city council agenda

Transcription

city council agenda

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 11,1998
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
INVOCATION AND
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pages
1-4
CONSENT CALENDAR
(SECOND PRESENTATION)
ITEMS
2-A-1 - 2-A-17
Pages
4-5
CONSENT CALENDAR
(FIRST PRESENTATION)
ITEMS
2-B-1 - 2-B-4
Page
5
CITIZEN DISCUSSION
ITEM
3
Page
5
UTILITIES BUSINESS
ITEMS
5-6
CALLED UP ITEMS
Pages
5-6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEMS
7-9
Pages
6-7
NEW BUSINESS
ITEMS
10-14
Pages
7-14
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEMS
15-24
CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS FROM 12:00 NOON
UNTIL 1:00 P.M. FOR LUNCH
City Administration Building • Council Chambers • 30 South Nevada Avenue
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-1575
To:
City Council
From:
James H. Mullen, City Manager
Subject:
Agenda for the City Council meeting of August 11, 1998 - 9:00 A.M.,
Council Chambers, City Administration Building, 30 S. Nevada Avenue
1.
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.
These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for discussion
by a Councilmember or a citizen wishing to address the City Council. (Any items called
up for separate consideration shall be acted upon following Utilities Business)
SECOND PRESENTATION:
A-1.
Ordinance No. 98-127 amending Ordinance No. 97-232 (1998 Appropriation Ordinance)
and Ordinance No. 97-231 (1998 Tax Levy Ordinance), for the Grants fund in the total
amount of $1,048,903.50. [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-1 - C.C. Meeting - July
28, 1998)
Recommendation: Pass ordinance on final presentation.
A-2.
and Ordinance No. 97-231 (1998 Tax Levy Ordinance) for the Trails, Open Space and
Parks Fund in the total amount of $45,000. [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-2 C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
A-3.
and Ordinance No. 97-231 (1998 Tax Levy Ordinance) relating to the receipt of
additional revenue for the Colorado Springs Police Department's DARE Program from
the North Colorado Springs Rotary Club, [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-3 - C.C.
Meeting -July 28,1998)
A-4.
and Ordinance No. 97-231 (1998 Tax Levy Ordinance) relating to the receipt of
additional revenue by the Colorado Springs Police Department from the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs in the amount of $1,062,545.00. These funds will
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING -AUGUST 11, 1998
assist in the maintenance of the OVERT Program, [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-4
- C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
A-5.
CPC P 98-00150: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Ordinance No. 98-131 amending the zoning
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 1.35 acres located southeast of
Woodmen Road and Corporate Drive, from PBC/HS/CR (Commercial with Hillside
Overlay and conditions of record to PBC/HS/CR (Commercial with Hillside Overlay and
amended conditions of record), [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-5 - C.C. Meeting July 28,1998)
A-6.
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 5.01 acres located northeast of Barnes
Road and Tutt Boulevard, from PIP-1/CR/NP (Planned Industrial Park with conditions of
record and Navigation Preservation Overlay to PBC/NP (Commercial with Navigation
Preservation Overlay), [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-6 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,
1998)
A-7.
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 1.0 acre located northwest of Powers
Boulevard and Zeppelin Road, from UND/NP (Undermined with Navigation Preservation
Overlay) to PBC/NP/CR (Commercial with Navigation Preservation Overlay and
conditions of record, [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-7 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,
1998)
A-8.
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 1.81 acres located northeast of Academy
Park Loop and Iverness Drive, from C-6/NP/CR and PBC/NP (Commercial with
conditions of record and Commercial; both with Navigation Preservation Overlay) to C6/NP/CR (Commercial with Navigation Preservation Overlay with conditions of record),
[second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-8 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
A-9.
CPC PUD 98-00192: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Ordinance No. 98-135 amending the zoning
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 4.85 acres located northeast of Stetson
Hills Boulevard and Austin Bluffs Parkway, from C-6/NP/CR (Commercial with Navigation
Preservation Overlay and conditions of record) to PUD/NP (Planned Unit Development
with Navigation Preservation Overlay - Attached Single Family Residential, 30' maximum
CITY COUNCIL MEETING -AUGUST 11,1998
building height, 7.8 du/ac). [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B-9 - C.C. Meeting - July
28,1998)
A-10. CPC P 98-00224: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Ordinance No. 98-136 amending the zoning
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 31.118 acres located northeast of
Research Parkway and Chapel Hills Drive, from PIP-1 and A (Planned Industrial Park
and Agricultural) to PIP-1 (Planned Industrial Park), [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B11 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 10.721 acres located northwest of
Drennan Road and Academy Boulevard, from R-5/NP and PBC/NP/CR (Multi-Family
Residential and Commercial with conditions of record; both with Navigation Preservation
Overlay) to PBC/NP (Commercial with Navigation Preservation Overlay), [second
presentation] (Item No. 2-B-12 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 132 acres located northeast of Powers
Boulevard and Stetson Hills Boulevard, from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation
Preservation Overlay) to R-1 6000/DF/NP (Single Family Residential with Design
Flexibility and Navigation Preservation Overlays), [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B13 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 35 acres located northeast of Powers
Boulevard and Stetson Hills Boulevard, from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation
Preservation Overlay) to R-1 6000/DF/NP (Single Family Residential with Design
Flexibility and Navigation Preservation Overlays), [second presentation] (Item No. 2-B14 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
A-14. Ordinance No. 98-140 repealing Part 2 (Community Development Financial Advisory
Board) of Article 5 (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter 1 (Administration) of the Code
of the City of Colorado Springs 1980, as amended, [second presentation] (Item No. 8 C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING -AUGUST 11, 1998
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 52.942 acres located east and northeast
of Executive Circle and National Place, from PIP-2 and PK (Planned Industrial Park and
Park) to PK (Park), [second presentation] (Item No. 9 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 9.0 acres located northeast of Comstock
Loop and Tutt Avenue, from PIP-1/NP/CR (Planned Industrial Park with Navigation
Preservation Overlay and conditions of record) to R-5/P/NP (Multi-Family Residential
with Planned Provisional and Navigation Preservation Overlays), [second presentation]
(Item No. 10 - C.C. Meeting - July 28,1998)
A-17. CPC SP 98-00240: Ordinance No. 98-143 amending Table 2.2.1 (Permitted, Conditional
and Accessory Uses) of Chapter 14.1 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Colorado
Springs, 1980, as amended, to allow equipment rental and sales land uses as a
conditional use in the C-6 zone, [second presentation] (Item No. 11 - C.C. Meeting July 28,1998)
FIRST PRESENTATION:
B-1.
Approval of the revised 1998 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Budget. The
revision changes the approved 1998 budget, which includes all 1997 program year close
out funds and reflects all CDBG ($7,236,666), ESG ($122,000) and Home ($2,215,674)
funds. (Neighborhood Services - Ron Cousar)
See attached memorandum from the Neighborhood Services Group Support Manager
and supporting info.
B-2.
An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 97-232 (1998 Appropriation Ordinance), and
Ordinance No. 97-231 (1998 Tax Levy Ordinance), for the Airport Gross Income Fund in
the amount of $2,900,000. (Airport - Gary Green)
See attached memorandum from the Director of Aviation and copy of proposed
ordinance.
B-3.
Proposed changes to Civil Service Rules 8 and 9. (Employee Svc. - Ann Crossey)
See attached memorandum from the Employee Services Director and proposed rules.
B-4.
CPC P 98-00134: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Request by NES, Inc. on behalf of Picolan, Inc.
for approval of a change of zone classification from R-1-6000/CR, PIP-1, PIP-1/CR and
4
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 11,1998
8.
map of the City of Colorado Springs relating to 7.7 acres located northeast of Balsam
Street and Oakwood Boulevard, from County to OR/NP (Office/Residential with
Navigation Preservation Overlay), [second presentation] (Item No. 22 - C.C. Meeting July 14,1998)
9.
Appointments to various Boards and Commissions. See attached list.
NEW BUSINESS
10.
A resolution submitting to the registered qualified electors of the City of Colorado
Springs, Colorado, at the general election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, the
question of issuing sales and use tax revenue bonds of the City in the maximum principal
amount of $88,000,000 for the purpose of financing capital improvements; providing for
the form of the ballot title and text; providing for certain matters with respect to the
election; and providing the effective date of this resolution. (Finance - Steve Hilfers)
See attached memorandum from the City Financial Planning Manager, memorandum
from the Director of Finance, and copy of proposed resolution and supporting
information.
11.
A resolution submitting a question to the electors of the City of Colorado Springs at the
coordinated general election on November 3, 1998 relating to the expenditure of the
1997 revenues in excess of the 1997 fiscal year spending limitation. (Finance - Steve
Hilfers)
See attached copy of proposed resolution and memorandum attached to Item No. 10.
12.
A resolution submitting a question to the electors of the City of Colorado Springs at the
coordinated general election on November 3, 1998 relating to the expenditure of the
estimated 1998 revenue in excess of the estimated 1998 fiscal year spending limitation.
(Finance - Steve Hilfers)
See attached copy of proposed resolution and memorandum attached to Item No. 10.
13.
A resolution authorizing the acquisition of property in the Academy and Galley
Intersection Improvement project. (Real Estate Services - Richard Reich)
See attached memorandum from the Real Estate Services Manager and copy of
proposed resolution.
14.
CPC A 98-00159: A resolution finding a petition for annexation of that area
known as Wescor Subdivision consisting of 6.87 acres and a portion of East
Street right-of-way to be in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1),
setting a hearing date for the Colorado Springs City Council to consider the
of the area. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
sometimes
Las Vegas
C.R.S. and
annexation
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 11, 1998
OC (Single Family Residential with conditions of record, Planned Industrial Park,
Planned Industrial Park with conditions of record and Office Complex) to PIP-1 (Planned
Industrial Park) consisting of 23.46 acres located southeast of Ramtron Drive and
Voyager Parkway. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Esmiol, to approve
the petitioner's request. The motion unanimously carried.
(Item No. 24 - CPC Meeting - June 4, 1998)
See attached copy of proposed ordinance and minutes.
3.
Citizen Discussion.
4.
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 14,1998.
UTILITIES BUSINESS
5.
A resolution setting forth the intent of the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado to
reimburse itself from the proceeds of bonds to be issued to finance improvements to the
Utilities System of the City. (Utilities - Phillip Tollefson)
See attached memorandum from the Utilities Executive Director and copy of proposed
resolution.
6.
An ordinance authorizing the provision of value-added products and services and
declaring Colorado Springs Utilities' assets or income from value-added products and
services activities be part of the Utilities System thereby subjecting such assets or
income to lien and pledge provided in ordinances for Colorado Springs Utilities'
outstanding and hereafter issued revenue bonds. (Utilities - Phillip Tollefson)
See attached memorandum from the Utilities Attorney and copy of proposed ordinance.
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS CALLED UP FROM
REPORT SECTION OR CONSENT CALENDAR SECTION
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.
CPC A 98-00103: Ordinance No. 98-125 annexing to the City of Colorado Springs that
area sometimes known as Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights Filing No. 3 [second
presentation] (Item No. 21 - C.C. Meeting - July 14,1998)
See attached ordinance, copy of proposed agreement and minutes.
See attached copy of proposed resolution and minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
15.
CPC AP 98-00212: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Public hearing on an appeal by Robert Troyer
of Brownstein, Hyatt, Faber & Strickland, PC of an administrative approval of a concept
plan for Windward Corner consisting of 15.9989 acres located southwest of List Drive
and Centennial Boulevard. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, to deny the
appeal of an administrative decision to approve a concept plan for Windward Corner
consisting of 15.9989 acres located southwest of List Drive and Centennial Boulevard.
The motion passed 5-2. (Commissioners Ruggiero and Baruth opposed. Commissioners
Chavez and Nelson were absent.)
This appeal was received within the required time period and reasons for the appeal are
stated in the attached letter.
If Council elects, it may affirm the action of the City Planning Commission, refer the
matter back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration, reverse the action
of the City Planning Commission or modify said action.
This item was postponed from the City Council meeting of July 28, 1998, Item No. 15.
See attached letter of appeal, minutes and map.
16.
CPC DP 98-00059: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Public hearing on an appeal by NES, Inc. on
behalf of The Midland Group of a request for approval of a development plan for
Woodmen Plaza in a PBC (Commercial) zone consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast
of Woodmen Road and Lexington Drive. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Baruth, seconded by Commissioner Esmiol, to approve
the petitioner's request with the condition that staff, the applicant and the neighbors will
work out the traffic issues, and that 10 copies of the plan be submitted with the following
revisions:
1.
Provide building elevations of the King Soopers, Longs Drugs
and the inline stores showing building materials and colors,
building heights and wall signage.
2.
Provide a typical detail of the opaque screen to be used for the
enclosures for the trash facilities and compactors. The wall material
shall match the building wall material.
3.
Remove the notes regarding the partial approval of the development plan
("clouded" areas and accompanying notes).
4.
Provide the complete development plan information that was previously
shown, but excluded for the partial approval (e.g. landscaping, light
standard locations, parking requirements, dimensions for buildings,
landscape planters, parking spaces, and driveways, parking requirements,
parking space angle, etc.)
5.
Show the location of all freestanding signs. Provide elevations of the signs.
Note that the signs adjacent to both Lexington Drive and Rangewood Drive
shall not exceed 6' in height. Note the type of lighting proposed for the
signs.
6.
Note the sidewalks connecting the Skyline Trail to the center to be 8' in
width and constructed of concrete.
7.
Note that a pedestrian activated traffic signal shall be provided at the
intersection of Lexington Drive and the Skyline Trail concurrently with the
development of the center.
8.
Provide 2 bike racks for at least 8 bicycles each. Locate one rack near the
entry of King Soopers, and one near the entry of Longs Drugs. Provide a
typical detail of the racks.
9.
Note the location of the cart corrals.
10.
Revise note 3 on sheet 1 of 7 to indicate the material for the rooftop
screening shall be for screening and sound attenuation.
11.
Note that development plans must be approved for Lots 3, 4 and 5 prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
12.
The wall/retaining wall located on the north side of the King Soopers and
the grading plan shall be reviewed administratively with consideration to
Traffic Engineering's comments.
13.
Note that trash pick-up shall occur between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
14.
Note that King Sooper's delivery trucks shall enter and exit the site from
either Rangewood Drive or Woodmen Road, and that their engines will be
turned off after arrival.
8
15.
Note that light standards shall not exceed 30' in height on Lots 1, 4 and 5,
and 20' on Lots 2 and 3. Note that the lights shall be high pressure sodium
lights, with full cut-off fixtures and no sag lens, with an average footcandle
level of 3.6.
16.
Revise the plan to note or show the installation of the following street
improvements as required by Traffic Engineering.
a.
Widening of Woodmen and Lexington, and Woodmen and
Rangewood Roads to achieve duel left turns in all directions, shall
be at the owner's expense - include right turn lanes, all rights-of-way
to be obtained by the owner.
b.
Widening of Lexington Road and Rangewood Road shall be at this
owner's expense for additional turn lanes, acceleration and
deceleration as necessary.
c.
All re-stripping of public roads shall be at this owner's expense
including utility relocations.
d.
Extensive letters of credit shall be posted for all street improvement
requirements.
e.
Submit street plans and profiles to this office prior to approval of plan
for all streets, etc.
17.
Show pedestrian ramps as required by City Engineering.
18.
Note the detention pond shall be privately owned and maintained.
The motion unanimously carried. (Commissioners Chavez and Nelson were absent.)
If the Council elects, it may affirm the action of the City Planning Commission, refer the
This item was postponed from City Council meeting of July 28, 1998, Item No. 16.
9
17.
CPC DPA 98-00187: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Public hearing on an appeal by Rockrimmon
Coalition of a request by Yergensen, Obering & Whittaker on behalf of multiple owners
for approval of an amendment to the Northpointe Center Development Plan in a PBC/HS
(Commercial with Hillside Overlay) zone consisting of 25.77 acres located northeast of
South Rockrimmon Boulevard and Delmonico Drive. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to approve
the petitioner's request subject to the following conditions to be completed prior to final
approval:
1.
Place a note on the plan stating that, "No freestanding (pylon) signs are to
be allowed on this property".
2.
Revise the plan to show two signs directing traffic to the easternmost entry
drive.
3.
Specify that Amerstone or a similar interlocking block will be used for the
retaining walls.
4.
Place the following Geologic Hazard mitigation note on the plan, "Mitigation
of expansive soils on this site will require special foundation design. Due to
the characteristics of the fill material, a drilled pier foundation is
recommended for the proposed structure at this site. Typical pier depth
may range from 40 to 50 feet and require 5 to 10 feet of penetration into
competent formational bedrock material. The design parameters for the
drilled piers should be determined in the Subsurface Soil Investigation prior
to construction."
5.
The Rockrimmon access infrastructure is now sorely stressed and needs
City Council's consideration to improve these traffic problems as soon as
possible.
The motion passed 5-1. (Commissioner Gruen opposed. Commissioners Nelson and
Ruggiero were absent.)
(Item No. 9 - CPC Meeting - July 9, 1998)
10
18.
CPC S 98-00188PF: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Public hearing on an appeal by Rockrimmon
Coalition of a request by Rockwell-Minchow on behalf of Kent A. Petre for preliminary
and final plat approval of Northpointe Centre Filing No. 4 in a PBC/HS (Commercial with
Hillside Overlay) zone consisting of 1 lot on 2.78 acres located northeast of South
Rockrimmon Boulevard and Delmonico Drive. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to approve
the petitioner's request.
The motion passed 5-1. (Commissioner Gruen opposed. Commissioners Nelson and
Ruggiero were absent.)
(Item No. 10 - CPC Meeting - July 9, 1998)
See attached letter of appeal and minutes attached to Item No. 17.
19.
CPC A 98-00170: Request by Thomas and Brenda Hadnagy for approval of the
annexation of Hadnagy Addition consisting of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch
Road and Kettle Creek Ranch Road. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Ruggiero, seconded by Commissioner Baruth, to
approve the petitioner's request. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified
as follows:
1.
Include the 50' x 50' exception within the area to be annexed. Amend the
legal description accordingly and include a signature block for the property
owner (Colorado Springs Utilities).
2.
Include a signature block for the Mayor.
11
3.
Spell "District" correctly in the legal description.
See attached minutes.
20.
CPC P 98-00171: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Request by Thomas and Brenda Hadnagy for
approval of a change of zone classification from County to R (Single Family Residential)
consisting of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch Road and Kettle Creek Ranch
Road. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Ruggiero, seconded by Commissioner Baruth, to
approve a change of zone classification from County to A/NP/CR (Agricultural with
Navigation Preservation Overlay and conditions of record) subject to the following
condition of record:
1.
A development plan as specified by the Zoning Code is required.
The motion unanimously carried. (Commissioners Chavez and Nelson were absent)
See attached copy of proposed ordinance and minutes attached to Item No. 19.
21.
CPC A 98-00145: Request by Mahlon and Ramona G. Plowman for approval of the
annexation of Lot 8, Templeton Heights Filing No. 2 consisting of 5.09 acres located
northwest of Balsam Drive and Fossil Drive. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, second by Commissioner Hudson, to approve
the petitioner's request. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified as
follows:
1.
Change the City signature block to City Engineer instead of Public Works
Director, and to Manager of Development Services instead of Director of
Planning.
See attached minutes.
12
22.
CPC P 98-00198: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Request by Mahlon and Ramona Plowman for
approval of a change of zone classification from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation
Preservation Overlay) to R-1 6000/NP (Single Family Residential with Navigation
Preservation Overlay) consisting of 5.09 acres located northwest of Balsam Drive and
Fossil Drive.
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, to approve
a change of zone classification from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation Preservation
Overlay) to R-1 6000/NP/CR (Single Family Residential with Navigation Preservation
Overlay and conditions of record) with the following condition of record:
1.
23.
CPC A 98-00098: Request by Steven Sharkey on behalf of Gates Land Company for
approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15 consisting of 2.216 acres located
south of Janitell Road and Executive Circle. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Chavez, to approve
the petitioner's request subject to the following conditions:
1.
Compliance with all departmental comments.
2.
Determination of legal and financial obligations shall be
addressed in the annexation agreement.
3.
Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in
Development Review.
The motion passed 7-0.
(Commissioners Baruth and Hudson were absent.)
(Item L - CPC Minutes - May 7, 1998)
See attached copy of proposed resolution, proposed ordinance and minutes.
13
24.
CPC P 98-00099: (Quasi-Judicial Matter) Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody
Company for approval of a change of zone classification from County to PIP-2 (Planned
Industrial Park) consisting of 2.216 acres located southeast of Janitell Road and
Executive Circle. (Planning - Quinn Peitz)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Chavez, to approve
the petitioner's request. The motion unanimously carried.
(Item M - CPC Minutes - May 7, 1998)
This item was postponed from the City Council Meeting of July 28, 1998, Item No. 18.
Following adjournment of the regular Council meeting, City Council shall reconvene as
the Board of Directors of the General Improvement District No. 98-1. for action on
the following item:
1) An ordinance providing for an election concerning the City of Colorado Springs
General Improvement District No. 98-1, for the purpose of submitting to the electors of
said district the proposition of entering into one or more multiple fiscal year financial
obligations or other indebtedness for the purpose of constructing interchange
improvements and providing for other costs; providing other details related thereto;
repealing action heretofore taken in conflict herewith; and ratifying action previously
taken in connection therewith. (Atty. - Al Ziegler)
See attached memorandum from the City Attorney and copy of proposed ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
James H. Mullen
City Manager
14
6INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
July 22, 1998
TO:
Jim Mullen, City Mana
FROM:
Ron Cousar, Group Support Manager Jj(
Neighborhood Services
SUBJECT:
Revised 1998 Community Development Federal Block Grant Budget
(
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council approval of the revised 1998 Federal Consolidated Budget for Community
Development that includes the following federal grant programs: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG); Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME); and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). The revised budget includes all 1997 program
closeout funds and reflects the funds available to the City in the following grant
accounts: CDBG ($7,236,666); HOME ($2,215,674); and ESG ($122,000).
BACKGROUND:
Each year the City is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development to complete a performance report at the end of the federal fiscal cycle.
This report details how federal block grant funds have been expended and whether
additional funds are available from projects that have been completed or canceled
during the program year. The excess funds are reprogrammed for additional projects.
The narratives on the following pages provide information as to how additional funds will
be used for eligible programs.
CDBG BUDGET NARRATIVE:
The revised CDBG budget is based on the following figures:
1998 CDBG Entitlement
1997 Carryover Funds
1997 Reprogram Funds
1997 Unbudgeted Funds
1998 Program Income (Estimated)
Total 1998 CDBG Budget
$3,152,000
2,901,761
669,174
(86,269)
600.000
$7,236,666
ITEM NO. 2-B-l
Page Two
Jim Mullen
The CDBG budget revision includes funding for the following activities:
•
$45,268 for administrative items to include: CDBG cost allocation to the City and
upgrade of computer equipment,
•
$36,000 for Phase II of the feasibility study for the homeless drop in center;
•
$6,718 to increase the funds for the Neighborhood Initiative Grant Program;
•
$52,919 for Knob Hill residential sidewalks. These additional funds will complete the
capital improvements for this area;
•
$42,000 for Greccio Housing to provide housing counseling services to low and
moderate income persons;
•
$25,000 for a community wide housing study; and
•
$25,000 for fair housing activities in the community to include publication and
distribution of a fair housing information booklet.
HOME BUDGET NARRATIVE:
The revised HOME budget is based on the following:
1998 HOME Entitlement
1997 Carryover Funds
1997 Reprogrammed funds
1998 Program Income (Estimated)
Total HOME Budget
$ 1,275,000
671,558
224,116
45.000
$ 2,215,224
The HOME Budget revision includes:
•
$756 for administrative costs to alleviate shortfalls based on 1997 budget
expenditures;
•
$133,275 for affordable housing activities;
•
$108,355 for affordable housing development by Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs). This amount includes the addition of $18,720 originally
budgeted for temporary salaries in the original 1998 budget.
Page Three
Jim Mullen
Emergency Shelter Grant Budget Narrative:
The Emergency Shelter Grant budget has not been revised and the funds will be used
for the following activities included in the original 1998 consolidated budget:
•
$83,000 for support of the Red Cross Emergency Shelter;
•
$22,000 for support of case management services at the Marian House Soup
Kitchen; and
•
$17,000 for support of case management services for Partners in Housing, Inc.
EXPLANATION OF RE PROG RAM MED FUNDS:
Funds that are no longer needed for the originally budgeted line item become available
for reprogramming. Funds available for reprogramming into the 1998 budget_came from
the following activities:
CDBG REPROGRAMED FUNDS:
Administration (approx. $115,000 in unspent salaries & benefits)
Platte Avenue (Completed)
Public Facilities (balance after all requests were funded)
Human Services
Citizen participation
Neighborhood Support
Planning Studies
Contingency (no expenditures necessary in 1997)
HOME REPROGRAMED FUNDS:
Administration
Homebuyers' Assistance
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (1996 carry-over)
Unbudqeted Funds
$131,018
44,719
57,000
28,560
3,721
2,609
29,800
371.747
$669,174
$ 36,817
33,276
99,999
54.024
$224,116
EXPLANATION OF CARRY OVER FUNDS:
Carry over funds are funds that were not spent during the program year, but are still
needed for the originally budgeted line item. It is important to note that carryover figures
are as of March 31,1998 which is the end of the federal block grant fiscal year.
Page Four
Jim Mullen
The information that follows provides an explanation of the carry over amounts and an
update on encumbrances and expenditures for line items with large carryover amounts.
CDBG CARRY OVER FUNDS
Encumbered for contracts in process as of 3/31/98
Unencumbered CIP Funds (see detail below)
Affordable Housing (see detail below)
South Central Downtown (CURE)
Public Facilities (see detail below)
Miscellaneous line items
Total Carry Over
$960,027
836,000
462,826
206,805
400,000
36.103
$2,901,761
Unencumbered CDBG carry over detail:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Westside Residential Sidewalks $453,920: The design phase of the Uintah Street
project is complete and the project will go out for bid in August. Construction is
expected to begin in September. Estimated dollar amount for the project is
$250,000. The remaining $203,920 is expected to be spent by February 1999.
Hillside Residential Sidewalks $231,770: Two projects are in the design phase for
this area and the funds will be expended by December 1998.
Knob Hill Residential Sidewalks $125,000: Projects are in the design phase and the
funds will be expended by January 1999.
Mesa Springs Sidewalks $ 248,966: A contract is pending for approximately
$240,000 and construction should begin by August 1998.
Ivywild Public Improvements $714,774: Expecting invoices totaling $360,924 for
work done in conjunction with the Cheyenne Road Drainage project. Two additional
projects are in the beginning design stage. The work is expected to total $275,000
and should be expended by December 1998.
Open Competitive Process $400,000: A total of $343,000 has been encumbered for
five agencies. This occurred after March 31,1998
South Central Downtown $206,805: Funds are being held for acquisition, relocation
or clearance activities by CURE.
Affordable Housing Assistance $490,418: A total of $27,593 was expended
($14,273) and encumbered ($13,320) after March 31, 1998. This appears to be
excessive carryover; however, the CDBG affordable housing budget has been
reduced from 1.3 million dollars since June of 1997.
HOME CARRY OVER FUNDS
Encumbered for contracts in process as of 3/31/98
CHDO Development (encumbered after 3/31/98)
Housing Rehabilitation (see below)
Administration (software)
Total Carry Over
$362,529
151,205
154,470
3.355
$671,558
Page Five
Jim Mullen
Unencumbered HOME carry over detail:
•
Residential Rehabilitation $237,977: There was a problem when the City switched
over to the HUD-IDIS system. The funds did not show up in the system and we had
to correct the problem. This did not occur before March 31,1998.
•
CHDO Housing Development $151,205. These funds have been expended. This
did not occur prior to March 31,1998.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Connie Long,
Community Development Unit Manager at 385-5334 or Valorie Jordan, Community
Development Program Coordinator at 385-5336.
1998 Consolidated Budget
1998 CONSOLIDA TED CDBG, HOME ANDESG JUNE!BUDGE T
TYPE
ECONOMIC DEV.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC FACILITIES
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
HOUSING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
JUNE
plus 1997
budget
APRIL
plus 1997
reprogram ad just men BUDGET GRANT
carryover
BUDGET
DESCRIPTION
3,645
3,645 CDBG
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY DISPOSITIOh
0
328.920
125,000
453,920 CDBG
WESTSIDE SIDEWALKS
156,770
231,770 CDBG
75,000
HILLSIDE SIDEWALKS
246
246 CDBG
0
PLATTE AVENUE
52,919
72,081
125,000 CDBG
0
KNOB HILL SIDEWALKS
173,966
248,966 CDBG
75,000
MESA SPRINGS SIDEWALKS
464,774
714,774 CDBG
250,000
IVYWILD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
175,000
250,000 CDBG
ADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD
75,000
54,645
204,645 CDBG
150,000
ADA CURB RAMPS
343,000
343,000 CDBG
0
OPEN COMPETITIVE PROCESS
25,000
25,000 CDBG
NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES
0
24,411 CDBG
24,411
0
GARFIELD SCHOOL
206,805
206.805 CDBG
0
SOUTH CENTRAL DOWNTOWN
0
0 HOME
0
PHA HOMEBUYERS ASSISTANCE
0
0 HOME
0
ACQUISITION HOME
490,418
490,418 CDBG
0
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
548,075 HOME
133,725
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
414,350
248,746
89,635
18,720
548,351 HOME
191,250
CHDO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
0
42,000 CDBG
42,000
0
GRECCIO HOUSING
229,083
1,336,295 CDBG
1,107,212
RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION
237,977
572,581 HOME
RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION
334,604
1,547
101,547 HOME
TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASST
100,000
83,000 ESG
83,000
RED CROSS EMERGENCY SHELTER
17,000 ESG
17,000
PARTNERS IN HOUSING
22,000 ESG
22,000
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES
15,700
75,900 HOME
60.200
CHDO OPERATING EXPENSES
164,233
264,233 HOME
100,000
NEW CONSTRUCTION
0
25,000
25,000 CDBG
0
FAIR HOUSING
0
25,000
25,000 CDBG
0
HOUSING STUDY
0
8,565 CDBG
SUPPORT OF OWN
8,565
924
3,724 CDBG
2,800
SUPPORT OF IWNA
1.732
4,982 CDBG
3,250
SUPPORT OF HNA
0
3,000 CDBG
SUPPORT MSNA
3,000
15,720
15,720 CDBG
0
PLANNING/STUDIES
Pagel
1998 Consolidated Budget
TYPE
PLANNING
PLANNING
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
CONTINGENCY
DESCRIPTION
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
HOMELESS DROP IN CENTER
CHILD CARE-URBAN LEAGUE
LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM
HOUSING SERVICES - ESM
PIKES PEAK COMMUNITY ACTION
WORKOUT LTD
NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
CASA
CARE AND SHARE OF COLORADO
CHILDREN1 S ADVOCACY CENTER
FRANCISCAN FAMILY WELLNESS
SET INC OF COLORADO SPRINGS
AMERICAN RED CROSS - SHELTER
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
HOUSING AUTHORITY- NUTRITION
PARTNERS IN HOUSING
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS
CHINS UP
INROADS DBA TUTMOSE
TEEN COURT
SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS
CDBG ADMINISTRATION
HOME ADMINISTRATION
CONTINGENCY
APRIL
plus 1997
plus 1997
budget
JUNE
reprogram adjustmen BUDGET GRANT
carryover
BUDGET
5,000
5,000 CDBG
0
36,567
36,000
72,567 CDBG
0
8,804
8,804 CDBG
0
134,500
134,500 CDBG
0
0
0 CDBG
1,477
10,000
11,477 CDBG
40,000
13,006
53,006 CDBG
2,104
12,644
14,748 CDBG
0
26,398
6,718
33,116 CDBG
15,000
2,546
17,546 CDBG
604
30,000
30,604 CDBG
5,620
21,467
27,087 CDBG
26,500
18.594
45,094 CDBG
25,889
2,485
28,374 CDBG
16,000
5,583
21,583 CDBG
9,000
0
9,000 CDBG
10,000
10,000
20,000 CDBG
7,000
583
7,583 CDBG
0
55,000
55,000 CDBG
19,000
0
19,000 CDBG
0
33,000
33,000 CDBG
10,000
0
10,000 CDBG
25,000
0
25,000 CDBG
250
1,339,005
45,268
1,384,523 CDBG
3,355
119,596
756 (18,720)
104,987 HOME
383,168
383,168 CDBG
3,573,319
475,741
5,544,000
0
9,574,340
CONSOLIDATED BUDGET REC ONCILIATION
3,152,000
1998 CDBG ENTITLEMENT
2,901,761
97 CARRYOVER
669,174
97 REPROGRAM
(86,269)
97UNBUDGETED
600,000
EST. '98 INCOME
7,236,666
TOTAL FUNDS BY GRANT
TOTAL 1998 REVISED BUDGET
1998 HOME ElÎTLEMENT
97 CARRYOVIiR
97REPROGRAM
98 BUDGET A]DJUSTMENT
EST '98 INCO1Vffi
Page 2
1,275,000 98 ESG ENTITLEMENT
671,558
224,116
0
45,000
2,215,674
9,574,340
122,000
122,000
1998 CONSOLIDATED BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
2,500,000
2,000,000
D ADMINISTRATION
0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1,500,000
0 CONTINGENCY
O ECONOMIC DEV.
D HOUSING
1,000,000
a PLANNING
D PUBLIC FACILITIES
• PUBLIC SERVICES
500,000
CD3G
1998 CDBG PROGRAM YE<tUR
1997 C DBG PROGRAM YEAR
DATE APPROVED
DESCRIPTION
CIVILIAN SALARIES
OVERTIME
ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
CONVERSION SICK
SALARIES REIMBURSEMENT
PERA
; STATE COMPENSATION"
EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE
VISION CARE
IHEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
CASH BACK
EMPLOYEE PARKING PLAN
MEDICARE
MEDICAL NETWORK
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SERVICES
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
MICROS- SOFTWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
.POSTAGE
LAUNDRY & CLEANING
WEARING APPAREL
,\CNOR EQUIPMENT
PAINT AND CHEMICALS
SEED & FERTILIZER
AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES
'SIGNS
MAINT-OFFICE MACHINES
MA2C7-MICROS
MAINT-MACHTNERY & A??
FLEET SERVICE
MATNT- 3LDG & STRUCTURES
RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT
CARMTLEAGS
RENTAL OF FLEET VEHICLES
SCHOOLING & REGISTRATION
!
1997
exoenses
1997 BUDGET
947,1 53
3.0CC
5,220
0
0
93,848
6,281
5,503
.,344
66,049
6,:20
0
2,6-iC
4,-; 3
0
3,OCO
3^00
ICO
1,992
-,375
9,COO
•^CG
0
4,479
C
:co
c
c
365
1,950
IOC
2,500
1997
balance
863,328
2,597
6,646
3,682
12,974
84,857
5,499
4,4~4
1,127
(4,085}
4,530
3 520
1,620
4,010
53,548
3,129
3,334
0
1 347
^ 46^
4,252
419
C
^394
0
38
0
o
387
1,800
C
o
2,447
0
7,500
1,674
0
16,"^8
5,S"S
369
0
12,435
83,825
403
(1,426)
(3,682)
(12,974)
8,991
782
1,029
217
70,134
1,490
(3,520}
1,020
"03
(53,548)
(129)
(:34)
ICO
645
2,908
4,748
(19)
0
85
0
62
0
0
(22)
150
ICO
53
0
1,622
1,305
0
4,343
1997
1997 adj usted
eccasibânces balance
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
1997 earn over 1997 reAPRIL
fend
program funds'BUDGET
83,825
403
(1,426)
(3,682)
(12,974)
8,991
782
.,029
21"
70,134
1,490
(3,520)
1,020
703
(53,548)
(129)
(134)
IOC
64;
2,908
4,748
' Q\
0
85
C
62
0
0
22
150
100
53
0
1,622
1,305
0
4,343
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
o
;
S3,S25
403
(1,426)
(3,682)
(12,9~4)
8,991s
782
.,029
21"!
70,. 34.
1 ,490
(3,520^
1,020!
"03:
(53,54S)t
(129)!
(134)
1 00
64>
2,9C8j
4,748
, .9
0
85
0
62'
0
0
;22 i
150
100
53_
0,
1,522
1,305
C
4,343
'phis 19S 7
learn ov er
1,032,009
3,000
0
0
0
101,869
",325
5,603
1,397
61,895
6,458
0
2,520
5,923
C
2,500
3,000
1 00
690
5,000
5 400
500
C
4,891
0
100
0
0
-CO
2,700
IOC
2,500
2,000
3,600
500
C
.4,9/5
plus 199?
reorogram
0
0
C
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
budget
adjustment
c
0
0
0
0
C
0
z
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
o
JUNE
BUDGET
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,032,009
3,300
C,
0
0
.01,869
7,325
5,603
i,39j
61,895.
6,4681
0
2,520
5,523
C
2,500
3000
100
690
6,000
S,tCC<
600
Cj
4,891
0'
iCC,
C!
0!
4CC
2,700
100
2,50C:
2,000
3,600
500,
0
14,975
O3G
1997 adjusted
1997 earn over 1997 replus 1997
1997
APRIL
1997
plus 1997 re- budget
1997
fjncs
program funds BUDGET
carrv over
1997 BUDGET
balance
encumorances balance
expenses
adjustment
DESCRIPTION
0
0
1,232
1,232
2,000
0
1,232
ADVERTISING
3,032
.,800
0
3 522
3,522 i
0
C
0
3,522
TRAVEL OUT 0? TOWN
10,100
6578
250
250
0
0S
3,2; 0
250
250
3,290
JDUZS & MEMBERSHIP
3,540
715
0
0
I,iCO
"*.?
0
2,070
1,355
SUBSCRIPTIONS
49.
0
491
400
0
0
209
491
IX TOWN MTC- EXPENSES
700
0
12..-5
33,120
1 2,. 76
0
0
20,9^4
12,175
TELEPHONE-BASIC CHARGES
33,120
(267)
0
(26-;
1,000
c
0
(257)
500
1,000
1,267
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RENTAL OF PROPERTY
0
0
798
0
5,500
798
c
0
"98
6,500
0
5,702
GENERAL INSURANCE
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
36,057
36.057
36 057
JCOMM SSRV ALLOCATION
2,627
2,627
0
C
.2,170
c
2,52"
9,5^3
12,: 70
1 255
1 SERVICES
0
C
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
'OFFICE MACHINES
0
0
c
5920
EQUIPMENT LEASE/PURCHASE
0
0
0
3.1 1
31 i
0
-.2,052
11675
1536
•MICROS- SOFTWARE
3<
So
0
86
0
0
c
0
86
0
iFJRNTrURS & FIXTURES
85
328,920
0
.25,000
200,000
128 920
328,920
328,920
0 328,920
iWiSTSDE RESID SIDEWALKS
7
0
.56,7*0
5,CCC
75,000
8.,, -0
' 56,770
0
.56,770
0
: 56,770
i HILLSIDE RSSID SIDEWALKS
4-,~. 9
2-6
246
-4,965
246
0
PLATTEAVE PUBLIC IMPROV
-,4,7.9
5C6,T7S
561,813
0
0
0
72,081
72081
^2,081
"2,081
52,9.9
72,081
0
KNOB KILL RESD SIDEWALKS
"0605
173,966
0
75,000
103,361
1-3,956
173,966
5,210
0
1 79, 175
MESA SPRIGS RESID SIDEWALKS
334,004
464774
o
0
250,000
464,774
130,770
46^,774
668,102
203,328
;rv"YWILD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
5-6-5
4~,7CC
0
150,000
6,945
54.6-O
54,6^5
.20,355
175,000
.ADA CURB RAMPS
0,000
175,000
I "5, 000
0
C
0
I "5,000
175,000
0
jADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD
175,000
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CHINS U?
229.083
0
.,.07,212
. 1 400
217,683
229,083
229,083
0
832,859
'RESDENTIAL REHABILITATION
503,776
0
0
0
42,000
HOUSING SERVICES - GRECCIO HSG
0
462,826
0
490,^18
49C4.8
27,592
0
1,30^,176
8 3,758 490,418
'AFFORDABLE KOUS3TG ASSISTANC!
3,6^5
0
3 645 ..
0
3,6-5
3,645
0
4,595
950
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY DISPOSITIO
0
0
0
C
C
0
0
11,102
.1,102
,SOU? KITCHEN REHABILITATION
u
u
u
C
86,358
86,358
^
lACQUISmON
"
"
'
206,805
0
0
206,305
0
206,805
3 400 206,805
210,205
SOUTH CENTRAL DX)Vv-NTOWX
25,000
0
0
c
25,000
0
2i,000
0
25 000
25,000
24,411
24,4il
24,4.1
c
0
0
24,411
GARFIELD SCHOOL
25,000
589
"i
3^3,000
57,000;
0
343,000
0
400,000
0 400,000
OPEN COMPETmVE PROCESS
400,000
0
4,-5.0
0
0
4,451
0
4,451
MEADOWS PARK COMM CTR
25.XO
20,5^9
124;
124
8,804
8,804
0
8,80^
8,928
0
CKLDCARZ CONTRACT-ULDC
64,199
55 2'7I
0
2,178
1 3-,sCO
2,. 78
C
0
0
2,178
139,950
137,782
3,367
3,367
0
3,367
0
C
C
12,162
S~95
LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM
1,477
C
10,000
.,477
0
1,47"
0
17 529
ECUMENICAL SOCIAL MINISTRIES
19,006
cT
0
c
C
0
0
0
2,335
2,335
HOUSING AUTHORITY- SHARE HSG
29'
;9
13 006
13 006
^0,000
13,006
13,065
0
?3C5 PEAK COMMUNITY' ACTION
65,5&i
52499
Page 2
JUNE
BUDGET
0
2 COO
0
0
0
3 500
0
1,500
0
400
33,120
1,500
0
6,500
0
36,057
0
: 3,425
0
0
5,920
0
1,535
0
0
453,920
23., 7T
246
248,966
714,774
204,645
250,000^
O1
1,336,295
^2 CCO
490,418,
3,645
c!
3!
206,805'
25,000
2^,411'
343,000
0
8,80i
13^,500
î
..,47"
o!
53,006
CD3G
1997 adjusted
199" carry over 1997 re1997
1997
APRIL
1997
plus 1997
phis 1997 re- budget
JL~XE
program ftinds BUDGET
funds
encumbrances balance
carrv over Drowrasi
1997 BUDGET
exnerties
balance
DESCRIPTION
adjustment BUDGET
0
2.ICX
C ',
12,6-i.i
2,. 04
2,10.2,64-i
'.4,748
\VORKCUT LTD
2.10^
0
1-/74S
26398
0
26,398
0
33,S64
26,398
26,398
NEIGHBORHOOD INI GRANT PROG
7,-66
6,~18
0
33,1.6i
0
2546
0
2,5-6
1 5,000
Is.Ci
2,546
2,546
:2 511
CASA
17,546
604
6C4
C
0!
6C4
3C,OCC
25,CCG
24.396
60-i
CARE AND SHARE 0? COLORADO
30,60-^
1
"
'
•'-vXo-»i
0
5520
0!
5,620
2 .,467
5,620
30,490
24,8^0
5.620
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
2 / ,08
/•
18,594
,4,376
IS 59^
l-,3"5
26.50C
32,970
18.594
59,-29
26,759
45,094s
FRANCISCAN FAMILY WELLNESS
1/-9
C
0
I,-, 9!
0
5,490
4,071
1,419
C
HILLSIDE NEIGH ASSOCIATION
°
2 485
01
G
25,889
2,4S5
2,485
24,^74
2,485
26,959
SET INC OF COLO S?GS
28,374
0
C
5,583
10,417
5,583
16,000
5,583
I6,3CO
5,583
21,583
.AMERICAN* RED CROSS
0
0
C
C
9,OCC
0
0
9,000
9.CCC
9,000
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
0
0
IC,OCO
10,000
,G,COC
iO.COC
10 COO
10,GGC
C
20,000
HOUSING AUTHORITY -NUTRITION
583
0
0
",000
6,417
583
583
583
7,OCO
7583
PARTNERS IN HOUSING
2,586
25.XO
0
2,586
0
0
28,250
2,586
3C,836
25,000,
SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM
C
0
C
55,000
0
0
0
0
0
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS
55,000
0
C
0
I9,OCC
0
0
C
C
0
19,OCC
JCHINS UP
C
C
0
33,000
0
0
0
^
0
I N R O A D S DBA TUTMOSE
33,000
0
0
i 0,000
C
0
C
0
0
C
10,000
TEEN COURT
0
3,721
3, 'It
C
5,000
C
:,2~9
3,721
50CC
5,0001
tcnrzEN PARTICPATION
2,5C9
2,556
2,609
0
2,656
5,265
2,656
20,9-19
:5,6S^
2,655!
NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT
C
0
0
8,565
0
0
3
C
C
SUPPORT OF OV.-N
S,565
0
0
3,000
C
C
0
C
SUPPORT O? MESA SPRINGS
. 3,000
0
C
C
0
C
3,250
0
0
0
SUPPORT OF HILLSIDE
3.250
0
C
0
C
0
2,SOC
0
SUPPORT OF IVYVvTLD
2,800
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
25,OCO
25,OCC
COMMUNITY CAPACITY STUDY
0
29.SCO
.5720
29,8CO
.5.72C
45.52C
0
15,720
5&,CCO
1C,-SC
PLANNING/STUDIES
I5,"2C
C
0
0
C
0
0
C
C
C
FAIR HOUSING
25,00
25,000'
2
C
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
25 00
25,000)
HOUSING STUDY
36,367
36,567
0
36,567
0
0
36,567
5C.COO
13,433
DROP IN CENTER DEVELOPMENT
36,00
72,567!
371,747
C
3 . 74 /
371, ^47
C
383,168
371, "4"
C
C
CONTINGENCY
383,158
2,901,761
669,174
960,027
2,610,908
4,102,000
3,570,935
2,901.761
4,154,093
7,725,028
232,905
0 7,236,666
GRAM) TOTAL
es: reprogram
(350,000)
amount
amo'-r.: ava:Aab.e
319,174
for reprograrr.
p.us ur.bjclgetec
funds
;S5.269
p.us acditioiML
0
grant fonds
.otal avai.ab.e
j
for reprograr;
232,905
Page 3
CDBG
11997' 1998 BUDGET RECONCILIATION"
i 1997 3s.ar.ec ?c- G?X &
1LOC
iscoase
*?lus Casr. o-s Hand
TOTAL
3 4S4 S66it"SBLDGETED FINOS
3 :52CCC|
SCO COO 97 Program Iw*
0 97 Es. P'ograa; fccoir.c
7,236,566 Labuc®4ed 199~ CD3G iwds
57^,03: |
560,3CCI
$6.2o9î
j
l
i
j
"
, .99S jLi:r.:err.
! 1997 Carr% over
.997
199"
3,:52,COOi
2901,7$.
669,. 74'
;TOTAI> '998 Funds
7.236 666 5
t
KO\:
1997 HOME PROGRAM YEAR
i 1998 HOME PROGRAM ¥EAR
'
Date Approved.
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES
ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
SEASONAL/TEMP
PLRA
, STATE COM?
EQUITABLE INSURANCE
VISION CARE
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
MEDICARE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SERVICES
SOFTWARE
'POSTAGE
SIGNS
MAINT-MACK2CERY & A??
fMAJNT 3LDGS & STRUC
1997 BUDGET
97 encumbrances
97 expenses
4, 936
4,780
: 8,720
4.2"^
'86
56
4 085
255
599
3 COO
3,000
3,355
200
0
41,936
-780
4,277
442
.86
56
^085
255
599
2.42:
!
97 sdji:sted
balance
97 carryover
0
plus 97
Budget
plus 97
j APRIL BUDGE earn over Adjustment reprograia JUNE BUDGE]
97 reprograrn
C
0
49 2 7
C
.TOVER..SING
TRAVEL OU1 0? 10WN
SU3SCRPTIONS
STXTOWN MEETING EXPENSES
LRENTAL OF PROPERTY
SERVICES
OFFICE MACHINES
COMPUTERS/PRINTERS
RESOENTIAL RErL\3ILITATION
1,468
5,000
::5
"^"T
C
C
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
^855
C
0
0
OJ
0
0
579
1,416
3,333
0
0
3,355
3 79 s
1416
C
3.000
2,500
.,500
0
0
3,355
-.9
0
"19
0
600
3,900
0
0
0
-,000
2 500
'.5400
115
300
:,200
5,600
6.24^1 .200
C
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
1,584
c
952
228.
540
0
0
0
j
REN" AL OF EQUIPMENT
SCHOOLING & REGISTRATION
SCAR MILEAGE
0
29'.
0
865
25
1,200
7,1 64
1 : 244
4,365
6339
3,500
,,964
0
1
82" 82"
0
0
83,507
!
249
0
249
500
. .468
4 '.35
8
275
6C
2,799
^905
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
:,536
0
600 ]
1 468 j
-,135 ;
8 ,
2"5
60 j
2."99 !
-,905 ,
i
: 536 j
15^470
Page I
237977
0
33^ 6CX
7
2^ 9 7
3,900:
2,500""
50
TTJ1
25
5600;
6,500" 0
572 58'.
KO\:
DESCRIPTION
ACQUISITION
HOME3UYERS ASST
TZXAXT BASED RENTAL ASST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASST
CKDO
HOME ADMIN CC
CHDO ADMIN
NEW CONSTRUCTION
TOTALS
1997 BUDGET
i-^s ess
201. .9:
2C4 530
0
389,402
0
85 -95
289233
2,039,134
97 expenses
97 encumbrances
148 055
157 915
102 983
1348
,656
9" 541
095
~T2S
1,665 881
I&T23T
362,529
97 adjusted
balance
9 7 earn o\er
33276
99,999
151,205
479,122
97 reprosram
:.5^-"
2^8 746
C
'.5,7CC
164,233
671,558
plus 97
APRIL BUDGE carr> o\cr
332-"$
99.999
0 *"
0
cj
547
414 35C
191,250
60,200
170,092
Budget
plus 97
Adjustment reproajram v TSE BUDGE1
1,320,000r
2^8,746
0
IS-'OC
64,233
671,558
.8,"7C
0
.33,725
89,635
01 547
548 0"5
548351J
0
224,116
— 2i
75j900|
264233!
2,215,674
-- H
anxrjr.t ava,Iao..: for
reprogram
piUS additional grant flr.cs
tote, for.cs available
125,092
99,024
224,116
!
~1
3COLORADO SPRINGS AIRPORT
Date:
July 28, 1998
To:
James H. Mullen, City Manage
From:
Gary W. Green
Subject:
ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE AIRPORT GROSS INCOME
FUND TOTALING $2,900,000.
Aviation
The attached ordinance is being submitted to establish an appropriation and revenue estimate for phase II
of the rehabilitation of a portion of Taxiway "A" and Connector Taxiways associated with Runway
17R/35L, working from north to south.
Taxiway "A" was the primary access to Runway 17R/35L prior to the move to the new mid-field
terminal. It received a daily pounding with heavy jets and is in serious need of rehabilitation. This
taxiway continues to be a very important element in the taxiway system, primarily servicing corporate
and general aviation at this time.
This project will be funded by AIP grant 3-08-0010-26 from the Federal Aviation Administration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Ordinance
Attachment
C:
David D. Nickerson, CSC Group Support Manager
Colorado Spring? Airport • 7770 Drennan Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916 • TEL 719-550-1900 FAX 719-550-1901
ITEM NO. 2-B-2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-232 (1998
APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE), AND ORDINANCE NO. 97-231
(1998 TAX LEVY ORDINANCE), FOR THE AIRPORT GROSS
INCOME FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,900,000.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS:
Section 1. Ordinance 97-232 and 97-231 are hereby amended by $2,900,000 for the
rehabilitation of a portion of Taxiway "A" and Connector Taxiways associated with Runway
17R/35L.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as provided by the Charter.
Section 3. Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title and summary
prepared by the City Clerk and that this ordinance shall be available for inspection and
acquisition in the office of the City Clerk.
Introduced, read, passed on first reading and ordered published this
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 28, 1998
TO:
James H. Mullen, City Managej
FROM:
Ann Crossey, Employee Servk
RE:
Council Approval to Amend Rules to Civil Service Commission-Rules 8 and
9 For the Purpose of Board of Rights
irector
This item is a request for approval to amend Rules 8, Discharges, Suspensions, Fines
and Reductions in Grade; and 9, Appeals to the Commission for the purpose of
changing the discipline process in Rules 8 and 9 for the Fire Department to mirror those
of the Police Department.
As you are aware, these proposed Rule changes have been in discussion for the past
year. At the May 26 Council meeting, approval was given to make two versions of
Rules 8 and 9 for the Police and Fire Departments. Since that time, the Fire
Department has met with you and their Association and decided that they will not object
to the changes and will bring forward concerns to the Civil Service Commission if they
occur.
At the July 7, 1998 meeting of the Civil Service Commission, Manuela Fadely read a
letter from the Firefighters Association written by Wayne Teeple indicating that they
would not object to the proposed changes. The changes were then approved by the
Civil Service Commission for adoption.
bll
Attachments
ITEM NO. 2-B-3
RULE VIII
DISCHARGES, SUSPENSIONS, REDUCTIONS IN GRADE
8.1
Reasons for Suspension, Discharge, and Reduction in Compensation or
Grade.
(1998) The tenure of every employee in the classified Civil
Service shall be dependent on good behavior and efficient service.
Any employee may be suspended, discharged, reduced in compensation or
reduced in grade for unsatisfactory job performance, harassment,
workplace violence, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, use of
illegal drugs, immoral conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, or
unexcused failure to report for duty. Any employee may also be
suspended, discharged, reduced in compensation or reduced in grade for
violations of the provisions of the Charter, City Ordinances, the
Civil Service Personnel Policies and Procedures, the Rules of the
Police and Fire Departments, or Rules of the Civil Service Commission;
any other failure of good behavior; any other act of misfeasance,
malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office; or any other reasonable and
just cause.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
8.2
Suspensions. (1998) A suspension with or without pay may be imposed
for any reason identified in Rule 8.1. For Police personnel, a
suspension without pay, not to exceed two days, may be imposed by a
Police Captain or Division Director; ten days by a Deputy Chief; or
any suspension exceeding ten days may be imposed by the Police Chief.
For Fire Personnel, a suspension without pay, not to exceed two days
for Fire staff personnel or one shift for Fire line personnel may be
imposed by a Fire Battalion Chief; ten days for Fire staff personnel
or three shifts for Fire line personnel may be imposed by a Fire
Deputy Chief; or any suspensions exceeding ten days for Fire staff
personnel or three shifts for Fire line personnel may be imposed by
the Fire Chief. Unless these rules provide otherwise, notice of any
suspension and the reason therefore shall be conveyed in writing to
the employee concerned, with a copy to the Police/Fire Chief, not less
than two (2) days before the effective date of the suspension. Any
suspension without pay imposed on an exempt employee must be for a
minimum of one full workweek for Police personnel and Fire staff
personnel or three shifts for Fire line personnel.
8.3
Reduction in Rank/Discharge. (1998) A reduction in rank/discharge
may be imposed by the Police/Fire Chief for any reason identified in
Rule 8.1.
8.4
Notification Of Charges. (1998) No employee in the Classified Civil
Service who has been appointed under these rules shall be suspended
more than ten (10) days, discharged or reduced in grade, without
written charges.
7/22/98
VIII-1
A.
A letter stating the specific charges made against the
and the policy which has been violated shall be served
to the employee or shall be sent by registered mail. A
letter shall also be forwarded to the Secretary of the
employee
in person
copy of the
Commission.
B.
The employee shall be allowed three (3) days from the date the
letter is received to respond to the charges in writing to the
Police/Fire Chief, and the employee's answer thereto shall be in
writing and addressed to the Police/Fire Chief. The Police/Fire
Chief or designee may, for good cause, grant an extension to the
time allowed for answering the charges.
5
Appeal Of Suspension, Reduction In Rank, Or Discharge. (1998) An
employee may: 1) accept a suspension, reduction in rank, or
recommendation for discharge; 2) request that a Deputy Chief not in
the employee's chain of command hear the appeal of the action; 3)
request a staff panel consisting of a Deputy Chief and two
Captains/Battalion Chiefs not in the employee's chain of command to
hear the appeal; or 4) request that the Board of Rights/Peer Review
Panel be impaneled to hear the appeal. The make-up of the review
panel shall be consistent with Police/Fire policy. A suspension may
be stayed at the discretion of the Police/Fire Chief pending decision
on appeal.
6
Timetables.
(1998)
A. Not more than ten (10) days after the time limit for answering
charges has expired, all releasable information contained in the
personnel investigation in question shall be made available for
inspection by the affected officer.
B.
Not more than thirty (30) days following release of such
information, an Appeal Hearing of the charges shall be held,
unless for good cause the review panel grants a continuance. Upon
a showing of good cause, each side is entitled to one continuance
which shall not exceed ten (10) days. The employee and/or the
employee's attorney shall be duly notified of the time and place
of such hearing.
C.
The decision of the review panel shall be provided to the
Police/Fire Chief within ten (10) days after the close of the
hearing.
D.
The final decision of the Police/Fire Chief shall be provided to
the employee within ten (10) days of receipt of the review panel's
recommendation. The final decision shall be communicated to the
employee in writing with a copy to the director of employee
services within ten (10) days of the decision.
7/22/98
VIII-2
8.7
Final Decision By The Chief. (1998) The Police/Fire Chief will
review the recommendations of the review panel and issue a finding
either adopting the recommendation, reducing the recommendation or
canceling the recommendation of the review panel. Under no
circumstances may the Police/Fire Chief increase the penalty that is
recommended by the review panel.
8.8
Pre-Termination Meeting. (1998) No employee in the Classified Civil
Service shall be discharged or reduced in grade without being afforded
a pre-termination meeting.
A.
The hearing before a review panel shall constitute a pretermination meeting and shall at a minimum provide for:
•
•
•
•
B.
8.9
advance written notice of the meeting
an explanation of the charges, the evidence supporting the
charges and the proposed action to be taken
an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges and
the evidence
The review panel may conduct further investigation, shall consider
the evidence supporting the charges and shall determine whether to
agree to the original recommendation, recommend a lesser form of
discipline or recommend no discipline at all.
Suspension Or Administrative Leave Prior To Administrative Hearing
Pending Investigation Of Charges. (1998)
A.
The Police/Fire Chief may, at discretion, place an employee on
administrative leave with pay, if such employee is the subject of
an ongoing personnel investigation involving any incident, on or
off duty, which either has resulted in or in the opinion of the
Police/Fire Chief may result in the filing of charges of
misconduct. Unless otherwise specifically stated by the
Police/Fire Chief such leave shall mean leave from duty with pay
but without command or authority.
B.
The Police/Fire Chief may, at discretion, place on administrative
leave with pay any employee who is involved in any incident either
on or off duty, which either has resulted in, or in the opinion of
the Police/Fire Chief is likely to result in an investigation by
law enforcement officers to determine whether criminal charges
should be filed. Such administrative leave shall be in effect
until criminal charges are filed or it is determined by
appropriate law enforcement officials that no criminal charges
shall be filed.
7/22/98
VIII-3
C.
Indictment for any felony or the filing of information for the
same shall be cause for immediate suspension. Such suspension may
be with or without pay at the discretion of the Police/Fire Chief.
Final conviction thereof in the court of original jurisdiction
shall be grounds for discharge. Regardless of the outcome of the
criminal charge, discipline up to and including discharge may
occur. Prior to imposition of any suspension without pay, the
Police/Fire Chief must consult with the Employee Services Director
and the City Attorney's Office.
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
8.10 Conduct of Hearings. (1998) The employee charged, or appealing a
suspension or fine, shall have the right to counsel of the employee's
choice, shall have the right to cross-examine all witnesses, and shall
have the right to call witnesses on the employee's behalf. Any
witness requested on behalf of the employee who is an employee of the
City shall be required by the City Manager to be available to give
testimony at the Hearing. If the employee charged refuses to attend
the Hearing, the Review Panel shall proceed to hear the evidence and a
recommendation to the Police/Fire Chief whereupon the Police/Fire
Chief will render a decision. A full and complete verbatim record
shall be kept of the proceedings before the Review Panel.
8.11 Limitations on Reductions. (1998) No reduction in grade shall be
made as a disciplinary measure, unless the employee to be demoted is
eligible for employment in a lower class; and shall not be made if any
regular employee in the lower class would be laid off by reason of
this action.
8.12 Reports to the Secretary. (1998) The Police/Fire Chief, after
upholding or making any order of suspension, discharge, or reduction
in grade or compensation, shall notify the Secretary of the order
within forty-eight (48) hours from the time of the making thereof.
Within five (5) days from the making thereof, the Police/Fire Chief
shall file with the Secretary a copy of the specifications and
complaint, notice, and the answer or appeal, if any, of the employee.
8.13 Effective Date of Police/Fire Chief's Order. (1998) All orders by
the Police/Fire Chief imposing discipline shall take effect when
served upon the employee or the employee's attorney, with the
exception that any order of discharge shall be stayed pending appeal
to the Commission and shall become effective if no appeal is taken to
the Commission upon the expiration of the period of time for the
appeal. Upon order of discharge, the employee shall be suspended
without pay pending appeal to and disposition by the Commission.
8.14 Credit for Time Suspended. (1998) If the Police/Fire Chief imposes
an order of suspension and the employee has been previously suspended
without pay under these Rules, the employee shall be given credit on
the order of suspension for time previously suspended without pay.
7/22/98
VIII-4
15 Accrual of Benefits During Suspension.
(1998) During any period of
suspension without pay under any of these Rules, the employee's
benefits of life insurance, medical insurance, and credit for
retirement shall remain in full force and effect. The benefits of
sick leave and vacation time shall not accrue during any period of
suspension without pay.
16 Time - Computation. (1998) In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these Rules, the day of the act, event, or
default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall
not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be
included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday; in
which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not
a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. When the period of time
prescribed or allowed is less than seven (7) days, intermediate
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the
computation. A half holiday shall be considered as other days and not
as a holiday. As used in this Rule, legal holiday shall mean all
holidays observed by the City of Colorado Springs.
7/22/98
VIIIB-5
RULE IX
APPEALS TO THE COMMISSION
9.1
Written Application Required. (1998) The Commission shall review
discharges and reductions in grade and compensation of all appointed
personnel, and shall have discretionary review in all matters relating
to suspensions, provided that the person desiring such an appeal makes
application to the Secretary by sworn petition as provided in Section
150 (A) of the City Charter. Such applications shall be filed within
ten (10) days after the order from which the appeal is made, is served
upon the employee or the employee's attorney.
Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary shall notify the
Police/Fire Chief, who shall file with the Commission four (4) copies
of the transcript of all evidence taken on the hearing within fourteen
(14) days from the date of being notified, unless the Commission for
good cause grants a continuance. Such transcripts shall be certified
as true, full, and complete by the Police/Fire Chief, and shall be
considered without being offered or introduced in evidence by any
party to such review.
In the event the Commission declines to review an order of suspension,
the decision of the Police/Fire Chief shall, for the purpose of these
Rules, be considered final.
9.2
Conducting a Hearing. (1998) If a written and verified petition and
application for review, meeting the requirements of Section 9.1 of
this Rule has been filed within the time therein stated, the
Commission shall hold a hearing in accordance with the following
regulations:
A.
The Hearing shall be held within twenty (20) days after filing of
the transcript, unless the Commission for good cause grants a
continuance.
B.
The Commission shall notify in writing both the employee and the
Police/Fire Chief of the time and place of the Hearing. Service
of notice on the employee shall be in person or by registered
mail.
C.
The time set for such Hearing shall not be less than five (5) days
after the serving or mailing of such notice.
D.
The employee shall have the right to counsel of the employee's
choice, shall have the right to cross-examine all witnesses, and
shall have the right to call witnesses on their own behalf. Any
witness requested on behalf of the employee, who is an employee of
the City, shall be required by the Commission to be available to
give testimony at the Hearing. If the employee appealing refuses
to attend the Hearing, the Commission shall proceed to hear the
evidence and make decision thereon. A full and complete verbatim
record shall be kept of the proceedings before the Commission.
7/22/98
IX-1
E.
Upon consideration of the evidence and a review of the employee's
service record, the Commission may then order:
(1) The reinstatement of the employee;
(2) Confirmation of the Police/Fire Chief's decision;
(3) Such action as it may deem appropriate, except that the
Commission cannot increase the suspension of a Department
Head.
F.
The Commission shall promptly and, in no event later than seventytwo (72) hours, file a written statement of its findings with the
Police/Fire Chief, which statement shall be served upon the
employee or the employee's attorney. The Police/Fire Chief shall
promptly effectuate the decision of the Commission. The
specifications and complaint, all written documents which may have
been considered by the Commission, a written verbatim transcript
of the Commission hearing, and the findings and the conclusions of
the Commission shall be filed within thirty (30) days in the
office of the City Clerk, and shall be public record.
G.
If the Commission upholds an order of suspension without pay, and
the employee has been previously suspended without pay under these
Rules, the employee shall be given credit on the order of
suspension for time previously suspended without pay.
9.3
Other Hearings. Hearings on matters involved in the administration
and enforcement of the Charter provisions, City Ordinances, and these
Rules, not involving disciplinary action, may be held at the
Commission's discretion, upon receipt in writing within ten (10) days
after the effective date of such action of a request for such hearing,
in which is set forth the point at issue and the reason for the
request.
9.4
Power to Administer Oaths, Subpoenas, and Demand Production of
Records. In the course of any hearings, investigations, or tests of
fitness conducted under the provisions of these Rules and Regulations,
the Commission shall have the power to administer oaths, to subpoena,
to require the attendance of witnesses, and the production by them of
books and papers pertinent to any matter of inquiry, and to examine
such witnesses under oath, in relation to any matters properly
involved in such proceedings.
9.5
Decision of Commission Final. The decision of the Commission, in all
matters presented to them for hearing shall be final; subject however,
to any right of review under any law of the State of Colorado or of
the United States. The decision of the Commission shall not be stayed
pending review in the Courts.
9.6
Time - Computation. Computation of time for the purposes of this Rule
shall be in accordance with Paragraph 8.15.
7/22/98
IX-2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS RELATING TO
23.46 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF RAMTRON
DRIVE AND VOYAGER PARKWAY
BE IT ORDAINED
COLORADO SPRINGS:
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Section 1. The zoning map of the City of Colorado Springs is hereby
amended by rezoning the real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and made a part hereof by reference, from R-1-6000/CR, PIP-1, PIP-1/CR & OC
(Single Family Residential with conditions of record, Planned Industrial Park,
Planned Industrial Park with conditions of record and Office Complex) to PIP-1
(Planned Industrial Park), pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Colorado Springs.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication as provided by Charter.
Section 3. Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published
by title and summary prepared by the City Clerk and that this ordinance shall be
available for inspection and acquisition in the Office of the City Clerk.
Introduced, read, passed on first reading
this
day of
and ordered published
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPCP 98-00134
ITEM NO. 2-B-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIVISION
DATE REC'D
NO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FORM
CHECKED (FOR LOC. & CONFIG.).
STAFF
~
BLACK SQUIRREL OFFICE PARK
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SCT.ON ™7. TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RANGE.66 WEST OF
THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. BEING MONUMENTED
AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER BY A NO. 6 REBAR
WIT*n^/r
ALUMWUM SURVEYORS CAP STAMPED "0.6.
& C O P L S 22573" AND AT THE NORTHEAST SECTION
CORNER BY A 9" X 9" X U" SANDSTONE WITH NAIL
AND DISK ON TOP. IS ASSUMED TO BEAR S89-50 42 E.
A DISTANCE OF 2523.93 FEET.
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
?H"ENC?NONNN?HE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID VOYAGER PARKWAY.
THE FOLLOWING THREE (3)
COURSES:
DISTANCE OF 286.30 FEET TO * POINT OF
A DISTANCE OF 327.22 FEET TO A POINT ON CURVE:
THENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RAMTRON DRIVE. AS
SATTCD IN SAID NORTHGATE FILING NO. 3. THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES;
i
4
100.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE.
POINT ON CURVE:
THENCE N65-05-54-E. ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
SE^^^^^
TO A POINTr OF CURVE.
THENCE SOS-OO'07-W. A DISTANCE OF 102.95 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE.
rF O N H A
OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A DELTA OF
r-«Ar ONE Of SA.O VOYAGER PARKWAY THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
r. A
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 23.461 ACRES.
CPC Minutes 06/04/98
Page 34
23. - CPC PUD 98-00040 - Zone Change
It was moved by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to approve a change
of zone classification from PUD (Planned Unit Development - multi-family residential) to PUD/CR
(PlanneoxUnit Development with conditions of record - townhome/condominium residential, 22'
maximum building height, and detached single-family, 30* maximum building height with an
overall density of 8.2 du/ac) consisting of 1.85 acres located between Monument Street and Dale
Street, northwest of Cooper Avenue and approximately 1 block west of N. Walnut Street with the
following condition:
1. Prior to occupancy of the townhome/condominium units, individual lots or airspace shall be
created for each of the units.
Prior to scheduling this item for City Council consideration, the following revisions/corrections
shall be made to the PUD concept/sketch plan:
1. Label the plan as the "PUD concept/sketch plan".
2. Show on the plan the 6 individual units/lots within the existing block building, with
dimensions.
3. Provide graphically on the plan a "typical" Jot layout for lots 2-6.
4. Show the area of all lots.
5. Label the sidewalk along Dale Street.
6. Show a fence between the multifamily and lots 8-10.
7. Show the landscape trees or note the appropriate standard which is 1:15' between lots 8-10
and the multifamily.
\
8. Show one new deciduous tree per lot in the area between the Dale Street curb line and the
sidewalk for lots 2-6.
9. Accurately locate the existing trees on the development plan and provide the caliper size of
all existing trees over 8" in diameter on the plan.
10. Place a note on the plan which states, "the existing trees, if in a healthy condition, shall be
preserved to retain the open mature character of the area."
11. Within the development tabl* for lots 2 thru 6, the fourth line should read," 15' minimum
front; all garages to be behind the front of the dwelling with a minimum 25' setback".
12. The northerly 5* should be noted as ROW and not a ROW easement.
Commissioner Bowers stated that this is a dynamite project. The fact that they can save the existing
building and that the garages will be to the rear of the homes makes it a wonderful infill project.
Commissioner Hudson seconded her comments and finds it particularly gratifying to support a project in
which staff played a proactive role that had a positive result.
Commissioner Gruen pointed out that this is the 3rd request today, none of which have been particularly
easy, where the planning staff has received accolades from the applicants. Mr. Peitz, City Planning,
stated/they appreciate that because it's certainly encouraging.
Themotion passed 7-0. (Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were absent.)
ITEM 24.
CPC P 98-00134 - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6200000357
Request by NES, Inc. on behalf of Picolan, Inc. for approval of a change of zone classification from R-16000/CR, PIP-1, PIP-1/CR & OC (Single Family Residential with conditions of record, Planned Industrial
Park, Planned Industrial Park with conditions of record and Office Complex) to PIP-1 (Planned Industrial
Park) consisting of 42.19 acres located southeast of Ramtron Drive and Voyager Parkway.
Page 35
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated this request is in the Northgate area. Presently, access into that area is
from Jet Stream Drive at Highway 83. The subject property extends south to Black Squirrel Creek. He
pointed out the various property ownerships that surround the site. The arrows on the master plan are
illustrative to show potential future accesses into the Leach property. The zoning request is for PIP-1,
which is consistent with the approved master plan. Condition #3. asks that the concept plan show the
common boundary line between the subject property and the Leach property, so they can be assured that
the street won't be shifted too far north where it doesn't line up with the Leach access and create an offset
problem. Condition #5. asks that the area south of the industrial collector street be deleted from the plan
at this time. The Black Squirrel Creek runs through that area and has been recently adopted into the
City's Open Space Plan as a potential candidate for open space. The Northgate Master Plan shows it as
open space and should flow in a natural manner. Also, drainage is to flow through this area in a natural
manner that fortunately coincides with the Open Space Plan. Staff recommends that portion be deleted
on this plan because the applicant prefers not to define where that edge would be between whafs needed
for the creek protection versus what's appropriate for development. The plan shows the future lotting
pattern and implies that it is established. It also shows building setback lines. Staff feels uncomfortable
that if they approve the concept plan with those lines, they have essentially tied down the location of
where that's going to be. In order for the creek to flow in a natural manner, it may need to meander into
some of these anticipated buildable areas. As yet, they don't have the drainage information or vegetation
analysis to really determine that. Staff is willing to approve the plan with the deletion and include it at a
later time when the applicant addresses that issue to determine where the prudent line should be located.
Concept plans tend to lock things in, so staff would prefer eliminating that portion of the property until they
have done the study. A grading plan was submitted to City Engineering several months ago showing this
area to be overlot graded. The purpose of that plan was to sell the sand material to Colorado Silica. Staff
interpreted that to be a mining activity and is not appropriate under the existing zoning. In addition, staff
feels it's inappropriate at this time to remove the natural features through a grading plan when they're not
sure what is going to happen on the property. The trees should be recognized and identified as stipulated
in conditions 7. & 8. Staff understands that the property will eventually be developed, but they would hate
to lose the significant features at this early stage when it can be more appropriately addressed at the
development plan level. Staff recommends the following:
Item 24. - CPC P 98-00134 - Zone Change
Approve the zone change to PIP-1 for the area north of the unnamed collector street Prior to scheduling
the request before City Council, a revised legal description shall be submitted for the area north of the
collector street. Submit 10 copies of the concept plan with the following modifications:
1. Show the City file number of CPC P 98-00134 in the lower right-hand corner.
2. Show a street name as approved by the Police Department for the collector street
3. Show the property lines of the Leach Ranch adjacent to Voyager Parkway and across from this
parcel. If necessary, locate the collector street so that its north right-of-way line aligns with the
adjacent east/west property line of the Leach Ranch.
4. Specify the phasing for the completion of the west half of Voyager Parkway as approved by Traffic
Engineering.
5. Delete the area south of the collector street.
6. Revise the legal description by deleting the area south of the collector street
7. Show and identify the type, caliper and location of the existing trees (scrub oak and ponderosa pine).
8. Note that grading activities performed prior to the approval of a development plan(s) shall not include
removal of the existing trees, unless approved by City Planning.
Commissioner Ruggiero asked if they won't be compromising the integrity of the perpendicular intersection
if they adjust the access to the subject property in order to accommodate access to the Leach property?
Mr. Tuck replied that they strive for perpendicular intersections, especially on major arterials such as
Voyager Parkway. That1 s something they have to address further and may have to shift it a little south.
Commissioner Ruggiero stated his concern is that there's a curve immediately south on Voyager Parkway
and he's wondering if it wouldn't be better for the Leach property to gain access from the north. Mr. Tuck
replied it's possible and staff is willing to discuss it with the applicant and Mr. Leach.
Page 36
Speaking for
John Maynard, NES representing Picolan, stated there are at least four zones on this property that
may have resulted with previous actions. The request today is to correct that and bring the entire
property under one zoning. Currently, they're in the process of requesting a grading permit for the
northern portion of the property and in order to do that they need an approved concept plan. They
disagree with the following conditions: Condition #3 requires them to show the property line of the
adjacent property owner and design a road that suits that owner's needs. They feel that's bad policy
because that property is ranch land with no master plan, ifs in the county and is zoned agricultural.
In essence, condition #3 requires them to plan and design their neighbor's property to include
designing a road for him, which is unacceptable. A simple solution would be to defer that issue until
the final development plan when they'll have to provide the associated engineering on their side of
the road. That will give them and the Leachs time to work on the road. Regarding condition #5, they
will agree to delete the area south of the collector road from this zoning application and address it at
the development plan stage. Regarding the trees in condition 8. Ifs not possible to meet the City's
grading standards for roads without removing the trees. They have agreed to relocate them to
another part of the property along Voyager Parkway. Condition 8 can be rewritten to read, "Mature
trees will be relocated."
Commissioner Baruth asked if they have a better proposal for condition #5? Mr. Maynard replied that it
can be handled at the development plan stage, but if the Commission wishes to leave it zoned OC (Office
Complex), that's acceptable.
Commissioner Esmiol stated there have been problems with addressing access to the Leach property in
the past. He asked what wording would be acceptable to them so that Mr. Leach would be assured that
he will have proper alignment for a future access? Mr. Maynard replied that the simplest solution would be
to have a plan for that property, then everyone will know what they're dealing with on both sides of the
road. If that property is to be developed in an urban density, then maybe a collector street wouldn't be
appropriate, but rather make it a minor/major arterial. However, they don't know how that property will
develop out, so currently they're talking about a ranch access opposite a proposed collector street that
could possibly work with a minor offset.
Opposed:
Richard Leach, property owner west of proposed development, gave a brief history of the problems
they've incurred with new development surrounding their property. The major concerns he cited
were having access to Voyager Parkway at the northern most corner of his property and drainage.
Currently, they have access at the southeast corner, which will eventually be moved. They also have
access to the north through the Northgate property, and a possible future access to the south, which
they still have to negotiate with that owner. They're willing to cooperate with the applicant in
negotiating access to his property.
Commissioner Esmiol noted that the contour map shows a deep depression on both sides of Voyager
Parkway. Mr. Leach replied that it gets steeper going further south. Commissioner Esmiol noted the
applicant has stated they would like plans showing where the Leachs propose to have their entrance. The
USGS Monument sounds like a logical placement for entrance to his property. Mr. Leach stated he would
like to negotiate that with the owners.
Commissioner Baruth noted that the entrance Mr. Leach is proposing would have to cross over a small
portion of the Northgate property. He doesn't believe this Commission can approve an access for Mr.
Leach through someone else's property
Walter Lawson stated his objections relate to the liabilities that accompany the application. He
doesn't believe this proposal meets Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.3 where community benefits
outweigh any potential adverse impact. The liability is to the entire community. The Fire Department
has agreed that fire response times are inadequate for fires and emergency medical service. There
is no fire station in the area and no money to provide one
Page 37
Commissioner Esmiol pointed out that there's an annexation agreement with another property owner to
provide a site for a fire station. Mr. Lawson replied he's aware of that, but it isn't in place yet. He cited
statistics in which brain damage occurs. In summary, he asked that this zoning not be granted until the
funding mechanism for a fire station and staff is worked out. Commissioner Esmiol stated this is a zone
change and not a development plan, which is at least 6 months to a year ahead of any construction or
occupation of buildings. He asked if Mr. Lawson is recommending that they stop development because
they don't have a manned fire station? Mr. Lawson replied no He's just asking that a funding mechanism
be created before any further approvals occur. Currently, they don't have the ladder trucks to reach the
taller buildings in the area. Commissioner Esmiol emphasized if they're to stop development because of
this or do they make plans to get the infrastructure on line for when it is needed. Those things are needed
today, but not a badly as they will be in the future. Mr. Lawson stated that if the Commissioner is the
person suffering the injury or if it was his property on fire, he'd probably have a different attitude.
Commissioner Esmiol replied that the statistics he cited don't impress him one bit. Mr. Lawson reiterated
that the issue is still significant liability to the City if the plan is approved.
Commissioner Ruggiero agreed with Commissioner Esmioi with regard to the numbers. Everyone is
aware that brain death can occur within a specified time, but there's a certain amount of risk in everything
they do. This developer and employers in that area are aware of the facts and there's no guarantee that
even if you're next to a fire station that the engines won't be gone when you need help. Mr. Lawson asked
why they should create added liability? Commissioner Ruggiero stated Mr. Lawson has stretched the
point beyond credibility and would like to move on.
Commissioner Esmiol reiterated that they need to create a good plan rather than stop development. Mr.
Lawson stated his point is that they need to create a funding mechanism for this area.
Commissioner Ruggiero stated that unfortunately Mr. Lawson wasn't present at the last month's Planning
Commission meeting when they had an extensive discussion with the Fire Department. They addressed
that issue very specifically and staff is taking proposals to City Council to look at the funding mechanisms.
They're not ignorant of the issue, nor do they choose to be oblivious to it
Commissioner Gruen cited Comprehensive Plan Policy 14.1.1 which states, "The level of municipal
services necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare need not be the same throughout the
City."
Rebuttal:
John Maynard stated they have agreed to give the Leach ranch the ability to have access to Voyager
Parkway. They agree to meet with staff and Mr. Leach to negotiate placement of that access.
Platting the property will identify the specific location of the road, but it's only a conceptual location at
this point.
Filippo Pola, owner Northgate property, stated that the Leach property currently has access to the
north through his property, which is not a problem. It was never their intention to landlock Mr.
Leach's property and will negotiate an access with him to Voyager Parkway at the platting stage. Mr.
Leach has indicated to him that he has no immediate plans for developing his ranch. Their intention
is to transplant existing trees in addition to enhancing the landscaping far beyond City standards. It
also makes for good marketing strategy for those large corporations that will be attracted to their
property.
Commissioner Gruen asked staff from City Traffic to -set up a meeting between staff, Mr. Pola and Mr
Leach and report back to the Commission at next month's informal meeting. Larry Lane agreed.
Dave Lethbridge, City Engineering, clarified that condition #5 was added for the benefit of City Engineering
because initially they required a drainage report. They agreed that if the applicant deleted the lots south of
the collector street, they would not require the drainage study and could avoid the issues dealing with the
channel improvements, dedications, nghts-of-way, etc. Staff would like that condition to remain as written.
Page 38
It was moved by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Esmiol to approve a change
of zone classification from R-1-6000/CR, PIP-1, PIP-1/CR & OC (Single Family Residential with
conditions of record, Planned Industrial Park, Planned Industrial Park with conditions of record
and Office Complex) to PIP-1 (Planned Industrial Park) for the area north of the unnamed collector
street consisting of 42.19 acres located southeast of Ramtron Drive and Voyager Parkway. Submit
10 copies of the concept plan with the following modifications:
2. Show a street name as approved by the Police Department for the collector street.
3. Insure there is access to the Leach property from Voyager Parkway.
4. Specify the phasing for the completion of the west half of Voyager Parkway as approved by
Traffic Engineering.
6. Revise the legal description by deleting the area south of the collector street.
7. Show and identify the type, caliper and location of the existing trees (scrub oak and
ponderosa pine).
8. Relocate existing mature trees.
Prior to scheduling the request before City Council, a revised legal description shall be submitted
for the area north of the collector street.
The motion passed 7-0. (Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were absent.)
25.WAS POSTPONED.
ITEM 26.
^\
CPC DP 98-00059 - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6310111017
Request by NES, Inc. on behalf of^Wje Midland Group for approval of a development plan for Woodmen
Plaza in a PBC (Commercial) zone consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast of Woodmen Road and
Lexington Drive.
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated this property was zoned C-6/P in the 1980s that required a development
plan, which is before the Commission today. There are several ownerships on this property. He oriented
the property in relation to the surrounding {arid uses. This^roposal is for a King Soopers Grocery Store
and Long's Drugs. Staff has approved 2 retaining walls with a 3rd one to come when the final grading is
approved. There will be 3 accesses Jrt'to the center with a right-ih/qght-out off of Woodmen Road and full
accesses with traffic signals on Lexington and Rangewood. Staff an< the applicant have negotiated with
the neighborhood on such things as landscaping and sound wall along Lexington Drive. The applicant has
agreed to build that wall and they're looking to be reimbursed through some type of financing. Staff
recommends the following:
Item 26. - CPC DP 98-00059 - Development Plan
Approve the development plan. Submit 10 copies of the plan with the following revisions:
1. Provide building elevations of the King Soopers, Longs Drugs and the inline stores showing building
materials and colors, building heights and wall signage.
2. Provide a typical detail of the opaque screen to be used for the enclosures for the trash facilities and
compactors. The wall material shall match the building wall material.
3. Remove the notes regarding the partial approval of the development plan ("clouded" areas and
accompanying notes).
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 231
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM NO: 24.
STAFF: Steve Tuck
FILE NO: CPC P 98-00134 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Black Squirrel Office Park in Northgate
APPLICANT:
N.E.S. Inc.
OWNER:
Picolan Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The zone change and accompanying concept plan propose rezoning 42.2 acres to PIP-1 to allow a 9 lot
development (FIGURE 1).
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the zone change to PIP-1 for the area north of the unnamed collector street. Prior to scheduling
2
Show a street name as approved by the Police Department for the collector street.
Engineering.
SUMMARY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
The zone change is consistent with the intent of the Northgate Master Plan, however issues regarding
existing mature vegetation, and the relationship of the proposed lotting pattern to Black Squirrel Creek
located along the southerly property lines have yet to be resolved. Conditions have been recommended
which address these issues and will allow the majority of the property to be rezoned to PIP-1 (22.4 acres).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policy 5.1.3 - Grant zoning changes only when it can be demonstrated that rezoning will result in a
community or neighborhood benefit which will outweigh any potential adverse impact upon surrounding
properties. Conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City plans may
be used as a basis for demonstrating community or neighborhood benefit.
Goal 91 - Preserve and enhance dramageways as amenities to the City by incorporating a
comprehensive system of detention ponds in conjunction with "soft linings" or natural drainageways as the
preferred method of treatment whenever possible.
Goal 9.2 - Preserve, enhance and promote the significant features of the City's natural environment.
Policy 9.2.1 -In areas where both controlled development and preservation are possible, retain significant
nature features in private ownership and protect them as part of a development plan review. Land
suitability studies shall be required prior to the approval of development in these areas.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 232
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 233
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - OC, R-1 6000/cr, PIP-1, PIP-1/cr, A/vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PUD, PIP-1/cr/attached residential (Liberty Heights),
office/light industrial (Ramtron)
South - OC/vacant
East - PIP-1/cr/vacant
West - A, County/vacant
Annexation - 1985, Northgate Annexations No. 2 & 3.
Zoning - PC. R-1 6000/cr, PIP-1, PIP-1/cr, A
Subdivision - Not platted.
Zoning Enforcement Action - None.
Physical Characteristics - The site is primarily vegetated with native grasses, however a stand of mature
ponderosa pine and scrub oak are located in the northeasterly portion of the site. The site slopes down
from the north to the south to Black Squirrel Creek, which is adjacent to the southerly property line. The
southerly portion of the site contains slopes of 4 to 8%, while slopes up to 20% are located in the vicinity
of the ponderosa pine.
Master Plan - Northgate, Office - Industrial Park/Research & Development.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
Item 23. - CPC PUD 98-00040 - Zone Change
City Engineering - This item will be postponed and will not be heard at the April meeting. In the meantime
before the item is scheduled again we will need to have drainage information presented in the form of a
Preliminary Drainage Plan to address the site drainage in a conceptual manner. This information needs to
be provided in time to allow us to review it concurrently with the revised concept plan. Of particular interest
will be the proximity of the south boundary of the site to the Black Squirrel Creek drainage way and the
proposed channel treatments to allow the development so close to the channel. The plan must conform to
the recommended channel types per the Black Squirrel Creek DBPS. Trail and open spaces will need to
be examined.
Traffic Engineering - Prior to approval, access to the Leach property on Voyager Parkway shall be
established. Submit plans and profiles for Voyager Parkway.
Electric - Standard comments.
Gas - Request approved.
Water/Wastewater - Standard comments 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 15.
Police - No objections.
Fire - Zone change acceptable.
Parks - No comment.
City Trails Team - No comments received.
Regional Building - in order to establish meaningful enumeration, the interior streets need to be named.
School District No. 20 - No comments received.
U.S. Air Force Academy - The Academy supports the change of use. It would be helpful for Picolan to
acknowledge that this parcel will be overflown by the Academy. This area is located under one of the
Academy's main flight corridors. Future residents can expect approximately 20 to 30 overflights per hour
each weekday (Liberty Heights is used as a visual reference by the Academy's pilots).
PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURE 2
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES:
The requested zoning to PIP-1 is consistent with the Northgate Master Plan designation of Office Industrial Park/Research & Development. The issues associated with the request relate to the concept
plan, and are regarding the location of the street intersection onto Voyager Parkway, and natural features
either on, or adjacent to the site.
The location of intersecting streets onto Voyager Parkway has been a concern of the property owner,
(Richard Leach) who owns the land that is located along the west side of Voyager Parkway (FIGURE 3).
He has indicated where he believes is the most appropriate location for access into the Leach Ranch from
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 234
Voyager Parkway (FIGURE 4). The initial concept plan proposed by the applicant showed an intersection
of the project's collector street and Voyager Parkway at a location that Mr. Leach believed would create a
conflict with a future access into his property. As a result, the applicant revised the concept plan to
accommodate Mr. Leach's concerns. A condition (#3) has been recommended by staff to confirm the
collector street does indeed align with the location preferred by Mr. Leach.
In the northeasterly portion of the site is a stand of large, mature ponderosa pine. Scattered among and
near the pines are stands of scrub oak. This vegetation is a significant, natural feature of the site, and
worthy of protection and incorporation into the eventual designs for the individual lots. Staff recommends
the trees be identified on the concept plan, and language added to the plan that would provide some
measure of protection for the trees (conditions #7 & 8). Then, at the development plan stage, when
specific designs are proposed for the lots, it could be determined which, if any, of the trees would be
appropriate for removal. This condition is particularly important because the applicant has indicated that
the site is being considered for grading prior to the approval of a development plan. The intent is to sell the
material (silica sand). The initial concept plan proposed grading in the area where the majority of the trees
are located. Without the limitations suggested for the concept plan, it is possible that a grading plan could
be approved prior to the review of the development plan(s), and the vegetation removed.
Along the south property line is Black Squirrel Creek. Black Squirrel Creek is identified in the recently
adopted "Colorado Springs Open Space Plan" as a Candidate Open Space Area. Specifically, the plan
considers the creek important because of its riparian features. The La Foret Trail, a join City-County
venture is also planned to cross this portion of the creek. Additionally, the drainage basin planning study
for the creek assumes a more natural treatment. The applicant has revised the plan from the initial
submittal to show the lots that are adjacent to the creek as "future development", with a note stating
"lotting pattern and internal circulation will be reviewed in conjunction with the review of drainage and open
space issues". However, building envelopes are still shown in what may be areas that are required for
drainage and/or open space purposes. To avoid confusion, staff recommends that the southerly lots be
excluded from this request, until such time as these issues are addressed.
Colorado Springs Utilities
Interoffice Memorandum
It's how we're all connected
Date:
July 29, 1998
To:
Members of City Council
From:
Phillip H. Tollefson, P.E., Executive Director
Subject:
Reimbursement Resolution - 1998A Utilities Revenue Bonds
V
The 1998 Utilities Budget assumed that we would be issuing about $105 million in
revenue bonds during 1998 to partially finance a variety of major capital expenditures in
all major operating and support departments. Since we have already completed a
subsidized loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
which will be used to finance the Wastewater Digester Expansion Project, we now
estimate that the new money issue in 1998 will total about $95.5 million. We did exhaust
the remaining 1997A bond proceeds in mid June As has been our practice over the last
several years, we expect to time the issuance of the 1998 bonds for around midSeptember; we will use our existing fund balances to temporarily fund capital outlays
through the summer as we assess market conditions and prepare the necessary disclosure
documents and the bond ordinance.
In order that we may use the proceeds of the 1998 A bond issue to fund the applicable
capital outlays that occur throughout the summer, it is necessary that Council authorize us
to reimburse these past capital outlays from bond proceeds, upon issuance of the 1998
revenue bonds. The attached Resolution declares Council's intent to undertake such
reimbursements. I request Council's approval of this Reimbursement Resolution.
c:
CSU Directors
RitaGarza
Greg Johnson
Pat Kelly
Ann Nichols
ITEM NO. 5
STATE OF COLORADO
)
)
COUNTY OF EL PASO
) SS.
)
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS )
The City Council of the City of Colorado Springs, El Paso County,
Colorado met in public, regular session in full conformity with law and the ordinances and
rules of the City Council at the City Administration Building, 30 South Nevada Avenue in
the City, on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. Upon roll call the following were
found to be present, constituting a quorum:
Present:
Mayor:
Vice-Mayor:
Other Council Members:
Mary Lou Makepeace
Leon Young
Lisa Are
Linda Barley
William F. Guman
Dawson Hubert
James A. Null
Randall W. B. Purvis
Lionel Rivera
Absent
constituting all the members thereof.
There were also present:
Utilities Executive Director:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
City Clerk:
Phillip H. Tollefson
James H. Mullen
Patricia K. Kelly
Kathryn M. Young
The following resolution was introduced:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF
THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO TO
REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
BONDS
TO
BE
ISSUED
TO
FINANCE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE UTILITIES SYSTEM OF
THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City of Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado (the
"City") is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Colorado and in particular under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the
State of Colorado and the City's Charter (the "Charter"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6-20 of the Charter, the term "Utility"
includes the acquisition, construction, operation or maintenance by the City of water
systems, wastewater systems, electric light and power systems, gas systems and such other
systems designated by Council which are necessary for and owned by the citizens of the
City (collectively, the "System"), and the City now owns and operates the System; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized pursuant to Section 7-80 of the Charter
to issue bonds to finance projects for the System payable solely out of the net revenues
derived from the operation of the System; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to acquire, construct, equip and improve
certain facilities for the System, including without limitation, facilities for the Southwest
Service Center Project, the Southwest Water Project, the Fire Flow Project and the
Monument Interceptor Project, various other capital projects for the water system, electric
light and power system, gas system, wastewater system and other functionally related and
subordinate facilities (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain capital expenditures relating
to the Project prior to issuing Utilities System Revenue Bonds of the City (the "Revenue
Bonds") for the Project, and the City reasonably intends to reimburse itself for such prior
capital expenditures with proceeds of the Revenue Bonds; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to constitute the City's declaration
of "official intent" to reimburse itself for such prior capital expenditures within the
meaning of Section 1.150-2 of the regulations promulgated under Section 103 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO:
-2-
Section 1.
In order to permit the City to reimburse itself for prior
capital expenditures relating to the Project from the proceeds of the Revenue Bonds, the
interest on which will be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the
City Council hereby determines and declares that:
(a)
The City intends to incur capital expenditures with respect
to the Project prior to the issuance of the Revenue Bonds and reasonably expects to
reimburse those expenditures from the proceeds of the issuance of the Revenue Bonds;
(b)
The Project consists of the acquisition, construction,
equipping and improvement of facilities for the System, including, without limitation, the
Southwest Service Center Project, the Southwest Water Project, the Fire Flow Project
and the Monument Interceptor Project, various other capital projects for the water
system, electric light and power system, gas system, wastewater system and other
functionally related and subordinate facilities; and
(c)
The maximum principal amount of the Revenue Bonds
expected to be issued to finance the Project is $95,500,000.
Section 2.
The City Council hereby determines that it will authorize
and issue the Revenue Bonds, upon terms satisfactory to the City at the time of the
issuance of the Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, to pay the cost of the Project,
together with the costs incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of the Revenue
Bonds, and will take all further action which is necessary or desirable in connection
therewith.
Section 3.
This Resolution shall be available in the records of the City
Clerk at the City Administration Building for inspection by the general public from the
date of adoption.
Section 4.
The officers of the City be, and they hereby are, authorized
and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this
Resolution.
Section 5.
All resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revive any resolution or part of any resolution heretofore repealed.
Section 6.
If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this
Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall in no way affect any
remaining provisions of this Resolution.
Section 7.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and adoption by the City Council.
-3-
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
1998.
Mayor
(SEAL)
Attest:
City Clerk
-4-
day of
It was thereupon moved that the resolution be now finally passed and
adopted. The motion was seconded. The question being upon the adoption of said
motion, the roll was called with the following result:
Those Voting Aye:
Mary Lou Makepeace
Leon Young
Lisa Are
Linda Barley
William F. Guman
Dawson Hubert
James A. Null
Randall W. B. Purvis
Lionel Rivera
Those Voting No:
Those Absent:
The presiding officer thereupon declared that there having been an
affirmative vote of at least five members of the Council, the resolution was duly passed
and adopted pursuant to the Charter.
Mayor
(SEAL)
Attest:
City Clerk
-5-
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EL PASO
)
)
) SS.
)
)
I, Kathryn M. Young, City Clerk of the City of Colorado Springs,
Colorado (the "City"), do hereby certify:
(1)
The foregoing pages numbered -1- through -5-, excerpts from the
minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City (the "Council") held on
August 11, 1998 at the City Administration Building, 30 South Nevada Avenue in the
City, being the regular meeting place of the Council, constitute a true, correct, complete
and compared copy of the proceedings of the Council insofar as such minutes relate to the
resolution contained therein.
(2)
The copy of the resolution contained in those minutes is a true,
correct, complete and compared copy of the original of the resolution introduced and
adopted at the meeting.
(3)
The original of the resolution has been signed and authenticated by
the signature of the Mayor and signed and attested with my signature as City Clerk, and
sealed with the corporate seal of the City, and has been recorded in the required books of
the City kept in my office, which record has been duly signed by such officers and sealed
with the seal of the City.
(4)
The Mayor and
other members of the Council
were present at such meeting and the members of the Council voted on the passage of the
resolution as in such minutes set forth.
(5)
All members of the Council were given due and proper notice of
the meeting.
(6)
I was in attendance at the meeting, and the foregoing proceedings
were in fact held as in such minutes stated, as officially of record in my possession.
(7)
No other proceedings were adopted nor was any other action taken
or considered at such meeting pertaining to the resolution or the bonds referred to therein.
City on this
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the
, 1998.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
Interoffice Memorandum
Colorado Springs Utilities
It's how we're all connected
DATE:
July 23, 1998
TO:
PhilliiT/H. ToJIefson, Executive Director
FROM:
SUBJECT: I
Johnson, General Counsel
ust 11, 1998 Formal Council Meeting
Attached is a proposed ordinance which I request you place on the Formal
Agenda for City Council for August 11, 1998. This ordinance is a follow-up to
Resolution 9-98 adopted by the City Council in January of this year. Specifically,
in that Resolution, City Council directed that Utilities staff prepare a draft
ordinance incorporating the assets of income producing facilities related to valueadded products and services as part of CSU's "System" to which the lien and
pledge of CSU's outstanding revenue bonds apply. Adopting this ordinance will
assure that the income derived from value-added products and services are
available for debt service on Utilities' outstanding bonds. The ordinance also
reaffirms the authorization for CSU to provide value-added products and
services.
lee
c:
Bruce Swain
Pat Kelly
Ann Nichols
Kurt Kaufman
ITEM NO. 6
APPROVED/Date^
Atty:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PROVISION OF VALUE-ADDED
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND DECLARING COLORADO SPRINGS
UTILITIES' ASSETS OR INCOME FROM VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES ACTIVITIES BE PART OF THE UTILITIES SYSTEM THEREBY
SUBJECTING SUCH ASSETS OR INCOME TO LIEN AND PLEDGE
PROVIDED IN ORDINANCES FOR COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES'
OUTSTANDING AND HEREAFTER ISSUED REVENUE BONDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 9-98, City Council authorized Colorado
Springs Utilities to develop and provide value-added products and services necessary
for CSU to operate as a full service utility and directed that an ordinance be prepared to
incorporate value-added products and services as part of the system to which the lien
and pledge of the City of Colorado Springs Utilities' revenue bond ordinances applies.
WHEREAS, the City of Colorado Springs has the power, within or without the
territorial limits of Colorado Springs, to purchase, acquire, maintain, conduct and
operate public utilities, in whole or in part, and everything required therefore for the use
of said City and the inhabitants thereof as described in Section 1-20(d) of the City
Charter, and the Utilities is the enterprise fund of the City through which such public
utilities are operated pursuant to Article VI of the City Charter.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6-20 of the City Charter, the term "Utility"
includes the acquisition, operation or maintenance by the City of water systems,
wastewater systems, electric light and power systems, gas systems and such other
systems designated by Council which are necessary for and owned by the citizens of
the City of Colorado Springs.
WHEREAS, the term "System" is defined in the Utilities' outstanding revenue
bond ordinances to include the municipal utility systems now operated by Colorado
Springs Utilities, as well as any other utility or income producing facilities added to the
utilities system to which a lien or pledge of the bonds are extended by ordinance
adopted by Council.
WHEREAS, all of Colorado Springs Utilities existing or hereafter acquired assets
or income producing facilities used for the provision of value-added products and
services and related purposes should be part of CSU's "System" to which the lien and
pledge provided in the bond ordinances for the City of Colorado Springs Utilities'
outstanding and hereafter issued revenue bonds will apply.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COLORADO SPRINGS:
That Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 1980 as amended is
amended by the addition of a new Article 8 (Value-Added Products and Services) to
read as follows:
Section 1. Definitions:
VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: The provision by Colorado
Springs Utilities of products and/or services which are not regulated utility products or
services but which leverage an existing asset or competency of Colorado Springs
Utilities for purposes of revenue diversification and customer retention. Without
limitation, value-added products and services include all products and services which
Colorado Springs Utilities may provide pursuant to written policies established by City
Council sitting as the Utilities Board.
Section 2.
Legislative Findings:
Pursuant to Section 1-20(d) of the City Charter City Council finds and determines that
value-added products and services are required for the successful operation and
financial viability of the City's public utilities, and that Colorado Springs Utilities is
authorized to provide value-added products and services to its customers.
Section 3.
Designation as System:
All of Colorado Springs Utilities existing and hereafter acquired assets or income
producing facilities relating to value-added products and services and related purposes
are designated as systems necessary for and owned by the citizens of the City of
Colorado Springs which shall be operated by Colorado Springs Utilities pursuant to
Section 6-20 of the City Charter.
Section 4.
Lien and Pledge for Bonding Purposes:
All of Colorado Springs Utilities existing or hereafter acquired assets or income
producing facilities used for the provision of value-added products and services and
other related purposes shall be part of CSU's "System" to which the lien and pledge
provided in the bond ordinances for the City of Colorado Springs Utilities' outstanding
and hereafter issued revenue bonds will apply.
Section 5.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication as provided by the Charter.
Section 6.
Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title and summary prepared by the City Clerk and that this ordinance shall be available
for inspection and acquisition in the Office of the City Clerk.
Introduced, read, and passed on the first reading and ordered published this
day of
, 1998.
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Finally passed, adopted and approved this
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE
DECLARING COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES1 ASSETS OR INCOME FROM
VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ACTIVITIES BE PART OF THE
UTILITIES SYSTEM THEREBY SUBJECTING SUCH ASSETS OR INCOME TO LIEN
AND PLEDGE PROVIDED IN ORDINANCES FOR COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES'
OUTSTANDING AND HEREAFTER ISSUED REVENUE BONDS" was introduced and
read at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Colorado Springs, held on
August 11, 1998; that said ordinance was passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of said City, held on the 11th day of August, 1998, and that the same was
published by summary, in accordance with Section 3-80 of Article III of the Charter, in
the Daily Transcript, a newspaper published and in general circulation in said City, at
least ten days before its passage.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the City, this
day of
, 1998.
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 98-125
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS THAT
AREA SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 20, TEMPLETON GAP HEIGHTS
FILING NO.3 AS HEREINAFTER SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A"
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs on May 26, 1998
adopted a resolution entitled "Resolution Finding a Petition for Annexation of That Area
Sometimes Known as Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights Filing No. 3 to be in Substantial
Compliance with Section 31-12-107(1) C.R.S. and Setting a Hearing Date for the Colorado
Springs City Council to Consider the Annexation of the Area"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice required under Section 31-12-108 C.R.S., the Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965 as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Annexation Act, the City
Council of Colorado Springs held on July 14,1998 a hearing pertaining to said annexation; and
WHEREAS, owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area have petitioned for such
annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Colorado Springs has by resolution made findings of fact
and conclusions of law based thereon and determinations pertaining to said annexation, and has
determined that said area should be annexed forthwith as part of the City of Colorado Springs.
Section 1.
Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein is Exhibit "A," a legal description of the area sometimes known as Lot 20, Templeton Gap
Heights Filing No. 3.
Section 2.
The area sometimes known as Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights Filing No.
as set forth in Exhibit "A" is hereby annexed to the City of Colorado Springs.
Section 3.
When this annexation is complete, said area shall become a part of the City
of Colorado Springs for all intents and purposes of the effective date of this ordinance, with the
exception of general taxation, in which respect said annexation shall not be effective until on or
after January 1 next ensuing.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as provided by the City Charter.
ITEM NO. 7
Introduced, read, passed on first reading and ordered published this 14th day of
July
• , 1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRPTION:
Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights, Filing No. 3, El Paso County, Colorado according to the subdivision plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book K-2 at Page 23, Reception No. 601817 of the records of the El Paso County
Clerk and Recorder, nore particularly described as follows:
GMiBiencingattheNcftnwestCcfnercf
said point being the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence N 90COOW 1E, a distance of 351.97; thence S 43°36'05* E, a distance of 60.9V; thence
S 53°52'45" E, a distance of 303.80 ; thence S 30°13'56" W, a distance of 93.97; thence S 36°0715* W, a
distance of 564.21'; thence S 22*3733" W, a distance of 77.18'; thence N 42°50*51"
W, a distance of 150.00*
1
to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 479.00 , a central angle of
42°50'5r, and a chord of 349.92' bearing N 21°2576" W; thence auHliwestaly along said curve, an arc
length of 358.21'; thence N OWOO" E, a distance of 395.71' to the POINT OF BEGINNING; said described
tract containing 7.7 Acres, more or less.
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
Covenant Community Church
THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, dated this
day of.
1998 , is between the City of Colorado Springs, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado,
herein referred to as "City," and Midwest Conference, Brethren in Christ, herein referred to as
"Owner" or "Property Owner."
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Owner owns all of the real property located in El Paso County, Colorado, identified
and described on the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The growth of the Colorado Springs metropolitan area makes it likely that the property will
experience development in the future. Both City and Owners are desirous of providing for the
annexation of the property into the City in order to ensure its orderly development. Therefore, in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the City and Owner agrees as follows.
II.
ANNEXATION
The Owner has petitioned the City for annexation of the property as set forth in Exhibit A.
The annexation will become effective upon final approval by the City Council, recording of
the annexation plat and annexation ordinance with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder.
All references to the property or to the Owners' property are to the property described in
Exhibit A except as otherwise indicated.
III.
ZONING
The Planning Department of the City agrees to recommend that the initial zone for the
Owner's Property shall be zoned OR (Office Residential) upon annexation. Owner
acknowledges and understands that the City Council determines what is an appropriate zone for
the Property, and this recommendation does not bind the Planning Commission or City Council
to adopt an OR zone for the Property. Owner's obligations under this agreement are conditioned
upon the City adopting an ordinance to zone Owner's Property OR (Office Residential) upon
annexation. If such ordinance is not adopted, Owner shall be discharged of its obligations under
this Agreement.
IV.
A.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Streets. The Owner agrees to construct at its expense, necessary improvements
adjacent to or within the property at the time of development or when the City, through its
Department of Public Works, determines the installation of full improvements is necessary. The
improvements shall include those improvements required under the provisions of the City
Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 15 of the City Code 1980, as amended. These improvements
shall also include the dedication of right of way where necessary, and extension of streets and
right of way as necessary. If the City has entered agreements with other developers for the
recovery of improvements to Oakwood Boulevard, Owners shall pay a proportionate share of
such costs based upon frontage of Owner's Property upon Oakwood Boulevard.
B.
Traffic Control Devices and Street Lights. Owner shall pay for installation of
traffic and street signs and traffic control devices, permanent barriers, and street lights, together
with all associated conduit for all streets within or contiguous to the Property as determined
necessary by the Director of Public Works in accordance with uniformly applied criteria. Street
lights will be required on minor streets only after homes have been completed along at least fifty
(50%) percent of the street frontage as determined by the Director of Public Works. Street
lights will be required on collector and larger streets or at intersections for public safety as
determined necessary by the Director of Public Works. Traffic signals will be required at a
specific intersection, only after the intersection meets at least one of the warrants as outlined in
the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in use at the time or other nationally accepted
standards and only if the City is utilizing those standards for installation of traffic signals
throughout the City. Once the intersection meets the criteria, City will notify Owner in writing and
annexor will install the traffic signal within one hundred twenty (120) days. Owner will be
responsible for all components of the signal, except the City will supply the controller equipment
and cabinet to be reimbursed by Owner.
C.
Drainage. All new development and re-development of this property shall conform
to the applicable Drainage Basin Planning Study. The Owner shall comply with all drainage
criteria, standards, policies and ordinances in effect at the time of development or redevelopment of this property, to include submitting for approval the required Preliminary and
Final Drainage Reports and Plans in confonmance with the City of Colorado Springs Drainage
Criteria Manual. The Owner shall be responsible for construction, at his expense, of all drainage
improvements included in any approved Final Drainage Report and Plan. Drainage fees, arterial
bridge fees, and detention pond fees will not be required for the portions of this property that
were already subdivided into a lot or lots in the County prior to annexation.
D.
Off Site Transportation Facilities. If it is determined by the City that transportation
improvements, including traffic signalization, must be made to off-site roads, then the Owner will
contribute, in conjunction with others, a fair and reasonable share as determined by the City
toward the completion of these improvements. If any front ending of these off-site transportation
improvements must be made they will be subject to recovery from other developers, land owners
or public entities other than the City. The determination of front-ending these off-site
transportation facilities will be made by the City. It is agreed and understood between the Owner
and the City that the final decision with regard to contributions, if any, to be made toward off-site
improvements, the timing of any such contributions, and the related recovery agreement shall be
determined by the City Council. Owner's obligation for off-site improvements shall be limited to
improvements required as a result of the development of Owner's Property. The effect of the
development of Owner's Property upon off-site facilities shall be determined pursuant to a traffic
study performed by a professional traffic engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado.
V.
A.
UTILITIES
Gas Service. The City agrees that it will extend gas service for annexed properties
substantially within the existing Gas Service Area of the City of Colorado Springs, as designated
by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Annexation of any lands not in the currently
existing Gas Service Area of the City of Colorado Springs shall be added to the Gas Service
Area of the City of Colorado Springs, and proper certification by the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission shall be obtained.
The City agrees that it will extend gas service to annexed properties under its tariffs,
ordinances, and rules and regulations in effect at the time of any specific gas service request.
Availability will be covered by tariffs, ordinances and rules and regulations in effect at the time of
the request. Annexation does not imply supply guarantee. Gas service is also contingent upon
the availability of public rights of way or private rights of way provided by the Owner which will
allow the extension of gas mains from existing facilities.
Owners of annexed properties will agree to provide the appropriate number of gas
regulation sites. Number and location of these sites shall be determined by the Gas Division of
the Colorado Springs Utilities. These regulation sites are not subject to reimbursement and will
be deeded to the City.
For providing scheduled gas services, it is understood that the development phasing
program as submitted and approved in the development master plan will be reasonably adhered
to.
B.
Electric Service. The City agrees that it will extend electric service to the Property in
accordance with the rules and regulations established by the ordinances, resolutions, policies
and safety codes of the Regional Building Department and Colorado Springs Utilities in effect at
the time of development. Availability of electric service will be covered by tariffs, ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time that service is requested. The Property Owner may be required
to enter into a Guarantee Revenue Contract for the extension of electric service as determined
by the electric utility at the time of development. Annexation does not imply supply guarantee.
The Property Owner agrees to dedicate or otherwise convey to the City, at the Property Owner's
expense, necessary easements as determined by the City for the installation of electric
transmission and distribution facilities. Such conveyance shall be made at the time of platting or
at such time prior to the development of the property as determined by the City through its
enterprise Colorado Springs Utilities. Any costs incurred in the acquisition of electric service
territory as a result of Colorado Revised Statutes Sections 31-15-707 or 40-9.5-201 et sea. Shall
be borne by the Owner.
C.
Wastewater Service. The Owner will extend wastewater main line or service lines to
the property and upon the property at its expense in accordance with the City's ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time of each specific wastewater request for service. Capacity of the
system or treatment facility is not guaranteed by annexation, but by availability of service at the
time of request.
The Owner agrees it will pay its pro rata share of the treatment plant facility costs through
the established wastewater system development charge. It will pay its pro rata share of existing
trunk sewer costs through established recovery agreement charges. Collection facilities required
to serve the site must be designed and constructed at the expense of the Owner and will be
required to be oversized to serve adjacent undeveloped land within the basin planning area
boundaries.
The Owner agrees it will be required to participate with other developments on a fair share
pro rata basis in the present and future off-site relief sewers.
The Owner will be entitled to enter into appropriate recovery agreements and to recover
ordinances and regulations then in effect by the City.
D. Water Service. The Owner or City will extend water service to the property in
accordance with the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the specific water
request. The first-come, first-served policy will govern availability of supply. No guarantee of
service is made by annexation.
E.
Limitation of Applicability.
The provisions of this Agreement set forth the
requirements of Colorado Springs Utilities in effect at the time of the annexation of the Owner's
property. These provisions shall not be construed as the limitation upon the authority of the City
to adopt different ordinances, rules, regulations, resolutions, policies or codes which change any
of the provisions set forth in this Agreement so long as these apply to the City generally.
VI.
A.
GROUNDWATER CONSENT
Grant to the C'rtv. The Owner grants in perpetuity to the City the sole and exclusive
right to use any and all groundwater underlying or appurtenant to and used upon the property.
The Owner irrevocably consents,'sells and conveys to the City, in perpetuity, on behalf of itself
and any and all successors in title, pursuant to Section 37-90-137(4) of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, as now existing or later amended, all rights to the withdrawal and use of all ground
water underlying said lands. It is intended that execution of this agreement shall constitute a
conveyance of all such rights to the City without the necessity of a separate deed. However, if
requested by the City, the Owner agrees to execute a satisfactory deed or other instrument of
conveyance the right to withdraw for beneficial use any and all ground water underlying or
appurtenant to and used upon the property. The City agrees that is shall obtain any and all
easements necessary before construction and operation of any well on the property. Wells
constructed by the City outside the property may withdraw ground water under Owner's property
without additional consent.
B.
Qroundwater Drainage. The Owner shall also construct facilities if determined
necessary by the City Engineer and/or the Wastewater Division for the safe discharge of all
subsurface water into a drainage conveyance facility. Said facilities are not eligible for drainage
basin credit or reimbursement.
VII.
PUBLIC LAND DEDICATION
Owner agrees that all land dedicated or deeded to the City for municipal or utility purposes
(including park and school sites) shall be free and clear of liens and encumbrances.
VIII.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE
The Owner will comply with all ordinances, codes, resolutions or policies of the City as
such now exists or are amended or adopted in the future, including those related to the
subdivision zoning of land, except as expressly modified by this Agreement. This Agreement
shall not be construed as a limitation upon the authority of the City to adopt different ordinances,
rules, regulations, policies or codes which change any of the provisions set forth in this
Agreement so long as these apply to the City generally.
IX. ASSIGNS
Where as used herein, the term "the Owner" or "Property Owner," shall also mean any of
the heirs, executors, personal representatives, transferees, or assigns of the Owner and all such
parties shall have the right to enforce and be enforced under the terms of this Agreement as if
they were the original parties hereto. Rights to specific refunds or payments contained herein
shall always be to the Owner unless specifically assigned to another person.
X.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
The undersigned financial institution(s) by executing this Agreement expressly accept and
approve this Agreement and agrees that in the event that any of them should become the owner
of the property through foreclosure or otherwise that each of them are bound by the terms and
conditions of this Agreement to the same extent that the owner is subject to terms of this
Agreement, and that in the event a financial institution becomes the owner of the subject
property, any provisions in the deed of trust or other agreements pertaining to the property in
conflict with this Agreement shall be subordinate to and superseded by the provisions of this
agreement.
XL
RECORDING
This Agreement shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County and
constitute a covenant running with the land. This Agreement shall be binding on future assigns
of the owners and all other persons who may purchase land described herein from the Owner or
any persons hereinafter having any interest in the property. Any refunds made under the terms
of this Agreement shall be made to the Owner and not subsequent purchasers and assigns of
this property unless such purchase or assignment specifically provides for payment to the
purchaser or assignee and a copy of such document is filed with the City.
XII.
AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by the Owner or any subsequent owner of the property
with the mutual consent of the City. It may be amended by the City with the mutual consent of
any subsequent owner of a part of the property without the consent of other subsequent property
owners so long as such an amendment affects only that owner's part of the property. Such
amendment shall be recorded in the records of El Paso County and shall be a covenant running
with the land and shall be binding upon all persons or entities now or hereinafter having an
interest in the property subject to the amendment unless otherwise specified in the amendment.
XIII.
HEADINGS
The headings set forth in the Agreement for the different sections of the Agreement are for
reference only and shall not be construed as an enlargement or abridgement of the language of
the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals
the day and year first written above.
BY:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
PROPERTY OWNER:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF EL PASO )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.
.day of
... 1998, by Mary Lou Makepeace, Mayor of the City of Colorado Springs, on
behalf of the City of Colorado Springs.
Witness my hand and notarial seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF EL PASO )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1998, by
day of
Notary Public
Address:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF EL PASO )
19_,by
day of
Notary Public
Address:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF EL PASO )
,19_, by
Notary Public
Address:
day of
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
BY:
TITLE:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF EL PASO )
19., by
on behalf of the financial institution.
Notary Public
Address:
day of
Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights Filing No. 3
Exhibit A
Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights Filing No. 3 as recorded in Plat Book K-2, Page
23, El Paso County, Colorado.
COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 14,1998
19.
CPC A 98-00114: Request bv Linda Bloom on behalf of Cheyenne Village for approval
of the annexation of Cheyenne Village Addition consisting of .551 acre located
northwest of Park Vista Boulevard and Pearl Drive.
Resolution No. 124-98 was presented: "A RESOLUTION SETTING/FORTH FINDINGS OF
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED THEREON AND DETERMINING THE STATUS
OKfHE TERRITORY SOMETIMES KNOWN AS CHEYENNE VILLAGE ADDITION."
/
Motion byHubert, second by Purvis, that the resolution be adopted.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
AreC, Barley, Guman, Hubert, Makepeace/£urvis, Rivera, Young
None
Null
Ordinance No. 98-123 entitleo^N ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF COLORADO
SPRINGS THAT AREA SOMETIMES KNOWN AS CHEYENNE VILLAGE ADDITION" was
introduced and read.
Motion by Hubert, second by Purvis/fhat the ordinance be passed as introduced.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Are', Barley, Gumari, Hubert, Makepeace, Purvis, Rivera, Young
None
Null
020.
CPC P 98-00154: Ofdinance No. 98-124 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP OF THE OTTY OF COLORADO SPRINGS RELATING TO .55^ ACRE LOCATED
NORTHWEST PF PARK VISTA BOULEVARD AND PEARL DRIVE" was iritrpduced and read
x
(County to R-2).
Motion by/Hubert, second by Purvis, that the ordinance be passed as introduced.
Ayes: /
Noe&
Absent:
Are', Barley, Guman, Hubert, Makepeace, Purvis, Rivera, Young
None
Null
Q
21.
CPC A 98-00103: Request bv Rav Bert on behalf of Midwest Conference. Brethren in
Christ Church for approval of the annexation of Lot 20. Templeton Gap Heights Filing
No. 3 consisting of 7.7 acres located northeast of Balsam Street and Oakwood
Boulevard.
Quinn Peitz, Development Services, gave a brief summary of the request and stated the
annexation is for the expansion of the facility; that it is a substandard area for fire protection.
12
Wynetta Massey, City Attorney's Office, explained the rationale used by the Planning
Commission in their approval of the annexation request; that fire standards will be looked at if
this area is developed at a later time.
Resolution No. 125-98 was presented: "A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED THEREON AND DETERMINING THE STATUS
OF THE TERRITORY SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 20, TEMPLETON GAP HEIGHTS
FILING NO. 3".
Motion by Are', second by Young, that the resolution be adopted.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
Null
Ordinance No. 98-125 entitled "AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF COLORADO
SPRINGS THAT AREA SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 20, TEMPLETON GAP HEIGHTS
FILING NO. 3" was introduced and read.
Motion by Are', second by Young, that the ordinance be passed as introduced.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
Null
0
CPC P 98-00132: Ordinance No. 98-126 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDINd^HE ZONING
THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS RELATING TO 7.7 ACRES LOCATED
NORTHEAST-OEJ5ALSAM STREET AND OAKWOOD BOULEVARD" was introduced and
read (County to ~
Motion by Are', second by Young, that the tSrSTnafrce-bapassed as introduced.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
Null
0
13
Ordinance No. 98-126
7.7 ACRES LOCATED NORTHEAST OF BALSAM
STREET AND OAKWOOD BOULEVARD
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
COLORADO SPRINGS:
OF THE CITY OF
Section 1 . The zoning map of the City of Colorado Springs is hereby
and made a part hereof by reference, from County to OR/NP (Office/Residential
with Navigation Preservation Overlay), pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Colorado Springs.
Introduced,
read, passed on first reading and ordered published
this 14th day of July _
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPCP 98-00132
ITEM NO. 8
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRPTION:
Lot 20, Templeton Gap Heights, Filing No. 3, El Paso County, Colorado according to the subdivision plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book K-2 at Page 23, Reception No. 601817 of the records of the El Paso County
Clerk and Recorder, acre particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest Comer
of Lot 20 of said subdivision; said point being the POINT OF 1
I
BEGINNING, thence N 90°OOW E, a distance of 351.9T-, thence S43°36X)5"E, a dist»cc of 60.9S ; thence
S 53°52'45" E, a distance of 303.801; thence S 30°13>56I> W, a1distance of 93.97; thence S 36°0715" W, a
distance of 564.21'; thence S ZT3T33* W, a distance of 77.18 ; thence N42°5<r51"W, a distance of 150.0P
to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right, having a radha of 479.00*, a central angle of
42°50'51", and a chord of 349.92' bearing N 21°2576" W; thence nuHliwestaly along said curve, an arc
length of 358.21'; thence N O^W E, a distance of 395.71' to the POINT OF BEGINNING; said described
tract containing 7.7 Acres, more or less.
The following terms on Boards and Commissions expire as indicated:
Appointment Expiration
STUDENT TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
(vacant) Academy School District #20
COLORADO AVENUE GATEWAY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Dennis A. Sharon
Robert T. Cleek
Marvin Koscove
(vacant)
11/12/91
7/25/8
1/14/92
12/1/92
12/1/92
12/1/92
12/1/94
PLATTE AVENUE (IN KNOB HILL) SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
MarkToupin
12/10/91
12/1/92
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(vacant) Hillside Neighborhood NSA
(vacant) Mesa Springs Neighborhood NSA
(vacant) Adams Neighborhood NSA
7/27/98
7/27/2000
7/27/2000
TRUCK ROUTE COMMITTEE
Daniel Venezia, Home Owner
Michael Cornelia, Truck Industry
Karen Williams Dring, Truck Industry
Thomas G. Webb, Home Owner
11/23/93
1/24/95
1/24/95
3/24/92
11/1/96
11/1/96
11/1/97
11/1/97
6/28/94
7/25/95
6/27/97
6/27/98
9/13/94
12/31/97
2/28/95
1/14/98
11/26/96
3/27/98
LOAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Daniel W. Provaznik
Earl L. Minor
SCHOOL/PARK FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Gwen DeMuth, Citizen at Large
PIKES PEAK HIGHWAY ADVISORY COMMISSION
Linda Korman
BOARD OF MASSAGE EXAMINERS
Adrienne Kania, D.O., Health Care Industry Professional
ITEM NO. 9
Appointment Expiration
THE CITY AND COUNTY COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMIUES
(vacant) Citizen at Large
(vacant) Childcare Provider
Thomas J. O'Neill, Senior Citizen (resigned)
Margaret Gregory/ Citizen at Large
Beth Courrau, Corp. Mgmt./HR Rep.
Linda Harroun, Non-Profit Agency Rep.
Richard Conway, Education Rep.
John O'Donnell. Corp. Mgmt./HR Rep.
5/13/97
6/27/95
6/22/93
2/8/94
5/13/97
5/13/97
3/1/98
3/1/98
3/1/98
3/1/98
3/1 /99
3/1/99
3/1/99
3/1 /OO
2/23/93
3/25/97
3/1 /98
3/1 /98
4/28/92
5/28/98
2/28/95
7/25/95
8/25/92
7/8/98
7/8/98
7/8/98
MECHANICAL COMMITTEE
Gary M. Harrison. Architect (City)
Edward A. Pine, Bldg. Contr. A, B or C (City)
FIRE BOARD OF APPEALS
Nicholas P. Daley, Architect
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Theresa Dent
Mary Tom Isaac
Frank Marconi
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Francis R. Maffei. Ill (resigned)
9/14/93
10/9/99
9/26/95
8/26/97
8/27/91
7/22/98
7/22/98
7/22/98
11 /26/96
9/22/92
8/24/98
8/24/98
LODGERS & AUTOMOBILE RENTAL TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ed Sauer, Pikes Peak Highway Advisory Commission
Frank Thomson, Convention & Visitors Bureau
Clarke W. Powers, Citizen At Large
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
Robert M. Chaplin
Don Bates
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 4,1998
TO:
City Council
FROM:
James H. Mullen, City Manage,
SUBJECT:
Springs Community Improvement Program Coordinating Committee
Recommendations
At the formal meeting on August 11th, City Council will be considering actions related to the
recommendations of the Citizens Coordinating Committee for the Springs Community
Improvement Program. To support the Council's deliberations at the August 10th informal
session, I have prepared a staff report on the SCIP recommendations and draft ballot questions
for the November 1998 election.
The actions that I am recommending the City Council approve at the August 11th meeting are as
follows.
1. Approval of a resolution placing a $88 million bond issue on the November 1998 ballot.
Principal and interest on these bonds will be retired from the City's sales and use tax
revenues within the next 19 years.
2. A resolution placing a question on the 1998 ballot, which would allow the City to retain the
1997 city revenues in excess of the TABOR limit of $6.6 million, proceeds to be used for the
construction of the proposed Southeast and Northeast recreation centers.
3. Approval of a resolution to place a question on the 1998 ballot requesting authorization to
retain the estimated 1998 city revenues in excess of the TABOR limit of $505,000. These
funds will also be used for the construction of the first phase of the Southeast and Northeast
recreation centers.
4. Approval by the City Council of recommendations listed below on the SCIP Citizens
Committee additional financial recommendations.
A full explanation of the financing plan for the bond issue is included in the staff report from the
Director of Finance and Financial Planning Manager. I endorse this report and believe it is
consistent with the recommendations of the SCIP Coordinating Committee.
I believe that it is necessary for the Council to take aggressive action to address the
Coordinating Committee's recommendations on future capital financing beyond the bond issue
and two refund questions. While the staff has provided comments on these recommendations
in the attached memo, I would like the Council to consider my recommendations on each of
these items. They are as follows:
ITEM NO. 10
1. Impact Fee/Excise Taxes. The present City policy is to develop the City's approach to
impact fees and/or taxes for development as a part of the work being done by the
Comprensive Plan Citizens Steering Committee. This process may take as much as
another 18 months, as it is part of the overall work being done by the committee on the
Comprehensive Plan. I do not believe it would be inconsistent with the direction of the
Comprehensive Plan work, nor a violation of the Council's direction to the staff and the
Comprehensive Plan Committee to expedite the process of examining the developer-related
impact fee issue. The City Council received a briefing from Brown, Bortz and Coddington
late last year on the issue of impact fees and fiscal impact analysis. In addition, this subject
is addressed in the Council's Strategic Plan, which has only one year left in its current term.
I recommend that the Council direct the Citizens Coordinating Committee and staff to
complete analysis of the impact fee/excise taxes issue through the retention of additional
outside consulting expertise, and that the study and recommendations be completed for
Council's action no later than June of 1999. This timing would enable the City Council to
consider utilization of the results of that study for the year 2000 budget. Should the Council
approve my recommendation, I will work with the staff and the Coordinating Committee to
make the necessary adjustments in the work plan to bring about this result.
2. Sale of Non-Strategic City Assets. The staff recommendation is to appoint citizens/staff
committee to work on this effort. I believe it is important to continue a high level of citizen
involvement in this question. However, I also feel that the issue of the ownership of certain
City assets should be addressed and settled as soon as possible for several reasons. First
of these is that its continuing existence and non-resolution presents a problem for future
planning for capital improvements and operating expenses of the City government. Each
time a plan is brought forward to develop the City's future; the question of utilization of
proceeds from sale of non-strategic assets arises. Although it can be argued that the
question has been dealt with in the election of 1998, it is apparent from the Coordinating
Committee's recommendations that many still view this as an important source of funding for
either operating or capital expenditures. The second reason is that there are going to be
operating impacts from the SCIP Committee recommendations. These are outlined in the
attached staff report and are estimated at approximately $1,500,000 per year for the 33 SCIP
projects that were recommended by the committee. It is important that we begin to consider
additional revenue sources that can be utilized for on-going operating support. While
strategic assets sales represent only a one-time benefit, the technique of setting aside these
funds in some form of a trust generating principal and interest for operating in the future is
worthy of further consideration.
For these two reasons and others as well, I would recommend the following. That the City
Council authorize me to retain the required expertise to begin analysis of the value and
potential sales costs of the City's non-strategic assets, to include definition of non-strateaic
assets, timing of the consideration, legal implications and use of assets proceeds. While
many of these issues have been discussed in the past, there is no definitive study to supply
the information necessary to move ahead on this question. I do not believe this is
committee work but rather work of experts and staff, results of which can be referred to any
group which the City Council may choose when the information is available. Once again, I
would suggest that the timing of this be such that the results can be utilized in the year
2000 budget, including the possibility of a vote by the people on any sales that may be
required in time to allow a January 2000 cash flow.
3. Review of the City Budget. The SCIP Committee is recommending an additional 5% per
year for capital improvements or $750,000, the 5% being applied to the $15 million now set
aside by City Council. There has been an additional recommendation that a growth factor
be applied to the $15 million equal to the TABOR calculation and that those funds be set
aside for early repayment of the bond issue. I see these issues as related and, therefore,
will address them in one recommendation.
The staff has suggested, and I concur, that any additional money set aside for capital
improvements be divided between the pay-as-you-go funds designated for on-going capital
needs and the long-term capital improvements identified in the City's plan but not funded
through the SCIP program as has been presently identified. However. I would recommend
that this policy not begin until such time as additional revenue sources have been identified
or the City Council has determined, based on staff recommendations, where program cuts
can be made in order to finance these two recommendations. I believe that acting without
either reducing expenditures or increasing revenues will result in a service level drop.
While I appreciate the staffs recommendations that this can be accomplished, I do not
believe it can be accomplished while we continue to meet our goals related to service levels
and employee compensation. In fairness to our employees, I believe it is necessary to
seriously consider the impact of long-term policies which do not provide hope for relief from
the present situation of continuing to expand service levels without providing for additional
operating support. I further believe that the recommendations of the SCIP Coordinating
Committee can be met if their recommendations produce new revenue sources that can be
applied to these purposes.
4. Memorial Hospital.
The Mayor and the Chairman of the Board have made a
recommendation to establish a Blue Ribbon Committee to review this issue. I am assuming
that this Committee would review the SCIP Coordinating Committee recommendations and
bring forward the proposal to the City Council within the time frame established by the Mayor
and Chairman of the Board. Given that action, I believe the staffs position, which I think is
consistent with the Mayor's statement but perhaps not as aggressive, should be set aside in
favor of potential solutions that can be developed throuqh this technique recommended by
the Chairman of the Board and the Mayor.
5. City Utilities. I concur with the staff recommendation that work begin to examine the selling
or retaining of all or part of the City Utilities. Like the Memorial Hospital issue and the sale of
non-strategic assets, this question continues to hang over the policy process of the City
Council and interferes with the ability to clearly think about and plan for the future of our
community. Without the proper baseline information necessary to further consider this
question, the question remains a matter of debate with no resolution in sight. It is my
personal belief that the City should retain ownership of its utilities. However, the manner in
which that can be accomplished can take many forms and shapes other than that which is
presently utilized. One key issue I believe that definitely needs to be considered would be
the disposition of the traditional municipal functions of water and wastewater services, in the
event there is some change in relationship of the gas and electric operations to the
municipal operation. Due to a complexity of relationships between the City Government and
its utility, and the very numerous local and community positions on this to say nothing of
Federal and state regulations, I am not recommending any particular time frame for the
completion of this work. I am suggesting that a process for examining the question begin
and that the process will include outlining a plan for resolving the issue once and for all.
6. Stormwater Enterprise. As the Council knows, I have concurred with the concept of a
stormwater management enterprise. We have indeed developed a great deal of expertise
on this with various citizen groups, and due to the fact that this is likely to become a future
ballot question, I concur with the staffs recommendation that a citizens committee further
study the existing work that has been done in this area and bring forward to the Citv Council
within one year a recommendation to proceed with a stormwater enterprise funded by user
fees. I do not concur with the Citizens Coordinating Committee's recommendation that the
proceeds from such an enterprise be used only for on-going operations. The size of our
deficit of stormwater work is so large, that I believe we should seek to maximize the
resources available to be applied to this problem. Therefore, I would suggest that there be
no such restriction placed on any committee established to do this work.
In conclusion, Council has before it for consideration on the Tuesday, August 11th agenda, three
ballot questions and six policy directions. We have attempted to assist the decision-making
process of the Council in this matter and will be prepared with all appropriate staff and
background to address any questions you may have at the August 10th work session and also
the August 11th council meeting.
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
James Mullen, City Manag
FROM:
Michael Anderson, Financial ^tanning Manager
Steve Hilfers, Director of Finance
DATE:
July 30, 1998
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF SPRINGS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (SCIP)
COORDINATING COMMITTEE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND
PROPOSED PLAN OF FINANCE FOR SCIP - RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
At the July 27 informal meeting of City Council, the Citizens Coordinating Committee for the
Springs Community Improvements Program (SCIP) presented a recommended list of necessary
capital improvement projects having a combined cost in excess of $111 million. Additionally, the
citizen's committee recommended certain other actions related to the financing of those
improvements. The most immediate of the many financial recommendations included: the issuance
of up to $100 million of bonded debt with the annual debt service on those bonds to be paid from
existing City revenues and without a tax increase; and the earmark of the 1997 and estimated 1998
TABOR revenue refunds for first phase construction of the Southeast and Northeast Recreation
Centers. The Citizens Committee also recommended that the term of the proposed bond issue be less
than the standard 20 years and as close to 15 years as possible. This would serve to minimize the
amount of interest paid on the debt.
Accordingly, we have prepared and attached for City Council consideration, draft resolutions that
would place the proposed bond issue and the 1997 and 1998 TABOR revenue refund questions on the
November election ballot. Those draft resolutions are contained in Attachments I, II, and III
respectively.
In addition to the immediate financial recommendations of the SCIP Citizens Coordinating
Committee, there were a number of other actions recommended by the Committee for
implementation. It is the recommendation of staff that each of specific actions be pursued although it
is important to point out that many of those actions cannot be fully implemented without some future
sacrifices.
Recommended Plan of Finance
In accordance with the SCIP Citizens Committee recommendations, staff has developed a specific
plan of finance. The first part of that plan includes the following elements:
1998 General Fund Budget - allocation for SCIP
Series 1999 Sales Tax Revenue bond proceeds
Estimated Interest Earnings on unexpended balances of
Bond proceeds and the 1998 G.F. Budget allocation
during construction of projects
$7,850,000
$86,255,547 *
$6,976,000
TOTAL
$101,081,547
* Represents net bond proceeds available for projects. Total bond issue size is projected to be $87,600,000
inclusive of unavoidable costs of issuance, bond marketing costs, bond insurance premium and debt service
reserve surety
The specific plan of finance is presented in Attachment IV including specific assumptions regarding
interest rates and a debt service payment schedule. It is assumed that the entire $7.85 million of
General Fund revenues reserved annually for SCIP will be utilized to pay the annual debt service on
the bonds. The total bond issue size of $87.6 million estimated in the plan of finance is considerably
less that the $100 million bond issue contemplated in the SCIP Citizens Committee recommendation.
The reasons for this are two-fold. First, debt service on the proposed $87.6 million bond issue is not
scheduled to begin until 1999. Thus, the $7.85 million allocated for SCIP in the 1998 General Fund
Budget is used to cash fund projects which serves to reduce the size of the necessary bond issue.
Second, the plan of finance includes interest earnings on unexpended bond proceeds and all other
funds allocated for SCIP capital improvement projects during the estimated three years necessary to
complete the design and construction of the 33 SCIP projects.
In the preparation of the plan of finance, certain assumptions regarding future municipal bond market
conditions had to be made since the earliest that the proposed bonds could be sold would be early
1999. For purposes of this plan of finance, the proposed bond issue has been sized assuming current
market interest rates. Under this interest rate scenario, the shortest term for repayment of the bonds
that can be achieved is 17 years. It is important to note, however, that future market conditions could
vary substantially from these assumptions.
Accordingly, an alternative financial plan assuming current market rates plus 1 percent was prepared.
This cautious scenario results in a bond repayment period of 19 years. Thus, to help ensure that
adequate bond proceeds are available for completion of the proposed SCEP capital
improvement projects (in the event that municipal bond market conditions deteriorate over the
next 6 months), the specific ballot question for the proposed sales tax bond issue assumes a term
of 19 years and a principal amount of $88 million. The actual term of maturity of the bonds will
depend upon market conditions at the time the bonds are issued. Regardless of future market
conditions, it is our objective to minimize the term of maturity of the bonds in accordance with the
recommendation of the SCIP Citizens Coordinating Committee.
The second part of the plan of finance is specifically directed towards the finance of the first phase of
construction of the proposed Southeast and Northeast Recreation Centers. The total estimated cost of
the two centers is $12.7 million. A total of $2.7 million for architectural design and engineering for
the centers is included in the proposed bond issue above. The balance of the cost of the two centers is
Phase I construction costs of $10.0 million to include swimming facilities and fitness centers only.
The key elements of the plan of finance for the two recreation Centers is as follows:
1997 TABOR revenue refund
Estimated 1998 TABOR revenue refund
'/2 Cent Sales Tax fund balance **
Estimated Interest Earnings on unexpended balances
during construction of projects
TOTAL
$6,608,101
$505,000
$2,256,607
$732,000
$10,101,708
** Unappropriated fund balance as of 12/31/97. Fund balance stems from a reimbursement of Vi cent funds
from railroad for Colorado Avenue viaduct project and interest earnings on unexpended balances.
While the plan of finance for the two recreation centers generates funds slightly greater than the $10.0
million Phase I construction costs, it should be noted that final design of the two centers has yet to be
completed along with final construction cost estimates.
Staff Review and Analysis of SCIP Citizens Committee Financial Recommendations
In addition to the immediate financial recommendations of the SCIP Citizens Coordinating
Committee, there were a number of other actions recommended for implementation. The following is
a staff response to each of the six specific recommendations:
Impact Fees/Excise Taxes: The committee recommends exploring the feasibility of establishing
impact fee/excise taxes on new development to fund future capital improvements.
Staff agrees and recommends that the issue be further pursued by the Comprehensive Plan Citizen
Steering Committee.
Sale ofnon-stratesic City assets: The committee recommends the sale of non-strategic assets in order
to retire the proposed bond issue early and to fund future capital improvements.
Should City Council wish to pursue this recommendation, we would encourage the establishment of a
committee composed of appropriate City staff and citizens to consider the issue. Prior to beginning
this work, Council should provide a clear understanding of what constitutes a "strategic" asset and
any other criteria to be considered by the committee.
Review of City Budget: The committee recommends that annual General Fund allocations for capital
improvements be increased by 5% per year, beginning in the year 2000, until such time as the
backlog is eliminated and other funding measures related to growth have been addressed.
Staff agrees that future allocations for funding capital improvements should be increased from the
current $15 million level in order to account for inflation and growth. However, we believe that we
must also provide an increment for the current $7.150 million of 'pay as you go' funds designated for
our ongoing street overlay program, emergency drainage improvements, and matching funds for
ISTEA grants. Thus, the 5% increment, which translates to an additional $750,000 annually
beginning in the year 2000, should be allocated equally, on a prorata basis, between the two
components of the $15 million General Fund set aside for capital improvements. While the 5%
increment is reasonable and likely can be achieved given current economic conditions, it must be
noted that future budgetary sacrifices will be necessary to provide this increment in the future. Also,
should there be a downturn in the local economy with a resulting loss of sales tax revenues, it will be
increasingly difficult to fund this increment.
Memorial Hospital: The Citizens Coordinating Committee recommends that either the Hospital is
sold and earnings on the proceeds be used to partially fund future capital improvements or that the
Hospital begin paying a reasonable rate of return on the City's past $30 million investment with such
funds to be used at least partially to fund future capital improvements.
Any sale or repayment of past investments/subsidies will have serious financial implications for the
Hospital, the City and the community in general. We believe that, should Council wish to pursue this
recommendation, a committee of citizens and appropriate City and Hospital staff be convened to
examine all of the underlying issues and recommend a course of action to Council.
City Utilities: The SCIP Citizens Committee recommends further study of the issue ofselline or
retaining all or part of City Utilities.
Staff is prepared to take action on this recommendation pending further direction from Council.
Stormwater Enterprise: The committee recommends another study of the issue of establishing a
stormwater enterprise funded bv user fees. Further, they suggest that only ongoing operations, not
necessarily related capital improvements, be funded in this manner
We agree that there is merit in pursuing such an enterprise and recommend that the Council establish
a citizens committee to further study the issue, taking into consideration the successful aspects of
similar programs in other communities. Perhaps this committee could be comprised in whole or in
part with existing members of the Drainage Subcommittee of SCIP.
In response to the desire of the SCIP Citizens Coordinating Committee to designate future revenues to
the early repayment of the proposed $87.6 million bond issue and to ensure that all funds designated
for capital improvements, including any interest earnings, be used only for capital improvements, we
further recommend the following actions:
1. A technical defeasance account should be established with the designated trustee/paying agent for
the bonds. Any future revenues designated for early repayment of .the bonds by City Council
would be deposited with the trustee and used only to defease the bonds at the earliest
economically advantageous date.
2. The City will establish a Capital Projects Fund to account for all expenditures and revenues
related to general capital improvements. Revenues from the various sources would be deposited
into this fund and related interest earnings on unexpended balances would also be available for
capital improvements. We recommend that this fund be established beginning with budget year
1999.
Review of SCIP Project Cost Estimates
At their July 27 informal meeting, City Council asked how realistic the project cost estimates were for
the 33 capital improvement projects recommended by'the SCIP Citizens Coordinating Committee. At
the request of the SCIP Citizens Committee, City staff prepared the cost estimates for the SCIP
projects that were presented at the July 27 meeting. The majority of the estimates were prepared by
City Engineering. Please see the attached memo (Attachment V) from the City Engineer on the
specifics of those cost estimates.
The following assumptions have been used in the preparation of cost estimates:
•S Inflationary increases were used to assume a project target date of the year 2000.
•S An allowance of 10% to 15% for architectural and design work was included.
S An allowance of 10% to 15% contingency was added.
S Land costs have been included where applicable.
S Amounts for contracted project management and other outside services were also added, if
needed.
•S Existing studies/analyses, if available, where cost estimates have already been made, were
utilized (i.e. building, parks).
City staff were asked to revise the final estimates if needed once the recommended list of projects
came from the SCIP Citizens Coordinating Committee. Upward revisions were made mostly in the
areas of Drainage and Transportation based upon higher than expected asphalt and construction costs
this year.
It is the opinion of staff that these estimates are prudent and provide the necessary funds to complete
the projects in an efficient manner.
Estimate of Operating Costs of Proposed Capital Improvement Projects
City Council also asked, at their July 27 meeting, for an estimate of the ongoing operating costs to the
General Fund of the capital improvement projects recommended by the SCIP Citizens Committee.
Attachment VI provides an itemized listing of the annual ongoing costs once the projects are
completed. A total of $1,914,000 is estimated to be necessary to operate/maintain the 33 proposed
projects once they are completed. It should be noted that a lion's share of that total ($1.05 million)
would be for the staffing and operation of the proposed Fire Station #18.
Public Safety - $1,240,000
Ongoing costs are for building maintenance and the staffing of Fire Station #18.
Transportation and Drainage - $0
These projects will not create any significant increases to the General Fund. In fact,
remediation projects in these areas should help to decrease some maintenance costs for the
upkeep of deteriorating structures.
Community Enhancements - $300,000
The estimate for Confluence Park is based upon current formulas for maintenance of park
acreage.
Parks/Public Facilities - $374,000
This estimate is the net of expenses minus projected revenues to operate one of the two
proposed recreation centers (the Southeast Center is proposed to be operated by the Pike Peak
YMCA).
Animal Shelter - $0
The Humane Society does not anticipate increased maintenance costs for the replacement of
the existing structure. It is hoped that the new facility will help reduce maintenance and
operating costs of the Humane Society and the City's animal control contract.
RESOLUTION NO.
-98
A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, AT
THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3,
1998, THE QUESTION OF ISSUING SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE
BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$88,000,000
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE FORM OF THE BALLOT TITLE
AND TEXT; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO
THE ELECTION; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Colorado Spring, El Paso
County, Colorado (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing as a home
rule city under Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the City Charter (the
"Charter"), has determined that issuing its sales and use tax revenues bonds, payable from a
pledge of the City's existing 2% sales and use tax, to finance the cost of City capital
improvements is necessary and in the best interests of the citizens and inhabitants of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Council does hereby determine that at the general election to be held on
November 3, 1998, the question of issuing said bonds and spending the proceeds thereof shall be
submitted to the City's electors qualified and registered to vote thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Section 1. There shall be submitted to the registered qualified electors of the City at the
general election (the "election") to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 the question
regarding the issuance of the City's sales and use tax revenue bonds which appears in full in
Section 5 of this Resolution.
Section 2. The provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965, as amended
and supplemented (the "Municipal Election Code"), shall govern the election on the question,
except as otherwise provided in the Charter or ordinances of the City, all as impliedly modified
by relevant judicial decisions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-10-102.7 of the
Municipal Election Code, the City hereby determines to utilize the requirements and procedures
of the Uniform Election Code of 1992, articles 1 to 13 of title 1, C.R.S. (the "Uniform Election
Code") with respect to the election, which shall be conducted as a coordinated precinct election
in El Paso County. The election shall also be conducted pursuant to the provisions of an
Intergovernmental Agreement between the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder and the City
concerning the conduct of the election as a coordinated election, and the Mayor or City Clerk are
hereby authorized to execute and deliver, for and on behalf of the City, an Intergovernmental
Agreement.
02-10171 02
Section 3.
The precincts and polling places for the election shall by the El Paso
County general election precincts, as established by the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder,
within the boundaries of the City.
Section 4.
All acts required or permitted by the Uniform Election Code relevant to
voting by early voters' ballots, absentee ballots and emergency absentee ballots, which are to be
performed by the designated election official, shall be performed by the El Paso County Clerk
and Recorder except as otherwise provided herein.
Section 5.
The question of issuing sales and/or tax revenue bonds shall be submitted
to the qualified registered electors of the City in substantially the following form:
(Ballot title)
SHALL CITY DEBT BE INCREASED $88,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT
COST OF $149,150,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PAYABLE FROM A PLEDGE
OF EXISTING SALES/USE TAXES, EXEMPT FROM SPENDING/REVENUE
LIMITATIONS?
(Ballot text)
If approved, the City of Colorado Springs shall be authorized to issue its sales and use tax
revenue bonds payable from all or a portion of the City's existing 2% sales/use tax as the
Council may determine, to finance capital improvements, including transportation, public safety
and drainage improvements, parks and recreation facilities and animal shelters as recommended
by the Citizens' Coordination Committee of the Springs Community Improvements Program and
as approved by Council, in one or more series, to be subject to redemption (with or without
premium), to be dated and sold at such time or times and in such manner and at such prices (at,
above or below par), and to contain such terms, not inconsistent herewith, as the City Council
may determine, with the full proceeds of the Bonds and investment earnings thereon being spent
without being limited by the revenue and spending limits of, and without limiting the collection
or spending of any other revenues or funds by the City under, Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution or Section 7-90 of the City's Charter.
Section 6.
At least 55 days prior to the election (September 8, 1998) the City Clerk
shall certify the order of the ballot and the ballot content to the El Paso County Clerk and
Recorder.
Section 7.
The City Clerk shall submit to the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder in
the form, if any, specified by such person, the Notice of Election required by Article X,
Section 20(3)(b) of the Colorado Constitution.
Section 8.
The City Clerk shall give public notice of the election:
(a)
by causing the notice of election to be published in The Gazette, a
newspaper having general circulation in the City, for three successive days before the day
of the election;
02-10171 02
(b)
by posting, or causing to be posted, conspicuously, at least 10 days before
the election (on or before Saturday, October 24, 1998), a copy of the notice in a
conspicuous place in the Clerk's office;
(c)
by posting, or causing to be posted, conspicuously, at least 12 days before
the election (on or before Thursday, October 22, 1998) a sign at the polling place in each
precinct which sign shall contain the information set forth and shall be in conformity with
Section 1-5-106 C.R.S.; and
(d)
as otherwise required by law.
Section 9.
The officers of the City be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to
take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this resolution.
Section 10. All action heretofore taken by the Council and officers of the City, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution and toward the special municipal election
herein authorized, be and the same is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 11. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall for
any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such
section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this
resolution.
Section 12. All resolutions, bylaws and regulations of the City in conflict with this
resolution, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not
be construed to revive any resolution, bylaw or regulation or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
Section 13.
This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this August 11, 1998.
Mayor
[SEAL]
Attest:
By
City Clerk
02-10171 02
Councilmember
moved the resolution be now adopted. The
motion was duly seconded and the roll was called with the following result:
Those Voting Aye:
Those Voting No:
Those Absent:
The presiding officer thereupon declared that at least five of the members present having
voted in favor thereof, the motion was carried and the resolution was duly passed.
Thereupon, other business not relating to the proposed bonds nor to the November 3,
1998, election therefor was considered.
Thereafter, there being no further business to come before the meeting, on motion duly
made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned.
[SEAL]
Mayor
Attest:
By
City Clerk
02-10171.02
STATE OF COLORADO
)
)
COUNTY OF EL PASO
) ss.
)
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS )
I,
, City Clerk of the City of Colorado Springs (the "City"), in
the County of El Paso and State of Colorado, do hereby certify that:
1.
The foregoing pages numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive, constitute full, true and
correct copy of the record of the proceedings taken by the City Council of the City at a regular
meeting thereof held on August 11, 1998, insofar as said minutes relate to a resolution, a copy of
which is herein set forth, and said copy of said resolution as contained in said minutes is a full,
true and correct copy of the original of said resolution as introduced and passed.
2.
The Mayor and
other members of the City Council were
present at said meeting and the members of the City Council voted as in said minutes set forth.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City this
day of
1998.
By
City Clerk
[SEAL]
02-10171 02
ATTACHMENT IV
SPRINGS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (SCIP)
PROPOSED PLAN OF FINANCE
Totals
SOURCES OF FUNDS
$7,850,000 Annual General Fund Allocation
Series 1999 Bond Proceeds
$7,850,000
1/
$86,255,547
Interest Earnings on Unexpended Balances
$6,976,000
Subtotal
1997 TABOR Refund
$101,081,547
$6,608,101
Estimated 1998 TABOR Refund
$505,000
1/2 Cent Sales Tax Fund Balance 21
$2,256,607
Interest Earnings on Unexpended Balances
$731,763
Subtotal
TOTAL SOURCES
$10,101,471
$111,183,018
USES OF FUNDS
Public Safety Projects
Transportation Projects
Drainage Projects
Community Enhancement Projects
Parks and Public-Facilities
Special Projects
$28,700,000
$27,884,872
$20,887,000
$11,100,000
$9,500,000
$3,000,000
Subtotal
Northeast Community Recreation Center
Southeast Community Recreation Center
$101,071,872
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
Subtotal
TOTAL USES
$10,000,000
$111,071,872
* Annual General Fund allocation of $7,850,000 to SCIP is committed to bond debt retirement beginning in 1999 Thus.
1998 General Fund Budget allocation available to cash fund SCIP projects
1/ Represents net bond proceeds available for projects Total bond issue size is projected to be $87.600,000 inclusive of
costs of issuance, bond marketing costs, bond insurance premium and debt service reserve surety
2/ Unappropriated fund balance as of 12/31/97 Fund balance stems from a reimbursement of 1/2 cent funds from railroad
for Colorado Avenue viaduct project and interest earnings on unexpended balances.
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
Series 1999
Plan A - 2
New Issue — 17 Years
Rated "Aaa/AAA" — Insured
Level Payments
Market Rates
Table of Schedules
1 . Debt Service Payment Schedule of Series 1999
2 . Sources and Uses of Funds
George K. Baum & Company
31 -Jul-98
11:26 AM
$87,600,000
Series 1999
Debt Service Settedule
•
i^H^M^HHHHH^l
•
•
•
•
•
Dates
12/01/99
06/01/00
12/01/00
06/01/01
12/01/01
06/01/02
12/01/02
06/01/03
12/01/03
06/01/04
12/01/04
06/01/05
12/01/05
06/01/06
12/01/06
06/01/07
12/01/07
06/01/08
12/01/08
06/01/09
12/01/09
06/01/10
12/01/10
06/01/11
12/01/11
06/01/12
12/01/12
06/01/13
12/01/13
06/01/14
12/01/14
06/01/15
12/01/15
Principal
Coupon
Interest
3,785,000
3.750%
3,930,000
4.000%
4,085,000
4.150%
4,255,000
4.250%
4,435,000
4.300%
4,625,000
4.400%
4,830,000
4.450%
5,045,000
4.550%
5,275,000
4.600%
5,520,000
4.650%
5,775,000
4.700%
6,045,000
4.800%
6,335,000
4.900%
6,645,000
5.000%
6,980,000
5.050%
7,330,000
5.100%
2,705,000
5.150%
87.600,000
laaue Date:
01/01/99
Settlement Date:
02/01/99
3,719,281.04
1,957,730.00
1,957,730.00
1,879,130.00
1,879,130.00
1,794,366.25
1,794,366.25
1,703,947.50
1,703,947.50
1,608,595.00
1,608,595.00
1,506,845.00
1,506,845.00
1,399,377.50
1,399,377.50
1,284,603.75
1,284,603.75
1,163,278.75
1,163,278.75
1,034,938.75
1,034,938.75
899,226.25
899,226.25
754,146.25
754,146.25
598,938.75
598,938.75
432,813.75
432,813.75
256,568.75
256,568.75
69,653.75
69,653.75
40,407.601.04
Total P & 1
7.504,281.04
1,957,730.00
5,887,730.00
1,879,130.00
5,964,130.00
1,794,366.25
6,049,366.25
1,703,947.50
6,138,947.50
1,608,595.00
6,233,595.00
1,506,845.00
6,336,845.00
1,399,377.50
6,444,377.50
1,284,603.75
6,559,603.75
1,163,278.75
6,683,278.75
1,034,938.75
6,809,938.75
899,226.25
6,944,226.25
754,146.25
7,089,146.25
598,938.75
7,243,938.75
432,813.75
7,412,813.75
256,568.75
7,586,568.75
69,653.75
2,774,653.75
128.007,601.04
P&l
7,504,281.04
7,845,460.00
7,843,260.00
7,843,732.50
7,842,895.00
7,842,190.00
7,843.690.00
7,843,755.00
7,844,207.50
7,846,557.50
7,844,877.50
7,843,452.50
7,843.292.50
7,842,877.50
7,845,627.50
7,843,137.50
2,844,307.50
128,007.601.04
4.8115%
4.8898%
4.8874%
4.8341%
9.59 years
839,805.00 years
338,116.46
Average Coupon
NIC
TIC
Arbitrage Yield
Average Life
Bond Years
Accrued Interest
31-Jul-98
11:26 AM
$87,600,000
.City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
Series 1999
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
87,600,000.00
338,116.46
87,938.116.46
Uses
Project Fund
Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety
Bond Issue Discount
Bond Insurance Premium
Cost of Issuance
Accrued Interest
Contingency
2.50%
$7.50/$1,000
0.250% / X P & I
86,255,546.69
152,997.13
657,000.00
320,019.00
207,540.00
338,116.46
6,897.18
87,938,116.46
31-Jul-98
11:26 AM
cotpgtr
Series 1999
Plan A - 3
New Issue — 19 Years
Rated "Aaa/AAA" - Insured
Level Payments
Market Plus 100 Basis Points
Table of Schedules
1 . Debt Service Payment Schedule of Series 1999
2 . Sources and Uses of Funds
31 -Jul-98
01:55PM
$87.490,000
Series 1999
^H
Debt Service Scriledule
•
Dates
12/01/99
06/01/00
12/01/00
06/01/01
12/01/01
06/01/02
12/01/02
06/01/03
12/01/03
06/01/04
12/01/04 '
06/01/05
12/01/05
06/01/06
12/01/06
06/01/07
12/01/07
06/01/08
12/01/08
06/01/09
12/01/09
06/01/10
12/01/10
06/01/11
12/01/11
Principal
Coupon
Interest
2,810,000
4.750%
2,945,000
5.000%
3,090,000
5.150%
3,250,000
5.250%
3,420,000
5.300%
3,600,000
5.400%
3,795,000
5.450%
4,005,000
5.550%
4,225,000
5.600%
4,460,000
5.650%
4,715,000
5.700%
4,985,000
5.800%
5,270,000
5.900%
12/01/12
06/01/13
12/01/13
06/01/14
12/01/14
06/01/15
12/01/15
06/01/16
12/01/16
06/01/17
12/01/17
5,585,000
6.000%
5,920,000
6.050%
6,275,000
6.100%
6,660,000
6.150%
7,070,000
6.200%
5,410,000
6.250%
87.490.000
Issue Date:
01/01/99
Settlement Date:
02/01/99
4,615,182.92
2,450,635.00
2,450,635.00
2,377,010.00
7,425,182.92
2,450,635.00
5,395,635.00
2,377,010.00
2,377,010.00
5,467,010.00
2,297,442.50
2,297,442.50
2,212,130.00
2,212,130.00
2,121,500.00
2,297,442.50
5,547,442.50
2,212,130.00
5,632,130.00
2,121,500.00
5,721,500.00
2,024,300.00
5,819,300.00
1 ,920,886.25
2,121,500.00
2,024,300.00
2,024,300.00
1,920,886.25
1,920,886.25
1,809,747.50
1,809,747.50
1,691,447.50
1,691,447.50
1,565,452.50
1,565,452.50
1,431,075.00
1,431,075.00
1,286,510.00
1,286,510.00
06/01/12
1,131,045.00
1,131,045.00
963,495.00
.
Total P & 1
5,925,886.25
1,809,747.50
6,034,747.50
1,691,447.50
6,151,447.50
1,565,452.50
6,280,452.50
1,431,075.00
6,416,075.00
1,286,510.00
6,556,510.00
1,131,045.00
6,716,045.00
963,495.00
6,883,495.00
784,415.00
7.059,415.00
593,027.50
P&l
7,425,182.92
7,846,270.00
7,844,020.00
7,844,885.00
7,844,260.00
7,843,000.00
7,843,600.00
7,846,772.50
7,844,495.00
7,842,895.00
7,845,905.00
7,847,150.00
7,843,020.00
7,847,090.00
963,495.00
784,415.00
784,415.00
593,027.50
593,027.50
388,232.50
388,232.50
169,062.50
169,062.50
7,253,027.50
388,232.50
7.458,232.50
169,062.50
5,579,062.50
7,846,465.00
59,050,010.42
146,540,010.42
146,540,010.42
Average Coupon
NIC
TIC
Arbitrage Yield
Average Life
Bond Years
Accrued Interest
7,846,990.00
7,843,830.00
7,846,055.00
5,748,125.00
5.9379%
6.0039%
5.9952%
5.9522%
11.37 years
994.464.17 years
419,562.08
31-Jul-98
01.55PM
$87,490,000
Series 1999
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
87,490,000.00
419,562.08
87.909.562.08
Uses
Project Fund
Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety
Bond Issue Discount
Bond Insurance Premium
Cost of Issuance
Accrued Interest
Contingency
2.50%
$7.50/ $1,000
0.250% / X P & I
86,096,760.56
156,943.00
656,175.00
366,350.03
207,496.00
419,562.08
6.275.42
87.909.562.08
31-Jul-98
01:55PM
ATTACHMENT V
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 30, 1998
Jim Mullen, City Manager
Gary Haynes, City Engineering
SCIP Projects Cost Estimates
In order to prepare the cost estimate uniformly for all of the projects, staff prepared a form for
identifying the projects and providing the cost estimates for each project. These forms were
used by the project managers to estimate the construction costs, which were adjusted to
year 2000 dollars.
After the construction cost was determined for each project, project management costs,
architect and engineering costs, and construction contingencies were added to the total
project cost. For those projects that we anticipate will require land acquisition, an estimate of
the land acquisition cost was provided on the form, again estimating the cost with inflation to
the year 2000 dollars.
After the'SClP subcommittees prioritized the projects, the staff reviewed in greater detail the
cost estimates and revised the estimates where appropriate. One significant adjustment to
some of the projects is a cost increase based upon the cost of recently completed projects,
which are similar in nature and scope.
The construction cost estimates for the majority of the projects were made using conceptual
plans, and are accurate to that level of detail. Obviously, the actual cost of the project will be
dependent upon the bidding market at the time that the project is built, whether that be 1999,
2000, or 2001. However, in my opinion the cost estimates are very good for use in
determining the total dollar value for each category of projects.
If you have any questions or need further documentation of the cost estimate process,
please contact my office.
ATTACHMENT VI
ESTIMATED ONGOING GENERAL FUND COSTS FOR SCIP PROJECTS
Public Safety
Transportation
Drainage
Community Enhancements
Parks and Public Facilities
Special Projects
TOTAL
$ 1,240,000
$0
$0
$300,000
$374,000
$0
$1,914,000
Public Safety
Emergency Communications Network
$0
Fire Department Training Center
$80,000
Public Safety Complex
$ 110,000
Fire Station #18
$ 1,050,000
$1,240,000
Total
Transportation
Academy Blvd. Reconstruction - Union to Montebello South
$0
Fillmore Street Safety Projects -1-25 to Union
$0
Neighborhood Intersection Safety Improvements
$0
Academy Blvd. Reconstruction - Maizeland to Galley
$0
Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements
$0
Citywide .Neighborhood and School Traffic Calming
.
$0
Woodmen Road Widening- Buckhom Circle to Peregrine
$0
Rusina Road Local Improvement District
$0
Tejon Street at Brookside Street Intersection Improvements
$0
Union Boulevard- Research to Powers - Construct Six Lanes
$0
Roswell Neighborhood Truck Route Improvements
$0
Garden of the Gods Road at Mark Dabling Intersection Improvement
$0
Total
$0
Drainage
Fountain Creek Improvements - Monument Creek Confluence to
21st Street
Shooks Run Culverts-Las Vegas to Uintah
Academy Boulevard/Airport Rd. Drainage
Academy and Dublin Storm Sewer
Arrawanna/Platte Storm Sewer
North Stone Avenue Storm Sewer
Hercules Court Storm Sewer
Eyrie Drive Box Culvert
5328 Alta Loma Road
Valley Hi Avenue Drainage
Total
<j,n
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Community Enhancements
Confluence Park
$300,000
Total
$300,000
Parks/Public Facilities
Community Recreation Centers
$374,000
Colorado Springs Youth Sports Complex
Unknown
Aquatics and Fitness Center Code Compliance
$0
Sertich Ice Center - Memorial Park
$0
Total
$374,000
Total
$0
$0
Annual Total
$1,914,000
Special Projects
Animal Shelter
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING A QUESTION TO THE
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS AT THE
COORDINATED GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3,
1998 RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF THE 1997
REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE 1997 FISCAL YEAR
SPENDING LIMITATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS.
Section 1
There is hereby submitted and referred to the vote of the electors of the City
at the coordinated general election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, the following question:
Shall the City of Colorado Springs be permitted to expend up to
$6,608,101 for projects listed below, this amount being the 1997
revenues above the 1997 fiscal year spending limitation mandated
by TABOR?
PROJECTS
Northeast Community Recreation Center - Phase I construction of swimming
and fitness facilities
Southeast Community Recreation Center - Phase I construction of swimming
Dated at Colorado Springs, Colorado, this
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ord-res/292/la/l
ITEM NO. 11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING A QUESTION TO THE
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS AT THE
COORDINATED GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3,
1998 RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ESTIMATED
1998 REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE ESTIMATED 1998
FISCAL YEAR SPENDING LIMITATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS:
Section 1.
There is hereby submitted and referred to the vote of the electors of the City
at the coordinated general election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, the following question:
Shall the City of Colorado Springs be permitted to expend up to
$505,000 for the projects listed below, this amount being the
estimated 1998 revenues above the estimated 1998 fiscal year
spending limitation mandated by TABOR?
PROJECTS
Northeast Community Recreation Center - Phase I construction of swimming
Southeast Community Recreation Center - Phase I construction of swimming
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST.
City Clerk
ord-res/293/la/l
ITEM NO. 12
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31,1998
Jim Mullen, City Managei
Richard A. Reich, Real Estate Services Manager
City Council Agenda Item
Negotiations with the owner of the Water Works Car Wash at the intersection of Academy and Galley for
land needed for the 1996 Tax Refund Project have been unsuccessful
Approval of the attached resolution will allow the City Attorney's Office to begin the proceedings to
obtain possession through court action The property is needed in as soon as possible to maintain project
time schedules
The Real Estate Services Offices recommends that City Council approve initiation of eminent domain
procedures as required to facilitate the acquisition of the subject property Negotiations will continue on
an ongoing basis
c:
Gary Haynes, City Engineer
Steve Hook, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Diaz, Internal Support Manager
DEDICATED TO QUALITY SERVICE"
ITEM NO. 13
A
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING
THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN THE
ACADEMY AND GALLEY INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire property as legally described on Exhibits A.
attached; and
WHEREAS, City Council previously approved such acquisition; and
WHEREAS, negotiations with the owners to purchase said property have been
unsuccessful.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Section 1. The City Council finds and determines that the acquisition of the property
described in Exhibits attached hereto and becoming a part hereof is necessary and advisable for
the welfare of its citizens and the Academy and Galley Intersection Improvement Project.
Section 2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to take such action as may be
necessary to acquire said property, including initiation of eminent domain proceedings.
Dated at Colorado Springs, Colorado this
day of
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
, 1998.
JUL-51-98 SftT
12:54
PM QUIK
PRINT
T194T39502
REAL PROPERTY
TO BE
ACQUIRED FROM
Parcel No. 7
James Spinato
525 S. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, Co. 80903-3922
FOR
Academy Boulevard and Galley Road
Intersection Improvements
DESCRIPTION
A tract or parcel of land No. 7 of the City of Colorado Springs, El Paso County, State of
Colorado, containing 4,191 Square Feet, more or less, with 1,550 Square Feet, more or
less, being existing right of way by plat dedication, in Lot 1, Mountain Subdivision Filing
No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book E-4 at Page 10 of the records of
said El Paso County, located in the Northeast quarter of Section 10, Township 14 South,
Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, said tract or parcel being more particularly
described as follows:
NOTC: For the purpose of this description the bearings are based on the West line of
Block C, Sunnyside, as recorded in Plat Book U at Page 26, which line is assumed to bear
SOO°18'36"E from the Northwest Corner of Block C (a #3 rebar) to the Southwest Corner
of Block C (a #3 rebar);
Beginning at the Northeast Comer of said Lot 1, Mountain Subdivision Filing No, 1, said
point also being on the West right of way line of Academy Boulevard;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Thence SOOe19'18"E along said West right of way line and the East line
of said Lot 1, a distance of 155.00 feet to the South line of said Lot 1;
Thence S89°27'42"W along the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of
26.00 feet;
Thence NOO°19>18"W a distance of 141.00 feet;
Thence N59°09'03"W a distance of 26.88 feet to the North line of said
Lot 1 and the South right of way line of Uintah Street;
Thence N89°27'42"E along said South right of way line and the North
line of said Lot 1, a distance of 49.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of this
description.
The above described parcel contains 4,191 Square Feet, more or less, with 1,550 Square
Feet, more or less, being existing right of way per plat dedication, leaving 2,641 Square
Feet to be acquired.
P.02
JUL-51-98 SftT
12:35
PM
QUIK
PRINT
T194T39502
The foregoing description has been prepared under my direct responsibility, supervision
and review.
Carr\V. Bodensfeinerrre/PLS 6965
URS Greiner Consultants, Inc.
8415 Explorer Drive, Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO. 80920
r^ *
*s E
,1** 6S35 ^jsr
.*V
/£$
<*&*+*
^>v
P. 03
JUL-31-98 SAT
12:35
PM QUIK
PRINT
T194739502
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
TO BE
ACQUIRED FROM
Temporary Easement No.TE-7
James Spinato
525 S. Nevada Ave.
Colorado Springs, Co. 80903-3922
FOR
Academy Boulevard and Galley Road
Intersection Improvements
DESCRIPTION
A temporary easement No. TE-7 of the City of Colorado Springs, El Paso County, State
of Colorado, containing 5,156 Square Feet, more or less, in Lot 1, Mountain Subdivision
Filing No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book E-4 at Page 10 of the
records of said El Paso County, located in the Northeast quarter of Section 10, Township
14 South, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, said temporary easement being
more particularly described as follows:
NOTE: For the purpose of this description the bearings are based on the West line of
Block C, Svranyside, as recorded in Plat Book U at Page 26, which line is assumed to bear
SOOM8'36"E from the Northwest Comer of Block C (a #3 rebar) to the Southwest Comer
ofBlockC(a#3rebar);
Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 1, Mountain Subdivision Filing No. 1,
said point being 49.00 feet West of the Northeast Corner of said Lot 1 as originally
platted, said point also being on the South right of way line of Uintah Street;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Thence S59°09>03"E a distance of 26.88 feet;
Thence S00019'18"E a distance of 141.00 feet to the South line of said
Lotl;
Thence S89°27'42"W along said South line, a distance of 33.90 feet;
Thence NOO'19' 18"W a distance of 54.50 feet;
Thence N89°40'42"E a distance of 4.40 feet;
Thence NOO°19' 18"W a distance of 37.60 feet;
Thence S89°40'42"W a distance of 5.00 feet;
Thence N00°19' 18"W a distance of 47.00 feet;
Thence N6I°33'<XTW a distance of 19.39 feet;
Thence NOOM9' 18"W a distance of 6,50 feet to the North line of said Lot
1? said point also being on the South right of way line of Uintah Street;
Thence N89°27'42"E along said South right of way line and the North
line of said Lot 1, a distance of 28.50 feet to the Point of Beginning of this
description.
\VUnwl67\6742257VCAD\ROW\TE-7AcdfttyOUy.doc
P. 04
JUL-31-98 SAT
12:36
PM QUIK
PRINT
T194T3S502
The above described temporary easement contains 5,156 Square Feet, more or less for
the construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, grading, landscaping, and associated
improvements.
The foregoing description has been prepared under my direct responsibility, supervision
and
Carl W. Bodensteiner, PE/PLS 6965
URS Greiner Consultants, Inc.
8415 Explorer Drive, Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO. 80920
P. 05
JUL-51-98 SftT
12:56
PM
QUIK
LCNOftt
I
PRINT
T1947395Q2
P. 06
9UHNK
x T UTIUTY EASEMENT
5' UUUTY EASEMENT
5
EASEMENT —i
I- 12*
\I ELECTRIC EASEMENT
-[---V-1
LOT 1
MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT 8
<
LOT 7
BLOCK 9
SUNNYSIDE
JAMES 5PIMATO
Ok 5674 Pg 985
"'
ACADEMY BLVD. (SH 83)
ACADEMY BOULEVARD (SH 83)
IMSOmtoer
AT
GALLEY ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
PARCEL NO. 7
PROJ, NO. 67*2257
ACADEMY BOULEVARD (SH 83)
AT GALLEY ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
City of Colorado Springs
A RESOLUTION FINDING A PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF THAT
AREA SOMETIMES KNOWN AS WESCOR SUBDIVISION CONSISTING
OF 6.87 ACRES AND A PORTION OF EAST LAS VEGAS STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 31-12-107(1 ),C.R.S. AND SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR
THE COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE
ANNEXATION OF THE AREA
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,
COLORADO
1.
The City Council finds that a Petition for Annexation of that certain area commonly
known as Wescor Subdivision consisting of 6.87 acres and as more specifically described in
Exhibit A and a portion of East Las Vegas Street right-of-way consisting of 39,714 square feet
of land and as more specifically described as Exhibit B, is in substantial compliance with
Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S. and Section 30 of Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution.
2.
The City Council hereby sets a public hearing for September 22, 1998, at 9:00
A.M., at Council Chambers, City Administration Building, 30 S. Nevada Avenue, Colorado
Springs, Colorado, for purposes of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be
annexed meets applicable requirements of Section 31-12-104 and Section 31-12-105, C.R.S.,
is considered eligible for annexation and to determine whether the area should be annexed to
3.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the hearing in the manner
described in Section 31-12-108, C.R.S.
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPC A 98-00159
ITEM NO. 14
EXHIBIT "A"
A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 14 SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE
6™ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
34; THENCE EASTERLY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 34 A DISTANCE OF
598.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST LAS VEGAS
STREET; THENCE N20 55'17"W, A DISTANCE OF 661.92' TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST LAS VEGAS STREET, SAID POINT BBNG THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED TRACT, THENCE S89 32'22"W A DISTANCE OF
367.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY UNE OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 14
SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6™ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID POINT BEING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED TRACT, THENCE SOUTHERLY ON
SAID WESTERLY UNE OF SECTION 34, SO 28'47-E A DISTANCE OF 620.16 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINING 6.87 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS.
TOTAL PERIMETER
CONTIGUOUS PERIMETER
2247.88 LF
661.92 LF.
Exibit "B"
Legal Description
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 14
SOUTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF TOE 6THPJM, THENCE EAST ON THE SOUTO LINE OF SAID
SECTION ON A BEARING OF N89°32'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 598.48 FEET TO A POINT, SATO
POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT:
1. N69°04'41"E, A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET
2. N20"55' 17*W, A DISTANCE OF 661.92 FEET
3. S69°04'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET
4. S20°55'irE, A DISTANCE OF 661.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING 39,714 SJ. OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
wesb.doc
Page 4
1. Note all dead plant material to be replaced with plants from the City's approved plant list. Revise Plant
Schedule accordingly.
2. Replace dead plant-.material along west and north property lines with^mateials compatible with
overhead power lines arrcKthat will function as buffer landscaping^
3. Show and describe screening^ "rubbish collection areas
4. State type of equipment and methods used to imgate-tflfrequired landscaping.
5. Note any exterior lighting fixtures to be dâc^sTcut-off type.
6. Show location of wall mounted orfreesfinding signs for handicapped parking.
7. Comply with all departmenJaksSmments.
8. Title plan as "Condi#onatuse Development Plan".
Note file numberJ^PCCU 98-00184, in lower right-hand comer or each sheet and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
prints of the revised development plan shall be submitted to Development Review, then ten
'prints.
**» «»l»l>«** ************ *********«*«l>l>** >*•«*>*•**»*«*«*»»«**««***
ITEM C.
***«******•«•
CPC A 98-001 59 - Rapp - Legislative
6434306006
Request by Rick Mohnssen for approval of the annexation of Rickmoh Development consisting of 6.83
acres located northwest of Las Vegas Street and Wabash Street
CPCP 98-001 60 - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6434306006
Request by Rick Mohnssen on behalf of SouthpjDinterObint Venture for approval of a change of zone
classification from County to PF (Public. FaeiHt^consisting of 6.83 acres located northwest of Las Vegas
Street and Wabash Street.
„
ITEME.
CPC DP 98-00161 - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6434306006
-^ .
Request >y^Rick Mohnssen on behalf of Southpointe Venture for approval of a development plan for
Rickraoh Development in a proposed PF (Public Facility) zone consisting of 6.83 acres located northwest
af Las Vegas Street and Wabash Street.
Item C. - CPC A 98-000159 - Annexation
Approve the annexation petition and plat for Wescor Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1 . Compliance with all departmental comments.
2. Determination of legal and financial obligations shall be addressed in the Annexation Agreement.
3. Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in Development Review.
ltem£L - CPC P 98-00160 - Zone Change
Approvelhe-zone change to PF subject to the following condition of recorg^
1 . The site sliatt^be platted prior to the issuance of a certificate otecûpancy.
Item E. - CPC DP 98-00 tfrL- Development Plan
Approve the Rickemoh Development Plan: Comrriunity Corrections Facility.
ITEM 1.
>C P 98-0019^-vScanlon - Quasi-Judicial
X
640731BOQ6
Request by Deborah/Nicholls on behalf of Sandra Wilsonând Robert Tinker for approval of a change of
zone classification from C-5 (Commercial) to C-5/HP (Commercial with Historic Preservation Overlay)
consisting of .2t8 acres located southwest of Tejon Street and Willamette^ Avenue.
PageS
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIOl
P98-00197^-Zohe Change
Approve the requ^^ppfQve-trag_Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for RehabilitaJtingHistoric Buildings(Revi5eth49a3I_as the standards for use in the consideration of an
owner'sêtfuest for a Report of Acceptability.
It was moved by Commissioner Ruggiero, seconded by Commissioner Bauer to approve Items A.
through E. and I. on the Consent Calendar.
ITEM F.
CPCMPA 97-00313 - Rapp - Legislative
6436000017
RequestbykKevin j. Walker & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Soaring Eagles Orchards,Inc. for approval of
an amendment^ the Soaring Eagles Master Plan (formerly known as Drenn^n "Master Plan) involving
totally revamping
entire master plan consisting of 256.4 acres located northeast of Drennan Road and
Chelton Road.
ITEM G.
97-00314 - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6436000017,
Request by Kevin J. Walker & Associates>lnc. on behajôf Soaring Eagles Orchards, Inc. for approval of
a change of zone classification from C-6/P, PBC and-OC (Commercial with Planned Provisional Overlay,
Commercial and Office Complex) to C-6/P/NP^£ommercial with Planned Provisional and Navigation
Preservation Overlays) consisting of 36.24 acr^ located northeast of Drennan Road and Chelton Road.
/
Commissioner Gruen stated that this is srvery major and very visible piece of property in our community.
He asked if all issues and neighborhood concerns had been resolved? Gary Rapp, City Planning, replied
that staff and the applicant met wittrae neighbors to the south. AN issues have been resolved adequately
to satisfy staff and the neighbor?/ Commissioner Gruen asked if thXapplicant is clear on the participation
in an improvement district for/off-site roadways? Mr. Rapp replied yeX The applicant has indicated that
he's willing to participate. /•'
Commissioner Esmiol noted that this is such a large property and cited concerns with traffic? Mr. Rapp
replied that the proposal is for a much better land use and a better plan than what currently exists on the
\
master plan.
/
Commissioner Baruth asked for an abbreviated hearing on this request Mr. Rapp stated this is a master
plan amendment, which benefits the surrounding community with a better balance of land uses. It also
has conditions which will coordinate and maintain its design and landscaping. Associated with the
amendment is a zone change on 36+ acres to C-6/P for a mixed use development The plan, proposes a
hotel, offices and business park. The C-6 zone was requested because some of the uses tne applicant
would like to have in the business park involve custom manufacturing and light industry, which V>uld not
be allowed in the PBC zone. The applicant doesn't want to shift so much of the park to an industrial use
that its out of balance with the community commercial needed within this area, particularly related to the
airport Staff supports the C-6/P rezoning and recommends the following:
Item F. - CPC MPA 97-00313 - Master Plan Amendment
Approve the amendment to the Soaring Eagles Master Plan subject to the following conditions of record to
be noted on the amended master plan map:
1. The arterial streetscape shall be coordinated through development plan review to create a strong
sense of place for Soaring Eagles.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 18
ITEMNO(S): C.. D. & E.
STAFF: Gary Rapp
FILE NO(S1: CPC A 98-00159 - Legislative
CPC P 98-00160 - Quasi-Judicial
CPC DP 98-00161 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Wescor Subdivision Annexation & Community Corrections Facility
APPLICANT:
Rick E. Mohnssen
OWNER:
Rickemoh, Inc.
Requests for approval of the annexation of Wescor Subdivision; approval of a zone change from County
to PF(Public Facility); and, approval of Rickemoh Development Plan for a 160-bed community corrections
facility, all consisting of 6.87 acres located northwest of Las Vegas Street and Wabash Street
Approve the annexation petition and plat for Wescor Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all departmental comments.
2. Determination of legal and financial obligations shall be addressed in the Annexation Agreement
3. Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in Development Review.
Item D. - CPC P 98-00160 - Zone Change
Approve the zone change to PF subject to the following condition of record:
1. The site shall be platted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Item E. - CPC DP 98-00161 - Development Plan
Approve the Rickemoh Development Plan: Community Corrections Facility.
SUMMARY:
The City Council has previously agreed to extend utilities to this site for a community corrections facility.
Annexation criteria are met and the appropriate and only zone available for the facility is PF. The
development plan was reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building permit and commencement of
construction in the County.
1. Annexation conforms to Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 2.2.1.
2. Establishment of an PF zone will conform to Comprehensive Plan Policies 5.1.3 and
3. Request conforms to Development Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policies 2.1.1 and 2.2.1
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 19
ABASH ST
INT HWY 25
LAS VEGAS ST
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 20
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - County M/Community corrections facility (under construction)
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - County/ Construction contractor
FIGURE 1
South - County/ Residential
East - M-2/Vacant
West - County/ Auto salvage yard
Annexation - A resolution authorizing the extension of water and wastewater services to this site was
approved by City Council on May 13, 1997. A utilities/annexation extension agreement was executed by
the City on August 15, 1997.
Zoning - County, M.
Subdivision - Unplatted.
Proposal - FIGURES 2 and 3. Requests for approval of the annexation of Wescor Subdivision; approval
of a zone change from County to PF(Public Facility); and, approval of Rickemoh Development Plan for a
160-bed community corrections facility, all consisting of 6.87 acres located northwest of Las Vegas Street
and Wabash Street
Physical Characteristics - Most of the site is relatively flat and vegetated with native grasses. The
community corrections facility is now under construction in the County.
Master Plan - None.
Electric - Any alterations/relocation/removal of existing electric facilities will be at the developer's expense.
Developer shall coordinate any electric facility work prior to any site work including demolition of existing
buildings. Contact Pam Hamamoto at 636-5574 for information.
Water/Wastewater - Acceptable. Standard comments 4, 5, 11, 15.
Gas- Request approved.
Police - No comment
Fire - Although we do not have operations data to determine a historical level of response coverage, drivetime analysis indicates that the mean response time from station 11 should be approximately 6 minutes.
Structure fire response should fall within the department's proposed standard of coverage. Therefore,
there are no response time issues with this annexation.
In addition, we strongly encourage that the Las Vegas St right-of-way be brought into the city at the time
of annexation. We base this request on the inability of our CAD system to distinguish the street itself from
the property addresses.
All Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment
Item D. - CPC P 98-00160 - Zone Chance
Electric - Any alterations/relocation/removal of existing electric facilities will be at the developer's expense.
Developer shall coordinate any electric facility work prior to any site work including demolition of existing
buildings. Contact Pam Hamamoto at 636-5574 for information.
Water/Wastewater - Acceptable. Standard comment no. 1.
Gas - Request approved
item E. - CPC DP 98-00161 - Development Plan
Electric - Any alterations/relocation/removal of existing electric facilities will be at the developer's
expense. Developer shall coordinate any electric facility work prior to any site work including demolition of
existing buildings. Contact Pam Hamamoto at 636-5574 for information.
Gas - Request approved
Water/Wastewater - Acceptable. Standard comments 1,4, 5,11,15.
Police - No comment
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 21
1. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1
2. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.3.
3. Conformance with Development Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1:
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 states, "Annexations shall meet the following conditions:
"A.
The area to be annexed is a logical extension of the City's boundary." The 6.87-acre annexation site
is contiguous with the City limits to the east across E. Las Vegas Street, exceeding the one-sixth
contiguity requirement of the state, and it is served by a public street The portion of East Las Vegas
Street adjacent to the site will also be annexed.
"B. All undeveloped areas to be annexed shall be included in a master plan which must be approved by
the City prior to final approval of the annexation. The master plan shall be supported by adequate and
appropriate financial performance guarantees relating to phasing of the master plan." A master plan is
not required for a site this small (6.87 acres). The financial performance guarantees of the Annexation
Agreement should adequately ensure any phasing of the development approved in the establishment
of zoning for the property. .
"C. The existing or proposed development of the area to be annexed will be beneficial to the City."
Employment opportunities, improved drainage control, improved public transportation, and
diversification of the economic base are the principal benefits to the City.
"D. There is a projected available water surplus at the time of the request, and the existing and projected
water and/or wastewater facilities of the City are expected to be sufficient for the present and
projected needs for the foreseeable future to serve all present users." Subject to the Annexation
Agreement and standard Water Resources Department policies, water and wastewater facilities of
the City are presently expected to be sufficient to serve the site.
Furthermore, Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.1 states, "Consider...peninsulas for annexation." This site is
part of a large peninsula surrounded by the City on three sides.
CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 5.1.3
Policy 5.1.3 states, "Grant zoning changes only when it can be demonstrated that rezoning will result in a
be used as a basis for demonstrating community or neighborhood benefit"
The proper and only zone available for a detention facility is the PF zone. The City Council has previously
agreed to extend utilities to the site and, partly due to that commitment and the existing zoning, El Paso
County has issued a building permit for a community, corrections facility. The facility is now under
construction. It will be a community benefit to have this site and facility in the correct zone when it is
annexed. The site should also be platted, therefore that procedure will be required as a condition of
record.
CONFORMANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW CRITERIA OF ZONING
ORDINANCE ARTICLE 4:
The development plan was reviewed by the City and revised prior to the County's issuance of a building
permit It meets the submittal requirements and review criteria of Article 4 of the City Zoning Code.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
410 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4437
(303) 534-6335
' 623-1956
F' (303)
623_1956
FAX
Robert C. Troyer
WASHINGTON OFFICE
601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N W
SUITE
900
SU
'TE 9°°
WASHINGTON. D C 20004
,,„,>
,.,, ™77
(202) 434-8377
J*
* 393.7354
^
FAX (202)
JuneS, 1998
City Council
30 South Nevada Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Re:
Appeal to Colorado Springs City Council Regarding Concept Plan Amendment^for Windward Comer and Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer, Filing No. 2 •• • -'
City of Colorado Springs Planning Department File No. AR CPA 98-83
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to City of Colorado Springs Zoning Ordinance §§ 603(E) and 1008(B), Rocky
Mountain Extended Stay LLLP ("Rocky Mountain"), through counsel authorized to act on its
behalf, Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Strickland, P.C., hereby appeals the decision of the City of
Colorado Springs Planning Commission to deny Rocky Mountain's appeal of the City of
Colorado Springs Planning Department's approval of the above-referenced Subdivision Plat and
Concept Plan Amendment.
On April 30, 1998, the City of Colorado Springs Planning Department approved the
Concept Plan Amendment for Windward Corner, and on May 5, 1998 the City of Colorado
Springs Planning Department approved the Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer, Filing No. 2.
On May 8, 1998, Rocky Mountain appealed those approvals to the City of Colorado Springs
Planning Commission.
On June 4, 1998, the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission narrowly denied
Rocky Mountain's appeal of those approvals, with discussion indicating that it was
uncomfortable doing so. Rocky Mountain now appeals that decision by the City of Colorado
Springs Planning Commission to the City of Colorado Springs City Council. For the reasons set
forth in the May 8, 1998 letter attached hereto as Exhibit A, the City Council should overturn the
action of the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission and reject the City of Colorado
Springs Planning Department's approval of the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan Amendment
at issue.
Very truly yours,
^*%rXt ^j&*i
Robert C. Troy^r
RCT/111
Enclosure
451272
ITEM NO. 15
BROWNSTEIN HYATT PARSER & STRICKLAND, P.C,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4437
(303) 534-6335
FAX <303) 623-1956
FAX (303) 623-1956
RobertC Troyer
M1
WASHINGTON OFFICE
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N W
surre 90
°
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20004
(202)434-8377
FAX (202) 393-7864
May8,1998
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City Planning Commission
30 S. Nevada Avenue, Suite 301/305
P.O. Box 1575
Colorado Springs, CO 80901-1575
Re:
COMBINED APPEAL OF CONCEPT
PLAN AND SUBDIVISION PLAT —
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FILE NO. AR CPA 98-83
Appeal to the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission of Concept Plan
Amendment for Winward Corner and Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer, Filing
No. 2 — Planning Department File No. AR CPA 98-83
Dear Members of the Colorado Springs Planning Commission:
Pursuant to City of Colorado Springs Zoning Code Sections 603.E and 1008.A, Part 10,
Article 4, and the directive of Senior Planner James R. Mayerl and the City of Colorado Springs City
Attorney, Mervin Allen Ziegler, Jr., Rocky Mountain Extended Stay, LLLP ("Rocky Mountain"),
through counsel authorized to act on its behalf, Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Strickland, P.C., hereby
appeals the Concept Plan Amendment for Windward Corner approved by the City of Colorado
Springs Planning Department on April 30, 1998, and the Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer,
Filing No. 2 approved by the Planning Department on May 5,1998. (See Exhibit 1, attached). This
appeal is timely. Id. (See Exhibit 1.)
1.
Appellant, Rocky Mountain, is a person aggrieved by a decision made by the City
of Colorado Springs Planning Department. Rocky Mountain holds a legally cognizable property
right in a parcel of real property that would be subject to the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan
Amendment approved by thf Planning Department. Unless the Planning Commission reverses that
approval, Rocky Mountain will be severely prejudiced.
2.
By way of background, on October 10, 1997 Rocky Mountain entered into an
Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate (the "Agreement") with WW2.COM, LLC ("WW2").
Pursuant to the Agreement, Rocky Mountain will purchase certain real property (the "Property")
within areas subject to the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat that Rocky Mountain now
appeals. Under the Agreement, WW2 is bound to convey all easements, licenses, rights-of-ways and
other indicia of ownership to Rocky Mountain. Importantly, the Agreement endows Rocky
Mountain with the right and authority to review and approve proposed Subdivision Plats,
Development Plans, and Concept Plans. By submitting the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan
EXHIBIT A
May8, 1998
Page 2
Amendment without Rocky Mountain's approval, WW2 has breached the Agreement. The parties
agreed that in the event of such a breach, Rocky Mountain is entitled to pursue legal and equitable
remedies including specific performance.
3.
Because WW2 breached the Agreement by tendering the Concept Plan Amendment
and Subdivision Plat to the City Planning Department without Rocky Mountain's approval, Rocky
Mountain was forced to initiate litigation against WW2 in El Paso County District Court (Case
No. 98 CV 1709). There, Rocky Mountain seeks specific performance of the Agreement, requiring
WW2 to sell the Property to Rocky Mountain and allowing Rocky Mountain to approve the Concept
Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat. After filing that suit, Rocky Mountain recorded its Notice
of Us pendens with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, Recording Department at Reception
No. 98054666.
4.
Upon information received from Senior Planner Mayerl, neither the Concept Plan
Amendment nor the Subdivision Plat underlying this appeal have been recorded with either the City
of Colorado Springs or the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder. Accordingly, Rocky Mountain's
Us pendens is senior in time to any recording of either the Subdivision Plat or the Concept Plan
Amendment.
5.
Once Rocky Mountain prevails in Case No. 98 CV 1709, it will be entitled to enforce
the Agreement. Because the Concept Plan Amendment and the Subdivision Plat substantially
contradict the development of the Property to which Rocky Mountain is entitled under the
Agreement, the property at issue will have to be subdivided again. As a result, a number of public
and private easements, including those for utilities, public improvements, drainage and
ingress/egress then will have to be vacated. Thus, that judicial relief will adversely affect adjoining
property owners as well as the City of Colorado Springs if the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan
Amendment are recorded in their present form. See Hammerslev v. District Court In and For the
County of Routt. 610 P.2d 94 (Colo. 1980).
6.
The Planning Department's approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and
Subdivision Plat also should be reversed for the following reasons:
a.
The decision was contrary to the express terms of the parties' Agreement and
the Development Plan for the property at issue that Rocky Mountain
submitted to the Planning Department on February 13, 1998. The decision
also clearly conflicts with the senior lis pendens filed by Rocky Mountain.
Further, the decision was made without Concept Plan Amendment or
Subdivision Plat approval by Rocky Mountain, in violation of the Agreement.
May8, 1998
Page3
b.
The decision runs contrary to the intent of the City of Colorado Springs'
zoning ordinances. The filing of the junior Subdivision Plat and Concept
Plan Amendment at this stage will eviscerate the articulated purpose of
concept plans and subdivision plats, as described by Zoning Code § 601 (A).
Due to the uncertainty caused by the Its pendens and litigation, it is virtually
impossible for the Planning Department to review the impact of the proposed
uses upon adjacent properties, the neighborhood, road systems and existing
and planned infrastructure.
c.
The decision is incorrect because the ownership, maintenance, and use of
Tract A, a pivotal portion of the property subject to the Concept Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Plat, remains in dispute in Case No. 98CV1709.
In particular, Rocky Mountain did not contract to purchase Tract A, yet WW2
submitted (and the Planning Department approved) a Concept Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Plat indicating that Rocky Mountain will own
and maintain Tract A. Consequently, the Planning Department is unable to
accurately determine the need for additional dedication and design criteria.
As noted previously, because Rocky Mountain holds a senior lis pendens,
once it prevails in Civil Action No. 98 CV 1709, the Concept Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Plat will be null and void.
d.
Approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat also is
incorrect because both documents inaccurately portray access and easement
facilities. Accordingly, under the Zoning Code they do not ensure safe points
of access and internal circulation.
e.
The decision also was incorrect because it violates Zoning Code § 601.C.
The Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat contain proposed
ingress/egress points that are subject to revision by judicial order.
Accordingly, the proposed points do not promote safety, convenience and
ease of traffic flow as required by the Code. Furthermore, they do not
promote "stabilization" and preservation of existing properties in adjacent
areas. On the contrary, the entire Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Plat are subject to drastic revision after Rocky Mountain prevails in Case
No. 98 CV 1709.
f.
The decision also was incorrect because it violates Zoning Code § 602(C).
The lis pendens and the litigation will ultimately result in a reconfiguration
and material revision of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat.
Thus, the Planning Department could not have had an opportunity to
May8, 1998
Page 4
determine that streets and drives within the project area will provide logical,
safe, convenient vehicular access to all facilities within the project.
g.
The decision also was incorrect because judicial enforcement of the
Agreement will lead to the vacation of numerous underground utility
easements reflected by the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat.
Consequently, the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat do not
encourage the preservation of natural features such as vegetation and
drainage canals.
h.
The decision also was incorrect because, despite being advised of the lis
pendens and the pending litigation, the Planning Department accepted for
filing the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat knowing that they
were subject to judicial revision and lacking the permanency necessary for
development. Therefore, there is the potential for a negative impact upon
adjacent land owners and the City of Colorado Springs.
i.
The decision also was erroneous and clearly contrary to law because both the
Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat were drafted in violation of
Rocky Mountain's property rights and with disregard for the seniority of
Rocky Mountain's lis pendens. Such conduct may prejudice the people of
the City of Colorado Springs and the adjacent land owners. Indeed, approval
of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat could constitute
interference with Rocky Mountain's contractual rights and its prospective
business advantage under the Agreement.
j.
The decision also was erroneous because the Concept Plan Amendment and
Subdivision Plat purports to confirm covenants that Rocky Mountain never
approved, that are inconsistent with the development to which Rocky
Mouiftain is contractually entitled, and that will be nullified when Rocky
Mountain succeeds in its litigation.
k.
Independent of Rocky Mountain's contract rights, its lis pendens, and its
litigation, the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat, as approved,
do not provide adequate fire access to the Property. Accordingly, the
Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat have a detrimental effect
upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the persons in the
area (see Zoning Code § 601(c)(l).)
May 8,1998
PageS
1.
At this juncture, it appears that the benefits associated with acceptance of the
Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat are clearly outweighed by the
potential adverse impacts created by the Planning Department's approval.
This is particularly true in view of the likelihood that Rocky Mountain will
prevail in Case No. 98 CV 1709. Once the El Paso County District Court
orders WW2 to perform its contractual obligations — allowing Rocky
Mountain to veto the proposed Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Plat — the impact upon the community and the adjacent land owners could
be devastating. Such a result has the potential of leaving the City of
Colorado Springs with the burden of ownership and maintenance of Tract A,
as well as significant problems relative to drainage, access, and public
utilities. Meanwhile WW2 simply walks away with its profit. In contrast,
simply delaying approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Plat until the parties have an opportunity to resolve their differences through
litigation or a jointly submitted and properly approved concept plan and
subdivision plat, would place no particular burden upon the City of Colorado
Springs.
In conjunction with the filing of this appeal, Rocky Mountain also has filed a direct appeal
of the Subdivision Plat to the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs. (See Exhibit 2, attached
and incorporated herein by this reference). Although Rocky Mountain would prefer to have the
Planning Commission address the appeals of both the Concept Plan Amendment and the Subdivision
Plat concurrently, it has filed an appeal with the City Council in order to preserve its appellate rights
pursuant to City of Colorado Springs Revised Municipal Code Section 15-3-302(B)(l)(f). Despite
that filing, however, Rocky Mountain has no objection to this body's consideration of both matters.
Also, Rocky Mountain expressly reserves its right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision
to the City Council, if necessary.
May8, 1998
Page 6
For the foregoing reasons, Rocky Mountain respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission reverse the Planning Department's decision or, alternatively, refrain from recording
either the Concept Plan Amendment or the Subdivision Plat until the parties' dispute is resolved in
a manner consistent with the Agreement and Rocky Mountain's due process rights.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
Patrick F. Carrigan
Robert C. Troyer
ATTORNEYS FOR AGGRIEVED PARTY SAGE
DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES AND ROCKY
MOUNTAIN EXTENDED STAY, LLLP
446306
Development Review
May 5, 19S8
Steven N. Jacobs
Sage Development Resources
1512 Larimer Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
RE:
Concept Plan and Subdivision Plat for Winward Court Filing 2
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
The Subdivision Plat for Winward Court Filing 2 is hereby approved. This plat is in
i,,
accordance with the concept plan approved for the property on April 30th. if an appeal is
received for both the subdivision plat and concept plan (by this Friday for the concept
plan) the appeal will be scheduled for the next available City Planning Commission
agenda (June 4).
The reasons for the appeal should be so stated in your letter. If at any time the appeal is
dropped we request immediate notification.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James R.
Senior Planner
File Number AR CPA 98-83
Stormwater and Subdivision
John Gatto
Mr. Roland Obliring
Obering, Worth & Associates
1015ElktonDrive
Colorado Springs, CO 80S07
EXHIBIT 1
305. Nevada Ave.f Suite 301/305 • TEL 719-385-5905 FAX 719-573-6303
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575, Mail Code 310 • Colorado Springs, Colorado S0901 -1575
BROWNSTEEX HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
_
r-wrMnnno
TWENTY-SKCNO
FLOOR
410 Sc^/EMTHHNTH STREET
DENVER. CCLORACO 80202-1437
(C03) 53A-S335
FAX (203) 523-;9£5
Rooert C. Troyer
WASHINGTON Ofr\C=
^ ^.——-—j^
N .„
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON. 0 C 2C004
p^ 434^377
FAX (202) 393-7354
Mav8,1998
APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT —
FILE NO. ARCPA 98-83
City Council
30 S. Nevada Avenue
Re-
Appeal to City of Colorado Springs City Council Pursuant to Colorado Springs
Revised Municipal Code Section 15-3-302(B)(l)(f) — City Planning Department
File No. ARCPA 98-83
Dear Members of the Colorado Springs City Council:
This law firm has been designated by aggrieved party Rocky Mountain Extended Stay, LLLP
("Rocky Mountain") to appeal on its behalf the approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and
Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer Filing No. 2. The Concept Plan Amendment was approved
by the Plannin- Department on April 30,1998. The Subdivision Plat was approved by the Planning
Department on May 5, 1998. Therefore, this appeal is timely. (See Exhibit 1, attached.)
At the outset we note that Mr. Mayerl and Assistant City Attorney Mervm Allen Ziegler,
Jr. have instructed Rocky Mountain to appeal both the Concept Plan Amendment and the
Subdivision Plat to the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission. (See Exhibit 1). Rocky
Mountain has no objection to proceeding before the Planning Commission. Such an approach serves
to consolidate the appeals* leading to a comprehensive resolution while conserving municipal
resources. Rocky Mountain will not, however, waive its right to appeal the Planning Commission s
decision to this body, if necessary.
To preserve its appellate rishts, Rocky Mountain also appeals the Subdivision Plat directly
to the Citv Council pursuant'to Section 15-3-302(B)(l)(0 of the Colorado Springs Revised
Municipal Code. Section 15-3-302(B)(2) mandates that the dry Council hear final plat requests that
have been appealed from a decision of the Planning Commission. Snould this body chose to defer
to the Planning Commission for an initial ruling, Rocky Mountain will gladly present its case there.
According Rocky Mountain's appeal of Planning Department File No. AR CP A 9S-S3 is included
EXHIBIT 2
City Council
MayS, 1998
Pa2e2
in its appeal of the related Concept Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission. (£ee Exhibit 2,
attached and incoiporated herein by this reference).
1.
Appellant, Rocky Mountain, is a person aggrieved by a decision made by James R.
Mayerl, Senior Planner, on behalf of the City of Colorado Springs Planning Department. Rocky
Mountain holds a legally cognizable property right in a parcel of real property that would be subject
to the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan Amendment approved by Senior Planner Mayerl. Unless
the Planning Commission reverses Mr. Mayerl's approval, Rocky Mountain will be severely
prejudiced.
2.
By wav of background, on October 10, 1997 Rocky Mountain entered into an
3
of lis pendens with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, Recording Department at Reception
No. 98054666.
4.
lis pendens is senior in time to any recording of either the Subdivision Plat or the Concept Plan
Amendment.
5.
the Asreement. Because the Concept Plan Amendment and the Subdivision Plat substantially
Agreement, the property at issue will have to be subdivided again As a result, a number of public
City Council
May8, 1998
PageS
insress/e-ess then will have to be vacated. Thus, that judicial relief will adversely affect adjoining
Amendment are recorded in their present form. See Hammerslev v. District Court In and For the
Countv of Routt. 610 P.2d 94 (Colo. 1930).
6
Subdivision Plat also shouldbe reversed for the following reasons:
submitted to the Planning Department on February 13,1998. The decision
Further the decision was made without Concept Plan Amendment or
a.
zonin° ordinances. The filing of the junior Subdivision Plat and Concept
Due to the uncertainty caused by the lis pendens and litigation, it is virtually
uses urjon adjacent properties, the neighborhood, road systems and existing
In particular Rocky Mountain did not contract to purchase Tract A, yet WW2
A. n'oted Dr-viously, because Rocky Mountain holds a senior lis pendens,
d.
facilities Accordingly, under the Zoning Code they do not ensure safe points
City Council
May8,1998
Pase4
e.
The decision also was incorrect because it violates Zoning Code 8 601 C
No. 98 CV 1709.
f.
The decision also was incorrect because it violates Zoning Code 5 6Q2(C).
The lis pendens and the litigation will ultimately result in a reconfiguration
determine that streets and drives within the project area will provide loaical
g.
drainage canals.
h.
The decision also was incorrect because, despite being advised of the Us
pendens and the pending litigation, he accepted for filing the Concent Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Plat knowing that they were subject to judicial
revision and lacking the permanency necessary for development. The Senior
Planner's conduct in this regard has the potential to cause a negative impact
upon adjacent land owners and the City of Colorado Springs.
i.
Rocky Mountain's Us pendens. Such conduct may prejudice the people of
J.
City Council
May8, 1998
PageS
Mountain is contractually entitled, and that will be nullified when Rocky
k.
1
Independent of Rocky Mountain's contract rights, its Us pendens, and its
do~not provide adequate fire access to the Property. Accordingly, the
upon the °eneral health, welfare, safety and convenience of the persons in the
potential adverse impacts created by the Senior Planner's approval. This is
particularly true in view of the likelihood that Rocky Mountain will prevail
in Case No. 98 CV 1709. Once the El Paso County District Court orders
WW2 to perform its contractual obligations — allowing Rocky Mountain to
veto the proposed Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat — the
impact upon the community and the adjacent land owners could be
devastating Such a result has the potential of leaving the City of Colorado
Springs with the burden of ownership and maintenance of Tract A, as well as
significant problems relative to drainage, access, and public utilities.
Meanwhile WW2 simply walks away with its profit. In contrast, simply
delayin^ approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat until
the parties have an opportunity to resolve their differences through litigation
or a jointly submitted and properly approved concept plan and subdivision
plat would place no particular burden upon the City of Colorado Springs.
In closino we reiterate that Rocky Mountain does not wish to cause any unnecessary delay
or inconvenience.' On the contrary, Rocky Mountain is expending significant resources in an effort
to push the project, including the Subdivision Platting process, forward as quickly as possible. Due
to the pendency of the civ* action and the Us pendens, however, it would be in the best interest of
the City of Colorado Springs and its residents to refrain from approving the proposed Subdivision
Plat until new litigation is resolved. See Harnmerslev v District Court In nnd For the County af
Routt T 610 P.2d 94 (Colo. 1980).
City Council
May 8, 1998
Pase6
We look forward to addressing these issues before the Planning Commission and, if
necessary, the City Council.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
& STRICKLAND, P.C.
Patrick F. Carrigan
Robert C. Trover
410 17th Street, 22nd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
^juj; JJ^T-UJJJ
(303)534-6335
ATTORNEYS FOR SAGE DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN EXTENDED STAY, LLLP
•U5955
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 150
ITEMNO(S): 12. &13.
STAFF: James Maverl
FILE NO(S>: CPC AP 98-00211 - Quasi-Judicial
CPC AP 98-00212 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Winward Corner
APPELLANT:
Rocky Mountain
OWNER:
WW2 -COM
This is an appeal of an administrative decision to approve a concept plan and subdivision plat The
property is located northwest of Garden of the Gods and Centennial Boulevard in a Planned Business
Center (PBC) zone. The specific area of appeal concerns 5.27 acres.
Item 12. - CPC AP 98-00211 - Appeal
Deny the appeal.
SUMMARY:
Staff believes this is an appeal that is strictly a private matter between buyer and seller. The concept plan
that was approved meets all the requirements and review criteria in the zoning code. The subdivision plat
has been revised to eliminate the lot that is (was) to be sold to the buyer. The differences between the
buyer and seller are part of contractual arrangements.
CPC AP 98-00211
USTDR
CENTENNIAL BD
t:
GARDEN OF THE GODS
CPC P 98-00212
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 151
BACKGROUND:
Zoning - PBC zoning for the majority of the site was established in 1985. Three and seven tenths acres
was added to that in 1997. The concept plan approved in 1997 showed much the same land use
configuration as the plan that was approved and appealed this year. The appealed plan shows access
ways and buildings that match specific development plans that have or are in the process of being
approved.
Subdivision - Proposed to be platted as three lots in conformance with a concept plan. The plat has been
revised to delete two lots one of which is the lot that was to be bought by the appellant. The revised plat is
for one lot, which is still in conformance with the approved concept plan and also in conformance with a
specific development plan for a service station. All easements as shown and required with the original plat
as still being provided as separate recorded easements. No department has any objection to the revised
plat.
Item 13. - CPC AP 98-00212 -Appeal
The departments have already commented on the concept plan and subdivision plat.
departments have called or written to express no objections to the revised plat.
All affected
The concept plan for the overall property and subdivision plat were submitted for administrative approval
several months ago along with three specific development plans and one additional plat. A development
plan and plat for a bank at the corner of Garden of the Gods and Centennial was approved with no appeal.
A development plan for a service station at the main entrance to the business center was also approved
without appeal. All plans and plats showed cross access and other easements as required by other
departments.
A development plan for a hotel, which was to be purchased by Rocky Mountain (the appellant), has not
been approved because of differences between the buyer and seller. That plan showed cross access
easements just as was shown on the concept plan and provided for by the subdivision plats. The cross
access easement for this lot was shown as a tract on the development plan. The applicant for that plan
(Sage Development, which is now calling itself Rocky Mountain) did not call out who would own and
maintain this tract. During the course of review, staff pointed out that ownership and maintenance would
need to be identified on the plan as well as the plat. The plat, which was submitted by WW2-COM, was
revised to identified ownership and maintenance responsibilities with the adjacent lot (Sage Development)
This is logical and staff therefor approved the concept plan and plat for the overall property.
The appellant has objected to the concept plan and plat showing ownership and maintenance of the tract
assigned to their purchase property. It appears that they believe that another entity should own and
maintain this ground.
AH property within this planned business center needs to be owned and maintained by some entity. It is
logical that ownership and maintenance responsibilities of access easements should be with the adjacent
property owners. It is not logical or acceptable that parcels should be owned and maintained by entities
that will not own land that is adjacent to these easements.
They have also verbally indicated that they may have concerns about an access that was originally shown
on their proposed common property line being moved. There was an access from Centennial Boulevard
that was shown on their northern most property that has been moved about 40 feet to the industrial land to
the north. This will still provide access to their property in the form of an access easement and they will
not have to build or maintain this driveway, however, it may cause them some problems. They have not
been specific as to what problems it may cause. This may need further explanation from the appellant at
the Planning Commission meeting.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 152
The concept plan and plat meet technical requirements and review criteria as approved. The appeal
should therefor be denied.
The approved concept plan is shown as FIGURE 2. The approved (not yet recorded plat) is shown as
FIGURE 3. The revised plat to delete the contested lot and one adjacent lot is shown as FIGURE 4.
NSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WASHINGTON OFFICE
601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON. D C 20004
(202) 434-8377
FAX (202) 393-7864
"TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
DENVER. COLORADO 80202-4437
(303)534-6335
FAX (303) 623-1956
Robert C. Troyer
May 8,1998
VIA HAND DELIVERY
30 S. Nevada Avenue, Suite 301/305
P.O. Box 1575
Re:
COMBINED APPEAL OF CONCEPT
PLAN AND SUBDIVISION PLAT —
Appeal to the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission of Concept Plan
Amendment for Winward Comer and Subdivision Plat for Windwarcl Comer, Filing
No. 2 — Planning Department File No. AR CPA 98-83
Dear Members of the Colorado Springs Planning Commission:
Pursuant to City of Colorado Springs Zoning Code Sections 603 JE and 1008.A, Part 10,
Article 4, and the directive of Senior Planner James R. Mayerl and the City of Colorado Springs City
Attorney, Mervin Allen Ziegler, Jr., Rocky Mountain Extended Stay, LLLP ("Rocky Mountain"),
through counsel authorized to act on its behalf, Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Strickland, P.C., hereby
appeals the Concept Plan Amendment for Windward Corner approved by the City of Colorado
Springs Planning Department on April 30, 1998, and the Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer,
Filing No. 2 approved by the Planning Department on May 5, 1998. (See Exhibit 1, attached). This
appeal is timely. Id- (See Exhibit 1.)
1.
Appellant, Rocky Mountain, is a person aggrieved by a decision made by the City
of Colorado Springs Planning Department. Rocky Mountain holds a legally cognizable property
right in a parcel of real property that would be subject to the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan
Amendment approved by the Planning Department. Unless the Planning Commission reverses that
approval, Rocky Mountain will be severely prejudiced.
2.
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
CPC4
CPC A-P
CPCAP98-00212
/«-"
May 8,1998
Page 2
3.
oflispendens with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, Recording Department at Reception
No. 98054666.
4.
Amendment.
5.
Amendment are recorded in their present form. See Hammersley v. District Court In and For the
6.
a.
CPC
ITEMS12&13
CPC
May 8, 1998
Page 3
ITEMS 12 & 13
b.
Due to the uncertainty caused by the lispendens and litigation, it is virtually
c.
Amendment and Subdivision Plat, remains in dispute in Case^Jo. 98CV1709.
As noted previously, because Rocky Mountain holds a senior Us pendens^
d.
e.
No. 98 CV 1709.
f.
The lispendens and the litigation will ultimately result in a reconfiguration
FIGURE 1
CPCAP 98-00211
AP 98-00212
CPC
May8,1998
Page 4
determine that streets and drives within the project area will provide logical,
ITEMS12&13
g.
drainage canals.
h.
pendens and the pending litigation, the Planning Department accepted for
riling the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat knowing that they
were subject to judicial revision and lacking the permanency necessary for
development. Therefore, there is the potential for a negative impact upon
adjacent land owners and the City of Colorado Springs.
i.
Rocky Mountain's lis pendens. Such conduct may prejudice the people of
j.
k.
Independent of Rocky Mountain's contract rights, its lis pendens, and its
HGURB1
May 8, 1998
PageS
1.
potential adverse impacts created by the Planning Department's approval.
This is particularly true in view of the likelihood that Rocky Mountain will
prevail in Case No. 98 CV 1709. Once the El Paso County District Court
orders WW2 to perform its contractual obligations — allowing Rocky
Mountain to veto the proposed Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Plat — the impact upon the community and the adjacent land owners could
be devastating. Such a result has the potential of leaving the City of
Colorado Springs with the burden of ownership and maintenance of Tract A,
as well as significant problems relative to drainage, access, and public
utilities. Meanwhile WW2 simply walks away with its profit. In contrast,
simply delaying approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Plat until the parties have an opportunity to resolve their differences through
litigation or a jointly submitted and properly approved concept plan and
subdivision plat, would place no particular burden upon the City of Colorado
Springs.
In conjunction with the filing of this appeal, Rocky Mountain also has filed a direct appeal
of the Subdivision Plat to the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs. (See Exhibit 2, attached
and incorporated herein by this reference). Although Rocky Mountain would prefer to have the
Planning Commission address the appeals of both the Concept Plan Amendment and the Subdivision
Plat concurrently, it has filed an appeal with the City Council in order to preserve its appellate rights
pursuant to City of Colorado Springs Revised Municipal Code Section 15-3-3 02(B)(l)(f). Despite
that filing, however, Rocky Mountain has no objection to this body's consideration of both matters.
Also, Rocky Mountain expressly reserves its right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision
to the City Council, if necessary.
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
CPCAP 98-00211
CPC AP 98-00212
May 8,1998
Page 6
For the foregoing reasons, Rocky Mountain respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission reverse the Planning Department's decision or, alternatively, refrain from recording
either the Concept Plan Amendment or the Subdivision Plat until the parties' dispute is resolved in
a manner consistent with the Agreement and Rocky Mountain's due process rights.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT PARSER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
Patrick F. Carrigan
Robert C. Troyer
ATTORNEYS FOR AGGRIEVED PARTY SAGE
DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES AND ROCKY
MOUNTAIN EXTENDED STAY, LLLP
445964
FIGURE 1
ITEMS 12 & 13
CPC AP 98-00211
CPC AP 98-00212
CITY PLANNING
Development Review
May 5, 1998
Steven N. Jacobs
Sage Development Resources
1512 Larimer Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
RE:
Concept Plan and Subdivision Plat for Winward Court Filing 2
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
The Subdivision Plat for Winward Court Filing 2 is hereby approved. This plat is in
accordance with the concept plan approved for the property on April 30th. -ff an appeal is
received for both the subdivision plat and concept plan (by this Friday for the concept
plan) the appeal will be scheduled for the next available City Planning Commission
agenda (June 4).
The reasons for the appeal should be so stated in your letter. If at any time the appeal is
dropped we request immediate notification.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James R. Jwayeri
Senior Planner
c:
File Number AR CPA 98-83
Stormwater and Subdivision
John Gatto
Mr. Roland Obering
Obering, Worth & Associates
1015ElktonDrive
EXHIBIT 1
30 S. Nevada Ave., Suite 301/305 • TEL 719-385-5905 FAX 719-578-6303
^
*M\\
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575,
' ~ ' 10 • Colorado Springs, Colorado {CPC AP 98-00211
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
rivruj^
CPC AP 98-00212
SSTEES HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.c.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
DEWER.CÔRADOM^^Z
M1
WA$H>N(?TQN OFFI^
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W
WASH,NGT^.Tc. 20004
May 8, 1998
APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT —
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City Council
30 S.Nevada Avenue
Re:
Appeal to City of Colorado Springs City Council Pursuant to Colorado Springs
Revised Municipal Code Section 1 5-3-3 02(B)(l)(f) — City Planning Department
File No. AR CPA 98-83
Dear Members of the Colorado Springs City Council:
This law firm has been designated by aggrieved party Rocky Mountain Extended Stay, LLLP
("Rocky Mountain") to appeal on its behalf the approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and
Subdivision Plat for Windward Comer Filing No. 2. The Concept Plan Amendment was approved
by the Planning Department on April 30, 1998. The Subdivision Plat was approved by the Planning
Department on May 5, 1998. Therefore, this appeal is timely. (See. Exhibit 1, attached.)
At the outset, we note that Mr. Mayerl and Assistant City Attorney Mervin Allen Ziegler,
Jr. have instructed Rocky Mountain to appeal both the Concept Plan Amendment and the
Subdivision Plat to the City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission. (See Exhibit 1). Rocky
Mountain has no objection to proceeding before the Planning Commission. Such an approach serves
to consolidate the appeals, leading to a comprehensive resolution while conserving municipal
resources. Rocky Mountain will not however, waive its right to appeal the Planning Commission's
decision to this body, if necessary.
To preserve its appellate rights, Rocky Mountain also appeals the Subdivision Plat directly
to the City Council pursuant to Section 15-3-302(B)(l)(f) of the Colorado Springs Revised
Municipal Code. Section 15-3-302(B)(2) mandates that the City Council hear final plat requests that
have been appealed from a decision of the Planning Commission. Should this body chose to defer
to the Planning Commission for an initial ruling, Rocky Mountain will gladly present its case there.
Accordingly, Rocky Mountain's appeal of Planning Department File No. AR CPA 98-83 is included
ITEMS 12 & 13
EFIGURE i
CPCAP 98-00211
CPC AP 98-00212
in its appeal of the related Concept Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission. (See Exhibit 2,
attached and incorporated herein by this reference).
1.
Appellant, Rocky Mountain, is a person aggrieved by a decision made by James R.
Mayerl, Senior Planner, on behalf of the City of Colorado Springs Planning Department. Rocky
Mountain holds a legally cognizable property right in a parcel of real property that would be subject
to the Subdivision Plat and Concept Plan Amendment approved by Senior Planner Mayerl. Unless
the Planning Commission reverses Mr. Mayerl's approval, Rocky Mountain will be severely
prejudiced.
2.
appeals. Under the Agreement, WW2 is bound to convey all easements, licenses, aghts-of-ways and
3.
of lis pendens with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, Recording Department at Reception
No. 98054666.
4.
Amendment.
5.
Once Rocky Mountain prevails hi Case No. 98 CV 1709, it will be entitled to enforce
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
CPCAP 98-00211
CPC AP 98-00212
Amendment are recorded in their present form. See. Hammerslev v. District Court Tn and For the
6.
ITEMS 12 & 13
a.
also clearly conflicts with the senior lispendens filed by Rocky Mountain.
b.
Due to the uncertainty caused by the lispendens and litigation, it is virtually
c.
As noted previously, because Rocky Mountain holds a senior lis pendens,
d.
FIGURE 1
CPCAP 98-00211
CPC AP 98-00212
ITEMS 12 & 13
e.
promote "stabilization" and preservation of existing properties hi adjacent
No. 98 CV 1709.
f.
The lispendens and the litigation will ultimately result in a reconfiguration
determine that streets and drives within the project area will-provide logical,
g.
drainage canals.
h.
pendens and the pending litigation, he accepted for filing the Concept Plan
Amendment and Subdivision Plat knowing that they were subject to judicial
revision and lacking the permanency necessary for development. The Senior
Planner's conduct in this regard has the potential to cause a negative impact
upon adjacent land owners and the City of Colorado Springs.
i.
Rocky Mountain's lispendens. Such conduct may prejudice the people of
j.
FIGURE 1
TPC AP 98-00211
CK
k.
Independent of Rocky Mountains contract rights, its lis pendens, and its
1.
potential adverse impacts created by the Senior Planner's approval. This is
particularly true in view of the likelihood that Rocky Mountain will prevail
in Case No. 98 CV 1709. Once the El Paso County District Court orders
WW2 to perform its contractual obligations — allowing Rocky Mountain to
veto the proposed Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat — the
impact upon the community and the adjacent land owners could be
devastating. Such a result has the potential of leaving the City of Colorado
Springs with the burden of ownership and maintenance of Tract A, as well as
significant problems relative to drainage, access, and public utilities.
Meanwhile WW2 simply walks away with its profit. In contrast, simply
delaying approval of the Concept Plan Amendment and Subdivision Plat until
the parties have an opportunity to resolve their differences through litigation
or a jointly submitted and properly approved concept plan and subdivision
plat, would place no particular burden upon the City of Colorado Springs.
In closing, we reiterate that Rocky Mountain does not wish to cause any unnecessary delay
or inconvenience. On the contrary, Rocky Mountain is expending significant resources in an effort
to push the project, including the Subdivision Platting process, forward as quickly as possible. Due
to the pendency of the civil action and the lispendens, however, it would be in the best interest of
the City of Colorado Springs and its residents to refrain from approving the proposed Subdivision
Plat until new litigation is resolved. See Hammersley v. District Court In and For the County of
Routt. 610 P.2d 94 (Colo. 1980).
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
CPCAP 98-002H
CPC AP 9*0021*
We look forward to addressing these issues before the Planning Commission and, if
necessary, the City Council.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT PARSER
& STRICKLAND, P.C.
Patrick F. Carrigan
Robert C. Troyer
41017* Street, 22nd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 534-6335
ATTORNEYS FOR SAGE DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES
AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN EXTENDED STAY, LLLP
445955
ITEMS 12 & 13
FIGURE 1
CPC AP 98-00211
CPCAP 984)0212
S 4f2ri2" W. ALONG SAID VCSTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.
THE AFORESAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF GARDEN
S 89'49'21- W, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE
OF BEGINNING
ISTRIAL PARK,
0. 1"
£:
PIP-2
CONTAININC 696.909 SQUARE FEET (15.9989 ACRES), MORE
PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/
RIGHT-OUT ACCESS
HOTEL MONUMENT
SIGN
EMERGENCY
HOTEL ACCESS
"CENTENNIAL BUSINESS
CENTER NO. 1"
EXISTING ZONE: PIP-2
<-,
RUNG NO. 1"
M EXISTING ZONE: FBC
LOT 10
43497 S.F.
BANK
C
- 51'30'00"
L
874.13'1
25'53 33" W
51.6r CZ)
P
I
MONUMQJ1D
FULL-MOVEMEN
INTERSECTION
(SEE CONCEPT PLAN
NOTE NO. 1)
3000 S.F.
PAD SITE!
imimmmmii
ifMiiniMiiiiiin
DWARD COR
(15.9989 ACRES)
iimmimmimi
lumiiiiimmiir
19,250 S.F.
RETAIL
ITEMS 12 & 13
mimmmimi
IBS 9:? '
VELCON SUB
RUNG NC
EXISTING ZONE
AP 98-00211
CPCAP 98-00212
:
0
*» -0 1
X*
4
r
*
I
«i"l====== =
:
-^.^
UIO>i>
N2 >
EAST UNE W 1/2. SE
===:
SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 13S. RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6th P.M
N 00-22r30* W
ag*
*££>
c m gs
-x **7
^
&*.
'C
S«5
"V*
-<m
_o»
o>
^<t
'TJ
5j
CD
O
O
X.
U
2
GJ
TJ
>
O
m
u
ID
"CENTENNIAL INDUSTRIA1
N 00'22'30't W
(BASIS
C
2
O
2
0
_A
«
-O
>
X)
/
GJ
r
r->50
U H II
OJCncx
oiootn
tfl_iO
^j-**' b
tn-»O
55
;a cs
• -vj CJ
>>. KJ
»t2
*N)
t~t>ô
li ll It
CD otn
Prop
-
to
o> .
O) CO
\
o5 \
K)
O>
1\
Hog
•3?
lill
^•3)
LOT 2
CENTENNIAL BUSINESS
CENTER NO. 1"
(PLAT BOOK Y-3, PAGE 72)
(RECEPTION NO. 01254360)
5 PUBLIC
EASEMENT
(RECEPTION" NO.
25' PRIVATE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
(RECEPTION NO.
CRESTONE DEVELOPMENT
UNPLATTED
CAP LS * 4342
3.61' SW.Y OfSUNE
v-
\
15' PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT
(RECEPTION NO:
41* PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
(RECEPTION NO.
)
5* PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
ASEMBNT (BY PLAT)
i 750.00*
17*33'03"
L V 229.74*
LC V N
LC A228.84*
S 56W37" W
81.38'
5' PUBLIC U71UTY
EASEMENT
T DRAINAGE it
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
•21 '27" E
5.00'
OSft'
W?
). 5 REBAR &
:AP NO. 13226
15* PUBLIC\JTUJTY
EASEMENT (BY PLAT)
25* PRIVATE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT (BY\PLAT)
60,000 S.F.
(1.3774 ACRES)
N 03'30'00" E
4403'
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
EAS6MENT v
(RECEPTION "NO. 9806104
30' WDE PRIVATE INGRESS/
EGRESS, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT (BY PLAT)
ID RK HOOK CAP4 #5 REBAR 0.01'N
0.54'E OF COR
350.00
00'36'35"
3.72*
£
:NCES
NO. 2"
PAGE 17)
03642)
VARYING WDTH PRIVATE
INGRESS/EGRESS, DRAINAGE
AND UTILTY EASEMENT
(RECEPTION NO. 98049786)
N 69*30'40
350.00* 61.26*
FND W.K CLARK
CAP LS # 4842
3 18' WLY OF LINE
a|
#
zl
I
BOOK 2263
PAGE 316
(REC.J 634196)
CRESTONE DEVELOPMENT
UNPLATTED
ITEMS 12 & 13
LS 4 4842
.
.1.83* E'LY OF LINE*
FIGURE 4
FNO WK CLARK
CAP LS i 4842
0.56'N tt \ 78'E
OF CORNER
CPCf AP 98-00211
CPCAP 98-00212
Page 18
ITEM TlrCPC AP 98-00209 WAS POSTPONED
ITEMS 12. & 13. WERE DISCUSSEB-T^GETHER.
ITEM 12.
.^-CPCAP 98-00211 - Mayerl - Quasi-Jttdicial
7323401032
* *' .
An appeaJJjy-Bfownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland of the administrative approval of Windward Comer
Subdivision Filing No. 2 consisting of 3 lots on 5.2683 acres located southwest of Centennial Boulevard
-afid List Drive.
ITEM 13.
CPCAP 98-00212 - Mayerl - Quasi-Judicial
7323401032
An appeal by Brownstein, Hyatt, Faber & Strickland, PC of an administrative approval of a concept plan
for Winward Comer consisting of 15.9989 acres located southwest of List Drive and Centennial Boulevard.
James Mayerl, City Planning, stated that neither staff, the applicant nor the appellant will be giving a
presentation on this request. The applicant and the appellant are working on a compromise which they
will speak to. Staff recommends the following'
Deny the appeal.
Speaking for:
Bruce Wright, representing [email protected], stated that this is a private contract dispute. They have been
informed that Rocky Mountain Extended Stay is willing to withdraw their lawsuit and would like to talk
to them about settling their differences. If things are settled they don't want to lose their rights, one of
which is the appeal. He asked the Commission to decide the matter based on the documents before
them without any more comments from either party. If the Commission denies the appeal, the
appellant can appeal to City Council and will give them time to resolve the issues.
Commissioner Ruggiero asks why they didn't request a motion for postponement? Mr. Wright replied that
one of the problems with postponement is that it has hampered their ability to develop the rest of the
center and they need some certainty as to when this will be resolved.
Opposed:
Bob Troyer, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland representing the appellant Rocky Mountain
Extended Stay, stated they filed the appeal because they don't believe this is a private dispute
between the parties. They believe that the concept plan and subdivision plat should not be approved
because they have a prior contract thafs inconsistent with whafs before the Commission today. If
they prevail in the lawsuit then what the Commission approves today would have to be undone.
Their May 8th, 1998 letter to City Council contains the arguments they would present to this
Commission for not approving the concept plan and plat, so unless there are any questions for him,
they will rest without any further argument.
Commissioner Ruggiero asked why the appellant didn't request a postponement? Mr. Troyer replied they
wanted to postpone, however, Mr. Wright did not for the reasons he stated. They have a self imposed
time frame of 30 to 45 days in which to resolve the issues or not. The dismissal of the lawsuit will be
without prejudice and will be under terms that if a settlement is not reached, then everything starts all over.
Page 19
They will reinstate the lawsuit, go to City Council, etc. Commissioner Ruggiero asked if a 60 day
postponement would be appropriate? Mr. Troyer replied yes.
Wynetta Massey, City Attorney, stated that whafs before the Commission today is an appeal of an
administrative decision and the standards for review of that are found in the Zoning Code Article 4, Part
10, Section 1008. What the parties have asked the Commission to do is take everything they have before
them and make your decision based on whether or not the criteria is met. That criteria for review of the
appeal consists of:
2. Criteria for Review of an Appeal of an Administrative Decision. In the written notice, the appellant
must substantiate the following:
a. Identify the explicit ordinance provisions which are in dispute.
b. Show that the administrative decision is correct because of one or more of the following:
1) It was against the express language of the Zoning Ordinance, or
2) It was against the express intent of the Zoning Ordinance, or
3) It is unreasonable, or
4) It is erroneous, or
5) It is clearly contrary to law.
c. Identify the benefits and adverse impacts created by the decision, describe the distribution of
the benefits and impacts between the community and the appellant, and show that the burdens
place on the appellant outweigh the benefits accrued by the community.
In her reading of the appellants May 8th letter, the appellant identified certain sections of the Zoning Code
that were violated or not fulfilled in the administrative approval of the concept plan and plat. She advised
the Planning Commission to concentrate their efforts on whether or not the appellant has substantiated
that those sections of the Zoning Code were not met or fulfilled and whether or not that's reason enough to
grant or deny the appeal.
Commissioner Ruggiero asked if the City is losing any leverage of options if the request is postponed?
Ms. Massey replied no. All they're dealing with is an administrative appeal and they really should be
putting blinders on because the private dispute between the applicant and the appellant has absolutely
nothing to do with whether or not our administrative procedures should continue at this point.
Commissioner Ruggiero noted that if the matter is postponed, they're not aggravating the City's
perspective and yet gives the individuals time to work it out. Ms. Massey replied correct.
Commissioner Esmiol asked if they're still actively seeking the appeal? Mr. Troyer replied yes. They have
no objection to the postponement, however, if the postponement is going to affect the underlying dispute
between the applicant and his client, then he would encourage the Commission to rule on it today and not
postpone the request; this with the understanding that they're not waiving their right of appeal.
**********
It was moved by Commissioner Baruth, seconded by Commissioner Ruggiero to postpone items
12. & 13. for sixty (60) days to the August, 1998 City Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Baruth stated that he was hard pressed to find any real land use issues in the lengthy and
complex documentation submitted by the appellant. He doesn't know what the ramifications will be if they
go forward with this, so he believes they need more time to get additional information and presentations
from the applicant and appellant to help them make a decision. There isn't enough information today to do
anything with the request.
Commissioner Ruggiero commented 'ditto1.
Commissioner Esmiol wanted to know what the impact of a delay would cause the applicant? Mr. Wright
replied that the entire center is approximately 30 acres and the subject 2-1/2 acre parcel in dispute is
directly in the middle of that. The problem they face is that if they can't get an approved concept plan and
plat that ties the north half of the center to the south, then it becomes very difficult to meet their contractual
Page 20
commitments to other parties for the rest of the center. One way to minimize that multi-million dollar claim
and not have parties fighting over it is to shorten the length of time because those other contracts are
already in jeopardy. What they're trying to do here is ask the Commission to make a decision based just
on the record, so that with certainty one way or the other, it will be resolved by the time it gets to City
Council, either by resolution or by City Council. That will minimize a multi-million dollar potential loss in
impact not only on the 2 parties before you in this dispute, but other innocent parties who have contracts
on the rest of the center.
Commissioner Ruggiero commented that those in the best position to minimize the effects and
consequences are not the Planning Commission, but rather the parties to the dispute. He asked if a
postponement by the Planning Commission is appealable to City Council? Quinn Peitz, City Planning,
replied that postponements have not been appealed to Council in the past. Commissioner Ruggiero
reiterated that the Planning Commission is not the entity to remedy and resolve the issue, so he supports
the postponement.
Commissioner Baruth stated there isn't enough information or presentation by either party in order for
them to make a decision on land use issues. He's not sure it's their problem whether this thing drags on
or not.
Commissioner Ruggiero agreed with Commissioner Baruth. Even if they were to hear this matter today,
he personally would be very uncomfortable simply by considering just the record. It's a legal term that's
proposing or supposes a situation where a transcript or a matter is before a judge or a panel of judges,
expert witnesses, however, this Commission consists of lay people. They're taking a legal term and trying
to overly it onto the Planning Commission, which is an administrative process. He's uncomfortable with
the idea that they would just hear what's on the record, unless someone wants to give them depositions
and answers pertaining to the whole file.
Commissioner Gruen stated he will not be supporting the motion and was hoping there would be a motion
for 'non-consideration' to bump the matter without any debate. He read both letters a couple of times and
had a tough time doing so, however, he's not convinced that based on the record, rightfully or wrongfully,
that from an administrative standpoint the planning staff fell down in their review of this item. Therefore,
he feels the appeal can be upheld and that's why he'll be voting against the postponement.
Commissioner Hudson concurred with Commissioner Gruen and would support a motion for nonconsideration.
The motion failed 2-5. (Commissioners Bauer, Bowers, Esmiol, Gruen & Hudson opposed.
Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were absent.)
Wynetta Massey summarized the appellant's May 8th letter. He's basically arguing that the planning staff
failed to follow the development plan review criteria in Section 602 of Article 4 and failed to follow the
concept plan review criteria contained in Section 601 of Article 4 of the Zoning Code. The question before
the Planning Commission is whether or not the planning staff properly followed that criteria. If they did, the
appeal should be denied and if they did not, the appeal should be upheld.
Commissioner Esmiol asked if they have enough evidence before them to act on the appeal? Ms. Massey
replied that in looking at the criteria for review of an appeal, there is sufficient information in the staff report
and the appellant's May 8th letter in order for the Planning Commission to review the matter.
Items 12. & 13. were voted on together.
»CAPJ8-00211 -Appeal
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, secgnded-by-eommtssioher Hudson to deny the appeal of
an administrative decision tp .apprbWfte-Mftndward Corner Subdivision Filing No. 2 consisting of
3 lots on 5.2683 acres located southwest of CentemTiaTBmrievaid and List Drive.
Page 21
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Hudson to deny the appeal of
an administrative decision to approve a concept plan for Winward Corner consisting of 15.9989
acres located southwest of List Drive and Centennial Boulevard.
Commissioner Baruth commented that they may be treading into an area where they're not sure where
they are going, so he'll be opposing the motion.
Commissioner Ruggiero stated he will be abstaining unless the City Attorney advises him that he doesn't
have that option. He still feels very uncomfortable with the legal situation. Even without the postponement
they should still have had a full blown hearing.
The motion passed 5-1. (Commissioners Baruth opposed. Commissioner Ruggiero abstained.
Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were absent.)
(After the lunch period, Commissioner Ruggiero commented that the City Attorney had, in fact, advised
him that in order or abstain from voting on the motion he would have to leave the room, which he opted
not to do. He changed his vote to oppose the motion for denial.)
The motion passed 5-2. (Commissioners Baruth & Ruggiero opposed. Commissioners Chavez &
Nelson were absent.)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION BROKE FOR LUNCH FROM 12:00 P.M. TO 1:00 P.M.
ITEM3 27., 28. & 29. WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER.
ITEM 27.
CPC PUD 97-00368 - Tuck -
^X
6300000420
Request by NES, Inc: on behalf of Pulpit Rock Investments, LLC forXpproval of a change of zone
classification from R/HSi jingle Family Residential with Hillside pverlay) to PUD/HS (Planned Unit
Development with Hillside Overlay - Single Family Residential, 353Xmaximum building height, 2.3 du/ac)
consisting of 21.54 acres located 'south west of Montebello Drive^nd Academy Boulevard.
ITEM 28.
CPC DP^7-00356 - Iw£k - Quasi-Judicial
Request by NES, Inc. on behalf of Pulpit Rock Jjsêstments, LLC for approval of a development plan for
University Bluffs Filing No. 3 in a proposed PUD/H§-zone consisting of 21.54 acres located southwest of
Montebello Drive and Academy Boulevard.
ITEM 29.
CPC S^7-00357PF - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6300000420
Request by JR Engineering, L#l. on behalf of Pulpit Rock Investments, LLC for preliminary and final plat
approval for University Bluffs'frling No. 3 in a proposed PUD/HS zone consisting of 49 lots on 21.54 acres
located southwest of Mootebello Drive and Academy Boulevard.
Steve Tuck, City Panning, oriented this site in relation to the rest of the Houok^ Estate. Rockhurst
Boulevard and Montebello Drive will be two of the primary accesses into the site. The^site was approved
for 72 single Mmily dwelling units on the master plan. Last year there was a vote toNezone part of
University Pa>k to PUD, however, that is not part of the subject site today. The area in green on the
master plan has been deeded to the City, so the property is surrounded by open space. This application
was o/f the April, 1998 agenda with approximately 50 conditions. It was postponed in order for the
applicant to work on and minimize or eliminate those conditions. After reviewing the revised plan, staff
was not satisfied that it meets the intent of the recommended conditions, nor the Hillside or PUD zones
The Hillside Ordinance was recently revised with greater emphasis to protect the natural features related
COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23,1998
Merle Lantz, the appellant, stated the change does not adversely affect the neighborhood; that
similar houses in the area have also requested and received the same type" of variance
changes.
Walter
and Dale Hart spoke in support of the request.
Motion by Hubert tbâverturn the decision of the Hearij
the variances.
)fficer and approve the request for
Mayor Makepeace declared the mbtkinfattea for lack of a second.
Then, motion by Barley, secono^bfÂre', to upljpld the decision of the Hearing Officer and deny
the appeal.
Ayes:
Are'.j&a'fiey, Makepeace, Null, Purvis, Rive?
Noes:
bkroert
Absent: ^Guman, Young
Mayor Makepeace declared the motion carried.
0—
Councilmember Young returned.
Q
21.
CPC AP 98-00212: Public hearing on an appeal bv Robert Trover of Brownstein. Hyatt,
Faber & Strickland. PC for an administrative approval of a concept plan for Windward
Corner consisting of 15.9989 acres located southwest of List Drive and Centennial
Boulevard.
Motion by Young, second by Are', that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of July
14,1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Guman.
--0-
22.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public hearing on an appeal bv NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development plan for Woodmen Plaza in a PBC
(Commerciairzpne consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast of Wooden Road and
Lexington Drive.
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated mdre4jrne is needed tpntfeet with Staff, the neighborhood
and the applicant to work out some issuesfcteoncepartnat the recommendation is to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission meejinif'otûly 9> 1998 anc* postpone the matter to
the Council meeting of July 14,1998.
John Maynard, NES Planning-xt)irector, stated they would prc
immediately; that the partiss'are too far apart to come to a resolution.
to have a decision
15.
CPC AP 98-00212: Public Hearing on an appeal bv Robert Troyer of Brownstein. Hyatt,
Faber & Strickland. PC of an administrative approval of a concept plan for Windward
Boulevard.
The applicant has requested this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of July 28, 1998.
Motion by Guman, second by Young, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28, 1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
0
CPC DP 98-00059: Public Hearing on an appeal by NES. Inc. on behalf ot^Tfie Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development plan for Woodep^laza in a PBC
ommercial) zone consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast oFvVooden Road and
Lexington Drive.
The applicant has requested this matter be postponed to the Goiincil meeting of July 28, 1998.
Motion by PurVis , second by Hubert, that this matter be' postponed to the Council meeting of
motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
July 28, 1998.
-0-
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Request by Stevepr Sharkey on behalf of Gates Lane Company for
approval of the annexation\>f Gates^ Addition No. 15 consisting of 2.216 acres located
south of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
Motion by Barley, se
July 28, 1998. The mo
18.
6y
unanimously
matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
Absent, Councilmember Null.
CPC P 89-000991 Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody Company for approval of
a change of/zone classification from County to PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park)
consisting 0/2.216 acres located southeast of JanitelhRoad and Executive CircleT
Motion/6y Barley, second by Young, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
11
Councilmember Hubert was excused.
Q
\
13.
PUBLIC HEARING
A resolution adopting the Liquor and Beer Enforcement Policies for the Liquor
Licensing Authority. City of Colorado Springs. Colorado?
Melissa Riddle, City Attorney's Office, entered her appearaffce and gave a summary of the
item.
Jim Brown, Colorado Restaurant Association, spoke u/support of the changes.
Joanne Colt, Tom Jackson, Larry Gaddius, Cindy Cervetti, Bill Eckhardt, Roy Box, and Frank
Spinella expressed concerns witfi the liquor/changes, disturbing language, confrontational
approach, enforcement issues regarding loitering and visibly intoxicated people, abolishment
of warning letters, no classification oftrffepses and discretion of the licensing period.
In response to a question from Mayor Makepeace regarding the status of the proposal for a
task force, City Clerk Young stated/the proposal is still in it's forming stages and it has been
talked about with the industries; >nat it still nee^ls to be decided who will be involved and the
target time is within 60 days.
Motion by Barely, second b^ Are', that the task forceNs to review the policy statement, rules
14.03 and 19.01 and other items that need clarification so that the intent in the code is clear
and enforceable and report back to the Liquor Board anoNhen to the City Council at a later
date. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Hubert.
014.
A resolution amending Rule 14.03 (Renewal Hearing: Notice: Stipulation) and amending
Rule 19.01 (Notice) of the Rules of Procedure for the Liquor LicensinqNXuthoritv. City of
Colorado Storings. Colorado.
Motion/by Barely, second by Are', that the task force is to review the policy statement, rules
14.03/and 19.01 and other items that need clarification so that the intent in the code is clear
and/enforceable and report back to the Liquor Board and then to the City Council at a later
date. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Hubert.
0
Councilmember Hubert returned.
0
15.
CPC AP 98-00212: Public hearing on an appeal by Robert Trover of Brownstein. Hvatt
22
Boulevard.
Motion by Young, second by Rivera that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
August 11, 1998. The motion unanimously carried.
*\t
CPC DP 98-00059: Public hearing on an appeal by NES. Inc. on behalf of The Jdidland
roup of a request for approval of a development plan for Wooden Plaza^fn a PBC
(Commercial) zone consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast of Wooden Road and
Lexington Drive.
Motion byvYoung, second by Rivera, that this matter be postponed tcyme Council meeting of
August 11, r998. The motion unanimously carried.
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Request by Steven Sharkev on behalf of Gates Land Company for
approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 1& consisting of 2.216 acres located
south of Janiteli Road anchexecutive Circle.
Motion by Purvis, second by AV, that this marfter be postponed to the Council meeting of
August 11, 1998. The motion unanimously cafried.
18.
CPC P 98-00099: Request by Drexel Bartell on behalf of Cody Company for approval of
a change zone classification from County^to PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) consisting
of 2.216 acres located southeast of Janiteli fcoad and Executive Circle.
-
^
Motion by Purvis, seconcr by Are', that this matterNse postponed to the Council meeting of
19.
CPC DPA 98-00187: Public hearing on an appeal bv Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
by Yeraensen. Oberinq & Whittaker on behalf of multipleXpwners for approval of an
amendment to the Northpointe Center Development Plan in a^PBC/HS (Commercial with
Hillside Overlay) zone consisting of 25.77 acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon
Boulevard and Delmonico Drive.
\~
\
Motipn by Are', second by Barley, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
August 11,1998. The motion unanimously carried.
\
0—
20.
CPC S 98-00188PF: Public hearing on an appeal bv Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
by Rockwell-M'mchow on behalf of Kent A Petre for preliminary and fmaKplat approval
23
—N.E.S. Inc.
Urban Design • Land Planning • Landscape Architecture
June 10, 1998
Ms Kathryn Young
City Clerk
30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 101
Dear Ms. Young:
On behalf of the Midland Group (now Regency Realty), we hereby kppeal
the decision of the City Planning Commission to place certain conditions on
the approval of Item No. 26 on the June 4, 1998 agenda (CPC DP 9800059). We believe that the Development Plan with conditions 1-11,13,
14, 16 (except 16i), 18 and 19, represents a development proposal which
meets or, in several instances, far exceeds the requirements of City Code.
We feel that the balance of the conditions as approved will be unworkable.
On those conditions, the Planning Commission clouded its decision by
granting further administrative review of the issues by some combination of
City Staff, neighborhood representatives and the applicant. The principle
reason this Development Plan went to the Planning Commission at all was
because a series of neighborhood meetings over a period four months did
not resolve them administratively.
<?> '^rLWe respectfully request on appeal that the City Council make a decision on
these issues, especially Condition 16i (the nature of the access to and from
Lexington Drive), Condition 17 (the proposed grading plan revision to
alter the finished floor elevation and the interrelated issue of Condition 12
regarding the rear visual screening) and Condition 15 (site lighting levels).
Would you please place this item on the June 23, 1998 City Council
meeting agenda.
Sincerely yours,
JonnMaynarc
Manning Director
1040 South Eighth Street. Suite 201 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 .719-471-0073 / FAX 719-471-0267
ITEM NO. 16
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 231
ITEM NO: 24.
STAFF: Steve Tuck
FILE NO: CPC P 98-00134 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Black Squirrel Office Park in Northgate
APPLICANT:
N.E.S. Inc.
OWNER:
Picolan Inc.
The zone change and accompanying concept plan propose rezoning 42.2 acres to PIP-1 to allow a 9 lot
development (FIGURE 1).
Approve the zone change to PIP-1 for the area north of the unnamed collector street Prior to scheduling
1. Show the City file number of CPC P 98-00134 in the lower right-hand comer.
Engineering.
5. Delete the area south of the collector street
The zone change is consistent with the intent of the Northgate Master Plan, however issues regarding
existing mature vegetation, and the relationship of the proposed lotting pattern to Black Squirrel Creek
located along the southerly property lines have yet to be resolved. Conditions have been recommended
which address these issues and will allow the majority of the property to be rezoned to PIP-1 (22.4 acres).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policy 5.1.3 - Grant zoning changes only when it can be demonstrated that rezoning wilt result in a
be used as a basis for demonstrating community or neighborhood benefit
Goal 9.1 - Preserve and enhance drainageways as amenities to the City by incorporating a
comprehensive system of detention ponds in conjunction with "soft linings" or natural drainageways as the
preferred method of treatment whenever possible.
Goal 9.2 - Preserve, enhance and promote the significant features of the City's natural environment
Policy 9.2.1 - In areas where both controlled development and preservation are possible, retain significant
nature features in private ownership and protect them as part of a development plan review. Land
suitability studies shall be required prior to the approval of development in these areas.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 232
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 233
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - OC. R-1 6000/cr, PIP-1, PIP-1/cr, A/vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PUD, PIP-1/cr/attached residential (Liberty Heights),
office/light industrial (Ramtron)
South - OC/vacant
East - PIP-1/cr/vacant
West - A, County/vacant
Annexation - 1985, Northgate Annexations No. 2 & 3.
Zoning - OC, R-1 6000/cr, PIP-1, PIP-1/cr, A
Subdivision - Not platted.
Physical Characteristics - The site is primarily vegetated with native grasses, however a stand of mature
ponderosa pine and scrub oak are located in the northeasterly portion of the site. The site slopes down
from the north to the south to Black Squirrel Creek, which is adjacent to the southerly property line. The
southerly portion of the site contains slopes of 4 to 8%, while slopes up to 20% are located in the vicinity
of the ponderosa pine.
Master Plan - Northgate, Office - Industrial Park/Research & Development
Item 23. - CPC PUD 98-00040 - Zone Change
Citv Engineering - This item will be postponed and will not be heard at the April meeting.-In the meantime
before the item is scheduled again we will need to have drainage information presented in the form of a
Preliminary Drainage Plan to address the site drainage in a conceptual manner. This information needs to
be provided in time to allow us to review it concurrently with the revised concept plan. Of particular interest
will be the proximity of the south boundary of the site to the Black Squirrel Creek drainage way and the
proposed channel treatments to allow the development so close to the channel. The plan must conform to
the recommended channel types per the Black Squirrel Creek DBPS. Trail and open spaces will need to
be examined.
Traffic Engineering - Prior to approval, access to the Leach property on Voyager Parkway shall be
established. Submit plans and profiles for Voyager Parkway.
Water/Wastewater - Standard comments 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 15.
Fire - Zone change acceptable.
Parks - No comment.
City Trails Team - No comments received.
Regional Building - In order to establish meaningful enumeration, the interior streets need to be named.
U.S. Air Force Academy - The Academy supports the change of use. It would be helpful for Picolan to
acknowledge that this parcel will be overflown by the Academy. This area is located under one of the
Academy's main flight corridors. Future residents can expect approximately 20 to 30 overflights per hour
each weekday (Liberty Heights is used as a visual reference by the Academy's pilots).
The requested zoning to PIP-1 is consistent with the Northgate Master Plan designation of Office Industrial Park/Research & Development The issues associated with the request relate to the concept
plan, and are regarding the location of the street intersection onto Voyager Parkway, and natural features
either on, or adjacent to the site.
The location of intersecting streets onto Voyager Parkway has been a concern of the property owner,
(Richard Leach) who owns the land that is located along the west side of Voyager Parkway (FIGURE 3).
He has indicated where he believes is the most appropriate location for access into the Leach Ranch from
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 234
Voyager Parkway (FIGURE 4). The initial concept plan proposed by the applicant showed an intersection
of the project's collector street and Voyager Parkway at a location that Mr. Leach believed would create a
conflict with a future access into his property. As a result, the applicant revised the concept plan to
accommodate Mr. Leach's concerns. A condition (#3) has been recommended by staff to confirm the
collector street does indeed align with the location preferred by Mr. Leach.
In the northeasterly portion of the site is a stand of large, mature ponderosa pine. Scattered among and
near the pines are stands of scrub oak. This vegetation is a significant, natural feature of the site, and
worthy of protection and incorporation into the eventual designs for the individual lots. Staff recommends
the trees be identified on the concept plan, and language added to the plan that would provide some
measure of protection for the trees (conditions #7 & 8). Then, at the development plan stage, when
specific designs are proposed for the lots, it could be determined which, if any, of the trees would be
appropriate for removal. This condition is particularly important because the applicant has indicated that
the site is being considered for grading prior to the approval of a development plan. The intent is to sell the
material (silica sand). The initial concept plan proposed grading in the area where the majority of the trees
are located. Without the limitations suggested for the concept plan, it is possible that a grading plan could
be approved prior to the review of the development plan(s), and the vegetation removed.
Along the south property line is Black Squirrel Creek. Black Squirrel Creek is identified in the recently
adopted "Colorado Springs Open Space Plan" as a Candidate Open Space Area. Specifically, the plan
considers the creek important because of its riparian features. The La Foret Trail, a join City-County
venture is also planned to cross this portion of the creek. Additionally, the drainage basin planning study
for the creek assumes a more natural treatment The applicant has revised the plan from the initial
submittal to show the lots that are adjacent to the creek as "future development", with a note stating
"lotting pattern and internal circulation will be reviewed in conjunction with the review of drainage and open
space issues". However, building envelopes are still shown in what may be areas that are required for
drainage and/or open space purposes. To avoid confusion, staff recommends that the southerly lots be
excluded from this request, until such time as these issues are addressed.
. 1 ,-\> \Zofjeyd--i*UD ,,,.',
• I"* *\ "Residential •' -
^ ••'•
•x-)"vf-::-Xv>x:v»»>/::v:»>:
/^>XK^™^»v^vX«v;
"f^X™Xv»"X^™vX
Concept A
ITEM 24
I
FIGURE 1
^sovvvv\
^ -- ) CPCP98-00134
JUSTIFICATION (FIGURE 2) NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PRINTING
ITEM 24
FIGURE 2
FIGURES
ITEM 24
CPC P98-00134
Richard F. Leach
11020 Highway 83
(719) 598-2940
24 March 1998
Mr. Steve Tuck
City Planning
Development Review
P O Box 1575 Mail Code 310
Colorado Springs CO 80901-1575
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 1998
COLORADO SPRINGS
CITY PLWWNCI
Dear Steve:
The last time I heard from you about two weeks ago, you left word on our
recorder that there would be a meeting of all those directly involved in and affected by
the Northgate plans. I understood that the group would include Mr. Pola, Mr.-Schriner,
Mr. Lane, you and me and that it would get together before any final decisions were
made regarding access to our ranch.
I have heard nothing more since and though I have attempted to determine just
who is to schedule such a meeting, I have not been able to get any information regarding
same, nor have I heard from any of the above mentioned persons.
I appreciated your sending me the approved master plan, but I note that our
requests with regard to the placement of access intersections to our east have been largely
ignored. These accesses are of vital importance to the future development and protection
of our property. If a meeting is not held nor the matter resolved before the Thursday,
April 9th meeting of the planning commission, we feel we shall have to register with the
Commission our objections to the plan for Black Squirrel Creek Office Park.
Our reasoning is that the northern most arrow to the East on the plan is placed just
north of the sewer plant where the collector road from Ramtron Drive is proposed to
enter Voyager Parkway. This is considerably south of the arrow that Nolan Schriner had
marked on the plan—and, he testified to the Commission in January that Northgate could
live with an entrance to our ranch at that point. If the intersection were constructed as far
to the south as is indicated on the approved plan, a mountain of dirt would be needed to
build a road base up to the height of Voyager Parkway (where, at some point, our main
gate will need to be placed when the vacating of the curve on Highway 83 forces us to
move it).
Another very important point is that the building of such a road base would block
off our existing flood drainage ditch. This ditch catches overflow from the upper lake
carrying the water to the north of Black Squirrel Creek and protecting the downstream
dams (both beaver and man made) from washing out and destroying the downstream
CPCP98-00134
habitat. We suffered such destruction in the early '80's and have taken every precaution
possible to prevent such disaster from happening again.
I am enclosing a section of a contour map showing our upper lakes. I believe you
have a copy of this plus the entire south portion of our property. The map also shows the
existing protective drainage ditch and from it you can see what I mean about the
undesirability of any blockage.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Richard F. Leach
Encl.
ITEM 24
FIGURE 4
ITEM 24
Page 38
**********
Item 24 - CPC P 98-00134 - Zone Change
It was moved by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Esmjol to approve a change
of zone classification from R-1-6000/CR, PIP-1, PIP-1/CR & OC (Single Family Residential with
conditions of record, Planned Industrial Park, Planned Industrial Park with conditions of record
and Office Complex) to PIP-1 (Planned Industrial Park) for the area north of the unnamed collector
street consisting of 42.19 acres located southeast of Ramtron Drive and Voyager Parkway. Submit
10 copies of the concept plan with the following modifications:
1. Show the City file number of CPC P 98-00134 in,the lower right-hand corner.
3. Insure there is access to the Leach property from Voyager Parkway.
4. Specify the phasing for the completipn of the west half of Voyager Parkway as approved by
/'
\
5. Delete the area south of the collector street. „
7. Show and identify the type, caliper and location of the existing trees (scrub oak and
ponderosa pine).
S
8. Relocate existing mature trees.
-,.
s
Prior to scheduling/the request before City Council, a revised legal description shall be submitted
for the area nortbôf the collector street.
.
The motiorvp'assed 7-0. (Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were absent.)
:M 25.WAS POSTPONED.
ITEM 26.
CPC DP 98-00059 - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6310111017
Request by NES, Inc on behalf of The Midland Group for approval of a development plan for Woodmen
Plaza in a PBC (Commercial) zone consisting of 21 5 acres located northeast of Woodmen Road and
Lexington Drive
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated this property was zoned C-6/P in the 1980s that required a development
plan, which is before the Commission today There are several ownerships on this property He oriented
the property m relation to the surrounding land uses This proposal is for a King Soopers Grocery Store
and Long's Drugs. Staff has approved 2 retaining walls with a 3rd one to come when the final grading is
approved There will be 3 accesses into the center with a right-in/right-out off of Woodmen Road and full
accesses with traffic signals on Lexington and Rangewood Staff and the applicant have negotiated with
the neighborhood on such things as landscaping and sound wall along Lexington Drive. The applicant has
agreed to build that wall and they're looking to be reimbursed through some type of financing Staff
recommends the following
Item 26 - CPC DP 98-00059 - Development Plan
Approve the development plan Submit 10 copies of the plan with the following revisions:
1
Provide building elevations of the King Soopers, Longs Drugs and the inline stores showing building
2
Provide a typical detail of the opaque screen to be used for the enclosures for the trash facilities and
compactors The wall material shall match the building wall material.
3
Remove the notes regarding the partial approval of the development plan ("clouded" areas and
Page 39
4
5
6.
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13.
14
15
16.
17
18
19
Provide the complete development plan information that was previously shown, but excluded for the
partial approval (e.g landscaping, light standard locations, parking requirements, dimensions for
buildings, landscape planters, parking spaces, and driveways, parking requirements, parking space
angle, etc).
Show the location of all freestanding signs. Provide elevations of the signs. Note that the signs
adjacent to both Lexington Drive and Rangewood Drive shall not exceed 6' in height. Note the type of
lighting proposed for the signs.
Note the sidewalks connecting the Skyline Trail to the center to be 8' in width and constructed of
concrete
Note that a pedestrian activated traffic signal shall be provided at the intersection of Lexington Drive
and the Skyline Trail concurrently with the development of the center.
Provide 2 bike racks for at least 8 bicycles each Locate one rack near the entry of King Soopers,
and the one near the entry of Longs Drugs Provide a typical detail of the racks
Note the location of the cart corrals
Revise note 3 on sheet 1 of 7 to indicate the material for the rooftop screening shall be for screening
and sound attenuation
Note that development plans must be approved for Lots 3, 4 and 5 prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Increase the height of the wall/retaining wall located on the north side of the King Soopers so that the
top of the wall is a minimum of 8' above the level of the pavement on the south side of the wall.
Note that trash pick-up shall occur between 7:00 a.m to 6 00 p m. Monday through Friday, and 9 00
a.m. to 6 00 p.m on weekends.
Note that delivery trucks shall enter and exit the site from either Rangewood Drive or Woodmen
Road, and that engines will be turned off after arrival.
Note that light standards shall not exceed 30' in height on Lots 1, 4 and 5, and 20' on Lots 2 and 3
Note that the lights shall be high pressure sodium lights, with an average footcandle level of 2.4
Revise the plan to show improvements to the street system as required by Traffic Engineering.
Modify the grading plan to show a finish floor elevation of 6730' for King Soopers. Revise the
proposed contours accordingly
Show pedestrian ramps as required by City Engineering.
Note the detention pond shall be privately owned and maintained.
Mr Tuck amended revision #15 to read.
"Note that light standards shall not exceed 30' in height on Lots 1, 4 and 5, and 20' on Lots 2 and 3 Note
that the lights shall be high pressure sodium lights, with full cut-off fixtures and no sag lens, with an
average footcandle level of 2.4" Staff understands that the lighting closer to the store will be brighter, but
the overall will be 2 4 footcandles
Discussions relating to traffic issues have been ongoing until just recently and staff would like to amend
revision #16 to read:
16 Revise the plan to note or show the installation of the following street improvements as required by
a
Widening of Woodmen and Lexington, and Woodmen and Rangewood Roads to achieve duel
left turns in all directions, shall be at the owner's expense - include right turn lanes, all rights-ofway to be obtained by the owner
b
Widening of Lexington Road and Rangewood Road shall be at this owner's expense for
additional turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration as necessary
c
All re-stripping of public roads shall be at this owner's expense including utility relocations,
d. Extensive letters of credit shall be posted for all street improvement requirements
e
Submit street plans and profiles to this office prior to approval of plan for all streets, etc.
f
This owner shall participate up to V* of one percent (%) of gross sales in the
Academy/Woodmen Over Pass Public Improvement Cooperation
g
Lower the grade of Randall & Rangewood Drive to an acceptable 4% and signalize this
intersection. Relocate the trail crossing to this signal on Rangewood Drive,
h
Signalize the trail crossing on Lexington Drive with a pedestrian activated device
i.
Widen and revise the intersection of Bunker Hill, Randall, Lexington to achieve dual left turns,
right turns, and a southbound Lexington right turn lane on Woodmen Road, install a signal
Page 40
j
k
I
Provide an intersection acceptable to both City Traffic and the neighborhood Homeowner's
Association
Install a westbound acceleration lane on Woodmen Road from Lexington Drive,
All costs of lane additions, widenings, acceleration lanes, island removals, signal installations,
sound wall installations shall be by this owner
Prior to approval of this plan, submit to this office all requirements shown as stated.
Revisions 17 relates to the grading. Staff believes it has been raised too far compared to surrounding
uses and recommends that it be lowered Staff is willing to work with the applicant to resolve that issue
Speaking for
Todd Liming, NES representing the applicant, clarified that they concur with the staff revisions, but
would add the words 'King Soopers delivery trucks' and 'King Soopers1 delivery truck engines' to
revision #14. They have control over their trucks, but not other vendors They have negotiated the
lighting standards with the neighbors and have reduced the height around the perimeter of the site
from 30' to 20' In revision #15, they agree with staff on the IBS (Illuminating Engineer's Society)
lighting standards, however, they believe the average footcandle should be 3.6 not 2 4. They concur
with the amended revision #16f, however, they would like to add the following to the end of that
statement "NOTE The applicant/developer agrees to participate in the Public Improvement
Corporation (PIC) being established by the City of Colorado Springs if this site is determined to be
within the proposed transportation influence area approved by the City Council
The
applicant/developer may also include this site in a separate PIC, subject to the approval by the City,
or other form of common assessment entity to reimburse the applicant/developer for the costs of offsite improvements to Lexington Drive, Rangewood Drive and Woodmen Road" The only revision
they take exception to is #17 dealing with the grading Mr Marshall will address the grading and why
staffs recommendation for 6,730' will not work. They have chosen a finished floor elevation of
6,736 7', which accommodates an existing waterlme Revision #12 is inexorably tied to #17 and they
would agree to continue further negotiations with staff to resolve the grading issue and associated
height of the retaining wall These revisions can be deferred to administrative review and, hopefully,
approval. He proposed the following language for revisions 12 & 17 "Any proposed increase in the
height of the retaining wall on the north side of the King Soopers be reviewed administratively" This
ties in with the finished floor elevation. It's their hope that when revision 17 is reviewed
administratively they won't have to be involved in the relocation of existing water and sanitary/sewer
lines He continued with the history of how they came to choose this site for their proposal and
negotiations with the neighbors. One of the things they had to factor into this proposal was the
additional traffic from the 10 acre commercial site to the south. They have reached accord with the
neighbors on everything with the exception of the Lexington intersection They have modified site
lighting, agreed to participate in a public improvement corporation that will help fund improvements
on and off site Developing a King Soopers on this site will help alleviate the congestion on Academy
Boulevard/Woodmen Road facility. In summary, they have agreed on truck routes, trash pickup,
architecturally upgraded buildings, enhanced landscaping, lighting and access to Skyline Trail
Tim Marshall, JR Engineering, clarified that the depth of the water mam is 5' from the finished grade
to the top of the water mam. At the 6,730' finished grade recommended by staff, the water main
would be approximately 8' above that elevation. City Utilities has stated that this development is not
to encroach on their easement The bottom of the retaining wall will begin at the bottom of the water
mam.
Bill Bates, King Soopers, stated that over the years, King Soopers had developed a lighting standard
that they would like to adhere to. Their standard is 4 to 5 footcandles in the mam parking lot,
however, the neighbors were adamant about having high pressured sodium He displayed a
computer model of the site relating to all the proposed lighting for this development, which he hopes
will be acceptable to the neighbors.
Commissioner Esmiol summarized that the periphery will have 1.9 footcandles and in the mam parking
lots it will be 5 footcandles. Mr Bates replied correct He added that a computer only recognizes flat
Page 41
plains, however, the grade on the northwest corner along Lexington Drive is approximately 30' above the
parking lot The lights along the rear of the building will be reflected towards the store, so no lighting will
escape into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hudson asked about the entry and loading areas? Mr Bates replied that at the entry
there's typically a canape that reflects the lighting downward and it can reach 10 footcandles. The loading
areas are enclosed docks, so lighting will be limited to the interior of the building
Commissioner Bowers asked if the King Soopers at Woodmen Road/Academy Boulevard will remain
open'? Mr. Bates replied yes, and it will be remodeled.
Jeff Hodsdon, Leigh, Scott & Clean/, stated that their studies show the King Soopers development will
generate 14,200 vehicle trips per average weekday The entire commercial center will generate
approximately 25,300 trips per day if it's built out to the density that was used in the study They've
analyzed the accesses onto Lexington and Rangewood and have determined that it's best if they
remain full movement, signalized accesses. If they're both signalized, the level of service will be 'B'
Unsignahzed they would operate at a level of service 'F, so signals are needed at both intersections to
make this work With improvements, Woodmen Road will operate at a level of service 'C+'. They
anticipate that at peak hour traffic, 44% will use the Lexington access, 42% will use the Rangewood
access and 14% will use the Woodmen access. Improvements they recommended to mitigate the
traffic impacts are extra turn lanes on the minor arterials, added striping and median reconstruction
Commissioner Ruggiero asked if the proposed medians shown in the staff report will be constructed on
Lexington? Mr. Hodsdon replied that was a study done at the neighbors' request to show a right-in/rightout scenario on Lexington and a full movement on Rangewood. Those raised medians would have to be
constructed in order to accomplish that kind of traffic control, however, that's not what is being proposed
because it's a very unconventional traffic solution. That diagram was for demonstration purposes only for
a study they had done Commissioner Ruggiero asked if that's the neighborhood's preferred solution?
Mr. Hodsdon replied yes
Opposed
Cindy Taylor, adjacent homeowner, stated they produced the IBS standards for the lighting. She
outlined her research of other centers and found that the medium standards for other centers is 2 4
footcandles The 5.0 standard as proposed by the applicant relates to something like a major athletic
event. They have concerns with traffic stacking back to the neighborhood accesses from the
Woodmen/Lexington intersection. The traffic report stipulates there will be 28,155 vehicles per day
from the center and 55% will exit onto Lexington Currently, there's 10,200 vehicles per day on
Lexington, so an additional 55% from the center will generate 26,000+ on this minor arterial. A minor
arterial is defined as between 10,000 and 25,000 vehicles per day. They propose that if Lexington is
made right-in/right-out, it will drop the amount of traffic by 29% or 18,000 vehicles per day. Most
large shopping centers don't have 3 accesses and people will still patronize their favorite stores even
if the access is inconvenient
She noted there's no room to widen Lexington in order to
accommodate the extra turn lanes that Mr. Hodsdon talked about. The neighbors would like more
time to work with the applicant on the traffic and access issues.
Commissioner Baruth asked how the median would work? Ms. Taylor stated they would be allowed to
make a left into, but not out of their neighborhood. Mr. Merntt from City Traffic has stated that if they're
going to do a right-in/right-out for King Soopers, then the same would applicable be for the neighborhood,
which they would agree to.
Commissioner Hudson asked what her concern is with the lighting? The applicant's representative has
stated that there will be zero light trespassing at the perimeter of the center. Ms. Taylor replied that it's
great the applicant agreed to the high sodium pressure because it eliminates the high glare and the
ground directed lights will help eliminate light trespassing into the neighborhood.
Page 42
Commissioner Esmiol noted that according to,the applicant's light presentation their problem is solved.
Ms. Taylor said she doesn't understand why the applicant needs 5 0 footcandles when comparable
shopping centers operate efficiently at 2 4
Diana Jackson, adjacent resident, stated there are numerous driveways on just this 1-block stretch of
Lexington alone. Also, on this street are a convalescent home, veterinary/office building and bike
path Garbage and postal services make their route daily throughout this neighborhood
Wendy Crawford, adjacent resident, gave several examples of shopping centers that don't have 3
accesses and work quite well Some centers accommodate more traffic and even operate on a 24hour basis. So, it can be done and they feel that this center can operate with the one traffic signal at
the Rangewood access and the nght-in/nght-out at Lexington.
Rebuttal
Todd Liming stated that the solution the neighbors proposed for the right-in/right-out at Lexington will
result in cut-through traffic through their neighborhood This property has been zoned C-6/P since
1986 with 3 points of access and anticipated the level of traffic they presented at full buildout Ms.
Taylor has stated that the landscaping will be removed along Lexington if they're to widen it for turn
lanes, however, far more landscaping will be removed with the sound wall the neighbors requested.
They can provide a pedestrian activated signal where the bike trail crosses Lexington, assuming it's
acceptable with City Traffic They still contend that the IES average standard is 3.6 instead of 2.4
footcandles.
Jeff Hodsdon stated they have recommended shortening the northbound left-turn lane off of
Lexington to 50', which is more than adequate to get the neighborhood traffic in and out. He believes
the traffic signal will be far safer for everyone accessing the neighborhood and this center. When
Ms Taylor referred to 28,000 vehicle trips per day, that's the count for the entire center distributed
between the 3 access points and not just the one off Lexington, so they won't be overloading that
arterial
He displayed a computer simulated traffic flow pattern at full buildout through all
intersections in today's discussion. The queue length of cars will never stack up so much that it
blocks access into the neighborhood He stated they're actually improving the Woodmen/Lexington
intersection, but why should they participate in that improvement if they're forced into a right-in/rightout access and the traffic is restricted from traveling southbound to that intersection.
Qumn Peitz, City Planning, cautioned the Chair that this is rebuttal time and new information should not be
presented unless the neighborhood is given a chance to comment on it Todd Liming stated that twice the
neighbors had questions as to whether these intersections will work and this computer simulation is their
effort to show that they will
Larry Lane, City Traffic, stated his office prepared the revised conditions for #16 The overall traffic is not
unusually high for the adjacent road system that will accommodate this center He feels the signalized
intersections on Lexington and Rangewood is the safest solution for the traffic situation The neighbors
have brought some very valid concerns that they're not completely comfortable with what will happen to
the intersection at Lexington with relation to Woodmen Road He believes it would be reasonable and
appropriate for the Commission not to vote on the signalized access on Lexington out of the center Staff,
the applicant and the neighbors can continue negotiations administratively to come up with an acceptable
access.
Commissioner Gruen asked if they shouldn't keep revision #16 as originally written versus the revised
version? Mr Lane replied they can incorporate the amended revision and change item 16i to meet City
Traffic's requirements
Page 43
It was moved by Commissioner Baruth, seconded by Commissioner Esmiol to approve a
development plan for Woodmen Plaza in a PBC (Commercial) zone consisting of 21.5 acres
located northeast of Woodmen Road and Lexington Drive with the condition that staff, the
applicant and the neighbors will work out the traffic issues. Submit 10 copies of the plan with the
following revisions:
(Revisions after the motion on 12, 14, 15, 16i, and 17 )
1. Provide building elevations of the King Soopers, Longs Drugs and the inline stores showing
building materials and colors, building heights and wall signage.
2. Provide a typical detail of the opaque screen to be used for the enclosures for the trash
facilities and compactors. The wall material shall match the building wall material.
3. Remove the notes regarding the partial approval of the development plan ("clouded" areas
and accompanying notes).
4. Provide the complete development plan information that was previously shown, but excluded
for the partial approval (e.g. landscaping, light standard locations, parking requirements,
dimensions for buildings, landscape planters, parking spaces, and driveways, parking
requirements, parking space angle, etc.).
5. Show the location of all freestanding signs. Provide elevations of the signs. Note that the
signs adjacent to both Lexington Drive and Rangewood Drive shall not exceed 6' in height.
Note the type of lighting proposed for the signs.
6. Note the sidewalks connecting the Skyline Trail to the center to be 8* in width and
constructed of concrete.
7. Note that a pedestrian activated traffic signal shall be provided at the intersection of
Lexington Drive and the Skyline Trail concurrently with the development of the center.
8. Provide 2 bike racks for at least 8 bicycles each. Locate one rack near the entry of King
Soopers, and the one near the entry of Longs Drugs. Provide a typical detail of the racks.
9. Note the location of the cart corrals.
10. Revise note 3 on sheet 1 of 7 to indicate the material for the rooftop screening shall be for
screening and sound attenuation.
11. Note that development plans must be approved for Lots 3, 4 and 5 prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
12. The wall/retaining wall located on the north side of the King Soopers and the grading plan
shall be reviewed administratively with consideration to Traffic Engineering's comments.
13. Note that trash pick-up shall occur between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
14. Note that King Sooper's delivery trucks shall enter and exit the site from either Rangewood
Drive or Woodmen Road, and that their engines will be turned off after arrival.
15. Note that light standards shall not exceed 30' in height on Lots 1, 4 and 5, and 20* on Lots 2
and 3. Note that the lights shall be high pressure sodium lights, with full cut-off fixtures and
no sag lens, with an average footcandle level shall be established by staff, the applicant and
neighborhood.
16. Revise the plan to note or show the installation of the following street improvements as
required by Traffic Engineering.
a. Widening of Woodmen and Lexington, and Woodmen and Rangewood Roads to achieve
duel left turns in all directions, shall be at the owner's expense - include right turn lanes,
all rights-of-way to be obtained by the owner.
b. Widening of Lexington Road and Rangewood Road shall be at this owner's expense for
additional turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration as necessary.
c. All re-stripping of public roads shall be at this owner's expense including utility
relocations.
d. Extensive letters of credit shall be posted for all street improvement requirements.
e. Submit street plans and profiles to this office prior to approval of plan for all streets, etc.
f.
This owner shall participate up to % of one percent (%) of gross sales in the
Academy/Woodmen Over Pass Public Improvement Cooperation.
NOTE:
The
applicant/developer agrees to participate in the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC)
being established by the City of Colorado Springs if this site is determined to be within
Page 44
the proposed transportation influence area approved by the City Council. The
applicant/developer may also include this site in a separate PIC, subject to the approval
by the City, or other form of common assessment entity to reimburse the
applicant/developer for the costs of off-site improvements to Lexington Drive,
Rangewood Drive and Woodmen Road.
g. Lower the grade of Randall & Rangewood Drive to an acceptable 4% and signalize this
intersection. Relocate the trail crossing to this signal on Rangewood Drive.
h. Signalize the trail crossing on Lexington Drive with a pedestrian activated device.
i.
Provide and intersection acceptable to Traffic Engineering, applicant and the
neighborhood Association.
j.
Install a westbound acceleration lane on Woodmen Road from Lexington Drive.
k. All costs of lane additions, widenings, acceleration lanes, island removals, signal
installations, sound wall installations shall be by this owner.
I.
17. Show pedestrian ramps as required by City Engineering.
18. Note the detention pond shall be privately owned and maintained.
Commissioner Ruggiero stated he'll reluctantly be supporting the motion One of the reasons this request
is before the Planning Commission with so many conditions is because there's been an inability for staff,
the applicant and the neighborhood to resolve these issues. He doesn't know if they're establishing an
enlightened precedent by throwing it back in their hands It's fine if staff feels comfortable doing it, but he
doesn't know if they're doing their job The parties are far enough apart on the traffic issues that no
amount of simulation, details and traffic studies will convince the neighbors otherwise
Commissioner Gruen suggested they bring it back to this Commission if they can't reach an impasse. He
extended accolades to the Liberty Bell homeowners for their responsible presentations and noted that
other Homeowner's Association in the City could take some lessons from them
The meeting adjourned at 10 15 p m
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
H. QUINN PEITZ, JR., AICP
GROUP SUPPORT MANAGER
HQP/pg
/
CPC Addendum 07/10/98
Page 2
ITEM NO: 12.
STAFF: Steve Tuck
FILE NO: CPC DP 98-00059 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Woodmen Plaza Shopping Center (King Soopers)
APPLICANT:
N.ES. Inc.
OWNER:
The Midland Group
This commercial center (21.5 acres) is a portion of a larger commercial site (41.7 acres) located on the
north side of Woodmen Road, between Lexington and Rangewood Drives, and south of a major electric
transmission corridor (FIGURE 1). The primary anchor for the 21.5 acre area is a King Soopers grocery
store (FIGURE 2).
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION;
Approve the development plan. Submit 10 copies of the plan with the following revisions:
1. Provide building elevations of the King Soopers, Longs Drugs and the inline stores showing building
2. Provide a typical detail of the opaque screen to be used for the enclosures for the trash facilities and
compactors. The wall material shall match the building wall material.
3. Remove the notes regarding the partial approval of the development plan ("clouded" areas and
4. Provide the complete development plan information that was previously shown, but excluded for the
partial approval (e.g. landscaping, light standard locations, parking requirements, dimensions for
buildings, landscape planters, parking spaces, and driveways, parking requirements, parking space
angle, etc.).
5. Show the location of all freestanding signs. Provide elevations of the signs. Note that the signs
adjacent to both Lexington Drive and Rangewood Drive shall not exceed 6' in height Note the type of
lighting proposed for the signs.
6. Note the sidewalks connecting the Skyline Trail to the center to be 8' in width and constructed of
concrete.
7. Note that a pedestrian activated traffic signal shall be provided at the intersection of Lexington Drive
and the Skyline Trail concurrently with the development of the center.
8. Provide 2 bike racks for at least 8 bicycles each. Locate one rack near the entry of King Soopers,
and the one near the entry of Longs Drugs. Provide a typical detail of the racks.
9. Note the location of the cart corrals.
10. Revise note 3 on sheet 1 of 7 to indicate the material for the rooftop screening shall be for screening
and sound attenuation.
11. Note that development plans must be approved for Lots 3.4 and 5 prior to the issuance of a building
permit
12. Note that trash pick-up shall occur between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
13. Note that delivery trucks shall enter and exit the site from either Rangewood Drive or Woodmen
Road, and that engines will be turned off after arrival.
14. Note that light standards shall not exceed 30' in height on Lots 1, 4 and 5, and 20' on Lots 2 and 3.
Note that the lights shall be high pressure sodium lights, with an average footcandte level of 2.4.
Include the photometric drawing received on June 15.1998 within the development plan set
Page 3
15. Revise the plan to note or show the installation of the following street improvements as required by
Traffic Engineering:
a. Widening of Woodmen and Lexington, and Woodmen and Rangewood Roads to achieve duel
left turns in all directions where necessary, shall be at the owner's expense - include right turn
lanes, all rights-of-way to be obtained by the owner.
b. Widening of Lexington Road and Rangewood Road shall be at this owner's expense for
additional turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration as necessary.
c. All re-stripping of public roads shall be at this owner's expense including utility relocation.
f.
This owner shall participate up to Ya of one percent (%) of gross sales in the
Academy/Woodmen Over Pass Public Improvement Cooperation. NOTE: The
applicantfdeveloper agrees to participate in the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) being
established by the City of Colorado Springs if this site is determined to be within the proposed
transportation influence area approved by the City Council. The applicant/developer may also
include this site in a separate PIC, subject to the approval by the City, or other form of common
assessment entity to reimburse the applicantfdeveloper for the costs of off-site improvements to
Lexington Drive, Rangewood Drive and Woodmen Road.
g. Lower the grade of Randall & Rangewood Drive to an acceptable 4% and signalize this
intersection. Relocate the trail crossing to this signal on Rangewood Drive.
h. Signalize the trail crossing on Lexington Drive with a pedestrian activated device,
i.
Provide an intersection acceptable to Traffic Engineering as shown in FIGURE 3.
j.
All costs of lane additions, widenings, acceleration lanes, island removals, signal installations,
sound wall installations shall be by this owner,
k. Prior to approval of this plan, submit to this office all requirements shown as stated.
16. Show pedestrian ramps as required by City Engineering.
17. Note the detention pond shall be privately owned and maintained.
This development plan was approved with conditions at the June Planning Commission meeting. The item
had been referred to the Commission by staff to assist in resolving several issues that had not been
agreed upon by the applicant, the neighbors and the staff. Those remaining issues were: 1) the access
onto Lexington Drive from the shopping center across from the access into the Liberty Bell residential
neighborhood, 2) the appropriate illumination level (measured in footcandles) for the King Soopers parking
area. The direction given by the Commission in their motion was for the staff, applicant and neighbors to
resolve the issues. While additional meetings have occurred since the Planning Commission meeting
among the parties, differences still exist The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
recommendation (FIGURE 5). City Council heard the appeal at their June 23rd meeting and referred the
item back to Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's recommendation on the unresolved issues.
In the Analysis section is the status of these issues at the time of the writing of this report
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Goal 7.1 - Protect and maintain the stability and diversity
of the City's established neighborhoods.
Goal 8.1 - Plan, develop and maintain a safe and efficient
transportation system to meet the present and future
mobility needs of the community.
RANGEWOOD DR
BRIARGATE
BD-\
Page 4
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - C-6P/vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North -
R/NP/open space (Skyline Trail), electric transmission line
corridor
South - C-6P/vacant, commercial (Blockbuster Video, Subway, Papa
Johns Pizza
East - C-SP/vacant, commercial (car wash, 7/11)
West - R-1 6000/singIe family residences
Annexation -1979, Briargate Addition No. 1.
Zoning -1986, Ordinance No. 86-62.
Subdivision - 1985 for Briargate Subdivision Ring No. 31, 1987 for Woodmen Terrace Plaza Subdivision
Filing No. 1, and 1997 for Woodmen Terrace Plaza Filing No. 2.
Zoninq Enforcement Action - None.
Physical Characteristics - The site has been recently overiot graded. No natural vegetation or
characteristics remain. The site slopes slightly down from the north to the south, with a significant grade
drop (approximately 20 to 30') along the south property line.
Master Plan - Briargate. Commercial
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS;
Citv Engineering- The development plan needs to show pedestrian ramps at the intersection of Lexington
and Bunker Hill (bi-directional ramps) on all four comers. The development plan and the plat must have
notes added to address the property owner's responsibility to provide perpetual maintenance of the private
streets which serve the development The plat must include a reference to the recorded documentation of
the private maintenance responsibility. All standard comments apply.
Traffic Engineering - Place on this plan the following requirements:
Widening of Woodmen and Lexington, and Woodmen and Rangewood Roads to achieve duel left
turns in all directions, shall be at the owner's expense - include right turn lanes, all rights-of-way to be
obtained by the owner.
b. Widening of Lexington Road and Rangewood Road shall be at this owner's expense for additional
turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration as necessary.
All re-stripping of public roads shall be at this owner's expense including utility relocations.
f.
This owner shall participate up to % of one percent (%) of gross sales in the Academy/Woodmen
Over Pass Public Improvement Cooperation. NOTE* The applicant/developer agrees to participate in
the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) being established by the City of Colorado Springs if this
site is determined to be within the proposed transportation influence area approved by the City
Council. The applicant/developer may also include this site in a separate PIC, subject to the approval
by the City, or other form of common assessment entity to reimburse the applicant/developer for the
costs of off-site improvements to Lexington Drive, Rangewood Drive and Woodmen Road.
Lower the grade of Randall & Rangewood Drive to an acceptable 4% and signalize this intersection.
Relocate the trail crossing to this signal on Rangewood Drive,
h. Signalize the trail crossing on Lexington Drive with a pedestrian activated device.
Provide an intersection acceptable to Traffic Engineering as shown in FIGURE 3.
Install a westbound acceleration lane on Woodmen Road from Lexington Drive.
All costs of lane additions, widenings, acceleration lanes, island removals, signal installations, sound
wall installations shall be by this owner.
Electric -Any alterations to existing electric facilities will be at the developer's expense.
3as - Request approved.
Water/Wastewater -Standard comments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,9,11 and 15.
3
olice -No objections.
fire -Recommend approval. Plan is approved with condition that 20' of roadway rather than 15' is provided
at the entrances, or delete the islands. Standard comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7,10,13, 20 and 21.
Page5
Parks - No comment
City Trails Team - The trail connection shown at the east end of the project should be eight feet wide and
concrete surface. Given the proximity to the Skyline Trail and the above mentioned connection it would be
appropriate to have some bike storage areas within the project The Skyline Trail crosses Lexington below
the crest of the hill. It is anticipated that the volume of traffic will significantly increase with the completion
of the grocery store. The safety of the trail users is of concern to the Trails Team. The developer should
provide a pedestrian activated light at the intersection of Lexington and the Skyline Trail to facilitate the
trail crossing.
County Health - Earthmoving activities, which exceed 1 acre, must have a construction activity permit prior
to commencement of project Please contact Air Quality at 578-3137.
The issues mentioned in the applicant's appeal letter are listed below with their current status.
Traffic/Access
The issue yet to be resolved is the extent of the access into the center from Lexington Drive (condition
16.Q. The applicant is proposing a full access with a traffic signal, while the Liberty Bell neighborhood
prefers a more limited access. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Traffic Engineering has proposed
the access shown on FIGURE 3. The proposal will allow all movements except for left turns out of the
center onto Lexington Drive. The neighbors have agreed to the compromise solution while the applicant
has not Traffic Engineering has agreed that if the intersection shown in FIGURE 3 is not functioning
properly, then the intersection shown in FIGURE 4 could be constructed without substantial cost Traffic
Engineering is willing to reevaluate the intersection after the center is constructed and a period of time has
elapsed. Staff recommends the alternate driveway shown in FIGURE 3 be approved. If this alternative is
adopted, then the center will have threes points of access: 1) right-in/right-out onto Woodmen Road, 2) full
movement intersection with a traffic signal at Rangewood Drive, and 3) the three-quarters intersection at
Lexington Drive shown in FIGURE 3. Per Traffic Engineering, this level of access is adequate for the
shopping center, while remaining sensitive to the neighborhood concerns.
Parking Lot Lighting
The applicant's appeal letter indicated objection to condition 15, and as indicated by the applicant at the
Planning Commission meeting the specific objection was to the average footcandle limit of 2.4. The
applicant has submitted a photometric plan indicating an average footcandle level of 1.9, with a maximum
of 17.7. The higher levels of light occur directly under the light poles and within the parking area in front of
the King Soopers, while lower light levels are shown on the perimeter of the site. The proposal is
acceptable to the staff. Staff has sent the photometric drawing to the neighborhood organization for
review.
CPC Addendum 07/10/98 \
Page 6
I || [ J ^
Page 7
J)
•'T j Ji'pjfljj
- i u 25
f9
.
«»_.i^.
„.. •
ll .
n^v/-.---'=cr
8!
f;:.% ', ..
r- •"• ^ %v .*— MjjjI
x
'* »-\ V •'*
.*• -• J 'x
FIGURE 2
CPCPP
98-00059
PageS
ITEM 12
FIGURES
CPC DP 98-00059
Page 9
ITEM 12
FIGURE 4
CPC DP 98-00059
Merle bantz, the appellant, stated the change does not adversely affect the neighborhood; that
similar houses in the area have also requested and received the same type g^variance
changes.
Walter Jones and 6a|e Hart spoke in support of the request.
Motion by Hubert to overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer anc^pprove the request for
the variances.
Mayor Makepeace declared the motion failed for lack of a sepdnd.
Then, motion by Barley, second by Are'.^to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer and deny
the appeal.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Are', Barley, Makepeace, Null,
Hubert
Guman, Young
Mayor Makepeace declared the mpffon carried.
Q
Councilmember Young returned.
Q
21.
CPC AP 98-Q6T212: Public hearing on an appeal by Robert Trover of BroWnstein. Hyatt.
Faber & Strickland. PC for an administrative approval of a concept plan for Windward
Boulevard.
MaHon by Young, second by Are', that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
l4[ 1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Guman.
0
22.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public hearing on an appeal bv NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development plan for Woodmen Plaza in a PBC
Lexington Drive.
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated more time is needed to meet with Staff, the neighborhood
and the applicant to work out some issues of concern; that the recommendation is to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1998 and postpone the matter to
the Council meeting of July 14, 1998.
John Maynard, NES Planning Director, stated they would prefer to have a decision
immediately; that the parties are too far apart to come to a resolution.
18
Motion by Rivera, second by Are', that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission
meeting of July 9, 1998 and postponed to the Council meeting of July 14,1998.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Are', Barley, Hubert, Makepeace, Null, Rivera, Young
Purvis
Guman
Mayor Makepeace declared the motion carried.
At 11:35 a.m., motion by
unanimously carried and,
, second by Null, that Council adjourn
Kathryn M. Young, cMC
City Clerk
19
e motion
15.
CPC AP 98-00212: Public Hearing on an appeal bvRobeff Trover of Brownstein. Hyatt.
Corner consistinqêll5.9989 acres iocatecf southwest of List Drive and Centennial
Boulevard.
The applicant has requestetfthis matteTbe-ppstponed to the Council meeting of July 28, 1998.
Motion by Guntan, second by Young, that this maroNae postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28^4398. The motion unanimously carried. AbsenCCouncilmember Null.
16.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public Hearing on an appeal bv NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development plan for Wooden Plaza in a PBC
Lexington Drive.
Motion by Purvis, second by Hubert, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
0
CPC A 98-00098: Request bv Steven Sharkey on behatf"t>f Gates Lane Company for
approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 1J5^6onsisting of 2.216 acres located
south oTJaniteli Road and Executive Circle.
The applicant hasrequested this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of July 28, 1998.
Motion by Barley, second byûng^tfiat this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28, 1998. The motion unanftntfusly carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
18.
CPC P 89-00099: Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody Company for approval of
a change of zcfne classification from County fe^PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park)
consisting of 2^216 acres located southeast of Janitell femd and Executive Circle.
The applicant has requested this matter be postponed to the CounciNneeting of July 28, 1998.
Motipri by Barley, second by Young, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
JuJv 28, 1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
Q
11
Corner consisting of 16.9989 aoroo located-southwest of List Drive and Centennial
Boulevard.
Motion by Young^secCnH^y Rivera that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
Auoust-4tr1^987 The motion unanimously carried.
16.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public hearing on an appeal by NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development plan for Wooden Plaza in a PBC
Lexington Drive.
Motion by Young, second by Rivera, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Request by Steven Sharkev on behalf of Gates Land Company for
approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15 consisting of 2.216>dcres located
south bf Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
Motion by Purvis, second by Are1, that this matter be postponed tq, e Council meeting of
August 11,1998/^The motion unanimously carried.
X
--0-
18.
CPC P 98-00099: Request mNDrexel Barrell on behalf of Codv Company for approval of
a change zone classification from County to PIP^2 (Planned Industrial Park) consisting
of 2.216 acres located southeast oKlaniteli R0tad and Executive Circle.
Motion by Purvis, second by Are', that
August 11, 1998. The motion unanimoi
matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
led.
-0-
19.
CPC DPA 98-00187: Public/hearing on an appeal by Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
by Yerqensen. Peering fif Whittaker on behalf of multipJe owners for approval of an
amendment to the NortKpointe Center Development Plan ifra PBC/HS (Commercial with
Hillside Overlay) zone^consistinq of 25.77 acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon
Boulevard and Delroonico Drive.
Motion by Are', second by Barley, that this matter be postponed to
August 11,1998; The motion unanimously carried.
20.
ouncil meeting of
CPC S 98-001 88PF: Public hearing on an appeal bv Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
by Rockwell-Minchow on behalf of Kent A. Petre for preliminary and final plat approval
23
COALITION
%r
**rni • ' n%** ^
7431 Stonecrop Court
Colorado Spnngs, CO 80919
July 14,1998
The City Clerk
30 South Nevada Avenue
:
~;
--J
CD
RE: Condition Number Five (5), Ranning Commission Approval of Items
CPC DPC 98-00187 and S 98-00188PF (CPC Agenda Items 9 and 10)
Dear Ms. Young:
The Rockrimmon Coalition, a group of nine homeowners associations in the Rockrimmon area, is
appealing the Ranning Commission ruling on the two items, cited above, heard on July 9,1998.
We believe this development (an extended-stay hotel) to be a poor land use that does not benefit our
community. The hotel will be situated approximately 63 feet from the railroad track and must draw
clientele from 1-25, through the Pro Rodeo/ Rockrimmon Blvd. Intersection. This will exacerbate the
existing traffic problems that Rockrimmon faces every day at its only two in-out intersections,
Woodmen Road and Pro Rodeo/Rockrimmon Blvd.
Rockrimmon development is keeping pace with the rest of the City. We have a little more than 170
acres undeveloped and, with every new office building that goes up in the Tech Center, we see more
strain on our infrastructure. At build-out of these areas, the City Traffic Engineers state that our
intersections will not handle an increase of this magnitude without major physical modifications.
The Rockrimmon Coalition wants the City Council to initiate policy actions to:
1. Improve our traffic situation.
2.
Control development to coincide with intersection improvements.
3.
Find solutions to our tailing Traffic Level of Service.
We submit this request for appeal in accordance with the City Zoning Code, Article 4. Part 10, Section
1008.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Pugh
Rockrimmon Coalition Representative
ITEM NO. 17
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 58
ITEMNO(S): 9. & 10.
STAFF: Brett Veltman
FILE NO(S): CPC DPA 98-00187 - Quasi-Judicial
CPC S 98-00188PF - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Northpointe Center
APPLICANT:
Yergensen, Obering & Whlttaker, P.C.
OWNER:
Multiple Owners
This is a request for approval of a Development Plan for Bradford Home Suites, an extended stay hotel
(FIGURES 1 & 2).
STAFFS RECOMMENDATION:
Item 9. - CPC DPA 98-00187 - Development Plan Amendment
Approve the Development Plan with the following conditions to be completed prior to final approval.
1. Place a note on the plan stating that, "No freestanding (pylon) signs are to be allowed on this
property".
2. Revise the plan to show two signs directing traffic to the easternmost entry drive.
3. Specify on that Amerstone or a similar interlocking block will be used for the retaining walls. Color
selection shall be as agreed on with the Rockrimmon Coalition.
4. Place the following Geologic Hazard mitigation note on the plan, "Mitigation of expansive soils on this
site will require special foundation design. Due to the characteristics of the fill material, a drilled pier
foundation is recommended for the proposed structure at this site. Typical pier depth may range
from 40 to 50 feet and require 5 to 10 feet of penetration into competent formational bedrock
material. The design parameters for the drilled piers should be determined in the Subsurface Soil
Investigation prior to construction."
item 10. - CPC S 98-00188PF - Subdivision Plat
Approve the subdivision plat.
SUMMARY:
Staff feels that this project is in compliance with the development plan review criteria, but has remanded
the request to Planning Commission at the request of area neighborhood associations. The major
neighborhood issues have to do with the proposed use for this site and with the impact of new
development on local traffic conditions. There have been several neighborhood meetings held to discuss
this project.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policy 4.1.3 - Place major emphasis in the. City's land use planning, development review and land use
decisions on the consideration of physical elements...
Goal 4.3 - Plan commercial and industrial areas to service regional, neighborhood and business needs.
Policy 4.3.1 - Encourage convenient location of commercial uses designed to serve a neighborhood within
the area to be served.
Policy 4.3.3 - Encourage commercial cluster developments that incorporate unified site and circulation
planning. Discourage strip commercial development along arterial streets.
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 59
CPCDPA 98-00187
S ROCKRIMMON BO
CPC S 98-00188PF
S ROCKRIMMOJQ BD
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 60
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - PBC(HS), Vacant Land
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PBC(HS), Northpointe Center
South - OC(HS), Vacant Land and Pro Rodeo Center
East - PBC(HS), Office Building
West - PUD(HS); Vacant Land
Annexation - April 1966, Golden Cycle Addition No. 1.
Subdivision - Northpointe Centre Filing No. 4 (pending).
Proposal - This is a proposal to construct an extended stay hotel in a PBC(HS) zone
Physical Characteristics - The northeast portion is relatively flat, but the lot slopes substantially toward the
south (Rockrimmon Blvd.) and west (Delmonico Blvd.).
Item 10. - CPC S 98-00188PF - Subdivision Plat
City Engineering - Place mitigation note on the plan. Standard comments.
Traffic Engineering - Acceptable.
Electric - Any relocation of the existing electric facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense.
Water/Wastewater - Standard comments.
Fire - Acceptable.
Flood plain -_Portions of this site are located in a designated 100 year floodplain. Development of these
areas are subject to the floodplain development regulations. For further information, contact Dan Bunting.
Gas - When this development is platted, the private easement should be a dedicated 30' utility easements
for the purpose of installing public gas mains and services
County Health - Earthmoving activities which exceed one acre must have a construction activity permit
prior to commencement of project. Please contact Air Quality at 578-3137.
AH Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment.
The proposed Bradford Home Suites (130 rooms) is a part of the Northpointe Centre, a PBC project that
which was approved in 1978 (CPC CD 78-113). The original plan has since expired and therefore a new
DP is required. After a series of neighborhood meetings and City departmental review, the project has
been modified to Staffs satisfaction, but the following neighborhood issues remain (FIGURE 3):
1. Land Use. Concerns have been expressed that the intended use is inappropriate for this area and
that the market might not support another extended stay hotel. An extended stay hotel, however, is a
principle permitted use according to the Zoning Ordinance and it could be argued that project viability
is the type of question best answered by a market study. Staff feels that the proposed use will
complement this center and the area neighborhoods. The primary types of guests that use extended
stay facilities are people relocating into the area, those on short term consulting work, business
travelers and people experiencing family problems. Providing lodging to these types of users is in
keeping with Goal 4.3 and Policy 4.3.1 of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Traffic. Concerns over traffic appears to be the central issue affecting this request Although the
hotel is not considered to be an excessive traffic generator, Staff has heard from the Rockrimmon
Coalition that no more development should be allowed in the vicinity until all local traffic issues have
been adequately addressed. Staff concurs that traffic is a growing problem for the Rockrimmon area.
There are limited points of access and already the adjacent intersection at Rockrimmon and
Delmonico becomes congested during the morning and evening rush hours. As future development
occurs, this situation could become even worse. In question, however, is the solution recommended
by City Staff. Recent developments at this center have produced a lower intensity of uses than had
been permitted on the 1978 Development Plan. Per the traffic study, after completion of the hotel the
center will generate 1000 fewer vehicle trips per day than under the previous plan. In addition, the
nature of the hotel business is such that a smaller portion of these trips will occur during prime
commuting hours. In consideration of these expectations, City Traffic Engineering has determined
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 61
that the only work to be done in conjunction with the hotel is the existing traffic lights will be retimed
to ease the rush hour burden. Traffic has noted, however, that as future development occurs in the
area, additional traffic mitigation will be appropriate. Anticipated steps include providing additional
striping, constructing a right turn lane from Delmonico on to Rockrimmon Blvd. and metering the
traffic from Pro Rodeo on to Rockrimmon.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 14.1-4-602 C
Staff feels that this project is in full compliance with the Development Plan review criteria. The proposed
hotel will be similar in character and materials to the other structures that have been already built in this
center. The use will serve the needs of the local and regional markets and the proposed landscaping
exceeds the requirements of the City Ordinances. At neighborhood meetings, concerns were raised
regarding freestanding or pylon signs and internal circulation. Staff believes that both of these issues
have been resolved by prohibiting the tall freestanding signs and by using directional signage to avoid the
areas of greatest internal congestion.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE 14.1-2-504
This request is in full compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. There is no significant vegetation on the site
and the proposed grading is within acceptable limits.
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 62
VICINITY MAP
CPC DPA 98- 187
ITEMS 9 & 10
FIGURE1
CPC DPA 98-00187
CPC S 98-00188PF
EXISTING V
DETACHED
SlOtWALK
t'O REMAIN
IMPAIR OR
00
0>
o>
o
g
(0
•o
a <D
rt
OL °>
ro
O CL
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 64
TEMS9&10
j^
FIGURE, -.
2 . ..
CPC DPA 98-00187 *
CPC S 98-00188PF j
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 65
CPCDPA 98-00187
\CPCS9*M>0188PF
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page 66
Coalition
f ~*^*+mw9>m*+m+
7431 stonecrop Court
Junel, 1998
Mr. Brett Velttman
Development Review Unit
101 West Costilla St, Suite 212
Subject Rockrimmon Coalition issues on Proposed Northpoint Center Development
Dear Mr. Velttman:
. This letter is to formally inform you of this Coalition's position on issues related to subject
development..
Our concerns fall into three major categories:
1. Land Use, as defined in the City of Colorado Springs Zoning Code.
2. Traffic-^the Rockrimmon BlvdYDelmonico Dr./ Corporate Dr7 Mark Dabling Blvd./
Interstate 25 Intersections.
3. Miscellaneous Concerns.
1. LAND USE
The hotel proposed in subject development is in conflict with and will require an amendment to
the original Master Ran in which this area is zoned PBC/HS. As defined on page 67 of the City Zoning
Code, PBC is designed to:
a. Accommodate commercial uses that serve an adjoining neighborhood or neighborhoods
and to preserve and enhance areas with a range of retail sales and services established for both short
and long-term needs.
b. Provide ease of vehicular circulation and a compatible relationship to surrounding properties
through an overall planning approach and evaluation of the site to preserve and enhance areas. (This
Js addressed separately under Traffic")
Subject development does not preserve or enhance the adjoining Rockrimmon
neighborhoods in either the short or the long term. The plan for this development does not include
a dearly detailed concept, which describes general use and how it relates to the surrounding
properties.
We are concerned, for example, that the proximity to the railroad tracks (63 ft) could have
serious effect on the long term profitability of the land use as a hotel. This structure may be subject to
numerous future options that may not be beneficial to the neighborhood environment and the
established integrity of Rockrimmon as a community. City Planning must carefully consider the longterm effect of this land use.
ITEMS
9 & 10
1TE1V12>
FIGURE 3
CPC DPA 98-00187
CPC S 98-00188PF
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Pa
9e67
June 1,1998
i_ana use ^continued)
The governing Hillside Ordinance requires an extensive Land Suitability Analysis, Treatment of Grading
and Erosion Control and Reclamation and Maintenance Solutions. The proposed development
includes a 40-ft retaining wall and extensive landfill which violates the intent of this Ordinance.
2. TRAFFIC
The Rockrimmon neighbortioods have only two main access points —The I-25/
Woodmen Road intersection and the major intersection formed by the confluence of Delmonico Drive,
Rockrimmon Boulevard, Tech Center Drive, Mark Dabfing Boulevard and the 1-25 Access Ramps. The
latter is the proposed location for this development
The problems at the Woodmen Road/1-25 intersection are well documented and supported by
recent traffic accident surveys. The number of hotels, business offices and restaurants compounds the
problems at this intersection.
Our remaining access point, the Delmonico Dr. / Rockrimmon Brvd/Tech Center DrJI-25
Access/Mark Dabling Blvd. Intersection, was the subject of the City-sponsored Leigh, Scott & Cleary
study in 1997. The study concluded that the intersection of Rockrimmon and Mark Dabling/ I-25
Ramps operate at LOS D and the intersection of Tech Center/Rockrimmon operates at LOS F for
northbound left turns. Level of Service (LOS) is rated from "A" to "F1, with "F* indicative of a high
level of congestion or delay. Since that study, two office complexes have been completed in the
Tech Center and two additional are under construction in close proximity. This will further impact traffic
at these intersections.
For any development such as this, there must be a reasonable relationship to the City's
established major traffic thoroughfare plan. There should be direct access to a public right-of-way and
full consideration of the nearby traffic situation.
The proposed development has no direct access or service road. Access is through the
existing bank parking lot
The proposed entrance/exit to Delmonico will be within a few hundred feet of traffic making a
right turn (north) off Rockrimmon onto Delmonico. This poses a very serious threat to oncoming traffic as well as making hotel traffic exit to Delmonico difficult and dangerous.
3. MISCELLANEOUS
We seriously object to the proposed 30-ft hotel sign.
There are already eight hotels/motels immediately adjoining the Rockrimmon community
boundaries. AH have direct Interstate access and service roads.
Drainage and property grading are not addressed in the Development Ran. Storm Drainage in
the vicinity of the proposed hotel has historically been a problem We believe the problem will
be compounded by the proposed construction, land fin and 40-ft retaining wail.
ITEMS 9 & 10
FIGURE 3
CPCDPA 98-00187
cpc s 98-00188PF
CPC Agenda 07/09/98
Page
s 68
.
* Annn
June 1,1998
CONCLUSIONS
The hotel development demonstrates poor Land Use.
The proposed hotel does not benefit the Rockrimmon Community.
The proposed hotel invades the residential boundaries.
The proposed hotel has no direct access or service road.
The traffic problem attendant to this proposed hotel will only worsen as the remaining office
complexes are completed. An LOS F service rating will become the norm for both intersections
allowing ingress/egress to Rockrimmon neighborhoods.
The necessity for drastic traffic engineering intervention must be recognized. A concerted effort
must be made to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow before any future development
adds to the deterioration of the integrity of the Rockrimmon community.
Sincerely,
Shanes
Rockrimmon Coalition Representative
ITEMS 9 & 10
FIGURE 3
CPC DPA 98-00187
cpc s 98-OOl88P*
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page 7
3.
4.
5.
A development plan shall be required.
Useable on site open space shall be provided as part of development plan review.
Note that the property will be developed with energy efficient units (Four Star Ratings based
as certified by an E-Star program rater).
The concept plan must be revised in accordance with the following techpidii changes:
1. Note the zoning and conditions of record on the plan.
2. Coordinate and confirm with Traffic Engineering the widtfMff the right of way for Comstock
Loop.
3. Revise the plan to sjiow pedestrian ramps at the intersection of Tutt and Comstock.
4. Note the landscape setback along Tutt as 20' minimum.
5. Note that an avigatiorNeâsement as recprffed by the Airport will be required with the
development of the propei
6. Note the proposed zone to theôutjvds PBC.
Commissioner Gruen stated he'll be verang against the motion for the reasons indicated earlier
X
\,
The motion passed 5-1. (Coptfnissioner Gruen opposed. Commissioners Nelson & Ruggiero were
absent.)
ITEMS 6. &Z WERE POSTPONED.
ITEM 8. WAS POSTPONED
ITEMS 9. & 10. WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER.
ITEM 9.
CPC DPA 98-00187 - Veltman - Quasi-Judicial
6318200011
Request by Yergensen, Obenng & Whittaker on behalf of multiple owners for approval of an amendment
to the Northpomte Center Development Plan in a PBC/HS (Commercial with Hillside Overlay) zone
consisting of 25.77 acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon Boulevard and Delmonico Drive
ITEM 10.
CPC S 98-00188PF - Veltman - Quasi-Judicial
6318304003
Request by Rockwell-Minchow on behalf of Kent A Petre for preliminary and final plat approval for North
Pomte Centre Filing No. 4 in a PBC/HS (Commercial with Hillside Overlay) zone consisting of 1 lot on 2.78
acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon Boulevard and Delmonico Drive
Brett Veltman, Development Review, stated this request started as an administrative review, but staff has
referred it to the Planning Commission because staff, the applicants and the neighborhood Homeowner's
Associations have not been able to reach full agreement on various issues. The proposal is for a 3-story
extended stay hotel with 130 rooms Staff has done an extensive review of the application and a number
of changes have been made during the process, to include relocation of the building, type of retaining
walls, internal circulation and signage The Rockrimmon Coalition is opposing the request because of the
use and traffic concerns. The proposed hotel is a principal permitted use, which will provide services for
the local area/community and can be viewed as compatible with the center and the neighborhoods. The
larger issue is traffic. The neighbors feel there should be no more construction until the traffic issues have
been resolved, however, staff feels that's a policy issue and would affect numerous projects throughout
the City. Traffic lights can be timed in order to give relief during morning and evening peak hour traffic.
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page8
Mr. Veltman deleted the 2nd sentence in condition #3 under Item 9. as shown on the original staff report
and recommends the following:
Approve the development plan with the following conditions to be completed prior to final approval.
property".
3. Specify on that Amerstone or a similar interlocking block will be used for the retaining walls.
4
Place the following Geologic Hazard mitigation note on the plan, "Mitigation of expansive soils on this
site will require special foundation design. Due to the characteristics of the fill material, a drilled pier
foundation is recommended for the proposed structure at this site. Typical pier depth may range
from 40 to 50 feet and require 5 to 10 feet of penetration into competent formational bedrock
material. The design parameters for the drilled piers should be determined in the Subsurface Soil
Investigation prior to construction."
Approve the subdivision plat
Commissioner Esmiol asked how much this project will increase the traffic? Mr. Veltman replied that the
center itself will generate approximately 500 per day, and during peak hours it may only be 40 - 70
additional cars.
Commissioner Bowers asked where the vehicles will enter/exit onto Delmonico Drive?
referred to a map and pointed out the 3 full-movement accesses onto Delmonico Drive.
Mr. Veltman
Speaking for:
Gene Yergensen, YOW Associates representing the Bradford Suites, thanked staff for all their help
and stated they agree with the recommendations and conditions as modified. This project has
incorporated a lot of compromises and he asked for approval of the request.
Commissioner Gruen asked what some of the compromises were? Mr. Yergensen replied they've added
landscaping at the accesses, additional treatment for the retaining walls, setback increases over what is
required by Code, matching materials for the facility and roof, and they've given up the free-standing sign
for this lot. This site has been zoned since 1978 and their proposal will be generating less traffic than
what was approved on the original development plan
Commissioner Esmiol noted that access to the hotel incorporates a round about way and asked if the
applicants are pleased with that? Mr Yergensen replied the existing & proposed accesses will work
adequately and they can live with that
Commissioner Bowers asked if the applicants are aware that some day this area might become a large
interchange in the Rocknmmon area? Mr. Yergensen replied yes. They have conferred with staff and feel
the long range plans for the interchange are years down the road
Opposed'
Charlie Pugh, Rockrimmon Coalition, stated that the coalition consists of 9 Homeowner's
Associations within the Rockrimmon community that have joined together to act as one body to
resolve some of the issues. He's also the president of CONO and brings its support to this issue.
They're aware that the extended-stay hotel meets the zoning requirements, however, they believe
this is an example of poor land usage The hotel is being built 63' from a very active railroad and is
situated off the main stream of travel that requires special efforts to attract clientele from other onhighway hotels and depends on bringing traffic into their community. They believe the odds of
success are doubtful and in the near term the structure may present a real usage problem for
everyone. Their major concern is traffic and how continual development in the area will lead up to
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page 9
unmanageable situations at all intersections. Even staff has determined that the Pro Rodeo
intersection is operating at a failing level of service and cannot be improved without major physical
modifications. The infrastructure is broken and cannot handle the current traffic loads. Further
degradation occurs with every new office building that opens in the Tech Center Complex. The
applicant's traffic report done by Leigh, Scott and Clean/ does not paint the same picture. It doesn't
give an accurate analysis of the existing or future forecast of the traffic loads that will affect the
intersections That study isolated the Mark Dabling Boulevard/l-25 and the Pro Rodeo/Rockrimmon
Drive intersections and established the level of service for each without regard for congestion at the
other intersections. The level of service at other intersections was derived by a random sampling
method where a person stands on a street corner and attempts to count cars as they pass through
the intersections during rush hour This data was then applied to a 1982 study done in Aurora,
Colorado that they say simulates the Pro Rodeo intersection. This method lacks credibility. The
reports conclusion states that based on traffic projections the Rockrimmon Drive/Mark Dabling
Boulevard intersection alone will operate at a level of service '£' by the year 2003, however, the
City's Traffic Engineering Manual states that under no circumstances will less than a level of service
'D' be acceptable for site or non-site traffic They feel that the applicant's traffic report is not an
accurate analysis of the Rockrimmon traffic situation. Their traffic estimates at full build-out of the
area will be 30,000 vehicle trips per day, or an additional 3,112 cars during peak hours. The way
development is occurring, full build-out could possibly occur within 3 years. Both the Planning and
Traffic Departments have reviewed their data and staff agrees with this assessment. He quoted a
recent article where Commissioner Gruen stated, "Wise decision making requires that we
thoughtfully plan ahead of the need" That's why they're here today. The infrastructure needs
attention, solutions must be implemented and further development must be controlled to provide an
acceptable level of service to our community. Rockrimmon is restricted geographically with only 2
accesses for ingress/egress All intersections are currently hazardous and getting worse with each
development.
Commissioner Esmiol asked what he wants and if it precludes this development? Mr. Pugh replied that
the residents have the right to know what the City's going to do to help them get out of this predicament.
This development is just another situation that will contribute to the domino effect. The style of living is
diminishing quickly in Rockrimmon because of continued development without taking into account
improvements to the existing infrastructure
Commissioner Bowers asked what he suggests the owners of developable property should do? Mr. Pugh
suggested that they might either stop development or require impact funds from future developers. If one
developer doesn't want to pay the price, there's always someone behind him who will.
Commissioner Esmiol asked if the infrastructure problems can be fixed? Mr Pugh replied that anything is
possible if enough money is invested to correct the problems.
Commissioner Gruen asked how the coalition proposes to solve the current situation? The problems that
they face today aren't caused by the future residents, but by the existing residents Should the burden be
placed on those future residents, or is there a mechanism that could balance the way improvements are to
occur? Mr Pugh suggested bond issues to come up with a baseline standard for structured development.
Commissioner Gruen challenged him as head of CONO and the coalition to forward his suggestions to the
Mayor and/or the City Manager
Lawrence Kinzel, 25-year resident, stated that 25 years ago they bought their homes with the
intentions of a quality lifestyle to raise their families and retire. That quality is quickly diminishing and
he would like the Planning Commission to give more thought to this proposal before approving it
Don Guetig, 18-year resident, stated that it takes approximately 20 - 25 minutes to go one mile from
Academy Boulevard to the interstate on Woodmen Road. His concern is that the same thing will
happen on the south end. He would like to see a plan in place for the resolution to traffic problems
before more development is approved. Commissioner Gruen has stated that the current problems
are caused by the existing residents, however, much of the traffic is from people who work in the
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page 10
area He believes it should be a shared burden between the City and those who wish to develop the
area.
Herb Childress, 25-year resident, stated they need to look at the entire infrastructure to see that there
are serious problems.
Gmi Spnngmeyer, representing 305 residents, stated the residents have a tremendous concern with
existing traffic problems Golden Hills fully endorses the comments from the Rockrimmon Coalition's
representative
Steve Contreras, resident, stated that staff estimated 500 vehicle trips would be generated with
construction of the new hotel He believes that most vehicles won't turn left across traffic on
Delmonico Drive, so those cars will most likely turn right, go through the neighborhood then double
back to Rockrimmon Boulevard.
Rebuttal.
A T. Stoddard, traffic consultant with Leigh, Scott & Cleary, stated the issue is separate from what is
before the Commission today
The neighborhood concerns raised deal with the regional
transportation planning. The residents have spoken about things that deal with the I-25 interchanges
and mapr intersections. There are on-going public processes for those specific issues such as
SCIP, PPACG and the Department of Transportation, all of which are addressing the long-range
Transportation Plan and specifically addresses the pnoritization of the regional transportation
improvements. Their traffic report addresses the specific impacts of the proposed change to this
development plan and whether or not it's consistent with the approved master plan and zoning To
say their report doesn't tell the story and has irrelevant conclusions is misleading. It identifies the
long and short term improvements that should be made. The comment relating to the Aurora study
They didn't look at an intersection in Aurora and relate that to an intersection here, but rather they
looked at the same type of land use and did a traffic count to get an actual trip generation The
counts they did for these intersections are standard and the report also projects future increases in
traffic City staff has had no comments regarding their traffic study.
Commissioner Esmiol stated they're looking at a limited item of complexity and the incremental traffic
increase is not very high in the overall scheme of things, however, it seems to be the last straw for the
existing residents. The request is relatively simple, however, the infrastructure issue is very complex and
he's not sure how they're suppose to deal with that. He asked if from an engineering standpoint it's
physically possible to fix these problems'? Mr Lane replied yes, however, it's going to be very expensive
Larry Lane, City Traffic, stated they've finally gotten the funding for additional employees to address the
long range transportation planning issues The Rockrimmon residents are correct in their observations of
what's occurred in the last 25 years
The taxpayers have put a lot of money into the
Woodmen/Rockrimmon overpass and Mark Dabling/Rockrimmon interchange There are plans for more
changes along the I-25 corridor The SCIP program is prioritizing the need for drainage, traffic, etc. within
the community. He estimated that it will take millions of dollars to solve the problems in the immediate
area The timing for signalization at the intersections is currently being synchronized for a better flow of
traffic. Allocation of further funding for improvements will be the City Council's decision.
Qumn Peitz, City Planning, stated that the Rockrimmon Coalition painted a picture of an intersection that's
not uncommon throughout Colorado Springs. Staff faces the same situation every time they bring
requests before the Planning Commission There's an infrastructure problem in this City with a long list of
capital improvement projects that are currently not funded and should be. This has developed over a
number of years and has now come to a crisis point with the rollback of the 1/2 cent sales tax as part of the
Tabor Amendment that was approved in the early 1990s. To alleviate some of the problems, the City has
establishes several processes as mentioned by staff and Mr. Stoddard. City Council will be addressing
some of the recommendations in the near future. Some options for the short term are to stop all
development, which is not realistic, or to place bond issues on the November ballot to see if the citizens
will approve the funding for improvements The Planning Commission has to exercise judgment in what is
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page 11
before them today and determine whether approval of this request will push it over the edge to where
there's complete gridlock into and out of the area The Commission as well as City Council has to make
that call. He believes the real purpose here is to put the City on notice that this intersection is reaching a
critical mess.
Commissioner Esmiol stated they need to send a message to City Council that there's a serious problem
and something needs to be done If that can be done he would feel more confident in proceeding Mr
Peitz stated the Commission has broad discretionary authority and they can add conditions that would put
Council on notice as well.
Commissioner Chavez stated this is a fairly narrow issue and something he will ultimately support. There
is definitely a problem and one way to solve it is for the Commission to deal with the issues that pertain to
the development plan and send it forth so City Council can deal with the infrastructure, which is the only
body that can deal with those issues.
Al Ziegler, City Attorney, stated this is a development plan review and not a master plan or zoning issue
There are 12 criteria in Article 4, Part 6, Section 602c of the Zoning Code dealing with review of
development plans, which is the criteria that staff and the Planning Commission need to look at in making
their decision
Item 9 - CPC DPA 98-00187 - Development Plan Amendment
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to approve an
amendment to the Northpointe Center Development Plan in a PBC/HS (Commercial with Hillside
Overlay) zone consisting of 25.77 acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon Boulevard and
Delmonico Drive subject to the following conditions to be completed prior to final approval:
property".
3. Specify on that Amerstone or a similar interlocking block will be used for the retaining walls.
4. Place the following Geologic Hazard mitigation note on the plan, "Mitigation of expansive
soils on this site will require special foundation design. Due to the characteristics of the fill
material, a drilled pier foundation is recommended for the proposed structure at this site.
Typical pier depth may range from 40 to 50 feet and require 5 to 10 feet of penetration into
competent formational bedrock material. The design parameters for the drilled piers should
be determined in the Subsurface Soil Investigation prior to construction."
Commissioner Esmiol added the following condition5. The Rockrimmon access infrastructure is now sorely stressed and needs City Council's
consideration to improve these traffic problems as soon as possible.
Commissioner Bowers stated that she lives in this area and had no problem in getting to the meeting this
morning In spite of all the construction occurring, this is a wonderful time of the year because the City is
trying to make a lot of improvements to the infrastructure throughout. She made it from Fillmore Street to
the parking structure in just under 10 minutes and she doesn't believe that's bad. She realizes that in this
day and age people are in a hurry and that there are problems, but doesn't feel they're serious enough to
stop all development. She'll be supporting the motion.
Commissioner Hudson stated he'll be supporting the motion with great reluctance. He feels there are
problems with growth and traffic. The development plan meets the criteria and because of that it would be
unnecessarily punitive to deny this particular development. He's not certain they'll ever be able to
ascertain exactly when something becomes a burden and reaches a critical point. They're going to wake
up one morning and it's just going to be there He would like to send a strong message of the problems
outlined to City Council, who has the authority and ability to address the issues
CPC Minutes 07/09/98 and 07/10/98
Page 12
Commissioner Gruen stated he'll be voting against the motion. He believes that the development plan
review criteria relating to traffic have not been met. This proposal makes sense for the subject site and
the traffic impact it will generate is inconsequential, however, the time is long overdue to start making
some statements to City Council that the issues need to be addressed and resolved before they approve
any more requests. Recently, he has voted against 2 other requests in this same vicinity for the same
reason.
The motion passed 5-1. (Commissioner Gruen opposed. Commissioners Nelson & Ruggiero were
absent.)
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to approve the
preliminary and final plat for North Pointe Centre Filing No. 4 in a PBC/HS (Commercial with
Hillside Overlay) zone consisting of 1 lot on 2.78 acres located northeast of South Rockrimmon
Boulevard and Delmonico Drive.
The motion passed 5-1. (Commissioner Gruen opposed. Commissioners Nelson & Ruggiero were
absent.)
CPC SP 98-00240 - Tice - Legislative
Request by^Crtyof Colorado Springs Planning Group to amend Table 2.2.1 (Permitted^ Conditional and
Accessory Uses^ôf Chapter 14 1 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs, 1980, as
amended, to allow eqbipjnent rental and sales land uses as a conditional u>exin the C-6 (Commercial)
zone
Paul Tice, City Planning, stated thisis a minor modification to the Zefnmg Code to allow equipment rental
and sales as a conditional use in thet5r6 zone Those uses include various sub-categories, but what he'll
address today are truck rentals and mobtteAnodular home dealerships Those uses were allowed in the
C-6 zone prior the adoption of the new ZoninVCode in 1994 At that time the uses were relegated to the
M-1 and M2 zones only, which preempted thenvfrom lercating in any commercial zones. Merchants for
those uses have asked staff to reexamme that chanfcjând allow them in the heavier commercial zones.
Staff feels the uses should be permitted as a condttionaHise in order to allow review on a case-by-case
basis to see which C-6 zones are appropriate ythey will stilhaf permitted in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Staff
recommends the following:
Item 11 - CPC SP 98-00240 - Code Amendment
Enact the ordinance as written.
Commissioner Bowers asked for/an example of when the C-6 zone would not be appropriate for truck
rentals and mobile/modular home dealerships'? Mr Tice replied all of downtoWn, which is zoned C-6.
Item 11.- CPC SP 96-00240 - Code Amendment
It was moved by/commissioner Chavez, seconded by Commissioner Esmiol to enact Table 2.2.1
(Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses) of Chapter 14.1 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of
Colorado Springs, 1980, as amended, to allow equipment rental and sales land\ises as a
conditional/use in the C-6 (Commercial) zone.
The motion passed 6-0. (Commissioners Nelson & Ruggiero were absent.)
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a m
COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28, 1998
Boulevard.
ition by Young, second by Rivera that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
1 1 , 1998. The motion unanimously carried.
16.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public hearing on an appeal bv NESÎnc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request for approval of a development jarfan for Wooden Plaza in a PBC
(Commercial) zone Consisting of 21.5 acres located northeast of Wooden Road and
Lexington Drive.
Motion by Young, second by
August 11, 1998. The motion una
atter be postponed to the Council meeting of
rried.
Q
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Reuest M
b/Steven Sftarkev on behalf of Gates Land Company for
south of Janitell Road and/fececutive Circle.
by Are', that this matter
Motion by Purvis, set
August 11, 1998.
motion unanimously carried.
ostponed to the Council meeting of
-0-
18.
CPC P 98-00099: Request bv Drexel Barrel! on behalf of Cody Company for approval of
a chanqo^zone classification from County to PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) consisting
of 2.21^ acres located southeast of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
Motion by Purvis, second by Are', that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
Q
19.
CPC DPA 98-00187: Public hearing on an appeal bv Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
bv Yeroensen. Oberinq & Whittaker on behalf of multiple owners for approval of an
amendment to the Northpointe Center Development Plan in a PBC/HS (Commercial with
Boulevard and Delmonico Drive:
Motion by Are', second by Barley, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
20.
CPC S 98-00188 PF: Public hearing~on-tH*-anpealbv Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
by Rockwell-M'mchow on behalf of Kent A. Petre^forpreiimmarv and final plat approval
23
/7
Page 13
'
not attenuation is necessary. He pointed out that in the long run a wood fence might cost as much as a
brick treatment because of the amount of wood required in order for it to be effective.
\
Commissioner Esmiol stated this is a problem they will probably see more of in the future if they continue
to place residential units along major arterials. They need to know what sound levels these streets
produce not just now, but for the future. Do they make the developer pay for the noise attenuation up front
or do they want to waXuntil the noise level are actually there? This is something that requires more study
in order to be fair to botNhe developer and future residents.
Commissioner Baruth asked inearth is a viable mitigation option? Mr. Howard replied that earth is far and
away the most effective noise attenuation device there is, however, it-takes much more horizontal distance
than a wood or masonry fence wouteL To do a 6' high berm with dirt, it will take 24" of horizontal space to
reach the apex and another 24' to ground level on the other side for a total of 48'.
Item 6. - CPC DP 98-00122 - Development Plan x
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Baruth to approve a
development plan for Stetson Hills Filing No. 15 in ^n R-1-6000/CR/NP (Single Family Residential
with conditions of record and Navigation Preservation Overlay) zone consisting of 7.93 acres
located northeast of Barnes Road and Peterson Road with the following conditions:
1) Approval of the geologic hazard report or exemption request.
2) Approve the development with the following revisions tOxbe completed prior to final approval:
a) Revise the lot square footages to note the deduction of the landscaping tract areas.
b) Note that the street classification for Peterson Road fe. a major arterial on the streetcross-section.
/
\
c) Show and dimension sidewalk on street cross-section for Peterson Road.
d) Note and show that Sidewalks along Peterson Road and BarnesxRoad are within a public
improvement easerhent on the graphics and on the street cross-sections.
e) Show that the Rjtfa Road median opening at Barnes Road as closed.
f)
Show detail of tioise mitigation technique for lots adjacent to Petersorv Road and Barnes
Road as determined by a noise mitigation study. Typical section and notes addressing
the noise/mitigation technique shall be consistent with the determine^ method of
mitigation.
g) Note that the noise mitigation technique shall be implemented concurrently with the
infrastructure for Stetson Hills Filing No. 15.
Commissioner Esmiol complimented Mr. Howard for the noise studies he has submitted because he is
breaking new ground and being pretty reasonable about it
Quinn Peitz added that the applicant has worked closely with Ms. Baccam to arrive at where we are today.
*****««««*•**<
ITEM 7.
CPC A 98-00170 - Tuck - Legislative
6228004015
Request by Thomas and Brenda Hadnagy for approval of the annexation of Hadnagy Addition consisting
of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch Road and Kettle Creek Ranch Road.
ITEM NO. 19
Page 14
ITEM 8.
CPC P 98-00171 - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6228004008
Request by Thomas and Brenda Hadnagy for approval of a change of zone classification from County to
R (Single Family Residential) consisting of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch Road and Kettle
Creek Ranch Road.
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated the request is for an annexation of 9+ acres located on the south side of
Old Ranch Road and east of Highway 83. It's also located in close proximity to the large facilities that
have been or are currently being constructed. Directly across the street is the 400,000 square foot
Quantum facility. East is The Creekside and Charter Greens, which are in the City limits. Further east on
Old Ranch Road is a new District 20 high school thaf s set to open this fall. The area has changed rapidly
from a rural area to an urban community. One of the neighbors to the southeast has cattle on his property
and he was expressing the difficulty he's having with people coming to visit his animals, which is not
uncommon when there's an urban/rural interface. These types of annexations are not always smooth, but
because of what's happening in the area, if s a logical extension of the City limits. There have been
concerns with fire protection and the Fire Department's ability to meet ideal response times. At their last
meeting, City Council adopted some interim fire response measures. Ifs clear that this property does not
meet those response times, however, neither does the Oracle Plant, Quantum Plant and other single
family residences that they're approving in North gate. City Council adopted those standards and it's
always been the case that when an application has come into the City before the standards were adopted,
they have never applied to the request. So, staff would not encourage the Commission to deny the
request based on the recently adopted standards. Staff recommends the following:
Item 7. - CPC A 98-00170 - Annexation
Approve the annexation. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified as follows:
1. Include the 50' x 50' exception within the area to be annexed. Amend the legal description
accordingly and include a signature block for the property owner (Colorado Spring Utilities).
2.
Include a signature block for the Mayor.
3.
Spell "District" correctly in the legal description.
Approve the zone change to R/cr/NP with the following condition of record to be placed on the zone
change ordinance:
1. A development plan as specified by the Zoning Code is required.
Commissioner Esmiol stated that they added a statement to development plans in the recent past relating
to fire response times. Mr. Tuck replied that this is a single family home and the applicants have been
there long enough to see and experience the change. They don't have a development plan at this time
and are merely trying to protect their future by being annexed into the City. Currently, there is no plan for
further development of the property. That statement is something they can add to any future plan if and
when they decide to develop. By that time there may even be a fire station in the area, so the situation
could change in the near future because there's an annexation commitment by the City to the Northgate
development for a fire station. As pointed out by Commissioner Esmiol, the development plan would be
the appropriate document to place that statement, if necessary. This is an annexation, so they're not quite
there yet. In the Creekside area to the east there's a sewer pump station that's owned by City utilities and
as a tradeoff for allowing that sewer line, this property owner has been given 16 taps to water and sewer.
Commissioner Gruen noted that a letter (See file no. CPC A 98-00170) from Mr. Kenneth Rowberg,
Director of County Planning, brought out a lot of good points and wondered why they're not doing this all
at once. Mr. Tuck replied that its difficult to try and organize a neighborhood this large and encourage
them towards annexation. As they've seen in the past, these annexations come in one at a time because
of the tremendous amount of staff time it takes to annex an entire neighborhood and because of the
differences of opinion involved. A primary example is the annexation of Falcon Estates where it took
several years of organization, meetings, negotiations, compromises, etc. Staff would prefer to follow Mr.
Rowberg's suggestions, but the ability to do that is almost impossible.
Commissioner Esmiol added that a lot of county residents just flat don't want to be annexed into the City.
Page 15
Speaking for:
Domokosh Hadnagy, applicant/owner, stated they have owned and lived on the property since 1982
in which time they have seen a tremendous amount of changes in noise/light pollution and traffic.
With all the development surrounding their property, it has changed from a rural to a semi-urban
area. In exchange for a 50' x 50' utility station on their property, they were granted City water and
sewer. They believe their property is a logical extension of the City limits and requested approval.
Commissioner Bowers asked if they will continue to live there and, if so, do they understand that the Fire
Department's response times may not be up to City standards? Mr. Hadnagy replied that City Fire
currently cannot get to Quantum, Mitsui and the rest of his neighbors within their ideal response times, so
that's not a major concern for them.
Commissioner Baruth asked where he currently gets fire protection? Mr. Tuck replied that the area is
serviced by the Donald Wescott Fire Protection District.
Opposed:
Dan Hunsinger stated he lives east of the Hadnagy residence and has been in that area since the
late 1950s. Like most of his neighbors, his preference is to remain in the county. The 50' x 50' piece
of property for the utility station was given to the City by a previous owner and not the Hadnagys.
The agreement with the City at that time was for 15 water taps for a period of 5 years, so he's not
sure if there's been a new agreement with the current owners. In order to retain the agricultural use
of his property he had to purchase cows this past year or the county was going to raise his taxes by
$10,000 per year because ifs a subdivision. The county considers his a 40+ acres a 'hobby farm'
and they can still raise his taxes, but they haven't exercised that option yet. The attraction to his
animals by neighboring residents causes trespassing on his property often, which he's even gone to
court over. If the Hadnagy property is annexed he would like a chain link fence between their
properties to protect the City from his livestock. He had an agreement with the previous owners for
maintenance of the fence and has asked the Hadnagys to help, however, they haven't responded to
that request.
Commissioner Baruth asked if the subject property could technically accommodate 10 more homes with
the proposed R (single family residential) zoning? Mr. Tuck replied the creek runs through the property,
so they might not be able to get the full 10 lots. Commissioner Baruth noted the Mr. Hunsinger's objection
was more towards the zoning versus the annexation. Mr. Hunsinger stated he would like to know how
many houses they plan to build.
Rebuttal:
Domokosh Hadnagy clarified that it was he and his wife who gave the property to the City for the
utility station. That portion of their site was signed over to him by the previous owner, at which time it
was signed over to the City. Mr. Hunsinger's property is the only property between his and high
density housing to the east.
Commissioner Baruth asked why he prefers the R zoning? Mr. Hadnagy replied thafs the 'zoning on all
the surrounding City residential properties.
Commissioner Gruen asked about the fence maintenance? Brenda Hadnagy replied that they weren't
aware the Hunsinger's had an agreement with the previous owners. She saw them repairing the fence
last summer when Mr Hunsinger mentioned something about helping with the repairs, but she thought he
was just joking with her. Aside from that, the Hunsingers have never said anything about maintenance in
the 15 years they've lived there.
Commissioner Baruth asked about the Fire Department's comments? Roger Costello, City Fire, replied
they agree with staff. Their comments reflect that there is no fire station in that area, so the subject
property doesn't fall within the ideal fire standards for response times, which the applicants are aware of.
Page 16
Quinn Peitz, City Planning, added that this is another evolving issue with the City The Fire Department is
working on their Strategic Plan, which is due by November, 1998 and will set the standards for service.
Staff has stated that City Council adopted interim standards at their last meeting, however, this application
had already been submitted prior to that. Fire standards are just another piece of information for staff, this
Commission and City Council to consider when making decisions.
Commissioner Bowers asked to be refreshed on what happened with the annexation they heard last
month? Mr. Peitz replied that City Council approved the annexation on first reading with the
understanding that a site had been set aside for a fire station. They delayed the second reading until City
Council can work out some of the future capital cost of that station and the levels of responsibility.
Commissioner Baruth asked where they fit into this decision? Wynetta Massey, City Attorney, reiterated
that this situation is just one piece of information that the Planning Commission must consider in making a
decision. Clearly, if the applicants were going to build more homes on the property, then fire protection
would move up the list. However, the request today is for annexation in its current form. Mr. Peitz added
that they have put the applicants on notice that this is the level of urban service that the City can provide,
which they've agreed to.
Commissioner Ruggiero stated that they can certainly act on the annexation, but why not have a
recommendation for an A (Agricultural) zoning? Mr. Tuck replied that staff has no objection to the A
zoning because the applicants have indicated that they're not interested in developing the property at this
time. Any proposal for a preliminary plat with more than 5 lots or a zone change would have to be
presented to this Commission. Staff tends to recommend the R zoning because it's more restrictive than
the A zoning, not from the lot size standpoint, but from the uses that are not allowed.
**********
It was moved by Commissioner Ruggiero, seconded by Commissioner Baruth to approve the
annexation of Hadnagy Addition consisting of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch Road
and Kettle Creek Ranch Road. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified as follows:
1. Include the 50* x 50* exception within the area to be annexed. Amend the legal description
2. Include a signature block for the Mayor.
3. Spell "District" correctly in the legal description.
Commissioner Gruen underscored the points that Mr. Ken Rowberg, Director of El Paso County Planning
Department, made in his letter dated May 1, 1998. Mr. Rowberg showed a lot of thoughtfulness and he
understands the complexities involved with annexing several properties at one time. He also feels it's
logical to do so in this case and will be supporting the motion.
It was moved by Commissioner Ruggiero, seconded by Commissioner Baruth to approve a
change of zone classification from County to A/NP/CR (Agricultural with Navigation Preservation
Overlay and conditions of record) consisting of 9.73 acres located southwest of Old Ranch Road
and Kettle Creek Ranch Road with the following condition of record to be placed on the zone
change ordinance:
Commissioner Ruggiero believes the A zoning is a nice holding zone and provides the City and the
applicant the opportunity to discuss the issues further.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 132
ITEMNO(S): 7. & 8.
STAFF: Steve Tuck
FILE NO(S): CPC A 98-00170 - Legislative
PROJECT:
Annexation and zone change to R for 9.73 acres.
APPLICANT:
Brenda and Thomas Hadnagy
OWNER:
Brenda and Thomas Hadnagy
The requests propose the annexation and approval of R zoning for 9.7 acres located on the south side of
Old Ranch Road, approximately 1,400 feet east of State Highway 83 (FIGURE 1).
Approve the annexation. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified as follows
1. Include the 50' x 50' exception within the area to be annexed. Amend the legal description
2. Include a signature block for the Mayor.
3. Spell "District" correctly in the legal description.
Approve the zone change to R/cr/NP with the following condition of record to be placed on the zone
change ordinance:
SUMMARY:
The annexation is a logical extension of the City limits, and the recommended zoning is appropriate
considering the present surrounding land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policy 2.1.1 - Annexations shall meet the following conditions:
A. The area to be annexed is a logical extension of the City's boundary.
B. All undeveloped areas to be annexed shall be included in a master plan which must be approved by
the City prior to final approval of the annexation. The master plan shall be supported by adequate
and appropriate financial performance guarantees relating to phasing of the master plan.
C. The existing or proposed development of the area to be annexed will be beneficial to the City.
D. There is a projected available water surplus at the time of the request, and the existing and projected
projected needs for the foreseeable future to serve all present users.
Policy 2.2.1 - Consider property in the County which is totally surrounded by the City and peninsulas for
annexation.
Policy 5.1.3 - Grant zoning changes only when it can be demonstrated that rezonmg will result in a
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 133
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 134
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - County/single family residence
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PIP-1/light industrial facility under construction (Quantum)
South - County/single family residence
East - County/single family residence
West - County/single family residence
Annexation - Proposed with request.
Zoning - County.
Subdivision-1959. Amended Filing of Spring Crest.
Physical Characteristics - The site is developed with a single family residence and accessory buildings.
The southerly portion of the site slopes steeply down to the adjacent Kettle Creek. Significant vegetation,
both natural and planted inhabit the site.
Master Plan - None.
Item 8. - CPC P 98-00171 -Zone Change
Citv Engineering - No comments received.
Traffic Engineering - Annexation of Old Ranch Road will create an island of City maintained street
Dedicate additional right-of-way for Old Ranch Road, access to this property should be via a residential
internal street system. Widening of Old Ranch Road will be required including turn lanes east and west of
site.
Electric - Any alterations to existing electric facilities will be at developer's expense. Standard Electric
Service comments. Easements will be required for any existing electric facilities.
Water/Wastewater - Standard comments 1,5,11,13 and 15.
Fire - Fire service response times to this general area is very poor. Based on 1997 operational results, the
response time to areas near Pine Creek Golf Course was the third poorest in the community. Only 14.7%
of emergency responses to this general area were reached by the first fire company within 8 minutes; the
goal is to reach 90% of emergency locations within 8 minutes. The area does not meet the objective for
the response times for a structure fire effective force. Neither the second engine company nor the truck
company can arrive within the goal of 12 minutes. Therefore, this area does not fall within our proposed
standard of response coverage goal.
Parks - No comment.
Citv Trails Team - No comment.
County Planning - FIGURE 2.
U.S. Air Force Academy - Due to this parcel's proximity to our airfield, it would be helpful for the
landowner to grant the Academy an avigation easement over his parcel. This parcel lies within 1,000 feet
of the airfield clearance surfaces for our crosswind runway.
PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURES
The site is located in the Spring Crest subdivision, which was platted in the County in 1959, and has been
developed with single family homes on lots of 2 to 6 acres. This is the first lot in the subdivision to request
annexation (although a preannexation agreement with the City exists for the church at the southeast
corner of Highway 83 and Old Ranch Road). The Spring Crest area is a peninsula surrounded by the City
to the north, east and south. The area is not likely to become an enclave because the Air Force Academy
borders on the west.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 135
Urbanization of the surrounding area has occurred rapidly in the last 2 to 3 years. MTC (Mitsui) and
Quantum have changed the landscape across Old Ranch Road from the site from an open field to an
industrial area as part of the Fairlane Technology Park. The Creekside Estates residential subdivision,
which is located on both sides of Old Ranch Road, 2,000 feet to the east has been recently completed.
The new District 20 high school set to open this fall is located further to the east, adjacent to the future
intersection of Old Ranch Road and Powers Boulevard. Until Chapel Hills Drive is completed across Pine
Creek, traffic to and from the Creekside, Charter Greens and Kitty Hawk subdivisions must leave the City,
and cross the County maintained portion of Old Ranch Road As a result of the urban development and
associated traffic patterns, the rural nature of the area has quickly disappeared.
The Fire Department has indicated that the area does not fall within their proposed standard of response
coverage. However, this site will not result in extending the limits of their service area, and is "on the way"
to City developments from the station(s) that cover this area. The Spnng Crest subdivision is within the
Donald Wescott Fire Protection District.
The R (Residential Estates, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size) requested is appropriate given the
surrounding uses. The R zone provides a transition from the low density residential of Spring Crest on
three sides, to the intense urban development that Quantum will provide upon completion to the north.
The request represents a logical extension of the City limits; and it is probable that additional requests for
annexation will be received in the near future from the Spring Crest area.
DIVISION
DATERECT)
CHECKED (FOR LOG. & CONFIG.
STAFF
Legal description for HADNAGY ADDITION
Lot 9, except that part described by deed to the Chapel Hills Water and Sanitation District,
recorded in Book 3528 at Page 786, and the East 153 feet of Lot 8, measured on the North
and South lines thereof, in Block B in Amended Filing of Spring Crest, and that portion of
Old Ranch Road adjacent to said Lot 9 and portion of Lot 8, El Paso County, Colorado.
Sheet 1 of
9.73 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF OLD RANCH
ROAD AND KETTLE CREEK RANCH ROAD
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLORADO SPRINGS:
and made a part hereof by reference, from County to A/NP/CR (Agricultural with
Navigation Preservation Overlay and conditions of record), pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colorado Springs, subject to the following
1.
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS SPECIFIED BY THE ZONING CODE IS REQUIRED.
Introduced, read, passed on first reading and ordered
this
day of
published
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPCP 98-00171
ITEM NO. 20
DIVISION
ruvi urrn~4>u. wug
DATE REC-0
FILE NO.
CHECKED (FOR LOC. & CONFIG.)
STAFF
^
Legal description for HADNAGY ADDITION
Lot 9, except that part described by deed to the Chapel Hills Water and Sanitation District
recorded in Book 3528 at Page 786, and the East 153 feet of Lot 8, measured on the North
and South lines thereof, in Block B in Amended Filing of Spring Crest, and that portion of
Old Ranch Road adjacent to said Lot 9 and portion of Lot 8, El Paso County, Colorado.
Sheet 1 of
Page 30
the hillside criteria that it does deserve approval. Maybe further down the road there could be more
refinements. He's sorry there hasn't been the opportunity for both sides to sit down to do some of the
modifications that would have resulted in an approval.
The motion passed 5-2. (Commissioners Bowers & Gruen opposed. Commissioners Chavez &
Nelson were absent.)
/"
It was moved by Commissioner Bauer, seconded byxdommissioner Hudson to deny a
development plan for University Bluffs Filing No. 3 in a^pfoposed PUD/HS zone consisting of 21.54
acres located southwest of Montebello Drive and Apfrclemy Boulevard.
The motion passed 6-1. (Commissioner Bpwers opposed. Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were
absent.)
,Item 29. - CPC S 97-00357PF - Subdivision Plat
It was moved by Conupis'sioner Bauer, seconded by Commissioner Hudson to deny the
preliminary and finalIpttTfor University Bluffs Filing No. 3 in a proposed PUD/HS zone consisting
of 49 lots on 21.54^fcres located southwest of Montebello Drive and Academy Boulevard.
The motiop-âssed 6-1. (Commissioner Bowers opposed. Commissioners Chavez & Nelson were
absen
««*«**««ft«*«*********«»
THE PLANNING COMMISSION BROKE FOR DINNER FROM 5:30 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.
ITEM 14.
CPC A 98-00145 - Tuck - Legislative
Request by Mahlon and Ramona G. Plowman for approval of the annexation of Lot 8, Templeton Heights
Filing No. 2 consisting of 5.09 acres located northwest of Balsam Drive and Fossil Drive.
ITEM 1 5.
CPC P 98-001 98 - Tuck - Quasi-Judicial
6313003003
Request by Mahlon and Ramona Plowman for approval of a change of zone classification from A/NP
(Agricultural with Navigation Preservation Overlay) to R-1 6000/NP (Single Family Residential with
Navigation Preservation Overlay) consisting of 5.09 acres located northwest of Balsam Drive and Fossil
Drive.
Steve Tuck, City Planning, stated the applicant was unable to remain for his request, however, he has left
a note that staff can represents him in this matter. Commissioner Gruen stated that the Planning
Commission rules provide for such a situation, so unless there are any objections, staff can proceed.
-There were not objections.
Mr. Tuck stated the request is for annexation and establishment of the R-1 6000/NP zone. Staff supports
both requests because it is a logical extension of the City limits. Currently, the property is vacant and
there are no plans to develop it in the near future. The condition for zoning requires a development plan
because there's a drainage channel that runs through this area and the plan will give staff the opportunity
to review the lotting pattern. Staff recommends the following:
1 . Change the City signature block to City Engineer instead of Public Works Director, and to Manger of
Development Services instead of Director of Planning.
ITEM NO. 21
Page 31
Approve the zone change to R-1 6000/cr/NP with the following condition of record to be placed on the
zone change ordinance:
Commissioner Bowers asked about the fire station for this area? Mr. Tuck replied that there was a
commitment from the owner of the property that was annexed last month to provide that site. This
applicant has been put on notice that through the annexation agreement there will be some expectation of
him for his fair share participation or reimbursement to that property owner who is providing the site. The
applicant was agreeable to that. Staff will also expect the same thing from other annexations in this area.
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Hudson to approve the
annexation of Lot 8, Templeton Heights Filing No. 2 consisting of 5.09 acres located northwest of
Balsam Drive and Fossil Drive. Prior to recording, the annexation plat shall be modified as
follows:
1. Change the City signature block to City Engineer instead of Public Works Director, and to
Manager of Development Services instead of Director of Planning.
it was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Hudson to approve a change
of zone classification from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation Preservation Overlay) to R-1
6000/NP/CR (Single Family Residential with Navigation Preservation Overlay and conditions of
record) consisting of 5.09 acres located northwest of Balsam Drive and Fossil Drive with the
following condition of record to be placed on the zone change ordinance:
ITERJS 16., 17. & 18. WERE POSTPONED.
ITEM 1 9 WAS POSTPONED.
ITEMS 20. AND 21
ITEM 22.
CPC CU 98-00205 - O'Connor - Quasi-Judicial
7323401032
Request by Paul Crabtree on behalf of Peter and Helen Hadjis for approval of a conditional use to allow an
extended stay hotel in a C-5/P (Commercial with Planned Provisional Overlay) zone consisting of 1.91
acres located southeast of Garden of the Gods Road and Forest Hill Road.
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 169
ITEMNOfSl: 14. & 15.
STAFF: Steve Tuck
FILE NOfS): CPC A 98-00145 - Legislative
PROJECT:
Lot 8, Templeton Heights Filing No. 2 Annexation and Zoning
APPLICANT:
Mahlon Plowman
OWNER:
Mahlon and Ramona Plowman
The requests propose the annexation and approval of R-1 6000 zoning on 5.1 acres. The property
borders the Norwood area on the north and south (FIGURE 1).
Change the City signature block to City Engineer instead of Public Works Director, and to Manger of
Development Services instead of Director of Planning
Approve the zone change to R-1 6000/cr/NP with the following condition of record to be placed on the
zone change ordinance:
SUMMARY:
The annexation is a logical extension of the City limits, and the recommended zoning is appropriate and
similar to the surrounding City neighborhoods to the north and south.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policy 2.1.1 - Annexations shall meet the following conditions:
A. The area to be annexed is a logical extension of the City's boundary.
B. All undeveloped areas to be annexed shall be included in a master plan which must be approved by
and appropriate financial performance guarantees relating to phasing of the master plan.
C
The existing or proposed development of the area to be annexed will be beneficial to the City.
D. There is a projected available water surplus at the time of the request, and the existing and projected
projected needs for the foreseeable future to serve all present users.
Policy 2.2.1 - Consider property in the County which is totally surrounded by the City antf peninsulas for
annexation.
Policy 5.1.3 - Grant zoning changes only when it can be demonstrated that rezoning will result in a
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 170
TEMPLETON GARR
CPC Agenda 06/04/98
Page 171
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - County/vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - R-1 6000/DFOZ/NP/single family residential
South - PUD/NP/single family residential
East - County/single family residence
West - County/single family residence
Annexation - Proposed with request.
Zoning - County.
Subdivision -1967, Tempieton Gap Heights Filing No. 2.
Physical Characteristics - The site is vegetated with native grasses. The site slopes moderately to the
middle, where a small, natural drainage exists.
Master Plan - None.
Item 14. - CPC A98-00145-Annexation
City Engineering - No comments received.
Traffic Engineering - Standard comments.
Water/Wastewater - Standard comments 1 and 5.
Fire - These area all share a common fire service response issue, Based on 1997 operational results, the
department was able to reach 24% of the emergencies within 8 minutes. This is below the departments
stated objective of reaching 90% of emergencies within 8 minutes. Therefore, first fire company response
times are below the proposed response time objectives for the community. Response time for a structure
fire effective force is closer to department objectives. We estimate that we could reach 80% of structure
fires with an effective force within 12 minutes. This is slightly below the goal of 90% goal proposed by
CSFD.
Parks - No comment.
City Trails Team - No comment.
METEX - This property is a member of the METEX District. A one-time developer fee of $2,687.52 (5.09
acres x $528) is due and payable to the METEX District before the annexation is complete.
As shown on FIGURE 1, the area surrounding this County peninsula is quickly changing to a single family
residential neighborhood as developed by Norwood. Several annexation requests have been recently
acted upon in the Templeton Heights area. Within a short penod of time it's possible that all of the County
lots located west of Powers Boulevard, and north of Templeton Gap Road will annex into the City. This
request is a logical extension of the City limits.
The proposed R-1 6000 zone is both .appropriate and consistent with the residential development
completed by Norwood. Staff has recommended a condition of record that requires a development plan.
This too, is consistent with zoning on the adjacent Norwood properties. Both the adjoining PUD and R-1
6000 DFOZ zones require development plans. The development plan will allow the City to thoroughly
address the existing drainage channel, and to ensure adequate crossings of the channel for neighborhood
access.
As discussed at length at last month's Planning Commission meeting, a fire station is needed to serve this
area. A fire station site has been tentatively identified adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, west of Powers
Boulevard approximately one-half mile from this request (FIGURE 1). Through the annexation agreement,
staff will require this development to financially contribute to the cost for this site.
3 -<
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 8, Templeton Gap Heights, Filing No. 2, El Paso County, Colorado, according to the subdivision plat thereof
recorded in plat Book J-2 at Page IS, Reception No. 539350 of the records of the El Paso County Clerk and
Recorder, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Comer of Lot 8 of said subdivision; said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence S 89°45I30" W, a distance off 253.02'; thence S (XTHÔ'E, a distance of 648.60';
thence N 89°45I4011 E, a
11
distance of 422.SO'; thence N 14°03 55" W, a distance of 626.75'; thence S 89°45'30 W a distance of 20.00';
thence N 00°14W W, a distance of 40.00' ID the POINT OF BEGINNING; said described tract containing 5.09
Acres more or less.
5.09 ACRES LOCATED NORTHWEST OF BALSAM
DRIVE AND FOSSIL DRIVE
COLORADO SPRINGS:
and made a part hereof by reference, from A/NP (Agricultural with Navigation
Preservation Overlay) to R-1 6000/NP/CR (Single Family Residential with
Navigation Preservation Overlay and conditions of record), pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colorado Springs, subject to the following
1.
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS SPECIFIED BY THE ZONING CODE IS REQUIRED.
Introduced, read, passed on first reading and ordered published
this
day of
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPCP 98-00198
ITEM NO. 22
DIVISION
DATE RECO
-/ is?
CHECKED (FOR LOC. & CONFIG.)
STAFF
__
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 8, Templeton Gap Heights, Filing No. 2, in El Paso County, Colorado, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book J-2, at Page 18.
Sheet 1 of
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW BASED THEREON AND DETERMINING THE STATUS OF THE
TERRITORY SOMETIMES KNOWN AS GATES ADDITION NO. 15
HEREINAFTER MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLORADO
SPRINGS:
This matter comes on for hearing before the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs
on July 28, 1998 pursuant to Sections 31-12-108 and 31-12-109, C.R.S., the Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965 as amended (hereinafter referred to as Annexation Act), to consider the
annexation of that certain territory sometimes known as Gates Addition No. 15, more specifically
described in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and the Council
having examined all of the evidence presented at said hearing and being fully advised of the
premises, now sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law based thereon as provided for in
Section 31-12-110 of the Annexation Act, other findings of fact and conclusions as are
appropriate, and makes determinations as follows:
1.
The City Clerk of the City of Colorado Springs has received a petition for
annexation of the area described in Exhibit "A" entitled "Petition for Annexation," signed by
persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area to be annexed and
owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, in
compliance with the provisions of Article II, Section 30 of the Colorado Constitution, and Section
31-12-107(1) of the Annexation Act.
2.
On May 26, 1998 the City Council approved a resolution entitled "Resolution
Finding a Petition for Annexation of That Area Sometimes Known as Gates Addition No. 15 to
be in Substantial Compliance with Section 31-12-107(1) C.R.S. and Setting a Hearing Date for
the Colorado Springs City Council to Consider the Annexation of the Area." This resolution set a
hearing to consider the annexation of this area to the City of Colorado Springs at 9:30 a.m. on
July 14, 1998 at Council Chambers, City Administration Building, 30 South Nevada Avenue,
Colorado Springs, Colorado, and directed the City Clerk to give notice of said hearing in the
manner prescribed in Section 31-12-108 of the Annexation Act. In addition, said resolution found
that the petition for annexation is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1) C.R.S., a
section of the Annexation Act, and further determined that said petition is in substantial
compliance with Section 30 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution, which findings are adopted
herein. The hearing date was subsequently postponed to July 28, 1998.
3.
The City Clerk, pursuant to said resolution, has caused to have published in the
Colorado Springs Gazette a document entitled "Public Notice, City of Colorado Springs Notice of
Public Hearing of Annexation Petition of the Area Sometimes Known As Gates Addition No. 15,"
along with a copy of said resolution with an attached legal description of the area to be annexed
and a map showing the approximate boundaries thereof, with five (5) publications as follows:
June 6, 1998; June 13, 1998; June 20, 1998; June 27, 1998; and July 4, 1998. The Colorado
ITEM NO. 23
Springs Gazette is a daily newspaper in general circulation throughout the City of Colorado
Springs, throughout the area to be annexed, and throughout El Paso County, Colorado.
4.
Said resolution and notice pertaining thereto as set forth in Paragraph 3 of this
resolution comply with the requirements of Section 3 l-12-107(l)(g) and Section 31-12-108 of
the Annexation Act.
5.
Copies of the published notice and resolution have been mailed to the Board of
County Commissioners of El Paso County and to the El Paso County Attorney, and to the School
District located within the territory described in Exhibit "A" as required by Section 31-12-108 of
the Annexation Act.
6.
The annexation impact report as provided for in Section 31 -12-108.5 of the
Annexation Act is not required as the property to be annexed is comprised of less than ten (10)
acres.
7.
The area described in Exhibit "A" is unincorporated.
8.
The area described in Exhibit "A" is the same as the area described in the
Annexation Plat.
9.
No annexation of all or any part of said area has been commenced by any other
municipality.
10.
This annexation will not result in the detachment of an area from any school
district and attachment of the same area to another school district.
11.
This annexation will not result in the change of any county boundaries.
12.
There is at least one-sixth (l/6th) of the boundary of the perimeter of the area
proposed to be annexed that is contiguous with the boundary of the City of Colorado Springs.
13.
No land held in identical ownership within the area proposed to be annexed,
whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or
parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels by the boundaries of such
annexation without the written consent of the landowner except as such tracts or parcels are
separated by a dedicated street, road or other public way.
14.
No land held in identical ownership within the area proposed to be annexed,
whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or
parcels of real estate, comprising twenty (20) acres or more (which, together with the buildings
and improvements situated thereon, has a valuation for assessment in excess of $200,000 for ad
valorem tax purposes for the next year preceding the annexation), is included within the boundary
of the area proposed to be annexed.
15.
This annexation will not extend boundaries of the city limits of the City of
Colorado Springs more than three miles in any direction from the municipal boundary.
16.
There has been adopted by the City Council as provided in Section 31-12-105
C.R.S. a plan which includes the area subject to the annexation.
17.
There are no additional terms or conditions to be imposed upon this annexation,
and the annexation agreement itself as between the petitioners and the City shall not constitute
additional terms and conditions under the Annexation Act.
18.
In establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a
platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley is included within the area
proposed to be annexed.
19.
The applicable parts of Section 31 -12-105 of the Annexation Act have been met.
20.
The provisions of Section 31-12-104(b) requiring a finding that" [t]hat a
community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing
municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is
integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality..." are met by
virtue of a finding of at least one-sixth (l/6th) boundary contiguity with the City of Colorado
Springs as provided for in said section.
21.
No petition for election has been received nor is an election otherwise required
under the provisions of Section 31-12-107(2) of the Annexation Act.
22.
The annexation of Gates Addition No. 15 as legally described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto meets the requirements of and fully complies with Part 1 of Article 12 of Title 31
C.R.S., the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 as amended, and Section 30 of Article II of the
Colorado Constitution.
23.
The City Council finds and concludes that said territory is eligible for annexation to
24.
The City Council authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement for the
annexation of this property upon its presentation to City Council.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
day of
, 1998.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 33,
T14S, R66W OF THE 6™ P.M., COUNTY OF EL PASO, STATE OF COLORADO,
COMMENCING AT THE Wl/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE
N89°39'13"E, 974.43 FEET ALONG THE EAST-WEST CENTER LINE OF SAID
SECTION 33 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HARRISON
PARK FILING NO. 10, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK O-3 AT
PAGE 2 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, AND THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING N89°39'13"E, 352.23 FEET ALONG THE EAST-WEST
CENTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1,
HASSLER & BATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK D-3 AT PAGE 26 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO;
THENCE SOO°09'35"E, 422.71 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID
HASSLER & BATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3 TO THE EASTERLY LINE EXTENDED
SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, E.M.F. SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK K-3 AT PAGE 17 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO
COUNTY, COLORADO;
THENCE N48°28'27"W, 549.32 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE EXTENDED
SOUTHERLY AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SATO E.M.F.
SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE NORTHERLY 80.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTHWEST AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF JANTEELL ROAD
AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2933 AT PAGE 774 OF THE
RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 994.93 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 04°39'15" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS
N45°43f15"E, 80.79 FEET;
AREA = 2.216 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EL PASO
)
) ss.
)
Cindy N. Conway, the affiant, first being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1.
She is the Deputy City Clerk for the City of Colorado Springs.
2.
There has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Colorado Springs a petition
for annexation of the area sometimes known as Gates Addition No. 15. The petition indicates
that is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent of the landowners in the area proposed
to be annexed who own one hundred percent of said area, excluding public streets and alleys.
3.
On May 26, 1998 the City Council approved a resolution entitled "Resolution
Finding a Petition for Annexation of That Area Sometimes Known as Gates Addition No. 15 to
be in Substantial Compliance with Section 31-12-107(1) C.R.S. and Setting a Hearing Date for
the Colorado Springs City Council to Consider the Annexation of the Area." Pursuant to this
resolution, a hearing was set to consider the petition for annexation of said area for July 14, 1998
at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter is scheduled on the Council agenda at the Council
Chambers, City Administration Building, 30 South Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
for the purpose of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed is eligible for
annexation, and determining whether the area should be annexed to the City of Colorado Springs,
Colorado. The City Clerk, pursuant to said resolution, was directed to give notice of the hearing.
4.
The City Clerk, pursuant to said resolution, has caused to have published in the
Colorado Springs Gazette a document entitled "Public Notice, City of Colorado Springs Notice of
Public Hearing of an Annexation Petition of the Area Sometimes Known as Gates Addition No.
15", along with a copy of the resolution and a map showing the approximate boundaries of the
area proposed to be annexed, with five (5) publications as follows: June 6, 1998; June 13, 1998;
June 20, 1998; June 27, 1998; and July 4,1998. The Colorado Springs Gazette is a daily
newspaper of general circulation throughout the City of Colorado Springs, throughout the area
proposed to be annexed, and throughout El Paso County, Colorado.
5.
The City Clerk's Office has received no Petition for Annexation Election for the
area proposed to be annexed.
6.
The City Clerk's Office has received no notification that annexation of all or part of
any said area has been commenced by any other municipality.
7.
Copies of the public notice and the resolution have been sent to the following
parties: (1) Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of El Paso County, 200 S. Cascade Avenue,
Colorado Springs, CO 80903; (2) El Paso County Attorney, P. O. Box 2007, Colorado Springs,
CO 80901; (3) Superintendent, Harrison School District #2, 1060 Harrison Road, Colorado
Springs, CO 80906; and (4) Pikes Peak Library District, P. O. Box 1579, Colorado Springs, CO
80901.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
CINDY\N. CONWAY
- ,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 6
1998.
Witness my hand and official seal.
z$/)CLf)fYn)
k,
day of
tZi&ji/)n/yiCr
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires: Cthfoy <£ <9,
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EL PASO
)
) ss.
)
Gerald R. Rapp, the affiant, first being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1.
He is a senior planner for the City of Colorado Springs.
2.
He has reviewed the Gates Addition No. 15 Annexation Plat and the
accompanying petition and is familiar with such plat and the location of the property described
therein.
3.
the plat.
The legal description of the property contained in the petition is the same as that of
4.
There has been adopted by the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs, as
provided for in Section 31-12-105 C.R.S., a "three-mile-plan" which includes the area described
in the petition for annexation and the annexation plat.
5.
This annexation will not extend the boundaries of the city limits of the City of
Colorado Springs beyond three miles in any direction from the municipal boundary.
6.
The Annexation Impact Report is not required under Section 31-12-108.5 C.R.S.
as the property is comprised of less than 10 acres.
7.
No land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of
real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into
separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof, unless its tracts or
parcels are separated by dedicated street, road or other public way.
8.
No land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of
real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, comprising twenty (20)
acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, has a
valuation for assessment in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the next year
preceding the annexation), is included within the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed.
9.
The property subject to annexation is within the unincorporated area of El Paso
County, Colorado.
Gerald R. Rapp
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this^j^
1998.
day of
NOTARY PUBLI
My Commission expires:
->
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EL PASO
)
) ss.
)
Richard E. Mariotti, the affiant, first being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1.
No. 22573.
He is a registered professional land surveyor in the State of Colorado, Registration
2.
He is employed by Drexel Barrell.
3.
The annexation plat of Gates Addition No. 15 was prepared under his supervision.
4.
He has examined this annexation plat and the legal description therein.
5.
The legal description set forth on the plat accurately describes the property subject
to annexation to the City of Colorado Springs.
6.
The annexation plat accurately sets forth the boundary of the property that is
subject to annexation to the City of Colorado Springs.
7.
As shown on the plat, at least one-sixth (l/6th) of the boundary of the property is
contiguous with the boundary of the city limits of the City of Colorado Springs.
8.
In establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a
platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley is included within the area
proposed to be annexed.
Richard E. Mariotti
( /*Ls^-~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me thisY
1998.
day ofVJ^//
'j/n0+
PUBLIC
ission expires: /
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS THAT
AREA SOMETIMES KNOWN AS GATES ADDITION NO. 15 AS
HEREINAFTER SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colorado Springs on May 26, 1998 adopted a
resolution entitled "Resolution Finding a Petition for Annexation of That Area Sometimes Known
as Gates Addition No. 15 to be in Substantial Compliance with Section 31-12-107(1) C.R.S. and
Setting a Hearing Date for the Colorado Springs City Council to Consider the Annexation of the
Area"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice required under Section 31-12-108 C.R.S., the Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965 as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Annexation Act, the City
Council of Colorado Springs held on July 28, 1998 a hearing pertaining to said annexation; and
WHEREAS, owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area have petitioned for such
annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Colorado Springs has by resolution made findings of fact
and conclusions of law based thereon and determinations pertaining to said annexation, and has
determined that said area should be annexed forthwith as part of the City of Colorado Springs.
Section 1.
Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein is Exhibit "A," a legal description of the area sometimes known as Gates Addition No. 15.
Section 2.
The area sometimes known as Gates Addition No. 15 as set forth in Exhibit
"A" is hereby annexed to the City of Colorado Springs.
Section 3.
When this annexation is complete, said area shall become a part of the City
of Colorado Springs for all intents and purposes of the effective date of this ordinance, with the
exception of general taxation, in which respect said annexation shall not be effective until on or
after January 1 next ensuing.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as provided by the City Charter.
Introduced, read, passed on first reading and ordered published this
, 1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
day of
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 33,
T14S, R66W OF THE 6ra P.M., COUNTY OF EL PASO, STATE OF COLORADO,
COMMENCING AT THE Wl/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE
N89039'13"E, 974.43 FEET ALONG THE EAST-WEST CENTER LINE OF SAID
SECTION 33 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HARRISON
PARK FILING NO. 10, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK O-3 AT
PAGE 2 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, AND THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING N89°39'13rtE, 352.23 FEET ALONG THE EAST-WEST
CENTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1,
HASSLER & BATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK D-3 AT PAGE 26 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO;
SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, E.M.F. SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK K-3 AT PAGE 17 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO
COUNTY, COLORADO;
THENCE N48028'27"W, 549.32 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE EXTENDED
SOUTHERLY AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID E.M.F.
SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE NORTHERLY 80.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE NORTHWEST AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF JANITELL ROAD
AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2933 AT PAGE 774 OF THE
RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, TO THE TRUE POTNT OF
BEGINNING, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 994.93 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 04°39'15" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS
N45°43'15"E, 80.79 FEET;
AREA = 2.216 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 44
ITEMNO(S): L.. M.. N. & O.
STAFF: Gary Rapp
FILE NO(S1: CPC A 98-00098 - Legislative
CPC S 98-00100PF - Quasi-Judicial
CPC NV 98-00101 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Gates Addition No. 15 Annexation (Harrison Park Filing No. 17)
APPLICANT:
Steven Sharkey & Drexel Barrel!
OWNER:
Cody Company, d.b.a. Gates Land Company
fv.
I'
A, -'(,
Requests for approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15; approval of a zone change from County
to PIP-2, with a concept plan for a 24,800 sq. ft. office-warehouse; approval of preliminary and final plats
for Harrison Park Filing No. 17; and approval of a non-use variance to Section 14.1-2-304 of the City Code
to allow a site to become part of the adjacent PIP-2 district where the requirement is for a minimum of 20
acres for a proposed PIP-2 zone, consisting of 2.216 acres located southeast of Janiteil Road and
Executive Circle.
Item L. - CPC A 98-00098 - Annexation
Approve the annexation petition and plat for Gates Addition No. 15 subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with ail departmental comments.
2.
Determination of legal and financial obligations shall be addressed in the Annexation Agreement.
3.
Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in the Development Review.
Item M. - CPC P 98-00099 - Zone Establishment
Approve the establishment of a PIP-2 zone and the companion concept plan subject to the technical
revisions listed in the staff report.
The
City
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
following technical revisions to the concept plan must be completed before scheduling the item for a
Council agenda:
Show driveway widths to match dimensions noted.
Label required landscape setback and internal areas.
Show zoning and use of adjacent property.
Comply with all departmental comments.
Note file number, CPC P 98-00099, in lower right-hand corner and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
Ten copies of the revised concept plan shall be submitted to the Development Review by May 12, 1998 or
at least four days prior to City Council agenda due date.
Item N. - CPC S 98-001OOPF - Preliminary & Final Plat
Approve the preliminary and final plats of Harrison Park Filing 17, subject to the following conditions and
revisions:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. Show curb, pavement and gutter for Janiteil Road.
2. Show provisions for collection and discharge of surface drainage.
3. Show proposed grading.
4.
Comply with all departmental comments.
ITEM NO. 17
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 45
FINAL PLAT:
1. Correct final plat per red-marked print on file in Development Review.
2. Comply with all departmental comments.
Item O. - CPC NV 98-00101 - Non-Use Variance
Approve a variance for a PIP-2 district size of 2.216 acres.
SUMMARY:
2. Establishment of an PIP-2 zone will conform to Comprehensive Plan Policies 5.1.3 and 7.1.2.
Concept plan will conform to Concept Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4,
subject to technical revisions.
Request conforms to Non-use Variance Criteria of Zoning Code Section 14.1-4-902.
With revisions, request will conform to Subdivision Ordinance Sections 15-3-204C and15-3-303d.
The annexation of this triangular peninsula is a logical extension of the City limits. The PIP-2 zone is
compatible with adjacent zoning and development in the City, and a variance to accommodate the 2.216acre tract as PIP-2 provides for reasonable use of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Policies 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 5.1.3, and 7.1.2.
INT HWY 25
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 46
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - County/Vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PIP-2/lndustrial
FIGURE 1
South - PIP-2/lndustrial
East - El Paso County/Golf driving range
West - PIP-2/Vacant
Zoning - El Paso County.
Proposal - FIGURES 2 & 3 . Requests for approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15; approval
of a zone change from County to PIP-2, with a concept plan for a 24,800 sq. ft office-warehouse; approval
of preliminary and final plats for Harrison Park Filing No. 17; and approval of a non-use variance to
Section 14.1-2-304 of the City Code to allow a site to become part of the adjacent PIP-2 district where the
requirement is for a minimum of 20 acres for a proposed PIP-2 zone, consisting of 2.216 acres located
southeast of Janiteli Road and Executive Circle.
Physical Characteristics - Site slopes down moderately from Janiteli Road and is being filled and graded.
Master Plan - None.
The annexation plat looks OK and we have only standard comments on this item. Our office will need to
review special annexation agreement language for the annexation agreement when the time comes.
Gates' properties are exempted from drainage fees and drainage reimbursements via their annexation
agreements and this site will need to be done in a consistent manner.
Dave Lethbridge, City Engineering
Traffic Engineering - Access to Janiteli Road per C.D.O.T. approvals, submit a development plan for
review.
Electric - standard comments.
Water/Wastewater - Comments: Request of approval for the submitted item is acceptable.
3. The City of Colorado Springs does not guarantee water/wastewater service to the subject area.
Allocation of water and or wastewater capacity to serve this area will depend upon the
supply/capacity available at the time of application. The City's policy is first come, first served.
5. Any required relocation of existing, or installation of new water/wastewater facilities will be at the
expense of the owner/developer.
11. This comment is for informational purpose only: Have the owner/developer or their engineer contact
Contract Administration for any fees, reimbursements or recovery costs that may apply to this site,
(448-8112).
15. Water/Wastewater main/service extension will be required by the developer.
All Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment.
City Engineering - The detached sidewalk and pedestrian ramps shown in the R.O.W. of Janiteli Road are
acceptable. The proposed grading and drainage channel are not accepted at this time pending our review
of a site drainage plan. The developed storm runoff from this site will flow onto vacant property to the
east This may necessitate on-site detention or construction of outfall facilities.
Traffic Engineering - Access shall be as approved by C.D.OT. the proposed loading dock appears to
require backing from Janiteli Road, submit loading capabilities for approval.
Fire - Acceptable. Correctly draw plan to scale the dimensions shown for driveway widths.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 47
City Engineering - City Engineering required that a preliminary drainage report/plan be submitted with a
Preliminary Plat for concurrent review. The developed storm runoff from this site will flow onto vacant
property to the east. This may necessitate on-site detention or construction of outfall facilities.
Our standard comments apply to all items.
Traffic Engineering - Access shall be per approval of C.D.O.T.
Water/Wastewater -Comments: Request of approval for the submitted item is acceptable.
Fire - Acceptable.
Traffic Engineering - Access is per approval of C.D.O.T.
Water/Wastewater Comments: Request of approval for the submitted item is acceptable.
Fire - Acceptable.
PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURES 4
3. Conformance with Concept Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4.
4. Conformance with Non-use Variance Criteria of Zoning Ordinance Section 14.1-4-902.
5. Conformance with Subdivision Ordinance Sections 15-3-204C and 15-3-303d.
CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.1:
"A.
The area to be annexed is a logical extension of the City's boundary." The 2.216-acre annexation
site is contiguous with the City on the north and southwest, exceeding the one-sixth contiguity
requirement of the state, and it is served by a public street.
and appropriate financial performance guarantees relating to phasing of the master plan." A master
plan is not required for a site this small (2.216 acres). The financial performance guarantees of the
Annexation Agreement should adequately ensure any phasing of the development approved in the
establishment of zoning for the property.
Employment opportunities, improved drainage control, and diversification of the economic base are
the principal benefits to the City.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 48
Furthermore, Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.1 states, "Consider...peninsulas for annexation."
triangular site is surrounded by the City on two of its three sides.
This
be used as a basis for demonstrating community or neighborhood benefit."
The property is bounded on two of its three sides with PIP-2 zoning and uses. A PIP-2 zone on this site
would best implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2 to, "Ensure that proposed zone changes and/or
use variances in established neighborhoods are found to be compatible with the scale and physical
character of the neighborhood."
CONFORMANCE WITH CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW CRITERIA OF ZONING
ORDINANCE ARTICLE 4
The concept plan will meet the submittal requirements and review criteria of Article 4 subject to the
following technical revisions:
1. Show driveway widths to match dimensions noted.
2. Label required landscape setback and internal areas.
3. Show zoning and use of adjacent property.
5.
Note file number, CPC P 98-00099, in lower right-hand corner and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
CONFORMANCE WITH NON-USE VARIANCE CRITERIA OF ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 14.1-4902
A variance to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.1-2-304 (Table 2.2.2) of the City Code to allow a PIP-2 district
size of 2.261 acres where a minimum of 20 acres is required, must meet the review criteria for variances
listed in Zoning Code Section 14.1-4-902 discussed below:
1. Existence of Extraordinary Physical Conditions: Met
Extraordinary off-site conditions include the existing PIP-2 zoning and industrial use of adjacent and
nearby parcels of the same approximate size as this site.
2. No Reasonable Use: Met
Current surrounding PIP-2 zoning has established a neighborhood standard. The site in question
would clearly have a less reasonable use, without relief, in comparison with proximate and similar
properties.
3. No Adverse Impact on the Surrounding Properties: Met
The granting of a variance will only be to the extent necessary to afford a reasonable use of the
property. The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to surrounding properties.
The three criteria for a non-use variance are met.
CONFORMANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15-3-204C AND 15-3-303D
The plats must include all items listed in Sections 15-3-204C and 15-3-303d of the Subdivision Ordinance
To conform to these Sections the following conditions and technical revisions are necessary:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. Show curb, pavement and gutter for Janitell Road.
FINAL PLAT:
Page 6
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Show the general drainage scheme.
^^
Note Colorado E-Stacprogram qualification or equivalent energy efficiency program.
Note streetlights to belhstgHed per City PUD standards.
-^
Note any approved conditions^têcord on the plan.
Comply with all departmental comr
Title plan as "PUD Concept Plan".
Note file number, CPC PUD 98-00167, in lowe>noM*rTand corner and fold 8 1/2" x 14"
Ten copies of the revised PUD concept plarusfiall be submitfed.to the Development Review by May 12,
1998 or at least four days prior to City Cpurfcil agenda due date.
Item J. - CPC S 98-00168P - Pretifninarv Plat
Approve the preliminary plateTMiller's Crossing subject to the following conditions and technical revisions:
1. Show provisions fop-Collection and discharge of surface drainage.
2. Show proposedgfading, including approximate street grades.
3. Rectify thoseHot widths that do not meet minimum Zoning Code standards.
4. Show 1 ^loot-wide maintenance/trail easement on east side of Sand Creek.
5. CompJ/with all departmental comments.
ITEM L.
CPC A 98-00098 - Rapp - Legislative
6433300009
Request by Steven Sharkey on behalf of Gates Land Company for approval of the annexation of Gates
Addition No. 15 consisting of 2.216 acres located south of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
ITEM M.
CPC P 98-00099 - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6433300009
Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody Company for approval of a change of zone classification from
County to PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) consisting of 2.216 acres located southeast of Janitell Road and
Executive Circle.
ITEM N.
CPC S 98-001OOPF - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6433300009
Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody Company for preliminary and final plat approval for Harrison
Park Filing No. 17 in a proposed PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) zone consisting of 1 lot on 2.216 acres
located southeast of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
ITEM O.
CPC NV 98-00101 - Rapp - Quasi-Judicial
6433300009
Request by Drexel Barrell on behalf of Cody Company for approval of a variance to Section 14.1-2-304 of
the City Code to allow a site to become part the adjacent PIP-2 district where the requirement is for a
minimum of 20 acres in a proposed PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park) zone consisting of 2.216 acres located
southeast of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
3. Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in the Development Review.
revisions listed in the staff report.
Page?
The following technical revisions to the concept plan must be completed before scheduling the item for a
City Council agenda:
5. Note file number, CPC P 98-00099, in lower right-hand corner and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
Approve the preliminary and final plats of Harrison Park Filing 17, subject to the following conditions and
revisions:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
FINAL PLAT:
It was moved by Commissioner Esmiol, seconded by Commissioner Chavez to approve Items A.
through J. and L. through O. on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0. (Commissioners Baruth & Hudson were absent.)
NEW BUSINESS
ITEMS 4. & 5. WERE-QJSCUSSED TOGETHER.
ITEM 4.
CPC 1*38-00066 - Tuck - QuasKTudicial
6300000441
Request by NES, Inc. on behalf of La Plata Invtesfrnepterfbr approval of a change of zone classification
from A (Agricultural) to PBC (Commercial) copstswog of 11.22 acres located southwest of Powers
Boulevard and Research Parkway.
ITEM 5.
CPfrCP 98-00067 - Tuck - QuaSi-Judicial
.X*
6300000441
Request by NES, IncxotTbehalf of La Plata Investments for approval of a concept plan for Fairfax
Commercial in axpfoposed PBC (Commercial) zone consisting of 11.22 acres locateftK$outhwest of
Powers Boulevard and Research Parkway
15.
CPC AP 98-00212: Public Hearing on an appeal bv Robert Trover of Brownstein. Hyatt.
Corner consisting of 15.9989 acres located southwest of^List Drive and Centennial
Boulevard.
The applicanthas requested this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of July 28,1998.
Motion by Guman>.second by Young, thaHhis matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28,1998. The motion unanimousl/carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
—0-
16.
CPC DP 98-00059: Public Hearing ctovan appeal by NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a requestxfor approval of a "development plan for Wooden Plaza in a PBC
(Commercial) zone" consisting of 21.5 acre^. located northeast of Wooden Road and
Lexington Drivel
\T
The applipant has requested this matter be postponed to theCouncil meeting of July 28, 1998.
Mojicri by Purvis, second by Hubert, that this matter be postponed tbxthe Council meeting of
28,1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmembef Null.
0
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Request bv Steven Sharkev on behalf of Gates Lane Company for
Motion by Barley, second by Young, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28,1998. The motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
0
18.
GPC P 89-00099: Request bv Drexel Barreil on behalf of Cod\rCompany for approval of
a chaaqe of zone classification from County^tcT PIP-2 (Planned Industrial Park)
consistmoôl2.216 acres located southeasVoTJanitell Road and Executive Circle.
The applicant has requested
ostponed to the Council-meeting
cH-meetinc of July 28,1998.
Motion by Barley, second by Young, that this matter Be postponed to the Council meeting of
July 28,1998.^FHe motion unanimously carried. Absent, Councilmember Null.
0
11
Boulevard.
Motion by Young, second by Rivera that this matter
August 11, T§9€L The motion unanimously carried.
16.
to the Council meeting of
CPC DP 98-00059: Publiorrearino^Qn an appeal bv NES. Inc. on behalf of The Midland
Group of a request/gfâpproval of a>development plan for Wooden Plaza in a PBC
(Commercial) zone^ consisting of 21.5 acres-located northeast of Wooden Road and
Lexington Driv'e.
by Young, second by Rivera, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
Mo
gust 11,1998. The motion unanimously carried.
0
17.
CPC A 98-00098: Request bv Steven Sharkev on behalf of Gates Land Company for
Motion by Purvis, second by Are', that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
-0-
18.
J
CPC P 98-00099: Request bv Drexel Barrel! on behalf of Cody Company for ai
approval of
a change zone classification from County to P1P-2 (Planned Industrial Parki consisting
.216 acres located southeast of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
Motion by^Rurvis, second by Are', that this matter be postpaned to the Council meeting of
August 11, 19§8w The motion unanimously carried.
19.
CPC DPA 98-00187: Public hearing on an appeal by Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
bv Yeraensen. Obering & Whittafee^pn behalf of multiple owners for approval of an
amendment to the Northpointe Oenter^Development Plan in a PBC/HS (Commercial with
Boulevard and Delmoniciyt)rive.
jona b
Motion by Are', secorfd
by Barley, that this matter be postponed to the Council meeting of
August 11,1998. jf\e motion unanimously carried.
-0-
20.
CPC S jgo-00188PF: Public hearing on an appeal by Rockrimmon Coalition of a request
bv Rockwell-Minchow on behalf of Kent A Petre for preliminary and final plat approval
23
2.216 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF JANITELL
ROAD AND EXECUTIVE CIRCLE
COLORADO SPRINGS:
and made a part hereof by reference, from County to PIP-2 (Planned Industrial
Park), pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colorado Springs.
Introduced,
this
read, passed on first reading and ordered
day of
published
, 1998.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CPC P 98-00099
ITEM NO. 24
DIVISION
L£G>AL DESCRIPTION FORM
°ATSREC'D
f LENO
'
CHECKED (FOR LOG & CONFIG )
STAFF
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 33, T13S,
R66W OF THE 6TH PM, COUNTY OF EL PASO, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE Wl/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE N89°39>13"E,
974.43 FEET ALONG THE EAST-WEST CENTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HARRISON PARK FILING NO. 10, A
SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 0-3 AT PAGE 2 OF THE RECORDS OF EL
PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE CONTINUING N89°39'13"E, 352.23 FEET ALONG THE EAST- WEST CENTER
LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, HASSLER &
BATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK D-3 AT
PAGE 26 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO;
SOUTHERLY OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, E.M.F. SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK K-3 AT PAGE 17 OF THE RECORDS OF EL PASO COUNTY,
COLORADO;
THENCE N48°28'27"W, 549.32 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE EXTENDED
SOUTHERLY AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID E.M.F. SUBDIVISION TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF,
THENCE NORTHERLY 80.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF JANITELL ROAD AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2933 AT PAGE 774 OF THE RECORDS OF
EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID ARC
HAVING A RADIUS OF 994.93 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4°39'15" AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS N45G43'15"E, 80.79 FEET;
AREA = 2.216 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
Sheet 1 of
.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 44
ITEMNO(S): L. M.. N. & O.
STAFF: Gary Rapp
FILE NOfSl: CPC A 98-00098 - Legislative
CPC S 98-001OOPF - Quasi-Judicial
CPC NV 98-00101 - Quasi-Judicial
PROJECT:
Gates Addition No. 15 Annexation (Harrison Park Filing No. 17)
APPLICANT:
Steven Sharkey & Drexel Barrell
OWNER:
Cody Company, d.b.a. Gates Land Company
Requests for approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15; approval of a zone change from County
to PIP-2, with a concept plan for a 24,800 sq. ft office-warehouse; approval of preliminary and final plats
for Harrison Park Filing No. 17; and approval of a non-use variance to Section 14.1-2-304 of the City Code
to allow a site to become part of the adjacent PIP-2 district where the requirement is for a minimum of 20
acres for a proposed PIP-2 zone, consisting of 2.216 acres located southeast of Janitell Road and
Executive Circle.
Item L - CPC A 98-00098 - Annexation
3. Revision of the plat per the red-marked print on file in the Development Review.
revisions listed in the staff report
The following technical revisions to the concept plan must be completed before scheduling the item for a
City Council agenda:
5. Note file number, CPC P 98-00099, in lower right-hand comer and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
Item N. - CPC S 98-00100PF - Preliminary & Final Plat
Approve the preliminary and final plats of Harrison Park"Filing 17, subject to the following conditions and
revisions:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 45
FINAL PLAT:
SUMMARY:
2. Establishment of an PIP-2 zone will conform to Comprehensive Plan Policies 5.1.3 and 7.1.2.
Concept plan will conform to Concept Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4,
subject to technical revisions.
Request conforms to Non-use Variance Criteria of Zoning Code Section 14.1-4-902.
With revisions, request will conform to Subdivision Ordinance Sections 15-3-204C and15-3-303d.
The annexation of this triangular peninsula is a logical extension of the City limits. The PIP-2 zone is
compatible with adjacent zoning and development in the City, and a variance to accommodate the 2.216acre tract as PIP-2 provides for reasonable use of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
Policies 2.1.1/2.2.1, 5.1.3, and 7.1.2.
INT HWY 25
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 46
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning/Land Use - County/Vacant
Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North- PIP-2/lndustrial
FIGURE 1
South - PIP-2/lndustrial
East - El Paso County/Golf driving range
West - PIP-2/Vacant
Zoning - El Paso County.
Proposal - FIGURES 2 & 3 . Requests for approval of the annexation of Gates Addition No. 15; approval
of a zone change from County to PIP-2, with a concept plan for a 24,800 sq. ft office-warehouse; approval
of preliminary and final plats for Harrison Park Filing No. 17; and approval of a non-use variance to
Section 14.1-2-304 of the City Code to allow a site to become part of the adjacent PIP-2 district where the
requirement is for a minimum of 20 acres for a proposed PIP-2 zone, consisting of 2.216 acres located
southeast of Janitell Road and Executive Circle.
Physical Characteristics - Site slopes down moderately from Janitell Road and is being filled and graded.
Master Plan - None.
Item L - CPC A 98-00098 - Annexation
The annexation plat looks OK and we have only standard comments on this item. Our office will need to
review special annexation agreement language for the annexation agreement when the time comes.
Gates' properties are exempted from drainage fees and drainage reimbursements via their annexation
agreements and this site will need to be done in a consistent manner.
Dave Lethbridge, City Engineering
Traffic Engineering - Access to Janitell Road per C.D.O.T. approvals, submit a development plan for
review.
3. The City of Colorado Springs does not guarantee water/wastewater service to the subject area.
Allocation of water and or wastewater capacity to serve this area will depend upon the
supply/capacity available at the time of application. The City's policy is first come, first served.
11. This comment is for informational purpose only: Have the owner/developer or their engineer contact
Contract Administration for any fees, reimbursements or recovery costs that may apply to this site,
(448-8112).
15. Water/Wastewater main/service extension will be required by the developer.
AH Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment
City Engineering - The detached sidewalk and pedestrian ramps shown in the R.O.W. of Janitell Road are
acceptable. The proposed grading and drainage channel are not accepted at this time pending our review
of a site drainage plan. The developed storm runoff from this site will flow onto vacant property to the
east This may necessitate on-site detention or construction of outfall facilities.
Traffic Engineering - Access shall be as approved by C.D.OT. the proposed loading dock appears to
require backing from Janitell Road, submit loading capabilities for approval.
Electric-standard comments.
Fire - Acceptable. Correctly draw plan to scale the dimensions shown for driveway widths.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 47
item N. - CPC S 98-001OOPF - Preliminary & Final Plat
City Engineering - City Engineering required that a preliminary drainage report/plan be submitted with a
Preliminary Plat for concurrent review. The developed storm runoff from this site will flow onto vacant
property to the east. This may necessitate on-site detention or construction of outfall facilities.
Our standard comments apply to all items.
Traffic Engineering - Access shall be per approval of C.D.O.T.
Water/Wastewater -Comments: Request of approval for the submitted item is acceptable.
Fire - Acceptable.
Traffic Engineering - Access is per approval of C.D.O.T.
Water/Wastewater Comments: Request of approval for the submitted item is acceptable.
Fire - Acceptable.
AH Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment
PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURES 4
3. Conformance with Concept Plan Submittal and Review Criteria of Zoning Code Article 4.
4. Confbrmance with Non-use Variance Criteria of Zoning Ordinance Section 14.1-4-902.
5. Conformance with Subdivision Ordinance Sections 15-3-204C and 15-3-303d.
CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.1:
"A.
The area to be annexed is a logical extension of the City's boundary." The 2.216-acre annexation
site is contiguous with the City on the north and southwest, exceeding the one-sixth contiguity
requirement of the state, and it is served by a public street
and appropriate financial performance guarantees relating to phasing of the master plan." A master
plan is not required for a site this small (2.216 acres). The financial performance guarantees of the
Annexation Agreement should adequately ensure any phasing of the development approved in the
establishment of zoning for the property.
Employment opportunities, improved drainage control, and diversification of the economic base are
the principal benefits to the City.
CPC Agenda 05/07/98
Page 48
Furthermore, Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.1 states, "Consider...peninsulas for annexation."
triangular site is surrounded by the City on two of its three sides.
This
be used as a basis for demonstrating community or neighborhood benefit"
The property is bounded on two of its three sides with PIP-2 zoning and uses. A PIP-2 zone on this site
would best implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1.2 to, "Ensure that proposed zone changes and/or
use variances in established neighborhoods are found to be compatible with the scale and physical
character of the neighborhood."
CONFORMANCE WITH CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW CRITERIA OF ZONING
ORDINANCE ARTICLE 4
The concept plan will meet the submittal requirements and review criteria of Article 4 subject to the
following technical revisions:
5. Note file number, CPC P 98-00099, in lower right-hand corner and fold 8 1/2" x 14".
CONFORMANCE WITH NON-USE VARIANCE CRITERIA OF ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 14.1-4902
A variance to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.1-2-304 (Table 2.2.2) of the City Code to allow a PIP-2 district
size of 2.261 acres where a minimum of 20 acres is required, must meet the review criteria for variances
listed in Zoning Code Section 14.1-4-902 discussed below:
1. Existence of Extraordinary Physical Conditions: Met
Extraordinary off-site conditions include the existing PIP-2 zoning and industrial use of adjacent and
nearby parcels of the same approximate size as this site.
2. No Reasonable Use: Met
Current surrounding PIP-2 zoning has established a neighborhood standard. The site in question
would clearly have a less reasonable use, without relief, in comparison with proximate and similar
properties.
3. No Adverse Impact on the Surrounding Properties: Met
The granting of a variance will only be to the extent necessary to afford a reasonable use of the
property. The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to surrounding properties.
The three criteria for a non-use variance are met
CONFORMANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTIONS 15-3-204C AND 15-3-303D
The plats must include all items listed in Sections 15-3-204C and 15-3-303d of the Subdivision Ordinance.
To conform to these Sections the following conditions and technical revisions are necessary:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
1. Show curb, pavement and gutter for Janiteil Road.
FINAL PLAT:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
July 30, 1998
TO:
City Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Election for Colorado Springs General Improvement District No. 98-1
Attached is an ordinance authorizing the election for the General Improvement District No. 98-1.
This election is required because of requirements under the TABOR Amendment, Section XX of
Article 10 of the Colorado Constitution.
Council, in this regard, is acting as the Board of Directors for the Colorado Springs General
Improvement District No 98-1. The only voters of this election are Warren H Dean, Elizabeth W.
Dean, J.A. Rosenbaum, Carol A. Rosenbaum, Bill J Anderson and Sandra Gill-Anderson. The
election statutes for general improvement districts provides that one member of the governing body,
i.e. City Council, must serve on the canvass board for the election. It would be appropriate for City
Council to designate one of its members to serve in that capacity and that member's name be inserted
jrdinance.
Patricia K. Kelly
City Attorney
maz:pkk/la:ec
Enclosure
c:
M. Allen Ziegler, Jr., Assistant City Attorney-Corporate
James H. Mullen, City Manager
Michael Anderson, Budget and Financial Manager
a!98/219/la/l
, _
General Improvement District
30 S. Nevada Avev Suite 501 • TEL 719-385-5909 FAX 719-578-6209
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1575, Mail Code 510 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901-1575
HNKELE ICENOGLE
3037731883
P. 02/07
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION
CONCERNING THE CTTY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTWCT NO. 98-1, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF SATO
DISTRICT THE PROPOSITION OF ENTERING INTO ONE
OR MORE MULTIPLE FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE
PURPOSE
OF
CONSTRUCTING
INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER COSTS;
PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS RELATED THERETO;
REPEALING ACTION HERETOFORE
TAKEN IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND RATIFYING ACTION
PREVIOUSLY TAKEN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the Colorado Springs General Improvement District No. 98-1, (me
"District"), in the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado (the "City"), duly organized as a general
improvement district pursuant to Ordinance No. 98-122, adopted by me City on July 28,1998, is a
quasi-municipal subdivision of the State of Colorado and a body corporate with limited proprietary
powers set forth in Part 6, Article 25, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes ("C,R.S.", as amended;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City is ex-officio the Board of Directors of the District
(the "Board"); the Mayor of the City is ex-officio the President of the District; and the City Clerk
and Recorder is ex-officio the Secretary of the District; and
WHEREAS, the City and Woodmen Retail Center, LLC, have entered into that Agreement
dated February 23,1998 and recorded March 16,1998, in me records of El Paso County, Colorado
and Reception No. 098032955, which shall control the activities and the operation of the District to
the extent provided therein (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, subject to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, the Board has
the power and authority to levy and collect ad valorem taxes on and against all taxable property
within the District by certifying annually the rate of levy fixed in the manner provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the interest of the District and the public interest and necessity demand and
require the acquisition, construction, installation and completion of all or a portion of certain
improvements, as more particularly described herein ("the Improvements**); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to submit to the electors of the District, at an election to be held
for that purpose, the proposition of entering into one or more multiple fiscal year financial
agreements or other indebtedness in relation to the construction of the Improvements and
authorizing the imposition of a mill levy for such Improvements and related purposes; and
HNKtLt ICENOGLE
3037731883
P. 03/07
WHEREAS, the District has never held an election on the question of contracting
indebtedness or authorizing the imposition of a mill levy in any amount for any purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Board now deems it necessary and desirable that an ordinance be adopted
declaring the public interest and necessity for me Improvements and calling an election on the
issuance of such financial obligations of the District therefor and for the imposition of a null levy
on and against all taxable property within the District, all pursuant to §31-25-621, C.R.S. and
Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, and in accordance with the Agreement;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTIY OF COLORADO
SPRINGS ACTING IN ITS EX OFFICIO CAPACITY AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-1:
Section 1. The Board has determined, and hereby determines, that the interest of the
District and the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction, installation and
completion of the Improvements herein described in order to carry out the objects and purposes of
the District and require the creation of one or more multiple-fiscal year financial agreements or
other indebtedness.
Section 2. The objects and purposes for which the indebtedness is proposed to be incurred
are to provide funds for defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing
and completing the following Improvements:
A grade separated interchange at the intersection of Woodmen Road and North Academy
Boulevard, and associated capacity improvements consisting generally of street
improvements, including but not limited to, curbs, gutters, culverts and other drainage
facilities, sidewalks, paving, grading, landscaping, fencing, masonry screening and sound
barrier walls, signage, traffic signals, street lighting and incidental and appurtenant
properties and facilities.
Section 3. The total estimated cost of the aforementioned Improvements which are being
attributed to and funded by the District, including all costs incidental to the acquisition,
construction, installation or completion thereof (including engineering, legal, financing and
administrative costs relating thereto, including capitalized interest), is $20,000,000, subject to the
limitations and provisions of the Agreement. Those costs may also include but are not limited to,
the costs of organizing the District and of funding the Study prescribed in the Agreement
Section 4. The total aggregate amount of the principal of the indebtedness to be authorized
for the Project pursuant to this ordinance shall not exceed the sum of $20,000,000, with the
indebtedness to be issued from time to time, and the maximum net effective interest rate to be paid
thereon not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) per annum.
lj:t-J
RNKELE ICENOGLE
3037731883
P.04/07
Section 5. An election of the electors of the District shall be held on November 3,1998,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. of said day, at which election there shall be submitted
to the electors of the District the questions concerning the issuance of obligations or bonds, the
imposition of a property tax and such other questions as may be necessary under applicable law.
The Board authorizes the City Attorney, or his designee, to approve the form of the ballot question
or questions to be certified by the Designated Election Official pursuant to Section 1-5-203, C.R.S.
Section 6. Pursuant to Sections 1-1-102(1), 1-1-111 and 36-25-621, C.R.S., as amended,
said election shall be held and conducted and the results thereof declared in the manner provided in
Part 8 of Article 1 of Title 32, C.R.S., and the Uniform Election Code of 1992, Articles 1 through
13 of Title 1, C.R.S. The Board does hereby authorize Ankele, Icenogle, Norton & Seter, P.C. as
Designated Election Official to exercise the powers and authority granted to the Board for the
conduct of the election to be held on November 3, 1998. Pursuant to Section 31-25-621 (2),
C.R.S., the following officers of the election, consisting of three judges, are appointed from the
electors of the District: Bill J. Anderson, Jay A. Roscnbaum and Warren H. Dean, The
compensation to be paid to the officers of the election shall be seventy-five dollars ($75.00) as full
compensation for services provided, plus expenses as permitted by Section 1-6-115, C.R.S. Any
additional election judges required shall be appointed and qualified by the Designated Election
Official as provided in Part 1 of Article 6, of Title 1, C.R.S. The Board hereby appoints
Councilmember [please note: one member of the governing body must serve on the canvass
board per C.R.S. 1-10-201; this will take only a few minutes] to serve on the canvass board with
one eligible Elector of the District to be appointed by the Designated Election Official. The
canvass board shall canvass the returns and declare the results thereof as provided by Part 1 of
Article 10 of Title I, C.R.S. The Designated Election Official shall preserve the ballots and
election records as provided in Part 8 of Article 7 of Title 1, C.R.S.
Section 7. The District shall conduct this election on November 3, 1998 by means of a
mail-ballot election, all as provided in Title 1, CJLS.
Section 8, The Designated Election Official shall cause notice of said election to be given
as required by Part 2 of Article 5 of Title 1, C.R.S., and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado
Constitution, and any other applicable provision of Colorado law. On behalf of the District, the
Designated Election Official shall be authorized to conclude an Intergovernmental Agreement with
the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder to allocate any responsibilities and costs associated with the
giving of such notice and conducting the election, and for any other matters necessary for Hie
election, as permitted under the Uniform Election Code of 1992.
Section 9, The officers of the District hereby are authorized and directed to take all action
necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this ordinance.
Section 10, If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall for any
reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section,
paragraph, clause or provision shall in no manner affect any remaining provisions of this ordinance.
JUL-30-1998
13:54
ftNKELE
ICENOGLE
3037731883
P.05/07
Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof; inconsistent
herewith and with the documents hereby approved, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such
inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed as reviving any bylaw, order, resolution or
ordinance, or part thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING by a vote of
for and
against, constituting an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of
the Board on
, 1998 and ordered published in full in The Daily
Transcript.
PASSED by a vote of
for and
against, constituting at least
five members of the Board, at a special meeting of the Board on final consideration on
, 1998, at
a.m./p.m.
President
General Improvement District No. 98-1
(SEAL)
Attest:
Secretary
13:t>4
RNKELE ICENOGLE
It was thereupon moved by Director
ordinance entitled:
3037731883
P.06/07
that the foregoing
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION CONCERNING THE CITY OF
COLORADO SPRINGS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 98-1, LYING
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID DISTRICT THE
PROPOSITION OF ENTERING INTO ONE OR MORE MULTIPLE FISCAL YEAR
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER
COSTS; PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS RELATED THERETO; REPEALING ACTION
HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND RATIFYING ACTION
PREVIOUSLY TAKEN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
introduced at this meeting, as aforesaid, be published in full in The Daily Transcript a newspaper
of general circulation published in the City of Colorado Springs, and that it be considered for
final passage at a special meeting of the Board to be held at the City Administration Building,
Colorado Springs, Colorado, Director
seconded the motion
which, upon being put to a vote, was passed and adopted on the following:
Those Voting Aye:
Those Voting No:
Those Absent:
members of the Board, constituting majority of all of lie members
thereof, having voted in favor of the motion, the presiding officer thereupon declared the motion
carried and the ordinance ordered published as aforesaid.
lJ=bb
flNKELE
ICENOGLE
3037731883
P.07/07
Thereupon, the Board considered other business and took other action not concerning the
proposed district.
Thereafter, there being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly
made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned.
President
(SEAL)
Attest;
Secretary
General Improvement District No, 98-1
ROSENDEAAjID
MAH1457
0208.2005
TOTAL P.07

city council agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

Colorado Springs

Lower Breitenbush Hot Springs Visioning

Meet the “Mother of the Colorado Trail”

Cervitec® F - Ivoclar Vivadent

Carrie McCausland Ci f C l d S i S i bili C di City of Colorado Springs

11011 ANAQUA SPRINGS | Anaqua Springs Ranch

Real Estate Advisor Sell Smart, Buy Wise, and Live Well

Welcomes the NACR Summer Institute Of Recovery Studies

The Art of Summer - Colorado Youth Ballet