City of Colorado Springs  
Regional Development Center  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO 80910  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Wednesday, August 9, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)  
2880 International Circle  
Planning Commission  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
8 -  
Present:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente,  
Commissioner Rickett, Alternate Cecil, Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner  
Slattery  
2 - Vice Chair McMurray and Commissioner Raughton  
Excused:  
2. Approval of the Minutes  
2.A  
Minutes for the July 12, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting  
Presenter:  
Scott Hente, Chair of the City Planning Commission  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Briggs, to approve  
the minutes of the July 12, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting.  
5 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Briggs, Chair Hente, Commissioner Rickett, Alternate Cecil,  
Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Almy and Commissioner Foos  
Recused:  
Excused:  
2 - Vice Chair McMurray and Commissioner Raughton  
3. Communications  
Peter Wysocki - Planning & Community Development Director  
Peter Wysocki gave an update on the Launchpad project that went before City  
Council, yesterday, August 8th. City Council voted to deny the appeal on the  
project, so Planning Commission’s approval was upheld.  
After some recent presentations to City Council and lengthy discussions, Peter  
recognized the work of Planning staff for their hard work, professionalism, and  
dedication to their community.  
4. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
Item 9.A was pulled from the agenda today. This item will be presented at the next  
informal meeting on September 7, 2023.  
5. Consent Calendar  
These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for  
discussion by a Commissioner/Board Member or a citizen wishing to address the  
Commission or Board. (Any items called up for separate consideration shall be acted  
upon following the Consent Vote.)  
5.A.  
MAPN-23-00 Establishment of the 5470 E. Pikes Peak Avenue/Stockpile Investments  
Land Use Plan for proposed Commercial and Industrial uses consisting  
of 12.56 acres located at 5410 E. Pikes Peak Avenue.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Related Files: ZONE-23-0013  
Presenter:  
Kyle Fenner, Senior Planner, Planning & Community Development  
Attachments: Staff Report  
5.B.  
ZONE-23-00 Ordinance No. 23-49 amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado  
Springs relating to 8.02 acres located at 5410 East Pikes Peak Avenue  
from BP/APZ-1 SS/AP-O (Business Park, Airport Accident Potential  
Zone-1 with Streamside and Airport Overlays) to LI/APZ-1 SS/AP-O  
(Light Industrial, Airport Accident Potential Zone-1 with Streamside and  
Airport Overlays)  
Presenter:  
Kyle Fenner, Senior Planner, Planning & Neighborhood Services  
Department  
Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning & Neighborhood Services  
Department  
Approval of the Consent Agenda  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, that this  
be approved Approval of the Consent Agenda The motion passed by a vote of  
7 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente,  
Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Vice Chair McMurray and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar  
5.C.  
MAPN-23-00 The establishment of the Mesa Highlands Land Use Plan for a proposed  
religious institution, office/medical office, multi-family residential and  
private open space consisting of 28.9 acres located at the southeast  
corner of West Fillmore Street and Centennial Boulevard.  
(Legislative)  
Presenter:  
Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development  
Department  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Community  
Development Department  
Attachments: Staff Report  
Commissioner Rickett pulled these items because he had a concern about the  
height of the structure and he was opposed to the project.  
Senior Planner Tamara Baxter deferred the question about the height to the  
applicant. Only a land use plan is being considered at this time, not a development  
plan.  
Andrea Barlow with NES said it is currently zoned PUD, which does include  
high-rise. The limit is 65 feet and, if adjacent to an arterial street, it goes up to 85  
feet. Per the land use plan, a religious institution is being proposed on the  
northern portion of the site, but it will not be that high. The current approved land  
use plan does include office high rise.  
Commissioner Rickett said there was some information provided that the site for  
the VA hospital was 60 feet and the rest of the site that is now being changed to  
MX-L was 45 feet, even though the master plan identified high rise. He was  
concerned about the change from 45 feet to 85 feet towering above a residential  
area with no transition except for the hillside.  
Ms. Barlow said that the residential area to the east is about 100 feet lower than the  
site down the slope a fair distance from the property. Buildings will be set back,  
because there is drainage and open space, reducing visibility from the area below.  
She added that there has been no opposition to this project from neighboring  
areas. They believe the MX-L is appropriate for this site, as it sits at the intersection  
of two major arterial streets, which is what this zone was intended to  
accommodate.  
Commissioner Almy asked for confirmation of the difference between the current  
zoning and the zoning being proposed.  
Ms. Baxter showed a slide from her presentation that shows the maximum height  
of 45 feet for the current PUD. The maximum height for the MX-L is 65 feet and can  
go up to 85 feet, because it is adjacent to an arterial street. Commissioner Rickett  
asked and Ms. Baxter confirmed that structures on both Fillmore and on Centennial  
can go up to 85 feet because they are arterials.  
Commissioner Slattery asked that with the zone change of the religious institution  
on the northern half, they wouldn’t necessarily be beholden to that use with the  
zone change, it’s just a proposed use, and staff confirmed.  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, that this  
Planning Case be accepted Proposed Motion:  
Recommend approval to City Council the Mesa Highlands Land Use Plan based  
upon the findings that the proposal complies with the review criteria for Land  
Use Plans as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514. The motion passed by a vote  
of  
6 -  
Aye:  
No:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente,  
Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Commissioner Rickett  
5.D.  
ZONE-23-00 Ordinance No. 23-48 amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado  
Springs pertaining to 28.9 acres located at the southeast corner of West  
Fillmore Street and Centennial Boulevard from PUD (Planned Unit  
Development) to MX-L/WUI-O (Mixed-Use Large Scale with Wildland  
Urban Interface Overlay).  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development  
Department  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Community  
Development Department  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Hensler, that this  
Planning Case be accepted Proposed Motion:<br />Recommend approval to City  
Council the zone change of 28.9 acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to  
MX-L (Mixed Use Large Sale) based upon the findings that the request complies  
with the criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment as set forth in City Code Section  
7.5.704, with the following technical modifications:<br />1. The zone change  
encompasses the entire property and the tract for the open space area should not  
be called out separately.<br />2. Correctly label the bearings and distances to  
reflect the legal description on all sheets of the exhibit.<br />3. Depict and label  
West Fillmore Street right-of-way correctly. The motion passed by a vote of  
6 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente,  
Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Slattery  
1 - Commissioner Rickett  
No:  
2 - Vice Chair McMurray and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
8. New Business  
8.A.  
APPL-23-00 An appeal of an administrative decision that approved a minor  
development plan amendment allowing site modifications along Union  
Boulevard in association with the Fox Bridge on Union project, located at  
8015 Siltstone Point.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Molly O’Brien, Planner I, Planning and Community Development  
Attachments: Staff Report  
Staff Presentation:  
Planner I Molly O’Brien presented the facts about the Fox Bridge on Union project.  
Since this application was submitted before June 5th, 2023, the minor amendment  
approval decision was made under the previous Chapter 7 code. The development  
plan was approved in 2019 as a multi-family residential use type. Since this  
approval, there have been three amendments and modifications to the original  
plan. The one being discussed today was a modification to the retaining walls.  
Public notifications were completed, with both a poster on site and postcards sent  
out to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius. Staff received five written  
comments and a number of phone calls. None of these included any comments  
about noise associated with the new section of the retaining wall.  
The City Landscape Architect asked the applicant to show how landscaping would  
be used to soften the look of the new section of retaining wall. The applicant  
complied by providing proposed changes, which staff found to be satisfactory and  
subsequently recommended approval. This minor amendment complies with both  
the previously approved concept plan and development plan.  
The appeal was filed on July 3, 2023. Because it was filed after June 5, 2023, the  
appeal procedure is subject to UDC requirements. The focus of the appeal is that  
there was no noise mitigation study conducted for the new section of retaining  
wall. The appellant stated that the traffic noise will increase significantly,  
impacting the quality of life for neighborhood residents.  
Ms. O’Brien stated that a noise mitigation study is not required per code for a  
retaining wall, nor is it standard practice. Staff recommended that the  
administrative decision be upheld, thus rejecting the appeal on the basis that the  
application complies with review criteria and that the appeal criteria have not been  
met.  
Appellant Presentation:  
Appelant Laura Evans is a resident near the Windjammer neighborhood. She stated  
that the City did not comply with zoning requirements, because they failed to  
initiate comprehensive studies, including increased noise levels resulting from  
construction of a retaining wall within 25 feet of a major traffic thoroughfare prior  
to approval.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Applicant Jason Alwine with the Matrix Group stated that this amendment includes  
connecting two existing retaining walls and also widening the entrance to  
accommodate delivery and fire trucks. He clarified that the final landscape plan is  
the one showing the specific details. There are trees and large shrubs both above  
and below the wall. It was decided to connect the existing walls for maintenance  
reasons.  
Questions/Discussion:  
Commissioner Rickett said that the approved plans in the staff report do not  
include the last revised or new retaining wall in the landscape plan.  
Ms. O’Brien replied that the scope of the changes were not to the extent that they  
would need a full amendment.  
Commissioner Rickett questioned the placement of the trees on both sides of the  
retaining wall.  
Commissioner Foos said some of the citizen comments mentioned the sidewalk  
was getting pushed closer. Ms. O’Brien replied that was referring to a previous  
amendment in 2022, but that is not happening.  
Commissioner Rickett said this particular appeal mixes Chapter 7 and the UDC and  
he asked how the appeal should have been filed. Mr. Wysocki answered that since  
the appeal was filed after the effective date of the UDC, it follows those rules.  
Commissioner Rickett said the staff report noted that the landscape architect asked  
the applicant to show how they would soften the new section of the wall and the  
applicant complied. He asked how this will be accomplished. Mr. Alwine answered  
that there are 9-10 trees spread out along the entire length of the wall and larger  
shrubs where the wall is closer to the sidewalk.  
Commissioner Briggs asked for clarification that there are two large buildings across  
the street. Mr. Alwine said to the west there is both single family and multi family  
housing.  
Commissioner Hensler asked about the height of the wall. She asked if five feet  
was recommended, is it possible to make it shorter, and what is the structural  
integrity for the homes above. Mr. Alwine said they are simply connecting one wall  
to the other and keeping a flat plane across while maintaining an appropriate slope  
as it goes toward the existing sidewalk on Union. There is approximately 41 feet  
between the proposed wall and the sidewalk.  
Commissioner Hensler asked Mr. Alwine to speak to absorption of noise between  
grass and a wall. Mr. Alwine said he is not an expert on noise and a noise study was  
not required. He did speculate that with the amount of turf and the length of  
setback that it would soften the noise.  
Commissioner Hensler asked about the siding of the structure and whether it is a  
softer material. Mr. Alwine said it will be siding with stone accents.  
Commissioner Slattery asked about the level of maintenance and whether there is  
a fencing requirement that defines connectivity to the park. Mr. Alwine said the  
owner felt that two separate areas would be easier to maintain and this is a better  
long-term solution. There will be a safety railing across the top of the retaining  
wall because there are significant grade changes and safety was a concern about  
people jumping off the wall. There is an ornamental iron fence between this  
property and the park.  
Commissioner Briggs asked for clarification on the applicant’s statement whether  
City Ordinance 91-30 should be applied or not. City Attorney Trevor Gloss answered  
that it should not be. The comprehensive plan and Ordinance 91-30 are aspirational  
and they are designed for the entire city and not necessarily applicable to  
individual sites.  
Several Commissioners commended the appellant for her well thought-out  
presentation and for being willing to bring this forward.  
Public comment:  
Laura Evans asked for clarification on whether the trees will be spread out or  
clumped together and she questioned the height of the wall. Mr. Alwine said there  
are nine trees below the wall and additional trees above the wall. The landscape is  
continuous along Union Boulevard. The connecting wall will be five feet tall.  
Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, that this  
Planning Case be accepted Proposed Motion: <br />Deny the appeal thus  
upholding the administrative approval based on the findings that based upon the  
findings that the application complies with the review criteria set forth in City  
Code Section 7.5.502(E) and that the appeal criteria of UDC 7.5.415(A)(2)(a)(2) are  
not met. The motion passed by a vote of  
6 -  
Aye:  
No:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Foos, Chair Hente,  
Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Hensler  
1 - Commissioner Slattery  
9. Updates/Presentations  
9.A  
Public Hearing Comment Management  
Presenter: Jen Cecil, Alternate Commissioner  
This item was pulled from the agenda today and will appear on the agenda for  
the next Informal Planning Commission meeting on September 7, 2023.  
10. Adjourn