Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Peach Ranch annexation checkpoint; utilities staff say available water supply can cover proposed development
Summary
City planners and Colorado Springs Utilities told council a petitioned annexation for about 42.4 acres in the northeast enclave would be served by existing infrastructure and that projected water demand — approximately 66 acre‑feet per year — fits within the utility’s available surplus.
City planning and utility officials presented checkpoint information on the proposed Peach Ranch Annexation No. 1, a petitioned annexation in the northeast enclave area east of Powers and south of Research Parkway.
Chris Sullivan, applicant representative, said the annexation covers about 42.43 acres (the northern portion of a larger enclave) and that Toll Brothers proposes an R‑Lehi (low residential) zoning with a maximum of roughly six dwelling units per acre. Sullivan said the plan calls for detached single‑family lots, about 7.5 acres of open space and internal trail connections; he said stormwater would be handled on site and that storm facilities nearby are in county ownership.
Brian English of Colorado Springs Utilities reviewed utilities issues and the city’s water‑extension ordinance (City Code 12.4.305). English reported the city’s available surplus water — after a 128% reliability buffer for existing city demand — is approximately 5,692 acre‑feet per year. He said Peach Ranch’s projected water demand is about 66 acre‑feet per year and that the aggregate projected demand of petitioned annexations is about 3,192 acre‑feet per year. Utilities said the enclave status and proximity to infrastructure supported the request; the property lies wholly in Mountain View Electric Association territory for electric service, and Springs Utilities would provide natural gas service.
English noted utilities’ five‑year capital plan does not currently include annexation costs and that the department would evaluate how to absorb or fund any additional capital required to serve new annexations. Councilmember questions probed wastewater routing (flows would be conveyed to the JD Phillips wastewater plant) and the relationship of the annexation to the city’s longer‑range annexation guidance (ANNEXCOS). Applicant representatives said Tutt Boulevard extension and onsite connections would be part of future entitlements and that a metropolitan district was expected to fund certain public improvements and ongoing maintenance.
Why it matters: Annexation determines which municipal services and land‑use rules apply and establishes requirements for water, sewer, roads and developer obligations. Utilities’ assessment of water availability is a key threshold for approval under city code.
Council next steps: Staff said the annexation will proceed through entitlement review, including an annexation agreement, fiscal analysis and Planning Commission review; the council will consider formal approvals in subsequent public hearings.
