Minutes - City Planning Commission

Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

City Planning Commission

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

9 -

Present:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano,

Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Case and Commissioner Engel

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Elections

CPC 2733

3.A.

Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair

Presenter:

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Chair Hensler explained that former Chair Ken Casey had recently been

appointed to City Council, elevating Commissioner Hensler to Chair, and

leaving the Vice Chair position vacant. A nomination was opened to fill the

Vice Chair position until August or until newly appointed commissioners

are seated.

Motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Willoughby,

to nominate Commissioner Slattery as the Planning Commission Vice

Chair.

The motion passed unanimously.

9 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano,

Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Case and Commissioner Engel

4. Communications

Nadine Hensler - Planning Commission Chair

Chair Hensler said the application period for open Planning Commission

positions had closed and that interviews would begin soon. The aim was to

seat new voting and alternate commissioners by summer.

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, said a special Planning Commission

meeting was being tentatively scheduled for June 17 to hear the Data

Center project. He briefed the Commission on several City Council items

scheduled for May 26, including the Elevate Downtown Plan, a daycare

center proposal, zoning changes, and conditional use modifications. Mr.

Walker noted that City Council would not meet on June 23, which could

affect commissioners’ seating timelines.

5. Approval of Minutes

CPC 2732

5.A.

Minutes for the April 8, 2026, City Planning Commission meeting.

Presenter:

Nadine Hensler, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes 4.8.26 Draft.Rev

Motion by Commissioner Robbins, seconded by Commissioner Slattery,

to postpone the approval of the minutes for the April 8, 2026, City

Planning Commission meeting to June 10, 2026.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-2-0.

7 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

2 - Commissioner Cecil and Commissioner Engel

Abstain:

6. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion passed unanimously.

9 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano,

Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Case and Commissioner Engel

Austin Bluffs Pump Station - Zone Map Amendment

6.A.

ZONE-26-00 Ordinance No. XXX amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs pertaining to 5.24 acres located at 4535 Marconi

Heights from R-E/PF/HS-O (Residential Estate and Public Facilities

with Hillside Overlay) and PDZ/PF/HS-O (Planned Development

Zone and Public Facilities with Hillside Overlay) to PF/HS-O (Public

Facilities with Hillside Overlay). (Quasi-Judicial) (2nd Reading and

Public Hearing)

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 1

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

ZONE-26-0004_Ordinance

ZONE-26-0004_Staff_Report

Attachement_1_Zone Map

Attachment_2_Legal Description

Attachment_3_Land Use Statement

Attachment_4_Development Plan

Attachment_5_Subdivision Plat

Attachment_6_Geohazard Report

Attachment_7_Drainage Variance

Attachment_8_Project Statement

Excerpt Minutes -Austin Bluffs Pump Station - CPC 05_13_2026

ZONE-26-0004_CC_Presentation

7. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

8. Unfinished Business

9. New Business

Colorado Chronic Retail Marijuana Cultivation

9.A.

CUDP-25-00 Conditional Use to allow the Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility land

use in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale) zone district located at

2926 Wood Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment 1-Vicinity Map

Attachment 2-Zoning Map

Attachment 3-Public Comment

Attachment 4-Aerial View

Attachment 5-Plan View

Attachment 6-Context Map

Attachment 7-Conditional Use Statement

Attachment 8-Land Use Statement

Attachment 9-Floor Plan

William Gray, Senior Planner, presented the application for Colorado

Chronic, that operates a long-standing medical marijuana grow in a small

commercial center south of Fillmore and Wood. The proposal sought to

add a retail cultivation license without physical expansion of the building,

additional employees, or increased plant count.

Mr. Gray reviewed zoning context, surrounding residential and mixed-use

districts, and parking lot encroachments into the Wood Avenue right-of-way

that would require either restriping or a revocable permit within 90 days of

approval. Public comments received in advance were opposed, citing

odor, lighting, compatibility with nearby medical offices, safety, traffic, and

proximity to the North Nevada overlay. Staff concluded that the proposed

use met the criteria for conditional use approval.

Applicant’s Presentation

Austin Edmondson, the business owner and applicant, described Colorado

Chronic as a boutique 500-plant operation employing two people. The

retail license would not expand operations, increase production, or alter

site conditions. He detailed odor mitigation measures, ventilation controls,

and a history of zero citations. He emphasized that no intensification of

activity, traffic, or lighting would occur.

Public Comment

There were no public comments.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Cecil asked why the parking lot encroachment conditions

were applied to the applicant rather than the property owner. Mr. Gray

clarified that although the condition appeared in the applicant’s approval,

the property owner would be involved in addressing the revocable permit or

restriping requirement. He explained that the encroachment itself predated

the applicant and likely the current ownership, but because it is triggered by

land-use action, it appears as a condition on the application.

Commissioner Slattery asked whether this item, absent the public

comments, would ordinarily have appeared on the consent agenda, and if

so, whether the same parking-related condition would still have been

imposed. Mr. Gray confirmed that similar marijuana cultivation conversions

commonly appear on consent when uncontroversial, and the same

condition regarding the parking encroachment would have applied

regardless of the item’s placement on the agenda.

Commissioner Cecil asked for clarification on how the conditional use

attaches to the property. Trevor Gloss, City Attorney’s Office, explained that

the conditional use attaches to the use as conducted by the applicant,

Colorado Chronic, in the specified tenant space. He said if ownership of

the business changes, the conditional use remains valid for the business

so long as operations remain materially consistent. Mr. Gloss said,

however, if the business were to expand into additional square footage or

modify its operational footprint, a major modification and potentially a new

conditional use approval would be required.

Commissioner Robins asked regarding potential odor impacts, as he was

concerned that the conversion from medical to retail cultivation might alter

the intensity or nature of odors produced. Mr. Edmondson responded that

no physical expansion or plant increase would occur, and therefore no

additional odor would be generated. He described the facility’s carbon

filtration and air handling systems and noted that air is never exhausted

directly to the neighborhood under normal operation.

Commissioner Engel expressed support for the proposal, stating that he

saw no intensification of activity and no negative impacts to the surrounding

area. Commissioner Engel explained that maintaining

small,

well-regulated cultivation site was preferable to forcing relocation or

expansion elsewhere.

Commissioner Case stated that he found the application consistent with

the conditional use approval criteria and intended to vote in favor.

Commissioner Willoughby emphasized that the applicant’s statements and

staff analysis showed no increase in plant count, no new traffic generation,

and no operational expansion. Commissioner Willoughby highlighted that

odor controls were already in place and had been effective for more than a

decade of prior cultivation activity at the site.

Commissioner Slattery, echoing earlier comments, stated that she

supported the application but remained uneasy about tying the parking

encroachment condition to the applicant, but ultimately agreed that the

requirement was not unreasonable and did not warrant denial.

Chair Hensler summarized the discussion by acknowledging that the

application involved no physical expansion, no increase in intensity, and no

change in site operations. Chair Hensler stated that, under the city’s criteria

for conditional uses, the request appeared compliant.

Motion by Commissioner Willoughby, seconded by Commissioner

Robbins, to approve the Conditional Use to allow a Retail Marijuana

Cultivation Facility land use in the MX-M (Mixed-Use Medium Scale)

zone district located at 2926 Wood Avenue, based upon the findings

that the request complies with the criteria for Conditional Use as set

forth in City Code Section 7.5.601.C.2 with the following conditions:

1. A Revocable Permit is obtained for the parking lot encroachment in

Wood Avenue right-of-way, or the parking lot is re-striped to eliminate

the encroachment within 90-days of Conditional Use approval by City

Planning Commission.

2. Add a note to the Land Use Statement reading "There are no

changes to building utility requirements proposed as part of this

application".

The motion passed unanimously.

9 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Case and

Commissioner Engel

Briargate / Voyager

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

Springs pertaining to 7.93 acres located at 1625 Springcrest Road

from BP/cr/HR-O/AF-O (Business Park with Conditions of Record,

High-Rise Overlay, and the United States Air Force Academy

Overlay) to MX-M/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with the United

States Air Force Academy Overlay). (Quasi-Judicial)

(Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Related Files: LUPL-25-0010

Located in Council District 2

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

ZONE-25-0023_Ordinance

Staff Report_v2

Attachment_A_Briargate_Master_Plan

Attachment_B_Ordinance_99-139

Attachment_C_CPC DP 99-125

Attachment_D_Public_Comments

Attachment_E_Public_Comment_Response_Letters

Attachment_E1_Public_Comments_from_CPC

Attachment_F_Traffic_Impact_Study

Attachment_G_Land_Use_Plan

Attachment_H_USAFA_Avigation_Easement

Attachment_I_CDOT_Final_Review_Comments

Attachment_J_Project_Statement

Attachment_K_Public_Notice_Affidavits

Attachment_L_Owner_Authorization_Form

Attachment_M_Mineral_Estate_Form

Attachment_N_BBCOA_Letter_of_Support

Attachment_O_Neighborhood_Meeting_Sign_In_Sheet

Attachment_P_Briargate_MP_Signed_Resolution_No._43-22

Exhibit_A_Legal_Description

Exhibit_B_Zone_Map

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Excerpt Minutes -Briargate_Voyager - CPC 05_13_2026

Briargate_Voyager_2nd_CC_Presentation

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, presented the application for a Zone

Map Amendment for 7.93 acres at 1625 Springcrest Road, proposing

a change from Business Park with Conditions of Record, High-Rise

Overlay, Air Force Academy Overlay to Mixed-Use Medium Scale with

Air Force Academy Overlay. She explained the site’s context, existing

entitlements, and the impact of the previously adopted Briargate Master

Plan. Ms. Stocker noted that the current high-rise overlay allows up to

68 feet, compared to 50 feet allowed in MX-M. She reviewed the

anticipated future process, which would require both a development

plan and subdivision replat if the rezoning were approved.

Ms. Stocker detailed the surrounding conditions, noting that the site

sits amid a transitional area: county enclaves and estate-sized lots to

the north, the Classical Academy to the east, commercial and

mixed-use development to the south, and principal arterial streets

(Voyager Parkway and Briargate Boulevard). She summarized

required transportation improvements, including striping turn lanes,

right-in/right-out access management, and right-of-way/easement

dedication. The Skyline Regional Trail extension and parkland/school

fees-in-lieu would also be required.

Ms. Stocker reported extensive community outreach, including mailed

notices, a neighborhood meeting attended by about 70 people, and

numerous public comments and a Change.org petition, with about

1000 signatures. Common concerns included traffic congestion,

school safety, emergency evacuation, compatibility, visual impacts,

and the presence of multifamily housing adjacent to an elementary

school. Ms. Stocker stated that staff found the request generally

compliant with PlanCOS and the rezoning criteria in City Code.

Comments and clarifications

Trevor Gloss, City Attorney’s Office, clarified that the motion for the

rezoning would be a recommendation to approve to City Council,

however, if the City Planning Commission denied the request, it

becomes an appeal to City Council.

Commissioner Cecil questioned whether specific zoning alternatives,

such as Mixed-Use Transition (MX-T), might be more appropriate given

the site’s adjacency to a school and low-density neighborhoods. Ms.

Stocker explained that MX-T is intended primarily for institutional or

campus-transition areas such as Colorado College or UCCS and tends

to allow greater heights than MX-M. MX-N allows only low-intensity

neighborhood uses and would constitute spot zoning at this location.

She added that MX-M provides continuity with the mixed-use zoning

immediately to the south and was consistent with the area’s zoning

pattern.

Commissioner Willoughby asked when parkland dedication or fees in

lieu are required and where does that fee go. Ms. Stocker said those

funds might be used in the future by the Parks Department to purchase

Parkland and typically sites smaller than 20 acres do fees in lieu as it

becomes difficult to accommodate the applicant’s project and parkland

on the same site.

Commissioner Robbins disclosed familiarity with one of the members

of the public from the Korean Baptist Church that submitted their

comments in opposition. Commissioner Robbins said has no financial

benefit from this project.

Applicant’s Presentation

Jennifer Shagin, Kimley-Horn, presented on behalf of the applicant.

Ms. Shagin reviewed the site's history, including prior office

entitlements and the market transition since the Briargate Master Plan.

She explained the proposed MX-M zone as a continuation of zoning to

the south and described the intent to develop attached multifamily

residential housing consistent with PlanCOS goals for varied housing

types.

Ms. Shagin outlined stormwater plans, the Skyline Trail connection,

and traffic improvements, including required turn lanes and striping.

The project’s traffic study reported that office development under

existing zoning would generate significantly more trips than the

proposed residential use. Additional school-hour counts showed pickup

queues spilling into public streets, and the report recommended the

school and City work together to keep queues on-site.

Andrew Ritter, Blackburn Communities, summarized the developer's

operational practices, tenant screening, and intentions to create a

well-managed residential community. He confirmed that the maximum

density permitted under MX-M, 236 units, would define the project’s

limit.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Engel asked how residents would reach I-25. Ms.

Shagin replied that drivers would travel from Springcrest to Voyager

Parkway, then to either the InterQuest Parkway or Briargate Parkway

I-25 interchanges. Commissioner Engel next asked about the differing

unit numbers shown in earlier materials, noting references to both 250

and 236 units. Mr. Ritter explained that early conceptual plans included

250 units, but under MX-M zoning the maximum allowed was 236 units,

which is now the limit. Commissioner Engel also asked whether the

applicant could meet parking requirements for 236 units; Mr. Ritter

confirmed that they could.

Commissioner Engel questioned the assumption that 80% of residents

would travel south in the morning. Mr. Plank responded that the 80%

figure applied specifically to morning peak commuting patterns. He

explained that returning residents would primarily enter via the Voyager

right-in/right-out rather than Springcrest, resulting in no net increase in

afternoon traffic at that intersection.

Public Comment

Amanda DeMarco, Apartment Association of Southern Colorado,

stated her support for the multifamily proposal. She emphasized the

region’s documented housing shortage and argued that it is

inconsistent for the community to acknowledge the need for homes

while opposing most residential projects that reach the public hearing

stage. She described the project as infill on a vacant parcel already

served by major arterials and utilities, and she noted that City staff

found the rezoning and land-use plan consistent with the review criteria

and PlanCOS goals. Ms. DeMarco addressed concerns raised by

residents about student safety and crime, asserting that professionally

managed apartment communities use screening and background

checks that are often more rigorous than in the for-sale housing

market. She concluded that the development would expand housing

choice, support the workforce, reduce sprawl, and make productive

use of an underutilized site.

Jill Gaebler, Executive Director of the Pikes Peak Housing Network,

voiced support for the rezoning and land use plan. She stated that the

area is dominated by single-family homes and lacks sufficient rental

housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including

teachers, health-care workers, military families, and service-sector

employees. Ms. Gaebler explained that rising home prices have

outpaced incomes, pushing the average age of first-time homebuyers

upward and increasing the need for rental options. She argued that the

proposed apartments would generate less traffic than office uses

allowed under current zoning and would allow families to walk to the

nearby school, reducing car trips. She added that the project aligns

with PlanCOS by promoting infill, supporting economic development,

and bringing a vacant parcel into productive use.

Barbara Voget ceded time to Allison Flannery, who spoke in opposition

of this item and described past experiences with natural disasters and

evacuations and expressed deep concern that adding approximately

236 apartments and their vehicles to Springcrest Road would endanger

residents during an emergency. She emphasized that her

neighborhood has only one viable exit and recounted the mobility

limitations of elderly and disabled neighbors who would be among the

last to evacuate. Ms. Flannery argued that an apartment complex would

add hundreds of cars to an already strained evacuation route and

stated that approving the rezoning would put lives at risk.

Patricia Peveto ceded time to Jacqueline Peveto, who spoke in

opposition and focused on traffic impacts and roadway limitations. She

stated that the surrounding neighborhoods have only two access routes

and that Springcrest already experiences congestion from school

traffic. She argued that residents of the proposed development would

likely use Otero Avenue to avoid delays, although it is a county road

not designed for higher volumes. Ms. Peveto identified safety issues

posed by the proposed right-in/right-out access on Voyager and stated

that the short distance between intersections would create weaving and

merging conflicts, worsening existing congestion. She also argued that

the traffic study failed to account for actual gridlock during school

pickup times. She further expressed concern that the developer’s

suggested fire-evacuation plan, which relied on shelter-in-place for

existing residents, was unacceptable and showed disregard for current

neighbors.

Richard Davidson and Gigi Greer ceded time to Ariane Peveto, who

argued that the MX-M zoning district is too intense for the area and

does not meet the Unified Development Code’s intent for emerging

activity centers. She stated that the surrounding context includes rural

residential, churches, and the school, not mixed-use commercial

areas. She emphasized that the project would not provide meaningful

pedestrian connections for the existing neighborhood and that bus

service is not realistically accessible. Ms. Peveto also asserted that

alternative zoning categories, such as mixed-use transition (MX-T) or

mixed-use neighborhood (MX-N), would have been more appropriate

and compatible. She expressed concern that approving MX-M could

open the door to future commercial or more intense uses incompatible

with the school and the surrounding residential areas.

Becky Francione ceded time to Nancy Carsten stated that traffic

through the Pine Woods neighborhood is already unsafe, with

nonresidents using local roads as cut-throughs. She described

dangerous turning movements from Voyager and expressed concern

that the development would bring more vehicles onto Springcrest and

Otero, worsening existing congestion and safety problems. Ms.

Carsten also raised safety concerns about having a four- or five-story

apartment complex next to an elementary school, citing risks related to

visibility from balconies, inadequate vetting of visitors, and

opportunities for harmful behavior. She asked the Commission to

prioritize community and child safety over developer interests.

Cassie Carrigan ceded time to Dr. Sarah Pramanik, security

engineering expert, opposed the rezoning on the grounds of student

safety, traffic, and the shifting of burdens onto residents and the

school. She stated that the development would introduce elevated

vantage points overlooking the school playground and increase risks of

voyeurism, unauthorized photography, and misuse of images through

modern technology. She objected to the developer’s suggestion that

the school should modify its traffic operations to compensate for

project impacts and argued that it was inappropriate for existing

institutions to bear the burden of accommodating a private

development. Dr. Pramanik also raised concerns about proximity to

I-25 as a trafficking corridor and stated that higher-density housing

brings increased transiency and additional safety concerns.

Patricia Krueger ceded time to Elizabeth Gilbert, a parent with children

at TCA, opposed the project due to incompatibility with PlanCOS,

school security risks, and market oversupply of apartments. She stated

that school-safety best practices emphasize perimeter protection and

that a tall building overlooking school grounds conflicts with established

guidelines on surveillance risks. Ms. Gilbert cited a fatal incident

involving a tenant at another property operated by the developer to

argue that screening cannot eliminate safety issues. She also pointed

to rising vacancy rates in nearby multifamily communities as evidence

that the development is not needed and expressed concern about the

long-term risk of future redevelopment under MX-M zoning.

Diane Myers ceded time to Elissa Tipps, who spoke on behalf of

parents and teachers, expressed concern about health risks from

wind-blown construction dust affecting students who spend significant

time outdoors. She stated that the area experiences frequent high-wind

events, which could carry debris and contaminants onto school

grounds during years-long construction. Ms. Tipps also addressed the

danger of additional traffic at the already congested

Voyager/Briargate/Springcrest area and asserted that the proposed

right-in/right-out access would worsen safety issues. She argued that

the zoning was originally set appropriately to avoid these hazards and

asked the Commission not to rezone the land.

Hillary Jeanjacquet ceded time to David Wahl, a Springcrest resident

of 27 years, who argued that the neighborhood’s only viable access

road is already strained and that adding hundreds of residents would

“bottle-cap” the community by overwhelming Springcrest Road. He

noted that Otero is also becoming limited due to another apartment

project and that the rezoning would double traffic volumes. Mr. Wahl

expressed concern about emergency vehicle access and for traffic

during school pickup times. He also objected to five-story buildings

overshadowing the school and said the project would eliminate the

“margin of safety” his neighborhood currently has.

KC Voget ceded time to Lance Miller, who presented an opposition

argument based on the UDC criteria for rezoning and land-use plans.

He stated that the area is an established neighborhood and that the

proposal does not meet compatibility or public-interest standards. He

argued that cumulative developments, including another large project at

the end of Otero, would overwhelm local infrastructure. Mr. Miller

presented renderings to illustrate how the building massing would

dominate the school’s field and stated that MX-M would allow too

intense a use for a small parcel next to a low-density neighborhood and

elementary school.

Annie Han ceded time to Patricia Gould, who opposed the proposal as

a grandparent who regularly drives through the area and experiences

congestion at Voyager and Springcrest. She stated that adding

hundreds of residents would cause unsafe traffic conditions at times

when students are present. Ms. Gould warned about security risks

posed by balconies overlooking the playground, including possible

active-shooter scenarios. She argued that the density and height were

inconsistent with the neighborhood and suggested that open space or

low-intensity use would be more appropriate.

Madeline Han, school student, expressed fear of additional traffic and

discomfort being watched while playing.

Ellie Han, school student, said she worries they would not enjoy the

sun because it will all be shaded by the apartments.

Hannah Adams, school student, said she would not like strangers

looking out from their windows into the school.

Millie Gearhart, school student, said she and her classmates spend

significant time outside and would not feel safe with people looking at

them. She is also concerned about what could happen when they are

walking to and from school.

Lydia Gearhart, school student, expressed concerns about

inappropriate behavior, smoking, and loss of mountain views.

Steve Luna, area resident, TCA students’ father, said the proposal is

not compatible with the neighborhood, since all the surrounding

properties do not exceed two stories. He said zoning categories such

as OC MX Neighborhood or R-Flex Low would provide a more

reasonable transition. He said height should be limited to two-story

homes or similarly low-scale housing. Mr. Luna also raised traffic and

safety concerns, stating that the proposed right-in/right-out access

would worsen school-hour merging conflicts and that allowing four- or

five-story apartments overlooking the elementary school playground

would pose unacceptable security risks.

Brandi Henderson opposed the rezoning and raised concerns about

marijuana smoke from legal personal use drifting toward the school due

to prevailing winds. She also argued that the developer’s description of

the units as “luxury housing” contradicts the stated goal of providing

affordable options and stated that such units are not accessible to the

average household.

Rebecca Hernandez, a Pine Woods resident, opposed the project due

to increased congestion on the community’s single access road,

emergency evacuation concerns, and the proximity of a tall apartment

building to an elementary school. She stated that the project is

incompatible with the character of the surrounding single-family

neighborhoods and argued that the Voyager corridor already has

added too many apartments.

Idgie Watkins stated that she frequently walks in the neighborhood and

is concerned about safety on Otero and Springcrest. She argued that

residents deserve the same privacy buffer that city facilities have

around them. She expressed doubt that the apartments would remain

luxury units and stated that the zoning could allow undesirable uses if

the current project failed. Ms. Watkins encouraged the commission to

prioritize people over revenue.

John Percell, a parent of two TCA students, argued that higher

population density correlates with increased crime risk and that the

development would create opportunities for exploitation or harm to

children due to direct visual access from balconies. He stated that

screening and background checks cannot eliminate risks posed by

visitors or future occupants. Mr. Percell said the project is

inappropriate land use adjacent to an elementary school.

Christina Winger mentioned statistics on mental-health trends and

violent incidents nationwide and argued that placing a five-story

building 15 feet from the playground would create unacceptable safety

risks. She described the number of students and staff regularly

outdoors and stated that the project would give too many potential

vantage points overlooking children. Winger asked the Commission not

to prioritize developer interests over student safety.

Jack Stewart, a nearby resident, stated that he would not introduce

new arguments but questioned whether the concerns raised by the

community would have any real effect on the outcome. He expressed

skepticism about the process, asking whether the Planning

Commission or those who appointed its members were influenced by

developers and suggesting that approval of the rezoning might already

be predetermined. He concluded by asking whether the extensive

opposition presented by residents would genuinely be considered.

Jeff Willsey, a resident of Bramblwood Lane, opposed the rezoning

due to traffic congestion, safety concerns, and the developer’s

reliance on the school and residents to mitigate impacts. He stated that

multifamily housing should be in walkable, high-density, mixed-use

areas, not in an isolated pocket beside single-family homes and a

school.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Mr. Ritter thanked the public for their comments.

Jeff Plank, Traffic Engineer, addressed congestion concerns by explaining

that the proposed multifamily project would generate far fewer trips than the

office development already permitted under existing Business Park

zoning. He noted that, in response to community concerns, additional

school-hour counts were conducted and showed that congestion was

primarily caused by pickup queues spilling into the roadway from the

school’s site. Mr. Plank stated that this issue could be resolved through

operational changes by the school to keep queues on campus, rather than

through major roadway modifications. He added that the project’s required

improvements, such as striping adjustments, turn-lane enhancements,

and a right-in/right-out access on Voyager, would help manage traffic

flow and reduce conflict points. Overall, he maintained that the apartments

would have a lower peak traffic impact than office use and would not

exceed the capacity assumptions of the City’s traffic standards. The

applicant reiterated its willingness to work with the City and neighborhood.

Mr. Ritter emphasized that safety, particularly school safety, was also a

serious concern for the development team. He stated that their company

hires professional property-management firms and requires criminal

background checks, credit checks, and income verification for all

prospective residents. Mr. Ritter noted that while no system is perfect,

these procedures are more rigorous than those applied to single-family

homeownership or informal rental arrangements and help maintain a safe

residential environment.

Mr. Ritter added that single-family neighborhoods are not inherently safer,

as individuals who pass background checks can still engage in harmful

behavior, and visitors to any home or rental are not subject to screening.

He argued that the multifamily product, given its management structure,

allows for more consistent oversight than other allowable land-use

categories under BP zoning, which could include office, retail, or other

commercial uses with uncontrolled public access.

Mr. Ritter then addressed comments raised about the prior rezoning

request on the church property to the north. He stated that the earlier case

differed materially because that site lacked access to Voyager Parkway

and relied solely on Springcrest Road and Otero Avenue. In contrast, he

explained, the current proposal includes a right-in/right-out access directly

to Voyager, which significantly reduces traffic impacts on Springcrest, a

key concern noted by both staff and residents.

Mr. Ritter reiterated that the existing BP zoning already allows a 68-foot-tall

structure by right, whereas the MX-M rezoning would reduce the maximum

height to 50 feet. He emphasized that the development proposes

substantially less square footage and far fewer peak-hour trips than an

office building built under existing entitlements. He also addressed

market-demand concerns, stating that vacancy has dropped sharply in

Colorado Springs in the last two years and that the region continues to

experience housing shortages projected to worsen. Mr. Ritter said

apartment construction decreased significantly from 2024 to 2026, and

demand is projected to outpace supply again.

Ms. Shagin added a brief statement addressing PlanCOS. She noted that

the property lies within an “area of change,” meaning the City’s long-range

planning framework anticipates redevelopment and infill. She stated that

the proposed land-use plan aligns with PlanCOS goals regarding infill

development, housing diversity, and reinvestment in existing transportation

corridors. Ms. Shagin reiterated that the project transitions appropriately

from high-intensity uses along Voyager to lower-intensity residential areas

to the north and east.

Staff Comments and Commission Discussion

Todd Frisbie, City Traffic Engineering, explained that the City followed its

standard review process and required a traffic impact study, which met all

applicable requirements. He noted that analyzing traffic near a school is

inherently difficult due to the brief but intense 15-20 minute surges

during drop-off and pick-up. He stated that the City has worked closely

with TCA for years on improving its operations and that the school has

been receptive to suggested changes.

He highlighted that the campus has a long internal driveway wide

enough for double-stacked queues. Earlier observations showed 21

vehicles queuing onto Springcrest when the school was not using

double-stacking; recent follow-up observations, after the school

implemented that procedure, showed only two cars queued. He noted

that the earlier 21-car queue lasted only seven minutes, which is

typical for school traffic patterns.

Mr. Frisbie stated that Traffic Engineering has no significant traffic

concerns related to the proposed development, and crash history on

Voyager showed no meaningful pattern of sideswipe or turning-related

crashes, with only one sideswipe recorded in five years. He added that

about 20 percent of project traffic is expected to travel north on

Voyager and 80 percent south toward I-25, and therefore the project is

not expected to meaningfully increase cut-through traffic on Otero, as

Voyager remains the faster route. Mr. Frisbie concluded that both the

school’s operational adjustments and the project’s traffic distribution

indicate no anticipated safety or operational issues.

Commissioner Cecil asked for clarification from City Traffic Engineering

about whether the two proposed access points, the right-in/right-out on

Voyager Parkway and the full-movement intersection on Springcrest Road,

were sufficient to manage traffic generated by the development.

Commissioner Cecil also asked whether any mitigation measures had

been recommended to manage peak-hour school congestion.

Commissioner Cecil inquired specifically about potential

pedestrian-conflict points, whether bus service or walking routes were

relevant, and whether the roadway design supported safe circulation for

both residents and school operations.

Commissioner Cecil asked whether certain MX-M uses, like bars, adult

retail, or marijuana-related businesses, would already be prohibited

because of separation requirements from schools. Ms. Stocker confirmed

that marijuana businesses are prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school and

that various adult-oriented uses carry similar separation requirements. She

added that several other code layers, such as traffic, fire, and building

code, further restrict uses, even if technically listed within MX-M.

Commissioner Cecil asked the applicant whether balconies could be

eliminated on the school-facing side of the building or whether building

orientation could be shifted to reduce visual exposure. Mr. Ritter responded

that the site suffers from multiple constraints, including major drainage and

sewer easements, which prevent reorienting buildings or pushing them

further west. He stated that balconies are currently planned on the

school-facing sides but noted that the team had already stepped down the

closest building from five stories to four based on public feedback.

Commissioner Cecil stated that she could not support approval without

conditions restricting incompatible uses. Commissioner Cecil emphasized

concerns about building height transitions, safety considerations, and

long-term effects of opening the door to more intense uses if the

development were not built as proposed.

Commissioner Slattery shared a detailed comparison between the

proposed MX-M zoning and the existing Business Park (BP) zoning, noting

that BP currently allows several uses that could be more disruptive or

hazardous near a school, including gas stations, truck terminals,

hazardous-material uses, and various high-traffic commercial activities.

Commissioner Slattery noted that the Master Plan historically envisioned

high-intensity employment uses at this location and argued that mid-scale

residential could be less impactful than a built-out office park.

Commissioner Slattery expressed concerns about compatibility and

advocated for restricting specific MX-M uses such as heavy

commercial/industrial operations, adult-oriented businesses,

marijuana-related uses, and liquor sales. Commissioner Slattery also

stated that although MX-M was not perfect, a rezoning with clearly defined

use restrictions would better protect the school and neighborhood than

leaving BP intact. Commissioner Slattery further recommended that the

future development plan come back to the Planning Commission for full

public review.

Commissioner Slattery asked how the right-in/right-out driveway would be

striped to reduce weaving conflicts in the existing acceleration/deceleration

lane. Mr. Frisbie explained that the future striped design would “force the

lane drop” at the development driveway-meaning drivers exiting Briargate

Parkway northbound would have to merge into the through-lane before the

apartment driveway, eliminating conflict with vehicles entering from the

right-in/right-out. Conversely, vehicles exiting the development would be

forced to merge into Voyager traffic before reaching Springcrest. Frisby

emphasized that detailed striping review would occur at the development

plan.

Commissioner Slattery asked City Traffic Engineering whether the

development would trigger any requirement to bring Springcrest Road up

to city standards or add sidewalks. Mr. Frisbie explained that the

development would be required to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk only

along the segment directly adjacent to the project. He noted that

Springcrest east of Otero is a county road, and although the City has

sidewalk-gap programs, there are no current plans to reconstruct the

remainder.

Chair Hensler also asked whether U-turn restrictions at Springcrest should

be considered. Mr. Frisbie answered that current traffic data does not show

a collision pattern requiring U-turn prohibitions, but such measures could

be evaluated during the development-plan stage if concerns persisted.

Chair Hensler asked whether other zoning categories have been

explored and why they determined this was the best option. Ms. Shagin

clarified that the MX-T zone, suggested during public comment, allows

taller buildings, up to 60 feet, and is geared toward higher-intensity,

institutional housing such as student housing, making it unsuitable for

the site. She added that the MX-N district, with a 45-foot height limit, is

not used elsewhere in the area and would create an isolated zoning

designation. She stated that MX-M best matches the adjacent zoning to

the south and avoids spot zoning. Ms. Shagin also noted that although

MX-M permits a range of uses, some are less intense than what is

already allowed under current Business Park zoning, which permits

buildings up to 68 feet. She concluded by stating that MX-M supports

the UDC’s intent to redevelop vacant or underutilized commercial

areas.

Commissioner Robbins stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposal

overall, describing the surrounding area as constrained by narrow

roadways originally configured under county standards. Commissioner

Robbins expressed concern that approving multifamily development could

exacerbate traffic issues, school congestion, and emergency-access

limitations. Commissioner Robbins stated that he believed the project

imposed unreasonable burdens on existing residents and schools and felt

that the site was not appropriate for higher-density development.

Commissioner Willoughby asked whether new hydrants would be required.

Steve Smith, Colorado Springs Fire Department, said hydrant

requirements would be determined during development-plan review but at

least one hydrant would likely be necessary. Commissioner Willoughby

then asked whether emergency evacuations posed a concern. Mr. Smith

explained that the fire code regulates emergency access, not evacuation,

and confirmed that with two access points the development meets fire

code.

Commissioner Willoughby further asked the Police Department whether

rising crime or apartment-related safety concerns applied. Deputy Chief

Doug Traynor responded that the area currently reports low crime rates and

that CSPD could not conclude that multifamily housing inherently increases

crime relative to other uses.

Commissioner Willoughby acknowledged the community’s strong concerns

but noted that BP zoning today already permits several uses that would

generate higher traffic or present greater safety risks than multifamily

residential. Commissioner Willoughby cited examples such as fuel

stations, parking structures, and certain industrial or commercial activities

that could be developed by right without public hearings. Commissioner

Willoughby also pointed out that apartments do not inherently pose higher

risks than other residential forms, and that passive surveillance from nearby

residences can sometimes increase safety rather than reduce it.

Commissioner Willoughby stated that the key concerns could be

addressed through use restrictions and additional scrutiny at the

development-plan stage. Commissioner Willoughby supported a

requirement to have the development plan return to the Planning

Commission and favored prohibiting incompatible MX-M uses.

Commissioner Case spoke in favor of relying on City traffic engineers, fire,

and police, emphasizing that multiple reviewing agencies did not find

technical deficiencies in the application. Commissioner Case stated that

the remaining concerns, particularly detailed traffic design and circulation,

would be more appropriately addressed during the development-plan

stage. Commissioner Case supported requiring the development plan to

return to the Commission and agreed that some MX-M uses should be

excluded to ensure compatibility with the school and surrounding

neighborhoods.

Commissioner Case asked whether the limited roadway network into the

county enclave created hydrant or supply challenges. Mr. Smith replied that

he was not familiar enough with water-supply specifics in that area to

provide a definitive answer but confirmed the city-side infrastructure

serving the development would follow fire-code requirements.

Commissioner Willoughby later asked the applicant whether they had

considered offering housing incentives for teachers or school staff. Mr.

Ritter replied that the company had provided such programs in other cities

and would consider that opportunity here. He reiterated that the

development would undergo full screening and professional management.

Commissioner Cecil asked Mr. Walker whether requiring the development

plan to return to the Planning Commission for approval would create

administrative issues. Mr. Walker stated that while the development plan

could be referred or appealed regardless, requiring it to return was

permissible, though it may extend scheduling. Walker emphasized that the

development-plan stage contains compatibility criteria and is the

appropriate point to resolve detailed design issues such as building

massing, screening, access configuration, and adjacency to the school.

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, that this Ordinance be accepted Recommend approval to

City Council of the zone change of 7.93 acres from BP/cr/HR/AF-O

(Business Park with Conditions of Record, High-Rise Overlay, and

the United States Air Force Academy Overlay) to MX-M/AF-O

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with the United States Air Force Academy

Overlay) based upon the findings that the request complies with the

criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment set forth in City Code Section

7.5.704. with conditions of record prohibiting the uses listed under

the subcategories of Marijuana-Related Services, Heavy Commercial,

Storage, and Industry; Industrial Hemp; Natural Medicine; and the

following specific uses adult retail and liquor sales.

The motion passed unanimously.

9 -

Aye:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner Clements, Commissioner

Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Case and

Commissioner Engel

9.C.

LUPL-25-00 Establishing of the Briargate/Voyager Multi-Family Land Use Plan for

proposed multi-family residential consisting of 7.93 acres located at

1625 Springcrest Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Related Files: ZONE-25-0023

Located in Council District 2

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to recommend approval to City Council of the

Briargate/Voyager Multi-Family Land Use Plan based upon the finding

that the proposal complies with the review criteria for the Land Use

Plans set forth in City Code Section 7.5.514. with a condition of

approval requiring the future development plan application to be

reviewed and approved by Planning Commission.

The motion passed by a vote of 8-1.

8 -

Aye:

No:

Chair Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Vice Chair Slattery,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner

Willoughby, Commissioner Case and Commissioner Engel

1 - Commissioner Robbins

10. Presentations

11. Executive Session

12. Adjourn