Minutes - City Planning Commission

Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

City Planning Commission

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

7 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

Present:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Nadine Hensler- Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

4. Approval of Minutes

CPC 2729

Minutes for the February 11, 2026, City Planning Commission

meeting.

4.A.

Presenter:

Kenneth Casey, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments:

CPC_Minutes 2.11.16 Draft-Revised

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Clements,

to approve the Minutes for the February 11, 2026, City Planning

Commission meeting.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

CPC 2730

Minutes for the March 11, 2026, City Planning Commission meeting.

4.B.

Presenter:

Kenneth Casey, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments:

CPC_Minutes 3.11.16 Draft v2

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to approve the Minutes for the March February 11, 2026, City

Planning Commission meeting.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner Clements,

to approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins, Commissioner

Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

Reagan Ranch Community Park

ZONE-26-00 Ordinance No. 26-19 amending the zoning map of the City of

5.A.

Colorado Springs pertaining to 9.04 acres located off Marksheffel

Road southeast of the intersection of Space Village Avenue and

Marksheffel Road from MX-M/AP-O/APZ-1 (Mixed-use Medium

Scale with Airport and Accident Potential Zone Subzone-1

Overlays) to PK/AP-O/APZ-1 (Public Park with Airport and

Accident Potential Subzone-1 Overlays).

(Quasi-Judicial) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

Located in Council District 4

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

Staff Report_RR Community Park

Attachment 1_Project Statement ZMA

Attachment 2_Land Use Statement ZMA

Attachment 3_Exhibit A and B ZMA

Attachment 4_Peterson SFB Comments_Reagan Ranch Community

Park_03.05.26

Attachment 5_USDA Communication

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

CPC Presentation_Reagan Ranch_Staff

CPC_Minutes 4.8.26 Reagan Ranch Park Excerpt

Zone Ordinance

Signed Ordinance 26-19

CUDP-26-00 A Conditional Use to allow Park use in the MX-M/AP-O/APZ-1

5.B.

(Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Airport and Accident Potential

Subzone 1 Overlays) zone district, consisting of 9.04 acres located

off South Marksheffel Road southeast of Space Village Avenue.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Located in Council District 4

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Peaks Recovery Center

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a Detoxification Center use in the

5.C.

MX-N/cr (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale with Conditions of

Record) zone district, consisting of 0.75 acres located at 6430

Brook Park Drive.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Located in Council District 1

Presenter:

Austin Cooper, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Staff Report_Peak Recovery Center

Attachment 1- Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Fire Comments

Attachment 3 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 4 - Proposed Detox Bed Locations

Powerpoint Peaks Recovery Center

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Elevate Downtown Plan

NPLN-26-00 Approval of the Elevate Downtown Neighborhood Plan, an update

8.A.

to the 2016 Experience Downtown Land Use Master Plan.

(Legislative)

Located in Council District 3

Presenter:

Ryan Tefertiller, Urban Planning Manager, City Planning

Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Elevate Downtown Plan CPC Staff Report 040826

2026-ElevateDowntownPlan-Digital-Reduced

DRB_Minutes_3.3.26 Draft

CPC Excerpt Minutes 4.8.26 Draft

Elevate Downtown Staff Presentation CityCouncil 052626

2026-Final Downtown Plan Presentation_ADA

Commissioner Slattery and Chair Hensler disclosed that they

currently serve on the Downtown Partnership board, however, their

roles do not create a conflict of interest and affirmed they could

evaluate the Elevate Downtown Plan objectively.

Ryan Tefertiller, Urban Planning Manager, explained that the plan

area matches the Downtown Development Authority’s

one-square-mile boundary and is largely governed by the City’s

Form-Based Code. He noted that Elevate Downtown is processed as

a Neighborhood Plan and serves both strategic and regulatory

functions. Like the previous plan, it includes two volumes: a

state-required Plan of Development outlining the use of DDA tax

increment financing, and a broader neighborhood plan guiding land

use, design, mobility, economic development, public spaces,

infrastructure, and cultural identity.

He highlighted that the new plan replaces the 2016 document’s

eight-goal framework with a single vision statement and five

integrated goals supported by updated strategies. Engagement

efforts included extensive focus groups, interviews, surveys, and

pop-up outreach, reaching a wide range of downtown stakeholders.

More than 2,000 survey responses and strong online participation

indicated that earlier engagement had already captured most

community priorities.

Public themes consistently centered on safety and cleanliness,

support for small businesses, amenities for a growing residential

population, mobility options, activation of public spaces, housing

affordability, and compassionate approaches to homelessness while

maintaining usable public spaces. Mr. Tefertiller emphasized that all

City departments participated to ensure technical alignment and

feasibility.

Mr. Tefertiller concluded that Elevate Downtown aligns closely with

PlanCOS principles, particularly around urban centers, mixed-use

development, walkability, economic vitality, cultural identity, and

reinvestment, as well as with transportation, creek, trail, and

long-range mobility plans.

Applicant’s presentation

Chelsea Gondeck, CEO of the Downtown Partnership, celebrated the

milestone, noting it reflects more than a year of collaboration among

MIG consultants, DDA and city staff, volunteers, and community

members. She explained that the plan was updated ahead of the

typical cycle due to significant post-pandemic shifts in downtown’s

economic, social, and mobility patterns. She emphasized downtown’s

dual role as an economic center and a neighborhood of roughly 5,000

residents, and highlighted the plan’s five guiding themes: vibrancy,

safety, economic diversity, place identity, and equitable access.

Elly Schaefer, Senior Project Manager with MIG, outlined the

year-long engagement process, which included focus groups with a

wide range of stakeholders and an online survey with more than

2,000 responses. She noted that public input consistently raised

issues such as walkability, traffic safety, small business support,

housing and homelessness, public restrooms, activation of public

spaces, and arts and culture opportunities.

Reviewing Volume 1, Ms. Schaefer summarized downtown’s

assets-historic character, trail and creek access, a growing residential

base, arts and entertainment, and proximity to recreation-as well as

challenges, including infill feasibility, limited neighborhood-support

retail, safety and cleanliness concerns, traffic conflicts, workforce

retention, and funding constraints tied to tax-exempt properties.

For Volume 2, she outlined the plan’s five goals, which focus on

positioning downtown as the region’s heart, enhancing livability,

embracing its identity as an “urban gateway to nature,” strengthening

civic and cultural life, and shaping the built environment around

walkability, transit, and human-centered design.

Ms. Schaefer then highlighted major plan components: a refined

land-use and character framework; updated height transition

strategies; 26 catalytic opportunity sites; new gateway concepts;

small-business and workforce strategies; and a mobility framework

introducing new street typologies and safety improvements. She also

detailed parks and open-space priorities, cultural initiatives, and new

chapters addressing homelessness, housing, public restrooms,

safety, and urban services. She concluded with recommendations for

infrastructure, including fiber expansion, EV charging, drainage

strategies, and potential underground utility opportunities.

Public Comments

Samuel Clark, Chair of the Downtown Development Authority and

Executive Director of the Pikes Peak Real Estate Foundation,

highlighted the extensive outreach that informed the plan, noting the

unusually high level of community participation through focus groups,

surveys, and public events. He emphasized that the plan reflects both

community priorities and economic realities, describing it as a

practical framework that will help guide public-private investment

downtown.

Diane Bridges, Vice President of the Historic Uptown neighborhood

and Chair of the Historic Neighborhoods Partnership, expressed

appreciation for the plan’s broad scope and the responsiveness of

staff and consultants throughout the process. She noted that

residents felt their feedback was genuinely considered and that the

plan thoughtfully addresses recurring neighborhood concerns, such

as safety, walkability, and maintaining downtown’s cultural identity,

while still encouraging growth.

Commissioners’ Comments and Discussion

Commissioners expressed appreciation for the depth of the planning

effort and the clarity of the final document. Several commented

positively on the extensive public engagement and the way the plan

integrates land use, mobility, and public realm goals. Commissioners

asked staff and the consultant team to elaborate on how comparable

cities were selected for benchmarking; the consultant clarified that

cities such as Salt Lake City, Spokane, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Raleigh,

and Denver were used for studying density, urban design, and

economic performance, and noted that these comparisons appear in

the plan’s analysis section.

Commissioners emphasized the importance of the plan aligning with

existing form-based zoning and supporting predictable review

processes for future development. Staff confirmed that the Downtown

Review Board, Planning Department, and Downtown Partnership will

continue close coordination to ensure consistency between policy

guidance and project-level decisions.

Commissioner Gigiano raised concerns about the pace and scale of

potential future downtown development and the pressure that added

density could place on municipal services and public facilities.

Commissioner Gigiano voted in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Robbins, seconded by Commissioner

Clements, to recommend approval to City Council the Elevate

Downtown Plan.

The motion passed by a vote of 6-1-0-1.

6 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Willoughby and

Commissioner Case

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

Absent:

Kettle Creek Addition No. 1

ANEX-25-00 Kettle Creek Addition No. 1 Annexation Consisting of 19.88 acres

8.B.

located northeast of the Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road

intersection.

(Legislative)

Related Files: LUPL-25-0014, ZONE-25-0028

Council District: Upon Annexation District 2

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Staff Report_Kettle Creek_CS

Attachment 1_Petition_MGLG

Attachment 2_Petition_RP

Attachment 2b_Petition Waldo

Attachment 3_Project Statement

Attachment 4_Annexation Plat

Attachment 5_FIA Combined

Attachment 6_Zone Exhibit B

Attachment 7_Zone Exhibit A

Attachment 8_Land Use Plan

Attachment 9_USFWS Effects Determination Request_ Challenger

at Kettle Creek_8-5-25

Attachment 10_Geo-hazard Report_APPROVED

Attachment 11_TIA

Attachment 12_Overall Legal

Attachment 13_DRAFT Annexation Agreement 03.11.2026

Combined Public Comments - Kettle Creek

CPC Presentation_Kettle Creek_CS

7.5.701 ANNEXATION OF LAND

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, presented a 19.88-acre annexation

northeast of Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road. The proposal

establishes R-Flex Medium with Streamside and United States Air Force

Academy overlays, with a companion Land Use Plan for single-family

attached/detached at approximately 123 units, 11-12 du/ac within

R-Flex’s 5-16 du/ac range, streamside habitat buffer, Preble’s mouse

determination, detention at the southwest corner, and primary access

via Old Ranch Road with realigned Kettle Creek Road to achieve a 90°

intersection; secondary access through the adjacent Cottages at Kettle

Creek. Mr. Sullivan said there were some agency comments, Traffic

Engineering requires dedication, approximately 13' ROW plus 8'

improvement easement, and an eastbound left-turn lane on Old Ranch;

Parks and School District 20 addressed park/school dedication and

student service capacity; Standard Notice was posted and yielded

multiple comments focused on traffic, connectivity, environmental

impacts, and housing need. Staff found consistency with PlanCOS and

annexation, rezoning and land use plan review criteria.

Colorado Springs Utilities Presentation

Bryan English, Project Manager, summarized water extension ordinance

thresholds, 128% buffer; de minimis definition of 1% of available

surplus, approximately 53 AFY. The project’s projected demand of about

29 AFY qualifies as de minimis and is an enclave, satisfying extension

conditions; aggregate recent annexation demands were noted. He

addressed groundwater rights dedication, electric service territory

overlap, MVEA currently serves existing homes; just compensation

would be required upon incorporation to CSU territory, and natural

gas/electric extensions at developer expense. Infrastructure capacity

and cost/payback considerations were outlined, with a more robust

financial model planned for Council.

Applicant’s Presentation

Andrea Barlow, NES, speaking on behalf of the applicant team, said the

three parcels form a county enclave surrounded by city limits, making

annexation a logical and consistent step for long-term service delivery

and planning coordination. She explained that the proposed R-Flex

Medium zoning was intentionally selected because it provides a

transitional density between existing commercial and industrial uses to

the south and established residential neighborhoods to the north and

west.

Ms. Barlow noted that the project team worked closely with City

Planning, Colorado Springs Utilities, and Traffic Engineering to design a

layout that responds to known constraints in the area, particularly traffic

circulation, access safety, and environmental sensitivity along Kettle

Creek. She highlighted that the development achieves a relatively low

density within the R-Flex range, with approximately 123 units

concentrated in a compact pattern to preserve the natural drainage

corridor and meet the Streamside Overlay requirements. The internal

street network and block layout were shaped to improve emergency

access and avoid routing traffic into smaller neighborhood streets.

Ms. Barlow also stressed the importance of the realignment of Kettle

Creek Road, which brings the intersection with Old Ranch Road into

safer geometry and supports future multimodal improvements planned

by the City. She said the applicant will construct the required eastbound

left-turn lane on Old Ranch Road and will dedicate additional

right-of-way to support long-term corridor upgrades. Sidewalk

connections along Old Ranch will complete a missing link and create a

more walkable connection to nearby residential areas and schools.

Ms. Barlow noted that the land use plan was prepared to reflect the

expectations of the R-Flex zone while ensuring compatibility with

neighboring developments such as the Cottages at Kettle Creek / Hope

Chapel property. The streamside buffer aligns with the adjacent project’s

open space and maintains ecological continuity along the riparian

corridor. Barlow stated that the applicant believes the annexation and

zoning package provides a balanced approach that supports housing

needs, strengthens infrastructure planning, and ensures an orderly

transition of county land into the city.

Traffic Engineering

Todd Frisbie, City Traffic Engineering , explained planned

PPRTA-funded projects on Old Ranch Road, such as the bridge

widening east of the site to accommodate future improvements;

safety/multimodal enhancements; likely single lane each direction with a

center turn lane from Lexington to Voyager; intersection upgrades at

Voyager including dual lefts southbound; potential interim left-turn

improvements at Otero. The proposed access for the project includes a

stop-controlled intersection at the new Kettle Creek Road alignment and

the required eastbound left-turn lane on Old Ranch Road; volumes at

build-out are expected to meet acceptable levels of service.

Public Comment

No public comment.

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Commissioners raised several questions regarding traffic impacts,

neighborhood compatibility, public infrastructure, and the practical

implications of annexing an enclave already surrounded by city limits,

focusing on Old Ranch Road and existing congestion patterns during

school pick-up and drop-off periods, noting that this corridor already

experiences delays and queueing. Mr. Frisbie reiterated that the

required eastbound left-turn lane, right-of-way dedication, and the

planned Kettle Creek Road realignment were designed specifically to

address safety, spacing, and future multimodal improvements identified

in the PPRTA project list. Commissioners acknowledged that although

the City’s long-range transportation improvements would not eliminate

congestion entirely, they do create a more structured approach to

managing it as growth continues.

Commissioners emphasized that the enclave situation warranted

annexation, explaining that it would allow the City, not the County, to

coordinate long-term roadway design, utilities, and emergency

response. They also noted that the proposed R-Flex Medium zoning

served as a reasonable transition between the more intense commercial

and employment areas to the south and the lower-density residential

neighborhoods nearby. Commissioners supportive of the proposal

remarked that the applicant’s plan stayed at the lower end of the R-Flex

density range, preserved the creek corridor, and provided clear access

points that avoided routing additional traffic onto smaller local streets.

Commissioner Robbins expressed concern about adding any new

development to an area that he believes already struggles with traffic

volume and vehicle stacking during peak hours. Commissioner Robbins

pointed specifically to safety issues and felt that Old Ranch Road’s

current design and school-related congestion made the timing of new

development problematic.

Commissioner Gigiano expressed her concern, stating that while the

annexation was technically logical, she was not convinced that the

combination of density, circulation, and public-facility impacts aligned

with what the existing neighborhood could support.

Other commissioners countered by noting that development of the land

was inevitable and that annexation into the City ensured a higher

standard of review, broader public oversight, and more predictable

infrastructure coordination than if the area were left under County

jurisdiction.

Motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to recommend approval to City Council of the annexation

of 19.88 acres as the Kettle Creek Addition No. 1 Annexation based

upon the finding that the annexation complies with the Conditions for

Annexation set forth in City Code Section 7.5.701.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-2-0-1.

5 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Clements,

Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Case

Aye:

2 - Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

Absent:

ZONE-25-00 The establishment of a R-Flex Medium/SS-O/AF-O (Residential

8.C.

Flex Zone Medium Scale with Streamside and United States Air

Force Academy Overlay) zone district, in association with the

Kettle Creek Addition No. 1 Annexation consisting of 19.88 acres

located northeast of the Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road

intersection.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-25-0002, LUPL-25-0014

Council District: Upon Annexation District 2

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to recommend approval to City Council of the

establishment of 19.88 acres as a R-Flex-Medium/SS-O/AF-O

(Residential Flex Zone Medium Scale with Streamside and United

States Air Force Academy Overlays) zone district based upon the

finding that the request complies with the criteria for a Zone Map

Amendment set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-2-0-1.

5 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Clements,

Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Case

Aye:

2 - Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

Absent:

LUPL-25-001 Establishment of the Kettle Creek Annexation Land Use Plan for

8.D.

proposed Single-Family Residential Attached and Detached use

consisting of 19.88 acres located northeast of the Kettle Creek

Road and Old Ranch Road intersection.

(Legislative)

Related Files: ANEX-25-0002, ZONE-25-0028

Council District: Upon Annexation District 2

Presenter:

Chris Sullivan, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner

Willoughby, to recommend approval to City Council the Kettle Creek

Annexation Land Use Plan based upon the finding that the proposal

complies with the review criteria for Land Use Plans set forth in City

Code Section 7.5.514.

The motion passed by a vote of 5-2-0-1.

5 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Clements,

Commissioner Willoughby and Commissioner Case

Aye:

2 - Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

Absent:

Child and Adult Day Care Center - Code Amendment

CODE-25-00 Ordinance No. 26-23 amending Article 3 Use Regulations, Article 4

8.E.

Development Standards and Incentives, and Article 6 Definitions

and Rules of Constructions of Chapter 7 (the “Unified

Development Code”) of the Code of the City Of Colorado Springs

2001, as amended, as related to permitted locations and

standards for each Adult or Child Day Care Centers.

(Legislative)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, City Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Ordinance

CC_WS_Childcare_Ord_Presentation_v2

Childcare_Ord_Staff_Report

Attachment_A_Allowed_Use_Table_Comparison

Attachment_B_Childcare_Ord_Factsheet

Attachment_C_Existing_Childcare_in_Residential_Zones_Map

Attachment_D_State_Childcare_Building_Requirements

CC_1st_Childcare_Ord_Presentation

CPC_Minutes 4.8.26 Day Care Amendment Excerpt

CC_2nd_Childcare_Ord_Presentation

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, described a focused UDC amendment

(separate from Phase 2 updates) to expand appropriate siting of

commercial daycare centers (adult/child) across zones, clarify

definitions, introduce a commercial accessory daycare category

co-located with civic, employment, or high-density residential uses (no

affiliation required), reduce parking minimums (from 1/400 sf to 1/600 sf

where appropriate), and add location-specific standards for residential

areas, most notably prohibiting use of residential streets as primary

access and requiring development plans when converting dwellings to

commercial daycare. She illustrated barriers faced by recent applicants,

such us the Revolution Church daycare that required a use variance due

to affiliation limits, that emphasized state licensing and building code

constraints unaffected by the UDC, and summarized stakeholder

engagement and survey themes, like availability versus home-provider

vacancies; support for neighborhood-scale options tempered by

compatibility concerns.

Public Comment

Sherry Lynn Boyles, Joint Initiatives for Youth & Families, presented

regional childcare desert data, approximately 47,000 children under 5

versus 18,500 licensed slots, and urged scalable solutions; she

endorsed zoning flexibility as the first regulatory step so providers can

meet needs near homes and jobs.

Doug Schultz, Old North End and Historic Neighborhoods Partnership

board, supported added availability but raised on-street parking and

pickup/drop-off impacts and playground noise as principal neighborhood

concerns that merit careful review and public input.

Diane Bridges, Historic Neighborhoods Partnership, received ceded time

from the neighbors Jeanette Caproon and Louise Cinner. She

expressed appreciation for the City’s effort to update childcare

regulations but emphasized the need for careful balancing in residential

areas. She acknowledged the community’s strong demand for more

childcare options but cautioned that older neighborhoods, particularly

those with narrow streets, limited on-street parking, and alley access,

face distinct constraints. Ms. Bridges supported making small-scale

centers more feasible in residential zones but urged that larger

centers be directed to districts like R-5, where infrastructure can

better accommodate higher traffic volumes. She also reiterated the

importance of maintaining adequate parking requirements and limiting

primary access from alleys to avoid circulation issues.

Amelia Walsh, President, Green Shade Schools, spoke in support of

allowing adult daycare facilities to co-locate with existing

child-focused centers. She noted that her organization has

successfully operated shared-use facilities and found that coordinated

pick-up and drop-off routines help minimize congestion and keep

traffic moving smoothly. Ms. Walsh added that families generally do

not linger on site, which helps maintain a calm and predictable

circulation pattern.

Commissioners’ Comments and Discussion

Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify whether required

separation distances in the code, such as those applying to marijuana

facilities, would still apply when a child-care center is established as an

accessory use. Staff confirmed that all existing separation requirements

would continue to apply, regardless of whether the facility is primary or

accessory, and that it would remain the provider’s responsibility to verify

any proximity conflicts.

Commissioner Slattery stated strong support for the amendment,

emphasizing that integrating child-care options into residential areas can

be beneficial when thoughtfully regulated, and noting that state licensing

requirements inherently limit overcrowding. Commissioner Slattery

highlighted that in her experience, well-run centers do not create

prolonged parking issues and that allowing childcare in more areas

would improve family access without undermining neighborhood

stability. Commissioner Slattery added that allowing childcare where

compatible, especially on non-residential streets, aligns with broader city

goals of supporting working families.

Commissioner Willoughby echoed that sentiment, observing that while

neighborhood parking impacts are a valid concern, they are often less

significant than feared. Commissioner Willoughby noted that parents

typically enter and exit quickly and that the cumulative value of

improving child-care availability outweighed perceived risks.

Commissioner Willoughby stated she would vote in favor.

Commissioner Case also expressed support, emphasizing that the

amendment removes unnecessary regulatory barriers and allows market

and operational realities, not code limitations, to determine where

child-care centers can succeed.

Commissioner Gigiano indicated she would be voting in favor as well.

Chair Hensler added final remarks noting her own experience with both

home-based and center-based childcare. Chair Hensler stated that

childcare availability has wide-ranging implications, including workforce

participation and economic health, and that the ordinance appropriately

balances neighborhood protections, particularly the limitation against

using residential streets for primary access, with opportunities to expand

childcare capacity. Chair Hensler agreed that development plan

requirements and licensing regulations provide sufficient safeguards for

neighborhoods when new facilities are proposed. Chair Hensler

concluded that the amendment meets the criteria for approval and would

support it.

Motion by Commissioner Slattery, seconded by Commissioner

Robbins, to recommend approval to City Council of the adoption of

the Ordinance amending Chapter 7 (the "Unified Development Code")

of the Code of the City Of Colorado Springs 2001, as amended,

relating to permitted locations and standards for each Adult or Child

Day Care Centers based upon the findings that the request complies

with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 7.5.702.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.

7 - Chair Hensler, Vice Chair Slattery, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Clements, Commissioner Gigiano, Commissioner

Willoughby and Commissioner Case

Aye:

1 - Commissioner Cecil

Absent:

Single Exit and Single Stairway - Code Amendment

CODE-26-00 An Ordinance Amending Section 1404 (Code Adopted by

8.F.

Reference) of Part 14 (Building Codes) of Article 4 (Development

Standards and Incentives) of Chapter 7 (Unified Development

Code) of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as

amended, pertaining to the adoption of the Pikes Peak Regional

Building Code standards for Single Exits and Stairways.

(Legislative)

Located in Council Districts Citywide

Presenter:

Roger Lovell, Building Official, Pikes Peak Regional Building

Department

Daniel Sexton, LUR/DRE Planning Manager, City Planning

Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department

Attachments:

Single Exit and Single Stairway Ordinance

Staff Report CPC_Single Exist and Single Stairway (RE HB25-1273)

Attachment 2 - HB 2025a_1273_signed-act Single Stairwell

Attachment 3 - Legislative Justification Single Stairwell

Attachment 4 - States Advance Single-Stairway Reforms - Pew

Charitable Trust

7.5.702 AMENDMENT TO UDC TEXT

CC Presentation Single Exit and Single Stairway Ordinance_Staff

Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager, presented an amendment to the

UDC’s building code reference to incorporate Pikes Peak Regional

Building Code standards responsive to House Bill 25-1273, enabling up

to five-story multifamily buildings with a single exit and single stair when

stringent life-safety features are met. He explained the timing nexus with

state energy code adoption deadlines and the need to sequence local

code adoption to avoid triggering more restrictive energy standards

prematurely.

Roger Lovell, Regional Building Official, explained applicability and

safeguards: limited to multi-family occupancies with up to four units per

floor and up to 6,000 square feet floorplate, non-combustible

construction, full commercial sprinkler systems, pressurized

two-hour-rated stair enclosure, and increased stair width to

accommodate simultaneous evacuees and first responders. He noted

the concept is gaining traction nationally and could be addressed in the

2027 International Building Code; locally, timing the adoption helps meet

the July 1, 2026, energy code milestone and avoid premature shifts to

the Colorado Energy & Carbon Code. Mr. Lovell, who had previously

opposed the bill at the Capitol along with CSFD, stated that the added

life-safety measures significantly mitigate risk and that market

economics may limit uptake given the cost of required features relative

to installing a second stair.

Commissioners’ Comments and Discussion

Commissioner Robbins asked when the proposed requirements would

take effect if adopted. Mr. Sexton explained that although the underlying

state legislation becomes effective in December 2027, the city faces

earlier procedural deadlines tied to statewide energy-code mandates.

Commissioner Robbins asked whether the provision would apply only to

new construction. Mr. Sexton confirmed that retrofitting existing buildings

would be technically possible but extremely unlikely because nearly all

existing structures in the city are built with combustible materials rather

than the non-combustible construction required under the amendment.

Chair Hensler asked for further clarification on fire-safety implications,

particularly how evacuation would work when both residents and

firefighters must use a single stairwell. Mr. Lovell noted that while two

stairwells traditionally allow responders to ascend one while residents

descend the other, the proposed code offsets this limitation through

added protections: wider stairways, pressurization to prevent smoke

infiltration, and full commercial-grade sprinkler systems, along with

two-hour fire-rated enclosures.

Commissioner Willoughby questioned whether the city had any real

discretion to reject the amendment. Ms. Brewen explained that because

the requirement stems from a state statute applying to large

municipalities, declining to adopt it would almost certainly result in

litigation over home-rule authority. Commissioner Willoughby concluded

that, although not enthusiastic about single-stair designs, the practical

implications meant she would support the ordinance.

Commissioner Slattery described her initial skepticism, stating that the

concept sounded alarming at first glance. However, after reviewing the

added life-safety measures and acknowledging staff’s testimony that

such buildings are unlikely to be widely constructed locally due to

economics, Commissioner Slattery said the safety risks were adequately

mitigated. Commissioner Slattery also emphasized that adopting the

amendment now would allow the city to avoid prematurely triggering

more restrictive energy-code requirements, which could significantly

affect housing affordability. Commissioner Slattery stated she would

vote in favor.

Commissioner Case also supported the amendment, stating that

allowing the construction method posed no harm and that market

conditions would determine whether any developers actually choose to

use it. Commissioner Case viewed the update as aligned with removing

unnecessary barriers without imposing new risks.

Commissioner Gigiano indicated her support.

Chair Hensler concluded by acknowledging the tension between

state-mandated building policies and local development patterns. Chair

Hensler noted staff’s assessment that the ordinance met city approval

criteria and would have limited practical impact, while ensuring

compliance with state requirements. Chair Hensler confirmed her intent

to support the recommendation.

Motion by Commissioner Robbins, seconded by Commissioner

Clements, to recommend approval to City Council of the adoption of

the Pikes Peak Regional Building Code Standards for Single Exits and

Stairways Ordinance amending Chapter 7 ("Unified Development

Code") of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001, as amended,

relating to the adoption of the Pikes Peak Regional Building Code

Standards for Single Exits and Stairways, based upon the finding that

the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code Section

7.5.702.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-0-1.