Planning commission denies appeal, affirms administrative approval for Flats at Sand Creek

The City Planning Commission on Thursday voted to deny an appeal of the administrative approval for the Flats at Sand Creek development plan, effectively affirming the city planner’s decision to allow a 144‑unit, three‑story multifamily project at the northeast corner of North Carefree Circle and Peterson Road.

The appeal challenged the project on compatibility, parking and traffic grounds; opponents told commissioners the site is too close to Sand Creek High School and an already congested intersection. The commission’s decision affirms the development plan that had been administratively approved by staff.

The appellant’s representative, Michelle Bork, who spoke for residents of the Spring Ranch neighborhood, said the parcel was the wrong site for a large apartment complex and urged commissioners to weigh safety and neighborhood character over revenue. “Would you be comfortable living in this neighborhood? Would your children feel safe walking across that intersection?” Bork asked the commission.

City staff and the applicant countered that the land is zoned R‑5 (multifamily residential), the development plan meets code standards and city technical reviewers had cleared major concerns. Austin Cooper, senior planner for the City of Colorado Springs, summarized the application’s technical review, including that the project site is 6.9894 acres, the proposed building height is 38 feet and the plan provides 249 parking spaces where 239 were required under the staff calculation.

Andrea Barlow of NES, representing developer Lincoln Avenue Communities, and Ben Taylor, vice president and partner at Lincoln Avenue Communities, said the project is an affordable/workforce housing development with operating commitments. Taylor said the developer must “own and manage these for a minimum of 15 years,” adding the company screens residents and operates properties under long‑term commitments and regulatory oversight.

Traffic and safety were central themes of public comment. Multiple residents described near‑misses and one serious pedestrian collision near the intersection; several speakers argued the traffic study underlying the approval relied on counts from 2021 and did not reflect current peak‑period conditions. Jeffrey Plank, the project traffic consultant with Kimley‑Horn, responded that the study’s counts were collected on a school day in April 2021, that the proposed development would generate fewer trips than thresholds requiring additional mitigation and that technical signal changes (for example, protected‑only left‑turn phasing) could reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

School District 49’s community facilities planner, Evelyn Galane Phillips, told commissioners the district had historically seen only a modest student yield from apartment developments and that the district currently expects available capacity for incoming students; the district opted to receive fees in lieu of land dedication for school mitigation on this application.

During deliberations commissioners acknowledged the intensity of public concern but said the planning review must be limited to the development plan and Unified Development Code criteria. After discussion a motion to deny the appeal and affirm the administrative approval passed; the spoken record does not include a roll‑call tally in the transcript excerpt.

The commission read appeal instructions at the end of the action: an affected party may appeal the commission’s action to City Council; a written notice of appeal and $176 fee must be filed with the city clerk no later than 10 days after the commission’s action.