CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECORD-OF-DECISION
March 17, 2011
Page 7
NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR
MEETING:
MARCH 17, 2011
ITEM:
4.A-4.D
STAFF:
RYAN TEFERTILLER
FILE NO:
CPC MP 97-00261-A3MN10, CPC ZC 10-00099, CPC CU 10-00100,
CPC NV 10-00102
PROJECT:
COLORADO COLLEGE SAN MIGUEL SITE
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ryan Tefertiller, Senior Planner reviewed the applications with PowerPoint slides
(Exhibit A).
Commissioner Butlak inquired if the impervious surface calculations did not include the
trail. Mr. Tefertiller replied that is correct, the Streamside Overlay does not penalize a
site for community or public trails/sidewalks.
Commissioner Suthers inquired of the history and the residential homes current uses.
Mr. Tefertiller stated the eastern property is vacant was more recently acquired by the
applicant, Colorado College (College); and the western property has been owned by the
College for some time and is rented through a property management company.
Commissioner Suthers inquired if the College owns any other adjacent properties. Mr.
Tefertiller replied yes, and displayed the master plan slide within Exhibit A identifying
other college-owned sites (gray highlighted sites).
Commissioner Stroh inquired how much of the area on the map is used as residential.
Mr. Tefertiller replied that approximately one-third of the sites are residential uses with
retail and liquor store buffering the uses across Uintah Street.
Commissioner Butcher inquired if all the water on site flows into the pond? Mr. Tefertiller
was fairly certain it does, but deferred to the applicant.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Tim Seibert of NES Inc., displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B)
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECORD-OF-DECISION
March 17, 2011
Page 8
Commissioner Cleveland inquired if the existing wall will be cleaned up? Mr. Seibert
stated the applicant has received several requests for maintenance of the wall, and the
College plans to improve the wall’s appearance and stability.
Mr. Seibert continued and stated that despite the size of the yard, there is not much
activity proposed because only four employees will typically be on the site.
Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of the depth of the water quality pond in relation to the
trail. Mr. Seibert replied the pond will remain three feet deep near the existing wall
located along the east and west sides. The safety concern is located along the eastern
edge and will be filled to bring up the berm. The pond will be close to grade upon
completion (southeast corner of site). Commissioner Gonzalez inquired why the pond
was not included inside the fence, and how tall is the wall along the trail? Mr. Seibert
replied the wall is an eight to 10 foot distance from the trail and should not pose a safety
or trip hazard. The wall is 18-24 inches high (cobbled wall) and extends along San
Miguel frontage with a drop off area that does not require a traffic guard rail. The
applicant felt it would look better to keep the water quality pond outside the fence to
enhance the landscaping and soften that trail edge. Commissioner Gonzalez stated he
was mainly concerned with guard rail requirements and Mr. Seibert satisfied his
concerns.
Commissioner Cleveland inquired of the existing rubble type of wall. Mr. Seibert replied it
is literally called the “rubble wall” and tuck points will be stabilized along the frontage
near the pond. This will create better consistency along the San Miguel frontage and will
keep that existing neighborhood character along the wall.
STAFF REQUESTED TO SPEAK
Commissioner Stroh inquired of increasing traffic along an existing tight intersection,
Glen Avenue and San Miguel Street, while introducing larger facilities vehicles? Mr.
Tefertiller does not know if any traffic improvements are proposed. He would assume
proposed traffic volumes would be typical to the two residential units. At the preapplication stage, the applicant was willing to vacate San Miguel eastward toward the
trail to fence off and use as part of storage yard. Yet, based upon neighbor involvement
that part of the plan was eliminated.
Mr. Steve Kuehster, City Engineering Development Review Division, stated the street
widths meet residential widths and the proposed plan didn’t change the character of the
street. Thus, no traffic improvements are required by the city.
Commissioner Cleveland felt what Colorado College has done is a huge improvement
both visually and from a safety issue. He commended them for their effort.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECORD-OF-DECISION
March 17, 2011
Page 9
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Stroh, to approve Item
4.A-File No. CPC MP 97-00261-A3MN10 the minor amendment to the Colorado College
Master Plan, based upon the finding that the amendment complies with the master plan
review criteria in City Code Section 7.5.408. Motion carried 7-0 (Commissioners Hartsell
and Magill excused).
Moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Stroh, to approve Item
4.B – File No. CPC ZC 10-00099 the proposed SU/SS zone (Special Use with the
Streamside overlay) based upon the finding that the zone complies with the review
criteria in City Code Section 7.5.603.B. Motion carried 7-0 (Commissioners Hartsell and
Magill excused).
Moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Stroh to approve Item
No. 4.C-File No. CPC CU 10-00100, the Colorado College San Miguel Site Conditional
Use Development Plan based upon the finding that the plan complies with the review
criteria in City Code Sections 7.5.502.E, 7.5.704, and 7.3.508.C and is subject to the
following technical and informational plan modifications:
Technical and Informational Modifications:
1. Revise the handicapped parking stall to be van accessible.
2. Provide the final landscape plan fee to the Land Use Review Division.
3. Include the standard irrigation plan submittal notes.
Motion carried 7-0 (Commissioners Hartsell and Magill excused).
Commissioner Stroh stated he took exception to the historic report regarding 228 West
San Miguel Street (page 57 of agenda, second paragraph) and stated the stone is not
the same material as the entrance. He addressed this point because it was noted in one
comment from a community member regarding the documentation of the wall. He felt the
College will considerably restore a damaged and insignificant wall and commended
them for that. He expressed caution when reviewing 106 reports because he felt they
are sometimes a broad-brushed review.
Commissioner Suthers felt this is an interesting project to understand along with the
adjacent Van Briggle site incorporated into the college’s improvement plans. She
appreciated the presentation and the College’s efforts to upgrade that entire section of
the creek.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECORD-OF-DECISION
March 17, 2011
Page 10
Moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Stroh, to approve Item
No. 4.D-File No. CPC NV 10-00102, the non-use variance for 39.2 percent impervious
surface within the Streamside Overlay zone where 25 percent is the limit, based upon
the finding that the request complies with the review criteria in City Code Section
7.5.802.B. Motion carried 7-0 (Commissioners Hartsell and Magill excused).
March 17, 2011
DATE OF DECISION
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR