City council denies rezoning, land-use plan for proposed Briargate-Voyager apartments near charter school

Colorado Springs City Council on July 14 denied a developer's request to rezone 7.93 acres at 1625 Springcrest Road to mixed-use medium (MXM) and rejected the associated multifamily land-use plan, after residents, school leaders and council members raised repeated concerns about traffic, emergency access and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposal from Blackburn Communities would have allowed professionally managed, market-rate multifamily housing near The Classical Academy (TCA) campus. The city planning staff recommended approval and the planning commission recommended approval with conditions. The council heard hours of testimony from neighbors, the applicant and technical staff before moving to deny both the zoning change and the land-use plan; both motions passed 9-0.

Neighbors and school-affiliated speakers described recurring morning and afternoon gridlock on Springcrest Road during TCA pickup and drop-off times and warned that additional residential units in the immediate area would increase congestion and reduce the reliability of emergency response routes. "This is a traffic disaster waiting to happen," Commissioner Robbins said in earlier commission testimony that opponents cited during the council hearing.

Traffic engineers and the applicant said the project would generate fewer daily trips than many uses allowed under existing Business Park zoning and that proposed access and roadway improvements could mitigate impacts. "From a traffic standpoint, multifamily generates far fewer daily vehicle trips than a general office development that could be built here under the current zoning," said the project's traffic engineer, who noted long-range intersection upgrades on the Voyager/Briargate corridor were part of regional planning.

But council members stressed the difference between theoretical capacity and what neighbors described as repeated, short-duration but intense congestion tied to school hours and local circulation constraints. Councilman Chris Casey, who made the motion to deny, said the proposal did not meet the municipal code's rezoning criteria for compatibility and adequate ingress and egress. "This is an awkward, constrained parcel; it is not the right place for this intensity of development," Casey said.

Developers said they had reduced height and density during the application process, proposed multiple access points and offered management and design measures to limit safety risks. "We're trying to be good neighbors," said developer Andrew Ritter. "We're willing to work with staff on additional mitigations at the development plan stage." The council noted, however, that zoning and the land-use plan establish the basic rights for future development; council members concluded the proposed change was too large and abrupt a transition from the adjacent low-density neighborhood.

The council's decision leaves the current Business Park zoning in place for the parcel. Council members who opposed the rezoning urged continued neighborhood discussions and suggested alternative, lower-intensity uses or a different zoning category (mixed-use neighborhood scale) might be more appropriate in future proposals.

The council's vote on the zoning change was 9-0 to deny; the subsequent vote to deny the land-use plan also passed 9-0. The development team may revise the proposal and return through the normal planning process; any new or amended application would require additional public notice and review.

The full public hearing record and staff reports are part of the city's planning files and available through the city's land-use portal. The council returned to other agenda items after the vote.