Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

7 -

Present:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Kenneth Casey - City Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, said their budget proposal to City Council

has been finalized and they are trying to keep all positions funded. He said

he will provide the Board with updates.

Mr. Walker said City Council will appoint vacant positions for a member

and an alternate member of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Walker said some edits are still being made to the Rules and

Procedures and once completed they will be brought forward for approval.

Mr. Walker said in September they had the lowest number of applications

submitted in the last five years, and yesterday they had one of the highest.

He said these include development reviews and the items presented to the

Commission.

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2716

4.A.

Minutes for the September 10, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting.

Presenter:

Kenneth Casey, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_9.10.25 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Cecil, to

postpone the approval of the Minutes for the September 10, 2025,

Planning Commission Meeting, to the November 12, 2025 meeting.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Hensler,

that this be accepted 5. Consent Calendar The motion passed by a vote

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

35 E Ramona Rezoning

5.A.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 25-91 to amend the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 14,553 square feet located at 35

East Ramona Avenue from R-5/SS-O (Multi-Family High with

Streamside Overlay) to MX-M/CR/SS-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale

with Conditions of Record and Streamside Overlay). (Quasi-Judicial)

(Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: None

Council District # 3

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance_35 E Ramona Rezoning

Staff Report_35 E Ramona Rezoning_WEG Final V2

Land Use Plan_35 E Ramona Rezoning_Revised

Attachment 1-Zoning Map

Attachment 2-Ordinance No. 80-171

Attachment 3-Ivywild Addition No 1

Attachment 4-Context Map

Attachment 5-Project Statement

Attachment 6-Land Use Plan

Attachment 7-Legal Description and Drawing

Attachment 8-Vicinity Map

CPC Minutes Excerpt - 35 E Ramona Ave - 10.08.2025

35 E Ramona Rezoning_CC_Staff Presentation_WEG

Signed Ordinance No. 25-91.pdf

Conditional Use for a Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturer

5.B.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturing

in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) zone district consisting of

0.12 acres located at 2119 W Colorado Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial)

Council District #3

Presenter:

Ethan Shafer, Urban Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report for CUDP-25-0015

Attachment 3 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 1 - Ordinance 25-10

Attachment 2A - Public Comment

Attachment 2B - Response to Public Comment

BLR 50A Park Rezone

5.C.

ZONE-25-00 Ordinance No. 25-89 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 6.07 acres located

northeast of Stetson Hills Boulevard and Last Chance Drive from

PDZ/AP-O/SS-O (Planned Development Zone District with Airport

and Streamside Overlays) to PK/AP-O (Public Park with Airport

Overlay).

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

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 6

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance

Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 3 - Exhibits A & B

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

BLR 50A Park Rezone - Staff Presentation

CPC Minutes Excerpt - BLR 50A Park Rezone - 10.08.2025

Signed Ordinance No. 25-89.pdf

980 Dublin Rezone

5.D.

ZONE-25-00 An Ordinance No. 25-90 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to approximately 3.41 acres located

northeast of Dublin Boulevard and Vincent Drive from PF/SS-O/AF-O

(Public Facilities with Streamside and United States Air Force

Academy Overlays) to MX-M/SS-O/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale

with Streamside and United States Air Force Academy Overlays).

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

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 1

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Ordinance

Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 3 - Public Comments

Attachment 4 - Public Comment Response Letter

Attachment 5 - Exhibit A

Attachment 6 - Exhibit B

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

980 Dublin Rezone - Staff Presentation

CPC Minutes Excerpt - 980 Dublin - 10.08.2025

Signed Ordinance No. 25-90.pdf

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Woodmen East Commercial Filing No. 1

8.A.

CUDP-22-00 A Conditional Use Development Plan to allow a 362-unit residential

multi-family dwelling (apartments) development and ancillary site

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

Airport Overlay) zone district consisting of 14.11 acres located at the

southeast corner of East Woodmen Road and Mohawk Road.

(Quasi-Judicial).

Council District # 6

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report - Woodmen East Commercial Multi-Family

Attachment 1 - Concept Plan

Attachment 2 - Public Comment

Attachment 3 - Conditoinal Use Development Plan

Attachment 4 - Project Statement

7.5.704 Conditional Use Review

7.5.502.E Development Plan Review

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, presented the Conditional Use

Development Plan to allow a 362-unit residential multi-family dwelling

(apartments) development and ancillary site improvements in the

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

consisting of 14.11 acres located at the southeast corner of East

Woodmen Road and Mohawk Road. This project was reviewed under

Chapter 7, and the previous zone was Planned Business Center (PBC).

There were seven parcels identified in the concept plan, six for commercial

use, and one for future multi-family with a density of 25 dwelling units per

acre. Under Chapter 7 multi-family was a conditional use. There are four

access points for this project, two of them are on a cul-de-sac to the north,

and one is off Mohawk Road to the west. The proposed height will be 45

feet, where the current maximum allowed is 50 feet. Parking requirements

have been met with surface parking and tucked in garages. Standard

Notice was sent; two comments were received. Agency Review was made,

and all comments were addressed. This project is in compliance with

PlanCOS and meets the review criteria in Chapter 7.

Applicant’s presentation

Ted Featherstone, Sares Regis Group, representing the applicant, said

their proposal is for a 362-unit multifamily residential development on a

16.35-acre site, part of the 31-acre Woodmen East Master Plan approved

in 2022. He said the project aligns with the city’s goal of promoting diverse

housing types to meet the needs of residents across life stages and

income levels. He said this multifamily project is located near Banning

Lewis Ranch and adjacent to large single-family developments and is

positioned as a necessary complement to the surrounding housing stock.

Mr. Featherstone said the fastest-growing demographics in Colorado

Springs, ages 25 to 34 and 65+, are more likely to rent apartments,

reinforcing the relevance of the proposed development, that will also

function as a transition between the residences at Banning Lewis and the

commercial area in Woodmen Road. He said there is a 300-foot buffer

with the homes in Banning Lewis, which is comprised of parking areas,

storm water detention, right of way, vacant land under the power

transmission lines and a pedestrian trail. Mr. Featherstone said the plans

for the project have seven buildings and two amenity structures. He said

70% of units will be in elevator service buildings, with a higher ratio of

internal covered parking, and larger floor plans, particularly among two and

three-bedroom units. He said the proposal exceeds requirements for

off-street parking and open space.

Mr. Featherstone said the project is being reviewed under Chapter 7 rather

than the new Unified Development Code (UDC), because the initial

submissions began in 2022, well before the UDC took effect, and the team

had already progressed through multiple design iterations with staff

guidance. He said although the plan has remained unchanged since 2023,

final approval was delayed due to external factors, including the late

completion of the final drainage report and the need to vacate a utility

easement with CSU to get the final plat approval for the 31-acre master

plan. Mr. Featherstone said these steps were necessary to align the

development plan with the approved master plan and confirmed the project

is fully compliant with PBC zoning and ensures sufficient roadway capacity.

Commissioners’ Questions

Chair Casey asked who is improving Mohawk Road. Mr. Featherstone

said the Master Developer is.

Chair Casey asked if there will be any improvements to the Mohawk and

Woodmen intersection, like turning lanes or lights. Mr. Featherstone said

there might be one more turning lane put at the intersection.

Chair Casey asked if Mohawk would connect to Golden Jubilee. Mr.

Featherstone said it will connect as a dead-end, it will be an east-facing

left-hand turn, with Golden Jubilee going east-west. He said Mohawk would

not extend into Banning Lewis. Ms. Baxter said Golden Jubilee will be

constructed further east through Percheron.

Chair Casey asked what the timing for the project is. Mr. Featherstone said

they would like to start construction by this time next year, but it depends on

finishing the construction drawings and getting the necessary permits.

Commissioner Slattery asked if Golden Jubilee would connect to Banning

Lewis Parkway, so Mohawk is not the only path out. Ms. Baxter said that is

correct.

Commissioner Slattery said this project meets the criteria, is a natural

transition from commercial to single-family, and it has been established as

a multi-family use, so she will be voting in favor of the application.

Commissioner Cecil said she agrees with Commissioner Slattery about

the appropriateness of the transition and scale and asked if any of the units

will be affordable. Mr. Featherstone said they would not.

Chair Casey said this project meets the criteria for conditional use and

development plan.

Commissioner Hensler said she concurs with what was said and thanked

the applicant for sticking with the application regardless of challenges with

the process. Commissioner Hensler said there is a need for housing at all

levels and types, and she will be in support of the project.

Commissioner Robbins said he also concurs and thinks this is a good

project for those who cannot afford a single-family house, and it also

supports growth. Commissioner Robbins said he will be in support.

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Robbins, to approve the Conditional Use Development Plan based

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

forth in form City Code Chapter 7 Section 7.5.704 (Conditional Use)

and Section 7.5.502.E (Development Plan).

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

1210 Eagle Rock Rd Retaining Wall

8.B.

NVAR-25-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.610.D.1.d to allow a

fifteen (15) foot retaining wall within the Hillside Overlay where a

maximum of four (4) feet is usually required located at 1210 Eagle

Rock Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Council District # 1

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment #1 - Original Hillside Development Plan

Attachment #2 - Notice of Opposition

Attachment #3 - Public Response Letter

Attachment #4 - Code Enforcement Complaint

Attachment #5 - Hillside Development Plan

Attachment #6 - PPRBD Correspondence

Attachment #7 - Project Statement

Attachment #8 - Geologic Hazard Report

Attachment #9 - 1220 Eagle Rock Grading Plan

Attachment #10 - Landslide Susceptibility Map

Attachment #11 - Photo Simulations

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

7.2.610 HS-O HILLSIDE OVERLAY

Drew Foxx, Planner II, presented the variance application about an existing

retaining wall at 1210 Eagle Rock Road, located northeast of the Austin

Bluffs Parkway and North Nevada Avenue intersection. The property is

zoned residential with Hillside and wildland-urban interface overlays. It

shares a driveway with the adjacent lot at 1220 Eagle Rock Road. The two

lots were originally part of the Riley Subdivision, approved in 1999. The

residence at 1210 was permitted shortly after, while the home at 1220 was

permitted in 2019. A shotcrete retaining wall was constructed along the

east side of the 1210 residence in 2003, facing Eagle Rock Road. The wall

reaches up to 15 feet in height, exceeding the 4-foot limit allowed under the

Hillside overlay.

Mr. Foxx said the variance request aims to address a code enforcement

complaint filed by the neighboring property owner at 1220 Eagle Rock

Road. The complaint cited violations of the original development plan and

the absence of a building permit for the wall. The variance also seeks to

preserve the Hillside, manage erosion and stormwater runoff, and avoid the

cost of removing the wall or building additional structures upslope. No

changes to the wall are proposed. However, approval of the variance would

require an amendment to the original Hillside development plan, which had

specified two 4-foot retaining walls further upslope. Both a variance and

building permit should have been obtained prior to the wall’s installation in

2003. Standard notice was made; comments in opposition were received

from the neighbor to the south with concerns about code compliance,

drainage, erosion, ponding, safety. Agency review was made and

comments were addressed. The application is in compliance with

PlanCOS and meets the review criteria for a Nonuse Variance, however it

does not meet the review criteria for the Hillside review criteria.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Cecil asked about the origin of the Hillside Overlay criteria

regarding the 4-foot retaining walls. Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager, said

the criteria has been in place since the late 80’s and it tries to minimize the

impact within the overlay and have a safer drainage perspective. Mr.

Walker said it is general criteria that addresses engineering and aesthetic

issues.

Applicant’s presentation

Dave Hostetler, Land Development Consultants, said work on the property

began in 1998 for the Riley family, who intended to subdivide it for personal

or investment use, but intended to preserve the area as much as possible.

He said a Hillside plot plan was approved in 1999, for the two lots

subdivision, followed by a residential Hillside plan. He said during

construction in 2000, an unexpected rock embankment limited the

backyard depth from the planned 25 feet to about 10-12 feet, making

further excavation cost-prohibitive. Mr. Hostetler said surveying and

planning were done by Land Development Consultants and Associated

Design Professionals, the latter no longer in business. He said Katherine

Roundtree, daughter of the original owners, and her husband got a building

permit and occupied a house on lot one in 2000, and in 2003, a shotcrete

covering was added to the rock outcropping for aesthetics and erosion

control, using a method common in Hillside developments and not requiring

a permit.

Mr. Hostetler said no neighborhood complaints were received until 2019,

when the adjacent lot two, owned by the Fernandez family since 2016,

became a source of conflict. He said although the Fernandez family had

accepted the property “as is” during purchase, disputes arose over

construction encroachments beyond the shared driveway easement. He

said the Fernandez family later sought to expand their driveway and filed a

lawsuit to remove the shotcrete that extended into their lot, the Roundtrees

settled, and the shotcrete was removed. Mr. Hostetler said without the

shotcrete, significant excavation and retaining wall construction would be

required, disturbing the preservation area. He said the original owners

followed Hillside criteria to preserve the land and that future owners must

accept full responsibility for any wall failure. He said the Fernandez

complaints might seem unjustified and unrelated to actual drainage issues,

as lot one is not causing any adverse impact, detrimental to public health,

safety or welfare to the surrounding properties.

Mr. Hostetler said when the city required a building permit, the owners

consulted Regional Building staff, who said they would not issue a permit

for work over 20 years old. He said the request should not undermine code

enforcement or its regulations, as it pertains to a private condition. He said

no complaints have been reported from neighboring properties, except

from the adjacent southern neighbor.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Slattery asked when the retaining wall between the

properties was constructed. Mr. Hostetler said he thinks either last or this

year. Mr. Sexton said the southern property sought a non-use variance in

November 2024, which was denied. He said following coordination with

city staff, the design was revised to set back from the property line, lower

the wall height, and add a concrete extension serving as a fence, and this

modified design was subsequently approved administratively under

Hillside Overlay specifications.

Commissioner Slattery asked when the code violation was filed regarding

the existing shotcrete wall. Mr. Foxx said it was filed on October 28, 2024.

Commissioner Slattery asked if the application was approved, what would

the process be for the amendment to the development plan and the

building permit. Mr. Foxx said the amendment would be administratively

and they would need to apply at Pikes Peak Regional Building Department

for a permit as if it was a new wall.

Commissioner Slattery asked how the ratio is to be considered for the wall.

David Gorman, with MVE Inc. Civil Engineers said the wall varies in height,

but there is a spot where it is 15-foot high, and it is 15 feet wide, so it will

be a 1:1 ratio. He said the revised Hillside plan supporting the variance

considered the existing site grades and residence. He said the original

1999 plan included two 4-foot tiered walls spanning both the Roundtree’s

lot and extending into lot tow, but these walls would not effectively connect

the grade east of the house to its floor elevation, which required a 15-foot

drop, necessitating four four-foot walls. Mr. Gorman said this design would

exceed the building envelope and encroach into the preservation area

under the 2:1 slope criteria. He said the original Hillside plan is no longer

applicable due to the current site conditions and the involvement of the

southern property, making it impractical to truncate the walls at the property

line.

Commissioner Slattery asked if it is traditional to do borings and soil

testing during landscaping or was it discovered during construction. Logan

Langford, with MTEC Engineering, said the original excavation findings

were documented in the geohazard report, which identified sandstone at

the excavation surface, and density tests were conducted. He said borings

are typically done within the house footprint unless targeting structures like

retaining walls. He said due to site constraints, drilling at the proposed

retaining wall locations was not feasible.

Commissioner Slattery said the original plans might have not reflected the

actual conditions of the lot, especially if soil testing was not performed

where the proposed retaining walls were going to be installed.

Commissioner Slattery asked how it was determined that the wall that was

built was the best solution. Mr. Hostetler said the Hillside plot plans were

approved by the city and handed off to the general contractor and civil

engineer. He said after the building permit was issued, Land Development

Consultants (LDC) was not contacted again, and no revisions to the plan

were required. He said in 2003, due to potential erosion risks from

rainwater, the Roundtree’s were advised to hire shotcrete walls

professionals, to stabilize the sandstone rock embankment. He said the

shotcrete installation has effectively provided erosion control since then

without any issues.

Commissioner Cecil asked for clarification about Mr. Hostetler’s comment

that granting a non-use variance would make future owners aware that the

city is not liable for potential shotcrete failure in the future. He said it was

one of the requirements by SWENT and the owners agreed.

Public Comment

Jamie Fernandez ceded time to John Fernandez.

John Fernandez, owner of the adjacent lot, referenced the 1998 Radley

Subdivision plan and the 1999 Eagle Rock Hillside plan, both of which

required tiered retaining walls not exceeding four feet in height and to be

built within the designated building envelope, avoiding the preservation

area. He said although two four-foot retaining walls were approved, they

were never constructed; instead, a 15-foot structure was installed without

city or regional permit approval, violating code requirements. Mr.

Fernandez said that encountering a rock embankment during construction

should have triggered a revised hillside plan and certificate of occupancy

review. He said LDC, the original engineer, is now supporting the non-use

variance to approve the 15-foot wall, contradicting their original

code-compliant design. He said no evidence has been provided to show a

compliant solution is unachievable and that a revised plan should have

been submitted.

Mr. Fernandez said in 2024, a non-use variance request for a 9-foot

engineered wall on the adjacent property was denied because a

code-compliant solution was deemed feasible. He said following the

denial, a revised permit was approved under Hillside overlay code,

demonstrating that compliance is achievable. He said there are also

concerns about drainage issues related to the shotcrete structure, citing

expert recommendations that proper surface and subsurface drainage is

essential to slope stability and foundation performance. He said the current

shotcrete installation causes water ponding and fails to direct runoff away

from adjacent structures, and it is a hazard to foundation, contradicting

code and engineering guidance.

Mr. Fernandez said the non-use variance request seeks to classify the

shotcrete structure as a 15-foot retaining wall, which contradicts the site

observation report that consistently refers to it as slope stabilization, not a

retaining wall. He said city code requires slopes steeper than 2:1 to be

retained, and the request to approve slope stabilization as a retaining wall

is flawed. Mr. Fernandez said slope stabilization does not provide proper

drainage control, which is why the engineering report addresses drainage

risks that would typically be managed by a true retaining wall.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Hostetler said LDC served only as the surveyor and planning

consultant, while the civil engineer stamped the drawings, which showed

dual retaining walls crossing lots one and two. He said after the house was

built and occupied in 2000, inspections were conducted and the building

permit was closed out. He said plan revisions were never requested. Mr.

Hostetler said in 2003, the erosion control covering was installed without

needing a permit, and drainage flowed evenly across the back of the

property without causing erosion. He said that the southern neighbor has

not addressed drainage issues caused by their new retaining wall and

shotcrete removal, and their engineer never consulted LDC or ADP, nor

constructed the originally approved four-foot walls.

Mr. Gorman said the existing wall has a brow on the uphill side that

redirects smaller water flows around the house, and during heavy rain,

some water may flow over the wall, but a swale along the east side of the

house channels it to the north, preventing ponding. He said the current

drainage functions properly without impacting adjacent properties,

especially those uphill to the south. He said the originally planned two

four-foot retaining walls could not be constructed as shown without

extending into the southern property, per the 1999 plan.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Hensler asked if the top of the wall is maintained on a

regular basis or does not require maintenance. Mr. Gorman said it is

formed into shotcrete, and it has additional rocks that help stabilize the soil.

He said these do not require maintenance, but the earth next to it is being

looked after by the owner.

Commissioner Hensler asked if drainage is happening into lot two. Mr.

Gorman said drainage flows into the Roundtree’s property and flows down

their own driveway.

Commissioner Slattery asked if the retaining walls shown in Mr.

Fernandez’s exhibit 1 were to be constructed, they would go into the

envelope of his building. Mr. Gorman said they would, as there is no way to

stop them right on the property line without other extensive improvements,

therefore this possibility would not be feasible.

Commissioner Cecil asked for additional details on preventing breakdown

of the shotcrete. Mr. Langford said it is constructed with a mix of wire mesh

and rebar into the sandstone, that require periodic maintenance to prevent

erosion.

Commissioner Cecil said Mr. Fernandez mentioned in his comments that a

decision previously made by the board established a precedent, however

there are two sections that clearly mention that neither approval or denial by

the Commission related to previous non-use variances establish a

precedent.

Chair Casey asked if the building permit will require changes to the wall.

Mr. Foxx said they would have to apply as if it is a new structure and would

have to meet code and regulations.

Commissioner Hensler asked what the reasons were for filing the violation.

Mr. Foxx said some of the concerns included not following the development

plan, erosion, ponding, which are happening on the subject property. He

said he is not aware of negative impacts to the surrounding properties.

Chair Casey said one of the criteria for a non-use variance is that it will not

have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Foxx said that he

found the only concern with the wall would be the height, as the

encroachment issues have been addressed by removing a piece of the

wall.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there is any current encroachment on any

side of the property line. Mr. Foxx said there is not.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the new wall is on the property line. Mr.

Foxx said it is, and it has setbacks.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there is any visual impact on any

neighboring property. Mr. Foxx said as far as he recalls he has not read

any complaint about it. Mr. Sexton said the complete description of the

code enforcement citation was included in the packet.

Commissioners’ Comments

Commissioner Cecil said the property meets criteria one and two, having

the sandstone in extraordinary physical condition, as well as criteria three,

as enforcing the original plans would impose substantial hardship and

hinder reasonable use of both the subject and adjacent properties.

Commissioner Cecil said criteria four is satisfied, as there is no significant

impact on neighboring properties. Commissioner Cecil said, outside the

formal criteria, revisiting construction completed over two decades ago

seems unreasonable and undermines the intent of a certificate of

occupancy.

Commissioner Slattery said she agrees with Commissioner Cecil and

added that a demolition or additional construction would be far more

detrimental to preserving the natural features, which is the intention of the

Hillside Overlay. Commissioner Slattery said she will be voting in favor of

the non-use variance.

Chair Casey said he agrees with Commissioners Cecil and Slattery that

the non-use variance meets the criteria and will be in support of the

application.

Commissioner Robbins said he also agrees with previous comments and

will be voting in favor.

Commissioner Hensler said she concurs with the Commission comments.

Motion by Commissioner Cecil, seconded by Commissioner Hensler,

to approve the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.610.D.1.d

allowing a 15-foot retaining wall in the hillside overlay upon the

findings that the request complies with the criteria as set for in City

Code Section 7.5.526.E. with the following condition:

a. An amendment to the applicable hillside overlay development plan

(City File No. AR DP 98-727) shall be processed. The motion passed

by a vote of

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Chair Casey, Commissioner Clements and

Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Sipilovic

Absent:

9. Presentations

9.B.

NPLN-25-00 The Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan, a neighborhood plan

developed as part of the PlanCOS initiative for a Neighborhood Planning

Program.

Presenter:

Page Saulsbury, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Attachment 1 -

Southeast_Strong_Neighborhood_Plan_spread_2025_9

CPC Staff Report Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan 10_ 8_2025

Page Saulsbury, Planner II, Comprehensive Planning, presented the

Southeast Strong Neighborhood Plan, that is an area with great economic

development potential with a strategic location of the Southeast, particularly

for its proximity to the airport and the significance of South Academy

Boulevard as a major corridor. She said community engagement has been

informative and survey-driven, with residents advocating for the Southeast

to be promoted as a cultural destination. Ms. Saulsbury said the plan

incorporates these suggestions, aiming to create cultural spaces and

community hubs, expand walkable neighborhoods, support workforce

development, attract primary employers and grocery stores, and improve

access to parks, trails, and healthy food options.

Ms. Saulsbury said the plan is structured around “big ideas,” priority goals,

and strategies, with a key focus in rehabilitation and development, with

active redevelopment of vacant land and new projects in different emerging

areas. She presented the priority goals regarding Grow and Support our

Businesses and Entrepreneurs that include assisting with promotion of the

area as a thriving business ecosystem with a unique cultural identity,

creating additional water-wise standards for streetscapes - efficient and

manageable, identifying potential funding for landscaping and site

maintenance zoning compliance, attracting new retailers, developing

initiatives with local and culturally significant small businesses and

promoting new career opportunities. She said there are different key

partners to accomplish all the proposed strategies.

Ms. Saulsbury said regarding Grow and Support our Housing, the identified

goals are preserving the existing housing inventory and needs for existing

and future residents, growing diverse housing options in proximity to transit,

hubs, and essential services, and using support models to provide

homeownership options.

Ms. Saulsbury said for Upgrade How We Move the priority goals include

enhancing public transit accessibility and coverage, promoting sustainable

first/last-mile transit solutions, studying and implementing safer

intersections, roads, and sidewalks for pedestrians and cyclists

(multi-modal design), slowing vehicle speeds near schools, healthcare

centers, libraries, commercial areas, parks, and recreational centers, and

enhancements to transit system identified in the 2050 Regional Transit

Plan & Specialized Transportation Plan.

Ms. Saulsbury said for the Live Better, Live Longer aspect they identified

goals such as enhance public spaces, focus on community hubs, prioritize

connectivity and safety to area parks and trails, health and walkability

promotion, supporting small businesses, improving streetscape,

public-private partnerships, incentives for large retail and grocery stores to

open in the area to also support job growth, and support parks and trail

improvements to include ADA upgrades.

Ms. Saulsbury said about Support our Safety the goals are to have safer

and more inclusive community environment in partnership with

community-driven resources and public infrastructure and implement

signage, landscaping, and art features to define ownership of public and

private land to deter crime.

Ms. Saulsbury said stakeholder engagement is ongoing; this presentation

is expected to go before City Council in the next months, and

implementation will be discussed after.

Commissioners’ Questions

Chair Casey asked if this is located to the south of Monument Creek. Mr.

Walker said the park America the Beautiful if south of it, however, that is

located in a northern area and is not part of the one for discussion today.

Ms. Saulsbury said there has been about 350 million dollars of City

investment for community centers, bonds, sports facilities and more. She

said it is exciting to how much has happened since the development of this

plan.

Mr. Walker said this is a work in progress and if the Commissioners have

comments, can let staff know. He said staff will be having conversations

with the Councilmember representing the area to decide how they want to

proceed and eventually will bring this project forward for a formal decision

by the Commission.

Commissioner Slattery commended Ms. Saulsbury for her enthusiasm and

work on this project, and all the community engagement that has taken

place. Commissioner Slattery highlighted all the success stories in the area

and said with this plan it might be more desirable, achievable and efficient

to implement different opportunities.

Commissioner Cecil asked if these areas are already on approved list for

PPRTA. Ms. Saulsbury said they are, and they will be presenting to the

Commission a list of Capital Improvement and Development Projects.

Commissioner Cecil said she hopes the best fit and definition for hub gets

implemented in the city as cohesion, mental health and walkability are

important. Commissioner Cecil said she is excited about

anti-displacement concerns and the work that the Housing Affordability

Department is doing. Mr. Walker said the housing needs assessment will

be released in the next 30 days and there will be opportunity for discussion

then.

Commissioner Robbins asked what the timeline for the project is and if

personal property will be involved when working on roadways and similar.

Commissioner Robbins said he appreciates the enthusiasm, and he likes

the proposal. Mr. Walker said he expects to get approval of this in the next

few months, and then it will be an ongoing project with constant updates as

it deals with a large section of the community.

10. Adjourn