Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

7 -

Present:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

Absent:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Kenneth Casey - Planning Commission Chair

Chair Casey said interviews for prospective candidates for Planning

Commissioners and alternates are taking place on September 19th and

24th.

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2714

4.A.

Minutes for the August 13, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_8.13.25 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

approve the Minutes for the August 13, 2025, Planning Commission

Meeting.

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

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

Absent:

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, to

approve the Consent Calendar.

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

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

Absent:

Phelan Gardens Zone Map Amendment

5.A.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 25-78 to amend the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 4.09 acres located at 4955, 4965,

4985, 4995, and 5015 Austin Bluffs Parkway from MX-N/cr/AP-O

(Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale with Conditions of Record and

Airport Overlay) and RE/AP-O (Single-Family Estate with Airport

Overlay) to MX-M/AP-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport

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

Related Files: N/A

Council District #6

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments: ZONE-25-0013_Ordinance

ZONE-25-0013_Staff Report_v2

Attachment 1- CPC CU 02-00184-A2MN12

Attachment 2 - Ordinance 82-15

Attachment 3 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 4 - Project Statement

Attachment 5 - Exhibit A Legal Description

Attachment 6 - Exhibit B Zone Change Map

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

ZONE-25-0013_Presentation_CC

Signed Ordinance No. 25-78.pdf

Colorado Springs Conservatory

5.B.

CUDP-25-00 Conditional Use to allow Club, Lodge, and Service Organization use

in the R-5 (Multi-Family High) zone district located at 420 North

Nevada Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Council District # 3

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_COS Conservatory

Attachment 1-Vicinity Map

Attachment 2 - Town of Colorado Springs

Attachment 3 - Zoning Map

Attachment 4 - Context Map

Attachment 5 - Project Statement

Attachment 6 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 7 - Site Plan

Attachment 8 - Parking Analysis

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Woodmen Road Addition No. 3 Annexation

5.C.

ANEX-24-00 A Resolution finding a petition for annexation of the area known as

14R

Woodmen Road Addition No. 3 Annexation consisting of 0.11 acres

to be in substantial compliance with section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.

and setting a hearing date of November 10, 2025, for the Colorado

Springs City Council to consider the annexation of the area.

(Legislative)

Related Files: N/A

Council District # 1 (Upon successful annexation)

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Resolution Setting Hearing Date_ANEX-24-0014

Memo to Clerk to Advertise_ANEX-24-0014

Public Notice_ANEX-24-0014

Staff Report ANEX-24-0014 CSR

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map

Attachment 2 - Project Statement

Attachment 3 - Petition

Attachment 4 - Legal Description

Attachment 5 - Annexation Plat

Woodmen Road Annexation - CPC 9_10_2025 Minutes Excerpt

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Signed Resolution No. 115-25.pdf

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Dakota Crossing Conditional Use Minor Modification

8.A.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use Minor Modification to remove a condition, relating

to front yard setbacks, of approval from the approved conditional use

allowing single-family detached residential in MX-M/AP-O

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport Overlay) Zone District

consisting of 7.62 acres northwest of the future intersection of South

Chelton and Hancock Expressway.

(Quasi-judicial)

Council District # 4

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: CUDP-25-0023_Staff_Report1_v2

Attachment 1 - CUDP-24-0020 Approval Letter

Attachment 2 - DEPN-25-0018

Attachment 3 - SUBD-25-0025

Attachment 4 - Project Statement

7.5.516 MODIFICATION OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, presented the Conditional Use Minor

Modification to remove a condition, of approval from the approved

conditional use allowing single-family detached residential in MX-M/AP-O

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport Overlay) Zone District consisting of

7.62 acres northwest of the future intersection of South Chelton and

Hancock Expressway. She said the current conditional use does allow for

single-family detached units, which is a conditional use in the Mixed-Use

Medium zone district. There was a condition of approval on December

2024 that all internal lots shall meet the R-Flex Medium dimensional

standards; and at that time, the applicant considered that all setbacks

would be met. The request today is to remove that condition so the internal

lots can have different front yard setbacks. Ms. Stocker said the lots on the

development plan have front facing garages, which require a 20-foot front

yard setback, however, 28 out of 69 lots do not meet that requirement. Ms.

Stocker said an issue with the proposal is that people could potentially

park in driveways that are less than 20 feet, but the applicant has agreed

that no parking will be allowed on the driveways on these units. These units

have the option to park in their garage or in the communal parking.

Ms. Stocker said this project only went through one review cycle as the

development plan was previously reviewed, and there was a good

understanding of the concept and if it would meet criteria. Standard notice

was done and one public comment was received with concerns about the

design related to denser development within single-family detached

communities. Agency review was conducted and there were no concerns

regarding the conditional use. The application meets the criteria for

modifications of approved applications.

Commissioners’ Questions

Chair Casey asked why this is considered a minor modification when

decreasing building setbacks is usually a major modification. Ms. Stocker

said it is a minor modification because the conditional use does not have

those dimensional standards attached to those approvals, however, if this

were a development plan, it would be considered a major modification.

Chair Casey asked if minor modifications are usually approved by the

Manager. Ms. Stocker said in this case the Commission would have to

approve or deny it because the original condition of approval was decided

upon by this body.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the Development Plan will continue under

administrative approval. Ms. Stocker said it is correct, if the decision today

goes through, both applications will be approved.

Applicant’s presentation

Andrea Barlow, Principal with NES, representing the applicant, said this

project was approved as a conditional use to meet the R-Flex Medium

Development Standards at the edges of the property since they were

applying common development. She said they submitted the development

plan that went through three rounds of review, and they addressed all

agencies’ comments when this issue of the garage setbacks was brought

up. She said these are only garage setbacks, not building setbacks that

would trigger a major modification, that is why they are requesting this

original condition of approval to be removed.

Ms. Barlow said the lots around the perimeter of the proposed

development will include a full length 20-foot driveway, however, the inside

lots will only have aprons, not driveways, to allow exiting the garage with

enough visibility. She said they will provide 24 guest parking spaces,

where 14 are required by code. She said there will be no sidewalks along

the lots with aprons, to avoid pedestrian conflicts. Ms. Barlow said the

20-foot driveways will allow parking, however the 7.5-foot aprons will not.

She said at the time of approval they agreed to the condition considering

the building setbacks, that they do meet, since R-Flex Medium calls for a

20-foot garage setback, but allows a 10-foot front building setback.

Ms. Barlow emphasized the project has gone through three reviews,

making redesign not an option at this point, because it will represent a

significant loss. She said the design is very compatible with the

neighborhood and it is internalized, so no one would need to drive through

the development to get anywhere else. She said this compact lots meet a

market need for entry level housing, and this design is not unusual

throughout the city. She said the visibility concerns have been addressed

by providing a 7.5-foot apron, where five to eight feet are required. Ms.

Barlow said fire lane markings will be placed on both sides of the private

streets, which will prohibit on-street parking. She said there will also be an

HOA to enforce parking and have signs that parking violations will be

enforced. Ms. Barlow said they are not changing anything from the original

review criteria for conditional use.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Cecil asked if the HOA would have contracts with towing

companies, since the developer will be enforcing the “no parking” and the

City the fire lanes. Ms. Barlow said they will.

Commissioner Cecil asked, if this is an entry level affordable type housing,

what AMI it would be affordable to. Ms. Barlow said that she does not have

the AMI details, but the houses would be in the low 400s, where the

average house price is around $600,000. She said this is not a subsidized

product, it is a market average detached home product, that a lot of people

would prefer rather than attached townhomes.

Commissioner Cecil asked how the developers reached the conclusion not

to have sidewalks, knowing that a lot of people interested in entering the

market in Colorado Springs are very outdoorsy. Ms. Barlow said there are

sidewalks throughout the development, just not on the internal section

where they only have aprons, but around the open space and around the

edge. She said they are also providing a sidewalk along Chelton Road that

is nonexistent today.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there are going to be units accessible for

people that have walking issues or use a wheelchair. Ms. Barlow said that

she is not aware of any specific accessibility requirements for this size of

development, she thinks when you get to more than 80 units that certain

portion of the development is required to be ADA accessible. She said

anybody with a specific requirement can be accommodated, the grade on

the site is not significant, and the sidewalks will have to be ADA compliant.

Commissioner Henseler said she appreciates the presentation because it

helped her understand the information about the aprons, and she will be in

support of the project.

Commissioner Robbins said he is concerned about trying to have a lot of

product in the area, resulting in the decreased driveway requirement.

Commissioner Robbins said if this is supposed to be affordable, HOA will

count against the buyer for their mortgage. Commissioner Robbins said

not having sidewalks is also an issue. Ms. Barlow said at this point there is

no other option, because the project has gone to multiple reviews. She said

the density is consistent with the surrounding area, as well as the proposal,

because the zone allows for commercial use and higher density residential

developments. She said their proposal is what the market requires, smaller

size for a lower price, that brings less traffic. Ms. Barlow said the HOA will

be responsible of maintaining common areas, the private streets and the

retention pond; as well as for enforcing standards.

Commissioner Hensler reminded the Commission that the item being

presented is for conditional use only, and not other issues, just the

setbacks for the garages.

Chair Casey said HOAs are responsible for the maintenance of common

areas and amenities.

Public Comment

Marie Keaton , resident of the neighborhood, said she has seen

communities with shorter driveways and that reduces quality of life of the

residents. She said when there are gatherings people will have to park in

the driveway because street parking will not be allowed. She said having

no sidewalks also reduces quality of life for kids with bikes and scooters,

and for people with strollers. She said she has been to communities with

no parking, and it is unacceptable.

Commissioners' Questions

Commissioner Rickett asked if staff recommended the zone to be MX-M.

Ms. Stocker said the zone has not changed.

Commissioner Rickett asked if it was known that this change of setbacks

would be required. Ms. Stocker said it was recommended establishing

dimensional standards to understand what the project would look like for

the conditional use, but did not know the 20 feet setback would be a

conflict.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they could have proposed a PDZ to

establish their own setback. Ms. Stocker said they could have, but under

UDC that zoning is only allowed when no other option is viable.

Commissioner Rickett said the 10-foot, 20-foot split might be something to

revise in the code. Commissioner Ricket said he does not consider this to

be affordable, but it might be for the neighborhood it is in. Commissioner

Rickett said he considers there is enough sidewalk, and he will be in

support.

Commissioner Cecil said she voted in opposition because, as she

interprets the code, sidewalks are required in both sides of the streets.

Commissioner Cecil said she feels this request goes against the condition

of record in the original approval.

Commissioner Robbins said he does not agree with the shorter aprons,

and he thinks it would be better to reconsider the options to have a full-size

driveway.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Sipilovic, to approve the Conditional Use Minor Modification based

upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria as set

forth in City Code Section 7.5.516.D.2.

The motion passed by a vote of 4-2-0-2.

5 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey,

Commissioner Clements and Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Cecil and Commissioner Robbins

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

Briargate Church - Assembly of God Rezoning

8.B.

ZONE-24-00 A Zoning Map Amendment (rezone) consisting of 7.73 acres located

northeast of Voyager Parkway and Springcrest Road from A/AF-O

(Agriculture with United State Air Force Academy Overlay) to

MX-M/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with United State Air Force

Academy Overlay).

(Quasi-Judicial)

Council District #2

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_ZONE-24-0012

Attachment 1 - Exhibits A & B

Attachment 2 - Land Use Plan

Attachment 3 - Public Comments

Attachment 4 - Public Comment Response Letter

Attachment 5 - Traffic Impact Study

Attachment 6 - Project Statement

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Commissioner Robbins recused himself as he is familiar with the owner of

this project.

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, presented the Zoning Map Amendment

(rezone) and the Land Use Plan for Residential, Commercial and

Public/Institutional consisting of 7.73 acres located northeast of Voyager

Parkway and Springcrest Road

from A/AF-O (Agriculture with United State Air Force Academy Overlay) to

MX-M/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with United State Air Force

Academy Overlay). He described the surrounding areas with the presence

of residential, undeveloped and school. He said there is no end-user

proposed at this time, but they are proposing restriction to the MX-M

district such as marijuana and hemp uses, adult entertainment, hookah bar

and detoxification center. Standard notice was sent out, 63 comments

were received with concerns regarding the intensity of potential future

development, allowable uses for the zone, traffic and safety. Agency review

was conducted; comments were either approved or are under review. The

project complies with PlanCOS, however staff could not confirm this project

met the review criteria. Mr. Cooper said staff felt MX-N was a more

appropriate zone considering the area.

Commissioner Hensler asked clarification about the application being for

MX-M. Mr. Cooper said at early stages of the application staff suggested

MX-N was a better fit for the area, however, the applicant chose to pursue

an MX-M rezoning, as is his right.

Commissioner Hensler asked if they will be only reviewing the MX-M

application. Mr. Cooper said yes.

Applicant’s Presentation

Keith Moore, with KEM Architecture and Planning, representing Briargate

Church, said the church is looking to rezone and subdivide the lot, as they

do not need all the property. He explained they decided to go with MX-M

and not MX-N because the first one does allow retail sales, the setbacks

are more restrictive but would allow denser development. He said as part

of the traffic proposal for the development plan they are proposing

improvements to Springcrest.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they chose MX-M because it is less

restrictive and allows retail sales. Mr. Moore said it is more restrictive with

larger setbacks but does allow retail sales. He said the preferred MX-M

however they did want to restrict the uses.

Todd Frisbie, City Traffic Engineering, Public Works Department, said the

study was reviewed and accepted because it represented no significant

impacts to nearby intersections. He said the applicant did have some

recommendations about a left turn lane and striping. Mr. Frisbie said there

is a school to the south and their traffic is queuing for pick-up and drop-off,

with a lot of space in their site. He said even for retail, the peak time is later

than school pick-up and drop-off time.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there are any other improvements in the

area, other than addressing issues on Springcrest, to create any additional

outlets. Mr. Frisbie said if the dead end in Mulligan were to open it would

release traffic from the school, but it would also have drawbacks. Mr.

Frisbie said if a development plan came with a request of access from

Voyager, it would be approved to make a right-in right-out, that would be

traffic relief as well, and it can be addressed during the development

phase.

Chair Casey said he thinks there is emergency access with a chain on

Voyager, and it looks like a County road because there are no sidewalks,

so it might not be an option.

Commissioner Rickett said he does not think it would be ideal to have a

right-in right-out in that area.

Public Comment

Scott Bottoms, pastor of the church, said they are not the traffic impact, but

instead they help relief the traffic from the school, because they can

accommodate 60 to 70 cars in their property, as they only have 10 cars in

their parking lot during the week. He said they are applying for MX-M

because they would like to have barbeque and donuts retail sales. He said

selling the other properties will help them expand their church.

Patricia Peveto ceded time to Ronald Peveto.

Ronald Peveto, resident to the north of the property, said he has a beautiful

view of Pikes Peak. He said when they first arrived in Colorado Springs,

they loved the neighborhood with quiet open spaces, so when a house

came out for sale, they purchased it immediately. He said there were not

many large buildings other than the school and community churches, but

that has changed significantly. Mr. Peveto said development and growth

are driven by individual initiative, passion, and vision of residents. Mr.

Peveto said that the Church at Briargate, as a neighbor, has a vision for

growth, but so do the residents of the Otero neighborhood, who have

invested in enhancing the area over the past 23 years. Mr. Peveto said that

the proposed zoning change would introduce commercial development into

a residential area, and while the church claims it would have low impact,

the reality of zoning changes is uncertain. He said he is concerned that the

church’s goal is to sell the land for maximum profit, with little control over

what is developed. Mr. Peveto said this diverges from the neighborhood’s

vision and raises concerns about increased traffic, safety, and the potential

for 24-hour commercial activity disrupting the area’s tranquility and safety.

He said in his 17 years of experience with church building projects, none

began by selling off land. He said the neighborhood meeting did not

provide any straightforward answers. He said the zoning change would

permanently alter the character and quality of life in the Otero

neighborhood.

Tim Hedges and Paul Danielson ceded time to Elizabeth Gilbert.

Elizabeth Gilbert, renter in the area, said she opposes the rezoning

proposal. She said the first issues is traffic congestion, that during school

drop-off and pick-up times Spring Crest becomes severely congested,

often backing up onto Voyager Parkway. Ms. Gilbert said this congestion is

not just inconvenient but poses a safety risk, as it has previously delayed

emergency vehicle access. She said the rezoning would worsen these

accessibility issues. Ms. Gilbert said many TCA families live nearby, and

children frequently walk, bike, or ride scooters to school, making increased

traffic a serious pedestrian safety concern. She noted that Otero Road is

not a viable alternative due to its narrow, rural design and lack of

sidewalks, and that it too is facing increased density from new apartment

developments, and wondered if the applicant’s traffic studies accounted for

these future changes. Ms. Gilbert also raised concerns about fire safety

and said that increased density near undeveloped land adjacent to the Air

Force Academy could hinder evacuation efforts during emergencies,

especially since Spring Crest is the only exit for several neighborhoods.

She said regarding neighborhood character, the Comprehensive Plan calls

for protecting the character of established suburban neighborhoods. She

said that medium-density mixed-use development is inconsistent with the

area’s current character. Ms. Gilbert said at the community meeting the

church representative, Scott Bottoms, claimed the land would be sold

under covenant to retain some control, however, she said he declined to

share the church’s full vision at that time. She said the church prioritized

profit over neighborhood preservation, seeking maximum value from the

land sale to fund a new facility. Ms. Gilbert said maybe the church chose

this specific zone because of political motivation given Mr. Bottoms’

candidacy for governor.

Jaqueline Peveto, resident to the north of the site, said her family has lived

next to the church for 23 years and has often shared their backyard for

church events, as good neighbors. She said the current rezoning proposal

would change that relationship by introducing commercial development into

a rural area and removing a natural boundary between properties. Ms.

Peveto said that five years ago, she and her neighbors opposed the

annexation and rezoning of properties along their northern boundary, which

had served as a buffer between their unincorporated neighborhood and the

city. She said that decision allowed commercial development to encroach

on their community, and rezoning the southern boundary along Springcrest

Road would eliminate the last remaining natural border. Ms. Peveto said

another development is being proposed across Spring Crest near the TCA

campus, adding to the pressure on the area. She said the sudden interest

in developing the neighborhood feels exploitative to long-term residents

who have invested in and cared for the area. She said they only found out

about it through a neighbor who shared a postcard. She said the church

refused to make any changes to the proposal despite hearing community

concerns. Ms. Peveto said the neighborhood is more than just land for

convenient business solutions and suggested preserving the area open,

hospitable, and safe for families for generations to come.

Ariane Peveto said she grew up in the neighborhood and has a lot of

personal memories restoring the house, planting gardens, and caring for

the trees along the property line shared with the church. She said every part

of their home reflects long-term care and stewardship, and that many of her

neighbors have similar stories of investing in the community. Ms. Peveto

said she opposes the rezoning because it threatens the character and

boundaries of the neighborhood. She explained that a previous rezoning on

the north side already set a damaging precedent, pressing some residents

to sell their properties, and this new proposal would eliminate the southern

boundary along Springcrest Road as well. She said there will be a lack of

buffer between the proposed mixed-use development and existing rural

homes. She said the church could become a busy access point for future

development, bringing traffic and disruption close to homes.

Steve Luna, resident of the area, said he opposes the rezoning proposal

due to his concerns about materials and traffic study. He said he thinks it

fails to meet the review criteria. Mr. Luna said the proposed MX-M zoning

would allow buildings up to 50 feet tall, which will not be compatible, as all

existing structures are no more than two stories. He suggested a condition

be added to limit building height to 30 feet or two stories to better align with

the neighborhood. He said he is also concerned about potential land uses

allowed under MX-M zoning, such as gas stations and auto repair shops,

which could pose risks to public health and safety. Mr. Luna said the

Springcrest neighborhood relies on well water, and fuel-related facilities

could contaminate the groundwater, and suggested these uses to be

prohibited. Mr. Luna said traffic issues, stating that Spring Crest and Otero

Road are already over capacity, with gridlock during school drop-off and

pick-up times. He said the proposed development would increase traffic by

33% during these peak hours, worsening an already unsafe situation. He

said the site lacks a proper access point, as it does not directly border

Voyager Parkway, which has the capacity to handle more traffic. Mr. Luna

concluded by stating that the land is not suitable for commercial

development due to inadequate access and incompatibility with the

surrounding area.

Dave Wahl, resident of the area, said he has lived on Springcrest for 26

years and shares the concerns raised by his neighbors. He said the

neighborhood is a quiet and beautiful place and said the proposed

rezoning threatens that character. He said traffic is a major concern, but the

uncertainty around the type and scale of future retail development is also

concerning. Mr. Wahl said the land to the south is being considered for the

development of three apartment buildings, potentially four to five stories tall,

and would impact the traffic and density as well.

Jeremy Unruh, resident of the area, said his family loved the area and was

thrilled to move there. He said the rezoning proposal feels like an

encroachment on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Unruh said the

traffic impacts of the proposed mixed-use zoning, especially during school

hours. He said that many drivers need to turn left to reach I-25, which

already causes significant backups at the intersection. He said the traffic

situation is manageable on weekends but becomes a serious problem

during the week, and that the proposed development would only make it

worse. Mr. Unruh wondered how long any covenants would remain in place

and whether future owners would honor them. He said the proposal would

remove the southern boundary that helps define the neighborhood’s

character.

Jay Stoner, president and owner of Land Developers Incorporated, said he

has over 50 years of experience in residential and commercial

development. He said he is building his personal residence in the area and

would be directly impacted by the proposed project. Mr. Stoner said the

new development should be compatible with existing neighborhoods. He

said the surrounding area is a rural, low-density community with homes on

large lots, and said the proposed zoning would disrupt that character. He

said, given the church’s desire to sell the lots for maximum value, the land

could be used for high-density apartments, possibly 50 feet tall, which

would bring significant traffic and congestion. He said the intersection at

Springcrest and Otero is already a mess twice daily due to school traffic.

He said Otero Avenues is a narrow, two-lane country road with no

sidewalks or shoulders, where children walk and ride bikes. He said traffic

should not be allowed to exit on Otero Avenue. He said he strongly

suggested Mulligan Drive and Chapel Hills be connected.

Naomi Niess said she echoes everything her neighbors have said, as she

has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years, and her husband’s parents built

their home in the 1960s. She said it is a wonderful place to live but

expressed serious concerns about safety due to increasing traffic and

limited road access. She said that the area only has two main routes,

Springcrest and Otero, and said that in the event of a major emergency,

such as wildfire, evacuation would be extremely difficult. Ms. Niess said the

community is already feeling surrounded by new developments, including

planned apartment buildings near the church and along Old Ranch Road

and Otero to the north.

Patty Krueger said she has lived in the neighborhood for 33 years. She

stated that the church has been a good neighbor until now, but she

opposes the rezoning request for several reasons. She said she has

concerns about increased traffic, the loss of mountain views, and the

incompatibility of taller buildings allowed under the proposed zoning. Ms.

Krueger said the neighborhood does not include any MX-M zoning so it

would not be compatible. She said even if the church sells the land to

responsible buyers, there is no guarantee that future owners would

maintain the same development plans, giving access to more aggressive

commercial development and could trigger a domino effect, where

neighbors begin selling their homes to avoid living next to commercial

properties.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Moore said the zoning allows a maximum height of 50 feet, but they are

restricted to 35-foot buildings because of the Air Force Academy Overlay.

Commissioners’ Comments

Commissioner Rickett asked if the property across the street to the east of

the church was county or city. Mr. Cooper said it is within the county.

Commissioner Rickett thanked the public for their comments and

sympathized with the next-door neighbor. Commissioner Ricket asked if

staff suggested MX-N. Mr. Cooper said they did.

Commissioner Rickett said he considers the proposal fails to meet some

criteria, such us the purpose not being appropriate for the district, and the

zoning will be detrimental to public interest, therefore he will not be in

support.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the minimum area for MX-M is 2.5 acres, why

are none of the three proposed lots larger than 2.5 acres. Mr. Cooper said

with the size of the three lots together they can propose to be rezoned to

MX-M.

Commissioner Cecil asked if their development plan approved in 2019 is

considered an implemented plan. Mr. Cooper said once a plan is

approved they have six years to move forward with their proposal, and they

are getting close to that time. Trevor Gloss, City Attorney’s Office, said

concept plans are more general such as the Comprehensive Plan, while

development plans consider terms and need a closer review. Mr. Cooper

said concept plans and master plans are merged into the land use plan. He

said if there is any existing concept plan it would have to be considered,

but an implemented concept plan is something already built.

Commissioner Cecil said she does not consider the proposed use

restrictions appropriate, especially because dealing with covenants can

become burdensome. Commissioner Cecil said detox centers may be

considered accommodations for persons with addictions, which is

classified as a disability. Commissioner Cecil said she finds this does not

meet the criteria, and she considers it to be a spot zone that is not directly

adjacent to an MX-M property. Commissioner Cecil said there is

insufficient information in the land use plan to determine if it would conform

with the adjacent purposes and heights, making it not compliant with

criteria four, and it does not meet criteria six or 10 either.

Commissioner Sipilovic thanked the community for their comments and

said he concurs with Commissioners Rickett and Cecil that this project

does not meet several review criteria so he will not be in support.

Chair Casey said he does not think this zoning is appropriate and agrees

with staff that the applicant should consider a mixed-use neighborhood

scale or residential zone district to be more compatible. Chair Casey said

he thinks it does not meet criteria one and two and will not be in support.

Mr. Cooper said the 33 feet heigh requirement was not officially requested

by USAFA since this is outside their zone, and it would have to be a

condition of approval. He said any changes to the land use plan, like traffic

flow or changes to the district and uses are considered major modifications

and require approval from the body that approved the plan, which would be

City Council in this case.

Commissioner Hensler thanked the community for their input and their

involvement. Commissioner Hensler said she will be in support of this

application because it is an area of transition between county and city, and

the applicants have tried to mitigate the uses.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Sipilovic, to recommend denial to City Council the Zoning Map

Amendment of 7.73 acres from A/AF-O (Agriculture with United State

Air Force Academy Overlay) to MX-M/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale

with United State Air Force Academy Overlay) based upon the

findings that the request does not comply with the criteria for a

Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1-2.

5 -

Aye:

Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey,

Commissioner Clements and Commissioner Rickett

1 - Vice Chair Hensler

No:

Absent:

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Robbins

Recused:

8.C.

LUPL-24-001 Establishment of the Briargate Church – Assembly of God Land Use

Plan for Residential, Commercial and Public/Institutional uses and

consisting of 7.73 acres located northeast of Voyager Parkway and

Springcrest Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Council District #2

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Sipilovic, to recommend denial to City Council the Briargate Church -

Assembly of God Land Use Plan based upon the findings that the

proposal does not complies with the review criteria for Land Use

Plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514. to the City Council.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1-2.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

Absent:

Old Ranch Road Self Storage

APPL-25-00 An Appeal of the administrative approval for the Old Ranch Storage

Filing No 1 Development Plan consisting of 4.70 acres located at the

northeast corner of Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone Drive.

Council District #2

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_Old Ranch Road Storage

Attachment 1 - Briargate Master Plan 1980

Attachment 2 - Brairgate Master Plan 1998

Attachment 3 - Bison Ridge Concept Plan

Attachment 4 - Bison Ridge Concept Plan Amendment

Attachment 5 - Public Comments

Attachment 6 - Public Comment Response

Attachment 7 - Additional Public Comments

Attachment 7A - Additional Public Comments_9.4.25

Attachment 8 - Traffic Technical Memorandum - Access Sight

Distance

Attachment 9 - Turning & Hose Lay Exhibits

Attachment 10 - Approved Development Plan

Attachment 11 - Project Statement

Attachment 12 - Appeal of Administrative Decision

Attachment 13 - Old Ranch Storage Development Plan_additional

operation details

7.5.415 APPEALS

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor presented the appeal of the

administrative approval for the Old Ranch Storage Filing No 1

Development Plan consisting of 4.70 acres located at the northeast corner

of Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone Drive. This is an appeal of the

development plan of a mini warehouse located in an MX-M zone,

previously PBC under Chapter 7, which this application was reviewed

under. This application was approved on July 9, 2025, for a

mini-warehouse facility with an on-site office, nine one-story buildings, with

access off Rhinestone Drive. Ms. Baxter said according to the Briargate

Master Plan approved in 1980 this property was identified as Commercial

- Village Center. In 1998 this was broken out to include Neighborhood

Commercial, Community Commercial, which is the subject property, and

Regional Commercial. The Briargate Master Plan is considered an

implemented plan and amendments to it were not necessary, neither for the

concept plan from commercial to commercial use. The Bison Ridge at

Kettle Creek Concept Plan was approved by City Council on June 4, 2004,

including 16.7 acres for two commercial properties, the subject property

and the one to the west, which were rezoned to PBC that allowed mini

warehouses as permitted use.

Ms. Baxter said Chapter 7 got replaced by the UDC, that was adopted in

February 2023 and became effective in June 2023. Some zones that

transitioned were PBC to MX-M, PUD to PDZ, and R-5 adopted different

criteria. PBC zone district allowed commercial uses of moderate intensity

and MX-M allows commercial, retail, office, multi-family residential and

civic uses. Ms. Baxter presented a comparison between Chapter 7 and the

UDC regarding the use, architectural standards, parking, height, lighting

standards, landscaping and site-specific standards.

Ms. Baxter said this project was submitted in August of 2022, and the

development plan was approved on July 9, 2025. A complete appeal

application was submitted on July 21, 2025. Standard notice was made,

20 comments were received regarding traffic, compatibility of use, lighting,

access, crime and safety, inadequate infrastructure, and decrease in value

of home. Agency Review was conducted, and all comments were

addressed before the development plan was approved. Regarding

PlanCOS this project is in between two established areas integrating

residential with commercial type uses.

Appellant’s presentation

Julie Price, representing the community around the approved Self Storage,

said she will talk about the background, the appeal basis, the application

process and the appeal recommendation and considerations. She said

from the previous items discussed the theme is community and

neighborhoods. Ms. Price cited PlanCOS Vision, highlighting that every

person and place is a part of a neighborhood, and each one deserves a

great neighborhood. She said Policy VN-1.B calls to inform and engage

with stakeholders during the development review process, capital

improvement planning and decisions on City and County facilities and

services, which did not happen for this application. She said by the time of

the application in August 2022, the UDC was already in place and it was

up to the applicant to choose to be reviewed under Chapter 7 or the UDC.

Ms. Price said there was a sign posted on September 16, 2022, indicating

the comment period will end on September 28, 2022, but there were

concerns about its position in a corner facing opposite flow of traffic, and

similar concerns were raised about the noticing for the appeal. She said

the premise of this application was so disconcerting to the community that

168 thoughtfully prepared comments were provided by the community, but

did not receive a response until July 9, 2025, same day of the approval,

and not made publicly available until July 18, 2025.

Ms. Price said there was no response to the 168 community comments,

nor did a community meeting take place. She said information about recent

studies regarding Preble’s Jumping Mouse was not provided, but her

research shows that for matting purposes they will travel to high ground as

far as 2500 feet. She said according to the staff packet, this facility is

planned for 1900 feet form Kettle Creek Open Space, within the 2500 feet

mice would travel. Ms. Price said the application was reviewed under one

code but due to delays, the appeal had to be filed under a different one,

and they did not understand what the differences were. She said when she

pointed out the communication issues, she received a response that

mistakes are made, this has already been approved, and she filed her

appeal as well.

Ms. Price referred to Section 7.5.603.B.1, Detriment to Public Interest,

Health, Safety, Convenience and General Welfare, and said this

industrial-scale facility brings commercial use to a high-density residential

area, that is not designed for the volume, size and weight of trucks and

trailers. She said their calculations using the same sources as NES

presented in the post-approval meeting show something different. She said

the volume and types of vehicles raise safety concerns for community and

neighborhood children. Ms. Price said the fencing and the lighting are

incompatible with the character standard and expectations of the

community, and they do not provide adequate buffing, privacy and

transition from the neighborhood to an industrial complex. She said the

health welfare, peace, safety and security pose risk and detriment to the

community due to the light, pollution, noise, late night traffic and crime. She

said in the news it was shared that dead pets were found in a facility, and

there have been reports of people living in these units.

Ms. Price referred to Section 7.5.603.B.2, Inconsistency with the

Comprehensive Plan, and said it exists for the protection of neighborhood

character to ensure compatible infill, mitigates negative impacts on

non-residential development, making a positive contribution to what makes

a community and a neighborhood, and helping to establish a

community-based need for developments. She said this project does none

of these. She said within a five-mile radius of the facility there are 10

storage facilities that are not at full capacity.

Ms. Price referred to Section 7.5.603.B.3, Inconsistency with Master Plans,

and said, according to Staff and NES this Master Plan is from 40 years

ago and has been modified several times, and there are no recent

amendments to support how this project supports the community. She said

the surrounding areas consist of a community with a golf course and two

schools, but no commercial use until getting to Voyager Parkway. Ms.

Price said, according to Section 7.5.603.B.4, Location Criteria for

Mixed-Use, the zone is supposed to provide transitional benefits from

residential to commercial zoning, which is not what the storage facility

offers.

Ms. Price said there were emails exchanged with City Staff in November

2022 stating that comments cannot be released to the applicant until the

application payment is received. She said on February 2023 an email

stated if an application is dormant for 180 days it will expire, and this

application was almost expiring. She said the application fee was paid on

February 28, 2023, after the 180 expiration days. Ms. Price said there was

an additional email from Staff on March 2023 stating that one of the

requirements will be that the applicant conduct a community meeting,

however, it did not occur until August 2025, after the application was

approved, and only because the appeal was filed. She said attempts to

communicate with Staff were made in July 2023 but were unsuccessful,

and later they learnt that the application had changed Planners. Ms. Price

said after that only a few members of the community received an email on

July 9, 2025, notifying them of the administrative approval and beginning of

the appeal timeframe under the UDC, even when the application was

reviewed under a different code.

Ms. Price said there were emails and comments from Staff stating the

applicant was not being very responsive and submittals were taking a long

time, causing delay to the entire process, however, in July 9, 2025, it was a

fast approval. She said a different Planner took over this project and also

made comments about the extreme delay in moving this application

forward. Ms. Price said there were a couple of instances where a

resubmittal took longer than 180 days, but the application never became

expired. She said information online notes the normal application timeline

for City Planning takes months, not years.

Ms. Price said the community would like to recommend approval of the

appeal and denial of the application for the storage facility, based on all

statements provided during her presentation, and the five basis elements

on the appeal form. She said if the Commission were to deny the appeal,

they would request considerations to the community. Ms. Price said the

hours of operation have significantly changed during the application

process, and the traffic will not be like regular delivery vans. She said these

hours do not account for seasonal daylight and darkness, because nothing

good happens after dark. She said if the appeal is denied, they would like

to request that a condition be put to respect the hours mentioned at the

after approval community meeting, and do not allow them to be changed

without a new application process that allows the community input and

involvement. Ms. Price said the traffic flow is a safety and quality of life

concern, because there is no way currently into the facility going eastbound

other than going through the neighborhood, due to the median on Old

Ranch Road. She said the approved plans show a forced left turn out of the

facility to bypass the neighborhood, but there is no mention on how this will

be enforced. She said a no U-turn sign was recently posted at Old Ranch

Road and Chapel Ridge Drive and there is nowhere close to make a

U-turn, making it difficult for eastbound traffic to turn back. Ms. Price said

the median is wide enough to allow for a left turn into Rhinestone Drive

heading eastbound. She said if this appeal is denied, they request the City

to require the applicant to implement the latest suggestion. Ms. Price said

another consideration would be landscaping, lighting and aesthetics. She

said pertaining to landscaping, parts of the community will have direct view

into the storage facility, making it look like an industrial park. She said

lighting would be likely be reconsidered due to the change of hours in

operation, and the inclusion of security cameras, that do not need

additional lighting of what is already approved. She said community

standards for exterior barriers on major roadways are greater than six feet

and are made of precast concrete wall, the metal fencing and building walls

are not secure and do not conform to community standards, as opposed to

the standard barrier, that would also provide safety. She said that signage

should also conform to the rest of the community to provide a transition

from the neighborhood to the commercial building. Ms. Price said if the

appeal is denied, they request the Commission to require mature

landscape that is not impacted by seasonal change, no changes to the

approved lighting, and the exterior barrier and signage to conform to the

community standards.

Applicant’s Presentation

Andrea Barlow, with NES, representing the applicant, said NES was

brought into the project on July 21, 2025, when the appeal was submitted

and was not involved in the application process. She said the facility is

located on the corner of Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone Drive, adjacent

to Powers Boulevards, and it is under five acres. She said they reviewed

the neighborhood concerns submitted for the initial application, as well as

the ones submitted for the appeal, and they referred to inconsistency with

the Mastel Plan and neighborhood compatibility, industrial-scale facility,

aesthetics, massing, lighting, fencing, noise pollution, gate placement,

security concerns, crime, Mouse Habitat and drainage issues.

Ms. Barlow said the site has been commercial since the conception of

Briargate Master Plan, and it was zoned commercial in 2003 as Planned

Business Center (PBC) that allowed a 45 feet maximum height. She

mentioned the rezonings that occurred to the adjacent properties in 2003,

2014 and 2017. She said that accompanying the rezone of this site there

was a concept plan that identified 41,000 feet of commercial use. Ms.

Barlow said in June 2023, the UDC revised the zone to MX-M (Mixed-Use

Medium). She said this application was submitted well before the UDC

was approved. She said it was mentioned that the applicant can choose to

work with Chapter 7 or the UDC, but this option was not applicable, since it

only pertained to submittals between the adoption of the UDC in early

2023, and its implementation in June 2023. Ms. Barlow said other

properties have developed around this site, and the time of the rezoning,

the property was still undeveloped.

Ms. Barlow said under Chapter 7, the definition for Mini Warehouse is the

same as Self-Storage in the UDC, pointing out that access to the facilities

is infrequent and there are no utilities provided, other than lighting. She

said the maximum height under Chapter 7 is 45 feet, and for UDC is 50

feet. Ms. Barlow said a lot of the appellant’s presentation was about the

process, and, although it is unfortunate from a neighborhood involvement

perspective, it is not part of the criteria for a development plan. She said

the site will include 519 units for a total of approximately 80,000 square feet

of storage, and 1,400 square feet of office. She said circulation is required

for the storage units, but parking is only required for the office, and stalls

have been provided. Ms. Barlow said the building setbacks are 25 feet,

which are met on all sides. She said the permitted heigh is 45 feet,

however, they are proposing a heigh of 17 feet and three inches for the

office and for the storage units. She said if they get approved, they will start

construction in spring 2026 and will open the facility in summer 2027.

Ms. Barlow said landscaping setbacks and buffers are located all around

the perimeter, they meet all the requirements and exceed them for shrubs,

which are evergreen, meeting the 50% requirement of seasonality. She

emphasized it was never mentioned at the community meeting that hours of

operation would be from 9 am to 5 pm. She said it was offered that they will

have a discussion with the operator to decide on that matter, and the hours

of operation will be Monday to Saturday 6 am to 10 pm and Sunday from 8

am to 6 pm, which are standard operating hours on similar facilities in the

area. She said access will be gated and will have an entry code. Ms.

Barlow said there will be on-site management and security during normal

business hours, and operational security cameras will be in place 24/7.

She said rental units will be subject to a contract that prohibits their use for

housing.

Ms. Barlow said no outdoor storage would be permitted. She said the

material and color of the office are consistent with the surrounding

neighborhood, nothing industrial-looking, as it will be a low-key

development. She said they will be adding a sidewalk along Rhinestone

Drive, because it is currently nonexistent. Ms. Barlow presented renderings

showing how the development would look from different views. She said

the adjacent townhomes are elevated approximately 10 feet above the

grade of the road and will have a bird’s view of any development on that

site. She said they have a six-foot fence that does not provide much

screening, so the proposed landscaping will improve that.

Ms. Barlow said one of the biggest concerns in the community meeting

was traffic, especially about the access from Rhinestone into Old Ranch

Road, that is right-in and right-out only, because there is a median across

Old Ranch Road. She said if someone wants to go east, they will have to

go through the neighborhood. Ms. Barlow said a mini warehouse is the

least traffic generator commercial use, that a traffic report is not even

required. She said they compared traffic between uses as single-family

attached housing, a strip retail plaza, a general office building, and medical

and dental offices, and it showed the total traffic generated by this

development is significantly less than the preferred alternatives, especially

during peak hours. She said the management company considers that,

compared to similar projects they manage in the area, they would probably

get 16 trips in and out a day. She said the mini warehouse has a steady

trip generation, while the other uses vary throughout the day.

Ms. Barlow said there were concerns about sight visibility and an analysis

was done and Traffic Engineering agreed with it. She said there was a

request to move the gate back and they did. She said the site is designed

to accommodate the turning requirements for emergency vehicles, small

box trucks and moving vans, but not semitrucks. Ms. Barlow said 54

wall-mounted lights are proposed, that will be downward facing, which will

not cause any impact farther than 10 feet away. She said for security

purposes only the minimum necessary lighting will be kept on 24/7.

Ms. Barlow said they are proposing a precast concrete screen fence along

Rhinestone Drive and a security rail fence on the east and south sides of

the property, and no additional fence on the north, since there is an existing

one. Ms. Barlow said regarding the environmental concerns for the Mouse

habitat, it is focused near the creek because of the water source. She said

once the water source is disrupted by development, which this has been,

there is no habitat beyond that. She said Kettle Creek development got all

the permits needed with the US Fish and Wildlife, and there was an

authorized take of habitat.

Ms. Barlow said what is relevant is the review criteria, where the site

design, building location, orientation and exterior building materials are

compatible with the neighborhood and complies with the City adopted

plans. She said when there is a master plan and a zoning in place,

PlanCOS requirements become less relevant, however, when it comes to

creating vibrant neighborhoods, this commercial site has always been part

of the neighborhood. She said it meets the dimensional standards in the

Zoning Code, complies with the Drainage Criteria Manual, as it allocates a

detention pond on the northwest of the property that will address all the

existing and future drainage issues. She said it also provides adequate

parking and everything else meets standards. Ms. Barlow said it complies

with the Landscape Code, addresses sensitive natural features, complies

with the traffic criteria, has adequate utilities services and addresses

significant off-site impacts.

Ms. Barlow said the appellant referred to public health, safety and welfare,

which is a zoning criteria, not a development plan criteria. She said once a

zone is established, there is an assumption that allowed uses are

compatible with the neighborhood from that perspective. Ms. Barlow said

at the meeting they held there were 61 attendees, and one approached

saying that a different use could be worse. She said some of the attendees

got their concerns addressed and clarity that this has always been

commercial, and no changes are being proposed to the master plan nor to

the zoning.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Hensler asked if they analyzed traffic generation for a

multi-family development, which is permitted use. Ms. Barlow said they

wanted to be realistic in their analysis, so they used townhomes as

example.

Commissioner Robbins asked if going from Powers on Old Ranch Road

there are two lanes going west. Ms. Barlow said there are two lanes in both

directions.

Commissioner Robins asked if going on Old Ranch Road there is an apron

to turn right into Rhinestone. Ms. Barlow said there is a deacceleration lane

to go in and an acceleration lane when you come out.

Public Comments

Chris Radcliff, resident of the area, said he is there because they were only

informed of the approval after years of dormancy. He said it was mentioned

that the site was always commercial, and where he now lives was also

commercial at one point. He said this development has not been very

transparent, so the appeal is the only resource they have. Mr. Radcliff said

minimal traffic was mentioned, however, it will still be more than what it

currently is. He said he worries about his son that has to walk by the area

everyday to go to school.

Karen Knowles, resident of the area, said her grandchildren play on the

street in the area constantly, and to access the site, people will have to

come through her street or the one perpendicular to hers. She said she is

concerned about the moving trucks that will be coming in and blocking the

street for the buses at school pick-up time. Ms. Knowles said kids ride their

bikes or scooters to schools and after school programs, and will have to

fight the trucks. She said when she moved there 20 years ago, they were

promised a park behind Bison Ridge, and she would love to see a park

because there is nowhere for the kids to play. She said she is concerned

about the operation times, and people and trucks coming and going all the

time.

Linden Kinkead, resident of the area, said she bought a property in the

neighborhood on August 1st, when the city had moved forward with this and

she had no option to get out of buying it, and she will have to be next to the

storage facility. She said there is a major concern about moving trucks

parking on the outside while they unload, because they cannot go in. She

said if two trucks are parked, that turns the street into one way only. She

said if landscaping is not mature enough and not taken care of, it will die

and leave the metal fencing by itself, and all should be evergreen. She said

if all surrounding properties rezoned into residential, why is this still

commercial.

Jim Lubban, Vice President of the HOA at Bison Ridge and Kettle Creek,

said most residents are very opposed to this. He said he considers a

mistake that all surrounding properties were approved to be residential,

leaving this site as MX-M. He said two sides of the site are facing

residential properties. Mr. Lubban said townhomes might bring more

traffic, but residents will be cognizant of the children when they circulate. He

said the crime rate is 1200 plus burglaries in Colorado Springs, from which

10% occur in self-storage areas, and the proposed fencing would not be

much of security. He said that traffic going through the neighborhood at 10

pm at night is not acceptable.

Robert Stein, a resident of Kettle Ridge Drive, said his street will be where

all trucks and extra traffic go into this facility. He said he drives a semi-truck

and knows that small businesses store their stock in storage facilities,

meaning commercial vehicles will frequently travel through the

neighborhood. He said the neighborhood already floods during rainstorms

and fears the facility’s driveway will worsen the situation. He said they

should consider access from Old Ranch Road, instead of through the

neighborhood, because truck activity at 10 pm will be very disruptive. He

said it would be better to have townhomes instead of the commercial

facility.

Kimberly Stein, Bison Ridge resident, said she has lived there for nearly 10

years, and her primary concern is traffic, particularly on Kettle Ridge Drive

that will have all incoming traffic to access this facility if you are coming

from the west. She said traffic studies considered Old Ranch Road, not

their street. She said children walk to and from school in the area, and that

large trucks, including semis and moving vans, would pose a danger. She

said truck traffic from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM daily, and until 5:00 PM on

Sundays is not acceptable. She said this can have a negative impact on

property values and it would not benefit the residents of her neighborhood.

Dave Murphy, Townes at Kettle Creek resident, said he was the person

corresponding with City Staff in 2022, and a community meeting was

offered to be a requirement due to the neighborhood opposition, however it

never happened. He said he only received notification of approval and is

frustrated about the process, which was not fair. He said the applicant’s

responses to comments were not available on Accela until the day of the

approval. He said he read all 168 comments that were written in a

respectful and thoughtful manner with concerns about a development that

does not add value to the neighborhood. He said he is concerned about

the light and the noise pollution, declining property values, traffic, potential

crime, and constantly changing hours of operation, the trucks beeping when

backing up and the doors rolling. He said he is also concerned about the

lack of landscaping planning.

Jenn Murphy, resident of the neighborhood, said she is frustrated about

how this application was handled. She said she considers it unsafe and

unfair that the development will use the existing fence facing the

townhomes instead of adding a new one. She said not including the

members of the community in the process was disrespectful, and they are

confused and frustrated. She said they talked to the neighbors and maybe

only five people were in support of the proposal. She said they kept open

communication with City staff until 2023, and since communication

stopped, they thought this project was not moving forward, until they

received the approval notification. She said none of the 168 complaints

were made public until the day of approval.

Chris Annan, Slumber Ridge Way resident, asked if there was a traffic

study done. He said the biggest concerns are the values of the homes with

a commercial property sitting in the middle of a residential area. He said to

go in and out of the storage complex there is no other option than going

through Kettle Ridge. He asked if studies can be done about an entrance

or traffic change on Old Ranch Road, to avoid a neighborhood with

families, dogs, kids walking to and from school.

Allyssa Downs, resident of the area, said she has been a Colorado

Springs resident since 1987 and has seen a lot of change, especially

about the open space that she misses a lot. She said she is very

concerned about the traffic and safety, because there are a lot of people

walking at any time of the day every day. She said she would love for the

site to stay as open space. She said she agrees with Chris Annan about

making the traffic change in Old Ranch Road, so the traffic does not go into

the neighborhood that already has massive potholes. She said the

setbacks for the facility should be larger to allow more evergreens on

Rhinestone to cover the visual impact from the residential area, and more

buffer to help with the noise.

Will Lassani, resident of the area, said he echoes all previous comments

from the neighborhood and wants to add that the comment about all

attendees to the community meeting have found their answers is not

accurate, because clearly people are saying they do not want this. He said

this is a commercial building and are not people that will be part of the

community and will not take care of it the same way. He said he is

concerned about the lack of emotionality because everything has to be

done in terms of code.

Appellant’s Rebuttal

Ms. Price said she speaks on behalf of the 168 people that submitted

comments and the 61 people that attended the community meeting

because most of them have to work. She said this is not a small voice. She

said most people at the community meeting might have left with a better

understanding of what is coming but not satisfied, so she requests the

appeal to be approved, and the application denied. She said there are two

schools in the area and kids walk by every day. Ms. Price said the evolution

of the neighborhood was noted, with all properties changing from

commercial to residential, except this one. She said this storage facility

does not offer a transition at all. She said it was pointed out that this has

always been commercial, but it is not the case because she was able to

buy a residential property.

Ms. Price said it was mentioned during her presentation that applications

submitted before June 5, 2023, could choose to be reviewed under the

UDC or Chapter 7. She said the delay for this application process has

been years. She said according to the definition of mini warehouse access

should be infrequent, but how will that be enforced. She said other facilities

operate according to daylight time, unlike this one. She said other facilities

have mentioned that people store their boats, small vehicles, barbeque

grills or realtor signs, so how can they be sure that access will be

infrequent. She said she believes PlanCOS is there to support community

involvement, which was totally disregarded during this application. She

said even though landscaping exceeds the requirements, it is the

placement that is the issue.

Ms. Price said hours of operation were indeed mentioned at the community

meeting, creating expectations on the schedule. She said Colorado

Springs has more sense of community than other cities and that is why

people move here. Ms. Price said it is not only the volume of traffic that is

concerning, but the type; 16 to 26 feet might be also coming in. She said

the minimal lighting is only offered for eight hours.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Ms. Barlow said community members are right about the traffic pattern

because if someone wants to go east, they must go through the

neighborhood. She said this facility will bring minimal traffic compared to

any other use, and the type of vehicles that will come are already in the

neighborhood. She said in residential neighborhoods, usually 3% to 5%

are trucks, which are not part of the community either, therefore traffic will

not be much different. Ms. Barlow said community members are right about

this site being surrounded by residential areas because that is how the

master plan was designed, and while it is not a residential transition, it is a

low-key commercial transition. She said mature trees will not be planted

but vegetation will meet the minimum height requirement for the different

types. She said there will be a solid fence along Rhinestone with additional

screening with the trees. She said they did discuss with Traffic Engineering

the possibility of accessing from Old Ranch Road instead of Rhinestone,

but it is too close to the intersection with Powers, making it not an option.

Ms. Barlow said the landowner of this site is the same owner as the other

developments know as the Venezia of Briargate, and they purposely chose

this use as the most compatible commercial use with the neighborhood.

She said there was a comment about lack of emotionality on her

presentation, and that is exactly what she is supposed to do, refer to the

criteria, not emotions. She said property values are not part of the criteria,

and each property has the right to their value. Ms. Barlow said regarding

using the fence of the existing development, if they were to put another

fence against it, it will just create maintenance issues, but they do have

connecting fences to the rest of the perimeter for security. She said there

were comments about this site being used for a park or as open space,

however, it was never intended to be for any of those uses. Ms. Barlow said

this is private property and as such the owner has rights and expectations

to have it as commercial use. She said they are potentially improving the

situation for school children by adding a sidewalk.

Commissioners’ Questions

Chair Casey asked Todd Frisbie, City Traffic Engineering, representative

of Public Works Department, if there is a possibility of extending the road

across the median on Old Ranch Road. Mr. Frisbie said that is a

possibility.

Chair Casey asked if there is a methodology to look at to implement that.

Mr. Frisbie said the number of vehicles that will trigger a left turn lane on

that intersection is 25 vehicles at peak hour.

Commissioner Rickett said the intersection with Powers is not very far

away. Mr. Frisbie said it is about 650 feet away, however, he does not like

unprotected left turns, especially when there is a protected one 500 feet to

the west. He said they did not see the need of the turn since this is a low

traffic generation use.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there are similar types of use that do not

require a traffic study. Mr. Frisbie said it usually depends on the number of

trips generated at peak hour, if it is more than 100, a study will typically be

required.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there are known issues about traffic

around storage facilities. Mr. Frisbie said he has not received any

complaints specifically about storage facilities.

Mary Rosenoff, Deputy Chief of Police in charge of the Patrol Bureau, said

they do a lot of speed enforcement in the Old Ranch Road and Chapel Hills

area, regardless of the presence of storage units.

Chair Casey asked Deputy Chief Rosenoff to speak about crime in

storage facilities. She said there is about 120 storage facilities in Colorado

Springs, with an average of 500 units. She said from January 2024 through

July 2025 there were 2148 calls about storage facilities. She said in 2024

there were 286 burglaries reported, however property burglaries are down

8% from last year. She said between January and July 2024 there were

162 calls and for the same period in 2025, there have been 152. She said

in August 2024 there were 36 burglary calls, but only 10 this year.

Commissioner Hensler asked if those facilities are fenced or controlled.

Deputy Chief Rosenoff said they are all different facilities. She said they do

facilitate the crime prevention procedure of having an officer come by and

make recommendations; however, those are not always followed because

it can become costly.

Chair Casey asked if she had more specific numbers about the storage

facilities in that specific area. Deputy Chief Rosenoff said she does not

because these are triggered by specific addresses, and those are not

always related to burglaries, they could be traffic accidents, domestic

disturbances or other issues but just people might use the storage location

as a reference.

Chair Casey asked Richard Mulledy, Director of Public Works, if they see

any issues with drainage and the retention pond in the area. Mr. Mulledy

said according to the drainage report they are proposing minimal off-site

flows for the existing conditions and are reduced for the post development

conditions. He said the capacity of the existing storm sewer system was

considered including this site, which will also be reduced in the post

development.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there was a reference in the prior zoning that

talked about expiration of an application. Ms. Baxter said in Chapter 7 and

in UDC there is a withdrawal section stablishing 180 days, with the option

of extending response periods by the manager, as long as they are in

communication with the City, because of external work that the application

might need.

Commissioner Cecil asked what the process is to document the

communication between the applicant and the City in case there are

inquiries about it. Ms. Baxter said it depends on the Planner case, but it

could be an email or a phone call.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the language from the Air Force Overlay that

does not appear on the drawings was waived by the manager. Ms. Baxter

said this applicant was referred to the Air Force Academy and the

requirements will be on the subdivision plat, which has not been submitted

yet.

Commissioner Cecil said it should also appear on the land use plan. Ms.

Baxter said it might be on the concept plan for Bison Ridge at Kettle

Creek, but this is the development plan.

Commissioner Cecil cited a code section about development plans

including all documentation. Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager, said that

section pertains to the UDC, and this application was reviewed under

Chapter 7.

Commissioner Cecil asked how they should factor the criteria based on the

old code that was presented. Trevor Gloss, City Attorney’s Office, said

when there is a recodification of a code specific standards should be

maintained from the previous code and general applicability, like the

appeal process, should conform to the new code.

Commissioner Cecil asked if somehow something is not permitted by the

UDC it would not be relevant. Mr. Gloss said the development plan and

requirements should be compared to Chapter 7.

Commissioner Rickett thanked the appellant for a good presentation, and

the community members for providing their comments. Commissioner

Rickett said there were comments about working for the people, he said

they do work for the city, for the developers and for the community.

Commissioner Rickett said feelings do not have to be considered and they

make decisions based on the code. Commissioner Rickett said he

understands the community’s frustration with this being reviewed under one

code but appealed under another. Commissioner Rickett said he had

previously brought up to City Council that the development process itself

needs to be improved, making it easily accessible and understandable to

the public. Commissioner Rickett said most of the comments were zone

related.

Commissioner Rickett said he is in support of development plans and for

the public to use them. Commissioner Ricket said this has been a

commercial site and the owner has the right to use it as such, even though

other surrounding properties have decided to become residential.

Commissioner Rickett said he does not believe the comment about

compatibility with the neighborhood under UDC has been met, but he

asked for confirmation whether this is an applicable criteria. Mr. Sexton

cited the first criteria under Chapter 7, which is comparable with the one

mentioned, and is a subjective criteria. Commissioner Rickett said he is

not opposed to the use of storage facility, however, he will be in support of

the appellant, because he considers the application does not meet that one

criteria, especially with the materials proposed.

Commissioner Hensler said she appreciates the public presence and their

input. Commissioner Hensler said she understands the frustration when a

process takes long and staff is changed but asked the public to give grace

to staff that is currently working on the applications. Commissioner Hensler

said she agrees with Commissioner Rickett that this has been a

commercial property and in this case the owner decided to keep it like that.

Commissioner Hensler said she considers the materials are compatible

with the neighborhood to the extend possible and she will be in support of

the application.

Commissioner Robbins said he agrees that the zoning in question has

been in place for a long time. Commissioner Robbins said he understands

the community’s concerns, particularly regarding traffic and safety, but

those would be much higher if it was a different development, as shown in

the chart presented by the applicant. Commissioner Robbins said that the

property is privately owned, and the owner has the right to sell or develop it

according to current zoning regulations. Commissioner Robbins said he

thinks the applicant will do a good job with landscaping. Commissioner

Robbins suggested a website to tack crime and neighborhood data.

Commissioner Robbins said that traffic from delivery services is already a

factor in neighborhoods. Commissioner Robbins said he is not in favor of

the appeal.

Commissioner Cecil thanked Ms. Price for a very detailed presentation.

Commissioner Cecil said she thinks this approval was not erroneous but

has brought up some operational issues that have to be looked at.

Commissioner Cecil said she did not find a criteria that was not met so she

will not be in support of the appeal.

Commissioner Rickett said if the appeal is not upheld, he would suggest

that the hours of operation be listed in the development plan. Chair Casey

said the development plan has already been approved. Mr. Sexton said the

item before the Commission is an appeal of an approved plan, and it would

be very difficult to go back and change it, and typically in development

plans they do not usually get into hours of operation. Kevin Walker said if

that is a condition they want, that could maybe be included in the motion if it

the Attorney’s consider it feasible.

Commissioner Rickett asked if they can appeal to City Council. Mr. Walker

said they can.

Commissioner Sipilovic thanked the community for participating.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he understands not wanting a storage facility

in the neighborhood, but the zoning is not under review today. He said he

thinks the landscaping and the stone added to the facilities is cohesive with

the surroundings so he will not be in support of the appeal.

Chair Casey said he is also not in support of the appeal. Chair Casey said

he understands the process was flawed and Planning staff can address

that. Chair Casey said the proposal is using the land for a permitted use by

right, and property owner are allowed to do that as long as they have a

responsible development plan. Chair Casey said that he has seen more

crime occur in a park than in a storage facility.

Commissioner Rickett said The Broadmoor had the zoo paint a metal roof

so it does not reflect into them. Commissioner Rickett said there is a

possibility that the roof reflect into the townhomes.

Chair Casey said he does not think a condition on the hours of operation is

appropriate, as the appellant has the opportunity to bring it as a

consideration on the next appeal process.

Commissioner Clements said he voted against the item because he would

not want that in his neighborhood either.

Mr. Walker said this process was not acceptable and will make sure they

continue to improve it.

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner

Sipilovic, to deny the Appeal and affirm the administrative approval of

the Development Plan application, based on the provisions of the

City Code (UDC), and that the appellant has not substantiated that the

appeal satisfies the review criteria outlined in City Code (UDC)

Section 7.5.415.A.2.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-2-0-2.

5 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic and Chair Casey

2 - Commissioner Clements and Commissioner Rickett

2 - Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

Absent:

9. Presentations

10. Adjourn