Regional Development  
Center  
City of Colorado Springs  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO  
80910  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Downtown Review Board  
Tuesday, May 7, 2024  
9:00 AM  
Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)  
2880 International Circle  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
7 -  
Present:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Kronstadt, Board  
Member Hensler, Board Member Friesema, Board Member Mikulas and Board  
Member Luciano  
2 - Board Member Coats and Board Member Lord  
Excused:  
2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
3. Communications  
Ryan Tefertiller - Urban Planning Manager  
Ryan Tefertiller, Urban Planning Manager, formally introduced Amanda Luciano,  
the new DRB member, filling the vacant at-large seat, and also Tara Pence,  
who is the first alternate for this board. Tara can participate when the board is  
in need of a quorum for voting purposes for quasi-judicial items and she can  
participate in legislative items.  
There has been a fair bit of media coverage this past weekend about building  
heights. Mr. Tefertiller said he will send out PDF versions of the articles by  
email, as he feels it is valuable for this board to be aware of the conversations.  
It will likely be a topic of discussion as they continue to scrub the form-based  
code.  
The next meeting is scheduled for June 4th and there are currently no action  
items. There may be a need for an additional conversation about the  
form-based code scrub, so he asked board members to keep that date  
available.  
4. Approval of the Minutes  
DRB 2290  
4.A.  
Minutes for the April 2, 2024, Downtown Review Board meeting  
Presenter:  
David Lord, Chair of the Downtown Review Board  
Attachments: DRB_Minutes_04.02.24_Draft  
Motion by Board Member Kuosman, seconded by Board Member Kronstadt, to  
approve the minutes for the April 2, 2024, Downtown Review Board meeting. The  
motion passed by a vote of 7-0.  
7 -  
Aye:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Coats, Board  
Member Kronstadt, Board Member Hensler, Board Member Mikulas and Board  
Member Luciano  
2 - Board Member Lord and Board Member Friesema  
Absent:  
5. Consent Calendar  
6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar  
7. Unfinished Business  
8. New Business  
8.A.  
FBZN-24-000 An FBZ Warrant with an associated Minor Improvement Plan to allow for  
5
the construction of a 7 foot high wrought iron style fence enclosing the  
Penrose Library campus addressed as 20 N Cascade Avenue.  
Presenter:  
Johnny Malpica, Planner II, Urban Planning Division  
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Plan  
Figure 2 - Project Statement  
Figure 3 - Downtown BID - PPLD Fencing - Letter of Opposition  
Penrose Library FBZ Warrant - Staff Report Draft_JPM_FINAL  
Board Member Hensler disclosed that she is the current president of the Pikes  
Peak Library Foundation Board and also a member of the Downtown  
Partnership, but she does not feel either of these roles would make her biased  
in either direction. City Attorney Young Shin said that as long as there is no  
impropriety in her decision making, this is fine. Board Member Hensler said she  
does not have any prior knowledge of this project in her role with the foundation  
and that she can remain fair and unbiased.  
Johnny Malpica gave an overview of the project. The Penrose Library  
Downtown Branch is proposing to install a seven-foot high wrought iron fence to  
enclose the library campus. The fence would surround the entire perimeter  
along West Pikes Peak Avenue, North Cascade Avenue and West Kiowa  
Street. Staff finds that this project does not meet the review criteria.  
Mr. Malpica presented four options for motions for this project. Two of these  
were to approve with modifications, one to revise the plans based on dialogue at  
today’s meeting and return to a future public hearing, and one to deny the  
application.  
Board Member Mikulas asked for clarification on one of the motions that  
includes modifying the fencing along West Kiowa Street. Mr. Malpica pointed  
out on a site map what those changes would include.  
Board Member Kronstadt asked for a little more detail on why staff is  
recommending denial of the project. Mr. Malpica clarified that staff does not  
make any recommendations on whether to approve or deny a plan, they only  
provide all the possible motions. Staff only reviews the project on whether it  
complies with relevant criteria of the form-based code.  
Michael Brantner, Chief Safety, Community Resources and Security Officer for  
the Pikes Peak Library District, gave a presentation on their reasoning for this  
project and how they came to this decision. The district has been working  
intently on the safety and security at the downtown Penrose campus for five  
years. Their goal is to make the campus as safe as possible for all library  
patrons. Everybody is welcome at the library and they should feel safe, which is  
the district’s highest priority. Five years ago, they did an information campaign  
to find out the perception of the library held by outside agencies, elected  
officials, patrons and neighbors. The general consensus was that people did  
not feel safe and did not want to use that campus. Mr. Brantner said they have  
doubled their security team and extended the hours they are on site. They have  
installed 300 cameras to monitor for people on campus after hours. They have  
installed exterior speakers and cut down landscaping. They have put trash  
cans outside that are emptied twice a day. None of these things have solved  
the problem. They have increased security procedures on the inside, removing  
patrons for unwelcome behavior, which has increased the problems outside.  
Mr. Brantner said there is a great need for public bathrooms downtown and,  
right now, the Penrose Library is serving that purpose. He provided some visual  
aids to show what they deal with. He displayed two handfuls of straws that  
represent how many used syringes they have cleaned up in the past year and  
more to represent the ones thrown over the fence into the childrens area. Mr.  
Brantner pointed to three five-gallon buckets that represent how much human  
feces is picked up on the campus every week. An average of two gallons of  
human waste are picked up every day. This does not include the trash, the fires  
that are set next to the building, the regular smashed windows and break-ins,  
people sleeping on the campus, and people performing lewd acts in plain sight  
of the childrens area in broad daylight. They are fighting a daily battle to make  
the campus as safe as possible and they have done everything they can think of  
to address these issues.  
Mr. Brantner said they are asking for help to address what is best for the district,  
best for the patrons and best for downtown. They are willing to listen to  
concerns and make modifications to their plan.  
Board Member Hensler asked, that given they are looking at fencing the entire  
site, is there an area of greatest concern. Mr. Brantner said that each area has  
its own challenges. One of the biggest is the smell of urine across the entire  
campus. The parking lots get a lot of the trash, fires, vandalism and human  
waste. The childrens area is prone to drug use because it is far from the street.  
They have improved their exterior lighting, but that has not helped too much.  
Board Member Mikulas thanked Mr. Brantner for his presentation and the hard  
work he and his team have done over the last five years. He referred to a  
comment Mr. Brantner made that patrons are allowed on campus even if they  
are not allowed indoors. He asked how this plan addresses that. Mr. Brantner  
said the areas of the campus that would allow this to occur would just include  
the parking lots. Security officer primarily focus on the interior of the facility, but  
they do go check outside. When an individual is suspended, they are  
suspended from all of the grounds. The plan would limit access to the areas  
outside that you can only get to from the inside of the library, including the entire  
Kiowa Street side. This would be most helpful at night, when security is not  
on-site, by preventing access to those areas.  
Board Member Mikulas said that one of the options presented today includes not  
fencing part of the Kiowa Street side. He asked if Mr. Brantner has confidence  
that, without a fence, the results they are looking for will be able to be achieved.  
Mr. Brantner said many of their problems occur in that area, but if that is what is  
decided today, they will focus their efforts on every other area that they can.  
Board Member Kuosman asked about the recent changes to landscaping that  
included pulling out greenery and adding rocks and boulders. Mr. Brantner said  
the boulders were put in for intrusion protection from vehicles for the childrens  
area. The greenery was trimmed or removed to increase visibility in that area.  
Board Member Friesema thanked Mr. Brantner for their work on cleaning up the  
library campus. He said he and his family are frequent patrons and he  
understands the struggle. He stated the city could do a much better job of  
providing public facilities downtown. He asked about the proposed fencing  
around the courtyard and if they would consider making it more civic looking and  
also whether they will be putting in new landscaping around the fence at the  
courtyard. Mr. Brantner said their intent is to make the entrance as grand as  
possible within their budget.  
Board Member Hensler asked if they are proposing gates at the North Cascade  
and West Pikes entrances and how those would work for patrons. Mr. Brantner  
said there would be a number of gates for entrance that would be open during  
business hours.  
Board Member Luciano asked, in the option where the fence is not in front,  
would the fence go between the front and back parking lots. Mr. Brantner  
confirmed that it would.  
Board Member Hensler said she struggles with the entire fencing and that it is  
off-putting for a public building, but she is supportive of other options presented.  
Board Member Kronstadt said he understands the struggle, but he does not  
think a fence is the solution. He said that other institutions in the city need to  
take on more responsibility and not put all the burden on the library district.  
Putting up a fence will just push people to other areas of downtown and will  
contribute to people experiencing homelessness feeling unwelcome.  
Mr. Brantner reiterated that the Penrose Library will continue to be a welcoming  
space for everybody. They have community resource staff with a desk to  
service people experiencing homelessness, veterans, people with food  
insecurities and those dealing with addiction. Staff includes social workers and  
peer navigators to specifically help these people find the resources they need.  
All people are welcome at the library, but not all behaviors are welcome.  
Board Member Mikulas asked if the plan will help address securing the interior  
of the library. Mr. Brantner answered that it would. Installing the fence will  
address the outdoor issues, which will help lessen the issues inside.  
Board Member Kuosman asked how the fence will help reduce human waste.  
She did not understand how, during the day when the gates are open, this issue  
would be addressed. Mr. Brantner said it will be stopped during daytime hours  
by security patrolling the grounds. At night is when this activity mostly occurs.  
Board Member Luciano asked if there is an option to put the fence between the  
front and rear parking lots, so it would not be across Cascade Avenue. Mr.  
Brantner said that is one of the options being considered.  
Public comment in support: none  
Public comment in opposition: none  
Chelsea Gondeck with the Downtown Partnership, said they have a neutral  
position. They recognize the problem, but the library district should not have to  
solve it on their own. They would support a different version of the plan that  
does not include fencing the entire property.  
There was discussion about the proposed motion to have the applicant revise  
their plans and come back to a later meeting and how commissioners would  
provide feedback to the applicant. Mr. Tefertiller said he believes  
commissioners have provided that feedback already during this meeting.  
Several commissioners added the desire to see visual representations of  
proposed and revised fencing and landscaping.  
Motion by Board Member Hensler, seconded by Board Member Friesema, to  
postpone this item and direct the applicant to revise the plan based on dialogue  
at the public hearing as well as to address the technical modifications listed  
above, to work with Planning Staff to circulate the revised plan to the necessary  
review agencies, and then return to the July 2, 2024, Downtown Review Board  
hearing for reconsideration. This motion is based on the finding that the current  
design does not meet the Warrant criteria in Section 5.4.3. of the Form-Based  
Code, but a revised plan could be found to comply with the criteria at a future  
public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.  
7 -  
Aye:  
Board Member Nolette, Board Member Kuosman, Board Member Kronstadt, Board  
Member Hensler, Board Member Friesema, Board Member Mikulas and Board  
Member Luciano  
2 - Board Member Coats and Board Member Lord  
Absent:  
9. Presentations  
DRB 23-455 Form-Based Code Review  
9.A.  
Attachments: May 2024 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
April 2024 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
March 2024 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
Feb 2024 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
Dec 2023 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
Sept 2023 FBC Scrub Presentation to DRB  
Mr. Tefertiller continued the presentation from the previous meeting regarding  
the scrub of the form-based code, starting with Section 5 - Process. Some  
section are proposed to stay as written.  
Under Section 5.1.2.5 - Composition of the Downtown Review Board, one  
member currently represents either the Mill Street Neighborhood Association or  
the Shooks Run Neighborhood Association. It is being proposed to add the  
Historic Uptown Neighborhood Association as an entity eligible for this seat.  
There will also be a clarification that downtown “property owner” seat can be  
filled by downtown “owners, tenants or residents”. Sections 5.1.3.1 and 5.1.3.2  
will have updated terms for items that Planning Commission acts on to be  
consistent with the new UDC terminology.  
Board Member Mikulas said with conversations happening about extending the  
form-based code up Pikes Peak, would it be worth adding the newly activated  
Hillside Neighborhood Association. Mr. Tefertiller said staff would support that.  
Board Member Hensler asked if it makes sense to state it as an adjacent  
downtown neighborhood association. Mr. Tefertiller said they would prefer  
clarity by naming specific associations, but he said staff can look at that.  
Section 5.3 - Development Plans, will have numerous changes to reflect UDC  
code citations and procedural changes, as well as the Planning office location  
and website.  
Section 5.4 - Warrants. Current code requires that all warrants go to DRB for  
action, however, 15% relief is allowed through Administrative Relief that is done  
administratively and not brought before the board. This will remain in the code.  
There is a proposed change to 5.4.1 to allow Administrative Action on two  
specific warrant types: parking and signage.  
Section 5.5 - Non-Conformities, has corrected code citations for new UDC.  
Section 5.6 - Minor Improvements, has no proposed changes, but there has  
been discussion from stakeholders requesting new standards to restrict/affect  
desing of roof-top uses. Staff is in support of guidelines, but not necessarily  
restrictions.  
Section 5.7 - Interim Use, allows five-year approval of a use that is not  
consistent with the form-based code and must be reapproved every five years.  
There have been four applications since 2009 and two are long-expired, yet still  
operating. Staff is recommending elimination of this tool. Several board  
members agreed.  
Section 5.8 - General Considerations, includes numerous minor changes to  
reflect UDC citations and terms.  
Section 6 - Definitions, add a definition for Artisan Manufacturing/Makerspace.  
There are some proposed map changes to include several new areas to extend  
eastward. The property owners in these areas are largely supportive.  
Next steps will include additional work sessions with DRB, stakeholder outreach  
and coordination, legal review, a public hearing at DRB and, possibly, at  
Planning Commission, and a presentation to City Council.  
10. Adjourn