UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NOS: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER

Page 139 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NOS: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NOS: CPC LUM 05-00277 - LEGISLATIVE CPC MPA 05-00278 - LEGISLATIVE CPC PUZ 05-00279 - QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC PUD 05-00280 - QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC FP 05-00281 - QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: STONEWATER AT NORTHGATE EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC. NORTHGATE PROPERTIES, LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1, a 32.788-acre residential duplex project in Northgate, located northwest of Voyager Parkway and Middle Creek Parkway. It consists of a Land Use Map Amendment from Employment Center to Low Residential; a master plan amendment from Office Industrial/Research and Development to Multi Family Residential; a zone change from Planned Industrial Park with Conditions of Record and High Rise Overlay (PIP-1/CR/HR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD, single family attached, 8.48 du/ac, 35' max. ht.); a PUD development plan for 139 duplexes (278 dwelling units); and a final subdivision plat. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: ITEM: 4 CPC LUM 05-00277 LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Deny the Land Use Map amendment based upon the finding that the amendment does not comply with the Land Use Map Review Criteria as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 1, Section 108.B of the City Zoning Code. ITEM: 5 CPC MPA 05-00278 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Deny the Northgate Master Plan Amendment, based upon the finding that the amendment does not comply with the Master Plan Review Criteria as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 408 of the City Zoning Code. ITEM: 6 CPC PUZ 05-00279 CHANGE OF ZONING Deny the zone change from PIP-1/CR/HR to PUD based upon the findings that the Change of Zoning request does not comply with the three criteria for granting of zone changes as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section

Page 140 603.B and the criteria for the establishment of a PUD zone as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 603 of the City Zoning Code. ITEM: 7 CPC PUD 05-00280 PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Deny the Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1 PUD Development Plan, based upon the findings that it does not meet the review criteria for PUD development plans as set forth on Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 502.C, and Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 607 of the City Zoning Code. ITEM: 8 CPC FP 05-00281 SUBDIVISION PLAT Deny the Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1 Subdivision Plat, based upon the finding that it does not comply with the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Regulations as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 7, Section 102 of the Subdivision Code. SUMMARY: Changing this property from its current Office Industrial land use to permit a residential duplex development would harm a thriving, economically important employment center and result in an isolated, poorly designed residential neighborhood. It would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and the various review criteria, and would not further the long term best interests of Colorado Springs. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Employment Centers: Activity centers that are major concentrations of employment supported by a mix of uses that meet the needs of employees and visitors, such as restaurants, lodging, child care, higher density residential, and educational facilities. Significant Natural Features: Those ridgelines, bluffs, rock outcroppings, view corridors, foothills, mountain backdrops, unique vegetation, floodplains, streams, surface water, air, natural drainage ways and wildlife habitats that contributes to the attractiveness of the community. Strategy LU 502d: Plan Residential Areas to Conserve Natural Features Plan neighborhoods in areas that contain significant natural features and environmental constraints to conserve those features through lower average densities or clustering of development. Strategy LU 801c: Reserve Sites for Future Employment Centers Reserve designated areas for future employment centers in order to ensure the availability of sites to meet the needs of new employers, preserve a mutually supportive balance of jobs and housing within different areas of the city, and meet the projected demand for land to support new jobs. Strategy N 201a: Preserve and Enhance the Physical Elements that Define a Neighborhood s Character In considering development proposals, preserve the physical elements that contribute to a neighborhood s identity and character, such as natural features, buildings and development patterns, historic and cultural features, parks, open space and schools. Where appropriate, utilize historic preservation districts and conservation districts as tools to achieve preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. Strategy N 203d: Incorporate Natural Features Protect natural environmental features, including rock outcroppings, drainage areas, wildlife habitat, unique topographic features, and view corridors by incorporating them into new and developing neighborhoods, consistent with the guidelines of the Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Policy NE 201: Identify, Evaluate and Incorporate Significant Natural Features Preserve the variety of spectacular natural features, so prevalent in and around the City, for the enjoyment of residents and visitors. Incorporate significant natural features on individual sites into the design of new development and redevelopment. Identify and inventory natural features through best management practices prior to incorporating features into site planning. Include significant natural features that contribute to the attractiveness of the community such as ridgelines, bluffs, rock outcroppings, view corridors, foothills, mountain backdrop, urban forest, floodplains, natural water bodies, clean air, natural drainageways and wildlife habitats. Strategy NE 201a: Determine the Presence and Value of Site-Specific Natural Features Utilize progressively more detailed land suitability analysis to identify and evaluate site-specific natural features for conservation on all master plans, concept plans, development plans and building permits. Require an inventory of significant natural features or a determination of "no significant features" prior to site disturbance. Base the value of natural features on such relative qualities as scarcity, size, ecological integrity, maturity, location and function.

Page 141 Strategy NE 201b: Incorporate Natural Features into Design of All Development Preserve and incorporate significant natural features into the design of new development by using innovative planning, design and best management practices. Assist such efforts by private landowners and organizations to incorporate natural features into all development and to protect, restore, or enhance privately owned natural features. Strategy NE 201c: Preserve the Natural Contours of the Land Preserve and incorporate the natural contours of the land in the design of new development by using innovative planning, design and management practices. Discourage overlot grading or storage or import/export of material prior to approval of any development application. Policy CCA 601: New Development Will be Compatible with the Surrounding Area New developments will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will complement the character and appearance of adjacent land uses. Strategy LUM 104b: Analysis of Proposed Amendments to 2020 Land Use Map and Plan Assess the citywide implications of proposed amendments to the 2020 Land Use Map. Include an analysis of the following elements in addition to other development review criteria: a. A detailed statement of what is proposed to be changed and why; b. A statement of anticipated impacts of the change, including analysis by affected Planning Evaluation Zones analysis of relevant issues including transportation and natural environment; c. A demonstration of how the proposed amendment is consistent with the Strategic Network of Long-range Plans and Citywide System Plans; d. Proposed or necessary implementation tools, including code amendments; e. Public review and discussion of the recommended change; and f. Demonstration of community benefit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It will be the responsibility of the City to prepare analyses addressing items b, c, and d, above. Policy LUM 207: Employment Center Utilize the Employment Center designation for major concentrations of employment, including existing corporate campuses and industrial areas. For new centers promote excellence in the design and planning of buildings, outdoor spaces, and transportation facilities; and support the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Integrate mobility choices by providing transit, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the center as well as to adjoining areas. Strategy LUM 207a: Employment Center Characteristics Designate sites with direct access to existing or planned major transportation facilities and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Generally employment centers are located along major roads, or in close proximity to limited access freeways and Interstate 25. Strategy LUM 207b: Employment Center Primary Uses Identify primary uses as research and development, major service and office center complexes, as well as warehousing and industrial uses and major educational facilities. Strategy LUM 207c: Employment Center Secondary Uses Include supporting uses that complement the primary workplace uses such as restaurants, hotels, childcare, convenience shopping, and residential uses if part of an overall planned development. BACKGROUND: Existing Zoning/Land Use - PIP-1/CR/HR/ vacant Surrounding Zoning/Land Use - North - PIP-1/CR/HR/ Progressive Insurance South - PIP-1/CR/HR/ Compassion International East - R-1 6000, OC/ single family residential, day care West - PIP-1/CR/HR/ Nicky Cruz Foundation offices Annexation - October 1985, Northgate Annexation No. 3 Zoning - A with annexation. Rezoned to PIP-1/CR/HR in May 1998 (CPC P 98-177). Conditions of record are 70' maximum height, 0.5 maximum floor area ratio (FAR), 75' minimum setback from perimeter of district. Subdivision - Not platted Physical Characteristics - Vacant property consisting primarily of gently rolling grass field. A visually significant ridge with mature scrub oak extends from west to east toward the middle of the site. Master Plan - Northgate master plan Office Industrial/ Research and Development

Page 142 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: Comprehensive Planning: The Comprehensive Planning Division recommends denial of the proposal to amend the 2020 Land Use Map. The request is inconsistent with the established land use and zoning pattern west of Voyager Parkway north of Middle Creek Parkway. Voyager Parkway separates the residential neighborhood east of the parkway from the commercial and office zoning west of the parkway. The established land use and zoning pattern north of Middle Creek Parkway west of Voyager Parkway is non residential. The requested change would create an island of residential development and thus creating poor land use relationships and an isolated neighborhood. Residential services, such as schools, are located across the principal arterial. If the residential neighborhood were to develop, the established and proposed non residential land uses become the nuisance because of traffic and noise issues. It is not a good idea to introduce residential development into this employment center. Three major employers are currently located within this employment center. The applicant has not demonstrated a community benefit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Strategy LU 801c. calls for the reservation of sites for future employment centers in order to ensure the availability of sites to meet the needs of new employers. Since this area is an established employment center, it is not recommended that an isolated, gated residential community be located within this center. City Engineering: 1. City Engineering recommends all private streets and sidewalks be designed and constructed to public standards. Please provide a typical cross-section on the plans. 2. Please provide the appropriate right-of-way along Sybilla Lane where the curb and gutter is outside of the right-of-way. In addition, include any right-of-way that maybe required for auxiliary lanes for the proposed development. 3. Please provide a public improvement or sidewalk easement where the sidewalk is outside of the rightof-way. 4. Include a note on the plans that the regional detention basin in tract F shall be quit claimed to the City at the time of final plat approval. Surface maintenance will be the responsibility of the designated home owner's association and the structure maintenance will be the responsibility of the City of Colorado Springs. 5. Please note, there is an existing D10R inlet at the entrance located along Middle Creek Parkway. Please address. 6. The regional detention facility will require a maintenance road and access from a public street. Please include this on the plans. 7. The preliminary drainage report was returned to the Engineering consultant with comments. 8. All curb, gutter, pedestrian ramps and sidewalk posing a safety hazard or exhibiting excessive deterioration along Sybilla Lane, Voyager Parkway, and Middle Creek Parkway adjacent to the site will need to be removed and replaced. An on-site meeting can be set up with the City Engineering Inspector, Cliff Lopez, to determine what, if any improvements are required. Cliff can be reached at 385-5409. Plat A. Please verify that the Parks Department is willing to maintain the greenbelt tracts. If not, address said maintenance. Include recording information for any Owner's Association, Maintenance District etc. if maintenance is so assigned. B. In dedication, include all appropriate dedication language for all Public Streets and Tracts that are dedicated to the City. C. Please insure that no text is overwritten by other text, or jammed into a line. Examples are the delta label in Lot 104 and the bearing/distance for the SW line in Lot 39. D. Address perpetual maintenance of ALL easements created by this plat. E. Standard Comments

Page 143 Traffic Engineering: 1. The landscape plans need to include the 35 x 55 and the speed line-of-sight triangles for all intersections as identified in the Public Works Design Manual. Ensure the triangle area has no obstructions greater than 30 from the top of the roadway curb. The plans as presented do not meet the minimum standards for sight distance. 2. Call out the alleys as private. 3. Identify Middle Creek Parkway as a Minor Arterial. 4. Plans should clearly identify and call out the public sidewalk system (including width). 5. Provide a detail of the gated access entry turnaround including the keypad location. Include a autoturn diagram for the vehicle turning around to ensure the curbline is set in the correct location. Please maintain the proposed stacking behind the gates as presented on the current plans. 6. The proposed fence for the northwest corner of the site will significantly impact any future sight lines for access to the property to the west. Please show how the fence will impact the approved Concept Plan access in regards to line-of-sight. Landscape: 1. Prepare and title re-submittal as a Final Landscape Plan. 2. Soil Analysis, Preparation and Amendments reflecting Soil Analysis recommendations, is required prior to the approval of a Final Landscape Plan (Section 315.B. & C.). If deferral or waiver is requested, Alternative Compliance for this request is required. 3. Provide a Schematic Landscape Diagram for the overall site. 4. Middle Creek Parkway is classified as a minor arterial with applicable landscape setback requirements. 5. The 6 high CMU wall is to be located on the inside (property side) edge of the landscape setback or buffer. An alternative to this location may be warranted for the west boundary with a request for Alternative Compliance with appropriate justification. 6. Address the motor vehicle lot landscape requirements as they apply to the clubhouse parking area. 7. Note the installation and maintenance responsibility of landscape shown on individual lots. 8. Clearly indicate on the landscape plan the type and extent of ground plane treatments for all setbacks, buffers, and common open space areas. 9. Show the landscape intent for the parkway areas (between walk and curb) on the landscape plan. Rock areas between 4-8 in width are to be broken up with shrub plantings. Areas greater than 8 in width can be planted with turf. 10. The use of high water turf is to be limited to those areas where it will serve a functional purpose. 11. Note the seed mix of the Low Grow Seed Mix. 12. Show and note (typ) locations of site lighting. 13. Note corner visibility triangles. 14. Show /note any areas of proposed slope protection. 15. Note by type utilities and easements. Maintain a minimum 15 separation between water/wastewater and trees. 16. Correct the scale on the typical unit landscape plans. 17. Identify the typical plan type. 18. Note perimeter property line dimensions. 19. Show visibility triangles at Voyager Parkway intersections. 20. The landscape needs to be an integral part in the function of the stormwater quality pond, and conversely the engineering of the pond must provide for landscape processes in the function of stormwater quality while also considering aesthetic values. 21. Note intention for stripping and stockpiling of existing topsoil. 22. Label any grades with a slope of 4:1 or greater. 23. The Irrigation Plan is to include an irrigation schedule that notes application rates based on turf type, note rates for newly planted materials vs. established (established as a percent of initial) and general recommendations regarding seasonal adjustments (spring and fall). Ron Bevans Parks: For CPC FP 05-00281, Stonewater at Northgate Filing No 1, our comments are: "Since this land is being converted from commercial to residential, it was not factored into the original parkland dedication for the master plan. Since the property is gated, no credit will be given for the internal recreation facility. Therefore parkland fees will be required in lieu of additional parkland dedication."

Page 144 Gas/Electric: Action Items: Approval is not recommended at this time. There may be conflicts with the proposed utility locations. The Applicant should revise sheet 4 of 17 to show each typical street and alley cross-section. Please contact Bill Davis at 668-8254 for more information. Water/Wastewater: Action: Update Wastewater Master Facility Report due to change in use and density. The water and wastewater main extension from Sybilla Land and Middle Creek Parkway are unacceptable. Modify the plan to show water and wastewater connections at the proposed intersections of Middle Creek Parkway and Warm Springs Drive as well as Sybilla Lane and Warm Springs Drive. The existing water and wastewater stubs will need to be removed. Extend the water main through the cul-de-sac of Rogue Loop to allow water services for lots 3-5 to connect directly to the water main. Modify the plan to show and label all existing utilities No trees will be allowed within 15 of any Public Water/Wastewater mainlines. Modify the Landscaping/Development Plan to reflect this requirement. 24 hour unrestricted access shall be provided for all public water/wastewater facilities. Show on plan how this is to be accomplished. A Wastewater Master Facility Report is required with the Development Plan submittal. Final Subdivision Plat l Action: Modify the easements paragraph to state a 7 public utility easement for the rear lot lines. Fire: Disapproved Comments: DISAPPROVED: The plans indicate that this project will be completed in 3 phases. Please show the proposed phase lines on the plans. DISAPPROVED: Rouge Loop is a looped street that extends past itself. This is not acceptable due to delays encountered during emergency response. Please adjust the design of this street or provide additional names such that this is no longer a looped street extending past itself. TURNING RADIUS: All fire apparatus access roads are to provide a minimum of 33-feet inside and 48-feet outside turning radius. (2003 IFC 503.2.4) The turning radius going into the clubhouse drive from northbound Warm Spring Drive is currently inadequate. Please adjust plans to provide for adequate turning radii. GATES. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The minimum gate width shall be 16 feet (4877 mm) or as wide as necessary to facilitate the required minimum turning radius. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a Knox (TM) key system installed in an approved manner. Electronically operated gates shall have a fail safe, manually operated, Knox (TM) key override switch. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. (2003 IFC 506.1.1, D103.5) Please provide a detail on your plans of the gates for the north and south exits. Ensure everything above is accounted for. Plat DISAPPROVED: Since there are outstanding issues with the development plan that could affect the final plat, the final plat will remain disapproved until such issues are resolved.

Page 145 Police: CPC FP 05-00281 was not labeled as private. This submittal is indicating the interior streets are private. If they are private the following street type designations are required: Pt(Point), Vw(View), Hts(Heights), or Gv(Grove). Rogue is duplicated as a street name. Three additional acceptable street names are required. Santiam Dr - unacceptable street name Ochoco - unacceptable street name Warm Springs - acceptable street name Rogue - may be used only once, with either a Lp or Ct street type designation. There are 4 separate accesses and each access needs an acceptable street name. Wendy Hardy, 719-444-7492 School District 20: See attached letter (FIGURE 7) in opposition. City Real Estate: 1. Plat is missing the portion of approval prepared for execution by a. City Engineer b. Manager of City Planning c. City Clerk d. El Paso County Clerk & Recorder 2. Is 6' rear easement correct or should it be 7' 3. The tracts that are "open space" look like building lots - does parks really want open space that is a building lot? 4. Tracts E & F were not included in the dedication statement. All Other Reporting Departments - Standard or no comment. PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: FIGURE 1 STAKEHOLDER PROCESS: The public process involved with the review of these applications included posting of the site, and sending of letters on two separate occasions to all property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the property. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES: MASTER PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 408, a Master Plan shall be reviewed for substantial conformance with the criteria found in said section A. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan and the 2020 Land Use Map are the context and the benchmark for the assessment of individual land use master plans. The proposed land use master plan or the amendment conforms to the policies and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land use pattern is consistent with the Citywide perspective presented by the 2020 Land Use Map. B. Land Use Relationships: 1. The master plan promotes a development pattern characterizing a mix of mutually supportive and integrated residential and nonresidential land uses with a network of interconnected streets and good pedestrian and bicycle connections. 2. Activity centers are designed so they are compatible with, accessible from and serve as a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood or business area. Activity centers also vary in size, intensity, scale and types of uses depending on their function, location and surroundings. 3. The land use pattern is compatible with existing and proposed adjacent land uses and protects residential neighborhoods from excessive noise and traffic infiltration. 4. Housing types are distributed so as to provide a choice of densities, types and affordability.

Page 146 5. Land use types and location reflect the findings of the environmental analysis pertaining to physical characteristics which may preclude or limit development opportunities. 6. Land uses are buffered, where needed, by open space and/or transitions in land use intensity. 7. Land uses conform to the definitions contained in article 2, part 2 of this Zoning Code. C. Public Facilities: 1. The land use master plan conforms to the most recently adopted Colorado Springs parks, recreation and trails master plan. 2. Recreational and educational uses are sited and sized to conveniently service the proposed population of the master plan area and the larger community. 3. The proposed school sites meet the location, function and size needs of the school district. 4. The land use master plan conforms to the adopted plans and policies of Colorado Springs Utilities. 5. Proposed public facilities are consistent with the strategic network of long range plans. 6. The master development drainage plan conforms to the applicable drainage basin planning study and the drainage criteria manual. D. Transportation: 1. The land use master plan is consistent with the adopted intermodal transportation plan. Conformity with the intermodal transportation plan is evidence of compliance with State and local air quality implementation and maintenance plans. 2. The land use master plan has a logical hierarchy of arterial and collector streets with an emphasis on the reduction of through traffic in residential neighborhoods and improves connectivity, mobility choices and access to jobs, shopping and recreation. 3. The design of the streets and multiuse trails minimizes the number of uncontrolled or at grade trail crossings of arterials and collectors. 4. The transportation system is compatible with transit routes and allows for the extension of these routes. 5. The land use master plan provides opportunities or alternate transportation modes and cost effective provision of transit services to residents and businesses. 6. Anticipated trip generation does not exceed the capacity of existing or proposed major roads. If capacity is expected to be exceeded, necessary improvements will be identified, as will responsibility, if any, of the master plan for the construction and timing for its share of improvements. E. Environment: 1. The land use master plan preserves significant natural site features and view corridors. The Colorado Springs open space plan shall be consulted in identifying these features. 2. The land use master plan minimizes noise impacts on existing and proposed adjacent areas. 3. The land use master plan utilizes floodplains and drainageways as greenways for multiple uses including conveyance of runoff, wetlands, habitat, trails, recreational uses, utilities and access roads when feasible. 4. The land use master plan reflects the findings of a preliminary geologic hazard study and provides a range of mitigation techniques for the identified geologic, soil and other constrained natural hazard areas. F. Fiscal: 1. A fiscal impact analysis and existing infrastructure capacity and service levels are used as a basis for determining impacts attributable to the master plan. City costs related to infrastructure and service levels shall be determined for a ten (10) year time horizon for only the appropriate municipal funds. 2. The fiscal impact analysis demonstrates no adverse impact upon the general community and the phasing of the master plan is consistent with the adopted strategic network of long range plans that identify the infrastructure and service needs for public works, parks, police and fire services. 3. The cost of on site and off site master plan impacts on public facilities and services is not borne by the general community. In those situations where the master plan impacts are shown to exceed the capacity of existing public facilities and services, the applicant will demonstrate a means of increasing the capacity of the public facilities and services proportionate to the impact generated by the proposed master plan. Mitigation of on site and off site costs may include, but is not limited to, planned expansions to the facilities, amendments to the master plan, phasing

Page 147 of the master plan and/or special agreements related to construction and/or maintenance of infrastructure upgrades and/or service expansions. Any special agreements for mitigation of on site and off site impacts for public improvements, services and maintenance are shown to be workable and supported by financial assurances. Preexisting and/or anticipated capacity problems not attributable to the master plan shall be identified as part of the master plan review. 4. Special agreements for public improvements and maintenance are shown to be workable and are based on proportional need generated by the master plan. 5. Any proposed special districts are consistent with policies established by the City Council. (Ord. 84-221; Ord. 87-38; Ord. 91-30; Ord. 94-107; Ord. 97-109; Ord. 01-42; Ord. 02-51) This is a request for a major change of land use from Office Industrial/Research and Development with Planned Industrial Park (PIP-1) zoning to a Residential duplex use with Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning. Staff does not support this proposed change. The applicants met with Planning staff in the pre-application process at which time staff discouraged this request. During the pre-application stage staff noted that the review criteria, compatibility with adjacent uses, preservation of scrub oak and native vegetation, appearance, setbacks, traffic and fiscal impact as issues that would need to be addressed with the application. Staff agrees with the comments of Comprehensive Planning above that the conversion of this 32.78 acre property does not meet the criteria for a Land Use Map Amendment, Master Plan Amendment or residential zone change. Since the inception of the Northgate Master Plan (FIGURE 2), the area west of Voyager Parkway between North Gate Blvd. and Middle Creek Parkway has been designated for Office Industrial Park/ Research and Development land uses. Many other portions of the Northgate master plan east of Voyager have been converted from their original Office Industrial use to Residential developments. Staff has been supportive of these changes based on the use-to-use relationships with adjacent developments. In recent years, Deer Creek, Wildwood, Wildwood Ridge and Grey Hawk have all become residential. The subject property is located in the Software Park sub-area of Northgate. It was zoned into two PIP-1 High Rise districts and a concept plan (FIGURE 3) was approved in 1998. This is the last remaining vacant site in Software Park. If the area in question had been a failure in attracting Office Industrial users, the request for residential use would be understandable, but this is not the case. Several large employers have located in this industrial area. FedEx, Compassion International and Oracle have major campuses with approved plans and room for future expansions. More recently, Progressive Insurance, Nicky Cruz Foundation, and RT Logic have built employment centers with the intention of further additions. Compassion is currently constructing a major new building. The development of RT Logic Phase One, the second data center phase for Progressive and the planned third administrative office project for Progressive have further confirmed the viability of this Software Campus concept plan for Office Industrial uses. Comprehensive Plan Strategy LU 801c states that we should "Reserve designated areas for future employment centers in order to ensure the availability of sites to meet the needs of new employers, preserve a mutually supportive balance of jobs and housing within different areas of the city, and meet the projected demand for land to support new jobs." Staff believes that this property should remain in its current master plan, Land Use Map and zoning designations. These large employers are important to the economy of the City as a whole and provide jobs for residents of Northgate and adjacent master planned developments. The subject property has always been intended to be part of the Employment Center land use. Fiscal impact to the City would almost certainly be negative by replacing primary employer(s) with another residential development. (The City Budget Office does not conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis for minor master plan amendments.) In addition to the potential loss of future primary job providers on the subject land, the insertion of a residential development into this exclusively office/industrial campus would likely have a negative impact upon the existing businesses. It would introduce the potential for conflict between residents, employers and employees. We have seen such conflict in the Northgate area before where differing uses intersect. This could lead to difficulty in retaining the employers already established in this area and might cause others to cancel their plans for expansion. Establishment of a residential zone adjacent to the existing established PIP-1 users would initiate a requirement for a 100' setback for the industrial properties. This would conflict with some plans that are already approved.

Page 148 Staff is supportive of mixed uses which integrate residential, office, commercial and employment centers into well designed neighborhoods. That is not what is being proposed here. This is more akin to "spot zoning" which is defined as "Rezoning of a lot or parcel of land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with surrounding uses and not for the purpose or affect of furthering the comprehensive zoning plan." Staff understands why the property owner would like to develop and sell this property for residential use. There is little undeveloped property remaining in the Northgate master plan that is suitable or approved for residential use. The two adjacent major master plans, Allison Valley and Flying Horse Ranch, do, however, contain many vacant acres of approved residential land uses in several types and density ranges. The proposal is inconsistent with the Land Use Relationships criteria for master plan review. The duplex development would not be compatible with the adjacent land uses, nor would it protect either type of user from traffic, noise and light impacts. Some of the office developments operate on a 24 hour basis. They are currently separated from residential neighborhoods by a major arterial street, and the businesses are oriented away from the neighborhoods. Similarly, Section 7.5.408.B.5. requires land use to reflect physical characteristics which may preclude or limit development opportunities. There is a significant ridge of mature scrub oak which is proposed to be demolished and over-lot graded. The current concept plan and zoning require this to be preserved as private open space. This is more fully discussed in the Development Plan analysis. Section 7.5.408.B.6 requires land uses to be buffered by open space and/or transitions in land use intensity. This proposal would place homes directly adjacent to developed industrial facilities. Comprehensive Plan Policy CCA 601 requires that "New developments will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will complement the character and appearance of adjacent land uses." Staff finds that the criteria are not met to approve this master plan amendment. The negative long term impacts to the City would outweigh the short term benefits to the applicant. Staff recommends denial. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 LAND USE MAP, STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of the 2020 Land Use Map (FIGURE 4) is to provide a Citywide context for development decisions. Strategy LUM 101B states that master plans should be used to make more detailed land use decisions because they take additional information such as topography, site constraints, road alignments and use-to-use relationships into account. The subject property is designated as an Employment Center and the property clearly meets the definition and characteristics of an employment center. The applicant is requesting a change to the Low Residential category. The master plan analysis above argues against revising the Land Use Map. Staff, therefore, recommends denial. ZONE CHANGE REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 603.B, a proposal for a change of zone classification may be approved by the City only if the following findings are made: 1. The action will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare. 2. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal is consistent with the master plan for the area, in which the parcel is located, unless the master plan is deemed implemented. PUD ZONE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT CRITERIA: In accordance with City Zoning Code Chapter 7, Article 3, Part 6, the purpose of a PUD district is as follows: A. To implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Colorado Springs by promoting development that is characterized by a variety of mutually supportive and integrated residential and nonresidential land uses. B. To allow for a variety of residential, commercial, office and industrial land use types and encourage appropriate mixed use developments. This zone district is intended to provide the means through which land may be developed with an overall unified approach. The district encourages flexibility in design to

Page 149 create a better living environment, to preserve the unique features of the site and to provide public services in a more economic manner. C. To encourage flexibility, innovation of design and a variety of development types that will improve the quality of physical development over that normally achieved through the application of the City's standard single use zones. D. To provide a clear and reasonable plan for the phased development and completion of proposed development, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Colorado Springs. (Ord. 03-110; Ord. 03-190) Staff recommends denial of the zone change to PUD for similar reasons described in the Master Plan section. None of the three general zone change criteria are met. Establishment of a PUD zone would be detrimental to the public interest, safety and general welfare, and would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as noted above. The proposal is not consistent with the approved Northgate master plan, and staff has recommended against changing the master plan to accommodate this new zone. Criteria A and B of the PUD-specific zone change criteria encourage integrated and unified mixed developments. This proposal would create an isolated residential development that would detract from instead of complement the surrounding office campus uses. As mentioned elsewhere, the land use type and proposed density of the zone would lead to demolition of the unique features of the site. Criterion C is not met either. There is little flexibility, innovation of design or variety of development types inherent in the plan. All are duplexes lined up in parallel rows to maximize the number of units that can fit on the property. Staff finds that the criteria are not met to approve a PUD zone. 7.3.607: REVIEW CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A development plan for land within a PUD zone shall be approved if it substantially conforms to the approved PUD plan and the development plan review criteria listed below. The standards and other requirements set forth in a development agreement may be used to demonstrate compliance with development plan review criteria. An application for a development plan shall be submitted in accord with requirements outlined in article 5, parts 2 and 5 of this chapter. Unless otherwise specified by a development agreement, the project shall be vested by the development plan in accord with section 7.9.101 and subsection 7.5.504C2 of this chapter. A. Consistency With City Plans: Is the proposed development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any City approved master plan that applies to the site? B. Consistency With Zoning Code: Is the proposed development consistent with the intent and purposes of this Zoning Code? C. Compatibility Of The Site Design With The Surrounding Area: 1. Does the circulation plan minimize traffic impact on the adjacent neighborhood? 2. Do the design elements reduce the impact of the project's density/intensity? 3. Is placement of buildings compatible with the surrounding area? 4. Are landscaping and fences/walls provided to buffer adjoining properties from undesirable negative influences that may be created by the proposed development? 5. Are residential units buffered from arterial traffic by the provision of adequate setbacks, grade separation, walls, landscaping and building orientation? D. Traffic Circulation: 1. Is the circulation system designed to be safe and functional and encourage both on and off site connectivity? 2. Will the streets and drives provide logical, safe and convenient vehicular access to the facilities within the project? 3. Will adequately sized parking areas be located to provide safe and convenient access, avoid excessive parking ratios and avoid expanses of pavement? 4. Are access and movement of handicapped persons and parking of vehicles for the handicapped appropriately accommodated in the project design? 5. As appropriate are provisions for transit incorporated?

Page 150 E. Overburdening Of Public Facilities: Will the proposed development overburden the capacities of existing and planned streets, utilities, parks, and other public facilities? F. Privacy: Is privacy provided, where appropriate, for residential units by means of staggered setbacks, courtyards, private patios, grade separation, landscaping, building orientation or other means? G. Pedestrian Circulation: 1. Are pedestrian facilities provided, particularly those giving access to open space and recreation facilities? 2. Will pedestrian walkways be functionally separated from vehicular ways and located in areas that are not used by motor vehicles? H. Landscaping: 1. Does the landscape design comply with the City's landscape code and the City's landscape policy manual? 2. The use of native vegetation or drought resistant species including grasses is encouraged. The City's landscape policy manual or City Planning's landscape architect can be consulted for assistance. I. Open Space: 1. Residential Area: a. Open Space: The provision of adequate open space shall be required to provide light, air and privacy; to buffer adjacent properties; and to provide active and passive recreation opportunities. All residential units shall include well designed private outdoor living space featuring adequate light, air and privacy where appropriate. Common open space may be used to reduce the park dedication requirements if the open space provides enough area and recreational facilities to reduce the residents' need for neighborhood parks. Recreational facilities shall reflect the needs of the type of residents and proximity to public facilities. b. Natural Features: Significant and unique natural features, such as trees, drainage channels, slopes, and rock outcroppings, should be preserved and incorporated into the design of the open space. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall have the discretion to grant park land credit for open space within a PUD development that preserves significant natural features and meets all other criteria for granting park land credit. 2. Nonresidential And Mixed Use; Natural Features: The significant natural features of the site, such as trees, drainage channels, slopes, rock outcroppings, etc., should be preserved and are to be incorporated into the design of the open space. The development plan for Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1 (FIGURE 5) shows 139 duplexes (278 dwelling units) on 32.78 acres located west of Voyager Pkwy., north of Middle Creek Pkwy. and south of Sybilla Lane. It shows one gated entrance on Sybilla and a second gated entrance on Middle Creek. All internal streets are private. A small clubhouse building with a swimming pool, tennis court and basketball court is located adjacent to the Middle Creek entrance. A detention pond occupies the southeast corner of the site. The duplex units are shown on the plan with no variation in setbacks. The appearance from the streets would be straight linear rows of garage doors for the street-loaded units. The alley-loaded buildings don't show variation in setbacks either. This conflicts with Section 7.3.607.C.2 which advocated design elements that reduce the impact of the project's density/intensity. There is a significant stand of mature scrub oak and native vegetation present, running along a ridge from east to west in the center of the site. The approved zoning and Software Park concept plan requires this area to be preserved as a large private open space tract. It shows a 43,000 sq. ft. office building in the north, and an entirely separate 19,000 sq. ft. building in the south. The concept plan note specifies physical separation of the two developments. In our pre-application meeting with the applicant, staff noted that preservation of views, scrub oak and native vegetation were important issues to be addressed in the review of this project. The development plan proposes to overlot grade the entire site and destroy all the existing vegetation. It violates several development plan review criteria by failing to preserve significant views, native vegetation and natural features. The adjacent property to the west complied with this same condition and preserved even more area than was required by the concept plan. If this residential land use is approved, the site should be redesigned as two separate residential projects north and south of the open space.

Page 151 The surrounding properties on the north, south and west are zoned PIP-1. The PIP-1 zone requires a minimum 100' setback for all structures from a residential zone. Normally, this restriction is placed on the PIP-1 property with the assumption that the residential zone is in place before the PIP-1 property develops. In this case, the PIP-1 zone is in place and the surrounding properties already have development plans approved with some setbacks less than 100'. Therefore, the residential property would need to provide the required buffer. The development plan shows duplexes 20' from the west property line. Staff would consider variances for reduced setback dimensions depending on topography, vertical barriers and the depth and quality of landscape materials. The approval of the surrounding office industrial property owners would be an important consideration. This property is adjacent to Voyager Pkwy., a major arterial road. A sound wall or similar barrier or increased setback would be required to protect residents from noise impacts associated with this road. Alternatively, a professional noise study could be commissioned to propose another method to comply with City policy. Staff recommends denial of the development plan. If Planning Commission decides that residential land use is appropriate for this site, the plans should be revised to comply with the comments above and those listed below. Since it will entail a major redesign, the new plans would need to be resubmitted to all agencies for a complete re-review and should also be returned to Planning Commission for consideration when revised plans are complete. Just to be clear, staff does not support a residential use in this location. The comments listed here are to be used as guidance for a redesigned development plan if the Planning Commission and/or City Council approve the land use change: 1. Provide a Private Open Space as shown on the Software Park concept plan. No vegetation removal or grading is to occur in this area. The result will be two separate residential developments. Revise the plans to be consistent with this major change. 2. Revise the plan to comply with the City's noise policy for residential developments adjacent to major roads. 3. Provide required buffers and setbacks from the adjacent PIP-1 properties. 4. Show the correct gross and net densities in the Site Information table. 5. Provide a phasing drawing showing which improvements are to be completed with each phase. 6. For street-loaded garages, provide minimum 20' front setbacks from the back of sidewalks to permit parking in driveways without blocking pedestrians. 7. For all lots, provide increased lot depths to permit staggered setbacks that would relieve the monotonous linear placement of buildings along the streets. 8. Revise the Parking Provided information in the Site Data table. On street parking cannot be counted to meet parking requirements. 9. Tract F is a detention pond. Label it as a detention pond, not open space. 10. City policy is to provide a minimum of 200 sq. ft. of usable open space per bedroom for multi family developments. Show how this is to be accomplished. Some credit will be given for the clubhouse, pool and two courts. 11. Redesign the site as necessary to address City Engineering issues. 12. Provide the required details to address Traffic Engineering issues. 13. Address Landscape issues. 14. Address Gas/Electric action issues. 15. Address Water/ Wastewater action issues. 16. Address all Fire disapproval issues. 17. Provide acceptable private street names and address Police street naming issues. 18. Address issues raised by the City s Real Estate Services Office. SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA 7.7.102 AND 7.7.303: In accordance with City Subdivision Code Chapter 7, Article 7, Section 102 of the City Subdivision Code Chapter 7, a subdivision plat shall be reviewed using the standards found in said section. Specifically, to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City; to set forth appropriate standards for subdivision design; to set forth appropriate standards for utilities and services; to assure the

Page 152 provision of adequate and safe circulation; to assure adequate public facilities can be provided; and that the development conforms to the goals and policies of City Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision plat for Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1 (FIGURE 6) follows the development plan that was submitted and shows the entire proposed site. Staff is recommending denial of the other applications and must, therefore, recommend denial of the plat. If the land use and other requests are approved, the plat should be revised to comply with them. For some reason, the plat states that the internal and perimeter landscape tracts are to be owned and maintained by the City. This must be changed. It is the finding of the Planning Staff that the Stonewater at Northgate Fil. No. 1 Subdivision Plat is not in compliance with the standards found in City Subdivision Code Chapter 7, Article 7. If, however, all the other accompanying requests are approved, the subdivision plat needs to conform to the development plan and the plat-specific comments from the agencies listed above.

Page 153

Page 154

Page 155

Page 156

Page 157

Page 158

Page 159

Page 160

Page 161