Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, December 11, 2024

9:00 AM

Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 -

Present:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

Excused:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Andrea Slattery - Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2360

4.A.

Minutes for the November 13, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_11.13.24 Draft

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

the minutes for the November 13, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting. The

motion passed by a vote of 8-0.

8 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

Absent:

5. Consent Calendar

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

the Consent Calendar. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.

8 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

Absent:

Club Car Wash - North Gate

5.A.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow a car wash in the MX-M (Mixed-Use

Medium Scale) zone district consisting of 1.17 acres located at 2651

North Gate Boulevard.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Kyle Fenner, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_CUDP-24-0009_Club Car Wash CPC_FINAL

Attachment_1 - Project Statement and Land Use Statement

Attachment_2 - Exhibit

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Club Car Wash - North Academy

5.B.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow an Automobile and Light Vehicle Wash

use in the LI/CR (Light Industry with Conditions of Record) zone

district consisting of 1.28 acres located at 1705 N Academy Blvd.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Molly O’Brien, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_Club Car Wash N Academy

Attachment 1 - Project Statement and Land Use Statement

Attachment 2 - Exhibit

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Dutch Bros Coffee - Non Use Variance

5.C.

NVAR-24-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.4.201.C (Table 7.4.2-C)

to allow a 2-foot front yard parking setback off the west property line

where 20-feet is required located at 1802 E Platte Avenue and 307 N

Union Boulevard.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_Dutch Bros NVAR

Attachment 1_Project Summary

Attachment 2_ Vicinity Map

Attachment 3_Dutch Bros Land Scape Plan

Attachment 4_Dutch Bros Site Plan

7.4.201 GENERAL DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Hancock/Chelton Conditional Use - SF Detached

5.D.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow single-family detached residential units in

the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) zone district consisting of 7.62

acres located at northwest of the Chelton Road and Hancock

Expressway intersection.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Planner II, Planning and Neighborhood Services

Attachments: CUDP-24-0020_Staff_Report

Exhibit_1_Project_Statement

Exhibit_2_Land_Use_Statement

Exhibit_3_PublicComments

Exhibit_4_Vicinity_Map

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Trace Church - Conditional Use Permit

8.A.

CUDP-24-00 A Conditional Use to allow an Elementary or Secondary School use

in the LI (Light Industrial) zone district consisting of 5.93 acres

located at 4330 Mark Dabling Boulevard.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_Trace Church CUP

Attachment 1_Project Summary

Attachment 2_Land Use Statement

Attachment 3_Plat

Attachment 4_Site Plan

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, presented the application for Trace Church

located at 4330 Mark Dabling Boulevard. The current land use is religious

institution and is being proposed for elementary or secondary school. There are

no proposed changes to the site, access or landscaping. Standard public

notice was given, and no comments were received. Agency review was done,

and no comments were received. The project complies with Plan COS. Staff

finds the application meets the review criteria.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Rickett asked if this was a public or charter school. Mr. Sullivan

said he would like the applicant to explain.

Applicant Presentation

Jonathan Whitaker, YOW Architects presented the application for the proposed

use. Trace Church is an approved use and is looking for ideas to utilize the

space during the week. Mr. Whitaker said this application is for University

School, a private Christian school, with approximately 200 hundred students

planned for enrollment from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. There are

300 hundred parking spaces for the church, which is enough to accommodate

the school. The school intends to have on campus learning Tuesday through

Thursday. Chair Slattery asked to see views of the outside space for the

children. Mr. Whitaker showed an arial view and showed were fenced play area

would be. Chair Slattery asked what the westside will be used for. Mr.

Whitaker said there are some plans for a fenced playground or field area.

Jennifer Sutherland, University School, Head of School asked the

Commissioners if they had any questions. Chair Slattery said she has

reservations about the compatibility with existing uses and the railroad track

right behind the school. Ms. Sutherland said there are schools that have to use

urban use. And there's a lot of opportunities to create urban spaces into

appropriate play spaces for students. Students will be on campus Tuesday,

Wednesdays and Thursdays and they have about one hour of outside activity.

Ms. Sutherland said there will be greenery, appropriate age and play structures.

To the west, on the larger part of the back end will be one area for us to develop

our adventure program.

Commissioner Robins asked how many classroom will be in the building. Ms.

Sutherland said the first floor has about 14 classes that are being utilized in

shared space with the church and they are building a second floor for an

additional 14 classes for the secondary program.

Commissioner Hensler said enrollment started at 200 students and asked if that

currently enrolled students or is that your capacity in your building up to that. Ms.

Sutherland said that is the current enrollment, with a capacity of up to 300

students.

Commissioner Hensler asked if those students are enrolled and when they are

going to start. Ms. Suther land said they will start August 2025.

Chair Slattery asked if there is a current space that you're using now for your

program. Ms. Sutherland said they are currently renting in old Colorado, in five

separate buildings, so students are having to cross public access streets and

park on public streets. We believe overall this is the best opportunity to have a

safe and secure parking lot and a safe and secure playground space that is

actually gated in, which is contrary to the current space.

Commissioner Casey asked if they would anticipate having after-school sports

and activities that would be outside of his fields. Ms. Sutherland said that is not

part of our goal. There is a robust adventure program and theater department.

Commissioner Robins said he has noticed a lot of homeless people coming

and going to school and is concerned about the safety of the children in the

building as well as outside and asked what they have planned for that. Ms.

Sutherland said they currently have a contract with Vigilant Tiger, which is a

private security company. There is an armed guard campus, and he will be

moving to the new location. There is also one point of entry with a key fob entry

for teachers. The fence line will be eight feet or over depending on the scope of

that job. There will be a keypad entry only students and staff members can

access with a security guard.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

approve the Conditional Use based upon the finding that the request

complies with the criteria as set forth in City Unified Development Code

Section 7.5.601. The motion passed by a vote of 7-1.

7 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Chair Slattery

No:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

Absent:

ADU Code Amendment

CODE-24-00 An Ordinance amending Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code

(UDC)) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as

amended, as related to accessory dwelling units.

(Legislative)

Related Files: CODE-24-0006

Located in All Council District

Presenter:

Daniel Sexton, DRE Planning Manager, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report ADU Ordinance vf

1 - ADU Ordinance

2 - Ordinance No. 20-39

3 - Ordinance No. 20-37

4 - House Bill 24-1007

5 - House Bill 24-1152

6 - Senate Bill 24-174

7 - Public Comments

8 - ADU Ordinance - Table of Proposed Changes

7.5.702 AMENDMENT TO UDC TEXT

PublicComments_Combined_1262024

PublicComment_Combined_12102024

ADU Ordinance Preliminary Survey Results 1292024

UDC-Accessory Dwelling Units Ord_2024.12.30

ADU Ordinance_CC Work Session_Staff Presentation_Final

Daniel Sexton, Planning Manger presented the proposed ordinance. Mr.

Sexton said he would like the commissioners and the public that are

present today to bear in mind that the preparation of the ordinance that

we're presenting to you as a collective effort. This is not one person with

one person's agenda. This is a collective effort to look at what, statutorily is

required, what issues or concerns we have experienced as practitioners

implementing the current ADU Ordinance. Mr. Sexton said this sets the

stage as a community for a greater degree of opportunity for the

development of additional housing within our community.

Commissioner Rickett asked if City Council was involved in this as well.

Mr. Sexton said City Council has been briefed. hat is before you today and

they are one of the entities that have encouraged staff to pursue the

development of this draft ordinance.

Kevin Walker, Planning Director said there was a meeting, requested back

in September by a couple of council members to take a look at this.

Commissioner Rickett said this really does not have a lot of council input

as we have seen with the last couple things that have been directed by City

Council. Mr. Walker said that would be an accurate statement.

Mr. Sexton continued the presentation stating an ADU is not considered a

principle use. It as an accessory use to an established principle use on a

lot or property that is already developed in the City. In this case, the

framing of that principle use is a single-family detached dwelling unit. This

can consist of an attached ADU, where you have an established home, and

somebody chooses to build or has a portion of their house that they want to

convert into that secondary unit. This can be an integrated ADU, where you

have a second floor or a basement that can be converted into a secondary

dwelling unit. Mr. Sexton said there are detached ADU’s which are

freestanding, stand-alone structures or this could be in addition or part of

an existing detached garage. Staff have gone through all the building

permit records since the last adopted ordinance in 2020. Since that

ordinance, there have only been 68 ADU’s built in the City. The Planning

Department and practitioners that are tasked with applying these

regulations and reviewing these applications truly sees accessory dwelling

units as one piece of that larger puzzle that gets us to our attainable

housing goals and achieving the citywide strategies for both housing for

supporting our economic development. The ordinance was developed

from a series of state mandated legislative bills. Those bills recommend

that the City pursue the development or the modification of our ordinances

to allow for use on any property that currently permits a single-family

detached dwelling. Mr. Sexton outlined the legislative parameters from

HB-24-1152 on the decision-making process. The dimensional and

design standards must be structured so that they are not unduly prohibitive.

However, if you have a neighborhood that was built with no design

standards, there are no design standards that we would be factoring into

our decision-making. They can use the established existing home or built

environment as a as a reference point for compatibility. Mr. Sexton

outlined the size, setback and lot size components for ADU’s. Mr. Sexton

spoke on the supportive jurisdiction implementation strategies which allow

the jurisdiction and even property owners; if the decision is made by the

state that community has met the benchmarks under the legislation, that

they have access to grants, technical financial assistance. With the state

legislation, there were millions of dollars carved out of the state budget last

cycle, to be able to support that functionality. Mr. Sexton said it is an

important factor because as the city of Colorado Springs is a home-rule

community, we want to be able to provide the best possible avenue for

incentivizing attainable housing within our community and allowing our

homeowners to age in place. The proposed ADU will strike out the entire

section on accessory family suites. Mr. Sexton said they have heard

through the public engagement efforts and from administration and council

that there is a desire to revisit short-term rental regulations, but we have

desired not to muddy the water in this conversation today about ADU’s.

Effectively, under the ordinance we have proposed to prohibit the use of an

ADU on the property to be used as a short-term rental. Mr. Sexton said

what has not changed is the limitation that the current code has set forth

which prohibits an ADU from being separately sold or separately

subdivided. We have built in some provisions to hopefully capture if a

property owner seeks to condo the units. We have maintained it from a

compatibility perspective, the desire to diminish the presence of the ADU

forward of the home in the sense that from an access perspective, doors

would not be able to be both, for the principal structure in the ADU, facing

the primary street and the front yard. We have maintained that the

decision-making process set forth under the ordinance is still at an

administrative level with staff through a building permit review. An important

aspect, which is somewhat nuanced, is that the legacy zone district

standards remain in place. We have adjusted them in some instances to

ensure that we do not create unnecessary conflict.

Mr. Sexton said this process was not absent public participation, we had a

number of meetings with various stakeholder groups and organizations

throughout the process. An open House meeting was held with an excess

of 60 residents participating in the conversation. We have a community

wide survey that is still open and will close on December 20th, 2025. As of

Tuesday, We had 181 residents participate in that survey effort. Staff has

received public comments both in favor and in opposition.

Public Comment

Devin Camacho ceded his time to Jill Gabler, Executive Director of Pikes

Peak Housing Network spoke in support of the ordinance. Ms. Gabler said

she has spoken to almost all of Council, and they are very aware of this and

several of them wanted us to move this forward. She said Council wanted

to get this done before the new council is seated because then there would

just be a huge education to get them engaged on this issue and this has to

be done by the end of June. Ms. Gabler said over 65% of the land mass in

Colorado Springs is zoned for single-family homes and household sizes

continue to decrease most recently to 2.3 people per home and home

prices increase. Colorado Springs has fewer people in many of our

existing neighborhoods, evidenced by closing schools throughout our city.

Allowing the development of ADU’s use on any residential property that

meets the city's land use criteria supports families who want to care for

older parents or kids who cannot afford the high cost of housing. It also

helps less affluent families to live in the neighborhoods of their choice near

to good schools and be closer to their jobs. This draft ordinance also

supports the goals of Plan COS to include reducing lane miles per dwelling

unit and increasing development within the city's boundaries. These goals

support using existing road and utility infrastructure to service. Ms. Gabler

provided statistics on how many ADU’s and lot coverage. Ms. Gable read

a letter from Lynn Peterson in response to an article written in the Gazette.

Jeff Thorosgaard, Vice President of Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC

spoken in support of the ordinance. Mr. Thorosgaard said the businesses

that he represents urgently need housing options for their employees. The

regulations of ADU’s are not just a housing initiative, it is a critical step

towards fostering economic growth to community development as we

confront complexities and urban living housing. He said ADU’s provide a

strategic advantage by enhancing existing residential property to maximize

both deficiencies unsustainability. By enabling property owners to

constructive use, we can create diverse and accessible housing

opportunities without the burden of extensive new construction, which often

incur significant costs.

Michelle Betancourt spoke in support of the ordinance. Ms. Betancourt and

her husband are residents of the Valley High neighborhood. She stated

that they have a bit of a conundrum because their current zone only allows

attached ADU’s. Ms. Betancourt said they would be in support of this new

ordinance because we would like to build a detached ADU, however, their

concern is that they do support this, it would ban short-term rentals. She

asked for someone to address the ban on short-term rentals. Chair

Slattery said they will add that to the topic of discussion.

Lisa Bigelow ceded her time to Kat Gayle, Chief legal counsel for West

Side Watch and Integrity Matters, who spoke in opposition to the

Ordinance. Ms. Gayle said this ordinance would be enforceable citywide

and there is no regard for fire evacuation safety, no pause to develop

adequate infrastructure, for potentially three times the current residents of

any parcel. Ms. Gayle said they are concerned on the west side with the

wildfire evacuation safety. They have done modeling, and it can be up to 6

hours to get out. She said they are continuing to ignore the science of this

evacuation modeling, and it is grossly irresponsible and amoral to pretend

that development in density without evaluating impact an evacuation times

will not cost lives and evacuation. Ms. Gayle noted the colleges in the area

and density concerns.

Cheryl Brown ceded her time to Dianne Bridges, Chair of the Historic

Neighborhoods Partnership, who spoke in opposition to the ordinance.

Ms. Bridges said they are strong supporters of smart, equitable and

diversified housing. Some of the volunteer work we've done as we were

asked to join Mayor Yemi Strategic planning effort on the housing group.

Prior to that, we actually supported the Affordable Housing Collaboration,

which is the predecessor to the Pikes Peak Housing Network. They

identified about 25 different ways the city could address affordable

housing. Many of those initiatives actually got combined into presentation

that was given to City Council two years ago, which had about 29 different

ways to address affordable housing. Ms. Bridges said this would cause a

massive density issue and this is being coupled with parking and the

unlimited number of people in a house. Ms. Bridges outlined slides with

recommendations on the proposed ordinance with statistics on lot sizes,

structures, height and limiting bedrooms.

Charles Lucas ceded his time to Karrie Waite, a founding member of

Westside Voices for Responsible Development and a 35-year resident of

the northwest side of Colorado Springs who spoke in opposition of the

ordinance. Ms. Waite said she is primarily concerned with wild-urban

interface wildfire issues. She said when concerns were raised about the

added density and pressure on the roads, she was not given a response

from Mr. Walker or others. Ms. Waite presented data on 50 wildfire metro

risks showing Colorado Springs being number 10. She said insures are

dropping out of the wildland urban interface and are unable to get

affordable insurance on their property. Ms. Waite said she does not

believe it right in any way for the Planning Department, Planning

Commission or Council Members of Colorado Springs not to have their

chins up and be aware of this.

Larry Syslo, spoke in opposition of the ordinance. Mr. Syslo said he

considers the Colorado State Legislation to be an overreach in regard to

HB 24-1152, and the City of Colorado Springs approach to their new

zoning. Mr. Syslo said there are two bright spots, one is the requirement of

one ADU per lot and the other is prohibiting ADU’s from being used as

STR’s. Mr. Syslo said ADU’s increase density. He said if the community

complies, they get grants and funding and so you can follow the money.

Brian O'Donnell, a resident on the west side of town, spoke in opposition

of the ordinance. Mr. O’Donnell said he had just learned about the ADU

ordinance about a month ago and it has been an interesting journey

learning precisely what they are and how they can help some of the pros

and cons. He said that this is no longer a yes or no, the is about

implementation and the planning department has gone beyond and

specifically it's the number of houses per unit, height and size

requirements. Mr. O’Donnell said they need to meet House Bill 1152, as it

already mandates the to use for our state. Our job now is to balance the

housing expansion with our existing infrastructure in neighborhoods.

Mary Talbot spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Ms. Talbot said she has

four concerns about the proposed ordinance. First, please do not take a

bad piece of state legislation and make it worse by allowing two ADU’s on

each single-family lot instead of one. She said this is not about granny flats

or places for dependent children. If it was, homes would be required to be

owner occupied. This is about profit for investors. Ms. Talbot said her

second concern is the use of our scarce tax dollars, to waive costs of

establishing ADU’s. There is not enough tax money to pay for adequate

police right now or fire or infrastructure. Ms. Talbot said her third concern is

there is nowhere in the state bill about discreate addressing. She said

emergency response vehicles will not know which unit to go to. Many

neighborhoods have consolidated lock boxes. Ms. Talbot said her final

concern is about open space and parks and it will change the density in the

neighborhoods.

Dutch Schultz, President of the Old North End neighborhood spoke in

opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Schultz said it is the details that they are

concerned about. Everybody thinks the old north end is just a lot of big

mansions who don't want to change, and nothing could be further from the

truth. He said the current zoning is 38% multifamily and R2 or higher and

already know what the impacts will be because they are an example. Mr.

Schultz said this is for the investors and if they buy a home and add an

ADU to it. They will buy the least expensive home in a given area which

has the highest rental rates. They will buy affordable homes because of the

lowest price and remove them from the market. Mr. Schultz said the Old

North End was an original member of the Affordable Housing Coalition and

said this is all predicated on the fact that it is affordable housing. It is not, it

is about developing. He said two things should help this, one the

relationship that the City and the City staff has with the homeowner should

not be in peril. There is going to be no notice, there is almost nobody here

today to talk about this. Mr. Schultz said cards should be sent to all

single-family homes and to communicate with the residents of the City. He

said on a final note, if this legislation does not work out as proposed to

promote affordable housing, put a sunset after five years, see what the

impact is and mend or repeal it.

Tom Helger, a longtime resident of Old Colorado City for more than 25

years, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Helger said his neighbor

across the cul-de-sac moved in at least two years ago and almost

immediately installed a large black shipping container style ADU in the

front yard and began running as a short-term rental. The structure has

negatively impacted our quality of life. The owner has also installed a hot

tub along with chairs on top of it with a direct view of the second-story

bedroom and bathroom area of our home. He said this creates the

lowering of property values to the structures and is an eyesore. Mr. Helger

contacted City Code Enforcement, and the ADU was found to be in

violation for multiple reasons. This case has bounced between City

Planning and Code Enforcement for a very long time. The structure has

been in place going on for two years and Planning says they can do nothing

more. Code says that City Zoning is supposed to schedule a meeting with

this party to discuss the matter, however he has been told the same thing

month after month with no resolution.

Mr. Helger said if this type of activity is allowed to proliferate, it will destroy

the integrity of the wonderful neighborhoods of Colorado Springs, including

the historic areas of old Colorado City, the Old North End and The

Broadmoor.

Mike Anderson, member of The Historic Neighborhoods Partnership,

spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Anderson said he has questions

that the City Planning Commission should consider. The first is, does the

proposed ordinance go too far. Is it too extreme and allowing two ADU’s to

be the same size and height of the primary structure. The City UDC states

the proposed ordinance allows multiple ADU’s that are the same size and

height of the primary structure, the lot. Mr. Anderson asked how that makes

logical sense when it is not consistent with the definition of an ADU. He

asked if this makes it appear that the proposed new ordinance is simply a

means of allowing duplexes and tri-plexus citywide to accomplish a greater

objective to dramatically increase the density of existing neighborhoods.

Mr. Anderson said allowing two ADU’s per lot is effectively flipping

single-family zoning to multi-family, tri-plex zoning. He asked if the City

should have conducted a robust public participation process as there are

nearly 138,000 residential lots in the city that will be impacted by this ADU

ordinance, and this will essentially allow an additional 276,000 dwelling

units on top of the 138,000 have right now. Mr. Anderson asked how is this

gentle density and if the required setbacks the lot coverage, ratios and

setbacks will be enough to thwart the construction of multiple to use a lot.

He then asked if the ADU could actually be counterproductive and hurt low-

and moderate-income folks by adding two ADU’s making single family lot

purchases and existing neighborhoods much more financially attractive to

corporate investors.

Jeanette Caproon ceded her time to Dana Duggan, co-founder of West

Side Watch spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Ms. Duggan said

Council Member Donalson asked for Council and the City to wait until the

next Council is in place. Ms. Duggan provided multiple definitions of

accessories from the Oxford Dictionary. Ms. Duggan said accessory

dwelling units are designed to expand or enhance the primary residence.

She spoke on a documentary based on the Austin real estate market

crash. She also provided a slide on data showing average vacancies in

Colorado Springs provided by CoStar.

Ed Schoednheit, an 18-year resident of Colorado Springs and a senior

member of a large HOA on the east side. The community is a multi-1000

mix of single-family home condos and apartments with various zoning and

lot sizes and hundreds of lots suffer from inadequate parking. Mr.

Schoednheit said it fails to adequately address issues related to storm

water drainage, impacts older neighborhood, water, sewage, electrical,

traffic, D49 elementary school overcrowding and road maintenance. He

said it increases density and fire risks along green spaces. Mr.

Schoednheit expressed concerns with pushing the ordinance and not

getting enough feedback from the public.

Commissioner Comments

Chair Slattery said there are key items that have been brought to their

attention that will be addressed. These items are density, number of units,

design compatibility, size, height and parking. Chair Slattery asked how

the roads are built for the established neighborhoods, what are some of the

family sizes and how that has shifted. Todd Frisby, City Traffic Engineering

said the increased traffic with the with an ADU is not necessarily a

one-to-one relationship. If you add another accessory dwelling unit to a

property, it is not going to generate the same number of trips total. Mr.

Frisby said that in the 1960’s and 1970’s when transportation planning was

being done, they did not anticipate everyone in a household being a driver.

The roads were under projected, which is an example of how

demographics change over time. He said we may see fewer trips

generated per household now. Mr. Frisby said the roads today have the

capacity to handle additional traffic on a small scale.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Frisby to clarify. Mr. Frisby said on average a

single-family home generates ten trips per day, which is the standard they

use for a single-family home. Which includes deliveries, mail, trash and

visitors. He said an apartment by comparison can generate 6.44 trips per

day.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Frisby to talk about local roads versus collector

roads and capacities of a suburban style plan versus an urban grid since

some of the concerns are in historic neighborhoods which are our city

grids. Mr. Frisby said a City grid system helps distribute traffic more evenly

across an area. He said if you take a more suburban style development of

where we have the classic classifications of local collector arterial, the local

streets have less than 1500 vehicles a day which does not necessarily

apply to a grid system.

Chair Slattery asked how off-street parking will play into our existing

infrastructure with this proposed ordinance. With State law, we would be

allowed to require off-street parking, or does our existing infrastructure

allow for more on street parking? Mr. Frisby said every public street.

Unless otherwise restricted is available for parking.

Commissioner Hensler said a slide was shown earlier that had historical

ADU additions overtime and asked if there are projections that could be for

ADU’s. Mr. Sexton said they do not see huge amount of ADU’s proposed

and cannot give an accurate forecast of how may ADU’s would be

permitted. Commissioner Hensler asked why 2023 has such an increase

on ADU permits. Mr. Sexton said it may have been due to the changes in

the building code and wanted to get it done prior to the changes.

Casey said he realizes that we do not have projections, but that it would

really be helpful to see what the projections are for 2025 and beyond for

two ADU’s per residence. Commissioner Casey noted, as some of the

public comments stated, that the ordinance is almost incentivizing

corporations getting involved in building ADUs as investment properties,

and he thinks we should consider the impact of that. Mr. Sexton said he

would be reluctant as the city planning department to forecast that and

there is not an anticipated benchmark.

Commissioner Hensler said this is a reaction to the State Ordinance which

must be followed. Mr. Sexton said there are multiple aspects and absent

the state legislation they may have been here to talk about this on that

scope. He also said as the Planning Department practitioners have

identified deficiencies or problems with the ordinance that have made it

cumbersome.

Commissioner Rickett said Seattle swapped their ADU requirements in

2019 and prior to that, there were on average about 180 ADU’s per year

and after the change it increased to 1,000 ADU’s per year. Commissioner

Rickett said staff should dig into what other cities have done. He would

also like to see a chart that shows the current, proposed, minimum

requirements and what the increase is to receive additional funding from

the State. Commissioner Rickett would like to see what the difference

between one and two ADU’s creates.

Chair Slattery said a residential estate, brought more to the 30% coverage,

and asked if those are proposed to remain. Chair Slattery asked to have

clarification on lot coverage and people density. Commissioner Rickett

said his concern is more about public safety.

Commissioner Robbins said there should only be one ADU per lot

regardless of lot size. He said the issue is more people, more density,

more crime. The streets are not set up for off-street parking and the ADU

should not be bigger than the house.

Chair Slattery asked if there is a proposed way to write code amendments

where one ADU is allowable, and the second could apply for a use

variance and comply with state law.

Trevor Gloss, City Attorney said the difficulty is that the state statute states

that the regulations need to be objective, and they may need to be

administratively approved. Mr. Gloss said for example, because our

variance process goes to the planning commission and then potentially city

council which involves elected officials which the state statute says we

cannot do. He said they are limited to the basic administrative adjustments

per City code, which can be done through the planning manager. This limits

the City's discretion of improving anything or increasing it in certain cases

where could be allowed.

Commissioner Casey asked if they could allow one ADU attached and

one ADU detached.

Mr. Gloss said that would be an option.

Commissioner Rickett asked if it is possible to split between residential

zone districts?

Mr. Gloss said you cannot have restrictions that are stricter for an ADU than

they would be for the principal, a single-family residence.

Commissioner Hensler asked if this was an administrative process only

and not a commission process to do conditional use or a variance,

meaning that would be an absolute no-go based on the state statute.

Mr. Gloss said yes. Mr. Gloss addressed Commissioner Rickett saying

wherever single-family residences are allowed, the state statute says

ADU’s have to be a lot as well.

Commissioner Rickett said it is still allowed, with one ADU in all cases and

two ADU’s in larger cases.

Mr. Walker said another way to look at it is as a land area distinction, just to

say perhaps you can have two ADU’s if you have a one-acre lot and a

single-family home, as a size distinction.

Chair Slattery asked if a representative from CSU could come speak on

the existing infrastructure. Todd Sturtevant, Connection Manager, Colorado

Springs Utilities. Spoke on how ADU’s are handled from a service line

perspective. Mr. Sturtevant said the customer has that option of using the

existing service line if it can handle the main house and the ADU. If tow

ADU’s are added, then the billing would become commercial, making the

rate 50% higher than the residential rate. He said it would also require a

backflow system. The customer has the option to use that existing service

line and branch off or they can install a separate service, but then they

would be required to pay development fees and water resource fees. Chair

Slattery asked about gas and electric usage. Mr. Sturtevant said the gas

currently we are allowed to use two service lines off a branch service. If

there are three, then we have to install a mainline to serve the three meters

for gas service. The mainline requires a minimum of a 20-foot gas

easement on the property in order to service the main line. Forest Service.

Chair Slattery asked if these types of service lines would apply only to

detached ADU’s versus integrated ADU’s. Mr. Sturtevant said an

integrated would be a primary service line from the main house. Anything

after three services would trigger the commercial rate.

Commissioner Hensler asked if adding just one additional service that

could likely be managed by the main line in most cases. Mr. Sturtevant said

yes and it usually at that point, the customer's choice if they want to run a

separate service line to that separate ADU. Commissioner Hensler said

the size of the primary home and ADU could trigger the need for additional

services. Mr. Sturtevant said it is the responsibility of the owner, and the

owner’s engineer to do those calculations.

Chair Slattery asked if there was an integrated ADU that was not sub

metered and then there was a second sub meter, if that would still be a

residential rate. Mr. Sturtevant said after one resident and two ADU’s then

it becomes a commercial rate.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the existing infrastructure robust enough to

accommodate the addition of more ADU’s and how does adding ADU’s

and utilizing existing infrastructure take pressure off of future growth and

expansion of our utility systems. Mr. Sturtevant said yes, because the

infrastructure was not designed at max capacity and ADU’s are not adding

strain.

Commissioner Cecil asked what utility increases could be seen from the

increase of ADU’s. Mr. Sturtevant said it is the responsibility of the

homeowner. For annexations, the developers are paying for that

infrastructure to put it in. However, there is some cost to the rate pairs at

that point. From an ADU standpoint, it is specific to that parcel or that

homeowner.

Commissioner Hensler asked if ADU’s become more than a one-off item,

is there an opportunity for utilities to create a conversation about whether a

property is commercial and find ways to work with homeowners that are

going to add ADU’s. Mr. Sturtevant said they would re-evaluate their

standards depending on how many are built.

Chair Slattery asked how different units will be distinguished or identified

and if rates would be increased by 50% is that considered undue burden.

Mr. Sturtevant said whoever sets up the account will provide a billing and

mailing address to identify the separate bills. Chair Slattery asked if ADU’s

will have discreate addresses. Mr. Sexton said through the building permit

process, enumerations assign addressing at the time of permitting and

distinct addressing is assigned.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the process at regional integrated into the

CAD dispatch for first responders or during addressing. Mr. Sexton said

that is a question for the Fire Marshal, but his assumption is that there is a

sharing of information at the time of permitting.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Gloss if a 50% increase in utility costs is an undue

burden and if that is something CSU should work on in terms of

commercial versus residential designation. Mr. Gloss said no, that would

not be considered an undue burden as it is part of the construction of the

premises and making sure it is in accordance with the law. Mr. Gloss said

a requirement is included in this ordinance that says homeowners will need

to be prequalified with CSU prior to building.

Chair Slattery asked to discuss emergency responses. Commissioner

Cecil asked if there are occupancy standards that require additional fire

suppression measures with additional dwelling units and how addressing

is transmitted to dispatch. Kris Cooper, Deputy Fire Marshal Colorado

Springs Fire Department said the Pikes Peak Regional Building code for

the International Residential code has been amended to only require

sprinklers for five or more attached units. Meaning they would not require

fire sprinklers, however, they would have to comply with code for other

building components, such as reconstruction and smoke alarms. He said

addresses are added through enumerations and are transferred through

GIS, then the addresses are added to the dispatch protocol.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there are three structures, all detached on

the same parcel, are there distancing requirements through the permitting

code. Deputy Fire Marshal Cooper said it is a building code related issue,

but there are requirements based upon required separation distance

between structures. If those requirements cannot be met, additional code

requirements would go into effect such as increased rating of the exterior

walls for construction.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there were any evacuation concerns by

allowing this type of density increase. Deputy Fire Marshal Cooper said fire

code does not specifically address evacuation protocols within the code. It

addresses the response protocols and their ability to get to the structure to

adequately fight that fire. He said from a response standpoint, they would

be concerned about off-street parking and blocking of fire lanes which

could impact their ability to respond to emergency situations within that

structure. Commissioner Cecil asked if there are any other public safety

concerns that they should be mindful of. Mary Rosen off, Deputy Chief,

Colorado Springs Police Department said in regard to addressing, if there

is more than one structure on the parcel, they will need to make sure the

correct addressing is in the CAD.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Sexton if specific addressing is already a part of

the permitting system. Mr. Sexton said the simple answer is yes. Those

procedures and protocols are already in place. The proposed new

ordinance would not modify those in any way, shape or form. Mr. Sexton

said we would be looking for our agency partners through the building

permit process to distinguish and identify front the addressing component.

Mr. Sexton said they are not recommending changing any of the

subsequent standards and it is only being changed from a zoning

perspective.

Chair Slattery asked if the administrative adjustments of 15% is the limit.

Commissioner Rickett asked if that would work with height as well. Mr.

Sexton said yes, the 15% parameter under the administrative adjustment

covers any numerical dimension. He said the inclusion of opportunity for an

administrative adjustment is not a requirement of the state statute, from a

land use perspective to allow some type of administrative variance of those

standards was logical in our proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Cecil asked what increase we should be bracing ourselves

for in requests for variances to allow for ADU’s in the historic parts of town.

Mr. Sexton said that with the state statute in the proposed ordinances the

decisions regarding ADU’s have to stay at the administrative level. There is

a specific requirement that it does not afford the opportunity with the

exception of a historic preservation board to be elevated to another

appointed or elected body. Commissioner Cecil said with the 15% it is

either a yes or no decision and asked if it is a no, what happens next. Mr.

Sexton said they would be forced to modify their project.

Commissioner Cecil asked if structures cannot be sold separately, how

that would impact the ability of a CLT to operate as a landowner. Mr. Gloss

said if a community land trust did own the property or purchase the

property, they would not be able to subdivide and sell off the ADU’s.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they could condo those off or set up a

100-year lease for the structure. Mr. Gloss said they could not condo

those, but if they wanted to do a 99-year lease with a tenant in the back

they could, but that does not separate from the property.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there is anything in the current draft of the

ordinance that would treat legal entities or yield juridical person differently

that the actual person in terms of ownership and can a corporation do

everything that a private homeowner person would be able to do in terms of

building and managing ADU’s on a property. Mr. Gloss said theoretically,

yes, everything a personal owner, an LLC would be able to do as well.

Commissioner Sipilovic asked what would stop the primary residents from

moving into an ADU and then do an STR on the primary residence. Mr.

Gloss said assuming that they can get a license through the regular STR

code, they could potentially get a STR license for the primary residence as

the ordinance is drafted now. It could be changed to say that no STR’s on

the property, including the principal dwelling would be allowed, but then that

some of conflicts with our current STR policies and rules.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the STR’s limited to R1. Mr. Gloss said

yes, they are limited and restrictive to where they can be right now and that

would not change. Mr. Sexton said the intent was that the short-term rental

of the ADU or the principal structure, would be prohibited from short-term

rental unit.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is an existing STR, and the owner of

that STR wants to do an ADU do they lose their STR. Mr. Gloss said no,

assuming they keep their STR in good stand they have a right to that STR

per the provisions are code and we cannot unilaterally take that away

based on the new provision of the code. It would be grandfather in or a

legal nonconforming use.

Chair Slatter said if the STR was legally permitted there, and asked if the

ADU is built on the same property, it would not be allowed to be STR

because each of those licenses would be separate so they could do a

long-term rental behind an STR. Mr. Gloss said yes, if they have an STR

for the principal structure and build an ADU they would not be able to then

get an additional STR for the ADU.

Chair Slattery asked how the design compatibility requirements differ from

attached and integrated versus detached structures and are there design

standards applied to detached ADU’s. Mr. Sexton said any type of design,

architectural building material, considerations would apply universally to

detached, integrated and attached ADU’s. He said the cannot impose a

standard that is more restrictive than what is currently in place or exist for

the single-family home. However, they do have the ability to look at whether

that detached or new attachment is compatible with the existing house. It

would be more of a policy or guidelines.

Chair Slattery asked if that happens at development plan. Mr. Sexton said

it would happen at the time of building permit review.

Commissioner Casey said the restricted design is more with the City's

design standards and asked about the architectural standards for

associations in planned communities. Mr. Sexton said they do not enforce

or regulate those, and it would be a question for the association's legal

counsel and how they are interpreting their regulatory authority to impose

those on a proposed ADU.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there is a recourse for areas that might not

qualify as historic districts to pursue an area design standards overlay to

bring more uniformity. Mr. Sexton said this ordinance does not prohibit

individual property owners or neighborhood from pursuing additional

historic preservation overlay designation or some other type of design

designation. He said the statute and the ordinance states if a property is

identified as its historic property or part of a historic district, it could be

subject to that additional oversight by the Historic Preservation Board.

Commissioner Hensler asked if it has been onerous to get people to

adhere to a design standard. Mr. Sexton said under the current to the

UDC, ADU’s are not subject to a design standard and are not evaluated

with respect to that compatibility company, with the exception of the ADU’s

that are being proposed in neighborhoods such as the old North End.

Commissioner Rickett said there are areas where a whole neighborhoods

that are set back 100 feet off the road with no structures. This would allow

a new primary structure out there and use the old structure is an ADU.

Commissioner Rickett said he has a big problem with that and has been

trying to keep neighborhoods consistent in their design and the front

setbacks. Commissioner Rickett said he would caution that use being

allowed to go forward beyond what is typical for the neighborhood.

Chair Slattery asked how they would ensure the new primary setbacks

would be consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Sexton said if the proposal

is to construct a new primary unit, forward of that existing then converting

the residential structure to an ADU, that new primary would be subject to all

applicable dimensional standards of the zone.

Chair Slattery asked how they would be able to propose a fair size match

with ADU’s. Commissioner Rickett said they need to focus on what is in

the code today and what is proposed. He said his concern is that if they go

to two ADU’s there will be scrape and build a tri-plex and that is not the

spirit of where they want to go. Commissioner Rickett said his

recommendation is to keep what is in code today so that we do not get into

the scrape and tri-plex investment mode and stick with the spirit of

owner-occupied additional rental property.

Mr. Sexton said if you have a primary structure that is 1,500 square feet or

less, you are allowed to have an ADU at 750 square feet.

Mr. Sexton said from the staff’s perspective, they envision a 100%

threshold as a starting point for a conversation because they are never

going to be able to accommodate every eventuality.

Chair Slattery said the goal here today as a body is to come up with

distinct modifications for Council to take into consideration.

Commissioner Casey said the state law allows one ADU, up to 100% of

the main property, if they go with two ADU’s, they should consider the

combined total size of the two ADU’s at 100%. Mr. Sexton said that does

not come across as an unduly restrictive stance.

Commissioner Hensler asked how an ADU is given a designation. Mr.

Sexton said the mechanism to regulate that would is through the building

permit and the designation of the primary versus the ADU.

Commissioner Robbins said a standard could be set for a property if the

primary house is 1,000 square feet or less and they want to build an ADU,

it should be at the discretion of the planning department whether that should

be allowed. Mr. Sexton said there are different ways that it could be looked

at and regulated, but the challenge is making sure they comply with

standards universally across all residential zone districts or properties that

could be eligible for development and making sure the restrictions are not

unnecessarily restrictive or prohibitive.

Commissioner Cecil asked what the needs of the city are and if this will

address those needs. Mr. Walker said it would be the housing officers, they

are updating that, and it will be available this time next year.

Commissioner Ricket said the state mandates an allowance of 100% of

the primary structures and asked if that was off the table to make it any

smaller. Mr. Sexton asked to clarify is it must be 100% of the principal.

Commissioner Rickett said yes. Mr. Sexton said no.

Commissioner Cecil asked if it requires a parking space if it is 100%. Mr.

Sexton said the legislation is clear about not creating unnecessary size

restrictions. Mr. Gloss said there is a certain definition of what they

consider too restrictive.

Commissioner Casey said the staff report says a community may choose

to set a maximum size which is 100% of the primary structure but may not

set an unreasonably restrictive size constraint such is not to allow an ADU

between the size of 500-700 hundred feet.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the current code meets that requirement.

Mr. Sexton said yes.

Chair Slattery moved on to the height discussion and asked if the current

height limits are of the zone. Mr. Sexton said ff the principal structure in the

zone. Chair Slattery said the height limit of the ADU is limited to the height

of the principal building. Mr. Sexton said as an example, if the zone district

set the maximum building height at 35 feet, as proposed, the ADU would

be allowed to be built to 35 feet. He said if an administrative adjustment is

sought and they meet the justification under the parameters for

administrative adjustment, staff would be able to consider that additional

15%, but it is not a guarantee. Chair Slattery asked if under the current

code if ADU’s have height restrictions. Mr. Sexton said yes, it depends on

the pitch of the roof. Chair Slattery asked Mr. Sexton to articulate. Johnny

Malpica, Planner II said if the ADU has a roof pitch of 6 -12 feet or less it is

25 feet, and if it is greater than it is 28 feet.

Commissioner Casey said the ADU can be taller than the principal

structure as long as a principal structures less than the overall zone district

and asked if it is the difference between zone district and the actual lot. Mr.

Sexton said correct, if a single-family house was one story which is well

under a typical residential zone districts of a 35-foot height cap, as

proposed, an ADU could be taller than the one story primary residential

structure and it would be limited to the zone district standard.

Chair Slattery asked if this 25-28 feet, depending on pitch, is a two-story

residential house. Mr. Sexton said yes.

Commissioner Rickett said PUDs could go taller as they allow 40 feet or

45 feet for a house. Mr. Sexton said PUD, as a contract zone, has set the

maximum building height. He said depending on when the PUD was

adopted, they are either subject to the max height with a built-in additional

five-foot allowance per the code that was in effect at the time the PUD was

established or under current to UDC, the max height is the max height. He

said in reality, most PUDs in our community have a max building height of

30 feet with an additional five-foot allowance to the peak of the roof,

meaning there is a 35-foot height building allowance. Mr. Sexton said

under the current UDC, industry has adjusted to a max building height of 35

feet to the highest point.

Commissioner Casey said an alternative could be that the ADU cannot be

taller than the principal building on the lot versus the zone. Chair Slattery

said we need to think about a 600 square foot cottage that is one story.

Commissioner Rickett said he agrees and said there are neighborhoods

that have two story homes and next door is a one level rancher and thinks

that the current code height restrictions are acceptable. Commissioner

Rickett said he does not like the idea of going to the max plus 15% and

feels that it can blow everything out of whack when it comes to the look in

the neighborhood and that is his primary concern.

Chair Slattery asked what the state requires of parking. Mr. Sexton said

there are various provisions within the state legislation that speak to

parking. He said it allows for a jurisdiction to impose an off-street parking

requirement if certain situations exist, however as a general guiding aspect

of the legislation, it discourages imposing an off-street parking standard.

Mr. Sexton said under the proposed ordinance they have taken more of a

permissive approach embracing what was originally envisioned under the

UDC to look at breaking down those various barriers to being able to

develop and ADU and allow for greater flexibility to develop more housing

options. He said they have put forth not to impose an off-street parking

requirement for an ADU.

Chair Slattery asked if the ADU is equal to 100% of the primary structure,

one off-street parking could be required by and still conform with the state

legislation. Mr. Gloss said he does not recall that portion but agrees with

Mr. Sexton that they generally cannot be required. He said two things must

be in place to require parking. They must already have space available

and on-street parking has to be prohibited at that location, however it does

not really make sense to do so because they already have that extra space.

Chair Slattery asked what it means that they already have extra space. Mr.

Gloss said they already have driveway space, extra garage space or

already have off-street parking. He said if they already have off-street

parking and they are on a road where you cannot park on the street, then

we can require off-street parking, however it does not make sense for a

practical standpoint and the state severely limits us on parking.

Chair Slattery asked if there are single-family homes in areas where you

cannot park on the street. Mr. Gloss said there is similar language now

where they encourage them to do an off-street parking space in those

situations, but if we want to make it strictly in line with state statute and say

that they are required for these circumstances, it would be very limited

subset of the city.

Commissioner Hensler said she is fine with the proposal that it is not

required and the vast majority of cases there is a driveway, third bay or a

street spot.

Commissioner Rickett asked in neighborhoods or areas that do not allow

overnight or street parking, can they do that based upon current state

statute. Mr. Gloss said it is a legal determination for them to make. He

said his understanding of the statute is things like that, that would prohibit

ADU’s, specifically targeted towards ADU’s would be prohibited.

Commissioner Casey said for the HOA piece, state law changed about

two years ago that prohibited HOA’s from regulating parking on city owned

streets and if there are privately owned streets in the community, the HOA

can regulate it.

Commissioner Hensler asked to speak about access for front doors. Mr.

Sexton said it is a design consideration and is a carryover from the current

code and has not been deemed to be an unnecessarily restrictive stance to

ask that the front door not face the front property line or the 36-inch access

way.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the stoop end or walk considered a

structure that would be included in the side or back setback. Mr. Sexton

said there are existing exemptions under the UDC that govern the size and

placement of those stoops that would still be applicable.

Commissioner Robbins asked if there is a way to require people in an

ADU with off street parking cannot park or block the driveways of the

neighbors. Mr. Sexton said from a land use and zoning perspective that it

is not something that we factor in and it would be a code enforcement

issue.

Chair Slattery listed out the key topics of what has been discussed so far.

Density, size, height, parking, number of ADU’s, design compatibility.

Chair Slattery asked to discuss design compatibly further and asked the

commissioners in terms of the topic of design compatibility, do they think

the proposed code changes adequately address criteria that if they make a

motion to recommend the proposed code changes you are all comfortable

with where they are standing currently.

Commissioner Gigiano Amanda said she does not see anything missing in

that particular piece.

Commissioner Hensler said she is fine with the architectural as proposed.

Commissioner Casey said he is fine as well.

Commissioner Robbins said as long as it matches a neighborhood.

Commissioner Sipilovic said agreed.

Commissioner Rickett said he agrees.

Commissioner Cecil said she is good on the design topic.

Chair Slattery moved to height requirements and asked if the current ADU

code with the height limitations of 25-28 feet, depending on the roof height,

would be more appropriate to move forward with in the code.

Commissioner Gigiano said yes, the one that is currently there is what she

would feel more comfortable with.

Commissioner Hensler said she likes the proposed code to limit max

height as a requirement for the principal buildings within that zone district

because it provides a little bit greater diversity.

Commissioner Casey said he would be fine with the proposed code.

Commissioner Robbins said he is good with the proposed code.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he is good with the proposed code.

Commissioner Rickett said he is not good with the proposed code and

would like to keep the existing code. Commissioner Rickett said the

reason is that there are neighborhoods that could have an ADU at 35 or 40

feet behind a ranch style single story house that is 12 feet tall, and it is not

compatible with the house or the neighborhood.

Commissioner Cecil said she concurs with Commissioner Rickett.

Chair Slattery said she also thinks that the current height limitations should

be moved forward in ordinance. Chair Slattery said they are split and have

this be an item for Council to review in more detail.

Commissioner Casey said he is in favor of the proposed code and does

not necessarily have a problem with the current code. Chair Slattery said

this is something that they can come back to.

Chair Slattery asked about parking requirements.

Commissioner Cecil said she is good with what is being proposed and

says that makes sense.

Commissioner Rickett said he believes that the state requirement states

unless it matches the existing house it does not require additional parking

or does not allow us to require additional parking. Chair Slattery said she

believes that our proposed legislation is less stringent than the state

mandate in that they are not requiring it when you cannot park in the street.

Commissioner Rickett said then we should match state mandate.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he is okay with how it is proposed.

Commissioner Robbins said he has issues with parking because the

average family now does not have one vehicle and if there is an ADU with a

renter and they have three vehicles on top of the primary has two or more,

there is no additional parking on property on the lot there is an issue.

Commissioner Robbins said there needs to be some kind of requirement

for the person renting the ADU needs to have off-street parking and can

only have so many vehicles parking outside on the streets. Chair Slattery

said legally they are not allowed to impose that.

Chair Slattery let Ms. Duggan know that they have received the link to her

video.

Commissioner Casey said he agrees there will be parking problems, but

thinks their hands are tied by the Colorado statute and is in favor of the

proposed code.

Commissioner Hensler said she is in favor of the proposed code.

Commissioner Gigiano said yes.

Chair Slattery said they will speak on density, number of units and

proposed size.

Commissioner Rickett said he thinks that ADU’s, whether they are

attached or detached, while keeping perspective on the lots, is all

residential are allowed to have one that is required by the state.

Commissioner Rickett said to have two, he would recommend either an RE

or a R19 lot.

Chair is asked to make sure she understands what Commissioner Rickett

is suggesting in that one unit is allowed on all residential as required by

state law with the option for a second ADU within an R19 or an RE or lots

9,000 square feet and above. Commissioner Rickett said he would be ok

with 9,000 square feet lots. Chair Slatter asked Commissioner Rickett his

opinion on square-footage size and percentage of primary dwelling units in

relation to one and two units. Commissioner Rickett said he is proposing to

stick with the current code and is not worried about percentages.

Commissioner Hensler said agrees, but with that would be more in favor of

the proposed code not the current code.

Commissioner Casey said one of the things that they are supposed to be

looking at is promotion of responsible development and growth and if they

do not know the impacts of what is going to happen with two ADU’s, he

cannot conceivably recommend to City Council that they allow two ADU’s

when they do not know the impact of one. Commissioner Casey said the

better approach would be to allow one ADU per lot now and the ordinance

can be revisited in the future after they have a chance to see the impact of

the different neighborhoods. Commissioner Casey said he is in favor of

one ADU across the board and the size should be 100% of the main

property.

Commissioner Gigiano said she agrees with sticking with the current code

with having one ADU at 50%

Commissioner Rickett says he also agrees with that.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there is a minimum size that is allowable for

very small primary structures where the ADU, as it relates to someone with

a 580 square foot home, can still build something that is larger than the 580

square foot home.

Mr. Sexton said there is no minimum size for a primary structure under the

current UDC code, there is for those properties that would have a primary

structure that is less than 1,500 square feet, the ability to develop an ADU

with a maximum size of 750 square feet. Commissioner Cecil said by

increasing to 100% they are not negating that. Chair Slattery said they

would need to fold that into the baseline.

Commissioner Hensler asked if that was a part of the state statute and if it

is automatically going to be part of the language. Mr. Sexton said the state

statute does not have that and it is in the current UDC.

Commissioner Robbins said he agrees with one unit per lot.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he agrees with Commissioner Casey and

said the only difference would be 100% of the existing size.

Commissioner Cecil said she is comfortable with the single ADU and up to

100% of the size.

Chair Slattery said if they are going to recommend she is fine with 100%,

however two may be an overreach and does not feel that is the pulse of this

body. Chair Slattery said she feels comfortable with a motion

recommending no more than one ADU with a maximum of 100% with the

caveat of maintaining the current code, that primary structures under 1,500

square feet may build an ADU up to either 750 square feet or 1,500 square

feet and asked the dais how they should revisit the square footage.

Commissioner Cecil asked if it would be necessary to propose in the

amendment that they consider that if the primary structure is less than

1,500 square feet that an ADU be allowed to be at least 750 square feet.

Chair Slattery said currently it states up to 750 square feet and said they

either keep it to 750 or propose a new threshold.

Chair Slattery said they are proposing that the number of ADU’s per lot is

one, it would be limited in size to 100% of the primary structure, with the

exception of primary structures, less than 1,500 square feet may build an

ADU up to 1,500 square feet and the architectural standards as written are

adopted.

Mr. Sexton said it is appropriate, but the question is that with the caveat on

the scenario where you have a primary structure, that is 1,500 square feet

or less, is it whichever is less, or whichever is greater. Mr. Sexton said in

theory, a single-family home that is 500 square feet. Chair Slattery said

500 square feet with 1,500 square foot ADU and asked the dais if they are

comfortable with that proposal.

Commissioner Casey asked where 1,500 square feet comes from.

Commissioner Rickett said there are brand new homes being built by

multiple builders in Colorado Springs that start at 300 Square Feet as

single family detached homes for $300,000 run somewhere between

$400-$700 per square-foot. Commissioner Sipilovic asked if they are big

enough to put in an ADU. Commissioner Rickett said probably not and

said that it is the current market where a small ADU is not an issue.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there is anyone who is not in favor of the

1,500 square feet in favor of or accepting of a primary dwelling unit that is

less than 750 square feet to have something that is up to 750 square feet.

Chair Slattery said anything less than 1,500 square feet so they could

propose anything less than 1,500 square feet could go up to 1,500 square

feet. Commissioner Cecil asked what about the very tiny older homes or

maybe even some that are being built now on larger lots, allowing the

primary dwelling unit is less than 750 square feet, allowing the ADU to be

up to 750 square feet.

Chair Slattery asked if there is a height compatibility. Mr. Sexton said that

is an undefined dimensional standard on state legislature while not creating

a restrictive or too overly restrictive environment.

Mr. Gloss said he would like to propose a process on how to handle this.

He said they could have one general motion making the recommendation

to approve with the agreed upon conditions which at this point sounds like

it is changing into one ADU you per property and then we can have

separate motions to amend that motion. The separate motions to amend

would be whether or not we use the current UDC for the floor area, whether

we use the current height of the UDC for these.

Chair Slattery asked if this was the benefit of Council to see how are split

on these issues. Mr. Gloss said exactly that way you vote on each one and

have the determination and if the amendment passes is part of it and if it

does not you have the base motion.

Commissioner Cecil asked about STR’s and said if the language seemed

ambiguous to make a recommendation relative to that. Commissioner

Rickett said STR’s are in the base code, that it will not be an STR, and it

will be handled later. Chair Slattery agreed and said the idea is to get

through this ordinance, see how it is implemented and then potentially

revisit STR’s at a future date.

Chair Slattery said to confirm the base motion will include a number of

units. Then they will vote on the size of the ADU as an independent

modification will vote on height, size limitation.

Katie Carleo, Acting Assistant Director, Planning Department said to

clarify, they only have one item to vote on in Legistar and no amendments

will be shown on the screen. These will need to be roll call votes. Mr. Gloss

said verbal confirmation on the amendments and then that will be put

together into the final motion and then vote on that.

Mr. Gloss asked if the language for the proposed motion is to include the

recommended change that the proposed maximum floor area equal to up

100% of the primary structure, where the primary structure is 1,500 square

feet or less, they can build up to 1500 square feet. Chair Slattery said

correct.

A roll call vote was taken for the floor area.

Commissioner Hensler - Yes, Commissioner Gigiano - No, Commissioner

Casey - Yes,

Vice Chair Foos - Absent, Chair Slattery - Yes, Commissioner Robbins -

Yes,

Commissioner Sipilovic -Yes, Commissioner Rickett-No, Commissioner

Cecil-Yes. The motion passed on a 6-2-1 vote.

Mr. Gloss said the motion would be to amend the motion to include a

recommended change that integrated or attached ADU’s remain and still

have the zone height maximum available, while detached ADU’s are based

off roof pitch in accordance with the current UDC.

A roll call vote was taken for the height amendments.

Commissioner Hensler - No, Commissioner Gigiano - Yes, Commissioner

Casey - No

Vice Chair Foos - Absent, Chair Slattery - Yes, Commissioner Robbins -

Yes

Commissioner Sipilovic - No, Commissioner Rickett - Yes, Commissioner

Cecil-Yes. The motion passed on a 5-3-1 vote.

Recommend approval to City Council the adoption of an Ordinance

amending Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code) of the Code of the City

of Colorado Springs 2001, as amended, as related to accessory dwelling

units, based upon the findings that the ordinance complies with the

considerations as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.702, with the following

modifications:

A. Limit to one ADU for every single-family residence.

B. Related to gross floor area, primary units under 1,500 square feet may

have an ADU up to 1,500 square feet.

C. The proposed height for integrated or attached ADUs will remain in the

ordinance while the height for detached ADUs should be based on roof

pitch as calculated in the current UDC.

After the vote Commissioner Rickett asked if more research can be done

with other cities similar to ours like Seattle, that have addressed this and

see what they did and how it has worked out in the last 5 years. It may help

define even further what makes sense to do with this.

Commissioner Cecil said she appreciates the survey data, but thinks they

know it is not a statistically significant sample size for a population the size

Colorado Springs at this point. Commissioner Cecil said she would like to

dissuade anybody around selection bias and voluntary bias in the

participation of the survey and would like to make sure that it does not get

interpreted by Council as if it were a vote of the people if it is not wholly

representative.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the adoption of an Ordinance amending

Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code) of the Code of the City of Colorado

Springs 2001, as amended, as related to accessory dwelling units, based

upon the findings that the ordinance complies with the considerations as set

forth in City Code Section 7.5.702, with the following modifications:

A. Limit to 1 ADU for every single family residence;

B. Related to gross floor area, primary units under 1,500 square feet may

have an ADU up to 1,500 square feet; and

C. The proposed height for integrated or attached ADUs will remain in the

ordinance while the height for detached ADUs should be based on roof pitch

as calculated in the current UDC.

The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.

8 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett, Chair

Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey

and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

Absent:

Karman Line

ANEX-23-00 An Ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

1 located along existing Bradley Road consisting of 0.73 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: Staff Report_Karman Line_RGS

Attachment 1 - Project Statement - Annexation

Attachment 2 - Project Statement - Zone Establishment

Attachment 3 - Project Statement - Land Use Plan

Attachment 4 - City Annexations by Decade

Attachment 5 - County Zoning

Attachment 6 - Public Comments

Attachment 7 - School District Letter of Support

Attachment 8 - 3 Mile Buffer

Attachment 9 - Karman Line Additions - Annexation Plats

Attachment 10 - Fiscal Impact Analysis

Attachment 11 - Exhibit A and B - Zone Establishment

Attachment 12 - Draft Annexation Agreement

Attachment 13 - Karman Line Land Use Plan

Attachment 14 - Vicinity Map

Attachment 15 - CSPD Communication Letter

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 1 - ANEX-23-0009

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 1 - ANEX-23-0009

Commissioner Sipilovic recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest as

his family’s business has the potential to financially gain from this.

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, presented the application for the Karman

line annexation. Mr. Sevigny showed current and proposed boundary lines. The

site area is 1,912.62 acres to be used for future mix of single-family, multi-use

development, commercial, institutional and civic uses. The proposed zone

establishment will be for agricultural.

Review and all agencies had comments or requirements.

proposed annexation does meet the eligibility requirements,

The application went through Agency

Staff finds the

however

determination of compliance with Conditions of Annexation as set in City Code

is at the discretion of City Council. Staff finds the zone change and land use

plan meets the review criteria.

Applicant Presentation

Doug Quimby, President of La Plata Communities, presented the application.

Mr. Quimby said the plot was recently engaged by Kevin O'Neill of the O’Neill

Group, the primary owner of Norris Ranch Joint Venture LLC, which is the

applicant to do the development and is helping with the annexation agreement.

Mr. Quimby said La Plata was not involved in the land use plan, that was done

by Vertex Consulting Services and asked Cody Humphrey, Director of Planning

for La Plata and Nina Ruiz with Vertex Consulting who have been involved in the

creation of the plan to make the main presentation for the applicant.

Mr. Humphrey presented the annexation of the property and surrounding

property lines. The next slides showed the limitations of future annexations

around the city. Ms. Ruiz pointed out additional items on the slide to show the

land to the north that is owned by the City of Colorado Springs that will be

utilized for reservoir construction and trails. She pointed out on the slide where

it says Planned Landhuis Development that is urban level development that is

being planned in El Paso County, which would preclude any annexations in that

specific area.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the 593 acres is currently owned by the City.

Ms. Ruiz said yes.

Mr. Humphrey continued the presentation showing the limitations of the south of

Colorado Springs toward the City of Fountain and Fort Carson. Mr. Humphrey

presented slides of the land use plan. He said there is also regional trail that we

will be responsible for building in a portion of our property to actually connects to

the south as part of our larger regional trail system which circulates throughout

Colorado Springs and El Paso County.

Ms. Ruiz said they have planned for a fire station and a substation, so land has

been set aside for CSU for a substation. Mr. Humphrey said there will be a

school site that is located next to the community park. Ms. Ruiz presented the

El Paso County Master Plan for long term planning and potential areas for

annexation. She said the place type is suburban residential which recommends

single-family detached, residential, lots with up to 5 dwelling units per acre as

the primary land use which is consistent with what they are proposing. The land

use plan and then supporting land uses include single-family attached,

multi-family residential park, open space, commercial retail, commercial

services and institutional. Ms. Ruiz said the master plan specifically calls out

Schriever Air Force Base as being one of those prioritized to help increase

density in this area with smaller lot sizes attached housing and multifamily

apartments and to utilize efficient use of land to help preserve open space and

reduce impacts the critical missions being performed by Schriever. Mr.

Humphry presented the housing supply and diversity slides. He said they

anticipate for-rent, single-family and multifamily housing and single family

for-rent homes are a very popular product that the market has seen an influx of

lately. He spoke on housing supply in the City and said due to the elevated

housing prices and rising interest rates, affordability clearly is a challenge. Mr.

Humphrey presented slides on parks and open space. Mr. Humphrey said the

area is currently in the Ellicott Fire Protection District and if it does get annexed,

the Colorado Springs Fire Department would take over that region.

Mr.

Humphrey said within the initial development early first phase of the project they

would provide a temporary site or a fire station until there is a permanent for

station location. He said this has been reviewed by the Colorado Springs Fire

Department and the Colorado Springs Police Department and both confirmed

that they can serve the development.

Mr. Humphrey spoke on Utilities and said CSU will provide all four utilities, water,

wastewater, electric and gas. Mr. Humphrey said there will be planned roadway

infrastructures and improvements. No current bus routes are planned in the

area.

Mike Rubinson, Chief Operating Officer with La Platta Communities spoke on

the benefits to the City, Military and School Districts. The homes would support

military housing in the area. He said they want to build a community that people

want to come to.

Mr. Rubinson said the fiscal impact analysis indicates a

positive cumulative cashflow for the City. Mr. Rubinson said the fire station site

is being donated by the developer to the to the City. He said there is a 30-acre

site planned for a school.

Chair Slattery asked to hear from CSU.

Brian English, Development Projects Manager, Colorado Springs Utilities

provided a brief overview of how Colorado Springs Utilities would potentially

serve the property if it is ultimately annexed into the city. Mr. English highlighted

the City Code requirements for providing water outside City limits and the

current usage. He said applying the code, Karman Line’s water projected water

demand based on their land use plan 1,672-acre feet a year adding that to the

adjusted 128% buffer of our existing usage. He said that it is 90,980-acre feet

per year, which is less than the 95,000-acre feet per year likely meet demand,

meaning it does meet this section of code. Mr. English said he wants to focus

on chapter 7 of City code specifically concerning requirements and conditions

of annexation that are within this commission's purview requirements of

annexation, ground water rights in surface water rights. He said the owner is

required to deed those over to the city of Colorado Springs upon annexation.

Currently the applicant has informed them that there are two existing wells

permitted for agricultural use. CSU would support re-permitting those wells for

appropriate Non-potable uses if the annexation were to be approved.

Mr.

English said Karman Line is partially located within CSU gas service territory.

The remaining property is located in uncertificated territory, which means that

there are no existing natural gas service providers who have a legal ability to

serve that particular area.

He said Karman Line is currently located entirely

within Mountain View. Electric Associations, service territory, meaning if the

property were annexed and incorporated in Colorado Springs Utility service

area, that would constitute

service territory invasion and as such the

incumbent service provider, MVEA would be entitled to just compensation under

Colorado, revised statutes. Any depreciated value of any existing facilities are

costs would all be the responsibility of the applicant per the annexation

agreement. Mr. English presented slides on the water, gas, electric and fiber

infrastructure and facility boundaries and requirements if the property is

annexed. Mr. English highlighted the utilities capital cost estimate.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Rickett said Cimarron Hills bought up water rights out east and

in this case we are taking city water out to this particular annexation.

Mr.

English said he is not familiar with Cherokee Metro's acquisition, but said at that

time most of their wells were situated north and south of Ellicott, in different well

fields but they have been working over the years to fortify their available supply

and bring it to their customers.

Commissioner Hensler asked Mr. English how much this shortens the timeline

of some of the service lines that CSU would be running with the planned

reservoir that the fact that the city owns a lot of the adjacent property and does

this shorten utilities timeline to get services out there or covering some of the

cost for lines that CSU might eventually be building for the reservoir.

Mr.

English said there are two parts to the question and said the first as it relates to

Bostrum Reservoir and the proximity, there may be some opportunity for cost

participation with the applicant, but many of the extension costs are developer

responsibility. Mr. English said any extensions there would be contingent upon

annexation and they would be market driven based on the owner developer

looking to develop that area, which means that developer would then take on the

responsibility of extending those lines.

Commissioner Casey asked if the extension would support Schreiver as well.

Mr. English said CSU is very supportive of the military installations in the

community, being a service provider to Air Force Academy and Fort Carson and

thinks CSU would be open to that concept.

Commissioner Robbins asked if the elevated storage tanks that going to be

similar to the ones that are in Security. Mr. English said yes, as the topography

flattens out onto the planes, they lose that gravity component to established

pressure zones and provide the necessary levels of service.

Chair Slattery asked what the timeline is on the Bostrum Reservoir from CSU’s

perspective. Mr. English said is a part of phase two for southern delivery system

which is about 15 years away.

If Karman line were annexed showing the

proposed alignment here, unless they find a more direct route coming off of

Drennan Road, he thinks it is in everybody's best interest to work with all of the

different agencies to establish that right away, get the profile and the alignment

accurate and put those utilities in the right place the first time so that there is not

future costs to relocate them.

Chair Slattery said with CSU and Council proposing and moving forward with

major infrastructure changes, which will result in rate changes for folks here

over the next many years. Chair Slattery asked how the cost will be formed by

this development effect rate payers and were any of those proposed updates

already included in current infrastructure upgrades.

Mr. English said the

five-year rate plan that was recently approved in the associated capital projects

may have some regional improvements that would directly benefit Karman Line

if it were annexed, but by and large, these are separate costs. Chair Slattery

asked if the estimated cost of construction are CSU or developer costs.

Mr.

English said those are CSU costs exclusively and they do have estimated

developer costs that does include develop payment of development charges

and fees that includes the water resource fee extension of gas and electric. Mr.

English said it does not include the lift station for wastewater, forest main, the

interceptor or any of the water transmission or distribution lines. CSU would not

provide those cost estimates because the applicant would hire an independent

contractor and civil engineer to design those facilities. Chair Slattery asked if

CSU would be responsible for the construction. Mr. English said not water and

wastewater, that is designed and constructed by the by the applicant and their

utility contractor. CSU does inspect it, and it eventually becomes a utility asset

once it goes through preliminary acceptance and then final acceptance after a

two-year warranty period.

Chair Slattery asked the dais if they would like to hear from police and fire.

Commissioner Robbins asked how the City will service the area.

Rosenoff, Deputy Chief, Colorado Springs Police Department provided a map

showing the different patrol divisions. She said the two that would be the

closest are Stetson Hills, and Sand Creek. Deputy Chief Rosenoff said the

Mary

closest is Bradley Road and Marksheffel Road. She said there are a lot of

different traffic calls for service in that area and provided reports from traffic

accidents with the response times. One call took 42 minutes another took 53

minutes and the third took 17 minutes. Deputy Chief Rosenoff said this would

be ongoing and it is not just because of this annexation, with the City growing,

they will have to have other divisions.

Commissioner Robbins asked if there could be a substation with the Fire

Department or are there plans to have the County help out.

Deputy Chief

Rosenoff said they already receive help from the County. She saif the costs for

a substation is a huge expense. The first ask would be for an academy.

Commissioner Rickett said since there will be a fire station site within the

development that handles fire concerns for him.

Public Comment

Don Shelstad ceded time to Ann Rush who spoke in opposition.

Ms. Rush

provided a document with questions and signatures for the Commissioners.

Ms. Rush is a is a resident of Hammer Ranch Road and spoke for the

concerned citizens of Mustang Meadow and Hammer Ranch. She said an

article from the Gazette expresses concern and says emergency responders

cannot support that area with appropriate response times. There are other

concerns about critical response teams such as fire, ambulance, snowplowing,

code enforcement, park, maintenance, etcetera. Ms. Rush said the annexation

would put a big strain on those resources and we confidently say that because

we experienced delays where we live from those resources that are dedicated

to the county. She asked if endangered breeding grounds and migratory animal

studies been completed not only for the area being annexed, but for all the

areas surrounding that supports these fragile ecosystems. What considerations

are being taken for the golden and bald eagle nests just west of the area to be

developed. What are the costs involved for the infrastructure. She asked who is

responsible for the infrastructure for sewer, water, electrical gas, and utilities.

Ms. Rush asked what the wastewater plan is and how this will affect the water

quality, and how the aquifers will be protected and monitored because we are all

on wells out there. Why are people who are directly affected by this annex

saying they never received a postcard. Ms. Rush said Craig Dawsey, President

of Vertex Consulting Services on behalf of the Norris Ranch Joint Venture, who

is named in the annex was recently Executive Director of Planning and

Community Development Department for El Paso County, Colorado. Ms. Rush

said this brings up a concern that there may be a conflict of interest and if so,

how is this being mitigated. Ms. Rush presented population in El Paso from the

United States Census Bureau as of July 2023, the population of El Paso

County, is 744,215, and the population growth since 2020 is 1.97%. She said

there is a total number of housing units of 312,348 and there is a surplus of

35,977 housing units. Ms. Rush gave a breakdown of homes available through

Realtor.com and new apartments listed in the local newspaper saying there is a

50% occupancy rate.

several developments are on hold until the market picks up and said it took the

springs over 10 years to come back from the 2008 housing crisis. She said

Ms. Rush said they have spoken with developers and

Space Force will likely be relocated to Alabama and with that, nobody wanted to

live on base because it is so far away from resources. Ms. Rush said what is

driving the need for this development and questioned the need for the

annexation.

Dawn Shelstad a resident of Mustang Meadows spoke in opposition. Ms.

Shelstand spoke to 110 families and said. Not one of them is in support of this

annexation.

She said there are Bald and Gold Eagle nesting areas and a

migratory area for antelopes and asked if there were considerations for the

animals that live in a very fragile ecosystem.

Gerald Goodrich is a resident of the area who spoke in opposition. Mr. Goodrich

said the development surrounds him on three sides and he borders the Cities

reservoir.

He said only 6 to 10 people received public notice cards and he

received his on November 20th which does not give a person a whole lot of time

to respond. Mr. Goodrich said they have Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles and

Big Horn deer that run through the canyons. He said Bradley and Curtis Road

cannot tolerate any more traffic. He said the people coming from Schriever drive

100 miles an hour and no one wants to live out there. He said it has been a

great place to live and, but this is not going to do anything for the neighborhood

by bringing in a bunch of houses selling for $400,000.

Brad Edwards, a resident of the area spoke in opposition. Mr. Edwards said he

had just heard about the development yesterday. He said his concern is the

Police Department cannot get to call out there. He said there is a lot of traffic out

there ad they do not have the infrastructure to handle the development and

density. Mr. Edwards said he works in real estate and there is not a housing

shortage in Colorado Springs.

Charles Holliday, a resident of the area spoke in opposition. Mr. Holliday said

there are five houses that access our driveway and there are two easements to

go out to Curtis Road from his place. He said the development shows two

accesses from Karman Line up to their driveway. He said right now there is no

traffic on his driveway, but if the devolvement is approved, Curtis Road is going

to be ridiculous. He said they are going to put about 8,000 residents, which

could bring another 4,000 cars to Curtis Road in Bradley Road, and it cannot

handle it. Mr. Holliday said the light pollution and water towers will turn it into

exactly what we moved out here to get away from. He said he has lived there

for 23 years, and they have deer, elk, bears and antelopes that come to eat

from their leach field. He said it is a 7-million-dollar fiscal windfall for the city,

but the taxes will go up.

Sarah Shipley, a resident of Mustang Meadows spoke in opposition.

Ms.

Shipley said Golden and Bald Eagles that they are blessed to see teach their

young to fly and hunt. The antelope and deer are seen daily. She said the

coyotes keep the rabbits down to a minimum. She said water is always an

issue they have seen a decrease in their water pressure. Ms. Shipley said they

moved out there for a reason and did not want to live in the city limits of

Colorado Springs. She said she was raised here and has been here her entire

life. She said there is not a single neighbor who is in favor of this development

for all of the reasons that were addressed. Between traffic, increased crime,

and theft and is concerned that they will see more. Ms. Shipley said no one

thinks about a Police officer until they need one. She said there has not been

an updated Wildlife study since 2016. She said they were not notified in a timely

fashion and that this has been kept quiet.

E.P. Henderson spoke in opposition. Mr. Henderson said Chair Slattery spoke

on the pulse of the dais and the community. The community is angry about

being left out of the process.

He said it costs $0.56 to mail out the notice and

as far as they can tell 21 were shipped out, which means the investment was

$12 on letting over 100 families know about what could negatively impact the

greatest investment they have. Mr. Henderson said he worked at Schreiver and

there are 7,000 people there and said their kids go to Ellicott for school because

they are a part of the Ellicott Community.

He snowstorms to not help with

readiness times or national security. Mr. Henderson said there is a statement

of cooperation from the school district out in Ellicott. He said he called base

houses right now and they have vacancies. He said there will be more density,

more people, more crime and that is why they are opposed to this. He said

county planners said they were not going to annex them. Mr. Henderson said

as long as it matches the community as long as it matches the neighborhood.

Brenna Godlevsky, a resident of Mustang Meadows spoke in opposition.

Ms.

Godlevsky said she is a mother of multiple children and is highly concerned

about what the police officer had to say about response times. She said her

husband is active-duty military and is often gone. Her daughter passed out and

hit her head on the ground. She said she did not call the police and had to take

her to the hospital to get her help in a timely manner. She also said this is not

the fault of the Police force.

Ms. Godlevsky said police times need to be

addressed first. She said she loves where she lives and does not want to live in

the City. She said there was recently a hit and run on an active-duty military

officer and he was killed. He had 3 children. She said people fly down the road

and add that they should not add that many houses without

infrastructure.

proper

Applicant Rebuttal

Mike Rubinson, La Plata Communities said he appreciates all the comments

that were made and hopefully we can address and answer some of the

questions. He said this brings utilities to the area at the developers’ cost. He

said the costs from the 100 million dollars will be included in base rates, growth

has always historically been. Mr. Rubinson said it will be spread out over 20

years during the development. He addressed the concern for public safety. He

said there is not a substation that had that is included currently in Karman Line

and one was offered and they were told that they were able to serve it out of the

existing substations. He said there is a planned substation in the future here on

the south side of Banning Lewis Ranch, which ultimately will be the location to

house the police that are that are responding out to a Karman Line. He said if in

the future, the City requires substation, they will work with the City to make sure

that that is accomplished. Mr. Rubinson said they are on tune the concerns

about wildlife. He said Ecos, who is the consultant, did a full environmental

even though the City did not require that. There is a full study that addresses

and looks at those items and they will be in compliance with any requirements

in that study. He said funds do go into the city coffers and developers have to

pay for all required extensions and the pay back for utilities. It is anticipated that

the payback for those assets and investments at CSU will be very similar to

other areas of the city.

Mr. Rubinson said it is pretty clear that there is a

He said they do not have an answer

housing crisis in Colorado Springs.

whether the Space Force will be relocated, but one of the concerns that they

had was the cost of housing and the availability of affordable and attainable

housing. He said traffic and comments about not wanting to live out in Schriever

will be addressed because the community will deliver those type of amenities

and retail opportunities that people demand. He said it will reduce congestion

because people will not have to drive as far to go to work or shopping. He said

they have provided a temporary, then permanent site for the Fire Department

which will help with response times, not only within Karman Line but in the

surrounding area. He said they are required to make road improvements to the

adjacent roads and off-site roads that our community impacts. He said he

recognizes change can be difficult, but they are responding to the market and

responding to the demand that Colorado Springs is desirable area. The area

was identified, and it should be annexed. Mr. Rubinson said the Ellicott School

District specifically requested a site.

Additional public comments were requested and Chair Slattery allowed it. While

those people and trying to join in, Chair Slattery said to move forward questions

in the meantime.

Commissioner Cecil said given their decision the last time they looked at an

annexation that La Platta was involved in, and asked to explain how this is

substantially different in a way that they think the outcome will be better for the

City and for them in front of City Council. Mr. Rubinson said the main item is

because utilities will be able to extend to where they need to go. He said the

second reason is with the timing and the and the writer. Under Amara there

were concerns and that is now piggybacked on the five-year increase that went

out. He said it is smaller than Amara and use of the resources is lower. He said

Amara was surrounded by the City of Fountain and they do not have that

situation here. Commissioner Cecil said there was concern about water

downstream pollution, runoff and impacts to agricultural lands with Amara, and

asked if that was any different with Karman Line. Mr. Rubinson said there was

concern from the Arkansas Valley folks about the use of water but just like

Amara, CSU currently has enough water and inventory to be able to serve this.

Commissioner Hensler asked when they would see homes being built and up

for sale and then what is the overall timeline of build-out for the entire

development. Mr. Rubinson said the overall time for a time frame is 18 to 20

years. Houses will not be out until 2029 or 2030, because of the eastern

wastewater project.

Commissioner Hensler asked how they envision rolling out the neighborhood.

Mr. Rubison said it is too early to know, but utility access will be a driver for that.

Commissioner Hensler said they mentioned

a substation potentially planned

near Banning Lewis Ranch and asked if they have sense of that timeline. Mr.

Rubinson said it will be based on funding, and it will be needed.

Mr. Rubinson said Amara was located closer and could serve Fort Carson

better where this obviously would serve Schriever. He said both of them will

serve both areas and will also serve the rail project. Commissioner Cecil asked

if he was referring to the front range passenger rail or something else.

Rubinson said the proposed railyard that is down there.

Mr.

Commissioner Casey said in the public written public comment, there are some

homeowner statements about being within the annexed area and asked if there

are any homeowners currently in the area for the proposed annexation.

Rubinson said no.

Mr.

Commissioner Rickett said he understands the timing of this and has seen the

City grow. He said Banning Lewis Ranch was annexed in the 80’s and there is

virtually no new development in that part. Commissioner Rickett said they need

opportunities for other developers and unfortunately, this is the way we have to

go about it. He said he understands the people that live out east and he actually

worked in Schriever for 7 years when it was Falcon Air Force Station. He said

they have to look at these opportunities and it is not like the development is

going to start tomorrow. It is five years before this really gets started at best and

if everything works out right, it is a 20 year build out.

Mr. Rubison said that is a good point and growth is difficult, but we should have

to have a master-planned community to have that growth in where people

desire to live is very, very important.

Commissioner Robbins asked Mr. English when the city absorbs the two wells,

what aquafer will they be in. Mr. English said he does not have that information

but will find out. Craig Dawsey, Vertex Consulting said it will be Laramie-Fox

Hills aquafer. Commissioner Robbins asked what happens to the water and will

the City use it or will it be shut down. Mr. English said they we would support

the applicant re-permit those and they are currently permitted for agricultural

use. If Council approved it, although they would deed the groundwater rights to

the City of Colorado Springs, they would have to re-permit and also develop an

augmentation plan because that property is not located within the boundary of

the augmentation plan boundary.

Commissioner Robbins asked how that is

going to affect the local farmers and ranchers in the area. Mr. English said that

would not be within the purview of CSU it would be the purview of the Colorado

Division of Water Resources to evaluate that based on the well permit

application and the type of use, location, annual yield and pumping rate. He said

in terms of CSU serving the property, no new wells would be drilled, they

primarily derived their water resources from surface sources from the Colorado

River, the Arkansas River, some limited supply from the South Platte and it is

delivered through four Trans Mountain Pipeline.

Public Comment

Lisa Eastep spoke in opposition. Ms. Eastep said they live next door to where

this development will be. She said their property was purchased by the city of

Colorado Springs through the Utility Department for the reservoir, but prior to

that they lived there for 25 years. She said the EPA studies were done for the

reservoir, and it is a very fragile habitat. There are Bald and Golden eagles, and

they were told that the reservoir would bring in more. She said the other

problem is the Bradley Road relocation and said The Department of Defense

paid for part of that road as a high-speed evacuation route. She said CSU

contacted them about moving the road and they were denied. Ms. Eastep said

response times are atrocious and they do not count for the amount of time that

is spent waiting for that first hello. They should consider the fact that it is

probably another 10-minute wait when calling 9-1-1.

Mike George Clever, a resident of the area spoke in opposition. He says they

enjoy solitude and did not want to be a part of Colorado Springs. He said they

have the 1-6 boundary contiguity law and if they are annexing the road it is not in

the spirit of the law. He said if Banning Lewis Ranch is already apart of

Colorado Springs, why are the skipping over that.

Tyler Godlevsky a resident of Mustang Meadows spoke in opposition. He said

he is the husband of Mrs. Godlevsky sitting in the room. He said the biggest

thing is the fact that this has been very, very quietly pushed through and they

just learned about this two weeks ago and this affects them directly. Mr.

Godlevsky said Mr. Dawsey, who has moved his private sector, is one of the

project managers on this sat our the board for seven years and is now annexing

a large part of the El Paso County. He said there are a lot of concerns as to

where that money is going and where it is getting paid out. He said they have

not had time to prepare or time to conduct surveys that would advise this board

that this is not a good idea for this area. He said he would like to speak to Mr.

Henderson's comments as he is still active-duty military. He said he is leaving

and will be gone for six months. He said there is housing available and does not

believe that housing or the annexation is necessary. He said the community has

not been addressed in this matter.

Chair Slattery said to clarify, Mr. Dawsey is not involved as this is the City of

Colorado Springs, so he is not involved in any way with the hearing today.

Commissioner Comments

Commissioner Hensler said however things end up, public participation is

important.

Commissioner Hensler said that this is going to happen, and the

reality is that our City is continuing to grow, and it may seem like there is a lot of

housing but there are about 3,000 or a three-month supply of homes that are

available. That amount of homes does not sustain our community for growth.

Commissioner Hensler said that change and growth is hard but necessary.

Commissioner Rickett said he concurs and appreciates everyone providing

comments. He said it is not easy for us to make this decision, but it meets the

code criteria and that is what we have to go by and therefor he has to support it.

Commissioner Robbins said they have seen the city grow considerable and he

appreciates everyone's effort. He said he likes the timeline and that it is down

the road and is in favor of the project.

Commissioner Cecil said in looking at all of the criteria for annexation, she the

vast majority of them are definitely met.

Commissioner Cecil said she

understands that the annexation of a part of the city but worries about creating

enclaves in the process.

voting in favor.

Commissioner Cecil said she is leaning towards

Commissioner Casey said he likes the timeline but might be overly optimistic.

He is concerned about the notification process and asked that City staff and

Planning Department take a look at that to whether they can improve on

notification or make

wider circle of where the notifications are sent.

Commissioner Casey said the area is a logical extension of the City's boundary

and also thinks this is a logical extension to support the residential, commercial

and retail development to support Schreiver Space Force Base. Commissioner

Casey said he is in support of the annexation.

Commissioner Gigiano said she appreciates the robust conversation from the

community. She said it matters that no one there wants this but knows that

there is not much that can be done. Commissioner Gigiano said she is leaning

towards voting in favor.

Chair Slattery said looking at the criteria and agrees that they need housing and

LaPlatta is a great developer who has supported the urban fabric of Colorado

Springs. Chair Slattery said the difference is compatibility with the surrounding

neighborhood. It is a beautifully designed and articulated plan, but it is plopped

in the middle of nothing else. She said if they are in a housing crisis, then they

need to find opportunities to meet those needs short term. Chair Slattery said

she has concerns about response times and being prepared or equipped for

emergencies. Chair Slattery said for those reasons she cannot support this.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 0.73 acres known as

the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

No:

Absent:

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.D.

ANEX-23-00 An Ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

2 located along existing Bradley Road consisting of 1.57 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 2 - ANEX-23-0010

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 2 - ANEX-23-0010

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 1.57 acres known as

the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.E.

ANEX-23-00 An ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

3 located along existing Bradley Road consisting of 4.65 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 3 - ANEX-23-0011

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 3 - ANEX-23-0011

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 4.65 acres known as

the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

No:

Absent:

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.F.

ANEX-23-00 An ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

4 located along existing Bradley Road consisting of 11.60 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 4 - ANEX-23-0012

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 4 - ANEX-23-0012

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 11.60 acres known as

the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.G.

ANEX-23-00 An ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

5 located along existing Bradley Road consisting of 17.83 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 5 - ANEX-23-0013

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 5 - ANEX-23-0013

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 17.83 acres known as

the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.H.

ANEX-23-00 An ordinance annexing the area known as Karman Line Addition No.

6 located northwest of the Bradley Road and Curtis Road intersection

consisting of 1,760.74 acres.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Ordinance - Annexation Karman Line Addition 6 - ANEX-23-0014

Exhibit A - Karman Line Addition 6 - ANEX-23-0014

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the annexation of 1,876.24 acres known

as the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.I.

ZONE-23-00 An ordinance establishing a A/SS-O (Agriculture with Streamside

Overlay) zone district for 1,760.74 acres located northwest of the

Bradley Road and Curtis Road intersection.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Zoning Ordinance-Karman Line.docx

Exhibit A and B - Zone Establishment

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone establishment of 1,760.74 acres

as A/SS-O (Agriculture with Streamside 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 5-2-1.

5 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett,

Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Casey

2 - Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Vice Chair Foos

No:

Absent:

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

8.J.

MAPN-23-00 Establishment of the Karman Line Land Use Plan for proposed

Residential Very Low Density, Residential Low Density, Residential

Medium Density, Residential High Density, Mixed-Use, Commercial,

Light Industrial, Civic, Open Space, Parks, Public Safety, and

Streets/Utility Rights-of-Way consisting of 1,912.62 acres located

northwest of the Bradley Road and Curtis Road intersection.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-23-0009RF, ANEX-23-0009,

ANEX-23-0010RF, ANEX-23-0010, ANEX-23-0011RF,

ANEX-23-0011, ANEX-23-0012RF, ANEX-23-0012,

ANEX-23-0013RF, ANEX-23-0013, ANEX-23-0014RF,

ANEX-23-0014, ZONE-23-0009, MAPN-23-0002

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

would be anticipated to be within Council District 4.

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director

Attachments: 7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Fiscal Impact Analysis

Karman Line Land Use Plan

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

recommend approval to City Council the Karman Line 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 4-3-1.

4 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Robbins and

Commissioner Casey

3 - Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

1 - Vice Chair Foos

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Recused:

9. Presentations

10. Adjourn