Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

11:00 AM

Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett and

Chair Slattery

Present:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Excused:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

Katie Carleo, Urban Planning Manager, announced Banning Lewis Ranch

items 7. A.-F. would be postponed indefinitely.

3. Communications

Mike Tassi, Planning + Neighborhood Services Assistant Director thanked the

Commissioners for being flexible with the time change of the meeting, and

provided an update on the Appeal of Centennial Townhomes.

Mike Tassi - Planning + Neighborhood Services Assistant Director

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2233

Minutes for the February 14, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

4.A.

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments:

CPC 2.14.24 Minutes V2

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Briggs, to approve

the minutes for the February 14, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion

passed by a vote of 7:0:1:0.

7 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

1 - Commissioner Rickett

Absent:

Recused:

5. Consent Calendar

Valvoline at Marksheffel Road & Constitution

CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow automobile and light vehicle repair,

5.A.

minor in the MX-M/AP-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport

Overlay) zone district consisting of 0.77 acres located at the

Northeast corner of Marksheffel Road and Constitution Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Logan Hubble, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

Staff Report_Valvoline

Attachment #1_Project Statement

Attachment #2_Public Comment

This Planning Case was accepted on the Consent Calendar

Approval of the Consent Agenda

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, that all

matters on the Consent Calendar be passed, adopted, and approved by

unanimous consent of the members present. The motion passed by a vote of

8:0:0:1.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2

MAPN-23-00 Establishment of the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 Master Plan

7.A.

Major Amendment to change the existing land use classifications

of R, RL, RM, RH, R, NR, ES to the following land use

classifications PRO, RES-M and COM consisting of 511.20 acres

located north of Tamlin Road and east of Dublin Boulevard and

Banning Lewis Parkway. (Quasi-judicial)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Staff Rpt_BLR Village B2

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 -Public Meeting Summary

Attachment 3 - Public Comments

Attachment 3A - Additional Public Comments

Attachment 4 - Public Comment Response

Attachment 5 - District 49

Attachment 6 - Master Plan Major Amendment

Attachment 11 - Fiscal Impact Analysis

Attachment 12 - CONTEXT MAP

7.5.408 Master Plan

SUBD-23-00 A Vacation of Public Right-of-Way of Vista Del Oro Boulevard and

7.B.

portions of public right-of-way of Dublin Boulevard and Banning

Lewis Parkway consisting of 35.856 acres located north of Tamlin

Road and east of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 7 - Vacation Plat

7.7.402.C Vacation Procedures

PUDZ-23-00 A zone change consisting of 502 acres located at the northeast

7.C.

corner of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway from

PDZ/R-5-cr/R-1 6/MX-M-cr/AP-O/SS-O (Planned Development

Zone District, Multi-Family High Residential with Conditions of

Record, Single Family-Medium Residential, Mixed-Use Medium

Scale with Conditions of Record, and Airport and Streamside

Overlays) to PDZ/AP-O/SS-O (Planned Development Zone District

with Airport and Streamside Overlays: single-family and/or

two-family residential; density of 3.5-7.99 du/ac; and a maximum

building height of 35 feet). (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 8 - PDZ Rezone

7.5.603.B Findings - ZC

7.3.603 Establishment & Development of a PUD Zone

PUDC-23-00 Establishment of the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 PDZ

7.D.

Concept Plan consisting of 502 acres to allow for single-family

and/or two-family residential with medium residential density

(3.5-7.99 du/ac and a maximum building height of 35 feet)

consisting of 502 acres located north of Tamlin Road and East of

Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway extension.

(Quasi-judicial)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 10 - PDZ Concept Plan and Concept Plan

7.5.501.E Concept Plans

7.3.605 PUD Concept Plan

ZONE-23-00 A zone change consisting of 9.2 acres located at the northeast

7.E.

corner of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis Parkway from

PDZ/R5/AP-O/SS-O (Planned Development Zone District and

Multi-Family Residential with Airport and Streamside Overlays) to

MX-M/AP-O/SS-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport and

Streamside Overlays).(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 9 - Rezone_Commercial

7.5.603.B Findings - ZC

COPN-23-00 Establishment of the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 Concept

7.F.

Plan for proposed commercial consisting of 9.2 acres located at

the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Banning Lewis

Parkway. (Quasi-judicial)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Attachment 10 - PDZ Concept Plan and Concept Plan

7.5.501.E Concept Plans

8. New Business

1307 E Monroe Street

DVSA-23-00 A Development Standards Adjustment to City Code Section

8.A.

7.2.204.B and to provide a 15’ front yard setback located at 1307

E Monroe Street.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

Staff Report

Attachment #1_Site Plan

Attachment #2_Project Statement

Attachment #3_Letter of Support

Drew Foxx, Planner II, presented the scope of the project to the

Commissioners. The applicant Manny Escoval and Mrs. Escoval presented a

presentation to the Commissioners.

Questions from Commissioners

Chair Slattery wanted to understand the development standard adjustments

and how this project came to this point of building permit denial, setbacks, and

applications as the Planning Commission as a whole was worried about setting

a precedent of approving a project with a building permit denial.

Commissioner Rickett inquired on the contractor that was hired for this project.

Furthermore, he inquired when the stop order was provided to the applicants

as the project looked like it has been completed. The applicant refuted that the

project has not been completed and there are a few more steps that need were

on hold since the stop order was assigned.

Commissioner Hensler inquired if there was any foundational work completed

for this project, to which the applicant confirmed there was no foundational

work done once the stop order was assigned. The concrete work was

completed a few days before the stop order because they wanted to ensure

the concrete was fully cured before going to the next step of the project.

Commissioner Hensler inquired further if an inspector has been out to inspect

the foundational work. The applicant confirmed there has not been an

inspector as they were waiting on this process to be completed before doing

any additional work to adhere to the stop order. Commissioner Hensler

inquired if this contractor was licensed, insured, or bonded, to which the

applicant was unsure.

Commissioner Cecil commended the improvements made for the project, but

stated the application should have been submitted prior to the improvements

being implemented. Commissioner Cecil inquired more about the public bench

replacement of the right-of-way and who would be responsible for maintenance

and care for the area.

Commissioner Briggs thanked the applicants for their time and presenting very

clearly. He added that the applicants explaining their situation, and how they

were not informed of the proper steps to improve their projects helped their

case immensely, and understood that it was an honest misunderstanding,

rather than trying to work around the system.

Vice Chair Foos added anything moving forward will now need to be brought

up to code, and thanked the applicants for their time to explain the situation.

Chair Slattery observed the lot lines, noting the implementation of a new code

with the UDC and some adjustments for conformance. As she surveyed the

street, it appeared that her property line aligned more closely with that of most

neighbors, except for two neighbors whose properties extended further

forward. Expressing gratitude for the explanation provided during the process,

she conveyed approval of the project's appearance. She suggested conducting

further vetting of the contractor for future endeavors. Ultimately, she expressed

support for the project.

Commissioner Rickett asked if this would have been an issue had it been

Chapter 7, and Drew Foxx, Planner II, clarified further it would have indeed

been a different issue if filed under Chapter 7. Commissioner Rickett stated he

follows code very seriously and was struggling to understand item 3 of the

UDC. He wanted to be clear if he were to vote in support of this project, it was

strictly a porch as a non-livable space.

Commissioner Hente stated, this was probably not going to be the last time the

Planning Commission would see a situation like this again.

Public Comment

Melissa Anthony, citizen, spoke in support of this project.

Ignacia Venay, citizen, also spoke in support of this project.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, to approve the

Development Standards Adjustment to City Unified Development Code

Section 7.2.204.B allowing for the establishment of a 15' front yard setback

based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria as set

forth in City Code Section 7.5.525.

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

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

UDC Amendment for Hearing Scheduling

24-160

Ordinance No. 24-18 amending Section 415 (Appeals) of Part 4

(General Procedures) of Article 5 (Administration and

Enforcement) of Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code) of the

Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as amended,

pertaining to scheduling of hearing.

8.B.

(First Reading)

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Mike Tassi, Assistant Planning Director, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

UDC-AppealsORD-2024-2-2

Exhibit 1 - Redline of amendment to UDC Subsection 7.5.415

-Appeals - Scheduling of Hearing

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Vice Chair Foos to recommend

approval to City Council of an ordinance to amend Subsection 7.5.415.A6

(Appeals - Scheduling of Hearing) of the Unified Development Code.

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

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Rickett

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

1 - Commissioner McMurray

Absent:

Colorado Springs Fire Station #24

Ordinance No. 24-28 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs relating to 4.783 acres located at 2465

Interquest Parkway from A (Agricultural) to PF (Public Facilities)

zone district for the construction of a Colorado Springs fire station

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

8.C.

ZONE-23-00

Presenter:

Kyle Fenner, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood Services.

Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

Ordinance_Colorado Springs Fire Station No. 24 ZC

Staff Report_ZONE-23-0034_CSFD Station #24

Attachment #1_Rezone Project Statement

Attachment #2_Land Use Statement & Waiver Request

Attachment #3_Zone Change Exhibit

Staff_CC_ZC CSFD Station #24

CPC 3.13.24 Minutes 8.C - Draft

Chair Slattery recused herself from this item based on her employment and

work on Fire Station #24. Kyle Fenner, Senior Planner, presented the scope of

project to the Planning Commission Board. The applicant, Steve Dubay, also

presented the scope of the project to the board.

Commissioner Rickett sought clarification on how the item justified a zone

change from Agricultural to Public Facility. He expressed confusion regarding

how criteria 4 had been met. Katie Carleo, Land Use Planning Manager,

explained that PF is the zone district encompassing all of Colorado Springs

utilities and fire station #24. She asserted that it was the appropriate zone

district according to the staff's assessment. Additionally, she mentioned that a

zone change is typically accompanied by a land use plan or a land use plan

waiver. She pointed out that the conditions for a land use plan waiver allow for

a land use statement. She emphasized that this was only one of the six criteria

that needed to be met, particularly applicable for areas under 10 acres, and it

aligned with what would become a development area. Commissioner Rickett

stated he would be in support of this project with a condition.

Commissioner Hensler emphasized the importance of the development plan

and permit process during a lengthy hearing concerning public facility height

restrictions during the water tank project. She stressed the necessity of

ensuring clear communication and understanding of the design to avoid any

future issues. She questioned whether it was feasible to make adherence to

the development plan a condition of the record.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Briggs, to

recommend approval to City Council the zone change of 4.78 acres from A

(Agriculture) to PF (Public Facility) 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 modification:

a. That all outstanding comments made by the Licensed Surveyor be

addressed and satisfied prior to 2nd Reading by City Council.

The motion passed by a vote of 6:1:1:1.

6 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente and Commissioner Cecil

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Rickett

1 - Commissioner McMurray

1 - Chair Slattery

No:

Absent:

Recused:

9. Presentations

CPC 2209

CSFD Emergency Response

9.A.

Presenter: Brett Lacey, Fire Marshal

Attachments:

Fire Department Emergency Response 2024

Brett Lacey, Fire Marshal, and Rondy Royal, Fire Chief, presented the Fire

Department Emergency Response to the board. The presentation included:

Purpose of CSFD, What is Risk, Community Risk (Public Safety), Loss Control

Methods, Extreme Events, Mitigation Strategies for High Risk, Fire Marshal

Truths, and Public Safety Commitment.

Questions from Commissioners

Commissioner Briggs received comments in the past meetings expressing

concern that the actions taken were endangering the current and future

residents by increasing density. The question was posed whether there might

be factors to consider that could indicate the situation not being typical of a

wildfire experience, even without Commissioner Briggs present to provide

insight.

Brett Lacey explained that when discussing the wildfire interface, they referred

to areas with heavier fuels, leading to more intense fire situations. Thirteen

different fuel models were utilized to predict fire behavior. Grass fires, a

perennial concern, were highlighted, especially during high wind events. Mr.

Lacey noted the rapid movement and intensity of grass fires, posing a higher

risk to firefighters due to shorter heat pulse durations compared to wildland

fires like Waldo Canyon.

Chair Slattery inquired about citizen participation rates, to which Mr. Lacey

responded that they were relatively low. Randy Royal elaborated on the

notification systems in place, such as I-pause and Everbridge, emphasizing the

necessity for citizens to sign up for alerts, particularly as I-pause would only be

activated in life-threatening situations.

Chair Slattery sought clarification on whether there was quantitative data

assessing the risk increase associated with adding more homes to different

neighborhoods. Mr. Royal explained the feasibility of such modeling but noted

significant variability and inaccuracies. Mr. Lacey added that while models were

imperfect, they could still offer useful insights into wildfire risk factors, which

influenced the categorization of homes by risk level.

Commissioner Almy raised concerns about the Everbridge alert system's

functionality, citing instances of irrelevant alerts about road closures. Randy

Royal acknowledged this as a glitch.

Commissioner Hente reflected on the quality of the fire services in Colorado

Springs, mentioning that in the 21 years of association, there had been only

one fire marshal known. Expressing frustration at the low attendance of

community meetings on fire safety despite several presentations over the

years, Commissioner Hente also highlighted the significant portion of calls the

fire department receives for medical issues, emphasizing the department's

extensive support for the community.

Commissioner Cecil sought clarification on whether the recommendations

presented to the board were solely based on minimum requirements or if

considerations of reasonable risks, including wildfire concerns, were also taken

into account. Mr. Lacey clarified that the fire code enforcement adhered strictly

to the provisions of the code without subjective judgment. Acknowledging

interpretational latitude within the code, Mr. Lacey emphasized the

thoroughness involved in its application and the process of addressing citizen

concerns through code amendments.

Inquiring about core mitigation strategies, Commissioner Cecil raised the

potential risks associated with severe weather events and gas lines,

suggesting these as timely reminders for public education. Mr. Lacey affirmed

the department's efforts in alerting citizens to potential risks but acknowledged

the limitations in ensuring everyone's safety, attributing some incidents to

human error despite educational efforts.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there was a registry for individuals unable to

drive, to which Randy Royal responded there was not, emphasizing the

importance of community connections and being good neighbors.

Commissioner Hensler questioned whether there were concerns regarding new

developments and increased density from the fire department's perspective.

Mr. Lacey explained that he believed the density issue was managed by traffic

engineering, acknowledging that this might not be a popular viewpoint. He

noted that existing codes already addressed factors such as square footage

per person, required exits, and occupancy limits, with the inclusion of sprinkler

mandates providing additional safety measures. Mr. Lacey asserted that if the

fire department did not view density as a significant concern, it was because

these codes and standards had already addressed potential risks adequately.

Commissioner Hensler inquired about the best utilization of the information

presented, beyond solely relying on Brett Lacey's opinions during meetings.

Mr. Lacey suggested that having a foundational understanding and comfort

with the decisions being made was crucial. He assured that if there were safety

concerns, the fire department would express them clearly, but if they supported

a decision, they would defend it confidently.

Commissioner Rickett asked Mr. Royal if he thought the new technology to

send out notifications would make a difference in reducing the traffic impact.

Mr. Royal confirmed he believed it would as it would help control the flow of

traffic better. Commissioner Rickett thanked them for the useful presentation to

the board.

10. Adjourn