City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'm gonna call the Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for August 12th, 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 decision. City planning staff facilitates the process for applications. This commission reviews those applications and proposals 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 hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully, understand others may have views different from your own, disrespectful words or actions, speaking out of order when not recognized, and the use of profanity will not be tolerated. For items presented on today's agenda, the 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. For any items that are being heard on appeal today, the appellant and applicant will be given equal time. Public comment will be taken after the presentations starting with public comments in support of the application followed by comments in opposition of the application. Each citizen will have three minutes to speak and please keep your comments brief and focused on the issues at hand and 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 to and address any comments. And at the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dais for commissioner consideration. Solange, could you do our roll call, please?

Chair Hensler? Here. Commissioner Robbins?

Here.

Commissioner Clements?

Here.

Commissioner Didiano? Commissioner Willoughby. Here. Commissioner Case.

Here.

Commissioner Engel.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil. Here. Commissioner Egbert.

Here.

Thank you. We have eight members present.

Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any changes to our agenda or postponements? I'm looking at city staff and our commission. I think not. Okay. Oops. Who might be speaking? Can we mute those online? Oh, it's our security. Okay, well, hopefully nothing serious is happening. All right, moving on to communications. Just a couple things from me. I wanted to welcome Aaron Egbert, our newest voting member to the commission. So welcome. We're excited to have you. I also wanted to say happy back to school for those of you that may also be parents and remind us all to be really safe and careful in those school zones. Please go 20 miles per hour. I think those are the only things I wanted to say. Mr. Walker, any communications from you?

I also Kevin Walker city planning director. I also want to welcome Mr. Egbert old friend and I appreciate the service that you will give us over the next several years. I hope Let's see we have I don't really have anything on the current planning front obviously are the City Council if you've been paying any attention has scheduled the hearing on project taurus for september 17th i believe that they have announced that it's at the pikes peak center if not that's not an announcement um

I believe that has been all over the media and yes.

I don't want to be the one who said that. And so we're working closely with council staff and city council to try and help them with the logistics of that. And we've gotten nothing but a lot of praise for your conduct as well and your efforts that day, as well as our staff's efforts. And I want to congratulate everybody for that. what I think is an excellent example of transparency and communication and a lot of hard work. So thank you for that. Just a couple of other things we had on the schedule with council. PROJECT. IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THEIR CALENDAR AT THE MOMENT WITH THESE OTHER EXTRA ITEMS THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH. THEY JUST DID NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM WITH ANNEX COS. HOPEFULLY WE CAN STILL GET SOME KIND OF HEARING ON THAT PRIOR TO THE END OF THE YEAR. AND WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH some of the state other state requirements regarding comprehensive plans for strategic strategic growth growth element and a water element to our planning our plan cos and so those are things that you might see efforts coming in the next couple of months that's all for me okay thank you sir um moving on to approval of minutes so launch if you could read those into the record

Item 4A, CPC 2741, minutes for the July 2nd, 2026 work session city planning commission meeting. And item 4B, CPC 2742, minutes for the July 8th, 2026 city planning commission meeting.

Commissioner Egbert, I'll be abstaining since I wasn't at the meeting.

Did anyone have any comments or edits to the minutes? Okay. Seeing, Commissioner Cecil?

I was just going to motion to approve the minutes as they were read into the record.

I'll second it.

Thank you, the motion passes with seven members in favor and Commissioner Egbert abstained.

Commissioner Cecil, would you like to make a second motion for our second set of minutes? As read into the record.

Poor thing, I'd like to move, this is Commissioner Cecil, I'd like to move that item 4B, CPC 2742, the minutes for July 8th, 2026, City Planning Commission meeting The approved.

Commissioner Willoughby seconds.

I didn't notice that Commissioner Egbert's abstention showed up on that one. Do you have it though?

Melissa, what's the senior analyst? So we'll fix it on the back end. It's just not going to show on the screen today. So that motion does pass unanimously. OK, wonderful. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to our consent calendar. Items on the consent calendar will be acted upon as a whole without further public comment or discussion unless a specific item is called off the consent calendar. The Planning Commission takes action on the consent calendar with a single vote without further discussion. Items that are called off the consent calendar will be heard immediately after the rest of the consent calendar is decided upon. So Solange, if you can read the consent calendar into the record.

Item 5A, SUBD-26-0049, Sugar Bowl Grove street name change. And item 5B, DVSA-25-0003, 501 North Wasatch Avenue, development and standards adjustment.

Okay.

Is there any member of city staff that would like to pull an item from the consent calendar? Does any planning commissioner wish to pull an item from the consent calendar? Is there any member of the public, either in the room or online, that would like to pull an item from the consent calendar?

Before we proceed, I do want to clarify, we did have a couple people sign in to speak on a consent item. OK. If you are intending to speak on an item, you do have to pull it off consent.

Correct. So is there anyone in the audience who wishes to pull an item from consent? Okay, sir, can you come up and state your name and which item you would like to poll, please? Can you flip the button to turn on the microphone there? Nope, one moment. One moment, we'll help you. Come on, yeah.

Robert Dupinyak.

And which item would you like to pull off of consent, sir?

The development on Wasatch Avenue.

Okay, thank you. We are going to vote on the other item, and then we'll come back to 501 North Wasatch. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so with that, let's move to a motion for the remaining item on consent, 5A, SUBD 260049 for Sugar Bowl.

Commissioner Willoughby, motion to approve item 5A, SUBD 260049, Sugar Bowl Grove Street, name change.

Commissioner Robbins, I second.

Bless you.

The motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you. I'm just going to quickly, because that item is appealable, state that in accordance with requirements of Section 7.5.414 of the City Unified Development Code, an affected party may appeal to the City Council any action of the City Planning Commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party. That must be filed within 10 days from the action on the item being appealed, which is Monday, August 24th, and must file notice of appeal and pay the $176 fee with the city clerk. So if anyone wishes to appeal that item, that's your instructions. And then we will... whoops, sorry, we will move on to item 5B and then the rest of our active agenda, okay? So hold on, let me find myself in the agenda. Yes, ma'am.

I'm gonna read the item into the record. Okay, perfect.

Yeah, I guess that's true, because you did, but then we need to read it fully, yes, and then Mr. Schaffer will be our presenter.

Item 5B, DVSA-25-0003, a development standards adjustment to city code section 7.2.206 and 7.4.2-A to allow a residential density of 13.33 dwelling units per acre in the R4 zone district, where eight dwelling units per acre is allowed, located at 501 North Wasatch Avenue. And our presenter is Ethan Schaefer.

Hi, commissioners. My name is Ethan Schaefer. I use they, he pronouns. I'm an urban planner to here with the city of Colorado Springs, and I'm here to talk about the development standards adjustment requested for 501 North Wasatch Avenue. As you see on the screen here, this property is located at 501 North Wasatch Avenue on the northeast corner of East St. Rain and North Wasatch Avenue. The property is currently zoned R4 multifamily low. The site area is 9,800 square feet. The proposed land use is multifamily residential. This multifamily residential is comprised of the proposed three dwelling units on this site. Currently, there are two existing residential units and one commercial unit that is proposed to officially be changed to a residential unit. And they are seeking a development standards adjustment to allow 13.33 dwelling units per acre, where eight dwelling units per acre in the R4 district is permitted. Thank you. Can y'all hear me okay?

Perfect.

Um, so, as you see on the screen here, um, they are proposing to convert the commercial structure, which is right there on the Northeast corner of the site in the bottom left of the site plan there, um, for multifamily residential purposes, this would be a total of 3 single family homes on 1 lot. Um, and they are proposing 13.33 dwelling units per acre. As you see on the site plan as well, um, you'll see 6 parking spaces are proposed for allocation, which is in line with 2 parking spaces per single family dwelling unit. So that you are aware. Um, we initially brought this application in on August 7th of 2025. There have been 2 review cycles done on it and the items were ready for agenda on, uh. July 17th, 2026. We did publicly notice this application both at the internal review stage when it was initially submitted as well as prior to the city planning commission hearing today. Postcards went out 1000 feet or to property owners within 1000 feet from the subject site. 255 postcards were sent with each notice occurrence and 4 public comments were received. The general summary of those public comments was a preference for the building to return to a neighborhood commercial use concerns that the proposed residents could be used as a short term rental. Reports of property neglect and nuisance conditions, including boarded windows, overgrown vegetation, unresolved alarms and prior squatting activity. Ongoing concerns about parking availability in the area, some opposition and some conditional support, depending on the provision of off street parking. And 1 household express support, noting a desire to see the property reoccupied. Overall, staff determined that this request does comply with Plan COS, particularly in areas outlined in my staff report, but particularly in providing housing within the area. That's a big aspect of this, as well as providing investment into the neighborhood. That site, as was noted in the public comment, has seen quite a bit of neglect. The last commercial use on that site, being the laundromat, hasn't been open since I believe about 2017, and that is outlined in my staff report. Um, and so we have seen a lot of neglect to the public right of way there as well as the private property in that area. So, continued investment, the potential to turn this into a residential unit would bring people into the site and be present so that vacancy is not as high and they're taking care of the land there as well. The 4 review criteria for a development standards adjustment that are proposed to be met is 1st, the alternative design achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the standard for which a waiver is requested. So, as part of this, the transition of this use is not an intensification of this use a commercial use across the board generally would be considered a more intense use than a residential 1, especially a single family residential, even though the 3 single families are technically under a multi family classification. The 2nd, criteria is when considered together with compensating benefits, the alternative design advances the goals and policies of the to the same or better degree than the standard for which a waiver is requested. Not only providing more housing in this area to contribute to it, but also as part of this plan, they propose to upgrade significantly the landscaping and infrastructure right around that property as well. They're on Washington St brain. So those are both considered pretty significant compensating benefits to that area. 3rd, the alternative design imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties that would occur through compliance with the specific requirement of this. A single family home again is going to be a lot less impactful than a commercial use with frequent traffic, either pedestrian traffic or vehicle traffic. Which tends to be high tends to be far more impactful on neighbors, especially when you're sharing a lot with 2 residential properties. So, proposing to have 2 parking spaces per single family home and have single family home activities occurring there. Appears to staff and myself that to be less impactful than a commercial use would in that area. Also, something to note is that. Um, because of the R4 district, and because this commercial use, um, ceased to operate in 2017 or 2018 timeframe, it lost its legal nonconforming status for commercial use to operate within the residential zone. So, in order for this property to do anything with this structure on the property, it would either need to be able to transition to a residential use, which is impacting our dwelling dwelling units per acre calculation that they're seeking the for. Or they would need to seek a rezoning to allow both commercial and residential activity to occur on site. The applicant was not interested in seeking a rezoning to host commercial activity. They did want to have a residential unit on that site. The 4th criteria, the alternative design provides compensating benefits that are reasonable related to the proposed waiver. It would not otherwise be required by this or state law compensating benefits may include 1 or combination of the following benefits to the general public benefits to users, customers or residents of the proposed development. There are subcategories under those 2 as well within the code that I address in my staff report. But overall, providing housing to this neighborhood, and also upgrading the public infrastructure that pedestrians and nearby neighbors are interacting with and experiencing are considered by staff to be pretty significant upgrades to the site to allow the to occur for the 13.33 dwelling units per acre. And after evaluation of the development standards adjustment, the application meets the review criteria. The optional motions for today's application are on the screen for you commissioners. Do you have any questions for me?

Okay, seeing none, I think stay close. We'll hear from the applicant and then we'll probably have you back up Ethan. Thank you so much. And I assume you do have an applicant here speak. Yes. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning, commissioners. I'm Bill Gooman, principal with William Gooman & Associates. We're the applicant representing the owner on this project. We don't really have anything to add. I think Mr. Schaffer accurately summed up our purpose for this application. The property, as was mentioned, had been a laundromat. Some of you may have been familiar with the stoners laundromat that had been there, maybe even used it. I don't know, but the property's been vacant for nine years and it had been listed for sale during that time. No takers on reuse of the property as a laundromat and no takers for reusing the property as another commercial use. The owner wishes to have it become a residential unit. As staff indicated that there is still a need for residential dwelling units that are available for rentals or for purchase in this vicinity. Not everybody wants to live in an apartment, but we think that staff pretty much summed it up in their report which you have all seen we do satisfy the criteria for the request and would be glad to answer any questions that you might have commissioner cecil

Hi, Commissioner Cecil. For the record, I just have one question that stood out to me. I know that if it operated as a laundromat, it may have some environmental contamination, not like a dry cleaner would, but could you speak to whether or not the site has been evaluated for any chemical contamination as a result of its prior uses?

The building has been rehabilitated. The interior and exterior, especially the interior, had been gutted and refinished about three years ago, which actually was the trigger point for this application moving forward. Full transparency had been a zoning and code violation when the owner did refurbish the property. There are no conditions that were imposed on the property for an environmental evaluation. If you were to walk the building, it's brand new. So I don't know if that answers your question, but it had been evaluated by zoning and code enforcement, but there were no violations for contamination.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robbins, did you have a question?

Yeah. I know you guys have gone over this pretty substantially, but just for my own edification, in regards to the parking, because there really isn't that much in there, can you explain to me... What's going to happen with that? I mean, all we see is six parking spots, and yet if you're going to an apartment situation, it's going to be a little bit of a difficulty for people there.

yes sir there are adequate spaces uh with the six including one ada space on site and there is on street parking that is also available the property is not intended for use as a short-term rental or anything which could possibly increase parking requirements to satisfy that so uh I believe that we've satisfied the parking requirements onsite and offsite with what's being provided. That would not be the case if the building were to revert back to a commercial use.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other questions from commissioners for our applicant while he's here? I think we'll go to public comment then, and then stay close, because we'll probably have you back up. Okay, so at this time I'll open to public comment for those in favor of this application. So, sir, I don't know if your desire was to speak in favor of this application or opposed to it. Opposed. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience or online who wishes to speak in favor of this item?

Yes, we have one member signed in support. That is Mike Milan. Sorry, I don't know if I...

Okay. You're still welcome to come speak. Okay.

That's all we have signed up in support. If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this application, please hit star six now to unmute yourselves. There's no one online.

Okay. Then we will go to public comment for those opposed. So, sir, you are welcome to come up. Is there anyone else that signed up in addition to? Yes.

So we have Robert first, and then we'll have Zachary following.

Okay, perfect. And if you will, again, state your name for the record, and then you have three minutes to speak, sir.

Robert Dupignac. I had a number of notes here. I'm going to cut to the chase and go easy on you.

Can you get just a little closer to the mic? Or you can bend it to it. Yep, there you go. Just so we can hear you well.

I have a number of notes here, but I'm gonna condense it and go easy, even though I'm fond of the sound of my voice. Commissioner Cecil raised one of my very big concerns was what about the contamination of the building. As far as comment of off-street parking, there is no off-street parking. Several years ago, a project was passed on the corner of Wasatch and Boulder where 34 apartment buildings will be placed. There's going to be two disability parking spaces, handicap parking spaces, and no others. They claimed that you could use the diags as off-street parking. The diags are occupied by school children most of the year, and they offered aerial photographs All the leaves are dark green. Everything had already bloomed. It was in the afternoon. There was no shadows. They presented that as being the off-street parking. It's not that. Any other time of the day, all of those streets are filled with cars. especially during school activities my concern is parking my concern is also in that particular project and like this one they're waving setbacks we keep waving setbacks we won't have the pedestrians or bicycle paths that we want to keep and incorporate in our olympic city a little further and give a little bit more room giving a little bit more room to Wasatch would be nice because you pushed all the traffic over to it. There's no place to make room on Wasatch. We might need some speed bumps there actually for this added traffic. So my concern is that we do not lay of all the setbacks, we do not completely disregard the history of the neighborhood and keep increasing the number of people that can live in a limited space. It'll make the city more uncomfortable. That particular project I speak of would have been a better parking structure, want people downtown, give them a place to park. The one on Cascade was very well planned with the storefront availability in the front of it, and it has charging stations. It's a very functional development. Thank you for that one. I also want to state that I have four homes in the neighborhood. No, they're not income property. My adult children live in them. I am invested in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. We have Zachary next. And again, if you'll state your name and you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Zachary Gates. I'm opposed to the redesignation in the area. As Bob had pointed out, the parking in the area on the side street is very limited and it is filled up. With Boulder Street being closed because of the Palmer High School expansion, more traffic has been forced onto Wasatch, making it a busier street. And to me, this kind of seems like a situation of they bought the property, went in, remodeled it and now they're asking to switch the zoning and everything. So it was kind of, uh, poor planning from the get go. Um, also the property hasn't been kept up since the remodel has happened. Uh, that corner is overgrown. Um, and, uh, yeah, I don't see how switching it will all of a sudden change the look of the property. Um, and, uh, Yeah, again, it's a historical neighborhood, and I'm invested in that neighborhood and really like it. And seeing the population density increase in the neighborhood just puts more stress on the historical aspect of the neighborhood, I believe. So appreciate you listening to me.

We appreciate you coming and speaking up. Thank you so much.

One more? Okay. Next we have Julie Johnston and she has signed up as.

Having a question really? Okay, sure. We will take questions just as much. So, if you again, state your name, you'll have 3 minutes.

Sure. Yeah. Hi, Julie Johnston. Um, I. i think i'm in support um i recently moved onto that same street just a few houses down and so a couple of questions i have for me and the neighbors on the street is it is a historical building it's really important to the people in that community so how is that being preserved and is it being preserved that is going to dictate a lot of the support from that street and then um Sorry, oh yeah, and the other question, this might just be me not knowing zoning and residential, but if there is just gonna be three single home units, then why are we increasing it to 13.33 versus just eight? And again, that just might be my own ignorance with that, but I would love to hear a clarification on that. And kind of in addition to what I think Zach had just said, like, it is a historic neighborhood. It's super important to everyone that lives there. Like I said, I live on the street. There's very, very little on-street parking. And, like, the trash truck has to do, like, a seven-point turn in order to get down the alleys because it's so... narrow so there's kids always playing there's cats crossing the street and just so keeping in mind that it's a quaint street and we want to keep it that way and if this but this sounds like it would be an upgrade and that's the support is this has been vacant. It is not nice. It is an eyesore. It would be nice to have people who are going to take care of it. Um, I think it would be an upgrade if they keep those other things in consideration. So thank you very much for listening.

Absolutely. Thanks, Ms. Johnston. Um,

there anyone else signed up to speak on this item there's nobody else in the audience that signed up but if there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item or in favor or in favor please hit star six now to mute yourselves there is no one else online okay

Great. I think we'll bring it back up to the dais for questions. And Ethan, I think maybe we'll start with you. Do we need to let the applicant rebut? Oh, yeah, we do. Sorry. Thanks, Jen. Our applicant does have 10 minutes to rebut. So Mr. Gooman, I would say one of the things I was gonna ask Ethan, but maybe you can speak to, I think the applicant or the application is very clear about what you're going to do with the property and keeping the three units and the parking, but what's not really clear perhaps to the point of some public comment is why, or what the changes with the development standards that indicate 13.33 and yet everything says three. So maybe you can just clarify a little bit more about what your plan is and maybe address some of those items, yeah.

Commissioner, once again, Bill Gooman, the applicant representing the owner. That's a good question. I had the same question of staff when we were notified we needed to APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ADJUSTMENT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R4, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IT HAS BEEN ZONED R4 EVEN WHILE THE PROPERTY WAS UTILIZED for the laundromat, we are not seeking a change in the zone. We're simply asking to bring it back to a residential use. And in staff summary, it indicates that due to the UDC Uniform Development Code Internal Policy Q1, which was adopted in April, 2024, Because the property is zoned R4, it is approved for up to the 13.33 dwelling units on this site. We have no intent to increase the density. There are three residential units on the property. This will not add to the density. We are not looking to convert this particular use into multifamily, but according to the UDC update of 2024, the development standards adjustment was a requirement for us. So as I indicated in my previous comments, we've satisfied all of the requirements of that UDC upgrade. I'd just like to add a couple of comments here regarding the setbacks of the property. We're not modifying any of the setbacks. The setbacks that exist on this property have been there for over 100 years. and we are not requesting to modify those. They will remain the same. The physical condition of the building, the fact that it's been overgrown with weeds, and I indicated before there had indeed been zoning violations, Windows have been broken out of the front of the building. We think, actually we know, once the property is occupied on a permanent basis, number one, we have an approved landscape development plan. I think it'll be a nice improvement to the corner that you see here. Yeah, there are weeds out there right now. There's a board in one of the windows. It had been broken and replaced for, I believe it had actually been broken out three times just in the past two years. So hopefully with an occupied building there, that would be a deterrent for any vandalism. The parking consideration, again, we satisfy the parking requirements for repurposing the building from commercial to commercial I'll throw out another example as far as comparables in the area, the Ed Robinson arena, or the facility that CC recently constructed. THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS IN THE ADJACENT AREA BY HOMEOWNERS WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, THE USE OF THAT FACILITY IS GOING TO REALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT WITH ON STREET PARKING AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE HOME EVENTS AND WHAT THE CITY HAD AGREED TO DO ON BEHALF OF MANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA. was post several of the streets that were adjacent to the facility uh that there would be permit parking allowed only uh that kind of helped out the neighborhoods in that immediate area And I'm sure the owner would agree if parking is a concern, we're fine for making on street permit parking a requirement. And if we need two additional spaces on the street, which is what we're estimating might be We're all for that. We don't foresee this creating a parking crisis in the area. But again, and just summing this up, we're satisfied with staff's report. WE THINK THAT WE'VE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THAT THIS WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY HAVING IT OCCUPIED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS. IT WILL NOT BE A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING. IT IS GOING TO BE USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. I'll just back up here as far as the historical preservation aspect. There were a couple of inquiries regarding, well, what are you doing to preserve the historical aspect of this property? We're doing nothing. The building that you see on that corner is as it has remained for over 100 years. There have been no additions to the property. There have been no changes to the architectural integrity of it. The owner said, you know, we'll put a mural on the side of one of the walls. If you know, do not do that. The only thing that has changed is you see the photograph. It's a light gray stucco on the building. It used to be white. And I don't think that that is a historical change. A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FACILITY AS FAR AS THE INTERIOR GOES. It has been refurbished and it's ready for occupancy. So we have not really had an impact on the historical value of it with regard to that. I hope that addresses the commission's comments or questions. And again, any other questions you might have, we'd be glad to try and address.

Okay. Any? Again, stay close because we'll probably have some questions. Yeah. Okay. Hold on one second. Commissioner Cecil, go ahead.

Hi, this is Commissioner Cecil for the record. I'm not sure if this question should go towards staff or the applicant, but looking at the peculiarly noted number that Julie brought up, the 13.33, I assume is intended to get us to as close to exactly three units on site as possible. but when I do the math, it's still around 2.9 units, and so I wanted to ask if there was maybe a technical error or a typo before we talk about approving it. Perhaps it should be 13.66 to get us to real close to an even three, or if there was a different intention there.

I defer to Ethan on this.

Hello commissioners, Ethan Schaffer again, urban planner 2. Um, in terms of, I'll get to the actual equation, but I'm going to describe dwelling units per acre, the calculation itself, because I know there's some confusion around that. So, the dwelling units per acre calculation within the district, only 8 dwelling units are permitted as it stands without the development standards adjustment per acre. So, if you had an acre of land, you could have 8 dwelling units on it for that density calculation. And that is about an acre of land is 43,560 square feet. This lot is 9800 square feet. So, if you apply that strictly to, as it exists today, it wouldn't even permit 1, do you per acre for proposing a new project or wouldn't permit 1 dwelling unit on site? If we're proposing a new project under that technically.

I'm sorry. It's okay. Real quick. Just want to check the math. Okay. 9,800 divided by 4,000 or 43,560 gives me a 0.22 acres. Yes. Sorry. 0.22 acres times eight units gives me 1.76 units. It would be.

And other stuff, I don't have my calculator on me right now. So other stuff, thank you, Kevin. I do.

So you're dividing the wrong, you've got the numerator. Which way am I going? Yeah. You should say you've got 0.22 acres. Right. Three divided by 0.22.

Not three, we're talking about his assertion that eight per acre.

No, but there are only gonna be three.

Right, and we're gonna get to three, but he said that you could not build one unit on the current lot using the current development standard.

I'll let him defend that 1. sorry. Yeah, I believe I'm going to get into the map.

I just want to hear the whole explanation, I think. And then then let's come back if I'd like to just hear 8 and finish.

Yeah, thank you. Sorry. And I think it is included in my staff report and I'm sorry, I don't have that pulled up at the moment, but or on the development plan that would be reviewed administratively. Um, but. recognizing that we have 9,800 square feet on this site. To have three units, sorry, my brain is malfunctioning at the moment. The calculation that has been done brings it out to 13.33 dwelling units per acre required due to the size of this site being 9,800 square feet rather than 43,560. Kevin, do you have anything to add to that? I'm so sorry. My brain is not pulling in right now.

What's the math you're looking for? I got an Excel spreadsheet, so it's very powerful, but the operator is not. Totally.

I'm with you. What I think we're trying to get at here is what would be allowed if this was a new development? And if someone were to tear down these homes and build new, could they build 13 units on this corner lot? And no, they can't. And there are 3 existing units. We're not going to change the unit. So how are we backing into the math to say these 3 units are going to stay exactly as they are on this teeny tiny lot and we don't have to tear any of them down to meet the R4 zoning is the crux of the situation. So, I think the concern of maybe some neighbors, are we ever going to build 13.33 units?

No, no.

Are we ever going to build 8 units? No. Are we trying to allow the three units that are there by backing into the code that would not allow, if it was brand new, these three units? It would allow one or 1.2 or 1.7 or 1.ish. Correct. But we're not changing setbacks. We're not adding any additional use. Correct. I'm putting a lot of words in your mouth, but I'm trying to get to... And, Jen, I appreciate the question into the math, but to me, the math feels... Moot, because we're not changing anything, we're just saying, can we fit it into a zone that would that historically these properties have been there, but would not in the current. Zoning allow for there to be 3 units correct?

So exactly the transition from a commercial use to a residential is what's triggering that requirement. and so those structures already exist but because we're increasing technically the amount of dwelling units on site residential dwelling units that's where this equation for dwelling units per acre is coming into play and why they're seeking to vary that requirement right and we're not going to ask them to tear a unit down to meet the r4 zoning we're trying to adjust the r4 to the 13.3 because maybe your math is right and maybe your math is wrong but

Regardless, we're not changing any of the units up or down.

Correct.

Yeah. So Commissioner Cecil, and this has been Chair Hensler speaking for the record because I never state my own name. Sorry, Melissa, you tell us every single time. So Commissioner Cecil, back to your questions. Do you feel that you're satisfied with that or do you still have questions on the math mapping issue?

I want to make sure we get to the right math, technically, because it is actually stated in the motion. Sure. So whether it's 13.34 or it's 13 point something else, I just want to make sure we're exactly on point there. Sure. It's not a substantive, it's only substantive insofar as it's part of the motion, not substantive in that I oppose three units necessarily.

And, I mean, I understand that, say, 10, 20 years from now, this zoning says 13.33 acres. Somebody could come and tear these down and build something else because we've now allowed 13.33. But the math is still going to math out to what it is or what it isn't. But I can understand the technicality in the motion, perhaps. Right.

THREE UNITS ON 9800 SQUARE FEET IS 13.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO IF YOU WOULD TEAR ALL THOSE DOWN, WE'VE APPROVED THREE UNITS ON THIS SITE. THAT'S ALL THAT COULD BE BUILT THEN.

COMMISSIONER CECIL, DOES

And you're right, if we held it to the eight, it's like 1.7 units, which really means that there would be one unit allowed. If this were newly zoned R4, without this variance or this adjustment, there would only be one unit allowed.

Thank you, Director Walker. That is what I understood, and just because I'm not the most familiar with all of our rounding conventions, in order to get to the number of units per acre that we're looking for, it needs to be equal or greater than the number requested, or does it just need to round up to?

I think the rounding is fine. I can read you this 11 digits after the decimal point if you'd like.

Stingsies. What did you get?

I think we're rounding down to 13.33.

Because the decimals come out to 13.33469.

And usually the attorney makes me round it up to just one decimal point.

Okay. So that's just to finalize the mathiness. 13.33. 3.3 per acre times .22 acres gives us 2.93. That's good enough.

If you want to change it to 13.4, that would be acceptable. It wouldn't give you an additional unit, but it would get under your rounding error.

I just wanted to make sure we're, we're precise. Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Anytime I'm doing this at my desk, I also have to dive into a calculator very deep. So I super appreciate both of your help on that. Thank you. Um, am I okay to speak to some of the other points that have kind of come up?

Um. Yeah, Commissioner Willoughby has a question. Maybe we'll take questions and see if that, yeah.

Commissioner Willoughby, for the record, just a couple questions for you, Mr. Schaffer. Can you just confirm they are not changing the setbacks? Mr. Goodwin said that. I just want to hear it from you. We're leaving the setbacks alone. And then can you just quickly speak to the, this is in the historic district. What are the requirements around historic anything, if there are any?

Absolutely. Um, so 1st, speaking to setbacks, no structural expansion or anything are occurring and so the setbacks, it is purely a change of use for this structure. So no setbacks are changing as they exist today. Um, in terms of historic preservation work for the site, this property does not fall within the historic preservation overlay, which would require historic preservation review and compliance with that. Um, there are guiding documents for this, um, for this area. Um, the applicant is aware of and has utilized as part of the project. Um, I did want to share that also the shape and form of the structure have been kept while the applicant spoke to some minor facade updates done to update the structure itself and then into our work done, which is also not regulated by the historic preservation overlay unless it's usually a public structure. Um, and so again, I just want to say that it's not within the historic preservation overlay.

Perfect, and then one more question, but it requires math maybe. Can you just, my math is that the required parking, if this were to go commercial route, would be far greater than the commercial, or than the R4 required parking. So in terms of addressing a parking concern, R4 is requiring less parking than commercial would. And they are meeting the required parking per R4.

Correct. So if this were to go to, for instance, an office use, I believe that it's one space per 400 square foot calculation, which would definitely trigger more parking than a single family home does in this case or multifamily calculation.

Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.

Commissioner Egbert.

commissioner egbert ethan so looking at this historically it looks i know there's a lot of violations for the existing zone today but historically it looks like it was three dwelling units and a laundromat and now it will be just three dwelling units is that correct correct yes the development plan that we've received to review administratively it's reviewed separately from this um due to its timing um but it does indicate three dwelling units for the site Okay. Because it looks like the unit at 503 was a duplex because it's got a one and a two next to it. That's probably not being used for that. But okay. Just wanted confirmation that historically we're meeting, we're just removing the laundromat.

Absolutely. Okay.

Question, please.

Commissioner case for the record. So, Ethan, thanks for helping answer some of our questions with this being a residential use. I know some public comment has been in regard to short term rental. Are you able to speak to a little bit more of the different processes for applying for those, whether it's owner occupied or out of state owner as well?

Yes, so kind of 2 options of short term rental that are available. I'm not saying that they qualify for either technically. However, the 1st, 1 being owner occupied short term rental, meaning that an owner of the property occupies the property for half a year or more in order to have that permit type. Um, I do not believe that the owner occupies this is owned. Um, I believe by an LLC. Um, so they, I believe they all are rentals. I can let the applicant speak more to that. So I don't believe the property at this time would qualify for an owner occupied permit also for a non owner occupied, meaning the property owner does not occupy the site for half a year or more, um, requires that there cannot be another short term rental within 500 feet of the site. Last I looked, there were a number of them within the 500 foot buffer requirement. So I do not believe it would qualify for that short-term rental permit type. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions for either Ethan or for our applicant? Ryan, do you want to ask of the applicant about STRs, or are you satisfied?

I'm satisfied. I just want to understand the requirements, if the intent of the applicant is to use that, so be it. But I know they'll have to go through the application process through the city. So thank you. Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, Commissioner Cecil, you look like you're pondering. I did have, this is Commissioner Cecil, I did wonder if we had anyone from traffic engineering who was joined remotely that might be able to speak to the increase in traffic and whether that's posing any concerns as a result of the street disposal over at the high school.

Not that I, I do not believe they're present.

Okay. Is there any comment that you'd like to, or anyone on staff would like to make to address that concern? I wasn't quite sure, having not lived right next to it, what to surmise about it.

Um, only thing that I would share, and I welcome any other staff who would like to add anything to that is that the parking requirements are met for the site. Um, so that I understand that there could be impact from other nearby projects, such as the boulder street closure. Um, the site does meet. It's at least it's minimum parking requirement is met on site. So just share that. Thank you.

Okay. Comments on, I think we may be done with questions. Any comments from commissioners on this item before we move to a motion? Go ahead, Ryan.

Commissioner Case, for the record, I'll just kind of kick off synopsis of what I've heard. So I think this is a beautification of a site that's underutilized. So overall, I think I would be in support of this project moving forward. Thank you.

Commissioner Willoughby, I would just echo Commissioner Case's sentiments. In terms of the parking, I think it's the least bad parking scenario that you would end up on the site. I do think it's going to help the site instead of leaving it vacant, kind of revitalize that portion of the neighborhood. It sounds like the applicant is looking to keep that historic character. They're leaving the structures in place. So it seems to me like we're just catching the code up to meet these existing structures where they're at so i would be voting in favor of this

This is Commissioner Cecil for the record. I believe that the existing building's residential reuse maintains the scale and physical character intended by the R4 density standard. I also, in terms of it being an historic district, find that the reuse of the historic building, additional housing, site rehabilitation, and enhanced landscaping advance the goals of the UDC. even better than a strict application of the density limit would. And I think the absence of new construction together with the onsite parking sufficiently limits the impacts on adjoining properties. the landscaping tree preservation historic reuse and elimination of vacancy nuisances also constitute compensating benefits in my mind that uh correlate to the additional density so i will be supporting this thank you commissioner angle

Commissioner Engel, for the record, I agree with the previous Commissioner's observations, and I also was tripped up a little bit by 13.3 dwelling units per acre when I realized, duh, this is not an acre. It's something less than that, so that had to be prorated down.

2.9 is close enough for me.

I will also say when I thought about traffic and a commercial application, hard for me to conceive a commercial application would use more traffic than residential use would. So for that reason, I still think I agree with the commissioners. We're really going the right direction by allowing this to be a residential unit.

Commissioner Robbins here. I agree with components of a lot of these guys up here i appreciate the uh the fact that you really worked hard to to meet all the criteria and also the fact that you know that it's a lot better as a residential versus commercial then you really would have some some parking issues but uh something needs to be done with this and housing in the downtown area is a much needed component so i really appreciate what you guys have put together and look forward to seeing something happen

OK. um yeah i would concur i think that we've had some great discussion here today and i certainly appreciate the public coming and especially those that live in the neighborhood and expressing your concerns and i hope that you have heard more information today that helps you understand the application i think that these types of applications and when we get into numbers and it sounds like a big change to a small lot it's sometimes hard to understand the way that code is applied and 13.3 sounds really big but Thank you all for working through that description. And I think that this is going to be a great reuse on this corner and hopefully fewer weeds. So with that, it looks like we have a motion and a second. So, yes.

Yes, Nadine, thank you. If you look at it from, it was, you would have had 1.76 allowed, and now you're gonna have three allowed. It's less of a jump, right, from eight to 13, if that makes any sense. But yes, I did want to motion and warn the staff that for the purposes of my multiplication issues, I will be going with 13.34. Okay, just so you know that that's gonna be modified, but this is Commissioner Cecil and I motion to approve the development standards adjustment to city code section 7.2.206 and 7.4. allowing for the establishment of a residential density of 13.34 dwelling units per acre in the R4 multifamily low zone district where eight dwelling units per acre is allowed based upon the finding that the request complies with the criteria for a development standards adjustment set forth in city code section 7.5.525.

Commissioner, will it be second?

The motion passes unanimously. Wonderful. Thank you all for being here. Thank you so much for participating. Okay, before we move on to item five on our agenda for unfinished business, I do believe that we have Commissioner Gigiano online. Did I hear that? And Amanda, if you are online, are you listening in or are you wishing to participate? Because I think we would need to, that's why I didn't want to.

Excuse me, before you leave over there. Nadine, do you need to, this is Kevin Walker, planning director. Do you need to read the appeal instructions?

I was going to read them at the end after these next three items are all appealable.

Okay, but this one is.

Do you all want to hear the appeal instructions?

That's fine.

Okay, thanks, sir. I'm sorry, Commissioner Gigiano.

Sorry, I'm still not speaking very well. I've had laryngitis, but I was just going to listen in just for my information and to be informed if that's okay.

Trevor, do you have any comments?

Trevor Galasso, the city attorney's office, that's fine if she's not attending today. If she did wish to attend, she could be counted as present for the following matters. But if she requests to remain absent, that's fine as well.

Okay. So, Amanda, do you request to remain absent and just listen? Or do you want to participate?

I can participate for the rest, actually. That's fine.

Okay. So then we would show her as present for partial meeting, but abstaining from the items that we've already heard. Is that?

That's correct.

Okay. All right. Well, then, Amanda, you are on deck to listen in, and we'll just do a roll call for your vote.

Okay. Thank you. I didn't mean to be confusing.

No, that's okay. I'm glad that you're online and I hope you start to feel better soon.

I just want to make sure that we, that we, if you're there, we know you're there. And if you're not there, we know you're not there. So just some clarity.

Okay. All right. Well, with that, we're going to move to item five, unfinished business, La Kitchen parking variants. And Solange, if you could read that into the record.

Item 7 a n v a r dash 2 6 dash 0 0 0 5 unknown use variance to see the code section 7.4.1 0 0 3.8 to allow 1 off street parking space for a restaurant use outdoor seating where 7 off street parking spaces is the required center for the property located at 2001 West Colorado Avenue. Our presenter is William gray.

Good morning Planning Commission. Bill Gray, Senior Planner, City of Colorado Springs Planning Department. As Solange has indicated, this is item 7A. It is the La Kitchen parking variance. This variance is located at 2001 West Colorado Avenue, so we're at the intersection of 20th Street and Colorado Avenue. The zoning of this property is MXM. MXM Zone District exists along Colorado Avenue for about 24 blocks from Chestnut all the way to 26th Street. The size of this property is thirty six hundred square feet small. The future land use and the reason for this variance is conversion of the single family home that exists there now to a restaurant. And specifically again, the variance is for the parking standards. Just to give you a little context for the this neighborhood, it is mixed use. particularly along West Colorado Avenue, where we have a mixture of single-family residential and commercial uses and also religious institutions in this location. But if you move off of Colorado Avenue at least half a block, you get into on the south side of the street, R2. It's very similar on the north side of the street as well. So, to give the planning commission a little better context on this site, I've got some aerial imagery. So on the left hand side, you see. The small lot with the existing home, there is a detached garage in the back that provides access off of. 20th street the two images on the right show the existing single family home viewed from viewed from colorado avenue and the lower image shows the site from 20th street you can also show see on the aerial photo that on street on street parking is a permitted condition on both colorado avenue and 20th street more specifically this variance is to allow. 1 off street parking space when 7 spaces are required for a restaurant use again, the applicant's. Plan is to convert this home into a restaurant that restaurant conversion. will require a development plan. That development plan application has not been submitted at this time. As directed by staff, agreed with the applicant and the applicant's representative, they wanted an answer on the non-use variance before pursuing a development plan. The site plan on the right-hand side of the screen gives you the indication that they intend to convert the entire building to a restaurant use, and that's how the seven parking spaces were calculated. It's on the gross square footage of the entire building. Um, and it's also calculated because on this plan, they are showing outdoor seating, but that seating does not exceed the 200 square. Put requirement that would increase the parking requirements for this restaurant conversion, um, as it relates to, um, the. I'll back up 1 thing 1 thing I would note. that it is along with this conversion, the garage that sits on the alley with the driveway that faces 20th Street, that would be demolished, and the applicant would propose to put the one parking space, off-street parking space, off of the alley, and that parking space is intended to be an ADA accessible parking space. Um, and then in terms of the, the property, um, as, um, the planning commission is aware, a variance typically, um, requires that there is some exceptional or extraordinary condition. It's either unique to the property or it is, it is unique to the property and something that we don't see throughout, um, properties that are, um, zoned. Those unique characteristics are generally the size or the shape of the property. In this case, this is a small 3600 square foot lot, which does. And I think that is a physical condition that does limit. Which is a limiting factor on the use of this property, be it a residential use, or be it a commercial use. So this application was submitted on April 20th. It went through 1 review cycle where the applicant cleaned up their application. It was ready for. Uh, planning commission agenda on June 12th, just as a reminder, this was on your July agenda and was continued to today. Um, it was went through the standard public notice process. So we did notice notified at time of initial application and prior to the. Planning Commission hearing, we sent out 194 postcards both times. We did get two comments. Both of those opposed the application. They were mainly opposed as it relates to they weren't providing sufficient amount of off-street parking and they were concerned about the narrow width of 20th Street for accommodating additional on-street parking and also would it impede the flow of traffic. And then also more traffic in the alley. I think mainly the alley traffic was related to the potential a restaurant having deliveries. And would that block or kind of. preclude the is a good flow of the alley because as I had indicated, um, the properties on the South side of that alley are all primarily residential and they all do utilize the alley for access. Um, uh, as well, but on the West side of the alley in this block, most of the properties have converted to commercial and they're using the alley for, um, similar purposes, but 2 different use types. So, again, here on this slide is the criteria for approval. So variants the use proposed would need to meet use standards. It does have to have some extraordinary or exceptional physical condition. That condition of you should relate to. preventing reasonable use of the property and that the property does not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Based on staff's review of this application, considering the information provided by the applicant, public comment, and the requirements of code, we find that this variance could meet the criteria for approval. and with that uh staff has uh provide provide you with two motions for this application motion one would be an approval with a condition and motion two is the motion to deny if you find that the application does not meet the criteria and that concludes staff's presentation thank you so much mr gray thank you

Okay, I think we will bring our applicants up for presentation and you have 30 minutes to present.

Good morning. My name is Ben Guzman. This is Angela Wood. We are requesting an approval of a nonuse variance application.

Hold on one second.

Sure.

We've got the wrong presentation up on the screen.

Thank you.

Wait, hold on. Hold on one second, please.

Yeah, we don't, we are going to see.

You do not have a PowerPoint. Correct. All right, we will just turn off the screen, so give us one more, so we're not distracted by that.

It's a verbal presentation based on the attachment five. Okay, perfect. The agenda. In our own words. Perfect.

that works okay all right continue good morning good morning re-requesting approval of a non-use variance application to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces for a proposed cafe through the adaptive use of an existing historic home located within the mxm zone under ud section 7.4.1003 the cafe use requires seven parking spaces Due to the physical constraints of the property and our desire to preserve the historic character of the structure and site, we are requesting approval to provide one on-site parking space designated as an ADA accessible stall with the remaining parking demand accommodated through the adjacent on-street parking and multimodal transportation options.

all right this is the justification for the adjustment um first we have physical site constraints our property is a small historic residential lot limited in both its depth and width the existing one car garage will be removed to provide a single ada compliant parking stall and to house an enclosed trash and recycling area Any attempt to add additional onsite parking would require substantial paving over and limitations for landscaping that would compromise the historic character of the rest of the neighborhood. Next I have availability of on street parking. There's extensive parking along the properties, East and North sides, 20th and Colorado Avenue. where six parallel parking spaces can be accommodated. These spaces are directly adjacent to the property, visible from the cafe entrance. Next, we have multimodal transportation options. There's bicycle access. The property is located near established bike routes and bike trails, the Midland Trail, Pikes Peak Avenue, Cuchara Street. We will be incorporating a permanent bicycle rack with places for ten bicycles to encourage cycling to our business. We're both avid cyclists. TRANSIT ACCESS, THERE'S A BUS ROUTE THREE THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS WHICH FURTHER REDUCES THE PARKING DEMAND. THESE MULTIMODAL OPTIONS ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S GOALS FOR REDUCED VEHICLE DEPENDENCY AND SUPPORT THE INTENT OF THE MXM ZONE. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS ONE.

We'd just like to acknowledge that the Colorado Avenue Improvement Project, currently in the restriping phase of West Colorado, the city's avenue, the Colorado Avenue Improvement Project plans to elevate Colorado Avenue into safer, more accessible, and even more vibrant destination while keeping its historic character. The city also hopes to preserve and expand on street parking where feasible. and also hopes this project will expand outdoor dining and retail opportunities we believe the kitchen kind of fits together with this design in this neighborhood uh very very very neatly okay

So there's some compensating benefits we wanted to bring up preservation of historic character. So this 1901 building is has been in my family for decades. So we have a sentimental interest in the preservation of its character. It most recently has been known as my stepfather Sam Hall's recording studio, Play It Again Sam. Sam composed music in the studio and did some audio recording and mixing for many local TV commercials. SAM WAS A BIG FAN OF OLD COLORADO CITY AND LOVED WALKING TO NEARBY RESTAURANTS WHERE HE WOULD MEET MY MOTHER FOR LUNCH. THE BACKYARD HAS A SMALL CHERRY TREE IN IT THAT HE PLANTED AND THERE'S ALSO A WELL UNUSUALLY LIKE A WATER WELL THAT WAS MADE OUT OF RIVER ROCK THAT HE THOUGHT WAS A DECORATION FOR YEARS AND INVESTIGATED IT AND TURNED OUT IT'S AN ACTUAL WELL. So as you can see, if we were to, providing the full number of on-site parking spaces would require paving over all of that, which would drastically change the look of the property into a more commercial and auto-oriented site. Requesting this adjustment allows the structure to retain its historic charm and is a key community benefit.

We'll be engaging a landscape plan that includes city required trees along the western property line, which would separate our property from the parking lot of the triplex to the west. Street facing trees along Colorado will enhance the pedestrian environment and help to maintain the corridor's established character. and also just keeping open space in this neighborhood as we saw in the overview uh across the street is a giant parking lot for a church which is rarely used except on church days so we're gonna uh kind of provide uh where is it here oh there it is um less impervious surfaces, reduced heat island effects and avoids the industrial appearance that large paved areas would introduce. This supports the city's sustainability goals and maintains the residential scale and feel of the property.

Okay, so now we're at the conclusion, the, the combination of the physical site constraints, preserving the historic character of the building and the neighborhood and the extensive amount of on street parking as well as many alternative transportation modes. And the compensation benefits we've spoken of with the enhanced landscaping demonstrates that this request meets the criteria of the approval of this request will allow the adaptive reuse of a historic home into a neighborhood serving cafe while preserving the character and livability of the surrounding area. So, with that, that's our presentation and we'd love to take any questions.

Awesome. Thank you so much. We will first see if there's any public comment, but don't go too far. So Melissa or Solange, do we have anyone signed up to speak on this item in favor or against? And can you check online?

We do not have anybody sign up in the audience. If there's anybody online that would like to speak about this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves.

I would like to speak.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes to speak.

My name is Robert Bronte. I am the property owner just to the east of the site. I think that this is a very detrimental project to the neighborhood specifically for just because of the parking situation. The applicants are just providing one parking space. And that is a handicap only, so that will never be able to be used by the employees. I suspect there'll be several waiters, busboys, a manager, cooks. And at the minimum, they will be taking up five parking spots right on the street. I don't believe that we have an abundance of parking there. And then secondly, the patrons who come there, they don't all come together. So if they have like 30-some spots or seats there, that is another 10 to 15 cars that are going to be using street only. And so I feel like if you approve this project, it's going to take up all the parking on 20th Street. And I have a further fear that I have a parking lot directly across the street on 20th Street And I feel like I'm going to be put into the position of being policing my parking lot because typically people use vacant parking lots on evenings and weekends. But in this case, my tenants do work on evenings and weekends. And I fear that they're going to have to come in there and have the whole lot be full, puts me in a bad position. And so with regards to having alternative types of arriving there, I think bicycles and buses sound nice. but I feel like people who are having lunch and they're not riding bikes to lunch, businessmen aren't, people, older people having lunches, I feel like it's just not a good fit for the neighborhood because they don't have the parking. And one of the things that they mentioned is that they are providing one parking spot But that's a handicap one, and I don't feel like that's going to be used by the employees. It might be used by one patron, but everyone else has to be on the street. It just doesn't work for the neighborhood. It's taking up all the parking in the neighborhood. So even though I'm big supporters of Ben and Andrew, I like them very much. They've been very kind to me, and we've had some nice conversations. I can't support their project because it basically ruins the whole neighborhood. So thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Robert, would you please spell your last name for the record?

Yes, of course. My last name is Bronte, B-R-O-N-T-E. I own 1923 West Colorado Avenue, which is on the same side of Colorado, but directly facing this new project.

Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else online signed up to speak for this item?

Okay. Okay.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to you for rebuttal if you'd like to make any additional comments or address anything that we heard from Mr. Bronte.

Yes. We are aware of the parking concerns we've been in conversations with sacred heart across the street to lease spaces. They're ready to write a memorandum of understanding once we can. If we need to move forward and how much a month and how much a year and all that kind of stuff that would be for employees and staff directly across the street. Mr. Bronte's tenants, which is a therapy business of sorts, and the past business was a therapy business of sorts, are in front of our building, their clients and staff park. This weekend I was there, someone was getting a tattoo on 21st. They were parking in front of our building at 20th. It's a commercial district, is our feeling. It's a commercial district. The city wants to make it a commercial district, very viable. We are really gonna push the pedestrian, bicycle, neighborhood small cafe. The calculation of seven spots comes off of the entire square footage of the building. We only have 22 seats. We're a coffee shop, in and out, in and out. Not a full dining, we're not open in the evening. We wanna be walking out the door at four o'clock. We're there in the morning till lunch, clean up, prep, etc. We don't expect to have a giant staff, it's a counter service cafe. I think that sort of addresses the points that Mr. Bronte brought up.

Um, okay. No one signed up. Uh, this is chair Hensler. I just have a couple of questions because some of the questions that I wrote down were capacity, uh, which you just said 22 seats and kind of hours or morning to mid afternoon. It sounds like, and what about staff, um, number of staff that you anticipate, um,

Angela and I would be the primary staff, and then we're going to have two to three other people.

Okay. So maybe five or six folks that are, but probably not all there at the same time.

Not all there at the same time.

Okay. And then you are working on parking either. And I would assume if you don't get the church, let me ask that as a question. If you don't get your memorandum of agreement with the church, what would you anticipate as staff parking?

At this point, we don't have an alternative solution to that. Okay.

But would you encourage them to park in front of the building or maybe a couple blocks away so that you could keep those spots open? Have you thought about that type of situation? I mean, I'm sure you would want to get people.

it would be street parking we'd we'd encourage our employees to park obviously not right in front of the bill the building but further away um in a less dense area uh but also there was a neighbor we spoke to as well that was here carla um she lives on cacharas and we talked about How we would put a sign in our alley that says, you know, restaurant parking only or, you know, signage within the building itself saying, you know, don't be a jerk. Park somewhere legal. Yeah. Okay.

And as far as the concerns about – because I was looking right at the maps, and there is a very nice parking lot, which I assume is Mr. Bronte's, right across the alley. Correct. That folks would – so have you addressed that concern or trying to keep – or maybe assisting with signage to say no restaurant parking or something?

Yeah, that – We spoke with Carla, our neighbor who lives on Cuchars, and she was concerned about that as well, that can we put signs on other people's properties saying don't park here? And I kind of don't believe I or we can put signage on other people's property. So if Mr. Bronte wanted to put a sign saying no restaurant parking only for this business, that is his purview.

Perfectly understood, thank you. Yeah. Okay. Those are my questions since we're asking questions, but it looks like we have some others up here too.

Thank you. Do you have any concerns about the 20% only for outdoor space with the planned Colorado improvements where they want to repurpose the pavement, they want storefronts closer? It's a question for staff here too. That we would only have 20%? Yeah.

It's a very small lot. So we can't imagine being like, we want more. There just isn't physically more space.

There's a lot of right away in front of you to closer to the street that could be out.

There is our front yard, but we aren't, we haven't engaged the idea of like extending into the parkway or anything like that. Okay. We see that happening. with the restriping in Old Colorado City proper, but I don't think those plans are coming that far east at this point. But I would say the website for the Colorado Improvement Project, like at 16th Street, that's one of the images they're using there with people walking, biking, on street parking, businesses, all the things I listed that are actually the city listed, And we're even closer to the commercial district, to the traditional commercial district.

This is Chair Hensler again. I have a question that might be for Bill, but it might be for you all. If the garage is, well, first of all, is there any historical context to the property? I'm guessing that there's not. It's old, but not historical. Yeah. And so with the garage being existing and your plan to tear that down, um, If this property reverted to residential again in the future or some other use, since one wanted to add another accessory dwelling in the back, like another garage, are the setbacks appropriate or is tearing down this garage, then one can never add a garage again. And that may not be our concern or purview, but I'm just curious if you're constraining the property in ways by removing the garage that may be detrimental in the future.

I would leave that to staff.

Yeah. Because in order to meet your parking count, your required ADA at least, and then the variance, you have to remove the garage. And then if there's any need for a garage in the future or what have you, is it constrained on the property with setbacks or so forth?

Bill Gray, city planner, for the record. So I want to just say simply, I don't think so. It is a small lot. I think that factor alone makes it challenging to meet setbacks a lot of times. But if this was converted back to a residential home, they wanted to build a new detached garage, most likely this property could meet those setback requirements. Or if not, they may have to apply for another variance. But I don't think that what is happening now is detrimental to any future use of the property, be it commercial or whether or not it would get converted back to a residential use.

okay cool and that was just more out of curiosity because then we see things all the time that we people are coming in front of us to ask for something that had maybe previously been there with setbacks and so forth so i mean overall i'm in favor and i love a new coffee shop and um so i think that you guys are doing a great thing and i'm glad to see you back so hopefully all is well and it's nice to see you here so any other comments or questions ryan i'm sorry

Commissioner case bill, if you don't mind, uh, just out of curiosity to kind of piggyback on Nadine's, uh, MXM is unique zoning where there's a lot of flexibility. And so having the residential being converted to a commercial use. Um, I personally would just love to understand a little bit more from the development plan review status of. How you look at signage, the commercial traffic, even noise and hours of use. I know a lot of times with commercial use, if you're having just go drastic, a bar that's open until 2 in the morning, that's going to be a problem. For residential use. Right? So just if you mind kind of just describing a little bit more about that kind of next step in the development plan for public record.

Yeah, yes. Bill gray city planner for the public record. So, as asked this application to convert from a residence to a commercial use, a restaurant is going to have to go through a development plan process. So we would evaluate this process based on all of the city's standards. It would be applicable to this conversion, which mean that the property. For one, landscaping would then have to meet landscaping code requirements. So primarily in this location, I believe we would be looking at the street frontage requirements. We do have some buffering between commercial and residential uses, most likely. There may have to be alternative compliance requirements in this part of the city, because we are talking about small blocks, small lots, a mix of use. So meeting like, for example, a 15 foot buffer from a commercial use to a residential use in this area with existing buildings and existing lot sizes is going to be different. So there may have to be other considerations as to how they comply with that buffering code. As it relates to other items for the development plan. Yeah, I think a couple of things we would look at would be lighting odor noise. Because a restaurant comes with a commercial kitchen, so I think those things would be evaluated as to how those impacts would need to be mitigated if they're extending off of the, the property. Um, we probably don't touch a lot on hours of of operation. Um. But I believe in the MXM, if anyone has their code book open, I think a bar is a conditional use.

It's permitted. Thanks.

It is. Yeah.

So, um, this is obviously something we're going to be seeing a lot and have seen a lot.

So it is the MX. Yeah, and is where a bar is a conditional use, but still, we could evaluate the impacts of that and if necessary, may impose conditions or alternative designs. So that those impacts are mitigated. But. I think 1 thing you have to recognize is if you have a mixed use zone district, and you're going to allow for a broad activity of residential and commercial uses that those are going to be things that we are confronted with constantly. But. I don't know if all of you drive up and down. Colorado Avenue, but at least in this particular area where we still have. predominantly they were homes that have been converted i think for the most size because of the size the size of those homes and and that they can't con the impact can't be to me very significant because it's a small smaller space it's not like we're where it's not like it's mother muffs where we've taken an old commercial building or something like that and it's a constant use. I think these uses tend to have a little lesser impact and they allow the buildings to kind of maintain that same scale and impact of what exists there today. That's not to say somebody couldn't propose something much larger. And then, yeah, the mitigating factors become, yeah, much different in those kinds of cases. But in this one, I think it's fairly minor. Sure.

And one thing that comes to mind for me, at least, is signage, right? A lot of people aren't going to put, like, Commissioner Case on the front of the thing all lit up, you know. People need to find your business, right? So do you mind speaking to a little bit of the signage side of things and whether it's going to get illuminated?

Sure, I'm not an expert on the sign code, but I will say that any future signage on the property would have to go through the sign permitting the sign permit application process and meet the code requirements. So.

Thanks for that. I just 1 for public record just so everyone's aware of that, because we're going to be seeing a lot more of these projects. So.

And I would say there's 1 other item just. Since parking is always an issue, parking will be evaluated at the time of development plan. They just may have a variance that goes along with that. But the code does provide for credits for bike routes for transit facilities. for shared parking. So as indicated by the applicant, they are in discussions with other property owners. So those are all other means for either reducing or allowing reduction to the parking standard or meeting that standard through agreements with other property owners.

Thank you.

Good. Commissioner Egbert, Bill, I just wanted to make sure, sorry to make you sit down so fast. It's your steps in today. I just want to make sure that when we do this development plan, we don't miss the opportunity to implement some of the vision on the Colorado corridor, you know, with a bump out, you know, shorter pedestrian crossings across Colorado. Those are all things that are the goal of the public works project. So we just need to make sure we maximize that. for this project, and I'm just concerned that that 20% outdoor space, obviously they can come back for another variance, or I guess they can apply for a permit to use the right-of-way for a different use, but we just want to make sure that that all gets vetted and looked at so it has an opportunity to do something really special here.

Yes, so we will make sure that traffic engineering engineering will be a review department on the future application. So. I can make a note to make sure that they look at it and evaluate it with. Yeah, that what we do.

doesn't impede on our future vision visions and use of the colorado avenue corridor and the new streetscape so thank you well and i would say to that fact i mean a lot of that's kind of outside of our purview and especially outside of the purview of this application we were really just looking at the parking variance um but probably a good point for our candidate our candidates our applicants to consider in their planning but maybe not anything that we can have purview over from this body uh commissioner cecil

Just a quick clarification to Commissioner Case's question. This is Commissioner Cecil. Regarding the bar use, while it is permitted in the district, it looks like this property line to property line would be within the 500-foot buffer that would prevent a bar that close to West Middle School, but the alcohol in conjunction with the restaurant use could be allowable if applied for and all that jazz. I just didn't want to be misleading.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Robbins.

Yes, I just wanted, Commissioner Robbins here. I just want to tag on in regards to the outdoor living space of 20% to 7.4.1003. Is that greater than the 20% or is that, the outdoor space, is it greater than 20% or less?

So on there, this is outdoor seating. Right. Right. So the code allows for a restaurant to have up to 20% outdoor seating and not apply an additional parking standard. But if that space exceeds that, then they are required to provide additional parking at one space per 350, I believe. So the reason for this condition was to kind of ensure that this use kind of maintained that small neighborhood scale. So it was a small restaurant with a small outdoor.

It's 20% or less.

Yeah, so 20% or less, no additional parking standard would be applied. And because much of the public comment that we had received or kind of perceived that we would have would be based on parking in the public realm, that we thought that Because this was a small cafe and that the applicants had indicated they're just going to have a small outdoor seating area, that we would apply that as a condition. So we didn't have to have an increase to the number of off-street parking requirements or required parking that this use would have to have. So we kind of tried to put a little cap on it. A little lid on it. So hopefully that would help maintain kind of that small neighborhood cafe use.

You will always have issues in regards to parking, no matter where on Colorado Avenue. Another kind of off-the-wall question, I guess, for the owners is, I'm just concerned, I'd that you would come back. I don't want someone coming back in two or three years saying, you know, I quit. I'm not going to do the coffee shop anymore. Now I just want to change things and turn it back into a rental or whatever. And so that's something that I just have a concern about.

Well, we're not approving the use of the property. We're just approving whether or not the parking variance.

In regards to future longevity because, you know, I think down the road about what's going to happen because they're not going to be there 50 years from now. No, we got a better shot at it around the garage.

But again, I'm saying we, we can't approve what the building is because the allows a lot of things.

But so is is your concern on I'm just concerned that I wouldn't want to actually just keep coming back in another 23 years and try to change things up again. That's all. You see what I mean?

Well, right. But we're only approving a parking variance because of the commercial use. So if it turned back to residential, then there, there would not be a parking concern. They would have a garage or they'd have a parking spot or what have you.

Right again, I'm just voicing my train of thought and sure for down the road.

Sure. Sure.

And that is part of our train of thought is, uh. Our financial plans is actually, it could be a cafe for many, many years in the future without us running it. Lots of people have these dreams and the neighborhood is going to keep transitioning to this vision of the city. And this would be an asset to anyone. For us, we would be property owners and renting that to someone. That's fine. I wanted to hear. Thanks.

Okay. Do we have other questions or comments? Okay. I feel like we've covered a lot of bases. Any comments or does someone want to make a motion?

Commissioner Angle, I... Oh, I'm so sorry. Comments about why we would support or... Sure.

Yeah, if you have any comments.

I do have some comments before we motion, I think.

Yeah, okay. Can we let Commissioner Angle go? Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Rangel, for the record, I am very anxious about the absence of parking on the site. I find that a difficult thing to accommodate given the the probable use of the area and how many people may come to try and get to it. And parking, I don't think traffic will be an issue, but parking I think is an issue. And I appreciate the personal aspiration not to destroy the back part of the property that has meaning to you, but that may really be an impediment to your ability to provide parking on site, which would greatly reduce the Risk of having to use off-site parking so I am I'm hesitant to go ahead with this given that that set of circumstances and

Thank you. This is Commissioner Cecil for the record. I am assuming that the statements from the staff report are going to be lived up to by the applicants about being able to comply with all the applicable use-specific standards. But in regards to the criteria for this non-use variance, I'm looking at the exceptional physical conditions, and I want to explain how I have reasoned that these are exceptional conditions. I find that the 3,600 square foot lot size with the corner configuration, two street frontages, a historic 1890s building, and constrained alley access actually do further constitute exceptional physical conditions that don't generally occur together on nearby MXM properties. I also feel that the physical constraints prevent the property from accommodating the parking necessary for reasonable adaptive commercial use consistent with its MXM zoning. So without demolishing the historic structure or eliminating required access, landscaping or buffering, I don't believe there's a reasonable use within the MXM context. I don't believe that the variance is expected to adversely impact surrounding properties more than any other use as the site is served by adjacent on-street parking, transit, bicycle routes, and pedestrian access. And it will be featuring the on-site accessible space. So as long as the outdoor seating remains below the threshold for additional parking and traffic staff have identified no concerns, I'm inclined to move toward approval.

Anybody else? I mean, I would just concur with Commissioner, this is Chair Hensler, I would concur with Commissioner Cecil's commentary, and I do think there's exceptional characteristics, and I think this neighborhood is certainly one that warrants additional consideration for these types of businesses, and I think is chock full of businesses of a very similar size, and we're all used to parking on the street in old Colorado City when we come and shop and dine. I would agree with the exceptional conditions and the plan that you have. So looks like we have a motion and maybe a second.

Yeah, Commissioner Willoughby, I'd like to motion to approve. I'm waiting to read what you're gonna put up here, but I'm happy to read what's on my paper. Thank you. Motion to approve item 7A, NBAR 26-0005, a non-use variance to city code section 7.4.1003.A to allow one off-street parking space for a restaurant use with outdoor seating where seven off-street parking spaces is the required standard. Dad, dad, dad.

Commissioner Clements, I second it.

Wait, sorry, I think there's a conditional, like it's not all showing up on here, but I'm not finished reading yet, sorry. Yeah, sorry, what's on the screen is different than what's on this paper.

Do you want me to use your tablet? If you use your tablet, you can see that outdoor condition. Should I just start over? Sure, let's just start that over. Okay.

All right. Motion to approve item 7A, NVAR 26-005A, a non-use variance to city code section 7.4.1003.A, allowing one off-street parking space for a restaurant use with outdoor seating for the property located at 2001 West Colorado Avenue, based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a non-use variance as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.526 with the following conditions. 1. The outdoor seating area for the restaurant use shall not exceed 20% of the size of the indoor seating area.

Commissioner Clemmons, I second.

And if you all could vote on your tablets, and then can we seek a vote from Commissioner Gigiano?

Commissioner Gigiano, how do you vote? I vote aye.

The motion passes with eight members in favor and commissioner Angola post.

Okay. Um, thank you so much for being here and for your comments and for Mr Bronte online. Um, I will read the appeal instructions at the end of the hearing. Um, but at this moment, I think we're going to take a brief, uh, 10, 15 minute break, um, and then come back and hear our final item, which would be Woodman Valley Chapel coffee shop. Turn my mic. Call us back to order. Thank you all for staying with us this morning. Not that you probably have a choice, I guess. So next item on our agenda, new business, item eight. Solange, if you could read our next item into the record, please.

Item 8A, UVAR-26-0004, a use variance to allow the establishment of a restaurant use coffee shop within the R5 zone district consisting of 0.91 acres located at 16 East Avenue. Our presenter is Ethan Schaffer.

Again, and more coffee. And somehow we didn't get any coffee from all these coffee shops. Just kidding.

Oh my goodness.

hi commissioners ethan shaffer again that he pronounced urban planner too um already off to a better start as there's not much um fun math in this presentation so i'm glad to be here today with you um i'm here to talk to you today about the woodman valley chapel's use variance application located at 16 east platte avenue on the northeast corner of east platte avenue and north cascade avenue The site is currently zoned R5, multifamily high, is 0.91 acres in size. It currently operates as a religious institution, and they are proposing to add a restaurant or coffee shop as a second primary use or principal use on site. The proposal is to allow for a coffee shop as a second principal use within an existing religious institution in the R5 zone district. And they are proposing to do this via a use variance application. So, on the screen, you'll see kind of a red outlined area. That is the portion of the religious institution that's proposed to be changed on the 1st floor to the coffee shop use. The coffee shop's footprint is about 1600 square feet in size on the Northwest ground floor. Um, some minor exterior changes will be proposed via a development plan process that would be done administratively outside of this process to include a new storefront ramp, small Patty and small patio along North cascade Avenue. The coffee shop would serve both the public and the church community. Um, and this is part of reflecting of the women Valley chapels, um, model at all of their other campuses within the city as well. And the reason why this is considered a 2nd, principal use traditionally a coffee shop within a church that is just church facing and church serving would be considered an accessory use to the religious institution. In this case, they are proposing to have this serving the community at broad and a storefront included with that. Um, this is also located within the R5 residential district, multifamily, high residential district. So a commercial use is not a permitted use within the zone district. Our religious institution is so that is why they are pursuing this use variance to allow that to occur. You'll see on this site plan show on the screen as well. There is a parking area just to the north of the religious institution. Um. There's a section of code that's outlined in my staff report as well that indicates that if there is no more than a 15% change occurring within the use or the building in this case, then additional parking requirements are not required for the new proposal. And something to know as well, thinking about kind of high use days of the religious institution and proposed coffee shop Sundays being kind of the biggest part of that. They also do have a shared parking agreement with Young Life on Sundays and for special event capacity as well. And I do believe that that was included in the application materials to you. Um, some additional information for you, so, as we were doing kind of the map update and looking at the form based zone in comparison to this area, that would be considered a residential zone staff decided not to rezone this parcel into the form based zone due to its proximity to it with the intent to preserve kind of historic church building and maintain the institutional character in essence, not allowing it to become form based, which will allow. virtually any commercial use to occur on site. We wanted to preserve that religious institution. And so that was not part of the rezoning and UDC map update process. And the reason why we're proposing the use variance versus a rezoning of the site to allow these to occur is a use variance is narrowly tailored and would allow one additional use without expanding the broader entitlement. If if the applicants were to propose a rezoning on this site, whatever zone district they proposed for rezoning, it would include all the other uses commercial uses that were allowed in that district. And or would require that we put quite a few conditions to restrict uses on that site, which just implementation and process wise would not make much sense rather than being kind of narrow and specific about the coffee shop use here. Also, the context, the surrounding context in relation to the coffee shop proposal, as you'll see on this zoning map on the screen to your East and to your South, you have 2 different zones within the form based zone that broadly allow commercial and residential activity to occur. You also see to the West here minus the park separating them. You'll see a little bit of our 5 as well into the North, but also an office residential combo as well. That's allowing residential and office uses and similar uses of scale to occur. And all of these zone districts are also more permissive than the R5 is and the R5 if this use variance were to be granted. Staff believes that this proposal is low impact. It is community serving and focused, and we believe it is also context appropriate in this situation. This application was initially received on May 5th, 2026. It's gone through 2 review cycles and items ready for agenda on July 20th, 2026. The application was publicly noticed for the internal review process when we received the application as well as prior to this planning commission hearing today. Notification went out 1000 feet to property owners within 1000 feet of this site. 189 postcards were sent for each public notice occurrence and no public comment was received. As far as agency review goes, we also got very little comment from agencies due to concerns for this proposed use. The only comment that we wanted to highlight is that site landscaping and parking lot screening on the existing site will be reviewed at the time of the administrative development plan review. Staff also finds that this proposal does comply with the context of plans within the context of plan, particularly its proximity and. And want to revitalize and have a commercial pedestrian residential mix of the downtown area. The criteria for people are up on the screen as well. I'll read through those 2. the 1st criteria being that they're exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone. So the denial of the use France would result in undue property loss and not solely a mere inconvenience or financial disadvantage. The size scale, height, density, multimodal traffic impacts and other impacts of the use are compatible with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and any potential adverse impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. I did speak to this in this presentation prior in regards to parking and expected kind of traffic volumes and applicant can also speak to that as well in relation to other uses occurring around the site. That the use variance is necessary for the preservation enjoyment of a property, right? And if not approved, the property structure cannot yield any beneficial use. I'll have the applicants speak to this a little bit more, but in relation to the ministry model of Woodman Valley Chapel across the city, these coffee shops and opportunity for the public and patrons of the church existing, the ability to work together and come together is crucial to their model. And so I'll have them speak to that with you as well. The use France will not be detrimental to the public welfare convenience, nor interest to the property or improvements of other property owners of property staff does not believe that this will have a detrimental impact. We have 1. we have not received any public input on this either any concerns in relation to that. Also, as I've spoken to this area is highly mixed use and so adding a neighborhood serving coffee shop to that staff does not believe will be detrimental to or interest to other property owners within the area. And also in relation to parking, as I've spoken to, um, operating hours, if there's a time that we're expecting higher operation to occur, particularly Sundays or any special events, they do have an agreement with young life in order to accommodate extra parking needs. The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions in this case. Um, the applicant did not go through any reasoning or anything in the recent past to make this, um, an issue of theirs. It is an existing condition on site when they did purchase the property. That because of these conditions, the application of the UDC prohibition on the requested use on the subject property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. I also have the applicant speak to that in relation to their model of ministry. And that the use variance is not being requested primarily to avoid the time or expense of complying with the UDC standards generally applicable to similar properties and development. The applicant has worked with staff consistently to determine what the best avenue forward is and staff did say the use variance that we believe is the best path forward rather than going through a rezoning. So we do not believe that they're trying to circumvent any other process in order to have this occur. And after evaluation by staff of the use variance application meets the review criteria. and there are optional motions up on the screen in relation to recommendation of approval or recommendation of denial this application process does have to go to city council so city planning commission would be recommending an action to be taken by city council do you have any questions for me okay not at this time we'll hear from the applicant and public comment and come back to you don't go far ethan absolutely okay

Good morning, Chair and Commission. I'm Mike Malin, CFO for Woodman Valley Chapel, a multi-site church here in El Paso County. With me is Jonathan Whitaker, YOW Architects, and Grace Harrison, principal and operator of Hold Fast Copy Co. We thank you for your time and consideration of our request this morning of seeking an approval of a use variance to allow a coffee shop at our downtown campus. We believe that this is a narrow request intended to add a community facing use with an existing historical church campus. As Ethan mentioned, thank you for a lot of the details surrounding the campus. The proposal is for a 1600 square foot coffee shop on the first floor of the existing church building. This project includes a small interior remodel and a dedicated storefront entrance from Cascade Avenue. The coffee shop would serve church attendees as well as the broader downtown community. As determined by city planning staff, we believe that the nature best use is an accessory for church use and so thus the use variance. And the application is limited to that specific use. It's not a request for rezoning or for that desire to have future redevelopment authority. As mentioned, this is part of the R5 multifamily high zone district. Religious institutions are allowed, but coffee shop is classified as a restaurant or not permitted in or as a principal use. Our church campus is located in a very unique transition area between downtown and residential zoning to the west and the north of the property. And the surrounding area as shown is predominantly commercial, mixed use, institutional, and very downtown in character. And so rather than pursuing that rezoning and a broader range of future uses, we were just really seeking a unique tailored approach and approval for this defined coffee shop use. Woodman Valley Chapel. We purchased this property in 2024 and went into an immediate three-month renovation of certain areas of the church building to accommodate our children's ministry and moving our congregation from Vanguard High School to the downtown campus. The historical church property has served the community for generations, beginning with First Christian Church upon their completion of building in 1935. First Christian Church also then purchased the Alden Manor apartments just north of the building in the late 50s, and then connected the two buildings in 1969 with the gymnasium and some underground classrooms. And so our goal as Woodland Valley Chapel is to provide a welcoming place for not only our congregation, neighboring residents, students, downtown employees, but also visitors of downtown Colorado Springs. As mentioned, Ethan said that coffee shops are an established part of Woodman's hospitality and connection model. Each of our Colorado Springs and our Monument Campus incorporates one. At Woodman Valley Chapel, our mission is to love well, change lives through Christ. And four key values that a coffee shop supports is our gather, connect, grow, and contribute. And specifically that gather and connect function of our core values. We want to see, again as Ethan said, our congregation and the public integrating together in a space that is inviting and able to foster a unique depth in connecting in relationship. And so we see it as an accessible place for conversation, relationship building, and the community connection throughout the week, not only on the weekends. As mentioned, the location of the coffee shop would occupy the first floor of the old Alden Manor apartments. Its dedicated entrance would face the Cascade Avenue to the west, creating a more active and welcoming atmosphere. street frontage. The project includes ADA accessible entry path, a new exterior door and a small patio area. These improvements are very modest and are designed specifically to provide safe, accessible access and a clear identity for the coffee shop. This proposal makes productive use of an existing part of our campus while contributing a walkable and neighborhood serving amenity. So with that, I would like to turn it over to our architect, Jonathan Whitaker, to discuss more about our design, access, parking, and other technical elements of the project.

Again, my name is Jonathan Whitaker with YOW Architects. Ethan presented most of the technical criteria, so we're going to keep this pretty short in terms of the technical HE HIT ON THE REAL REASON. WE TALKED TO STAFF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT AS TO WHETHER THIS COULD BE SEEN AS AN ACCESSORY USE. AND LONG CONVERSATIONS WENT ON AND THEY DECIDED BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC FACING ENTRY WE REALLY NEEDED TO REZONE OR GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION AND THE DECISION WAS TO DO A CONDITIONAL APPLICATION SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FULL ZONE CHANGE AND KEEP IT AS A VERY specific application for the coffee shop use. I think this map shows in context the building at 16 East Platte, which is R5. Most of the properties along Tejon, Platte, and even some of the properties along Cascade are all commercial use and zoned. So we're kind of in a unique location here where it's an R5 zoning. And Ethan explained the reason that we were given why it was R5 was to preserve the historic nature of the church, which we agree with and wanted to maintain the R5 zoning. In terms of parking, Ethan also went over this in detail, but there's plenty of parking on site to support both the church use and the coffee shop use. There's eight meter parking spaces along Cascade, meter parking spaces along Platt, and then 27, I'm sorry, 31 spaces on site for parking. And then in addition to that, you can see to the upper left, the church rents the Young Life parking lot on Sundays. So we've fully accommodated parking. And that was all part of the plan when they purchased the property. So one thing we did want to hit on with parking is, as you know, Hold Fast Coffee is, it's not a quick serve type of coffee shop. This is a sit down coffee shop. And so people would park, get out and come in. And Grace Harrison owns and operates Hold Fast Coffee. And she's going to get up and kind of talk you through the operation of Hold Fast and how they're partnered with Woodman Valley Chapel.

good morning i'm grace harrison owner of holdfast coffee company and we started out as a cafe up off of actually north academy in montebello in the same shopping center like epic mountain gear colorado ski and golf back in 2013 and since have partnered with woodman and do their coffee shops and all of their other campuses and while those are public facing as well like people show up from the neighborhood they're just in different locations and don't have the access similar to what this downtown campus is, hence the use variance and wanting to make sure that it's very publicly available. We have a similar heart as to Woodman in that the spaces we create and the experience we create in our cafe and then at all the Woodman campuses is one that people can gather and around a great cup of coffee. So if you're downtown, you can come and see us, hopefully. And yeah really like neighborhood centric have such a mix of um people that come into our cafe up off of academy and then a little bit more of a narrow mix in each of the woodman campuses just because of location but are looking forward to being downtown and being able to mix woodman's community and the downtown community that we know and love so that's holds fast thank you

Thank you, Jonathan and Grace, and Commission to just share a little bit about our heart for integrating into the downtown community well. At our other campus locations, our coffee shops are labeled as 1979, 1979 as the year that the church was founded. um but what was unique about as we explored this opportunity for downtown was how do we do what downtown does really well and that is integrate together and so we felt like our partnership with hold fast as we enter into this downtown neighborhood is to bring somebody who's known and trusted in the community who provides an amazing cup of coffee in an amazing space and that shares a lot of our same values, that it would better serve the community and be that initial front door to the church coming in by having it be a Holdfast location versus our traditional 1979 coffee shop. And so just really want to reemphasize our connect and gather values as a church. We believe that as we rub shoulders with our neighbors and we get to have that opportunity to speak into their lives, get to know who they are, it gives us an opportunity to figure out how best to serve them and our local neighborhoods. And so this project adds a walkable amenity, activates the Cascade Avenue frontage, and creates an inviting place for connection among church attendees and the broader community. This requested use variance is limited to the specific coffee shop. and allows the commission to address the site's unique zoning circumstances without a broader change to the property zoning. And we believe this application meets the applicable use variance criteria and will be a positive addition to downtown Colorado Springs. And so for these reasons, Woodman Valley Chapel respectfully requests approval of the use variance. Thank you for your time and your consideration. And we're more than happy to address comments and questions after the public has an opportunity.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Okay, so with that, since you now know our agenda inside and out, we will go to public comment. Do we have anyone, not in the audience, do we have anyone online who's wishing to speak on this item, either for or against?

I just want to confirm I have Ms. Harrison here, but I believe, okay, thank you. So nobody in the audience, if there's anybody online that would like to speak in support or opposition of this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves. We do not have anybody online.

Okay. If there's anything else you want to add, since there's no rebuttal, but maybe we can just come to questions. Do commissioners have questions on this item? Commissioner Engle.

Commissioner Engle, this is a question that is not, in my mind, critical to the use request you've asked for the conditional use, which I think is totally logical. but you have classrooms above the coffee shop that I think you will have youth in, is that correct?

This is Mike Malin again from Woodman Valley Chapel. Above our coffee shop are gonna be classrooms. Our intent is to remodel those floors and add a quarter inch to half an inch gypcrete which helps to reduce any noise penetration down. This is a similar thing that we've done at our Woodman Heights campus. We have our students ministry that meets on the second floor, and then we have our young kids that meets on the first floor of that addition. And adding that jibcrete allows our students to rock that upstairs and praise and worship while not interrupting Bible studies or younger kids' activities on the floor below. So we want to utilize that same application of the gypcrete on that second floor to help with the noise going both directions.

So my question was more related to security. Will you constrain the access from the public coffee shop to going up to the classrooms where the students are?

Yes, it's part of our design. All access into the coffee shop from the exterior doors is only able to get into the coffee shop. There will be one door that separates the coffee shop from access into the church as a whole, and that will have a key fob access control system that only allows the authorized users to pass through that threshold. Thank you.

That answers your question.

Commissioner Cecil. You're up. Thank you. This is Commissioner Cecil. Do you have any math questions? No math this time. Oh, gosh. I could have used you earlier. I wanted to ask probably staff about the determination that this was not eligible for an accessory use due to accessory use requiring a non-public function, where that reasoning came from.

Ethan shaver again, urban planning, um, so this is also in speaking with Ryan, the downtown planning manager in general, looking at. Our accessory uses up here and what they serve traditionally and assessor use would be. More, especially in this context would be more serving to a specific population in this case, such as the church. Particularly what triggered the principal use is the major storefront. So looking at commercial versus interior kind of programming of another use, when you introduce that storefront, it's signed, it's clear as day that, for instance, in this case, Holdfast Coffee is present there. Um, that is determined to be much more of a principal standalone use. It can operate outside of the church's operations as well. So outside of the church having programming or anything going on, this coffee shop will also be operating. Um, and so it's kind of its own standalone use that's occurring on site, even though they do have a great relationship together to promote the ministry model of the church. So that's why we determined that it was a principal use versus an accessory one.

The Holdfast coffee is that, I don't understand the entire business relationship there, so this might also go back to the applicant and Holdfast, but how are profits dedicated? Is it a nonprofit that feeds the churches coffers, or how does that work?

Great question. So Grace Harrison, Holdfast Coffee Company. So this specific location, we will be a tenant. So Holdfast will pay rent to Woodman Valley Chapel, different than the other campuses where it really is more part of church programming. So we'll set our own hours. We'll set everything. So all income is Holdfast income.

Okay, that's helpful because, I mean, I agree largely with Ethan's explanation around the commercial appearance and implication and how that fits in with the downtown. But at the same time, and I may just be a little bit idealistic here, I think of churches or religious institutions as a place where the public is generally welcome and therefore welcome. public versus non-public access for an accessory use doesn't seem particularly relevant to me in this context and I'm just not sure that because there are some stringent criteria around the use variance that this is the path forward that I think is most endorseable for the property just because it is so adjacent for rezoning. Like right there next to the downtown form-based code and that institutionally, I don't know what'll happen on the line, but I hope you're there for a long time. The building's structure's gonna guide what it can be in the future as well if you decide to move on from this location. And I'm right now just indicating to my commissioners that I feel like the accessory use, the rezoning path might be a little bit,

uh more appropriate in my mind although i would like to open it up to mr schaefer to re-emphasize the parts that i should keep at the front of my brain thank you um ethan shafer again um so the definition for an accessory use is a use which is subordinate to and serves a principal building or use and is located on the same law as the principal building or you served so we're really looking at the term subordinate Um, and when we're looking at the term subordinate and serving a principal building or use, I would say it's more appropriate to look at serving a principal use in this case. They are serving this principal use. And outside of this, the original principal uses operation, they are also now serving their own interests and needs to the public. And so I would say it's subordination compared to some of the other models they've described that is also serving the public but is branded 1979, is very much a church operation. Even if it's being supplied and supported by Hold Fast Coffee, this standalone commercial operates in its own time and manner and own funds, pays lease to if the church were to leave. I assume that lease could still continue to operate with another property owner. It's no longer tied to that church. I would say we're looking at that subordinate and serving principal use section of that definition. So that's why staff determined that this was the appropriate path to take.

That's really helpful. I think the amount of emphasis in the applicant's presentation around the ministry that takes place in this use is really kind of what's confusing me and making me feel like it is subordinate.

Mm-hmm.

um excuse me for just a second kevin walker planning director as you can tell commissioner that was a close decision one that was discussed and debated at the seventh floor of the planning department we think this actually creates a lot more flexibility for um the use going forward and um and and so it was we could have gone the other way as you suggest um but i think this is um this was a cleaner and a better uh process for them to go through for the future of the give them additional future flexibility

Thank you all for your explanations. I'm done now.

Mr. Walker, could you explain that further flexibility? Because when I think about conditional use, remind me it follows the building or it follows the use. Because we've approved a few others. And so if this coffee shop ceases to exist and the church wants to recapture that space for their own programming, this would be an easier... Would the conditional use permit just...

Dissolve with that business leaving You mean a use variance or a conditional use?

Well, we're looking yes for conditional use but We're here for a use variance. I'm sorry. We're here for a use variance. Yeah. Yes. Sorry I'm using the same words and wrong words. So the use variance goes with the business and Or it stays with the building forever.

I can speak to that. I pulled up that section of code. So, an approved use variance shall expire 1 year after the date of approval. Unless a building permit has been issued, or if the building is not required, the use variance is implemented prior to expiration of the 1 year period from the applicants request for good cause manager may grant 1 more extension of the total period not to exceed 1 year. So the use variance operates within perpetuity to allow that coffee shop to operate on site. If the coffee shop were to discontinue and went back to church operation, I believe technically it would cease to exist.

Right. So to round my whole conversation back around to future flexibility, a zone change, a conditional use, or other... changes to allow this could be more far-reaching and allow for far more other things to come in there which may or may not be harmonious or in context yet having a simple use variance for the coffee shop that is subordinate to the major use would allow this to if this hold fast goes away someday and they just want that to be classrooms or church programming it would just cease to exist and all would be right in the world correct except no more coffee correct yeah which is not right in the world no so yeah and i think i mean to your point jen i think that that to me that's what where we get back to like why do we choose certain sections of code and what's the best use and right this is a very specific use in a very specific 1600 square feet that could go away and that would be all right but it doesn't change the overall context or the zoning in a major way yeah okay so clearly i like to say things out loud to understand them so um any other questions from our Commissioners. Okay. Are we, do we have any final comments? And are we ready for a motion? Commissioner Case? Oh, Commissioner Cecil.

Man, you guys are fast on the track. I'll just make a comment that I think staff and Ethan, I think you guys effectively analyzed this. So I appreciate your guys' work on that and the communication through that. I also think this project is important because it's creating more vibrancy in community through the downtown core besides Sundays. So I appreciate your guys' work in that. I think that's definitely needed in our downtown core. So I would enthusiastically support this project. Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Cecil, for the record. I struggle, we know, on this board sometimes with being a little bit of a literalist and in looking at the criteria for this, it's not on the basis of the intention or anything like that that I'm leaning away from being able to approve it as a use variance. I think I could have moved along with an argument for an administrative decision or rezoning easier, the reason why, is because I do not believe that an exceptional circumstance that creates undue loss is being created here per criteria one. I don't believe that there's no beneficial use that can take place because the gathering area could still operate as an accessory used to a church. I don't think it's only usable this way. But I have to meet all three criteria, so while perhaps there is some amount of injury that could occur from your not able use of this particular part of the property as a coffee shop, I don't feel that the majority of these six criteria are met, so I'm gonna hurry up and get through here. I do agree that your hardship is not self-created, but I do believe that it was so recently purchased that anticipating this was very doable in the last few years, given how long your church has had this model, that we could have foreseen this at the time of purchase. I don't think that it's an unreasonably restricted property, as any use allowed in R5, including religious institution, is allowed, and... I am inclined to think that there are other ways to achieve compliance as the six criteria is the compliance avoidance thing. There are other ways we can get there to a yes. I just don't think for me, based on the exact criteria that are here, I can't get to the yes on this coffee shop as a use variance myself.

Commissioner Egbert, I will be supporting this item. I think it's a great partnership that you guys are creating and have created. So I think the only drawback is it's kind of far from the city administration building for people to get to. But it's a great use. I'm excited to see it and get a cup of coffee there.

Commissioner Robbins here. I just want to say I appreciate the work you guys have put into this, and I feel that it does comply with 7.5.526E under criteria for approval. And as long as you don't have any burnt coffee beans, I'll probably come by as well. So I approve of this. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? This is Chair Hensler. I don't disagree with you, Commissioner Cecil. I think that your comments have a lot of validity, and I think that it's these types of things that is why things come to the Planning Commission and don't just get administratively approved, because we do filter through and sift through all of this. So as I look back through the criteria, I can agree with a lot of your comments. That being said, I still am in support of this because I do think that the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions and that taking this from an R5 to FBZ creates a whole host of other downstream issues that shouldn't be the burden of a small coffee shop. And that it does...

Oh, where was the other one I was looking at?

Anyway, that it's not detrimental to public welfare or convenience and it's not injurious to the property. So I can find validity for sure in your comments. I think if this were a different use or a different property, I might have more concerns. But I do think that the downstream effects of other changes would be worse than a use variance that is very specific that could be revoked or rescinded at some point in time in the future to allow this. And... So all that being said, that's the difficult challenge in place that we have is that we can see both sides of the situation, but I feel that this project will be a positive use of the code and the use variance in this case, so I will be supporting. Does anyone else have any comments? Okay, can we move to a motion?

Commissioner Willoughby, motion to approve. Recommend approval to City Council of the use variance to establish the restaurant use based upon the finding that the request complies with the use variance criteria set forth in City Code Section 7.5.527. Commissioner Clements, I second it.

And can we seek a vote from Commissioner Gigiano?

Sorry, Commissioner Gigiano, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Motion passes with eight members in favor. Sorry, eight members in favor and Commissioner Cicelo opposed. OK.

This item moves on automatically to City Council. I probably should read the appeal criteria one more time for the other items if anyone is still listening online. that in accordance with requirements of Section 7.5.5415 of the City Unified Development Code, an affected party may appeal to City Council any action of the City Planning Commission in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party. Within 10 days from the final action on the item being appealed, which is Monday, August 24th, 2026, the appellant must file notice of appeal and pay the $176 fee with the city clerk. The appeal notice should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the City Planning Commission. And with that, I believe...