Colorado Springs City Planning Commission Meeting - July 8, 2026
Colorado Springs City Planning Commission Meeting - July 8, 2026
The City Planning Commission met on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the Regional Development Center. The nine-member commission considered a postponed item, approved consent calendar items, and conducted hearings on the Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment, the Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 and Village C master plan updates, and the 2026 Annexation Plan (AnnexCOS). All nine commissioners were present.
Postponement & Communications
- Postponement (Item 5.B): The La Kitchen Parking Variance was postponed to August 12, 2026 due to the applicant's medical issues. Motion passed 9-0.
- Communications: Chair Hensler recognized Vice Chair Slattery for six years of service. Planning Director Kevin Walker acknowledged staff efforts and noted preparations for the July 23 special meeting.
Approval of Minutes
- June 4, 2026 Work Session: Approved 8-0-1 (Vice Chair Slattery abstained, not present).
- June 10, 2026 Meeting: Approved 6-0-3 (Slattery, Willoughby, and Case abstained).
Consent Calendar
- The commission approved the consent calendar except items 5.B (postponed) and 5.F (called off). The following items were approved unanimously without discussion:
- 5.A: Liberty Logistics – Conditional Use for Warehousing/Wholesaling on 54 acres at 5930-6180 Airport Road.
- 5.C: 752 Clark Place LLC – Conditional Use for Heavy Vehicle Storage on 2.29 acres at 752 Clark Place.
- 5.D: Karl Malone Polaris – Conditional Use for Automobile Sales/Rental/Repair on 34,019 sq ft at 1883 S. Chelton Road.
- 5.E: 5325 Mark Dabling Boulevard – Zone Map Amendment from MX-N/SS-O to MX-M/SS-O (1st reading, public hearing set for August 25, 2026).
- 5.G: Galley Road – Conditional Use for Light Industry/Warehousing on 2.63 acres at 4725 Galley Road.
Discussion Items
Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment (Item 5.F)
- Proposal: Rezone 7.79 acres at 4290-4340 Buckingham Drive from BP/CR (Business Park with Conditions of Record) to LI/CR (Light Industrial with Conditions of Record). Staff found the application met rezone criteria and complied with PlanCOS; prohibited uses (household living, group living, industrial hemp, marijuana-related, natural medicines, indoor/outdoor kennels) were proposed.
- Applicant: Ben Swanson (Buckingham Land Holdings) described long-term site challenges (gravel mining, fill, homeless encampments) and stated intent to buffer residential neighbors with a road, parking, and building placement.
- Public Comment:
- Barry Wick: Expressed uncertainty about plans, cited past neglect and drainage issues affecting Holland Park.
- Marcia Wick: Voiced concerns about drainage, litter from shopping center, headlights, and inadequate buffering.
- Commission Discussion:
- Commissioner Willoughby confirmed future development plan review would address stormwater, landscaping, and buffering.
- Commissioner Cecil asked about access roads and buffer depth; Mr. Swanson supported a 25-foot buffer but noted geotechnical constraints.
- Vice Chair Slattery recommended prohibiting animal shelters, bars, and junkyards, and reducing height from 60 ft to 45 ft. Staff noted junkyards are conditional uses in LI, and new citywide kennel standards apply.
- Commissioner Case asked about feasibility of 100-ft building setback; Mr. Swanson said conceptual plan already exceeded 45-50 ft of separation from residential.
- Chair Hensler observed existing separation distance and parking layout functionally achieves intent.
- Commissioner Engel, Robbins, and Case expressed support; Cecil and Slattery opposed due to compatibility and height concerns.
- Motion: Commissioner Willoughby moved to recommend approval with conditions (prohibited uses as listed; no height reduction). Seconded by Commissioner Clements.
- Vote: 7-2 (Ayes: Hensler, Robbins, Clements, Gigiano, Willoughby, Case, Engel; Nays: Cecil, Slattery).
Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 (Items 8.A-8.F)
- Proposal: Major master plan amendment for 511.9 acres north of Tamlin Road and northeast of Dublin Boulevard/Banning Lewis Parkway. Includes residential (3.5-7.99 du/ac), commercial (9.3 acres at Dublin and Banning Lewis Parkway), parks (15 acres), a 25-acre school site, and a 36-acre right-of-way vacation. Rezoning to PDZ and MX-M; concept plans for commercial and residential; right-of-way vacation.
- Applicant: Don Ryan (LAI Design Group) and Tyler Jones (Oakwood Homes) explained the plan updates the 1988 master plan, consolidates scattered commercial to a major intersection, reduces total homes (from 4,574 to ~2,547), and preserves drainage corridors. Buildout expected ~15 years.
- Public Comment: None in person or online.
- Traffic Engineering: Todd Frisbie confirmed the arterial network (Dublin Boulevard, Stetson Hills Boulevard) is designed for lower densities than originally planned and will accommodate traffic. Future connections (e.g., Stetson Hills to Highway 24) may use PPRTA funding but timing is uncertain.
- Commission Discussion:
- Commissioner Engel asked about densities in surrounding villages; applicant showed mix of 3-5 du/ac for single-family and 8-12 du/ac for cluster housing.
- Vice Chair Slattery noted the application meets criteria and offers lower-density housing options while supporting growth.
- Commissioner Cecil asked about pedestrian/cyclist connectivity to commercial; staff said details would come at development plan stage.
- Commissioner Gigiano inquired about school funding; applicant stated they coordinate with the school district but do not control construction timing.
- Votes: All six sub-items (8.A through 8.F) approved unanimously (9-0) with motions read individually.
Banning Lewis Ranch Village C (Items 8.G-8.P)
- Proposal: Land Use Plan for 658.34 acres south of Dublin Boulevard, north of Stetson Hills Boulevard, west of Highway 24. Includes residential (R-Flex Medium, density 3-16 du/ac), MX-M (111 acres), four neighborhood parks (16 acres), a 35-acre community park (shared with B2), two school sites (48-acre high school, 25-acre PK-8), a fire station parcel, a Rock Island Trail corridor, and a 26-acre right-of-way vacation. Six Development Standard Adjustments (DSAs) to align with product types in earlier villages.
- Applicant: Don Ryan described removal of Highway 24 access (CDOT only allows emergency access) and relocation of commercial to MX-M area. Estimated units: 2,426 with average density 9.94 du/ac.
- Public Comment:
- David Osborne (Falcon Meadow Campground owner): Requested road access for trailers and an open-space buffer between his property and Village C.
- Jay Larson (Banning Lewis Ranch resident): Raised concerns about community compatibility, lack of a southern evacuation route, and recommended surveying current residents.
- Applicant Rebuttal: Tyler Jones addressed CDOT coordination, noted drainage corridors and Rock Island Trail will provide buffers, and stated the DSAs enable housing formats with shared open spaces and community facilities (pools, clubhouses).
- Commission Discussion:
- Commissioner Engel questioned the need for 16 du/ac density; applicant explained flexibility for cluster housing, townhomes, and multiplexes.
- Commissioner Willoughby asked about DSAs in prior villages; staff clarified PDZ (Chapter 7) did not require DSAs, but UDC's R-Flex Medium does.
- Vice Chair Slattery asked why no unit counts for MX-M area; applicant stated it is maximum-flexibility for future development.
- Commissioner Clements asked about 1,000 sq ft lot usability; applicant confirmed small lots are for duplexes/townhomes, already built in Banning Lewis.
- Commissioner Cecil noted DSAs require compensating benefits; applicant argued that shared open spaces, porch-forward designs, and Metro District-funded community facilities constitute benefits.
- Traffic engineer confirmed corner-side setback reduction (10 ft vs 15 ft) would be evaluated at development plan review for sight lines.
- Support: Commissioners Willoughby, Robbins, Engel, and Cecil expressed support after discussion of benefits and traffic.
- Votes: All ten sub-items (8.G through 8.P) approved unanimously (9-0) with motions read individually.
AnnexCOS – 2026 Annexation Plan (Item 8.Q)
- Proposal: Adoption of AnnexCOS, an update to the 2006 Annexation Plan and 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Establishes a policy framework for evaluating annexations, emphasizing fiscal sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and intergovernmental cooperation. Not a land use map; annexations remain property-owner driven.
- Presenter: Kevin Walker, Planning Director, described state statutory requirements, the three-mile plan, and the Area of Planning Interest (AOPI) IGA with El Paso County. Key changes: structured fiscal impact analysis, standardized submission requirements, and emphasis on enclaves.
- Commission Discussion:
- Commissioner Cecil clarified that annexation does not mean urban development (built environment) and appreciated the distinction.
- Commissioner Willoughby asked about timelines in annexation agreements; Walker noted the city is protected from financial obligations if development does not occur, but de-annexation is rare.
- Commissioner Case inquired about enclave prioritization; Walker said the plan supports a proactive stance but each case requires evaluation.
- Vice Chair Slattery commended staff for incorporating public feedback following recent high-profile annexation debates.
- Commissioner Engel found the plan clear and comprehensive.
- Chair Hensler echoed support, stating AnnexCOS provides needed clarity and consistency.
- Motion: Vice Chair Slattery moved to recommend approval; seconded by Commissioner Clements.
- Vote: Unanimous (9-0).
Key Outcomes
- Postponement: La Kitchen Parking Variance postponed to August 12, 2026 (9-0).
- Approvals (all unanimous except where noted):
- Buckingham Industrial Zone Map Amendment recommended to City Council 7-2.
- Banning Lewis Ranch Village B2 and Village C items (16 total) all recommended to City Council 9-0.
- AnnexCOS (2026 Annexation Plan) recommended to City Council 9-0.
- Next Steps: The above recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for final action (public hearings set for various dates in August and September 2026). Staff will develop implementation tools (model annexation report, fiscal impact framework) following AnnexCOS adoption.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to call the Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for July 8th, 2026 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 areas. Each commissioner acts independently and carefully assesses all the information and evidence presented to make their decisions. The city planning staff facilitate the process. Oh, hold on, I lost my screen to be able to see my scrap. The commission reviews the applications and proposals governed by city code. Some applications require planning commission to be the final authority, and for others, the planning commission is a recommendation body to city council. Briefly on ground rules and procedures. Throughout each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully, understanding that others may have different views from your own. Disrespectful words, actions, speaking out of order when not recognized by the chair, and use of profanity will not be tolerated. For items presented on today's agenda, the 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 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 your comments brief and focused on the issues at hand, and please respect other attendees' rights 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 to address any comments. And at the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dias for commissioner consideration. So with that, I think we will move to our uh roll call. Chair Hensler. Here. Commissioner Sissel. Here. Commissioner Slattery. Here. Commissioner Robbins. Here. Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Clements. Here. Commissioner Didiano. Here. Commissioner Willoughby. Here. Commissioner Case. Here. Commissioner Engel. Here. Thank you. We have nine members present. Wonderful. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is changes to the agenda or postponements. So if there are any items, Mr. Gray. We will read them into the record and vote on uh changes and postponements. No. Is it items in the number of first? Do we need to change? Do we need to vote on changes and postponements or just on changes to consent? My script says that we should vote on them.
openpublica.com