Regional Development  
Center  
City of Colorado Springs  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO  
80910  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Downtown Review Board  
Tuesday, April 2, 2024  
9:00 AM  
Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)  
2880 International Circle  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
9 -  
Present:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Kuosman, Board  
Member Coats, Board Member Kronstadt, Board Member Hensler, Board Member  
Lord, Board Member Friesema and Board Member Mikulas  
2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
3. Communications  
Ryan Tefertiller - Urban Planning Manager  
Mr. Tefertiller talked about the Annual State of Downtown on March 21st held by  
the Downtown Partnership. They put out a great report with a lot of information  
and data about trends, vacancy rates, lease rates, and development trends.  
The report is online if any board members do not have it and would like to have  
it.  
Mr. Tefertiller introduced Young Shin from the City Attorney’s office. He will be  
transitioning to the City representative for the Downtown Review Board going  
forward.  
Planner II Ann Odom, who has been before this board many times, has taken a  
position in the private sector. Her last day with the City is April 16th and Mr.  
Tefertiller thanked her for the work she has done.  
There is one vacant seat for the board. Interviews are taking place soon to  
replace that at-large seat, to be appointed in April.  
For the May 7th meeting, Mr. Tefertiller does not believe there will be any action  
items, but will likely be the last work session to go over some code scrubs  
before the formal public process and hearings begin later this summer.  
.
4. Approval of the Minutes  
DRB 2239  
4.A.  
Minutes for the March 5, 2024, Downtown Review Board meeting  
Presenter:  
David Lord, Chair of the Downtown Review Board  
Attachments: DRB 3.5.24 minutes  
Motion by Board Member Friesema, seconded by Board Member Hensler, to  
approve the minutes for the March 5, 2024, Downtown Review Board meeting.  
The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.  
8 -  
Aye:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Coats, Board  
Member Kronstadt, Board Member Hensler, Board Member Lord, Board Member  
Friesema and Board Member Mikulas  
5. Consent Calendar  
6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar  
7. Unfinished Business  
8. New Business  
8.A.  
FBZN-24-000 A conditional use development plan to allow the conversion of an existing  
2
basement area into a bar. The subject property is located at 10 E Pikes  
Peak Ave.  
Presenter:  
Johnny Malpica, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services  
Attachments: 10 E Pikes Peak Ave CUDP - Staff Report Draft - JPM  
Figure 1 - Project Statement - 10 E Pikes Peak Ave Conditional Use  
Figure 2 - Site Plan - 10 E Pikes Peak Ave Conditional Use  
Figure 3 - Experience Downtown Master Plan  
Chair Lord disclosed that he is an investor of the property to the south, but he  
does not believe he has any conflict of interest.  
Board Member Mikulas disclosed that he is on the loan committee for the DDA,  
which is considering loans in the future and, although he has become  
acquainted with the projects today, he does not feel it impacts his ability to  
make an objective opinion today.  
Johnny Malpica, Planner II, presented the scope of the project. This project is a  
three-story building renovation at 10 E. Pikes Peak Avenue that includes a  
basement level proposing a bar use. This basement level conversion requires  
submittal of a form-based code Conditional Use Application. The above-grade  
floors of the building will be used as a restaurant with offices. Standard public  
notice was provided and no comments were received. Most reviewing  
agencies had no comments. Colorado Springs Utilities had minor technical  
comments that will be addressed within the scope of the administrative review.  
Staff finds that the application meets the review criteria. The proposed motion  
to approve does include some technical modifications that will be addressed  
through the administrative review.  
Christy Riggs, architect and owner of 308 LLC, added that a floor plan was not  
provided to the board, but the room is very small with an occupancy of only 50  
people. It is not meant to compete with the capacity of neighboring  
establishments. The proposed hours of business will be 4 p.m. to midnight.  
There were no public comments for or against during the meeting.  
Motion by Board Member Mikulas, seconded by Board Member Friesema, to  
approve the proposed conditional use development plan based on the findings  
that conditional use criteria found in City Code section 7.5.704 will be met. The  
following technical modifications will be addressed through an administrative  
review:  
CSPD (Crime Prevention Officer)  
* Security enhancements during construction  
* Other security-based measures such as signage, video surveillance,  
landscaping and lighting  
Enumerations  
* Clearly indicate the number of building tenants  
Utilities  
* Label utility lines and locations  
* Informational comments  
EDRD  
* Changes to ROW encroachment to be consistent with the revocable permit  
The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.  
8 -  
Aye:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Coats, Board  
Member Kronstadt, Board Member Hensler, Board Member Lord, Board Member  
Friesema and Board Member Mikulas  
8.B.  
FBZN-24-000 A conditional use development plan to allow the conversion of an existing  
3
office building into a bar. The subject property is located at 16 E Kiowa  
St.  
Presenter:  
Johnny Malpica, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services  
Attachments: Icons CUDP - Staff Report Draft - JPM  
Figure 1 - Icons Conditional Use Site Plan  
Figure 2 - Icons Project Statement  
Johnny Malpica, Planner II, presented the scope of the project. This project is  
for the Icons bar at 16 E. Kiowa Street. This is a conversion of an existing  
3,053 square foot office building into a bar. Bar use requires a form-based code  
Conditional Use Development Plan. The proposal includes interior renovation,  
façade enhancements, a rooftop patio area, a café area in the right of way, and  
a rear outdoor patio area. Standard public notice was provided and two  
comments were provided. Most reviewing agencies had no comments.  
Colorado Springs Utilities had minor technical comments that will be addressed  
within the scope of the administrative review. Staff finds that the application  
meets the review criteria. The proposed motion to approve does include some  
technical modifications that will be addressed through the administrative review.  
Board Member Hensler expressed her appreciation for what the applicant is  
doing with the exterior of the building. She has a concern about safety, given  
the fire at the previous location. She asked if they have addressed all the safety  
and egress concerns in the plan. The applicant said it definitely is being  
addressed.  
Chelsea Gondeck with the Downtown Partnership called in to say they provided  
a letter of support for this project.  
There were no other public comments for or against during the meeting.  
Motion by Board Member Hensler, seconded by Board Member Mikulas, to  
approve the proposed conditional use development plan based on the findings  
that conditional use criteria found in City Code section 7.5.704 will be met. The  
following technical modifications will be addressed through an administrative  
review:  
CSPD  
* Security enhancements during construction timeframe  
* Other security-based measures such as signage, video surveillance,  
landscaping, trash enclosure and lighting  
Enumerations  
* Clearly indicate the number of building tenants  
Utilities  
* Label utility lines and locations  
* Label utility transformer in ROW  
* Informational comments  
The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.  
8 -  
Aye:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Coats, Board  
Member Kronstadt, Board Member Hensler, Board Member Lord, Board Member  
Friesema and Board Member Mikulas  
9. Presentations  
DRB 23-455 Form-Based Code Review  
Ryan Tefertiller, Urban Planning Manager, continued the presentation on the  
9.A.  
Form-Based Code Review from the previous meeting. There is a draft  
prepared that will be shared with this board in the next month or two that  
includes significantly improved graphics, maps and photos.  
At the end of the March meeting, the presentation was in the middle of 4 -  
Design Guidelines, Multiple Issues and talking about tall building design. Today,  
the discussion picked up with street level activation and pedestrian access.  
Board Member Mikulas asked if the thinking is to increase the number of access  
points in a single unit so they are closer to each other, in addition to putting  
them street-side. Mr. Tefertiller said the high level goal is to have porosity  
between the private uses and the public realm and have a lot of points of  
ingress and egress to where people can have destinations. If there were two  
identical commercial buildings and one used one common access point, a  
more desirable approach would be to have multiple store fronts that create  
more activity at street level. Talking about residential land uses, Mr. Tefertiller  
did not think there is any expectation for multiple access points to each unit, but  
having units that do have direct access to the public realm is something that the  
code encourages. Board Member Mikulas offered the perspective that multiple  
access points can cause some operational challenges that could discourage  
development. Mr. Tefertiller agreed and said there needs to be flexibility where  
a multi-tenant commercial building should have multiple access points, where it  
would not make sense for a single-use building.  
The 2023 Unified Development Code now includes standards for new  
commercial and multi-family buildings that regulate materials, articulation,  
street-level transparency, roof design, entrances and loading. This standard  
was not in the previous code and applies to all development city-wide. If the  
board feels like these same provisions should be used downtown, they can  
certainly say so.  
Board Member Friesema asked if that means the UDC is applicable downtown  
and Mr. Tefertiller said it is not applicable within the form-based zone. Chair  
Lord asked for an explanation on why the UDC is not used and the code for  
downtown is different. Mr. Tefertiller said in the early 2000’s, downtown used  
the same set of standards as the rest of the city that lacked guidelines for good  
urban design. Stakeholders and the City all agreed that a separate set of  
zoning regulations was needed for downtown that recognized the urban context  
and required that projects be built in an urban-appropriate way. In drafting that  
set of standards, the decision was made to focus on a handful of key  
quantifiable items to not overregulate or be overprescriptive for fear of having  
every project look very similar. The key things of focus were building envelopes,  
street level frontage design, building height, some use standards and some  
parking standards. The decision was made to let the private sector and the  
architects have latitude to design buildings that fit their needs and let the market  
drive how buildings would look. This has worked well since that code was  
adopted in 2009, however, when the city-wide zoning code was updated in  
2023, there was dialogue that improvements were needed to architectural  
issues to require higher quality, more attractive buildings city wide.  
The current code includes guidelines that help drive good design for tall  
buildings, but there is probably value in adding more guidance. Staff’s  
recommended issues include 360-degree architecture, iconic design, prevent  
blank walls and mix of materials.  
The “Briggs Manifesto” was drafted in 2018 and envisioned standards for tall  
buildings, not just guidelines. This required that any building ten stories or  
higher have a base, a middle and a top and that each of these elements would  
have it’s own standards. Mr. Tefertiller suggested these items be implemented  
as guidelines, not as standards.  
Board Member Bob Nolette agreed that these should be guidelines and let the  
experts and the market decide. Mr. Tefertiller said the current draft of the  
form-based code does not have design guidelines for tall buildings, but he will  
be adding them. Board Member Friesema said this will be important to have,  
given some of the pushback they receive regarding building height. Mr.  
Tefertiller clarified they would be guidelines, not requirements. He said staff  
made a presentation to City Council last December about building height  
regulations, the history, evolution and current status of regulation in downtown  
Colorado Springs. There has been some ongoing dialogue with City Council  
about that issue and over the next month or two there may be a  
recommendation to place something on the ballot in November to restrict  
building height downtown to no higher than the current tallest building, which is  
the Alpine Bank building that is about 250 feet.  
Board Member Hensler asked for a link to the December presentation to City  
Council on building height. She said she is very interested in the suggestion for  
the standards. She asked if there has ever been a consideration that building  
height be by feet versus stories. Mr. Tefertiller said that was done intentionally  
to create diversity in building height.  
Board Member Hensler said she is interested to see what opportunities there  
are regarding materials as outlined in the UDC that can be brought into the  
form-based code. Mr. Tefertiller agreed.  
The last issue of the presentation was about updates to the design guidelines  
for public space improvements in the right of way. The current code has a  
limited section about Hardscape Elements and they feel those could be  
expanded on much more.  
The next steps include additional work sessions with this board, stakeholder  
outreach and participation, legal review, public hearing at Downtown Review  
Board, then possibly at City Planning Commission and, finally, a City Council  
hearing late summer or this fall. Mr. Tefertiller reiterated that he will be sending  
the draft to this board very soon for them to review.  
Board Member Hensler, since she is new to this board, asked what the public  
process has been so far and has there been any pushback. Mr. Tefertiller said  
it has been very limited. He has had many conversations with the Downtown  
Partnership, the primary stakeholder, and has shared information with some of  
the larger downtown property owners and developers, but there has not yet  
been formal stakeholder outreach or open houses. This will be done before  
formal public hearings and the draft will be posted on the City website for  
review. She asked if he anticipates this being a hot topic or more of the thought  
that it is a nice update. He said he thinks it will be a little bit of both. Many will  
recognize it as an overdue update to the code and there will be a select group  
that will push back.  
10. Adjourn