City of Colorado Springs  
Regional Development Center  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO 80910  
Meeting Minutes  
Wednesday, January 11, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Hearing Room - 2nd Floor  
Planning Commission  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
10 -  
Present:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton, Commissioner Rickett,  
Commissioner Slattery, Alternate Griggs and Alternate Morgan  
2 - Chair Hente and Alternate Cecil  
Excused:  
2A. Approval of the Minutes  
2A.A.  
Minutes for the September 22, 2022, City Planning Commission Special  
Meeting  
Presenter:  
James McMurray, Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to approve  
the minutes for the September 22, 2022, City Planning Commission meeting. The  
motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton, Commissioner Rickett and  
Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
2A.B.  
Minutes for the October 28, 2022, Special Hearing of the City Planning  
Commission.  
Presenter:  
James McMurray  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to approve  
the minutes for the October 28, 2022, City Planning Commission hearing. The  
motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner  
Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton, Commissioner Rickett and  
Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
2B. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
3. Communications  
Peter Wysocki - Director of Planning and Community Development  
Council meeting for Retool was postponed for two weeks. Council asked that  
Historic Neighborhood Partnership’s (HNP) comments be brought back  
synthesizing HNP’s request even though Planning provided all the information to  
the council.  
Water ordinance approved by council on first reading and second reading will  
be heard by Council in two weeks.  
Sunset Amphitheater was approved  
Mr. Wysocki reminded the commissioners that when approving URA items on  
the Consent calendar, they are recommending approval to the City Council that  
the URA plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  
4. CONSENT CALENDAR  
These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for discussion by a  
Commissioner/Board Member or a citizen wishing to address the Commission or Board.  
(Any items called up for separate consideration shall be acted upon following the Consent  
Vote.)  
Garnet Urban Renewal Area Plan  
4.A.  
A resolution making certain legislative findings and approving the  
Project Garnet Urban Renewal Plan.  
Related Files: URA 23-031  
Presenter:  
Jariah Walker, CSURA Executive Director  
Bob Cope, City of Colorado Springs Economic Development Officer  
This Resolution was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.  
Quail Lake Condos  
4.B.  
PUDZ-22-00 Ordinance No. 23-05 amending the zoning map of the City of  
Colorado Springs relating to 2.33 acres located at the southeast  
corner of East Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard and Quail Lake Loop  
from PIP-1 (Planned Industrial Park) to PUD (Planned Unit  
Development; Multi-family Residential with condominium garages,  
maximum of 11.6 dwelling units per acre, maximum building height of  
45 feet)  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Related Files: PUDD-22-0037  
Presenter:  
Matthew Alcuran, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Community  
Development  
This Ordinance was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.  
4.C.  
PUDD-22-00 A PUD Development Plan for a 27-unit condominium with the option  
for either a residential dwelling with an attached garage or a garage  
with an indoor mezzanine.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Related Files: PUDZ-22-0009  
Presenter:  
Matthew Alcuran, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Community  
Development  
This Planning Case was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.  
Saxon Multifamily  
4.D.  
PUDZ-22-00 Ordinance No. 23-06 amending the zoning map of the City of  
Colorado Springs relating to 5.5 acres located northeast of Federal  
Drive and Old Ranch Road from PIP-1 (Planned Industrial Park) to  
PUD (Planned Unit Development: Multi-family residential, 46.5  
dwelling units per acres, and a maximum building height of 50 feet).  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Related Files: PUDC-22-0007  
Presenter:  
Peter Lange, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning and Community Development  
This Ordinance was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.  
4.E.  
PUDC-22-00 A planned unit development concept plan for a multi-family residential  
development with a maximum density of 46.5 units per acre and  
associated site improvements located at the northeast of Federal  
Drive and Old Ranch Road.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Related Files: PUDZ-22-0006  
Presenter:  
Peter Lange, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning and Community Development  
This Planning Case was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council.  
Flying Horse Ranch Master Plan Implementation  
4.F.  
A resolution of the City of Colorado Springs approving a change to  
the legislative status of Flying Horse Ranch Master Plan from  
operative to implemented.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Daniel Besinaiz, Senior Comprehensive Planner, Planning &  
Community Development  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning & Community Development  
This Resolution was referred on the Consent Calendar to the City Council  
Approval of the Consent Agenda  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, that all  
matters on the Consent Calendar be passed, adopted, and approved by  
unanimous consent of the members present. The motion passed by a vote of  
8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
5. ITEMS CALLED OFF CONSENT  
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS  
Amara Annexations  
Staff informed the commissioners that the applicants for the Amara  
Annexations asked to postpone the item due to the water ordinance being  
passed by City Council.  
6.A.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting of 1.193  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.B.  
6.C.  
6.D.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 2 Annexation consisting of 4.160  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 3 Annexation consisting of 8.633  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 4 Annexation consisting of 24.430  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.E.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 5 Annexation consisting of 124.759  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.F.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 6 Annexation consisting of 218.046  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.G.  
6.H.  
6.I.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 7A Annexation consisting of 95.566  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road, south of Bradley Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 7B Annexation consisting of 254.149  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 8 Annexation consisting of 400.348  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.J.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 9 Annexation consisting of 515.841  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.K.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 10 Annexation consisting of 719.719  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.L.  
An ordinance annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that area  
known as Amara Addition No. 11 Annexation consisting of 858.642  
acres located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road and  
Link Road.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.M.  
Establishment of the Amara Master Plan for proposed commercial,  
industrial, civic, single-family residential, multi-family residential,  
parks and open spaces within the City of Colorado Springs. The  
property is located near the northeast corner of Squirrel Creek Road  
and Link Road, south of Bradley Road, and consists of 3172.796  
acres.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Director of Planning and Community Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
6.N.  
An ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado  
Springs pertaining to 3172.796 acres located near the northeast  
corner of Squirrel Creek Road and Link Road, south of Bradley Road  
establishing the A (Agricultural) zone  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning & Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, to  
postpone the Amara Annexation to a date uncertain. The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7. NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR  
Hope Chapel Addition Nos. 1 & 2 Annexations  
7.A.  
ANEX-22-00 Hope Chapel Addition No. 1 Annexation located at 2210 Old Ranch  
Road consisting of 4.6136 acres.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Staff Presentation:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, presented a PowerPoint presentation  
discussing the scope and intent of the project.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Andrea Barlow, NES presented a PowerPoint presentation discussing the  
scope and intent of the project  
Questions:  
Commissioner Rickett asked if an enclave was being created by bringing Old  
Ranch Road into the city. Ms. Barlow stated it was already a larger enclave and  
they were taking a small piece of it. Ms. Carleo, Land Use Review Planning  
Manager, stated the area is a piece of a larger complex enclave. PlanCOS  
identified this area as a near enclave. The City surrounds the area on three  
sides.  
Commissioner Briggs asked why the small area to the south was not included.  
Ms. Barlow explained it is not part of the annexation because the annexation  
petitioner does not own it. Commissioner Briggs confirmed a church was  
already planned for the area. Ms. Barlow said yes, that Hope Chapel owns the  
property and will be building the church. Commissioner Briggs asked how  
traffic changes with 100-units opposed to 120-units, as the applicants reduced  
the amount of units which reduced their liability to do something with the  
property. Mr. Todd Frisbie, City Traffic Engineering, explained with less units  
you lower the trip generation count, and by lowering the trip generation and  
being the only ones generating traffic at the access on the north side, it put the  
numbers below the City’s criteria to require those things. Mr. Frisbie also stated  
there were plans to widen Old Ranch Road in the future with Pikes Peak Rural  
Transit Authority 3 (PPRTA 3) funds.  
Commissioner Hensler asked about the timing of the plans to widen the road.  
Mr. Frisbie said PPRTA3 funding does not begin until 2025. Mr. Frisbie said  
initial conversation suggested it would be about 5-7 years before improvements  
are seen along Old Ranch Road. Commissioner Hensler said if the property  
was annexed, improvements would be made by the developer for sidewalks  
and gutters and other improvements, but that would be just a small section of a  
greater road that would not have improvements and asked if that were true.  
Commissioner Hensler also asked who would manage all the road. Would it be  
city, county, city, or would it be managed by one entity. Mr. Frisbie said by  
requiring this annexation to include the annexation of Old Ranch up to the  
bridge, it brings all Old Ranch Road into the city. So, all maintenance,  
improvements, pothole repair would now fall solely on the city.  
Commissioner Briggs asked if the developer would be required to make the  
necessary traffic improvements if later they decided to increase the number of  
units from 100 units to 120 units. Mr. Sevigny said that was correct and the  
developer would have to go through the planning process, which automatically  
gets sent to traffic engineering and various other departments for review.  
Commissioner Raughton asked if the church was an imminent development.  
Ms. Barlow confirmed with her client that they intend to develop the church, and  
possibly simultaneously with the development of the multifamily.  
Commissioner Hensler asked what the benefit was of creating this enclave and  
bringing it into the City if the uses are already allowed within the county. Ms.  
Barlow explained whether an enclave or near enclave the property has one-sixth  
contiguity to the city which allows for the annexation. Multi-family residential is  
not allowed under County zoning but the church is. A general reason to annex  
is to get on City Services. This has a water tap and if a church was built it would  
utilize the city’s sewer but in the county it would have to be on a septic system.  
So overall it is beneficial for the property owner to be in the City. Commissioner  
Hensler clarified the multi-family, and the church were separate uses. Ms.  
Barlow said they were.  
Regarding enclaves, Mr. Sevigny pointed out the goal of PlanCOS is to reduce  
any enclaves. For any use that requires City Utilities, the city requires the  
annexation so the boundary can be expanded and have the water rights benefit  
the City when outsourcing the utility requirements.  
Commissioner Raughton stated the strategic long term plan for the City is to  
close enclaves throughout the City.  
Support:  
None.  
Opposed:  
Mark Powers, lives directly south of the site across Old Ranch Road.  
·
One concern is traffic during 8:00AM and 5:00PM, it is steady traffic. It is  
difficult now and if you add 100-units nothing changes would change but  
if you add 120-units some adjustments may happen.  
·
The other concern is this is a rural area with homes on five acres and  
this will affect the aesthetics of the area.  
Jay Stoner, 5655 Bridal Spur Ridge Place,  
·
Currently in the process of building a home on 5 acres across from the  
development.  
·
·
This development will lower the value of his home.  
It is not contextual to what is around the area. The density proposed of  
14 dwelling units per acre when compared to one on three acres.  
Is there any plan to connect Old Ranch Road to I-25  
What about a stop light for the new site since that would allow people to  
get on the road.  
·
·
Rebuttal:  
Ms. Barlow with NES stated the big benefit of the annexation is it will bring this  
remaining section of Old Ranch Rd into the City. Right now, it switches  
between City and County in several different places. This way it brings the  
entirety of the road into the City and allow the City to do improvements to Old  
Ranch Rd with PPRTA 3.  
Regarding the contextual nature of the development. They were not suggesting  
it is contextual in the framework of the rural residential south of Old Ranch Road  
which are large rural residential lots. The type of use they are proposing is  
consistent with an infill project. It would be compatible in the context of the city  
surrounding it and its future location within the City .  
DISCUSSION:  
Commissioner McMurray asked about signalization on Old Ranch Road along  
with future improvements and the question raised about possible connection of  
Old Ranch Road connecting to I-25. Mr. Frisbie said there are no plans to  
connect Old Ranch Road to I-25. As for the intersection at Otero and Old  
Ranch Road, bringing that section of Old Ranch Road into the City allows for a  
signalization at the intersection and the ability to monitor the intersection.  
Commissioner Hensler asked what triggers the monitoring for that intersection.  
Mr. Frisbie stated there is criteria in the manual of Uniform Traffic Control  
Devices that is followed, It is something that is not mandated or must be done  
but can become a trigger point for the City to consider a signal. Citizens can  
also request a study, which Mr. Frisbie said he will initiate to see if criteria are  
met for a signal at that intersection. If the study shows one is not needed right  
now, they can leave it on their list and come back in two years with a new study  
and revaluate the warrant criteria.  
Commissioner Raughton asked if intersection would be designed with  
deceleration lanes and for the single entry point into the complex. Mr. Frisbie  
stated the study provided by the applicant projecting traffic turning in and out  
does not meet the criteria for left and right turn lanes; therefore, the City is not  
requiring it with this development. Commissioner Raughton asked about the  
level of service around the school and if currently there was very slow and  
disturbed traffic. Mr. Frisbie said the levels of service are for the turn  
movements for in and out of the access point and in and out of Otero. The  
study showed level service D operations for those movements, which is an  
average delay. During peak hours the delay is 35 to 55 seconds. Schools can  
spike the traffic usually 15 to 20 minutes, which might make it difficult to access  
the road, but afterward it returns to normal operations meeting standards. It  
would be the same on Sundays for church when services begin and end, then  
return to the regular standards.  
Commissioner Foos asked if this property were not annexed into the City, a  
church could be built but tied to well water. Mr. Sevigny said the County has  
their requirements, but religious institutions would have to apply for certain  
permits. For this proposal, planning staff is requiring an annexation in order to  
hook up to city services.  
Commissioner Ricket said he has gone through the criteria for annexations and  
feels it meets the annexation criteria. What concerns him is the development  
plan, concept plan, and comments from the citizens.  
Commissioner McMurray clarified when annexed, zoning must be approved and  
the development plan goes along with that, like a packaged deal. Ms. Katie  
Carleo, Planning Manager, clarified this was not a development plan. The  
establishment of a zone is a requirement with an annexation, as well as a  
concept plan based on the requested zoning. A development plan and final plat  
would come later and be handled administratively. Ms. Carleo explained the  
high level details of the concept plan are the controlling factors for the  
development plan like height, density, and type. The development plan is the  
more finite details that follow what is approved on the concept plan.  
Commissioner Ricket asked if they could approve the annexation and not the  
concept plan or were they all together. Ms. Lisa O’Boyle, City Attorney, stated  
an annexation requires the zone and the zone requires the concept plan under  
code. The cleanest way to do that is all coupled together, so her advice is to  
couple them all together.  
Mr. Sevigny said since this is a straight zone, code defines parameters for that.  
Any significant changes to the concept plan could affect other areas and the  
development code would set the overall parameters for the project.  
Commissioner Briggs asked what would happen if there were significant  
changes to the numbers. Mr. Sevigny said the degree of change would  
determine that. A substantial change requires a major amendment to the  
concept plan which would be heard by Planning Commission. Commissioner  
Briggs asked if that included changes to green space. Mr. Sevigny said yes.  
Anything causing a major change especially to the mouse habitat or streamside  
are considered more of an impact that requires other departments’ involvement  
and not just planning.  
Commissioner Almy confirmed with amendments it would go back through all  
the agencies for review as well as public notice. Mr. Sevigny said yes.  
Commissioner Raughton said he’s for the annexation since closing enclaves  
within the City makes sense and is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. His  
concern is about traffic flow and traffic congestion related to this project, the  
church and adjacent or in related schools. The Church is an appropriate use,  
the residential development is an appropriate transitional use. He’s inclined to  
be in supportive if Traffic Engineering will scrutinize, evaluate and make the  
appropriate requirements for that intersection and follow up as needed.  
Commissioner Almy concerns were related the public having further protection  
if changes happen. Commissioner Almy said he is convinced that will happen  
with public notice and the opportunity to give comments. The other concern is  
with the traffic. The construction traffic will face all the problems being talked  
about for future traffic. The construction crew will have the first complaints in if  
there is major disruption to traffic. He is in favor of the project.  
Commissioner Rickett agrees about the annexation portion of the project. He’s  
struggling with concept plan and the zoning. It is a perfect place for a church,  
but with the transition piece and changing the zoning they’re creating a transition  
in a hole with the County on three sides. The concept plan review criteria  
numbers (4) and (5) reference traffic - traffic circulation, parking, overburden the  
capacity of existing streets, which today this may overburden the street  
because of the count and we’re not doing a right in / right out. We are not  
addressing the current issues in this concept plan. Number six (6) says, “does  
the proposed development promote the stabilization and preservation of the  
existing properties and adjacent areas and surrounding residential  
neighborhoods.” He didn’t think this concept plan met that criteria.  
Commissioner Foos said he echoes the traffic concerns, but he is in support of  
annexation.  
Commissioner Hensler understands the concern of the neighbors. She agrees  
this is a good opportunity to close enclaves and address this whole area for the  
long term. The transition is a nice approach since it is not a huge multi-family  
development. It is a good mix and we need housing of all different types. She is  
in support and does not share the concerns about the concept plan.  
Commissioner Slattery agrees with the sentiments of her fellow  
Commissioners. It makes sense to close enclaves and be consistent with the  
City’s long term goals. Regarding the zone change and concept plan she  
agrees it is an appropriate use for the area and the church along with the  
smaller scale residential multi-family use. Multi-family is almost always  
contentious with the neighbors, however, there is a need for housing diversity  
within our city and beyond.  
Commissioner McMurray asked Mr. Frisbie that given the nature of Old Ranch  
Road being between the City and the County that it causes a limiting factor in  
the City’s ability to address some of these potential concerns in terms of the  
congestion or operations of the road from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Frisbie said  
Commissioner McMurray was correct. Ownership of the road makes is easier  
to make improvements without having to work through the county. This will  
annex the last piece of Old Ranch Road and remove the gap in the road of  
ownership. All of Old Ranch Road will be in the City which is what the County  
wants and it is in the City’s best interests. Commissioner McMurray stated  
there was not an immediate fix with this potential development but annexing it  
positions the City to start addressing the problem. Mr. Frisbie confirmed it will  
move it up quicker. The City could do it on our own but that takes a much  
longer time. They’d have to get the ownership transferred to the City, without  
the annexation, which is something they can do and do it regularly, but it takes  
agreements, and have it approved by the Board of County Commissioners  
which is all time consuming. This process of annexation is a much smoother  
method.  
Commissioner Briggs stated he was pleased the City will be able to get a  
baseline for the traffic now and find out what the real traffic flow is with the data.  
We will more than likely find out this is a much more used artery and is keenly  
interested in what the baseline will show for the traffic now and going forward.  
Commissioner Raughton commented that some of the written comments said  
the Planning Commission and Council do not reflect on neighborhood  
concerns. He hoped the debate today showed they do consider neighbors’  
comments, reflect on them, and ask that other reviewing agencies also reflect  
on them. One of the outcomes of these comments is it will affect the future of  
this road.  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Hope Chapel Addition No. 1  
annexation consisting of 4.6136 acres based upon the findings that the  
annexation complies with all the conditions for annexation criteria as set  
forth in City Code Section 7.6.203. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7.B.  
ANEX-22-00 Hope Chapel Addition No. 2 Annexation located at 2210 Old Ranch  
Road consisting of 9.8807 acres.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Hope Chapel Addition No. 2  
annexation consisting of 9.8807 acres based upon the findings that the  
annexation complies with all the Conditions for Annexation Criteria as set  
forth in City Code Section 7.6.203. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7.C.  
ZONE-22-00 Zone change establishing R5/SS (Multi-Family Residential with  
Streamside Overlay) zone district located at 2210 Old Ranch Road  
consisting of 11.1073 acres.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to  
recommend approval to City Council the establishment of 11.1073 acres as  
R5/SS (Multi-Family Residential with Streamside Overlay) zoned district,  
based upon the findings that the change of zone request complies with the  
criteria for granting of zone changes as set forth in City Code Section  
7.5.603(B). The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7.D.  
COPN-22-00 Hope Chapel Addition 1 & 2 concept plan illustrating multi-family and  
religious institution uses located at 2210 Old Ranch Road consisting  
of 11.1073 acres.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Hope Chapel Addition No. 1 & 2  
concept plan, based upon the findings that the concept plan meets the  
review criteria for a concept plan as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.501.E  
with one (1) condition of approval:  
1. Receive final approval from SWENT for the preliminary drainage report.  
The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
T5 Addition No. 1 Annexation  
7.E.  
ANEX-22-00 T5 Addition No. 1 Annexation located at the southern portion of 3819  
Janitell Road consisting of 20,064 square feet.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Gabe Sevigny gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the scope and intent  
for the T5 Addition No. 1 Annexation project.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Kyle Campbell, Classic Consulting Engineering and Surveyors gave a  
presentation discussing the scope and intent for the T-5 Addition No. 1 project.  
Questions:  
None  
Support:  
None  
Opposed:  
None  
DISCUSSION & VOTE:  
None  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Raughton, that  
this Ordinance be accepted Recommend approval to City Council the T5  
Annexation consisting of 20,064 square feet based upon the findings that the  
annexation complies with all the Conditions for Annexation Criteria as set  
forth in City Code Section 7.6.203. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7.F.  
ZONE-22-00 Zone change establishing PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) zone  
district located at the southern portion of 3819 Janitell Road  
consisting of 20,064 square feet.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to  
recommend approval to City Council the establishment of 20,064 square feet  
as PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) zoned district, based upon the findings that  
the change of zone request complies with the criteria for granting of zone  
changes as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.603(B). The motion passed by a  
vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
7.G.  
COPN-22-00 Vineyard Commerce Park Concept Plan Amendment illustrating the  
26 area to be used for stormwater related requirements, a fence, and  
fire access road located at the southern portion of 3819 Janitell Road  
consisting of 20,064 square feet.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Foos, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Vineyard Commerce Park Concept  
Plan Amendment, based upon the findings that the concept plan amendment  
meets the review criteria for a concept plan amendment as set forth in City  
Code Section 7.5.501.E. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0:1:0  
8 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos,  
Commissioner Hensler, Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Raughton,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Chair Hente  
Absent:  
8. PRESENTATIONS/UPDATES  
9. Adjourn