Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

9 -

Present:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Andrea Slattery - Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director said the Rock Creek Annexation and

Uintah Townhomes were approved at City Council on February 11, 2025. Mr.

Walker said previous to that the Karman Line Annexation was approved, and

they continue to work on items such as ADU and AnnexCOS.

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2562

4.A.

Minutes for the January 8, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_1.8.25 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to approve

the minutes for the January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. The motion

passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to approve

the Consent Calendar The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

Cottages at Spring Creek

5.A.

PDZZ-24-000 Ordinance No. 25-35 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 16.71 acres located northeast of the

South Union Boulevard and South Circle Drive intersection from PDZ

(Planned Development Zone; Single-Family Residential; maximum

density of 5.37 dwelling units per acre; maximum building height of

thirty (30) feet) District to PDZ (Planned Development Zone;

Residential; maximum density of twelve (12) units per acre; maximum

building height of thirty (30) feet) District.

(Quasi-judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: ZC_Ordinance_Cottages_at_Spring_Creek

Exhibit A_LegalDescripton

Exhibit B_Zone_Change

Cottages_Spring_Creek_CPC_Staff_Report_Revised_20250213

Exhibit_2_Land_Use_Plan

Exhibit_3_Public_Comments

Exhibit_4_Traffic_Impact_Study

Exhibit_5_Ordinance_06-09

Exhibit_6_Project_Statement

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Staff_Cottages_Spring_Creek_CC_1st_Pressentation_20250214

Cottages_Spring_Creek_CPC_Staff_Report_20250212

MeetingMinutes_Cottages at Spring Creek_2025.02.12

Signed Ordinance No. 25-35.pdf

This Ordinance was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.

5.B.

LUPL-24-001 Establishment of the Cottages at Spring Creek Land Use Plan for

proposed residential development consisting of 16.71 acres located

at the intersection of S Union Boulevard. and S Circle Drive.

(Quasi-judicial) (2nd Reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 4

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

This Planning Case was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.

Centerpoint Apartments

5.C.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow a Multi-Family Dwelling land use in the

MX-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale) zone district located at 1015

East Pikes Peak Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning

Attachments: Staff Report_Centerpoint Apts

Attachment 1-Vicinity Map

Attachment 2-Subdivision

Attachment 3-Ordinance No 83-37

Attachment 4-Zoning Map

Attachment 5-Context Map

Attachment 6-Public Comment

Attachment 7-Condtional Use Project Statement

Attachment 8-Conditional Use Land Use Statement

Attachment 9-DVSA Project Statement

Attachment 10-Site Plan

Attachment 11-Building Massing Illustration

Mineral Estates Affidavit

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar

5.D.

DVSA-24-00 A Development Standards Adjustment to City Code Section

7.3.301.A to allow a 23-unit, Multi-Family Dwelling when the use is

limited to no more than ten (10) units in a single structure, and the

compensating benefit being affordable housing, located at 1015 East

Pikes Peak Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning

Attachments: 7.3.301 RESIDENTIAL USES

7.5.525 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

7050 Commerce Center

8.A.

DVSA-24-00 A Development Standards Adjustment to City Code Section

7.4.201.C and to provide a 10' front parking setback where a 20'

front parking setback is required in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium

Scale) zone district located at 7050 Commerce Center Drive.

Presenter:

Logan Hubble, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: 7050 Commerce Center Staff Report_final

Attachment 1_Project Statement

Attachment 2_Site Plan

Attachment 3_Architectural Renderings

7.4.201 GENERAL DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS

7.5.525 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT

Logan Hubble, Planner II, presented the application for 7050 Commerce Center.

The project is located at 7050 Commerce Center on the northwest corner of

East Woodmen Road and Commerce Center Drive on 1.4 acres. Mr. Hubble

said the use will be general and medical office use and it is a development

standards adjustment to allows a 10-foot front parking setback where 20 feet is

required. Mr. Logan presented architectural renderings of the project. Standard

public notice was done, and no comments were received. There were minimal

agency review comments, from Streamside and Hillside Overlay.

The project

complies with PlanCOS, and staff finds the application meets the review

criteria.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Rickett asked if all the other properties in the area meeting the

20-foot setback. Mr. Hubble said he looked along Commerce Center Drive and

many of them did not, however the setback requirement did not exist prior to the

UDC.

Applicant Presentation

Ann Odom, Planner, NES, presented the application for 7050 Commerce

Center Drive. Ms. Odom said the site is narrow and an odd shape but has been

marketed for a number of years and just ultimately never developed.

She said

with the new UDC, the parking added a new unexpected constraint to the site.

She said the surrounding areas are largely developed and the surrounding

zones are MX-M properties.

Ms. Odom presented their site plan and review

criteria. She said the intent of the parking setback in the new UDC is for curb

appeal and ensuring that new development provides a quality streetscape, and

the proposed design achieves that. Ms. Odom said they are proposing three

different building materials and a façade articulation. She said the proposal

meets the Streamside and Hillside Overlays. Ms. Odom said the area was

developed in the PBC zone, prior to the 20-foot parking setback requirement.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Rickett said he does not see any retaining walls in the parking

area and asked if the parking lot could be pushed to create the 20-foot buffer.

Ms. Odom said there are retaining walls along the full span of the parking lot and

the Hillside overlay requires a max size of four feet. She said in order to make

the grading work the access was pushed west. Commissioner Rickett said he

pulled this off consent because he did not know what the adjacent properties

had, and he is in support of the project.

Commissioner Hensler said she agrees and is in favor and asked what the

setback is to the building. Ms. Odom said it is 25 feet. Commissioner Hensler

said it will be consistent with the neighboring properties.

Commissioner Robbins said he is familiar with the area and said this is a good

plan and is in favor of the plan.

Public Comment

Arland Esi (did not sign in, unable to verify spelling) resident of the community

asked where the entrance will come in due to traffic concerns.

Chair Slattery

said there is a formal process, and they can express concerns about it and the

Commission will take it into consideration for the review of the application. Mr.

Esi said he likes the project and was just concerned about traffic flow.

Commissioner Questions

Chair Slattery asked if a traffic study was required as a part of the application.

Mr. Hubble said no, although the development plan which is not complete calls

for a right in right out.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there will be a median to not allow left turns. Mr.

Logan said the applicant is proposing a median and traffic said they would make

it so the drive lanes were not wide enough, and it will force people to only turn

right in or right out. Commissioner Rickett said he is going to ask the developer

why the entry down to the handicapped parking. Ms. Odom said the proposed

access would align with the gas station access and due to the retaining wall

access caused the right in and right out.

development plan review process and access is something they are looking to

explore. Commissioner Rickett asked if they will work with City Traffic to

She said they are still in the

resolve the issue. Ms. Odom said yes.

Commissioner Hensler said she would rather prioritize the Streamside Overlay

than an entrance for parking.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

Approve the Development Standards Adjustment to City Code Section 7.4.201

allowing for the establishment of a 10' front parking setback where a 20' front

parking setback in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) is required based

upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in

City Code Section 7.5.525. The motion passed by a vote of 9:0:0:0

9 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

DeLago Subdivision

8.B.

NVAR-24-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.4.302.E.5 to allow a

twelve (12) foot access width for the stem portion of the proposed

flag lot where twenty-five (25) feet are required located, at 1609 W.

Kiowa Street (Quasi-Judicial).

Presenter:

Johnny Malpica, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: Delago Subdivision - Nonuse Variances - Staff Report_JPM

Attachment 1 - Project Statements

Attachment 2 - Site Plan

Attachment 3 - Public Comments

7.4.302 DESIGN STANDARDS

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Johnny Malpica, Senior Planner, presented the application for DeLago

Subdivision non-use variance, located at 1609 W. Kiowas Street.

Mr. Malpica

said the property is zoned R2 for two family residential on an 11,234 square foot

lot. The project proposal is to create two lots on the property and allow a

12-foot access width were 25 feet are required to serve the nearly created lot in

the rear. The other request is to allow a 0.9-foot side yard setback where five

feet are required along the western portion of the newly subdivided lot’s 12-foot

access area. Standard public notice was done four comments were received

via email in opposition citing concerns with additional density, parking, drainage,

runoff and the effect on the existing neighborhood context. City agency review

was done, and no comments were received. Mr. Malpica said the application

complies with PlanCOS and staff finds it meets the review criteria.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Rickett said this site could alter the West Side neighborhood

and an R2 only requires 7,000 square feet is needed to split the lot.

Commissioner Rickett said his concern is that it may modify what the west side

looks like.

Mr. Malpica said the surrounding context, but it is not allowing it to

set a precedence for other applications that are received. He said yes, most of

the lots are 7,500 and could be split, however this is the only lot larger than

11,000 square feet.

This application allows both sides to have sufficient

access. Commissioner Rickett said they are looking at one block face and the

application does set a precedence and any of the 7,500 square foot lots can do

a scrape and build and can alter the character of the west side.

Chair Slattery asked to hear from the applicant.

Applicant Presentation

Charles Farrell presented the application on behalf of the owner and is the

applicant. Mr. Farrell said they have addressed all the comments, and the civil

engineer is finalizing items with Stormwater. He said the plan is in line with

PlanCOS. He showed maps showing the adjacent properties. Mr. Farrell said

they met with Planning in 2023 to look at various options on splitting the property

and showed an example of what the final plat would look like. He said the goal

was to lessen the impact of driveaway space and lot standards. Mr. Farrell said

the one-foot set back is for a bay window. He said the lot could be sold off or

there is a potential for future development, but they would be subject to the

codes and regulations within the standards.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Hensler asked if the driveway is 18 feet not counting the bay

window. Mr., Farrell said yes.

Commissioner Cecil said the construction of a second building on the rear of

the lot was approved in 2021 without subdividing and asked if there is an update

or plans on how the two items intersect. Mr. Farrell said he is familiar with that

and said there was a design for a small ADU. Mr. Farrell said the architectural

design may be utilized but may not follow the same plan as it is over three years

old and asked if the owner was available virtually. Commissioner Cecil said she

brought this up because the building was approved with a five-foot setback.

Commissioner Hensler said the application is for

non-use variance for

setbacks and the driveway and they do not have the purview of what is going to

be added to the back lot. Chair Slattery said it could inform people’s opinion of

what will happen with the lot.

The purview is the criteria of approving the

non-use variance and establishing the flag lot.

Public Comment

NONE

Commissioner Comments

Chair Slattery said a variety of things within code could be built on the lot.

Mr. Malpica said before the Commission today is subdivision application with

two non-use variances.

Regarding the criteria, what should be considered is

what can be built there, and the newly created lot would be subject to the

requirements in the R2 zone districts.

construction on the rear lot.

The current proposal shows no

Chair Slattery said this could be a positive benefit to the neighbor and it does not

create a catalyst to scrape and build and it is a good proposal while leaving

things open to gentle density.

project.

Chair Slattery said she is in support of the

Commissioner Rickett said the code should prevail and the codes are there for

a reason. Commissioner Rickett said they do not know what is going on the

front and back lots and they should consider what the potential developments

are.

Vice Chair Foos said he appreciates Commissioner Rickett’s comments about

the bigger picture, but he is focused on what is being presented today. Vice

Chair Foos said he does not see any adverse scenarios and does not see it

with this application and is in full support of it.

Commissioner Hensler said she concurs, and the application is a responsible

use of the area.

The adjacent lots have denser utilization of their lots.

Commissioner Hensler said they have to addressed what is being asked today

and is in favor of the application.

Commissioner Rickett said they do not know if another home is going on it.

Commissioner Hensler said they do not know if they can sell it. Commissioner

Rickett said they are making an assumption that a home is going on there to

improve the property and said code should prevail since there is not

development plan.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Farrell if they looked at splitting the lot on the other side

where the new driveway will be and is there a possibility of splitting the lot with a

25-foot access on the west side.

but it would require a subdivision waiver, and they would be here today since the

lot is under 75 feet and they would need a lot-width variance. He said the

Mr. Farrell said they looked a configurations,

thought is to utilize the existing driveway and lessen the impact on the

neighborhood.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Malpica if this was an exploration in the process. Mr.

Malpica said he was not the original planner on this. Mr. Malpica said they are

trying to provide vehicular access for both lots along West Kiowa because the

alley in the rear is deficient. He said the way the code defines a public street,

which they are required to provide access to, they could consider the alley to be

a public street because of the dedicated right of way. However, in this instance,

by providing a newly created access along West Kiowa, it maintains a 30-foot

distance from the existing access, which is an existing condition, and it will

better serve the rear lot providing vehicle access. He said it also five feet off the

neighboring lot, which is a city engineer requirement. Mr. Malpica said this is

the most thoughtful way of reconfiguring this lot. Mr. Malpica corrected the

minimum lot which is 50 feet and both lots will be over 5,000 feet which is the

minimum lot size for the lot.

Commissioner Cecil asked at what point would Stormwater regulations be

triggered.

Mr. Malpica said in regard to single family development and this

application, SWENT will decide what is required. Commissioner Cecil asked if

that is during the building permit. Mr. Malpica said it is during the building permit

process. Gabe Sevigny, Planner Supervisor, said for Stormwater if there is a

land disturbance of an acre or more is when it is triggered during the final

drainage report for single family dwellings. They would be responsible to make

sure that any of those flows continue at a historic rate. Commissioner Cecil

asked if there is a maximum impermeable area for single family lots.

Sevigny said there are lot-coverages in single-family homes that would be

enforced at time of building permit. Commissioner Cecil said it is

counterintuitive to consider a non-use variance for the first criteria as it does not

conflict with use- specific standards. Commissioner Cecil said she does not

Mr.

mind the potential uses however, she is concerned about providing off-street

parking for the lots and this should move forward.

Commissioner Robbins said he appreciates how the owner has worked

diligently to try and cover all bases to get the best product.

Commissioner

Robbins said if it meets criteria, and it is his personal property. Commissioner

Robbins said with ADU’s they are going to see change all over the City and it is

a good project and said they should move forward on it.

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to Approve

the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.4.302.E.5 allowing for a twelve

(12) foot access width for the stem portion of the proposed flag lot based upon

the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City

Code Section 7.5.526.E

The motion passed by a vote of 7:2:0:0

7 -

Aye:

No:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic and Commissioner Casey

2 - Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Gigiano

8.C.

NVAR-24-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.205.B (Table 2.2.-E)

to allow a (0.9) foot side setback where five (5) feet are required,

located at 1609 W. Kiowa Street (Quasi-Judicial).

Presenter:

Johnny Malpica, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to Approve

the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.205.B (Table 2.2.-E) to allow a

(0.9) foot side setback based upon the findings that the request complies with

the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.526.E

The motion passed by a vote of 7:2:0:0

7 -

Aye:

No:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic and Commissioner Casey

2 - Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Gigiano

Short Term Rental Appeal

8.D.

APPL-25-00 An appeal of the administrative denial of the Short-Term Rental

permit application for 5539 Cody Mesa Court.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Carli Hiben, Program Administrator, City Planning Department

Attachments: 5539 Cody Mesa Ct Appeal Staff Report

Attachment No. 1- Code Enforcement Case ENF23-00375

Attachment No. 2- Demand Letter

Attachment No. 3- HOA Affidavit

Attachment No. 4- Code Enforcement Case ENF24-09310

Attachment No. 5- STR Application Submittal Documents

Attachment No. 6- Permit Denial

Attachment No. 7- Appeal Submittal Form

Attachment No. 8- Appeal Statement and Associated Documents

Commissioner Robbins recused himself as he is familiar with one of the parties

involved and may have future business.

Carli Hiben, Program Administrator II, presented the appeal of a short-term

rental application located at 5539 Cody Mesa Court. This is a single family

home zoned PDZ and the site area is 8,644 square feet. Ms. Hiben said this is a

request to appeal the administrative denial of an owner occupied short-term

rental permit application. The renewal application was denied by staff on

January 10th, 2025. Ms. Hiben provided background information on short-term

rentals and the ordinances that have been passed. The ordinance that is in

discussion today is the non-owner occupied versus owner occupied ordinance

that was adopted and went into effect December of 2019. Ms. Hiben said this

defines owner occupied requires the property owner to live there 185 days out

of the year. It also established a 500-foot buffer between non-owner occupied

short-term rentals and non-owner occupied short-term rentals are no longer

permitted in single-family zone districts. Ms. Hiben provided a timeline of the

short-term rental permit and various code enforcement complaints. On January

2, 2025, the property owner submitted a late renewal application and staff

denied the application based on the late renewal as well as complaints received

by the HOA. Ms. Hiben said the short-term rental permit is valid for one year

from the date of issuance and because they submitted a late renewal for the

second year in a row, that was also attributed to the denial from staff.

Applicant Presentation

Estifanos Dagne residents of 5539 Cody Mesa Court said they have two homes

that they live in six months at a time. When the rental is being used they stay at

their primary residence. Mr. Dagne said they have not received any complaints

from the neighbors or their property managers.

Chair Slattery said the issue is that they cannot have two primary residences

and asked when they reside at the residence on Cody mesa Court. Mr. Dagne

said that it is his primary residence and when it is rented, they stay at their

second home. He said all his documents have the Cody Mesa address listed.

Mr. Dagne said he travels a lot and that is why the neighbors do not see him.

Chair Slattery asked if he slept there. Mr. Dagne said yes and can provide the

doorbell camera footage. Chair Slattery said that they can go through staff if the

other Commissioners would like to see it.

Rahel Estifanos spoke on the application.

Ms. Estifanos said they built the

house in 2021 and moved it. She said they lost their daughter in a tragedy. She

said they came to the neighborhood during their grief and were being comforted

by friends and family and while that was happening the neighbors where

irritated. Ms. Estifanos said a neighbor confronted them and asked how long

they were going to continue to have people come over. She said she apologized

and said not much longer. Ms. Estifanos said the neighbor expressed concerns

about the noise and stated that it was a quiet neighborhood. Ms. Estifanos said

they started to remodel the house so they could continue to live there prior to

establishing the short-term rental. She said they have a large parking lot. Ms.

Estifanos said they told the neighbors about any guests that visited them. She

said they hired a property manager to help them establish the house as a

short-term rental.

Ms. Estifanos said she asked the property manager to let

them know if they see anything suspicious going on while they are not at the

house. She said they did not receive any complaints and the have a doorbell

camera and they did not see anything. She said they travel, but they live at the

house.

Ms. Estifanos asked the property manager to speak. Lloyd Hause, owner of

Nestago Property Management said they have been in business since 2017 and

manage 60 properties.

Mr. Hause said they use property management

software, and the permit is allowed for 180 days. He provided a spreadsheet of

the reservations from January 2024 through January 2025. Mr. Hause said his

staff has received little to no complaints other than a trash can not being

brought up and one time where someone parked on the street. He said it is not

a party home and said the rules are stated prior to booking the property and via

email and text messages.

Chair Slattery asked how they manage the transition of the owner moving and

the tenants. Mr. Hause said they have access to the portal, so they know when

it is open and then they typically clean the house themselves and get the

property ready for the next guest. He said they handle the reservations, but he

does not track when the owners stay there. Chair Slattery asked if he manages

other short-term rentals that are owner occupied and do the owners stay for a

six-month period all at once or do they move in and out. Mr. Hause said it is

owner specific, and they need to reside there 185 days.

He said he has other

owners that stay short term. Chair Slattery said occupying and having access

to occupy are different per the code.

Vice Chair Foos said in looking at the log asked if it is typical for people to rent

out for a month at a time. Mr. Hause said yes, that is normal.

Chair Slattery asked if those are subject to short-term rental rules and taxes.

Ms. Hiben said after 30 days and up it is not considered short-term. She said

they could to long-term or mid-term rentals which is 30 days at a time and no

permit would be required and they would not be required to live there.

Hause said they have several properties that do that.

Mr.

Commissioner Casey said the definition of owner occupied according to the

code is a property is actually occupied by the property's owner for no less than

185 days a year. Commission Casey said the absence of a reservation shows

that it is being occupied.

Commissioner Rickett asked for staff to expand on short-term rental versus

long-term rental. Ms. Hiben said a permit is required if you want to rent your

property for less than 30 days. For owner-occupied or non-owner occupied,

they have to provide specific documents to receive that permit. Ms. Hiben said if

an owner wants to rent a property for 30 days or more a permit is not required,

and they are not required to live there.

Commissioner Rickett said their

application was late and asked if they could do a new application. Ms. Hiben

said yes as long as they meet all the review criteria, however this one was

denied based on it being late and because of the letters receive from the HOA

attorney.

Public Comment

John Henninger, President of Austin Heights HOA spoke in opposition of the

application. Mr. Henninger said the permit should be denied due to the

applicants not living there. Mr. Henninger said he nor the neighbors have seen

them living there. He said the Austin Heights HOA is a single-family residence

neighborhood however, they have to support businesses in

accordance with the city. Mr. Henninger said the applicants failed to get

permission from the HOA to modify the exterior of their home. He said there

was not permit granted from the Regional Building Department for

home in

construction on the interior of their home and a stop work order was in place

until a permit was issued. Mr. Henniger said after the remodel was done, they

were occupying the house, and they were running a side business at the

property. He said it was a Medi-cab taxi business, and they were parking four to

five of the cars in the driveway.

Virgina Phillips, homeowner in the area spoke in opposition to the application.

Ms. Phillips said they have had things stolen from their property, people on their

property feeding deer, excessive noise, trash thrown on their property and

major police responses. Ms. Phillips said they have had issues with no police

response leaving them feeling unsafe.

She said 5539 Cody Mesa is not the

primary residence of the applicant as he does not live there, and code

enforcement has been unable to find them at home. Mr. Phillips said the IRS

states the most important factor to a primary residence is where you spend the

most time. She said their main car is not at the property. Ms. Phillips said he is

listed as the homeowner of 6360 Shooting Iron Way which was purchased in

May 2018. She said it does not make sense why somebody would live six

months on Cody Mesa and six months on Shooting Iron way, a few miles away.

Ms. Phillips said she would like to have Mr. Dagne investigated for mortgage

fraud, tax fraud, insurance fraud, and maybe perjury. She said according to the

County Assessor's records, he cannot have two primary residences.

Ms.

Phillips listed the issues with homeowners insurance with short-term rentals

versus primary residences.

Randy Hartman, resident of the area, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr.

Hartman said if Mr. Dagne lived there 185 days some of that would need to be in

the wintertime and they never shovel the sidewalks, and no one is there.

Mr.

Hartman said there is noise at 2:30am in the summertime and can hear parties

and the excessive cars are a nuisance. He said he and his wife do not feel

safe. Mr. Hartman said it is a party house, not a rental house.

Deborah Kelly, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms. Kelly said she had a

meeting with Mr. and Ms. Dagne on June 16th, 2022, and they said they would

never live on the property because of the family tragedy that occurred. Ms. Kelly

said the application requirements under the owner-applicant responsibilities

says should it become a nuisance, hazard or recently interfere with quiet

enjoyment of others on people's premises. She said both Mr. Henninger and Mr.

Hartman stated there have been problems with loud noises, parties, vehicles

being parked in the small cul-de-sac blocking sidewalks and the neighborhoods

access to getting out of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Kelly said people have appeared to

be intoxicated and entering neighbors yards and driveways and the police have

been called to the property several times.

Ms. Kelly said people’s personal

property policy increases have been taken to cover liability should any of the

guests get injured on any of the other surrounding properties, including

properties within the association. She said residents have purchased and

posted signs of property private property to keep guests from trespassing onto

other residents.

Jonah Hunt, Legal Counsel for the Austin Heights Homeowners Association

spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Hunt said the appellants have not

explained or proven how the administrative decision that has already been

made is contrary to the expressed language of the UDC, erroneous or clearly

contrary to law. Mr. Hunt said it is the applicant's burden to meet those criteria,

and they have not. He said the applicant’s use has become a nuisance for all

the reasons that have already been heard like loud parties, absentee ownership,

etc.. Mr. Hunt said when a property becomes a nuisance, it is mandated under

the code that the license be revoked or in this case non renewed or turned on

appeal. He said this should not be a close call for the City and that the

commission members themselves have already recognized, there may be a

misunderstanding that the applicant believes that access to this property for 185

days meets the requirement under the code that they actually live there.

Mr.

Hunt said there is no evidence that they lived there for 185 days. He said he

does not know of any owner occupants who need a property manager and if

they are there for half the year or more, they shouldn't need someone to

manage the property for them.

Phil Benton, Community Manager, HOA Management Company, spoke in

opposition of the application. Mr. Benton said there are other Airbnbs in the area

that have not been an issue whatsoever. He said he is not in the community on

a regular basis, but I do come through so I can see every violation, but I can

attest to many phone calls from many homeowners of disturbance and

encroachment of peaceful use of their private property as well from large

amounts of vehicles. Mr. Benton said the cul-de-sac does not have adequate

parking. He said he has had multiple calls of people running through the back

and front yards, noise in the middle of the night. Mr. Benton said there has been

a lot of disturbance that it disturbs other homeowners peaceful use by this being

some form of business in the community.

Sandra Kruger, resident of the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the

application. Ms. Kruger said she was a licensed insurance agent for many

years and owned an insurance agency. She said she has never seen a policy

issued for the way the applicants have described. Ms. Kruger said you either

had to live in the house as your own personal residence or it is a rental property.

She said most of the residents in the association are retirees and have worked

their whole our life to buy our homes and live peaceably. Mr. Kruger said she

never expected to have an Airbnb below her where there are parties and can

see beer cans and the cigarette butts all over the place and is appalled by it.

Larry Kruger, resident of the area spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr.

Kruger said there are disturbance is and the summertime and has been woken

up in the middle of the night numerous times by noise. Mr. Kruger said based on

the disturbance factor and that they have not complied with the regulations that

the petition should be denied.

Tim Kaiser, a resident of the area spoke in opposition to the application. Mr.

Kaiser said he was thrown under the bus earlier and he met with Estifanos and

Rahel when they first came to the neighborhood.

Mr. Kaiser said they

welcomed them to the neighborhood. He said when the applicants came back

after the tragic occurrence in their life they comforted them. Mr. Kaiser said he

met Estifanos at a coffee shop and had a cordial meeting and was able to

accomplish some things and Estifanos gave Mr. Kaiser his phone number to

contact him with any issues. Mr. Kaiser said it is not his job to police the area

and it has been a roller coaster for three years. He said some guests are

wonderful and some are the opposite. He said there have been up to 15 cars

parked in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kaiser said this is a neighborhood of people that

care about each other but want to help each other. He said the mailman has

questioned what goes on at 5539 Cody Mesa Court.

Applicant Rebuttal

Ms. Estifanos apologized to the neighborhood and the respect the

neighborhood.

have their own parking spaces. She said another neighbor rents their home as

well. Ms. Estifanos said there are strict rules about noises, and they have

Ms. Estifanos said they never take up parking spots as they

cameras at the house and if something were to happen they would be notified.

She said she did not receive a call about the noise from Mr. Kaiser. She said

most of the neighbors live up the hill and live far away and only two neighbors

could hear anything.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Cecil said the HOA related issues and mortgage rates are not

the purview of the Planning Commission and will bot be taken into

consideration.

Commissioner Cecil said she did not find any evidence about

the enforcement case and police reports and asked if staff could explain it. Ms.

Hiben said that it was from the code enforcement officer who inspected the

property, and they are able to see the police reports and calls. Staff does not

have access to those reports.

Commissioner Cecil said the attached reports

stated they would refer the neighbors to Fire and Police should there be a

disturbance and a CAD search was done and found there were no calls for

service. Ms. Hiben said that was the information given verbally. Commissioner

Cecil said code enforcement did a premise history search and found a limited

number of police related calls and the lack of specificity is concerning.

Ms.

Hiben said the permit was not denied based on calls to the police department it

was noted on their case. It was denied based on the late renewal, HOA affidavit

and HOA letter from the attorney. Commissioner Cecil asked if the renewal

application would have been submitted on time would the permit been renewed.

Ms. Hiben said staff would have reviewed it further and staff met with the City

Attorney’s Office about the next steps. Ms. Hiben said based on the complaints

received, the letters from the attorney and the H.O.A. affidavit, it probably would

have been denied regardless of the application being late. Commissioner Cecil

said based on the enforcement information that was provided, should an appeal

have been filed solely on that before the commission, she would have

requested documentation of the complaints, photos dates times or a police

report. Commissioner Cecil asked if there had been no complaints filed, would

the lateness of the application been grounds to be unilaterally denied. Ms. Hiben

said they would have been advised to apply for a new application as their

current permit expired. Commissioner Cecil said the staff report states that two

forms of ID are required to prove residency and were provided, but that other

material submitted was not relevant and asked if that impacted the review of the

application. Mr. Hiben said no, that was submitted with the appeal and if it would

have been submitted with the application, it would have been disregarded as it.

Commissioner Cecil said she is a little uncomfortable with the lack of specificity

of the complaints and needs to find facts and a single affidavit may hold up but

is not the best corroboration for the reports that were complained about today.

Commissioner Cecil said she does not think renewal of this exact permit is

necessarily the right course and does not think denying a future application for

this property is necessarily the right course either.

Commissioner Cecil said

the application was late and the reason for denial is based solely on the late

application.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the HOA or neighborhood complaints be

grounds enough to not renew the application. Ms. Hiben said yes, but they have

not had this happen before and this is the first denial of a renewal application

relating to complaints from the HOA and it is also the first appeal with this type

of situation. Ms. Hiben said they would follow the same process even if it were

on time. Commissioner Hensler said she agrees with Commissioner Cecil’s

comments around the lack of police reports or corroborated information and

evidence of those events. Commissioner Hensler asked if the lastness alone

would have been the justification to not renew and have them submit a new

application which they could not because they are grandfathered in the

single-family zone. Ms. Hiben said they are not grandfathered in because they

had an owner-occupied permit and owner-occupied permits are permitted in

single-family zones. Commissioner Hensler asked if they could apply for a new

permit as opposed to appeal this one. Ms. Hiben said yes.

Commissioner

Hensler asked what is the process from staff to ascertain the number of days

someone is residing in the home. Ms. Hiben said they do not require logs for

when they are living there versus renting and they do not have access to the

Airbnb or VRBO hosting sites data. She said the only form of verification for the

185 days would be signed and notarized affidavit where they are signing on a

perjury that they do live on the property for a minimum of 185 days out of the

year.

Commissioner Rickett asked the application why their application was late. Ms.

Estifanos said they do not rent very much in the winter, and they have a busy

life, which is why they have a management property. Mr. Dagne said he was

notified by the management company notified them it was already late.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they file federal tax returns. Mr. Dagne said yes.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they understand the definition of primary house

on a federal tax return. Mr. Dagne said he was not sure. Commissioner Rickett

asked if this address is on their federal tax return. Mr. Dagne said yes.

Vice Chair Foos said all they have to go on is the fact that the application was

late and there is no proof that they actually live there and will be upholding the

decision to deny the appeal.

Commissioner Gigiano said she concurs with Vice Chair Foos regarding the

proof of living there.

Commissioner Sipilovic said there is documentation provided that points to

Cody Mesa Court being a primary residence, however, because it was denied

because it was late, he will be upholding the denial and possibly recommending

to request a new permit.

Commissioner Rickett said in case it is appealed he agrees.

Commissioner Casey said the definition specifically says the owner must

occupy for at least 185 days per year and in looking at the log of rentals, there

are times where there was one day between rentals and finds it hard to believe

that someone would move back in their home for a day. Commissioner Casey

said even without the complaints of the other issues that are brought he does

not see this being occupied 185 day and is going to recommend to deny the

appeal.

Chair Slattery said she agrees with Commissioner Casey and said there is no

evidence that they are living there. Chair Slattery said she will be voting to

uphold the appeal.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to Deny

the appeal and affirm the administrative denial of the Short Term Rental

application, based on UDC 7.5.510(C), UDC 7.3.301(C), and that the appellant

has not substantiated that the appeal satisfies the review criteria outlined in

City Code Section 7.5.415.A(2). The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:0:1

8 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Robbins

Recused:

Southern Colorado Rail Park

8.E.

ANEX-24-00 Ordinance No. 25-36 annexing the area known as Southern Colorado

Rail Park Addition No. 1 located south and west of Highway 25 and

South Santa Fe intersection, adjacent to Fort Carson consisting of

3,107.11 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-24-0013RF, PDZZ-24-0005, PDZL-24-0006

Not currently located within a Council District, however, if approved it

would be anticipated to be within Council District 3.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance - Annexation Southern Colorado Rail Park Addition No. 1

Exhibit A - Legal Description and Plat - Final

DRAFT_Annexation Agreement_V1_PostCAO_1-15-2024.docx

Staff Report_SCRP

Attachment 1 - SCRP - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - SCRP - City Annexations by Decade

Attachment 3 - SCRP - Enterprise Zone Map

Attachment 4 - SCRP - Contiguous Boundary Exhibit

Attachment 5 - SCRP - Annexation Plat - Draft

Attachment 6 - SCRP - Legal Description - Draft

Attachment 7 - SCRP - Exhibit A&B - Zone Establishment - Draft

Attachment 8 - SCRP - Land Use Plan - Draft

Attachment 9 - SCRP - Vicinity Map

Southern CO Rail Park EZ Location Letter & Map.pdf

SCRP - Petition for Annexation.pdf

COS SCRP Fiscal Impact Analysis

COS SCRP Appendix_LOS

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

03212025 CSU Southern Colorado Rail Park City Council (FINAL

V2).pptx

Signed Ordinance No. 25-36.pdf

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor presented the application for Southern

Colorado Rail Park located at adjacent to Fort Carson with the current zoning in

incorporated El Paso County. Mr. Sevigny said the proposed zone is for PDZ,

non-residential. He said the proposed project is an annexation of 3,107.1 acres

with a plan for future rail rod spur adjust to Fort Cason and associated railroad

oriented heavy and light industrial and commercial uses. Mr. Sevigny explained

the Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-104 (a) regarding Flagpole Annexations

and 31-12-105 3-mile buffer. He said the application does comply with

PlanCOS.

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director explained the fiscal impact

analysis of the Southern Colorado Rail Park Annexation. Mr. Walker said they

are working with Tischler Bise, a nationally recognized fiscal consultant is and

has done a number of these with the City of Colorado Springs. Mr. Walker said

a draft report has been done, and they are in the final stages of finalizing the

report. Mr. Walker said they have been analyzing this for about 30 days and the

net conclusion is over a 20-year period there will be about a six-million-dollar

positive net impact for the City. Mr. Walker presented charts on income and

timeline of the project.

Chair Slattery said they typically see a 10-year outline for fiscal impact and

asked if that has been done. Mr. Walker said no it is an item missing in the draft

and they have asked to have that added.

Commissioner Cecil asked Mr. Walker to explain the statement reading from a

capital impacts perspective, public safety impact fee revenue is insufficient to

cover the cost for public safety capital needs. Mr. Walker said there is a fee

that everyone pays throughout the City that goes to capital construction.

said in this case industrial does not usually pay much of a fee and this is a

project that is well beyond 20 years in terms of its absorption. He said in the

first 20 years that fee does not generate enough capital for the capital

investment, especially in fire. Mr. Walker said the homes and the commercial

activity that is generated by this economic impact will also pay these fees and

that has not been factored in because that is not how we do fiscal impact

analysis.

Chair Slattery said Mr. Walker mentioned homes and asked if this was a

non-residential application. Mr. Walker said This particular project will have no

homes, but it will generate employment and home sales, et cetera, for future

residents that we would not have in our community if they do not have this kind

of project.

Mr. Sevigny continued his presentation and said the report shows high-level

hypothetical office space being one that could drive a generate more CDI fees.

Agency review as done and a member of the Colorado Springs Fire Department

can speak to their memo. He said five acres will be provided by the developer

to the City for a future fire station. Mr. Sevigny said he received a statement

from Deputy Chief Rosenoff, Colorado Springs Police department stating

because the development is commercial, they do not anticipate an increase for

calls of service and any calls they might receive would likely be priority crimes

and cold calls for service that could be handled by community service officers

over the phone or even online.

Mr. Sevigny said CSU does not have any

outstanding comments. Traffic Engineering stated all proposed public roads,

improvements, including future rights of way and traffic control devices will be

determined when reviewing the master traffic impact study.

Staff finds the

proposed annexation does meet the eligibility requirements, however,

determination of compliance with conditions of annexation as set forth in City

code is at the discretion of City Council. Mr. Sevigny said the land use plan

meets the review criteria.

Brian English, Development Projects Manager, Colorado Springs Utilities

provided a high level for service overview focusing on the conditions and

requirements for annexation pursuant to City code that are applicable to utilities

purview. Mr. English said that as of this week, they have updated and are using

a new existing usage figure, whereas previously they were working with the

period from 2019 through 2023 for a five-year rolling average that has been

updated to reflect the period from 2020 to 2024. He said the previous usage

what around 69,800-acre feet a year and it has increased to 70,325-acre feet a

year, which

is primarily due to weather conditions. Mr. English said the

minimum water supply requirement or the amount of water resources that CSU

per the code must preserve, essentially for existing a city limits and customers

is just a little over 90,000-acre feet a year. Mr. English said based on petitioned

annexations and active annexations relative to the available water surplus

represents 1,427-acre feet a year which is beyond the 34,000 acre feet a year

that CSU will have to develop to meet the projected demands of the City at full

build out. Mr. English said from an electric perspective the property is located

entirely in City of Fountain electric service territory and currently provides

electric service to properties for aggregate mining operations.

He said the

applicant has requested that CSU consider ongoing provision of City of Fountain

services and said f the property is annexed, they would propose negotiating an

interim wholesale service agreement with the City of Fountain so that the

applicant and the mining operation would be a direct customer of Colorado

Springs Utilities. If the property is annexed and incorporated into CSU’s electric

service territory, the City of Fountain would be entitled to just compensation in

accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes, which would be considered an

applicant cost and captured in the annexation agreement. Mr. English continued

his presentation on the requirements of annexation and showed example of the

water service delivery methods, wastewater, natural gas and electrical

services. Mr. English said CSU remains committed that if the property is

annexed, they would work with the applicant once potential users are firmed up

to figure out how to best serve the property.

Commissioner Questions

Vice Chair Foos asked if the existing wells are owned by CSU and what

aquafers do they go into. Mr. English said yes they are owned by CSU but does

not know what aquafers they go into. He said they have an existing surplus

water use agreement with the applicant for the mining aggregate operations and

if the properties were annexed, they would have to change the nature and the

structure to implement the new Water Service agreement associated. Vice

Chair Foos asked if the water that feeds Ray Nixon is owned by CSU.

Mr.

English said they have wells that do provide water for the cooling units at the

Nixon Power Plant and then the facilities themselves receive water supply from

other sources.

Commissioner Hensler said it seems like a lot of unknowns or uncertainties and

a lot of complexity to get the services there and asked if there are concerns

about that process. Mr. English said there are a lot of caveats and can

understand the Commission's concerns. He said part of it is a timing in time

issue and it is certainly a complex annexation based on the location relative to

the existing infrastructure and integrated utility systems. Mr. English said CSU

remains committed to working with the applicant and is confident that there are

appropriate solutions and options for serving the customer.

Commissioner

Hensler asked if Ray Nixon Power Plant was currently in City boundaries. Mr.

English said no, it is an unincorporated El Paso County right now.

Commissioner Hensler said there are lines of service that feed out for power.

Mr. English said yes.

Commissioner Rickett said it does seem that CSU will set up an agreement

with the City of Fountain because they have capacity and if they exceed that

capacity CSU will work together to expand it. Commissioner Rickett said in the

presentation, it looked like there is a lift station from the southern end of the

property on the proposed annexation going north to our wastewater and asked if

there are two options.

Mr. English said any proposed wholesale wastewater

service agreement would be with the Fountain Sanitation District rather than the

City of Fountain. He said CSU is trying to illustrate that depending on the service

type, there are several options or alternatives for successfully serving the

property. Mr. English said they would ask the owner to cover all cost associated

with treatment capacity through any agreement with Fountain sanitation that

conveys flows to and lower Fountain or Fountain sanitation treatment facility.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is

treatment facility south of this

property. Mr. English said he is aware of two owned and operated by the

Fountain sanitation district and they are identified on the exhibit. He said it is his

understanding that they are planning to decommission the Richard Christian

facility at some point in the future, but does not have a specific date, but it would

entail rerouting flows that were previously sent to untreated at the Christian

facility to the Herald B. Thomson facility. Commissioner Rickett asked what the

percentage of Colorado Springs water usage for irrigation is. Mr. English said to

his knowledge, it is usually about 50% of average customer’s water usage is

dedicated to specific to outdoor irrigation. Commissioner Rickett said it could

go up to 68%.

annexation CSU noted 1281-acre feet per year and asked if that includes

irrigation or just domestic water for the industries in the annexed area. Mr.

Commissioner Rickett said on the developer side on the

English said it is specific to the land use and the type of industry, and they

could refine the estimate if they had a specific site or land use plan that showed

the acreage or amount of land that was going to be irrigated.

Commissioner

Rickett asked if there is any irrigation on the report. Mr. English said yes.

Commissioner Rickett said 7 million square feet seems low for 135 million feet

available to build on and asked if this is an area conducive to not having

irrigation and making this greener, saving Colorado Springs more water based

on a development that does not use irrigation.

Commissioner Casey said throughout 2024, this project was supposed to be

annexed by the City of Fountain and the reason cited by newspaper articles had

to do with the availability of water rights and not being able to get enough water.

Commissioner Casey asked if they foresee any issues with providing water

supply for this project. Mr. English said not at this time based on the land use

provided. He said there could be a high degree of variability in the types of

users, especially in the heavy industrial manufacturing that may have special

process water that could certainly increase the projected demand and require

water supply requirements beyond 1,281 acres. Mr. English said they are

making assumptions based on historical data that they have collected over

many years using, actual meter reads from our system to best refine and come

up with a reasonable number. Mr. English said within the annexation agreement

itself, if there is any industrial user that has special process, water, first and

foremost from utilities perspective, if there water demands or waste proposed

wastewater discharges were to exceed 1 million gallons per day CSU would

require that they design, construct and implement a recirculation system.

Mr.

English they want to be mindful of the biology that they have at their existing

facilities and if they are sending large volumes of industrial water that have

certain constituents in it, it is a concern and something they need to be aware

of.

Applicant Presentation

Andrea Barlow, NES, presented their application for the project.

Ms. Barlow

said they are going to provide background, detail and a time frame for what is

being proposed. Ms. Barlow provided an image of the site location which is

over 3,100 acres with six parcels and four different ownerships. Ms. Barlow said

the genesis of the project was from El Paso County asking how they can create

jobs. She said as a result of that, the property was identified as having potential

to be a major employment generator.

A memorandum of understanding was

City of Colorado Springs,

signed in 2018 with the County, City Fountain,

Chamber of Commerce and EDC and the owner. Ms. Barlow said they have

regular quarterly meetings of an oversight committee that have had staff and

elected officials of the organizations involved in the discussions around the

project since 2018. She said a feasibility study was completed in 2019 and then

an EDA grant was issued to do a report, which further verified that this is a

viable location for a project of this nature. Ms. Barlow said there was a trackage

agreement with the city of Colorado Springs, which was approved and recorded

in 2023. Ms. Barlow said they obtained a sketch plan approval through El Paso

County in June 2024 which enabled the creation of a title 32 district. She said

there is a Metropolitan District now in place which provides the financing

structure for the developments and sets out requirements for long-term

maintenance and security of the property which was approved in October 2024

and the district elections are in May 2025. Ms. Barlow spoke in detail about the

land use and zone that has been submitted.

She said there is a lot of

infrastructure that needs to be put on the site including a rail line, road

infrastructure and utilities over a 20-year period and at this point they do not

have uses in mind. Ms. Barlow said the PDZ gives them maximum flexibility and

encompasses the whole property, and they are anticipating primary heavy and

some light industrial uses with a maximum height of 120 feet.

Ms. Barlow

showed a slide of the land use plan. She said there was a specific request

from Fort Carson to allow commercial use by gate 19 and they will

accommodate that. She said they are proposing a new interchange on I-25.

Ms. Barlow explained the rail loop and connections and showed the potential

uses of the area. She provided a land use matrix to show the square footage

and number of employees. Ms. Barlow said they are hoping to have every

aspect of the design completed by the end of this year. She presented the

phasing plan of the construction area. Ms. Barlow asked Steve Mullikin to speak

on the project benefits.

Steve Mullikin, Attorney representing the Edward C. Levy Company. Mr. Mullikin

said they have been working on the project for a while and it will have positive

impact on our entire region, especially in Colorado Spring. He said this project

started as a public private partnership and they have proceeded that way under

a memorandum of understanding as a public private partnership. Mr. Mullikin

said Colorado Springs is growing at fast pace, and new jobs need to be

created. He said they have lost 50% of manufacturing jobs in Colorado Springs

in the last 20 years. He said this is a mega site and is ideal for large-scale

manufacturing. Mr. Milliken explained how the area has a perfect workforce with

exiting military personnel. He spoke about Fort Carsons current rail operation

and this project will extend the line to Fort Carson.

Tatiana Bailey PhD, Data Driven Economic Strategies, said there are great

possibilities with manufacturing and did some work for the Colorado Advanced

Manufacturers Association back in 2015 and 2016 and learned a lot about the

manufacturing industry. Ms. Bailey shared various slides showing percentages

for GDP attributable to manufacturing, total employment in manufacturing,

wages and increasing opportunities for U.S manufacturing.

Mr. Mullikin said the chart presented shows the requirements that they have to

meet and there are only two in discussion. He said the first question is, is this a

logical extension of the city boundary. Mr. Mullikin said yes, this will get

manufacturing back to the area. The other question is whether it is beneficial

and that was spoken about already.

everywhere, but they have great faith in CSU.

He said utilities are

challenge

Public Comment

NONE

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner

Hensler

said

she

recognizes

the

long-term

economic

opportunities and this fits in line. Commissioner Hensler said they have seen

quite a few annexations, and they have received pushback on these flagpole

situations. Commissioner Hensler asked if this creates an opportunity to pull

Ray Nixon Power Plant into city limits, create an easement along I-25 or to

create further opportunity to the south and potentially extending to the east in a

long-range plan. Mr. Sevigny said yes it would provide eligibility for other

properties because they would then be able to seek out continuity for the east

and the southern portions of it. Mr. Sevigny said it would be highly unlikely to

annex Fort Carson but anything that would gain continuity from the south and

eastern portions could be eligible.

Commissioner Hensler said there is some

future potential and can see the economic impact and abilities.

Commissioner Casey said this project has been around since 2018, but it is not

mentioned anywhere in PlanCOS nor was it talked about in the AnnexCOS

draft. Commissioner Casey said his concern is setting

moving outside the area and asked what will keep properties south of the area

from continuing to request annexation down to the Pueblo County line. Mr.

precedence for

Sevigny said most of the initial applications were in El Paso County and

Fountain which did not involve City staff until recently when these discussions

actually unfolded. Mr. Sevigny said the mythology behind AnnexCOS is they will

be updating the data that goes into it and the overlays of interest. Mr. Sevigny

said the areas of influence could go, but they would have to follow the same

process for that logical extension.

Mr. Walker said the AnnexCOS process will kick off again and they will be doing

some analysis in terms of the 3-mile buffer from this particular site. Mr. Walker

said this is a one-off annexation and that it is very unique to the state of

Colorado.

Commissioner Rickett said fire was addressed that there will be fire station on

this site but public safety police the lead time to get an officer on that site was

big. Commissioner Rickett asked if the will be hiring private security to maintain

security in the annexation paid for through the Metro District.

Mr. Milliken said it is a possibility and said they are bordered by Ray Nixon

Power Plant side on one side by secured Fort Carson on 3 sides and if they

conceal their side it will be a very secure site and likely as it develops, there will

probably be some sort of private security be based on user needs.

Commissioner Rickett said in manufacturing locations, theft of open spaces is

pretty big. Commissioner Rickett asked why a 7 million square-foot limit on

structures in total when based on the charts it looks like 106 million square feet

and land is available and is looking at this as s 40 year build out and there is

more opportunity there. Mr. Millikin said they were required by the process to

have a cap on it and took past demands for rail served property that could not

be met, and the EDC had recorded in projected growth based on that. He said

they may be back in the future asking for more. Commissioner Rickett asked if

there is an opportunity to make this a no irrigation site. Mr. Millikin said they are

very water sensitive and would anticipate there might be uses that comes to

them and they say no, because year your water hog. He said they do not

anticipate much irritation.

Mr. Sevigny said reason why there is 7 million square footage is because the

building size in the UDC requires for any PDZ. He said for landscape, they can

add a note that says staff is willing to support alternative landscaping designs,

which is already permitted within the code.

Commissioner Rickett said he

understands, but the fact that there is 106 million square feet of buildable land,

and half the land is not supported by rail and therefore they can provide more

building space. Mr. Sevigny said staff would support that and would leave that

up to the applicant.

Chair Slattery asked what the build time is for the utility extensions.

Chair

Slattery also said therea couple of single-family homes that tie into the

enclaves within the zone and asked if there have been conversations had with

those owners and what the outcome was. Mr. English said the applicant has

shown the projected schedule with the rail spur being the initial phase and then

looking to 2030 and beyond for starting some of the commercial and

light-industrials. He said any and all the extensions, water, wastewater, natural

gas and electric, per a recently approved changing the tariffs, utilities, rules and

regulations it is now 100% developer cost for the natural gas and electric

extensions, including any high-pressure gas mains. He said they want to take

a hard look at that and make sure that it is equitable in terms of the cost

participation or costs responsibility of the applicant relative to how that

enhances the overall system in their core service area. Mr. English said he

cannot answer with 100% certainty because there are

a lot of unknown

variables, but they believe through the annexation agreement they have

assigned a lot of the cost responsibility to the applicant.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they are still using first- come, first-served as

annexed areas get developed. Mr. English said yes and right now the property

is outside city limits so the do not have an obligation to serve. Once it is

annexed unincorporated, they have an obligation to serve, but it is on a

first-come, first-serve basis.

Mr. English said he confirmed 50% on the

irrigation on the projected water demand and it is more incidental for irrigation,

and they are focused on the industrial demand. Mr. English said the wells are

sourced by the AlluVial Aquifer and connected to Fountain Creek. Mr. English

said from utility perspective, they want customers to leverage available

conservation resources and educational tools through our conservation center.

From the cost benefit perspective, depending on the water demands, if there is

a large industrial water demand, it is going to cost a significant amount of

development charges and water resources fees.

Commissioner Rickett

commended CSU for the education on conservation over the last 20 years as

there has not been a large uptick in water usage.

Chair Slattery asked if the amount of water in aquifers and wells had been

analyzed. Mr. English said no, it would be part of our ongoing or further analysis

if it is annexed it might be a potential source for providing some or all of the

water supply to the area. He said it would be dependent on the demand and the

available yield of those wells.

Ms. Barlow said the plan was not adopted in PlanCOS, but it was addressed in

the El Paso County Master Plan and was identified as an employment center

with potential for a major manufacturing with the rail spur. Commissioner Casey

said wondering because it seemed that it was going to be

Fountain

annexation and not a Colorado Springs Annexation. Ms. Barlow said it initially

was considered a Fountain annexation and for multiple reasons it was not done.

Mr. Millikin said there are four parcels totaling 40 acres out of a 3,100-acre site

and they been in communication with all of them and they have planned around

them. Commissioner Casey is they were apart of the Metro District. Mr. Millikin

said no, there were excluded.

Mr. Walker asked Mr. Millikin what the uses are on the parcels. One is being

used as an illegal camping ground. They are all illegal subdivisions, and they

were not platted. Two of them are vacant and one has a house that look like it

is probably not habitable.

Commissioner Rickett said he is in support of this and it is needed an well

thought out.

Vice Chair Foos said he is excited that this is an annexation that will create jobs

and it provides a lot of opportunity for people to come here and buy house. Vice

Chair Foos said his only concern is utilities, but he trusts CSU to have it figured

out.

Commissioner Hensler said she is in favor and the economic impact is

tremendous.

Commissioner Casey said he is in support of the project.

Commissioner Robbins said he is in support of the project.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he is in support of the project.

Commissioner Cecil said she continues to have concerns about growth in

general and how it is being done and whether it can be sustained repeatedly.

Commissioner Cecil said she wonders if they need to consider right-sizing the

fees again or something else that will make it more feasible for public safety

agencies to be able to support the needs of the additional annexations.

Commissioner Cecil said she will be voting to recommend approval.

Commissioner Gigiano said she will be recommending approval.

Chair Slattery said they have seen a lot of annexations recently and has

concerns about how fast this one appeared before this body and council and

hopes they are able to complete some of the financial analysis that are typically

required within annexations. Chair Slattery said she is in support of the project.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Sipilovic, to

Recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 3,107.11 acres known

as the Southern Colorado Rail Park Addition No. 1 Annexation based upon

the findings that the annexation complies with the Conditions for Annexation,

as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.701.

The motion passed by a vote of 9:0:0:0

9 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

8.F.

PDZZ-24-000 Ordinance No. 25-37 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs relating to 3,107.11 acres located south and west

of the Highway 25 and South Santa Fe intersection, adjacent to Fort

Carson, establishing the PDZ (Planned Development Zone;

Non-Residential; maximum square footage of 7,000,000 square feet;

maximum building height of 120 feet) District

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-24-0013, PDZL-24-0006, ANEX-24-0013RF

Not currently located within a Council District, however, if approved it

would be anticipated to be within Council District 3.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Attachments: Zoning Ordinance-SCRP

Exhibit A - Legal Description

Exhibit B - Map Depiction

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Signed Ordinance No. 25-37.pdf

Motion by Commissioner Casey, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

Recommend approval to City Council the zone establishment of 3,107.11

acres as PDZ (Planned Development Zone; Non-Residential; maximum square

footage of 7,000,000 square feet; maximum building height of 120 feet) District

based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for zoning

establishment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704. The motion passed by

a vote of 9:0:0:0

9 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

8.G.

PDZL-24-000 Establishment of the Southern Colorado Rail Park Land Use Plan for

proposed Civic, Public, Institutional, Commercial, Light and Heavy

Industrial, Existing Mining Operations, Ballistic, Military, Aerospace,

Rail Spur, and Streets/Utility Rights-of-Way consisting of 3,107.11

acres located south and west of Highway 25 and South Santa Fe

intersection, adjacent to Fort Carson.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Related Files: ANEX-24-0013, PDZZ-24-0005, ANEX-24-0013RF

Not currently located within a Council District, however, if approved it

would be anticipated to be within Council District 3.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Attachments: SCRP - Land Use Plan

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN