Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

9 -

Present:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner

Gigiano

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Andrea Slattery - Planning Commission Chair

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair, said there are open

seats for Planning Commission.

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, Planning Director for the City Planning Department, said the

Planning Commission seats replacements are being reviewed by Council

staff.

Mr. Walker said the final document of the Southeast Strong Plan is ready

for his review and staff will bring it forward to the Commission’s most likely

by fall. He said staff will be presenting it for adoption as soon as Council

Members are on board.

Mr. Walker said there is progress with AnnexCOS, staff are working to

reflect the new information after the vote in June and getting leadership

input on how to navigate through that. He said this project will be presented

probably during fall.

Mr. Walker said they are working on school dedication and fees in lieu of.

He said there is a contract in place with the consultant who is working with

the County. Mr. Walker said he has been in meetings with them and the

project will be brought forward soon.

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2677

Minutes for the July 9, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_7.9.25 Draft

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

approve the Minutes for the July 9, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting.

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

8 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey, Commissioner Clements,

Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Chair Slattery

Abstain:

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of items 5.A and 5.G.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner

Gigiano

Liberty Self-Storage - Conditional Use

5.B.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a self-storage facility in the BP/SS-O

(Business Park with Streamside Overlay) zone district consisting of

four acres located at 6650 Vincent Drive. (Quasi-Judicial)

Council District # 1

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: CUDP-25-0011_StaffReport_ADS_V2

Attachment_1_DP 80-280-A3(94)

Attachment_2_Land Use Statement

Attachment_3_Project Statement

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Kennels Ordinance

5.C.

CODE-25-00 An Ordinance amending Chapter 7 (the “Unified Development Code”

or “UDC”) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as

amended, as related to kennels.

(Legislative)

Related Files: CODE-25-0004

Located in All Council Districts

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

UDC-Kennels-ORD

Staff Report_Kennels_Final_20250731

CPC Minutes Excerpt - Kennel - 08_13_2025

North Gate Boulevard Addition No. 10

5.D.

ANEX-25-00 North Gate Boulevard Addition No. 10 Annexation consisting of 0.33

acres of right-of-way located south of North Gate Boulevard at the

intersection with Struthers Road.

(Legislative)

Council District #2

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report_North Gate Boulevard Addition No 10_TPB

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map

Attachment 2 - Project Statement

Attachment 3 - Annexation Plat

Attachment 4 - Legal Description

Attachment 5 - Petition for Annexation

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Beth-El Mennonite Church Childcare

5.E.

ZONE-25-00 An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs pertaining to 9.93 acres located southeast of Union

Boulevard and Ranch Drive at 4625 Ranch Drive from PDZ/cr/HS-O

(Planned Development Zone District with conditions of record and

the Hillside Overlay) to PDZ/cr/HS-O (Planned Development Zone

District with conditions of record and the Hillside Overlay) to modify

certain established conditions of record. (Quasi-Judicial) (Second

Reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: PDZD-25-0020

Council District #1

Presenter:

Molly O’Brien, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Beth-El Mennonite Church Ordinance

Beth-El Mennonite Church Staff Report - ZONE_25-0014_MEO_Final

Attachment 1 - Ordinance 03-18

Attachment 2 - Public Comment

Attachment 3 – Exhibits A and B

Attachment 4 - Project Statement

Attachment 5 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 6 - Minor Modification

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC Minutes Excerpt - Beth-El - 08_13_2025

5.F.

PDZD-25-00 A minor modification to the Beth-El Mennonite Church Development

Plan establishing a Child Daycare Center, Large use in the

PDZ/cr/HS-O (Planned Development Zone District with conditions of

record and Hillside Overlay) zone district consisting of 9.93 acres

located at 4625 Ranch Dr. (Quasi-Judicial)

Related Files: ZONE-25-0014

Council District #1

The minor modification to the development plan is in association with

the Beth-El Mennonite Church zone change which had the first

reading setting the hearing date on September 9, 2025.

Presenter:

Molly O’Brien, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.516 MODIFICATION OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

3121 Illinois Avenue Duplex

5.A.

NVAR-25-00 A Nonuse Variance to City Code Section 7.2.207 to allow for a 7-foot

corner lot - side street setback where 15 feet is usually required

located at 3121 Illinois Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial).

Council District # 5

Presenter:

Kerri Schott, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: NVAR-25-0003_Staff Report

Attachment 1-Project Statement

Attachment 2-NVAR-25-0003 Site Plan

Attachment 3-Neighbor Comment

Attachment 4-Neighbor Comment Response

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Kerri Schott, Planner II, presented the Nonuse Variance to City Code

Section 7.2.207 to allow for a 7-foot corner lot - side street setback where

15 feet is usually required, located at 3121 Illinois Avenue, within the R-5

(Multi-Family High) zoning district. The intention is to include a new

two-story duplex. The proposed site, along with the two lots to the north,

already have a previously approved development plan from 2022 for a

12-unit apartment building that was never built. Ms. Schott said the lot was

plated as shown in 1901 and was annexed into the city in 1970. Along 3rd

Street there is an offset from the property line from the back of the sidewalk

of about five feet, with that the property owner is still maintaining about 18.5

feet from the back of the curb. The proposed height is 34 feet where 50 is

allowed. Standard Notice was sent out and one comment was received

with concerns about corner visibility, traffic increase, damaging

appearance and values of surrounding properties. Agency Review was

made, and no issues were identified. The project meets the review criteria

and complies with PlanCOS.

Applicant’s presentation

Drew Gaiser, Managing Partner at Blue Truck Capital, as property owner

and developer, said they had originally planned for a 12-unit apartment

building, but now they are trying to provide the missing little housing

compared to the surrounding types of houses, based on the zoning code.

He said they are in the R-5 zone, and felt a duplex was a moderate density

increase on the area but will allow them to keep the cost down resulting in a

more affordable rent. Mr. Gaiser said the current code is based more on

the square lots rather than the rectangle ones like this site, that were plated

when the City used to keep a larger right of way. He said they now have to

provide setbacks along with the right of way, which has been a challenge

for engineering and design on this property, therefore they are proposing a

two-story duplex to try to maximize the living space and buildable area in

that lot. He said the proposed setbacks are 18’6” from the street and 11’8”

from the sidewalk, falling in line with the character of the neighborhood. He

said there is an alley behind the property, and all the parking will be off the

street, providing two tandem spaces for each unit to minimize the parking

impact in the neighborhood.

Mr. Geiser described properties near the site to point out their proposal

matches the neighborhood and is respectful of the community. He said the

proposal is outside of the visibility triangle on the corner and they are

working with the City to have the right plantings for the visual impact along

Illinois Avenue. He said it is hard to work on missing little housing because

it does not receive any financial incentives, while other options are easier

to work on, like lower income housing that has multiple programs to apply

for at federal, state and county levels, and luxury housing where people are

willing to pay. Mr. Geiser said they use lessons from the past, looking back

to the 60’s and 70’s when housing was accomplished through efficiency

and repeatability, and they are trying to apply it to their proposal.

Public Comment

Matt Jones, Peyton Neighborhood Organization, said only 200 postcards

went out therefore information is limited on when people receive that

information and how they can respond. He said they would like more

information because the neighborhood is suffering from a lack of

infrastructure, stormwater is a major issue for flooding, some areas of the

streets are not fully paved, there are missing sidewalks. He said they are

looking for coming developers to have conversations about repairs and

maintenance in the area. Mr. Jones said this neighborhood was founded by

union coal miners and it was its own town until it was annexed in 1970. He

said it is nice that the developer is trying to address the missing middle,

because the neighborhood is full of multigenerational houses.

Chair Slattery said for potholes related issues Public Works needs to be

contacted, and for infield development and stormwater systems it would be

at the expense and responsibility of the developer to bring any lots

developed up to code, including sidewalks.

Kevin Walker suggested to contact the Councilmember representing the

district as he is interested and very adept in addressing those issues. He

said Planning Department is working on a pilot program for ideas on

issues like this, in Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, where there

are some vacant lots and interest in building this kind of housing; and how

to help expedite that and in benefit of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Rickett said he is familiar with the neighborhood, and he

has seen how they build up to the property line, like the property behind this

lot. Commissioner Rickett said this is an eclectic neighborhood and the

project fits well in the area.

Moved by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Hensler, to approve the Nonuse Variance based upon the finding that

the request complies with the criteria as set forth in City Code

Section 7.5.526.E.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner

Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and

Commissioner Gigiano

2402 N Nevada Rezoning

5.G.

ZONE-25-00 An ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Colorado

Springs pertaining to 7,000 square feet located at 2402 North

Nevada Avenue from R-2 (Two-Family) to MX-N (Mixed-Use

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

Hearing)

Council District # 5

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Ordinance_2402 N Nevada Ave Rezoning

Exhibit A Legal and Exhibit B Drawing

Staff Report_2402 N Nevada Rezoning_WEG

Attachment 1 - Zoning Map

Attachment 2 - North End Addition

Attachment 3 - Context Map

Attachment 4 - Project Statement

Attachment 5 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 6 - North End Existing Land Use

Attachment 7 - North End Future Land Use

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC Minutes Excerpt - 2402 N Nevada Avenue - 08_13_2025

Public Comment_Old North End_08122025

Resident Questions and Staff Response_08272025

William Gray, Senior Planner, presented the Zone Map Amendment

(Rezoning) consisting of 7,000 square feet located at 2402 North Nevada

Avenue from R-2 (Two-Family) to MX-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale),

with an existing commercial- residential building, the proposed use would

be a small neighborhood commercial use. The property was originally

developed in the late 1950’s, designed with residential and commercial

character, it was initially owned by a chiropractor and used mainly as a

home occupation. In the late 90’s it was used for wellness or massage.

Between that time, it was used as a photography studio and, at some point,

there was a request to have retail space, however, it was denied by the

Planning Commission at that time.

Mr. Gray said the request to rezone to MX-N will allow residential, as well

as offices, small personal business services, and retail uses, which are

conditional uses. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate future use of

small-scale commercial use by the current owner, considering uses such

as massage, fitness, wellness, salon or spa, that fit into the small personal

and service use category. The property is directly north of Penrose Hospital

and surrounded by single and two-family dwellings, there are commercial

centers to the west and east, like the Lincoln school and a shopping center.

Mr. Gray said this application is compatible with PlanCOS and North End

Neighborhood Plan. The second mentions neighborhood commercial uses

and infers that these uses should be continued as they have existed for

long periods of time, this is one of those lots. He said one of the ways to

maintain those uses, the current zone does not perpetuate that, and they

have to look at mixed use zones. Any future use would require development

plans or conditional use to ensure the standards are appropriate. Standard

Notice was sent out; no public comments were received. The project meets

the review criteria.

Applicant’s presentation

Meche Haflich, property owner, said she has lived in the neighborhood for

the past 20 years, and she has always tried to comply with and improve the

aesthetics of the business for the historic district. She said as the property

is close to Penrose Hospital, it is seen as a business. She said she is a

massage therapist and health trainer and has been able to provide

services through the home occupation permit, usually to residents of the

Old North End. Ms. Haflich said there are no proposed changes to the

existing building that was built as a chiropractic office with treatment rooms

and she wants to utilize that space. She said there is also a living space

that can be used more as a community setting such as health classes. She

said she will continue to keep it as a boutique business for the

neighborhood. Ms. Haflich said the current zoning for that property would

allow for a duplex to be built; however, she feels it would be less appealing

than a boutique business.

Commissioner Robbins asked if there will be retail sales in the facility. Ms.

Haflich said there will be no retail sales, only personal services.

Commissioner Cecil mentioned other the uses that would be permitted in

an MX-N zone district.

Public Comments

Dutch Schulz, President of the Old North End Neighborhood Board, said

the applicant desires to continue the use that has been in place for years,

even though it has been in violation of the R-2 zoning. He said the North

End Board does not object to that, as a medical office is a compatible

transition to the surrounding streets. He said the Board does object to the

rezoning from R-2 to MX-N, because of all the other conditional uses that

the proposed new zone will allow to any new owner, and are not compatible

with the area, and only a public review is required to approve a conditional

use. Mr. Schulz said the applicant has referred to commercial uses around

the area, however, North Nevada is a residential street. He said the

rezoning needs to be compatible with the residents that live around, and

the consideration should be about the uses that the rezoning allows, not

what the applicant desires. He said the applicant refers to the MX-N as

compatible with the Master Plan, however, the zone did not exist at the time

the Plan was approved. Mr. Schulz said this zone was presented during the

RetoolCOS, and they were already strongly opposed as it was too broad,

proposing 29 uses to be allowed.

Michael Anderson, member of the Old North End Neighborhood Board,

said he wanted to emphasize certain uses from the 29 allowed uses, such

as bar, hotel/motel, restaurants, retail, auto related uses, self-storage,

detox center, and even mining and mineral extraction. He said the

neighborhood will become very vulnerable to all those additional uses. Mr.

Anderson said they are not opposed to the medical office/personal health

use that the applicant is proposing, but to the broad range of other uses

that expose the property and the neighborhood. He said they would like to

propose two alternatives that they will be in support of; one will be to rezone

the property to Office Residential, and referred to section 7.2.301,

describing said use; and the second option will be a use variance that

would maintain the current R-2 use but will allow them to have the medical

office and personal services.

Chair Slattery asked if the chiropractic services would fall under the

“personal services small or large” category. Mr. Gray said the proposed

use will be for massage, wellness, salon/spa, and all will fall under the

definition of personal and business services small.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Ms. Haflich said it is her understanding that if it is zoned OR, personal

services use would not be allowed. She said she does not know if the City

Planning Commission could restrict automotive uses there, because she

would not want them either, but something more compliant with the

neighborhood, as a boutique studio. She said she has seen some

Victorian homes that have small businesses associated, and it would not

make sense to do something that would damage the appeal of the

neighborhood. Ms. Haflich said they are located close to the hospital, close

to the area in Filmore that is more commercial, but she wanted to have the

opportunity to provide personal services.

Commissioners’ Comments

Commissioner Rickett asked if Staff could come up with an alternative that

meets the applicant’s and the neighborhood’s needs, would the applicant

consider it. Ms. Haflich said she will.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the option of a use variance was explored for

those services and what the reasoning was. Mr. Gray said they did

consider the variance, however, the application would not meet the criteria,

so they started to focus on the history of the building, and what the

comprehensive plans are saying about the area. He said they felt the

rezoning was more appropriate instead of trying to explain a use variance

without meeting the criteria.

Commissioner Robbins asked if the Office Residential option was

reviewed and is not applicable. Mr. Gray said the OR zone district does not

permit personal and business services, but general or medical office,

therefore, massages would not be allowed, and that is why they decided to

go to the next level zone. He said there are standards and procedures that

all listed uses need to adhere to, and not all of them would be compatible

with the area, for example auto sales. Mr. Gray said the applicant is willing

to work with staff to address the opposition’s concerns.

Commissioner Rickett suggested moving forward with the rezoning but

condition it to personal services, limiting all other uses.

Chair Slattery commended Mr. Schultz and Mr. Anderson for their

knowledge of the code. Chair Slattery said according to the allowable use

tables between OR and MX-N, the difference is that personal and business

services are not allowed in the OR zone, and that has been the historic use,

and the one this rezoning is intending to honor to comply with the Master

Plan for the Old North End. Chair Slattery said if any of the other uses were

to come forward, there is a public process, and no additional conditions

are needed, because they exist in the code. Chair Slattery said for those

reasons she will be voting in favor of the rezone.

Commissioner Casey said he agrees with Chair Slattery. Commissioner

Cassey said there are some uses, like mineral extraction, that are allowed

as a conditional use in OR but would not make sense due to the size of the

property. Commissioner Cassey said for those reasons he will be voting in

favor of the rezoning to MX-N.

Commissioner Hensler said she concurs with Chair Slattery’s comments

and appreciates the research, the conversation and the robust discussion.

Commissioner Gigiano said she voted against the item because the zone

is too broad, and she worries about future uses.

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Casey,

to recommend approval to City Council the Zone Map Amendment

(Rezoning) from R-2 (Two-Family) to MX-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood

Scale) consisting of 7,000 square feet located at 2402 North Nevada

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

criteria for a Zone Map Amendment (Rezoning) as set forth in City

Code Section 7.5.704. The motion passed by a vote of 8-1.

8 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner

Casey, Commissioner Clements and Commissioner Rickett

1 - Commissioner Gigiano

No:

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane Addition No 1

8.A.

ANEX-24-00 Miller-Downs at Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting

of 21.37 acres located at 7020 Wyoming Lane.

(Legislative)

Council District # 6 (once annexed)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Memo_Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane_TPB

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map

Attachment 3 - Annexation Plat

Attachment 4 - Petition for Annexation

Attachment 5 - Zone Exhibit A and B

Attachment 6 - Land Use Plan

Attachment 7 - Fiscal Analysis

Attachment 8 - Mineral Estate Affidavit

Attachment 9 - Public Comments

Attachment 10 - Public Input Response Letter

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, presented the Miller-Downs at

Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1 Annexation, the Establishment of the Miller

Downs Land Use Plan for proposed residential use, and the Establishment

of R-Flex Medium/SS-O/AP-O (R-Flex Medium with Streamside and

Airport Overlays) zone district, consisting of 21.37 acres located at 7020

Wyoming Lane. The property is part of an enclave, currently zoned RR-5

with Commercial Airport Overlay. The proposed use will be single-family

detached and attached residential.

Ms. Baxter said there are three proposed access points. The primary one

is located to the west through the Quail Brush Creek subdivision, access to

the east will be for the existing single-family residence that will be retained

on the property, and access to the south is Sand Creek, where there is a

Streamside Overlay and some limitations along that area. The R-Flex

Medium zone allows for 5 to 16 units per acre, and the applicants are

proposing 5.2 units per acre, equating to about 110 homes in the

development. Ms. Baxter said there is a 30-foot remanent piece of property

along Wyoming Lane, and its ownership needs to be resolved by the time

of final plating, and this will be a condition for approval.

Ms. Baxter said a neighborhood meeting was held on July 31st, in addition

to public meetings. Standard Notice was sent out; about 25 to 30

comments were received, both in support and opposition. The comments

in opposition were related to traffic, access, safety, inadequate

infrastructure, evacuation, density, wildlife habitat and increased noise.

Agency Review was made, and comments were provided, some of those

were addressed, while others will be part of the approval conditions. This

application complies with PlanCOS and meets the review criteria for

annexation, land use plan and zone establishment.

Commissioner Rickett asked if access along Wyoming stops the exit in

case of an emergency. Ms. Baxter said there will be no emergency access

off Wyoming Lane, as it currently is the access for the existing home.

Commissioner Rickett asked if there is access from the neighborhood to

Wyoming. Ms. Baxter said there is no access in that area, the primary

access will be from the west, through Quail Brush subdivision.

Commissioner Ricket asked if there is an opportunity for an emergency

egress into Wyoming. Ms. Baxter said those roads are private roads and

are not equipped to handle large vehicles.

Bryan English, Development Projects Manager, Colorado Springs Utilities,

provided a service overview of the proposed Annexation. Mr. English said

the water extension ordinance requires City Council approval to extend

service outside city limits. He presented the current water portfolio where

the Reliably Met Demand is 95,000 acre-feet/year (AFY), more than 128%

of the Existing Usage of 70,325 AFY. He said this project meets the

exception of the enclave, with a projected water demand of 38 AFY, which

meets the minimis impact on the water supply. Mr. English spoke about the

requirements for an annexation in the Code, where the owner shall deed to

all groundwater underlying the land to the City and any water rights

historically used, the owner shall dedicate rights of way and easements. He

said there is a well and a septic system currently used for the single-family

residence and it is the owner’s intention to keep them. He said this will be

allowed until the owners have to apply for a permit to repair, replace or

modify the septic system, in which case, if they are located within 400 feet

of an existing collection, they will be required to connect. Mr. English said

this property is located in the Mountain View Electric Association Service

territory who are entitled to compensation if the property is incorporated to

the Springs Utilities’ service territory at the owner or developer’s expense.

He said from a natural gas perspective, they are in the Spring Utilities

Natural Gas Service territory. He said water services are already existing

to the west of the property, and at the owner or developer’s expense they

would be required to design and construct distribution mains and facilities

within the property to provide adequate redundancy for domestic and fire

protection. He said from a wastewater perspective there are existing

collection lines that can be extended into the property at the owner or

developer’s expense, and they will, as well, incur in the expenses to extend

gas lines designed and constructed by Utilities. Mr. English said they can

also provide electric and fiber infrastructure, which will help monitor the

condition and operation of the service. He said the capital cost to cover all

four services is estimated to be 2.3 million dollars on the low end, and if a

contingency of 50% is added, the estimate will be about 3.5 million dollars.

He noted that any annexations happening between 2025 and 2029 are not

accounted for in the budget and methos to fund this infrastructure will have

to be identified.

Commissioner Casey asked if CSU is doing the conduit portion or will run

the network. Mr. English said they have their own fiber to run the network,

but they have an agreement with King to run their own fiber, as it is not

uncommon to lease fiber to other providers as a revenue source as long as

they have capacity. Commissioner Casey asked if there were two sets of

fiber. Mr. English said they have separate fibers for CSU and other

providers.

Commissioner Ricket asked if the 1600 acres per feet for the annex

locations included the rail annexation. Mr. English said it does, and it is a

large percentage of it. He said there was a conversation when that was

presented because depending on the use there could be a higher demand

and consumption, which was estimated to be 1281-acre feet a year.

Applicant’s Presentation

Noah Brehmer, Civil Engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, representing

the applicant, said they have worked diligently with City and County Staff,

and neighbors to make this project coherent, cohesive and a benefit for all.

He said the adjacent zoning to the property is PDZ, and surrounding

density is 5.1 to 5.2 dwelling units per acre, which aligns with their

proposed density. He said this property is located in an enclave, which

could bring some challenges, that is why they have been working to

address all concerns for the past months. Mr. Brehmer said the project

goals have influenced all their decisions, addressing all neighbors’

thoughts; these goals are preservation of natural beauty, to promote sense

of community, cohesion with surrounding neighborhoods, safety of

residents and honoring the property’s history.

Mr. Brehmer said they had multiple informal and formal meetings with

neighbors; the formal meetings took place in December 2024 and July

2025. He said they received comments regarding traffic, wildlife impact,

creek preservation, viewshed, speeding and neighborhood cohesion, and

addressed all those making appropriate changes to their proposal. He

said there is a development plan under review by the City, in which they are

proposing two-story single-family homes, detached on the exterior of the

property and attached homes on the center block, with a proposed density

of 5.2 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Brehmer said Quail Brush Creek

development is located to the west, there are County single-family

residences to the north and east, and Saint Creek and another

single-family development to the south.

Mr. Brehmer said the open spaces are going to be public, and maintained

by a proposed Metro District, and there are trails along the south side of

the site, and on the north side are the wetlands and connectivity to the west.

He said regarding environmental impacts with the storm water they are part

of the program set forth by the Drainage Basin Planning Study to improve

the channels and are working on a solution that will allow to keep the

vegetation, the use of one-foot-wide concrete cut off walls. He said they will

also have a detention pond with quality treatment and will detain the

100-year storm event.

Mr. Brehmer said there will be two access points to the west of the

property, access through Wyoming Lane was explored, however, it was not

feasible due to several parties ownership and current road conditions

constraints. He said traffic studies were performed while school was in

session and identified that 60% of the traffic travels south and 40% to the

north. He said that the current proposed density will generate traffic counts

that fall within the traffic thresholds and criteria. Mr. Brehmer said this

project is identified in the El Paso County Master Plan as a priority

annexation area, and their proposal is consistent with the City’s annexation

criteria, PlanCOS and El Paso County Master Plan. He said they have

worked to find a balance and meet all stakeholders’ goals.

Mr. Brehmer said some benefits of this project are adding single-family

housing opportunities, the implementation of new parks, open spaces and

trails for the public; according to Colorado Springs Utilities there is

sufficient capacity for the development; the fiscal impact analysis shows a

positive cumulative cash flow modeled over the next 10 years; and they

have applied for inclusion into the Southeastern Colorado Water

Conservancy District.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Rickett asked how the traffic documents were reviewed and

how this project will affect the surrounding area. Todd Frisbie, City Traffic

Engineering, Public Works Department, said the infill projects are

challenging, especially when they go into existing neighborhoods and local

streets. He said the parameters are for a local street to not have more than

1500 vehicles per day, and how homes with a driveway impact the

adjacent streets. He said they use information like existing count data and

streetlight data to generate a number of trips. Mr. Frisbie said they found

the expected volume to be less than the 1500 threshold, even in the most

impacted streets, meeting the criteria for daily volume on local streets. He

said they also discussed with the applicant the possibility of traffic calming,

some of the most effective ways would be speed humps or raised

crosswalks, and the applicant will be willing to implement them along the

development process.

Commissioner Casey said there was a public comment about where the

two roads will be extended and if they were wide enough to accommodate

sidewalks. Mr. Frisbie said those roads will need to be brought up to code

standards and include sidewalks.

Public Comments

Kirby Thompson, resident in the area, said his family owns 10 acres,

including his wife and her family’s property that was purchased by them in

1978 and continuously occupied since then. He said they are the

third-generation owners of the business Britton Nursery operating on the

land. He said he wanted to purchase the Miller’s parcel to build a

motorcycle track, and a space to play frisbee and baseball, but felt it did

not make sense. Mr. Thompson said a lot of developers have shown

interest in the property, but their proposals were not respectful of the

neighbors, however, the current developer has been sensitive to his family

lifestyle and the other neighbors and has offered to make a good transition

into the existing houses. He said he and his wife own a company called

Wind Walker Ventures, LLC., and he believes they are the owners of the

30-foot strip on Wyoming Lane. Mr. Thompson said they are in support of

the development because they feel it is the best use of that property.

Jack Casey, resident in the area, said he is concerned about the number of

houses they are proposing in the development, and their size, especially

the ones closer to Sand Creek. He said he thinks any development in that

area would pose a negative impact; however, he understands that not

building is unrealistic, but they should keep the density to a minimum. Mr.

Casey said there are some trails in the area that have a nice view and a

few animals in the area, and he is concerned about them as well. He said

traffic is also an issue, a lot of streets head into Dublin and it could become

dangerous trying to exit from those streets, and very busy especially during

school time, and he thinks traffic lights would have to be implemented. Mr.

Casey said he feels this project is going to impact property values for

people that wanted to have a nice view.

Shari Casey, resident in the area, said she hopes the density is kept at 5.2

and not higher because of all the traffic.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Brehmer said those comments align with the ones they received during

the meetings they held and that is why they decided to lower the density to

5.2 units per acre, because going higher would represent a lot of traffic

issues and the need to find alternative connections. He said they will

maintain the Sand Creek corridor; therefore, they are not proposing any

houses on the south of the site to maintain the view corridor, preserve the

habitat and give enough buffer to residents on the other side of the creek.

Commissioner Hensler asked if there was an opportunity of a lower density

than 5.2 units per acre. Mr. Brehmer said they did explore the option;

however, they found that number to be a balance between neighbors’ input

and an economically viable project. He said there is a lot of environmental

impact from the wetlands to the north and the creek to the south that does

not leave much of a developable area for bigger homes.

Commissioner Hensler asked if the developers considered bridging over

Sand Creek into Durango Kid Drive and if there is any available access

from the south. Mr. Brehmer said bridges are expensive, but they did look

into it, however, they came across the need for a 50’ public right of way that

was not feasible due to space.

Commissioner Hensler asked if they had any favorable comments from the

neighbors and how that would impact the development. Mr. Brehmer said

the neighborhood meetings have had a good impact on the development

and the neighbors’ outlook, since they genuinely care about the

neighborhood and have addressed as best as possible the neighbors’

input from multiple meetings.

Commissioner Cecil asked if they considered R-Flex Low zoning, and if

so, why they decided against it. Mr. Brehmer said they applied to R-Flex

Medium because they had 30 additional proposed units that would bring

them higher than the 5 to 6 dwelling units per acre that the R-Flex Low

allows. He said it was in recent months that they decided to lower the

proposed units per acre, and they intend to maintain that number because

the local infrastructure cannot support a higher density.

Commissioner Cecil asked about one of the comments regarding the

traffic study being performed when Marksheffel was under construction and

caused a lot of detours, and if it impacted the traffic study. Curtis Rowe,

Traffic Engineer with Kimley-Horn Associates, said they did multiple

iterations of counts over the last years, including one in April of 2025, while

the school was in session, and prior to the construction of Dublin. He said

they evaluate historical counts as well to get an idea of the numbers when

construction is complete, and they make adjustments.

Commissioner Casey said another difference between R-Flex Low and

R-Flex Medium is the allowed heigh of 30 feet and 45 feet respectively, and

the applicant is committed to two stories. Commissioner Casey asked the

applicant to speak about that. Mr. Brehmer said they are proposing

two-story homes, like the homes on the west, and they do not intend to

change the height later in the process, as this proposal has found a good

balance with the neighborhood impact.

Commissioner Casey said he is concerned that if this zone is approved

and they decide not to move forward with the project, any future owner

would have all possibilities with R-Flex Medium. Commissioner Casey

asked the developer what the commitment and timeline for the construction

is. James Houk, Land Planning with Kimley-Horn, said they have tested

their development plan to make sure they want to go in that direction, and

they are including these details into the agreement. He said their lots are

proposed to be 6,000 square feet, compared to the 5,000 of the neighbors.

Mr. Houk said he thinks within a year the horizontal work will be done and

then within two years the houses.

Chair Slattery said there are concerns about the density and height and

asked where the conditions of this potential annexation land use would be

described. Ms. Baxter said the land use plan shows the density limited to

5.2 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum building height is associated

to the zone.

Chair Slattery said the land use plan shows the maximum building height to

be 45 feet and suggested a possible condition to limit the height. Mr.

Brehmer said they are open to that condition because there are no plans

for changing the proposed height in the future.

Commissioner Hensler asked what the easier mechanism would be,

between adjusting the application to R-Flex Low or putting different

conditions to this land use plan. Chair Slattery said they could put a

condition of record regarding the height as the dwelling units are already

established, and they cannot speak about R-Flex Low because that is not

the application in front of them today. Ms. Baxter said both options could

work, recommending the R-Flex Low zoning or setting a condition to limit

the height to 35 feet. Caitlin Moldenhauer, City Attorney’s Office, said the

zone in front of the Commission is not R-Flex Low, they need to approve or

deny the one being presented.

Commissioner Cecil asked if the land use plan would come back to the

Planning Commission to change the density. Ms. Baxter said there is a

provision in the UDC that if a decision is made by a Board or Council, it

would have to follow a similar process.

Chair Slattery asked if the 15% administrative leeway would apply. Ms.

Baxter said it does not apply for density, because that will be established in

the land use plan and the zone.

Commissioner Rickett said he comes from an active construction

community that has a density from 3.5 to 25 dwelling units per acre, and the

diversity is a positive thing, and they knew about that when they moved into

the community. Commissioner Ricket said he understands that this

property did not exist when the neighbors bought their homes, but the land

use plan has been handled well by establishing a 5.2 dwelling units per

acre. Commissioner Rickett said he understands that if a zoning is granted

it will stay with the property, unlike the land use plan, however, any changes

would have to be presented before the Commission anyway, so he is

supportive of the proposal with the restriction in the land use plan.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Hensler, to recommend approval to City Council the annexation of

21.37 acres as the Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1

Annexation based upon the findings that the annexation complies

with the Conditions for Annexation, as set forth in City Code Section

7.5.701.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner

Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and

Commissioner Gigiano

8.B.

LUPL-25-000 Establishment of the Miller Downs Land Use Plan for proposed

residential use consisting of 21.37 acres located at 7020 Wyoming

Lane.

(Legislative)

Council District # 6 (once annexed)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey,

to recommend approval to City Council the Miller Downs Land Use

Plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies with the

review criteria for Land Use Plans as set forth in City Code Section

7.5.514, with the following conditions of approval and technical

modification which shall be addressed prior to the City Council public

meeting:

- Revise General Note 10 on the cover sheet to reflect the

modification requested by SWENT.

- Prior to development plan approval, the applicant shall have a

third-party specialist determine if this wetland area in the northwest

corner of the property consists of jurisdictional wetland and what

mitigation efforts will be needed for wetland impacts under Section

404 for the Clean Water Act.

- The labeling of the 30-foot ingress/egress right-of-way along

Wyoming Lane shall be consistent with the Annexation Plat.

- Add the following notes to the General Notes:

° Prior to Final Plat approval the ownership and annexation of the

30-foot remanent east of the Miller Downs Addition No. 1 Annexation

along Wyoming Lane shall be determined as follows:

* Within 30 days of recordation of Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane

Addition No. 1 Annexation Plat and Annexation Agreement ownership

of remanent shall be determined and both the city and county will

need to be satisfied with the findings.

* If the petitioner for Miller Downs at Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1

is determined to own the 30-foot remanent, a petition for annexation

shall be applied for within 60 days of recordation of Miller Downs at

Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1 Annexation Plat and Annexation

Agreement, and

* Any associated annexation with the remanent shall be completed

within 1 year.

* The building height shall not exceed 35 feet.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner

Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and

Commissioner Gigiano

8.C.

ZONE-25-00 Establishment of R-Flex Medium/SS-O/AP-O (R-Flex Medium with

Streamside and Airport Overlays) zone district, in association with

the Miller-Downs at Wyoming Lane Addition No. 1 Annexation

consisting of 21.37 acres located at 7020 Wyoming Lane

(Legislative)

Council District # 6 (once annexed)

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: 7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Meeting went into Recess

Meeting Reconvened

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner

Robbins, to recommend approval to City Council the zone

establishment of 21.37 acres as R-Flex Medium/SS-O/AP-O (R-Flex

Medium with Streamside and Airport Overlays) zone district based

upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for

zoning establishment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner

Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and

Commissioner Gigiano

575 Airport Creek Wireless Cellular Facility

8.D.

WCFE-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow an existing 50-foot-tall cell service tower

to increase height to 80 feet tall in the MX-M/AP-O/SS-O (Mixed Use

- Medium Scale with Airport and Streamside Overlays) zone

consisting of 2.13 acres located at 575 Airport Creek Point.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Council District # 4

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment #1_Airport_and_Powers_Filing_No_3_Plat

Attachment #2_CPC CM1 18-00100

Attachment #3_CPC CU 21-00097

Attachment #4_Project Statement

Attachment #5_Airport Creek Wireless Cellular Facility Development

Plan

Attachment #6_Estimated WCF Fall Radius

Attachment #7_Photo Simulations

Drew Foxx, Planner II, presented a Conditional Use to allow an existing

50-foot-tall cell service tower to increase height to 80 feet tall in the

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

Streamside Overlays) zone consisting of 2.13 acres located at 575 Airport

Creek Point, with a lease area for the tower of 1,190 square feet. To the

south of the lot there are single-family attached townhomes, to the east is

the Powers Boulevard public right of way, to the west there is an

undeveloped parcel that has been approved for the development of a future

multi-family apartment building, known as the Airport Creek Apartments.

The 50 feet tower is screened by a six-foot fence. The increase in height is

requested to improve and maintain wireless communication services in the

area as well as provide opportunities for collocation of other service

providers. The existing tower was approved in 2019 and built in 2024. The

total height of the tower will be 85 feet including the architectural

components that, according to federal regulation, should not be included in

the total height measurement.

Mr. Foxx said according to the applicant the future apartments, that were

approved in 2022, will block the ability to provide services, as they will be

located within the same lot to the west and north of the tower at 49 feet

height. According to the zoning code requirements, this application falls

under a CM-1 conditional use because it is located in a mixed-use zone

district, and it does not meet the required separation from the residential

zoning. This heigh increase is being reviewed as a new facility because the

modifications are considered substantial change, as they represent an

increase of more than 10% of the height.

Mr. Foxx said this is being reviewed as a stealth design tower because it

has the appearance of a pine tree. However, it does not meet the

compatibility standards with surrounding environment, so non-stealth tower

review criteria is being also implemented for this tower designed to look

like an 80-foot pine tree. The surrounding trees height goes from 15 to 30

feet. According to the applicant, the proposed height is the shortest

extension possible to accommodate additional carriers and provide

adequate services. The nearest residential structure and residential zone

district are currently 110 feet to the south across the creek; the future

Airport Creek Apartments approved to the north are about 100 feet away

and will have additional landscaping. The proposed height for the

apartments is 49 feet and the extension will be about 31 feet higher than

that, not including the architectural protrusion. No ingress or egress into the

area will be impacted. City Staff find that the specific design requirements

for an alternative tower structure have not been met, therefore, the specific

design requirements for non-stealth tower have been applied.

Mr. Foxx said the tower was not built with reflective materials, and the

proposed extension does not contain reflective materials. There is no

opportunity to use landforms as screening because of the shorter height of

the surrounding vegetation; Sand Creek to the south does have some tree

growth, but the tower is still fairly visible. The tower has a ground compound

area enclosed by a 6-foot wood fence and landscaping to the south. City

Planning Staff find the specific design requirements for a tower have been

met.

Mr. Foxx said regarding the separation requirements the UDC establishes

three types of separation and the greater of the three shall apply. Given that

this antenna is close to residential zones, 5 times the tower height, 400

feet, separation is required. City Planning Staff finds the criteria for

setbacks and separation are not met.

Mr. Foxx said the collocation criteria evaluate the mounting or installation

for additional service providers on existing facilities, and if it is not

possible, justification is requested by the City Planning Department.

According to the applicant, the extension will provide opportunity for

additional wireless service providers, and without the height extension, the

existing facility will become unusable. For these reasons, Staff find the

collocation criteria has been met.

Standard Notice was sent out, three comments were received regarding

negative impacts to property value, visual impacts, and overall compatibility

with the area; and an additional comment was received regarding required

lighting from the FAA that would cause disturbances and the tower height

being beyond what is technologically necessary. Mr. Foxx said that lighting

for the tower might not be required but the applicant will provide an FAA

report. Discussion about extension has been ongoing since the applicant

first requested it in 2023, however, it was not an option since the tower was

not already built. Since this application is only to increase height, the

Streamside Overlay review criteria has not been taken into consideration.

Colorado Springs Airport has required a 7460-1 FAA form to be submitted

prior to construction.

Mr. Foxx said the proposed wireless facility is located in a suburban

neighborhood near an inner-city corridor and seeks a height extension to

support growing wireless communication needs due to ongoing

development. While the project aligns with citywide infrastructure goals

under Policy 2.E of the Thriving Economy Framework, it does not support

the neighborhood’s existing character in terms of design compatibility. The

facility requires a CM-1 conditional use application due to exceeding

height limits and failing to meet separation requirements from residential

zones. Although the tower uses a stealth design previously approved in

2019, it does not meet current stealth design standards, and its proximity to

residential areas makes the design evaluation especially relevant. City

Planning Staff ultimately find that the proposed modification does not meet

all applicable wireless facility standards or conditional use review criteria.

Commissioners’ Questions

Commissioner Rickett asked if this application is being looked at as a new

tower because it does not meet the code criteria and that is why they are

suggesting conditional use. Mr. Foxx said there would be a lot more criteria

if it was looked at as a new tower in its entirety, and the review was

focused on the height increase, given that the current height, the compound

at ground level and proximity to the residential zoning was already

approved.

Commissioner Rickett asked if the code would be more or less restrictive

for a new tower. Mr. Foxx said the restriction is the same for the

modification or for a new tower when reviewing the separation from the

residential zone.

Applicant’s Presentation

Bebb Francis, Outside Wireless Council for Capital Telecom, said the

proposed tower modification is intended to provide essential infrastructure

for three major carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Dish, who already have

agreements in place but have been paused while this request is under

review. He said the existing 50-foot tower, approved in 2019, was originally

designed to support two carriers; however, the current issue is that the

tower cannot serve all three carriers without the proposed extension. He

said they have worked closely with the Planning Department over the past

two years to develop a creative solution, and they emphasize the

importance of this modification to meet the community’s growing demand

for reliable voice and data services.

Mr. Francis said the carriers arrays are located at 45 to 47 feet high, and at

35 to 37 feet high, therefore the existing 50-foot tower, approved in 2022,

will be obstructed by a recently approved 134-unit apartment development,

specifically Building 2, which will reach a height of 49-50 feet and sit only

about 100 feet north of the tower. He said this new construction will block

critical signal paths, especially the top “red zones” used by carriers like

AT&T and T-Mobile, preventing effective wireless coverage, particularly to

residential areas west of the site. Mr. Francis said without raising the tower

height, the signals will be compromised.

Thomas Waniewski, Site Acquisitions for Capital Telecom, said the tower

was originally approved with T-Mobile as the anchor tenant at 45 feet, and

later secured agreements with Dish Wireless and AT&T. He said all three

carriers now require placement above the newly approved 49-foot

apartment building nearby, which blocks signal transmission at the current

tower height. He said they were not notified of the apartment approval due

to not owning the land and have since worked with staff to find a solution.

Mr. Waniewski said after exploring various options, they determined that a

30-foot height extension is the minimum necessary to ensure all three

carriers can operate effectively above the new building rooftops. He said

the modification involves only the tower height, no changes to the

compound footprint, and traffic will not be increased, vans will come every

six to eight weeks to maintain the equipment. Mr. Waniewski said this

extension will allow a collocation process rather than another tower in a

different location.

Mr. Waniewski said one of the issues that usually comes up are fall zones,

there is engineering documentation confirming that the structure is

designed to bend rather than fall, keeping any collapse within a 30-foot

radius, well inside the property and far from nearby buildings, including the

apartment complex over 100 feet away. He said the FAA has issued a

determination of no hazard for the tower at its proposed 85-foot height. The

tower will not require lighting, as it remains below the threshold of 200 feet

for FAA lighting requirements, ensuring minimal visual impact despite its

proximity to the Air Force Base.

Mr. Waniewski said the proposed tower extension maintains the existing

stealth tree design, continuing the same branch count and natural taper to

ensure visual consistency. He said the extension is necessary to maintain

effective service, AT&T will occupy the top position at 75 feet, followed by

T-Mobile at 65 feet and Dish at 55 feet. He said this is a modification of an

existing tower, not a new one, and no changes are being made to the

compound footprint. He showed visual simulations from Highway 24 show

how the extension will appear once the surrounding buildings are

constructed, reinforcing the need for an additional 30 feet in height. Mr.

Waniewski said the proposed tower extension is essential to address

coverage gaps for AT&T and T-Mobile, especially in the residential areas

west of the site and along Highway 24 and Airport Road.

Mr. Francis said the demand for wireless connectivity has significantly

increased since 2020, with the average household in Colorado Springs

now relying on 5-7 smart devices, including for critical health monitoring

and emergency alerts. He said over 85% of 911 calls are made via

wireless devices, and the city actively encourages residents to stay

connected through platforms like Peak Alerts and social media. He said

this is not a speculative project but a response to real, immediate needs,

and they respectfully request approval to proceed with the height

modification to support essential infrastructure for the community.

Public Comment

Diana Pelletier, resident in the area, said she composed an email

expressing her strong opposition because some regulations and rules

might have been overlooked years ago when this tower was approved,

disregarding the neighboring townhome community of about 102 units. She

said this affects the property value in a negative way because no one would

like to purposely look for a cellphone tower close by to buy a property. Ms.

Pelletier asked to the Commission to please consider the code, the rules,

laws, regulations and restrictions to make the right decision.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Waniewski said, although not a real estate appraiser, he found a

nearby home recently sold for $338,000, even while the tower modification

notice was publicly posted, suggesting no immediate negative impact on

property value. He said the tower has long been approved, and the team is

mindful of its visibility from the neighborhood. He said while the tower will

extend 30 feet above the new apartment rooftops, this height is necessary

to ensure adequate wireless coverage. Mr. Waniewski said the

surrounding view is already changing due to ongoing apartment

construction, which will further frame the tower within a more developed

landscape.

Commissioners’ Questions

Chair Slattery asked if there were conditions of record when this item was

approved in 2019 or if the residential separation was a component looked

at. Mr. Foxx said there were no conditions established at the time of

approval, and the separation criteria has not changed since.

Commissioner Rickett said he recalls a lot of discussion around this item

back in 2019, and a lot of public opinion from the neighbors to the south.

Commissioner Rickett said he recalls the connectivity map showed no

connectivity in that area, and that might have been a reason for it being

approved back then.

Commissioner Rickett said he agrees with Staff that this extension does

not meet code, and he will no be in support.

Mr. Foxx said the applicant can submit up to one Eligible Facility Request

to increase the height at a federal level. He said the focus should be on the

application presented today, not what was approved in previous years. Mr.

Foxx said the CU for the apartments expires next year and he does not

know what the intentions of the developers are. He said that only

neighboring property owners get notified of occurring development, not the

tenants; and noted that the owner of this property is also involved in the

apartment project.

Commissioner Rickett said he recalls the federal regulation being

discussed when they first came.

Commissioner Cecil said she strongly concurs with Staff that this is not

compatible with the height exceeding what is permissible in the code and

will be opposing an increase in height. Commissioner Cecil thanked the

members of the public that made comments with important research.

Commissioner Sipilovic said he concurs with Commissioners Rickett and

Cecil that the extension does not fit in the area, even though better cell

service would be great.

Commissioner Hensler asked about the fall zone of the existing tower and

of the extension. Mr. Waniewski said the existing tower is designed for

wind speed and ice in that area, but there was no fall zone designed for

that tower, as it was not a requirement. He said the extension will have that

fall zone built in.

Commissioner Hensler asked if something catastrophic were to occur,

would that tower hit any residence. Mr. Waniewski said it would not, the

addition is designed to bend, and the base and the foundation are

completely reinforced, and the tower was already designed to be

extendable.

Commissioner Hensler said they have to look at what is best for public

good, one aspect is connectivity and safety in their homes and aesthetics

is another aspect. Commissioner Hensler said she would be far less

inclined to approve this project if it was brand new 85-foot tower.

Commissioner Hensler said the apartments have been mentioned a lot, but

there is no certainty about what will happen with them. Mr. Waniewski said

it is their understanding that they are moving forward, but interest rates may

have been a factor in why they are not built yet.

Mr. Waniewski said there is administrative approval that they could pursue,

where they will still be adding a 20-foot extension under Federal code, and

will not require this board’s approval and will not have the conditions that

they are proposing now, like the fall zone. He said they came before the

board instead of going directly through the other administrative route

because they have an additional carrier and were trying to prevent another

cellphone tower appearing. Mr. Waniewski said they will be extending the

tower one way or the other.

Commissioner Casey asked if there is a setback requirement for the tower

radiation exposure. Mr. Foxx said City code does not elaborate on those

requirements, it mentions the greater of the three conditions for setbacks,

which is five times the height.

Commissioner Robbins said he has mixed emotions about this project,

because they have to look at the rules, however, if there are connectivity

issues it can also be a safety matter, regarding medical help and

emergencies. Commissioner Robbins said sometimes he wonders if the

rules that are established might not be applicable or might need to be

revised. Commissioner Robbins said he understands the need for the

extension but also understands the people that want to have protection for

their property value. Commissioner Robbins said he did not like the

statement by the applicant that they will move forward anyway.

Chair Slattery said the approval in 2019 was to aid communications, and

there are no buildings surrounding the tower 360, so there is no accurate

representation that the coverage will be removed. Chair Slattery said the

conditional use for the apartments will expire in one year to get built or not,

therefore there is no guarantee that a similar height will eliminate the

existing coverage. Chair Slattery said if it is the applicant’s purview to

extend the tower under federal law, that supersedes Colorado Springs

Planning Commission jurisdiction, but she does see it as a problem for the

residential neighborhood and she will have to adhere to the code.

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Casey,

to deny the Conditional Use based upon the finding that the request

does not comply with the criteria as set forth in City Unified

Development Code Section 7.5.601.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-2.

7 -

Aye:

No:

Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery, Commissioner Sipilovic,

Commissioner Casey, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Rickett and Commissioner Gigiano

2 - Commissioner Hensler and Commissioner Robbins

9. Presentations

10. Appointment of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair

CPC 2745

10.A.

Appointment of Planning Commission Chair

Presenter:

Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department

Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

approve the nomination of Kenneth Casey as Planning Commission

Chair.

The motion passed by a vote of 9-0.

9 -

Aye:

Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner

Gigiano

CPC 2746

10.B.

Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair

Presenter:

Presenter: Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department

Motion by Commissioner Cecil, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

approve the nomination of Nadine Hensler as Planning Commission Vice

Chair.