Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

City Planning Commission

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 -

Present:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Case

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Kenneth Casey - Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director, said the Fishers Canyon Stratton

Meadows and Ute Valley Park rezoning items will not be heard at this

meeting, and will be postponed to different dates.

Mr. Walker said City Council heard the Mormon church steeple appeal the

day before and approved the development plan without conditions.

Mr. Walker said there will be a joint meeting between City Council and City

Planning Commission, tentatively in March or April for approximately a

two-hour session.

Mr. Walker said during March Work Session there will be a Spacious

Skies presentation and invited Commissioners to provide any other topics

that might be of interest to them.

Vice Chair Hensler asked when the Downtown Master Plan will be

presented. Mr. Walker said probably around April.

4. Approval of Minutes

CPC 2728

4.A.

Minutes for the January 14, 2026, City Planning Commission meeting.

Presenter:

Kenneth Casey, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes 1.14.16 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Clements,

to approve the Minutes for the January 14, 2026, City Planning

Commission meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0-1-0.

8 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Gigiano and Commissioner Case

1 - Commissioner Willoughby

Abstain:

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Vice Chair Hensler, to

approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion passed unanimously.

9 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Case

6473 Vincent Dr Rezone

5.A.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 26-09 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 2.93 acres located

southwest of Dublin Boulevard and Vincent Drive from A/PDZ/R-1

6/HS-O/AF-O (Agriculture, Planned Development Zone,

Single-Family Medium with Hillside and United States Air Force

Academy Overlays) to MX-N/AF-O (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale

with United States Air Force Academy Overlay).

(Quasi-Judicial) (Second reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: ZONE-25-0010

Located in Council District 1

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance

6473 Vincent Dr_Rezone_Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 3 - Public Comments

Attachment 4 - Public Comment Response Letter

Attachment 5 - Legal Description

Attachment 6 - Legal Depiction

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC Public Comment

Presentation CPC 01.14

Presentation CC 03.24

Excerpt Minutes - Vincent Drive - CPC 02_11_2026

Cumbre Vista Park

5.B.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 26-10 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 5.75 acres located at

7915 Hunter Peak Trail from R1-6/DF/AP-O (Single-Family

Residential Medium with Design Flexibility Overlay and Airport

Overlay) to PK/AP-O (Public Park with Airport Overlay)

(Quasi-judicial) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Council District: 2

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: ZONE-25-0032_Ordinance

ZONE-25-0032_Staff_Report

Attachment_1_Cumbre_Vista_Land_Use_Statement

Attachment_2_Cumbre_Vista_Project_Statement

Attachment_3_Public_Comments

Exhibit_A_Zone_Legal_Description

Exhibit_B_Zone_Map_Exhibit

ZONE-25-0032_CC_Presentation

Grey Hawk Park

5.C.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 26-11 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 4.48 acres located at

950 Spectrum Loop from PDZ (Planned Development Zone) to

PK/AF-O (Public Park with United States Air Force Academy

Overlay). (Quasi-Judicial) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Council District: 2

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: ZONE-25-0033_Ordinance

ZONE-25-0033_Staff_Report

Attachment_1_Land_Use_Statement_v2

Attachment_2_Project_Statement

Exhibit_A_Zone_Legal_Description

Exhibit_B_Zone_Map_Exhibit_v2

ZONE-25-0033_CPC_Presentation_v2

US24/SH21 Street Name Change

5.D.

SUBD-25-01 A Street Name Change from Airport Road to Headwind Way located

east of the new Airport Road / HWY21-24 (Powers) Interchange.

Council District 4

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_Airport Rd Street Name Change

Attachment 1_Project Statement

Attachment 2_Legal Description

Attachment 3_Site Map

Street Name Change Presentation_Planning

7.4.304 STREET IMPROVEMENTS

7.5.531 STREET NAME CHANGE

Moxie Suites

5.E.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a Small Personal and Business Service

use in the MX-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale) zone district

located at 2402 North Nevada Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Located in Council District 5

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Zoning Map

Attachment 2 - North End Addition

Attachment 3 - Ordinance No. 25-75

Attachment 4 - Context Map

Attachment 5 - Project Statement

Attachment 6 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 7 - North End Existing Land Use

Attachment 8 - North End Future Land Use

Staff Presentation

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

5226 Brady Road Garage Addition

8.A.

NVAR-25-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.3.304.C.1.a to allow

3,296 square feet of total garage space where 1,650 square feet is

required on a 1-acre site zoned R-E/AP-O (Residential Estate with

Airport Overlay) located at 5226 Brady Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Located in Council District 5

Presenter:

Matthew Ambuul, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report 5226 Brady Road NVAR-25-0014

Attachment 1 - Site Plan

Attachment 2 - Project Statement

Attachment 3 - Rustic Hills Improvement Association Memorandum

Attachment 4 - Public comments and responses

Staff Presentation NVAR-25-0014

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Applicant Presentation for 5226 Brady Rd NVAR-25-0014

Matthew Ambuul, Planner II, presented the non-use variance for a garage

addition on the property located at 5226 Brady Road, where the current

zoning is Residential Estate with Airport Overlay, on Council District 5. The

application is to construct a 2,560 square-foot detached garage, adding

space to the primary structure for a total space of 3,296 square feet. They

meet the setback and easement requirements. He said there have been

similar non-use variances approvals in the area, even prior to the UDC.

This project will also require an administrative adjustment for the height of

18 feet, four inches, where 16 feet is permitted. The application went

through three review cycles. Standard notice was sent out twice and

comments were received with concerns about the size, architectural

compatibility, possible commercial use, potential neighborhood

devaluation, too close to the entrance of the neighborhood and not meeting

code; as well as comments in support, given that it could increase property

values, help clean up the neighborhood and upgrade the existing property.

Agency Review was conducted and comments were addressed. The

application complies with PlanCOS, however, it is unclear if the application

meets the review criteria.

Applicant’s Presentation

Scott Schwartz, property owner, said he is applying for a detached garage

to be built in his property that has a total lot coverage of 12.4% where 30%

is allowed. He said the garage will be used for his personal equipment

such as cars and boats Mr. Schwartz said his property is one acre in size,

similar to the other properties that got their non-variances approved. He

said once the structure is built, the total lot coverage will be less than 13%

and they are fully compliant with the Residential Estate requirements. He

said the structure will not exceed the two-story structures from the

neighborhood, being even lower than the main structure, reducing its visual

presence. Mr. Schwartz said Rustic Hills Acres has previously supported

this type of request that has been approved by DRE and City Planning

Commission. He said the structure will not pose any adverse impact but

enhancement of the lot landscape and appearance, and the materials will

be similar to the existing house and the neighborhood. He said there are

50 and 70-feet trees on the perimeter of the property that would cover the

structure from the neighbors’ view.

Public Comments

David Murr, resident of the area, said the properties in the area are one

acre or bigger and people like them for different activities. He said the

covenant in this area was written in 1963, and there is a volunteer-run

Architectural Control Committee (ACC), which has led to subjective

decisions and inconsistent approvals. He said many structures have been

approved or built that encroach on setbacks and property lines, with limited

resident participation and weak enforcement on other issues. He said

there are no specific guidelines in their Architectural Committee to be

based on, and he considers approvals have been granted by whether they

like the applicant or not.

Bill Brown, resident of the area, said his home was built in 2005 and

exceeds size limits that existed at the time, including a large three-car

garage and a 2,000-square-foot barn, and neighbors have not complained

about it. He said many oversized structures in the area have been allowed,

often without complaints from neighbors. Mr. Brown said Mr. Schwartz has

enough space and the structure would be isolated and should be approved.

Jon Newmann, resident of the area, said he has no personal conflict with

the applicant. He said both the Architectural Committee and the HIA board

previously voted against the variance. He said that granting one variance

often sets a precedent for future ones, citing a recent nearby project where

incremental approvals led to a much larger outcome.

Gordon Stegner, Chair of the Architectural Control Committee, said

variances set a precedent for additional oversized structures in the future.

He said the proposed building exceeds what is reasonable for the

neighborhood and could lead to further requests for increased size and

height. Mr. Stegner said he understands that the applicant needs storage

but, for the benefit of the neighborhood, limits on accessory structures

should be maintained.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Shwartz said he has lived in that association for approximately 25

years, and he used to belong to the Architectural Control Committee as

well. He said the decision comes down to the president, where they have

approved these structures for 20 or 30 years, however, he does not

understand why his application was denied.

Commissioners’ Questions and Comments

Commissioner Slattery asked what the proposed access to the new

structure is. Mr. Schwartz said it would be from Brady Road, there is an

opening to the south of the driveway, and there is additional access on the

west property line.

Commissioner Willoughby asked how the square footage and the height

were determined. Mr. Schwartz said the height depends on the required

roof pitch and wall height. He said a 12-pitch roof is essentially the

minimum, which determines the overall ridge height. He said the garage

door heights are about 9 to 10 feet so the resulting roof peak on the

detached garage will be only a few inches higher than typical proportions

for such structures, but lower than the main house structure.

Commissioner Robbins asked how many similar variances have been

approved in the area. Mr. Schwartz said going down the road there are at

least 12. Mr. Ambuul said there are multiple variances that have been

approved all around the area, even before the UDC.

Commissioner Robbins said he wonders why the Architectural Control

Committee and the HOA are not enforcing cleanliness in other areas, as it

seems to be a worry for the neighbors. Commissioner Robbins said he

thinks this structure would add value to the property, as it has done for

similar properties around the area.

Commissioner Cecil said the Planning Commission is required to be

based on the UDC, evaluate the criteria for this non-use variance and look

at specific findings. Commissioner Cecil asked if she interpreted the code

right by saying that stables are allowed as accessory use and do not have

size limitations. Mr. Ambuul said that accessory structures are also based

on habitable space and the lot coverage cannot be exceeded.

Commissioner Cecil said she does not see the extraordinary, unique lot

conditions, even when there is a precedent, but that is not part of the

standards. Commissioner Cecil wondered why a garage would not be

allowed by code if it would not have negative impact like traffic, noise or

smell.

Commissioner Slattery asked what the difference is between Chapter 7

and the UDC regarding this variance. Mr. Ambuul said Chapter 7 had a

maximum height for garage doors, which is not considered in the UDC

anymore. He said earlier code allowed certain areas to be excluded from

being classified as garage space if vehicle access was restricted, but with

the updated UDC adoption, such exclusions no longer apply; the entire

area must now be treated as garage space regardless of internal walls or

restricted sections. Mr. Ambuul said there is no longer a maximum number

of garage doors, and that garage size thresholds are now based solely on

square footage, with either two 16-foot openings, or two 20-foot openings,

depending on overall garage height. Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager,

said previous regulations included several dimensional standards for

detached garages, including limits on garage door numbers, overall

garage size, and separate size restrictions for storage areas. He said

under the old Chapter 7, storage space was internally divided from garage

space using walls, curbs, or bollards to prevent vehicle access. Mr. Sexton

said with adoption of the UDC, these internal distinctions were eliminated,

the garage door limit was removed, and the maximum allowable size for

garage space was increased, simplifying and consolidating the standards.

Chair Casey asked why it is mentioned in the staff report that it is unclear

whether this application meets the criteria. Mr. Ambuul said the proposed

structure does not meet the applicable standards because it exceeds both

the guideline size of 1,650 square feet and the allowed building height. He

said the property is one acre, with screening, open space, and sufficient lot

coverage, which is a standard size for the area, but not for all Colorado

Springs, which makes it unclear whether the site qualifies as having

extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions needed to justify a

variance. Regarding reasonable use, he explained that the building would

serve as storage for vehicles and personal items to help clean up the

property, which could be a beneficial use for the applicant, though he

expressed some uncertainty about whether this fully satisfies the required

criteria.

Commissioner Cecil asked if all criteria must be met or if meeting one of

them would be sufficient. Sara Brewen, City Attorney’s Office, said, after

looking at the code, they are additive criteria so all of them must be met.

Commissioner Slattery said one-acre lots are unusual within Colorado

Springs and considers it an extraordinary condition compared to most city

parcels. Commissioner Slattery said despite the garage appearing large,

the total lot coverage is under 13 percent, well below the 30 percent

allowed, and nearby properties also include similar outbuildings.

Commissioner Slattery said she finds the proposal meets the criteria and

will be voting in favor of the non-use variance.

Vice Chair Hensler said the proposal falls well below the 30 percent

lot-coverage limit and meets setback requirements, and if the structure

were a livable building or a barn, it would likely qualify for administrative

approval. Vice Chair Hensler said the situation is a narrow gray area,

where the ambiguity itself suggests the application is very close to meeting

approval standards. Vice Chair Hensler said while the HOA may aim to

reinforce older rules, current conditions support establishing updated

precedents. Vice Chair Hensler said the proposal aligns with

neighborhood character and will be in favor of approving the variance.

Commissioner Robbins said he agrees with previous commissioner’s

comments about approving this variance, as long as it is not intended for

commercial use. Commissioner Robbins said growing up with many

vehicles parked outside, he thinks a large garage can help maintain order

on a property, something he believes HOAs should encourage when

addressing neighborhood upkeep. Commissioner Robbins said he is in

favor of the variance.

Commissioner Cecil said she does not feel that this application meets

three of the four criteria, so she will be voting against it.

Vice Chair Hensler said she thinks being a one-acre lot is an extraordinary

condition, and this application will not adversely impact the neighborhood.

Chair Casey said his primary concern is not creating an adverse impact on

surrounding properties, because 50% of public comments have mentioned

it does, as well as the Architectural Review Committee of the Rustic Hills

Improvement Association, whose role is specifically to assess potential

impacts. Chair Casey said other variances have been approved in the past

and encouraged the applicant to work with the association to gain its

support. Chair Casey said, given the association’s opposition, he will vote

against the variance.

Motion by Commissioner Robbins, seconded by Vice Chair Hensler,

to approve the Non-use Variance to City Code Section 7.3.304.C.1.a

allowing 3,296 square feet of garage space based upon the findings

that the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code

Section 7.5.526 with the following conditions of approval and

technical modification:

Conditions of Approval

1. Prior to Building Permit issuance, a Final Drainage Letter needs to

be reviewed and approved by City's Stormwater Enterprise.

2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, an Administrative Adjustment

application must be reviewed and approved for the proposed 18-foot,

four (4) inch building height for the garage.

Technical Modification

1. Update the FEMA Firm map information on the plan.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-2-0-0.

7 -

Aye:

No:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Slattery, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner

Willoughby and Commissioner Case

2 - Commissioner Cecil and Casey

Landings Business Park

8.B.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 26-12 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 319.94 acres located

west of Marksheffel Road, north of Drennan Road, and southeast of

the Peterson Space Force Base from

MX-M/cr/GI/cr/BP/cr/APD/AP-O/APZ-1 (Mixed-Use Medium Scale

with Conditions of Record, General Industrial with Conditions of

Record, Business Park with Conditions of Record, Airport Planned

Development with Airport Overlay and Accident Potential Zone) to

PDZ/AP-O/APZ-1 (Planned Development Zone with Airport Overlay

and Accident Potential Zone).

(Quasi-Judicial) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: LUPL-25-0011

Located in Council District 4

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: ORD_Landings Business Park

Staff Report_Landings Business Park

Attachment 1_Land Use Plan

Attachment 2_PSFB Review Comments

Attachment 3_Project Statement

Attachment 4_Traffic Impact Study

Attachment 5_Banning Lewis Ranch Master Plan

Attachment 6_Contrarian MD 1-6 Resolution No. 106-25

Attachment 7_Peak Innovation Park Master Plan

Banning Lewis Ranch No. 1 (Ord. 88-114)

Banning Lewis Ranch R-5 Zone Establishment (Ord. 88-134)

Exhibit A_Legal Description

Exhibit B_Zoning Map Amendment

M-2_GI Zone Establishment (Ord. 88-126)

PBC(2)_MX-M Zone Establishment (Ord. 88-131)

PIP-2_BP Zone Establishment (Ord. 88-122)

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Staff Presentation_Landings Business Park

Commissioner Case disclosed that he is involved with a neighboring

property but that will not impact his vote on this item.

Drew Foxx, Planner II, presented the zone map amendment and

establishment of the Landing Business Park land use plan for the

319.9-acre property from its current zone to Planned Development Zone

with Airport Overlay and Accident Potential Subzone 1. The area consists

of seven parcels, the residential zone is proposed to the north, with a

maximum of 14 units per acre, where 30 is allowed, and a maximum heigh

of 50 feet. The commercial zone is proposed to the center of the site for a

maximum floor area of 2,500,000 square feet with a maximum height of 80

feet. The application went through five review cycles. Standard notice was

sent out and no comments were received. Agency Review was conducted

and several comments were received; City Traffic Engineering will require

a full traffic impact study at initial development; School District 3 and

another district request fees-in-lieu of land dedication due to airport

proximity; Parks and Recreation reviewed the proposed 5.28-acre park

and will finalize dedication approval at the upcoming advisory board

meeting; Colorado Springs Airport advised of potential noise and activity

impacts. The applicant incorporated a quarter-mile buffer and other

measures to address base security. The proposal aligns with PlanCOS

and meets the review criteria.

Chair Casey said City Council adopted the Service Plan for the Contrarian

Metro District in 2025, that lays out the roads and utilities. Mr. Foxx said,

while it is a plan, it does not regulate land use and would not be utilized to

decide what is allowed or how things should be done.

Applicant’s Presentation

Andrea Barlow, NES, said the site is located between Peterson Space

Force Base and Marksheffel Road, with surrounding land uses, including

high-density residential to the east, industrial to the south, and retail on the

northern portion of the property. She said existing zoning is primarily

Airport Planned Development, Mixed Use Medium, General Industrial, and

a small Business Park portion. She said there are other master plans in the

proximity, including Banning Lewis Ranch and Peak Innovation Park, and

highlighted a future roadway extension of Peak Innovation Parkway

expected to connect near the site. She said they propose rezoning the

entire site to APD-C to allow coordinated, flexible, mixed-use development

with controlled building heights, limited non-residential square footage, and

up to 924 residential units. Ms. Barlow said the benefits of the APD-C

approach, include integrated land uses, support for housing needs related

to Peterson SFB, and the ability to address infrastructure through a metro

district.

Ms. Barlow said the land-use plan’s transitions between industrial,

commercial, and residential areas, site constraints such as a major gas

easement, and proposed access points to the north and south. She said

there are proposed public streets and a 5.28-acre park required through

parkland dedication. She said there are proposed changes to allowed

uses, explaining that the APD-C plan carries forward most existing

permitted uses but intentionally removes certain uses, such as

marijuana-related uses, group homes over certain thresholds (unless

required by statute), correctional facilities, cemeteries, and

electromagnetic-intensive infrastructure, based on compatibility concerns

and input from Peterson Space Force Base. Ms. Barlow said, to address

base concerns, the applicant created a quarter-mile offset zone with

restrictions on uses that could create electromagnetic interference, such as

cell towers or wind turbines. She said this zone does not prohibit

development but adds extra safeguards. Ms. Barlow said the applicant is

coordinating with Peterson SFB about areas of concern including height,

electromagnetic interference, traffic, stormwater, wildlife hazards due to

detention ponds, and air quality.

Ms. Barlow said in 1988 the uses for this property were established, and in

1993 the Centralized Integration Support Facility was built. She said

additional facilities were added in 2011, and later the Electronic Welfare

Compound was constructed, showing existing zoning rights, making the

request for a quarter-mile buffer unreasonable. She said the proposed

zoning and land-use plan are compatible with surrounding master-planned

areas, support housing needs related to the military community, and align

with PlanCOS goals for vibrant neighborhoods, economic development,

and coordinated planning near key institutions; and meets the review

criteria.

Public Comments

No public comments.

Peterson Space Force Base Comments

Commissioner Cecil asked clarification about the quarter-mile standoff

request. Lt. Col. Scott Kelly, Commander of the 21st Civil Engineer

Squadron, representing Peterson Space Force Base and Cheyenne

Mountain Space Force Station, said the intent behind the requested

quarter-mile standoff was based on several unknowns, as Space Force

missions are evolving and technical requirements continue to develop. Lt.

Col. Kelly said a formal Space Operation Insulation Compatible Use Zone

(SOICUZ) study is underway and should provide more specific guidance

within a year, including electromagnetic interference criteria and

anti-terrorism/force protection needs. He said Peterson recognizes the

standoff area will not be an undeveloped “no-man’s-land,” and that the

base anticipates adjustments on both base property and adjacent

development as more information becomes available.

Commissioner Slattery asked if they anticipate within the next year to get

more clarification of what would be compatible in the area. Lt. Col. Kelly

said the team is focused on current and future Space Force and Forces

Command missions in the area. He said they are assessing existing

operations as well as projected needs over the next 10 to 30 years,

including where interference could occur and what standoff distances would

be required. He said most activity is expected during the installation but

emphasized the importance of understanding what could be developed.

Commissioner Slattery asked how that and their preliminary assessment

compares amongst business or industrial uses versus residential uses. Lt.

Col. Kelly said at this time, there is not a significant difference, but the

accommodation of height restrictions and the “up and out” proposal have

been particularly helpful. He said given the current zoning restrictions being

applied, the proposed development is expected to meet the requirements.

Commissioner Case said thanked Lt. Col. Kelly for his comments and said

he thinks for the city and the comprehensive planning going around the

bases’ mission is critical.

Vice Chair Hensler asked if responsibility on the side of the base and

private development would create the appropriate distances for now or in

the future. Lt. Col. Kelly said they are going through some iterations of a

district plan to figure out what are the right zonings to use.

Chair Casey thanked Lt. Col. Kelly for his presence and said

encroachment has historically influenced base realignment and closure

decisions that could impact the community. Chair Casey asked whether

future planning includes relocating sensitive buildings or functions farther

from the boundary to reduce long-term encroachment risks. Lt. Col. Kelly

said as part of a greater plan they will be addressing and mitigating past

placement decisions as the installation transitioned from the Air Force to

the Space Force. He said facilities like the commissary and BX make

sense along the fence line, but more sensitive mission functions are being

pulled back.

Mr. Walker thanked Space Force leadership and the applicant for their

patience over the past several months as both sides worked through

detailed issues, from stormwater design to broader questions about

protecting base assets. He said the proposed zoning and plans provide

enough flexibility to adapt as new information emerges.

Commissioner Robbins said he thinks it is important that the Military

provides guidance to what happens in their surroundings.

Commissioners’ Comments and Questions

Commissioner Slattery asked if residential uses were conditional in PBC

and if it was automatically converted to MX-M. Mr. Sexton said there were

some changes made to land use allowances when combining commercial

zones into MX zones. Chair Slattery asked for clarification since she does

not see that these are compatible uses given the proximity to the base and

the airport. Mr. Sexton said under the former Chapter 7 code, single-family

and multi-family residential uses were conditionally allowed in the PBC

zone. He said while those rules applied before June 2023, current

decisions must follow the new UDC use table unless a condition of record

on the property explicitly states otherwise. Mr. Foxx said the conditions of

record that apply to the property are a concept plan in conformance with the

zoning ordinance, including a traffic study and a preliminary drainage

report, and the maximum floor area ratio should be 0.20 to 1 for each land

use parcel. Mr. Walker said it is a measurement used for commercial

buildings to measure the total square footage.

Commissioner Cecil asked if establishing that certain uses are not

allowed, like a detox center, would conflict with the Fair Housing or ADA

laws. Ms. Barlow said a detox center is more of an outpatient facility and it

would not conflict with Fair Housing, as opposed to drug and alcohol

rehabilitation or group homes. She said they will allow uses as required by

state statute, as their intention is to create a harmonious development with

compatible uses between each other. Chair Casey asked if they are

self-regulating the uses, Ms. Barlow said yes, and asked the City Attorney’s

Office if there is anything the developers have overlooked. Ms. Brewen

said it is not required by the Fair Housing Act to locate a facility solely to fall

under the Act’s coverage; however, once a group home or similar facility

chooses a location, the Fair Housing Act applies, and specific protections

govern how that facility must be treated moving forward.

Commissioner Cecil said part of the PlanCOS approach is to ensure that

vibrant communities have timely access to essential health and medical

services, especially in urgent situations. Commissioner Cecil said

excluding these critical services from a community could ultimately have

harmful effects once the community is established.

Vice Chair Hensler asked what the timeline is. Ms. Barlow said they are in

a three to five-year time span, including utility upgrades and wastewater

system enhancements. She said her team is focused on finishing the

zoning and land use phase before evaluating specific uses, but an initial

development is unlikely for about three years, with build-out extending to

five years or more.

Vice Chair Hensler said the plan is clear, defensible, and represents a

natural extension of previously zoned and master-planned development.

Vice Chair Hensler said she likes the shift from the MX zone, because it

provides greater flexibility and allows the project to better respond to future

market demands.

Motion by Vice Chair Hensler, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to recommend approval to City Council of the zone

change of 319.9 acres from MX-M/cr/GI/cr/BP/cr/APD/AP-O/APZ-1

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Conditions of Record, General

Industrial with Conditions of Record, Business Park with Conditions

of Record, Airport Planned Development with Airport Overlay and

Accident Potential Zone) to PDZ AP-O APZ-1 (Planned Development

Zone with Airport Overlay and Accident Potential Zone) based upon

the finding that the request complies with the criteria for a Zoning

Map Amendment set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motion passed by a vote of 8-1-0-0.

8 -

Aye:

No:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins, Casey,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner

Willoughby and Commissioner Case

1 - Commissioner Slattery

8.C.

LUPL-25-001 Establishing the Landings Business Park Land Use Plan for

proposed residential, civic, public, institutional, commercial,

industrial, civic, accessory, and temporary uses and consisting of

approximately 319.94 acres located west of Marksheffel Road, north

of Drennan Road, and southeast of the Peterson Space Force Base.

(Quasi-judicial)

Related Files: ZONE-25-0024

Located in Council District 4

This application is in association with the Landings Business Park

zone change which had the first reading and setting a hearing date

on March 10, 2026.

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Vice Chair Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Robbins,

that this Planning Case be accepted Recommend approval to City

Council the Landing Business Park Land Use Plan based upon the

finding that the proposal complies with the review criteria for Land

Use Plans set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514 with the following

technical modifications:

1. The existing zone districts under the site data shall be updated to

state all current zone districts and conditions of record.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-2-0-0.

7 -

Aye:

No:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Robbins, Casey, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

2 - Commissioner Cecil and Commissioner Slattery

4880 Airport Road

ZONE-24-00 An Ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs pertaining to approximately 2.17 acres located at 4880

Airport Road from R1-6/AP-O (Single Family - Medium with Airport

Overlay) to R-5/AP-O (Multi-Family - High with Airport Overlay)

(Quasi-Judicial - First reading and setting the public hearing for April

28, 2026 in accord with City Code Section 7.5.407. Hearings for the

ordinance and any related applications shall be conducted at the

second reading.)

Related Files: APPL-26-0002

Located in Council District 4

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report - ZONE-24-0020

Zone Ord_ZONE_24-0020

Signed Ordinance 25-102.pdf

Attachment 1_Updated Project Statement

Attachment 2_Land Use Statement

Attachment 3_Rezone Exhibit A_B

Attachment 4_Public Comment Response

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC Minutes Excerpt - 4880 Airport Rd Rezone - 11.12.2025

Planning Commission - 4880 Airport Rd Rezone Presentation

4880 Airport Rd Council Presentation - Planning

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, said the item was brought back for

reconsideration because, during preparation for its second reading before

City Council, the City Attorney’s Office determined that the rezoning

process did not align with the code, and City Council chose to withdraw the

item. Mr. Sullivan presented the reconsideration of the zone map

amendment of the 2.17 acres site from single-family medium with airport

overlay to multi-family high with airport overlay. The applicant has also

submitted a land use statement proposing a concept plan for three-story,

50-unit multifamily building with green space, on-site parking and access

for Karr Road. He said there is a right-of-way issue involving a 20-foot strip

along Airport Road, which extended the review timeline to seven review

cycles, and led staff to propose a condition requiring dedication of that

portion to the city. Standard notice was made; comments were received

with concerns regarding the intensity of use, traffic impact and quality of life.

Agency review process was conducted and all comments received were

addressed or will be submitted prior to their plan submittal. The proposal

complies with PlanCOS and meets the review criteria.

Applicant’s Presentation

Ann Odom, NES, representing the applicant, said this is an infill

development located along a major four-lane arterial with nearby

connections to key corridors and employment centers. She said

surrounding zoning consists in R1-6 and R-5, an the latter accommodates

a range of residential types at up to 25 units per acre. Ms. Odom said when

similar properties were rezoned, they would have been allowed to go up to

50 units per acre. said the day before the meeting they received additional

36 comments with concerns regarding traffic. She said that the proposal

meets the review criteria and aligns with PlanCOS goals for infill

development, housing diversity, and support for nearby employers, and

highlighted existing higher-intensity uses along Airport Road, ongoing

infrastructure improvements, and the area’s evolving development pattern.

Ms. Odom said the immediate area includes a mix of multifamily

developments and older single-family homes along Karr Road, many of

which were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are now out of character with

the more suburban, higher-intensity development occurring along Airport

Road. She said there have been nearby approvals for large multifamily

projects, including a 27-acre development with more than 450 units,

demonstrating precedent for increased density. Ms. Odom presented the

development standards required and compared them to what they are

proposing to show they are in compliance. She said that an R-5 buildout

could accommodate up to 50 units in a three-story structure while meeting

setback, buffering, fencing, landscaping, open-space, stormwater, and

parking requirements. Ms. Odom said fire and traffic staff reviewed the

conceptual layout and confirmed that one access point would be sufficient

with fire sprinklers, and a right-in/right-out onto Airport Road could be

supported if warranted. She said preliminary trip-generation estimates

showed a relatively small increase in morning and evening traffic, with a full

traffic study required at the development plan stage. She said the project is

similar to Silver Key project, which was recently approved in a smaller site

by the Commission. She said that the larger context mapping shows how a

building of this scale fits within the surrounding area and reinforced that

future design and mitigation requirements in city code would provide

compatibility.

Ms. Odom said fire officials confirmed the project could operate with a

single access point if the building is sprinklered and a fire lane is provided,

and traffic staff indicated a second right-in/right-out access onto Airport

Road could be supported if warranted. She said, regarding ongoing traffic

concerns raised by commissioners and neighbors, a full traffic study is not

required at this stage, but at the development review stage. She said

preliminary trip-generation estimates show only a modest increase in

peak-hour traffic from about one car per 52 seconds to one car per 42

seconds. She said code-required buffering, landscaping, and design

standards will help mitigate potential impacts and that R-5 zoning remains

appropriate.

Public Comment

Tao Thai, owner of the Temple across the street, although his property is

zoned R-5, that does not mean large buildings must be constructed. He

said Karr Road is the community’s only access point, and during a past

emergency it became completely blocked, preventing residents from

entering or leaving. He compared this road to an airplane exit, stressing the

need for clear, unobstructed escape routes. Mr. Thai said, from his

volunteer experience with the police department, cramped living conditions

can contribute to domestic crises, mental-health strain and family stress.

He said constructing a large multifamily building would reduce open space,

diminish residents' ability to decompress, and negatively affect the

well-being of those already living in the neighborhood. He said the

long-term psychological and safety impacts on current residents should be

considered.

Helen Mackey, a 20-year resident and HOA board president of Sand

Creek Commons, said Karr Road is frequently obstructed by abandoned

vehicles and debris, which she documents and reports to the Police

Department as a volunteer. She said, with families living in 187 units

already relying on a limited access system, she said the community often

becomes backed up, especially when cars park along Karr Road or when

emergency vehicles respond to incidents. Ms. Mackey said there is

frequent police and fire activity, high speeds on Airport Road, and

worsening congestion since nearby roadway changes. She said residents

already struggle to exit the neighborhood safely and that adding more

density would increase danger and delay commuters.

Barbara Overgaard, a 21-year resident of Sand Creek Commons, said

she agrees with previous concerns, particularly regarding traffic. She said

the neighborhood's quality-of-life character, is a small, tucked-away

community valued for its open space, surrounding undeveloped R-5

parcels, and limited multifamily presence. She noted that nearby multifamily

developments each have their own direct access to Airport Road, unlike

the proposed project, which would rely on the already congested single

egress shared by her neighborhood. She said residents chose the area for

its quieter, more single-family-oriented environment and fear being

increasingly surrounded by multifamily projects, which they believe would

erode integrity of the community.

Joyce Salazar, Executive Director, RISE Southeast, said her organization

supports responsible growth and additional housing but emphasized that

community safety must be considered early in the process. She said

nearby residents rely on single egress on Karr Road, creating safety risks

during congestion or emergencies. She said, while traffic and safety are

typically reviewed at the development-plan stage, rezoning decisions

determine the scale of future development, shifting the discussion from

whether a use is appropriate to how its impacts will be managed. Ms.

Salazar said this sequence can leave residents feeling reactive rather than

involved and asked the commission to consider how rezoning affects

communities with single-access roads and to ensure that safety, livability,

and preventative planning are addressed at the front end, not only later in

the review process.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Ms. Odom said, regarding emergency access, Sand Creek Commons

already has an emergency route onto Airport Road, which could assist

residents in blockage situations. She said a second access for the

proposed development, such as a right-in/right-out onto Airport Road,

remains a viable option at the development-plan stage. She said future

development will still provide significant setbacks, open space, and

landscaping, even at maximum density. Ms. Odom said development

typically reduces activities such as vehicle camping and debris on Karr

Road, opposed to vacant parcels. She said infill should be expected in this

area, which is experiencing major infrastructure upgrades, growing

employment centers, and rising housing demand. She said the maximum

density shown is only a possibility; the actual project could be lower

intensity and will still be subject to further traffic, safety, and design studies.

Ms. Odom said zoning approval does not eliminate future public input or

detailed review of off-site impacts.

Commissioners’ Comments and Questions

Vice Chair Hensler asked who determined the closure of the exit adjacent

to the housing development to the east. Zaker Alazzeh, City Traffic

Engineering, said he is not aware of this closure being requested by them.

Vice Chair Hensler asked if it was a violation to have it closed off. Mr.

Alazzeh said it is a private driveway so they might not be violating code.

Steven Smith, Fire Protection Engineer, said he is not familiar with the site;

however, it looks like an emergency exit.

Vice Chair Hensler said she understands the concerns about Karr Road’s

limited access and the adjacent development appears to have an

emergency route that could improve circulation. Vice Chair Hensler said

she would support requiring a secondary access point, if allowed by safety

and legal standards, and asked staff to clarify whether such access should

be expected. Mr. Smith said emergency access routes are typically

intended for fire department use only; however, the fire department would

not object to it being opened for regular use. Chair Casey said there is a

white solid line which might indicate is not access.

Chair Casey asked if an entrance like that would be something this new

development could have. Mr. Sexton said final decisions about ingress and

egress will be made during the development-plan stage, not at rezoning.

He said he understands residents’ concerns about the adjacent multifamily

project’s access conditions and said staff can review that site with traffic

and fire officials to ensure it complies with current standards.

Commissioner Case asked if, based on current traffic conditions, there

have been any existing issues in the area as it stands today. Mr. Smith said

he does not currently have operations details. Mr. Alazzeh said they

checked for the past five years and did not see any problem in that

intersection.

Commissioner Robbins said the interchange to the east has already

increased traffic in the area, and congestion on Airport Road remains a

significant problem. Commissioner Robbins said adding another

residential complex near multiple existing developments could create

dangerous conditions, especially given the nearby elementary school and

heavy parent traffic. Commissioner Robbins said the area could become

unsafe in the near future and said the city should reevaluate plans for

Airport Road before allowing additional density. Commissioner Robbins

said he is not in favor of this project.

Commissioner Case said after hearing public comments and knowing that

Fire and Traffic might not have enough information, having a 25-unit per

acre density does not seem to fit. Commissioner Case asked what the

thought process is behind deciding to propose the maximum density. Ms.

Odom said determining an appropriate density would involve market

analysis, evaluation of intersection performance, and assessing whether

needed improvements are feasible and who would bear their cost. She

said emergency access, evacuation needs, and preventative measures,

such as sprinklers, are all reviewed early in the development-plan process.

Ms. Odom said reducing the unit count per acre would generate a pretty

marginal decrease in potential traffic.

Chair Casey said while the R-5 zone allows up to 25 units per acre, nearby

multifamily projects are built at much lower densities, and the current R-1-6

zoning permits only about eight units per acre with much lower building

heights. Chair Casey said approving R-5 would represent a significant

jump to the city's highest density residential district, even though no specific

development plan is tied to the request. Chair Casey said he has concerns

about compatibility criteria, and he was not yet convinced the scale, height,

and potential traffic impacts of R-5 would be compatible with the

surrounding neighborhood and asked whether anything presented should

change that assessment. Ms. Odom said the R-5 district is intended for

areas near higher-intensity uses

and that the request represents an expansion of an existing R-5 zone, not a

spot-zoning action. She said medium-density transitional zone could be

considered, but the difference in potential trip generation between that and

R-5 would be minimal. She said single-family development is unlikely on

such a small arterial-frontage parcel, making the current zoning impractical.

Ms. Odom said compatibility does not require identical density and that

buffering, transition, and site-design standards can address impacts.

Chair Casey said Silver Key project was mentioned, however, it is not

comparable to the current request because its zoning was already in place

and the review focused only on a conditional-use modification to allow

more units within a single building. Chair Casey asked how they think the

two situations are similar. Ms. Odom said the Silver Key comparison was

to illustrate building scale, as the project achieved a similar building size on

a much smaller site and at a higher density, adjacent to single-story homes.

Vice Chair Hensler said a different zoning than R-5 would be more of a

spot zone, given the adjacent properties, making this zoning appropriate,

not necessarily the density compared to neighboring developments. Vice

Chair Hensler said the commission’s role is to evaluate zoning consistency

rather than predict the exact number of units that may ultimately be built.

Vice Chair Hensler said she understands the neighborhood concerns, but

growth along Airport Road is expected given nearby commercial

expansion and that the site sits in an area that is transitioning. Vice Chair

Hensler said the R-5 request appears consistent and said she might be in

support.

Commissioner Cecil said it is frustrating that the development plan is not

coming back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Walker said the

applicant as well as the public have the opportunity to appeal should they

feel the decision was not appropriately made. He said even if the approval

was administratively, the neighbors will be noticed.

Commissioner Cecil said she could not conclude the proposal would be

detrimental to the public interest, since a ride-in/ride-out turn lane could

address potential concerns and that the early stage of development leaves

uncertainties. Commissioner Cecil said the request is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan and potential build-out would contribute to housing

diversity. Commissioner Cecil said it is unreasonable to expect an

undeveloped parcel in an unincorporated area to remain undeveloped

indefinitely. Commissioner Cecil asked whether any elements of the

concept plan raised concerns under Criteria 7. Mr. Sullivan said no.

Commissioner Cecil said she does not find reasons to oppose.

Commissioner Slattery said she recognizes the community’s need for

additional housing and the appropriateness of Airport Road for

higher-intensity uses due to its arterial designation, however, she has

concerns regarding compatibility. Commissioner Slattery said maximum

build-out does not appear harmonious with the surrounding area,

particularly the adjacent R-5 zoning. Commissioner Slattery said she is

significantly concerned about the use of Karr Road as the primary access

point, and the possible height of this development. Commissioner Slattery

said she does not think it meets the criteria.

Commissioner Robbins said he is not in support, as he has concerns

regarding the increasing traffic volumes on Airport Road. Commissioner

Robbins said the rising number of accidents presents a public-safety issue

and emphasized that protecting lives must take priority over other

considerations. Commissioner Robbins said Airport Road now functions

more like a highway than originally intended and that the conditions are

dangerous until the City identifies appropriate safety improvements.

Commissioner Gigiano said she concurs with Commissioner Robins

regarding traffic and compatibility with the surrounding areas.

Commissioner Case said last time he voted in favor of this item, but after

hearing public comments and Fire and Traffic, there are a lot of unknows

so he will be voting against it.

Motion by Commissioner Robbins, seconded by Commissioner

Gigiano, to deny the zone change of 2.17 acres from R1-6/AP-O