Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council changes zoning to expand child care siting amid neighborhood debate; parking and conditional use remain contested
Summary
After extensive public comment, the council approved revisions to the Unified Development Code to expand where commercial child care centers may be located and to add an accessory commercial childcare category; the measure passed 8–1 amid disagreement over parking ratios and whether larger centers should be permitted by right in residential zones.
The City Council approved a package of Unified Development Code amendments on May 28 intended to make it easier for licensed child care providers to open and expand across Colorado Springs, voting 8–1 after lengthy public comment and debate over neighborhood protections and parking standards.
Senior planner Allison Stocker presented the proposed changes, which reclassify most adult/child day care centers as either permitted or conditional uses in a wider set of zone districts, add a new ‘‘accessory commercial childcare center’’ type to facilitate co‑location with compatible commercial uses, and propose reducing required parking from 1 space per 400 square feet to 1 per 600 square feet of gross floor area for commercial child care centers. The proposal also includes a restriction that a center’s primary vehicle access not be a local residential street as defined by city traffic engineering maps.
Supporters at the public hearing — including providers and advocates from the Family Friendly Initiative, Early Connections Learning Centers and the Pikes Peak Real Estate Foundation — said the city faces a licensed‑childcare shortage. ‘‘We have 47,000 children under the age of 5 and only about 18,500 licensed childcare slots,’’ said Sherry Lynn Boyles of the Family Friendly Initiative. Providers said zoning barriers and lengthy entitlement processes have delayed new openings.
Neighborhood advocates, represented by the Historic Neighborhoods Partnership, urged the council to preserve residents’ ability to contest large commercial facilities in residential areas and requested that large centers remain conditional uses so neighbors have an administrative hearing. ‘‘Our issue is large scale, unlimited commercial operations in residential areas,’’ said Diane Bridges, chair of the Historic Neighborhoods Partnership, asking that large centers be subject to conditional review. Several speakers warned that permitting very large centers by right could enable high‑traffic uses to locate next to homes without early public hearings.
Councilmembers debated the tradeoffs. Some supported the staff approach — relying on development plan standards, primary access restrictions and appeals — to avoid creating additional barriers for providers; others said the change reduced neighborhood input and objected to the proposed lower parking requirement. Councilmember Donaldson offered amendments to restore 1 per 400 parking and to keep large centers conditional in residential zones, but those amendments failed for lack of a second. The council ultimately adopted the code package as modified in the published packet; the motion carried 8–1.
The ordinance includes use‑specific standards (primary access, buffers, minimum landscape areas, development plan triggers) that staff said would be applied during administrative review. Projects that convert a residence into a commercial center or propose substantial changes will require development plans, public notice and are subject to appeal.
Councilmembers and planning staff said they expect implementation and further refinement in zoning language as cases come forward; opponents said they will monitor the city’s administrative approvals to ensure neighborhood impacts are addressed.
