Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

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

Chair Slattery said they are invitations to City Council for more alternates

for the Planning Commission and they will be announced after City Council

appoints officially.

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2359

4.A.

Minutes for the October 9, 2024, City Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_10.9.24 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to approve the

minutes for the October 9, 2024, City 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

Commissioner Rickett asked to pull items 5.B. and 5.C. Crest at

Woodmen.

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

Office Club Pt. Rezone

5.A.

ZONE-24-00 An Ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs pertaining to 2.1 acres located at 1860 Office Club Point

from MX-M/BP/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale and Business Park

with United States Air Force Academy Overlay) to MX-M/AF-O

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with United States Air Force Academy

Overlay) (Quasi-Judicial) (1st Reading only to set the public hearing

for January 14, 2025)

Presenter:

Logan Hubble, Planner II, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments: CC Ordinance_1860 Office Club Point

Exhibit A_Office Club Point

Exhibit B_Office Club Point

Staff Report_1860 Office Club Point Zone Change_final

Attachment 1-Project Statement

Attachment 2-Zoning Exhibit

Attachment 3-Land Use Statement

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Crest at Woodmen

5.B.

PUDZ-24-00 An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs pertaining to 10.181 acres located at 6855 Campus Drive

from PDZ/SS-O (Planned Development Zone: Commercial,

Industrial, and Residential Uses; maximum building height of 45-feet,

25-30 dwelling units per acre (Lot 6 only), and maximum building

square footage of 677,257 square feet (Lots 1-6) with Streamside

Overlay) to PDZ/AF-O (Planned Development Zone: Commercial

Use; maximum building height of 65-feet, and maximum building

square footage of 150,000 square feet (Lot 2) with United States Air

Force Academy Overlay).

(Quasi-Judicial) (1st Reading only to set the public hearing for

January 14, 2025)

Related Files: LUPL-24-0008

Presenter:

Logan Hubble, Planner II, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance_Crest at Woodmen

Exhibit A_Crest at Woodmen

Exhibit B_Crest at Woodmen

Crest at Woodmen Staff Report_final

Attachment 1-Project Statement

Attachment 2-Zoning Exhibit

Attachment 3-Legal Description

Attachment 4-Land Use Plan

Attachment 5-Citizen Comments

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Logan Hubble, Planner II, presented a zone change and land use plan for

Crest at Woodmen, located at 6855 Campus Drive. The current zone is a

plan development, with an Airforce overlay, streamside overlay with a

45-foot max height. The prosed change is for a plan development zone,

with an Airforce overlay and a 65-foot max height. Two public notices were

done, with two comments received. One comment was against the

application, but did not provide reasoning. The other comment expressed

concern over traffic and noise. City agency review was completed and the

Air Force Academy stated due to the site’s proximity to Davis airfield, FAA

review is required prior to construction. School District 20 has requested

fees in lieu of land dedication per the existing City Code for all residential

units within the development. The plan complies with PlanCOS and staff

finds the plan meets review criteria. Mr. Hubble said he spoke with the

sign administrator regarding additional signage. The square footage is

based on linear feet for any frontage signs. They are allowed to have two

square feet of sign per linear foot and increasing the height from 45 feet to

65 feet would not make a change to that.

Applicant Presentation

Chris Leber, Principal of NES, presented their application for Crest at

Woodmen. Mr. Leber asked Commissioner Rickett to address his

decision to pull this item off consent. Commissioner Rickett asked if this is

a frontage signage space. Mr. Leber said yes, but it is also to create more

of a presence along Woodmen Road. Commissioner Rickett said he

drives by the area frequently and said the drop is about 15 feet and is still a

building height of 45 feet. In the proposed motion, it is not specific to

building frontage or parapet, it is specific to the maximum building height of

65 feet. Commissioner Rickett said if this is approved and the

development goes away, anyone can come in and build a 65-foot building.

He said he has a problem with putting a 65-foot sign on Woodmen when

everything else behind it is at 45 feet or less. It is a visual presence and

should be done equally. This will block everyone else behind it. Mr. Leber

said this zone change is specific to the north façade and the frontage on lot

2. The request is an addition for percentage and depth allowance of six

feet and is specific to the parapet. Katie Carleo, acting Assistant Director,

said when a PUD or PUZ zone change is presented, it must be

accompanied by a land use plan. The land use plan specifically calls out,

note 5 A, B and C, what is allowed to be 65 feet and how much. The items

are married together and per the new UDC requirements, anything that

comes before City Council or City Planning Commission as a final

decision, is required to come back to that body for any changes. This

process ensures that the notes cannot be administratively changed.

Commissioner Rickett said in the future, if it does not move forward,

people will have the opportunity to bring a land use plan on the property

with a building at 65 feet high. Ms. Carleo said they are only allowed to

bring a building forward that meets the notes on 5 A, B and C, which calls

out the small percentages of the parapet and the percentages that are

allowed to go to 65 feet. While there could be a new owner or applicant,

they would be restricted to the diagram provided.

Commissioner Hensler asked to have the zoning changed explained. Mr.

Hubble said the larger land use plan still has the uses; however, the zone

change only concerns the small portion.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is room to build another building. Mr.

Leber said yes, however, what is being asked is only for the north façade,

the remainder of the building heights and future buildings would be subject

to the 45-foot height max. The exception only applies to the northern

building façade. Commissioner Rickett said the notes on the plan state

that it is for any building on the parcel to include a new building. Mr. Leber

said they are open to clarifying the language. Mr. Hubble said any building

on lot 2 is subject to those heights and if something was built there it could

be at that height.

Mr. Leber continued his presentation and highlighted the zone change

request and where it is specific to lot 2. Commissioner Cecil said the land

use plan shows 67 percent of the parapet. Mr. Hubble said there is a

discrepancy on the slide show and the land use plan is accurate. Mr. Leber

showed elevation changes from Woodmen Road in comparison to the

building and the need for retail presence.

Commissioner Questions

Chair Slattery said the site has not been built out yet and asked if the

65-foot parapet is a percentage of one façade, or the entire building

perimeter, and how it relates. Ms. Carleo said the notes on the plan are a

combination of working with the applicant and this body wanted to add an

additional note and be more specific to the façade of this proposed

building. This is for a land use plan; it does not have a footprint of a

building. Commissioner Rickett asked if new billboards are allowed in

Colorado Springs and said this could be a way to go around not having a

billboard and asked Mr. Leber if this height is to create signage on the

building. Mr. Leber said it is also for architectural presence along

Woodmen Road. It does not change the amount of square footage on

regulated signage.

Chair Slattery asked what the current building height is on lot 2. Mr. Leber

said he would get the answer.

Commissioner Rickett asked if new billboards are allowed in Colorado

Springs. Ms. Carleo said she is not able to speak to that and pointed out

that this is not a billboard conversation and there are other buildings that

are allowable for the same height and use their allotted space. There are

other buildings that are allowed to be taller in the area and follow the

standard of signage. Commissioner Rickett said it is modifying an existing

lot, however everyone else in the PUD has had to abide by the 45-foot

height limit. Mr. Leber said there is a need for architectural presence and a

significant portion of the façade is architectural. In addition to the site

development requirements the land in front will be used as parking and no

other buildings are planned. The building is currently 25 feet in height and

there are buildings towards the back that are 45 feet.

Daniel Sexton, DRE Planning Manager, said the use of the parapet for

signage as a billboard would not be considered because it is attached to

the building. The City has not seen an application for a billboard in over 15

years and there are very restrictive location requirements and if there was

one it would come before the Planning Commission as a conditional use

permit. Commissioner Rickett said this gets around that process to create

a parapet specific for signage. Anyone can come before us and say they

would like to add 20 feet to their parapet height and use it for signage. Mr.

Sexton said adding to the height of a building façade in most cases,

especially with it being only a one-story building, it does not change the

calculation for determining the wall frontage. It will still be based on either

the façade or the frontage of the property in question. Commissioner

Rickett said his issue is with the height.

Commissioner Cecil said she understands Commissioner Rickett’s

concern and one of the defining characteristics of a billboard is that it is off

premise advertising, and it rotates, and this would be on premise.

Commissioner Cecil asked since this is largely driven by creating an

architectural presence on Woodmen, and visibility on from the roadway to

what extent was re-locating the building determined not to be feasible to

give it greater proximity and height toward Woodmen Road. Mr. Leber

said the re-development would involve demolishing a portion of an existing

building. If parking and utilities connections are considered, it makes

sense to have an adaptive reuse of the existing building. The Crest at

Woodmen developers have done well overtime to utilize the existing

infrastructure. Mr. Leber said the amount of signage that is allowable on

the façade does not change whether height is added. It is determined on

the length of the overall frontage and is not to create a billboard.

Commissioner Rickett said he used the billboard analogy because of the

height issue and said there is still land that will be developed in the area

and the next parcel may decide that want something taller and will have to

come before this body. Commissioner Rickett said they need to be careful

how they do this and that is why he pulled it from consent.

Chair Slattery said it seems there are two other buildable areas for new

construction down the road and asked if those approvals would need to

come before this body. Mr. Hubble said as long as they adhere to

everything in the land use plan which includes a maximum square footage

for that lot, then they would not need to come before the Planning

Commission. Chair Slattery asked if the entire façade could move up to 45

feet and what are the allowable percentages to increase the building

façade. Mr. Hubble said currently 45 feet is the max height and some of

the structures that are in the area now have not taken full advantage of that.

With the zone change it would be 67 percent of the façade could be up to

55 feet and 40 percent could be up to 65 feet. Chair Slattery asked

currently allowable now, 100 percent could move up to 45 feet. Mr. Hubble

said yes. Chair Slattery asked if that did not seem adequate with the

applicant in terms of developing signage. Chair Slattery asked Mr. Leber

to describe the addition adaptive with part of the building would be

demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Leber said the northeast corner of the existing

larger building. The new corner of the building and the roof height would be

65 feet to take advantage of the signage. No more than 6-foot-wide

parapet would be constructed.

Commissioner Rickett said he understands it is the intent of this single

building, however more buildings can be built on this property and the

owner today may not be the owner tomorrow. Commissioner Rickett said

we have to look at it as a piece of land and not specific to this one project

therefore, as written, this allows more buildings to be added in front, closer

to Woodmen and with a 65-foot parapet. Mr. Leber said they are limited by

the number of square feet that have been identified as a part of the land

use plan. The retail center will maximize the space for lot 2. The additional

development space is associated with lot 4, which is not part of this

specific zoning request. Mr. Leber said any change to that square footage

would need to come before this body. The development plan has to

conform with the action today.

Chair Slattery asked Commissioner Rickett if he had a solution of

proposed change on the motion. Commissioner Rickett said no, and this

sets a precedence for lots 2, 3 and 4 and all the property owners to ask for

more approvals in the future. Commissioner Rickett said he will be voting

no.

Chair Slattery said bringing lot 1 and 3 so close to the road at that height

brings an imbalance and said does not meet the criteria.

Commissioner Cecil said exhibit 2 explains the uses not allowed, in

particular no medical marijuana and no human services establishments.

This could provoke concern for accessibility to necessary services and

asked if these were new additions and how they ended up here. Mr.

Hubble said those exceptions to allowances were on the current PDZ and

brought them over in an effort to keep everything the same.

Commissioner Cecil said if you are on the upper side of Woodmen, you

get the elevation plus 45 feet of visibility. However, if you are on the lower

side of Woodmen, you get the opposite, so the 35-foot height difference

from the road makes the visibility 32 feet which is still shorter than having

45 feet on the north side of Woodmen. Commissioner Cecil asked if there

is a consideration around building height and elevation around the city and

does not find this to be excessive or inappropriate to the use and will be in

support of this.

Commissioner Hensler said she understands Commissioner Rickett’s

concerns and needs to be cautious of opening a slippery slope that opens

a door. Commissioner Hensler said with the development plan and the

restrictions of having to come back to this body she feels confident that it is

not going to be a free-for-all of 65-foot-tall buildings and is in favor of the

request.

Commissioner Robbins said just because we are allowing one unit to be

that way, others will have to come back to this body for approval and is in

favor of the project.

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

recommend approval to City Council the zone change of 10.181 acres from

PDZ /SS-O (Planned Development Zone: Commercial, Industrial, and

Residential Uses; maximum building height of 45-feet, 25-30 dwelling units

per acre (Lot 6 only), and maximum building square footage of 677,257

square feet (Lots 1-6) with Streamside Overlay) to PDZ/AF-O (Planned

Development Zone: Commercial Uses; maximum building height of 65-feet,

and maximum building square footage of 150,000 square feet (Lot 2) with

United States Air Force Academy Overlay) based upon the findings that the

request complies with the criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment as set forth

in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motion passed by a vote of 6-3.

6 -

Aye:

No:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic and Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

5.C.

LUPL-24-000 A Major Modification to the Crest at Woodmen Land Use Plan

changing 10.181 acres to allow a 65' maximum building height where

45' was previously allowed located at 6855 Campus Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Logan Hubble, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: Attachment 4-Land Use Plan

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Cecil, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the Major Modification of the Crest at

Woodmen Land Use Plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies

with the review criteria for Land Use Plans as set forth in City Code Section

7.5.514

The motion passed by a vote of 6-3.

6 -

Aye:

No:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic and Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

Gilligan's Island Filing No. 1

5.D.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow an Integrated Accessory Dwelling in the

R-E/WUI-O (Residential-Estate with Wildland Urban Interface

Overlay) zone district consisting of a 4.7 acre site located at 10 El

Encanto Drive.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report - CPC 111324

Attachment 1 - Project Statement - CPC 111324

Attachment 2 - Development Plan - CPC 111324

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

5.E.

DEPN-24-00 The Gilligans Island Filing No. 1 Development Plan establishing a

Detached Single-Family Dwelling with an Integrated Accessory

Dwelling consisting of a 4.7 acre site located at 10 El Encanto Drive.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning and Neighborhood Services

Attachments: Attachment 2 - Development Plan - CPC 111324

7.5.515 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

1220 Eagle Rock Rd. Retaining Wall - Nonuse Variance

8.A.

NVAR-24-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.610.D.1.d to allow a

nine (9) foot retaining wall within the hillside overlay where a

maximum of four (4) feet is permitted located at 1220 Eagle Rock

Road. (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, Planning and Neighborhood Services

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment #1 - Approved Hillside Development Plan

Attachment #2 - PPRBD Correspondence

Attachment #3 - Notice of Opposition

Attachment #4 - Public Response Letter

Attachment #5 - Site Plan

Attachment #6 - Existing Conditions

Attachment #7 - Project Statement

Attachment #8 - Entech Retaining Wall Recommendation

Attachment #9 - Geological Hazard Report Validation Letter

Attachment #10 - 1210 Eagle Rock Rd Hillside Site Plan

Attachment #11 - Notice of Support

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

7.2.610 HS-O HILLSIDE OVERLAY

Drew Foxx, Planner II, presented the non-use variance application for a

proposed retaining wall on a 1.64-acre lot located at 1220 Eagle Rock

Road. The lot rests against a hillside that has a considerable slope and

shares a driveway with the lot to the north. A shotcrete structure was

installed across the property lines by the owner of 1210 Eagle Rock Road.

The non-use variance, if approved, would allow a retaining wall nine foot in

height, were four feet is allowed. The wall would help to prevent erosion,

rockfall hazards and establish more privacy. There is no building permit on

record with the Regional Building Department for the existing shotcrete.

Standard notice was given with two comments received. One letter of

support was provided, and the applicant provided a letter of opposition due

to the potential for negative implications on their property value. All agency

comments have been addressed. The project does comply with the

PlanCOS. Staff finds the application does not meet the criteria, however, if

approved, staff recommend conditions of approval.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Casey asked why the two-tiered wall system is not viable.

Mr. Foxx asked to let the applicant give their presentation to help answer

that question.

Applicant Presentation

Jamie and John Fernandez, homeowners of 1220 Eagle Rock Road,

presented their application for the non-use variance for the retaining wall.

Mrs. Fernandez spoke on the current state of the project area to include

rockfall risks, stormwater risks, lack of erosion control and steep slopes.

The existing retaining wall is not permitted and lacks an approved plat and

erosion control. Mrs. Fernandez showed results of a geohazard report

from 2018 showing current hazards. A code enforcement case was

opened, and the structure was in violation. Mrs. Fernadez said the retaining

wall denies reasonable use to their property. Pictures were provided

showing the flooding and erosion issues. Mr. Fernandez outlined the

remediation plan to provide a solution to remediate risks. A single

pre-cast concrete retaining wall design is being proposed to replace the

existing wall. He gave examples of a four-foot, two-tiered wall design any

why this would not work for the area. Mr. Fernandez highlighted the code

criteria and gave examples of how they meet staff criteria. Mrs. Fernandez

continued the presentation to show hillside site and grading plan analysis.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Cecil asked how they plan to mitigate the drainage issues

that would flow on their driveway and how much earth would be held back.

She also asked what the width difference is from the existing retaining wall

to the proposed wall. Ms. Fernandez referenced the drainage picture which

shows large trees and a grassy vegetation area that will be preserved

where the water will be absorbed. Commissioner Cecil said it does not

look big enough to absorb the amount of water we get with changing

climatic events. Mrs. Fernandez said the pipe will come out at the 90

degree turn and the area is highly vegetative. Mr. Fernandez said they are

not retaining any shotcrete on their property. Commissioner Cecil asked if

there is land to hold back where the two walls meet. Mr. Fernandez said

during the excavation it will have to be significantly backfilled.

Commissioner Hensler asked if this is approved, how does the new

retaining wall tie into the existing shotcrete area and would it cause more

issues for the adjacent property. Mr. Fernandez said they have had

significant conversations with their engineers and the footer of the wall on

the northern property is two inches in length. It is almost as seamless as

the earth on the property line. Commissioner Hensler asked how the wall

ties into the neighboring wall without encouraging the structure to crumble.

Mr. Fernandez said it cannot be tied into the structure but there would not

be more than a two-to-four-inch gap in the structures. Commissioner

Hensler asked if there is concern with adding backfill and weight would

cause more issues with the adjacent property. Mr. Fernandez said not to

the adjacent property because the height will be minimized and will be

under four feet.

Chair Slattery asked if the line on the proposed wall graded on level with

the existing car park area. Mr. Fernandez said it is within grade and will

have the pipe come in under and keep the water flow.

Commissioner Robbins asked if there are any plans for a horizontal pier

going straight into the hillside. The concern is that the wall will fall down. Mr.

Fernandez said the design does not call for it based on geological design,

but they will bring that up to the engineers. Mrs. Fernandez pointed out

footers on the wall will be used to strengthen it. Commissioner Robbins

said he is impressed by the amount of work that was put into the

presentation.

Commissioner Rickett said based on the design, if the goal was not to

create a parking area and based on the elevations, a four-foot retaining

wall seems doable and asked why the code cannot be met. Mrs.

Fernandez said the wall was considered unsatisfactory by code

enforcement in September and it has created an unnatural grade in the

area. In order to use the area and make it accessible, it will have to be

leveled out. Commissioner Rickett said he is not following that explanation.

Mr. Fernandez said yes, they are trying to follow the spirit of the code and

the only portion that will be outside of code is the red area. It is

unreasonable to achieve that in the northeast corner in red due to the

existing slope. Commissioner Rickett asked if there is step-footing in the

area. Mr. Fernandez said yes, once the shotcrete is removed the

step-footing allows the ability to come up to grade as much as possible.

Commissioner Rickett asked why they are not trying to meet the four-foot

requirements and sees it can be met by the hillside code. He said it

seems the whole purpose of this is to get more parking. Commissioner

Rickett said the shotcrete wall does have a natural look to it and what you

want is a gray concrete wall. The code calls for a four-foot wall, and nothing

shows why this cannot be met. Mrs. Fernandez said the engineered

design was specifically constructed to make sure the water does not go

onto the neighbor’s property. The 12-foot maximum height is to help

mitigate the danger of the crack, unpermitted and code violating structure.

If a four-foot wall is used it leaves exposed soil. Mrs. Fernandez showed a

picture of where the shotcrete wall will be removed. Commissioner Rickett

asked if all the shotcrete wall is being removed from the property. Mrs.

Fernandez said yes. Commissioner Rickett said if some of the wall is

being left and sees that this is a justification for increased parking and this

can be done by meeting the hillside code.

Commissioner Sipilovic asked how far the wall is from the property

boundary. Mr. Fernandez said there is a two-inch footer, and they are

working with the adjacent property and trade said a foot is needed to

access. Commissioner Sipilovic said he as personally gone through

something similar and there was no access allowed, and the additional

costs were exorbitant and hopes that it is being considered.

Chair Slattery asked staff if a ten-foot setback is needed for this project

and is there a second variance. Mr. Sexton said the wall would be

considered an accessory structure, but under the Unified Development

Code there is a provision that allows accessory structure to be no more

than 12 feet in height within certain setbacks. The hillside overlay has the

more restrictive stand with the max he accessory structure height at four

feet. Chair Slattery asked if the hillside overlay indicates any setback

requirements. Mr. Sexton said no.

Public Comment

Kathy Rountree and Dan Rountree, homeowners at 1210 Eagle Rock

Road ceded time to David Feeder, Attorney to Kathy and Dan Rountree.

Mr. Feeder said this is a property line dispute. The shotcrete wall was

created in 2003 for erosion control and the lots had shared ownership. At

the time the shotcrete wall was built the owners were not aware they

needed a permit. The facts are the Fernandez’s knew about the structure,

and they did not do anything about it for seven years. When the property

was purchased in 2016, and they chose not to do a survey. Mr. Feeder

said the Rountree’s offered to remove it, and Mr. Fernandez declined. In

2019 the City specifically requested that the encroachment be removed.

The Fernandez’s convinced the City that it was not necessary to remove

the shotcrete wall. Mr. Feeder said the wall is not unsafe and this is about

driveway space. The other justification is to maintain privacy, however

Fernandez’s cut down several trees which showed a lack of concern for

privacy. The final justification is that a single tiered nine-foot wall is a

superior solution, but a two-tiered wall would be consistent with the existing

conditions on the property.

Applicant Rebuttal

Mr. Fernandez said they have provided factual evidence and Mr. Feeder

has not. Mrs. Fernandez said the comment from Mr. Feeder about the

engineers who said the application is trying to expand the driveway was

incorrect as the engineers that designed the wall provided the geohazard

reports. The majority of the variance is related to rating the area and

mitigating the risks of the hazard report. Two trees were removed for the

safety zone. Other options have been submitted for tiered walls, however it

drastically increasing cut and fill, vegetation disturbance and will require

further variance. A previous application was denied by the Development

Review Enterprise.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Cecil said there is some shotcrete that will remain on the

property per the picture provided and asked why the blue horizontal line

cuts across instead of going straight. Mrs. Fernandez said that it is the

most hazardous part of the area, this was the best solution provided by the

engineers. Commissioner Cecil said it looks like the highest risk would be

to the neighbors for a landslide. Mrs. Fernandez said it is an area where

stormwater flows.

Commissioner Rickett said the objective is to replace a portion of the

shotcrete on the property and the retain wall is to gain driveway space

while not meeting the spirit of the code.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he agrees and more of the shotcrete wall

should be removed while working with the neighbors and it does not meet

the spirit of the code.

Vice Chair Foos said they must be careful with variances and is concerned

with the leftover shotcrete wall and does not meet the criteria.

Commissioner Casey said he does find it meets the criteria and is in

support of it.

Commissioner Hensler said there may be other ways to meet the code,

however, does not agree with the opposition with what is being done with

the property. Commissioner Hensler said she is in favor of the application.

Chair Slattery said this is one of the most well explained and thoughtful

presentations from a homeowner and it is their choice to have a bigger

driveway. However, there is probably another way to work together with the

neighbor to find a safe and compatible way to fix the retaining wall. Mr.

Fernandez said they have a city approved site plan that was reversed and

asked the Commission to have the Development Revenue Enterprise to

take another look at it. Chair Slattery asked Mr. Sexton to review it. Mrs.

Fernandez said the site plan was previously approved and six months later

it was reversed. Mr. Sexton said the building permit application was

changed, but it is still in active plan review. Upon further review staff found

the approval status that was noted in Regional building system was

incorrectly applied. Mr. Sexton said they are willing to have a conversation

and look at additional information to see if there is a way to approve the

permit with a non-use variance. Mrs. Fernandez said it was denied due to

it not being a driveway and City code does not define private driveways.

Commissioner Rickett said he does not care if it is parking, but the design

was intended to extend the driveway, but if it should be designed in a way

to meet code.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to deny the

Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.610.D.1.d allowing a 9-foot

retaining wall in the hillside overlay based upon the findings that the request

does not comply with the criteria as set for in City Code Section 7.5.526.E.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-4.

5 -

Aye:

No:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Sipilovic

and Commissioner Gigiano

4 -

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

Rock Creek Mesa - Cheyenne Mountain State Park Annexation

8.B.

ANEX-24-00 Cheyenne Mountain State Park Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting

of 53.84 acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne

Mountain State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

was done, concerns were raised regarding evacuation, traffic, roadway

considerations, Fort Carson considerations, school capacity and wildlife.

City agency review was completed, and no objections were found. The

plan is compliant with PlanCOS and staff finds the applications meet

criteria.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Rickett asked to have the maximum density of homes

clarified. Mr. Sevigny will have the applicant further explain; however, it is

capped at 400 units total.

Applicant Presentation

Jason Alwin, Matrix Design Group, presented their application for the

proposed annexation. He said there are a total of seven annexations

totaling 109 acres. The annexation will bring Colorado Springs Utilities

water and sewer to Rock Creek Mesa and no existing homes will be

required to connect to city utilities or annex. Mr. Alwin highlighted land

review criteria, boundary lines and proposed residential areas. The open

space, park and common areas will be owned and maintained by the Rock

Creek Metro district. Traffic studies and transportation options were

provided. Mr. Alwin said a neighborhood meeting was held on January 10,

2024 and approximately 45-50 residents attended. Concerns included

density, traffic wildlife and water supply issues. The unit cap of 550 homes

was reduced to 400 units. The developer is proposing improvements on

Highway 115 including turns lanes and traffic signals. An email was

received from Colorado Spark and Wildlife stating the area is already

developed and it is not a critical habitat. The developer is also providing

reliable CSU water extensions to the area.

Vernin Champlin with Jensen Hughes, discussed fire and life safety for the

area. Mr. Champlin said the new development does not worsen the

existing wildfire situation but makes the area more resilient to wildfires.

There will be new fire hydrants, access, traffic management, fuels

mitigation and ignition resistant construction per Appendix K in the

Colorado Springs Fire Code. The developer has agreed to provide two

chipping days annually for the next five years to the Rock Creek Mesa

neighborhood.

Danny Mientka, Owner and applicant of Rock Creek Mesa LLC, spoke on

his process in applying for the annexation. Mr. Mientka said he met with

CSU regarding water issues. He negotiated and received regionalization

agreements for water and wastewater which were approved by City

Council. El Paso County said the regionalization would not satisfy the

300-year rule. Mr. Mientka met with then Chief of Staff, Jeff Green and

former Mayor John Suthers and evaluated alternatives which included

annexation. The goal was to bring City owned property into the City and

agreed to shelter the costs associated. Mr. Mientka said the benefits of

the plan will improve housing for Fort Carson, a water connection to an

existing community and for fire mitigation, and an elementary school.

Commissioner Casey asked if the current zoning and proposed zoning are

F5. Mr. Sevigny said the east and west are. Commissioner Casey asked

how an r-flex medium is compatible with the surrounding F5 areas. Mr.

Alwin said the current zoning rs-5000 and went through a re-zone process

with El Paso County two years ago but could not speak to what the current

State Park zoning is.

Commissioner Rickett asked if Cheyenne Mountain State Park is within

City limits. Mr. Sevigny said there are some portions within City limits.

Commissioner Rickett asked how long the city has owned the 50 acres that

are proposed to be annexed in. Mr. Sevigny said he would have Lonna

Thelen, Parks Development Manager, confirm how long the city has owned

that. Commissioner Rickett asked the developer if this would be affordable

housing. Mr. Mientka said yes, with a density of 400 units on 50 acres.

Commissioner Rickett said these 1,500-foot lots are getting houses or

duplexes of 400-800 square feet and the cost per square foot can be

$415.00-$700.00 per square foot and asked for the range of housing

costs, per square foot. Mr. Mientka said in the development process the

small lot sizes would be 2,200-2,400 square foot lots with three-bedroom

two bath neighborhoods for families at Fort Carson. The target prices

would be a range of $300, 000-$500,000, however there is not a builder

yet.

Commissioner Robbins said he is concerned about older units being

hooked into utilities and asked if that would be a developer cost. Mr.

Sevigny said that would be a developer cost and CSU has a presentation.

Brian English, Development Projects Manager, Colorado Springs Utilities,

spoke on the presentation given at the City Council work session on

October 7, 2024. He addressed the application of elements of City Code

pertaining to utilities and Chapter 7 concerning requirements and

conditions of annexation. Mr. English provide an overview on the water and

wastewater infrastructure if Rock Creek Mesa were annexed. The mobile

home park is in active negotiations for a regional wastewater agreement

with representatives from the ownership group. Provision of that service

would be contingent on agreeing to terms and approval by City Council.

CSU ability to provide full regional water service is not supported with the

water molecules, however if a water district qualifies for service and terms

are met it is usually on a convey, treat and deliver basis. The water

provider would deliver untreated water into CSU utility system which would

be treated and delivered through the potable distribution system. Mr.

English said the property resides within the natural gas and electric service

territories, meaning CSU is obligated to provide those services regardless

of annexations. Capital cost estimates were provided, and CSU would

recommend that City Council approve a system extension writer to cover

the costs as they are not accounted for in the base rates or normal capital

costs.

Commissioner Cecil asked how the capital costs would look like per

person, per month and period of time. Mr. English said they do not have

that information at this time, however, staff is working on a financial impact

analysis.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is enough infrastructure to help Rock

Creek Mesa and the mobile home park if they needed it. Mr. English said

yes there is sufficient distribution capacity, however more evaluations

would need to be done at the time of application to better understand the

needs based on demand.

Commissioner Robbins asked what the time frame would be to have

services up and running. Mr. English said from a utilities perspective they

need to split the wet and dry utilities. The dry utilities are the developer’s

responsibility to design and construct and would defer to them on their

schedule. For wet utilities, it could be six to twelve months from the time of

annexation depending on other project in the que to get mobilized and start

designing and constructing.

Public Comment

RJ Steer, representing the May Family, president of Golden Eagle Ranch

and Campground, John May Wells Water System and the May Natural

Museum, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Steer said his grandfather

purchased property in 1942 and set up a volunteer fire department. He and

his family have all been volunteer firefighters in the area. As the area

developed, his grandfather donated property on Rock Creek Mesa and

created the John May Memorial Fire Station. The existing water systems,

both of which are owned by them, do not have the capacity to fight major

fires. The water from Rock Creek Mesa fire hydrants would be of value if

there is a catastrophic circumstance and save their lives.

Jonas Thelin, resident of Rock Creek Mesa, spoke in opposition to the

project. He said he is not opposed to bringing in mitigation and utilities to

the area, the concern is for evacuation. Mr. Thelin asked if the housing

capacity changed would it come back to this body. He is also concerned

with the annexation of the State Park and who would be responsible for

mitigating it.

Sophia Besaha, Brody, and JR Giebel ceded time to Felicia Grillo,

resident of Rock Creek Mesa, provided a presentation in opposition to the

project. Ms. Grillo stated they are opposed to serial annexations and

TOPS purchases. They have their own water and have not seen any

issues. Ms. Grillo said the annexation of the Stat Park only benefits the

developer, Mr. Mientka. The same annexation was attempted ten years

ago and denied by the previous administration. Ms. Grillo said she was

told on several occasions that the area was not TOPS property, and she

had to prove that it was. She said if mitigation needed to be done, TOPS

funds is directed to care for it. Ms. Grillo said city emergency services

cannot meet the eight-minute requirement and Mountain Metro will not

provide bus services to the area. Other basic amenities are lacking in the

area such as gas stations and grocery stores. They are concerned with

evacuations and density issues in the area. Ms. Grillo said the mobile

home park sewer septic system was going away and there was an

agreement prior to the annexation. Fort Carson helicopters train at the site

across the street from Pawnee and Highway 115 and a two-mile buffer

zone between military bases and civilian housing is required.

Josephine Becera, a resident of Rock Creek Mesa spoke in opposition of

the project. She said their family established a home out there to get away

from the city and lights. Ms. Becera is also a volunteer firefighter and EMT

and has only responded to two calls on Highway 115 and Pawnee.

However, she has responded countless times to Fort Carson gate 5.

Adding a light to Pawnee will cause major hazards with semi-trucks and

turning radius.

Applicant Rebuttal

Mr. Mientka said the development has to be evaluated in context for

bringing in water supply to a water district. He is proposing to provide

independent hydrants for the community, and it will be valuable. There is not

a plan to go to 800 units in the area. TOPS was an administrative proposal

and had nothing to do with Matrix Design Group. The neighborhood would

be beautified and will be planned well. Mr. Mientka said the mobile home

park cannot connect to sewer under a regional service agreement unless

they are annexed. The property on Rock Creek Mesa is undeveloped

because there is no water.

Mr. Alwin said he was not offered a job at TOPS; he served as a volunteer

many years prior to the application.

Chair Slattery asked Lonna Thelen, Parks Development and TOPS

Manager, to give a history on the TOPS program, the State Park parcel.

How the program works and what are the rules on the annexation and why

TOPS would be advocating for that piece. Ms. Thelen said the TOPS

program looks to acquire properties that preserve environmental resources

and create recreational opportunities for citizens. The Parks Department

has a candidate open space map that shows the location of properties

suggested for acquisition. The properties do not need to be within City

limits. If properties outside the City limits are annexed, the goal is to bring

those properties into the City limits as staff is able. The property owner

approached the Parks Department to ask if they could assist in annexing

the Parks property into the City. The City Parks Department found that the

annexation of this parcel met the goal of bringing the property into the City.

Chair Slattery asked to clarify, in 2000 the state acquired land for the State

Park at the same time the TOPS program purchased an adjacent parcel to

be maintained indefinitely by the State entity. Ms. Thelen said Colorado

Parks and Wildlife and the City Parks Department through the TOPS

program worked together for an acquisition of land in 2000 to originally

create Cheyenne Mountain State Park. The City Parks Department has an

agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the maintenance of the

TOPS property that is part of Cheyenne Mountain State Park.

Commissioner Rickett asked when the adjacent property that creates the

City limit was annexed in. Mr. Sevigny said this was in 1987 in ordinance

with the JL Ranch. Coral Bluffs was purchased through many of the TOPS

funds in 2021 and has been annexed.

Commissioner Rickett asked how many acres does TOPS have outside of

Colorado Springs. Ms. Thelen said the total number of acres is uncertain,

but we do have property on the east side of town that is not within City

limits. The TOPS program looks to acquire land based on its compliance

with the TOPS goals, not the location of the property. Commissioner

Rickett asked if this is the only piece of property TOPS has that hasn’t

been annexed in. Ms. Thelen said this is not the only piece of property that

is not within City limits. Commissioner Rickett said there is really no

purpose to annex this into the City at this time. Ms. Thelen said their goal

overtime is to annex all City property that is in the TOPS program, and this

is one of those steps they can take to do that.

Commissioner Hensler said that there are times that land is going to be

available, and TOPS is going to acquire whether an annexation is

immediate or not.

Mr. Walker said there are other parcels that are in the county and adjacent

to City property. Ultimately, City Council is the authority relative to annexing

the property and if they have a concern, they will be able to weigh in on that.

Commissioner Rickett said he agrees and that is why he is asking those

questions, so they have that information available.

Chair Slattery said according to the County Assessors map, the City owns

many more large parcels to the west that were acquired since that time,

and they have extensive reach in the area.

Vice Chair Foos asked to discuss the map that was provided showing

response times for emergency services. Mr. Sevigny said Colorado

Springs Police and Fire were here to speak on it. Chair Slattery asked to

hear from Todd Frisby, City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Frisby said as part of the

annexation they are requiring the internal roadways to be built to City

standards. The main road will be a collector and the threshold for that is

approximately 1,500-5,000 vehicles per day. Highway 115 is out of their

purview, but what called for the traffic study was the development and

pushed the need for a traffic signal. The developer has agreed to update

the internal roadways and intersections per the recommendations of the

traffic study.

Commissioner Questions

Vice Chair Foos asked if there will be acceleration lanes to help merge

with traffic. Mr. Frisby said that is a part of the plan, but CDOT will provide

that.

Commissioner Robbins asked if there will be warning lights to indicate

traffic ahead for safety. Mr. Frisby said CDOT would need to make that

requirement. Mr. Sevigny read in a letter from CDOT for improvement

suggestions.

Chair Slattery asked Colorado Springs Fire to speak about this project in

relation to evacuation planning, density, response times and mitigation.

Steven Smith, Fire Protection Engineer presented information on response

times. He said the response time from Station 16 to Pine Oaks is 9

minutes and 43 seconds, Station 4 to Pine Oaks is just over 11 minutes.

The data provided was derived from statistical run data for that intersection

on Pine Oaks and Highway 115. The response time for the development

area will be outside of the standards. Mr. Smith said when reviewing

development plans there is nothing in the fire code that can be used

whether a neighborhood is designed well enough for fire evacuations. The

fire code is used to get the fire department in and not get the neighborhood

out. Chair Slattery asked if the increase in response time in the area would

create a liability for the department or ratings and what steps could be

taken to decrease the response time. Mr. Smith said there are areas

within the City now that do not meet standards of coverage and to help that,

surrounding buildings are required to have sprinkler systems. Chair

Slattery said requiring residential housing to have sprinkler systems would

not make the housing affordable. Mr. Smith said there are multi-purpose

sprinkler systems that could be used.

Gary Reading, Battalion Chief and Shift Commander, Colorado Springs

Fire Department, said when response times cannot be met, they have

mutual aid agreements, and partner with the surrounding fire comminutes

to help mitigate. However, due to the distance of this development, mutual

aid would not be used, and they would use automatic aid where both would

be dispatched at the same time. Chair Slattery asked if there is a fiscal

impact to using mutual aid. Battalion Chief Reading said no, they meet

with City officials and City attorneys to ensure the contracts meet

expectations. Battalion Chief Reading said evacuations depending on

weather conditions and typography and it is hard to predict what can

happen in each community. Early notification is the most important

resource for evacuations. Zone Haven is used to help determine radius for

evacuations.

Chair Slattery asked for information on Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

mitigation efforts and how it relates to evacuations. Kris Cooper, Deputy

Fire Marshal, Colorado Springs Fire Department said this area is

considered to be in the WUI and would fall under the requirements of

Appendix K. Commissioner Rickett asked if WUI standards fall within City

limits. Deputy Fire Marshal Cooper said their jurisdiction is only within City

limits. Residential sprinklers are only designed to protect the property for

about ten minutes.

Chair Slattery asked for the Colorado Springs Police Department to speak

on response times and coverage for the area. Mary Rosenoff, Deputy

Chief, Colorado Springs Police Department said a map was provided

showing divisions for response times and spoke on sectors for response

areas. Real time information is used for evacuation responses. First

responder traffic lanes are set up and drones are used. Commissioner

Robbins asked if they would stay in communication with the county first

responders. Deputy Chief Rosenoff said yes, they have radios that are

able to do that. Citizens are now able to report nonviolent crimes online.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Cecil said she is dismayed by the responses from the Fire

Department and sounds risky and is looking forward to hearing other

Commissioners’ comments.

Commissioner Rickett said he is weighing this against Amara. Both had

similar response times, but there is no opportunity to increase response

times without allowing more stations to be put in. This is not advantageous

from a life safety standpoint and will not be voting in support of this.

Commissioner Sipilovic asked if this is not annexed and when there is a

call for service, would City Police and Fire respond to the area.

Commissioner Hensler asked about how mutual aid works. Deputy Chief

Rosenoff said if an officer is close, they will go and check to stabilize the

scene. Mr. Smith said the Fire Department would do the same.

Commissioner Casey asked if Colorado State Patrol would do the same.

Deputy Chief Rosenoff said yes. Commissioner Sipilovic said he is in

support of the annexation, with bringing updated utilities to the mobile

home park. The City is going to continue to grow and would like to see

more of that on the west side.

Commissioner Robbins said he has mixed emotions about this due to

response times, but likes the idea of better utilities, but is not sure that he is

in favor of this.

Vice Chair Foos said the mutual agreements are satisfactory in the area

and provides much needed housing for Fort Carson. It meets the criteria

and is in full support of the project.

Commissioner Casey said the conditions for annexation are met and is in

support of the project.

Commissioner Hensler said mutual aid will help with service and is

sensitive to the need for housing and feels that the developer has been

responsive to those needs. Commissioner Hensler is in support of the

project.

Commissioner Gigiano said her concern is that the area would not have

their own police and fire services and will not be voting in favor.

Commissioner Robbins asked Police and Fire to think about substations

for the area.

Chair Slattery said she believes the application meets the criteria for

annexation. The development brings an opportunity for water security and

safety. It is a dense area, and this will bring viability and housing to the

area.

Commissioner Rickett said this application does not meet criteria two and

that is why he is not voting in favor of this.

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 53.84 acres as the

Cheyenne Mountain State 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 7-2.

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.

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting of 4.02

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 4.02 acres as the Rock

Creek Mesa 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, with one (1) Condition of Approval:

* The applicant shall seek Board of County Commissioners' approval of the

deeds of transfer for rights-of-way along Pawnee Road prior to recordation.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-2.

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.D.

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 2 Annexation consisting of 8.35

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Casey

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 8.35 acres as the Rock

Creek Mesa Addition No. 2 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 7-2.

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.E.

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 3 Annexation consisting of 25.55

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 25.55 acres as the

Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 3 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 7-2.

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.F.

8.G.

8.H.

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 4 Annexation consisting of 4.06

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 4.06 acres as the Rock

Creek Mesa Addition No. 4 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 7-2.

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

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 5 Annexation consisting of 7.43

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 7.43 acres as the Rock

Creek Mesa Addition No. 5 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 7-2.

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

ANEX-24-00 Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 6 Annexation consisting of 5.61

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 5.61 acres as the Rock

Creek Mesa Addition No. 6 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 7-2.

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.I.

ZONE-23-00 The establishment of a R-Flex-Med/HS-O/WUI-O (R-Flex Medium

with Hillside and Wildland Urban Interface Overlay) zone district in

association with the Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 1-4 Annexation

consisting of 38.11 acres located west of Highway 115 and south of

Cheyenne Mountain State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 26 - Exhibit A - Legal Description - R-Flex Med - East

Side

Attachment 27 - Exhibit B - Map Depiction - R-Flex Med - East Side

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Sipilovic, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone establishment of 38.11 acres as

R-Flex-Med/HS-O/WUI-O (R-Flex Medium with Hillside and Wildland Urban

Interface Overlay) zone 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 7-2.

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.J.

ZONE-23-00 The establishment of a PK/WUI-O (Public Parks with Wildland Urban

Interface Overlay) zone district in association with the Cheyenne

Mountain State Park Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting of 53.84

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments: Attachment 28 - Exhibit A - Legal Description - Public Parks

Attachment 29 - Exhibit B - Map Depiction - Public Parks

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone establishment of 53.84 acres as

PK/WUI-O (Public Parks with Wildland Urban Interface Overlay) zone 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 7-2.

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.K.

ZONE-23-00 The establishment of a R-Flex-Med/WUI-O (R-Flex Medium with

Wildland Urban Interface Overlay) zone district in association with the

Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 5-6 Annexation consisting of 12.51

acres located west of Highway 115 and south of Cheyenne Mountain

State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 30 - Exhibit A - Legal Description - R-Flex Med - West

Side

Attachment 31 - Exhibit B - Map Depiction - R-Flex Med - West Side

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone establishment of 12.51 acres as

R-Flex-Med/WUI-O (R-Flex Medium with Wildland Urban Interface Overlay)

zone 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 7-2.

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.L.

MAPN-23-00 Establishment of the Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 1-6 and

Cheyenne Mountain State Park Addition No. 1 Land Use Plan for

proposed Residential, Public Parks, and Streets/Utility Rights-of-Way

consisting of 104.45 acres located west of Highway 115 and south of

Cheyenne Mountain State Park.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 32 - Rock Creek Mesa 1-6 and Cheyenne Mtn State Park

Addition No 1 - Land Use Plan

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

recommend approval to City Council the Rock Creek Mesa Addition No. 1-6

and Cheyenne Mountain State Park Addition No. 1 Land Use Plan based upon

the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for Land Use

Plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-2.

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

PLDO 2025 Acreage and Fee Update

8.M.

CODE-24-00 An Ordinance amending Section 307 (Park Land Dedications) of

Article 4 (Development Standards and Incentives) of Chapter 7

(Unified Development Code (UDC)) of the Code of the City of

Colorado Springs 2001, as amended, pertaining to Park Land

Dedications. (Legislative)

Presenter:

Caroline Miller, Park Land Dedication Ordinance Program

Administrator, Planning Department

Lonna Thelen, Parks Design and Development Manager/TOPS

Manager, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services

Attachments: Staff Report_CC Work Session_PLDO 2025 Acreage and Fee Update

Attachment 1 - 2024 PLDO Appraisal

Attachment 2 - Existing Fee Schedule

Attachment 3 - ACS Household Data

ORD-Park Land Dedication Acreage

7.4.307 PARK LAND DEDICATIONS

7.5.702 AMENDMENT TO UDC TEXT

Caroline Miller, Program Administrator II, presented the 2025 Acreage and

Fee Update. The change in the estimated average household size

impacts land dedication acreage calculations. The change in value of land

suitable of park sites impacts fees in lieu of land dedication. The process

used is the same method and equations as the original 2021 objectives.

Average household size comparisons by unit type and park standards are

used to determine the land dedication obligations per acre. The first major

change was a decrease in the overall average household size of 50 units

per structure. Ms. Miller highlighted equations for neighborhood and

community park land obligations. Chair Slattery asked to have the

obligation clarified. Ms. Miller said it has gone down because the acreage

by unit type has gone down, and the obligation is more. Five decimal

points are proposed for this update to create greater continuity between

the acreage obligated and fees due. This reflects what the code uses of

four and five decimals. Ms. Miller presented the background appraisal for

the value of unplatted and undeveloped land for neighborhood and

community parks. Fees are calculated by the land dedication obligations

multiplied by the value of land for the park type. When added together that

creates the base park fee rate. In addition to the base park fee rate, there

are applicable fees related to platting. The developer has to pay drainage

and stormwater fees that are incurred.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Cecil asked to explain the conversion of acres to feet to

address the past version. Ms. Miller said this update would fix this issue.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the acreage was used to calculate the fee.

Ms. Miller said yes.

Commissioner Casey asked with the presentation to the housing

association, does that give an opportunity to challenge the fees. Ms. Miller

said it was presented to the Housing Building Authority and the fees were

provided. The Housing Building Authority asked to see the appraisal, but

ultimately did not have any questions.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is still a dedication if the developer is

actually developing the parks. Ms. Miller said there is an alternative

compliance, and it covers neighborhood parks that are to be owned and

maintained by a special district. There would need to be an alternative

compliance agreement with the Parks Department and a stipulation that

the land would need to be noted for public use and perpetuity.

Chair Slattery said they would still need to pay for community park fees.

Ms. Miller said yes.

Chair Slattery said the last increase prior to 2021 was in 2007. Schools

were not touched at that time and urged school fees to be looked at and

brought up to equitable levels.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to

recommend approval to City Council an ordinance amending Section 7.4.307

of the Unified Development Code of the City of Colorado Springs based upon

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

Code Section 7.5.702

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

8.N.

CODE-24-00 A Resolution amending the Fee Schedule for fees in lieu of park land

dedication as provided for in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Caroline Miller, Park Land Dedication Ordinance Program

Administrator, Planning Department

Lonna Thelen, Parks Design and Development Manager/TOPS

Manager, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services

Attachments: RES-PLDO Fee Schedule

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to

recommend approval to City Council the Resolution amending the fee

schedule for fees in lieu of park land dedication associated with the Park

Land Dedication requirements of City Code.

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

8.O.

CODE-24-00 A Resolution amending the City of Colorado Springs Park Land

Dedication Ordinance Criteria Manual. (Legislative)

Presenter:

Caroline Miller, Park Land Dedication Ordinance Program

Administrator, Planning Department

Lonna Thelen, Parks Design and Development Manager/TOPS

Manager, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services

Attachments: RES-PLDO Criteria Manual

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to

recommend approval to City Council the Resolution amending the Park Land

Dedication Ordinance Criteria Manual.

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

Natural Medicine

24-633

8.P.

An Ordinance amending sections of Part 2 (allowed use and tables)

and Part 3 (Use-Specific standards) of Article 3 (Use and

Regulations) and Section 1003 (parking space requirement by use)

of Part 10 (Parking and Loading) of Article 4 (Development

Standards and Incentives) and Part 3 (Definitions) of Article 6

(Definitions and rules of construction) of Chapter 7 (Unified

Development Code) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs

2001, as amended, pertaining to Natural Medicine.

Presenter:

Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: UDC Ordinance - NaturalMedicineORD (Draft 1Nov24)

240809 - FINAL ADOPTED - NMD Rules_1 CCR 213-1

Initiative-58- Natural Medicine Act

Natural_Medicine_1Mile_v3

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, presented the proposed ordinance to

modify the Unified Development Code for Natural Medicine uses. Mr.

Walker said the votes of the State of Colorado passed an initiative in 2022

to create an industry for natural medicine product, in the case psilocybin

from mushrooms. The state has codified and established rules for the

licensing of cultivation, manufacture, testing and clinical use of these

products starting January 1, 2025. The licensing requires that the licensee

meet local zoning standards for the uses. Mr. Walker said local

government cannot restrict the use, but can restrict time, place and manner

of use. The proposed ordinance highlights include cultivation, manufacture

and testing meet state regulatory minimums. Healing centers are allowed

in zones where medical offices are allowed, with additional restrictions of

one mile from the identified uses.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Rickett said he has no issues with the way it is written with

the exception of the one-mile radius and the citizens voted against what

was done with the restrictions of medical marijuana. Commissioner

Rickett said we are making it impossible for anyone to have a caregiver or

licensed person to administer and monitor this. People in the State of

Colorado have voted and approved this.

Commissioner Hensler said she concurs.

Vice Chair Foos said he concurs.

Commissioner Casey asked to have the map pulled up. The issue he has

is with initiative in section12.1.107 on localities. It says localities may not

adopt ordinances and regulations that are unreasonable. The map shows

that this may be unreasonable and has no other issues with the ordinance

except with the one-mile radius.

Mr. Walker presented a 1,000-foot map to show the difference.

Chair Slattery said the purview of this body is to make a recommendation

to City Council. Chair Slattery said she agrees about the reasonability and

the 1,00 foot standard as set by the state seems reasonable.

Commissioner Cecil said the State of Colorado as a regulator of controlled

substances is well known and effective. As you prepare for public

comment, it might be helpful to remember the core of zoning is to protect

the community from negative impacts.

Commissioner Sipilovic said the one-mile radius denies treatment, it

appears we are trying to find ways to help mental crisis. The one-mile

radius will shut Colorado Springs down to help with research and the

opportunity to solve this crisis. Commissioner Sipilovic said 1,000-foot

radius is more appropriate. He would like City Council to be considerate

to the fact that we keep pushing things away and keep falling into the

statement of mental health is a problem, but not exploring new avenues to

solve the problem.

Commissioner Cecil said this can be used to treat severe depression and

post traumatic stress disorder. These assets should be assessable.

Commissioner Hensler agrees and said it is frustrating that there is an

ordinance written that seems to placate the City Council on what we think

they want, and it is this bodies job to look at land use and to uphold those

tenets. Commissioner Hensler said she is happy to make a motion but

wants to make sure it reflects their change to 1,000-foot buffer.

Trevor Gloss, City Attorney, said the suggested motion could be the

commission recommends approval of the ordinance, with the additional

recommendation that the buffer be changed to a 1,000-mile buffer.

Katie Carleo, Acting Assistant Director, asked for clarification and asked if

this could be written as a condition of approval. City Attorney Gloss said

yes.

Chair Slattery said she believes that City Council is trying to do the right

thing.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Cecil, to

recommend Approval to City Council an Ordinance amending Part 2 and Part

3 of Article 3, and Section 1003 of Part 10, of Article 4, and Part 3 of Article 6

of Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code) Of The Code Of The City Of

Colorado Springs 2001, As Amended, Pertaining To Natural Medicine Land

Use Regulations with condition of approval to change the one mile restriction

to the 1000 foot standard as set by the state.

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

9. Presentations

10. Adjourn