City of Colorado Springs  
Regional Development Center  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO 80910  
Meeting Minutes  
Wednesday, October 11, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)  
2880 International Circle  
Planning Commission  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
9 -  
Present:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2.A. Approval of the Minutes  
2.A.A  
Minutes for the September 13, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting  
Presenter:  
Scott Hente, Chair, City Planning Commission  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to approve  
the minutes for the September 13, 2023, City Planning Commission meeting. The  
motion passed by a vote of 9:0:0:0.  
9 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2.B. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
3. Communications - Peter Wysocki, Planning + Neighborhood Services Director  
Peter Wysocki, Planning and Neighborhood Services Director, announced that the  
City and CSU received awards from the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning  
Association for the Unified Development Code (UDC) and water conservation. Mr.  
Wysocki congratulated those who participated in this process, as it is an honor to  
receive these awards.  
Consent Calendar  
These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for discussion by a Commissioner or a  
citizen wishing to address the Commission. Any items called up for separate discussion shall be acted upon  
following the Consent vote.  
4.C.  
CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow an automobile and light vehicle wash land use  
in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) zone district consisting of  
9.29-acres located at 2520 Airport Rd. (Quasi-Judicial).  
Presenter:  
Johnny Malpica, AICP, Planner II, Land Use Review  
4.D.  
CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow an automobile and light vehicle wash in the  
MX-M (Mixed-use Medium Scale) zone district consisting of 0.84 acres  
located at 515 Airport Creek Pt (Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development  
4.E.  
ANEX-23-00 A resolution finding a petition for annexation of the area known as  
Capital Drive Addition No. 2 Annexation consisting of 6.63 acres to be in  
substantial compliance with section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S. and setting a  
hearing date of January 9, 2024, for the Colorado Springs City Council  
to consider the annexation of the area. (Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor Planning & Neighborhood Services  
Peter Wysocki, Planning & Neighborhood Services  
4.F.  
ANEX-23-00 A resolution finding a petition for annexation of the area known as  
Capital Drive Addition No. 3 Annexation consisting of 1.01 acres to be in  
substantial compliance with section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S. and setting a  
hearing date of January 9, 2024, for the Colorado Springs City Council  
to consider the annexation of the area. (Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor Planning & Neighborhood Services  
Peter Wysocki, Planning & Neighborhood Services  
Approval of the Consent Agenda  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, that all  
matters on the Consent Calendar be passed, adopted, and approved by  
unanimous consent of the members present. The motion passed by a vote of  
9:0:0:0.  
9 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner  
Raughton, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Cecil  
Absent:  
5. Items Called Off Consent Calendar  
4.A.  
CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow a carwash in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium  
Scale) zone district consisting of 1.91 acres located at 3924 Pony  
Tracks Drive. (Quasi-Judicial)  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development  
Questions from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Briggs inquired how many of these types of auto washes were  
located in Colorado Springs and in Denver. Commissioner Briggs added he was  
concerned about the location and did not understand the purpose of a 24-hour run  
auto wash adjacent to a neighborhood.  
Commissioner Almy asked if the amended hours had been a deal breaker for the  
applicant.  
Commissioner Slattery inquired how the reduction of noise and vandalism was  
enforced in self-serve bays. She also requested an elaboration on the staffing  
model.  
Commissioner Foos inquired if there were doors located at the self-serve bays.  
Commissioner Hensler added she was a user of self-serve bays and she would have  
been in support of this model.  
Public Discussion:  
Louis Cisneros, a member of the neighborhood commented in opposition.  
Additional comments from Commissioners:  
Commissioner McMurray believed that the staff had done a commendable job in  
providing an adequate level of noise buffering. However, he expressed a desire to  
see a traffic study, stating that waiting for the development plan to be  
administratively approved seemed somewhat backward in the process.  
Commissioner Rickett concurred with Commissioner McMurray's statement,  
acknowledging that the current code needed to be the primary consideration. He  
voiced his support for the proposed model, as it adhered to the existing criteria of  
the code.  
Commissioner Raughton made it clear that he would only support the model if the  
staff recommendations were implemented.  
.
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to approve  
the Conditional Use based upon the finding that the request complies with the  
criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.601, with the following conditions of  
approval: 1. Limit hours of operation between 6:00 am to 11:00 pm; 2. Illuminated  
signage shall not be visible to the residential development along Pony Tracks  
Drive; 3. Year-around landscape screening, such as evergreens a minimum of 8  
feet in height, shall be provided along Pony Tracks Drive. If site utilities along  
Pony Tracks limit tree plantings, other screening methods will be required, such  
as a screen wall and robust shrub planting. This shall be determined at the time  
of the development plan review; 4. Permissible noise levels between residential  
and commercial zones shall not exceed City Code Section 9.8.104; 5. Exterior  
structure and site lighting shall be directed inward to the site and away from the  
residential development along the south of Pony Tracks Drive; 6. A development  
plan application is necessary to be submitted for the future car wash which will  
be reviewed administratively. The motion passed by a vote of 7:2:0:0.  
7 -  
Aye:  
No:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton and Commissioner Rickett  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Slattery  
4.B.  
CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use development plan to allow for multifamily development  
in the LI (Light Industrial) zone district consisting of 21.95 acres located  
on the southwest corner of Arch Street and Spectra Drive.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Austin Cooper, Planner II, Planning and Development.  
Questions from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Raughton stated it was unusual there was a piece of land in the  
south east corner of the development that would be land locked.  
Public Discussion:  
Jim O’Toole, a citizen, expressed his objections to the proposed development plan.  
Andrew Franks, a property owner near the development site, also commented in  
opposition, citing concerns about the anticipated increase in traffic volume.  
Bill Wysong, President of the Mountain Shadows Association, shared his  
opposition due to worries about the overall traffic volume in the area, with  
particular emphasis on 21st Street.  
Additional comments from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Hensler had inquired about the road improvements in the area and  
had expressed the desire to discuss the traffic study further.  
Commissioner Raughton had stated that he would vote against the development  
plan, citing concerns about the unusual severe acre being landlocked.  
Applicant Rebuttal:  
Chris Lieber, who represented the developer, explained that during the  
examination of the traffic study, it was determined that the majority of the traffic  
originated from the east side. The long-term plan for the placement of signals on  
21st Street had been established beforehand. The traffic study had considered the  
possibility of adding street lights at various locations but ultimately concluded that  
Wheeler Avenue was the best choice.  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to approve  
the Conditional Use Development Plan based upon the finding that the request  
complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704 with a  
condition of approval: 1. Applicant will receive final approvals from SWENT The  
motion passed by a vote of 8:1:0:0.  
8 -  
Aye:  
No:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett and  
Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Commissioner Raughton  
6. Unfinished Business  
7. New Business  
7.A.  
ZONE-23-00 Ordinance No. 23-61 amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado  
Springs relating to 1.23 acres located at 4760 Flintridge Drive from  
MX-N (Mixed Use Neighborhood Scale) to MX-M (Mixed Use Medium  
Scale) zone district for a convenience store and fuel canopy.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Austin Cooper, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services.  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services  
Questions from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Rickett stated the set backs shown on the development plan are  
incorrect. He also inquired if the development plan would fall under Chapter 7 or  
UDC. Commissioner Rickett requested proper setbacks be utilized in the future.  
Commissioner Slattery requested an elaboration on the access points of this  
development plan.  
Public Discussion:  
Joseph Chesla, a citizen, commented in opposition. He stated his concern on the  
increased traffic volume in this location.  
Rebuttal comments:  
Jeff Baab and Greg Rommell, real estate acquisitors with Quik Trip, added by  
investing in their employees, it brought loyalty to the company and took incredible  
care of the facility which translated through to the customer experiences.  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Zone Change of 1.23 acres from MX-N  
(Mixed-Use Neighborhood) to MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) based upon the  
findings that the request complies with the criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment  
as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.603. The motion passed by a vote of 9:0:0:0.  
9 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
7.B.  
DEPN-23-00 Quik Trip Development Plan for a convenience store with fuel canopy on  
1.23 acres located at 4760 Flintridge Drive.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Austin Cooper, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services.  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services  
Attachments: Development Plan  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Quik Trip Development Plan based  
upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City  
Code Section 7.5.502. The motion passed by a vote of 9:0:0:0.  
9 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
7.C.  
DEPN-23-01 A Major Modification to the CSU Wilson Tank Development Plan to  
increase the height of the water tank from a maximum of height of 45-feet  
to 60-feet consisting of 3.63 acres located at 6560 Alabaster Way.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
William Gray, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood Services  
Department  
Chairman Hente announced for the record that he had previously been a board  
member of Colorado Springs Utilities, and approximately two years ago he had  
experienced a strong disagreement with the organization. Due to the significant  
amount of time that had passed, he stated that he would be fair and impartial in  
this matter.  
Staff Presentation:  
Bill Gray, Senior Planner, gave a presentation that described the scope of the  
project.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Dave Padgett, General Manager of projects and programs for Colorado Springs  
Utilities, along with Adam Monchalk, Project Manager with Kimley Horn gave a  
presentation.  
Questions from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Rickett asked if CSU had collaborated with the engineering firm to  
explore the potential for a low roof line joist system that could be either  
freestanding or supported by steel columns on the interior. The applicant  
responded the existing tank is steel and causes corrosion issues. DN Tanks, who has  
been hired for this project, is one of two concrete tank manufacturers in the  
country. One of the designs created had a flat roof and would not require internal  
columns. The applicant added at this point in time, the most responsible thing to do  
would be to start the project over from the beginning.  
Commissioner Hensler inquired if the tank's design was the only one that could  
meet the required capacity of 5 million gallons and sought confirmation from the  
presenter that there was no alternative design, such as a free span tank with a flat  
roof, that could accommodate this volume of water. She also highlighted the  
omission of any height restriction in the development plan, stressing the need for  
such an amendment. The applicant responded the existing tank was 5 million  
gallons. DN Tank could create a flat roof tank that would contain 5 million gallons of  
water. The difference was the engineering in the internal supports, so from a  
maintenance cost perspective, it would behoove to go with the dome design.  
Commissioner Raughton raised concerns about the approved design criteria not  
being adhered to.  
Bill Gray added that the development plan initially established a maximum height  
of 45 feet for the project. However, when the preliminary designs for the water  
tank were submitted, the height exceeded this limit, standing at 60 feet. This  
discrepancy should have been addressed in the development plan, and upon  
discovering this, Colorado Springs Utilities took immediate action to seek a  
resolution.  
Commissioner Almy inquired about the dome and vent and emphasized that the  
tank, no matter how it is constructed, would be intrusive due to its essential need.  
He stressed the importance of designing the tank according to contemporary  
standards rather than replicating an outdated design. He suggested that a design  
review process should have caught the height difference issue and called for  
improvements in internal processes to prevent such issues in the future. The  
applicant agreed with Commissioner Almy’s comments.  
Chairman Hente expressed his confusion over how a building permit had been  
issued for a project that clearly exceeded the approved development plan. He  
added the development plan said maximum by code was 45-feet, which caused him  
even more confusion. He stated there was a statement of faith when the building  
permit was issued to build at a certain height. The applicant refuted the final design  
was part of the process for a building permit, and there was not an intent to  
deceive the public.  
Commissioner Briggs inquired about who brought to light the fact that the water  
tank exceeded the approved height of 45 feet and who had alerted the City to this  
discrepancy. He also questioned the feasibility of constructing a flat-roofed water  
tank with the same water capacity. He inquired what did it take for construction to  
cease operation as well. The applicant responded the first call that CSU received  
was in late June of 2023 and from the resident closest to the tank. A letter was  
received by a lawyer representing a resident, inquiring why a notice of violation  
was not given out once this was brought to the surface. Within a few days of  
receiving the letter, the City released a notice of violation to CSU. Lastly, CSU  
confirmed a concrete tank could be created at 45 feet where it would involve  
having internal support columns.  
Commissioner Hensler sought clarification on the responsibility for rebuilding a  
tank to meet the 45-foot design if that option were pursued. She also asked about  
the findings of the cost analysis regarding long-term maintenance costs when  
comparing a flat-roof tank to a dome-roof tank. The applicant responded they were  
unable to speak on who would bear the responsibility right now. The applicant  
stated the flat roof top with the internal columns were more expensive but did not  
know the exact dollar amount difference.  
Commissioner Slattery inquired if there were alternative designs, such as wider  
dome roofs, capable of holding the same amount of water, or if the current design  
was the only viable option. The applicant responded the existing footprint was  
quite small. They also responded they did not look at the possibility of a wider  
dome.  
Commissioner Foos questioned how the height of 45 feet had been determined at  
the time of the development plan, considering the discrepancies in tank sizes, and  
sought information regarding the data that had been used in making that  
determination. Bill Gray, Senior Planner, responded the 45 feet would fit the  
approximate elevation height on the last sheet of the development plant. The  
other reasoning was that 45 feet was the size of the original tank, and a maximum  
height had to be considered to create a development plan. It came about because  
that’s how the project was described and illustrated, and this was not a final design  
for a variance to be considered if need be. It would still be following the  
development plan as there is no height criteria for a PF zone.  
Commissioner Rickett had asked if a tank meeting the 45-feet height criteria could  
have been purchased. The applicant responded a concrete tank with internal  
columns could have fit the 45-feet criteria.  
Commissioner Briggs expressed his concerns about the lack of consistency and  
transparency surrounding the project. He believed that, as representatives  
providing information to the citizens, there should have been greater consistency  
and transparency in the process. He took issue with how the situation had  
unfolded, as it had not been as transparent and accountable as it could have been.  
Public Discussion:  
Bill Wysong, President of the Mountain Shadows Association, expressed strong  
opposition. He voiced his concern regarding the lack of transparency and integrity  
concerning the height difference of the water tank. Mr. Wysong emphasized that  
none of the community members had issues with building the water tank; their  
primary concern revolved around the insufficient communication related to the  
project.  
Dorothy Macnak, a citizen in the neighborhood, also commented in opposition and  
requested a postponement of the vote.  
Genevieve Gustavson, a citizen who, along with others, lost her home in the Waldo  
fire, mentioned their decision to invest in the community for its rebuilding. She  
highlighted that the City had promised to collaborate with the neighborhood to  
rebuild better but had not fulfilled that commitment. Ms. Gustavson believed there  
was an opportunity to halt the tank project and urged the Planning Department to  
address the situation. She concluded by stating that this issue needed to be  
acknowledged as a mistake, and corrective measures needed to be taken.  
Butch Gunn, a landowner in proximity to the project site, emphasized the  
importance of the commission understanding that he had no issue with the  
necessity for utilities to replace the old water tank. His understanding of the 20 feet  
dome was that it was essential for structural strength to support the required water  
volume without the need for interior supports. He noted that if a flat roof had been  
considered, it would have fallen within the scope of the original development plan,  
but this had not been the case. Mr. Gunn believed there had been significant  
miscommunication in this matter, and he felt that these issues could have been  
identified and resolved earlier. He expressed that trust within the community was  
gone.  
Leigh Ann Wolfe, owner of Flying W Ranch, asserted that the issue wasn't merely  
about miscommunication but about deception. She characterized the situation as a  
mockery of the process and the Planning Commission. Wolfe expressed frustration  
over being misled repeatedly, stating that they were assured the tank would be the  
same size and height but that this had not been the case. She emphasized that the  
tank's height difference from the original development plan amounted to 45%,  
stressing that utilities needed to take the time to rectify the situation.  
Thad Zylka, citizen, expressed deep concern about the entire process and hoped it  
wouldn't recur in the city. Mr. Zylka felt that people had misled them and  
disregarded the proper process. Zylka highlighted that the initial building process  
had commenced in 2023 without a valid building permit and believed that there  
were individuals within the organization who did not adhere to the same rules and  
ordinances. He called for a full independent audit on utilities projects and cited the  
numerous emails he had received from NextDoor and COS as evidence of a  
problem. He characterized the situation as an illegal water tower and lamented the  
lack of a representative government to protect them, underscoring that not  
following the rules impacted all taxpayers.  
Jackie Gunn, a citizen residing next to the current water tower, clarified that the  
current tower stood at 36 feet tall and expressed that it wasn't difficult to hide it by  
strategically planting trees for camouflage. She accused CSU of violating the UDC  
and RBC and refusing to acknowledge responsibility for submitting incorrect and  
conflicting information to obtain the development plan and building permit.  
Peggy Anderson, a resident of Mountain Shadows, joined her neighbors in  
opposing the modification and urged consideration of the lack of transparency, the  
lies, and how the neighbors had been treated throughout the process. She  
requested a postponement of the vote until all the necessary information was  
available.  
James Berden, a citizen, sought to clarify a few key points. He stated that the  
current tower was 36 feet tall and had the capacity to hold 5 million gallons. He  
specified that the development plan had approved a 36-foot wall with a 4-foot  
dome, with a height limit of 45 feet. Berden argued that an additional 20 feet would  
have more adverse effects, and he recommended rejecting the modification,  
proposing that the tank should be designed to move south.  
Lawrence Starr, a citizen residing adjacent to the water tank, shared that he was  
among the neighbors most affected by the modification. He emphasized that it was  
the neighbors who had contributed to the rebuilding efforts after the Waldo fire,  
not Colorado Springs Utilities. Starr mentioned that while the initial approval may  
have been flawed, he and others had accepted it because there was trust at that  
time. However, he asserted that this trust no longer existed with Colorado Springs  
Utilities. He believed it was clear that CSU had not adhered to the UDC and had  
shown no respect for it. Mr. Starr contended that CSU had lied on their  
development plan and never updated it, merely asking for forgiveness today. The  
second issue he raised was that the 45-foot height was originally established to  
blend into the area, not to accommodate what Colorado Springs Utilities required.  
Mr. Starr urged the rejection of this modification.  
Rebuttal comments:  
Dave Padgett wanted to acknowledge that there had been extensive discussions  
regarding the tank's height, confirming that it was indeed 36 feet, which was the  
hydraulic height required to maintain the water column's consistency. He  
mentioned that the water column height from the existing tank to the current tank  
remained the same. Earlier, there had been considerations about altering the tank  
to make it shorter and wider, but it was recognized that this would have had a  
ripple effect on the pressured zone. Mr. Padgett emphasized the importance of the  
36-foot height and reiterated that it met the UDC because there was no height  
restriction in a PF zone.  
He also acknowledged the significance of transparency and understood the  
concerns regarding how the situation had unfolded. Mr. Padgett informed that  
upon realizing the discrepancy, immediate contact was made with the Planning  
Department to revisit the process, and there was a commitment to rectify the  
situation. He acknowledged that it had been an oversight and expressed a wish to  
go back and reevaluate the process at that time.  
Additional comments from Commissioners:  
Commissioner Raughton expressed his empathy for the citizens' comments and his  
belief that significant errors had been made by the Colorado Springs Utilities  
department. He indicated that he would not be able to support the modification,  
emphasizing that the tank could be built to meet the original criteria and designed  
in a way to be less intrusive.  
Commissioner Briggs extended his gratitude to all citizens for their time and  
thanked CSU for their presentation. He acknowledged that mistakes had been  
made on all fronts and insisted that the cost of any necessary redesign should not  
be shouldered by the consumers but rather by Colorado Springs Utilities. He stated  
that he could not support the modification.  
Commissioner Foos appreciated the public's comments and addressed the cost of  
replacing the tank. He expressed concern about voting on a modification after the  
tank had already been built, deeming it a dangerous precedent. He emphasized  
that the conversation would have been different if they had addressed this before  
the tank was constructed. He asserted that the current situation would set a  
dangerous precedent, and he would not be supporting the modification.  
Commissioner Almy commended Mountain Shadows for their well-thought-out  
presentation and questioned accountability for the situation. He aligned with  
others in the belief that the public should not bear the cost of the mistake. He  
suggested that a new application should be pursued, with the possibility of locating  
the tank in a new place in the hills to minimize neighborhood obstruction. He  
concluded that she would not vote in favor of the modification.  
Commissioner McMurray, considering whether the errors were intentional or  
unintentional, argued that allowing the tank to stand would undermine public trust  
and mock the planning and zoning process. He examined the criteria, particularly  
Item C, which specified that the modification should not create more adverse  
impacts on surrounding properties. He saw a 45% increase in a water tower's height  
as a clear adverse impact. He also noted the importance of being consistent with  
the Colorado Springs comprehensive plan, which has a dedicated chapter on the  
community's landscape. He affirmed that he would vote to deny the application.  
Commissioner Slattery acknowledged the strong emotions surrounding the  
modification but expressed her belief that there was no intentional deception of  
the public. She observed that the primary challenge, regardless of the degree of  
the dome, would remain largely the same. She declared her support for the major  
modification, emphasizing the need to balance the neighborhood's needs with  
those of water. She noted that other costs and infrastructure considerations were  
involved in alternative plans, such as raising the tank's height or relocating it.  
Commissioner Hensler echoed Commissioner Slattery’s sentiments, emphasizing  
her belief that there was no intentional deception of the public. She mentioned  
that the situation was a balancing act with challenges on both sides. She  
appreciated the well-constructed presentations from the public and their  
solutions-oriented approach. While she might be in favor of the modification, she  
acknowledged the substantial opposition to it.  
Chairman Hente added as a former chairman on the board of Colorado Springs  
Utilities, he was astounded of the situation. He noted that by CSU's own admission,  
they had found out the tank was too high when a neighbor brought it to their  
attention. He asserted that holding a public entity to a higher standard was  
essential, as it was citizen-owned. Chairman Hente had recently went over to the  
site and found that the tank did not strengthen the neighborhood; it greatly  
detracted from it. He mentioned that despite intentions to camouflage it, the tank  
remained a significant deterrent. He firmly stated that he could not support the  
modification in any form and would vote against it.  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to  
recommend approval of the Major Modification to the CSU Wilson Tank  
Development Plan based upon the findings that the request complies with the  
criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.516.D, with the following conditions:  
1. The size range of 25' - 35' for the larger Ponderosa Pine or Colorado Blue  
Spruce as indicated in the Plant Schedule in the Botanical/Common Name  
column that is contained on the Landscape Plan is revised to 25' hgt min to  
match the Size/Cal. column; 2. Add a note the Landscape Plan that requiring any  
tree that dies is required to be replace in-kind as specified on Landscape Plan; 3.  
The designer of record for the Landscape Plan must be present at the nursery at  
the time the larger, 25 feet minimum height Ponderosa Pines or Colorado Blue  
Spruce are selected and provide documented proof to City Planning that the  
trees meet the minimum height as required by the Landscape Plan; 4. A height  
survey verification is required to be provided from a licensed professional  
surveyor in the State of Colorado prior to any zoning final inspection; 5. Financial  
Assurance shall be put in place for the Landscape Plan and Irrigation Plan  
improvements; 6. The tank color is changed to Juniper Green. The motion failed  
by a vote of 2:6:1:0.  
2 - Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Slattery  
Aye:  
No:  
6 -  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente, Vice  
Chair McMurray and Commissioner Raughton  
1 - Commissioner Rickett  
Absent:  
7.D.  
APPL-23-00 An appeal of the Notice of Violation and Order to Abate for the CSU  
Wilson Water Tank Development Plan consisting of 3.63 acres located  
at 6560 Alabaster Way.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
William Gray, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development  
Staff Presentation:  
Bill Gray, Senior Planner, gave a presentation on an appeal to abate.  
Rebuttal comments:  
Dave Padgett stated he does not believe he has additional comments at this time as  
the prior decision by the body to deny the modification of itself essentially upheld  
the stop work order.  
Motion by Vice Chair McMurray, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to deny  
the appeal and uphold the Notice of Violation and Order to Abate for the CSU  
Wilson Water Tank Development Plan, based upon the findings that the Appeal  
of the Notice of Violation and Order to abate does not meet the appeal criteria in  
UDC Code Section 7.5.415.A.2. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0.  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Chair Hente, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton and  
Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Commissioner Rickett  
Absent:  
8. Updates/Presentations  
9. Adjourn