Title
An Appeal of the City Planning Commission decision denying an appeal of the administratively approved Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan, and an appeal of the City Planning Commission decision applying conditions to the approval of the Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan, for the property consisting of 18.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Flying Horse Club Drive and Barossa Valley Road.
(Quasi-Judicial)
Related Files: DEPN-25-0056; APPL-25-0008; APPL-25-0010; APPL-25-0011
Located in Council District #2
Presenter:
Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department
Kevin Walker, Planning Director, City Planning Department
Body
Summary:
Owner: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Appellant (APPL-25-0010): Jennifer Kuhn, Esq. c/o Micheal D. Kuhn, Esq.
Appellant (APPL-25-0011): The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Location: 2396 Vento Way
City Planning Commission, at its regularly schedule public hearing on December 10, 2025, denied, with conditions, an appeal of the administrative approval for the Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan. The proposed religious institution is located at the southwest corner of Barossa Valley Road and Flying Horse Drive and is zoned MX-N/AF-O (Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale with United States Air Force Academy Overlay).
Following this decision, the City Planning Department received two appeals of the Commission’s action taken at the December 10, 2025, meeting. Both appeals were submitted within the 10-day appeal window in accordance with City Code Section 7.5.415.A.4.
• APPL-25-0010 -Appeal (Kuhn) Request Application: This appeal challenges the Commission’s decision to deny the Appellants’ prior appeal of the administrative approval (APPL-25-0008).
• APPL-25-0011 - Appeal (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) Request Application: This appeal supports the Commission’s decision to deny the prior appeal of the administrative approval but opposes the imposed conditions of approval, citing ambiguity.
Both Appellants are contesting the interpretation and application of City Code Section 7.4.203.B (Height Exceptions) concerning “Religious institution spires and towers….” Although for different reasons.
Background:
Please see the attached City Planning Commission Staff Report for a complete analysis of the Appeal of the Administrative Decision application.
In accordance with City Code Section 7.1.105 (Authority to Interpret), “City Council has the authority to interpret this UDC as it relates to land use decisions.” Pursuant to this UDC provision, City Planning staff request that City Council through their deliberations of these appeals, determine and interpret what elements of the temple’s proposed “steeple” constitute the ‘tower’ and ‘spire’ for the purpose of applying City Planning Commission’s conditions of approval applied to the Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan through the prior appeal denial. Staff notes that none of the architectural building elements above are defined in the UDC.
In accordance with City Code Section 7.6.101 (Technical Terms) under Article 7.6 (Definitions and Rules of Construction),
• “Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of language, but technical words and phrases that may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be construed and understood according to such meaning…”
The most common sources for “common” and “approved usage of language” include Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, , APA’s Planner’s Dictionary, so forth. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the steeple, tower and spire as such:
• Tower: A building or structure typically higher than its diameter and high relative to its surroundings; a tall, narrow structure that may be part of a larger building. Architecturally, on a church or religious institution, a towner often houses bells and serves as a base for a steeple or spire
• Steeple: A tall structure usually having a small spire at the top and surmounting a church tower, broadly, the whole church tower. This means the steeple is the entire vertical structure above the main roof, often including the tower and spire.
• Spire: A tapering roof or analogous pyramidal construction surmounting a tower the pointed top of a steeple. The spire is the slender, pointed element that crowns the steeple.
Review Criteria:
The application being considered is an appeal of City Planning Commission’s decision on the Colorado Springs Temple Development Plan. In determining the decision on this appeal both review criteria for an appeal and development plan are to be considered.
Following review by the appellant 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 (UDC) 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 may be approved if it is determined that the applicable review criteria have been met as they relate to the area of the development plan. The review criteria for deciding on a development plan, as set forth in City Code previous Chapter 7, Section 7.5.502.E, are as follows
1. The details of the use, site design, building location, orientation and exterior building materials are compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, buildings and uses, including not-yet-developed uses identified in approved development plans.
2. The development plan substantially complies with any City- adopted plans that are applicable to the site, such as master plans, neighborhood plans, corridor plans, facilities plans, urban renewal plans, or design manuals.
3. The project meets dimensional standards, such as but not limited to, building setbacks, building height and building area set forth in this chapter, or any applicable FBZ or PUD requirement.
4. The project grading, drainage, flood protection, stormwater quality and stormwater mitigation comply with the City's Drainage Criteria Manual and the drainage report prepared for the project on file with the City Engineering Department.
5. The project provides off-street parking as required by this chapter, or a combination of off-street or on-street parking as permitted by this chapter.
6. All parking stalls, drive aisles, loading/unloading areas, and waste removal areas meet the location and dimension standards set forth by this chapter.
7. The project provides landscaped areas, landscape buffers, and landscape materials as set forth in this chapter and the Landscape Design Manual.
8. The project preserves, protects, integrates or mitigates impacts to any identified sensitive or hazardous natural features associated with the site.
9. The building location and site design provide for safe, convenient and ADA-accessible pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and applicable transit facilities and circulation.
10. The number, location, dimension and design of driveways to the site substantially comply with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual. To the extent practicable, the project shares driveways and connects to drive aisles of adjoining developments.
11. The number, location, dimension and design of driveways to the site substantially comply with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual. To the extent practicable, the project shares driveways and connects to drive aisles of adjoining developments.
12. If necessary to address increased impacts on existing roadways and intersections, the project includes roadway and intersection improvements to provide for safe and efficient movement of multi-modal traffic, pedestrians and emergency vehicles in accordance with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual, public safety needs for ingress and egress and a City accepted traffic impact study, if required, prepared for the project.
13. Significant off-site impacts reasonably anticipated as a result of the project are mitigated or offset to the extent proportional and practicable. Impacts may include, but are not limited to light, odor and noise.
It was determined by City Planning Commission that the appeal of the administrative decision was not substantiated per the review criteria outlined in City Code Section 75.415.A.2, and also imposed conditions of approval.
Previous Council Action:
The City Council approved the following entitlements related to the subject property and area:
• On October 28, 2003, City Council approved the Flying Horse Master Plan.
• On January 10, 2012, City Council approved a rezoned (Ordinance 12-2) of a portion of the subject site (6.1 acres) from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to OC (Office Complex). An associated Flying Horse Master Plan and Concept Plan were approved by Council illustrating the proposed religious institution campus.
Financial Implications:
N/A
City Council Appointed Board/Commission/Committee Recommendation:
City Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the Appeal and modify the administrative approval, at the December 10, 2025, regular meeting (Commissioners Hensler, Cecile Slattery, Robbins, Casey, Clements and Willougby vote to deny the Appeal; Commissioner Gigiano voted to support the Appeal) with the following conditions to the development plan:
• The facade material of the steeple shall be a non-reflective matte finish; and
• The top tier not be illuminated with the exception of that required from FAA regulations.
Recommended Action
Proposed Motions:
1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal; or
2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the appeal; or
3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the appeal; or
4. Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration; or
5. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the first appeal and denying the application.
APPL-25-0010 / APPL-25-0011 - Colorado Springs Temple Appeals
Should the City Council wish to affirm the City Planning Commission decision on the development plan application, denying the first appeal that seeks to reverse approval of the development plan and approving the conditions added by the City Planning Commission for approval, the following motion is suggested:
Deny both Appeals and affirm the City Planning Commission decision on the development plan for the Colorado Springs Temple, based upon the finding that the review criteria for deciding the application are met, as found by the Planning Commission, 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 Planning Commission approval of the development plan application but reverse the Planning Commission decision adding conditions of approval for the development plan, the following motion is suggested:
Deny the Appeal seeking reversal of the development plan approval but Reverse the City Planning Commission decision to add conditions of approval on the development plan for the Colorado Springs Temple, based upon the finding that only the Temple appellant met the appeal criteria found in City Code Section 7.5.415.
Should the City Council wish to affirm the Planning Commission decision on the development plan application but modify the conditions of approval added by Planning Commission, the following motion is suggested:
Deny the Appeal seeking reversal of the development plan approval and modify the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval to _____________________, based upon the finding that only the Temple appellant met the appeal criteria for modification found in City Code Section 7.5.415, and the decision shall be so modified as determined by City Council.
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 for the Colorado Springs Temple based on the applicable review criteria for deciding on a development plan set forth in City Code Section 7.5.515 with the considerations and discussion given by this City Council.
Should the City Council wish to reverse the Planning Commission decision and reverse approval of the development plan application per the original appeal of the administrative approval, the following motion is suggested:
Approve the Appeal seeking reversal of the development plan approval, based upon the finding that only the appellant met the appeal criteria found in City Code Section 7.5.415.
Summary of Ordinance Language
N/A