City of Colorado Springs  
Regional Development Center  
2880 International Circle  
Colorado Springs, CO 80910  
Meeting Minutes  
Wednesday, December 14, 2022  
9:00 AM  
Hearing Room - 2nd Floor  
Planning Commission  
1. Call to Order and Roll Call  
9 -  
Present:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett, Commissioner Slattery, Alternate  
Griggs and Alternate Cecil  
1 - Alternate Morgan  
Absent:  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Excused:  
2A. Approval of the Minutes  
2A.A.  
Minutes for the October 12, 2022, City Planning Commission meeting.  
Presenter:  
Scott Hente, Chair of the City Planning Commission  
Motion by Vice Chair McMurray, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to approve  
the minutes for the October 12, 2022, City Planning Commission hearing. The  
motion passed by a vote of 7:0:2:0  
7 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
2B. Changes to Agenda/Postponements  
3. Communications  
Mike Tassi - Assistant Director of Planning and Community Developmment  
Mr. Tassi thanked everyone for their service this year and wished everyone  
happy holidays. He also thanked them for their patience as they have  
navigated technical issues.  
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.)  
2050 Southgate Road Mini-Warehouse  
4.A.  
A conditional use development plan for a 68,890 square foot  
mini-warehouse in the C-5 (Intermediate Business) zone district  
located at 2050 Southgate Road, Suite 170.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Matthew Alcuran, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.  
Davis at Briargate  
4.B.  
CUDP-22-00 A conditional use development plan for a multi-family development  
consisting of 246 units; the site is zoned PBC (Planned Business  
Center) and is located at 9121 Highlands Ridge Heights consisting  
of 13.43 acres.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor Planning and Community  
Development  
This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.  
Rio Vista Townhomes  
4.C.  
CUDP-22-00 A conditional use development plan for a multi-family residential  
development in a PBC/AO (Planned Business Center with Airport  
Overlay) district located in the southwest corner of Rio Vista Drive  
and Barnes Road.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Tamara Baxter, Senior Planner, Planning and Community  
Development  
This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.  
Street Name Change - Starpoint Way  
4.D.  
A street name change from Intruder View to Starpoint Way located  
within the Woodmen Ridge Apartments Filing No. 2 at 7480 Hornet  
Point.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Peter Lange, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.  
Lighthouse Early Care and Education  
4.E.  
UVAR-22-00 A use variance development plan to allow for the Lighthouse Early  
Care and Education commercial daycare center and ancillary  
childcare services on a R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) zoned property  
located at 506 East Moreno Avenue.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Matthew Alcuran, Planner II, Planning and Community Development  
This Planning Case was approved on the Consent Calendar.  
Approval of the Consent Agenda  
Approval of the Consent Agenda  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Almy, that all  
matters on the Consent Calendar be passed, adopted, and approved by  
unanimous consent of the members present. The motion passed by a vote of  
7 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
5. ITEMS CALLED OFF CONSENT - None  
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS  
Hancock Commons Urban Renewal Area  
6.A.  
A resolution making certain legislative findings and approving the  
Hancock Commons Urban Renewal Plan.  
Related Files: 22-767  
Presenter:  
Jariah Walker, CSURA Executive Director  
Staff Presentation:  
Gabe Sevigny, Planning Supervisor, gave a presentation describing the  
scope and intent of the project.  
There were no public comments, and no comments or questions from the  
Commissioners.  
Motion by Commissioner Rickett, seconded by Commissioner Slattery, to  
recommend approval to City Council the Hancock Commons Urban Renewal  
Area Plan based on the finding that it is consistent with PlanCOS, the City's  
Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0:2:0  
7 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
7. NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR  
Short Term Rental Appeal  
7.A.  
APPL-22-00 An appeal of the administrative approval of the Short Term Rental  
permit application for 5135 Wild Rose Lane.  
(Quasi-Judicial)  
Presenter:  
Carli Hiben, Program Coordinator, Planning and Community  
Development  
Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to  
uphold the appeal and deny the administrative approval of the Short Term  
Rental renewal application, based on City Code Section 7.5.1703.A-B., and  
that the appellant has substantiated that the appeal satisfies the review  
criteria outlined in City Code Section 7.5.906.A.4. The motion failed by a vote  
of 2:5:2:0  
2 - Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
Aye:  
No:  
5 -  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente  
and Vice Chair McMurray  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
Staff Presentation:  
Carli Hiben, Short Term Rental Program Coordinator, gave a presentation.  
Appellant Presentation  
Ron Toman, President, Eagle Rock Neighborhood Association, gave a  
presentation. He is representing the 15 property owners of the Eagle Vista  
Estates neighborhood. They do not agree that the documentation provided  
by the Applicant and required by the City meets the definition of an  
owner-occupied short term rental.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Jenny Vostatek, homeowner of 5135 Wild Rose Lane, gave a presentation.  
She stated that all requirements for the application have been met and  
approved and they have fulfilled all the necessary requirements regarding  
minimum occupancy.  
Supporters of Appeal:  
Ginger Bolt, 5140 Wild Rose Lane, stated the Vostateks do not live at the  
house.  
Connie Williams, 5150 Wild Rose Lane, stated they see a constant stream  
of short term renters in and out of the property and that the Vostateks  
actually reside at their other $2 million property off of Woodmen Road.  
Daniel Smith, resident of Eagle Rock neighborhood, stated that the  
Vostateks live at their other property and that neighbors see increased  
traffic due to short term renters.  
Stu Davis, 5175 Wild Rose Lane, admits the Vostateks have been good  
neighbors for the past 13 years, but they do not live at this property. He has  
seen many people at the property who are not the owners.  
Rosemary Toman, 5155 Wild Rose Lane, gave examples of how they know  
the Vostateks do not live at the property.  
Judy Evans, 5120 Wild Rose Lane, stated Jenny Vostatek previously  
complained about another (former) Air BNB on the street and also fought  
alongside her neighbors to close their street to decrease traffic.  
Opponents:  
None.  
Appellant Rebuttal:  
Ron Toman said they are not against short term rentals, their issue is about  
the 185 days of occupancy, which they feel the Vostateks do not meet.  
Applicant Rebuttal:  
Jenny Vostatek restated that her family lives on the property for the 185  
days required and they are in full compliance with all applicable rules.  
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION:  
Carli Hiben reaffirmed that she relies on the affidavit the applicant is  
signing under perjury that they are following City code and other submitted  
documents for proof of residency.  
Commissioner Slattery asked Ms. Hiben if definition of occupancy is in City  
code and there is not.  
Chair Hente asked the City Attorney to weigh in. Lisa O’Boyle confirmed it  
is not in City Code. Commissioner Slattery said the state definition is  
overnight and that is what she is using. Lisa O’Boyle said she will research  
this further.  
Commissioner Slattery asked the Applicant to come back up. There has  
been evidence presented that voter registration for both Jenny and Sean  
Vostatek were changed to their 1365 Northfield Road address.  
Commissioner Slattery asked when and why they changed this back to the  
Wild Rose address. Ms. Vostatek said the Northfield property is in the  
county, so they changed it back to Wild Rose so they could take part in City  
elections. This happened in November. Commissioner Slattery then  
asked how many overnights they have spent at the property. Ms. Vostatek  
answered they didn’t count overnights because the City definition does not  
state this. They keep track of occupied days with their booking calendar,  
which shows 224 days. Ms. Vostatek said other definitions of owner  
occupied include coming to take out the trash or to check on the property.  
She believes they spent 120 overnights on the property. They are currently  
occupying the home full-time for three or four months for the 120 days and  
they will continue to come to check on the house in order to fulfill the  
requirement of 185 days.  
City Attorney Lisa O’Boyle referenced City Code section 7.2.201, which  
says “occupied” or “used” shall be considered as though followed by the  
words “or intended, arranged, or designed to be used or occupied.” which  
isn’t terribly helpful.  
Commissioner Almy asked staff for the definition of primary residence.  
Carli Hiben said it is when someone lives and occupies the premises for  
185 days unless the City Attorney has additional information. Lisa O’Boyle  
said City Code does not include such a definition. The number of days  
was designed to establish occupancy for more than half the year.  
There was further discussion on what constitutes occupancy as a primary  
residence.  
Commissioner Almy had a question for the homeowners association. The  
short term rental agreement is a City ordinance but does not necessarily  
override HOA covenants. Mr. Toman confirmed that was correct.  
Commissioner Almy asked if the HOA has considered amending their  
covenants to not include short term rentals, to which Mr. Toman answered  
they have not. He restated they are not opposed to short term rentals and  
their issue is about occupancy. They believe the Vostateks are  
circumventing the intent of short term rentals.  
Commissioner Rickett reviewed the code enforcement cases and found  
that the code inspector never encountered the homeowners when he  
visited the property. He asked the Applicant to confirm that they only spend  
120 overnights on the property, and she agreed. Ms. Vostatek said there  
is no clear definition of occupancy in the short term rental application. The  
ordinance does define owner occupied as actually occupied by the owner  
for not less than 185 days each year.  
Commissioner Rickett agreed that more clarification is needed, but it is  
clear about primary residence and the state definition means overnight.  
Commissioner McMurray said the big picture is the intent of the code.  
When this commission decided on the 185 day requirement, it was to  
prevent situations with absentee landlords or faceless corporate entities  
taking over management. In this case, the property owner lives in town. He  
believes the property owners have made a good faith effort to abide by the  
provisions of the code as it is written. This exposes a deficiency in how the  
code is written and administered. He is in agreement with the staff  
recommendation that the property owner has met the requirements. He will  
vote to deny the approval and also recommend to staff that we address this  
to provide more clarity.  
Commissioner Rickett disagreed. The whole purpose of the 185 days was  
to make sure a property owner wasn’t renting out multiple properties. He  
believes it is clear that occupancy means overnights. He will support the  
appeal.  
Commissioner Almy agreed that 185 days was intentional. He believes the  
Applicant is stretching the definition to the limit. He will support the appeal.  
Commissioner Slattery agreed with Commissioner Rickett. She heard  
enough evidence that the property owner does not fulfill the occupancy  
requirements and she will support the appeal.  
Chair Hente said their role is to rule on what the City code says, even if it is  
poorly written. He believes the property owner followed the rules and will  
not support the appeal.  
Commissioner Hensler said this is a grey area but thinks the property  
owner has taken advantage of that and stretched the rules to their benefit.  
She agreed with other commissioners about the intent of the ordinance.  
The property owner, however, has followed the rules, so she will likely not  
support the appeal.  
Motion and Vote:  
Commissioner Slattery made a motion to approve the appeal and deny  
STR renewal  
Commissioner Rickett seconded the motion.  
Vote:  
Vote fails 2-5  
Commissioner McMurray made a motion to deny the appeal and approve  
STR renewal.  
Commissioner Almy seconded the motion.  
Commissioner McMurray recommended that staff work to update the  
definition of occupancy.  
Motion by Vice Chair McMurray, seconded by Commissioner Almy, to Deny  
the appeal and affirm the administrative approval of the Short Term Rental  
renewal application, based on City Code Section 7.5.1703.A-B., and that the  
appellant has not substantiated that the appeal satisfies the review criteria  
outlined in City Code Section 7.5.906.A.4. The motion passed by a vote of  
5:2:2:0  
5 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente  
and Vice Chair McMurray  
2 - Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
No:  
Absent:  
1756 Silversmith Apartments Appeal  
7.B.  
APPL-22-00 An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of  
the administrative approval of the development plan amendment for  
1756 Silversmith Apartments, located at 1756 Silversmith Road.  
Presenter:  
Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, Planning and Community  
Development  
Peter Wysocki, Planning Director, Planning and Community  
Development  
Staff Presentation:  
Katelynn Wintz, Planning Supervisor, gave a presentation describing the  
scope and intent of the project.  
Appellant Presentation:  
Michael Ford, resident at 1707 Redbank Drive, gave a presentation  
providing the neighborhood concerns, including lower property values,  
health/safety impacts, business impact and school impact.  
Applicant Presentation:  
Elizabeth Likovich, Senior Vice President with Aimco, gave a presentation  
on changes they have made to the project in response to previous public  
comment in an attempt to make it more compatible with the neighborhood.  
David Carnicelli, Architect with Stantec, continued with the presentation.  
Raleigh Wood, Civil Engineer with Kimley Horn, continued with the  
presentation.  
Nicole, land use counsel for landowner, continued with the presentation.  
Supporters:  
None  
Opponents:  
Laura Nelson, Executive Director of the Apartment Association of Southern  
Colorado, said this project is very well suited for the area. We are always  
in need of more housing options.  
Dave Dazzlich, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Colorado  
Springs Chamber and EDC, supports the need for more workforce housing  
for the region.  
Appellant Rebuttal :  
Mr. Ford said his biggest concern is privacy and view. He stated he is  
curious if the traffic studies took into account the 800+ apartments that are  
being built. He has questions about the proposed height of the buildings.  
Applicant Rebuttal:  
Ms. Likovich said they are addressing neighborhood concerns as best they  
can. They are lowering the height and reducing impact on the views of  
neighbors. It is compliant with the Flying Horse neighborhood and master  
plan.  
Staff Comments:  
Ms. Wintz confirmed the zoning history and requirements of this parcel and  
adjacent parcels.  
Questions:  
None  
DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION:  
Commissioner Almy said the appellant has raised good points, but they  
are a little too late. The applicant has improved the project to address  
previous concerns. He will not support the appeal.  
Commissioner McMurray commended the applicant for the positive  
change to the project.  
Commissioner Hensler agreed with Commissioner McMurray.  
Motion by Vice Chair McMurray, seconded by Commissioner Rickett, to Deny  
the appeal, upholding Staff's administrative approval of the 1756 Silversmith  
Apartments major development plan amendment, based upon the finding  
that the application complies with the review criteria in City Code Section  
7.5.502.E, and that the appeal criteria found in City Code Section 7.5.906.A.4  
are not met. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0:2:0  
7 -  
Aye:  
Commissioner Almy, Commissioner Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Chair Hente,  
Vice Chair McMurray, Commissioner Rickett and Commissioner Slattery  
2 - Commissioner Briggs and Commissioner Raughton  
Absent:  
8. PRESENTATIONS/UPDATES  
9. Adjourn