7.5.501 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS GENERAL

7.5.515 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services, presented the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to

approve both The Market at Pine Creek Major Concept Plan Amendment

changing 7.87 acres from Commercial to Commercial and Residential and

the Royal Pine Apartments Development Plan establishing multi-family

residential consisting of 7.87 acres located at 4150 Royal Pine Drive. She

provided an overview of the applications, vicinity map, background

information, public notice, zone change, Development Plan approval,

history, proposed Plan amendment, PlanCOS conformance, and staff

recommendations.

Renee Gerni, Baker Law Group, representing the appellant, Preserve Pine

Creek Village, provided an overview of the appeal, the Planning

Commission’s approval criteria, and the ten reasons for the appeal which

include 1. Inconvenience, safety, and nuisance concerns, 2. School

concerns, 3. Quality of life concerns, 4. Privacy issues, 5. Parking

concerns, 6. Common area maintenance and liability, 7. Snow removal, 8.

Business concerns, 9. Property value impact, and 10. Impact on

endangered wildlife and the environment near the site.

Brooke Dobbins, representing the appellant, provided a brief history of the

site, conditions of record, other provisions, required infrastructure, criteria

of the MX-Medium Zone, MX-Neighborhood Zone, traffic patterns, past City

Staff comments, Unified Development Code (UDC) implementation guide,

review criteria, Vue 21 street parking, walkability, and violations of the

UDC 7.5.515 review criteria.

Steven Parrish, representing the appellant, identified the business patrons,

the Pine Creek Village, traffic study, and simulated wildfire/conflagration

affecting Pine Creek evacuations.

Councilmember Donelson asked if there is a barrier in the center of the

road to prevent people from turning left out of the neighborhood. Mr. Parrish

confirmed there is a median present which vehicles cannot cross.

Joseph O’Keefe, representing the appellant, spoke about the relevant

evacuation issues.

Eric Grodahl, Principal, DBG Properties, representing the applicant,

provided a brief overview of DBG Properties, Royal Pine Apartments, and

how they have gone above and beyond what was required.

Harsh Parikh, President, Santulan Architecture, representing the applicant,

went over the site location, site analysis, site plan, buffers, architecture,

best practices, enhancements based on neighborhood input, and high

quality of the development.

Cassie Slade, Principal, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, representing the

applicant, identified the traffic study overview, major reductions in site

traffic, available roadway capacity, minimal impact to operations,

emergency evacuation, and surplus of parking.

Mr. Grodahl provided an overview of the businesses in the area, existing

infrastructure, reduced disruption to neighborhood, Low Income Housing

Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects north of Woodmen Road, partnering private

capital with local resources, sample resident employment, brand name

employers located within one mile, wildlife preservation, response from

Academy School District 20, and the investment in the City’s future.

Councilmember Donelson asked if the traffic study would have different

results if conducted at a different time of day. Ms. Slade explained how they

analyzed the peak traffic patterns.

Councilmember Leinweber asked if there were additional medical offices

added to the site instead, if it would create an increase in daily traffic. Ms.

Slade stated the overall traffic analysis showed a sixty percent decrease

for what is being proposed.

Councilmember Leinweber asked where the employees who work in this

community live. Mr. Grodahl stated they did a market study which showed

that at this rent level there is a .9 percent vacancy rate with a year and a half

wait list in this area.

Citizens Jill Gaebler, Devon Camacho, Beth Lindquist, Susan Bolduc, Kee

Warner, Katheryn Warner, Doug Hunt, and Lee Patke spoke in support of

the proposed project.

Councilmember Donelson requested that the citizens who are speaking for

and against the project be integrated together rather than everyone

speaking in favor getting to speak first. Michael Montgomery, Deputy City

Council Administrator stated the Council Rules of Procedure would need to

be amended in order to accommodate that request.

Citizens Jim Blair, Andy Peterson, Cliff Bratten, Dennis Scruggs, Steven

Glendenning, Barbara Vinchattle, Eddie Lawrence, Matt Wilson, Ester Lee,

Teresa Crews, Nancy Murray, Steven Clowser, Lee Hopkins, Bob

Manderfield, Laura Wilky, Felix Dupre, Debbie Golucke, Todd Neuman,

Holly Norvelle, Dr. Kristi Fisher, Omar Wymen, Colonel David Curdy, Kat

Gayle, Dana Duggan, Anna Novey, Sandra Vicksta, and Josh Price spoke

in opposition of the proposed project.

Councilmember Donelson asked if the Colorado Springs Housing Authority

(CSHA) is involved in this project. Steve Posey stated the CSHA has been

in conversation with the developer so it would be exempt from paying the

City property taxes and would be eligible to receive a refund for building

material costs.

Marc Painter, Principal, Holland and Hart, representing the applicant,

clarified there is not eighty-five percent of impervious surface, there is only

sixty-five percent impervious surface, the property is completely

air-conditioned, there will be 430 occupants, the walkability score is

forty-four, not twenty, covenants are private so the City does not get

involved in them, and can be enforced regardless of what the City puts in

place, the letters from the state identify there is no Preble’s jumping mouse

issue on this site, this project will not crash the economy, some individuals

in favor of this project had to return to work due to the delay of the hearing,

the neighborhood and the City as a whole is being benefited by the project

because it is going to house the people who provide service to the people

in this neighborhood, and the neighborhood already has their own

neighbors looking into their backyards from twelve feet away.

Ms. Dobbins stated the disagreements regarding if there is enough

parking in this area, if there is too much traffic, what is considered

affordable housing, and whether the design aesthetic of the project is in

conformity with its neighboring residential areas are not what need to be

considered by City Council, but what does need to be considered is does

this project aid, hinder or act as a detriment to the public health, safety,

convenience, or general welfare of this community. She stated the Planning

Commission and the community raised a litany of objections that the

project would have an impact on the environment and wildlife, create an

obstruction of views, increase traffic, and concerns about emergency

evacuation in the event of another wildfire in the area.

Mr. Painter stated the Traffic Engineer believes the roads are safe, they

are built up to City standards, they have extra capacity, this project meets

all the criteria because they have relied on actual experts within the City

and the experts they hired, and the City and the affordable housing

community wants this affordable housing development.

Councilmember Henjum stated she will make her decision based on the

review criteria and requested additional information regarding covenants in

City Code. Ben Bolinger, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office,

read Section 7.1.108 and stated City Council does not have jurisdiction

over covenants.

Councilmember Henjum asked if City Council is required to considered

financial impact to the City. Mr. Bolinger stated there are some

considerations which will affect the City budget or resources, but there is

nothing which directly addresses taxes or the taxable status of an entity.

Councilmember Henjum asked regarding the Constitutionality of the Fifth

Amendment regarding reduction of private property values. Mr. Bolinger

stated in order for that to apply to a government matter, the City would have

to take the property or restrict it to where the property becomes useless.

Councilmember Henjum requested additional information regarding the

United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) property values.

Steve Posey, Chief Housing and Community Vitality Officer, stated all the

property values in the City have increased over the past five years.

Councilmember Henjum asked how this project will be financed. Mr.

Grodahl stated the general concept with affordable housing is that the

Federal government, through the tax code, provides a subsidy to construct

the project and in return for the subsidy, the rent rates are restricted for a

minimum of thirty years, their project has Private Activity Bonds (PAB)

which low income housing tax credits are attached to, and the subordinate

funding will be through the property tax exemption, $500,000 loan from El

Paso County, and the State’s Division of Housing loan up to $7 million. He

stated they will contribute one hundred percent of the Development fee

which means they will not make any money until the project has been

completed and then it will be through outstanding operations after the loans

have been paid in full, and they will not be receiving Federal funds for this

project.

Councilmember Henjum asked if there was any risk to the City with the

Private Activity Bonds. Mr. Posey stated the City would be completely

indemnified.

Councilmember Henjum asked who would be responsible for repairs if

Royal Pine Drive was damaged during construction. Todd Frisbie, City

Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department, stated it would depend on

whether the City was able to identify and prove who was at fault.

Councilmember Henjum asked if the infrastructure is already in place to

support this project. Mr. Frisbie stated that is the purpose of the traffic study

in which the findings reflect that evaluation.

Councilmember Henjum requested additional information regarding fire

evacuation. Bret Lacey, Fire Marshall, Colorado Springs Fire Department

(CSFD), stated they believe that this development meets all the

requirements within the Fire Code which includes the application of the

Codes and Standards for life, safety, property preservation, and

environmental protection. He stated at this location, wildfire is insignificant

relative to what they would consider if it was located in the wildland urban

interface (WUI) or the Air Force Academy although they cannot presume

that this is a risk-free environment because of the grass land and wind, but

overall, there is low threat of a wildfire.

Councilmember Henjum asked how difficult it would be for the City to meet

the goals of Proposition 123 to add three percent more affordable housing

units each year for the next three years if this project is not approved. Mr.

Posey stated the commitment breaks down to 758 units per year in 2024,

2025, and 2026 and if at the end of 2026 the City has not met that goal it

would jeopardize funding opportunities for other projects that would be

applying to the State to access those funds.

Councilmember Donelson asked what the rent will be for the units at sixty

and seventy percent Average Median Income (AMI). Mr. Grodahl stated at

the sixty percent level, a one-bedroom unit is $1,097 per month, $1,317 for

a two-bedroom/two-bath, and $1,521 for a three-bedroom unit. He stated

at the seventy percent level, a one-bedroom is $1,280, a two-bedroom is

$1,536, and a three-bedroom is $1,774, and those include all utilities.

Citizen Josh Price stated he has an email from Carol Henning from PRD

from HUD which states the future Small Area Fair Market Rental (SAFMR)

values for all residents of 80920 being affected by the addition of these

low-income affordable units will in fact decrease. Mr. Posey stated the

five-and ten-years figures which he referenced were regarding property

values and the SAFMR gauge is something that is used to determine the

value of a rental housing assistance voucher.

Councilmember Donelson stated private citizens and businesses in this

neighborhood have purchased homes and built businesses with these

eight acres zoned as commercial and he does not believe it is fair for

Council to allow that to be changed in order to add affordable housing

units. He stated the review criteria for a Concept Plan is whether the

proposed development have a detrimental effect upon the general health

welfare and safety or convenience of persons residing or working in the

neighborhood of the proposed development and he thinks safety is a

concern due to traffic flow in the event of an emergency, the development

will impact the convenience of the residents in the community, it will burden

the businesses in the area, and the nearby Academy School District 20

schools are already well above state and local norms for capacity.

Councilmember Risley asked if this is a rezoning action. Peter Wysocki,

Director, Planning and Neighborhood Services, explained it is not a Zone

Change application, it is a Concept Plan and a Development Plan.

Councilmember Risley asked if multi-family residential is a use by right on

this property zoned MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale). Mr. Wysocki

confirmed it is, subject to meeting the Development Plan review criteria.

Councilmember Risley asked if this applicant would still need to pay traffic,

school, police, and fire impact fees even if they are granted property tax

exemption status. Mr. Posey confirmed they would still be required to pay

all development fees related to the project even if granted property tax

exemption status.

Councilmember Risley asked if this property has been granted property tax

exemption status. Mr. Grodahl stated that it is not currently an exempt

parcel.

Councilmember Talarico asked Mr. Posey if he believes this is a good

project. Mr. Posey stated one of the goals of the City is to have housing

available at all price points, the City does not have apartments at this

particular price, and in that respect, he thinks that this is a very good project

to come forward because it is going to meet a need for housing at that

particular price point.

Councilmember Donelson stated that information is not part of the review

criteria, but safety is.

Councilmember Leinweber asked if where employees commute from is

factored in during a traffic study. Mr. Frisbie stated the traffic study makes

estimates of where drivers are coming from, what roads will be used, the

capacities around intersections, and if those intersections can

accommodate that additional traffic. He stated ConnectCOS is the City’s

long range transportation plan and is independent of land use projections,

but they design the road system to accommodate those projections and

putting jobs near homes reduces the length of trips and provides

opportunities to use other modes of transportation.

Councilmember Leinweber asked if there any other affordable housing

projects in this region. Mr. Posey stated there are two other affordable

housing projects which would be considered located within this region and

two more which are constructed and leased up.

President Helms stated he is making his decision based on the review

criteria of whether or not this project is a detriment to the health safety and

overall welfare to the citizens of Pine Creek and will be supporting the

affordable housing project.

Motion by Councilmember Henjum, seconded by Councilmember Talarico, to

deny the appeal and uphold the approval of The Market at Royal Pine Major

Concept Plan Amendment based upon the findings that the appeal criteria as set

forth in UDC Section 7.5.415 are not met and the review criteria for Concept Plans

as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.501 are met. The motion passed by a vote of

6-1-2-0

6 - Crow-Iverson, Helms, Henjum, Leinweber, Risley, and Talarico

Aye:

No:

1 - Donelson

2 - Avila, and O'Malley

Excused:

Motion by Councilmember Talarico, seconded by Councilmember Risley, to deny

the appeal and uphold the approval of The Royal Pine Apartment Development

Plan based upon the findings that the appeal criteria as set forth in UDC Section

7.5.415 are not met and the review criteria for Development Plans as set forth in

UDC Section 7.5.515 are met..The motion passed by a vote of 6-1-2-0

6 - Crow-Iverson, Helms, Henjum, Leinweber, Risley, and Talarico

Aye:

No:

1 - Donelson

2 - Avila, and O'Malley

Excused:

3. Added Item Agenda