City Council approved a planned development zone and land‑use plan Tuesday to allow a battery energy storage facility at 1133 South Royer Street.

The council approved two related items: an amendment to the zoning map establishing a PDZ (planned development zone) covering 6.18 acres and a planned‑development land‑use plan for a 4.49‑acre battery energy storage facility. The zoning ordinance passed 7–2; the land‑use plan passed on a separate vote 6–3.

Developer ES Volta described the project as a grid‑scale lithium iron phosphate battery system designed to charge when electricity is abundant and discharge during peak periods to support reliability. Company representatives said the site leverages underused local transmission infrastructure and federal tax incentives available in areas affected by coal plant retirements. Developer Chris Beasley said the facility would be largely unmanned, would generate construction‑period sales taxes and would provide localized grid support once it ties into Colorado Springs Utilities.

Planning staff and the applicant proposed a PDZ that permits both the major‑utility use (battery storage) and standard general‑industrial uses in order to preserve flexibility for the landowner. The PDZ includes community‑benefit expectations such as high‑quality design and sustainable development measures.

Fire officials and the applicant explained safety measures. The project team said it would use lithium iron phosphate chemistries and comply with NFPA 855 standards for stationary energy storage, with 24/7 monitoring, automated safety controls and an emergency response plan with annual responder training. Deputy Chief and Fire Marshal Chris Cooper said modern battery systems and NFPA standards have reduced risks compared with earlier battery technologies, but noted that in a thermal‑runaway event first responders generally treat these incidents as a burn that cannot be easily extinguished and require containment and coordination with operators.

Council members asked about Colorado Springs Utilities’ procurement and whether the project had an identified local customer; the developer said it had submitted in a recent utility request for proposals but had not been selected for that round and anticipated future procurements. Utilities staff confirmed a recent RFP had concluded and that the utility has projects under contract but provided no commitment for this site.

The council approved the rezoning and land‑use plan in separate motions. Supporters said the project advances grid reliability and economic activity; opponents and some council members expressed concern that approving land use without a finalized utility contract could allow a technical use to be sited before clear operational or procurement commitments are in place.

The approvals include conditions and require standard design review, building permits, and interconnection studies before construction.