City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

OK, 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. Whoa, hold on. I lost my screen to be able to see my script. 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 any comments. And at the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dais for commissioner consideration. So with that, I think we will move to our roll call.

Chair Hensler here. Commissioner Cecil.

Here.

Commissioner Slattery. Here. Commissioner Robbins.

Here.

Sorry, Commissioner Clements.

Here.

Commissioner Didiano. Here. Commissioner Willoughby. Here. Commissioner Case.

Here.

Commissioner Ingo.

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 changes and postponements.

No. This is...

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 going to happen here? So this is item 5B, which is on the consent calendar. It is for the kitchen parking variance and the record numbers NVAR26-005. 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 an item is being postponed or moved from consent or it should be moved to that area and then voted on when it comes up.

Perfect. So let's back up a step. And Solange, can you read the item into the record? And then Mr. Gray will give us his.

Item 5B, NVAR-26-0005, a no-use variance to City Code Section 7.4.1003.A to allow one off-street parking space for a restaurant use with outdoor seating where seven off-street parking spaces is required, standard for the property located at 2001 West Colorado Avenue. Okay. Mr. Gray.

Thank you. Slunch. Good morning planning commission bill gray city planning. So this item. As read into the record was scheduled to be on the consent calendar. That item was going to be pulled. But in addition to that, we got notice from the applicant that due to medical issues that they would not be able to attend this hearing this morning. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS APPLICATION TO AUGUST 12, 2026, WHICH IS THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION

Okay, great.

And I just would say one other item. If there are those in the audience that are here for that hearing, I can answer or address any comments out in the hallway after the postponement.

Okay, great. So with that, then I think we need a motion to postpone item five. B as in boy. Okay.

Officer Robbins here.

I make a motion that we postpone item 5B, which is Lock, Kitchen, Park, and Variants in VAR 26005 until August 12 of 2026. Second.

Commissioner Schlattery, 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 next is communications, and I just wanted to formally thank Vice Chair at the moment, Andrea Slattery, for her 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 take today to thank you for your service and commend you for all you've done for our city so thank you thank you and beyond that i don't have any other communications today mr walker

just a couple of quick things we continue to work on the administrative details of your special meeting on July 23rd so look for continued communications around that lots of decisions to be made and we will keep you informed as best we can Also, though, I want to point out that the staff and to thank my staff for keeping the rest of these things going. We've got a large agenda today. We're going to have a large agenda again in August. And, you know, it's been Yeoman's effort on their part to keep all of these other things moving forward 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. Okay, one moment. OK, sorry about that. We're trying to accommodate some 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? OK.

Item CPC 2739, minutes for the June 10, 2026 City Planning Commission. I'm sorry. Item 4A, CPC 2738, minutes for the June 4, 2026 Work Session, City Planning Commission.

OK. Has everyone had a chance to review the work session meetings from June 4? Can we look for a motion and a second, please?

Commissioner Robins here. I move that we accept the minutes for the last meeting. And I think this is going to be 4ACPC2738.

Commissioner Clements, I second it.

Commissioner Slattery abstains. I was not present.

Thank you. We have eight members in favor, and Commissioner Slattery abstained. Item 4B, CPC 2739, minutes for the June 10, 2026 City Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Robbins here. I move that we accept the minutes for the June 10, 2026 meeting, item 4B, CPC2739.

Commissioner Clements, I second it.

Commissioner Kaye, abstaining as I was not present. Thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, abstaining as well.

Commissioner Slattery, abstaining.

Thank you. We have six members in favor and Commissioner Slattery will be in case abstained. Great, thank you all.

All right, next up is our consent calendar. Items on the consent calendar will be acted upon as a whole without further public comment or discussion unless a 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 5A, CUDP-26-0002, Liberty Logistics Conditional Use. Item 5C, CUDP-26-0010, 752 Clark Place, LLC. Item 5D, CUDP-26-0005, Carl Malone Polaris Conditional Use. Item 5 E, ZONE-25-0037-5325, Mark Dabbling Boulevard, Zone Map Amendment. Item 5 F, ZONE-26-0012, Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment. Item 5 G, CUDP-26-0003, Galley 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.

5F?

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 Slattery 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? Seeing none, does any member of the public wish to call an item off the consent calendar? Do you want to check on the online?

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 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 will be second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Given that the majority of the items on the consent calendar are appealable, I'm going to read the appeal instructions at this time. In accordance with the 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 a notice of appeal and pay the $176 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... 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 tired from the Fourth of July holiday or something.

Thank you.

Item 5FZONE-26-0012, a zone map amendment consisting of 7.79 acres located at 4290, 4910, 4320, 4330, 4340 Buckingham Drive from Business Park and Business Park with conditions of record to Light 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 twenty six zero zero one two is a zone map amendment request for proposed site known as Buckingham industrial. It's not working. Oh, thank you. Um. So, as I was saying, this is a. Uh, 5 parcel site located within the Buckingham industrial kind of complex area. Um, it's an, it's an area with existing commercial and industrial development. Uh, the site in question, it includes 5 parcels located on the South end of Buckingham drive. um which are all vacant parcels in general the site is located south east 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 USED TO THE SOUTH OFF THE SOUTH BORDER, ZONED R5. MEANWHILE EVERYTHING ELSE IS ZONED BP, BUSINESS PARK OR MXM. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SITE FROM BP WITH CONDITIONS OF RECORD TO LI WITH CONDITIONS OF RECORD. AND THAT'S TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN INDUSTRIAL USE. But in addition, we'll look at some conditions of record as proposed by both staff and the applicant. I don't know if I said this already, but the site is 7.79 acres. It's a zone map amendment. Generally, you're required to have a supporting document to go with that zone map amendment. Usually it's a land use plan, but in some cases we'll waive 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 owned BP, uh, 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 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 zoned are 5. um and that is existing single-family residential detached and in this case I would say this is probably one of your more pertinent notes to consider is compatibility and how we look at the proposed zone for this site and how it may affect those properties put a snippet on this slide of that exhibit B of the zone the proposed zone map amendment so as previously noted there's five parcels 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 OFFICE WAREHOUSE WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE. THAT ACTUALLY GOT APPROVED. ON THE NORTHWEST MOST PARCEL WE'VE SEEN A REQUEST FOR I keep forgetting the name of it, but a gym sports complex. There we go. That got approved but never occurred. And then most recently was a proposal for outdoor vehicle parking. 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. So 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 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. um 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 the new conditions of record 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 CONDITIONAL USE. SO THOSE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A HIGHER REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. So I've listed those prohibited uses, household living, group living, industrial hemp, marijuana related uses, natural medicines, and kennel indoor outdoor, other proposed prohibited uses on the site. I added this slide just recently, and I believe that was based on informal, 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 generally standard setbacks, dimensional requirements, which are listed in that left column. Most notable thing that I would point out is the fact that BP has a 100 foot separation for buildings from residential use or zone. 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 100 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 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.

And then to the right of that chart, I've listed out more or less what I believe to be the uses that are allowed in the LI versus what's not allowed in the BP, if that makes sense. So generally, LI allows more vehicle-related uses, more waste and recycling-related uses, more retail, Retail uses, more natural medicines, industrial hemp, plant-based extractions, junkyards, bars, bed and breakfast, hotels, hookah bars, room and boarding. Granted, if you look at a lot of those uses, there's a lot of conditional requirement, the conditional review required for those, which is why a lot of those weren't added as prohibited uses within this request. All right, so this review began in March of 2026, went through three rounds of review and was prepared for the agenda on June 12th. Public notice was issued on this application through internal review and prior to this hearing. Went out to properties within 1,000 feet, 264 postcards were issued with a poster on site. Three comments were received Those comments were based on intensity of use, compatibility, effects on quality of life. And I'll note that this was more or less related to the commercial industrial existing developments in the area, not the residential properties to the south, which is perplexing. So I think those are things you should consider when reviewing this application. You do have those comments listed in your packet as well. Agency review, this went through three rounds of review. Agencies had a chance to provide comments. Any comments that were received were addressed. Up on the screen are the agencies that left comments, which are basically stating that they'll review, provide more comments at time of development plan. Plan COS. Plan COS, I'll note that we did review this with relation to the policy goals, strategies of Plan COS. Generally, we found that this application is compliant with conditions of record established with this zone map amendment. Up on the screen are 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 industrial zone map amendment, the application is determined to meet those review criteria. And here are your motions. you choose to approve or recommend approval to city council 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. Is there an applicant present? Okay, great, come on up, sir. Please state your name, and you'll have 30 minutes to present.

Okay, my name is Ben Swanson with Buckingham Land Holdings LLC as the applicant. Is there a controller? Yeah, okay, perfect. 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 um obviously for a very long time that has 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. General location, I think Mr. Sullivan went through that very well, so we can move forward from there. Okay.

Thank you.

That's fine. You can bypass this. I think these were covered really well. There's another shot of the parcel configuration, which I think shows a little bit more zoomed in where the residential interface is to the south.

And then maybe one more slide and.

And maybe one more not I 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. So the way we approach this, the site, in my understanding, was previously was zoned in the old code PIP1 and PIP2. That was re-zoned to PIP2. be in an ordinance. In 2005, that approval was, I believe, extended via site plan through 2014. And that basically introduced the same uses that I think are proposed in our application. When it was changed, the zoning and the new code down to BP, I think some of those were were eliminated. So we tried to take a look at, well, 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 impacts such as marijuana and things like that. 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 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 as 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 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 If we can make the grades work, some stormwater and then parking and then the buildings going from the south to the north. So just increase that in addition to landscape buffering on the south side to help mitigate that. On the next slide, I think is... But what I tried to do here is look at, because as Mr. Sullivan mentioned, there's a lot of different levels of review as we go through. And so 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 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 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. 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. And so 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.

think that's more of the plan cus 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 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. All right, thank you. Yeah, so stay close.

Okay.

So moving 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. And if there's anyone here to speak in opposition, for that matter, 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.

Barry Wick, and I'm here with Marsha Wick. We are residents of the cul-de-sac that is adjacent to this large lot. and i just want to make a few comments i i don't see any of our neighbors here but they also know about this hearing today um basically That lot has been unattended for a long time. Certainly the last, the previous owner did nothing. It was overgrown, there were homeless living there. We have no idea 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 borders the shopping center on the west and it borders residential area on the south. The previous owner actually got a citation because that lot was totally unattended for two years. 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 city engineering or anybody. And I'm assuming the current owner realizes that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr.

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 1, the drainage because. 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. 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. 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. What happens with the retail development right now is a lot of cars shortcut and go behind the development and their headlights come directly into our house. And so I'm wondering about, you know, the traffic that's going to be there off Forest Hill and Buckingham, which is an egress into our housing development.

Thank you.

Thank you both for being here today. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else online or in the audience that wishes to speak on this item in any capacity? Okay, I didn't think so. But Sanj, do you want to check if there's anyone online, just in case?

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

There's no one online. OK, thank you. So if you'd like to come back up and address any of the questions from the public comment or have any other final thoughts. We welcome you to do so.

Definitely. Thank you. So, yeah, I agree with some of the comments that were made. The site obviously has been very dirty. It's been. IT'S BEEN UNFORTUNATE THE CONDITION IT'S BEEN. WE PURCHASED IT IN MARCH. I THINK IT'S MUCH IMPROVED. BUT IT HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING CONCERN ABOUT HOW IT WAS TREATED PARTICULARLY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. I THINK WE'RE MAKING BIG IMPROVEMENTS. THE INVESTMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING INTO THE SITE WE WANT TO SEE A CLEANER SITE. WE WANT TO SEE THIS CONTROLLED AND IT FIT INTO THE CONTEXT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHICH I THINK ARE DONE VERY VERY WELL. So we have we share the same concern about control of trash and those things. 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 that's something that we would similarly have concerns with that that continued. 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 drainage.

Thank 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 addressed in that way when when is developed and for the for the uses specifically um the reason we don't have a specific site plan is because It would be so speculative at this point, because 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 as 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 buildings and parking and those things and we're utilizing that to be able to buffer 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 you that the previous plan done in 2005 with the warehouses would be generally in line with what we would expect um 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

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 bottom right, 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 rezone it. Can you just speak to that?

Definitely. We're definitely not trying to do a cemetery. So just for clarity, that was just there. Transparency. The other ones, I think it is trying to have a broad use. If you look at the existing uses under Business Park, there's some that are very similar to these, such as, I'm trying to remember exactly, but there's, 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 a, 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. But it's broadening the range and removing some of the hesitancy of some of the market to not knowing and having full clarity on the business park zoning.

Thank you.

And question for the staff, just for the public. Whatever plan is presented would be reviewed by 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 need to be permitted or conditional and they would have to go through whatever coordinating process um meeting chapter seven which just to address some of the citizens' concerns also includes stormwater management, civil engineering, all of those types of... Yep, there'll be a civil plan with a presumed to be a drainage report to go with this, and they'll have to make sure that they meet the four-step process for SWENT to ensure on-site, off-site flows and whatnot. And then in addition, I think the other comment was the... BEING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USE IF THERE'S ANY REQUIREMENT FOR BUFFERING. LANDSCAPE CODE DOES HAVE SPECIFIC RULES ON HOW WE BUFFER BETWEEN NON-LIKE USES. IN THIS CASE WITH POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, IT WILL LIKELY BE SOMETHING LIKE A 15-FOOT BUFFER WITH A 7-FOOT TALL OPAQUE WALL OF SOME KIND.

THANK YOU.

Commissioner Cecil.

Hi there. Just a couple of quick questions. First, on your presentation, you mentioned a couple of times, and you might need to scroll back up in it, the southern access route. 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, 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. That just is a road that if you went out there, it's a pretty steep road. I wouldn't call it a road trail. 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 i was just sitting here going to southern access the southern access that's not access yeah sorry about that okay yeah so that's that l-shaped road would essentially act as a common access taking all traffic up to buckingham drive and then continuing on to garden of the gods road um

I know Chris just spoke to it, but 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, a seven foot wall and 15 feet is sufficient to protect residents from that, since it's right next to residential.

Chris Sullivan, senior planner.

I would say that depends on the final use for what we'd want to see a buffer there. Obviously, if it's more intense than, you know, maybe that 25 foot would be better. But otherwise, I think the code does a pretty good job.

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, um. I guess I'd like to end with anything that you'd like to. Say do a switch 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 to 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 plot it. And so we would come through with a new plot. And at that time, we'd have a better understanding and at least initial design of 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 based on the way the site trends.

All right. Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. So I also did a review between the use tables, and here's things that were, I think, more concerning to me. It was... HAB-Masyn Moyer- nice to see some of these permitted uses. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You also found incompatible, 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 would see as incompatible and would recommend putting those as prohibited uses on the condition of record. The other ones you have already identified. Additionally, I think the existing conditions of record should remain with the 25-foot buffer, although you are 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 um 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 versus the 45 that's currently allowed in the BP versus LI. So those would be the conditions that I would propose to be included if it is rezoned from BP to LI. Does that seem like, it would be workable within the constraints that you're envisioning. Stormwater and all of those things will be addressed during development plan, and I think our code does a good job. I see staff getting the hook on me here.

Yes, so commissioner slattery Dan sexton planning manager for the land use for division of city planning just to remind commissioners to is that, um. With consideration 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 six to ten months adopt new use specific standards for those uses which are universal regardless of zone district across the city which do include additional buffering and separation requirements to any type of dog runs or where where those animals may be 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. I know we saw some compatibility issues with those land uses semi-recently. My opinion is that in spite of those land uses, I would see, you know, compatibility on three sides, but maybe not the fourth. So it would be my purview to add that to the prohibited use. But I'm just one person. So those are my opinions on that.

Okay. Commissioner Case. Yes.

Mr. Case, so maybe a bit of a joint question between the applicant and maybe Chris. You mentioned I wasn't able to find it on your presentation, but the buffer zone you said is 100 foot with the residential with BP, and it's being changed to roughly nothing with the LI, correct? Correct.

Uh, Chris Sullivan, senior planner, uh, yes, that's correct. The BP has an established set standard. A 100 foot separation from residential. Written into the dimensional table for it does not have that standard.

Okay. And so for the applicant, does that potentially render your project? Maybe infeasible to have that 100 foot buffer.

It does, and the reason we approached it the way that we did was that that setback hundred 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 with the way that's written so what we're trying to do is actually improve that and 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 or improves that buffer by pushing those uses 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 sweet. that's the preferred solution. There's some things we need to navigate with that. But 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 be good neighbor. Okay, great. Yeah, thanks.

Well, in this chair, Hensler, 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 100 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 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 trying to.

And I understand that it is speculative at this point. What's your speculation 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 anticipate that that would become like a loop that would go through the whole site? Or would it have some sort of bulkhead at the end or cul-de-sac and then in that corner that has the rough road? So it would not continue around just due to grade or drainage changes? 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. don't have any further questions i think that the uses that you're proposing are 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 other questions from other commissioners

This is Commissioner Cecil. I'd like to just clarify what Commissioner Slattery was suggesting. 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?

Almost. And there were three uses that you wanted added. Well, there's two existing conditions of record, which include the 25-foot landscape buffer, which looks like it's pretty existent on site, as well as the service facilities to be arranged to avoid the residential areas. So that was a big one, and I think the height... I think the existing height limitations are more compatible as well. So I would propose that. And then I had adding the prohibited uses of bar junkyard and animal shelter.

Thanks for clarifying that. And to the applicant, Mr. Swanson, do the additions of bar, junkyard, and animal shelter give you any hesitation to the list of potential prohibited uses?

I don't think bar has no... Yes, yes. 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 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. I don't have the definition of junkyard handy to be able to comment specifically, unless I have it in here.

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

Well, I've got junkyard up from the definitions. A use involving sales, storage, display, dismantling, demolition, abandonment, or discarding of junk as defined in this UDC or any lot plot, 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.

It doesn't seem compatible and adjacency to residential like just the way that it is and perhaps 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, 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, used lumber, paper, glass, bottles, rags, rubber, scrap metal, tin cans, scrap material, waste, concrete, rubble, boxes, crates, building materials, or machinery parts.

I mean, perhaps parcel four is compatible with that use, but I don't think we'd want to necessarily...

sub out the land the prohibited uses by parcel 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 districts 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 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 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 that definition. None of those uses are 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. But I understand the concern. We don't envision those as what we're trying to do.

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

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.

I'm okay with removing the 100-yard line. With the zone change, the 100-foot buffer going away in the LI, as long as the 25-foot landscape buffer remains, and it's probably in most of the uses anyway in dimensional standards. So I don't see a harm in maintaining the original conditions of record, especially with the intensive uses piece.

Commissioner Willoughby, can I just ask a clarifying question to Mr. Sullivan? If 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, seeing that we do not have any other questions, we'll let you take your seat again, Mr. Swenson. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation and the public comment. And I think if anyone has any final comments they'd like to state, otherwise maybe we can move towards a motion. I'll say 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 been made to the site and the conditions that are already existing. But if a motion is... in question for other uses. Maybe we can hear that. Mr. Walker.

Kevin Walker, planning director. MADE THIS COMMENT BEFORE AT OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, SO I WANT TO REITERATE, 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 DEVELOPMENT PLAN STEPS OR THE PLATTING STEP FOR DRAINAGE CONTROL, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THIS BECOMES PART OF THE RECORD OR 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 management of impacts adjacent to properties notice all of those kinds of things so um 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

Commissioner Angle, comments?

Commissioner Engel, I would support the zone change and I think actually Commissioner Willoughby 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 citizens and of course there's a particular use that requires a conditional approval that comes back to us for one more review so given the circumstances I would support the zoning change.

Commissioner case.

Mister case I too would be in support of the motion to approve with city staff so thank you.

And commissioner Robbins.

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

Anybody else like to 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 made comments and I would reiterate that I would be comfortable Adjusting the proposed motion with those inclusions and maintaining conditions of record with building height. So if somebody wants to make a motion that way, I would support that. I guess I would only make a motion if other folks, if it's gonna pass, right? I think we have support. If folks are not comfortable with adding things and wanna 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 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 of item 5f zone 260012 buckingham industrial zone map amendment 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 7.5.704 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 Clements. Commissioner Clemmons, I second it.

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

Okay. Regarding what I 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'm 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. I do not feel like the criteria two is met, which would be I feel like if it goes forward without a cap on the building height, it will be detrimental to the public health and safety 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 inappropriate next to residential use per criterion three. Criteria four, not compatible again with the surrounding development environment. I understand that buffering is likely sufficient, but the height requirement is my chief issue there next to the residential uses. I do find it meets Criterion 5 because it's a vacant property and it's not going to displace any tenants or occupants. I find Criterion 6 is met because it allows for a land use statement in lieu of a land use plan And at this point in the development of the site, I think that makes sense. Criteria seven. Um, I think this is compatible enough with the planning documents and no more defined concept plans conflict conflicting with this in the existing record. Criteria eight and nine are not applicable because it's not in an ADSO or planned development zone and criteria 10, I do find it complies with the applicable standards of the Unified Development Code generally except for the part where I think 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 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 and make sure everybody's okay. So just go from the top.

Okay, we're gonna do a roll call for everybody. Chair Hensler? Aye. Commissioner Cecil?

Nay.

Commissioner Slattery? Nay. Commissioner Robbins?

One more.

Aye.

Commissioner Clements?

Aye.

Commissioner Gidiano? Aye. Commissioner Willoughby? Aye. Commissioner Case?

Aye.

Commissioner Engel? Aye. Thank you. We have seven members in favor and Commissioner Cicely and Slattery opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you to our applicants.

Okay, we're gonna move on to our next item. I think we'll try to get through staff presentation and maybe applicant presentation and then we'll take a break, unless folks wanna take a break now.

Now?

Okay, all right, we're gonna take a 10 minute break at this point, we'll come back at 10.35. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your patience. I think we have solved all of our technical issues and needs for the morning. So I'd like to move us into our new business, item eight on the agenda. And Solange, if you could read into the record each and every item of Banning Lewis Ranch Village B-2.

Item 8A, MAPN-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 ABPUDZ-23-0002, a zone change consisting of 501.99 acres located north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Ben and Lewis Parkway intersection from planned development zone district, multifamily high with conditions of record, single family medium, Mix use medium scale with conditions of record and airport and stream side overlay to plan development zone district and airport and stream side overlays residential. Density of 3.5 to 7.99 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height of 35 feet. Item 8C, ZONE-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, an airport and streamside overlay to mixed-use medium scale and airport and streamside overlays. Item ADCOPN-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-SUBD-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 Benning Lewis Parkway located north of Tamblyn Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Benning Lewis Parkway. item 8f pdzl-24-0003 establishment of the benning 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. This project is located, as you can see on the vicinity map, it is south of Woodman, it's east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and it is north of Dublin Boulevard. As Slonja 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 and PDZ zone change for low to medium density residential. There's also a zone change in 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, but this project was geared up to go to planning commission back in 2024, the applicant team decided to pause this project. So they could bring in the remaining of their holdings, which is banning Lewis village C, which is to the south. And that will be the other item for discussion after this. with regards to the master plan so the existing master plan is shown on your left of your screen and then the proposed master plan amendment is shown to the right as you can see it's just really shifting some of the the use types around on the within this area In moving the commercial, so if you can see in the existing master plan, there is an area for commercial noted as NR. They proposed 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 Lewis 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 Mark Shuffle. The larger area of 502 acres is being proposed to be rezoned to PDZ. It is intended to be for single family residential with a density of 3.52799 dwelling units per acre. There is one school site, it's 25 acre, it's the purple 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 road vacations of about 36 acres. Those include via Del Rio Boulevard and portions of public right-of-way along Dublin and Banning Lewis. Future subdivision plots within Village B2 will dedicate the right-of-ways as future development plans are submitted. Timeline for this review. So this project was submitted back in March of 2023. 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 a neighborhood meeting. And actually for this one, there were two 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 1,000 feet from the property line. As you can see, 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. We also received a few this week, so those were passed along to you. Written comments do include concerns with density, a reduction of park and open space, sorry for the typo, congested streets, and insufficient infrastructure in the area. With regards to agency review, all agencies were part of this review of this project. The school district has identified that the school site is suitable for the school district needs. With regards to the parks, this project, along with Village C, did go to the Parks Advisory Board 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... some of the PLDL requirements that will go to Village C for the community park and we'll discuss that with the other project. I do have representatives from Traffic Engineering, so Todd's here with Traffic Engineering and Lana is here with the parks if you have any specific questions for those two agencies. Plan COS, this project does comply with the vision, big ideas, and strategies of Plan COS. It does encourage a variety of housing types from low to medium density. In addition to commercial, it does provide a variety of price points as well for this area. During work session, 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... makeshift screen or plan, but there are five different villages that are there. So there's Village 1, Village C, Village B1, Village 3, 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. And again, these are under previous chapter seven. 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 application does meet the review criteria. And in addition, these are the review criteria for the concept plan. After reviewing the concept plan, the application meets review criteria. And these are the similar criteria for PDZ zone change and for PDZ concept plan. These are the criteria for a vacation of a right-of-way, and after evaluating the proposed vacation of the right-of-way, the application does meet the criteria. There are a number of optional motions. So these are the motions for the master plan amendment. These are the 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, 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. 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. Let's turn it off. So the project at a glance, I think 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 8 school. This shows context for all of the villages providing this ranch, including Village C, which we will address with the next item. Village B2 is shown here in red. So what's in place is Village 1, 2, and 3, and B1 are complete. Village A is nearing completion and under construction. Dublin Boulevard now connects to Benning Lewis Parkway, and Benning 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 current plan to our proposed plan. showing in color the changes from what was more of a fragmented plan with various uses scattered to the edges of the plan that we are now consolidating with more current ideas about location of retail, location of residential and parks and open space, as well as the road configuration through the site.

And that date at the top, master plan 1988, was that when this was defined and published, 1988?

Yes, 1988 is the current master plan.

Current, thank you.

This slide identifies the areas that are not residential, in particular the nine-acre commercial site at the southwest corner, the 25-acre school site, which is central to this village, B2, and 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. terms of the parkland dedication 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 b2 is the community park obligation at 15.59 but then we're going to provide 35 when we add b2 and C together and that location will be in village C to the south and So again, just a summary of the land uses generally within the 511 acres. Thank you. We're available for questions and comments.

OK. Commissioners, do we want to 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, Commissioner Engel. Can you tell me what the densities are in the surrounding developed areas in terms of number per dwelling, dwelling units per acre?

We sure can. So 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 densities for the single-family homes. This includes a single-family density of 3 to 5 units per acre and a cluster density of 8 to 12 units per acre. Overall, it equates to about 7 units per acre for the entirety of Village 3. But allowing that range of density allows a mix of units from single family homes on lots to clustered single family homes. Also we have BLR Village A, which is directly to the south of B2. Similarly, it is a mix of single-family homes and densities. In reality, even though the request is for 3.9 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, village three and village A, represent what is expected in terms of the pattern of development for the future villages as well.

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 i'm trying to find if we have those those numbers in here um

I 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 another slide. So, this information will be in our application, of course. I don't have that detail at my fingertips, I'm sorry. We can confirm and get back to you.

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 it. 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, uh, I think that that. Would be yeah, that'd be great if you guys can figure that out a little bit and get back to us.

Yep, go ahead. Commissioner Angle, one additional question. You quoted two density units on that one slide, and I don't understand the difference in definitions between those. Right, SFD density and cluster density. How are those defined?

Well, they're not necessarily defined. They're how these plans are being drawn up and built. And so what we have is, in this particular case, in this Village 3 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. And in terms of density, those are lower density in comparison to the cluster density, which are also single family units. However, the cluster density takes advantage of alleyways or shared drives to increase the density so that you can achieve eight to 12 units per acre even though those could be single-family units or duplex units, and those usually have a shared alley or a shared drive to achieve that density, whereas on the single-family lots, they do not share driveways.

All right, 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 finger Solange. Is there anyone else from the applicant team that would like to speak? It 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 this 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. 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. 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, but that's kind of what we had done at the time was kind of pinpoint that midpoint is what I believe we had done. So kind of general overarching kind of trend is kind of a down from 1988.

Thank you, sir. Stay close. Gladly. Mr. Jones, I just want to clarify what you said. So the 1988 B1 and B2, and maybe you just shoot that over to tomorrow because some of us are visual learners here. The B1 and B2 at like 4574 homes. Changing to approximately 2507?

2547.

2547. And then what has been built already? Does that include... Because it sounds like the boundaries have changed.

So that does include B1, which is... don't know off the top of my head 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 1988, and then 2247 for... Okay, so about 300 have been built in the B1 portion. I'd say probably 200, two to 300, 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 shifted?

I have certainly done that analysis. I have a spreadsheet somewhere, but in this neighborhood meeting presentation, I don't have that level of detail. As Don mentioned, I'm glad to get it and provide it, but this kind of gives a general overall trend of where it has shifted from 1988.

And some of that shift was 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 for Mr. Jones or the applicant in general at this moment? Okay. I do think it would still, I think the number of home counts is very helpful. I think if we still could have the comparison of the allowable units per, dwelling units per acre from 1988 proposed to current proposed would be helpful. So we'll let you guys continue to work on that.

sure and i can do that probably that math it'll just be units divided by and 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 isn't there okay thank you all right well then i think 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

Solange, do we have individuals who are signed up to speak in favor first for this item?

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

We don't have anyone 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 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 unmute yourselves now. Press star six to unmute yourselves. 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 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 ponder if folks want to consider any questions that they might have. I know there's a lot of 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 the Banning-Lewis B, right? For B2, correct. That is what has been read into the record.

So 8A through 8F is what we're talking about. Correct. And then we will move into this next item after we make determination on I think I see your wheels turning.

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

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

So I just need a moment.

Sounds good. We'll take a few moments to ponder. All right, we're having some sidebar conversation on the dais here, 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 about some of the road realignments, the vacation, and traffic in general. I wanna make sure your time is well spent today. So I don't know if we have any specific questions from commissioners, but if you could give us... I'll throw a few out to you. Last meeting. I mean, she has nothing to learn. You can fire me.

It's your last chance to ask a question. No more.

There might be in a couple weeks. 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 works. Adds to that, you know, maybe percentage wise, some people can help Matthew or roughly.

Yeah. Right.

So and then the interior streets. Right. So there's a new proposed interior streets and it seems like the realignment and connectivity in the new master plan. Could potentially be more beneficial than the interior loops and the old one or.

Okay, I'll try Todd for the city traffic engineering. Um. 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 roads that they plan to build, I'll start with arterial, such as Stetson and Dublin. Those are the two main parts of their, this part of Banyan Lewis, they're gonna build sections of those roads. Those roads based on development, the planned development, plus, you know, Any future development, these new roads should be able to accommodate additional traffic. They're going to be. 4 lane road, 4 lane, principal, principal arterials. They were have always been master planned that way. As we have noted, the densities have come in less. Then what were originally planned so, 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. So, you know, we've seen different studies. I'm confident that what I've seen now, the studies that 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 with the original studies as these roads were designed and thought of to be those sizes based on a much higher density. And then we see today, so in terms of the interior roads. This is at the master plan level, so we will not. We'll see more detail as as. Development applications come forward, but they're going to follow our criteria for collectors and locals and and. 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. I think you did. I think you did.

I think my, my interior was, um, the arterials that you already, um, addressed. And then, um, I guess. And they're all still in 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, 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, while they all now do, as development has come in and filled in those gaps. Same thing will happen with Stetson, or with Dublin, first. Eventually, it will connect, and it's planned to connect to U.S. 24, but Oakwood, but the final piece to 24 is, 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. And then Stetson, the same way. Eventually, it will connect to 24. But the challenging part is making the connection to Mark Shuffle because that goes through another developer, 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 gotta be made from the end of steps into 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 along the way as so.

Are those types of projects eligible or not? Really?

They would be so those final connections that we would have to make sort of 1. I just mentioned on stats and they are eligible right now. Uh, it is not a project identified on the a list for 3. if there's a 4. and we identified that project as a need, it could end up on an A-list project for extension, but we will not know that until we evaluate a PPRTA-4 list, which is probably five to six years out before we actually start thinking about that.

Sure, follow the need of what's existing versus proposed. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, so that's, yes.

Okay, thanks Todd 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 particular thinking of the commercial concept plan portion of this.

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

you're talking about village c in the commercial session or did i get my notes 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, concept plan for proposed commercial consisting of 9.2 acres, item 8D.

Yeah, you're way into the details that I don't normally follow. So we're at the master, this is at a master plan. This is the, you know, there is not detail.

Oh, I thought we were doing A through F. We are doing a through F. Okay.

Okay.

But the overall, it's an update to the master plan. Yes, overall.

You're asking for a very specific question. How does the retail connect to the residential? That's your question.

Right.

Right. Well, if... Ideally, it will connect, but we don't have to, we don't know what that looks like. At this point, I mean, I'm gonna have to build sidewalk and build connections within the neighborhood to make those connections. I hope they would, you know, we will look as as development plans come. In for our review, 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 yes, you can try. I can try, yeah. Some of the right-of-way, some of the old roads.

Yeah. So I'm going to try to go back over here, pull up right-of-way.

Yeah.

And... This is public rights of way known as the Vista del Oro Boulevard and portions of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway, north of Tamlin Road, northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway. Item 8E.

Yeah. Okay.

The question that I have 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 going to 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 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 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 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 going to go here now you're saying the road's not going to go there it's going to go here we're still going to have roads they're still going to connect they're still going to 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 going to put that future planned street in a different place.

Absolutely. That's we're looking at the current RV review is the current master plan and it's. planned infrastructure or the proposed master plan and it's planned infrastructure and does it satisfy our needs and our requirements 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 38 years ago, if I'm doing the math right, in 1988, that we're now reconceptualizing, but we're not actually changing legal status 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. So try to provide clarity there, Chair Hensler, Dan Sexton, planning manager. Yes, the streets don't physically exist today. They are a master plan street. However, back in the 1980s and 1990s, those streets were plotted. So they are legal parcels or rights of way of record. Um, hence why we're doing a companion application for this in the next project to vacate those. For lack of better term paper streets, um, 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 yeah thank you mr frisbee

Dan, just confirming, I guess, again, what you just said, it's really more of a cleanup of the 1988 master plan to current 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.

unit count or allowable dwelling units per acre.

For the record, Tamara Baxter. So 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 that you're looking at. So on sheet two is what is currently, what the current 1988 master plan proposed for density. As you can see, they didn't have a unit count. It was more of a range based on the proposed densities. Also, a couple things to note is that the park areas have decreased. So now they're going from multiple areas with parks to two areas. And as the applicant noted, some of that acreage is going to be part of the community park to the south. So you're going to see as shown on sheet three, but before we go to that, there are two school sites and two areas that are for commercial that are pretty much the same size. So there's just kind of a shift between the low and the high to basically a medium density range that's being proposed, the 3.55 to 7.99. So if you can go to the next sheet. And so what they're proposing here, if you go down to that table, they are proposing kind of a density range with regards to residential medium. So it's kind of in that medium range of single family attached and single family detached. In the previous master plan, they could have had more multifamily, kind of the higher density type 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 in 1988 versus what's being proposed.

Thank you. I think the applicant satisfied that question as well. I do see the ranges and there was not In 88, you know, a cap or of units, but rather, you know, pretty 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 build-out timelines because some of the concerns regarding the open space reduction that's turning into right drainage and some of this unbuildable area, what's the timeline for build-out when that park may come on within, Village C, and what is the sequence of that in order to satisfy that requirement? Yeah, that's for the applicant. I was going to say, I'm going to defer that to the applicant. Sorry, I thought I said that early in my ramblings.

Tyler Jones, Oakwood Homes. The Village C Community Park is across the drainage channel and we intend to start construction on that 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 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 in Banning Lewis Ranch, my guess would be in that 2030 kind of 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 would see really this development is going to 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 Seas?

One more question for the applicant. Just speaking to the market, which I think is always important in these circumstances. So the bill that you said is currently at about 200 homes that you guys have out there, and this is a response to the market and doing 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 sorry, could you add a little clarity to that? The B1 parcel?

Yeah, so B1, 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 a few years ago. We are actively building in Village A right now. 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 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, if you can imagine. Kind of zoom in there. We're kind of right there at that midpoint or just south of that neighborhood park within village ages or just north of that. If you will, that green bubble, um, is where our development is and we are moving north right now. So we have about 500 homes left to construct within village. Great. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioner.

This is just in reference to the schools. The report repeatedly brings up the schools, but it doesn't give the detail about the funding or the construction timing on that. So I was just wondering, are the sites just reserved or are construction plans and funding in place?

To my knowledge, I am not aware of any construction plans or funding for the schools. We have met with the school district multiple times and had great dialogue. A lot of it 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 sanitary sewer. But that southern school site, we initially had it on the other side of 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 going to 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 let'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 dialogues with the school district.

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. I mean, if... If we ultimately outbuild, we will provide 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 planning director just in response to the school questions it's really kind of a let's staying in our lanes kind of answer the city the city's role is to make sure that school sites are reserved 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 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... sometimes we're in they're caught up and sometimes they're behind and sometimes they're ahead but it's primarily the school districts and the state's responsibility to build schools not the 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 uh amount so thanks for the clarification uh commissioner cecil

Wrong button, I was just wondering if you would be 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.

tomorrow 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 but this whole series of applications will move forward to city council i'm assuming probably in september or october thank you that's really helpful okay

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 guess I just wanted to say that going through this hearing and process, understanding site constraints probably better than we had 30 plus years ago. It seems that the application does meet the criteria and offers a path forward to single-family homes and clustered and a lower-density multifamily home that I think is compatible and in line with the surrounding area that has been developed while offering a path forward and more units that our town is ready for growth and future vitality. So I will be in support of this item.

Thank you. Commissioner Case and then Commissioner Engel.

Commissioner Case, I too agree with what Commissioner Slattery just said. I see this as a cleanup from the 1988 master plan 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 Slattery that this is a forward step from the 1988 plan and I would be supporting this. The park units are low, but nonetheless, I accept the applicant's proposal that they will make that up with Village C.

Commissioner or 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, Commissioner Robbins, I saw you reaching for your button. Go ahead. Any comments?

Yes. I'm in support also of this. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to upgrade from 1988, doing the vacation of roads and 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'll echo the sentiments I think that we've heard, and I particularly like that you've kind of addressed the, whether they're creeks or drainage or arroyos, 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 minded, and so I do think that this is a great update, and it turns out that 38 years ago was 1988. So that's been a long time, so I like the refresh. and the reduction and also the diversity of housing. All right, Commissioner Cecil, give us all your thoughts. And do you wanna make motions as you go? Or do you wanna let someone else make motions?

Well, I thought you said to read them all before motions. 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 rezone, I support approval because the proposed PDZ 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 required findings for approval. for item eight C. 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 neighborhoods 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. I think with that we'll move to motions. And Trevor or Solange, is there any opportunity to read just the item number as opposed to the full descriptions?

Since Solange already read the items into the record, you can just read the item number. We will need a full motion for each one, though.

That's what I'm asking. So all of the recommend and all the legalese and all the things.

Yes. 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 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 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. I want to recommend approval to City Council to zone change of 501.9 acres from PDZ slash R5's slash CR slash R 16 slash MX dash M CR 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 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. Based on 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 seven, which was reviewed, Repealed and replaced in 2023 per ordinance number 23-03. Commissioner Cecil, I'll second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Robbins, I make a motion to approve 8C in regards to zoning 23-00-08. I recommend approval to the City Council for the zone change from 9.3 acres from PDZ-R-52, or excuse me, slash CR-2. We get, after a while, we get better at this. It takes time. Slash AP-O slash SSO, planned development zone district, multifamily high with conditions of record and airport and streamlined overlays to MX-M slash AP-O slash SSO. DASH O MIXED USE MEDIUM SCALE AND AIRPORT STREAMSIDE OVERLAYS BASED UPON THE FINDINGS THAT THE REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A ZONE CHANGE AS SET FORTH IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 7 SECTION 7.5.603 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 Clemmons, I second it.

Commissioner Engel, reference item 8D.

Hold on, you got to vote. Got to vote. You got to wait. Yeah, 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. A 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 7.5.501 . 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-of-way known as the Vista del Oro Boulevard and portions of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Ranch Parkway, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.7. 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 Clements, I second it.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Clements here. I'd like to make a motion to approve 8GLUPL-25.

Excuse me, Commissioner. We haven't gone through those yet. That we offer these for B-2.

Oh, yes. Wait. So 8, I'm sorry, 8F was our last one. Oh, well, you're going to be up first for the next set. Okay. Correct. We did get through 8F. There were so many. We lost track. I think I'm going to make a suggestion. We have lunch coming today because we knew this meeting would run long. I'm going to make a suggestion that we push through our applicant and staff and applicant presentation and discussion on 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 going to 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 going to 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 lengthier? 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 merit that maybe, yes, sir.

And 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 push lunch to a little later, I think. We'll be. Yep. All right. So, so lunch, if you can start us with Bannon Lewis Ranch Village C and read those items into the record as opposed to us making motions on them.

Item 8G, LUPL-25-0008, Establishment of the Benning Lewis Ranch Village Seat Land Use Plan for Proposed Residential Commercial School and Park Uses consisting of 658.34 acres located north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, west of Highway 24, south of Dublin Boulevard, and east of Benning Lewis Parkway. Item H, sorry, 8H, ZONE-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 stream side to mixed use medium scale. Item 8, IZONE-25-0020, a stone map 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, multifamily high with conditions of record, single family medium with conditions of record, single family estate, multifamily high, mixed use medium scale, an airport and stream site overlay, to RFlex medium and airport and stream side overlays. Item 8 J S U B D dash 2 4 dash 0 1 3 1. Vacation of 25.845 acres of public right away known as Falcon Meadows Boulevard, Vista del Prado Boulevard, Vista del Oro 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, DVSA-25-0002, a development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209.B, Table 7.2.2-I, to provide a density range of area of 3 to 16 dwelling units per acre in the Arflex Medium Zone District, where 5 to 16 dwelling units per acre is required, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway. and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard. Item 8L, DVSA-25-0004. A development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209.B, Table 7.2.2-E to provide minimum lot area for residential uses of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the RFlex Medium Zone District, where 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit is required, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard. Item 8M, DVSA-25-0005, a development standards adjustment to City Code 7.4.203.A, Table 7.4.2-E, to provide second and third floor encroachments of principal structure into the front setback up to 2 feet, per length of the building, where up to 30 inches, but no closer than two feet to any property line is required, located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard. Item 8N, DVSA-25-0006, A development standards adjustment to city code 7.2.209.B table 7.2.2-I to provide corner lot side street 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, DVSA-25-0007, a development standards adjustment to City Code 7.2.209.B, Table 7.2.2-I, to provide five feet side yard setback for all sides of lots that have no street frontage or alley loaded located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Benning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard. Thank you. And item 8P-DVSA-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 5 feet located south of Dublin Boulevard, east of Banning Lewis Parkway, and north of Stetson Hills Boulevard. Your presenter is Tamara Baxter.

I don't know what time it is, but good morning, Tamara Baxter, for the record. Noon on the dot, so. Oh, good afternoon. All right. So before you is the Banning Lewis Ranch Village C Project. To give you context, the project is located east of Banning Lewis Village A, south of Dublin Boulevard, north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, or the future extension of Stetson Hills Boulevard, and to the east, State Highway 24. What is being proposed is a rezone, a land use plan, two rezones and six development standard adjustment. The total acreage is about 658 acres. Proposed land use out in this area is residential and commercial. To give you a little bit of a summary of the proposed land use plan. So as you're aware, so this project was reviewed under the current UDC. Under the UDC, the master plan and concept plan went away and it became a land use plan. So before you move with the land use plan is envisioned residential and commercial. The two zone districts are a conventional RFlex medium zone district. And to accommodate that conventional zoning is the development standards adjustment, as well as a rezone of 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. 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 in 4 neighborhood parks. Um, as you can see, diagonally, the red is a 50 foot wide rock island trail corridor. 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 eight 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. Okay. 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 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 stream site overlay. This area is primarily residential. And as indicated, there are six development standards adjustment, which we'll go over to accommodate 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 tools allowing flexibility in those districts. The staff encouraged them to rezone to a conventional zone, so the RFlex medium, 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. You've seen this screen before. These are the villages in Banning Lewis that are the Oakwood Holdings. Village B2 is to the north, Village A3 to B1 and Village 1. At the work session, it was asked to look at the densities that were approved for each villages. So I went back to look at the ordinances. So on your screen, these are what was approved with the ordinances. I know the applicant had provided some kind of different density ranges. I think, I can't remember in which one, but that was the build out. These are what was approved. So as you can see in Village 1, 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 3, gross density was up to 7.99. 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. And I did provide the different height maximums that were approved as well with 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 density range is 5 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has requested that it go down to 3 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 is to reduce the allot area from 1,500 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Also similar to the density, changing the density range is to accommodate their product type. Um, the next development standard, uh, that's being, uh, requested is to allow, um, their 2nd and 3rd floors of their products to encroach and, um, encroach into the front setback up to 2 feet for the length of the building where per code it. indicates that up to 30 inches, but not closer than 2 feet to any property line is allowed. So that is currently allowed in other villages. Um, but with the conventional zoning, it's not allowed under the reflects. The next development standard adjustment is for allowing the corner lot setback to be reduced from 15 to 10 feet. That also exists in the current different villages for the product type that is being constructed. And then 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 is kind of a cluster product. So the UDC does not clarify that. So they're asking for that to be clarified with the RFlex zoning. And then the last 1 is to allow for covered porches to be to encroach into the setback by 5 feet. Currently, we do not allow covered porches to encroach into the setback without a variance. The right away that similar to village B, 2, so they're proposing to vacate about 26 acres of right away. And those will be also plotted as future development plans come in for village. See, 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 and it was ready for CPC agenda on June 15th of this year. 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. There were six that were received during the initial review of the project. a couple that were received after the neighborhood meeting and then you received a couple this week um concerns in those had to do with water availability traffic roadway capacity growth density and park provisions 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 plats 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, Plan COS does support this development. It does encourage a variety of housing types from low to medium density, and also for the commercial development and redevelopment of the area. Criteria, these are the criteria for the land use plan. The land use plan does meet these review criteria. With regards to the zone map rezoning for the two applications for rezoning, both applications meet the criteria for a rezone. And for the development standards adjustment, the six of them, the development standards adjustment meet the criteria listed above. And also in addition to the road vacation, 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, the zone change for one of the application, rezone to MXM. Here is the motions for the rezone to RFlex medium. And then the development standards adjustment. So there are six of them. So I'm just gonna 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 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 Benning 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, 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. There are significant differences, primarily in the open space due to the site constraints. There's an increase in open space. And to the east, we are proposing MX zoning to the east, and that will allow for more flexible zoning for commercial or residential. In the previous 1988 plan, it was assumed that there would be access to that site from Highway 24. We have heard from CDOT that they will not allow access, only emergency access to that site from Highway 24. Therefore, we see that not as viable for commercial but for other uses as opposed to retail or intense retail. But that is a difference here between 1988 and our current proposal, as well as the additional open space areas due to the site constraints that were not shown in 1988. In addition, for the, go to the, For the overall 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 project to allow access to every parcel and to allow residential access to those neighborhood parks. And as mentioned with B2, the community park is 35 acres total, and that is located centrally at the north of the Village C site along Dublin with access from Dublin Boulevard. The Rock Island Trail itself, which is a 50-foot wide required easement as part of the annexation, 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, what is required within Village C is 16 acres. We are providing 16.25. The community park calculation, the Village C obligation is 19.4 acres. When you add that to the Village B2 carryover from the north, The 15.59, that is 34.99 acres total, and we're providing a 35-acre community park. As stated before, the total RFlex acreage is 547 acres, and the MXM zone acreage is 111 acres to the east. And some additional details about the density. The requested range from three to 16, and in the RFlex medium, five to 16. The estimated units are 2,426, with the average 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 Benning Lewis Ranch. So that would allow potential multifamily or just higher density 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 Robins here. I just want to get clarification on the roadway because there's no access to 24. That's coming up 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 a proposed collector street that connects Stetson Hills with Dublin and then there will be access from that collector road to the east to serve that site.

Okay, great, thanks.

Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Engel. Sir, in the RFLEX medium zone, I think in some areas you suggest the high end of the density would be 16 dwelling units. That's higher than I think you have in 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 our flex medium portion of this project.

Well, the RFlex medium allows that density, so that's based on starting with the RFlex medium as the base zoning. The actual density, and I'll go to these slides that we looked at before, to show case studies of the typical density for the residential areas. that will be zoned RFlex include, again, a similar pattern of development that has been established in Village 3 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. but generally we see multifamily happening further east if it happens.

In the area that was not our flex medium. That's right. The area to the east.

Okay. The other zoning area.

So I look at Village 3 and it looks like similar to what you had in Village A, but basically the range is 3 to 12 dwelling units that you have there as compared to 3. And you asked for a variance to go lower than 3.5, but 3 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. This Village 3 and the Village 3 and Village A examples show what we anticipate.

How would you get a... 16 dwelling unit per acre layout. Would that be a cluster structure that you use similar to Village 3 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. I think it would be Maybe some new or not necessarily something that's been built in Benning Lewis Ranch yet, but it could be like a home that has four flats in a combined single building. Single building structure. Like a fourplex, a sixplex. Instead of a duplex or something.

Yes. Okay. all right would you go back to that chart that shows as well i want to say i wanted to add townhouses yeah 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 all it's authorized uh the entrance to that point is uh the road to the north which is it's not it's 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 accept that. Okay. My only question would be is whether or not that will really work. Thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, do you have the same 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, those villages are being built. And they would require those. However, because of the zoning at the time, uh, they, they don't actually require it. Um, and 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, 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 in before then. So I think I'm clear.

I think it's less about when the in 1988, I guess. or whenever those were approved, but it was under the old Chapter 7, and Tamara said that at the beginning of her presentation, that application was Chapter 7, 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 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 Okay, a very good question. I just wanna make sure we have clarity up here. Other questions for Mr. Ryan?

Yeah, I just wanted to dive into the MXM zone unit calculations, because there was no provided unit calculations. All of the proposed units, which seemed to match closely to the previous master plan, were only for the RFlex medium unit. And you had stated that the MXM was likely to be commercial, but then after talking with CDOT that that has changed. So there's no unit calculations for the MXM area, and that is the area in my mind that seems potentially problematic or just unclear at this point as to what – the intention or plan where that is going.

I would say that the intention is for that parcel and those parcels that are requesting MXM zoning to be the most flexible for future development. Because the development is occurring from the west to the east, that would be the last parcels of Benning Lewis Ranch to get developed. And as such, being so far in the future, just want to maintain the maximum flexibility for that.

Understood. And then I would imagine revisiting with CDOT at a future point, or is that, I would think as development happens, I mean, it seems logical to put more commercial applications along that region.

Yeah, so I think by the time that the MXM zone is developed, we will see a lot of other development on this side of Colorado Springs. And 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 road connections will be built. and then uh yes i think there'll be an opportunity to revisit uh access to this site depending on the highest and best use in the future okay and did you um if it was built out as multi-family it was their calculation on how many units that could the calculation was done as an average over the whole seed village c Yeah, well, it was done for the entire area as an average.

Okay. Other questions, comments? 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.

I have a question for him, yes. Go for it. Commissioner Clements, I see that the lot size is going to be 1,000 square feet. That's about smaller than my apartment. Will there be room for, like, yards for the... or the large?

That actually speaks to the density that we have to achieve the higher densities in the cluster products that we have. It could even be a single-family home, but maybe more likely a duplex or a townhome. But that is a smaller lot, and that's why this has a higher overall density, up to 16 units per acre, which would allow for that smaller lot. Thank you.

All right, have you built products now on 1,000-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 saw heads going different. Yeah. You can answer that.

Yeah. I can kind of speak to – I don't know how – oh, sorry. Tyler Jones, Oakwood Homes. are 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 plot so uh what does that come out to be but it's it is a fairly small home site. So just right now, I think we're probably just over 1000 square feet. But ultimately, the goal with those adjustments were to line up what we are actively building in Banning Lewis Ranch. So that is one of those adjustments that lines up. I don't think it's quite necessarily 1000. 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 in Banning Lewis Ranch. Does that add the clarity?

All right, we'll go to Commissioner Cecil, and then we do need to open up to public comment, since I think we've 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. Maybe we'll let them ponder that while we take public comment, and we can take that in our rebuttal or further Q&A. So Solange, I know you said that there are a couple folks that are signed up here to speak, so we'll get to that.

We have David Osborne. They did not state if it's in support or opposed, so if you can state that, please, when you introduce yourself.

I'm David Osborne. I think we had, yeah. I have a few comments. This is kind of related. What you see here is U.S. 24, and we have a property right along U.S. 24 borders, the C project. 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 at the moment or when that gets done, I think they told me quarter one of next year, we'll have that little stub all to ourself. You'll be able to get to us coming from the east, coming from the west. Perfect. 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 I If you could, 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 all I have to say about that. The next, that's just a bigger view. The one with the county map of the parcels. yeah so um right there kind of 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 sea so um my concerns here are um you know building right up to our you know we have rv park people come to see pikes peak building right up to our property line how's that i don't know the you know the rules regarding that i didn't 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. Commissioner Robbins here. Sorry. Is that where there's a little gas station? Is that part of that? Yeah, that's us. Okay. 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. Okay.

So should 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 is Jay Larson. I'm a resident of Banning Lewis Ranch, a current resident. I have been to both of the planning commissions. So this will be no surprise to, I've said this twice. Now this will be the third time. One of the things that was discussed today was 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 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, et cetera, there's one way out of Banning Lewis Ranch. My concern is we do not have a southern route. 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, and 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, and that is not part of the planning right now. and it's not on the agenda. That is a concern of mine. I'm concerned for our residents, and I'm concerned for, we are a 55-plus community. We have a number of people that 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 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 star six.

Okay, I was guessing not.

There's somebody online.

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, Oakwood Homes. All right, I'll speak with, in regards to the RV 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, it's not adjacent to our holdings right of way, 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 park, 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, 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 describing engineering, which always goes well, is going to be a 90 degree angle 224. And how it will 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 intersection. And I know we've started the conversations with CDOT and that's starting out. There's not a final answer on how that's all gonna 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 a it's a fairly uh dynamic situation right there so i based on all the conversations I have had with CDOT and 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 to your mouth on kind of the nuances of that area, but 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 going to be a, a big problem to solve, maybe not problem, but just a challenge to solve. I know that doesn't add a lot of specific clarity to it, but I think all the stakeholders are trying to make sure that those considerations are taken into account. We don't want to negatively impact any adjacent property owner or business, certainly. Now to the open space adjacent to the RV park, there is 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 same with there is the rock island trail that runs through there i believe closer to the northern boundary of of your rv site and so i think with that there's going to be a lot of open space potential kind of around 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 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 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 and 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 We can only do what we can do. We have built our arterials 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 one thing that we can't kind of speak to ultimately, and then we will continue to build out as we can via 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 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 here, have different 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. And so all the adjustments are trying to align what we have currently allowed and are actively building within our current zoning type and continue that through under the UDC and the RFlex medium zoning.

I think you were, this is Commissioner See, so I believe you were referencing my earlier question about the benefits criteria for the 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, all of them are geared towards having a dynamic product offering of small lot duplex townhomes, cluster product of various sizes, single families, alley load product that doesn't quite fit into the our medium flex zoning. And what that ultimately allows for is 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 similar 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 an alley-low duplex product where you have setbacks, and one of them is a porch out into a setback. So that, in my mind, enhances the cultural, you know, you create a whole different living dynamic outside of that and creates additional accessibility to parks. 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 did you have any other topics or points that you wanted to bring?

I tried to kind of address the.

Yeah. Okay. So I think just segueing right from that variety of product types and. the clear value of having a variety of product types in different, you know, age communities or ability communities catered to is something I know I really value. But could you just maybe, I'm a point and grunt kind of learner, very visual. If you could show on the map what it is that for the southern route of potential evacuation, where your cutoff is and where you lose control of being able to provide a connection. Sure.

So you can see we don't control anything south past Stetson Hills on Banning Lewis Parkway. Same with continuing Stetson Hills to the west to Mark Shuffle. So those are the two kind of boundary conditions that are outside our control.

And thank you, Steph, for giving me the arrow. That was really helpful.

Yeah. And so we have continued Banning Lewis Parkway north to our boundary condition. And while we don't control the property that ties from the northern boundary to Woodman, Norwood has completed that development. So that That path has been constructed and then of course we have the two exits to the West off Dublin and visit El Cero.

OK, thank you. Sorry I know Commissioner Slattery. I'm done now.

I along the. Benefits. Component and maybe this is. Seems like you're more familiar with product types than maybe some of the other nuances, but I was wondering, and perhaps staff can jump in. with with this if the 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 be created in this 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, kind of in the center on the big, so the eastern portion of the western chunk, for lack of more eloquent words. My other questions to you slash, and if Mr. Frisbee needs to jump in, but the, we talked about the gap, but is the development of both I think it's 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 major roadways?

Yeah, um, great point on the amenities. I got a little snow blind on on some of my, uh, we have built and are planning to continue to build clubhouses and shared amenities, pools, uh, workout facilities, um, in all our in our previous villages. And we plan to continue that through our subsequent villages.

Are those covered within the HOA fees?

So this is within a metro district and they are metro district owned and controlled and available to those residents, yeah.

That's a really big help. Thank you for bringing that up. Yeah.

And I think our next one, which will be in Village A is just waiting on some utility connections and should start middle of next year. To the... Roadway Connections. Roadway Connections. So I might defer some of this to Todd. He probably knows the code and the continuations a little better than I do.

Mr. Frisbee, welcome back.

I think I stuck around. Uh, okay. Uh, top Brisbane city traffic engineering. Uh, the question was regards to, uh, future connections to 24 specifically.

Well, sorry, it was not to cut you off, but it was like the development of the North and South border roads.

Yeah.

Because connectivity, I think we talked about before, where there's potential PBRTA funding, the gap between development and those connections, but particularly the north and south roads, because our master plans show kind of the interior portions, but not necessarily, we haven't really articulated on those areas.

Boundary that 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 Dublin Boulevard. This developer is building Dublin, will be building the full section of Dublin Boulevard. But they, as they described, and they're correct, it will stop short of connecting to US 24. And CDOT, as part of their widening of US 24 project, they are building a little stub out. That will provide access to the, um, uh, to the park. Uh, the RV park, uh, but ultimately that connection. From that stuff out to where Dublin will end will be, uh, a project, a or or a future developer led effort. But it is in our master plan, our transportation master plan, to make that connection. So to the south is Stetson Boulevard. Eventually, as this development moves to the east, they will make a connection to US 24. And that's ultimately... That's how they're going to get a lot of access to their to village C from twenty four and rest debating Lewis. Um, uh, and then, uh, that's that's in 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, all of our transportation plans show Dublin, bless you, show Dublin extending south to Barnes eventually, but that's under the control of Norwood and their freestyle development. And Barnes is currently in design. AND IT CURRENTLY CONNECTS TO MARK SHUFFLE. THE SECTION FROM MARK SHUFFLE TO FUTURE BANNING LEWIS PARKWAY IS UNDER DESIGN RIGHT NOW. SO COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. THE TIMING FOR BANNING LEWIS PARKWAY IS EXTENDING SOUTH. YOUR GUESS IS GOOD AS MINE ON WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN.

Thank you for articulating and educating us. You sure know the roads better than I do.

Well, just keep in mind, too, there's been significant infrastructure improvement in this area. We're wrapping up the widening of Mark Shuffle between Barnes and Dublin. AND WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE WIDE NEED OF DOUBLIN FROM MARK SHUFFLE TO PETERSON ROAD. SO THERE'S BEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE SIGNIFICANT UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO CAPACITY AND CONNECTIVITY ON THIS AREA AND AS MENTIONED BANNING LEWIS PARKWAY WAS EXTENDED TO WOODMAN. WE ALSO ADDED A THIRD LANE ON WOODMAN JUST TWO YEARS AGO. A lot of infrastructure improvements have gone in in this area, both put in by developers and by city through PPRTA.

Thank you so much, Todd.

All right, Commissioner Cecil, question? For Mr. Frisbee, please. Okay. Sorry, Commissioner Cecil, I just wanted to ask about one of the development standards adjustments 8N, which is to reduce the corner side setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. Will reducing that setback continue to provide adequate visibility and separation at street intersections? Yes.

Yes, it should. We keep that the intersections, we keep the corners clear. So when we when we get development plans and and review those plans, we'll be looking at sight lines at intersections so that it just, 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 the context is and how that's how that's set up.

But that is something you look at at each development plan.

Yes, we'll get a development plan review, especially we'll look at those corner or whatever intersection we're looking at. We'll look at the corners. the corners and see if we have those lines of sight at those. 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.

Good question. All right. Thanks. All right. Other questions from commissioners? Comments? um do we have any um do 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 are you going to 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'm sorry. I was trying to comply with the direction from city council saying to be very explicit about whys. But in general...

I think that's on a spectrum, and that was quite explicit. And if you feel necessary, go ahead. But I think where you might be opposed or in opposition to an item would probably be most helpful.

So I will then... only make one comment regarding item 8k the development standards adjustment for density i'm generally fine 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, much like the prior application, the right-of-way vacation makes complete sense to update the plan 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 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 Robbins, I know it's not easy to take the time to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and make everything come out, and I really appreciate the work you guys did. I'm in favor of the hard work that you have done, and I know that still 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. Commissioner Angle, go ahead.

Commissioner Angle, I likewise generally support everything you have done, and I think it is constructive to provide the variety of housing that you're going to do. My reservation is why do we have a UDC when we have to so significantly depart from it, in my judgment, to do some things that are worthwhile? Was there no other feasible 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 7, 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. It is probably a little bit of a warning to us that when something like this happens, why are we forced to each to create so many exceptions to it? Notwithstanding that, I generally support this and will support the development.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else on the north side of the dais would like to make a comment? Those are talking so much north and south today. Okay. Okay. Well, I think it's Brian's turn. Yeah. So now you can do your 8G.

Thank you. Commissioner Clements? LEPL-25-0008. Motion to approve. I recommend approval to City Council the land use plan of the Banyan Lewis Ranch Village C land use plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for land use plan as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514. Commissioner Kaye's second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Gigiano, 8H zone dash 25 dash 0021. Motion to approve. Recommend approval to city council for the zone change of 111.54 acres from R slash E slash R slash 161. Slash CR slash SS dash o slash a piece dash 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 Clemmons, I second it.

The motion passes unanimously. All right, I'm going to 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, Jen. Item 8A, or sorry, 8I, know my alphabet, zone dash 25 dash 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 546.79 acres from R1 to R2. six slash R five R five slash C R slash R one six slash C R slash R E slash R five slash MXM slash APO slash SSO. single family medium multi-family 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 ap o s s o that's our 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 7.5.704.

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 8JSUBD-24-0131, motion to approve. Recommend approval of the vacation of right-of-way of 25.845 acres of public rights 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 seconds

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Robbins. Eight point K or eight point K. I make a motion to approve the development standards adjustment to city code section seven point two point two oh nine point B table seven point two point two one. allowing the establishment of a density range of three 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 adjustments set forth in city code sections 7.5.525 commissioner will it be second

The motion passes unanimously.

Item 8L, DVSA-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 RFlex 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. Commissioner Clemmons is seconded.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Slattery on item 8M, as in Mary. On DBSA 25-0005, motion to Approved 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 development standards adjustment as set forth in city code section 7.5.525.

Commissioner Case, second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Case, I'd 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 Clemmons, I second it.

The motion passes unanimously.

8.0 DVSA-25-0007. Motion approved. the development standards adjustment to city code section 7.2.209.B, table 7.2.2-1, allowing the establishment of five-foot side yard setbacks for all sides of lots that have no street frontage or alley loaded. Based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for development standards adjustment, set forth as city code section 7.5.525.

Commissioner Case, second.

The motion passes unanimously.

Commissioner Gigiano, 8PDVSA-25-0008. Motion to approve. Approve the development standards adjustment to the city code section 7.4.203.A Table 7.4.2-E, allowing the establishment of covered porch encroachments into front setbacks of up to five feet, based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for a development standards adjustment set forth in City Code Section 7.5.525. Commissioner Clements, I second it.

And this motion passes unanimously as well.

Okay, I think that exhausts all of the Banning Lewis Ranch items. That exhausts all of the Banning Lewis Ranch B and C items. Some of these items are appealable while others are legislative. So I'm gonna read the appeal instructions one more time. In accordance with requirements of Section 7.5.415 of City Unified Development Code, an affected party may appeal to City Council any action of the Planning Commission in relation to zoning code where the action is adverse to that party. Within 10 days from the final action on the item being appealed, which is Monday, July 20th, 2026, an appellant must file notice of appeal and pay the $176 fee with the city clerk. The appeal notice should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by planning commission. Council may elect to limit discussion at appeal hearing time to specific matters as set forth in the appeal notice. I want to appreciate our citizens who have come today to speak. Thank you for voicing your opinions and being here and participating, and for our applicants who have been here for the day. We are going to take a break and have lunch and feed our staff and then come back for our... think we're ready if you're ready sir i'm ready when you are are we staff are we ready we're are we live okay all right final item on the agenda mr walker the question is whether he's awake or not that's true do we want to read the item in

Item 8QNPLN-26-0002, the 2026 Annexation Plan Annex EOS, an update to the 2006 Annexation Plan and 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Plans EOS. 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. What we are discussing today is a draft proposal written by the city planning department primarily with lots of public input, including Colorado Springs Utilities and a fair amount from the public. 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. annex COS and then we'll go through the draft content and policies 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 at with this we you can go ahead and interrupt anytime So Plan COS 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 was adopted in 2019. And there have been various sort of pieces and parts of 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 and the guidance for this is. Uh, plan state statute requires that we have an annual update to the 3 mile plan. Uh, we've various times, um, accomplish 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 with the city or with the El Paso county, uh, on various areas and talk a little bit more about that as this presentation goes on. Uh, that was done into. 2021 and 2023 actually 2022 there was a water ordinance that affected annexations and so those things are all sort of on the books they are helping to guide annexations right now but we were looking to update them a little bit with this particular process In 2024, recent activities along the annexation line included Carmen Line and Amara, the Southern Colorado Rail Yard. We had a referendum in 2025, about a year ago. And there have been numerous, I think, over ten actual or enclave or partial enclave Approvals for annexation, so it's not as if annexation has not continued to occur. 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 that we went through. Certainly the voters and planning and planning commission and city council commentary on annexations, especially the couple of large ones have helped inform this particular process. It continues to be the objective to annex only if fiscally beneficial and in alignment with city plans. So I don't want to discount that. That includes city utilities as well as Colorado City, Colorado Springs. So we are not trying to annex things that are not fiscally sustainable. And that's an emphasis 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, that's kind of a threshold question and I want to emphasize again that having an annexation plan or having an annexation policy is not the same as growth. And the most obvious example is that in 1988, we annexed, the city of Colorado Springs annexed 26,000 acres of Banning Lewis Ranch. And you just spent a couple hours talking about a piece of that. And yet there are still 20,000 acres of that that are vacant. So this is not, again, annexation does not equate to growth. We have a lot of different jurisdictions require different standards for growth. 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 come under the City of Colorado Springs jurisdiction, you need an annex to the City of Colorado Springs. So part of that is the city standards are not applied to development outside of the city limits. And annexation certainly can affect the urban form. You heard a little bit about some of the Growth patterns outside of that earlier today 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, but it certainly has an effect on what our community looks like, and how it operates. Security in Whitefield is an example. That was a long time ago in the 1960s, operated not as a separate jurisdiction or municipality, but as a development inside 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, Whitefield Water and Security Water and Sanitation and the Parks District and the School District there. All of them operate in a hodgepodge of kind of how those became urban developments or suburban developments. But the county and the districts are basically the urban service providers and they are not a municipality. So residents, we've just completed the spacious skies discussion. We believe that 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. Basically, the majority of the residents believe growth is making things worse, but that they believe that they can, we can grow responsibly and that they would be in favor of responsible and balanced growth. So that's what we're trying to achieve a little bit here is is to create the opportunity for balance growth and for a logical extensions of the city. So the objectives of annex COS is to create responsible urban growth patterns with responsible provision of urban services, water, roads, parks, et cetera, and provided in a timely and an efficient manner. And again, to emphasize that includes the fiscal sustainability of the city. Um, the rail yard and soy coos or 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 psychos 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. Um, you know, land uses outside of their outside of their ownership and outside of their military bases, but obviously of of great public concern. Um, and we're hoping that that plan is completed here in the next month or 2. So we'll have the opportunity to start to review at least what the military bases think is what their interests are outside of the current military bases. But just to make sure, the SOICU study is first focused on Schriever Air Force Base or Space Force Base, not Peterson, not Cheyenne Mountain, not the Air Force Academy, not Fort Carson. The first one is Soy Kuz is coming out on Schriever. And then they'll start to apply some of those to the other bases, especially Peterson, I think is next on the docket. So give you a little bit of background, growth occurred, last time we did this plan was in 2006, like I said, growth was occurring very quickly in 2004 through 2007, four and 5,000 units per year, 10,000 multi-family units per year, so there was a lot of growth in that mid-time, and then there was a recession, 2008, some of you may remember that, some of you may be too young to remember that, Look, Ryan's awake, he is awake, okay. But then we had very slow growth after that. And then we had the pandemic growth, which was totally unexpected, 5,000 units per year, 2021, 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 since the last time we did this plan. Fannie Lewis Ranch has an impact. We talked a little bit about that at added, We have right now about 25,000 acres of vacant land inside the city limits, primarily in the Banning Lewis Ranch 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 that were part of the annexation begin development a little bit more both South and North 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. 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 uh... el paso county master plan was really trying to uh... uh... suggest uh... urban type development occur inside municipalities as opposed to in the metro districts in the other ways we were talking about earlier 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, uh. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN WILL PROMPT A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE WATER ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLY INFLUENCES DEVELOPMENT TODAY. RECENT ANNEXATIONS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND IT WASN'T TEN, IT WAS EIGHT ENCLAVE ANNEXATIONS, SO MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS SOY COUS IN THE MILITARY BASE HAS INCREASED ACTIVITY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS AND THE CONTEXT.

Can you just spell out the SOIQ's acronym for us? I'm trying to remember here.

Yeah. I'm going to have to use AI to come up with that.

Impact, something zone. We'll get it.

Somebody will look it up for me. I actually suggested that last time and didn't look it up, so my apologies. 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, many communities that deal with annexations and are making annexation a public policy area of interest, have the problem of not having developable land inside the city limits. We certainly do not have that problem. And so this really gives us the opportunity to be very strategic about what we annex and what we don't. And so this is not a question of we need more land to continue growth of our local economy and our local community. That is not the issue. The issue is something different. Uh, the El Paso county master plan expects growth adjacent to the city of Colorado Springs, especially in that Eastern edge. Um, between us and shriever 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 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 the way Colorado Springs has annexed property for the last 40 years. It's been a private property owner driven REQUEST, SO IT'S NOT THE CITY OF COLLAR SPRINGS LOOKING TO ANNEX SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, EVEN IN SOME OF THE AREAS OF THE ENCLAVES WHERE WE ARE INCENTIVIZING SOME ANNEXATIONS, THOSE ARE STILL AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT THROUGH THE CITY TO ANNEX PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO BE ANNEXED. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER STILL HAS THE CONTROL AND THAT SHOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE AND THAT'S WHAT THE A primary sort of tenant for. We did not do 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 3 mile area. And that especially gets much larger when you start adding the, the, the 3 mile area at the South end there, you can see. How it grows down along I 25 and that's basically the 3 mile boundary from the Southern Colorado rail yard annexation. So. What annexation annex is not is a 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 to give you an idea of our process. We've reviewed the existing documents, identified critical data. August 2024, two years ago, we had a panel discussion on growth and development. So that was something that we sponsored through the annex COS process, took that back, did some technical focus and group meetings, did a lot of criteria and mapping. And then we had these major annexation that occurred in 2024 and 2025, and sort of recalibrated our process to draft some goals and policies that you're here to review today. And we've had some additional stakeholder input and engagement, even up to the end of our, we closed our survey yesterday evening. I'll have a little bit of the results about that here in a minute, but we're still, looking at all of that kind of data and still taking in public comments, still tweaking documents. And again, 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. 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 1 6th 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%. You can request annexation for a specific area. It does not include people who want to be annexed. I think the last time that occurred was in 1982 when the city annexed the Southwest annexation area. But so it is not a common practice, but state statute allows some property owners to force other property owners to annex. We do have enclaves unincorporated area that's been encircled by the city for at least three years. And the city can unilaterally annex those areas. You've seen a couple of them through at least portions of them come through in annexations. And some of those enclaves are being closed out over the last few years, but it is possible And there is a process by which the state allows the city to annex property that is completely encircled by other properties. And so that is a process that, again, hasn't occurred very much, but it can, it is possible. And city-owned land can also 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 park land and utilities land 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 had a question.

I'm way better at questions 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 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 jurisdictions 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 in tax base, growth in population, growth in building, what kind of growth are you trying to communicate that annexation does not mean?

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 urban growth can occur outside of the city limits. As I just talked about rolling hills and. Um, bull bull, whatever the name of that development is, but that's occurring. Larson ranch, all of those have occurred out 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. And so that's really where the distinction is, 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 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.

Even if there's nothing on it. Yep, you certainly do. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on that and further define that. So again, Colorado Constitution has provisions in it. The revised statutes have Municipal Annexation Act. It's been modified and changed, not so much in the last 20 or 30 years, but in the 70s and 80s, there was a lot of state activity in the annexation. Uh, statutes, um, uh, 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. Um, and policies that are that are related to that. Some of those will be updating with this particular process. The Unified Development Code requires things like 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 going to be following 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? They haven't yet said no to any of those, but it's possible that the city council can look at something and say, that's not something that we're ever going to 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 in trying to get this annexation done. That's kind of the idea is to make sure that we try to make, we try to promote and not a push, but process forward annexations 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 to the. 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 at city standards outside of the city limits in order to and then potentially annex that in the future. So we don't have an area, a substantial urban growth area that is right next to the city that isn't gonna be annexed because of city standards. 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 very difficult to figure out how to annex something like that. So they were trying to avoid that kind of thing to date. There has not been one property owner or proposal that is avail itself of that. And we think that we would like to revisit that. agreement with El Paso County to try and figure out either how to move forward with that and modify it to make it effective or to abandon that and 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 IGA. The IGA will, it's just something, the next steps that we have to do based on this policy. So this gives you annex, COS of the annexation history. You can tell that, you know, there's been substantial growth in several decades, but this'll give you kind of an idea of how this is, how the city has expanded by decades. We did not include, well, it does actually include the rail yard at the very south end there. So that just kind of give you an idea of how we've grown over time with annexations. The process 2024 to present, here's some of the, again, we have a three mile plan area. That's basically the dotted line area, three miles from the existing city limits. And the area of planning interest is the hatched area. uh basically um on the eastern and northeastern edges of the city and and that was a map that was devised and derived during the iga process in 2020 2021 and 2022. Annex COS is a policy framework. 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. So that's what annex COS is attempting to accomplish for the community. What it isn't is a 40,000 acre land plan. So we are not, again, telling you what commercial land, what's industrial, what's residential, what's parks, et cetera, in this process. And it is not a priority map. It is not telling us where to go. It's not saying these are the areas we wanna annex first, so don't bother to call us until you get to get on the line, it's not designed to do that. And it isn't urban development. I said growth there, but I changed the, I think I changed my definition. This is 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 we've appreciated all of their participation. I have to especially thank Colorado Springs Utilities. 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 other ways of looking at growth and development, but we continue to cooperate with them as it relates to annexation and new areas for community development. I'm not, we're not gonna go through each individual policy. 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 contact me and we can talk about it. 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 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, I can put up the policies. I don't I think 1 of the. Probably the, the areas that we will, we're looking to change the process so much, not so much the outcomes, but the process are in 2 areas. 1 is in 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 utility makeup and rate structures. The City of Colorado Springs, however, does not. And in larger annexations, the City of Colorado Springs has had basically the approach that says you decide how you're gonna prove to us that we're fiscally sustainable. We're gonna change that. we're gonna basically say, we're gonna tell you what we wanna know and we're gonna tell you what we think the costs are 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. And so that's one area that we're very cognizant of. And the other is the information that you need to submit basically with the annexation. So we're basically asking you, previously it's basically been whatever your annexation or master plan looked like. That's the information that we got in order to evaluate Um, uh, the, the annexation what we're going to ask a property owners now is is to be a little bit more structured in that. We want to know how far away from the city limits. You are how far away how far away you are from a fire station police station where you are as it relates to actual transportation facilities and other infrastructure, especially as it relates to utilities. So we're gonna have a much more structured 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. But there's a lot of things that are the same. Like we're not proposing to change the fact that the city isn't doing your land plan for you. We're not proposing to, we're not asking for annexations. We're not seeking annexations. It's still a private property owner driven document. It doesn't prescribe certain answers. And 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. It allows time to not wear out this annexation policy so that over time you can adjust land plans and you can adjust political thinking 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 congrats 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 annex COS adoption, having that framework, what model's 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 pinch to try and get that. I think that 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 a fiscal impact analysis without knowing that we've got a policy that calls for it. And so I think that's just on the next step. But you're right, there's always an interim problem of we'd like to do better, but we don't have the documents to tell you at the moment. So I think we would probably rely a lot on what Colorado Springs Utilities does in terms of some of their assumptions and some of their processes and how they evaluate that.

Completely fair and understandable. I just want to make sure there's nothing that 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? question, just a concern. The people are, everyone is putting this together. Have they thought about trying to put it 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 problem with the police and the fire and the administrations of all the different cities. So once they have an issue in Denver and it travels into Aurora or Commerce City or wherever, it gets to be a bit of a challenge. And I'm just wondering if that's a concern or a thought here where the city does logical growth, it has to pay for itself, but also try to not have itself surrounded and 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 is a constant and planned COS calls for concern around those in terms of jurisdictional issues. Developments on the outskirts of the city. It is clearly one of the biggest advantages that Colorado Springs has is the ability to continue to grow and to manage its edges and manage its circumstances. There are some notable issues where we can't and won't and didn't. And I think we would like to avoid that. The El Paso County master plan is one of those things saying we would prefer to have those developments 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 I think it's an important consideration. I think state statute and this three mile idea came a lot from the situation in Denver and it doesn't really apply so much to Colorado Springs because we're not constrained by our border and we're not jurisdiction shopping with property owners where the jurisdictions say, hey, what if we if if you annex us, we'll do this. And then you go to the next one and say, if you annex us. Would you do would you do that? It stops a little bit of that and that goes on in Denver. I went to school in Saint Louis and so it's always been important. It's been important consideration about why Colorado Springs has such a different setting for it in Saint Louis. There's 130 jurisdictions inside Saint Louis County. that means there's 130 mayors and 130 police chiefs. Well, not really, there may be fewer than that, but it's still a nightmare. Denver has it, but with only 30. And so it's not as bad, but it still creates a lot of regional 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 of growth and development. Does that answer your question? Great. So these are the areas that we talked about. You've heard them already. 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. an emphasis on enclaves, and yet a flexibility for specific circumstances. So I can feel some of those potentially coming through the SOICUs. Has my staff been able to figure out what that stands for yet? Dan, what does SOICUs stand for?

Space Operation Installation Compatibility Use Zone. Oh, God.

Thank you. Thank God for AI, huh?

Still Google, still Google.

Thank you. 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. And so we're looking forward to that. I'm going the wrong way. So here are the general areas. Utilize the three mile plan and the AOPI as tools to inform and manage annexations and enclaves for the city. Utilize the provision of public facilities and services. Adequate 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. And to utilize annexation as an incentive to achieve desired community form and meet planned COS goals and policies. An example of that might be, like I just talked about, SOI CUS or the rail yard, that kind of special circumstances. and 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 are proposed, and we can talk about specific ones if you have any, but I'm not going to 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 of Monument and 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 base one, because I think that's probably the easiest. We all know that they have sensitive missions there, that the missions are critical to national security, and those bases are critical to our local economy. So the ability to expand those and to continue to use that land is important. If there were to, say, be a piece of property that 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, that maybe there's a line of sight that they need to protect. And so the City of Colorado Springs could annex a piece of property with a height limitation in a certain corridor that would make sure that the military felt more comfortable, that 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 pockets and pieces that the City of Monument and the City of Fountain have sort of, we have pieces that are adjacent to each other, and then, but, 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 city of monument iga maybe even with some of the larger metro districts especially as it relates to water could potentially be of value to the region as well as to the city.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Yeah.

And, sir, I had a question about Goal 5 because I was excited when I first read the staff report that it included using annexation as a tool to achieve the desired community form, 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 goal said. 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 identify housing as a consideration during annexation review or if it's only limited to general compliance with plan COS.

No, I think it, well, Plan COS actually does that as well. I mean, it does emphasize and encourage more affordable housing. And it has been a goal of the city council. And if you look at the checkpoint questions, they have that question in there is what kind of housing are you providing and is it meeting our housing goals? We're going through some housing goal discussions right now. And so housing is obviously an important, is important to the long-term growth of the community. So it is in there. It's in there more than what we had in 2006. And I think it does mirror kind of what Plan COS is doing. If it's watered down a little bit, then I don't think that the emphasis is lost, especially as it relates to checkpoint. The checkpoint policies.

Thank you a Question so we talked about you talked about intergovernmental agreements with Metro districts And in housing and affordability is part of the fiscal impact analysis taking into account Metro district costs and and how those are pushed forward on to future homeowners and and is that part of a potential fiscal impact analysis?

Yeah, I think that it could, it can and probably should be an important aspect of the fiscal impact analysis so that you can, you know, when we ask you for these specific things, you can, we could potentially say how is it that the use of districts is gonna make this housing more affordable? And I think that we can certainly ask for that and I think that that's a good addition. All see itself does not address that. 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 our report and our fiscal impact analysis. Thank you. How we decide, this is the process that you guys are a part of, property owner petition, again, that's the primary method. 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 with all of the things that we've talked about already, a fiscal impact analysis that the petitioner developed based on a city template. So the city does not pay for the fiscal impact analysis, the developer does, but the city is the one that will be guiding how those reports are prepared and what their conclusions are. We are retaining the checkpoint process that might actually be up there a little bit earlier. It should probably be up there and 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 been critical to the way the City of Colorado Springs has distributed costs and made things fiscally 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 exactions and or requirements for example paying for park development or managing parks different annexations have different rules around how who pays for the parks who's maintaining the parks 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 city of Colorado Springs over time.

Is there a 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 we're 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 20,000 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 nearby jurisdictions where, you know, parcels were sold to folks with intention of affordable housing, say, and with no timelines attached and nothing's happened, right? So the goals are not being met because there's no... Considerations in place on time. Is that something that's included in the annexation agreement or something that you would consider as related to validating the fiscal impact analysis?

That's a great question and probably should be explored quite a bit more in the fiscal impact analysis piece of this puzzle. I'm not aware of any very long term kind of timing that's associated with 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 going to 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 agreed 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 2,000 houses developed by, in 10 years. The real problem with annexation agreements is that what if you don't? Are you gonna de-annex it? You know, probably not. Uh, and if 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 a water line or constructing a road or making that critical. it needs to protect the city from having to invest if the development doesn't occur. I think that's really been the way it's been used in the last 40 years, 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 Jen.