Colorado Springs Planning Commission Meeting - Nov 12, 2025
Colorado Springs Planning Commission Meeting - November 12, 2025
The Colorado Springs Planning Commission convened on November 12, 2025, to review several development applications, including rezonings, development plan modifications, and variance requests. The commission addressed proposals ranging from an infill multifamily rezone on Airport Road to a major recovery center conversion at 1855 Aero Plaza, and a significant commercial expansion within the Percheron master plan. Public testimony revealed strong diverging views regarding traffic impacts, neighborhood character, and community safety. The commission ultimately voted to recommend three items for approval, deny one rezone application due to compatibility concerns, and approve two variances for a residential property.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of seven items (Christian Brothers Automotive, non-use variances for Bacon Street, Dorado Transport zoning, Sani Rimoto, 1590 North Newport Road, and Franklin Residence additions) by unanimous motion, with no items pulled for separate discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Project: 4880 Airport Road Rezone (R16 to R5)
- Opposition: Tao Tai (resident and Buddhist temple representative located directly across the street) expressed strong opposition, citing that Car Road is a single exit point already blocked by emergency incidents, and expressed fears of increased noise and "more people, more problems." Barbara Overgaard (resident of Sand Creek Commons) stated she was adamantly opposed, noting the area is the only exit for 187 condo units plus 20-30 homes, and argued that adding up to 50 units to a jammed intersection creates a safety and traffic flow risk not compatible with the current neighborhood character.
- Project: 1855 Aero Plaza Recovery Center
- Support: Derek Villagrana, Robert Struckis, and Zachary Garcia (all peers in recovery or advocates) expressed full support, emphasizing the critical need for services in Southeast Springs, the potential for healing, and the positive community impact of reducing the cycle of addiction and homelessness. Tommy Cochlin (adjacent property owner) expressed support, noting that the controlled exit and regulatory oversight posed no adverse impact. Sarah Potter (nonprofit sector representative) supported the facility, citing the 44% of the unhoused population driven by addiction and mental health. Chris Kilcullen (commercial real estate agent and sober resident) supported the project, arguing it prevents the property from becoming a lower-quality economy hotel and provides a missing link in the recovery continuum.
- Opposition: Renee Gonzalez (resident near Panorama Park) expressed opposition, arguing the location conflicts with the Southeast Strong Plan's vision for a family-centered environment near schools and parks, and raised concerns about reliance on unstable government funding. Joyce Salazar (RYSE Southeast) expressed concerns regarding the lack of independent data on neighborhood impacts (crime, property values) and requested further evidence and an impact analysis specific to the site before approval. Janaya Colonis (High Roots Wellness) expressed concerns about the location amidst a lack of community centers and prioritized upstream approaches, questioning if the project builds trust. Brittany McDonald expressed concern that the location adds strain to the community and questioned the long-term viability if funding lapses. Pastor Anthony Greer and Andrea Silva (teacher) expressed opposition, stating the placement next to a park and schools introduces risks to children and undermines the safety and character of the neighborhood.
- Project: Percheron Land Use Plan/Zone Change
- Opposition: Alison Colvin, Jason Bandle, and Mark Harmon (residents of Banning Lewis Ranch) opposed the expansion of commercial uses immediately adjacent to their single-family homes. They expressed concern about light pollution, noise, increased traffic congestion on exit routes (specifically during Fourth of July events), and the potential depreciation of home values. They argued that the notification process was insufficient and that the buffer between their homes and the proposed commercial was inadequate.
Discussion Items
- 4880 Airport Road Rezone (R16 to R5): Applicant Chris Sullivan and Ann Odom (NES) proposed changing 2.17 acres from R16 (single-family) to R5 (multi-family high) to allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre (max ~50 units). They argued the site fits the development pattern along Airport Road, a principal arterial, and aligns with Plan COS. Commissioners expressed concern regarding Criterion 4 (compatibility with surrounding development), noting the high density (25 units/acre) relative to current adjacent R16 uses and the lack of a specific development plan to mitigate impacts on the narrow Car Road. The applicant explained that operational constraints (land cost, parking, drainage) would likely prevent the maximum density from being built and that future development plans would be reviewed separately.
- 1855 Aero Plaza Recovery Center: Applicant Chris Foster (Aspen BHC) proposed converting a 3.11-acre hotel to a 135-bed residential drug and alcohol treatment center. He emphasized that patients are pre-screened and stabilized (30-45 days in treatment prior) and presented data suggesting such facilities reduce crime compared to liquor stores. He detailed safety measures including 24/7 staffing, delayed egress alarms, perimeter fencing, and security cameras. Commissioners discussed the Fair Housing Act, the regulatory oversight (BHA, CARF, SAMSHA), and the distinction between this facility and a high-acuity detox center. Commissioner Engel noted her initial hesitation was overcome by the applicant's safety protocols.
- Percheron Land Use/Zone Change (PDZ to MXL): Applicant Andrea Barlow (NES) proposed changing 156.18 acres from Planned Development Zone to Mixed Use Large Scale (MXL) and modifying the land use plan to increase commercial acreage from ~82 to ~136 acres, largely south of Woodman Road. She argued this aligns with the Woodman Corridor as a new developing corridor and that traffic impacts are mitigated by planned road improvements (e.g., Banning Lewis Parkway extension). City Traffic Engineer Todd Frisbee confirmed the study anticipated Level of Service F at the Woodman/Golden Sage intersection in 20-25 years but noted a corridor study is underway to address such issues. Commissioners discussed the buffer (150 feet) between the commercial and residential properties and the viability of commercial use south of Golden Jubilee Drive due to power line easements.
Key Outcomes
- 4880 Airport Road: Motion to recommend denial to City Council passed with 3 votes in favor, 2 in opposition (Commissioners Engle and Case opposed; motion made by Commissioner Engle).
- 1855 Aero Plaza Recovery Center: Motion to recommend approval to City Council passed unanimously. The application was deemed compliant with review criteria and consistent with the Southeast Strong Plan and Plan COS.
- Percheron Project: Motion to recommend approval to City Council for both the zone change (PDZ to MXL) and the Land Use Plan modification passed with 4 votes in favor (Commissioner Case recused) and 0 opposed.
- 65 Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard Variances: Motions to approve the height variance (29 feet) and square footage variance (3,582 sq. ft. garage) for a detached garage passed unanimously. Condition: Final drainage letter from Stormwater Enterprise required prior to building permit issuance.
- Sign Ordinance Update: Commission received an informational presentation regarding proposed updates to the sign ordinance, which will be taken to City Council for action in December. No votes were taken.
- Other: The commission noted the 2026 budget adoption and recent council actions on annexations and appeals during the introductory remarks.
Meeting Transcript
All right, good morning. Apologize for the technical delays here. We'll go ahead and get started. The Colorado Springs Planning Commission public hearing for November twelfth, two thousand twenty five 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 all the information and evidence provided to make their decision. Some applications require City Planning Commission to be the final decision authority, and for others, the Planning Commission is a recommendation body to the city council. Throughout the hearing, we will require everyone to conduct themselves respectfully, understand that others may have different views from their 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, city planning staff will give a presentation on the application, followed by the applicant who will have 30 minutes to present the details of the application. Public comment will be taken after these presentations, starting with public comment in support of an application, followed by public comments in opposition to the application. Each citizen will have three minutes to speak. Please keep your comments brief, focused on the and focused on the issues at hand. Please respect other attendees' right to listen and to be heard. Our budget was uh adopted as of yesterday on the first reading. So it'll be going to the second reading uh at the end of this month with no changes. So uh at least at this point, we know what our budget will be for 2026. Um let's see, I was gonna uh announce all the new members, but I guess that they're since they're sitting up there. Uh we'll uh uh just forego that and uh uh but anyway, welcome to our new members. Um couple of quick things that the uh council did. They approved the Peach Ranch annexation, uh also Miller Downs uh annexation. So those two um enclave annexations were uh passed in the last month. They've also uh uh denied the appeal of the old ranch uh storage unit, uh, which you also which was an appeal of your denial of the appeal. Um and so that also was uh passed in the last month. And uh that kind of concludes my remarks. Anything else? Any questions? I'll be happy to answer. All right, thank you. Well, now we'll move on to the consent calendar. Items on the consent calendar will be acted upon as a whole without further public comment unless a specific item is called up for discussion. So there won't be any individual presentations on those unless a member of the commission, member of the city staff, or member of the public want to uh have a full hearing on those items. Any items called off the consent calendar will be heard immediately after the rest of the consent calendar is decided upon. Uh please read the items into the consent calendar. Item 5A C U D P 25-0026. Christian Brothers Automotive. Item 5B, N V A R 25-0004, 2826, Bacon Street, Law Size Non-Use Variance. Item 5C, Z O N E-25-0005, Dorado Transport Zoning Map Amendment. Item 5D N V A R25-0007, Sani Rimoto, Non-Use Variance. Item 5E, C U D P 2505, 1590, North Newport Road, Conditional Use. Item 5 F N V A R 2509, Franklin Residence Addition, and Item 5G, N V A R Dash 25 0017. Also Franklin Residence Edition. Is there any commissioner that wants to pull any of those items off the consent calendar? Is there any member of staff that wants to pull any item off the consent calendar? Is there any member of the public that wants to pull any item off the consent calendar? At this point, we'll then we'll entertain a motion for uh to act on upon the consent calendar. I'd like to make a motion to uh approve the consent calendar as presented. Somebody second it the motion passes unanimously. Okay, at this point, we'll move on to uh new business.
openpublica.com