OPTIONS FOR ATTENDING THE MEETING:

All meetings are open to the public. Those who wish to participate may do so

in-person, online, or via phone.

Conference Call: Dial 1-720-617-3426, enter Conf ID: 910 370 844# and wait to be

admitted.

MS Teams: Copy and paste or type into your web browser to join the MS Teams

meeting online: https://rebrand.ly/CityPlanningCommission-2023

Attendees participating by telephone or MS Teams will be muted upon entry to the

meeting. Please wait to be called on before speaking.

If you know you would like to comment on an agenda item, please contact the case

planner for the item at 719-385-5905. If you are unable to contact them, there will still

be an opportunity to speak during the meeting.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Call to Order and Roll Call

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and

Chair Slattery

Present:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Excused:

1.A. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair

CPC-2178

Election of the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission

Presenter:

Peter Wysocki

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Briggs to approve

Andrea Slattery as Chair of the City Planning Commission. The motion passed by

a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and

Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Hensler to

approve Colby Foos as Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission. The motion

passed by a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and

Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

1.B. Selection and Nomination of Planning Commissioners to Various Boards

and Committees

CPC 2179

Election of the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission

Presenter:

Peter Wysocki

Motion by Commissioner Cecil, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to approve

Nadine Hensler as the City Planning Commission representative to serve on the

Downtown Review Board. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and

Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Excused:

2.A Approval of the Minutes

CPC-23-585 Minutes for the October 11, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting

2.A.A.

Presenter:

Scott Hente, Chair of the City Planning Commission

Attachments:

CPC_Minutes_10.11.23_draft

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

the minutes for the October 11, 2023, Planning Commission hearing. The motion

passed by a vote of 7:0.

7 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Rickett and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

Abstain:

CPC-23-645 Minutes for the November 17, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting

2.A.B.

Presenter:

James McMurray, City Planning Commission Vice Chair

Attachments:

CPC_Minutes_11.17.23__FINAL v2

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Slattery, to

approve the minutes for the November 17, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting.

The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.

4 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett and Chair

Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

4 - Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hente and Commissioner

Cecil

Recused:

2.B. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Peter Wysocki - Planning & Community Development Director

Peter Wysocki, Planning and Community Development Director, formally welcomed

Commissioner Cecil to her first formal Planning Commission meeting. He also thanked

Elena Lobato for her assistance in running the formal meeting. He wished everyone a

happy holiday season.

4. Consent Calendar

2315 Larimie Drive ADU

CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow for an integrated ADU in an R1-6

4.A.

(Single-Family Residential Medium) zoned district consisting of a

7,110 sq. ft. lot located at 2315 Laramie Dr. (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Johnny Malpica, AICP, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

CPC Staff Report_2315 Laramie Dr ADU_JPM

Project Statement 2315 Laramie Dr – Integrated ADU

Context Map - 2315 Laramie Dr - Conditional Use for ADU

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

This Planning Case was accepted on the Consent Calendar

Greenways Neighborhood Park Filing No. 1

An ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs relating to 45.33 acres located southeast of N Carefree

Circle and Tutt Blvd from PDZ/AP-O/SS-O (Planned Development

Zone with Airport and Streamside Overlays) to PK/AP-O/SS-O

(Public Park with Airport and Streamside Overlays).

4.C.

ZONE-23-00

(Quasi-Judicial) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Presenter:

Ann Odom, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services.

Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

Greenways - Staff Report

Project Statement_Land Use Statement

Greenways - Ordinance

Greenways - Context Map

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Greenways consent minutes

Greenways - Ordinance

Greenways - Staff Report

Applicant Presentation - Greenways Neighborhood Park

CC Ready - All Public Comments

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Greenways - CC Staff Presentation

This Planning Case was accepted on the Consent Calendar

Approval of the Consent Agenda

Motion by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to

approved the consent calendar. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for

discussion by a Commissioner/Board Member or a citizen wishing to address the

Commission or Board. (Any items called up for separate consideration shall be

acted upon following the Consent Vote.)

5. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow a Automobile and Light Vehicle Wash

4.B.

in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) zone district consisting of

1.97 acres located at 3002 South Academy Boulevard.

(Quasi-Judicial).

Presenter:

Austin Cooper Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

CPC Staff Report_Quick Quack Hancock and Academy_APC

Project Statement - Quick Quack

Context Map - Quick Quack

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Austin Cooper, Planner II, presented the scope of project.

The applicant’s representative, Haley Peterson with Lone Star Builders, presented the

scope of the project.

Public Comments

Paul Jones, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project. He lives right next to the

project site area and was worried about traffic.

Steve Wilcox, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project.

Additional comments from Commissioners

Commissioner Rickett inquired who legally owns the shared entrance of the project.

Mr. Cooper, stated he wasn’t sure at the time. Commissioner Rickett stated he

believes that information needed to be provided before formally voting on the item.

Chair Hente inquired if the car wash was going to use the shared access on the

opposite side of the site. Mr. Cooper confirmed the shared access would be used.

Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, pulled up the original plat to follow up on

Commissioner Rickett’s comments. The plat states for the proposed lot for this

development, all parking spaces and driving lanes shall be ingress, egress and parking

easements for the use by of Sax Village businesses.

Commissioner Slattery requested to see the concept plan. Mr. Cooper responded

because it is a conditional use with a land use statement, there would not be a

concept plan at this point.

Commissioner Briggs inquired if the project would have to coordinate with neighbors

to get their approval first, to which the applicant representative confirmed.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to

approve the Conditional Use based upon the finding that the request

complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.601. The

motion passed by a vote of 8:0

An ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs relating to 60.28 acres located northwest of Old Ranch

Road and Powers Boulevard from PK (Public Park) to R-Flex Low

zone district.

7.A.

MAPN-23-00

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

January 23, 2024)

Presenter:

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

CPCStaffReport_Ovation

Land Use Plan_Ovation

GeohazardReport

Traffic Impact Analysis

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Exhibit B

ORD_OvationZC

Exhibit A

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, presented the scope of the project.

The applicant’s representative, Britt Haley, Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural

Services, presented the scope of the project.

Questions from commissioners

Commissioner Foos inquired if the 352 acres would mostly go to habitat restoration.

Britt Haley, Director of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services stated it won’t be a

highly activated space and would allow wildlife to roam freely.

Commissioner Hensler inquired if the area has always been zoned park land, to which

Ms. Haley confirmed it has been zoned as park land since 2003.

Commissioner Briggs inquired if there is some sort of protection with the funding, and

if there were other proposed locations. Furthermore, he inquired if the donation of

the land is tied to the transaction.

Ms. Haley responded PLDO fees were utilized to purchase the property, so it would go

back into the dedicated fund into the Park Land Dedication fee. There were other

locations that were looked at, but there was not a preferred site at the time. The

donation of the land was tied to the transaction.

Commissioner Rickett requested an explanation of the difference between Parks and

TOPS.

Ms. Haley responded TOPS was a sales use tax dedicated to purchase lands and trails

for parks and open spaces. The program was originally suggested by the public, and it

equates to a penny for every $10 purchase that qualified. The TOPS program is unique

in that it doesn't have the same restrictions and difficulties that other properties have

with regard to continued funding, maintenance, stewardship.

Chair Hente requested an elaboration on the couple of properties to the south that

were colored in dark purple. Ms. Haley responded every dark purple area was part of

the donation, and there were four separate properties via donation.

The developer, La Plata, presented the scope of the project.

Questions from Commissioners

Commissioner Foos inquired on the potential access to Powers Boulevard and

whether or not it was a graded dirt path. Additionally, he asked who would maintain

the potential access.

The developer stated that portion of the project has not been fully figured out yet,

but they anticipate it would need to be paved, which they were certainly willing to do.

Commissioner Briggs inquired who would be responsible for the space between the

fence and Powers Boulevard.

The developer stated that was part of CDOT right-of-way, so they would not have

control over that.

Commissioner Almy inquired what the intended use of the 9 acre plot would be and,

if it were not to be picked up, what would it be used for.

The developer stated the 9 acres were actually the southern portion of the property

and it would remain with city parks if they were not to be picked up.

Commissioner Hensler inquired if City Council was aware of the rezoning proposal

when they unanimously approved this. The developer confirmed they were aware.

Furthermore, she asked if the builders would comply with the sprinkler requirements.

The developer stated the sprinklers were part of the discussion. There was feedback

received on initial costs of additional sprinklers, which was around $15,000/unit. The

system itself was cheaper, but cost more as the water tap would need to be

upgraded. The two builders La Plata was working with have agreed to implement the

sprinklers in each unit.

Commissioner Briggs inquired if there was a way to work with CDOT to have the

portion between the fence line to Powers Boulevard paved. He also inquired where

the drainage ditch was located.

The developer stated the general drainage pattern is to the north. Todd Frisbie with

City Traffic stated CDOT would not allow any access that goes up to the road, so the

area would not be paved.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the city has swapped responsibility back and forth with

the state. Todd Frisbie confirmed that it has in the past. Commissioner Rickett stated

if this project were to move forward, there would need to be more organization and a

true exit would need to be created.

Commissioner Briggs asked if there was a representative from School District 20

available. He inquired if D20 took into account the community responses of

overcrowding of schools. He also stated D20 always take the payment as opposed to

considering a new facility or school. He inquired why that was always their response.

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, stated a representative from D20 was not

available. She elaborated based on codified requirement with PLDO, there was a

school section. As many were aware, education campuses were quite large in size,

and there were a number of requirements that the district had to consider from a

facilities perspective to determine if they could accept land dedication. Related to

different applications of different sizes, that was an independent decision that they

were able to make as the enforcers of that section of the code for land dedication or

fees in lieu of, as it related to the district. Their response at that time for that

particular application was that there were an adequate number of school facilities

throughout District 20, which allowed for them to absorb new students. As it related

to capacity, there were different levels at the different groupings of schools.

Elementary had a class size maximum that had to be enforced; middle and high

schools had different protocols that had unlimited classroom sizes because they were

based on education.

Commissioner Briggs inquired when the district made decisions, was it more

administrative or the board. Ms. Wintz responded it’s in the city code but does not lay

out who would be the responsible party. Commissioner Briggs also inquired if there

were statistics that could be shown for out-districting.

Ms. Wintz replied there were statistics not choosing just out of the district, but

choosing maybe to homeschool, etc. This might have been part of the internal

decision-making that the district made when they were looking at their census, but

that wasn't information they reported back to the City Planning Department.

Public Comments

Jamie Nau, a citizen whose home backs to the site, gave a slide show presentation to

the Commissioners opposing the project. He was concerned about the increased level

of traffic for the proposed project. He also spoke about the lack of an evacuation plan

for the proposed project.

Adrienne Nau, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project. She stated Pine Creek High

School was already full and was worried about the traffic.

Tracy Corl, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project. She stated a sports complex

would be ideal for the location.

Nathan Corl, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project and asked for intentionally for

this proposed project.

Sarah Larsen, citizen, echoed Mr. Nau’s statements and strongly opposed the project.

Richard and Charlenne Dennings, citizens, spoke in opposition of the project.

Furthermore, they stated there was a state code that allowed the governor to

overrule for emergency accesses.

Dorothy Macnak, citizen, spoke greatly in opposition of the project.

Cliff Black, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project. He stated he purchased his

home with the interest of the proposed site to be a sports complex. He believed

approving this project would cause danger to people’s lives and safety.

Genevieve Hutchinson, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project. She wanted to note

there was a junior high and grade school that would also need to be evacuated near

this site and the area was not built for heavy traffic.

Sharon Dehallis, citizen, spoke in opposition of the project.

Michael Corl, citizen, also spoke in opposition of the project. He stated the quality of

education goes down when schools are overcrowded. He hoped there would be a

resolution soon.

Becky Wright, citizen, spoke greatly in opposition of the project.

Applicant rebuttal

Lonna Thelen, TOPS Program Manager for Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services,

stated the Parks department had a contractual obligation to go through this process.

Chair Hente expressed sympathy for the idea of a sports complex, stating that the

community could use more facilities of that type. However, he had questioned if

there was any desire to put a sports complex there.

Ms. Thelen had confirmed that there was no desire to put a sports complex there,

citing strong opposition due to concerns about traffic and lights, particularly since it

was intended to be a community park.

La Plata, the developer, highlighted the agreement's focus on emergency access,

noting that while the median wasn't required, it helped with the egress and ingress of

the point access. La Plata had clarified that emergency access to Powers Boulevard

wasn't the only concern in the area. La Plata stated they had held up their side of the

agreement. They emphasized the importance of the City upholding their part. Parks

had expressed that if the area was not built as a park, they lacked the funds to

maintain it. The idea of a sports complex had seemed financially unviable without

proper funding. Furthermore, they stated the City had approached La Plata because

they had no use for the piece of land anymore, leading to the initial transaction. This

final step in the real estate transaction had received unanimous approval from City

Council.

Commissioner Slattery requested an elaboration by the Fire Department on egress

and ingress of the area.

Steve Smith, with the Colorado Springs Fire Department, stated the fire code only

addressed access into communities, so he would be unable to speak on the egress

portion of the site. However, access into this community had been met.

Commissioner Rickett inquired when the 50-unit requirement in the International Fire

code came about. Mr. Smith stated that had been in the code they have previously

adopted.

Commissioner Rickett had questioned whether the sprinklers actually benefited the

homeowner in the event of a wildfire, particularly when the fire started from the

outside of a house and things moved quickly.

Mr. Smith responded the sprinklers were intended to keep a fire that started within

the structure long enough for the fire department to arrive and mitigate the situation.

He clarified that this wouldn't necessarily help in the case of an outside-in fire, but it

would definitely help with an inside-out fire.

Commissioner Rickett expressed every house should have another exit. He mentioned

a concern about traffic and the challenges of dealing with developments in the area,

where everyone is trying to find a second way out of a neighborhood in case of

emergencies. He conveyed that unless the additional exit is truly accessible, it could

create a sense of false hope. He suggested that if the project moved forward, the

consideration of the suggested exit road should be reevaluated. He emphasized that

even though it might be possible to cut the fence and allow four-wheel drives to get

out through the ditch, it may not be a reliable exit for many. Lastly, he stated that

these were two conditions he thought were mentioned in at least one of the possible

approvals. Therefore, he recommended that those conditions be removed.

Ms. Wintz stated that removing the sprinkler ring throughout the development would

create an inconsistency with the fire code. She highlighted that if this condition were

to be removed, it would no longer meet the fire code criteria.

Commissioner Almy stated despite understanding the CDOT position, there was an

acknowledgment that there was nothing wrong with some pre-planning and ensuring

that all considerations were documented in emergency planning documents for those

needing to take action on short notice. The area was described as cut off, smaller

than previous discussions about Kettle Creek, and closely situated to Powers

Boulevard, providing massive egress but also being locked in by a ravine.

Commissioner Briggs stated in the past, there were discussions on two main points.

He acknowledged its limitations in adjudicating matters related to how schools are

run, emphasizing that such decisions should be handled at the local level through the

school board. Despite recognizing the raised problem, there was an understanding

that the board lacked the mandate to direct the administration to make changes in

that regard.

Commissioner Briggs pointed out the particular land use statement criteria

7.5.514.C.3D and E, which impacts the permitted or requested use, and the adequacy

of proposed ingress and egress points. He expressed concerned that, without the

possibility for a second access point, the current situation did not align with this part

of the land use plan.

There was mention of a motion that included a requirement for approval from CDOT.

Commissioner Briggs expressed probable support for that motion. However, without

a clear modification of access points influencing the decision, there was hesitation to

fully endorse the proposal.

Commissioner Rickett inquired if the vote should be swapped with voting on the zone

first and the land use plan second. Trevor Gloss, City’s Attorney Office, stated it would

be cleaner to swap the votes. However, the zoning vote would be a recommendation

to City Council. Even if the Planning Commission approved 7.A. and 7.B. right now, it

would be a conditional approval.

Chair Hente expressed his approval for Commissioner Brigg’s motion, especially if

CDOT approved it as well. He also indicated mindfulness of the many agreements the

City had previously made, expressing concern about the city going back on its word.

While acknowledging the desire of some to see the area as a park, he shared his

perspective that it couldn't simply be a park due to the significant backlog of almost

300 million dollars in the parks system. He stated that he would vote in favor if CDOT

approved the proposal.

Commissioner Hensler had expressed the opinion that the area would be a great fit

for open space, especially considering the city's lack of funding. She noted a recurring

focus on emergency access and suggested that if emergency access came from a

different street, people could exit in another way. Commissioner Hensler

acknowledged the lessons learned from past tragic fires and emphasized that school

enrollment was the responsibility of the district. She expressed the inevitable impact

of the community's growth, new homes, and increased traffic. While appreciating

R-flex low and the diversity of housing, she stressed the need to address the housing

shortage, which would impact housing costs. She recognized that the area was not

always designated as park land and expressed a realization that change was

imminent, with the community requiring more housing.

Commissioner Almy stated they were to be contingent with CDOT approval while

knowing it would not be approved, the board would basically be voting it down. He

also agreed the city is growing and there was a shortage on housing.

Commissioner Slattery expressed views on the R flex low density proposed in the

neighborhood, emphasizing that it was in context. She agreed with fellow

Commissioners about upholding the city's commitment to bring hundreds of acres of

open space into the TOPS program. Commissioner Slattery expressed hesitation in

making approval contingent upon CDOT, given their explicit statement that they

would not be able to comply. She conveyed her belief that making approval

contingent upon another state body over which they had no control was an

overreach. In terms of the motion to approve with geological hazards, she did not

propose removing it. She favored the first motion without suggesting its removal,

believing it could provide value and flexibility for future connectivity without imposing

a requirement on CDOT, which was beyond their control. Regarding schools,

Commissioner Slattery noted that D20 had built two new schools in the last seven

years, addressing enrollment changes. She acknowledged that enrollment boundaries

naturally change as families move into newer neighborhoods, and houses built

decades ago see children leaving the nest. She highlighted this as a natural cycle in

cities and development, emphasizing that the district was likely addressing these

issues.

Commissioner Rickett acknowledged that La Plata had done an excellent job laying

out the concept for the property, expressing appreciation for their efforts after being

brought in by the city to handle the project. He also recognized the importance of the

city standing behind its decisions, noting that City Council had approved a master plan

for the area, indicating a sports complex or park for the 60 acres. He emphasized his

longstanding support for master plans approved by the city, highlighting that people

make property purchases based on the information presented by the city.

Commissioner Rickett stressed the significance of adhering to the commitments

outlined in the master plan, dating back to the 1980's when it initially showed homes,

then later, after the property was acquired by parks, it was rezoned for a sports

complex. He believed that citizens bought their properties with the understanding

presented by the city. As a result, Rickett indicated his intention to vote against both

the land use and zone change proposals.

Commissioner Foos began by expressing gratitude to the citizens for their active

participation and comments during the discussion. He acknowledged the valuable

involvement from both the citizens and La Plata, recognizing their efforts. He

conveyed his internal struggle with the proposal, acknowledging the potential

benefits and fit of the project in the area. However, he referenced his past voting

history, revealing a concern for infrastructure issues, particularly those involving a

single point of entry and exit, which could pose safety challenges. He believed the

project did not align with the safety criteria used for evaluation. Despite

acknowledging positive aspects such as habitat improvements, he emphasized that

the safety issue associated with a single entry and exit point was a critical factor

influencing his decision. Commissioner Foos declared that he could not support the

project due to the safety concerns associated with the one-way access, stating this as

his position on the matter.

Chair Hente raised a scenario where the first motion might not pass. In such a

situation, he sought clarification on the other alternatives. Specifically, he questioned

whether he could accept a motion on one of the alternative proposals or, if in the

absence of the first motion passing, all alternatives would be considered dead.

Trevor Gloss, City’s Attorney Office, clarified the board would be able to vote on the

alternatives if the situation were to arise.

Commissioner Slattery raised a question regarding the approval process involving

CDOT and the governor's potential override. She sought clarification on whether the

governor's override would fall under CDOT approval since it was overriding CDOT. She

further inquired if a state-level condition or approval from CDOT needed to be added

for access.

Trevor Gloss, City Attorney’s Office, clarified the process typically goes through CDOT

when reaching the governor's level.

Commissioner Hensler revisited Andrea's earlier comments and questions regarding

mandating actions for a governing body over which they have no control. She

specifically addressed the wording related to emergency access, noting a discrepancy

between the language in the presentation from the applicant and the language

presented in their packet. Commissioner Hensler clarified that the language did not

explicitly state the granting of emergency access but rather indicated coordination.

Expressing a preference for approval, she suggested modifying the language to align

with CDOT's statement, ensuring clarity about the nature of emergency access. She

expressed concern that the current language might give the impression of

constructing a road, which contradicted previous discussions. Lastly, she emphasized

the need for consistency with CDOT's letter and stated her discomfort supporting the

language in its current form.

Commissioner Briggs suggested that if the language allowed for access, the developer

or the city could potentially install a culvert or some structure for emergency vehicle

passage. He emphasized the importance of having the ability to implement such

measures in case of an emergency, as opposed to merely stating that they won't

obstruct emergency efforts. Commissioner Briggs noted the uniqueness of the

request, emphasizing the need for language that clearly addressed the permission for

access in emergency situations.

Commissioner Almy suggested adding a recognition that CDOT would not prevent

access during an emergency.

Michael Tassi, Assistant Director Planning and Neighborhood Services, suggested a

motion to acknowledge the language from the CDOT letter regarding emergency

coordination and access. Additionally, he proposed requiring the applicant to provide

an easement up to the fence line for that purpose.

Mr. Gloss noted that, based on the discussion, the Commission may consider

requiring an emergency access easement as a condition for approval. This easement

would make the specified area accessible for ingress and egress and addressing the

grade could be addressed with the developer later. The purpose of creating the

easement would be to reserve the area for emergency access.

Ms. Wintz stated that based on aerial imagery and contour lines from City View,

multiple at-grade areas were identified along the shared right-of-way and property

boundary on the east side of the property. She acknowledged the presence of

drainage areas in this section.

Commissioner Rickett expressed a significant safety concern, emphasizing that having

an exit road leading to a fence with the ability to cut it doesn't guarantee accessibility

beyond that point. He pointed out that this situation did not improve safety and, in

fact, could worsen it, especially during adverse weather conditions. Commissioner

Rickett stressed the importance of having a CDOT approved road, specifying that it

doesn't necessarily have to be paved within the CDOT right-of-way for enhanced

safety.

Commissioner Almy had emphasized a limitation in not recognizing the potential for

emergency response to address the access point effectively. He used the analogy of

allowing vehicles to drive across a field, emphasizing that the key factor was whether

the field was suitable for the required vehicles and purposes.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to

recommend denial to City Council the Ovation Land Use Plan based upon the

findings that the proposal does not comply with the review criteria for Land

Use Plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514. The motion failed by a

vote of 3:5.

3 - Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos and Commissioner Rickett

Aye:

No:

5 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Hente,

Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Slattery, to

recommend approval to City Council the Ovation 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 with the following condition of

approval and technical modification:

* Revise note 19 of the Land Use Plan to the following:

"This property is subject to the finding's summary and conclusions of a

geologic hazard report prepared by CTL Thompson Inc. dated May 2, 2023,

which identified the following specific geologic hazards on the property;

expansive soil and bedrock and shallow groundwater. The following

recommendations shall be adhered to

1. Construction materials testing and observation services during site

development and construction.

2. Individual lot soils and foundation investigations for foundation design.

3. Subgrade investigation and pavement design for on-site pavements. A

copy of said report has been placed within File# MAPN-23-0005 or within the

subdivision file of the City of Colorado Springs Planning and Development

Team. Contact the Planning and Development team, 30 S Nevada, Suite 701,

Colorado Springs, CO, 80903, if you would like to review said report.".

The motion failed by a vote of 4:4

4 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil and Chair

Slattery

Aye:

No:

4 - Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hente and

Commissioner Rickett

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

Motion by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Cecil, to

recommend approval to City Council the Ovation 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 with the following condition of

approval and technical modification:

Condition of Approval* Prior to approval, require CDOT approval of proposed

emergency access to Powers Boulevard.

Technical Modification

* Revise note 19 of the Land Use Plan to the following: "This property is

subject to the finding's summary and conclusions of a geologic hazard report

prepared by CTL Thompson Inc. dated May 2, 2023, which identified the

following specific geologic hazards on the property; expansive soil and

bedrock and shallow groundwater. The following recommendations shall be

adhered to

1. Construction materials testing and observation services during site

development and construction.

2. Individual lot soils and foundation investigations for foundation design.

3. Subgrade investigation and pavement design for on-site pavements. A

copy of said report has been placed within File# MAPN-23-0005 or within the

subdivision file of the City of Colorado Springs Planning and Development

Team.. The motion failed by a vote of 2:6.

2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Hente

Aye:

No:

6 - Commissioner Almy, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner

Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and Chair Slattery

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Slattery, to

recommend approval to City Council the Ovation 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 with the following condition of

approval and technical modification:

Condition of Approval: Recognize the language provided by CDOT to not

preclude coordination and access during an emergency via a required

easement by the developer to CDOT property at grade

Technical Modification:

* Revise note 19 of the Land Use Plan to the following: "This property is

subject to the finding's summary and conclusions of a geologic hazard report

prepared by CTL Thompson Inc. dated May 2, 2023, which identified the

following specific geologic hazards on the property; expansive soil and

bedrock and shallow groundwater. The following recommendations shall be

adhered to

1. Construction materials testing and observation services during site

development and construction.

2. Individual lot soils and foundation investigations for foundation design.

3. Subgrade investigation and pavement design for on-site pavements. A

copy of said report has been placed within File# MAPN-23-0005 or within the

subdivision file of the City of Colorado Springs Planning and Development

Team. Contact the Planning and Development team, 30 S Nevada, Suite 701,

Colorado Springs, CO, 80903, if you would like to review said report."

The motion passed by a vote of 5:3.

5 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Hente,

Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

Aye:

3 - Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos and Commissioner Rickett

1 - Commissioner McMurray

No:

Absent:

ZONE-23-00 An ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado

7.B.

Springs relating to 60.28 acres located northwest of Old Ranch

Road and Powers Boulevard from PK (Public Park) to R-Flex Low

zone district.

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

January 23, 2024)

Presenter:

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

StaffReport_Ovation_KAW

ORD_OvationZC

Project Statement

Zone Change_Exhibit A

Zone Change_Exhibit B

GeohazardReport

Traffic Impact Analysis

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC_OvationMinutes_Draft

Motion by Commissioner Cecil, seconded by Commissioner Slattery, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone change of 60.28 acres located

northwest of Old Ranch Road and Powers Boulevard from PK (Public Park) to

R-Flex Low 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 6:2.

6 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Hensler,

Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

Aye:

2 - Vice Chair Foos and Commissioner Rickett

1 - Commissioner McMurray

No:

Absent:

8. Updates/Presentations

8. Informal Updates/Presentations

9. Adjourn