Regional Development

Center (Hearing Room)

2880 International Circle

City of Colorado Springs

Meeting Minutes - Final

Planning Commission

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

9:00 AM

2880 International Cir., 2nd Floor, Hearing Room

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

7 -

Present:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

2 - Commissioner Rickett and Chair Slattery

Absent:

2. Changes to Agenda/Postponements

3. Communications

Andrea Slattery - Planning Commission Chair

Kevin Walker - Planning Director

Kevin Walker, City Planning Director, said that there was a possibility of joint

training with City Council on May 20, 2025, however, there are not enough

resources, and a formal announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Walker announced City Council appointed two liaisons to the Planning

Commission on May 13, 2025. The liaisons Council Member Dave Donaldson

and Council Member Tom Bailey.

4. Approval of the Minutes

CPC 2566

4.A.

Minutes for the April 9, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting

Presenter:

Andrea Slattery, City Planning Commission Chair

Attachments: CPC_Minutes_4.9.25 Draft

5. Consent Calendar

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Robbins to

approve the Consent Calendar with items 5.A. and 5.B. pulled from the Consent

Calendar. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-2.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

2 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Tava Mountain Battery Energy Storage Facility

5.A.

PDZZ-25-000 Ordinance No. 25-58 amending the zoning map of the City of

Colorado Springs relating to 6.18 acres located at 1133 South Royer

street from GI (general industrial) to PDZ (planned development zone

district; non-residential; 180,000 maximum square footage; 80 feet

maximum building height) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

(Quasi-Judicial)

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 3

This application is in association with the Tava Mountain Energy

Storage Facility zone change which had the first reading setting a

hearing date on June 10th, 2025.

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

Tava_Mtn_PDZZ_&PDZL_Ordinance

Tava_Mtn_PDZZ_&_PDZL_Staff_Report_ADS_20250602_Revised

Tava_Mtn_PDZZ_&_PDZL_Staff_Report_ADS_20250418

Attachment_1_Land_Use_Plan

Attachment_2_Project_Statement

Attachment_3_PublicComments

Attachment_3A_Public_Comment

Attachment_3B_Public_Comment

Attachment_3C_Comment_Recieved_at_CPC

Exhibit_A_Zone_Map_Amendment_Legal_Description

Exhibit_B_Zone_Map_Amendment_Boundaries

7.5.704 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)

Tava_Mtn_PDZZ&PDZL_Staff_Presentation

Planning Commission Meeting - Tava - 05_14_2025

Joseph Bransky, member of the public, requested the Tava Mountain Battery

Energy Storage Facility to be called off the consent agenda.

Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, presented the application for Tava

Mountain Battery Energy Storage consisting of 4.49 acres located at 1133

South Royer Street. The zone change is from General Industrial to Planned

Development Zone; non-residential; 180,000 maximum square footage; 80 feet

maximum building height.

The land is currently used as heavy equipment

storage and part of the development is a proposed detention area. Ms. Baxter

said zoning is required to provide community benefits such as landscape and

sustainable development practices that will be determined at the time of the

development plan. Standard notice was done, and comments were received

with concerns about safety issues with the battery storage, additional vehicle

and work traffic. City Agency Review was done, Traffic Engineering indicated

that the applicant will be responsible for any improvements on El Paso Street.

All other comments were addressed. The project is compliant with PlanCOS,

and the application meets the review criteria.

Applicant’s Presentation

Chris Beasley, Project Developer for esVolta, said that Tava Mountain Energy

Storage provides a 100 megawatts of energy capacity for four hours, that will

charge during the day and discharge in peak hours. He said the main reasons

they chose this site are Federal tax incentives, the utilization of existing

transmission infrastructure, and the parcels being zoned industrial. Mr. Beasley

provided a slideshow with maps of the area with existing uses.

Mr. Beasley

said some of the community benefits coming from this project are 4.6 million

dollars in taxes over the 20-year project life cycle, the reinforcement of local

energy reliability, and supporting equitable outcomes through cost efficient

development. He said that the battery facilities are operated remotely, so there

will be minimal traffic for routine maintenance; they only use water for

landscape irrigation, and there will be no emissions or discernible noise.

Mr.

Beasley said that the batteries meet or exceed the National Fire Protection

Agency (NFPA) requirements and comply with the standard for installation of

stationary energy storage systems. There is 24/7 monitoring, and there will be

an emergency response plan and annual responder training.

Public Comment

Patrick Meade, property owner, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Meade said

he has been working with Mr. Beasley for three years and he feels that they are

professional. He said this project is a perfect neighbor for daily operations. He

spoke to a resident in the area and said he appreciated the low impact the

business will have in the area.

Joseph Bransky spoke in opposition to the project, as he lives in the area, and it

attracts a lot of people. He described the neighboring properties and facilities,

and their occupants. He said that he has done some research that indicates

that battery storage facilities are prone to various faults that can lead to fires and

explosions, as it happened in Germany and Poland. Other examples are a

massive e-bike fire in a storage facility in New York, and plant fires in California

and Montana, due to the thermal runaway, defect in battery chemistry,

overheating, poor air conditioning, incorrect design and parameters, and short

circuit caused by defects. Mr. Bransky said that even with safety promises, fire

or explosions still happened in California, and the areas took a long time to

recover.

Applicant Rebuttal

Chris Beasley, Project Developer for esVolta, expressed that the battery

systems have come a long way in the last few years, and there is even more

opportunity for improvement of the code and equipment until 2028 or 2029 when

the project will be built. He explained how the testing for each battery cell is

done, and because of the quality, it is very difficult for a battery to go on fire. He

said the project will be compliant with the NFPA and safety requirements, will

have fire detection technology, equipment spacing, monitoring systems,

deflagration panels, fire department staging area, fire suppression water and

explosion prevention.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Hensler asked what the applicant meant by developing the

project with CSU in mind, if there will be a contract with them that they will be

utilizing the storage. Mr. Beasley said CSU is currently reworking their IFP to

meet the needs of Colorado Springs and expect to publish it in the next couple

of months, and the RPF by end of the year. He said that they intend to contract

with CSU, however, CSU typically wants to see a project with full permits in

hand, and the interconnection transmission studies completed. Mr. Beasley

said they plan to have a viable project for CSU in the next six months.

Commissioner Hensler asked if they are trying to rezone and develop the

property before the contract because CSU requires the site to be ready, instead

of going through this process once the contract has been awarded. Mr. Beasley

said that CSU wants to make sure that all the due diligence was done before

they sign a contract.

Commissioner Hensler asked about setbacks from the property line, if there is

fencing, and what are the risks and mitigations in case of an explosion. Mr.

Beasley said

the setbacks are 10 feet from the property line, and there will be

a six-foot chain-link fence with one-foot barbed wire fence. He said if there are

any concerns they could place a block fence eight foot high. Mr. Beasley said he

will get more information regarding the impacted area in case of an explosion,

but he does not expect it to happen thanks to the mitigation measures that are

in place, especially with the venting.

Commissioner Cecil asked how long the tax incentives would likely provide the

benefit of a discounted rate to make the stored energy attractive to CSU. Mr.

Beasley said the tax incentives apply once they start spending money on the

project, so they hope to start buying equipment and start working before the

benefit expires. Commissioner Cecil clarified her question about the time frame

in which the benefits they get from the credit depreciate, as Mr. Beasley had

mentioned they will have 15- 20% below the normal resell cost. Mr. Beasley

said they can easily predict their income and expenses for the next 20 years

because their economic model is relatively set and flat, and the utility does not

change unless an annual increase is agreed on.

Commissioner Cecil asked where the remote monitoring is located. Mr. Beasley

said that it usually takes place in Houston, and it is connected to “The Rock”

with fiber and it has near immediate feedback. Commissioner Cecil said these

facilities can be targeted for cyberattacks and asked how the mitigation for

disruption and what are their backups. Mr. Beasley replied that all similar

facilities are regulated by NCERT and follow their requirements to mitigate that

risk and is very secure. Mr. Beasley will follow up regarding the backups.

Commissioner Cecil asked about phosphate emissions. Mr. Beasley said they

are not emissions, but the older batteries chemistry was lithium-ion cobalt,

which is a higher energy density and better performance, but more liable to go

into thermal runaway and catch on fire. Mr. Beasley said the new standard is

lithium-ion phosphate for battery cells for standalone storage, which are less

efficient and take up more space but has a higher resistance to go into thermal

runaway and mitigate the risk of fires.

Commissioner Cecil asked if there were any concerns about the rail uses

directly adjacent to the site. Mr. Beasley said the site is located on a hill and

separated by the automotive scrap yard with natural barriers around.

Commissioner Cecil asked how the batteries are disposed. Mr. Beasley said it

depends on the manufacturer and rules are constantly changing. He said their

provider is Sungrow, a Chinese company. He said commissioned batteries will

go back to Sungrow and they can reuse what they can in the future and dispose

of the rest. Commissioner Cecil asked where Sungrow is located. Mr. Beasley

said they are a Chinese company. He said Colorado passed a law requiring

battery sellers to figure out a way to recycle. Mr. Beasley said that they would

not be recycling their batteries for 25 years.

Commissioner Cecil said according to the Battery Energy Storage System

Failure Incident Database, incidents ranging from 2016-2024 showing

decrease than an increase in 2024.. Mr. Beasley said he could not give a direct

commentary as he has not personally seen these numbers, but some incidents

have occurred with legacy systems with different battery chemistries.

Commissioner Cecil asked why Colorado Springs Utilities chose to develop on

a new site, instead of the almost 40 acres site they just cleared. Mr. Beasley

said he cannot speak for Colorado Springs Utilities, but in the past, they have

offered that acreage for battery storage in previous RFPs that never went

forward. He said oftentimes these utilities are looking for additional resources to

add to their network, but it is a lot of work and risk, and they prefer to split 50-50

with third parties.

Commissioner Casey asked if the use was not permitted in the current GI zone.

Ms. Baxter said this type of use is a major public facility which is only allowed in

PF, and since the project will not start until 2029, they will continue to use it as

heavy storage. She said by doing the PDZ they will follow GI dimensional

standards and uses, so that battery storage or that major public facility, would

be allowed in the PDZ zone district.

Commissioner Robbins asked if the income from this is paid by Ciity utilities or

are they expecting to get paid back through utilities overtime. Mr. Beasley said

they would sign a contract with Colorado Spring Utilities for a set monthly

amount for the expenditures and operational part so CSU can provide the

power. Commissioner Robbins asked if they are looking at other locations. Mr.

Beasley said he personally is not and Colorado Spring Utilities contracted with

NextEra, which

near the airport.

is currently under construction, and there is another project

Commissioner Robbins asked if they were planning to build anything other than

battery storage. Mr. Beasley said that it will be the battery storage which looks

like large shipping containers.

Commissioner Hensler said having the technical information has been helpful

and said the use is compatible.

Mr. Walker asked Commissioner Cecil to make comments to the no vote for

Council. Commissioner Cecil said some of the responses to the questions she

asked were disheartening and has an overarching concern with the placement.

Commissioner Cecil said after seeing what happened at Moss Landing and not

knowing the health effects on the 1500 residents from the evacuation, or

whether they can safely grow and store food.

Commissioner Cecil said she

does not feel that it is worth it for the location to intensify the use in a potentially

catastrophic way, while there is still capacity in terms of space for locating this

away from residents.

Motioned by Commissioner Hensler and seconded by Commissioner Caey to

recommend approval to City Council the zone change of 4.49 acres from GI

(General Industrial) to PDZ (Planned Development Zone; non-residential;

180,000 maximum square footage; 80 feet maximum building height) based

upon the findings that the request complies with the criteria for a Zoning Map

Amendment as set forth in City Code Section 7.5.704.

The motioned passed on a vote of 6-1-2.

6 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

2 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

5.B.

PDZL-25-00 Establishment of the Tava Mountain Energy Storage Facility Planned

Development Land Use Plan consisting of 4.49 acres located at

1133 S Royer Street. (Second Reading and Public Hearing)

(Quasi-judicial)

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District Three (3)

This application is in association with the Tava Mountain Energy

Storage Facility zone change which had the first reading setting a

hearing date on June 10th, 2025.

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

7.5.514 LAND USE PLAN

Motion by Commissioner Hensler, seconded by Commissioner Casey, to

recommend approval to City Council the Tava Mountain Battery Energy

Storage Land Use Plan based upon the findings that the proposal complies

with the review criteria for Land Use Plans as set forth in City Code Section

7.5.514.

The motion passed by a vote of 6-1-2.

6 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Robbins,

Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gigiano

1 - Commissioner Cecil

No:

2 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Hobby Farms - Conditional Use

5.C.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow Retail Marijuana Cultivation in the BP

(Business Park) zone district consisting of 1.58 acres located at 817

Wooten Road (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Located in Council District No. 5

Attachments: CUDP-25-0007_Staff Report_Final

Attachment_1A_Signed Ordinance No. 25-10

Attachment_1B_Signed Ordinance 10-107

Attachment_2_Project_Statement

Attachment_3_Land_Use_Statement

CUDP-25-0007_Presentation_ADS

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Retail Marijuana Cultivation - Conditional Use

5.D.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a retail marijuana cultivation facility use in

the Mixed-Use Large Scale (MX-L) zone district consisting of 0.26

acres located at 2211 East Boulder Street (Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Located in Council District 4

Attachments: CUDP-25-0008__Staff Report_Final

Attachment_1A_Signed Ordinance No. 25-10

Attachment_1B_Signed Ordinance 10-107

Attachment 2 - Approved Development Plan

Attachment_3_Public_Comments

Attachment_4_Land Use Statement

Attachment_5_Project Statement

CUDP-25-0008_Presentation_ADS

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

Revolution Church Child Care Center

5.E.

UVAR-25-00 A Use Variance to allow the establishment of a Child Day Care

Center, Large use in the R-E (Single-Family Estate) zone district

consisting of 4.83 acres located at 2380 Montebello Drive West.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Related Files: N/A

Located in Council District 1

Presenter:

Molly O’Brien, Planner II, Planning Department

Kevin Walker, Director, Planning Department

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment 1 - Project Statement

Attachment 2 - Site Plan

Attachment 3 - Public Comment

7.5.527 USE VARIANCE

Staff Presentation - Revolution Church Childcare Use Variance

Applicant Presentation_Revolution Church Childcare Use Variance

6110 Pemberton Way - Deck Replacement

5.F.

NVAR-25-00 A nonuse variance to allow a 15-foot rear yard building setback

where a 25-foot rear yard building setback is required per the Pinon

Valley PDZ (Planned Development Zone) development plan located

at 6110 Pemberton Way.

Presenter:

Drew Foxx, Planner II, Planning Department

Located in Council District 1

Attachments: Staff Report

Attachment #1_Project Statement

Attachment #2_Site Plan

7.5.526 NON-USE VARIANCE

6. Items Called Off Consent Calendar

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business

Lot 1 Satellite Square Filing No. 2A - Conditional Use

8.A.

CUDP-25-00 A Conditional Use to allow a self-storage facility in the

MX-M/SS-O/AP-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with Streamside and

Airport Overlays) consisting of approximately 3.34 acres located

northwest of South Academy Boulevard and Airport Road.

(Quasi-Judicial)

Presenter:

Allison Stocker, Senior Planner, Planning Department

Council District 4

Attachments: CUDP-25-0003_Staff_Report_20250428_V2

Attachment 1 - Public Comment &Comment_Response

Attachment 2 - Land Use Statement

Attachment 3 - Project Statement

Attachment 4 - In Progress Development Plan Modification

7.5.601 CONDITIONAL USE

7.2.603 SS-O STREAMSIDE OVERLAY

Motion by Commissioner Sipilovic, seconded by Commissioner Robbins, to

postpone item as read to the June 11th Planning Commission Meeting. The

motion passed by a vote of 7-0-2.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner

Gigiano

2 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

Public Art Ordinance

8.B.

25-187

An Ordinance amending Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code

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

amended, pertaining to public art.

(Legislative)

Related Files: CODE-25-0001

Located in All Council District

Presenter:

Daniel Sexton, DRE Planning Manager, Planning Department

Michael Montgomery, Deputy City Council Administrator

Kevin Walker, Planning Director, Planning Department

Attachments:

Staff Report_Public Art Ordinance

Attachment 1 - UDC-PAC-Amendment-2025-05-05

Attachment 2 - Public Art Commission Meeting Minutes

Attachment 3 - Ordinance #25-138

Staff Presentation_Public Art Ordinance

Planning Commission Meeting - Public Art - 05_14_2025

Daniel Sexton, Planning Manager, presented the Public Art Ordinance.

Sexton said last year there was a request from City Council to move the Public

Art Commission away from City Council appointed body and nest it

Mr.

underneath the office of the Mayor, therefore an Ordinance was adopted to

dissolve Publit Art Commission.

Mr. Sexton mentioned some changes to the code were striking sections that

reference the Public Art Commission and the Master Plan, as the last one had

criteria standards; still allowing some flexibility for developers for their

entitlement package. A set of new criteria has been proposed to be considered

by the advisory capacity of Planning Commission and for final action by the City

Council. These changes include material review, safe installation and visibility

by the public.

Mr. Sexton said that staff will have the text ready for City Council review if the

Commission recommends approval and the change will take immediate

implementation after approval by the Council. The Ordinance is compliant with

the approval criteria.

Commissioner Questions

Commissioner Casey said that this is not City commissioned art, but

developers that add art. Mr. Sexton said yes. Commissioner Casey asked if

applicants have to get materials engineering study or how would staff access

the 10-year period. Mr. Sexton said this was an addition that was included as a

request from the City Attorney’s office. Mr. Sexton said that they are looking for

an installation that will not degrade as fast and that is acceptable as an offset.

Caitlin Moldenhauer, City Attorney said they would except

explanation that the materials being used would last 10 years.

reasonable

Commissioner

Casey asked if a developer has art on their property, do they need permission

for it to be public art. Mr. Sexton said it does not need to be approved and

provided an example of the Humpty Dumpty art

Commissioner Hensler said this is being taken out of Council and putting it back

into a departmental structure. Mr. Sexton that has already occurred.

Commissioner Cecil asked Mr. Sexton to explain the different public art on

private property versus public art on public property and how the ordinance

would affect it. Mr. Sexton said this would not have a role on the downtown art

installations or other on public property that the City owns and manages. The

proposed change has the works of art that were purchased and maintained by

the developer and would be considered as an offset to a deviation to a standard

that is otherwise required by the code.

installations on public property were reviewed by the committee prior to the

dissolution of the public art commission. Michael Montgomery, Deputy City

Commissioner Cecil asked if the

Council Administrator said the public art commission was only reviewing was

donations to the City’s collection. Commissioner Cecil said the ordinance has

to go because there is no longer a commission, however when it comes to

issues speech in times of tense times, having an open, transparent public

process to ensure the integrity of the space and the rights of expression that

would conform with PlanCOS making it a unique, vibrant community is critical.

Commissioner Cecil said when it comes to how we communicate culture and

values with one another, it would be wise to consider a public input process,

rather than make it administrative.

process in the ordinance as it goes to the Planning Commission and City

Council. Commissioner Cecil said about art in the public right of way. Mr.

Mr. Montgomery said there is a public

Montgomery said the Mayor’s office is looking at forming a Mayoral committee to

meet that requirement.

Commissioner Casey said the highlighted changes shows the removal of public

art and changed it to artwork, but kept public art in paragraph A and C, and it

would be clearer if those were changed to artwork. Trevor Gloss, City Attorney

office said they made the change as public art is a defined term in the UDC.

Public Comment

None

Motion by Commissioner Casey, seconded by Commissioner Sipilovic, to

recommend approval to City Council the adoption of an Ordinance amending

Chapter 7 (Unified Development Code) of the Code of the City of Colorado

Springs 2001, as amended, as related to public art.

The motion passed by a vote of 7-0-2.

7 -

Aye:

Vice Chair Foos, Commissioner Hensler, Commissioner Cecil, Commissioner

Robbins, Commissioner Sipilovic, Commissioner Casey and Commissioner

Gigiano

2 - Commissioner Rickett, Chair Slattery, Alternate Benenati and Alternate Case

Absent:

9. Presentations

10. Adjourn