Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

9:00 AM

Regional Development Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner McMurray, Commissioner Cecil and

Chair Slattery

Present:

1 - Commissioner Rickett

Excused:

2.A Approval of the Minutes

CPC 24-056 Minutes for the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

2.A.A.

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments:

CPC 1.10.24 minutes draft

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Briggs, to approve

the minutes for the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion

passed by a vote of 6:0:2:1.

6 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Hensler,

Commissioner Hente, Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

Aye:

2 - Vice Chair Foos and Commissioner McMurray

Recused:

2.B. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Peter Wysocki - Planning + Neighborhood Services Director

Peter Wysocki, Planning + Neighborhood Services Director, announced he will not be

attending the March City Planning Commission meeting. He announced Mike Tassi’s

departure from Planning and thanked him for his time with the department and

expressed appreciation for his work and dedication.

4. Consent Calendar

These items will be acted upon as a whole, unless a specific item is called for

discussion by a Commissioner/Board Member or a citizen wishing to address the

Commission or Board. (Any items called up for separate consideration shall be

acted upon following the Consent Vote.)

Mark Dabling U-Haul Rezone

ZONE-23-00 Ordinance No. 23-029 amending Ordinance No. 82-95 to revise

4.A.

condition of record no. 1 as it relates to mini warehouses being a

use that is not permitted and delete condition of record no. 2

related to outside storage as an accessory use pertaining only to

6.26 acres located at 6910 Mark Dabling Boulevard

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

Presenter:

William Gray, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Peter Wysocki, Director, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

Staff Report

Land Use Statement

Ordinance No. 82-95

Exhibit to Ordinance No. 82-95

Mark Dabling UHaul Rezone Ordinance_Final

Zone Map

Context Map

Zone Map Amendment Legal Description

Zone Map Amendment Exhibit_Revised

Corporate Centre Filing No 2

Conditional Use Development Plan

Mineral Estate Owner Notification Certification Affidavit

Public Comment_Mark Dabling UHaul Rezone_Van

Doren_02132024

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Mark Dabling CPC minutes draft

CC_City Staff Presentation_Mark Dabling U-Haul Rezone_WEG

Signed Ordinance No. 24-14.pdf

This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.

Les Schwab

CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow an auto and light vehicle repair use in

4.B.

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

approximately thirty-four thousand (34,000) square feet located at

7752 Barnes Road.

Presenter:

Allison Stocker AICP, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

CUDP-23-0020_Staff Report

CUDP-23-0020_ProjectStatement

CUDP-23-0020_LandUseStatement

CUDP-23-0020_Vicinity_Map

CUDP-23-0020_Presentation_ADS

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.

5. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

RMHCS PACE Center at Quail Lake

CUDP-23-00 A Conditional Use to allow a Large Adult Daycare Center use in

4.C.

the Business Park (BP) zone district consisting of an existing

approximately 9,562 square foot building located at 1420 / 1450

Quail Lake Loop.

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Report_PACE Center at Quail Lake CUDP_CS

CUDP-23-0024_Project Statement_Land Use Statement

CUDP-23-0024_Vicinity Map

PlanCOS Vision Map

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Commissioner Hensler pulled off item 4.C. due to her conflict of interest as her

company is involved on this project.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Briggs, to

recommend approval of the conditional use to allow a Large Adult Daycare

Center use in the Business Park (BP) zone district consisting of an existing

approximately 9,562 square foot building located at 1420 / 1450 Quail Lake

Loop based on the applications conformance with City Unified Development

Code Section 7.5.601.

6. Unfinished Business

7. New Business

Black Forest Road Addition No. 2

ANEX-23-00 A Resolution finding a petition for annexation of the area known as

7.A.

Black Forest Road Addition No. 2 Annexation consisting of 21.879

acres to be in substantial compliance with section 31-12-107(1),

C.R.S. and setting a hearing date of April 23, 2024, for the

Colorado Springs City Council to consider the annexation of the

area. (Legislative)

Presenter:

Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Peter Wysocki, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

1. Staff Report_BF Add2_KAW

Attachment 1_Annexation Plat Black Forest Rd Add. No. 2

2. Exhibit A_BF Add2

Attachment 2_Annexation Legal Description_Black Forest Rd Add.

No. 2

3. Exhibit B_BF Add2

Attachment 3_Vicinity Map

4. Project Statement_BF Add 2

Attachment 4_Staff Presentation_Black Forest Rd Annexation

5. Public Comment_BF Add 2

6. Public Comment Response_BF Add 2

Exhibit A_Petition for Annexation

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Resolution-Hearing Setting-Black Forest Road Addition No 2

Black Forest CPC Minutes draft

Signed Resolution No. 22-24.pdf

Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, presented the scope of the project to the

commission. Jeff Bailey, representing Public Works, presented the scope of the

project to the commission.

Commissioner Cecil asked for clarification, as the city already owns the right of way,

but the right of way is technically part of El Paso County which was given through a

quit claim deed.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Vice Chair Foos to recommend

approval to City Council the annexation of 21.879 acres as the Black Forest

Road Addition No. 2 Annexation based upon the findings that the annexation

complies with the Conditions for Annexation, as set forth in Unified

Development Code Section 7.5.701. The motion passed by a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner McMurray, Commissioner Cecil

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

2312 W. Pikes Peak Ave.

NVAR-23-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.205.B to allow a 6’9”

7.B.

front setback where 10’ is usually required located at 2312 West

Pikes Peak Avenue.

Presenter:

Ann Odom, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

2312 W Pikes Peak - CPC Staff Report

2312 W Pikes Peak_Project Statement (Front setback)

2312 W Pikes Peak Ave _Plans

2312 WPP_Vicinity Map

PlanCOS Vision Map

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Ann Odom, Planner II, presented the scope of the project to the commission. Charles

Ferrell, the applicant, and Jeremy Whiteman on behalf of the developer, presented

the scope of the project to the commission.

Questions from commissioners

Vice Chair Foos expressed concern, stating that it seemed the lot could have

accommodated the project without variances, questioning why they were not

pushing the lot to get approval without variances.

The applicant responded, explaining that there were a couple of reasons for seeking

variances. They were relocating utilities on the east side, within the 10 feet allowed.

Additionally, the neighbor's structure was arguably over the lot line. The financial

impact, coupled with the effort to adhere to the original design, made it challenging

to move the entire house over. This would likely require a full tear down, which was

not the initial goal. Moving the house would be labor-intensive and accessing

equipment for the relocation would be problematic. The absence of a driveway at

2312 was noted, with the possibility of gaining one through a variance with City

Engineering. The applicant expressed a willingness to explore this option after

addressing the current matter.

Commissioner Hensler asked about the side setbacks, seeking clarification on

dimensions. The applicant confirmed that they were not adding any width, only

height and at the back. However, a variance was required due to existing setbacks.

Commissioner McMurray expressed interest in understanding the interaction of the

house with the streetscape, particularly regarding the height of the front door. The

existing home had a low profile and Commissioner McMurray wanted insights into

the design process. The applicant explained that the stairs were diverted eastward,

deviating from the original plan of a driveway on the east side. This adjustment aimed

to accommodate the flow of the driveway and address off-street parking difficulties.

The raised height was intended to allow more natural light. The developer

emphasized that, for the client's design preferences, egress and natural lighting were

crucial. The garden level provided a safer means of evacuation. The front porch was

not frequently used due to its proximity to the noisy street. To install an egress

window, the porch had to be reduced, prompting the addition of a deck on the back

side for outdoor sitting and leisure.

Commissioner Briggs inquired about the examples shown, asking if they were rental

properties. The response indicated that 2310 had the same owner since the 90's and

was a single-family residence and 2317 West Bijou was also designated for

single-family use.

Commissioner Almy sought clarification on whether the actual footprint of the house

was changing. Additionally, he questioned if a simple foundation repair, without

expansion, would have required a variance. The applicant expressed uncertainty,

suggesting that such repairs might have gone straight to a building permit for

structural repairs. Ann Odom stated that if the repair costs did not exceed 50% of the

replacement cost of the entire structure, it could have been handled administratively

through a building permit. Commissioner Almy then confirmed that the same

structural design and variance issues would have arisen in that scenario. He further

inquired about any historical significance of the building, to which Ann Odom clarified

that there were none within city jurisdiction.

Commissioner Cecil sought clarification regarding the impracticality of shifting the

property due to utility location on the east side. The developer explained that the gas

line was on the west side, essentially in the neighbor's driveway. The goal was to

relocate everything down the rear of the property, with connections on the east side,

given the constraints of the mudroom, egress windows, and other design elements.

Commissioner Hente commended the applicant and developer for their well-prepared

presentation and expressed support for the non-use variance.

Commissioner Cecil clarified that the increase in height was out of character with the

neighborhood. She expressed concern that the porch configuration would detract

from the neighborhood's character, believing it would interfere with the area's

aesthetic value.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to

approve the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.2.205.B allowing a 6'9"

front setback based upon the findings 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 7:1.

7 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner McMurray and Chair Slattery

Aye:

No:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

NVAR-23-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.5.802.A to allow a 1’2”

7.C.

side setback (east side) where 3’3” is usually required located at

2312 West Pikes Peak Avenue.

Presenter:

Ann Odom, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

2312 W Pikes Peak - CPC Staff Report

2312 W Pikes Peak_Project Statement (Side setback)

2312 W Pikes Peak Ave _Plans

2312 WPP_Vicinity Map

PlanCOS Vision Map

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Chair Slattery expressed agreement with some sentiments regarding the project being

out of character with the neighborhood. She conveyed an understanding that

reducing the front porch on the west side could address concerns. Chair Slattery

acknowledged that the second floor would comply with regulated lot lines, but she

found the garden level and addition to the historic first floor level to be overbearing

for the neighbors. She concluded by stating that her explanation clarified how she

would be voting for the next two.

Vice Chair Foos echoed some sentiments, expressing a belief that they could achieve

the project within the code without issuing variances. He stated that he would not be

supporting the side setback variances.

Commissioner Cecil highlighted that failing to rectify the compliance of the property

with the side setback requirements would interfere with future property owners'

ability to develop similarly close to the lot lines. For that reason, she said that she

would vote against the additional variances.

Commissioner Hente noted that his previous comments still applied to this one. As a

former builder, he expressed sympathy, understanding the challenges of fitting things

in and working with the existing confines of the lot.

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to

approve the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.5.802.A allowing a 1'2"

side setback (east side) based upon the findings 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 5:3.

5 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Hensler,

Commissioner Hente and Commissioner McMurray

Aye:

No:

3 - Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

NVAR-23-00 A Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.4.203.A to allow a 6”

7.D.

roof eave setback where 2’ is usually required located at 2312

West Pikes Peak Avenue.

Presenter:

Ann Odom, Planner II, Planning + Neighborhood Services

Attachments:

2312 W Pikes Peak - CPC Staff Report

2312 W Pikes Peak Ave__Project Statement (Eave Projection

Setback)

2312 W Pikes Peak Ave _Plans

2312 WPP_Vicinity Map

PlanCOS Vision Map

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

Motion by Commissioner Hente, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to

approve the Non-Use Variance to City Code Section 7.4.203.A allowing a 6"

roof eave setback based upon the findings 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 5:3.

5 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Commissioner Hensler,

Commissioner Hente and Commissioner McMurray

Aye:

3 - Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Cecil and Chair Slattery

No:

Centennial Townhomes

CUDP-22-00 A Conditional Use to allow for multi-family residential development

7.E.

consisting of 20 attached townhomes in the MX-M (Mixed-Use

Medium Scale) zone district consisting of 1.62 acres located at

4113 Centennial Boulevard.

Presenter:

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning + Neighborhood

Services

Attachments:

Staff Report_Centennial Blvd Townhomes_TPB

Project Statement

Conditional Use Development Plan

CONTEXT MAP

Public Comments

Public Comment Responses

7.5.704 Conditional Use Review

7.5.502.E Development Plan Review

Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, presented the scope of the project to the commission.

The developer, Gavin Light, presented the scope of the project to the commission.

Questions from commissioners

Commissioner Briggs inquired about visitor parking, to which the developer

responded that the project was not designed with visitor parking capability.

Commissioner Hensler expressed a lack of visibility on building design components

and questioned if there were driveways leading up to the garages. The developer

confirmed the presence of driveways but emphasized that they were not intended for

regular parking; instead, they were designated for emergency vehicles such as fire

trucks.

Commissioner Hensler sought clarification on whether the properties would be for

rent or for sale. The developer explained that individual lot lines were incorporated

into the design, considering the possibility that laws might change in the future. The

developer clarified their intention not to sell any of the properties.

Public comment

Marcia Wick, citizen, spoke in opposition of this project. Her comments included

concern for overflow parking, the increase level of noise, the impact of her view of

Pikes Peak, and drainage issues.

Applicant Rebuttal

The developer conveyed that he couldn't control where people parked, emphasizing

that if individuals parked improperly, they had the option to be towed.

Acknowledging the possibility of one-car households, the developer mentioned that,

as per code requirements for three-bedroom residences, they had provided two

parking spots. Expressing reservations about a fully gated community, the developer

raised concerns about maintenance issues such as mowing and trash pickup, favoring

a more open community. He believed that an open community would be better but

was open to discussing the matter. Addressing concerns about parking, the developer

pointed out that Holly Springs, a public road, was nearby, suggesting it as a potential

area for guests to park. Regarding drainage, he assured the presence of a detention

pond to minimize pooling, and new sites were designed to manage their own

drainage.

Additional comments from commissioners

Chair Slattery addressed the concept of being a good neighbor and proposed the idea

of putting conditions on the development plan. She suggested working collaboratively

to establish these conditions, particularly questioning the need for a back fence and

its potential impact on utility easements.

The developer expressed the belief that making the area attractive would be

beneficial for the community, including the appearance of fences. However, he

admitted to not having the specific fence locations memorized.

Commissioner Cecil raised concerns about pedestrian access onto the property,

seeking clarification on the site plan. Tamara Baxter provided information about the

location of the sidewalk connecting to the ADA portion of the property.

Commissioner Hensler expressed a lack of favor for the project due to insufficient

development plans and information. She suggested that with better articulation of

the plans in the future, she could support the project.

Commissioner Briggs commented to the developer that he was unprepared for the

presentation.

Commissioner Hente expressed a desire for more information on various aspects of

the project, such as drainage and parking. He sympathized with both the citizen's

concerns and the developer's issues, proposing a postponement to provide more time

for preparation and discussion. The developer, however, requested a vote on the

project on the same day instead of waiting for a postponement.

Motion by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner McMurray, to

deny the Conditional Use based upon the finding that the request does not

comply with the criteria as set forth in City Code Chapter 7 Section 7.5.704

and City Code Chapter 7 Section 7.5.502.E due to a lack of specificity The

motion passed by a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner McMurray, Commissioner Cecil

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

UDC Annexation Section Amendment

24-106

An ordinance repealing and re-ordaining Section 701 (annexation

of land) of Part 7 (Policy Decisions by City Council) of Article 5

(Administration and Enforcement) of Chapter 7 (Unified

Development Code) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs

2001, as amended, pertaining to annexation.

7.F.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Peter Wysocki, Director of Planning + Neighborhood Services

Renee Congdon, Utilities Division Chief, City Attorney’s Office

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - UDC-AnnexationORD-2024-01-03

Attachment 2 - Table with Proposed Changes to the Annexation

Section

Attachment 3 - CSU-ExclusiveProviderExceptions-ORD_2024-01-02

Attachment 4 - CSU-OutsideCityService-ORD_2024-01-02

Attachment 5 - CSU-WaterServiceCh12-ORD_2024-01-09

Attachment 6 - CSU-outside city wastewater service 12.5

Renee Congdon, City Attorney, presented the scope of the code to the commission.

Chair Slattery expressed a concern about the potential difference between the

Utilities Board and the nine members of the City Council. She suggested adjusting the

language in the code to account for this potential difference, particularly if the

composition of the board differed from the City Council. Ms. Congdon clarified that

the City Council ultimately controls the code and serves as the approving party,

allowing them to make changes to the code.

Commissioner Hensler remarked that "utilities board" is a generic term, but even if it

is generic, the language in the statute would still be correct.

Commissioner Briggs raised a procedural point, noting that they would vote on

Chapter 7 while the Utilities Board would vote on Chapter 12, and all the sections

would then go to the City Council for consideration.

Motion by Vice Chair Foos, seconded by Commissioner Hente, that this

Ordinance be accepted The motion passed by a vote of 8:0.

8 - Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Briggs, Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner

Hensler, Commissioner Hente, Commissioner McMurray, Commissioner Cecil

and Chair Slattery

Aye:

8. Updates/Presentations

CPC 2201

Post Occupancy Analysis of the Ridge

8.A.

Presenter: Katie Sunderlin, Senior Affordable Housing Coordinator –

Housing and Community Vitality Department

Attachments:

The Ridge Analysis_02142024

Katie Sunderlin, Senior Affordable Housing Coordinator, presented the scope of Post

Occupancy Analysis of the Ridge to the commission.

Commissioner Hente reflected on his interim time on the council and planning

commission, mentioning that neighbors opposed to the project approached him.

Initially supportive, he started second-guessing his decision as he met with them, and

his opinion further shifted with the project's increasing publicity. The turning point

came during a fire incident, though he remained uncertain about the rumors

surrounding its cause. Hente expressed satisfaction when projects approved despite

neighbors' opposition turned out positively.

Commissioner Briggs brought up the idea of replicating the process in other locations,

referring to it as data point one. Ms. Sunderlin explained that the project discussed

was one of their newest older projects and expressed a desire to recreate it with the

now-established methodology. Commissioner Briggs acknowledged the usefulness of

the process, emphasizing the importance of gathering more information for the

benefit of the body and the public.

Commissioner Cecil commended the presentation as a great first step in

destigmatizing negative associations with integrating affordable housing. She

highlighted the humanizing aspect of associating occupations with affordable housing

and emphasized the value it brings to the community, stating that affordable housing

is not synonymous with unemployment.

Peter Wysocki, Planning + Neighborhood Services director, thanked Ms. Sunderlin for

her work and suggested that, sometime in late spring or early summer, the staff and

Planning Commission should visit completed projects.

Commissioner Briggs found the idea useful and proposed attending a sound check at

Sunset Amphitheater before the first meeting.