they are keeping the use outside of the buffers. The reason that this is triggered is because the lot itself is subject to stream side, but they are keeping the use out of the buffer areas and stored on impervious surface. So yeah, there's an associated development plan, minor modification under review. They have also requested an administrative adjustment to the fence height because the fence height is six feet and seven feet is what's required. But the fence was approved at six feet with the original development plan.

So yeah, the fence goes from, they have a gate up here.

So the fence comes from the gate all the way down. across the site and then follows the remaining for the site.

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

No condition of record. The outdoor storage, which is a different use than heavy vehicle storage, was already permitted under the previous approvals for this site. While it is only allowable conditionally, that outdoor storage component has already been approved.

But yours, it was the empty, the empty.

Oh, our note that we requested, yeah, that they store vehicles and their containers free of leakage and remain empty when stored outside.

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

I'M OKAY WITH THAT ON CONSENT, BUT IF ANYONE ELSE HAS... OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. CARL, MOLONE, HALARIS, VICE PRESIDENT GARLAND.

ELLISON GOT A HEARCUT.

Allison got here. So Allison is out today, so I'm just covering this for her. Yes, we have a conditional use application with a concurrent land use statement. The request for this property at 1883 Shelton Rd is for automobile light vehicle sales and rental of automobiles and light vehicle repair as well as outdoor display of goods. So OHVs, ATVs, things of that sort fall under our light vehicle category of equipment and vehicles per code. This is a new location for this operator. The site currently has auto tinting as a functionality or use within the space, but they will replace that. There is an anticipated minor modification for The user that will actually cover both this site and there in the negotiations for the adjacent parcel to put some some accessory parking or storage of vehicles on that adjacent site, but it does not impact the conditional use request that you have before you today or I should say next week. We did send out gonna do the next slide. Yeah, so here's kind of a depiction the plan which really is just reinforcing what exists today on site and how its functionality will be used um next slide oh no go back slide never mind okay i thought we had another one um but what we have is so for this project we did send out 151 uh public notice postcards posted the site uh according to code no comments were received there's no real issues SO I CAN RELAY TO HOUSE.

ALL RIGHT. 5325 MARK DEVLIN. CHRIS SULLIVAN, I THOUGHT I SAW YOU COME IN.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

CHRIS SULLIVAN, SENIOR PLANNER LANGUAGE REVIEW DIVISION.

The application before you today is a zone map amendment, specifically a rezone of a property located at 5325 Mark Gatling Boulevard. The site's located generally, as you can see on the aerial map, just south of I-25 and west of Nevada. This appears to be a vacant site, but it's not. There's an existing office building, which is part of a larger complex with adjacent property to the north. The request is to go from MXN to MXN SSO, which is mixed-use neighborhood with streamside overlay to mixed-use median scaling. Streamside maintaining the streamside. Site's five, just under five and a half acres. And the proposal is so this is supported by land use statement. The proposal is to more or less re-approve what was previously approved. So prior to the current code, there was a zone change to OC and a land use concept plan that was approved with it to allow for multifamily use. The conversion to new code basically It doesn't support what they had previously. So MXM stipulations on how many units per building you can have, and their previous proposal was roughly 50 units in a single structure. So that's partially why they're going to MXM. They also want the flexibility of MXM to allow some of the other previously proposed uses that were identified for this site, specifically RV, recreational camping kind of thing, So that's the request. Next slide. Okay. The site's currently surrounded by BP. Most of the usage you'll see surrounding the site is mostly office. And in the south, you've got a creek that extends all the way across. And then behind that, you've got additional multifamily and then it gets really mixed toward

So it was MX and OC and then with this UDC change it became MXN. That's correct. But was everything around it like originated it or has began as business part?

That's correct. So it was originally business with the rest of the piece.

So why did it? Yeah, changed differently than the rest of the BP. If everything was OC and lots of it became BP, why did this not go to BP?

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

Oh, I see. So it was on a little island.

Yeah, there was a previous plan. That's why it looks the way it does now.

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

Okay. went through several rounds of review. No significant comments. No public comment. I did receive a call, though, from the tenant of the existing office building. And it was not in favor or against the application. It was more of, I didn't know this was happening. I would like to know if I need to move or find a new location. Other than that... Yeah, I don't think there's much to talk about here. It is a consent item, but see a different, you guys.

Come on.

Any questions on that one? Nope. Just for the record, everything went to MXN that was hosting previously, right?

Yeah, MXN and Thorpe, two zone districts, and I don't remember the other one.

Sounds good.

Let us stand. All right, what is next? Are you up here again? Buckingham Industrial Zone?

Okay. So Buckingham Industrial. So this is a request to do a zone map amendment yet again. Specifically a rezone. The existing site is 7.8 acres located southeast of Garden of the Gods Boulevard and Centennial. And this is Buckingham Drive right here. It's completely comprised of industrial-type uses, light industrial, so warehouses, offices, with some outdoor storage, commercial, more on the frontages of the major roadways. The request here is to go from BP CR, which is Business Park with Condition of Record, to LI with Conditions of Record. Site includes... five parcels. There's been, as you can probably see in my report, or once you review it, there's been a lot of different requests to do development in this little pocket. Most of those requests revolve around office warehouse. There was one request for light vehicle storage. And then there was another request kind of in the northwest corner, or some sort of a gem use. The request here with the LI, the intent is to allow for the biggest mix of allowable uses. Obviously nothing has happened since there's been several proposals here. So there hasn't been a lot of, there hasn't been any approved development that's occurred. The conditions of record are specifically related to the property south of the site. There are residential uses that directly affect this property. So what happens here could potentially impact those property owners. Based on the conversations with the applicant, they want to do office warehouse. They want to allow for vehicle type uses such as storage and some related uses within that category. The conditions of record are to limit certain uses that may impact the neighborhood. They've identified some housing uses, some uses related to marijuana use.

We have other instances of light industrial adjacent to single-family homes?

I would say most of those are historic or conversions, but I don't have any specific instances that I can give you.

This one might be worth having a hearing on.

Sure. So just to give you those other ones, so industrial hemp, marijuana-related services, natural medicines, kennels, Household living, group living related, all of those is what's being requested to restrict to. Anything else within the light industrial that is more intense, the applicant is identified as being a conditional use. And so that already has to go through a higher level review by .

And I'm trying to pull up the use tables, but maybe you can just tell me where we decided to pull it. all of the things that would be allowed in the business park also allowed in the light industrial, but what's allowed in light industrial is not allowed in business park?

I would say for the most part, yes. Okay. So there's going to be permitted uses in the business park. Those are going to remain being permitted in the LI. There's conditional use items in the business park. Some of those get converted to permitted uses in the LI. And then there's obviously some conditional uses in the LI.

Yeah. Okay. I'll review the use table further, but I was trying to pull it up and I'm not that quick at getting into that. So, okay.

I want to make sure I understand. There has been a few comments in this, on this application specifically from not the residential properties, but the commercial and industrial properties adjacent to the site. Mostly related to type of use, intensity of use. They don't want the, which happens here to affect their business.

They don't want a competitor.

I can't say that.

The zoning code does not have the ability to enforce that.

But I am surprised to not have any comments from the residential uses to the south.

Yeah, because that's Holland Park just to the south. Yeah.

I'm seeing a request that maybe we'll pull this one for a hearing.

Sounds good. Yes, but so that you can let the applicant know, give that. And you know, one thing, any other questions for Chris? Sorry. Okay. Unless you're up here again.

There was also, and I think it's a different property where there was like G lights, other thing near on the other side of bird dog. There was a blind lady who that was a multifamily.

And I think the chief issue on that one was, or that we spent a lot of time on was access to a walk-through path to get to the parking. Well, there was several things, but specific to the...

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

Not that I'm aware of yet.

I don't think it goes through the same side.

And it looks like there's some social trails that maybe have been created along that side, but not in the same way.

You're talking about along the south side of the property? I think those, so those actually match what's on the current plan. There's a driveway easement that extends all the way around the south.

Oh yeah, it is. My map was turned the other direction. I was looking at straight view. Yeah, okay. So we will, yeah, we will pull that one. That just reminds me too, I think I know in the last hearing and I'm sure some of these two folks will want to get into the particulars of the code or the particulars of the use tables. So if you have specific questions that are specific about areas of the code or of the land use or the use code use table, and you know that you're going to ask those in advance, maybe send them to staff in advance so they can be a little bit prepared just so that when it's hard in the moment to find it in the use table, for example, even for me. So just a reminder for us to send those in advance if you have questions. Okay, Gally, am I in the right place here? Yes, Gally Rose, Conditional Use. Bring us home on the consent agenda group.

So the request on this application is a conditional use of language statement. Just so you're aware, there are subsequent applications for development plan and subdivision plan in review administratively, assuming this gets approved. The property is located at 4725 Galley Road. We're off the southwest corner of Galley and Wooten. As you can see, there's yet again another mix of uses. split by galley road on the north side, you've got a lot of residential and on the south, you've got a lot of commercial, industrial with outdoor storage. The existing zoning here is business park, stream side overlay, airport overlay, accident potential subzone overlay too. So there are quite a bit of overlay reviewers included on this application between the airport Streamside. The intent here is to do office light industry warehouse outdoor storage. In the BP, all those uses are permitted. This is kind of similar to. The shots application and Mr Fox's application where it's adjacent to Streamside and Streamside calls all of these uses conditional. which is why this application is before you today. Next slide. As previously noted, there are other applications under review for this site to establish these uses assuming this gets approved. This went through several rounds of review to kind of define the use a little bit more because it was a little bit confusing at first. However, we do believe we've got the right uses locked down on the site. This did go from several rounds of review via our agencies. Most particularly, airport didn't have anything specific to say here. Just making sure that it has the appropriate easements and that those are established by PLAT if they aren't already established. Additionally, this was sent out to Peterson. Peterson has put out the comment that this is located within that overlay and it does affect their operation via potential wildlife attractants. This is something we've seen a lot of lately. However, they did not have the same concern. From the stream side reviewer, the only comments that were received on this application is that If there are any hazardous materials, there will be a restriction placed on the development plan limiting the sort of storage of hazardous materials on site to alleviate an affected stream system. Other than that, no significant public comment here. Actually, no public comment on this site. There is an intent to section off a piece of the property to give to the city related to the stream side, specifically to Swindon.

As an easement? As an easement or?

As a gift needed. And yeah, I think that's all I've got for you.

Any questions on this one?

Yes.

all right i think that brings us to the end of our consent agenda and chris's full-time presentation all right moving on to new business tomorrow you're ready for the next hour and a half of your life all right um more about steward appointing supervisors

So before you are two items in the same location, the first one is Banning Woods Village B2. So this property is located out east past Banning Woods Village Road, just north of the future extension of Dublin. The current zoning is a plethora of variety of zoning. What they're proposing to zone to is PDZ with airport overlay and streamside overlay. for a portion of the property and then MXM with airport overlay and stream site overlay. And I'll show you on the site plan the difference of the two zoning. The entire property is about 511 acres. What's being proposed out there is residential and commercial. Just a caveat on the applications before you for this one. This was reviewed under the previous chapter seven. So the applications under review will be master plan major amendment, PDZ concept plan, PDZ zone change, concept plan and zone change. And there's actually a road vacation as well, a right away vacation. Next slide. I've got a few more slides. The master plan is to revise the previous land use designations to establish primary residential development and commercial opportunities. The PDZ zone change in the concept plan is for a low, medium density residential. And the zone change in concept plan is for commercial. And then there is a right-of-way vacation. The reason this is under Chapter 7 was this was geared up to go to Planning Commission in March of 2024. The applicant, which is Oakwood, decided to postpone this application until they could bring in Banning Lewis Village C and some of it is tied to the Parkland dedication and the public comments they received during the village V2. Next slide. So this is the proposed master plan. This is the existing one to the left here, and this is what they're proposing to amend to. Next slide. So the commercial zone change is for this 9.3 acres down here on the corner of Banning Lewis Ranch and the future extension of Dublin. It's 9.3 acres. They're rezoning it to MXM, Airport Overlay, and Streamside Overlay. And this is probably one of the three commercial sites along Dublin, east of Markshamle. Next slide. The remaining of the property is 502 acres. This is the property or the area of the property that's being rezoned to PDZ for single family residential attached and detached products. The density range is going to be 3.55 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre. They're proposing a school site which is in purple right here. And there are two future neighborhood parks that are in green.

I think there's one more slide. No, there isn't.

In regards to public comments. So we did receive public comment. There were six of them during the initial review. I realized that I do have additional 12 that came in after our neighborhood meeting. So they did have a neighborhood meeting back in December of, I want to say 2023. That was very well attended. I would say there were probably about 100 people at that meeting. But we didn't, in regards to written comments, there were only 18 written comments that we received. And we'll get those additional comments to you. There was a second neighborhood meeting, and we'll touch on that with Village C, but that was in September of 2025. Village B2 was discussed, but it was really more of the status of that project and where they were. And then that meeting was primarily for Village C. And that's all I have.

Questions for Tamara on this one?

Were the comments from residents to the east to the west excluded?

Comments were from the, yeah, from the residents to the west. Some of them were actually north of Woodman. So they were really kind of in that whole area. The neighborhood meeting, there was a resident that lived north of Woodman that had a lot of concerns about just the future development of Banning Lewis in general. And thus there was, the neighborhood meeting was well attended.

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

the housing density is similar um to the what is being proposed with this development so for most of oakwood holdings out in this area they're in that density range because the rest of it banning lewis isn't pdz isn't it um all the other holdings are pdz um i think to the south like free freestyle and Other ones, kind of in the Banning Lewis area to the south, I think they're going to more of a conventional zone.

More of XM.

Yeah. But for the area north of anything, well, north of Dublin, we've got East Kerr, those are PDZ.

Do you have a color-coded... zone map of the other states.

I think Oakland will have that presentation and all the other versions that they have.

I think that, you know, we've seen a few of these, especially as this area, right, was annexed so long ago, has been master planned, but 20 years has passed or whatever it's been in some cases, a number of years, that now we're kind of revisiting some of these plans. So I think that context of how planning master planning and planning changes over time before implementation, maybe whether that's for you to speak to some degree or the applicant, just so that our commission and our constituents understand. Yeah, the history is the context of how planning works over a long period would be.

Yeah. Okay. And then you've got, We're going to have like five motions.

And then Banning Lewis Ranch Village C. This is C. So this is, so Banning Lewis Village B is to the north up here. So this is everything south of Dublin to Stetson Road. It goes all the way up to 24 and just east of Banning Lewis. Well, it's actually east of Village A. And to answer your question, this is PDC here. I'm really into it. So there are a number of applications with this one. What's being proposed is, so master plan and concept plan, as you're aware, with the UDC change, the same land use plan. So with this one, there's a land use plan, two zone changes and a right-of-way vacation. And this one we've reviewed under UDC. The zone changes are for our flex medium. So for this one, And as a result of the artifacts, medium zone district, there are some accompanying development standard adjustments. And then also they're proposing an MXM zone district up to kind of the east. Next slide. So this is kind of more of a color rendering of the land use plan. The entire property for Village C is 658 acres. It is primarily residential with some commercial development, and the commercial development will be closer to Highway 24. There are four neighborhood parks in this village, and then there is one community park. Just so you're aware, the Parks Department will be at the meeting next week to further discuss the park obligation for both, for all of Oakwood Holdings in addition to Village B2 and C. There is a 50-foot wide corridor for the Rock Island Trail that's kind of in the middle here with the red. There are two sites, school sites. There's one here, which is a PK-8 and then a high school site. And then there's a public safety site for a future fire station.

Slide here.

So with regards to the RFlex zoning, the primary area is shown in blue. So this consists of 546 acres. Primarily, this will be residential development. And to accommodate the RFlex conventional zoning, there are the development standards adjustment. And the reason for that is when the UDC, when there was a change in the UDC, Under the eligibility for rezoning to PDC, it is encouraged that developments rezone to a conventional zoning along with any kind of allowable tools for flexibility. So primarily the development standards adjustments that are being requested would be allowed under the PDC zoning. So basically it's the same product in Village B2 that's going to be in Village C, but with the RFlex. they have to do the development standard congestion.

Next slide.

The other area adjacent to Highway 24 is 111 acres and this is being rezoned or proposed to be rezoned to MXM. This will be primarily consisting of commercial and or residential and the proposed development will meet the development standards of the MXM zone district. So no dimension development standards adjustments are proposed for the MXM.

Next slide. Okay.

Oh, in regards to comments, sorry, I did only receive six public comments. We did have a neighborhood meeting back in December or September of 25.

Part of that because the adjacency is so much further on this one buffer. Was there less notification and just generally

Possibly. There's definitely been, I mean, the neighborhood meeting had about 60 people that showed up. A lot of them are more concerned with traffic in the area, in particular along Woodman. There was a traffic impact study that was reviewed by traffic engineering, and they'll also be at the meeting.

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

That is one of the development standards adjustment is to increase the density. So the density for our flex, if I recall right, is five to 16 dwelling units per acre. They're asking to go down to three units per acre, but maintain the maximum of 16.

Would that match the density to the north? I mean, would it

create a transition issue with the density to the north i know the applicants um prepare to discuss that during the meeting next week um it's similar in density it could allow for a higher density in this village um i don't think that's their their intent um and that's not their product type that they have on that area perfect community park the middle community party there

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

That is just open space. There's some wetlands in there. There's no development as proposed in that area. The power line is that there's a utility easement that goes right through the property right here. It's not zoned or anything.

Is that where the transmission lines are?

I'm not mistaken. I think it's underground.

I think it's underground. I think lots of good questions for next week.

Yeah, so the applicant is prepared to provide you a pretty extensive presentation next week.

Any other contextual questions, not specific questions?

OK, my my toe. So the open space is that part of the parks requirement credits? Does that contribute to that appeal?

Certain park obligations that kept on kind of getting pushed further east and now they're being addressed with the community.

But the open space is not part of that calculation. Not that I have seen.

but I will make sure that we, yeah, that's for sure. Understand.

Anything else? All right. Our last two items are the annex EOS update and then overview of the special appeal hearing on July 23rd. I think we're going to actually take this out of order and move to the special appeal hearing an administrative decision, and then wrap up our meeting with Annex COS.

So, Dan Sexton.

Yeah, so Dan Sexton, planning manager for LUR and DRE divisions of city planning. Today, I appreciate you guys taking the opportunity to kind of hear this in your work session here, kind of avoids another subsequent meeting before we will actually hold the appeal hearing. But just to give you some context for the upcoming appeal hearing on July 23rd, staff made an administrative decision on June 11th, which triggered a 10-day appeal period. At the last day of that appeal period, June 22nd, we had five appeals filed against this project. Four are individuals. One appeal has three primary appellants with an additional 26 listed co-appellants for the application. They all are for various reasons, hence why they're all moving forward as independent applications that you will all get to consider as part of that proceeding for the appeal here. So they're not being combined. They may combine their presentations, but still there are five separate appeal applications for the one administrative. Um, so to give you some context, we're looking at, uh, just shy of a 22 acre site. Uh, here at 1565 high-tech way. So this is just South, just for context, just South of West garden of the gods, right next to the El Paso county, uh, community or citizen center, uh, there where everybody goes to renew their driver's license and so forth. Um, we're about, uh, just over a mile from garden of the gods park, um, to the West. This site does contain some ancillary properties that were previously entitled with it, which is this large parking lot, which was previously entitled to support the employees that were previously working within that industrial manufacturing facility. And that goes back to kind of the early 2000s, and we'll say it's heyday. I don't want to get into too much details, but the current proposal that was approved administratively is for light industrial as a data center use. If you want to switch to the next slides launch. What you'll see is the developers proposing to utilize the existing building for their data center. There's a myriad of ancillary structures and equipment on site. that will largely be raised to support some equipment yards that will really house generators and chillers to support the data center use. From a dimensional standard and code standard, if we shift then to the next slide there, what we reviewed this against, you know, in addition to everything that's in code from a use perspective, is the the 7.5.5.16 , which is the major modification standards. So there's four of those that we looked at from an administrative decision. I will note in your consideration of the five appeals, you have the appeal criteria, which were really our weight against the administrative criteria. So bear that in mind as you're looking at the packets that we will be sharing with you hopefully in the next couple of weeks prior to the meeting. some important aspects to note uh through the administrative process um we did three different public notices um for that administrative application we will ultimately do another one prior to the appeal hearing um and well i'm sorry so total of three including the pub the the appeal hearing uh the first two were combined as neighborhood meeting public notices So we had two neighborhood meetings that were facilitated by the applicant for this project. The first one, which you may have read, well, both of them you may have read in the press. First one had around 400 people that attended. Unfortunately, due to capacity of the space for the meeting, the applicant agreed to host another neighborhood meeting, which had just over, or just around 600 people attend to gain information, to have feedback, I'll say constructive conversation on the project. All in total, outside of those neighborhood engagement efforts, I, as the staff planner taking it over from Austin Cooper here, who is out, we had just shy of a thousand public comments on this project. So bear in mind when you see this packet, because it will be inclusive of the administrative information that we received, is you're gonna see a lot of public comments. Since even the approval, we've probably obtained another 100 or so public comments. And across that spectrum, there's for and against arguments across the board.

You're going to organize those into a chart for us, right?

Sure. I'll work on that. I can synthesize what the high-level issues were during the public comment. We definitely did that. So we can provide that. But we do anticipate for this appeal hearing a significant, because of the significant interest in this project, we do anticipate, again, a fairly large community engagement through the hearing. Hence, we've kind of internally been working on some ground rules and procedures. We've been discussing with Chair Nadine Hensler here on the project, which you can go to the next slide. These are a modification of what you typically follow for your hearing. So we're kind of, we wanted to open that up for discussion with you all. And we've shared or shared this or been discussing this internally, but what we are proposing for you guys to kind of talk through today is we're looking at a 60-minute max for the appellants, as well as the applicant. We did denote, because we have so many appellants, the opportunity, because they would otherwise only have 12 minutes per appellant group, they have the ability to quote-unquote transfer, I'm not going to use the word seed, but transfer time to another appellant to have a larger opportunity to plead their kind of case. The applicant team will have an equivalent 60-minute time slot to present their information on the project. We'll open it up to public comment. It will be only our in-person comment. We're not gonna do virtual just because the logistics of trying to manage that volume and really understanding are the people that are jumping on that meeting within our community, our outsider community. So we're kind of trying to focus that. And we wanna give equal opportunity for people to participate. But it will be in person, public comment only. There will be no seating of time for other groups. So you come up to give public comment. You have your time slot. For those individual speakers, or I should say the arguments in favor or support of the appeals, we've proposed a cap of three hours per group. And each speaker will be limited to two minutes each. So if you do the math with three hours and two minutes each, if everybody took their two minutes, we're looking at 90 people that will get to speak on either side. If you really do your math from there, including all the rebuttals that the appellants and the applicant will have and any additional discussion you guys have, we are anticipating probably an eight to 10 hour hearing on July 3rd. So we encourage you to be prompt in your attendance. We will start off and we will go through. We are anticipating to need to take breaks in terms of lunch, potentially dinner, which we will make sure that there are the necessary accommodations for that. Any questions?

July 23rd. Sorry, sorry.

July 23rd.

Not tomorrow. Just because it always gets confusing.

So the public comment sections is opposition of the appeal.

And support would be supporting the appeals.

And I think we'll try to reiterate and clarify that as we go.

We'll strategically, I think we're working very closely with comms on how to kind of do that messaging because we will probably need to do that multiple times during the event.

Maybe articulate just outright on, you know, are you doing physical sign-up sheets then also?

We are going to be doing sign-in sheets when people enter the space for the hearing. given the heightened sense of interest as well as some concerns yeah uh there will be security uh at the space for the hearing uh we will be asking member of the public's to go through a security check when they enter the facility uh just for their safety and your safety um so

Deli numbers could be helpful or sorry. What's like a deli number like you're?

I mean, you're going to call names, but I yeah, we're we're we're working through those final logistics of the of the hearing. We actually have a walk through with a myriad of staff and departments next week with the facility manager, because this will not occur at the RDC. What's up? Yes, so we are going to be doing it at the End Center for the Arts. It will be in their large theater space because it has a capacity just shy of 800. So we should have ample room. We strategically decided to move the venue given the level of interest. We were really leery of having to cycle people out of the already appearing room, having people stand outside, especially with our current temperatures right now. That's kind of an unreasonable ask from the city's perspective for the public to participate in this conversation. So yes.

And it will still be televised and Facebook Live and all of that.

We are working through all those network pieces. So yes, we hope to have that capability for the public that choose not to attend in person to the comfort of their home or workspace to be able to listen in. Yes. Where is it located? It's at the End Center for the Arts. So this is up on UCCS, their campus right there across from University Village. So. Commissioner Cecil.

Thank you. I just wanted to check in on the allocation of time to the appellants that is proposed here. Are all of the appellants or appellant groups amenable to this or Have you received any pushback?

So to date, this information has not been shared with the appellants and applicants yet because we want to have broad consensus of this group to make sure there is confidence and understanding in that approach. Post this meeting, we will be sharing it out.

So normally an appellant, they would have 30 minutes? Yes. All right. Um, I'm, I would love to hear the opinions of other commissioners for me. If I had filed an appeal, I would expect to have my full 30 minutes, but that's just, this is going to be a behemoth of a meeting and I'm scared that that's what they're going to say.

Yeah. So Trevor Gloss, the city attorney's office. So I think that one of the reasons for that is, uh, if each appellant was given 30 minutes, then that would add up to. Sorry, I'm a lawyer. My math is bad. Two and a half hours. Thank you. The applicant would also receive two and a half hours to balance it out. So I think the concern there was that that's five hours just there. But it is up to the board. If you would all like to give each appellant 30 minutes or additional time, that is a decision you'll make.

Yeah, I think that we want to be respectful of everyone's times. And Jen, your question is valid, but our time as well. I mean, we're probably looking at eight to 10 hours right now. If we add time in any capacity anywhere, that is taking us to 12 or 14 hours. And I think that we have to balance our ability to make good decisions after a 12-hour day, the public's interest and ability to be there and be heard, And so I think we're trying to do that. I would be open to discussion maybe up to 90 minutes total, which someone else can do the math on that. That's like 15-ish or 18-ish something minutes per applicant or per appellant for the applicant. I think we've also given the appellants the opportunity, as Dan said, to kind of combine, if you will, and transfer time and have a cohesive presentation because I can imagine that a lot of their students appeal comments are similar to one another. So they have the ability to use that time, but I wouldn't, I would not be personally requesting more than say 90 minutes and then knowing that our applicant would get the same. But I think, right, this is where we want to have this conversation with the group and get any other feedback.

18 minutes, by the way.

18. Okay. I knew I'd done that math at some place along the way.

I agree with you. No time frame. Because after a while, it gets ridiculous. A lot of people are going to be repeating what someone else said. And repetition gets kind of boring after a while and we start falling asleep. So I think we just need to keep it sharp.

Yeah, and I can imagine, I mean, to that point, that what we hear from the appellants, given that some of them are organized maybe within a group, but many are individuals, will be similar comments that we will hear from individuals. And we're giving the public $180. minutes, is that right? Three hours. Yeah. So we're giving, we are having three hours of public comment, which I think will be similar in vain to what we hear from the applicants. So we're right now at four hours of support for the appeal. Again, I mean, we need to balance, right? Being fair and balanced on both sides of the.

And I would even add the one outlier that I think all of us are not able to account for is the discussion that you will need to have and whether that's with staff and our agency representatives that will be there, you know, follow-up questions that you may have in rebuttal, follow-up that you're going to have in final discussion and deliberation. That is an equal chunk of time. So just be cognizant of that.

Can you remind me, is this just us?

it is just city planning commission yep yeah we're preserving the the process per code uh with it being an administrative decision you are the first uh appeal body um post any decision that comes out of it um you know and the likely fact that there will be a subsequent appeal that will be brought before city council thank you so this is also a quasi-judicial item so uh you'll be acting as basically the judges for the item um support

you know, just a reminder, no ex parte communications, no, don't, uh, try not to have conversations with neighbors about this, things like that.

So just, uh, one another with right. Uh, Ryan commissioner case.

Yeah, it was just, uh, ideas. We asked the appellants, you know, if they are prepared to present or, you know, is that a conversation we can have with them to maybe they don't have a presentation is all I'm thinking.

Yeah, so post this meeting today or conversation today, we will be engaging with the appellants to, I will say, encourage their kind of combining of conversation and presentation. But again, there were five separate appeals. Each one has to a degree its unique perspective. So we as a city staff can't force them or obligate them to do that. But certainly we are encouraging that type of dialogue amongst the appellants.

Okay, great.

So there's just one vote then. Is there one vote or are we voting on each appeal individually?

That's a good question. So we have been working with the city's attorney's office taking us, if those of you in the room remember the recent LDS church appeal that went through both this body and city council. City council actually had cross appeals on it from the church and the appellant's perspective. So we are looking to combine the actions of this body into one motion. Okay.

It may be a dynamic motion, but we're working to do that. Yeah. So per Dan's comment, you can deny all the appeals. You can approve all the appeals. You can approve some of the appeals, but we can do it all through one motion since it's all one item. Yeah. All the way back.

Sorry, go ahead. Did you have a question there?

No, it was going off.

Going back to, and just to clarify for all of our sake, the motions that we'll be making and the decision that we'll be making is to the appeal criteria, not the major modification criteria, correct? So I just wanna make sure that everyone really understands that. And if you don't, or you want more clarity, then maybe Read out to staff. Reach out to staff individually. Do not copy the whole Commission. Do not meet with another commissioner and ask, or at least not more than one, and ask that question. But really ask Dan or Kevin if you don't understand how that works, right? Because we are reviewing the appeal criteria, not the major modification criteria. And I think in inconsistency with all of our decisions, we are beholden to the criteria as written, not to opinions or emotions or our thoughts on certain things or not certain things that we were looking at the criteria. So just to make sure that I share and that we all know which criteria we're looking at.

So as you prepare for- And certainly in that decision, that logic that the Chair just described, I think it hardens back to the administrative criteria in terms of our decision as staff on the application. So just bear that in mind, but it is based on the appeal criteria.

Right. Because the decision that we're going to make is going to be those four criteria or three, whatever, two with the subsections as it pertains to.

The administrative decision.

But unlike other decisions, we're not reading the original criteria.

Yes.

Well, we're seeing that we agree with the appeal. Correct. Because, you know, if the decision was erroneous and didn't meet the criteria. Right. I think we would look at the original criteria as well.

But we're not making a decision on the original criteria. Making a decision on does the appeal have standing again for a criteria. Yeah. I know.

Clear as mud. Can I go back to the public comment people?

Yeah.

Jen has her hand up. Jen, did you have a question before I go back?

Sorry, my hand was up because I was going to ask Trevor to do the thing he just did. Thank you.

So can we now move forward? So can we go back to the conversation that you all were just having about the 60 minute slot? So am I hearing that there's consensus to do 90 minutes or do you want to stick with the proposed 60?

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

I think 75 would be what I would say as a maximum. I'm fine with 60. Based on the scale of everything, I think 60 is appropriate. And that's double what, 60 is about what a major application has been granted in the past. So I think it's consistent as well.

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

I have a lot of clocks. Yeah.

I'm good with that.

With 60 or 70? 60. I like the 60. 60. What about you, Jen, Ryan?

I know this was originally my question. You raised an important point that I found very persuasive, which is the additional value of us being able to ask staff and agency partners questions during our deliberations. And so I'm willing to allow the, to go with the 60 minutes. I do defer. Should you speak to the appellants and there, if there is strong concern or pushback over the allotment of time for you and chair Hensler to work that out, I, I see to her judgment here.

I mean, I think you hit the nail there is that we're allowed to ask questions directly to the appellants. They're not a public comment speaker. We can ask them direct questions.

Anybody else have questions? What was that again?

I'm sorry.

You were kind of breaking up a little bit.

Sorry, I said 60 minutes is fine. 75 is okay, too. Probably wouldn't want any more than that, just based on everything and time constraints. Commissioner Case?

Yeah, I agree. I think overall, if you speak with the appellants and they have an issue or they aren't able to communicate in that amount of time, then maybe we reconsider. But this should hopefully be enough time for everyone to get their thoughts across. 60 it is.

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

We'll work on how we message that. That might be a hard one, because I think if we give 75, they're going to automatically go to 75. Just bear that in mind.

All right. Well, then we'll stick at 60. Okay. Thank you. Unless there's questions.

Yeah. Any other questions on the kind of outline, the other timeframes?

public comment, like questions.

You mean a question about someone's public comment or like the comment or the question that you want to.

I will say it and then you can label it. Then I'll let Trevor respond. How do we propose? So we already calculated that it's about 90 people per side who would be given an opportunity to speak.

Yeah.

how are we organizing? Is it first come first serve? Is it a lottery system of take a raffle? You know, how are we organizing that? Or is there a signup sheet with, you know, check the box if you care about water or noise or other, like are we organizing like what the comments are about? Cause that I think should be, clearly articulated to the general public so they can help organize and perhaps either divide and conquer or organize themselves if that's even possible.

So our standard process is first come, first serve. And I think we generally just stay with that for a number of reasons. The main one in my mind is that if you try and split up between what they're talking about, the first amendment issues. Sure. So just having it first come first serve in our regular processes, the cleanest way to handle it, I think they won't like show up that day.

There's no way to sign up.

Yes. Organized staff is working to organize that morning.

side and cheat some signage, maybe two lines.

How early are you?

Those are all good questions.

I don't know that we have definitive answers, but those are the general, that's the general gist of where we're heading. We'll talk about that.

Nope, hadn't thought about that.

We'll look at it.

We'll walk through at the venue next week, and so we'll add those kinds of questions to it. Any other questions?

Can we just repeat one more time the language that you and Chair Hensler were saying? We're not deciding on the appeal. We're evaluating the appeal. Yeah, so reiterated for me, so I don't know.

Certainly, and this will be spelled out or clarified in greater detail as part of the staff report that you will receive for this. This hearing item is the administrative decision was based on one set of criteria code. Because that administration administrative decision has been appealed, the appeal as an application type as its own set of criteria. That criteria is what you will be following in your deliberations on the item. All that, as was noted by members of the commission is there's, you know, the decision is erroneous. There could be an argument made that it was erroneous because we reviewed or interpreted improperly one of the administrative criteria.

So like, hmm, I interpret the code says this, you denied this because you interpreted the code said this.

And I would infer to any of those types of thought processes, Certainly the day of the hearing, having that dialogue with staff, legal counsel for the city, for you to make sure the understanding of how the city interprets that is clear.

And the difference is right, like anything that we are coming out with on our agenda for next week, we're looking at the criteria and the code and we're making a decision based on the zoning criteria.

They've already done that.

They've already done that administratively and said this project met the zoning criteria or the major modification criteria as laid out. So we're not going back to that to say does it meet the appeal criteria. Right. So to the choices we're having, sure, we need to look at what those criteria were and say, do we think it was contrary, erroneous or contrary to whatever? But we're not applying the criteria like we would in anything that we're looking at, say, next week.

Yeah. You're not doing a re-review of the administrative decision per se. You're looking at what the appellant said as their basis for why the appeal, why they filed an appeal as it relates to the criteria for that application.

I get it now.

Second time. Yeah. No, and appeals are often very confusing. And to Andrea's question earlier, right, with the opposition, normally we hear public comment in favor of an application. So those in opposition of the appeal are those in favor of the administrative approval. Yes. So those are. Yes. So, okay.

No, that was helpful. Thank you. I mean, I WAS LISTENING THE FIRST TIME, BUT IT WASN'T QUITE COMPUTING.

WE'LL SAY IT A COUPLE MORE TIMES. AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I THINK IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OR THE CRITERIA PROPERLY, NOT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, RIGHT, BUT THE PROCESS, THEN REACH OUT TO STAFF AND SAY, AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT? AS YOU'RE MAKING NOTES OR THINKING ABOUT IT ONCE YOU GET YOUR PACKET. Even though you may not be voting, please feel free to reach out and ask questions because that helps your education for the next time. What are the packets coming out for?

What is this? We are just a little over two weeks out. I would expect you will probably be seeing that packet the week before. we're required to publish or post the agenda 24 hours before the hearing, which does include those documents. But I think, you know, understanding the fact that this is a lot of information that you need to absorb, we'll kind of see what we can do with that. I mean, internally, it's already being published, so.

Well, the coordination is good. This is right across the street from where you go after a long day and an adult.

Don't bring it with you. OK, anything else? Thank you, Dan. OK, so then our last item to wrap us up is annex COS. And COS or annex COS plan and update.

Okay, thank you all for your participation today, the rest of the month and month coming. So we're here to bring to you a graph of the

annexation annex the OS, which is basically a policy and plan for the three mile area outside of the city of Colorado today to give you some ideas as to how. How we might go forward with that plan? COS is called for that in 2019 when it was first adopted. Been working on it for several years, sometimes with a plan that public participation other times at the staff level and with consultants. So there's a lot of data out there. The current plan was adopted in 2006. There's a requirement for the state. The state has a requirement that the plan be updated every three years, not every 23 years, but every three years. But what we haven't been able to, we haven't done that except in fairly technical terms. So we're here really to give you a comprehensive rewrite of what we're doing and what we propose to do with annexation.

They require that you update it every two years.

Why? You know what? I learned not to speak for the state legislature. I don't ever understand what they're really saying and why they do that. That's been that's been part of their plan since the 1980s. And so it's been around for a long time, and it's been kind of a standard process. Obviously, there are no penalties for that. If we don't, because we haven't. But it's time for us to try and move this needle a little bit forward and hopefully try to stay ahead of that just a little bit more. So that was adopted in 2006. We talked about putting a COS a little bit. Obviously there are differences between our in our community from 2006 to today. We've had really fast growth in 2006, 2007. Really slow growth in 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 maybe, and then faster growth since then. So we've got this constant. You know that that's part of the rationale for having to update this. Make you look at what really been happening in your community. up and down cycle since then. So that's a condition that certainly has changed. Banning Lewis Ranch was annexed and it has had a major overhaul of their annexation agreement. So it's moved Banning Lewis Ranch, the entire ranch, not just the area that Tamara was discussing and we're talking about the entire really 26,000 acres that was the original annexation. So that has now sort of gotten cleaned up from an annexation agreement standpoint and has started to move into development. We're seeing some of the Percheron freestyle and some of the things that Tamara was talking about from Oakwood. We had an IGA with the county that was adopted in 2021. So that is a piece of the puzzle as well. The county adopted a master plan that basically said in those fringe areas outside of municipalities, they would like to see the development occur in municipalities to the extent that they can. They kind of gave an idea that these were areas that were subject to development and urbanization. And so that's another rationale. We did do an IGA with the County under different leadership at planning departments, different leadership at the head of the departments. And so we don't, We recognize that there is an IGA. We recognize that it has been relatively ineffective in terms of its application, and we would like to propose, and we will propose in this document that we update that. But it's an acknowledgement. They also had in that IGA a map called the AOPI, the Area of Planning Interest or Potential Interest. potential interest, I think. And it was a different area than the three miles, but we've also annexed several areas outside of that three miles. So, for example, the Southern Colorado rail yard was an example of an annexation that really modified the three mile substantially because it was outside the three miles. And so we've had to update maps and all that kind of thing, but it's a fairly dynamic process, as you can tell. We've also had a little bit of Sort of a sense of what the community thinks and what the Council thinks and what our leadership thinks as it relates to annexations. We've had the Amara annexation that was passed and then failed, and then we've had come Carmen line where that was adopted and then turned out turned out by the voters. And again, the Southern Colorado rail yard, which was unique interest. And so those are some things that inform kind of what we're trying to accomplish with this. annexation annex COS document. And so those are some of the background context pieces. Next. So the process. We've obviously reviewed existing documents, put together some some data, had a growth seminar outreach in 2024. as part of the process, even though I want to emphasize that one of the things that is difficult for people to grasp is that annexation is not growth. It is simply a change in jurisdiction. Actually, I'm getting ahead of my slides here. Next, we had some technical focus. We had some group meetings. We did a lot of data gathering. A lot of maps were generated. Annexation goals and policies were adopted. or drafted. And then we had 2025 where we had Carmen Line, Amara, Southern Colorado Rail Yard, a referendum. All of those things occurred in the last year. And we basically had to step back and say, what did that tell us about where we were heading with this document? And we had to shift gears a little bit. So we've been working ever since then to try and not throw out the information that was basically developed earlier, but to kind of change the emphasis and focus of what we think annexation policy should be. Next next slide. We just finished by the way a survey that's been online. We had over 250 people comment and gave us some ideas about what they think about annexation and what they think. So we've continued to try and gather information not just from stakeholders but also from the general public. So we're working working our way through that. We'll have some more data We just just close that survey web store data free still still open. The data is still open. Sorry.

Sorry.

OK, here are the areas that we're going to try to address in this policy. Contiguity and enclaves basically act be contiguous to the city in order to annex. But there are ways to create flagpole annexations that are, while they are contiguous, they're not really contiguous. And so they follow the legality of the law, but not the spirit of the law. So contiguousness is an issue that we're worried about. We also have these enclaves. You've seen several of them in the last few years or a couple of years where we've had annexations of pieces that are completely surrounded by the city. There's also near enclaves, some pieces that are not completely surrounded, but three-quarters surrounded or mostly surrounded, and maybe up against the Air Force Academy or the National Forest or places like that. So those are kind of near enclaves. There are some different rules around those, and we acknowledge that. Excuse me in this draft policy as well. Fiscal sustainability and cost. Obviously two main places where we deal with that at utility extensions as well as the impact on services from the general city. So those are two most important issues that we try to address. We are addressing in this in this draft policy. infrastructure and utility efficiencies, trying to make sure that we're using existing infrastructure as much as possible. This is not, though, a policy that's going to impact infill. Infill is obviously different, but it's acknowledging that there are extensions of utilities and infrastructure and services that go outside the city limits when you annex them. Community development impacts on housing, jobs, and services, so that basic economic kind of things. Is it good for the economy? Is it good for us to have opportunities for future growth? Compatibility with existing urban development and boundaries, housing diversity and affordability. We obviously have that issue pending. More houses are generally considered to be maybe a better way to deal with affordability. But annexation, again, does not give you more houses. It just gives you the opportunity to have those houses built inside the city limits. Approximity to existing and planned infrastructure is kind of saying the same thing. We're repeating ourselves a little bit. We want to make sure we're cooperating with other jurisdictions like that IGA that we were just talking about with the county. We'd like to expand that into other jurisdictions. Obviously, the three other communities that are nearby are Falcon, I mean, Fountain, Manitou Springs, and Monument. Those are areas that impact our three miles, their three miles intersect in some fashions. So we need to work on just communicating with them about these kinds of issues. And we have to have some flexibility with special circumstances. So those are some of the things that we address or we're trying to address in these policies and comments. Next one. Our next step, so you'll see in the. But what we've given to you is this document, which basically is go through a series of policies. It's not as bad as it looks. There's a lot of appendix in the back that just kind of information, but it will give you the basic fundamentals and we'll get into a little bit more detail when we do a presentation for your next week.

Are we voting on the recommendation?

Yes. Yeah, you'll be recommending this to council or not, or however you want to do that, or there's specific changes. This is a legislative item, though, so this is something that if you have a question, you can certainly call and ask for an explanation and give us some of your feedback in a different fashion. So you do not have to hear it as a quasi-judicial matter. It's a legislative some of the things where after once we have this policy there are several things that we would like to complete going forward one is uh to develop a model annexation report basically to make sure that you'll see in there several things that we're worried about contiguity and proximity to existing services we want to basically give a model for if you want to annex your property you need to give us this information in this kind of format so that we can assess that. One of the major things I don't think was in one of the previous slides was we are not proposing to change. We are not proposing that the city get aggressive around annexation, that we try to annex certain properties. We're still very much focused on the property owner being the trigger for an application for annexation. It's not, the city doesn't say, hey, we think that these are the 12 different areas that we want to annex in the next five years. None of that in this policy. It has always been and will remain in terms of this recommendation to be a property owner decision to ask for annexation. Creation of a template for fiscal impact analysis, especially for larger We have a template for the utilities. We don't have a template for general city. So we want to develop a template that says you need to look at it this way. You need to look at it over this period of time. And this is the assumptions that you need to make and prove up relative to your fiscal impact. So we'll come up with a model for that as one of our things. We want to update the current IGA, which I talked about. And then we want to make sure that we do some annual monitoring and every so often update this, not every 20 years.

When do you anticipate doing those next steps? Is it over the next year, the next three years? Yes, sure.

In our work program for next year. I think one of them might take longer, but some of them won't. Is that the last slide? Okay. If it is. Any questions, comments, thoughts?

um look forward to the conversation and the discussion and we'll kind of keep seeing if we can move this along thank you obviously we have a lot on our plates this month um there's next week is going to be a full meeting i would anticipate a full day um or the majority they're in maybe yes yeah given that we have the meaningless ranch ones which um but a lot of pieces and parts, and then being able to weigh in on this. So be on time. You ready? Thank our staff. And then obviously, as soon as we have information and packets out about the appeal, take time to review that in depth.

Okay.

Well, I hope you don't think we're just kind of goofing around up there on the seventh floor. Fair amount of stuff going on.

Well, and I think it's also always important to remember how many things that you all do that we don't see. So, clearly you're not messing around.

Yeah. We're making up most of the stuff here. Okay. See you guys next week. We are out.