Colorado Springs Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 2025
Colorado Springs Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 2025
The Colorado Springs City Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2025, at 9:00 AM in the Regional Development Center. The meeting covered several items including a conditional use minor modification, a rezoning and land use plan for a church property, and an appeal of a development plan for a self-storage facility. The Commission voted on each item, with some decisions recommending denial to City Council.
Consent Calendar
- Item 5A (Phelan Gardens Zone Map Amendment): Approved unanimously (7-0-0-2) to rezone 4.09 acres from MX-N/cr/AP-O and RE/AP-O to MX-M/AP-O.
- Item 5B (Colorado Springs Conservatory Conditional Use): Approved unanimously to allow Club, Lodge, and Service Organization use in R-5 zone.
- Item 5C (Woodmen Road Addition No. 3 Annexation): Approved unanimously to set a hearing date for annexation of 0.11 acres.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 8A (Dakota Crossing): One public comment in opposition from Marie Keaton, citing reduced quality of life from short driveways and lack of sidewalks.
- Item 8B/C (Briargate Church Rezoning): Multiple speakers opposed the rezoning, including Ronald Peveto, Elizabeth Gilbert, Jacqueline Peveto, Ariane Peveto, Steve Luna, Dave Wahl, Jeremy Unruh, Jay Stoner, Naomi Niess, and Patty Krueger. Concerns included traffic congestion, safety, neighborhood character, potential for 50-foot buildings, and lack of buffer. The applicant's pastor, Scott Bottoms, spoke in support, noting the church would help with school traffic and desired retail uses like barbecue and donuts.
- Item 8D (Old Ranch Road Self Storage): Numerous community members opposed the appeal, including Chris Radcliff, Karen Knowles, Linden Kinkead, Jim Lubban, Robert Stein, Kimberly Stein, Dave Murphy, Jenn Murphy, Chris Annan, Alyssa Downs, and Will Lassani. Testimony highlighted traffic safety, concerns about truck volumes, hours of operation, crime, lighting, and lack of community engagement during the approval process. The appellant, Julie Price, detailed failures in city planning and cited inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and master plan.
Discussion Items
- 8A (Dakota Crossing Conditional Use Minor Modification): Staff presented a request to remove a condition requiring R-Flex Medium dimensional standards for internal lots. The applicant (Andrea Barlow, NES) explained that 28 of 69 lots have 7.5-foot aprons instead of 20-foot driveways, with no parking allowed on aprons and 24 guest parking spaces provided. Commissioners debated compatibility with code, but the motion to approve passed 5-2.
- 8B (Briargate Church Rezoning): The applicant sought a zoning map amendment from A/AF-O to MX-M/AF-O for 7.73 acres. Staff suggested MX-N was more appropriate, but the applicant chose MX-M to allow retail sales. Traffic Engineering (Todd Frisbie) noted no significant impacts. Commissioners Rickett, Cecil, Sipilovic, and Casey found the proposal failed criteria (e.g., not appropriate for the district, detrimental to public interest). Commissioner Hensler supported the application. The motion to recommend denial to City Council passed 5-1-1.
- 8C (Briargate Church Land Use Plan): This companion item was also denied by a 7-0-0-2 vote, based on failure to meet review criteria.
- 8D (Old Ranch Road Self Storage Appeal): The appellant argued the development plan approval was erroneous due to process failures and inconsistency with plans. The applicant (Andrea Barlow) defended the project as a low-impact commercial use, meeting all code criteria. Traffic Engineering and Police Department provided data on low traffic generation and crime statistics. Commissioners debated compatibility, with Rickett and Clements opposing the appeal, while the majority voted to deny the appeal and affirm the administrative approval (5-2).
Key Outcomes
- Item 8A: Approved (5-2-0-2) – motion by Rickett, seconded by Sipilovic, to approve the conditional use minor modification.
- Item 8B: Recommended denial to City Council (5-1-1-2) – motion by Rickett, seconded by Sipilovic, based on failure to meet zoning map amendment criteria.
- Item 8C: Recommended denial to City Council (7-0-0-2) – motion by Rickett, seconded by Sipilovic, based on failure to meet land use plan criteria.
- Item 8D: Denied appeal (5-2-0-2) – motion by Hensler, seconded by Sipilovic, to deny the appeal and affirm the administrative approval. The appellant may appeal to City Council within 10 days.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for September 10th, 2025 is now called to order. The planning commission is comprised of nine members appointed by city council to review various development applications and proposals. Planning commissioners are community volunteers with expertise across a wide variety of disciplines. Each commissioner acts independently and carefully assesses the information evidence presented to make their decision. The city planning staff facilitate the process for applications, and this commission reviews a variety of those applications governed by city code. Some applications require the planning commission to be the final decision authority, and for others, the planning commission is a recommendation body to the city council. Throughout the each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully. Understand that others may have different views from your own. Disrespectful words or actions, speaking out of order when not recognized by the chair, and the use of profanity will not be tolerated. For items presented on today's agenda. Public comment will be taken after these presentations, starting with public comments in support of the application, followed by public comments in opposition of the application. Each citizen will have three minutes to speak. Please keep comments brief and focus on the issues at hand. Please respect other attendees' right to both listen and be heard. Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period of 10 minutes to respond and address any comments. At the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dais for commissioner consideration. Please conduct a roll call. Commissioner Hansler here. Commissioner Cecil. Here. Commissioner Slattery. Commissioner Robins. Commissioner Sipilovich. Here. Here. Commissioner Jujano. Commissioner Rikett? Here. Commissioner Clemens. Here. Thank you. We have seven members present. Thank you. Do we have any changes to the agenda or postponements? Okay. If not, let's move on to communications. For myself, uh interviews for prospective candidates for planning commissioners and alternates are taking place on 19 September and 24 September. Mr. Walker. Uh that was my communication. So you need to take that back. I don't I don't have anything further. Thank you. All right, I'll take that as a second. Okay, moving on to approval of the minutes. Any discussion on the on the minutes before we uh and I would ask the commissioners if you would use the uh tablet both to request to speak as well as make motions and seconds if you would click on the buttons on that uh prior to uh speaking. Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the August 13th planning commission meeting. I a second that motion passes unanimously.
openpublica.com