Title
Appeals of the City Planning Commission’s decision to deny prior appeals of the Administrative Approval of the Development Plan Major Modification application for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, located at 1565 High Tech Way, and to approve the same Modification with conditions.
(Quasi-Judicial)
Related Files: DEPN-26-0039; APPL-26-0003; APPL-26-0004
Located in Council District 1
Presenter:
Daniel Sexton, DRE/LUR Planning Manager, City Planning Department
Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department
Body
Summary:
Owner: 3G Venture II, LLC
Applicant: RAEDEN
Appellant (APPL-26-0003): Katherine Kent and Ron Graham-Becker
Appellant (APPL-26-0004): Katie Kloth
Location: 1565 High Tech Way
City Planning Commission, at a special meeting for an appeal and public hearing scheduled for July 23, 2026, denied multiple appeals of the administrative approval for the Development Plan Major Modification application for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4 (known as Project Taurus), and approved the same Modification with conditions. The subject property is located at 1565 High Tech Way and is zoned BP (Business Park).
Following this decision, the City Planning Department received two appeals of the Commission’s decision at the July 23, 2026 meeting. Both appeals were submitted within the 10-day appeal window in accordance with City Code Section 7.5.415.A.4.
• APPL-26-0003 -Appeal (Kent and Graham-Becker) Request Application: This appeal challenges the Commission’s decision to deny the appellants’ prior appeal of the administrative approval.
• APPL-26-0004 - Appeal (Kloth) Request Application: This appeal challenges the Commission’s decision to deny the appellant’s prior appeal of the administrative approval.
The Appellants are contesting the Commission’s decision for different reasons. Please see the attached Appeal applications for a complete description of the Appellants’ reasons for their appeals.
Background:
Please see the attached City Planning Commission Staff Report for a complete analysis of the Appeal of the Administrative Decision application.
Review Criteria:
The applications being considered are appeals of City Planning Commission’s decision on the Development Plan Major Modification application for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4. For these appeals, both review criteria for an Appeal and Development Plan Major Modification are to be considered.
Following review by the City appellate body, the application for an appeal may be affirmed, reversed, modified, or remanded back to Planning Commission. The review criteria for this decision are set forth in City Code Section 7.5.415.A.2, as noted below:
2. Notice of Appeal
a. The notice of appeal shall state:
(1) The specific provision(s) of this UDC that is the basis of the appeal; and
(2) Which of the following criteria for reversal or modification of the decision is applicable to the appeal:
(a) The decision is contrary to the express language of this UDC; or
(b) The decision is erroneous; or
(c) The decision is clearly contrary to law; and
(3) Describe how the criteria for the relevant application have or have not been met.
An application for a Development Plan Major Modification may be approved if it is determined that the applicable review criteria have been met as they relate to the area of change on a previously approved Development Plan. The review criteria for deciding on a Development Plan Major Modification, as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.516.D.1, are as follows
1. Major Modification: A Major Modification may be approved if the applicable decision-making body determines that the request:
a. Complies with the provisions of this UDC and all applicable City regulations;
b. Is consistent with any conditions in the approval or permit proposed to be modified, unless the decision-making body that imposed that condition modifies that condition;
c. Does not create more adverse impacts on surrounding properties than the development approval or permit proposed to be modified; and
d. Is consistent with the Colorado Springs Comprehensive Plan, other plans adopted by City Council, and the intent of the zone district in which the property is located.
It was determined by City Planning Commission that the appeals of the administrative decision were not substantiated per the review criteria outlined in City Code Sections 7.5.415.A.2 and 7.5.516.D.1 and the Commission imposed conditions of approval.
Previous Council Action:
The most recent action taken by City Council related to the subject property occurred in 1995. City Council acted on a variety of other entitlement applications for the property and surrounding area dating further back to the 1970s.
Financial Implications:
N/A
City Council Appointed Board/Commission/Committee Recommendation:
City Planning Commission voted 6-2-1 to deny the Appeals and modify the administrative approval, at the July 23, 2026, special appeal hearing (Commissioners Hensler, Case, Cecile, Engel, Robbins, and Slattery voted to deny the Appeals; Commissioners Gigiano and Willougby voted to support the Appeals; and Commissioner Clements was absent) with the following conditions to the Development Plan Major Modification:
1. Publicly reporting utility usage data for the first 10-years of operation.
2. Limiting the utility usage to 50MW of electricity, but should this usage be proposed to increase beyond the stated limit, a hearing shall be scheduled with the Planning Commission to act on the request to approve.
3. Replace the original M201 with the corrected sheet provided by the Applicant in the supplemental materials submitted to City Planning Commission at the hearing.
4. Modify the Sound Monitoring Plan to require dB(c) monitoring and reporting in the same fashion as the dB(a) monitoring and reporting therein.
Recommended Action
Proposed Motions:
APPL-26-0003 and APPL-26-0004 - Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4
Should the City Council wish to affirm the City Planning Commission’s decision approving the Development Plan Major Modification application:
Deny all Appeals and affirm the City Planning Commission’s decision, as conditioned, on the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, based upon the finding that the review criteria for deciding the application are met, as found by the City Council, and that the appellants failed to show the need for reversal or modification of the decision per the criteria in City Code Section 7.5.415.
Should the City Council wish to affirm the City Planning Commission’s decision approving the development plan modification application, but add or modify conditions to the approval of the development plan modification application, the following motion is suggested:
Deny all Appeals and affirm the City Planning Commission’s decision on the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, but modify the approval as determined by City Council, to wit: [the modification].
Should the City Council wish to reverse the City Planning Commission’s decision and approval of the development plan modification application per the [name/number of specific appeal] appeal of the administrative approval, the following motion is suggested:
Approve [Appeal - name/number of specific appeal[s]] seeking reversal of the development plan modification approval for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, based upon the finding that only said appeal[s] met the appeal criteria found in City Code Section 7.5.415, and deny the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4.
Should the City Council wish to modify the application based on an appeal, the following motion is suggested.
Deny all Appeals seeking reversal of the City Planning Commission’s decision on the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, but modify the approval based upon the finding that [Appeal - name/number of specific appeal] met the criteria for modification found in City Code Section 7.5.415, and the decision shall be so modified as determined by City Council, to wit: [the modification].
Should the City Council wish to remand the matter back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration, the following motion is suggested:
Remand the matter back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration of the development plan modification for Corporate Ridge Filing No. 1 Lot 4, based on the applicable review criteria for deciding on a development plan modification set forth in City Code Section 7.5.516, with the considerations and discussion given by this City Council.