Morning.

The Colorado Springs City Planning Commission public hearing for April 8th, 2026 is now called to order.

The planning commission is comprised of nine members appointed by City Council to review various development applications, proposals, planning and proposals.

I'm sorry.

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.

The city planning staff facilitate the process for applications.

And 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 city council.

Briefly to talk about our ground rules and procedures.

Throughout each hearing, we will require that everyone conduct themselves respectfully, understanding that others may have different views than your own.

Disrespectful words or actions, speaking out of order when not recognized by the chair, 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 their application.

For any items that are being heard on appeal today, the appellant and the applicant will be given equal time.

Public comment will be taken after these presentations, starting with public comments in support of the application, and followed by public comment comments in opposition to the application.

Each citizen will have three minutes to speak.

Please keep comments brief and focused on the issues at hand.

And please respect others attendee other attendees' rights to both listen and be heard.

If you haven't signed up for public comment, please do so on the papers near the door.

Once public comment is complete, the applicant will have a rebuttal period of 10 minutes to respond and address any comments.

And at the conclusion of the applicant's rebuttal, the discussion will move to the dais for commissioner consideration.

So I think we are ready for our roll call.

Yes.

Here.

Commissioner Cecil.

Commissioner Slattery.

Here.

Commissioner Robins.

Here.

Commissioner Clemens.

Here.

Commissioner Jediano.

Here.

Commissioner Wheeloughby.

Here.

Commissioner Case.

Here.

Thank you.

We have seven members present.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Are there any items?

Are there any changes to the agenda or amendments or postponements?

Okay.

Communications.

I have some communications and then we'll go to Kevin.

As you can see, I am now sitting as chair.

So as many of you know, um, our chair, Ken Casey was recently appointed to City Council to fill the vacant district two seat.

So first of all, congratulations to him, and we want to thank him for his time on the planning commission and also to applaud him for his continued service uh to our city in that role on city council.

As vice chair, I'm immediately activated and also honored to step up into the chair role, and we will seek nominations internally and a process to fill the vice chair role probably at next month's meeting.

So that's all I have.

Unless I took the words out of your mouth.

No, you did not.

I was hoping that you were gonna do that.

Uh I have several other things to catch up on, though.

Uh given the fact that we now have a uh uh vacancy.

I have talked to city council.

They are they will begin the process of trying to uh go through the process of filling the vacancy on the planning commission.

Um we also have uh at least two spots uh available as alternate uh commissioners, and they expressed a desire to do a process that would uh refill that um that pipeline as well.

So council is aware of the situation.

Uh it did not stop them from appointing uh uh Commissioner Casey to the council, and um we wish him well.

Uh but we will be uh following the process in the next couple of months with city council.

Um the uh I've attended last night a meeting of a data center, so it's all over the newspaper and radio and every place else today.

Uh quite well attended, way more attended than what the applicant thought would be.

So they there was a room for 100 people, and there were uh my guesstimate was over 400 people who showed up.

They were lined up in the parking lot and uh uh but remained very civil outside.

They did two sessions, got about 200 people through the through the process, but there's more to come on that.

So I just wanted to let you know that we were in attendance and we were there and uh uh did a lot of signing in with a lot of people.

Um the uh I would like to ask, we have a joint meeting of the city council uh at the end of this month if there are any items that any of the commissioners would like to have uh put forward so that we can try to come up with an agenda.

We'll be working with council staff on that and council leadership in the next week or two.

So if you have anything that you think you would like to hear from council or that you would like to express to council, uh let me know so that I can weave that into the agenda and give you the opportunity to do that.

I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to uh to interact.

Uh and then the just as a note, I will I have a meeting that I have to be at that I uh at the mayor's office at 1045.

So I will be gone for about an hour today.

So uh Dan is here, and Ryan and others who will uh amply fill my position.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I think we're moving on to approval of the minutes.

I know we had some discussion at our informal and um the minutes have been revised, so hopefully um folks have had an opportunity to reread those revised minutes.

So with that, if you are in agreement that the meetings properly reflect our last couple of months, can I ask for a motion to approve the February and do we have?

March.

It's already April.

The February and March.

Yeah, one at a time, of course.

Yeah.

Motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 11th, 2026.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, and on to the March meeting minutes.

Motion to approve the minutes from March 11th, 2026.

Second thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Great.

Moving on to the 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 called off the consent calendar will be heard immediately after the rest of the consent calendar is decided is decided upon.

Solange, can you read the consent calendar into the record, please?

Item 5A Z O N E 2C-0003, Regan Ranch Community Park rezone.

Item 5B C U D P 26-0001.

And item 5C C U D P 25-0031.

Peaks Recovery Center.

Okay, is there any commissioner who would like to pull an item from the consent calendar?

Is there any member of the staff that would like to pull an item from the consent calendar?

Is there anyone in the audience or on the phone that would like to pull an item from the consent calendar today?

Okay, I'm seeing none.

We entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Motion to approve the consent calendar as read into the record.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

Great.

All right, moving on.

Uh we have no items that have been called off.

We have no unfinished business.

So next is our new business.

And Salange, I'd like to ask you to read our items into the record.

Item 8A NPLN dash 26-0001.

Delevate downtown plan, an update to the 2016 experience downtown plan.

Your presenter is Ryan T for Cheller.

Ryan, as you're figuring out your microphone, we have a couple of comments here from the dais.

As this plan is a function of the business improvement district.

I was not involved in the creation of the plan.

Let's serve on it with assistor organization.

I too sit on the downtown partnership board of directors.

And while aware of the plan and had in uh participated in some of the public sessions, I was not involved in the plan itself and don't feel that I have any conflicts in seeing this item.

So thanks.

Ryan.

Great.

Morning, members of planning commission, Ryan T.

Fertiller, Urban Planning Manager with the city's planning department.

I have just a handful of slides that I'm going to run through to introduce the commission to the application in front of you today.

And then I'll turn it over to Chelsea Gondek with the downtown partnership and the DDA as well as consultant staff that have largely worked on uh led the efforts to draft this plan.

So by all means, feel free to interrupt and ask questions if you have any, but I think the uh the applicant will have significantly more detailed information than myself.

Um the elevate plan uh applies to the area within the downtown development authority boundary.

That's roughly one square mile of the city's downtown.

Uh primarily that area is zoned form-based zone, although uh there are some areas that do not currently have the form-based zone along the edges of the DDA boundary and the plan boundary.

Um this plan is being processed as a neighborhood plan.

It is an update to the 2016 experience downtown plan, which was approved by city council.

Um the plan has two volumes, both the 2016 experience plan and the proposed elevate plan have two volumes.

The first volume is a legal requirement by state statutes uh for any DDA, any downtown development authority within the state.

That's considered a plan of development.

Um, and that is required to be approved by city council.

Um the plan of development guides use of the DDA's tax increment financing or TIFF, as well as the use of their mills.

So it really lays out a stri a strategic set of goals and ideas and concepts uh for use of those public dollars.

Volume two is really the master plan or what we now call a neighborhood plan that is broader and guides uh a wide range of land use and transportation related issues uh throughout the plan boundary.

Uh the 2016 plan included a vision framework, which is a little unique, and it had um eight uh goals, eight specific goals.

The proposed elevate plan uh removed the vision framework and replaced it with a more traditional vision statement.

Um and then it boiled the eight goals down to five.

I'm not gonna read them for you.

They're obviously here on the slide.

I should also point out, and I probably should have done this uh earlier, is that the plan the staff report included in the packet goes into much more detail than my presentation, obviously today, um, and and describes each of the five goals in in more detail.

Uh again, volume two is the more traditional land use plan, covers again a wide range of issues from land use, economic vitality, parks and open spaces, mobility, the public realm, community and culture, and then lastly infrastructure and utilities.

And again, there's significant analysis on each of these subsections within the staff report.

Um the uh the plan has been worked on for quite some time, roughly a year or so.

Um the application was formally submitted in February of this year, went through one internal uh round of reviews from city agencies, but I should point out that all the key city agencies were involved uh through the drafting process and uh had specific topic, topic specific uh discussions with the consultants and staff of the DDA um previously.

Um because this is a legislative neighborhood plan, we don't do traditional postcards and posters that we do for a site-specific uh land use entitlement.

However, there's been extensive uh public engagement throughout this process.

Um, and again, you'll hear a little bit more from this from the folks at MIG, but umerous multiple focus groups, online surveys, uh, in-person community events, pop-up events, significant social media and and email outreach to make sure that all downtown stakeholders and really the entire city uh has been aware of the efforts to draft this plan update uh and had the opportunity to weigh in about their um priorities and goals and strategies that they'd like to see incorporated in the plan.

Um some issues that received a significant amount of stakeholder discussion include support for our small businesses.

Downtown is the highest concentration of small businesses uh across the city.

Um, the need to provide more downtown amenities.

We've seen a significant increase in residential downtown residential populations since the 2016 plan was adopted, and we really want to make sure that all those residences we have somewhere around 5,000, I think now uh that those residents have the amenities that they need to really make downtown a neighborhood as well as the um commercial and cultural center uh for our city.

Um transportation options, safety and cleanliness, activation, housing and homelessness, uh again were all other issues that were uh discussed uh significantly among stakeholders.

Um, as I said, all of our city agencies had the opportunity to participate in the drafting and the review.

Um really no noteworthy items to point out on from any of those agencies, and we really tried to incorporate their feedback uh into this draft of the plan.

Um one of the key tools to evaluate a neighborhood plan like this is compatibility or consistency with plan COS, the city's comprehensive plan.

Again, there's significant analysis within uh the staff report on the various chapters of plan COS and how it relates to the elevate plan.

Um I'm not gonna go into detail uh, but I can certainly try to answer any specific questions or refer you back to the staff report for that analysis.

Um the elevate plan also uh took significant efforts to be consistent with and incorporate the guidance of previously adopted plans or what we'd call integrated plans.

Um you can see uh an image that's taken from the elevate plan that lists the the range of plans that were adopted over the last 25 years or so to make sure that we are uh consistent with and honoring those plans as well.

Um and I think they uh in my analysis, the elevate plan did a really good job of doing that.

There are some formal review criteria as you'd expect for adoption of a uh neighborhood plan.

You see those on your screen, and obviously I provided some analysis within the staff report.

Um ultimately staff did determine that the plan is consistent with the purpose of the UDC, consistent with guide relevant guiding plans and consistent with plan COS.

Um on your screen are and within the staff report, obviously are some optional motions.

Uh I should note, and maybe I should have done this previously, but I'll do it now.

Uh, this because this plan is relevant to the downtown and the form-based code area.

Uh we did have a public hearing at the downtown review board last month.

Um, lots of great dialogue from uh those volunteers, and uh ultimately they voted eight to zero to recommend that city council adopt and approve the elevate plan as drafted.

Uh I believe that concludes my uh presentation, but I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Ryan or do you want to move on to applicant?

I'll obviously uh be here if more questions come up after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Chelsea Gondek, welcome.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Chelsea Gondek, and I have the absolute pleasure of serving as the CEO for the downtown partnership.

And before I hand it over to Ellie, who really was the project manager with our consultant MIG to go through the full presentation, I just want to state that this is a super exciting day for us.

It has been well over a year of working on the update to this plan and engaging with a really wide swath of our community.

So everyone from our downtown residents, residents that live outside of downtown, certainly all of the hard work of uh the city staff that we have the pleasure of working with as well.

And really, we we took we took the opportunity to update this plan um pretty quickly after the last plan for a variety of reasons.

So generally, right, these plans last 15, 20 or so years, but we saw a pretty big shift in what a downtown means to a community, certainly with um the pandemic and really saw it as an opportunity to shift gears and look at what would be really impactful and what we should be uh utilizing our capacity and resources to do.

And I think we've come up with a really robust and holistic plan as as Ryan mentioned that we have these really five interconnected goals that we see as an opportunity to really bring our downtown into the future and meet the needs of our community now as well as our community ten plus years from now.

So I'm super excited to um be able to uh provide provide this presentation about the plan today, and with that I will turn it over to Ellie, who is our consultant with MIG.

Awesome, thank you.

Okay and see my presentation.

Can you hear me okay in the room?

Ellie, good morning.

Uh can you hear us?

We can't you can't hear me.

Um looks like it's working on my end.

You're showing as a muted, but we can still hear you.

You can't hear me.

I'll try a different microphone.

Can you hear me now?

Still nothing.

Still nothing.

Um it looks to me like teams picking up my sound.

It it appears that um maybe she's able to be heard on the team's channel, but not in the room.

That's correct.

Okay.

Correct.

But for for the record, that it is coming through in one uh methodology, just not into the room.

Do we maybe want to pause the time clock there for a moment to figure out our own?

Okay.

Um, bear with us as we figure out technology.

Ellie, can you unmute yourself and try once more?

Yep, testing again.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you now.

Awesome.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

All right.

And I'm sharing my slides as well.

Um perhaps you can show my shared screen so I can flip through them.

We can see it, yes.

And can you restart the clock, Dan?

Okay.

All right.

Should I go ahead and get started?

Sorry.

Yes, let's go ahead.

Okay.

Thanks so much.

Sorry for the delay.

Thank you, IT, for your help with that.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name's Ellie Schaefer.

I'm a senior project manager with MIG.

As Ryan said, we're the consultant working with the DDA and City of Colorado Springs on the Elevate Downtown Plan.

So I'm excited to be here with you this morning, share a little bit about our planning process and give you a bit of an overview of what's in the plan and highlighting what has changed since 2016.

So a little bit of overlap with what Ryan said here.

So I'll try to skip through these a little quickly.

But as he said, we've got two main components of our scope.

One was to update the plan of development, which is volume one, and the second is to update the master plan, volume two from 2016.

Our process was really rooted in community engagement, and that was our um sort of leading input into plan updates.

So we have been working on this since January of 2025.

We started the process with collecting updated data, reviewing background information and related plans, understanding existing conditions in downtown.

We also dove right into community engagement, and I'll speak a little bit more to that on one of my upcoming slides.

And then we worked to update the vision goals and action items, identify catalytic projects, update the assets opportunities and challenges, and then used all of that from the plan of development to inform the more physical or programmatic recommendations in volume two, the master plan.

So to dig into the community engagement a little bit, um Ryan shared this as well, but we've done a whole bunch of community engagement over the last year, plus um including focus groups, online surveys with over 2,000 respondent responses there, which we're really happy with, um, some different in-person community events and pop-ups.

We tried to do more innovative formats for those rather than your standard public meeting, really kind of going out to places where we could reach more members of the community, um, downtown residents, nearby neighborhood residents, business owners, um, different representatives from organizations that are interested in downtown.

So we really had a very broad public engagement process.

Um most recently we had a public review period for the draft plan itself, um which I'll speak to in just a second here.

But um those priority topics that we've been hearing from engagement.

We've we've sort of been having some of the same hot topics coming up throughout the course of this planning process.

So those included um, you know, wanting to have support for small businesses in downtown, increasing walkability and mobility for both getting to and around downtown, um, increasing arts and culture opportunities, increasing safety and cleanliness, um, supporting housing options and reducing homelessness, um providing public restrooms, um considerations regarding density and building heights, and then the need for a downtown grocery store.

So those are um sort of our our short list of of priority topics.

Um those were reiter reiterated again in our most recent outreach.

I mentioned the draft plan public review.

So we released the whole plan on a platform called Conveyo that's interactive, and people can go in and leave comments or feedback on specific areas of the plan.

Um we had over 900 people go and read it and look flip through the pages there.

Um only about 28 people commented, which to us is a sign that we have captured a lot of feedback already and um you know have uh reflected people's priorities in the plan.

Um again from that public review period, some key takeaways, mostly aligning with those main topics I just mentioned.

There was a few other ideas about how to update um a little bit of the the data a little bit more, since again we've been working on this for a year now, as well as um highlighting some additional um spaces and venues, such as the Acacia Park of Ban Shell.

Um, so I will give you an overview of the contents itself of the plan and happy to answer any questions either during the presentation or um at the end as well.

So the plan itself, Elevate Downtown Colorado Springs has the two volumes that I mentioned.

Um it does start with an introduction, which you'll see sort of outside of those two volumes that provides a little bit of an overview of the plan, um, some context, all those related plans that Ryan shared, some more background information and implementation priorities.

Um, and then volume one plan of development.

So this is where we talk about assets, opportunities and challenges, vision framework.

We define the DDA boundary and discuss how tax increment financing should work for this area.

Volume two is more physical programmatic, specific to land use mobility and whatnot.

Um, there were three chapters, chapters two, six, and seven that are highlighted in blue on my slide.

Those are three chapters that we added to the plan since the last version.

So a few highlights from volume one.

Um I won't read through all of these, but obviously, downtown has a lot of assets.

Um, and we've tried to consolidate those and capture them all in eight uh on this slide.

These are all updated since the last plan.

Some have carried through, you know, continued assets, some have um sort of a new twist on them, like um A4 recent residential development really reflects a lot of um you know new development that's occurred since 2016, and um previously the plan sort of leaned into more of the Olympic side of the sports economy, but we've broadened that a little bit here in A8 to reflect some recent um sports stadium developments regarding um challenges for downtown, it continues to be um sort of broad things like providing a variety of housing choices, attracting and retaining a diverse workforce, um enhancing public transportation.

Um there's a couple um, well, there's updates throughout these as well.

A few of the most recent ones we added were just looking at the cost of development in downtown as well as uh the impact of tax exempt parcels from all of the uh publicly owned or some institutional facilities in downtown and the effect of that on funding for downtown.

And then looking at opportunities, um there's again a lot here, amenitizing the downtown neighborhood is one.

I'll point out again.

Now that there's more people living in downtown, how can we really lean into it as a not just the central business district, but also um a neighborhood of residents and how to serve um different different folks therein.

And then the vision and goals.

So our vision for downtown uh communities vision is downtown is the vibrant and inclusive heart of our community where history, culture, and nature meet modern urban living, the hub of creativity, commerce, and civic life.

It thrives through strong partnerships that foster sustainability, equity, and shared prosperity.

Um, so these five goals that we've identified are really carried throughout the plan and helped us sort of guide the recommendations therein.

Um a few priority action steps that we've identified within each of these goals.

So the first goal is the heart of the Pikes Peak region.

Um, so this is really about positioning downtown in a strategic um manner, empowering local retailers and um being the heartbeat of startups and creative enterprise.

Goal number two is the region's most vibrant and welcoming neighborhood.

So again, that neighborhood concept.

Um so here we're looking at strengthening the clean and safe program that's ongoing, diversifying housing options, and um looking at full service grocery and other amenities for that downtown neighborhood.

Goal three is about peak urban life with unmatched access to nature.

So really this the priorities here are bringing downtown's public spaces to life with safety and year-round activation, um, activating the waterfronts, completing the legacy loop, and um telling the story of downtown as a place where you know you do have that urban energy, but there's access to nature and adventure really just outside the the doorsteps there.

Goal four is culture powered by creativity and sport.

So celebrating and elevating arts, culture, and iconic destinations, strengthening the creative economy, and um activating downtown around sports.

And then goal five, urban design shaped for humans.

So really looking at um seamless transit and other travel options in downtown, making streets safer, more accessible, and promoting um connected sidewalks and active ground floors that really kind of contribute to the pedestrian experience in downtown.

Then volume two, um, we'll go into a little bit more detail here.

So chapter one is focused on land use and character.

So it includes historic context, existing land use, districts and gateways, and then several catalytic sites.

Um I mentioned one of the big topics for the community was thinking about density and building heights.

Um the plan really tries to understand benefits of density, um, things that you know, like tax revenue, how density brings more people into downtown to activate it, um, is more efficient for infrastructure.

Um, then it also considers things like shade and views and how taller buildings can impact those.

So we have a few graphics like the one on this slide that from a few different viewpoints considers some of the taller buildings that are um approved and planned for downtown and how those impact the skyline and the view of the mountains.

Um, and then the plan also includes recommendations for upper story design and rooftop activation to really leverage any new taller buildings that may come online.

Catalytic sites were in the 2016 plan.

Um this plan updates those.

Some of those sites you know have been developed since then.

We also um used a more detailed um categorization to break these into specific sites that are catalyst opportunities, um, certain desired uses that might not be site specific, um, and then other enhancements or developments that are in the pipeline or nearby influence sites for downtown.

So that includes 26 different sites across those categories.

Um, this plan also adds a lot more visualizations to um sort of help capture what the community would like to see happen on those different sites and kind of key physical components that should be associated with any development on these these sites.

Um our partner economic and planning systems also did a deep dive into the grocery store concept.

So looking at demand, um potential grocers, sites that um might meet the selection criteria grocer might use.

Um we've identified nine sites highlighted in red on this slide, and also the plan outlines incentive options to help attract a downtown grocery store to actually locate um in this area.

And then the plan continues to look at districts and gateways.

These are refined a little bit to better align with the URA boundaries, and we talk about progress that has been made on the gateways since the last plan, as well as additional improvements that can continue to be made and a little bit of new gateway content as well.

Um, so the gateways are just really important to mark arrival in downtown and contribute to that sort of sense of place and make sure it's a it's a memorable um district and arrival experience.

The second chapter, economic vitality.

This is a new chapter in the plan.

Here we look at more specifics for how to support small businesses, attracting and retaining employers and employees, tourism, visitation, and again that concept of neighborhoodifacation.

So to support small businesses, the plan looks at expanding or supplement different grant programs and funding sources, working with brokers to curate a tenant mix that folks would like to see in downtown, activating temporary um vacant storefronts, and then encouraging site cleanup or restoration on sites that may need that.

Um, with employers' employees, um, there's a bit of a lack of class A office space downtown.

So the plan identifies ways to incentivize that, um, providing amenities for people living and working downtown, so making it a more desirable place even to live and work, um, working with different partners and educational institutions to attract young and prospective employees and promoting the enterprise zone designation.

Looking at open space, um, the plan outlines downtown parks and other opportunities for those parks, um, completing the legacy loop, connecting and cleaning up waterways, um, and uh trail-oriented development.

So the legacy loop really has one segment that remains to really close that that loop around downtown.

So the plan looks at that as well as um where new and improved facilities and updated infrastructure are needed.

Um activating the waterfront.

Although it's a little bit outside of this planning horizon, most likely, we do address it as well as well as creating a gateway park south.

And then trail oriented development.

So this is a new concept in the plan as well.

This looks at integrating multi-use trails with residential and commercial development.

So you know, really kind of putting people's front doors facing the creeks, leaning into the trail as an amenity and attraction in downtown.

And the content of this section does align with the Coast Creeks plan and the envisioned Shooks Run Corridor Facilities Master Plan, which starts to contemplate some of the same ideas.

It also includes best practices for trail oriented development.

And then chapter four, the mobility network.

So here we have a framework identifying different street types.

We've added content looking at intersection and safety improvements.

And then it dives into different modes of transportation, active transportation, transit, and vehicles.

Walkability was a major priority for the community in downtown.

So we've got a new framework for a few of the street types, and there's updated street sections, like an example of which is shown on my slide here.

We looked at uh key corridors and intersections for safety improvements based on crash data.

Um there's recommendations for bike facilities, filling sidewalk gaps, um, providing mobility hubs, um, micro-mobility support.

So how to handle things like scooters downtown, um, and then better connectivity, not only within downtown, but to surrounding regional destinations.

Um the street types I mentioned, there's placemaking streets, active transportation priority streets, and residential garden streets.

So you can see on this map kind of how those fall throughout downtown each has sort of different focuses, street sections and um priorities.

Again, I mentioned the intersections and safety improvements, a few of those high priority areas from that um initial analysis were Kioa and Bijou, Platte, Colorado, and Cimaron.

Um, so sort of those bigger red circles where there's been more crashes in recent years.

Um we identify several safety countermeasures that could be used in those locations, although that'll be sort of a next step coming out of this plan to take a closer look at what safety countermeasures appropriate for different intersections depending on what the issues are that are happening there.

Chapter five, public realm and urban design.

So we'll get into form-based code, public space, and district identity.

Um as Ryan mentioned, the form-based code covers much of downtown, and there's a separate revision process that's going to be occurring to the form-based code.

So this plan is not an update to the form-based code, but does include some recommendations to align those downtown districts with um with those form-based zone areas, um, some clarity around the definitions of uses that are allowed or encouraged in those zone districts, and then a few specifics like encouraging architectural diversity, upper floor design, and um environmentally sustainable design for buildings.

Um also added to this version of the plan, um, which was a really important topic for the public was community and historic preservation.

So this section includes kind of two parts, that first part being communities, so really looking at how to help ensure that downtown um existing people that live in downtown can stay there.

Um, so different housing options, tenant resources, um, potential for community land trust and um upward economic mobility, so supporting um folks economically who who live in downtown.

Um, and then the second part is about the historic preservation components, so maintaining character and cultural identity through historic buildings, um the historic medians on some of downtown streets also came up and are addressed in the plan.

Um two more chapters here, I think.

Chapter six, uh, community and culture.

So we felt like the plan needed a section that was um focused a little bit more on arts events and um sort of people and safety.

So that's sort of what this uh chapter covers.

Um with arts and culture, the plan really recommends you know, additional public art and and placemaking in strategic locations, um, advocating for arts and cultural venues downtown, supporting the creative sector, fostering partnerships and expanding event offerings.

With housing and homelessness, we know that this is a pretty big issue that downtown is facing as well.

So we we had a focus group around this topic.

We've engaged the community on it, uh, actually two focus groups on this topic.

Um, and you know, we recognize that the DDA and the downtown partnership are uh important players in this um issue, but really to, you know, homelessness is such a complex issue that it's going to require collaboration between um part different partners and um the Pikes Peak Continuum of Care.

Um the plan does include some recommendations like building so social infrastructure, so um, whether that be educational campaigns, humanizing different issues, and training staff in local business um businesses for how to deal with any issues that may arise.

Um, and then you know, homelessness would be remiss to discuss without talking about uh homes and housing.

So the plan advocates for um potentially supporting more affordable housing development in downtown to the degree which the DDA can um contribute to that.

Oops, here we go.

Public restrooms came up.

So this is touched on in the plan um recommendations for how to um strategically place those, how they should be designed, including a few case studies and considerations um for maintenance and operations of those.

And then safety and cleanliness.

Um the downtown partnership has a clean and safe pilot program going on, um, which we're really excited about.

So the plan recommends to you know continue and learn from that and then do some permanent uh implementation of what worked from the pilot.

Um in terms of safety, we also look at um public space activation, you know, having more people out in public spaces helps with safety as well as um crime prevention design tactics or uh crime prevention through environmental design, SEPTED, if you've heard of that.

Um so we look at things like how to design public spaces for visibility, light, eyes on the street, that sort of thing.

Um the plan also looks at coordination and collaboration on training, um, working with neighborhoods, and um building relationships with law enforcement.

Lastly, infrastructure and utilities, another chapter that was added to the plan.

Um, this came up just based on new, you know, more density that has been built in downtown recently, as well as you know, is likely anticipated in downtown over the next several years.

So in terms of enhanced infrastructure, it's really making sure that downtown is equipped to handle that additional density.

So the plan looks at um fiber construction and public Wi-Fi opportunities, electric vehicle charging stations, and how that's required in new development, um, the potential undergrounding of overhead utilities where possible.

Um, and then options for downtown area drainage master plan to sort of reduce barriers on a site-by-site basis for new development and um looking at a more district approach for stormwater drainage.

And then public services.

So we've coordinated a lot with partners here, um, making sure that emergency response um, you know, is it going to be adequate adequate?

And we've been, you know, really assured that um it's it is, and especially in downtown, it's um it's quite efficient.

Um, new schools uh and how and when those would be triggered based on more population and um collaboration between um key partners for successful development.

So a few different programs and task forces identified there as it relates to public services.

Um with that, that are those are all my slides.

Happy to answer any specific questions or uh take any comments.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ellie.

Uh, do any commissioners have any questions at this time?

Okay.

Um I guess even though presentation only, we are making recommendations, we'll open up to public comment.

Um do we have anyone in the audience who is here to speak in favor of this plan and presentation?

And have you signed up on the list?

Okay, perfect.

All right, Melissa or Swanja, let you call off in order that you have them.

Thank you.

Our first speaker in support is Samuel Clark.

Hey Sam, welcome.

You have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Thank you, Commissioner Hensler.

Uh, my name is Sam Clark.

I have the privilege of being the chair of the Downtown Development Authority.

I also serve as the executive director of the Pikes Peak Real Estate Foundation.

And I'm speaking in support of this plan for two reasons.

One, in my capacity on the DDA, is really to acknowledge that this is a comprehensive and really responsive plan to the downtown community.

I'll just lay out some of the efforts that were put out here.

We had 16 focus groups, thousands of survey responses, countless social media, mailers, newsletters.

We had pop-ups downtown.

We had neighbor and vendor outreach, uh, in-person community events.

We had input from city council, the partnership board, the DDA, the downtown review board, and this commission as well, uh, which is really kind of a long way of saying this has been an exhaustive process of really taking in a lot of input from virtually kind of every access of the downkent town community.

And I you know, I'll think Chelsea and her team, they put a lot of shoe leather into this.

Uh, a lot of that is really just walking the street and connecting with people to talk to them about what are their needs, priorities, and visions for this uh for our downtown.

If I were to switch gears and talk about as the Pikes Peak Real Estate Foundation, you know, our job is to figure out how philanthropy and nonprofits and public-private partnerships can use real estate to build the city that we want to have.

We we own a building downtown that's a hub for philanthropists.

The project I'm most proud of is we help bring the first New Markets tax credit project to Colorado Springs since 2010 to build a an expanded childcare center downtown.

And uh you know, if you have kids, the the best way to guarantee somebody comes to the office every day is put their child care next to their office because nobody wants to stay at home with their kids and work from home.

Um so really what this plan does is it creates this comprehensive vision, it gives us waypoints, it helps us understand our roles and define how is it that we as organizations and individuals contribute to this big idea of a thriving heart at the center of our community.

So uh I'm here to speak in support of this.

Uh we appreciate your approval of this plan and uh want to thank you and Chelsea for making this such a uh great representation of the city that we want to have.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

So much.

Our next speaker is Diane Bridges.

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

Thank you.

Hi, uh Diane Bridges.

I'm vice president of a neighborhood called Historic Uptown, which is adjacent to the downtown area.

And in addition, I'm chair for a neighborhood organization called the Historic Neighborhoods Partnership.

Um so we are very much uh and and I as well are very much in support of this plan.

Um I actually we actually use the same work that the gentleman prior to me said, very comprehensive plan.

Um I myself personally and professionally am a planner, respect the visionary aspects and and the complete aspect and all the variant uh areas that this plan actually covers.

Um, the word that repeatedly is used of vibrancy is so important today-to-day life.

And my goodness, who would not want a vibrant heart of our city in the downtown area?

Very much appreciate all the efforts that were poured into this as was articulated, was an extensive effort spanning about a year.

Love the economics, of course.

You know, we love the historic aspect, right?

Love the traffic safety.

Our neighborhood, we're focused on that, working with public works, right?

Love that.

And personally, I love the culture arts.

So we are very endeared to this plan.

Again, felt it was very comprehensive and a good plan.

Last but not least, I want to say really appreciate the process that was undertaken and personally call out Chelsea as well as uh Chris Liebert throughout aspects of uh certain topics, and then another individual, Jessica Thompson.

Um the public engagement was great.

We appreciate that.

The engagement uh was nicely coupled with just listening, and we appreciate the fact that people listen.

Uh so thank you.

Good plan, good process.

Awesome.

Thanks so much, Diane.

So Lange, do we have anyone else um signed up to speak in favor?

Or can you check uh in the room and online?

We don't have anybody else signed up.

If uh somebody would like to speak in favor of this item and didn't get the chance to sign up, please come to the podium.

Seeing nobody, if there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this item, please uh press star six to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

If there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please come to the podium.

Seeing nobody, uh, if there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please spread star seeks to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

Okay, great.

Um we didn't really have any opposition, obviously, but does the applicant have any final comments that they'd like to make uh during the you know kind of planned rebuttal period?

Closing remarks.

And then we'll bring that back up to the dais after.

Thank you again, Chelsea Gondak, CEO of the Downtown Partnership.

Um, I just really appreciate both Sam and Diane coming up and speaking to kind of the breadth of this uh of this process and genuinely it is a better plan because of all of the input that we did receive.

So I just want to echo appreciation to them both as well as the city staff who had a heavy hand in this to really bring forward this truly visionary and exciting document.

So thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chelsea.

All right, with that, I think we'll bring it back up to the dais for discussion.

So, commissioners questions.

And I would also um suggest and recommend that you use the request to speak button.

And then also as we're updating our meeting minutes process, if you could state your name uh for the record, just so we make sure we get everything right in the minutes.

So uh Commissioner Robbins.

Yes, Commissioner Robbins.

I just want to say I I cannot imagine the uh amount of effort, the work everybody has put into this.

It's pretty incredible.

And I really appreciate what you guys have done on this.

And uh I obviously am very much for what you guys have done.

And uh I look forward to the next time uh people have the commitment that you all have put into this.

It's just amazing.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ryan Good morning, guys.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh I do just have one question out of curiosity, and I don't know if it's for Ellie or Chelsea, but um specifically revolved around the case studies of different cities that were maybe looked at.

Um, maybe comparison or just what those cities were.

Thank you.

And I would turn it over to Ellie if she has um specific instances she wants to speak to, but I do know that we did look at sort of other, I would say aspirational cities um in terms of some of the activations or policies or processes that they have in the attempt, right, to replicate it for ours.

But I don't know, Ellie, if you know top of mind some of those specific other cities that we um that we looked at.

Thanks.

That's uh that is a great question.

You know, I don't have a list on the top of my mind.

We looked at cities, other cities in a lot of different ways, both in what to do and what not to do.

Um, but would be happy to pull together a list of that and and follow up in response to that question.

That'd be great.

Uh I'm just out of curiosity more than anything.

There's a lot of great cities in the world, and so obviously taking notes from some of those and implementing is important.

So thanks, guys.

Yeah, I will note that generally we look at other cities that are maybe kind of a step ahead of us.

So in terms of right, we're very much so a mid-sized city, sister city to a larger metropolitan area.

And as Ellie stated, right, looking at how others have succeeded and wanting to replicate that for us.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And sorry, one follow-up there.

I did just find um a page in our plan where we do have a consolidated list of few cities that we looked at.

So I'll mention those real quick.

Uh Salt Lake City, Spokane, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Raleigh, and Denver, we all looked at.

And that was specific to looking at the economic value of density and how they sort of upzoned or handled uh density in their downtown.

Ryan T.

Verteller, urban plan and manager.

I just refer the commission to page 64.

The plan is specifically where Ellie was uh just referencing the portion of the plan that looks at some uh similar communities and how they deal with some uh uh density and building height related issues.

Ryan, while you're there, and it doesn't appear that anyone else has signed up to speak yet, um, Chair Hensler.

Um talk to me about the interaction between, and especially as we move forward between um city planning and your role and the partnerships plan, especially as it's related to um downtown form-based zone design, development.

Um I think that there's probably a lot of overlay, but maybe you could just articulate that for the record.

Sure.

So development within this plan boundary is largely processed through the city's planning department, uh, similar to the way that applications come in front of the planning commission.

Um development plans are submitted, conditional use applications, requests for relief, those types of things.

If it is within the form-based zone, uh those applications are processed through the downtown review board, which is the primary entity that implements the form-based code.

Um the standards within the form-based code are um adopted uh by city council.

They are implemented by city staff.

City staff has been working for some time to update some of those form-based code standards when those um code, when those proposed updates are finalized, there will be a stakeholder process and ultimately um uh any updates to the form-based code will go through the downtown review board and on to city council.

Um, city staff works very closely with downtown partnership staff, the downtown development authority, other stakeholder groups on both proposed updates to the form-based code as well as uh site specific development applications.

Um so we um make sure that all stakeholders, including the DDA, are aware of proposed development projects.

They have the opportunity to provide input.

Uh that input is considered both by staff and by the downtown review board should it need DRB approval.

Hope I covered it.

Yeah, happy to answer any additional questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm just kind of scrolling through, and I think there's so many aspirational um goals as far as you know, the reimagining and the enhanced use sites.

Um, and so I just appreciate you talking about that kind of in a general sense.

So I guess the one last comment I'll say is this plan is used as a tool to evaluate certain types of development applications downtown.

Um, specifically if a project needs relief from a form-based standard, one of the review criteria is consistency with the downtown plan.

Um, and so that's where we'll look at all the elements of this document and uh use it as a guide to support those specific project requests.

Wonderful.

Thank you for that.

Chelsea.

I would just add an additional note that um in as part of this process, right?

And what we hear from the community and what we hear sort of from organizations that are interested in downtown, we did develop recommendations um or ideas that could be uh weaved into the update to the form-based code specifically as well.

Great.

All right, anybody else have questions, comments?

Andrea.

Good morning.

I'll make a comment here.

Um congratulate you on all of the work and process.

Um obviously it was very robust and brought in uh a variety of voices that don't always um participate um or or seek to participate.

Um I wanted to mention the comprehensive list of integrated plans uh especially and hope and hopes that we um are moving forward because there's been a lot of great ideas into implementation mode.

Um so just thank you for your work on this.

I will be in support of this application.

Any other commissioners with questions or comments?

Okay.

Um I think with that, we can probably consider a motion uh based on the criteria, and I appreciate that Ryan had that well laid out in the um staff report.

And personally, I will say I don't um I don't see any way that it doesn't meet all of those criteria.

And so again, I applaud the commission or that um the downtown planning uh downtown partnership and the planning process, your consultants um and all the citizen involvement.

Um I think it's been a tremendous and two stands or exhaustive process over a couple of years.

And I also uh having been involved in in the downtown partnership and other organizations in the city have seen the implementation of the last master plan, which I think by any stretch anyone would say was successfully implemented and gave a great uh foundation for this next version.

So again, great work and um there's a motion.

Yeah, go ahead.

Commissioner Robins here.

Um I make a motion that we approve the elevate downtown plan as completed.

Commissioner Clemens, I'll check it.

The motion passes six to one.

And with Commissioner Gigiano post.

So we will be back around ten fifteen.

Wait for all of our commissioners to be reseated.

All right.

I'm going to um bring us back and and call us to order here again.

Um let's see where we are in our agenda.

Okay.

Um before we move on to the next item, the Kettle Creek, um, I'd like to ask uh Commissioner Gigiano who uh was the loan opposition into the last item to just state for the record her justification for such.

So Commissioner.

Uh this is uh Commissioner Gigiano for the record.

Uh my reason for my no vote was um I feel like the overdevelopment risk is high on this, um and I worry about uh public facilities being strained without careful more careful planning.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we'll move on to the next item.

Solange if you could read that into the record.

Item eight B and EX dash two five dash zero zero zero two, Kettle Creek annexation number one annexation consisting of nineteen point eighty eight acres located northeast of Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road intersection.

Item eight C O N E dash two five dash zero zero two eight.

The established sorry, the establishment of an R Flex Medium residential flex zone medium scale with streamside and United States Air Force Academy Overlay Zone District in association with the Kettle Creek edition number one.

Item eight D L U P L Dash two five dash zero zero one four establishment of the Kettle Creek Annex Station Line Use Plan for a proposed single family residential, attached and detached use consisting of nineteen point eighty-eight acres located northeast of the Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road intersection.

Your presenter is Chris Sullivan.

Uh good morning, Commissioners.

Chris Sullivan, senior planner uh for the planning department.

Um the case planner on this application, um which is the Kettle Creek edition number one annexation zone establishment and associated land use plan.

Um just uh kind of set the stage here.

I'll give a presentation from the planning perspective.

Uh we have CSU here uh to give a secondary presentation from the utilities perspective on annexations and then we will have the applicant come up to do the applicant presentation from uh NES.

Um so we are looking at a nineteen uh point eight eight acre annexation.

Uh we're on the north end of the city, uh within the Kettle Creek neighborhood area, uh slash Briargate neighborhood area.

Uh we're northeast of Old Ranch Road and Voyager Parkway off of uh Kettle Creek Road.

The annexation consists of three properties.

Um which is the area highlighted in red.

Um so three properties, two ownerships, uh so there's two partitions in your packet.

Um and the annexation also includes all of the right-of-way associated with Kettle Creek Road.

Um and just to give you a little bit more context, uh so these properties uh associated with this are existing single family residential use on large lots.

Uh one of those lots is vacant, however.

We're surrounded by um R one six neighborhoods to the uh east.

Uh directly adjacent kind of within the rectangular cutout.

Uh I'm gonna say southeast of the site, uh is a property uh uh that was annexed recently, uh part of the Hope Chapel annexations one and two uh that happened a few years ago.

And then to the south of the site, um, you have additional county enclave.

Um, northwest, you're gonna have uh BP zone, which is uh a lot of in industry business type use, commercial use up there.

Um so as I briefly stated, this is an annexation including three properties, two different ownerships, uh totaling uh 19.88 acres.

Part of the and part of the annexation process requires that you have at least 50% of the ownership involved, all of the ownership is involved.

You have to have one sixth contiguity.

All of this site is contiguous with city boundary, so they're 100% contiguous.

Um with private property, uh, you are required to do an annexation agreement.

Uh in your packet, you'll notice you'll note that there's a draft annexation agreement.

Uh, at the planning commission stage, we're not required to have a full-on executed agreement, but we want to be pretty close.

Uh we think we are.

There are a few edits that are probably going to happen uh after this review.

Uh, but uh before they can move any further, they'll have to have an executed agreement.

Um, and then I'll also note uh right of way, Sal Paso County Roadway, uh Kettle Creek Road.

That'll get deeded over to the city prior to uh recordation of this annexation.

Uh as far as the zone establishment, the existing site is uh has county zoning, so RR5, RR25 that's rural rural residential uh large lot.

Uh upon bringing this into the city, the request is to go to an R Flex medium uh and we would establish streamside overlay and Air Force Academy overlay.

Um on the screen, I've kind of laid out the general uh dimensional standards that go with the R Flex medium.

So probably the biggest thing to note is the density range.

Uh, it allows five to sixte dwelling units per acre.

Um then I'll also note that this site is not, it doesn't have stream on it, but it is adjacent to the Kettle Creek stream system, so there will be streamside overlay that affects the site, and that is being established with this project.

And then just to note on the Air Force Academy overlay, uh, it's within proximity of the Air Force Academy.

Um, all of the properties surrounding the site are subject to Air Force Academy overlay, so it uh only makes sense that this site would be two.

Uh both the streamside reviewer and the Air Force Academy were part of the review.

Uh, so they did have input on this application.

Um, and then on your screen, I've identified that uh Hope Chapel annexation that did occur.

Uh that went to an R5 that established um multifamily resident residential on that site at 15 dwelling units per acre.

So just to kind of give you a little context, this is pretty similar to that.

Um that project is under construction.

Next slide here.

Uh we have the a snippet of the land use plan.

So this is just going along with that zone establishment.

Uh zone establishments require a supporting document.

In this case, it's a land use plan.

Uh, the intent is to establish single-family residential use under the R Flex zone district, uh, between that five to sixteen dwelling units per acre.

Um, it's noted on the land use plan via the PLDO requirements that they are intending to do 123 units, um, which puts them about at 11 12 dwelling units per acre.

Uh, you'll notice some green areas on that land use plan.

Uh, to the northeast, uh there was a um United States Fish and Wildlife Service uh determination that was conducted on this site, similar to what was done on the Hope Chapel annexation uh related to the preble meadow jumping mouse.

Um in that determination, it was uh made clear that there's no significant significant impact, though that there is uh potential area that could be habitat.

So what you're seeing on the screen is a buffer, a preservation area that is intended for to account for that potential area of habitat.

To the south, you'll note that there is a detention pond and there's a strip of green along the frontage of old ranch road.

Part of the requirements from traffic engineering was that uh there needs to be a dedication of 13 feet along that frontage, um, and then an additional eight foot of uh improvement easement.

And then their detention facility is also intended to be on that southwest corner of their site.

Uh, one other thing to note primary access for this site.

So Kettle Creek Road is intended to be vacated.

Uh, that'll have to happen post annexation via a different application, which is actually under review.

Um, the intent is to uh reroute that to uh a point a little further east of where it currently connects into old ranch road, and then additionally, their second point of access will lead through that neighboring Hope Chapel development uh known as cottages at Kettle Creek.

Um then uh any existing improvements like uh such as the residential houses, those are those are going to be scraped.

So I'll have on that site.

So originally this application uh was submitted on October 5th, 2025.

We went through five reviews.

Item was deemed ready for uh commission review in March, and here we are today.

Um, and just to note a little bit in addition, um part of the next steps, there will be a resolution setting the hearing date, assuming we move forward.

Um, and then two public hearings before city council.

Part of this review requires public input.

Um public notices were sent out for two points during this review, initial review and prior to this commission hearing uh that went out to property owners within a thousand feet of the site.

11 postcards were issued with on-site posters placed on property.

Um this says six comments were received.

I think we're up to eight comments now.

Uh, a couple of new comments were forwarded to the commissioners identifying other public items that were negative against the project.

So there have been no positive uh comments that have come in, but the ones that did come in were either against or uh had significant concerns, mostly related to traffic, but also noting things such as uh uh whether or not there's a need for more housing, uh pedestrian connectivity uh related to the school systems adjacent to the site or near the site.

Uh environmental impact.

And believe that was it.

Yes.

Uh those comments were provided for you in your packet or via email.

This slide uh identifies some of the agency review comments that were received.

Uh some of the significant ones came from traffic related to dedication of right-of-way and addition of a of an improvement ease it easement to the site.

Um, and then in addition, uh providing a eastbound left turn lane uh at Old Ranch Road per the traffic impact study.

Parks also ID that uh future development plan would be reviewed for parkland dedication ordinance or fees, school dedication ordinance or fees, and uh CDI fees.

Uh, and then the school district D20 uh did identify that uh they can serve any number of students students that come out of this development.

In my report, um I go over pretty thoroughly uh the relation of this project to plan COS and its compliance.

Uh I'm not gonna go into the details of that, uh, but ultimately staff found that the project complies with the applicable visions, big ideas and strategies of plan COS.

This slide is related to annexation criteria.

Um again, uh staff report does go over this.

Uh staff finds that the application does meet the review criteria for annexation.

And again, these are the criteria for a zone map amendment.

Staff finds that the application does meet those criteria for a zone map amendment.

One more for you.

These are the criteria for land use plan.

Staff does find that the application meets the criteria for establishing a land use plan for this area.

So there's three motions or three items to make a motion on, including approval or denial of annexation, zone establishment, and land use plan.

Any questions for city staff?

Does anybody have any questions at this time?

Okay.

Then Chris, we'll have you stay close, of course.

But I think we'll move on into the applicant presentation.

I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, CSU is next.

Sorry, Brian.

Good to see you.

All right.

Good to see you.

Good to be back.

It's been a while.

Good morning, Chair Hensler.

City Planning Commissioners, my name is Brian English.

I'm a development projects manager with Carter Springs Utilities Customers Utilities Connection.

Tongue twister there.

Today presentation will focus on the Kettle Creek Edition No.

Annexation, a forest service utility overview.

We'll focus today on the city code requirements and conditions that must be met or considered by the Planning Commission as well as City Council as they consider approval of the proposed annexation.

We will start off with a quick vicinity map just to reorient everyone with the property located generally east of I-25, the Air Force Academy, an enclave in Northern Colorado Springs.

This is also known as the water extension ordinance.

Requires City Council approval to extend water services to any property located outside city limits.

This does include any proposed annexations.

And the three, the third is a combination of different conditions.

Either the area is an enclaved, it is owned or leased by the city, or it would have a de minimis impact on the city's water supply.

Our reliably met demand, our RMD is 95,000 acre feet a year.

That's the amount of water supply that Springs utilities can currently reliably serve and deliver to the city of Colorado Springs and our customers.

Existing usage, which is a five-year weather normalized rolling average.

That's going to be for the period of 2021 through 2025 is uh 70,115 acre feet a year.

So when we apply the 128% requirement to the existing usage, our minimum water supply requirement is uh just shy of 89,800 acre feet a year.

So that's the buffer that utilities is mandated to preserve uh for existing customers and land that's presently within within the city limits of Colorado Springs.

Our available water surplus uh when we subtract the reliably met demand from the minimum water supply requirement is a little over uh 5200 acre feet a year.

That's really the amount of water that's available when considering extension of water service outside city limits.

Um, in the footnotes there, very important.

Uh you'll see why on the next slide.

Uh the de minimis impact is one percent of the available water surplus or 53 acre feet a year.

Any any projected water demands that are 53 acre feet a year or less are considered de minimis.

At this point, we'll go ahead and apply the water extension ordinance based on the land use provided by the applicant for Kettle Creek.

The projected water demand is approximately 29 acre feet a year.

That is less than the de minimis uh impact to the city's water supply.

Um, not only that, it is an enclave, so it does meet the conditions in section three that was on the water ordinance slide of both uh an enclave and having a de minimis impact for informational purposes.

For informational purposes, total petitioned annexations that we're currently tracking.

The aggregate projected water demand of those, including Kettle Creek is about 54 acre feet a year.

And annexations that city council has approved since the water extension ordinance was adopted in February 2023.

That was a total of 23 annexations.

That total is 1,723 acre feet a year.

Why that is important, utilities has uh acknowledged that to meet the current in-city demand, we have about a 34,000 acre foot a year gap between our current reliably met demand and the amount of water supply that we will need to develop in the coming years to support continued development and growth.

So for every acre foot beyond that 34,000, which we we will need to develop additional water supply to support uh annexations and growth.

So beyond the 34,000 acre feet, we expect to have to add another 1723 acre feet of year of water supply to support development of annexed properties.

The next section is City Code 75701.

These are requirements for annexation.

Uh this specifies that the owner is to dedicate any existing groundwater rights to the city, as well as any additional water rights that were historically used to the benefit of the property to the city to essentially add to our water supply portfolio.

Current conditions, the applicant did submit records for two existing well permits serving the two existing single family homes on the developed lots.

Uh, we have reviewed those and have no concerns about any of the information provided.

Uh, as is standard uh development policy for rights of way and easements.

The owner developer is responsible for granting to or providing to utilities any rights of way or easements that are needed to install public utility infrastructure or facilities.

Uh item D uh addresses service area overlap.

Uh Kettle Creek uh addition, the property is presently located in Mountain View Electric Association or MVEA's electric service territory.

Under Colorado revised statutes, MVEA would be entitled to just compensation if the property is annexed and incorporated into the city and Colorado Springs Utilities electric service territory.

Uh any just compensation uh would be paid by the owner or developer.

Natural gas, the property is presently located in Springs Utilities Service Territory and Springs Utilities would serve the property without respect to annexation.

This exhibit just illustrates the electric service territory territory overlap.

Uh while it's also an enclave of the city, it is also an enclave of Colorado Springs Utilities Electric Service Territory and the two existing single family homes are presently served by Mountain View Electric Association.

Next up are conditions of annexation.

So the next couple of slides are really exhibits that uh intend to illustrate uh how the proposed annexation uh would address these conditions, uh whether or not there's adequate service capacity uh to meet the needs of the property if annexed, as well as uh remaining customers for the foreseeable future, whether uh existing and projected infrastructure facilities are adequate to serve present and future customers, uh, whether utility extensions and facilities can be installed to effectively serve the annexation and development, and whether utilities revenues generated by the development would be sufficient to offset the estimated immediate and long-term costs of the annexation and provision of springs utilities for services.

Uh, water and wastewater infrastructure first.

On the left is water uh being a relatively small enclave that's surrounded uh by the city and largely or partially county and largely developed areas.

As you can see, much of the off-site water and for that matter wastewater infrastructure presently exists, so there would be limited off site extensions or improvements required, and uh most of the extensions would be on-site, uh, all of which would be at the owner or developer's expense.

Next up, we have natural gas and electric, similar to water and wastewater, uh, largely surrounded by an abundance of existing infrastructure.

Uh in this case, uh Springs Utilities would design and construct the gas and electric extensions, uh, but it would be at the owner or developer's expense per our current tariff.

From a Springs Utilities capital cost uh perspective, uh these are elements infrastructure, resources, uh meters, vehicles that we uh anticipate would be needed to support the development based on the proposed land use uh on the low end uh about 900,000 dollars, and on the high end, 1.3 million dollars.

The high end is with just a uh 50% multiplier, therefore the the mid is a 20 for 25% multiplier.

So these are costs that utilities would be responsible for.

Uh certainly there's other costs that the developer would be responsible for.

Um, and uh they they could provide that information.

Additionally, we we will do a we've completed a more robust uh cost payback model, and that information will be presented at city council should the planning commission make a recommendation to move this forward.

So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I just have one question with the other development that is uh just to the south that's connected to Old Ranch.

You show that in your slides as being not in the boundaries, but given that went through annexation.

I don't know the timeline.

Chris mentioned it.

I think I weighed in on that one.

Um, is this just kind of an outdated indication of uh if you go a couple more?

Uh uh keep going.

Like here, you kind of show that the city boundary goes around that little parcel, but I believe that has been annexed.

So are you are you are utility lines and infrastructure going through to make this future connection easier?

To my knowledge, um, Chair Hensler, I think you're referring to the Hope Chapel annexation to the south.

Maybe, but I swear it was this one.

Okay.

Southeast.

Yeah, I maybe Yeah, that that has been annexed.

Um sometimes it's a records issue in that off-site distribution main call out or maybe blocking it.

I I think the city boundary has been updated.

Sometimes it's a timing issue because even though once city council approves it, it's not official until the annexation plat is recorded.

And oftentimes there can be a delay between when the plat's recorded and the actual um layers are updated.

Okay.

So right.

I I think I'm understanding it and seeing some additional information.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry, any other questions uh from commissioners at this time.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I'll be around if you have a question.

Thank you.

Okay, so I don't call for the applicant yet.

Is that what's next, Ian?

Okay.

First rodeo, kind of.

Uh all right.

Next up, applicant presentation.

Good morning, Andrea Barlow with NES for the record.

Um commissioners and Chair Hensler.

Thank you, and good morning.

Um, I hopefully can answer some of those questions.

Um before we get started, though, one thing I want to clarify in my mind, because I always find it confusing, and I hope it's not confusing for you guys, is while the CSU presentation is fresh in your mind.

As Brian presented, there's the 128% rule, there's the unique circumstances, and then there's the three at the end, which has the enclave, the de minimis impact, and I forget what the other one is, but they're not ands, they're ores.

So really this the discussion on water stops with this being an enclave.

It is city's priority uh to annex enclaves into the city.

And we don't have to approve the 128% or de minimis impact when it's an enclave.

So I just want to make that clear that it I think the presentation kind of tends to suggest that that are and cumulative, but they're not.

So this is an enclave, so the water ordinance requirements are met simply on that basis.

So I think you you understand where the property is located, that is uh just under 20 acres.

It is currently zoned RR 2.5 and RR5 in the county, which are larger rural um lot designations, and we are proposing to rezone it to RFlex medium with overlays for streamside and the Air Force Academy overlay.

Um their standard overlays for this area.

Um, the Air Force Academy being in the given the proximity, and as uh Chris mentioned, the adjacency to Kettle Creek, even though the creek or the buffers aren't actually in this property, um, it's is subject to streamside overlay.

Um we're proposing uh mixed use, a mixed residential, um, which I'll talk a little bit more about when we get to the land use plan with a five to 16 du per acre density.

So site location in in broader context, as it was noted, there is some industrial uses immediately adjacent to the northwest, and then you have the Victory Ridge development there at the intersection of Interquest and Federal, which is substantial development of higher density residential and commercial.

And then to the south, we have a county lower density enclave, and then to the east is more standard single family residential development in the city.

The existing properties are in three parcels in two separate ownerships, and there are two single family homes, one is vacant.

Kettle Creek Road, as currently defined, as was noted, is county right of way and currently serves only these three properties.

And it's um you can see where it adjoins Old Ranch Road, it does so at an angle, which is not desirable from an intersection design standpoint.

So as we'll show later in the presentation, we are we are proposing to realign that.

So this is a very useful map.

I find you can get to this on the assessors website, just on their map layers by um identifying incorporated cities, and this shows how this area is completely surrounded by the city.

And to commissioners Hensler's question about the property adjacent, it is within the city boundary, but there is still that kind of slither of a property adjacent to old Ranch Road, which is still in the county, and then everything to the south is in not everything to the south, but immediately south is in the county.

Um various parcels to the to the west of that have been annexed into the city as well, as has the entirety of Old Ranch Road.

That was that old ranch road section was annexed with the Hope Chapel annexation.

Um again, just kind of talking about surrounding annexations.

There have been a number over the years, with Hope Chapel being the most recent in 2023.

That annexation plat has been recorded for quite a while.

Um, so it is um wholly within the city.

Um benefits to the city, we believe per the requirements are we are required to provide an additional 13 foot of right of way for old ranch road.

That's to accommodate future widening of old ranch road as proposed in Connect COS.

Um so that plan is to widen it from a two-lane road to a four-lane road in the future.

The city don't have all the right of way to do that yet, but this will uh it assist in that together with which we don't really mention here, but there was comments about sidewalk connections along with the Hope Chapel development, which is um which is an approved development plan, and um this development there will be sidewalk installed along the north side of Old Ranch Road to help with those sidewalk connections.

Uh, it's going to be attainable residential infill.

We're proposing smaller lot, single family detached and attached products, and so that will help to provide additional residential choice in the area together with the proposed cottages development on the Hope Chapel edition, which is it's which are rental units.

These these will be all for sale single family.

Preservation of the mouse habitat, as was previously mentioned.

I've got better plans for that, but that's consistent with the area that was preserved on the Hope Chapel parcel as well.

That area on that parcel was actually much larger, but it continues that um preservation area.

And as noted, the developer will construct all the public utilities.

Um access to utilities.

I think Brian covered this adequately.

I will correct the second bullet there.

We I I thought we were in the electric service area per the mapping on CSU's website, but apparently it is still in MVEA, and we have to extract ourselves uh from that service territory and to go into CSU.

And he explained all the other utilities.

Um zoning as noted, we're proposing the RMR flex medium zone, which is a five to sixteen unit per acre density and a 45-foot maximum height.

We are not going to be anywhere near that height with a single family detached and attached product, they're all uh significantly below that.

Um, but the um adjacent property was rezoned R5 when that was annexed into the city, which is a higher density, that's up to 25 units per acre with a 50-foot height.

So we are transitioning down from that uh higher density, and then the streamside and air force uh overlays as required, self-explanatory.

Uh land use plan.

So um we are uh proposing, as I noted, detach and attached single family residential.

Um the density range is five to sixteen units per acre, but we're going to be at around 6.2.

We have developed uh the plans fairly uh advanced.

So um we we know what the layout is going to be and what density they're gonna be.

So we're definitely gonna be at the lower end of that range.

The primary access is from old ranch road, as noted, we are moving the access point um to the circle, uh, where so we have uh access that comes in at a 90 degree angle, which is preference, which is in preference to that um right uh angled intersection that currently exists for safety.

We have um discussed and agreed with um traffic engineering on the appropriate location for that intersection given the spacing of existing intersections, and as noted, uh we are uh required to provide a left turn, eastbound left turn lane on old ranch road, as well as the additional right of way.

Uh mentioned the habitat area.

We've got um the clearance from the uh concurrence letter from US Fish and Wildlife on limited impact or no impact to the habitat, and we're not impacting the streamside buffers.

So uh these are the criteria uh summarized for establishment of a zoning in the in the city and land use plan.

It's compliance with uh plan COS and annexation plan, basically any relevant plans uh that's not detrimental to public health health safety and welfare.

The location is appropriate for the zone, and rezoning can be made compatible with surrounding area and land use plan, very similar um criteria includes the adequacy of streets and utilities and parts and open space and so on.

And uh with that, I'm just going to go through some of those.

Plan COS, um, it's always difficult when it's an annexation because it's not actually covered by an existing plan COS designations, but it is in an area where uh it's identified as a newer developing neighborhood where more infill and redevelopment can be expected, and uh plan COS also specifically envisions working to incorporate existing enclaves and near enclaves into the city, so this is consistent with that approach.

And then there are several policies which I won't go through because you you're probably familiar with them that encourage infill development and a full spectrum of attainable housing opportunities, and some of those uh big ideas are uh set out there.

It's just housing for all and embracing creative and adaptive infill.

So this is the annexation plan.

This site is in area three.

Um the annexation plan it uh says that it should occur as a logical sequential extension, which is clearly is as an enclave enclave, and that there are benefits to the city from annexing enclaves, and it identifies it as eligible eligible for annexation.

Surrounding zoning, I think that was covered extensively by Chris, but this kind of just visualizes it and shows that we are um generally uh surrounded by BP zoning um in the city and R5 um with the uh other zoning on the other side of Kettle Creek, but there is some separation there, so we feel that it's consistent with the adjacent zoning.

And then the compatibility and transition, similarly, um the density we're proposing is at the lower end of the range that's available in that uh R flex medium, and there is a mix of densities in that overall area, which range from range from 3.6 to 18.1.

So we're kind of at the lower end of those overall densities in the city, and um the Kettle Creek, as I noted, provides a physical buffer to the uh Kettle Creek neighbor single family residential neighborhood to the east, and uh then to the south with the larger lot rural residential in the county.

Um Old Ranch Road provides quite a significant um separation and uh will be even more significant in the future when that road is widened to um uh accommodate the four-lane road that is planned in Connect COS.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh could you go back one slide?

So you um state the 3.6 to 18.1.

That's kind of probably everything that we can do.

Yeah, do you happen to know or were you um part of the hope?

Yes, we did that annexation and the development plan.

Yeah, do you know that 15.370 units is a smaller, smaller parcel.

15.3 per acre.

15.3 units per acre, yes.

Thank you.

And we're going to be at 6.2.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um any questions for our applicant before we any other questions for our applicant before we move to uh public comment.

Okay, thanks.

We'll bring you back up, I'm sure.

Okay.

With that, um, I want to open to public comment for those in support of this application.

Is there anyone in the audience that has signed up to speak in support?

No.

Okay.

We don't have anybody signed up.

If there's anybody that would like to speak in in favor of this item and didn't get the chance to sign up, please come to the podium.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of these item, please first seek to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

Okay.

Anybody in the audience that has spent signed up to speak in opposition of this item or online for that matter?

We do not have anybody sign in for to speak in opposition if anybody would like to come to the podium.

And if there's anybody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please unmute yourselves now.

There's nobody online.

Okay.

Well, then I think uh we don't need to necessarily have applicant response or rebuttal, but we will um bring it up to the dais for discussion and questions, and then certainly include our uh applicant at some point.

And again, uh if you could request to speak and state your name, which I am probably the worst offender of not stating my name, but Commissioner Robbins.

I know I just would like some um verification on the uh the traffic flow.

Can you get a little closer to your mic?

It's right.

All right, can you hear me now?

Closer.

Like all right, so can um there you go.

All right, thank you.

Uh yes, I'd like some clarification on the traffic flow uh and any improvements made to uh alleviate the stress on the road.

Uh we have Todd Sturgervan here from traffic engineering to speak on that or Frisbee.

What did I say?

I can call lots of stuff.

So um that's okay.

All right.

Uh good morning, uh commissioners.

Uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineering.

Uh the question was I I think the question was just sort of in general about traffic on Old Ranch Road.

Uh one the city um has uh to address um uh traffic on old ranch road.

We have two projects planned on uh on old ranch.

One is a bridge project, which is the Kettle Creek Bridge just to the east of the of the application.

That should you start that as a widening of that bridge to accommodate a future widening or future improvements to old ranch road from essentially Chapel Ridge Road all the way to Voyager Road.

Those are both PPRTA funded projects.

So we're gonna have we're gonna end up with more lanes.

It's gonna be like a five year old.

Not necessarily, not necessarily.

So if you're familiar with Old Ranch Road, it comes, you know, you know, over at um Chapel Ridge Road, and then you have uh I think it was Lexington, uh, on the on the east side.

You go for your your four lanes over there, and then on next down to two, and then it continues two all the way down to uh to Voyager, right?

To Voyager.

Uh the current thinking um is with the bridge widening is that we'll continue to have a single lane in each direction, but we'll add a center turn lane uh through the area, and we'll add associated sidewalk connections, um shoulders, so uh some so some uh multimodal and some other safety improvements along along that stretch from essentially I would call it um Lexington to uh to Voyager.

Well, when you get the Voyager, we know there's a pretty heavy left turn that wants to go south on the Voyager.

So we're probably wide back.

We'll probably widen back.

So the uh center turn lane will go all the way from that bridge that you're talking about to Voyager.

Yes.

Okay, yes, sorry.

So is it it's essentially uh uh a series of uh safety um capacity, uh you know it's kind of a combination of different things we're trying to accomplish with that project.

And that's a PPRTA A-list project.

Uh so it's a funded project.

Uh we uh probably will start start design within the next year or two with likely construction within the next four to five years.

Then so the uh the land needed for that is gonna be taken on a little bit on both sides or what?

A little bit of both, yes, a little bit of both.

We we have uh as these annexations have come in along along the way, we've been asking for right-a-way to accommodate a future uh you know, a future you know, this future improvement.

We may need some, you know, we're not we haven't done design yet.

We may need some property acquisition to the south, uh, but we're trying to get most of that property through these annexation efforts.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Sure, no problem.

Todd, um, don't go away.

Yeah, given that the expansion is really from the bridge and looking at the map.

So from the bridge out to Voyager, maintaining a single lane and adding the turn lane, and in two to three years, potentially for design.

What are the mechanisms to continue to monitor traffic counts that would adjust that design?

So say we get two years down the road and we're finally into design and traffic counts are such that you say, oh, we really need two lanes each direction and no turn lane or what have you.

Are there um mechanisms or steps within to adjust that?

Because I I do hear, I mean, we've seen several issues on this road, and you know, driving that on any you know occasion, you kind of see that traffic.

So I I understand the concerns, yeah.

And uh maybe not uh boxing us into just a single lane situation.

Well, I we uh uh with the bridge, because we're trying to accomplish a couple things with this project.

Just one we there, it's an old county road, so we don't have curb and gutter, we don't have sidewalk, we don't have some of those other multimodal uh facilities.

So uh at this point, if I remember, we're pretty well locked in from Lexington to Voyager.

Um with that section I described, a single lane in each direction and uh you know a center center turn line.

We think that'll be sufficient from Lexington to um the Voyager because when you get the Voyager is where you need the additional lanes.

So we could what we would probably widen back out at Voyager uh to provide two dual left turn lanes to go south from old ranch road to Voyager and a you know single left turn or single right turn lane to go north on Voyager because that's where you're gonna need a capacity is at the intersection.

You don't necessarily need it in the middle um between Lexington.

What you need there is uh those sidewalk connections and um and that center turn lane.

We also think that you know the area has been um large, I want to say largely, but significantly built out is that you're not gonna see a you know other than a little one on you know, a few annex, you know, a few little projects here and there.

Uh we think that the volumes on Old Ranch Road are relatively stable and will be relatively stable in the next um uh and will still be still be, and if they do grow a little bit, still be below the threshold needed for a four-lane road uh through that area through that area.

I hope that was a long explanation, but hope that made some sense.

No, that's helpful.

And I think we saw in the applicant's presentation about uh entrances to this and now I'm trying to remember, but the Otero Road connection feels like a pinch point with the school traffic.

It is yes, I I can't remember, but I think with the bridge project, we're extending it a little bit further to the um because we're further to the west that um we may be we may be getting left turn lanes at Otero in the interim.

Okay, but there is a map up there.

I don't know if that helps you, but and and again, I'm I it's been a while since I looked at that, but uh we are you know uh with the bridge project, there's an opportunity.

We're gonna have to we're gonna widen the bridge and we'll have that center turn on the bridge.

Uh so we need to taper from there back to the original, you know, back to the existing section, which may end up with the left turn line at Old Terra, but I don't I don't know that for sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh Commissioner Slattery.

Thank you, Chair Hansler.

Mr.

Frisbee.

Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Um it seemed like a lot of the concerns um that we were hearing were stemming from the existing county residents south on Otero Avenue.

Let me let me just mutter a little bit and then we can talk about it as a whole, perhaps.

Okay, go ahead.

Um I'll just stay, I'll just stay.

Sure.

Yes.

Just stay uh I'll stay here.

Excited.

So what what I heard here in the presentation was that right, Kettle Creek's coming in a 90.

That's much safer and appropriate for the proposed volume changes.

Um that north side for this application.

Um, and then the there will be an addition of a left turn lane as part of that development before development begins, or or some timeline from old ranch in.

Okay, so it seems like getting in into the north from old ranch um is making improvements.

How about coming out onto old ranch?

Is there um that would just be uh yeah, it'd just be a the stop control is it is will there be a stop sign added to not old Kettle Creek Road realignment and/or Otaro?

Those are some of the things that we were heard expressed concerns of, or in your opinion, are those um would those add to safety or or improve?

Um so yes, so at Kettle Creek Road, yep.

Um the new intersection will have a stop sign on Kettle Creek Road.

There will be no stop signs on Old Ranch Road.

Got it.

There'll be a left turn lane on Old Ranch Road or at Kettle Creek on Old Ranch, there'll be a left turn lane.

That's a safe that's that's a safety improvement because we're getting the left the left turns out of the through out of the through traffic.

Sure.

If you're trying to turn out from Kettle Creek Road, you're you're gonna have to wait for a gap, find a gap and make and make that left, make the left or make that right uh uh make that right turn.

Traffic study looked at the you know the tra did a traffic analysis or level service analysis.

The the volume, the peak hour volumes are relatively low coming out, you know, for what is it, 122 units or something like that?

Yeah, it's relatively low coming out.

So uh we were showing um uh for that condition acceptable levels of service trying to make that left, trying to make that left out.

Um so uh we feel that what's been proposed and what we've are requiring uh will provide um a level of safety that um uh at least in the interim until we have the improvements on old ranch road, that will be uh acceptable for now.

Okay, and then one more question.

You may or may not remember um looking at the cottages, the hope property.

It seems like there's a will be um connection from that onto the Kettle Creek, or there was a fire access something.

So do those interconnect at all?

Right, and so does that give additional um entrance and exit for you know this 122 units.

Um if you remember onto Old Ranch.

I'm gonna have to um dial in a friend.

Uh so maybe Andrea or Tris can speak to that, yes.

Do they cross pollinate there?

Um yeah, I can I can talk a little bit.

Um if you want to pull up my presentation.

Looks like they they cross-pollinate, right?

Yeah, I think so too.

It gives another exit.

Um, so on the land use plan, you'll see kind of uh in the middle at the corner there, uh that is a emergency access.

Uh it's actually already built out, I believe, uh, which will connect in to the cottages at Kettle Creek, the neighboring development.

Uh, but the actual uh vehicular access that connects into Kettle Creek is even further east, um, just before that preservation easement, and that will be okay.

I see.

So there's two full intersections um in and out, and then an emergent third emergency ingress egress.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd like to add some clarification.

So yes, the um the dark circle on the north side of the cottages project is the proposed permanent secondary access.

The dashed circle is a temporary um fire access because it that's not so much related to this development, it's related to the need for the cottages to have a second point of access and based on the timing of that development compared to the timing of this development.

So they're going to need that access before this development starts.

So that that's that's the most direct way to get, and that will go across to um existing Kettle Creek Road in the interim.

And when this gets developed, that will go away, and then there will be a permanent second uh point of access for both developments on that north side.

So it will create effectively a loop um for both to serve both developments.

Okay.

That yes.

Thank you.

But I I would anticipate that both developments will use their primary access onto old ranch road rather than looping through the adjacent development.

That's really just to provide uh an emergency second point of access.

Does that make sense?

I think so.

But it there's options um for each of the developments to coexist and there's multiple access points.

The same developer overarching developer, just different branches, multi-family versus single family branch of that same development company.

Thank you.

So that um so the dark circle on the south, which is at Old Ranch Road would be the one of the main entrances.

That's the main entrance for this development.

And then that's where the relocated Kettle Creek Road is.

Okay.

And then we go a little to the west, and we'll have another dedicated.

Yes, and that lines up with a tarot.

I'm sorry, go a little yeah.

Yes.

Perfect.

Sorry, I thought that's the access that was approved with the um chapel annexation, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, I have a question for Brian with CSU.

Thank you.

Of course.

Um so you spoke about the cost, and it looks like most of the cost of that infrastructure gets passed on to the developer.

I think your last slide showed that there was like the low and the high end, like 0.9 to 1.3 million.

That would be CSU's cost.

Where does that come from?

Or you just end up budgeting for that, or can you speak about that?

Yeah, right now, absolutely.

Um right now, so City Council approved a five-year capital uh in but uh capital budget and rate case that went into effect in 2025 through 2029.

That does not presently include any capital budget for any approved annexations during that time frame.

Uh we are evaluating uh right now through uh estimating anticipated costs based on the annexations that have been approved for the last three to five years uh to try and develop a realistic budget based on kind of the absorption or development rate uh that these annexation brings and how we can get uh funding approved through city council outside of that five-year budget plan.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions while I'm here?

Commissioner, no?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Questions, comments, questions from the dais.

Okay.

Okay.

It appears we have no further questions, so I will look to uh fellow commissioners for comments.

First off, begin.

Okay, I gotta press the right buttons, make sure I get it right.

Um comments, I think.

Um I know that this is uh it's probably not an easy decision for me to make, but uh and for you for you, because I'm not in support of this whole um annexation scenario um be just because of the infrastructure.

I think the traffic is really the key.

It's it's like getting the cart before the horse.

And I think the roadway, uh it's uh it's an older infrastructure.

It was made for it was county.

And with the development that is currently going on right there in the corner.

Um I just feel like it's just it's too much.

Um it's close.

I drove by there and got out and walked around this morning because it was on my way in, uh, just checking everything as usual.

Um heavy traffic already.

Just from people going to work from coming from the east going to west.

And um eventually people are gonna start using Otero and zipping through there.

I've marketed property in uh that neighborhood, which is considered county, and it's easy to get going pretty quick in that neighborhood.

There are no sidewalks, no anything.

Then you've got the grade school uh that intersects with Otero.

They're off of what is it?

Spring, I think spring me, spring feed anyway.

So it that neighborhood there that with that school it gets crowded with parents dropping off kids and picking up kids in the morning and evening.

So you're gonna have a conflict.

And I think you're just gonna have too much of an issue going on because like I said, the roadway is my concern.

Um with all the added traffic on top of what's already getting to be pretty heavy.

Uh I think that's it's not a great idea for this whole thing.

Therefore, I'm not in support of this.

Uh I worry about the emergency egress.

Uh we were talking about that uh just a moment ago, the ingress and egress.

If there's an emergency, talk about getting clogged up, it's gonna be awful.

So um and then of course you have the the added noise with the added um traffic uh that I think is going to be a problem for the people in the uh subdivision just to the south.

Um so anyway, that's uh I hate to say that, but because I know there's a lot of work that goes into what you guys do.

But right now I think the infrastructure is not gonna support it properly.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Uh next, Commissioner Case.

Good morning.

Uh Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh I will be voting in favor of this project and annexation as I believe it meets the review criteria.

Uh I also believe that projects like this help solve traffic problems and get people to the table to solve them.

So again, I will be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Slattery.

Thank you, Chair Hensler.

Um, I think that this project is exactly the type of project um that annexation and and the current direction, not only of the 2020 sibling, but of the current plan in progress uh is looking to bring into city limits.

Uh it is an enclave, it does meet um all of the criteria and creates more of a cohesive density versus a couple of um homes left over from decades ago era um before the city has you know enveloped it.

So this type of infill is adds to our tax base, as to the vitality of our city, um, and is very appropriate giving the surrounding um surrounding zones.

I believe that the plan is in place and rolling and would coincide with development timelines um on old ranch.

And furthermore, the percentage of increase to adding 122 units based on however many tens of thousands of units are in the surrounding area, and using this is a drop in the bucket, and the percentage difference is not going to make a huge impact um now with with planned improvements on the way.

So I will be in favor of this application.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else uh on the dice that would like to voice their opinion, please?

Uh Commissioner Gigiano.

Um I just wanted to read uh this is Commissioner Gigiano for the record.

Um I can reiterate um Commissioner Robinson um concerns, and I will won't be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Shiva or Brian.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby.

Um I will be voting in favor of this plan as I think um as Commissioner Slattery and Commissioner Case said, I think this.

Um I think that this is an opportunity to get the right people at the table to solve some of those traffic problems.

I think um it just has a little bit more controlled development, and so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Clements, do you have any comments?

Okay.

Uh well then I will um I'll make a couple comments and then we'll bring it up for um motion.

Um I I appreciate the conversation and especially the conversation around traffic.

Um, I do know that that's a continuing conversation uh in our city as we continue to grow.

Um but like has been stated, uh one, I think you know the criteria is a logical extension, uh, and this does meet the criteria.

And in closing uh the enclaves, I think is very important work for us, and we've seen a lot of these, and it just makes a tremendous amount of sense from utilities, infrastructure, and so forth, especially with the recent annexations near there.

And I I applaud the development being, I think really a nice transition from the commercial that is to the west and the more dense uh single family and even some multifamily that is um to the it adjacent to the east and to the south in some areas that I think that this is really appropriate, and we continue to have housing shortage and a need for housing and the mixed use of product that we heard about.

I think is a great use as well as the net positive fiscal impact, despite some upfront costs from utilities and from the developer.

This will be a positive um net positive fiscal impact to the city.

Um so for those reasons, and because I believe that it meets the criteria for approval, I too am in favor um of this annexation.

Uh so with that, I will ask for a motion to approve this matter.

And we have several uh motions to be made too, so keep that in mind.

Commissioner Case for the record.

Uh I have in front of me a motion to approve item 8D, Annex 25002, Kettle Creek Edition number one land use plan.

Oh hold on.

Did we I think you did you read 8B annexation?

Yeah, we'll need to do the land annexation first, please.

Sorry, Ryan, you'll have to read that again.

It's on your screen too.

I'll read off the screen.

I just have this template here.

Um, but uh motion to approve item 8b Annex 2500 two, Kettle Creek Edition number one annexation consisting of 19.18 or 19.88 acres located northeast of the Kettle Creek Road and Old Ranch Road intersection.

Uh Commissioner based upon the findings that the annexation complies with the conditions for annexation as set forth in city code section 7.5.701.

Sarah Bruin, City Attorney's Office.

I just wanted to clarify that what you're doing today is making a recommendation to the city council.

Um the commission doesn't have the authority to approve it, but it goes to council.

So I just want to ensure that the you understand that the motions when the motions are made that they're clear what it is, what action you're actually taking.

So the chair script does indicate that direction.

Uh on the motions.

I'm just wondering if this if the motions as written that Ryan is reading indicate such.

Hold please.

Apologies.

Uh motion to approve and recommend approval to city council of the annexation of 19.88 acres as the Kettle Creek Edition number one annexation based upon the finding that the annexation complies with the conditions for annexation set forth in city code section 7.5.701.

Commissioner Willoughby seconds.

Okay.

The motion passes 522 with Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Gigiano opposed.

Thank you very much.

Brian, are you going to continue for yes?

Okay.

Motion to approve item 8C zone 2500 two eight, Kettle Creek addition, uh number one rezone.

And I will read the rest of it as well.

Recommend approval of the city council of the establishment of 19.88 acres as our flex medium uh SSOAF0 residential flex zone medium scale with streamside and United States Air Force Academy overlays, zone districts based upon the finding of the request for complies with the criteria for a zone map amendment set forth in city code section 7.5.704.

Commissioner Willoughby seconds.

The motion passes 5 to 2 with Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Didiano opposed.

Thank you.

And motion to approve and 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.

Commissioner Willoughby seconds.

The motion passes 5 to 2 with Commissioners Robbins and Gidiano posts.

Okay, thank you.

I think that completes the Kettle Creek Edition items.

Um next on our agenda is the um 8E Child and Adult Daycare Center code amendment.

Unless there is yeah, I don't think there it would make sense to pause sooner.

Yeah.

Okay, so we will move into the next item.

So lunch, if you can read that into the record.

Item 8E C O D E 25-0006, an ordinance amending Article 3 used regulations, Article 4, development and 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 care.

Sorry, or child day care centers.

Your presenter is Alison Stalker.

Good morning, uh Commission.

Uh Alison Stocker, senior planner with the land use review division.

So this morning we're going to present um the child care ordinance.

This was initially supposed to go with phase two of the UDC updates, however, through conversation with council stakeholders, and then some of the administration pushing for changes around child care in the city.

We have decided to kind of take this off of phase two and run it as a separate item so that way we can hopefully get this one approved and active to hopefully benefit some of our child care providers as well as our adult daycare providers a little sooner.

So this presentation is gonna take kind of a different form than our usual ones, so please bear with me.

But um generally we're gonna go over kind of the project goals and the intent behind this change, stakeholder engagement that's happened throughout this process, the child care types definitions and the sizes, just so that we can be all on the same page with which types of child care uh uses and code entail what.

Uh, and then we'll get into the proposed changes, the use tables starting with some general changes, then moving into commercial specific changes, and then residential area specific changes.

So this project is being proposed to address child care issues.

This is a national issue where we are seeing a lack of child care for the growing demand.

Um we know that child care has a very big impact on our city, and that having adequate and affordable child care is a good thing for our community.

This is further promoted by our economic development department, who's been a huge partner in this project so far, who have really worked to kind of help connect us with stakeholders to understand their um challenges that they've had with our code and trying to find better solutions.

Of course, land use planning, we can only change so much of this issue.

So uh of course, what we can touch is removing regulatory barriers, making the types of applications that might be required simpler than what they are currently, um, and then making sure that uh reasonable co-location of daycare and other use types is an available option.

Um, of course, through this process, we cannot change licensing.

That is a state level process, so the city planning department can't touch that.

We can't touch building code requirements, we can't touch the provider types because again, set at the state level.

We can't address child care cost or you know, make child care appear out of thin air.

But we're hoping that these changes will at least make the process for newer existing child care providers a little simpler than what they are today.

So stakeholder involvement.

This ordinance we began writing back in the fall after there was significant stakeholder engagement uh going forward at city council.

From there, we took that um kind of urging need and started writing this ordinance based on some of the things we've already seen as a planning department and kind of all the issues or things we felt deserved to be updated since retool passed.

Since then, this has been reviewed by the city attorney's office as well as a number of folks in the city's planning department just to make sure that the types of things we are changing makes sense and wouldn't have externalities we didn't think of at the time of drafting.

From there in February, we hosted a open house to present these proposals to the community.

We did get uh a decent turnout for that, and we did get some great survey um feedback on that, which I'll talk about here on the next slide.

Um, with those changes in mind, those comments and concerns.

We made a couple other edits, and today is kind of the first full review of that with city planning commission.

If things continue on the path that we're hoping they'll continue on, this will be presented to City Council in May.

So community input.

We did get a number of community members who responded to our survey.

This ranged from providers, residents, all different kinds of folks here in the city.

Some of the big themes we got out of the survey was that the project, of course, cannot address all of the issues around child care.

As I mentioned, that's unfortunately not something that's within our scope to do.

We also heard from family home daycare providers, so these are our in-home child care providers about concern that the need presented and the narrative around child care doesn't quite line up with the actuality of vacancies.

Some of these providers have vacancies in their home childcares, so they're kind of worried about potentially being boxed out if commercial child care becomes more available.

People want to see more conveniently located child care near their home's workplaces, but they also want to make sure that these locations are safe, secure, and convenient.

But simultaneously, we also heard concerns about child care being too near certain residential areas and impacts on neighborhood compatibility, traffic, noise, things to that nature.

So before getting into some of the changes, I'm gonna go over the definitions because that's pretty important when talking about these, so we can all be on the same page.

Uh, starting with what I'm gonna probably refer to as our commercial child care throughout the presentation.

We have adult or child daycare centers.

So these are gonna be like our kinder cares, our monsory schools, places where children go, and that is the primary use is child care.

Um in this presentation later, we'll talk about a proposed additional accessory use type.

This I'll also refer to as commercial accessory child care throughout the project or throughout the presentation.

And this is when a child care is an accessory use to a different commercial or industrial primary use.

So we'll go over that more in detail in a bit, but that is kind of what I'm referring to when I refer to adult or child daycare accessory, or I'll use my shorthand term commercial accessory.

With the size of those, large daycares are anything that has more than 16 children, and a small is anywhere between six and 15.

So please keep those sizes in mind, kind of when we're thinking about compatibility issues.

And then just for reference, um, home child care is not being proposed to change with this project just because that is regulated pretty heavily at the state level.

So that's not something we're touching with this process, but home daycare is going to be when a child care center is an accessory use to a residential unit.

Um, and these have a size of for smalls is less than six children, and large is six to twelve.

And as I said, these are not changing through this process.

This is more just for some context.

So getting into our general changes.

Um, one of the big changes we'll talk about more in later slides is making child care commercial child care either permitted or conditional in all zones.

So this is intended just to reduce the barriers and regulatory oversight that might be necessary to establish commercial childcares.

Um, some of the other kind of smaller changes we're looking at making is making sure our naming conventions are consistent across all of these child care types.

Uh, currently, some of them are facilities, some of them are centers.

We're just trying to make sure that that is consistent across the board.

Simultaneously, we will need to update our definitions on our parking table to kind of take care of the new use type we're proposing, as well as those naming changes.

We are proposing a reduction in the required parking for commercial child care.

Currently, that is one per 400 square feet.

We are proposing one per 600, just knowing that industry typically is going to provide as much parking as they feel is necessary for their operations.

The idea behind reducing parking is more for adaptive reuse co-location type child care situations to kind of help reduce some of those barriers and costs that might be associated in those types of situations.

And then additionally, some of our use specific standards are changing.

Some of these are based on changes made to the allowed use table, which we'll be seeing shortly, as well as just some other kind of general changes that uh we're just doing some cleanup with.

So now we're gonna get into our non residential zones and the changes we're proposing there.

So at the top of the table, you'll see our previous chapter seven.

This is pre-retool project, where they're allowed.

You'll see that there are different zone districts in that part of the table, but that was what was allowed at that time.

In the middle, you'll see our current chapter seven and what is currently permitted, conditional, or prohibited.

And then in the bottom section is our proposed uses and what they uh would be permitted or conditional to do.

In the green boxes, you'll see these are our boxes that denote where an improvement or a flexibility has been added.

So in the case of the OR zone, it's going from conditional to permitted.

In the case of business park, it's going from conditional to permitted.

The main ones changing here is that OR, so office residential MXN, mixed use neighborhood, and business park BP.

Kind of the thought process behind those changes is that OR and MXN are typically kind of moderate to low density intensity zone districts that are adjacent to neighborhood areas.

So it makes sense in theory to have child care in these types of areas and allow it to be more accessible through the regulatory process.

And then with business part, the idea is to allow child care closer to workplaces.

So the main change that you'll be seeing besides some of the ones we already went over in the commercial and industrial districts is the proposal to add a new accessory use type.

So this is going to be our adult or child daycare centers accessory, so commercial accessory.

This would be permitted in all zone districts.

However, with the big caveat that it has to be co-located with one of those uses that is on the right side of the slide.

Development plans may still be required depending on the situation of the particular site that they're looking at co-locating within.

So that would be something we would assess with the provider at time of a pre-application meeting.

And that's something they have to come to us for anyway because they have to get our sign-off in order to get their license.

A big thing about this is that it does not require the accessor use to be affiliated in any way with primary use.

And the reason behind this is when you have that connection required, it exempts a lot of situations that really come up pretty often.

We'll often have child care providers looking to lease out ports of religious institutions but are not affiliated with the religious institution, or in school situations where providers want to lease out unused space of, say, like a D20 school building.

So that is kind of the idea behind that is to remove that barrier to allowing the successory use.

So these are things like hospitals, offices, uh warehousing, things like that.

And then here I have a quick case study.

You guys might remember this project that came before you, I think sometime in early fall.

This is the Revolution Church Child Care Center.

This was a situation where a church wanted to lease a portion of their building to an unaffiliated child care provider.

They had no connection to the church, so therefore they could not be considered an accessory use.

With that and the fact that they were in RE zone district that did not allow child care uses whatsoever, they had to do a use variance application.

So this added significant time, money, headache for that provider.

You'll see on the screen that that did take three months, and I'll say that that is the fastest you can get through use variance here in the city.

And then it had an additional 1700 in review fees, uh, public notice fees, and that's just before even getting to the development plan and landscape modifications that were also required for this project.

So reducing the amount of applications required can have a pretty tangible impact on projects like these.

So this is just one of many examples where we've seen childcare wanting to co-locate but couldn't for one reason or another.

And it's it's pretty common occurrence.

I can tell you we've had a lot of pre-eps that have kind of had uh these types of situations.

Um to our residential zone districts, you'll see that um there's quite a bit more green on this one.

Um we're looking to allow small childcare in more places, um, including um our pretty much all of our residential zone districts, while more of our large daycares would be conditional in some of the lower density ones, but allowed in some of the higher density ones.

And the idea is kind of to try to balance the relative density and intensity of the zone district with the possible impacts or externalities that come with having a daycare nearby.

Of course, we understand that this raised a lot of concerns for neighborhood groups, and we do have some kind of mitigating sections in code that we'll kind of go over and how we're hoping to kind of make sure that any childcare that locates in any of our residential zone districts, particularly our lower density zone districts, can hopefully reduce any kind of issues there.

Oh, and to mention um City Code does not override HOA policies, so that is also an additional layer of kind of protection for our neighborhoods.

So with the retool project, um, there was an intent to add more flexibility in our residential zone districts, specifically for child care.

That did not end up happening at that time, and what ended up kind of happening as a result is that 40 or so of our existing childcare facilities that are in residential zone districts are continuing to have issues with expanding, um expanding, making changes to their site.

Um we'll have a case study in a couple slides kind of talking about this, but essentially it really elevated the level of applications and bureaucracy that these child care providers had to go through in order to just you know maintain or even expand a little bit of their existing um facilities.

And these are facilities that we have not seen any concerns on the books, no code enforcement cases, no like known issues around them.

So that is kind of part of the reason we would like to look at making this a little bit more flexible.

Um, but of course, we understand the concern around that, and that's why we're looking at editing our use specific standard, kind of further restricting where commercial, I'm sorry, commercial child care can locate within residential zone districts.

So specifically, we're looking at a use-specific standards that requires that any commercial childcare cannot use residential street as their primary access.

So that really eliminates a lot of the locations where these child care facilities can open up.

And that was done pretty intentionally to make sure that you know we're we're hearing the comments and concerns of the community, but then also trying to allow you know as much flexibility as we can.

So we do know we have a lot of residential areas that have commercial childcare.

This map was in your packet, um, but this is just a kind of smaller version of that, where you can see that there are quite a few little dots on the screen of existing child care.

We also know that there's a lot of residential zone districts that are located on non-residential streets.

So there's a whole list of some I just kind of looked at and found in a quick little survey of our zoning map.

Um, and even though we're looking at reducing where these childcare facilities can locate by not allowing them to use residential streets as primary access, we are still allowing these child care facilities on fringes of neighborhoods.

So places like UINTA, where it is in our two district, but it's still a major street.

Um so there's lots and lots of situations around the city that have these, and these are the types of places we feel are a good fit for child care because they're near neighborhoods, but they're on major streets, but they're still kind of getting a more expeditious permitting process.

So here's just a quick example.

This is the old north end area, kind of near Uinta.

Um this is probably not even the best example of our streets map because there's actually a lot less green, which is our residential streets than in most places of the city.

But this is just an example to show how many of these streets would actually not be allowed to have child care.

Um in their neighborhoods, of course, the residential street prohibition will take care of most of these situations.

However, uh, I would like to add that a development plan would be required in these types of situations.

Section 7.5515, which governs all of our development plans and tells us when a development plan is required.

It specifically includes the conversion of an existing use to a use in another category set forth by 7.3.2.

So this is our use table.

And so moving from a residential use to a civic use would require a development plan.

And with that would require, you know, public notice, our typical 1,000 feet.

Uh that action or decision would be appealable by any affected parties.

So neighbors would get that notice if they were having continued concerns, the development plan did not address those concerns.

They would still have the ability to appeal that to city planning commission and then potentially even city council, depending on how that went.

And then things like our landscaping buffers, our parking standards.

Any reports or studies that would typically apply to development plans would also become a potential requirement.

So it adds a lot of additional oversight.

It adds a lot of costs, a lot of kind of technical requirements.

So it would not just be as simple as a person buying a home, getting it, moving in.

And this, of course, is not even to mention things like building codes occupancies, which from what I understand from talking to a lot of uh child care providers, is a major uh barrier to um getting into a new place and setting up shop.

So that's a conversation for a different day.

Um that is one of the many ways we're kind of looking at this to try to make sure that the cause and effect are you know not having any major implications.

And then finally, my last little case study here we have is the Ruth Washburn School.

I had the pleasure of talking with them probably two years ago at this point for a pre-application meeting.

And at the time they wanted to purchase the property immediately north, but because the original Ruth Washburn School was approved by conditional use and had very specific square footage requirements, they could not expand into that property up north without having to go through zone changes, development plans, plats, all sorts of other things.

So major, major costs involved just to simply expand an existing and well-loved institution.

And this is just another good example of a child care that is in an R2 zone, but is on a collector street.

So that is kind of the main presentation I have.

We do have some tentative dates for city council.

Um we are expecting this to go to its final hearing on May 26th.

There's a chance that this might go to work session sometime between now and then.

Um, however, that hasn't been finalized.

So I'm available for any questions or we can hop into public comment.

Okay.

Do any commissioners have questions for Allison at this point?

No.

Okay, I think what we're going to do because I've been informed that our lunch is here, uh, is that we're going to start our lunch a little bit early and we're going to take a 30-minute break because I know we have folks in the audience.

Uh, but we'll take a 30-minute break coming back at 1220.

And at that point, we will pick up um public comment and move through our process.

So thank you all, and we'll see you in 30 minutes.

Are you ready?

Okay.

I'm gonna um bring us back to order after the break.

And we are um again on item eight E for Child and Adult Daycare Center code amendment, and we left off after uh staff presentation.

So at this point, we will open to public comment, uh starting with those in favor or support of this application.

Do we have individuals signed up to speak in favor?

Yes, our first um speaker in support is Sherry Lynn.

You will have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Let's get the titles right here.

Uh my name is Sherry Lynn Boyles and I'm the CEO of Joint Initiatives for Youth and Families, also known as JI.

We have two sides of our house.

We have a side that really focuses on services to struggling youth, but we also have a side that's all about early childhood education or child care.

Um and our task as JI is to build out the capacity of the child care system here in our Pikes Peak region.

And so I just want to say that we in this region have a child care crisis.

Some of you may know that.

If you don't, let me give you a couple of figures to drive that home.

Uh we have in our county almost 47,000 children under the age of five.

For 47,000 children, we have 18,500 child care spots.

I did include a child care desert map to kind of show you where we have the most arid conditions in our count in our community.

And so you can see that east side, southeast side are extremely arid.

Um and so there are areas in the community that um indicate adequate need.

It can be a little bit misleading because uh these are where children live, and we know there's two ideal places for people to use child care, and that's close to where they live and close to where they work.

And so you can see that there are uh a that there's a lot of our area uh that's really a child care desert.

There's a couple of reasons for this gap.

One is that we have a broken child care funding system that relies heavily on parents, young parents to pay the 20,000 dollars a year per child.

Uh there's another piece of that which is the regulatory matrix.

And so there's lots of pieces of that regulatory matrix that we want to touch on as we move forward as a community, but today we're focused on the zoning piece.

Uh when I talk about we moving forward, um, because of this crisis, we had um community leaders come together to create the family friendly initiative.

You have a folder there that has some information on that.

Um in the packet, you actually have a list of a lot of the different organizations and folks who've been involved in this initiative.

So I represent all of that initiative um today.

And uh we really know that we're gonna need big and scaled solutions.

It's not gonna be small solutions and it's gonna be multiple solutions that we need.

Um I'll just point out that uh of course zoning is the starting point in terms of a regulatory matrix.

If we're prohibited from having facilities, then we just aren't going to have child care.

Uh so this it doesn't even allow us to get off home base if we are overly restrictive.

Uh and so I'll just point out that we aren't really suggesting more than what schools uh already have uh in terms of their permitting, and of course they have huge footprints um with hundreds of children.

Um I actually live in the Middle Stoke Run neighborhood across from a park, and I find that people like to live near schools and near parks um and around children.

And so I certainly feel like that this is something that would be welcome, especially to the young families that we say we want to keep and attract into our community.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Sherry Lynn.

Our next speaker is Dutch Schultz.

You will have three minutes to speak after you introduce yourself.

Good to see you, Dutch.

I am Dutch Schultz.

I'm on the Historic Neighborhood Partnership Board, and I am president of the Old North End Neighborhood Board.

You notice that no one was here to speak in opposition to daycare.

And I will say we put a little blurb in our monthly newsletter, and boy, do we get a reaction.

Having said that, we already have a lot of daycare in the old North End.

More if you look at the map provided.

It's fairly common, but it's not enough.

They want to be able to walk directly over with their kid, ideally, you know, drop it off and come back.

The question that we have is why isn't there more of that available?

It's not because of zoning.

State regulations currently are very liberal in allowing zoning in homes, home things.

It doesn't happen mostly because of you still have to pass certain codes that aren't zoning.

And that's the important thing to know.

Now here's our concern.

The planning department did a survey of various applications and gave you examples of problems.

All right.

Virtual, I would say that if it takes three months to get approval, that is very fast, as you well know.

And anybody who's complaining that it takes three months, it's going to take them that long to get a license.

That form is the major constraint.

It's not zoning.

Single family zoning is not the bag boot.

We did not a survey, but we talked to people who live near in residential zone near large day care centers.

And I'm not here to publicly point them out as problems.

But there are two major problems.

Child day care is disruptive because of parking.

It is regulations that the parents have to walk the kids into the facility.

That means they're parked someplace.

And the car has to be left.

And for the people who live next to it, it's very difficult.

And if you've been living there already and suddenly one opens without review, without public comment, that is a major problem.

And those are the issues that we're talking about.

The other thing is noise.

I've been involved in two lawsuits that had to do with children noise.

In a former life, I was at Director Marking for Briorgate, and we got a lawsuit for where we put uh playground equipment.

Thank you very much for the consideration.

Thank you for your time, sir.

Our next speaker is Diane Bridges.

And we have Janet Caproun and Louise.

Apologies.

Connor, sitting time to Diane.

Okay.

If if those individuals could stand up and state your name and that you're ceding your time to Diane for the record.

Okay.

And ma'am, did you sign up to cede your time or did you wish to do so?

Would you like to cede time to Diane's comments, or do you just want to speak in support?

Okay, you can sign up with Salange and she'll have you come up next after Diane.

You already have two years.

She's the next speaker after Dayan.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

Diane, thank you for your patience.

You can start whenever you're ready.

Okay.

Can we uh oh thank you.

Chair Hensler, uh commissioners, thank you for your time today.

Diane Bridges, as I said before, I'm the chair of the Historic Neighborhoods Partnership.

Uh, we haven't been here in a while, so just a real quick update on who we are, volunteer organization, um, advocates for the older established neighborhoods in this city.

Uh, when I'm up here speaking because of our structure and our bylaws, um uh I speak on behalf of multiple neighbors.

It's not just me, multiple neighborhoods, not just me.

Um, the one thing I do want to point out is that the older neighborhoods in town really don't have legal covenants or HOAs that might restrict or prohibit uh uh daycare centers.

So I just wanted to actually uh say that.

So as uh Dutch said, we support daycare, um, and in fact have met with Sherry Lynn and others to discuss this uh particular topic.

Um as she also uh mentioned along with Alison that uh the UDC is one way to address the availability issue, but it's not the only way, but it's the way that we're here to discuss today.

I would like to say that placing daycare in non-residential places, locations is different than putting them in uh residential.

The question in residential is how big and where.

And so today we seek to minimize the disruption to someone's um home environment, and we ask you for a balanced solution.

We believe that we're we're really striving to present uh a balanced solution to you.

Um here uh this slide, uh the key point of this slide is that um there are many new opportunities to increase availability of daycare throughout the city.

Uh first and foremost is to ease as what was already pointed out by Allison in the non-residential zones to ease the uh restrictions for to place uh daycare next to businesses and places of employment.

Uh, second, uh we are very supportive and agree with the addition of the accessory daycares to co-locate co-locate them with commercial, you know, in civic different types of entities.

We have one small tweak to that, which I'll get to in a moment, but we're very supportive of that.

Uh also to add the accessory daycares to large residential zone districts, R5 in particular.

Uh by the way, in this conversation, you'll see that we're not addressing the flex zone, but we encourage you to extrapolate what we say here towards that.

We also are very supportive of adding small daycare centers to residential zone districts, including office residential and mixed use transition.

We encourage that you leverage the permitted uses in non-residential, but conditional use in residential.

This is very complicated.

It's hard to compress it to a time limited.

Uh so I wanted to show a little visual that uh again in neighborhoods size and location matter, that today there's the home-based care, as Allison articulated.

There's unlicensed and licensed up to 12, up to uh less than 12 uh kids or adults.

Um so that's today.

Um, and yes, we're we're totally believe that a balanced solution would be to add small centers of 15 or less in the residential uh zone districts, as well as large center in R5.

Um, and as I said earlier, we say yes to co-locating accessory centers with commercial and civic.

We believe that that is a balanced solution to minimize impact in the residential space.

I don't like the word no, but I'm gonna use it.

We believe that it's out of balance if we place large centers in residential zone districts, and as well as place the accessory with um uh residential spaces like R2 and R4.

That um again, the only exception is R5.

This is very complex.

I don't know how how you can follow.

This slide here, what I'm striving to show are our recommendations.

Everything highlighted is where the HMP recommendations differ a bit from what city planning is is saying.

So to try to say it, uh we do agree again with the small daycares, make them conditional use.

We're saying please no large ones in residential R5 exception.

Regarding the co-location of the second type of daycare, the accessory, we're saying that if you noticed in the list of the commercial and civic areas where you do the co-location, it had multifamily residential.

We're saying keep that only to R5, please.

The second area, I've said this, but I'll say it again is we recommend conditional use requirements for any daycares placed in residential zones, office uh residential and MXT.

We have office residential in there because it there's only a hundred properties across the city in OR, and the majority of those are in the historic uptown neighborhoods, so it's largely residential.

And the same with MXT.

That was really special use before retool.

You for example, in Midshooks Run, they have 10 to 12 blocks of MXT zone district, which is really residential, right?

Uh so the next two items on a recommendation is we appreciate city planning, restricting the use of residential streets as the primary access to a daycare.

We're at suggesting that we also add the alleyways.

Again, we're talking older neighborhoods here, right?

Um, the last item here is back to the older established neighborhoods.

Those communities really don't have garages, many don't have garages or driveways.

Parking is a complication.

It's a very, it's a it's a difficult situation.

So let's retain the requirement of one per 400 square feet.

Let's not make it one per 600 square feet in residential.

Perhaps do that in non-residential, but not in residential.

So what I all of what I just said is depicted on this table.

Again, it's the use table only reflecting these residential zones with OR and MXT.

You can see the first type, the center large, we're suggesting again only an R5, conditional, small across the board, making it conditional.

The second type of accessory, that's the co-location.

The words down at the bottom reflect the words that Allison had on her slide.

We're suggesting removing multifamily residential and just adding the R5 to this for the co-location.

The last item that's the home, the home accessory that the state mandates, right?

The licensed home, which that uh I kept it on the slide so you could see that in the residential zones, there is strong support for daycare across the board.

So, really, the question is really, you know, how best minimize the disruption to one's you know, home environment with the introduction of um daycare.

You heard what our recommendations are, size is what matters.

You know, there's a direct correlation between the size of this facility with um with really, you know, the need for more parking, and there's more traffic of dropping children off, picking them up, and there's more noise, right?

So, in any event, the questions are how to best minimize it.

You've heard our recommendations, and then really what is a balanced approach.

You heard our balanced approach.

Um, yes to small, make it conditional, um co-locate with R5.

I guess that's it.

Thank you so much, Miss Burgess.

That was one of the most challenging things I've ever done.

Well, you carry you carried it off well.

Uh is there anyone?

Oh, I'm sorry, we have one more individual in the audience that signed up.

Yes.

Amelia Walsh.

Yes, thank you.

You'll have three minutes after you introduce yourself.

Hi, I'm Amelia Walsh.

I'm president of Greenshade Schools on West Cheyenne.

Uh I've been president there for 10 years, and we've been actively uh running the school in a residential area.

We have 34 children right now, and my kids grew up there, and some of you probably even had kids at Green Shade Schools.

Uh, we are zoned in residential, and we're in the process of selling one of our three buildings to a nonprofit adult center.

And we're very passionate about this because we feel that this opportunity to give back to the elderly community and help the children of these elders is going to be very, very important.

And to have them next to a facility with children.

We think it's a wonderful combination.

So we are going through all the appropriate measures.

We're working with surveyors and civil engineers right now to get that developmental plan going.

Uh, but we just want to speak and say how much we support this.

We definitely need more daycare centers.

We need to have more children for working parents, uh, be able to drop off their children.

I've been a working mom and have had my children in daycare since they were little.

And uh I don't know about the parking.

We don't park, we drop and we go.

Uh, I'm just saying that because I've heard a lot of people talking about that.

I being a mother in a daycare situation, I didn't even run into any other parents.

We were in and we were out.

We have places to go.

And uh I've even had a residential in my own block, uh, home daycare, and I never felt any traffic.

So I'm just throwing that out there.

But with the adult daycare and our daycare that has been functioning for over 40 years, we really need this to pass.

We need really need to give back to the community and help make these people know that we're gonna take care of their parents and their children in our residential homes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this and in support of this issue?

And can we check on the on phones?

Check the phone lines.

If there's anybody online that would like to speak in support of this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak in opposition to this item?

Or is there anyone online?

We don't have anybody registered.

Um in the audience, if somebody didn't get the chance to register, please come to the podium.

See nobody if there's uh somebody online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please press star seeks to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody online.

Okay, great.

Thank you for checking.

Um, I think at this point, then we'll bring it up to the diaspora.

Um questions uh to Alison or City staff.

And um check my tablet.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, please start us off.

Um, I have a question for you, Alison.

And maybe I should know the answer to this.

I don't know.

Um so the UDC states that there's like required separation distances for certain types of businesses to a daycare center.

Does that still apply if the daycare is an accessory use to an office or some of those new ones that like the office, medical office, is there still that separation distance?

So Dan is confirming that I've already thought yes, those would still apply regardless if they're accessory or not.

And that's how we already operate with in-home child care.

So uses like medical or recreational marijuana, um natural medicine, there's maybe one or two others have those required distancing.

So as long as a license pulls up in our system, um, we probably don't have an easy way to check unlicensed, but as long as we have a licensed daycare registered in our system, we we will check those distances.

And does it go both ways?

Like if you were okay, it doesn't.

So if you were trying to start a daycare in your medical office building and there was recreational marijuana next door, that's your prerogative in starting your daycare.

Absolutely.

Yes, it is on the daycares to check those types of things because they are electing to move in near one of those businesses, whereas the kind of the inverse is meant to protect existing child care.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other commissioners with questions you can request to speak or let me know.

Go ahead, Commissioner Flattery.

Thank you.

Um, I'm not sure if there's a direct question here, but I do um have some thoughts and appreciate the work that's been done into code modifications.

Um, just speak a little bit from personal experience and I'll echo the sentiment of um our last speaker.

Um my children were younger, we used uh a large daycare center.

Um that I looked it up, it's in an R5 as a spot zone R5.

So I imagine there was uh um sequencing issue with you know spot zoning to accommodate this type of center in the maybe six parking stalls in their little lot for more than a hundred children.

I can't think of an instance over the several years that we went there that we I couldn't get a spot in run in and run out and get them.

Like I there are um a number of factors affecting um, you know, parent schedules, and it seems like there's a um natural or planned occurrence in which it's a rotating door of of folks coming in and out.

And um, so while you know there will be potentially impact of folks coming in and out, there's there's not gonna be an extended parking lot of um cars to um disrupt a neighborhood, in my opinion.

I think that the code issues and the modifications of direct access from a residentially zoned or residentially designated street, um will mitigate any potential issues along that route.

Um and when I'm you know looking up kind of knees, I think it was like two out of three families have both parents working, and you know, of um two out of three families with both parent households at both parents working in our dual income, as well as single parent households are at over 80%.

So I I don't think anybody here is um denying the need for these types of spaces.

Um and we've talked a little bit about you know things in our control, things outside of our control, state licensing.

State licensing is also gonna dictate square footage requirements, both inside and outside.

So naturally you're not gonna shove too many kids in next next door, right, to an environment that is not um appropriate.

So I think that there are let's say state level um regulations in play and that children in neighborhoods and in homes um are the place where they should be, right?

To to walk to your daycare um if you're so privileged, um is excellent.

I did have that at one point in life and was able to walk to drop off the kids and and walk after work to you know pick them up on the way home, and that was excellent.

So I think integrating kids um on these smaller levels within the residential areas is appropriate, and that sizes of lots and buildings to meet licensing requirements uh will naturally keep sizes aligned with appropriate spaces.

So I will be in favor of this code update.

Uh Commissioner Willby, no?

Okay.

Questions, comments from others on the daisy.

Go right ahead, sir.

Get close.

I got it.

I'm learning, honest.

Um yes, I I really appreciate the work that was put into uh uh into all of this, and I think that's a great need, and I really am in support of this.

So I wish you guys the best on this.

Commissioner Case for the record, uh appreciate the work you put into this presentation.

I think you highlighted a few things that maybe weren't highlighted before.

Um this is a need for the community, and I also believe that um allowing this to be used in more areas is very important to our community.

And so at the end of the day, we need to get out of our own way um and help our community do that.

So I will be voting in favor.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Willoughby, I again I appreciate the work.

Um I'm I'm glad that Dan spoke about some of the parking concerns.

Um that was a compelling discussion, but my own personal lived experience is the same as some of the other speakers.

And as Commissioner Slattery, I I'm dropping my kids off at daycare because I can't be with them because I have to be somewhere else.

So I'm not really lingering around.

I've never had any parking issues.

And my lived experience probably outweigh what I'm hearing as a perceived concern about parking and noise.

So I will be voting in favor of this code update.

Alison, I'm guessing we don't have any other questions for you.

So you probably could sit down.

Are there any other questions for Allison?

No.

Okay.

Any other comments that commissioners would like to make in support or opposition.

Go ahead, Rain.

Just want to add something that I think again, this is allowing locations and standards.

Uh, the operations of these, that is another very difficult point of child daycare, which I think many of uh people up here could understand.

And so again, just getting out of our own way to uh permit locations and standards for these places to go, and then obviously the business operations will uh tend to markets uh and supply.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, I will I will echo some of the comments that have been made in as a working mom in the past.

For the most part, my child was at a in-home day care, which was lovely, but again, in and out, and then at a small center uh on a non-residential street.

And so um I appreciated that I could get in and get out and and that I had high quality care that was, I guess affordable.

Um is questionable at best.

But um I appreciate that one with the state reg regulations, also the high need for child care and also the impact on our economy in general as we um look at you know the numbers of working parents.

I think that the um code update has um taken a lot into consideration as far as non-residential streets.

Um and I agree, I think the development plan process and the use of these the specific applications and uses will dictate the parking of which is probably quite limited.

So um I too am in favor of this.

And if we don't have any other comments from other commissioners, then I would like to um ask for a motion.

Uh sounds like an approval.

I would like to um make a motion to recommend approval to city council, the adoption of the ordinance amending chapter seven of the unified development code um 2021 as amended relating to the permitted locations and standards for each adult or child daycare centers based upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria set forth in City Code section 7.5.702.

Commissioner Robins, I second the motion.

The motion passes unanimously.

Awesome.

Thank you all very much.

And uh moving on to our final item on the agenda, Solange, if you could read our uh next item, please.

Item 8 F, C O D E 26-0003, an ordinance amending section 1404, code adopted by reference of part 14 of Article 4, Chapter 7, the Unified Development Code of the Code of the City of Colorado Springs 2001 as amended as related to the adoption of the Pike Speak Regional Wielding Code standards for single exits and a stairway.

Your presenter is Daniel Sexton.

Good afternoon, uh commissioners.

Uh Daniel Sexton Planning Manager uh for the city's planning department.

Uh this is gonna be a joint presentation for you today uh with myself as well as the regional building official Roger Lovell, uh, who'll kind of get into more of the nitty-gritty from the building code side in this in the sense of of what we're we're changing there.

Um but I will start with kind of just a brief presentation here about the the process uh that we're kind of gonna go through for this uh amendment to the UDC.

Uh and as Salange mentioned, uh, we're looking at an amendment to a code reference, a building code reference that's adopted uh as part of the UDC since the building code uh here in Colorado Springs is uh adopted uh within a subsection of the UDC.

Um so it's adopting by reference that that code.

Uh the code is in response or the code update, uh I should say, uh, similar to the last item that you just saw is kind of a more surgical uh presentation of an amendment to the UDC.

Um as we've kind of talked through in a number of instances recently.

We're we're doing a robust effort to kind of scrub uh a lot of uh errors, omissions, updates to the code, which you'll be seeing some bigger packages of soon.

But this as an independent update was uh requested uh on behalf of the regional building department uh to kind of sequence it through for conversation before they do uh an update and republishing of their building code.

So with that, um this update and the the reference that's being uh revised in terms of building code uh is in response to uh House Bill 251273.

Um, this bill uh speaks specifically to the development capability and restrictions on multifamily development, uh limiting those uh more specifically to a five-story residential building and allowing through if if adopted ultimately would allow uh that type of residential multifamily product uh to be served by one exit or entry uh as well as one staircase.

Uh current code uh would be requiring multiple entry, multiple staircase today.

Roger is here to kind of speak to that in greater detail.

Um, with the update, they're still going to be look uh required to abide by or adhere to uh a number of life safety requirements uh under the building code and fire code uh in terms of ensuring that residents within those buildings have uh you know reasonable and safe egress and emergency kind of response capability to the building.

Um the in addition to those kind of safety components, there are some design considerations that that also kind of come into play with this proposed legislation, or sorry, this proposed uh code update.

Um and what I will note uh as I think we kind of started to talk through at informal last week is that you know, if ultimately this is not adopted uh today, there is some there are some mechanisms, uh, I shouldn't say adopted.

You guys are recommending to city council the adoption of this.

Um, you know, if it's ultimately not uh adopted by council, there are some additional kind of mechanisms and triggers from subsequent building code uh adoptions that will bring this, I'll say construction method into play, but there will be additional uh you know regulatory parameters on the building code side.

Um that's really my piece.

Um, you know, you're familiar with the standard criteria that we're looking at for these uh UDC amendments, which is really compliance with uh the comprehensive plan uh and other adopted uh uh plans within our community.

Um it's not impacting any specific zone district because again, this is a building uh method type of restriction or regulation.

Um doesn't affect the use of land uh necessarily, other than when you're thinking about as is kind of mentioned in some of the supporting documentation that you had in your packet on this item.

There's there's a number of um or number of pieces of information provided by the proponents of of ultimately the house bill that was passed that reinforced by enacting this or enabling communities to utilize this construction method or building method, that it will be cheaper to build these and may allow more infill types of development.

Um so from staff's perspective as it relates to the criteria.

Uh, we we've identified and believe that it has met uh the approval criteria that that you have to consider in your decision making.

Um and what I'll honestly do there is maybe defer to Roger to come up and speak to some additional questions.

Uh we do have, I believe, also online some representative from the fire department uh to also be able to speak to any kind of concerns or questions there.

Um good afternoon, Roger Lovell.

I'm the building official for Pikes Peak Regional Building Department.

As Dan stated, uh this is before you today uh due to House Bill 25-1273, which was passed last year.

Uh, there was a companion bill to that in 2024 that proposed the the same type of thing.

That bill did not make it through the session uh and was revised last year and was passed as it is before you today.

What the what the bill does is it it's more a building design and methodology and shouldn't impact planning, at least in my uh in my eyes significantly, um, as it pertains to the design and construction of these buildings.

So, what we're talking about is uh buildings up to five stories in height that would be served by a single store single stair, where the building code would require two stairs for buildings uh in excess of three stories for for multifamily residential.

What this does is it limits it to what the bill does is it limits it to uh four dwelling units per story and a maximum square footage of up to 6,000 square feet per per for per floor plate.

Um the bill also contains very specific life safety features that have to be included in the building as far as type of construction, it has to be non-combustible or type two construction.

Uh it has to be sprinklered throughout with a commercial sprinkler system, the same type that you would see in a commercial building such as this.

Uh stairways have to be pressurized.

There's a there's a significant number of life safety features that go into these buildings in addition to uh what would be required in a uh three-story building that would just come directly out of the building code.

Um the the building department as well as planning did work closely as required in the bill with Colorado Springs Fire to make sure that the amendments, the amendments or the changes that we're bringing before you do meet the requirements of the uh of the of House Bill 1273 as well as meet the operational requirements of the of the Springs Fire Department.

Happy to answer any technical questions that you may have um no, I mean I do appreciate you talking about the life safety requirements that are above and beyond what's required in a three-story or below two or three story.

Um I guess maybe my question is for fire and kind of what helps with evacuation most.

So I might save that uh unless you have any commentary on kind of how the how the current building codes kind of impact that otherwise I can save for fire, but I can address that in part.

Okay.

Um and and it would be good to hear from fire as well.

One of the things to consider when you have a uh when you have a single stair versus two stairs is in the event of a fire or a or an emergency, you've got the occupants of the building coming down the stairs.

At the same time, you have the first responders going up the stairs.

When you have two stairs, the fire department can and does have the ability to kind of direct traffic and send fire ops up one stair and potentially evacuees down another stair.

So when we have a single stair, obviously we don't have that that uh that option available.

Part of what this what this bill does uh or the one of the life safety requirements is increased width of that stair.

So that that does help offset, at least in my opinion, offset the uh congestion.

And pressurized and sprinklered, yeah.

As well as a pressurized stair, yes.

And for those of you who might not be aware what the pressurized stair does, is when that when that stairwell is pressurized, uh you've got a positive pressure in the stairwell, preventing smoke from entering that stairwell.

Uh, and it's also a a two-hour fire-rated stairwell.

Um, with I mean, some of the supporting information that we saw right other states, um, and and it sounds like internationally as well that this is not uncommon and is becoming more adopted around the U.S.

Do you anticipate that this would become part of the um international building code at some point, or is are we too far from that?

And if this is just going like on a state by state or jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Right now it is uh probably municipality by municipality.

What what 1270 what House Bill 1273 did is it applied these requirements from the state only to jurisdictions or municipal, I'm sorry, municipalities that exceed 100,000 residents.

So there's only 13 municipalities in Colorado that this applies to.

Um with that said, it is gaining, it does appear to be gaining popularity across the United States as it relates to the international building codes.

There is a proposal, there's currently a proposal in the 2027 version of the international codes.

They're revised every three years.

The most current right now is the 2024.

There's at least a proposal in the 27 codes to allow for an increase in the height of these type of occupancies that would allow a single stair.

Uh what the additional life safety provisions are, I can't speak to that because those codes are in development right now.

Uh and we'll have to to see what comes out with those codes.

And the department adopts codes every traditionally every six years.

We skip a cycle of codes.

Right now we're on the 2021 codes, so our next scheduled adoption of codes would be the 2027 international codes.

In your professional opinion and and your knowledge and your role, do you support this type of and if you don't want to answer, you could say no, but I'm just uh I I will answer.

Um I I spoke in opposition to the initial bill, and I also testified in opposition to to 1273.

Um as did uh Colorado Springs Fire.

Um, with that said, it is a requirement that's coming down from the state of Colorado.

And as building official, my responsibility, one of my responsibilities is to make sure that the city of Colorado Springs at least is aware of what's required by the state level.

I do believe uh that the life safety features that have been added to the bill do help offset and reduce the life safety risk.

Um further, it's also my opinion that the significant cost of all of the life safety requirements included in this legislation will not offset the reduction in cost of building a second stairwell.

So Ergo, it may be allowed, but we may not actually see that in practice as much because of just pure market factors that developers may not do it.

My speculation is that it will not be widely uh adopted, widely developed.

Okay.

That's speculation.

Yes, thank you so much.

I appreciate you doing so.

Um Commissioner Robbins, I think you're up next.

Yeah, I just had a quick question that uh I didn't get I thought I saw this in here.

Should this uh go through and get passed this bill?

Um when does this take effect?

The there's there's two pieces to this.

One, let me start with the reason that we're here before you today.

Uh we do have a deadline, uh, not as it relates to this change, but there are certain energy code requirements and deadlines associated with that.

We do have a deadline to adopt to enforce a new energy code by July 1st of 2026.

Uh so part of that process is a second printing of the Pikes Peak Regional Building Code.

We're looking to incorporate these changes into the Pikes Peak Regional Building Code in advance of that deadline.

But the other piece to this too is if we make any changes to the building code, which this would be a change to the building code after July 1st of 2026, then we have to adopt the the energy code that's current at that time.

Okay.

So this change, this legislation does not become effective until December 1st, 2027.

So we're well in advance of the deadline, but if we if we do this after July 1st of 2026, then we're forced to uh implement the latest energy code, which will add significant cost to construction.

Okay.

The the next question, I think I already understand this one, but this is only for new projects that would come on board, not trying to take something existing and redoing it.

There aren't any, that's a great question.

There aren't any prohibitions from doing that, although that would be exceedingly difficult.

Uh I can't think of any buildings that would be less than three stories now that would meet the non-combustible type of construction requirement.

So uh technically, technically it would be possible, but I don't think we have any buildings in Colorado Springs that would fit that criteria.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um before we move on to Commissioner Wilby, can you describe briefly for those on the commission that may or may not be as familiar what the difference is between a combustible and a non-combustible and the type of construction?

Like we're not going to see this in certain types of construction.

We will see it potentially on what.

Could you describe that?

So when I when I speak to types of construction, the type of construction uh is defines the materials that are used to build the building.

So type five construction is what's used to build a traditional single family home, wood studs, uh, wood sheeting, combustible building products.

Uh as you move to the right on the table, it becomes uh uh more limited on what the options are.

Type two non-combustible construction is what you generally see with with larger commercial buildings, steel studs, um it could be it could be masonry construction, um non all non-combustible products that go into the building.

So very limited application of wood, and if there is wood involved, then it's generally fire treated.

Thank you.

I think that's helpful.

Uh Commissioner Willie.

So Dance kind of tap danced around this, but do we actually have the option to adopt this or not?

Because he said there was some other he said it very politically correct, like there's some other mechanisms that might allow this to come through.

So um to speak to that, this is uh this is a requirement from the state of Colorado that applies to municipalities with 13 with 100,000 or more residents.

So it's it's one of the requirements that is coming down from the state of Colorado that that we are supposed to abide by.

So what happens if we don't recommend to approve it and city council doesn't approve it?

That would probably be a better request better question for the city attorney.

Um Sarah Sarah Brun, City Attorney's Office.

Um litigation would be the way in which that would be decided.

So we'd have to have a pretty compelling reason to not adopt it, and then it would go to litigation and we would defend said reason.

I'll defer Sarah Brown City Attorney's Office.

Um home rule authority, I think is at the heart of um what people are concerned about related to um the legislation that's passed by the state.

And as I said, the way in which those determinations will be made is through litigation.

Thank you.

Can I make a quick comment?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Um just to talk about the politics of that.

Um you're recommending obviously this to city council so you can say yay or nay.

Um I do want to compliment Roger and his staff.

Uh uh been working with them for a very long time, 15 years, 20 years.

Um, and uh this is an this is an extraordinary organization over there that does a great job for keeping our community uh working uh most efficiently.

And this is a good example of that, where we've got the option of just sort of delaying this and not doing it um or denying it or approving it.

Uh but all of those are contingent on making building in our community a lot more efficient and a lot a lot more effective.

So I just really want to make sure that Roger gets kudos uh for bringing this in the timely manner, recognizing the problem and recognizing the solution.

Um the politics of it are that you as you well know, there are several of these that our city council has simply said we're not even going to hear them, um, and we're not gonna do them.

Some of them have penalties, some of them do not, some of them are political, some of them are not.

And uh so we're just you know, we're in the middle of all of those trying to balance all of those political um and uh code uh and state legislative um directives.

So just wanted to make sure that I gave you a little bit of that context.

Some of that questioning was starting to get into that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

I might add one one thing going back quickly to the timeline.

When we talk about the 27 international codes, it's possible that we have provisions in the 27 international codes.

Locally, uh, I think it's safe to the the code adoption process that we go through locally is very robust with a lot of public comment and input from uh all aspects of the construction industry.

And as such, it takes it takes a significant amount of time.

So, you know, we would probably be looking at adoption of the 27 codes, 27 family of international codes, mid to late 2028.

So that would be beyond the the state deadline.

The the part that could be very interesting is uh the 27 codes that have yet to be published and written.

If those restrictions are different or less restrictive than what the state requirements are, how do we how do we fix that at that time too, where we have a state requirement and a uh model code requirement too?

So there's there's a lot of unknown about this as well.

Okay, I just want to um understand and clarify a couple things.

So the five story single exit is limited to multifamily as a use type, correct?

Correct, it's only for multifamily our R2 occupancies in the building code, which is completely different from our two zoning.

Okay, got it.

Um and then we're gonna talk about the energy code and how that relates and potential pitfalls, but just so I should probably understand this, but it so obviously this body's purview is land use, and so our vote in chapter seven, we're approving the use of a modified PBRBD development.

Like how what's the how explain that to me?

Like I was in daycare.

Uh happy to try to answer that for you, Commissioner.

Uh Dan Sexton, planning manager.

So uh here in Colorado Springs, the building code, the the regional building code is adopted by reference through the unified development code.

Okay.

So to be able to make changes such as this to the building code, we have to update those code references in the unified development code.

Okay.

So we're adding a reference to this new proposed code.

Has PBRBD adopted this code already, then, or you it's contingent upon our approval.

The codes are adopted by each one of our member jurisdictions.

So we what we do, what regional building does is we put together the Pikes Peak Regional Building Code.

In this case, we have a specific appendix that applies only to the city of Colorado Springs.

And I do have I see I do have copies here of it for you if you guys would like.

But appendix D is requirements that are specific only to uh the city of Colorado Springs.

Found in Teller County not over 100,000 people.

What's that?

Fountain and Teller County are not over 100,000, and don't meet that.

The House Bill 1273 only applies to municipalities, not counties.

And Fountain is not over 100,000.

No.

Okay.

The only municipality within El Paso County that that does exceed 100,000 is City of Colorado Springs.

Gotcha.

And um seems like we have some back and forth if home rule would apply or not within that instance.

As our attorney pointed out, that's probably a litigation issue.

Sure.

Sure, I understand.

And so tell me more about um our compliance in a timely manner before July of 26 or 27, or I think it was July of 26.

That if we did choose to adopt and comply with the state statute, um it would when would we so we would not be subject to an additional um energy code update, but if we waited, are we going to be subject to that code update when we adopt the 27 IBC it's it's a complicated timeline?

Sure.

Um what the state did with House Bill 22 1362, uh it was a while back, was they it they implemented the state implemented minimum energy code requirements, and it's a it's a sliding scale with a timeline.

What we locally have done is we time our adoption of those codes and implementation of those codes one day prior to the deadline, so that we can remain on the least restrictive energy code for the longest time possible.

Sure.

The the next timeline uh for energy code adoption is um is December 1st, 2029.

Okay, I believe.

So but when we do adopt the 2027 codes in mid to late 2028, yes, at that point will we would be required to move to the uh the code that will be the minimum code after July 1st, which is the Colorado uh low energy and carbon code.

Okay, so I think I'm hearing you say we'd save about 30 months of more restrictive energy code across all building types when we're talking about housing and building affordability in our community.

Is that the synopsis?

Okay, so um I think that answers my question.

I do have thoughts.

I don't know if that was an appropriate time chair to mention those, or if you want to keep the dice open for questions and then circle back.

Okay.

Yeah, let's circle back.

Does anyone else have any other questions uh for Roger or for Dan?

Okay, no.

Um I thought I had a question, but I think I might have solved it or heard enough in the code um myself.

So yeah, so please go ahead, Commissioner Slattery.

As I was not in the informal and did not dive as deep in, I was um maybe a combination of appalled and terrified when I saw um the uh a five-story single exit um requirement put forth by our state.

Um you know, we can ask this fire department questions, I suppose, but based upon the additional requirements of non-combustibles, um positive pressure, which essentially means there's a HVAC in the stairwell, right?

Pushing and pushing out.

Um and then a two-hour fire rated wall, you know, or corridor separation.

Um I think it's cheaper just to build a second set of stairs.

I mean, I guess uh if the determination for is for you know, smaller, awkward infill sites, um the market may uh, I guess as you speculated, Mr.

Lovell, not really um find that viable.

Um and so while I can see both sides of this coin, I'm inclined to support the adoption with the lens of um housing affordability and economic volatility um on the energy code adoption that's going to affect all of the other, you know, 99 plus percent of building products across our community.

Um, if there's a risk of being mandated to adopt this code after July.

So I'm I it seems like there's while it um a single exit perhaps seems silly.

Um the other hoops and life safety measures um as a part of the code will probably offset the risk um, in my opinion.

So I I mean I could see both sides of it, but um advocating for state compliance, you know, as the building official should be doing.

I can I can understand um I'm not super I'm not opposed to it.

I'll just leave it at that.

I'm not opposed.

Commissioner Willoughby.

Uh I was just gonna echo Commissioner Slattery's comments.

I am generally not in favor of it, but I think the the trouble of delaying it is probably not worth it.

I think we have enough on our hands with the state fire code situation that we're deciding if we're adopting or not that um and just Roger's speculations in terms of how many people how many developers are actually gonna utilize this.

I think the cost of it probably makes me feel a little bit better about how how often we'd actually see it implemented, and then knowing there's a chance it might come down the line in in the IBC 2027.

I think again, I'm not I'm not really in favor of it, but I'm not gonna vote opposed to it.

I think I would vote in favor just to keep the process moving and not have those pitfalls of adopting a more restrictive energy code sooner than needed.

Thank you.

Uh Kevin.

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director, just to uh give a little bit contract uh context for Commissioner Slattery's comments.

The there are several of these where we've testified at the state legislature to ask them to not include us because they are really pointed, the these are pointed at uh problems that exist in the Denver metro area and the economics of the building and the econom and the the size of lots and those kinds of things are substantially different than they are here, uh similar to the one where we were required to approve multifamily without parking, uh even though every single apartment that's been built downtown where there's no parking required has an up has a parking place.

really pointed the these are pointed at uh problems that exist in the Denver metro area and the economics of the building and the econom and the the size of lots and those kinds of things are substantially different than they are here uh similar to the one where we were required to approve multifamily without parking uh even though every single apartment that's been built downtown where there's no parking required has an up as a parking place and so there they really aren't it's trying to legislate from the uh from the state level to local conditions and we've testified consistently that this is not something that really fits um and so it's almost no harm no foul we're probably not gonna see any of these because they don't the economics don't work in our setting but by the same token um you know the question of whether we have home rule or whether we have our responsibility for our own building codes and our own zoning codes um you know remains and you know we've got that discussion has gone on several times at the city council level no thank you very much for that I appreciate it uh Mr.

Rocker because I I agree I think that the the economics and the likelihood of this at five stories I I mean this is the type of thing well not the stairwell but but a type two construction is what you would see in a high rise right where you have slab and you have metal studs and like a whole different type of construction than we generally see even the high high right mid-rise product downtown is stick over pot is wood frame over podium which would not apply and those are the tallest multifamily that we have which this would not be applicable and then anything else is a three story walk up that's all wood.

So I think the likelihood that we're gonna see it uh is probably slim um maybe there'll be one or two um and again economics are probably just not there and I I agree no harm no foul is kind of my sense because if we don't approve it then what are the future like litigation or legislative things that will come to bear whereas we could just pass it uh and then just not have it be used and it would be a non-issue but it would be on the books I guess those uh consequences are also being litigated of course they are of course they are well I I mean I think you know I think it it could be a carrot so if this is a carrot to helping some development and to make it safer and to see all of these other things I'm gonna be in favor but I agree with some of my fellow commissioners just on you know the unlikelyhood of that it's going to be actually built out but uh Commissioner Case did you have I saw you reaching for your button but maybe I was wrong.

Do you have any comments?

I'll just speak uh you know I'm always a fan of market conditions and economics kind of leading the way with things so uh I I agree no harm no foul I think it's allowing uh for some more uses potentially but I think market conditions will um obviously nix some of that at the same time so um like I say no harm no foul did you want to make a comment if you only if you would like to I suppose okay um yeah I see the there's obviously advantages and disadvantages no matter what but uh uh right now I think uh we have some states that have been using it for a while and proving its uh success and uh I think we need to move forward on this and I'm in favor of it thank you commissioner Clements or Commissioner Gigiano did you have any comments in favor or against okay um at this time then I'd like to uh seek a motion to approve this item a recommendation all right let's try and read this reference um eight e C O D E dash 25 dash zero zero zero six dash oh wrong one yeah let me slow down and you can also look on your right in front of me okay reference eight dot f dot code dash 26 dash zero zero zero three and ordinance amending section one four oh four code adopted by reference a part fourteen of article four chapter seven the unified development code of the code of the city of Colorado Springs 2001 as amended as related to the adoption of the Pike speak regional building code standards for the single exits and stairways legislative all council districts commissioner clemens are second it's thank you the motion passes unanimously thank you all very much and that concludes our planning commission meeting for today