Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 -

Present:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director called off item 8.C. 25-187, Public Art

Ordinance to delay it to a date uncertain.

3. Communications

Andrea Slattery - Planning Commission Chair

Chair Slattery said there are Commissioners coming to the end of their terms

and there will be openings and if anyone is interested, check the City’s website.

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Mr. Walker said City Council adopted the UDC Ordinance, and a final outlined

copy will be sent to the Planning Commissioners.

Mr. Walker said the Karman Line Annexation has been referred to the Ballot and

the election will occur on June 17th, 2025 by mail-in ballot to all City residents.

He said this will be to appeal the ordinance on the final annexation regarding the

proposed development.

Mr. Walker said there was a special meeting with City Council regarding the

OneVeLa high-rise apartment complex.

The Downtown Review Board

approved the development plan. There was an appeal of the approved

development plan to City Council. City Council voted to deny.

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2565

4.A.

Minutes for the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_3.12.25 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, that this

Minutes be accepted Motion to approve the minutes for the March12, 2025,

Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed by a vote of

5 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner

Robbins and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Abstain:

3 - Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Cecil and Commissioner Casey

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey, that this be

accepted 5. Consent Calendar The motion passed by a vote of

8 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Rockrimmon Christian Preschool at Woodmen Valley Chapel

5.A.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a large childcare facility in the

MX-N/CR/HS-O/AF-O/WUI-O/CU (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale

with a Condition of Record and Hillside, USAFA, and Wildland Urban

Interface Overlays and Conditional Use) zone district consisting of

8.39 acres located at 260 E Woodmen Road. (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Traffic Memo

Attachment 3 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 4 - City File No. AR DP 03-542-A1(04)

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.

8 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

Black Rock Coffee Conditional Use

5.B.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a drive-through coffee kiosk in the

MX-L/cr (Mixed-Use Large Scale with Conditions of Record) zone

district consisting of 0.91 acres located at 5570 Barnes Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments: CUDP-25-0006_Staff_Report_20250303_v2

Attachment 1- Ordinance 11-15

Attachment 2 - Project_Statement

Attachment 3 - Land_Use_Statement

Attachment 4 - Preliminary Development_Plan

Attachment 5 - Traffic Impact Statement

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.

Sunnyside AA LLC

5.C.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 25-52 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs relating to 0.35 acres (15,153 square feet) located

at 1202 North Academy Boulevard from R-5 and MX-M (Multi-Family

High and Mixed-Use Medium Scale) to MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium

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

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 5

Presenter:

Ethan Shafer, Urban Planner II, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report for ZONE-25-0002

Attachment 1 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 2 - Project Description

Attachment 3 - Legal Description and Exhibit

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Ordinance_ZONE-25-0002_1202 N Academy Blvd

Exhibit A - Legal Description

Exhibit B - Legal Exhibit

CC Presentation for ZONE-25-0002

Signed Ordinance No. 25-52.pdf

This Ordinance was referred to the City Council on the Consent Calendar.

Sunnyside AA LLC

5.D.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 25-51 to amend the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 0.41 acres located at 1222 North

Academy Boulevard from R-5 and MX-M (Multi-Family High and

Mixed-Use Medium Scale) to MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale).

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

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 5

Presenter:

Ethan Shafer, Urban Planner II, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report for ZONE-25-0001

Attachment 1 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 2 - Project Description

Attachment 3 - Legal Description and Exhibit

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Ordinance_ZONE-25-0001_1222 N Academy Blvd

Exhibit A - Legal Description

Exhibit B - Legal Exhibit

CC Presentation for ZONE-25-0001

Signed Ordinance No. 25-51.pdf

This Ordinance was referred to the City Council on the Consent Calendar.

2024 E Boulder Rezoning

5.E.

ZONE-22-00 Ordinance No. 25-53 to amend the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 0.39 acres (16,884 square feet)

located at 2024 East Boulder Street and 408 Iowa Avenue from R-4

(Multi-Family Low) and MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) to R-Flex

Medium.

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

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_2024 E Boulder

Attachment 1-Zone Map

Attachment 2-First Addition to Knob Hill

Attachment 3-Context Map

Attachment 4-Concept Plan

Attachment 5-Project and Land Use Statement

Attachment 6-Rezone Legal and Drawing

Attachment 7-Knob Hill Plan

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Ordinance_2024 E Boulder

Exhibit A and B_Legal Description and Drawing_2024 E Boulder_Final

Concept Plan_Final

CC_Staff Pres_2024 E Boulder

Signed Ordinance No. 25-53.pdf

This Ordinance was referred to the City Council on the Consent Calendar.

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Flats at Sand Creek Appeal

APPL-25-00 An appeal of the administrative approval for a development plan

consisting of 6.94 acres located at the northeast corner of N Carefree

Circle and Peterson Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Flats at Sand Creek DP Appeal Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Development Plan

Attachment 3 - Appeal Letter

Attachment 4 - Public Comments

Attachment 5 - Public Comment Response

Attachment 6 - Traffic Impact Study

7.5.415 APPEALS

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner presented the appeal for Flats at Sand Creek

located on the northeast corner of Peterson Road and north Carefree Circle.

The site is 6.94 acres and is currently zoned as R5 multifamily residential with

an airport overlay. The proposed land use was a multi-family residential with

associated site improvements. Mr. Cooper said the appeal of the development

plan is based on a multi-family dwelling unit with 144 units and a 38-foot building

height which is permitted within the R5 zoning district.

He said the parking

required for the project was 239 spaces and the parking provided was 249

spaces. Mr. Cooper said the appeal basis is that the plan is not compatible and

harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, it does not provide adequate

parking, there will be an increase in congestion in the surrounding neighborhood

and there is more detail in the appeal statement and the opponent presentation.

Standard notice was done, and 49 comments were received with concerns

about traffic, intensity of residential use, effects on surrounding neighborhoods

and affordability.

Mr. Cooper said Agency Review was done with comments

from Traffic, Parks, CSFD and School District 49. Staff finds the plan complies

with PlanCOS.

Appellant Presentation

Michelle Bork, resident of the area, spoke on behalf of the appellant Jeremy

Hoffman and provided a slideshow. Ms. Bork said the members of the Spring

Ranch community have all banded together to appeal the development for

some agreed upon reasons and others have individualized reasons that are

personal and passionate to themselves that they will express. Ms. Bork asked

the Commission to tune into their inner compassion and understand the

situation that they are creating for us. Ms. Bork as the residents and future

residents that would reside in that apartment complex, to hear their perspective

of the impact the development will have on the community and asked them to

put themselves in the community’s shoes. Ms. Bork asked if the residents

would you be comfortable living in this neighborhood? Would you purchase a

new home in this community? Would you feel safe walking or driving around

this intersection with your children and feel safe walking across that

intersection. Would you agree and support a massive apartment complex being

built within 2,000 feet of your own current home?

Ms. Bork said they

understand the need for affordable housing and support affordable housing

needs. Ms. Bork said they simply do not want this apartment complex in our

neighborhood and why the specific parcel of land is the wrong area to deliver

the value that City of Colorado Springs and Lincoln Avenue communities are

targeting to achieve their various initiatives. Ms. Bork said it will instead have a

negative impact on safety, disrupt the harmonious environment and trait

unnecessary tension between old and new residents. She said they feel that

there are better suited areas across Colorado Springs for this development.

Ms. Bork said they are asking that the land is zoned for commercial use with

something that adds value to the community and supports the neighborhood.

Ms. Bork said under the home COS Housing Initiative, 1,703 units were set to

be built across Colorado Springs as of 2022, 1236 were already under

construction. Ms. Bork asked if they have reached 1,703 units and are the filled

to capacity and is there an actual need for another large apartment complex.

Ms. Bork said residents have raised concerns specifically about developers on

this project.

She said Lincoln Avenue Communities claim they strengthen

communities, yet reviews of tenants from the recently built property in Colorado

Springs, Interquest Ridge paints a much different picture. Ms. Bork provided

multiple samples are the reviews with common themes such as lack of

accountability, lack of care in maintenance, upkeep and parking. Ms. Bork said

the development plan and the existing issues across Interquest Ridge display

their failure to take into account the best interest of the Colorado Springs

communities and the future residents. Ms. Bork said this development violates

the “Keep Colorado Springs Beautiful” initiative by adding 144 units, 249 parking

spots, a pool and clubhouse in the only remaining open space directly within the

neighborhood, while also eliminating several homeowner’s mountain views. Ms.

Bork provided a list of the proposed development items compared to the current

neighborhood items to show why the development does not belong there. This

included building height, parking, water restrictions, HOA fees, light pollution,

lack of public transportation and dangerous intersection crossings. Ms. Bork

said the traffic study conducted on June 19th, while school is out, does not

capture the true traffic experience. She said the traffic study conducted in June

did take into consideration that the previous study conducted in 2021, which

was a year after COVID came to life when schools and businesses were virtual.

She said since 2021, there has been an explosion of new buildings and homes

in that area. Ms. Bork spoke about the lack of adequate parking and provided

examples of dangerous scenarios while having to walk from parking away from

the complex and increased crime in Colorado Springs. She said lack of

adequate parking will also create animosity from the single-family homeowners

who will now have to deal with the constant noise, a car door slamming and

headlights being into their homes and not having a place to put their trash cans

for pickup because the streets are covered in cars. She also said this will

create issues for trash collecting trucks. Ms. Bork said the entrances and exits

onto the apartment complex will be off Peterson without a turn lane and off the

tracks, which are already congested during peak commute times.

She said

when 144 families are added into an already crowded area, the parking and

traffic issues create much more than just congestion. It also creates the risk for

both auto and pedestrian accidents as the land sits at a very dangerous

intersection. Ms. Bork said that she almost killed by careless reckless driver

was walking on north Carefree and legally crossing Peterson at 11:09am, on a

bright sunny Saturday. She said she was a distance runner and wore bright pink

and electric blue clothing to ensure she was visible. She said she was hit by a

car and left unconscious in the gutter, and it is a miracle that she is not

paralyzed or permanently brain dead.

Ms. Bork said she has permanent

injuries due to the accident and provided pictures of the accident. Ms. Bork said

she is passionately involved in appealing this apartment complex because of

the danger it is placing on the future residents, and not because of who those

residents are, which has nothing to do with the appeal.

school students and every other pedestrian and driver in this community are

also at risk. Ms. Bork said her attorney’s investigator came to explore the

She said the high

intersection, they were within inches of getting hit by a driver that was not paying

attention and refused to go back out to the site. Ms. Bork said when looking at

the developer’s comment of not including adequate parking because not

everyone owns a car, asked why a development would be approved that will

create an increased safety risk to the tenants who do not own a car and will be

forced to constantly walk across a dangerous intersection.

Ms. Bork said the

intersection is not the right place for an apartment complex of any kind and if

this is approved, it will knowingly create a risk. Ms. Bork said she is urging the

Commission to not allow an apartment complex of any kind on the corner. She

said there is a safety issue for two businesses in the neighborhood. Ms. Bork

said she understands the landowners are seeking revenue-generating

opportunities, but there are many other revenue avenues aside from this

opportunity. She said the space should be used for something that can create

meaningful and positive impacts to the community. Ms. Bork said it is negligent

to say that the apartment complex would not create negative impacts to the

current and future residents in the area. She said it is time for Colorado Springs

to put the residents about the dollar and tax credit. Ms. Bork said the land is

simply not the right place for an apartment complex of any kind.

Applicant Presentation

Andrea Barlow, NES, provided a slideshow on grounds of appeal and then

invited Ben Taylor to come and speak.

Ben Taylor, Lincoln Avenue

Communities, Vice President and Partner spoke on the application. Mr. Taylor

said he lives in Denver and Colorado Springs is a second home to him. Mr.

Taylor said he would be addressing comments made on the Interquest Ridge.

He said they have worked on Interquest Ridge for over three and a half years

and consider it to be a very successful community and development. Mr. Taylor

said there were tough times as they moved in over 240 families in a span of

seven to eight months. He said with that, you have issues such as trash

collections and negative comments.

Mr. Taylor said they respond to every

He said he wants the

comment and engage with people who have concerns.

community to succeed, and it will. Mr. Taylor said he is personally invested the

property and communicates with the property on a daily basis. He said they own

and manage the properties for a minimum of 15 years and their reputation

stands on what they build, how they operate and manage the properties. Mr.

Taylor said their funding is from State and City agencies and if they do not have

a good reputation as an owner operator developer, they and their bottom line

suffers.

Mr. Taylor said they are in this to build the best affordable house

possible and be the best partners with every local partner that they have. He

said they are here to be community partners, and they are bringing the

investment to Colorado Springs. He said Colorado Springs is business friendly

and is a firm believer in the direction it is heading. Mr. Taylor said they are a

nationwide company specializing in affordable housing.

Mr. Taylor provided

pictures of two developments that were completed in May. He said they strive to

invest in these communities and provide market rate housing and provided an

affordability breakdown. He said they are partnering with early connections

learning centers on another development. Mr. Taylor said they want to provide

workforce housing to allow people to live where they work.

He said the

government is not paying their rent and the rent is set at an annual level. He

said they have greater tenant selection criteria and go through more

background, criminal and income checks than any other apartment community.

Ms. Barlow continued the presentation by showing where the proposed site will

be located and the surrounding areas and the zones. Ms. Barlow provided a

site history of the property and how the density has changed with the new code.

Ms. Barlow said the development plan proposed was administratively approved

in February which has led to the appeal today. The approved concept plan with

the density limits was provided. Ms. Barlow said they are proposing a relatively

small multifamily residential development of 144 units.

usually are more than 200 to 250 units. She said there are a number of on-site

amenities including clubhouse and fitness center, indoor bike storage,

She said apartments

package delivery rooms, EV charges, covered parking, dog running stations and

a playground. Ms. Barlow said they initially were anticipating a pool, but it was

removed.

She said they are meeting all technical requirements of the

development plan review criteria. She said during the City agency review,

Colorado Springs Utilities stated that there are no issues regarding the use of

the property.

She said Traffic Engineering thoroughly reviewed the traffic

Ms. Barlow said the maximum

impact study as well as other City agencies.

height allowed for the R5 zone is 50 feet and the proposed development is 38

feet. She said a standard single-family home is around 30 feet, with a ranch

home being less, so this development is not a significant increase in height of

on the surrounding area. Ms. Barlow said they had a neighborhood meeting in

October 2024, and it was very well attended with several issues raised and they

will address the issues in the presentation. She said changes were made to the

site plan. Ms. Barlow said the use is established as multi-family and does not

distinguish between rentals, for sale, affordable or subsidized. Ms. Barlow

provided the development review criteria. She said the location is the best for

the type of development. Ms. Barlow provided neighborhood compatibility maps.

She discussed the changes in parking and how it was reduced by three

spaces. Ms. Barlow said they worked closely with the neighbors to the north

and made changes to address their concerns and are affected by the

development the most and are satisfied with the changes to the site plan. Ms.

Barlow said there are options on the northbound portion of Peterson Road to

provide a left turn lane if needed. Ms. Barlow said 252 parking spaces were

required, and 249 parking spaces are shown on the site plan with 1.2% or three

spaces in reduction is requested to address the neighborhood concerns.

Ms.

Barlow said the main trail segment has public access. Ms. Barlow said D49

reviewed the proposed application and issued a letter of support for the project

and had no concerns about school safety. She said there is a Police and Fire

stations on Tutt close to the site.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Hensler asked why there is a detention there as opposed to

using the regional one to the east. Ms. Barlow said they are required to have

one there due to the way the stormwater flows.

Public Comment

Francis Lucas, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Ms. Lucas

said there are many reasons why the project should not go forth, one being the

traffic concerns such as Sand Creek High School opens in the morning and

leaves in the afternoon. Ms. Lucas said there are major parking issues, and a

three-story apartment complex would be out of keeping with the neighborhood

of single- and two-story homes.

Ms. Lucas said she is proposing that this

project be built in an area of town crying out for revitalization such as Shooks

Creek Corridor, Sound Creek near Holland Park and Broadmoor or North

Nevada avenue. She said the area buses, restaurants and a new gym in the

area. Ms. Lucas said she would rather not see the area proposed for Flats at

Sand Creek development at all, but if something must go there, a park or pickle

ball court would benefit the residents in the community.

McKayla Stoltenberg, resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Ms.

Stoltenberg said there are several things that the community needs to thrive on

such as strong social networks, recreation and leisure opportunities, safety,

green spaces in nature, mental health resources, skills, development and

quality education. Ms. Stoltenberg said within El Paso County in 2023, 196

people died from suicide and 32% were veterans. She said in Colorado, 25% of

adolescents watch television 3 or more hours per day on an average school

day. Ms. Stoltenberg said that the specific development area is unique with the

high school across the road and the heavy presence of military with the

proximity of Peterson and Shriever. She said an option to best serve the people

that have chosen to make this area their home is to have a community center.

This would provide year-round opportunities for youth, military members,

veterans and the general community.

Ms. Stoltenberg said when people feel

socially connected, they thrive, and it would provide a safe haven for youth. It will

provide a chance to learn lifelong lessons, increase their self-esteem, build

friendships, serve the community, build character and be physically active. She

said all of that would increase the mental and emotional health of all members

of our community. Ms. Stoltenberg said other options could be a library, public

pool, mini-golf course or batting cages. Ms. Stoltenberg asked is the mental and

emotional health of this community within the Springs worth investing in. She

asked the Commission to consider what would be best for our community, not

only for the current students and residents, but for many generations to come.

Steve Lavato, resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Mr. Lavato

said he decided to stay in Colorado Springs because of the robust culture, and

it is a great place that people want to be. Mr. Lavato said the corner of North

Carefree and Peterson Road is the cornerstone for the neighbors heading

north. He said he understands it is zoned for multi-family use and what was not

addressed is how it will harmoniously flow with the rest of the residents in the

neighborhood. Mr. Lavato said he has a video showing that there is not another

three-story complex in the neighborhood. He said if it has to be developed that

they will build something that is not an eyesore and will flow with the rest of the

neighborhood.

He said the community wants it to feel like a family-oriented

If the developers can keep it to a two-story complex, it will

eliminate some concerns with traffic, parking, safety concerns and property

values. Mr. Lavato asked if the development plan needs to be a three-story

building and does that fit the needs of the housing demand.

Nancy Stoltenberg and Chris Polis ceded their time to Carol Clark, resident of

Falcon Terrace, spoke in support of the appeal.

addresses compatibility, continuity, connectivity

surrounding neighborhood. She said the project does not achieve this goal

structurally and demographically. She said the surrounding neighborhood

Ms. Clark said her concern

in harmony with the

includes one- and two-story homes with HOA’s to maintain standards and said

that most households take care of their property whereas renters tend to be a

gamble. Ms. Clark provided an example of renters turned squatters next door to

them and were eventually evicted. She said there was a concern about drug

use and dealers in proximity to Sand Creek High School. Ms. Clark said the

mindset of people living in the neighborhood is an important compatibility issue.

She said the Interquest Ridge Complex, with section 42 housing, has seen

some troubling trends concerning maintenance management car break-ins, pet

feces, parking problems, etcetera and the Flats at Sand Creek will likely follow

suit.

Ms. Clark said there is nothing in the development that benefits the

neighborhood, and the tax paying homeowners will share in the consequences

of the incompatibility. She said the developer is allowed to pay the City in lieu of

fees to absolve themselves of responsibility for Parkland and School Dedication

and future traffic mitigation in the area and does not know how the City spends

fees collected by the developer.

The majority of the green space in the

geographical area has been taken over by numerous apartment complexes.

Ms. Clark said the City can not find time or the resources to fix the crack in the

streets and adding several hundred more people in vehicles will ensure

increased deterioration. She said their HOA has a responsibility for maintaining

the trail based on reports from Interquest Ridge, however there is no reason to

believe that residents of Flats at Sandcreek will do any better at cleaning up

after their pets. Ms. Clark said there are several other vacant pieces of land

where the complex could be located to allow the perspective residents access

to the services on which they rely while having less impact on the single-family

homes in their neighborhood.

Ms. Clark voiced concerns about dispersing

low-income individuals into neighborhoods where people of work to pay for their

homes, with other concerns on car and home insurance rates being affected.

Ms. Clark provided scenarios on combined annual income and low-income

housing. She said according to Section 42 guidelines, immigration status

requirements may vary.

Ms. Clark said the structure, nor the occupants, are

compatible with their neighborhood.

Don Anderson, resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal.

Mr.

Anderson said something that never changes besides the buildings, is trash.

He said the paths are filled with garbage and no one picks it up and taxpayers

are going to have to pay for it. He said having the garbage picked up three

times a week is not enough for an apartment complex. Mr. Anderson said the

dog park has dog waste along the creek and they have been lawsuits for dirty

water. He said they need to keep business clean and if they get approved then

they need a plan to ensure garbage is picked up and the trash enclosures are

closed. Mr. Anderson also asked for a streetlight for North Carefree due to the

trucks going up and down the street.

Tim Bayless, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Mr. Bayless

said overcrowding and parking will shift downward resulting in a decline for

homes in the area and home values could slow or even reverse for a period of

time.

He said there are not many studies that would contradict that.

Mr.

Bayless said the apartment complex is ill fitting for an area that is already

crowded. He said he works three jobs to afford to live and is the same for many

in the area. He asked the Commissioners to consider retired and active-duty

military residents in the neighborhood, and it is most likely that their homes are

their most single valuable asset. Mr. Bayless said the project will plausibly have

an outsized negative impact on the financial futures of those who have served

our country and military service members and asked the Commissioners to

decline the approval of the project as this is the wrong neighborhood to build the

complex in.

Nuala Poulos, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal.

Ms.

Poulos said she has driven out and spoken to residents at Interquest Ridge

Apartments and the website is very deceptive. She said there are safety issues

with multiple bicycles hanging from the 3rd floor over the railings, missing

window screens, playground with no fencing near where cars drive by no cover

on the pool, trash and marijuana. Ms. Poulos said she walked into the leasing

office and waited a long time before someone came to speak with her.

She

said there is trash overflowing and the doors were wide open to the receptacles.

There are also out of state vehicles that have license plates but no tags on

them. Ms. Poulos said Downtown Colorado Springs has approximately a 32%

vacancy rate. If the developers care so much about our community, they would

consider doing something along the lines of low-income senior housing.

She

said the seniors are limited due to a lack of family availability for transportation

and caregiver help, access to basic needs such as shopping, senior day care

centers, etcetera. Ms. Poulos said some of the low-income senior facilities are

not located in the best areas of town and do not provide security for our ageing

population. She said this location would be better suited for senior living where

they would have access to First and Main Target and places to eat. She said

they are living like mice in a maze in Colorado Springs. In the case of a

catastrophic emergency evacuation event which at some point could occur and

probably will, how will this developer or this city going to get everyone safely out

of town.

Craig Clark, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Mr. Clark

said he can see the open space and Pikes Peak from his window, and both will

be lost in the build. He said he is fully aware of how this development will

negatively change the area.

Mr. Clark said the entire City Planning and

developer documents are laced with government and consultant buzzwords to

glorify the wonderful improvement the apartment complex will have for the

low-income people. He said it avoids the actual expected outcomes

responsibility of the development on the surrounding area residents. Mr. Clark

said the planning proposal says significant off-site impacts are reasonably

anticipated as a result of this project but are being mitigated or offset to the

extent proportionable and practicable. He said that is government speak for; we

know we're creating a problem for the surrounding neighborhood, but our desire

to place homeless or low-income people out of the downtown pretty much

trumps any of the bad effects that this development will have on the outlying

residents. Mr. Clark said he is a transportation professional and the 2024 traffic

report, provided by Kimley-Horn used existing data from the April 2021 traffic

report that was done for the townhomes never built, and they extrapolated the

data on paper which does not have actual traffic counts.

Mr. Clark said

Kimley-Horn assumed 1.3% growth rate since 2021, which he said is

underrepresented. He said the City website shows over a 2% annual growth,

meaning Kimley-Horns traffic numbers and half of what they should be. He said

most of the growth in Colorado Springs is occurring in the Northeast. Mr. Clark

said the study was done when traffic was extremely low during COVID in April

2021 with Sandcreek High School students staying home with hybrid classes,

residents were working from home and restaurants and other venues were

closed or severely limited, making the roads empty.

He said Kimley-Horn

estimated the apartment complex will add 1,200 more vehicle trips on Pony

Tracks alone, which is more vehicles than existed in Falcon Terrace

Subdivision. He said the road is already maxed out and the ruts are huge. Mr.

Clark asked if the City is going to fix the gaps in the road and maintain them with

the increase in traffic.

Ernest Przybyla, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal.

Mr.

Przybyla said he pays a homeowners association fee and receives notes for

clutter. He said there was a multi-housing development added toward Peterson

Road with no homeowner’s association and can park cars wherever they want

and this will be worse with the new apartment complex.

Mr. Przybyla

suggested to the Commission that the area be re-zoned to a community garden

space to teach children to grow vegetables like Victory Gardens of World War II.

He said he fears that the City Council will approve this like the 27-story building

downtown and pollute their visual space.

Kelly Hoffman, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal.

Mr.

Hoffman said she has three children, and her biggest concern is them having to

cross the street in traffic to get to Sandcreek High School. She said the traffic

study was done in April 2021 when the school was online and does not include

the kids that come from the surrounding areas. She said if the Commission

would take their safety into account, then they would not approve this.

Hoffman said she hopes that there are no more accidents on that street.

Mr.

Jeremy Hoffman, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Mr.

Hoffman said his family live at the first cul-de-sac north of the apartment

complex, 500 feet away.

He said when they purchased their house in June

2024, they looked at neighborhoods where houses were not stacked on top of

each other, mountain views and safety. He said his back deck overlooks the

field with the mountain views.

Mr. Hoffman said this is disappointing and

eventually they will be downsizing and when they sell their house in three to five

years the apartment complex will affect their property value with the

construction being a couple years and then overlooking a three-story apartment

building instead of a mountain view. He said they would like to see senior living.

Parking, traffic and increased noise are going to be a huge issue.

Jared Massey, a resident of Springs Ranch neighborhood, spoke in support of

the appeal. Mr. Massey said he has lived there for 5 years and works as an RN

and manager of DaVita Pikes, Peak Dialysis and have invested a lot of my time

and blood, sweat and tears in caring for the dialysis, community in the Colorado

Springs area. He said on September 14, 2025, he received an alert on his

phone that no one wants to receive. It was from his wife’s running watch alerting

him that she had experienced a sudden impact that likely indicated her being hit

by a motor vehicle. He said he drove to the location fearing the worst. Mr.

Massey said he distinctly remembers the shell-shocked bloodied face and his

wife as she stared at him from the gutter that she had been thrown into by a

careless driver who struck her as she legally walked through the crosswalk of

North carefree and Peterson, the intersection of the proposed building.

Massey said he would never forget the look of fear and pain on her face as she

struggled to breathe through a collapsed lung. He said she survived and

Mr.

recovered but is forever emotionally and physically scarred from the traumatic

experience. Mr. Massey said he wishes that no one will have to receive that call

or experience that fear and pain of being hit by a motor vehicle. He said with the

already high-level traffic along North Carefree, adding another highly congested

complex with poorly planned street access will create a more unsafe area for

pedestrians and significantly increase the likelihood that one of our neighbors

goes to the same horrible experience that he and Michelle went through. Mr.

Massey said he is here today to personally and specifically oppose development

plans for the Flats at Sand Creek and believes it is poorly thought-out design

and nonsensical to be located in the chosen area as it creates a much higher

safety risk to the established community.

Geoffrey Lockley, a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal. Mr.

Lockley said his two children went to school here. He said they want to see

more growth in the neighborhood. He listed concerns with the development to

include property value decline, increased traffic, strain on resources, changing

neighborhood

character,

concentration

poverty,

lack

integration,

maintenance concerns, developmental costs, limited housing opportunities and

community opposition. Mr. Lockley said he understands the need for affordable

housing, but it is not necessary on this corner. He said he would like to see

many different things happen in that area to benefit the community. He has

been a High School football coach for 15 years and has seen thousands of

single parents that are struggling to have a household, and he is a part of their

success. Mr. Lockley asked the Commissioners to please consider not develop

this in their neighborhood because it is not a contributing factor and it is going to

contradict the neighborhood with the safety issues.

Shauna Lavato a resident of the area, spoke in support of the appeal.

Ms.

Lavato said she stands before the Commissioners not as a member of the

community, but as a concerned mother, a neighbor and a voice of many

concerned neighbors. She said In March of 2023, the town was shaken by the

heartbreaking news of a young Doherty High School exchange student whose

life was tragically cut short. She was only 17 years old when she was struck by

a vehicle crossing the street right in front of the high school. Ms. Lavato said

her passing had a profound effect on her and she is a mother of two sons who

began their High School journey at Doherty.

She said she understands the

deep worry that parents feel for their children as they attend school and the

tragedy is a reminder of the vulnerability their children face every day. Ms.

Lavato said when she hears of the proposed construction, she was angry, then

concerned as the why there would be more housing in close proximity to the

school.

She there are already devastating consequences from inadequate

safety measures and asked how they could prioritize expansion over the safety

of our children. Ms. Lavato said it is not just an issue of infrastructure, but also

of human lives.

She urged the Commission to consider the situation as they are not merely

discussing statistics or zoning laws, but they are talking about families dreams

and futures. She said they must ask themselves what kind of community we

want to create. Ms. Lavato said North Carefree is the busiest road in the area

and heavy traffic they experience is a concern to many, particularly the parents

who drive or walk their kids off a Sand Creek High School.

She said they have witnessed traffic jams on North Carefree and Powers

where vehicles continue to back up as they turn into Target or Chick-Fil-A. She

said the proposed development would increase the situation, particularly the

turning lane headed into Pony Tracks.

Evelyn Galane Phillips, Community Facility Planning Manager, School District

49 spoke in opposition to the appeal. Ms. Phillips said safety of the kids, staff

and community alike is paramount to the district. Historically, the district has

had minimal student impact from the apartment buildings within the district. She

said affordability is an opportunity for the workforce housing, teachers, staff

members, custodial nutrition services, and this is why they support this.

Jill Gabler, Executive Director of Pikes Peak Housing Network, spoke in

opposition to the appeal and in support of the Flats at Sand Creek as an

affordable housing project is much needed in the specific area. Ms. Gabler said

the project was approved administratively in the R5 zone as multifamily

housing, which is the designated use for the land, the surrounding residential

zones are almost exclusively single-family homes or townhomes, creating a

significant need for rental housing in the immediate area adjacent to Sand

Creek High School. Ms. Gabler said over 50% of the students at Sand Creek

High School qualify for free or reduced lunch, signifying a strong need for lower

cost housing in the immediate area to serve the families of these students. She

said the Flats at Sand Creek will provide needed housing for the families who

will now have the opportunity to live close to their kids’ school, reducing their

own transportation costs, increasing their overall quality of life as they can

spend more time with their kids. Ms. Gabler said it can overall reduce

congestion in the intersections as fewer people would be driving their kids to

school. She said it is concerning that the opposition states that those living in

the Flat Sand Creek will increase crime and social issues in their neighborhood.

She said almost everyone has rented a home at some point and as the home

buyer has increased from 28 to 38 years old, more residents are living in retail

housing for longer periods of time, increasing the needs for apartments and

other rental options. She said the Flats at Sand Creek will house military service

members, nurses and other medical employees and people who they rely on

every day. This will not increase crime statistics in the area. The apartments

will bring needed affordable rental housing to the City in an area where many

individuals and families may currently not be able to afford to live.

Applicant Rebuttal

Ms. Barlow said they would have Mr. Taylor speak to the comments about

operations.

share concerns about traffic issues.

2.4% increase to traffic and safety is a big concern for their residents.

Mr. Taylor said he appreciates everyone’s concerns, and they

He said their traffic engineer projected

Mr.

Taylor said holistically, their residents are workers, consumers and families. He

said this location was in need of workforce housing given the large commercial

corridor and the jobs in the area. Over half of the residents at Interquest Ridge

are single mothers and they are expecting 250 kids aged 0-18 years old at the

Flats at Sand Creek. He said regarding having a two-story building versus a

three-story building, their development is 20% lower in height and density than

what is allowed. Mr. Taylor said a three-story apartment community is efficient

and there are construction cost issues and competitive bidding for the land.

Mr. Taylor agreed that there are parking issues at Interquest Ridge, and they are

adding 10% more parking at the Flats at Sand Creek. He said the playground

will be much larger and there will be registration requirements for pets and pet

bag dispensers installed in the parks.

He said they will also implement fines or

potential evictions for pet droppings. He said the State is not requiring that they

must accept pets on their properties. Mr. Taylor said there are 100 pages of

addendums that applicants must sign so that they are good residents of the

properties. He said the EV charging stations are State requirement. Mr. Taylor

said legal status and incomes are verified for all residents. He said the majority

of the residents are parents and seniors that just need a break. He provided an

example of a resident that was provided with a space at the Interquest Ridge

location.

Geoff Plank, Kimley-Horn, spoke on the traffic study.

Mr. Plank said the

previously approved 2021 traffic study was collected when school was in

session, 14 months after COVID. He said the traffic study was not needed as

the threshold for needing a traffic study is 150 trips during the peak hour in

Colorado Springs. He said the proposed development is only 82 trips, which is

one trip in the morning per minute and a trip and a half in the afternoon on

average. He said this is a low trip generator and it was evaluated conservatively

with regular multifamily rather than affordable multifamily. Mr. Plank said the

pedestrian concerns could be mitigated with a protected green arrow light on

the left turns so that vehicles would need to yield to pedestrians.

Ms. Barlow said any changes to the traffic lights would be the City’s

responsibility, not the developer. She said home values are not a part of the

development plan review criteria.

She said there was comment on the

structures and occupants not being compatible with the neighborhood and felt

there was emphasis on the occupants not being compatible with the

neighborhood. Ms. Barlow said the key consideration for a development plan is

whether the structures are compatible.

She said the three-story apartment

building at the intersection of two principal aerials is an appropriate use. She

said they worked with the neighbors to the north who are most impacted with

project, and they are not here today objecting.

Appellant Rebuttal

Ms. Bork said she has a deep love for saltine crackers as that was her dinner

for a large portion of her life. She said the argument that they are only fighting

this because it is low income is not accurate. Ms. Bork said she has stated

multiple times one of the biggest reasons they are appealing is for the safety

risks. It is about creating a safe environment. She said creating an environment

with an apartment that will bring hundreds of kids in only going to exacerbate

those safety issues. Ms. Bork said this has nothing to do with the income of the

residents of those buildings.

Ms. Bork asked the Commissioners to consider

their points of view regarding safety and traffic and asked for a new traffic study

as Marksheffel Road is peppered with houses and apartment complexes that

were not there in 2021. She said there are a lot of people that could not be here

today because of their jobs to represent themselves, there are more people

from the community who feel the same way.

Mr. Hoffman said they are not here because of the people that are proposed to

live in the apartments. This development will bring down the value of homes.

He said no one wants to purchase a home overlooking an apartment complex

and he would not have purchased his home had the apartment complex already

been there. He said he will be moving if this development is approved. Mr.

Hoffman said he is concerned about safety and the parking is not ample and it

will bleed over into their cul-de-sac.

Commissioner Comments

Chair Slattery said there are a lot of valid concerns that are not necessarily a

part of the development plan and review criteria as a volunteer body appointed

by City Council are purview to. City council has the criteria as well and more

discretion. Chair Slattery said the development review criteria is what this body

is bound to review and make judgment upon and reviewing the applications.

Commissioner Foos asked Mr. Barlow what the Fire Department comments

were that needed to be addressed. Ms. Barlow said the Fire Department's

comments were related to site design.

Noah Brehmer, Civil Engineer,

Kimley-Horn said the small comments were surrounding the large retaining

walls around the site, north and east of the proposed buildings. Mr. Brehmer

said that they added stairs with Knox Boxes for foot access. He said there

were issues with aerial apparatus access to the to the 3rd floor of the building

and worked with their team to get access to the tops of the buildings.

Commissioner Robbins asked Austin Cooper after his review of the application,

what did he saw as the biggest problem. Kevin Walker said that it does not fit in

with the criteria that have been established for the Planning Department's

commentary. Mr. Walker said that they do not make a recommendation and

that may be encroaching on that. Chair Slattery said this is an appeal of an

administrative decision on the development plan and there will be opportunities

to make comments, but they need to go through criteria and issues that were

brought up by the public.

Chair Slattery asked if the development plan met the water usage requirements

as detailed by Colorado Springs Utilities. Mr. Cooper said he reached out to

Colorado Springs Utilities, and they stated there are no issues with the water

supply being brought to the site and the reviewer with CSU would look into the

official letters that CSU provided.

Mr. Cooper asked why a neighborhood be

under water use restriction and the reviewer said it could be due to nearby

construction in the area and offered no other explanation beyond that.

Chair Slattery said regarding the zone usage it is not under the purview of the

Commission to tell anyone what they should and can do with their land. The

parcel is zoned for R5, R for residential and 5 for number of units to be built

there. Chair Slattery asked when the R5 zoned designation established.

Mr.

Cooper said it was established in 2002, however, there were conditions of

record placed on the property which only permitted a church-use to be located

there. He said it remained vacant and in 2021 a staff report for a zone change

application in order to remove the conditions of record to allow multi-family on

the property.

Commissioner Cecil said when the zone changed happened in 2021, there

were still conditions required to include a six-foot sidewalk along Carefree and a

five-foot sidewalk along Pony Trail and asked if those are still pertinent to this

area. Mr. Cooper asked what document Commissioner Cecil was referring to.

Commissioner Cecil said it is the recorded development plan that applied to the

townhomes project approved in 2022. Mr. Cooper said the development plan

was not established and they are trying to replace it with the new development

plan, which would remove the conditions for the old plan. Commissioner Cecil

said she would like to know why the sidewalks would not be present on the

current plan. Mr. Cooper said he will look into it. Mr. Brehmer said as a part of

the 2021 application, the sidewalks were required along each frontage and there

is now existing sidewalk constructed along Carefree and Peterson and there is

a proposed sidewalk along the frontage of Pony Tracks in compliance with City

engineering requirements.

Chair Slattery said fees in lieu are for parks and schools for every multi or

single-family development built is required to either dedicate land or pay fees in

lieu.

Chair Slattery said there were concerns about student generation and asked

Ms. Phillips what she is seeing in terms of multi-family student population

generation and if D49 has the capacity to accommodate the students.

Phillips said yes and historically they only see about a 2% capacity increase

from apartment complexes. She said that it could change depending on

Ms.

economic conditions, but at this time the surrounding schools can fill that.

Chair Slattery asked Ms. Phillips to confirm if the fees in lieu was the choice of

the district for the application. Ms. Phillips said fees in lieu of land is the choice

of this application because six acres of land is not enough to support the

district.

Mr. Walker said there was a question as to how the fees are spent and there

are audits on Parkland Dedication Ordinance and the monies that are collected

are delivered to the school districts and they also have regulatory functions on

what they can spend the money on.

Chair Slattery said Code Enforcement that can assist with nuisances and there

is an online portal to address those issues for any development or neighbor.

Mr. Walker said they reviewed the ordinance that that rezoned the property to

R5 and removed the restriction and there are no other conditions of record. The

comments may have been related to the development plan proposed at the time

but adopted. Chair Slattery asked if the development plan with a zone change

would have been an independent action and not binding to the condition of

record for removal of the R5 zone.

Mr. Cooper said the zone change was

accompanied by a concept plan and the development plan followed shortly after

with a plat application. He said the zone change went with the concept plan.

He said it was binding to the development. Chair Slattery asked if there were

any other conditions within the concept plan that would apply to the current

development application. Mr. Cooper said he did not find any in his review that

were relevant to the application but will double-check.

Chair Slattery asked Todd Frisby, City Traffic Engineer in Public Works, what

the options are for signaling changes or an analysis of the safety of the

intersection and how those studies would be handled by the department. Mr.

Frisby said one of their responsibilities is to address intersection and roadway

safety. He said there have been steps over the years to improve safety

including Citywide intersection and roadway safety studies and they have

identified a series of projects. He said they continue to monitor intersection

safety, responding to citizen or Police reports. Mr. Frisby said he did look at the

safety history at the intersection and it does show an elevated level of crash

history. He said they look for patterns and there are more left turn crashes than

they would expect at the intersection. Mr. Frisby said they have a list of dozens

of improvements and will add a protected-only left turn to the list. He said this is

not related to the development but is something they would have discovered

over time.

Chair Slattery asked if there is a process for citizens to bring these concerns to

his attention outside of the Planning Commission. Mr. Frisby said they can call

the Public Works department.

Chair Slattery asked Mr. Frisby to speak on the traffic study. Mr. Frisby said

there is a trip generation threshold to determine whether a traffic study is

warranted. He said this development would not have met those thresholds to

warrant a traffic study. He said it is at the discretion of the City traffic engineer

and the department to determine whether they do a study. Mr. Frisby said the

traffic counts were made in April 2021 when school was in session and there

was a 30% increase due to COVID and compared them to the 2018 traffic

report. He said the comparison showed almost no difference in the two reports.

Mr. Frisby said a 1.2% growth factor for CDOT 20-year growth factor. Chair

Slattery asked with the traffic increase what the intersection would be rated. Mr.

Frisby said they use a criteria called level service to show the acceptable level

of delay and the analysis showed acceptable levels of service could be

achieved with or without the development. He said some changes need to

happen such as signal timing adjustments to improve operations.

Chair Slattery asked about the turn lanes, and where the entrances and exits

are for the development. Mr. Frisby said they have criteria that warrant when

turns lanes are warranted. He said the volume of turns from the development

did not meet the criteria to warrant a right turn lane.

Commissioner Hensler asked if this development had not been brought up,

what would have triggered changes from the City and what can citizens do to

find reprieve when they see issues.

Mr. Frisby said they have City wide studies

that are done to identify issues with safety related to traffic signals. He said they

have 120 different improvements identified and they are working through the list.

He said they also rely on citizen comments and Police Department reports. Mr.

Frisby said citizens can contact the Public Works department or submit a

request through GOCOS. He said they evaluate every request that comes in.

Mr. Frisby said they installed a school zone for the crossing at North Carefree

and plan to add school zones on Peterson just south of North Carefree.

Commissioner Rickett asked if a traffic study was not required for the project.

Mr. Cooper said the traffic study was submitted on the application with the initial

submittal. Mr. Frisby said by the criteria, a traffic study would not have been

done. He said more often than not, if a development plan does not meet the

criteria, a traffic study will still be done to make informed decisions.

Commissioner Casey asked if the parking formulas are based on 100% of cars

that will be able to park in the development.

Mr. Cooper said the parking

calculations are determined based on parking on site with allowances for

on-street parking, however the applicant did not choose to use that. Per code, a

parking reduction of 5% is allowed if it is adjacent to a bike path.

Commissioner Rickett thanked the public for coming out and providing

comments.

He said he empathizes on their plight, however per code this

development is allowed and is support of the project.

Commissioner Hensler agreed and said she also appreciates the public input,

however the land use zoning is set, and it is the Planning Commissions

responsibility to consider if the application meets the criteria.

Commissioner

Hensler said that we have to consider all citizens and believe that this project

does that with an affordable component in trying to meet the needs of neighbors

on all sides.

project.

Commissioner Hensler said she will be voting to approve the

Commissioner Cecil said she would like to reiterate what Chair Slattery said

earlier about City Council's ability to hear things that are outside of the strict

interpretation of the code that Planning Commission must sit to. Commissioner

Cecil said the code section about compatibility and harmonious design is open

to interpretation to Council in

way that does not open to Planning

Commission. Commissioner Cecil said the parking requirement is in alignment

with the studies and practices that are part of the parking calculations and code

which did not factor in any additional off-street parking and hopes their

experience will reflect that to be sufficient. Commissioner Cecil said she does

not see utility issues with the project and hopes the traffic infrastructure

concerns are addressed as urgently as possible. Commissioner Cecil said she

is in support of staff’s approval of the original application.

Commissioner Robbins said everything fits in the box, however common sense

does not fit in the box. Commissioner Robbins said he supports the appeal and

does not see where affordable housing comes into play when there is a pool

and a clubhouse.

near his office and he sees congestion and parking issues.

Robbins said having a school down the street is a serious issue and is not

Commissioner Robbins said the Interquest Apartments are

Commissioner

comfortable using an old traffic study using projected figures.

Robbins said he supports the appeal.

Commissioner

Commissioner Gigiano agreed with Commissioner Robbins and said they

should look outside of the box and wants to support the community and is

support of the appeal.

Vice Chair Foos thanks everyone for coming out today and said the issues that

were brought up today are valid concerns and is something as a City they

should be talking about, but not under the purview of the Planning Commission.

Vice Chair Foos said the project meets the criteria for R5 zoning and will be

denying the appeal.

Commissioner Casey said he agrees with the other Commissioners on the

importance of public involvement.

Commissioner Casey said the development

meets the criteria and will be voting to deny the appeal.

Chair Slattery echoed the sentiments from the other Commissioners, and the

application does meet the criteria and will be voting to deny the appeal.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Vice Chair Foos, 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 6-2-1.

6 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery and Commissioner Casey

2 - Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Gigiano

No:

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Parkside Historic District

8.B.

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

Springs to establish a HP-O (Historic Preservation Overlay)

pertaining to 4.15 acres located west of North Cascade Avenue and

east of Monument Valley Park between West Dale Street on the

North and St Vrain Street on the south and to be known as the

Parkside Historic District.

(Quasi-Judicial) (1st Reading only to set the public hearing for May

27, 2025)

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Located in Council District 3

Attachments: Staff Report_Parkside Historic District

Attachment 1-Parkside District Nomination

Attahment 2-Changes Summary

Attachment 3-Context Map

Attachment 4-Public Comment

Attachment 5-Design Standards

Attachment 6-Interpretive Guide

Attachment 7-February HPB Minutes

Attachment 8-March HPB Minutes

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Ordinance_Parkside Historic District

Exhibit A and B_Legal Description and Drawing

HPB Meeting Mins 2.3.25 FINAL

HPB Meeting Mins 3.3.25 FINAL

CC_Staff Pres_Parkside Historic District

Signed Ordinance No. 25-54.pdf

Bill Gray, Senior Planner presented the application for the Historic Preservation

Overlay District. The application is located on North Cascade Avenue, east of

Monument Valley Park and on the north side of the district is Dale Street and the

south side of the district is Saint Vrain Street. Mr. Gray said the area is

comprised of multiple zone districts and the application would not affect the

underlying zoning and add a Historic Preservation Overlay. The overlay is 4.29

acres and the predominant land use within the district is residential. The

process for establishing

Historic Preservation Overlay is following the

rezoning or zone map amendment process of the development code. Mr. Gray

said the district is located within the original town site of the City of Colorado

Springs dating back to 1872 and the development of the area began around

1880 and continued through the 1950’s. He said there are seven decades of

development with three eras of growth including a variety of architectural styles.

The application has both historical and architectural significance that allow it to

be considered for a Historic Preservation Overlay. Mr. Gray provided images to

show the properties included in the application.

He said this is an

owner-initiated application and the application does comply with PlanCOS and

HistoricCOS. Mr. Gray said to ensure the character of the homes are protected

over time, there is a recommendation to adopt design standards as a part of the

district. He said standard public notice was done and the majority of comments

received strongly supported the application with one opposition sighting

increased maintenance, renovation costs and unpredictable review process.

Mr. Gray said this property is not included in the application. Mr. Gray said staff

and Historic Preservation Board finds the plan meets the review criteria.

Applicant Presentation

Cheryl Brown, President of the Historic Uptown Neighborhood Association,

presented the application for the Historic Preservation Overlay.

Ms. Brown

provided an overview of the neighborhood to include the 17 properties on the

application and the historic designations. She said this is a part of the original

township and the first addition to the City of Colorado Springs. Ms. Brown said

they visited the properties to gain permission to participate in the overlay. She

said the purpose of this is to honor the historic resources in the neighborhood

and preserve the buildings.

Ms. Brown said there was extensive timeline

starting in 2022 to research and prove the significance and history.

Tim Scanlon, local historian, presented the individual building nominated for the

Historic Preservation Overlay.

Mr. Scanlon said all owners authorized Historic

Uptown to act on its behalf. He said the Parkside District construction began in

1885 on the Hagerman Mansion and the development was stimulated by the

affluence of the Cripple Creek Mining period.

presentation with a wide history of the developments and the significance of

their architecture to include all 17 individual buildings and their materials. Mr.

Mr. Scanlon continued his

Scanlon said there are tangible benefits are non-profit owners gain eligibility to

apply for State Historic Grant funds, Historic Rehabilitation Tax credits and

helps to keep properties safe. He said if the overlay is established, when a

building permit is needed involving the exterior of a zoned property, then it is

reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board.

Ms. Brown said the request for Planning Commission to find the nominated

properties meet the historic and architectural eligibility criteria for the HPO and

requests that the secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation for use in

reviewing the associate applications for the reports of acceptability.

Public Comment

Dianne Bridges, Historic Neighborhoods Partnership, spoke in support of the

application. Ms. Bridge said the Historic Uptown is part of their partnership. Ms.

Bridges thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and support.

She encouraged the Planning Commission to support the efforts and

recommend it to City Council for adoption. Ms. Bridges said there are benefits

to the residents in designating their properties as historic. She said there are tax

credits for home improvements on properties designated as historic. Ms.

Bridges said it has been two decades since an HPO has gone before the City.

She said she believes that was done in this effort can be leveraged by Planning

Commission, City Council and other residents to have additional preservation

work across the City.

Commissioner Comments

Chair Slattery said a tremendous amount of work has gone into this and it is

easy to support and is in favor of the application.

Commissioner Gigiano thanked the applicants for their presentation and said

she is in support of the application.

Commissioner Casey asked if the tax credits for rehabilitation are just for the

main structures or can they be applied to landscaping or general improvements

to the property. Mr. Scanlon said the tax credits or for rehabilitation of historic

properties which do not include landscaping, but it would include things like

excavation to repair or replace the foundation. Commissioner Casey said he is

in support of the application.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there are any challenges or drawbacks for

anyone who may buy a property and not want to be a part of the overlay, and

does it create limitations that would be a deterrent that the Commissioners

should be aware of. Mr. Scanlon said the consequences of the overlay zone for

future property owners will be if they want to obtain a building permit, they will

have to apply and have that reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. He

said there is a fee associated with that application and review. Commissioner

Hensler asked if they would be unable to make architectural or significant

aesthetic exterior changes that would detract from the historic nature if the

overlay did not approve. Mr. Scanlon said the level of authority depends upon

the nature of the designations. He said they have a large historic preservation

overlay zone in the north end and it is listed on the National Register. The City

has the authority to deny the issuance of a permit appealable to City Council.

Mr. Scanlon said for the properties that are only locally overlay zoned, authority

associated with the overlay zone is that the issuance of design permit can be

delayed by no more than 90 days from date of application. Commissioner

Hensler asked if the homes in the area that are not joining the overlay are

beholden to those restrictions. Mr. Scanlon said no.

Chair Slattery asked if the overlay would be disclosed as part of any property

transactions. Mr. Scanlon said yes.

Commissioner Cecil said that the Garrett House, the fence is deeply out of

character with the rest of the house and asked what impact it would have if

someone wanted to change the fence. Mr. Scanlon said unless it involves a

building permit, then there is no involvement of the Preservation Overlay. If it

does need a permit, then the applicant would use the secretary of the interior

standards for rehabilitation. Commissioner Cecil asked what protection against

demolition does this offer. Mr. Scanlon said it can delay the issuance of the

demolition permit up to 90 days from date of application. Commissioner Cecil

asked if there have been any discussions that have come about regarding the

timeline on permits or cost of materials.

Ms. Brown said in general there is a delay if they need a permit, but an

application has not been denied. She said the whole idea of this is to make the

neighbors aware of the changes that can affect the historic nature of their

building. She said there is a cost to fixing up old homes across the board,

because no one knows how to fix them, but the overlay is not making the cost

higher.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the applications go through the same application

process. Mr. Gray said the only administrative procedure for the HPO is for

roofs and it must be like for like. The report of acceptability is an application that

is accepted and is reviewed by the board within 28 days.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the Preservation Board denies the permit, the

applicant can wait 90 days and still get the permit. Mr. Scanlon said yes. Mr.

Rickett said it does not actually preserve any of the houses. Mr. Scanlon said

they are attempting to influence future behavior.

Commissioner Rickett said the interior standards of rehabilitation is 135 pages

and there are

a lot of restrictions and asked if it is a requirement or

recommendation to follow it for exterior renovation. Mr. Scanlon said

Commissioner Rickett is referring to the document called interpreting the

Secretary of the interior standards and the standards themselves are one page

long with 10 items and those can be used to property owners to see how their

project might be regarded for interpreted. Commissioner Rickett said the

references go into technical items and asked if the applicants need to follow it.

Mr. Scanlon said yes.

Commissioner Rickett commended the applicants on the overlay.

Vice Chair Foos thanked the applicants for the great presentation and is in full

support of the application.

Mr. Walker said he thanked the applicants for their work and patience in the

process.

Motion by Commissioner Casey, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to

recommend approval to City Council the Zone Map Amendment to designate

4.29 acres as Historic Preservation Overlay District (HP-O) located west of

North Cascade Avenue between West Dale Street and West Willamette

Avenue, based upon the findings that the request complies with the

Standards for Designation of Areas for Zoning Overlay as set forth in City

Code Section 7.2.608.B and the criteria for a Zone Map Amendment as set

forth in City Code Section 7.5.704 with the following condition:

1) The Parkside Historic District Design Standards as proposed in the initial

application are approved with changes as follows: (a) the "Old North End

Interpretive Guide" is incorporated into the standards by reference or exhibit

to be a supporting document for guidance and results at all levels of historic

rehabilitation work in the District; and (b) add a reference to the Design

Standards stating, "for additional information on the Secretary of the Interior

Standards for Rehabilitation visit the National Park Service's Historic

Preservation Tax Incentives page (Standards for Rehabilitation).

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

8 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

Public Art Ordinance

8.C.

25-187

An Ordinance amending Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code

(UDC)) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as

amended, pertaining to public art.

(Legislative)

Related Files: CODE-25-0001

Located in All Council District

Presenter:

Daniel Sexton, DRE Planning Manager, Planning Department

Michael Montgomery, Deputy City Council Administrator

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

Staff Report_Public Art Ordinance

Attachment 1 - UDC-PAC-Amendment-2025-05-05

Attachment 2 - Public Art Commission Meeting Minutes

Attachment 3 - Ordinance #25-138

Staff Presentation_Public Art Ordinance

Planning Commission Meeting - Public Art - 05_14_2025

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey, that this

Ordinance be postpone to a date uncertain The motion passed by a vote of

8-0-1.

8 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Rickett, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Casey and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

9. Presentations

10. Adjourn